Source : Sa sale gueule de narbonoides peut-être
Suomen voimat näytetään, Keinot karskit käytetään !
Sponsorisé
Connectez-vous pour masquer les pubs
Toujours mieux que la clique qui nous dirige actuellement nonobstant.
Monarchism is perhaps one of the most misunderstood political systems in the world. Most people have moved away from the idea of monarchism because they deem it to be an old system from the Middle Ages that is in no way superior to modern republics. Majority of us are probably already familiar with the stereotypical presentation of a king or Emperor a man sitting on a Golden Throne in his castle hoarding all the money for himself living a life full of luxury. All the while his subjects lack basic needs like food and health care This sort of stereotype has been portrayed in many cartoons movies and comic books and thanks to these stereotypes many people have the impression that a king is something backwards from days gone by, and insists that people who still believe in the ideology of monarchism are anti-progressive, stuck in the medieval area. The questions are usuaally the sames : Why do we need a king today? Don't you believe that people need to have a say in who runs their nation? Won't the king trample our freedoms? Isn't monarchy just a dictator or a tyrant? First myth and claim about monarchism is that monarchism is just too expensive. Why should we pay money to one man who can then choose to spend it on whatever he wants? Not only is the claim that all tax money goes to the Monarch completely false, but also that it doesn't really work that way and it's not as black and white as it may seem. United Kingdom as an example. Currently the government pays around 100 million pounds each year to maintain the royal family which means that an average British citizen pays the royal family around 4.5 pounds each year through taxes which is certainly not a lot. One thing almost never mentioned is the fact that the royal family personally holds a good chunk of land known as the Royal Estate. And it is true these Estates that the royal family earns about 312 million pounds each year or to be exact it's what they should be earning.
Every single British monarch since the times of George III has voluntarily turned over all the profits from the estate towards the government. In return the government would give them an annual salary meaning that the United Kingdom earns around 200 million pounds every year thanks to the Royal Family. The Royals are perfectly able to sustain themselves without taxpayer money and would be earning three times more than what they already earn. If the Royals decided to take back all their deserved revenue from the Estates, the government would actually be losing money, which in return means that taxes would be increased on ordinary citizens and not decreased as many would believe. Some might ask : why don't we just confiscate all that land and take all the profits for ourselves? In this case, if the crown Estates were privatized the government would only be earning a specified amount from the corporate tax and all other revenues would go to the company itself. So the United Kingdom would still be losing more money and only getting a small amount of the revenue. Point being it is thanks to the royal family that the average British citizen is paying less in taxes than they would if the monarchy was abolished. Thanks to the fact that royal family generously hands over all their privately earned profit to the government in exchange for a fixed salary. Not only that but historically monarchs have taxed the people just enough so they could rule without problems and the people weren't so much taxed to have the need to revolt. Modern monarchs usually have side businesses that pay people or organize charity events but they pay completely. Another example is the Habsburgs who also got their money from the government. By the 19th century care to guess how much of the state budget was allocated to maintain the Habsburg family. Only about 0.5 to 1% of the state budget, which in that period was the same amount spent on the construction of new roads.
