Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

The fun thing about elected representatives is that they are part of a larger body and in the case of the president, responsible to the people and term limited. Monarchs are not, no matter how inbred and ignorant they may be.

---

You have to be dreaming if you feel that our elected are responsible to the people. Look at the expense accounts of our elected officials and you'll find lavish spending that would color the face of a Borgia.

The greatest societies this world has ever known have had their roots in under authoritarian forms of government. Feudal Japan, Imperial China, The Catholic Kingdoms of Europe and Caliphates of North Africa and the Arabian peninsula all great engines of scientific,artistic and cultural innovation.

In the more modern period the 'Strong Man' has been a great protector when faced by marauding hordes of godless marxists. Ioannis Metaxas, Generalissimo Franco, Augosto Pinochet, Lee Kuan Yew, and even Pope St.John Paul II all authoritarian all great victors over the scourge of marxism.

---

Yes, they are responsive to the people. Imperfection and the existence of some corruption does not place them on the same level as the dictators and murderers you admire. As for scientific, artistic, and cultural innovation, the greatest advances of these have happened in more open, pluralistic societies. Even during the early modern era, more open societies like Venice, Florence, the Netherlands, and England, saw greater cultural innovation than revanchist states. Certainly amongst your idols, the only thing they were good at was murder. Yew is the only outlier and it's not surprising that he wasn't interested in book burnings and fascism.

---

All of these great "Republics" you mention happened to be guided by members of the royal houses of Europe, if you want to pretend like the Dutch Republic was operated at the whim of the people rather than the stadtholders of each individual province who just happened to be a member of the House of Orange, then be my guest.

You for some reason made monarchy and open and pluralistic society mutually exclusive and then blew your own exclusion apart by naming England as an example. The UAE now is extremely authoritarian, it is also extremely pluralistic and prosperous without ever needing to hold a vote.

Yes, with regards to my idols, sometimes to stop people from burning down churches, raping nuns, and redistributing family lands to "friends of the party" you have to kill some people. You'll notice that I think these are much better reasons for killing people rather than the great democracy of Israel who needs only "Hey I think that Palestinian kid has a rock" and the USA of "the 4 of clubs in the terrorism deck is hiding in a Syrian wedding so some kid in Colorado Springs is going to hellfire his ass with a drone".

Every single criticism you can level at authoritarian forms of government can be leveled at democracies, but with democracies I don't see an upside, the madden crowd is always stupid. I forget which author said it but to paraphrase "With monarchy you may get Nero but you also may get Augustus, Democracy always votes to release Barabbas".

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

I want you to answer Bustup. Which you didn't.

---

I just don't think you like my answer. It depends on the type of government and who you ask. You act like "Who decides" isn't the quintessential answer to every form of government and can be answered with quick throwaway response.

Go back and read my first response on this thread. I would rather have a King then a uniparty talking head who is nothing more than a lever pulling robot for competing special interests. If I have to spell it out for you; the King would be the government, and he would govern by the consent of his subjects in that if he wasn't a good King, they would kill him as has been done numerous times throughout history.

---

Obviously I don't like your answer. It's really stupid. You've been spouting this type of nonsense for years. Eventually you break forum rules one way or the other, get banned again, and then make a new username and pretend you're someone else.

You didn't answer. Because you can't or because you think answering it will make your position look even worse than it is. Pretending that "consent of the king's subjects" is just who gets murdered is moronic. Good rulers have been murdered. Bad ones have ruled for a long time.

This place has become an absolute dumpster fire.

---

I'm going to need you to go ahead and unload both barrels on your ideological conjoined twin Sapper Redux, who unless I'm mistaken might have broken a forum rule or two himself, without the class to at least pretend to be another poster.

It's very easy to call someone else stupid, you'll actually note that it's thrown around the playgrounds of elementary schools quite often; which is where your retort belongs.

Every single society on Earth has some form of limited suffrage; our government was created with an extreme form of limited suffrage, and for some reason it was mistaken as a bug rather than a feature of good government.

Democracy released Barabbas, Constantine, warts and all, empowered Christianity to spread across Europe.

Again, going back to business, me making decisions for our business is better both for myself and for the employee themselves even thought they have no say. Increasing their salaries 4-fold would be fantastic for them in the short term, but would be very bad for them in the long term as I would have to close the company. Keeping the decision making in my hands ensures that this does not happen.

---

Was slavery a feature of good government in the early republic? Would slavery be best for your employees since you know better than them?

---

Think about what you're asking in the context. What if the people want slavery? What if the people vote for pro-slavery politicians? Think about Lincoln, who had to strip habeas corpus (the right decision imo) and become a quasi-dictator in order to successfully prosecute his war against the South which culminated in the end of slavery in the USA.

DeProfundis said:

---

I would rather be ruled by a King who believes his eternal destination is judged by how he treated his subjects rather than by politicians who have to sell their soul every 2-6 years in order to get enough money to win campaigns.

---

We should only have one king, and that is Christ. And in the history of the world, total monarchies never work out for some of the same corruption reasons we see as issues with our own politicians.

Part of our problem is that we keep electing people who are not virtuous just because they say the right things and they are against who we deem to be our enemies.

....Now I can see how this could digress into an F16 thread