Why Isn't the US a monarchy?

[gerrit70 (OP)]

So I was re-reading The Spirit of the Laws by Montesquieu, which the American government is very much based upon, and he does not directly endorse that an executive should be elected; even going as far as saying that liberty can be achieved under a monarchy.

Seeing the recent loss of Sanders in the primary, the american people clearly do not know what is best for them. So, why do they have direct control over the president? An ideal system may be to have a hereditary monarchy in which the judicial and legislative branch retain their function and power. Including the ability to impeach the executive, given a significant majority, and except for enacting short term limits on the legislative branch. The only problem I can see with this is the pretty direct control the executive would have over the judicial branch, which could be mitigated by having judges appointed by the senate, or be directly elected.

Thoughts?

[Yvette]

So I was re-reading The Spirit of the Laws by Montesquieu, which the American government is very much based upon, and he does not directly endorse that an executive should be elected; even going as far as saying that liberty can be achieved under a monarchy.

Seeing the recent loss of Sanders in the primary, the american people clearly do not know what is best for them. So, why do they have direct control over the president? An ideal system may be to have a hereditary monarchy in which the judicial and legislative branch retain their function and power. Including the ability to impeach the executive, given a significant majority, and except for enacting short term limits on the legislative branch. The only problem I can see with this is the pretty direct control the executive would have over the judicial branch, which could be mitigated by having judges appointed by the senate, or be directly elected.

Thoughts?

bruh you were supposed to lick the boot not swallow it whole

[gerrit70 (OP)]

I'll deep-throat whatever I want, thank you very much.

As a legitimate proposition though, I dont think it has very many flaws, at least not compared to the current system.

[Yvette]

Okay, I'll humour you.

Monarchies are an inherently unequal and antiquated system with very little place in the modern world outside of the nonsensical clinging to "tradition". There is no legitimate reason one should have a higher place in life purely based on the circumstance of their birth and nothing else.
Meritocracy? I can see arguments for that.
A monarchy? There is no legitimate reason for a monarchy to exist in in the modern era.

There's also something deeply unsettling about the idea people push that "people don't know what's good for them, so therefore we should just decide for them". And it is further confusing that you argue for a reactionary and conservative ideology, using the justification that a progressive, leftist candidate lost an election -- if you want a system in which more progressive, leftist policy and politicians can be pushed forward, advocate for electoral reform, education reform, and workers rights.

It's utter delusion to think people who are born with an innate "superiority" would implement more leftist and progressive policy than elected officials.

[Brutalfive]

God Save the Queen
God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen;
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.
Oh Lord our God arise,
Scatter our enemies,
And make them fall
Confound their politics
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix
Oh save us all
Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign;
May she defend our laws
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen
Not in this land alone,
But be God's mercies known,
From shore to shore!
Lord, make the nations see,
That men should brothers be,
And form one family,
The wide world over.
From every latent foe,
From the assassins blow,
God save the Queen!
O'er her Thine arm extend,
For Britain's sake defend,
Our mother, princess and friend,
God save the Queen
Lord, grant that Marshall Wade
May, by Thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the Queen

btw that's not the national anthem, this is:

God save our gracious Queen
Long live our noble Queen
God save the Queen
Send her victorious
Happy and glorious
Long to reign over us
God save the Queen
Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour
Long may she reign
May she our laws
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen

[Yvette]

God Save the Queen
God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen;
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.
Oh Lord our God arise,
Scatter our enemies,
And make them fall
Confound their politics
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix
Oh save us all
Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign;
May she defend our laws
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen
Not in this land alone,
But be God's mercies known,
From shore to shore!
Lord, make the nations see,
That men should brothers be,
And form one family,
The wide world over.
From every latent foe,
From the assassins blow,
God save the Queen!
O'er her Thine arm extend,
For Britain's sake defend,
Our mother, princess and friend,
God save the Queen
Lord, grant that Marshall Wade
May, by Thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the Queen

btw that's not the national anthem, this is:

God save our gracious Queen
Long live our noble Queen
God save the Queen
Send her victorious
Happy and glorious
Long to reign over us
God save the Queen
Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour
Long may she reign
May she our laws
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen

Your queen hoards taxpayer money and her son is a pedophile. Sorry.

[gerrit70 (OP)]

Monarchies are an inherently unequal and antiquated system with very little place in the modern world outside of the nonsensical clinging to "tradition". There is no legitimate reason one should have a higher place in life purely based on the circumstance of their birth and nothing else.
Meritocracy? I can see arguments for that.
A monarchy? There is no legitimate reason for a monarchy to exist in in the modern era.

I guess I'll go in order. This would obviously not be a monarchy in sense of ones that have previously existed, a system that is unequal and old is not inherently bad either. Democracy is also an "antiquated system". I also agree with your statement about the validity of birthright, but there is a legitimate reason why someone should have more power than others based on birth, as long as their purpose is to serve the state.

