4 ms·

I know a lot of Americans don't like Monarchies, I don't love entitled rich families either but the alternative is really having a second parliament, and I've l

by u678u 6y ago

I know a lot of Americans don't like Monarchies, I don't love entitled rich families either but the alternative is really having a second parliament, and I've learned having a parliament + Monarch works a lot more smoothly than President + 2 houses. eg Western Monarchies: Canada, UK, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Australia, Norway

umvi 6y ago
The difference is a bad president is only locked in for 4 years, a bad monarch is locked in for life because presumably their "blood" entitles them. Also, the entire concept of "divine bloodlines" flies in the face of equality of humans.
chmod600 6y ago
Interesting point. Monarchies are obviously not great, but it's good to remember that they aren't evil or something, and that there can still be a balance of power. I've been thinking that, in a liberal democracy, there's not much of a national identity. It's like a football club where anyone can drop in, and vote to play chess instead. I generally think that's fine, except that it seems like having no identity at all is a vacuum, and gets filled by something. That could easily end up being the opposite of liberal democracy, so lack of identity can be self-defeating.
kwhitefoot 6y ago
The US president has much more in common with a 17th to 19th century European monarch than the current European constitutional monarchs do. And have you noticed how many streets, businesses, and housing estates, educational institutions in the US have some sort of monarchical name? For instance Regency Parkway Cary, Regent and King Universities.
wrboyce 6y ago
You really can’t count the UK as a functional monarchy, the Queen is largely ceremonial.
- u678u 6y ago
  Same as Thailand, which is what we're talking about.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    > Same as Thailand Not exactly "the same", is it? While in England, you can say whatever you want about the English monarchy. And it has been like that since at least more than 40 years ago. The Sex Pistols made a lot of noise in the seventies, but they were never jailed (nor judged) for insulting and mocking the Queen.

by u678u 6y ago

umvi 6y ago

The difference is a bad president is only locked in for 4 years, a bad monarch is locked in for life because presumably their "blood" entitles them. Also, the entire concept of "divine bloodlines" flies in the face of equality of humans.

chmod600 6y ago

Interesting point. Monarchies are obviously not great, but it's good to remember that they aren't evil or something, and that there can still be a balance of power. I've been thinking that, in a liberal democracy, there's not much of a national identity. It's like a football club where anyone can drop in, and vote to play chess instead. I generally think that's fine, except that it seems like having no identity at all is a vacuum, and gets filled by something. That could easily end up being the opposite of liberal democracy, so lack of identity can be self-defeating.

kwhitefoot 6y ago

The US president has much more in common with a 17th to 19th century European monarch than the current European constitutional monarchs do. And have you noticed how many streets, businesses, and housing estates, educational institutions in the US have some sort of monarchical name? For instance Regency Parkway Cary, Regent and King Universities.

wrboyce 6y ago

You really can’t count the UK as a functional monarchy, the Queen is largely ceremonial.

u678u 6y ago
Same as Thailand, which is what we're talking about.
- enriquto 6y ago
  > Same as Thailand Not exactly "the same", is it? While in England, you can say whatever you want about the English monarchy. And it has been like that since at least more than 40 years ago. The Sex Pistols made a lot of noise in the seventies, but they were never jailed (nor judged) for insulting and mocking the Queen.