NationStates Jolt Archive

I truly believe that the best and truest form of government in that of a traditional Catholic monarchy. Why? First off, there would be no political games that harm the people, and keep us waiting. I feel traditional Catholic monarchies are the best choice because they would obey the laws of the church, and not be immoral. If they were, then the church would deal with it. yes, I am a monarchist, a Catholic Monarchist.

This is just wrong on so many levels.....no, I'm not even going to touch this one. Good luck with that, by the way.

I truly believe that the best and truest form of government in that of a traditional Catholic monarchy. Why? First off, there would be no political games that harm the people, and keep us waiting. I feel traditional Catholic monarchies are the best choice because they would obey the laws of the church, and not be immoral. If they were, then the church would deal with it. yes, I am a monarchist, a Catholic Monarchist.

They tried it for ages in southern Europe. Why do you think they have abandoned it for a secular state?

I truly believe that the best and truest form of government in that of a traditional Catholic monarchy. Why? First off, there would be no political games that harm the people, and keep us waiting. I feel traditional Catholic monarchies are the best choice because they would obey the laws of the church, and not be immoral. If they were, then the church would deal with it. yes, I am a monarchist, a Catholic Monarchist.

However, this would only work in theory, and if we judge governments theoretically, there are dozens of excellent forms.

Look at post-Reconquista Spain, or the Holy Roman Empire. They had terrible abuses, corruption, and were no more moral than the Renaissance Popes or the pre-Reformation Vatican. They brutally stamped out opposing religions, stifled science and halted all political and personal freedom. As soon as the monarchy's power was absolute, it would degenerate in to a corrupt theocracy.

I truly believe that the best and truest form of government in that of a traditional Catholic monarchy. Why? First off, there would be no political games that harm the people, and keep us waiting. I feel traditional Catholic monarchies are the best choice because they would obey the laws of the church, and not be immoral. If they were, then the church would deal with it. yes, I am a monarchist, a Catholic Monarchist.
*Looks at the French Monarchy's history, then looks at England before Henry VIII* Uh.... ok.

Every government system has abuses.

Every government system has abuses.
Every government system has abuses, so you'd like to return to one of the ones with the most abuses?
It doesn't make sense to me.

A traditional Catholic monarchy would only work so long as people accepted it.

Given the existence of people such as myself, there would quickly be a bloodbath.

Most abuses? Democracy has a lot of abuses. Filibustering (jams up system), rigged elections, etc.

ignore the "deat" title. I was going to deat it, but bah.

I truly believe that the best and truest form of government in that of a traditional Catholic monarchy. Why? First off, there would be no political games that harm the people, and keep us waiting.

Are you claiming that monarchies are incompatible with politicing?

Every government system has abuses.

But this case is especially bad for two reasons:

1. Monarchy-The people can't do anything about their abuses unless they revolt, which is forbidden by #2.

2. Theocratic- The concept of divine right makes revolt a sin against God, and since the king/queen would be divinely appointed any kind of dissent could be tried as heresy. Thus, corruption could not be undone and almost any abuse could be hidden.

This is just wrong on so many levels.....no, I'm not even going to touch this one. Good luck with that, by the way.
And the award for not getting a joke goes to...

But this case is especially bad for two reasons:

1. Monarchy-The people can't do anything about their abuses unless they revolt, which is forbidden by #2.

2. Theocratic- The concept of divine right makes revolt a sin against God, and since the king/queen would be divinely appointed any kind of dissent could be tried as heresy.
Look at the French revolution. People who disagreeed with them were slaughtered. When the Vendee (monarchists) held a counter revolution, they were brutally slaughtered.

And the award for not getting a joke goes to...

It wasn't a joke you cool guy. He is serious. :rolleyes:

Are you claiming that monarchies are incompatible with politicing?
There would be a king to decide all matters. his word would be final.

There would be a king to decide all matters. his word would be final.

Ah: Catholic, monarchist and more sexist than the dark ages - no queens?


So, the King's word would be final, except for the word of the Pope?

Are you familiar with the phenomenon of pretenders?

And the award for not getting a joke goes to...
Its not a joke...

