Welfare more important than democracy

[Chazza]

Does this really happen? I expect I could be wealthier in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, should I choose to live and work there, but I do not nor would I ever (permanently, at least).

Only Muslims are allowed to live permanently in Saudi Arabia, so it's not even an option.

Non-Muslims can live very comfortably in gated oil communities for quite a while though.

[JuliaAJA]

Only Muslims are allowed to live permanently in Saudi Arabia, so it's not even an option.

Non-Muslims can live very comfortably in gated oil communities for quite a while though.

True.

[Molotov]

That can be limited with constiution, but constitution that cannot be changed is against democracy itself. Though such constitution does not and can not exist. If majority want's something badly enough, no constitution can stop them.

One of the reasons I like the monarchy. The Prime Minister currently has more personal power than a mediaeval monarch, but he could never become a dictator as long as there is a monarch. Hitler's Enabling Act could never have passed in Great Britain. If the Queen were to refuse to give her assent to an Act of Parliament it would mean civil war, but in the case of something like the Enabling Act that would be a good thing.

I would be ready to go as far as having tests to determine if you are eligible to vote instead of just age limit. It shouldn't test if you "think right", but do you have enough knowledge to make up a view.

Definitely. For ages I've thought that only people with degrees in politics or history should get the vote

[Amazeroth]

That can be limited with constiution, but constitution that cannot be changed is against democracy itself. Though such constitution does not and can not exist. If majority want's something badly enough, no constitution can stop them.

One of the reasons I like the monarchy. The Prime Minister currently has more personal power than a mediaeval monarch, but he could never become a dictator as long as there is a monarch. Hitler's Enabling Act could never have passed in Great Britain. If the Queen were to refuse to give her assent to an Act of Parliament it would mean civil war, but in the case of something like the Enabling Act that would be a good thing.

Exactly why I think things were much better if Austria stayed a (constututional) monarchy. At least one voice amongst the hundreds of politicians that would not have to say anything according to the will (or supposed will) of the majority would be such a blessing.

I don't think that the one thing preventing Hitler's rise in GB would have been the monarchy though.

[Molotov]

I don't think it would be the one thing, but it would certainly be the last, if you see that I mean.

Oh, having an apolitical, irremovable sovereign, a proper constitutional monarchy, is invaluable. I can only think republicans are either idiots, or blinded by ideological concerns.

[Khaler]

One of the reasons I like the monarchy. The Prime Minister currently has more personal power than a mediaeval monarch, but he could never become a dictator as long as there is a monarch. Hitler's Enabling Act could never have passed in Great Britain. If the Queen were to refuse to give her assent to an Act of Parliament it would mean civil war, but in the case of something like the Enabling Act that would be a good thing.

Then what if the Queen decides to attempt to become a dictator? Most likely also a civil war, but not if she has enough public support.

[Opakidabar]

I don't think it would be the one thing, but it would certainly be the last, if you see that I mean.

Oh, having an apolitical, irremovable sovereign, a proper constitutional monarchy, is invaluable. I can only think republicans are either idiots, or blinded by ideological concerns.

Austro-Hungary had one, it did not help much.
I think it depends on general IQ of monarch and/or advisers. It may turn into blessing as it was for UK or into civil war as it was for Germany, Russia.

[Amazeroth]

I don't think it would be the one thing, but it would certainly be the last, if you see that I mean.

Oh, having an apolitical, irremovable sovereign, a proper constitutional monarchy, is invaluable. I can only think republicans are either idiots, or blinded by ideological concerns.

Austro-Hungary had one, it did not help much.
I think it depends on general IQ of monarch and/or advisers. It may turn into blessing as it was for UK or into civil war as it was for Germany, Russia.

No. We didn't have a proper constitutional monarchy. We had a parliament which was unable to work because it was systematically paralysed by the Czech delegates because they didn't get their own monarchy. Most of the laws had to be passed via emergency decrees by the emperor himself because it just wasn't possible to do otherwise. Molotov is right - a proper constitutional monarchy is invaluable - but we never had one.


There was no civil war in Germany due to the monarchy, and I'd go as far and say that the civil war in Russia was not necessarily because of the Czar, but because of the communists. You wouldn't need a civil war to get rid of a monarch, a revolution would do.

[Captain-Socialist]

These regimes, though generally more numerous than totalitarian ones, are mostly ignored in favour of wildly exciting totalitarian experiments or dramatic revolutionary bloodbaths.

Do you really think these people should necessarily be deposed by the West?

I never said we should do anything about them, I just pointed out they are far more thick on the ground than the totalitarian breed. Most dictators aren't going to give you any welfare, they will just shot you if you ask for it.

[Captain-Socialist]

That can be limited with constiution, but constitution that cannot be changed is against democracy itself. Though such constitution does not and can not exist. If majority want's something badly enough, no constitution can stop them.

One of the reasons I like the monarchy. The Prime Minister currently has more personal power than a mediaeval monarch, but he could never become a dictator as long as there is a monarch. Hitler's Enabling Act could never have passed in Great Britain. If the Queen were to refuse to give her assent to an Act of Parliament it would mean civil war, but in the case of something like the Enabling Act that would be a good thing.

Indeed, but King Edward VIII may have just let it slid (one reason why he had to go). This is the point where constitutional monarchism falls down, we're supposed to salute the uniform not the person in it, but that doesn't make the person a non-entity. Many a constitutional monarchy in the making can be irreparably damaged by a Monarch which takes itself seriously, and as their is such limited choice in who wears the uniform (as it where) there is little headway for a constitutionalist to make in that kind of situation. This is why so few of the hundreds of monarchies survive, because they took their own power on face value. Not to mention quite a lot of them where physical and mental weaklings with an over-inflated sense of self-importance. And are you sure Gordon Brown has more power than a medieval monarch (which would make Lord Mandelson a Roman Emperor, I guess)? Last time I checked Brown could not hang up his enemies by the toes, get into thousands of pounds worth of debt and not get criticised, or behead the speaker of the House of Commons.

You wouldn't need a civil war to get rid of a monarch, a revolution would do.

And as we all know, the line between civil war and revolution is this thin. If the rebels win it's a revolution, if the government wins it's a civil war.