3 ms·

I view British monarchy as tyranny prevention mechanism. Democracies are notoriously weak and can collapse at any momemnt by a charasmatic leader. Any long last

I view British monarchy as tyranny prevention mechanism. Democracies are notoriously weak and can collapse at any momemnt by a charasmatic leader. Any long lasting democracies need some serious mechanisms to squash the tyranny. In American version this is achieved by having 3 almost equally powerful branches of governments. In British version, this is achieved by subdued monarchie. It's much like injecting a dead virus in the body. As monarchie already exist in the British system, there cannot be a separate tyrant rising up. At the same time, monarchs themselves cannot become tyrant as they have been heavily subdued to essentially act as dead-man walking. In many ways, this is more ingenious than American system, although more expensive and less intutive. In American system, there is still a good chance that a single party can dominate all 3 branches and tyranny might still emerge. In Briish system, this is near impossible.

vasco 6y ago
Why would you want a solution that makes one family be treated as if they're above everyone else by birth? Is that the signal that as a country you want to give your citizens? I cannot understand how people consent to monarchies in so called developed countries while at the same time making huge fusses about everything else related to equality.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
janeroe 6y ago
>> In many ways, this is more ingenious than American system, although more expensive Is it though (more expensive)? I've heard they spend 1.5 billion dollars per year for the president (flights, security, meetings, etc). And that's the explicit part; the implicit one is the election spendings which last year constituted 6.5 billion dollars; if they come from special interest groups, I suspect, they should be somehow payed back in the form of legislation, tariffs, taxes, and projects appeasing those special interest groups (so taxpayers will probably pay way more than what was donated).
benhurmarcel 6y ago
In Spain, Franco succeeded in being a dictator despite the presence of a king. It doesn't work to prevent tyranny.

vasco 6y ago

Why would you want a solution that makes one family be treated as if they're above everyone else by birth? Is that the signal that as a country you want to give your citizens? I cannot understand how people consent to monarchies in so called developed countries while at the same time making huge fusses about everything else related to equality.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

janeroe 6y ago

>> In many ways, this is more ingenious than American system, although more expensive Is it though (more expensive)? I've heard they spend 1.5 billion dollars per year for the president (flights, security, meetings, etc). And that's the explicit part; the implicit one is the election spendings which last year constituted 6.5 billion dollars; if they come from special interest groups, I suspect, they should be somehow payed back in the form of legislation, tariffs, taxes, and projects appeasing those special interest groups (so taxpayers will probably pay way more than what was donated).

benhurmarcel 6y ago

In Spain, Franco succeeded in being a dictator despite the presence of a king. It doesn't work to prevent tyranny.