Well, anarchy is better than no government at all, right?

Considerably so! Where would humanity be without comittees to tell everyone how to go about their business?

Politically, I'm conservative - Australia is basically a democracy, though we still elect to have the Queen as our figurehead. I really enjoyed Stephen Lawheads' novel on the modern king arthur (i dont remember the title) that lamented the decline of the importance of monarchy, and stirred up all those nationalistic feelings :) Democracy, where the public is probably wrong, and the public elects figures who do what they want to do anyway? Or Monarchy, where you get a tyrant and you're screwed? Fortunately, it doesn't matter which way I vote (cause it won't make a difference in the end anyway :) Politics sucks.

Well this is a kind of silly debate topic. Obviously Monarchy isn't as good as Democracy. Is that even a question? Who wants Prince Harry in charge of England? Would you like me to list some bad monarchs that destroyed their country?

Now a debate between Constitional Monarchy (like in the UK) and a Republic (like in the US) would be a legitimate debate.

yes, thats what I think. IMO constitutional monarchy's are the best form or government.

Yeah.. but you lose the monty python jokes that way.

@Centurian please list the monarchs that destroyed their countries. I have a sneaking suspicion that none of them did so single-handedly, or were even the primary cause of destruction.

Kaiser,

I'm not going to humour you because its a waste of my time, as you are clearly some kind of monarchist nutcase. It is true that literally speaking no one single handedly destroy's their country, unless they are some kind of rampaging giant. However, just because Rome under Caligula had problems besides him doesn't make him a good leader.

Ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated attacks are no way to win a debate. And the mere mention of a Roman Emperor opens up the debate as to whether Rome was a legitimate monarchy, as their succession was always heavily disputed and influenced by the very mob that monarchy is supposed to suppress.

Even though all government run enterprises are clearly the devil's work by definition, given the choice between Ivan the Terrible and Universal Healthcare, I'm going to choose healthcare.

Do a little research on ivan the Terrible. He may have thrown dogs off roofs for fun, but he brought the aristocracy of russia to heel, a definate bonus for the serfs who otherwise would be beholden to them. A choice between him and Universal healthcare is like a choice between a Volkwagon and a pterodactyl. They aren't even mutually conflicting ideas, if Ivan were a modern day politician he might even support U.H. as a way of increasing his power.

@Tolstoy

As Ursa has mentioned, using California as an example is just not good. California's politicians long ago decided that being re-elected was more important than actually ever making a real decision. That's why California has such a hard time in an economic recession, they don't have the ability to raise funds. (Prop 13, supposedly has cost California 500Billion dollars).

A friend of mine, insists that the US is no longer a republic/democracy, but rather a corporate-fascist state, run by the greedy executives of a couple of corporations.

Centurian, it is interesting that you bring up Rome as an example of the 'evil' of monarchy. The monarchy was viewed very favorably under Augustus by the Roman people - so favorably that angry mobs formed every time he did something which suggested he might step down from power. Before Augustus and the monarchy, Rome suffered through a hundred years of almost constant domestic turmoil and civil war. The principate was seen as a definite improvement by the vast majority of Romans - it provided peace and stability to a people who'd never seen anything besides the perpetual civil war the Republic had provided.

And I'd take Prince Harry as King of America over another George Bush presidency any time.

@reynoldsm: a corporate-fascist state can easily be run through any system, democracy or monarchy. The key being that the corporate state (in the classical definition) under a democracy is basically institutionalized looting, whereas in a monarchy it take the form of patronage and maintainance of the status quo.

@Tolstoy, Personally i'd rather see Georg Friedrich von Prussen as the American monarch.

The best system of government is an absolute world dictatorship with myself as the dictator's most trusted advisor and leader of the one-world military.

i'll have to take your word for it.

What would be the point in having a one-world miliary, with an absolute world dictatorship?

One word jason: Parades.

I suppose that would be an impressive :)

World's loudest rendition of Tchaiks'. 1812 symphony.

an impressive display*

Well i'm convinced. Hamilton, you have my vote ;)

@reynoldsm, California doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. The California state government's revenues have doubled in the last 10 years. And if it weren't for Prop 13, we'd probably be paying a 10% property tax (in addition to our (almost) 10% income tax and 10+% sales tax, plus of course federal taxes - I'm going to be paying over 60% of my income in taxes this year - I challenge you all to find a monarchy with a tax burden that high).

California is the perfect example of a failure of democracy. And you're perfectly right about politicians thinking that getting re-elected is more important than actually ever making a real decision - which is why I'm siding with monarchy here.

How do you decide on the constitution for the constitutional monarchy?

Ivan the Terrible hardly did those things. Maybe relative to ineffective Tsars. I did indeed do the research as its one of my specialties in University.

Its true that a monarch could institute Universal Healthcare, I was just trying to make a quick reference to your earlier aversion to government and taxes.

Tolstoy, I mentioned Caligula not Rome, and certainly not Augustus. The Pax Romana was preferable to the violent days of the Republic and to the later days (where there were also emperors.)

Basically my point is it would be great if we had a God as a king or some similar all knowing noble being. But a monarchy just means that we basically roll the dice and get one random person out of our population to be leader, rather than one who goes through a democratic vetting process, and this random person isn't subject to checks and balances. Its only not random when the monarch takes control by force, like Augustus, and then its nothing more than military coups, which I hope you aren't condoning.

Not really consitution in the American sense, England has Common Law mind you, but rather the limiting of a monarchs power by legislative fiat is what defines a constitutional monarchy.

All the democratic vetting process does is make sure that someone has never cheated on a spouse or supported an unpopular issue, or if they have, they have apoligized or lyed about it.

pardon me, *lied.