Social democrats, you can all bugger off.

Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others - Sir Winston Churchill.

The best choice is *no* government, but since that isn't an option, I'll cast a vote for Monarchy. They are very stable and you always know what to expect next year. With Democracy, you never know who is going to win the next election and what 'surprises' they're going to give you. Democratically elected governments in large countries are entirely beholden to special interests (which have now officially bankrupted my home state of California), where monarchs are more free to do what is best (long-term interest) instead of what is going to get them re-elected (short-term interest). The down side is that change only comes in revolutions, which tend to have very unpredictable results - but all reasonably intelligent monarchs (or monarchs with intelligent advisers) are very keen to avoid a revolution, since they almost always result in the monarch's head in a basket (minus the body).

I'm sure that if somebody did the math I bet they'd find that monarchies historically have lower tax rates than democracies.

Depends on my place in each one. A Monarchy would be great if I could be the monarch or a highly trusted noble or adviser, horrible as the shopkeeper. A Democracy would be preferred as the shop keeper as it allows me to be in control (in theory) of my destiny in the government. As already stated, a politician, adviser only lasts as long as his ideas are popular or someone needs a scapegoat.

@reynoldsm,

As the modern-day equivalent of the 'shop keeper' in a large democratic state, I can tell you I have absolutely no control of the government. California is completely under the thumb of government workers (who almost exclusively fund the election campaigns of the ruling Democratic party) and the handful of other organizations that can afford to make 6- or 7-figure donations to political parties. A monarch would at least hear the shop keepers' grievances; the California legislature does not, and instead insists on raising our taxes again to pay the government workers' absurdly luxurious salaries and pensions - even after they recently made us the highest taxed state in the United States.

Now that our Governator (who is rumored to have had anarcho-capitalist leanings in his past) has finally grown a pair and stood up to the greedy bastards, I second my call for monarchy.

If the governance of both choices were entirely equal, I would have to vote for demovracy on the grounds that it sends out a better message to people that if they work hard they can reach the top. Monarchy sends out the opposite message, no matter how good you are, someone who may be a complete fool will always be better than you.

Kind of making and assumption that monarchy and democracy are mutually exclusive.

@Barry, in the truest sense of the words they are - any kind of executive power being hereditary is anti-democratic.

@Tolstoy, at least in the UK, the idea that government workers have luxurious salaries is a joke (at best) or a downright lie (at worst). The pension question is different, but historically the deal was that you were trading the lower salary for a more secure pension.

For me, I don't see how anyone can defend the idea that you can have more say in the running of a modern nation because your great-great-great (x n) grandfather was a bigger bastard than anyone else's.
However, right no, there are bigger things to fix, so I won't be pushing for the British republic any time soon.

Churchill was of course completely correct..

Monarchy is the worst type of government. It is based on the idea that the best person to rule government is the son of the last guy (I must admit that in America with the Bushes we saw a lot of these problems in a democracy). Not only does this provide no qualification for ruling but actually ensures that the chosen person is the craziest, most arrogant, least competent person in the entire country.

From British history the only time the monarchy was ever revived was when it had all gone wrong and led to a usurper who actually had some idea how to run the country.

Go democracy!

When the Royal family was displaced we just ended up with the what could have become the Cronwell dynasty.

I'll have both thanks

The benifits of democracy are that you can overthrow the government without a revolution. If the government is good enough it can be elected for multiple terms. This provides a degree of stability.

Also people with hte right to protest are unlikely to demand the execution of their leaders when those leaders are holding powers they were legitametly elected to hold. The worst any protesters are likely to demand is the resignation of the government.

Parlimentary democracies also tend to have some form of opposition which will question any laws or executive decisions as they are being made. Some people whose vested interest it is to find any flaws in government policy; this could serve to encourage good governance. In practice it leads to politicians who criticize the government no matter what they do, which leads to them sounding like the boy who cried wolf.

A Monarchy doesn't have to have specific rules on which prince becomes the next king, they could be chosen by committe from a selection of eligible (READ:royal blooded) indivuals. Thus Monarchy can result in the best leader available; though any such procedure is open to the same politics which hurt democracies leadership.

America(deomcracy) is currently run by a king who rules for 4 years, with a bunch of advisors and with powers curtailed by a congress and senate. Britian(Monarchy) is currently run by a Prime minister who personally was selected by his party to lead, and whose party gathered enough votes in the general election, with a bunch of lords advising and opposition parties criticizing... and a Queen as the figurehead, with no practical power.