Under monarchies the Monarch has to think in terms of his or her lifespan. If he taxes the nation into poverty, in just a couple years he'll become destitute. If he wants to pass the state to his children he needs to have a long time preference because they are like owners of property. Since the state is theirs, they don't want to damage it and our encouraged tax the minimum needed to achieve his desired living stuttered slash goals. And then leave the rest of the economy to maximize its growth so they can work on long time projects that will affect positively the nation and don't cause problems for when their children will rule. The opposite of a " democratic society " where its leaders are not the owners of the state but renters of it. Thus no reason to make long-time improvements. No Democratic leader owns their society and so has no incentive to think beyond the next election. And this is why politicians are so negligent with spending inflation that. And unlike a king and his heirs, democratic leaders don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions. So to maximize their impact, they begin to spend as much money as quickly as possible before their term expires thus destroying the whole nation. Monarchs do not hoard all the taxpayer money for themselves and spend it on whatever they want. Rather monarchists come of economic benefit to the nation and the entire population. Monarchs have an actual reason to invest into their country because their children will inherit it in the end unlike democratic leaders who can come to power spend as much money as possible and leave so that the next one may deal with the issues. One of the most popular arguments against a monarchy is to say : " Why should someone by virtue of being born to the right parents have the right to exert power whether absolute or not over anyone else? "
To this I want to ask a simple question. Is there a completely Fair Way for someone to get into a high position of power? Why should someone who said the right kind of words to the right kind of people hold power over the entire nation. Not to mention the numerous ways these people get into positions of power in a republic. ust because someone for example became president of a democratic nation through seemingly democratic means doesn't mean that they got that position 100% fairly. Think about all the times these people used corruption to their advantage, how they can be greedy and just how many times they lied to the very people that got them into power. But sure it is more fair just because more people approve of them. A monarch or specifically an heir doesn't need to start a campaign, lie to his people and use corruption because his possession of power is already solidified from the very moment he or she exists in his mother's womb. In this case all that needs to be done is to educate the young heir on how to run the nation as he gets older. And most of the time monarchs who were educated from a young age on what to do and how to run the nation where they get into power have a higher possibility of being better rulers than a president who got into office from absolutely no previous experience or knowledge on what to do in that position.
Also it is important to say that having an heir makes politics and geopolitics much easier in that nation. You cannot rig whoever becomes the next Monarch the same way one can rig an election nor can you say for certain who will win the next election or elections afterwards. Unlike in a monarchy where you can say with confidence exactly who will be in charge for the next couple of decades. Not to mention that inheritance is not just something practiced by a certain royal family rather normal day people practice it as well. For example a farmer will almost always let his son or Sons inherit his farm with all the fruits and vegetables. Even businesses are known to be passed down from the father to the son or daughter. Even in this modern world one can still find the businesses that pass down the ownership to their relatives. If one can inherit property wealth furniture and titles why is it so horrible to imagine that a person will inherit power as well? One cannot deny that in our modern world today, the idea of democracy is one of the most important systems, a nation should have the belief that the people should have a right to elect their leaders and steer the nation in the way they want it to go. And in most of cases, monarchism are seen as anti democratic. The truth of the matter is monarchism is not mutually exclusive with democracy. People tend to mix up the term democracy with republic that a democracy can only truly exist in a Republican state. But history has shown otherwise. If we look at the nations of Europe after the age of enlightenment we will see that the majority of monarchs at the turn of the 20th century were constitutional and had a democratic system already in place. Whereas when we look at republics from that point forward we will find that republics were vastly more authoritarian than your average European monarchy.
Monarchism is perhaps one of the most misunderstood political systems in the world. Most people have moved away from the idea of monarchism because they deem it to be an old system from the Middle Ages that is in no way superior to modern republics. Majority of us are probably already familiar with the stereotypical presentation of a king or Emperor a man sitting on a Golden Throne in his castle hoarding all the money for himself living a life full of luxury. All the while his subjects lack basic needs like food and health care This sort of stereotype has been portrayed in many cartoons movies and comic books and thanks to these stereotypes many people have the impression that a king is something backwards from days gone by, and insists that people who still believe in the ideology of monarchism are anti-progressive, stuck in the medieval area. The questions are usuaally the sames : Why do we need a king today? Don't you believe that people need to have a say in who runs their nation? Won't the king trample our freedoms? Isn't monarchy just a dictator or a tyrant? First myth and claim about monarchism is that monarchism is just too expensive. Why should we pay money to one man who can then choose to spend it on whatever he wants? Not only is the claim that all tax money goes to the Monarch completely false, but also that it doesn't really work that way and it's not as black and white as it may seem. United Kingdom as an example. Currently the government pays around 100 million pounds each year to maintain the royal family which means that an average British citizen pays the royal family around 4.5 pounds each year through taxes which is certainly not a lot. One thing almost never mentioned is the fact that the royal family personally holds a good chunk of land known as the Royal Estate. And it is true these Estates that the royal family earns about 312 million pounds each year or to be exact it's what they should be earning.
