Monarchy or republic.

[Big-Boss-Man]

Hello,
I live in the Netherlands and it still is a monarchy, just like the United Kingdom. I think a monarchy sucks because you get born fortuitous in a royal house and you are 'special'. Maybe you are a prince or princess and maybe you even will be a king or queen someday. You don't have to work because you get a huge pawment from the state. And that money is from the state. And that is not fair!
Everybody is the same, so no-one has the right to just get money from the state because he or she is fortuitous born in a royal house!
I would like to here your opinion and especially the opinion of some-one who isn't against a monarchy because I can't image that. Well, almost every citizen of The Netherlands isn't against it (or just don't show it at the elections) or even likes it and I thought many people in the UK also like it. I don't know. I would like to here it.
Greetz,
Big_Boss_Man

[ichbincow]

Hmmm...well I dont think its right that the "king/queen" even get any money as they do nothing truly for your country. I find the idea of haveing a king/queen amuseing at best---its like haveing a very expensive pet that you JUST HAVE TO show off.
yes I am from AMERICA and I dislike the concept on the grounds that they hold NO TRUE political power nor have a direct effect on the policies that govern---so again in effect they are expensive human pets.

[Nirvana13666]

In a monarchy Power is absolute and is either taken through conquest or passed down to family members without regard of ability. Society is formed around feudal groups or tribes in which the ruling family gives power and authority based upon the desires of a single individual. Power struggles are common. A monarchy is based upon a class system where those of a certain birthright are assumed to be of superior intellect and strength to those not of the same family line. The resources and wealth of a country is generally preserved solely for the self-fulfilling desires of the reigning monarch with little regard for the general population or its welfare. Since 1800, many of the world's monarchies have become republics. Most countries which retain monarchy have limited the monarch's power, with most having become constitutional monarchies. Monarchies can come to an end in several ways. There may be a revolution in which the monarchy is overthrown; or there may be a referendum in which the electorate decides to form a republic. In some cases the monarchy may be overthrown and then restored.

A Republic is defined by a government where authority is derived through election public officials by the people. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in unity with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

The inhabitants of a country under a monarch are alive to serve the monarch. In contrast the inhabitants of a republic are served by their leaders. I think a republic is better.

[FUNKbrs]

so far, noone has pointed out why monarchies were the predominate governmental system for millenia. The reason is this; monarchies are EXTREMELY efficient. Whatever a monarch decides, happens as soon as the orders are recieved instead of floating around in beauracracy for months if not years. Trials take minutes, instead of days. If the country is attacked, the monarch can counterattack without waiting for a council to decide on what course of action to take.

Also, instead of elected officials, princes are raised FROM BIRTH to govern. This means that instead of just some average joe running and winning in different elections of increasing rank, the prince is trained for the position he will hold only. The skills that work for a mayor will not work for a governor, and the skills of a governor are not the same as presidential skills. Thus every official will have a lifetime of training, instead of governing being a sidejob to the actual everyday grind.

Finally, monarchies lend a sense of personality and continuity to a government. It is much easier to support a king for a lifetime than a president for 4 years. The king has time to build and consolidate the support of the populace, while a president or PM only has a limited amount of time to learn his job AND rally the citizenry. Thus the general public supports the king wholeheartedly, instead of complaining that another ruler should hold his position.

I hope that clarifies things.

[TheShrike]

Monarchies aren't all bad. The people of Thailand love their King (well, all except the smugglers and drug cartels).
They love him so because he is fair and just in their eyes.

The King Phumiphon Adunyadet is really just a figurehead, as with most monarchies. The real power rests within the Prime Minister and the Legislative Branch of the Thai government.

The Queen Beatrix in the Netherlands does seem to have more power, but again, it appears she's mostly of the figurehead designation.

Now, look at human history. Look at the countries who've had Royal Families. Look what it took to overthrow them.

Do you really want to live in a place like Russia, post-Czar?

Just because there is a royal family doesn't mean they should automatically be overthrown. Ask yourself: Am I merely envious of the privelidges the royal get, or are they really so mean and cruel that revolution is in order?

To me, this is kind of like whining about the rich... Yeah, it is unfair that some kids are born into families that will be able to provide them with a life most only dream about, but what can you do to change this aside from killing all of the rich?

I say deal with it. Unless they're tyrants. And I don't think that you have that problem.

[Big-Boss-Man]

A monarchy just is not social to the citizens, so I think a republic is better, even people like a monarchy because they can talk chit/shit about it. A monarchy screws the people!

And FUNKbrs, it isn't democratic. And princes raised from birth living in a 'special' family. You think you're special, so you become a paranoid bastard. And here in Holland, the queen has (almost) nothing to say. We have a democratic chosen gouverment, but the monarch is still there and they still get tons of money!

