"the thing is though: in a monarchy, although succession is spelled out, sometimes the heir is a shitty monarch, but lives for 50 years.

then what? your country goes to shit? yeah. that's what happens."

And you can have something Italy where you keep electing a class-A pervert while your economy is run into the ground. And in the 1960s and 1970s Italy couldn't manage to hold heir 'democratic' government together for longer than a year.

There have been few historical examples of long tenured monarchs who ruled poorly. I can't really think of any.

"Putin, there is a method to get rid of bad leaders.... its called an election. I'll be the first to say that our electoral process isn't perfect, but we have a method of removing bad leaders"

Like Bush? Like Nixon? They were both re-elected. The assumption is that elections remove bad leaders rather than reward bad leaders. Bad leaders use manipulative tactics to get people to vote for them. Like fake orange alerts. Like invoking terrorism and 9-11. Like Willie Horton ads. Bad leaders can and often do have the money and connections needed to win the dirty process that is an election. Unpopular decisions that are good for the country are punished. Popular decisions that put our future in jeopardy are rewarded.

"There have been few historical examples of long tenured monarchs who ruled poorly. I can't really think of any. "

Louis XV of France?

@Putin - My unemployment is a *very* temporary thing. I have enough in the bank to live in the style I'm accustomed to for 4 months and have no problem paying my mortgage or any other bill for that matter.

My view is that the amount of say one has should be based on the amount they do or have recently contributed. Use the better of the previous years AGI or current salary as the determining factor.

Welfare recipients don't contribute so they should have *zero* say over their benefits.

School taxes (where I live at least) are based on property values, so those renting the place they call home should have *zero* say and those who own houses have all the say regardless of the parental status.

Last year, my income topped six figures. This year, in the first three weeks before I became unemployed, I made $6000.

"There have been few historical examples of long tenured monarchs who ruled poorly." Louis the XIV? Longest reign by a european monarch. His oppulence and vanity became huge symbols of what needed to be overthrown during the French revolution.

@Thucydides Only a little serious. The ideal with SST was not who has somthing at stake, but only those who are willing to put out for society should have a right to say. Why should those who don't put out have a say? There not the ones who sacrafice. Not that I think such a system would really work in the long run as it's just another oligarchy with the same potential pitfalls.

...Draugnar, are you really trying to argue that as someone with a 6 figure income, you are being oppressed by welfare recipients? Really?

"Why should those who don't put out have a say?" Because the foundational cornerstone of a democracy is that EVERYONE gets a say. Take that away, and you might still be voting, but you don't have a democracy anymore. Our political discourse has become so obsessed with the idea of "earning" things, that we forget that we forget that people are entitled certain things. And the idea of "earning" is really just a way for the powerful to justify depriving people of that which is rightfully theirs.

"Louis the XIV? Longest reign by a european monarch."

Louis XIV brought France to the apogee of its power. He also ended the internal fighting that had been plaguing France since the religious upheavals in the 1500s. There was internal peace until 1789.

Nixon was removed. The fact that he resigned instead of been impeached and convicted is irrelevant: The conviction was more or less a foregone conclusion.

And while I would agree with you that the junior Bush was a bad President, there are plenty of people who disagree that are just as well-educated as you or I.

But despite all of that, the US keeps going. We've got issues, sure. That's also never going to change. But the system itself is fairly solid and can still function with a less than stellar chief executive.

He also bankrupted the country and caused who knows how much suffering among the poor.

Louis XIV I mean.

I note that you passed over my mention of the 58 year reign of Louis the XV, Putin. It was pretty disastrous to France in many ways, including loss of capital, colonial possessions, and respect both domestic and abroad.

Mafialligator I also said it would not work if you have read the whole statement.

"Welfare recipients don't contribute so they should have *zero* say over their benefits."

And you contribute by playing on webdip all day?
What about 'welfare recipients' who worked but are now unemployed (sounds familiar), they don't get a say in what happens because they got a tough break? What about single mothers with kids on WIC? They shouldn't get to vote about WIC so their children don't get any food because why on earth would rich assholes care about poor mothers on WIC? And to hell with people with no kids who vote against school levies. Especially people with no kids who went to public schools themselves. Hypocrites.

You're saying people don't have an obligation to contribute to a society they benefited from. They got theirs. So everyone else can starve, right?

haha really? ok give me a few minutes i will give you a non-exhaustive list:

mubarak
mugabe
qaddafi
mao
stalin
george iii
antonio lopez de santa anna
napoleon
edward I
good ole ghenghis
leopold of belgium (fucking hate this guy)
ivan the terrible
henry viii

and these dudes, who served less time, but really fucked the place up in their tenure:
hitler
nero... in fact all those shitty roman emperors (see comments regarding succession problems)
emperor qin
vlad the impaler


keep in mind, these are just the really really awful ones.

there are countless others who really weren't good people at all, they just didn't stand out.

compare fucking calvin coolidge or james madison to mussolini or emperor qin: there is no comparison at all. none.

you can name elected leaders who were shitty, yes, anyone can. people are generally shitty. but the thing is, as people have said, these people leave. if they stay on past their term, they are now a dictator. in a "dictatorship" society, this is acceptable. in a democratic society it is not and you will see military intervention/international intervention hopefully.

name some good dictators. and i mean actually good. not like "oh he massively expanded country X's borders" no. i dont give a shit about that. you're talking about a murderer.

a genuinely benevolent dictator who improved the world. improved it on purpose not improved in the sense that, say, ghenghis facilitated the silk road. not talking about that. talking about, one day, they say "you know for the good of mankind i think we should probably cut the size of our army, or send our doctors to help cure that disease over there."

go. i bet you all my diplopoints that i can match anyone you bring up with a president/pm who was better.

and keep in mind, democracy hasn't been around that long. you have all of history to choose from, i only have a few hundred at most, you have thousands and thousands.