Every single British monarch since the times of George III has voluntarily turned over all the profits from the estate towards the government. In return the government would give them an annual salary meaning that the United Kingdom earns around 200 million pounds every year thanks to the Royal Family. The Royals are perfectly able to sustain themselves without taxpayer money and would be earning three times more than what they already earn. If the Royals decided to take back all their deserved revenue from the Estates, the government would actually be losing money, which in return means that taxes would be increased on ordinary citizens and not decreased as many would believe. Some might ask : why don't we just confiscate all that land and take all the profits for ourselves? In this case, if the crown Estates were privatized the government would only be earning a specified amount from the corporate tax and all other revenues would go to the company itself. So the United Kingdom would still be losing more money and only getting a small amount of the revenue. Point being it is thanks to the royal family that the average British citizen is paying less in taxes than they would if the monarchy was abolished. Thanks to the fact that royal family generously hands over all their privately earned profit to the government in exchange for a fixed salary. Not only that but historically monarchs have taxed the people just enough so they could rule without problems and the people weren't so much taxed to have the need to revolt. Modern monarchs usually have side businesses that pay people or organize charity events but they pay completely. Another example is the Habsburgs who also got their money from the government. By the 19th century care to guess how much of the state budget was allocated to maintain the Habsburg family. Only about 0.5 to 1% of the state budget, which in that period was the same amount spent on the construction of new roads.
Under monarchies the Monarch has to think in terms of his or her lifespan. If he taxes the nation into poverty, in just a couple years he'll become destitute. If he wants to pass the state to his children he needs to have a long time preference because they are like owners of property. Since the state is theirs, they don't want to damage it and our encouraged tax the minimum needed to achieve his desired living stuttered slash goals. And then leave the rest of the economy to maximize its growth so they can work on long time projects that will affect positively the nation and don't cause problems for when their children will rule. The opposite of a " democratic society " where its leaders are not the owners of the state but renters of it. Thus no reason to make long-time improvements. No Democratic leader owns their society and so has no incentive to think beyond the next election. And this is why politicians are so negligent with spending inflation that. And unlike a king and his heirs, democratic leaders don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions. So to maximize their impact, they begin to spend as much money as quickly as possible before their term expires thus destroying the whole nation. Monarchs do not hoard all the taxpayer money for themselves and spend it on whatever they want. Rather monarchists come of economic benefit to the nation and the entire population. Monarchs have an actual reason to invest into their country because their children will inherit it in the end unlike democratic leaders who can come to power spend as much money as possible and leave so that the next one may deal with the issues. One of the most popular arguments against a monarchy is to say : " Why should someone by virtue of being born to the right parents have the right to exert power whether absolute or not over anyone else? "
To this I want to ask a simple question. Is there a completely Fair Way for someone to get into a high position of power? Why should someone who said the right kind of words to the right kind of people hold power over the entire nation. Not to mention the numerous ways these people get into positions of power in a republic. ust because someone for example became president of a democratic nation through seemingly democratic means doesn't mean that they got that position 100% fairly. Think about all the times these people used corruption to their advantage, how they can be greedy and just how many times they lied to the very people that got them into power. But sure it is more fair just because more people approve of them. A monarch or specifically an heir doesn't need to start a campaign, lie to his people and use corruption because his possession of power is already solidified from the very moment he or she exists in his mother's womb. In this case all that needs to be done is to educate the young heir on how to run the nation as he gets older. And most of the time monarchs who were educated from a young age on what to do and how to run the nation where they get into power have a higher possibility of being better rulers than a president who got into office from absolutely no previous experience or knowledge on what to do in that position.
Also it is important to say that having an heir makes politics and geopolitics much easier in that nation. You cannot rig whoever becomes the next Monarch the same way one can rig an election nor can you say for certain who will win the next election or elections afterwards. Unlike in a monarchy where you can say with confidence exactly who will be in charge for the next couple of decades. Not to mention that inheritance is not just something practiced by a certain royal family rather normal day people practice it as well. For example a farmer will almost always let his son or Sons inherit his farm with all the fruits and vegetables. Even businesses are known to be passed down from the father to the son or daughter. Even in this modern world one can still find the businesses that pass down the ownership to their relatives. If one can inherit property wealth furniture and titles why is it so horrible to imagine that a person will inherit power as well? One cannot deny that in our modern world today, the idea of democracy is one of the most important systems, a nation should have the belief that the people should have a right to elect their leaders and steer the nation in the way they want it to go. And in most of cases, monarchism are seen as anti democratic. The truth of the matter is monarchism is not mutually exclusive with democracy. People tend to mix up the term democracy with republic that a democracy can only truly exist in a Republican state. But history has shown otherwise. If we look at the nations of Europe after the age of enlightenment we will see that the majority of monarchs at the turn of the 20th century were constitutional and had a democratic system already in place. Whereas when we look at republics from that point forward we will find that republics were vastly more authoritarian than your average European monarchy.