And TheShrike, look at the history please and then realise we are living in the 21th century! A country where are king of queen is the obsolute leader, is like a dictatorship. The people can not chose there own leader!
A cruel revolution? It looks like you are some-one who like to follow the chitchat around a monarchfamily and watch royal weddings on TV. And they brainwashed you, 'cause you think a monarchy is fair and a democracy got to got with an evil revolution... when a rupublic comes from elections, nothing cruel is going on. Except that the king or queen get trowed at the street and they still think they are worth more then 'average' people so they can't make a normal life.

Greetz, Big_Boss_Man

[JMHX]

Well, in the defense of monarchy, we still give hundreds of thousands of dollars in actual payment and through protection of the Secret Service to our past presidents. It almost seems as if they get richer when they leave, which is most always true. Clinton's base salary as President of the United States of America was just about $200,000/year. Reportedly last year he made a salary in the millions. I won't guess since I don't have a source nearby.

[Big-Boss-Man]

At 4/30/03 10:37 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Well, in the defense of monarchy, we still give hundreds of thousands of dollars in actual payment and through protection of the Secret Service to our past presidents. It almost seems as if they get richer when they leave, which is most always true. Clinton's base salary as President of the United States of America was just about $200,000/year. Reportedly last year he made a salary in the millions. I won't guess since I don't have a source nearby.

Dude, Clinton was not a king and the USA is not a monarchy. Something between Teletuby-land and the muppets.

[JMHX]

At 4/30/03 10:40 AM, Big_Boss_Man wrote:

At 4/30/03 10:37 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Well, in the defense of monarchy, we still give hundreds of thousands of dollars in actual payment and through protection of the Secret Service to our past presidents. It almost seems as if they get richer when they leave, which is most always true. Clinton's base salary as President of the United States of America was just about $200,000/year. Reportedly last year he made a salary in the millions. I won't guess since I don't have a source nearby.

Dude, Clinton was not a king and the USA is not a monarchy. Something between Teletuby-land and the muppets.

I never said either of those things, dude. Just chill out, man. You so tired, holmes. I'm saying that we pay as a nation to protect and supply our leaders and past leaders well after they have passed from power and resumed life as a civilian. Prince Harry gets a paycheck for doing next-to-nothing, and Clinton gets a paycheck for speaking to a bunch of geriatrics. Granted, Clinton is doing something productive, and kudos to that, but $300,000 per speech is a bit much.

[FUNKbrs]

At 4/30/03 10:33 AM, Big_Boss_Man wrote: A monarchy just is not social to the citizens, so I think a republic is better, even people like a monarchy because they can talk chit/shit about it. A monarchy screws the people!

And FUNKbrs, it isn't democratic. And princes raised from birth living in a 'special' family. You think you're special, so you become a paranoid bastard. And here in Holland, the queen has (almost) nothing to say. We have a democratic chosen gouverment, but the monarch is still there and they still get tons of money!

I never claimed it was democratic, I said it was MORE EFFICIENT than democracy, because NOONE HAS TO COUNT ANY VOTES. When the monarch makes the decision, the decision is made, no appeals, and no votes. This makes everything faster and cheaper for the taxpayer. And anyway, who says a monarchy HAS to be oppressive? A monarch is supposed to be taught (forgive spelling, its french) nobless oblijey, meaning the obligation of the nobles. A good king is obliged to keep the people happy, so they dont storm the castle and cut his fucking head off.

[JMHX]

That and the Monarchy is more of a figurehead to the nation unless they really, really want to make a decision.

[TheShrike]

At 4/30/03 09:34 AM, TheShrike wrote: I say deal with it. Unless they're tyrants. And I don't think that you have that problem.

WHOA WHO IS THIS GUY??? MAJOR DOSE OF COMMON SENSE!!!!

At 4/30/03 10:33 AM, Big_Boss_Man wrote:

when a rupublic comes from elections, nothing cruel is going on

Ok... uh-huh... No.

You think elections get rid of corruption? I'm not even gonna begin to tell you what's wrong with that statement...

[lapslf]

At 4/30/03 05:25 AM, Big_Boss_Man wrote: I would like to here your opinion and especially the opinion of some-one who isn't against a monarchy because I can't image that. Well, almost every citizen of The Netherlands isn't against it (or just don't show it at the elections) or even likes it and I thought many people in the UK also like it.

I'm Dutch too (weg met die klote-koningin!) and I fucking hate the monarchy too, for the same reasons you do. Also the queen abuses her power, like recently, she hired the secret service just to spy on her niece. Big shit. Away with it!

[D2Kvirus]

Being from England all I can say is thank fuck for the Monarchy. Otherwise, I'd have grown up under the dark shadow of President Thatcher, and currently live under the iron/ham fisted regeime of President Blair.

And don't write that off as a flippant comment. Having Thatcher as Prime Minister fucked up our country beyond redemption, but if she had Absolute Power, who knows what a cataclysmic effect she would've had? You can hazard a guess, though...