Look at the French revolution. People who disagreeed with them were slaughtered. When the Vendee (monarchists) held a counter revolution, they were brutally slaughtered.

They were slaughtered because of what the monarchy had done to the people in the past, which includes the wars of Louis XIV and the repeal of the Edict of Nantes in the 17th century and Louis XVI's total incompetence in managing his finances, which were drained by corruption amongst the Catholic clergy which controlled 1/3 of the Estates General and who were allied with the nobility (who controlled the other third, of course) who sat on the courts. This corruption comes full circle after the revolution and explains the particularly vicious repression of the Vendee. The French revolution resulted in terrible atrocities, but it served as a basis for other revolutions and finally broke the continental grip of monarchy.

There would be a king to decide all matters. his word would be final.
There were really only a handful of absolute monarchies in the world you know. Most of the time the king (or whatever) had to play politics with the best of them, balancing a Baron from one family with a Duke from another.

Besides, while monarchies are all well and fine when you have a GOOD king, it's what do you do when that king's son is an idiot? (which happened quite often thanks to the inbreading of the royal familes)

Of course their would be queens. they would have to submit to the Pope though, just as the males would. So, yes, final except for the Pope's word. yes I am familiar with pretenders. After searching hard and a LOT of research by experts, if all fail in finding the legitimate successor, (some are known), then the Pope could appoint someone (closet relative they could find, who he sees fit to rule, etc)

Besides, while monarchies are all well and fine when you have a GOOD king, it's what do you do when that king's son is an idiot? (which happened quite often thanks to the inbreading of the royal familes)

They usually assassinated him (which seems somewhat odd given the Christian religious proscription against murder). :confused:

Vetalia, so you are saying 2 wrongs make a right?

They usually assassinated him (which seems somewhat odd given the Christian religious proscription against murder). :confused:
The Pope can excommunicate the king, making him not Catholic, thus not legitimate monarch. He can either
A) repent
B) Give up throne, or be forced from it by placing another king in.

Of course their would be queens.

So why claim that there would always be a King who would have the final say?

I truly believe that the best and truest form of government in that of a traditional Catholic monarchy. Why? First off, there would be no political games that harm the people, and keep us waiting. I feel traditional Catholic monarchies are the best choice because they would obey the laws of the church, and not be immoral. If they were, then the church would deal with it. yes, I am a monarchist, a Catholic Monarchist.
there are always political games. no form of government is exempt.

the laws of the church are not necessarily the most efficient for running a country, they are designed to get you into heaven, not to boost your gnp

there is no shortage of immorality amongst religious people of any and all sorts.

the church would take care of it only if the monarch obeyed. remember henry the 8th, founder of the church of england??

monarchies are fine when they have a good monarch. unfortunately birthright does not guarantee good monarchs.

The Pope can excommunicate the king, making him not Catholic, thus not legitimate monarch. He can either
A) repent
B) Give up throne, or be forced from it by placing another king in.

Yes indeed, because this worked so very well in the past. :rolleyes:

Vetalia, so you are saying 2 wrongs make a right?

No, because the action in the Vendee was a war, not just a slaughter. They rose up against the conscription order from the government and fought a guerilla war. Both sides killed thousands, so there wasn't a right in that entire conflict.

The political inspiration from the Revolution would free many millions of people from tyranny, so it could be interpreted as "two wrongs make a right", but only if you consider all of the actions undertaken by the revolutionaries as wrong.

The Pope can excommunicate the king, making him not Catholic, thus not legitimate monarch. He can either
A) repent
B) Give up throne, or be forced from it by placing another king in.

Ah, just like Henry VIII of England did?

Ever read Richard the IIIrd?
Also, what if you're a protestant? Or, heaven forbid, a Muslim? An Athiest? Or, if, let's say, you believe the world is round? Or orbits the sun? What if you happen to liberate france? Or maybe someone says you're a witch? What if the Spanish get inquisitive?

Democracy doesn't work, but until you people give me absolute rule, it's the best you've got.

The Pope can excommunicate the king, making him not Catholic, thus not legitimate monarch. He can either
A) repent
B) Give up throne, or be forced from it by placing another king in.