Sinon, à choisir le type de monarchie : monarchie décentralisée ou rien.
The truth is democracy and republicanism are definitely not the same thing. A republic is not always a democracy as history has shown us with countries like the USSR Yugoslavia the federal republic of Austria and the list goes on. By definition democracy is " Asystem of government in which the people of a country can elect their representatives. " Source : Oxford Dictionary. That is exactly how democracy works in monarchies. While the people cannot vote for the head of state, being the king, they can still very much vote for their representatives like the Prime Minister members of parliament and also the leaders of their local administration. And then these Representatives will work alongside the king to ensure the stability of the country. But of course just like with republics, marquis are not immune to autocracies as we have seen with a few Royal dictatorships and absolute monarchies. But the vast majority of monarchies specifically in Europe at the turn of the 20th century were constitutional like for example the United Kingdom which is still a monarchy to this day with a democratic system. We know for a fact that the first record that constitutional monarchy in the world was the Hittite Empire from over 1 500 before JC, where while the King was the supreme ruler of the land. Many officials exercised independent authority over various branches of the government. Point being democracy is not mutually exclusive with monarchism specifically in a constitutional monarchy where elections can still be held and where people may elect their representatives. And republics are not always democracies either. If anything the majority of republics in 20th century were more authoritarian than monarchies.
One could still use the argument that constitutional monarchies are just crowned republics but as long as there is a king on the throne even if he is just ceremonial then the country is still by definition a monarchy. For many people the term monarchy evokes images of knights in shining armor and kings and queens from days long past. This image perpetuates the idea that the monarchy is an inherently outdated system that cannot possibly function in the modern post-industrial age. But this assumption is completely false and misleading the institution of monarchy is not only compatible with the modern world and as effective as Republican systems. But in my opinion and the opinion of many others it is even better than the alternatives. This notion stems from the fact that in most people's minds the terms, democracy and republic are synonymous, and that monarchies and democracies are incompatible. Nevertheless 43 countries in the world still have some form of monarchy today. So it is not as unpopular as one might first think. Not only are almost a quarter of the world's country still monarchies but of the 10 countries with the highest quality of life, 5 are monarchies. So how is it that an outdated system is not only still practiced in many countries but also produces one of the highest quality of life for its citizens? The answer is simple : it's not an outdated system. First of all if you say that monarchy is an outdated system because it was created thousands of years ago then surely you must agree that democracy is equally outdated because it was already practiced in ancient Greece. Just because a system has been practiced for a long time does not mean that it cannot adapt to the times. Secondly monarchies has proven time and time again that they can work well alongside democracies. As I have explained previously most monarchs that still exist have adapted to the modern world The days when monarchs ruled by the grace of God are long gone.
Instead they now rule based on a social contract in which both the Monarch and the people live in a symbiotic relationship. The Monarch also acts as a neutral voice in a democratic system, representing all citizens of a country, not just those who voted for the largest political party. This example can be seen many any country such as Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc... Even in the days of absolute monarchs and feudal Lords, people like Charlemagne and Louis XIV could only dream of the powers that presidents and prime ministers have in some republics, which shows that the monarchies can work better in some cases. From all this we can see that the institution of monarchy is not Obsolete and can function well in modern society. Corruption is one of the biggest issues a government can face and considering how much people talk about corrupt politicians and rulers; it's no surprise that many like to say that monarchy is a corrupt system in of itself. Just because someone has political power and is wealthy does not make them inherently corrupt. Nevertheless if we look at history we'll find that there were indeed a few corrupt Kings or Emperors. But as I said only few the reason being is that monarchs don't really have a reason to be corrupt. The main reason why people engage in corruption in the first place is because of two things money and power. But monarchs are already covered with both of these things from the moment they are born so the moment they let out their last breath. This is the reason why so many monarchs weren't corrupt simply because they didn't need to engage in corruption.
