Monarchy anyone?

Apparently most of the US presidents are related to each other by blood. In fact Franklin D. Roosevelt was related to 11 other presidents either directly by blood or by marriage. So does this mean that we live in a monarchy? One family rules the rest of the population. But monarchy is usually associated by one ruler. Monarch. President. Operates just like a mafia. The power is passed down the generations from family to family. Very well structured and has many members.
Monarchs are sometimes called dictators. Does that mean it can be said that we live in a dictatorship? BOOM!

Other mafias/families/governments may try to overthrow them for power. This leads to wars, revolutions, assasinations etc. So right now the most powerful mafia/family/government is the US. THey bully all the others by threatening with their weapons. ANd why wouldnt they, the US spending on military is bigger than all their enemies combined. It is Half of the world's military spending. HOLY SHIT!!! Thats one strong mafia.

Now if you fuckers are going to say what about obama, hes black blah blah blah. Have a look at his family tree. His Motherss side. Stanley Armour Dunham barracks grandfather is related by blood to other 6 presidents. BOOM! Who are they? FUCKING BUSHES. These are the presidentsr James Madison, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, George H W Bush and George W Bush. I got this straight out of wikipedia. Was pretty easy.

Bonus point : + Show Spoiler +

americans seem to have a thing for dynasties

I'm related to Bill Chen.

illuminati

Apparently I'm related to that whorish skank eve.

that's bullshit for several reasons.

1) In order to become president of US you need to be rich, you need to be a millionaire. And rich people come out of rich families so there is no surprise that you do not get a new John Random as a new president each selection.

2) Do you realize to how many people you are related to? You are 2 ^ 0 = 1, you have 2 ^ 1 = 2 parents, 2 ^ 2 = 4 grandparents, 2 ^ 3 = 8 grandgrandparents, 16 in the next generation, etc, you get it. Now go back 10 generations you have 2 ^ 10 = 1024 you descend from, now add siblings and marriages, holy shit, that's a lot.

3) Monarchs = Dictators that is crap. I won't put a big argument in here, but a dictator is a guy who is in charge without legitimation. A monarch draws his legitimation from god or other monarchs who elect him.

On September 14 2009 03:08 Royal_Rumble wrote: that's bullshit for several reasons. 1) In order to become president of US you need to be rich, you need to be a millionaire. And rich people come out of rich families so there is no surprise that you do not get a new John Random as a new president each selection. 2) Do you realize to how many people you are related to? You are 2 ^ 0 = 1, you have 2 ^ 1 = 2 parents, 2 ^ 2 = 4 grandparents, 2 ^ 3 = 8 grandgrandparents, 16 in the next generation, etc, you get it. Now go back 10 generations you have 2 ^ 10 = 1024 you descend from, now add siblings and marriages, holy shit, that's a lot. 3) Monarchs = Dictators that is crap. I won't put a big argument in here, but a dictator is a guy who is in charge without legitimation. A monarch draws his legitimation from god or other monarchs who elect him.

that's ironic, i think u mean a tyrant. Dictator only has a bad connotation these days. In ancient Rome where hte tittle was created, it was a thing of great honor and people were legally appointed... at first at least

also it's not just rich people buvt people who grow up in the political circles

how many politicians today went to georgetown university?

On September 14 2009 03:08 Royal_Rumble wrote: that's bullshit for several reasons. 1) In order to become president of US you need to be rich, you need to be a millionaire. And rich people come out of rich families so there is no surprise that you do not get a new John Random as a new president each selection.

Do you eralize you are not debunking his "theory", you are confirming it and explaining why...

Baal: I do not think so. OP continues to draw a line to the mafia and monarchy. If you are a king's first son you become automatically a king as well, that happens automatically. And something similar happens in the mafia.
I just was talking about probabilities. If you are rich you have a much higher chance of becoming president than a poor guy.

Steal City: In my opinion dictatorship is illegitimate. But that might be because I am no native speaker. In German "Diktator" is the same as "Tyrann". In English there might be a difference.
There not only has been a shift meaning since Rome, today it means something completely different in my opinion.

However, I won't get into long discussions in here because i am not into sociology or history.

On September 14 2009 04:31 Royal_Rumble wrote: Baal: I do not think so. OP continues to draw a line to the mafia and monarchy. If you are a king's first son you become automatically a king as well, that happens automatically. And something similar happens in the mafia. I just was talking about probabilities. If you are rich you have a much higher chance of becoming president than a poor guy. Steal City: In my opinion dictatorship is illegitimate. But that might be because I am no native speaker. In German "Diktator" is the same as "Tyrann". In English there might be a difference. There not only has been a shift meaning since Rome, today it means something completely different in my opinion. However, I won't get into long discussions in here because i am not into sociology or history.

Well nobody said it was exactly like middle age monarchy, its modern monarchy, where the direct son doesnt get it... oh wait... Bush family LOL, anyway, its about keeping the power in the same families, the same millionares have the power and only pass it among them so they can protect their own interests, if an stranger takes power who knows if he will fuck em up, so they better just keep the status quo as it is.

On September 14 2009 03:08 Royal_Rumble wrote: 2) Do you realize to how many people you are related to?

pretty much entirely this.

