[SHpuntik]

Pro-monarchial? Are there really people left in western countries that are pro-monarchial? Why are all the non-American democracies so darn backwards?

[bug_user]

It doesn't meet Ozzy's standards of how everyone should want to be like the Yanks.

[Appeselve]

Monarchy

[oxixernibioge]

Two compelling arguments.

[Jackson]

Ah. See post #6.

[robinthesearchmasterh]

Only Communists, Americans and the French are against monarchy.

[Waymninelia]

Wiki says it was in Queensland in 1987 and that the Governor behaved properly.

It amounts to the monarchy being a check against bad, or very bad, government.

I'm quite happy having a head of state and representative who do not do very much at all except arrive at good decisions in the uncommon event that it matters.

That, and it is easy to control the expenses of the monarch and GGs. They don't have much of a mandate to argue for a larger role and more money for budgets.

Electing some twit to the same office would be much worse than what we've got, as that twit would not feel the constraints that the royals and the appointed representatives do.

[Sthjrderfida]

Hey! I've been anti-boat since before it was popular. Stupid nautical vessels that think they are better than submarines. Yeah, well try hiding from pirates, you arrogant bastards!

Alternative post:

Australia has politics?!!

[UitEz0Qo]

I can't wait for the US Justice Department to sue Australia over its attempts to stem illegal immigration.

[wp6Eg2Fm]

I can't wait for the US Justice Department to sue Australia over its attempts to stem illegal immigration.

I thought the US has a law saying you can't sue sovereign states.

Australia best retain the sovereign.

[casinobonusese]

Democracy: The God That Failed

The German guy who wrote this books is in favor of Monarchy at least compared to Democracy.

In June 2005, Hoppe gave an interview in the German newspaper Junge Freiheit, in which he characterized monarchy as a lesser evil than democracy, calling the latter mob rule and saying, "Liberty instead of democracy!" In the interview Hoppe also condemned the French revolution as belonging in "the same category of vile revolutions as well as the Bolshevik revolution and the Nazi revolution," because the French revolution led to "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War."[10] Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else. The American model – democracy – must be regarded as a historical error, economically as well as morally. Democracy promotes shortsightedness, capital waste, irresponsibility, and moral relativism. It leads to permanent compulsory income and wealth redistribution and legal uncertainty. It is counterproductive. It promotes demagoguery and egalitarianism. It is aggressive and potentially totalitarian internally, vis-à-vis its own population, as well as externally. In sum, it leads to a dramatic growth of state power, as manifested by the amount of parasitically – by means of taxation and expropriation – appropriated government income and wealth in relation to the amount of productively – through market exchange – acquired private income and wealth, and by the range and invasiveness of state legislation. Democracy is doomed to collapse, just as Soviet communism was doomed to collapse. So it appears he agrees with Kitschum.

[mp3 free]

Register me as another who would be just fine if the guillotine were started back up to complete the job.

[ZesePreodaNed]

But did someone on here say they have actual political powers of some kind?

Yep.

Appoint and dismiss prime ministers, summon and dissolve parliament, and approve or withold approval of legislation. They are called reserve powers.

Someone has to wield them. The question is if it is better to have a non-partisan appointee or hereditary monarch in that position or would it be better to have a politician filling the post.

19 years out of 20, or 49 out of 50, or some such, everything is running smoothly and the appointing of PMs, summoning and dissolving of parliaments, etc goes without a hitch according to accepted norms. Then there's the odd (usually) situation where a PM and his or her government may want to stretch the boundaries of what is constitutional (like stick around in government when it is not clear that they are properly doing so). Then we have a controversy as the PM would be asking the monarch or GG to do or not do something with questionable or unclear legal basis. The controversy may be increased if the Queen or GG denies the PM.

When the powers are used in such a controversial situation it is the politicians who have screwed things up. IMO it is better that a non-political person use the reserve powers with the benefit of legal and scholarly advice.

[logpogingg]

First of all, it would be better if you had clearer rules governing those situations so there wouldn't be such vague boundaries of what is and isn't allowed.

Second, why not have courts handle that? Judges who spend their lives studying and understanding the law. I'd think they'd render better decisions in those situations than someone whose only qualification is being the son or daughter of the previous king.

[tobaccoman]

This is not rocket science. Just have your head of state elected separately. Problem solved.

[himecthekWiff]

Because then the head of state would be accountable to the people.

[glasscollector]

Because then the head of state would be accountable to the people.

So, why are your supreme court justices not elected?

[sonsayx]

So, why are your supreme court justices not elected?

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't have any problem with that. But even if they are not directly accountable, the people who appointed them and vetted them in public hearings are accountable.

[23InetrySypekek]

Can the queen veto this choice?

[TheBestCheapestOEM]

Choice of nominee for GG?

Yes, theoretically

It took over 200 years for a Bush v. Gore to happen. I no longer think that we can get by calling these possibilities theoretical.