Some may point to a few monarchs like King Louis XVI and Nicholas II whose countries were embroiled in Revolution due to their " corruption " of hosting Hosting parties and presumably not caring about the lower classes. But that isn't corruption, it's just negligence and most people confuse acts of negligence for acts of corruption. About republics in the other hand, there are a lot to unravel. I wouldn't really say that republics are inherently more corrupt but rather they open up the possibility of corruption a lot more. So many politicians Prime Ministers and presidents have been embroiled in corruption scandals and court cases that it's almost impossible to keep track of them all. That's why today when we hear that the politician is exposed for corruption, we don't act shocked we just see it as another Tuesday. There are plenty of reasons why politicians are so likely to turn to corruption and it always includes power and money. Monarchs don't really have a reason to engage in corruption because they are already secured of both. Politicians on the other hand have every reason to engage in them. Their positions are always temporary, a couple years at most and they are out. So they try to make the best of their status as they can get as much money and power as possible before their time is up. This is all made worse with a system of lobbying in a democratic Republic. For those who are not aware lobbying is the act of persuasion in politics for politicians to support a certain decision which they in the beginning did not support or were neutral. And I think you can definitely see how corrupt this system can get since majority of the time, politicians get deprived by a certain group to support a bill that is in their favor a famous.
Example of this is when Walt Disney lobbied Congress to reform the copyright system just so they could retain personal ownership of their character Mickey Mouse. If anything the modern world has proven, it's that corruption is a lot more rampant in republics. It does not mean the republicanism is a corrupt system in of itself in fact I do not believe any system is inherently corrupt. But just like with republics it doesn't mean monarchism is corruption free especially when we consider the parliaments. But to say that the Monarch is corrupt in of itself is an entirely different story. Monarchy is obviously not a perfect system in fact no political system in this world is perfect but the amount of slander gets from people who do not fully understand or comprehend it is just unfair.
Being a monarch is also one of the most difficult position in the world. King stands alone against all who wish harm upon his people. He without a sense of safety has to have the will and duty to fight against all the evil in the world. Think about this and all the burdens this man has to carry the expectations he needs to meet and the duty that he has think of all this. If you ever envy the position of a monarch, think about this. As Fulke Greville stated : " The greatest slave in a Kingdom is generally the King of it. "
The truth is democracy and republicanism are definitely not the same thing. A republic is not always a democracy as history has shown us with countries like the USSR Yugoslavia the federal republic of Austria and the list goes on. By definition democracy is " Asystem of government in which the people of a country can elect their representatives. " Source : Oxford Dictionary. That is exactly how democracy works in monarchies. While the people cannot vote for the head of state, being the king, they can still very much vote for their representatives like the Prime Minister members of parliament and also the leaders of their local administration. And then these Representatives will work alongside the king to ensure the stability of the country. But of course just like with republics, marquis are not immune to autocracies as we have seen with a few Royal dictatorships and absolute monarchies. But the vast majority of monarchies specifically in Europe at the turn of the 20th century were constitutional like for example the United Kingdom which is still a monarchy to this day with a democratic system. We know for a fact that the first record that constitutional monarchy in the world was the Hittite Empire from over 1 500 before JC, where while the King was the supreme ruler of the land. Many officials exercised independent authority over various branches of the government. Point being democracy is not mutually exclusive with monarchism specifically in a constitutional monarchy where elections can still be held and where people may elect their representatives. And republics are not always democracies either. If anything the majority of republics in 20th century were more authoritarian than monarchies.