You cannot have Monarchy and Democracy at the same time. As a State Institution, Monarchy is actually superior to Democracy. Our congress, President, and Senators are only custodians and have no ownership, thus no incentive other than to maximize while they are in office (short term vs long term, legacy, etc.), while Monarchs have an incentive to increase the value of their kingdom, precisely because they have ownership and because no one wants to pass to their children a bankrupt kingdom. It goes even deeper, but I'm watching the Bills game so my focus isn't exactly on explaining this further in depth.

How does that make a monarchy superior?

"total value" is not a primary concern of the general public. I have to think they are more concerned with quality of life.

On September 14 2009 18:30 Aegraen wrote: You cannot have Monarchy and Democracy at the same time. As a State Institution, Monarchy is actually superior to Democracy. Our congress, President, and Senators are only custodians and have no ownership, thus no incentive other than to maximize while they are in office (short term vs long term, legacy, etc.), while Monarchs have an incentive to increase the value of their kingdom, precisely because they have ownership and because no one wants to pass to their children a bankrupt kingdom. It goes even deeper, but I'm watching the Bills game so my focus isn't exactly on explaining this further in depth.

the thing is, what do they own or maximize? wealth, lands and personal belongings and maybe territorial extension of the kingdom... those things things we dont want them to look after, the monarchy never gave a flying fuck about the people (neither current governments sadly), they didnt give as heritage a well fed and educated population... no they left wealth, power and lands to their children.

The only upside of monarchy is the same a dictaroship has, absolute power can be very benfical (or detrimental) for a country depending of the goodness of the person in power, but while it can be really good, its just simply too dangerous to have such a thing, and not worth the risk.

On September 14 2009 09:14 Sicks Macks wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 03:08 Royal_Rumble wrote: 2) Do you realize to how many people you are related to? pretty much entirely this.

/thread

I'm related to 4 Presidents by blood, does that mean I got a shot of running for President when I get old and sell my soul to the devil?

On September 14 2009 19:29 asdf2000 wrote: How does that make a monarchy superior? "total value" is not a primary concern of the general public. I have to think they are more concerned with quality of life.

Really? The more production, the more wealth, the more commerce of a Nation the wealthier the Monarch is. Remember, Monarchy is not Fuedalism. You started with a dubious premise in the first place. Total value, or GDP is a corollary of quality of life. The better economic situation of a country the higher standards of living are. The bi-product of this, is that the Monarch in return is far wealthier. Think of this. What would be the relative wealth of a Monarch if he ruled with scrupulous economic tyranny such as if he ruled North Korea? Now, imagine if a Monarch ruled the United States? Who is wealthier? Who has a better standard of living? Another interesting issue of Monarchy is that it is not in the best interest of the Monarch to plunder his own wealth by starting needless wars. This is why Monarch's throughout history have tended towards alliances and fretted warfare, because it drains their coffers for no gain. What do weapons, put back in the economy? Nothing.

Democracy is merely the rule of the majority. I'm quite curious where we got the notion that the majority know what is best? If you want examples of how the majority are destructive you have to look no further than the Iraq War. The majority were in favor at the time, so the Politicians wanted to get re-elected, and nation build so what did we do? There are even more disastrous tyrannous atrocities by Democracy. One such example is the War of Northern Aggression.

I just posited that Monarchy is preferable over Democracy and Anarchy is preferable over both. If you want a look at the success of Anarchy look no further than Celtic Ireland which lasted 1000 years. It was the beacon of culture, scholarly, and liberty for a thousand years. Do not get entrenched with the Hobbesian Myth.

On September 14 2009 19:54 Aegraen wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 19:29 asdf2000 wrote: How does that make a monarchy superior? "total value" is not a primary concern of the general public. I have to think they are more concerned with quality of life. Really? The more production, the more wealth, the more commerce of a Nation the wealthier the Monarch is. Remember, Monarchy is not Fuedalism. You started with a dubious premise in the first place. Total value, or GDP is a corollary of quality of life. The better economic situation of a country the higher standards of living are. The bi-product of this, is that the Monarch in return is far wealthier. Think of this. What would be the relative wealth of a Monarch if he ruled with scrupulous economic tyranny such as if he ruled North Korea? Now, imagine if a Monarch ruled the United States? Who is wealthier? Who has a better standard of living? Another interesting issue of Monarchy is that it is not in the best interest of the Monarch to plunder his own wealth by starting needless wars. This is why Monarch's throughout history have tended towards alliances and fretted warfare, because it drains their coffers for no gain. What do weapons, put back in the economy? Nothing. Democracy is merely the rule of the majority. I'm quite curious where we got the notion that the majority know what is best? If you want examples of how the majority are destructive you have to look no further than the Iraq War. The majority were in favor at the time, so the Politicians wanted to get re-elected, and nation build so what did we do? There are even more disastrous tyrannous atrocities by Democracy. One such example is the War of Northern Aggression. I just posited that Monarchy is preferable over Democracy and Anarchy is preferable over both. If you want a look at the success of Anarchy look no further than Celtic Ireland which lasted 1000 years. It was the beacon of culture, scholarly, and liberty for a thousand years. Do not get entrenched with the Hobbesian Myth.

The thing is that kingdom wealth is not neccesarely in the best interest of everyone since its rounded up, what if you have a great GDP but you have a lot of slaves?... thats why standard of living must be the focus and not raw profits that can go in an unfair system to the top only.

I agree that democracy is very flawed, i also agree that monarchy can be really good with an exeptional king, but that is a hard thing to happen since its very rare to find somebody who wont be corrupted by greed and power.