But the king likely wouldn't give it up, because he wants power more than anything and to hold on to it is the most important thing. Unless the Pope was more powerful than him, it is highly unlikely that he would do so.

But this case is especially bad for two reasons:

1. Monarchy-The people can't do anything about their abuses unless they revolt, which is forbidden by #2.

2. Theocratic- The concept of divine right makes revolt a sin against God, and since the king/queen would be divinely appointed any kind of dissent could be tried as heresy. Thus, corruption could not be undone and almost any abuse could be hidden.Look at the French revolution. People who disagreeed with them were slaughtered. When the Vendee (monarchists) held a counter revolution, they were brutally slaughtered.I'm a little tired, here, so I'm not thinking too clearly, but I don't believe that it's a good idea to have to resort to violent conflict to correct abuses.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

... there would be no political games that harm the people, ... they would obey the laws of the church, and not be immoral...

Best joke I've read for years, really!
:D :D :D

Its not a joke...
If it was, then it wouldn't be the first.

Oh well then, I guess I over-estimated you. Crimson Sith, I'm sorry. Cherry Ridge, you're an idiot.

...unless that was part of the joke... :confused:

Hey! A monarchist! Do you want to join my new imperialist party at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424822 ?

[QUOTE=Robot ninja pirates]
Cherry Ridge, you're an idiot.
[QUOTE]
Who is the bigger idiot? The original idiot, or the one who calls him an idiot?

I won't join the imperialist party.

Monarchy - from the Greek mono- (one) and kratia- (rule).
Literally, rule by one - as a libertarian this would be the ultimate manifestation of Jefferson's famous quote: "That government which governs least, governs best" (okay maybe not the exacy quote). NOT a hereditary monarchy, but it could be elected. The problem there, is that there is that the monarchy can only work if 1) the ruler obeys his power constraints and 2) everybody obeys the one person.

I just don't see rule by one sole person as sustainible - which is why I favor minarchy (from Greek mini-/small and kratia-/rule; thus, rule by few)

Who is the bigger idiot? The original idiot, or the one who calls him an idiot?

I won't join the imperialist party.

It doesn't change the idea that you are a very silly, silly person if you believe that said system would be free from abuse, revolts and any such nasty occurrences which you seem to have swept under the carpet.

Kings word is final? How is that any different from a dictatorship? What if he decides that one day all the Jews, Muslims, Protestents and Atheists should be burned at the stake? The Catholic Church would probably be cheering on the streets and gathering firewood. But you can certainly bet that there would be a lot of bloodshed on either side.

Besides, the idea of divine rule is dependent upon keeping education among the masses limited so as to ensure submission and fear as the primary means of control. Education would only be available to nobility, clergy and royalty. That means the general collapse of organized commerce, government sponsored education for all citizens and probably mass illiteracy.

So if you like that form of government, why are you using a computer? You should be out grubbing in the dirt as a peasant. Unless you claim to be nobility, then you should be out oppressing the peasants.

Silly, silly, person.

Monarchy is fine by me as long as I'm the Emperor/King/Czar/Imperator ;)

I truly believe that the best and truest form of government in that of a traditional Catholic monarchy.

Monarchy I can actually somewhat agree with. While you lose the democratic ideal of the people electing their supreme leader[1], you could get a leader who has been trained to rule from birth. If this training is done well - which includes letting the prince live amongst the "common people" for a couple of years instead of throwing rose petals at him whereever he walks- you could get quite a good leader. Add a few chambers of elected advisors that represent the will of the people and voila: a semblance of democracy, with the added benefits of stability and competence at the top.

In theory. Practice could turn out differently...

The Catholic part to get moral superiority however will not work. Catholic morals are based on what God has dictated - whch means that if he hasn't dictated anything you must try to guess what his will would be instead of following a moral code with a basic reasoning behind it[2]. That is not a good basis for a (fair) legal system.

[1] Lets ignore for a moment that in many countries with a democratically elected government a majority doesn't care enough to vote anyway.
[2] Example: an action is "morally good" if it increases happyness or decreases suffering, and "morally bad" if it does the opposite. That this is incompatible with Catholic doctrine is for example seen in the euthanasia debate.