One could still use the argument that constitutional monarchies are just crowned republics but as long as there is a king on the throne even if he is just ceremonial then the country is still by definition a monarchy. For many people the term monarchy evokes images of knights in shining armor and kings and queens from days long past. This image perpetuates the idea that the monarchy is an inherently outdated system that cannot possibly function in the modern post-industrial age. But this assumption is completely false and misleading the institution of monarchy is not only compatible with the modern world and as effective as Republican systems. But in my opinion and the opinion of many others it is even better than the alternatives. This notion stems from the fact that in most people's minds the terms, democracy and republic are synonymous, and that monarchies and democracies are incompatible. Nevertheless 43 countries in the world still have some form of monarchy today. So it is not as unpopular as one might first think. Not only are almost a quarter of the world's country still monarchies but of the 10 countries with the highest quality of life, 5 are monarchies. So how is it that an outdated system is not only still practiced in many countries but also produces one of the highest quality of life for its citizens? The answer is simple : it's not an outdated system. First of all if you say that monarchy is an outdated system because it was created thousands of years ago then surely you must agree that democracy is equally outdated because it was already practiced in ancient Greece. Just because a system has been practiced for a long time does not mean that it cannot adapt to the times. Secondly monarchies has proven time and time again that they can work well alongside democracies. As I have explained previously most monarchs that still exist have adapted to the modern world The days when monarchs ruled by the grace of God are long gone.
Instead they now rule based on a social contract in which both the Monarch and the people live in a symbiotic relationship. The Monarch also acts as a neutral voice in a democratic system, representing all citizens of a country, not just those who voted for the largest political party. This example can be seen many any country such as Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc... Even in the days of absolute monarchs and feudal Lords, people like Charlemagne and Louis XIV could only dream of the powers that presidents and prime ministers have in some republics, which shows that the monarchies can work better in some cases. From all this we can see that the institution of monarchy is not Obsolete and can function well in modern society. Corruption is one of the biggest issues a government can face and considering how much people talk about corrupt politicians and rulers; it's no surprise that many like to say that monarchy is a corrupt system in of itself. Just because someone has political power and is wealthy does not make them inherently corrupt. Nevertheless if we look at history we'll find that there were indeed a few corrupt Kings or Emperors. But as I said only few the reason being is that monarchs don't really have a reason to be corrupt. The main reason why people engage in corruption in the first place is because of two things money and power. But monarchs are already covered with both of these things from the moment they are born so the moment they let out their last breath. This is the reason why so many monarchs weren't corrupt simply because they didn't need to engage in corruption.
Some may point to a few monarchs like King Louis XVI and Nicholas II whose countries were embroiled in Revolution due to their " corruption " of hosting Hosting parties and presumably not caring about the lower classes. But that isn't corruption, it's just negligence and most people confuse acts of negligence for acts of corruption. About republics in the other hand, there are a lot to unravel. I wouldn't really say that republics are inherently more corrupt but rather they open up the possibility of corruption a lot more. So many politicians Prime Ministers and presidents have been embroiled in corruption scandals and court cases that it's almost impossible to keep track of them all. That's why today when we hear that the politician is exposed for corruption, we don't act shocked we just see it as another Tuesday. There are plenty of reasons why politicians are so likely to turn to corruption and it always includes power and money. Monarchs don't really have a reason to engage in corruption because they are already secured of both. Politicians on the other hand have every reason to engage in them. Their positions are always temporary, a couple years at most and they are out. So they try to make the best of their status as they can get as much money and power as possible before their time is up. This is all made worse with a system of lobbying in a democratic Republic. For those who are not aware lobbying is the act of persuasion in politics for politicians to support a certain decision which they in the beginning did not support or were neutral. And I think you can definitely see how corrupt this system can get since majority of the time, politicians get deprived by a certain group to support a bill that is in their favor a famous.
Example of this is when Walt Disney lobbied Congress to reform the copyright system just so they could retain personal ownership of their character Mickey Mouse. If anything the modern world has proven, it's that corruption is a lot more rampant in republics. It does not mean the republicanism is a corrupt system in of itself in fact I do not believe any system is inherently corrupt. But just like with republics it doesn't mean monarchism is corruption free especially when we consider the parliaments. But to say that the Monarch is corrupt in of itself is an entirely different story. Monarchy is obviously not a perfect system in fact no political system in this world is perfect but the amount of slander gets from people who do not fully understand or comprehend it is just unfair.
Being a monarch is also one of the most difficult position in the world. King stands alone against all who wish harm upon his people. He without a sense of safety has to have the will and duty to fight against all the evil in the world. Think about this and all the burdens this man has to carry the expectations he needs to meet and the duty that he has think of all this. If you ever envy the position of a monarch, think about this. As Fulke Greville stated : " The greatest slave in a Kingdom is generally the King of it. "