As it happens, I prefer the more modern, more democratic, English system.

are we talking constitutional monarchy? cause I think that that is by far the best form of government. It has the benefits of a basic democracy, but then (as was 'fore stated) You have a monarch who is interested in the long term benefit of his or her people. obviously if you're completely stupid there might be a revolution, but if you're that dumb in that position you pretty much deserve it.

and @reynold: OMGOSH!!!!!!!!!! I tell my friends that ALL the time when they talk about how bad socialism and comunnism are, but I just say it depends on whether you're at the top or bottom. I'm very happy to know that another person thinks the same way. =)

@Tolstoy Someone did do the math, Hans herman Hoppe. Monarchies traditionally have a tax rate around 15% vs. Democracy's 50%. Democracy never results in the best leaders, just the most popular. The best argument for monarchy comes from the idea of time preferences. A monarchy is a privately owned gov't, and the monarch has the incentive to maintain it and improve upon it without unduly taxing the populace's patience or pocketbooks. Whereas a democracy is publicly owned (all publicly owned things are either shit, or cost a lot of money to maintain-money that never comes from those using the public services or facilities) and the elected officials want to loot everything they can before the end of their terms. When they don't do this individually, they do it as a party. In America, every poplitical party rides to victory promising to "clean up Washington" and the moronic democratic masses never catch wise. lastly, the full Churchill quote is :

"We accept in the fullest sense of the word the settled and persistent will of the people. All this idea of a group of supermen and super-planners, such as we see before us, “playing the angel,” as the French call it, and making the masses of the people do what they think is good for them, without any check or correction, is a violation of democracy. Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters."

here's another from the same man: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

And a little Mencken: "democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard"

And for all of those that assume that the popular corresponds with the righteous: ""Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good."

Ofcourse California has the worst form of democracy: direct democracy. I viewed a (Dutch) program about it once and the situation is: anyone with enough votes/signs can make a proposal for a law, for anything. For instance, that Spanish people may not get a driver's license or such things. Direct democracy is, apart from good old Athens, the worst system in the world.

As Dutchie I live in a consitutional monarchy myself, and that suits fine. The monarch has virtually no power though and is namely head of state. The ministers are responsible for the actions of the royal family (prince Willem-Alexander needed consent of the government to marry his wife, for instance). The government, the cabinet and the 'Second Chamber' (let's say House of Commons) have the real power, based on a parliamentary democracy: people vote for members of political parties. This system works well, as a majority of seats is needed to form a government. It also leads to the famed 'poldermodel', in which everyone gets a bit and we talk long enough for everyone to be satisfied. This way the people who have the expertise also rule. It has been chaotic ofcourse, the last past years, with Pim Fortuyn, the Animal Party, the rise of the Maoist Social Party and paradoxally the Wilders movement. Many people talked of 'closing the gap between The Hague and the civilians' and 'back door politics'. This has led to politicians trying to be 'closer to the people' and more of such nonsense.

This is one of the reasons I would be for a monarchy with more power. The monarch serves the interests of the state and will be able to work on a long-term basis. Ofcourse I would be for a chosen Monarchy, like in the Holy Roman Empire, where an Emperor was chosen from the seven Chancellors. Such a system would much more guarantee capable rulers.

@Ursa: Good points, but i believe the Hapsburgs more or less co-opted the Holy Roman Empire, so It didn't last long as even a semi-democratic state. And Athens to me doesn't seem so bad, as it was only like 2% of the men who could vote on anything, and they were the landowners who had a stake in government. It couldn't avoid the frequent Tyrannies common to all Governments and especially to democracies, but it was better than giving bums a say in anything. Oh , wat deel van die netherlands doen jy lewe in? verskoon my grammatika, maar ek praat nie hollands.

this is ironic, think it over, democracy may have been shamed by ancient greece as "mob rule," but as an American I realize that modern day American Democracy (down with the Queen) has faults but is at least stable

How is it stable? Sure there's peaceful transitions from one gang of thieves to another, but they are constantly legislating things that completely undermine stability, income redistribution etc.

"Oh , wat deel van die netherlands doen jy lewe in? verskoon my grammatika, maar ek praat nie hollands."

Great, another South-African! I live in Groningen myself, that's in the north.

Are you South-African, or are there a lot of them on this site? And Groningen is a pretty place, I am currently planning a trip to Huis Doorn near Utrecht to see the kaiser's mausoleum in June.

Yes, stable meaning peaceful transition.

There might be an arguement that America is too big for the system it uses. It is very hard for any group of like minded individuals to come up with an alternative to the current governing party and rise to power. (though no-one has tried it, at least recently) Groups of like minded individuals now simple form lobby groups, to control government.

Which effectively leads to some measure of control passing from the elected representatives into the hands of 'special interest' groups. I think it is a smart thing or any special interest group to do, but it wouldn't work as an effective tactic (for getting your policy through) in a country of a different scale.

Still if the politicians were capable of pushing their own policy it wouldn't be so much of a problem.(perhaps on a state level it is easier to get things done...)

My mind wanders back to that certain monty python skit - the constitutional peasant :)

"perhaps on state level level it is easier to get things done" true, though personally i doubt the merit of "getting things done" in the government context, as it usually involves taking things from one group and giving it to others. @jasoncollins "We're an anarco-syndalist commune. We take it in turns acting as a sort of executive officer of the week..."

"I didn't vote for you!"
"You don't vote for kings..."
"Well, I could become king then!"

"water tarts lyin' around in ponds distributing sword is no basis for a system of government"

You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some moistened b* threw a sword at you! :) Just too good. Anyone who hasn't seen it, look it up!

'watery"., pardon me