I'm not actually very fond of violence, but I hate monarchy with a passion and wouldn't shed a tear if the last remaining monarchies were overthrown. Monarchy rewards luck with power. Any idiot can become king if they are born in the right position.

I remind everyone to refrain from personal attacks against other NationStates players. Thank you.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I truly believe that the best and truest form of government in that of a traditional Catholic monarchy. Why? First off, there would be no political games that harm the people, and keep us waiting. I feel traditional Catholic monarchies are the best choice because they would obey the laws of the church, and not be immoral. If they were, then the church would deal with it. yes, I am a monarchist, a Catholic Monarchist.

You think the catholic church believes in morality?! :rolleyes:
Old Benedict Xvi will proably end up being canonized on the strength of how well he helps to spread the human tragedy of AIDS with his 'No condoms' stupidity :mad:

No condoms stupidity? That is wisdom, reactive Emotions. Sex is for creating life.

And on the no internet thing. That is ignorance. I belong to a Catholic Monarchist message board, there are countless toher monarchists online.

I'm with Alma Mater here. Constitutional Monarchies combine the best of both worlds, so long as the power of the monarch is equal to the combined power of the parliament/alternative elected advisors.

This would allow a parliament by unanimous vote to veto a decision of the Monarch that would have obviously disatrous consequences, thus eliminating the dangers of an occasional royal idiot.

However, getting any outside (or theoretically greater) power to confirm the legal legitimacy of the ruler would deny that person any true legitimacy in the eyes of the people. Thus having an external theocratic power would eliminate the sovereignty of (heh) the sovereign.

You think the catholic church believes in morality?! :rolleyes:
Old Benedict Xvi will proably end up being canonized on the strength of how well he helps to spread the human tragedy of AIDS with his 'No condoms' stupidity :mad:

You know, maybe they should STOP HAVING SEX!

The only AIDS victims are those who did nothing stupid yet contracted it anyways, and then made sure they took precautions to ensure that no one got it from them.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who contracted AIDS from screwing around too much -- it's their own fault, and now they will pay. AIDS could be quarentined if those with AIDS would stop spreading it! Anyone who is knowledgable about the fact that they have AIDS and commits an act that spreads it to someone else should be arrested for Murder in the First Degree, and left to die in their cell from their own stupidity via AIDS.

And you realize condoms are only some 40-60% effective? Not betting odds, my friend. Unless you're willing to gamble your life for a small amount of pleasure.

In which case I shall have no sympathy for you.
===========================
Anyways, back on topic:
===========================
Obviously, CR, I completely disagree with you. I'm a Protestant, and would immediately assassinate any and all kings who even think of making Catholicism the official religion.

Also,

God has granted the People inalienable rights, including the right to persue happiness, the right to persue prosperity, the right to life, the right to property, and the right to liberty. Any loyalty to a government that chooses to attempt to remove these Divinely-appointed rights is immediately dissolved, for these rights are granted by the Lord, and no man rises above Him.

Anyways, that's my four cents. (This opinion made me think when I'm tired and my brain is still in the Bahamas, so it costs more. :))

Obviously, CR, I completely disagree with you. I'm a Protestant, and would immediately assassinate any and all kings who even think of making Catholicism the official religion.


Assassination isn't even necessary. One supremely undertaught part of British history is the "Glorious Revolution" which brought William of Orange, King of the Netherlands, to the throne.

The inability of James II to work with Parliament, combined with his reckless Catholic appointments, brought both the political and religious spheres of the monarchy under fire again. The situation reached its climax in 1688. James established an alliance with Catholic France; arrested Archbishop Sancroft and six other bishops for failing to proclaim the Catholic faith; tampered with private property and historic rights; and produced a male heir after abandoning Anglicanism for Catholicism, which destroyed Parliament's hopes that the crown would pass to the Protestant children of James' first marriage. Parliament appealed to William of Orange, urging him to save England from a Catholic takeover. William gathered his forces and landed in England in November of 1688. William's professional troops and the welcome they received from the English landholders intimidated James. James was captured while fleeing from London, but William ensured him safe passage to France. James, feeling alone and realizing his lack of popular support, abdicated and accepted his exile in France. James made one attempt to regain the crown, but his French and Irish forces were soundly defeated at the Battle of Boyne and James returned to France to live the rest of his life in exile.

