Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
Hmmm......giving one person total and abolute control over society, with the power to do whatever they please including enslaving and killing anyone they want for whatever reason they want, with no checks and balances, and vesting this power in this person based on nothing more than the fact they happen to be the child of the previous ruler is not a bad thing?
I'd have to disagree.
Cheers,
PKFFW
|
That's not monarchy: that's dictatorship :P
You've described "a governement where the ruler has absolute control over his people and is above and beyond the law"
A monarchy is a government where "the highest ruling body is a single person, whose right to govern is inherited by birth and not decided by election or other means of selection".
Europe is FULL of monarchies, and none of the kings or queens has the powers that you describe
Beside, speaking in PURE THEORY (mind you, it's PURE THEORY) you *could* have a dictatorship where people is happy and rich: all it takes is an enlightened dictator.
Obviously, it doesn't happen often (or rather, it doesn't happen AT ALL) because it's all too obvious that people change when they have power in their hand, and tend to abuse it. It's more frequent to have a BAD dictator than a GOOD dictator.
But any chosen system is not good or bad
per se: for any system, you CAN have good rulers or BAD rulers, all you can say is that it is
easier to have BAD rulers or that it is
easier to have BAD rulers.
History tells us that even republics and democratic governments can turn bad. VERY bad. It just happens less often than with monarchies, and it takes
less effort and less blood to turn down a president than a monarch or a dictator, so having to choose the least among the possible evils, one chooses democratic governments.