There's also something deeply unsettling about the idea people push that "people don't know what's good for them, so therefore we should just decide for them". And it is further confusing that you argue for a reactionary and conservative ideology, using the justification that a progressive, leftist candidate lost an election -- if you want a system in which more progressive, leftist policy and politicians can be pushed forward, advocate for electoral reform, education reform, and workers rights.

I dont really see why thats deeply unsettling, people cannot decide what is best for them; pushing aside the labels, thats what it boils down to. Social democracy can also be achieved under this system, although it is not the main objective. Giving people direct control over executive power is a bad idea, just look at Athens during the archaic period. Under demagogues like Pericles it was a more powerful state than it was with direct democracy. This is not to say that demagogues are ideal, seeing as the definition has changed over time.

It's utter delusion to think people who are born with an innate "superiority" would implement more leftist and progressive policy than elected officials.

Why wouldnt they? I can think of plenty of monarchs who have done exactly what you say they wouldnt. Napoleon was elected, depending on your definition, and was less progressive than Louis XVIII, who ruled directly after him. 

Your queen hoards taxpayer money and her son is a pedophile. Sorry.

Also, based.

[Saxturian]

So I was re-reading The Spirit of the Laws by Montesquieu, which the American government is very much based upon, and he does not directly endorse that an executive should be elected; even going as far as saying that liberty can be achieved under a monarchy.

Seeing the recent loss of Sanders in the primary, the american people clearly do not know what is best for them. So, why do they have direct control over the president? An ideal system may be to have a hereditary monarchy in which the judicial and legislative branch retain their function and power. Including the ability to impeach the executive, given a significant majority, and except for enacting short term limits on the legislative branch. The only problem I can see with this is the pretty direct control the executive would have over the judicial branch, which could be mitigated by having judges appointed by the senate, or be directly elected.

Thoughts?

lol. the american people know sanders is definitely not what's best for them. that's a good thing. sanders was a terrible candidate, better than biden, but still terrible. they don't necessarily have direct control over the president, we have the electoral college bruh. the reason the us wasn't made a monarchy is because it was founded under the principle of freedom and democracy after their natural rights were stepped on by the british, so why would they want another monarchy? also your whole "people can't decide what's best for them" is what Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and many other dictators said as well so...yeah

[Yvette]

So I was re-reading The Spirit of the Laws by Montesquieu, which the American government is very much based upon, and he does not directly endorse that an executive should be elected; even going as far as saying that liberty can be achieved under a monarchy.

Seeing the recent loss of Sanders in the primary, the american people clearly do not know what is best for them. So, why do they have direct control over the president? An ideal system may be to have a hereditary monarchy in which the judicial and legislative branch retain their function and power. Including the ability to impeach the executive, given a significant majority, and except for enacting short term limits on the legislative branch. The only problem I can see with this is the pretty direct control the executive would have over the judicial branch, which could be mitigated by having judges appointed by the senate, or be directly elected.

Thoughts?

lol. the american people know sanders is definitely not what's best for them. that's a good thing. sanders was a terrible candidate, better than biden, but still terrible. they don't necessarily have direct control over the president, we have the electoral college bruh. the reason the us wasn't made a monarchy is because it was founded under the principle of freedom and democracy after their natural rights were stepped on by the british, so why would they want another monarchy? also your whole "people can't decide what's best for them" is what Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and many other dictators said as well so...yeah

terrible things like..

healthcare..
civil rights..
and education..
oh no......

[gerrit70 (OP)]

So I was re-reading The Spirit of the Laws by Montesquieu, which the American government is very much based upon, and he does not directly endorse that an executive should be elected; even going as far as saying that liberty can be achieved under a monarchy.

Seeing the recent loss of Sanders in the primary, the american people clearly do not know what is best for them. So, why do they have direct control over the president? An ideal system may be to have a hereditary monarchy in which the judicial and legislative branch retain their function and power. Including the ability to impeach the executive, given a significant majority, and except for enacting short term limits on the legislative branch. The only problem I can see with this is the pretty direct control the executive would have over the judicial branch, which could be mitigated by having judges appointed by the senate, or be directly elected.

Thoughts?

lol. the american people know sanders is definitely not what's best for them. that's a good thing. sanders was a terrible candidate, better than biden, but still terrible. they don't necessarily have direct control over the president, we have the electoral college bruh. the reason the us wasn't made a monarchy is because it was founded under the principle of freedom and democracy after their natural rights were stepped on by the british, so why would they want another monarchy?

The president is still directly elected, the vote distribution weight and between areas does not change that. The useless idealoguing that your post contains does not even address any of the concepts in my post; can freedom and democracy not exist under a constitutional monarchy?

also your whole "people can't decide what's best for them" is what Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and many other dictators said as well so...yeah

This is particularly hilarious because its such a weak point. This essentially equates to: "Well Hitler is bad and Hitler was elected, so therefore democracy is bad." Do you see how dumb that sounds?