Anarchism

[Sean]

That's not a bad answer.

The current British queen needless to say gives monarchies a bad name.

[Florestan]

That's not a bad answer.

Which is yours?

(It´s not a tricky question. I´m genuinely interested in your answer.)

[Sean]

There have been plenty of good monarchs in history.

[Florestan]

There have been plenty of good monarchs in history.

Of course, but that doesn´t answer my question: of all the monarchies that exist today, which one would you rather live in? Have you never thought about that?

[Sean]

No I'm not sure. Too much unpleasant US influence in the world for democracy makes it hard for a monarchy to properly establish itself.

[Florestan]

No I'm not sure. Too much unpleasant US influence in the world for democracy makes it hard for a monarchy to properly establish itself.

My option hands down would be Liechtenstein.

[Sean]

I'll take Liechtenstein.

[Florestan]

Finally, something we can agree upon. 

As for republics, the one I´d take over any other is Switzerland.

[ibanezmonster]

Evil empires are where it's at. Long live Emperor Ubloobideega!

[jochanaan]

The trouble with monarchies is that inevitably there's a succession.

[Ken B]

The trouble with monarchies is that inevitably there's a succession.

Exactly.
And so now we see another reason Sean is wrong. In Canada the queen will be succeeded by Doorknob Maximus.
I favor a republic, but also favour "if it ain't broke don't fix it." King Charles means it's broken.
Shattered, ground into dust, pulverized broken.

[Jo498]

Both Switzerland and Liechtenstein are (mostly) tax haven parasite states that would have but a fraction of their wealth and well-being if not the corrupt elites from everywhere else would let them flourish at their parasitic trade. They are accomplices to billions of fraudulent business deals and really draining the wealth from other nations and would not exist in the way they do in a only slightly more just and less corrupt world. (Granted, Switzerland does have also some very good technology but the most important of it is Big Pharma which can be almost as evil as the banksters.)
About a 100 years ago parts of Switzerland were so piss-poor that underage children were "lent" for agricultural labor in (slightly more prosperous) southern Germany because their parents were too poor to feed them.

[Florestan]

Exactly.
And so now we see another reason Sean is wrong. In Canada the queen will be succeeded by Doorknob Maximus.
I favor a republic, but also favour "if it ain't broke don't fix it." King Charles means it's broken.
Shattered, ground into dust, pulverized broken.

Actually, the first to deal some serious blows was Henry VIII. It shattered badly again in 1688. 

It might be possible that Charles will never reign, or just for the time needed to sign his abdication in favor of William. 

[Florestan]

Both Switzerland and Liechtenstein are (mostly) tax haven parasite states that would have but a fraction of their wealth and well-being if not the corrupt elites from everywhere else would let them flourish at their parasitic trade. They are accomplices to billions of fraudulent business deals and really draining the wealth from other nations and would not exist in the way they do in a only slightly more just and less corrupt world. (Granted, Switzerland does have also some very good technology but the most important of it is Big Pharma which can be almost as evil as the banksters.)
About a 100 years ago parts of Switzerland were so piss-poor that underage children were "lent" for agricultural labor in (slightly more prosperous) southern Germany because their parents were too poor to feed them.

This might be true, but irrelevant. I was not praising Switzerland´s economic system, but its political one: cantonal federalism, direct democracy, subsidiarity. Not perfect, of course, there is no such thing as perfection in human things, but preferable to any other --- for me. Of course, your mileage might vary.

[kishnevi]

Exactly.
And so now we see another reason Sean is wrong. In Canada the queen will be succeeded by Doorknob Maximus.
I favor a republic, but also favour "if it ain't broke don't fix it." King Charles means it's broken.
Shattered, ground into dust, pulverized broken.

How so? Charles is a man of no talent  and average morals but born to assume a position with no power.
As opposed to Presidents Bush (Jr.) and Obama, men of no talent elected to a position of immense power, and Clinton, a man of no morals elected to that same position. We Americans should be panting to have Charles.

[Ken B]

How so? Charles is a man of no talent  and average morals but born to assume a position with no power.
As opposed to Presidents Bush (Jr.) and Obama, men of no talent elected to a position of immense power, and Clinton, a man of no morals elected to that same position. We Americans should be panting to have Charles.

You should be panting to have a less powerful president. Not quite the same thing.

Charles will muck up the only job he'll have: being head of the (established) Anglican church.

Incidentally, on a liberal site I read regularly they gush about Obama and how much power he should have. A plurality of democrats believe he should be able to ignore the supreme court. I smirk and await President Walker.

[San Antone]

Another bothersome government intrusion ~

It's Time to Kill Daylight Saving

[Florestan]

Anarchy is a noble ideal.

That´s precisely what makes it dangerous. In politics, the noblest ideals have resulted, more often than not, in the vilest regimes and policies. The French Revolution was more sanguinary, brutal and intolerant than any king of France has ever been. Lenin and Stalin killed more people than all the tsars put together did.

Unfortunately, most humans aren't very noble.

How ´bout you you? Are you like most human beings?

[jochanaan]

That´s precisely what makes it dangerous. In politics, the noblest ideals have resulted, more often than not, in the vilest regimes and policies. The French Revolution was more sanguinary, brutal and intolerant than any king of France has ever been. Lenin and Stalin killed more people than all the tsars put together did.

How ´bout you you? Are you like most human beings?

That's not for me to say.