Which led to the creation of, among other things, the Bank of England and the British acquisition of the East India company.

A prime example of the main benefits of monarchy - the monarch has a genuine incentive to do well by his people or he gets removed and left with nothing (sometimes not even vitality). A democratic ruler fails in his duty? Then he doesn't get re-elected and leaves with nothing but a pension and a really big house in the country....

Monarchy - from the Greek mono- (one) and kratia- (rule)

....

I just don't see rule by one sole person as sustainible - which is why I favor minarchy (from Greek mini-/small and kratia-/rule; thus, rule by few)

You appear to have confused kratia here with archia: the words are monarchy and minarchy, rather than monocracy* and minocracy.


* all though this word does also exist meaning 'rule by a single individual'.

And you realize condoms are only some 40-60% effective? Not betting odds, my friend. Unless you're willing to gamble your life for a small amount of pleasure.

Source for those figures, please? I'm more used to seeing the statement that condoms are 99% effective if used properly, but due to people using them incorrectly this is lowered to 92%.

Assassination isn't even necessary. One supremely undertaught part of British history is the "Glorious Revolution" which brought William of Orange, King of the Netherlands, to the throne.

Ah, that's a very good point!

And I apologize, Bodies Without Organs, I cannot give them to you at this moment. I was taught them in my Health Class, and since I don't know or care much about it, I accept it until I see enough otherwise. I'd find others, but at the moment, I'm too tired/lazy to look. :D

. James made one attempt to regain the crown, but his French and Irish forces were soundly defeated at the Battle of Boyne and James returned to France to live the rest of his life in exile
Whats always funny is that it doesnt tell you that William had the support of the Pope, so it wasnt a straight Catholic vs. Protestant thing.

No condoms stupidity? That is wisdom, reactive Emotions. Sex is for creating life.

And on the no internet thing. That is ignorance. I belong to a Catholic Monarchist message board, there are countless toher monarchists online.

Then that proves the hypocrisy of the thing. The idea of divine right to rule is dependent on an ignorant masses who will unquestioningly accept such a governing system. Once general education reaches a certain level, people start to question, and if sufficient people question strongly enough, it becomes dissent, or outright rebellion. This is particularly compounded if you have a tyrant for a king. Idiots would be presumed to be managed or removed by the parliament so as to effectively gain full control of the ruling body.

With a Catholic Monarchy, or any complete monarchy for that matter, continued rulership requires that the masses remain ignorant of other means or those means be ridiculed as impractical and harmful to society as a whole. That also means ideas, particularly in regards to political restructuring or governance, must be suppressed. Due to the inevitable link that economics and politics usually have, that means the suppression of economic development in any direction that seeks to place significant economic power in the hands of anyone other than the monarchy.

As the Internet allows the free exchange of ideas and thoughts, that would be identified as a viable threat towards the ruling monarchy. In fact, it would be limited to only the highest classes of society. In this particular case, the priviledged nobility.

I must say that the only way a Monarchy could ever work with such a Theocratic backing would for it to be a Constitutional Monarchy, with the Legislative required to be directly elected. There must be some democracy in there. The Pope and a King are on the same level because both are autocratic so there has to be some form of balance, or a mediator, and that would have to be a legislative body of the people or you would only have repeats of the French Revolution.

The internet thing has NO substance. There are monarchies that have their own website. Also, I can say the same for democracy.

Democracy is based off the ideals of people voting on elected officials. online, their are certain groups which advocate monarchy. This goes agaisnt the democratic ideals. See how stupid it sounds?

Whats always funny is that it doesnt tell you that William had the support of the Pope, so it wasnt a straight Catholic vs. Protestant thing.