@Mafia - I'm saying that people who contribute nothing should have no say. Schools are funded by property taxes. Only property owners, many of whom have kids and all of whom want to keep property values up so a solid school system is important, should get to vote on school levies. Only people who can show taxable income should get a vote on income tax issues. It's really quite simple. I'm fine with an equal vote for all who contribute, but if you don't contribute, bugger off!

"Nixon was removed. The fact that he resigned instead of been impeached and convicted is irrelevant: The conviction was more or less a foregone conclusion."

But your point is that elections 'remove bad leaders'. So him resigning does nothing to help your point. Nixon was re-elected despite his savage bombing of Cambodia that ended up resulting in civil war and genocide, and for being a human being with a massive reputation for being a shady POS long before he was President.

Bush got re-elected despite lying about WMDs in Iraq, despite the breaking of the torture scandal in 2004, and despite the colossal incompetence that led up to the worst terrorist attack on US soil.

If elections are our safeguard, it's a piss poor one.

'also define perfect democracy, kingdroid.

is it a place where everyone agrees on everything? if so, the effect is the same as that of a perfect dictatorship. '

No, it is a democracy where everyone is educated, represented, and can think freely for themselves.

No, my point was we have peaceful methods of removing leaders. Nixon was replaced. Bush was replaced. The guy at the top changes, but the government keeps rolling, and we don't have massive civil unrest to get rid of somebody.

And comparing Nixon's scumfuckery next to dictators of the 20th century makes him look like a blushing schoolgirl.

putin 9/11 had nothing to do with bush's policies.

and people didnt think he lied in 2004.

besides that, yes, people are sheep who are easily fooled. but that can work for the good as well.

not to mention, but the same measure, since people are sheep who are easily fooled, it's not hard to get a dumbass as dictator who is totally ruled by his right-hand man who is totally fucking evil.

if that reminds you of bush-cheney it was on purpose. imagine if we had bush-cheney until they were dead, and if bush died first that cheney takes over. holy god. what a disaster.

i wonder where these guys get off imagining that dictatorship is ever good.

you really really dont care if you have no say in govt?

@Thucy

No, see, the people who want dictatorships have god complexes and therefore believe they will be close to the top in a dictatorship, so it really doesn't matter to them what happens to most of the population.

Louis XV only technically ruled for 31 years, not 59. I fail to see what was so terrible about him. He was the first French king to go after the privileges of the aristocracy. And despite his resounding defeats of the Austrians and British, he restored to Austria all territory that had been conquered. He was defeated in the 7 years war, a war brought about by the revanchism of the Austrians and the expansionism of the Prussians. Spending in the court was exaggerated, Louis XV didn't spend more than the average king and under his rule French arts and culture flourished.

It's been said, Putin:

Opulent, vain, (in a democracy would be considered corrupt, but there is no such thing as corrupt in that sense in a monarchy)

When you say "didn't spend more than an average king" that's kind of the point. All of them spent way too much, were totally unaccountable to their people, etc. The whole point, again, in case you missed it, is its bullshit that someone like Louis who just got born in the right spot would have all the wealth of France at his fingertips even as people starve to death in his own country.

In a democracy this is frowned upon. In a monarchy it is the norm.

lol and i like this whole "it was *only* 31 years! stuff.

lol. come on. and it doesnt matter how long each reign was, the point is france was under the yoke of oppression until less than 200 years ago.

"name some good dictators. and i mean actually good."

Since 2,000 year monarchies are not 'stable' enough for people here, I'm sure you'll find reason to define 'good dictator' so narrowly so as to stack the deck with regards to your question. In fact, I know you will, because you're already listing dozens of disqualifying criteria.

Cyrus the Great was a truly great monarch. Aside from building the greatest empire the world had yet known (which doesn't impress you) he was a model of religious tolerance with his Edict of Restoration for the Jews, and called for the restoration of Jerusalem (which if that doesn't impress, it certainly impressed the Jews at the time). His cylinder is regarded as one of the first human rights charters.

Catherine II (the Great) of Russia is another example. The arts flourished. Russian prestige was never higher. The administration of government was modernized. She expanded the educational system. Russia was a mecca for economists, scientists, and literary giants and French dissidents because of the protection to them she offered.

Elizabeth I of England - do I even have to explain this? This was the English golden age.

I'm busy, so I don't have time to give more examples, although Maria Theresa of Austria and Frederick II of Prussia are two more.

"In a democracy this is frowned upon. In a monarchy it is the norm."

Because all of our Presidents have been paupers, right? Name the last President who wasn't a millionaire.

"No, see, the people who want dictatorships have god complexes and therefore believe they will be close to the top in a dictatorship, so it really doesn't matter to them what happens to most of the population."

Most 'democrats' don't even bother to vote, much less pay any attention to current events or political issues. The ones that do think the sum of their civic involvement is voting, and that's all they need to do. I bet few of you democrats ever bother to attend demonstrations or exercise any of your other 'cherished' democratic rights.