Flip flopping democracies have led to the tyranny we now see. Voting changes nothing because the government is never under the thumb of the citizen. It does what it wants. A monarchy seems a better proposition in that private property is well protected. The lunacy is that the voter thinks he has a say and he really doesn't. Will the citi…
Flip flopping democracies have led to the tyranny we now see. Voting changes nothing because the government is never under the thumb of the citizen. It does what it wants. A monarchy seems a better proposition in that private property is well protected. The lunacy is that the voter thinks he has a say and he really doesn't. Will the citizens under monarchy rule have a say that may be worth much more than a useless vote? In today's digital realm, everything is lickety-split and long term is a lost concept.
The idea of a king or queen or royal blood ruling over me is not easy to accept. This is the type of rule the early US wanted to escape. I can see how smaller kingdoms of a few thousand might work fairly well. Say a kingdom consisted of 3,000 members. For a country the size of the US, that would mean over 100,000 separate kingdoms. That seems impractical since many will be ruled by tyrants and warring with each other. It's the nature of mankind.
The concept of private verses public has been the way the world has worked for centuries...going from one to the other and than back again. No system is permanent as corrupt and tyrannical individuals always wreck it. There will always be a gang of thugs that want more power, control and wealth than all the rest.
Flip flopping democracies have led to the tyranny we now see. Voting changes nothing because the government is never under the thumb of the citizen. It does what it wants. A monarchy seems a better proposition in that private property is well protected. The lunacy is that the voter thinks he has a say and he really doesn't. Will the citizens under monarchy rule have a say that may be worth much more than a useless vote? In today's digital realm, everything is lickety-split and long term is a lost concept.
The idea of a king or queen or royal blood ruling over me is not easy to accept. This is the type of rule the early US wanted to escape. I can see how smaller kingdoms of a few thousand might work fairly well. Say a kingdom consisted of 3,000 members. For a country the size of the US, that would mean over 100,000 separate kingdoms. That seems impractical since many will be ruled by tyrants and warring with each other. It's the nature of mankind.
The concept of private verses public has been the way the world has worked for centuries...going from one to the other and than back again. No system is permanent as corrupt and tyrannical individuals always wreck it. There will always be a gang of thugs that want more power, control and wealth than all the rest.