Never mind the fact that it wasn't actually fought on the 12th...

being a catholic I kinda agree with this point. I think it is wholly unfair how their cannot be a catholic monarch on the throne (at least not in Britain)...this law should have been repealed a long time ago. however, i dont think it would be right to force a catholic monarchy upon a mainly Protestant country...it would be pretty much the reverse of what is going in northern ireland...where they are forcing a minority Prod ruling on a majoirty Catholic country. In my opinion, they should give every protestant in northern ireland a 6month warning to get the fuck out of the country and go back to england/scotland where most of them came from anyway...anyone left after those 6months should either be shot or forcefully deported (their choice).

but thats straying from the point...basically, yes the british monarchy should allow catholics to sit on the throne, but this should not be forced upon the country

The internet thing has NO substance. There are monarchies that have their own website. Also, I can say the same for democracy.

Democracy is based off the ideals of people voting on elected officials. online, their are certain groups which advocate monarchy. This goes agaisnt the democratic ideals. See how stupid it sounds?

No, you see a monarchy would not allow people to talk out against it, you say the Kings a f*****g big bag of doggy b*****s, they are gonna find a rope and a tree for you. Democracy, for the most part, allows the discussion of ideas, even the ones that go against the democratic principle. I can say Tony Blair is a complete and utter f*****g big bag of doggy b*****s but I won't get killed for it.

And considering the record of Catholic Monarchies, its not gonna be a very benevolent rule...

*Badly dressed Cut Me Own Throat Dibbler style salesman*

Inquisitions! 2 for a Dollar! Anybody want some lovely red hot probing pokers? Perfect for getting the truth and intestines out of any heretic! :D

MMMMMMMmmmmmm catholic monarchies....

*Badly dressed Cut Me Own Throat Dibbler style salesman*

Inquisitions! 2 for a Dollar! Anybody want some lovely red hot probing pokers? Perfect for getting the truth and intestines out of any heretic! :D

MMMMMMMmmmmmm catholic monarchies....

I would care for a sausage-inna-bun.

The only AIDS victims are those who did nothing stupid yet contracted it anyways, and then made sure they took precautions to ensure that no one got it from them.

Agreed. However:

I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who contracted AIDS from screwing around too much -- it's their own fault, and now they will pay.

You are assuming that those people:
a. know what AIDS is
b. know how it is spread
c. know how to prevent the spreading.
d. live in a society that will not avoid AIDS sufferers like the plague, making them social outcasts.

Considering a lot of people in developed nations don't know these things, how can you expect an African with no education to speak of to understand ? The concept of virii which you cannot see, but can harm you alone is quite complex. Or how is someone to blame who has had an education but was never told anything about this, because his government considers it a disease only gay people can get ?

Anyone who is knowledgable about the fact that they have AIDS and commits an act that spreads it to someone else should be arrested for Murder in the First Degree, and left to die in their cell from their own stupidity via AIDS.
Assuming they know and how they spread it. And that raping a baby will not make it better.

And you realize condoms are only some 40-60% effective? Not betting odds, my friend. Unless you're willing to gamble your life for a small amount of pleasure.

Effective for what ? To prevent AIDS and pregnancy the percentage is well over 90, using a quality one over 98%.

I would care for a sausage-inna-bun.

*Puts red hot poker in a bun*

There you go Sir or Madam, high iron sausage in a bun.

I truly believe that the best and truest form of government in that of a traditional Catholic monarchy. Why? First off, there would be no political games that harm the people, and keep us waiting. I feel traditional Catholic monarchies are the best choice because they would obey the laws of the church, and not be immoral. If they were, then the church would deal with it. yes, I am a monarchist, a Catholic Monarchist.

cough Fruitbat cough. Lets all skip through fields of corn, while holding hands and singing.

Everyone has an opinion...some really do have the wrong opinion.
Ah the good ol days of Ferdinand and Isabella-Discoverying new worlds, then destroying entire civilisations, murder, mayhem, and bit of witch buring on the side! Those were the days. I vote we restore the Vatican City to its rightfull place as head of the Empire....I'm off to get me pitch fork :D

*Puts red hot poker in a bun*

There you go Sir or Madam, high iron sausage in a bun.

Thanks a lot, Sir that is. if I can keep the first one inside I might come back for a second go around while enjoying the spectacle going on.

