Your right I just thought it meant what type of government you prefer including anti-government. "Anarchy is anti-government, anti-rulers, anti-dictators, anti-bosses. . . .Anarchy is the negation of force; the elimination of all authority in social affairs; it is the denial of the right of domination of one man over another. It is the diffusion of rights, of power, of duties, equally and freely among all the people." Albert Parsons on Anarchism.
1. if you ask espect any results not what you want 2. monarchy is the complete rule by one self-a-pointed ruler who has complete control 3. the list of types of government is very ...say limited
uh-huh. 1. i was just wondering why no-one was voting for monarchy, when monarchy is the best government out there. 2. monarchs are not self-appointed. they're mandated by religious institutions, such as chruches, temples, synagues, etc. thats why one is usually coronated by the pope or an archbishop(canterbury) or a patriarch(constantinople). 3. so?
2. ... so some really really rich person apoints them, then they can rule the country how ever they want!!!
whats wrong with it is that this ruler is suppose to do good for the common person right, but they never have helped the common person or is it that you believe in oppresion of the lower classes (if you believe that classes should exist) that is why monarchy is a good idea lastly can you please explain in fair detail your political beliefs?
i told you, im in freshman year at high school. i dont fucking know why i have to fucking repeat it fifty fucking times. I like monarchy, especially if im the monarch or if im at least in the upper crust of the social order. and i would be, counting that my direct ancestor was from the noble Hume clan of scotland, a moderately powerful and influential clan back inthe days of yore (the 1500s-1800s)
so you blindly believe in something, becuase you know that it could bring you a better life at the exspense of millions of others, that seems morally wrong.
usually people in a monarchist or imperial government are happy. the French under Napoleon the 1st were very happy, and had a good legal and court system. its also a lot more stable than democracy, and usually doesnt allow a retard like Bush to come to power by vote. i'm also decended from noblemen, so its more or less in my veins.
Have you any idea how many retard and insane kings there have been? :bugeye: With ridiculous and just plainly idiotic laws most of which were designed to rob people. That's basic pre-high-school medieval history. In democracy there is a lot bigger chance to chose a better leader. Retard like Bush? In democracy people choose a leader that suits them and their intellect, in monarchy they have not such a choice. Of course they can kill the king if are able to.
So.. why not elected parlament? You can elect one insane person, but it's harder to elect 100 or more insane persons.
elective monarchy, with the monarch elected by the people to serve a life term, and a parliament in place to keep the monarch in line, but also allowing the monarch veto powers and similar things to a president, but with a noticable and special "monarchy" sense to it. thats what i implied as the common elective monarchy.
so basically you want a presidental democracy with two presidents one of which has a life term and is called "king". Basically you are creating a gov. system which has two heads of state one of which get's a crown. Unpractical and collision of powers by default. Not approved. But if you have a country, by all means, do it. You'd have to overthrow a current gov. system though, which means changing a constitution, what never is easy.
what? who said two presidents? i meant a monarch who consults the parliament for his major decisions.