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/30/03 12:39 PM, D2KVirus wrote: Being from England all I can say is thank fuck for the Monarchy. Otherwise, I'd have grown up under the dark shadow of President Thatcher, and currently live under the iron/ham fisted regeime of President Blair.

And don't write that off as a flippant comment. Having Thatcher as Prime Minister fucked up our country beyond redemption, but if she had Absolute Power, who knows what a cataclysmic effect she would've had? You can hazard a guess, though...

Margaret Thatcher may have done some things you didnt agree with, but I still believe she lifted this country when it was down. I, being a strange left-wing communist, disagree with most of her ddecisions but I must asdmit that she had amazing powers of leadership, among other things.

[Alejandro1]

At 4/30/03 11:08 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: That and the Monarchy is more of a figurehead to the nation unless they really, really want to make a decision.

Yes, I was just about to say the same thing. The government over in the UK is a "fake" monarchy, where the king and queen have no real power at all and the haughty Prince Charles waves to the crowd.

[Big-Boss-Man]

At 4/30/03 05:00 PM, alejandro1 wrote:

At 4/30/03 11:08 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: That and the Monarchy is more of a figurehead to the nation unless they really, really want to make a decision.

Yes, I was just about to say the same thing. The government over in the UK is a "fake" monarchy, where the king and queen have no real power at all and the haughty Prince Charles waves to the crowd.

But they get very much money for it! It that democratic? You work your ass of and then you have to pay money for a bitchazes because they are royal..

[Shih]

Yeah but I know over here in the states we taxpayers end up paying out through the nose for a lot of perks that are completely goverment unrelated there's a reason why anyone in politics doesn't stay at cheap motels.

As far as paying for our priveleged families we still do that too we're just more sneaky about it. At least most royals will straight out admit their living on the taxpayers dime, that and if you wanted too you could always see it as payment for past services their families have rendered.

[JMHX]

Of course paying for royals isn't democratic - it's a Monarchy.

[Renegade51]

The only (and pretty much biggest) problem with a Monarchy is who the King/Queen is. There have been some great Kings in Europe back in the day, but there also have been a ton of spoiled little brats who want to do everything there way. If you can get the right person to be the ruler then theres no better way to rule a country

[Nirvana13666]

At 4/30/03 09:34 AM, TheShrike wrote: Monarchies aren't all bad. The people of Thailand love their King (well, all except the smugglers and drug cartels).
They love him so because he is fair and just in their eyes.

I say deal with it. Unless they're tyrants. And I don't think that you have that problem.

_________________________________________________
I think you’re absolutely right but the question was "what do you prefer?" In the end the people who will be governed should have be a great factor in deciding what structure of government will reign over them.

[Shih]

At 5/1/03 10:00 AM, Renegade51 wrote: The only (and pretty much biggest) problem with a Monarchy is who the King/Queen is. There have been some great Kings in Europe back in the day, but there also have been a ton of spoiled little brats who want to do everything there way. If you can get the right person to be the ruler then theres no better way to rule a country

But is that really any different than in a democracy? I know America has their own version of a royal family, the Kennedy's. Their little indiscretions have been nearly as bad as any of the modern royals.

[JMHX]

The fast-breedin', easy croakin' Kennedy family. With the exception of Teddy, our favorite alcoholic, cheat-death windbag, the Kennedy family has been pretty damned scarred. Sure, Ted isn't a choirboy, but I still enjoy hearing him speak.

[chesspeaceface]

#1 reason to keep a monarchy: tourism.

[JMHX]

The Queen has a steel leg, two iron hips, titanium shoulders...she cost six million dollars! The bionic queen!

- Eddie Izzard, British Comedian

[D2Kvirus]

At 4/30/03 04:52 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
Margaret Thatcher may have done some things you didnt agree with, but I still believe she lifted this country when it was down.

How? Was it by:

* Killing off our coal mining and steel industries, thereby reducing several communities to widespread poverty, from which they are yet to recover.

* Declaring war in the Falklands, just so she could get ahead in the opinion polls. Note the fact she was behind beforehand, ahead afterwards, just in time to call an Election. Anyone taking notes in Washington?

* Finding a valuable ally in General Pinochet. Two minds thinking alike, perhaps?

* Generally acting like some Mad Dictator Woman.

I'm doing the quick, flippant version - I have work to do, and mad rages tend to distract me from it...

[BigBoulette]

I personnaly live in a monarchy (Belgium). And if, one day, the monarchy dissapear, Belgium wouldn't exist anymore, because the king represent the link between Wallish and Flemish. That's why the Flemish separatists wants the end of the monarchy, and also the end of Belgium.
However, the monorchy in Belgium, or in Netherland, is more a folklore than a real power. In England, it's different.
For the money that receive the princes and princess, I think that is a good compensation of the fact that they are followed every days by dozens of paparazzi's, don't you think?