*looking around, waiting for someone to loose his head*

being a catholic I kinda agree with this point. I think it is wholly unfair how their cannot be a catholic monarch on the throne (at least not in Britain)...this law should have been repealed a long time ago. however, b

Hee Hee-A possible explanation as to why William appears to ha ve little interest in the Throne..He's a secret Catholic!


i dont think it would be right to force a catholic monarchy upon a mainly Protestant country...it would be pretty much the reverse of what is going in northern ireland...where they are forcing a minority Prod ruling on a majoirty Catholic country. In my opinion, they should give every protestant in northern ireland a 6month warning to get the fuck out of the country and go back to england/scotland where most of them came from anyway...anyone left after those 6months should either be shot or forcefully deported (their choice).


As for the rest of your ignorant comments. Grow up and get a girlfriend! This kinda of idiotic thought went out with Dev and I don't mean his grand daughter. Most of the Protestants from N Irl- are, can you imagine born there,hence having come from there? Hmm a novel thought.

Change the type of monarchy from Catholic to Protestant and we'll be getting somewhere :)

I truly believe that the best and truest form of government in that of a traditional Catholic monarchy. Why? First off, there would be no political games that harm the people, and keep us waiting. I feel traditional Catholic monarchies are the best choice because they would obey the laws of the church, and not be immoral. If they were, then the church would deal with it. yes, I am a monarchist, a Catholic Monarchist.


Definition of Catholic Monarchy - Taking it up the butt from the local priest, who also happens to be the mayor.

theres a reason it was called the dark ages .....

Definition of Catholic Monarchy - Taking it up the butt from the local priest, who also happens to be the mayor.
First of all, I take offence to that. How dare you insult my religion. I though you wwere about tolerance.

theres a reason it was called the dark ages .....

Problem being that it also existed outside of the dark ages

I truly believe that the best and truest form of government in that of a traditional Catholic monarchy. Why? First off, there would be no political games that harm the people, and keep us waiting. I feel traditional Catholic monarchies are the best choice because they would obey the laws of the church, and not be immoral. If they were, then the church would deal with it. yes, I am a monarchist, a Catholic Monarchist.

Learn some history first.

where they are forcing a minority Prod ruling on a majoirty Catholic country. In my opinion, they should give every protestant in northern ireland a 6month warning to get the fuck out of the country and go back to england/scotland where most of them came from anyway...anyone left after those 6months should either be shot or forcefully deported (their choice).


Your ignorance is showing again dearie.

I'd tuck it back in if I were you.

In principle you're right, and in practice you're not wrong, either. It didn't work out too bad for France, Spain or Portugal.

The main argument against monarchy is that there's no way to establish whether a King is smart or honest enough for the job just because he's the son of the previous King, but I see little way to establish that in a democracy (insert jab at W. Bush). Historically, Kings and President also alternate between the grand (Louis XIV, FDR) and the mediocre (Carter, Louis XVI). A good argument for monarchy that I've never been able to fully discount is that when you're a prince you are brought up for the job of running the country from day one, which as a qualification will always be better than a pol-sci degree from Harvard.

However, a country's regime is largely a condition of its socio-economical makeup. A population which is largely middle-class and educated will have a tendancy to sit around the house doing nothing after work, and therefore question their government, claim some civil rights and build some form of democracy. A monarchy or other form of authoritarian power only works in a society where the vast majority are apolitical, i.e. peasants who have better to do than to care about how they're being (b)led.

Therefore, in a modern society, a Catholic monarchy would either have to become a token symbol atop a democracy like in Northern Europe, or be overthrown and replaced by a regime more suitable to the day like in France or Austria. We can sit all day and discuss utopias, but at some point you've got to take realities into account.

Yes, let's have an intrinsically unjust system of government based upon a twisted and arbitrary code of moral bankruptcy. It can't fail!

Can I be in charge of stoning the Protestants?

First of all, I take offence to that. How dare you insult my religion. I though you wwere about tolerance.

I don't recall the Monarchies of the past being all that much about tolerance either. And the Catholics certainly didn't have much in the way of that either on their record.

I have been thinking. Democracy is a good way to go.
See, conservatives can change their minds!

Earlier someone said something about the Inquisition. The Inquisition killed something like two thousand. It prevented witch trials in Spain, which killed tens of thousands in other countries. And an Inquisition could happen in a Republic.