leonarde

Partial post:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not 'arguing for'; I'm observing the way the world works: new regimes (Hitler's taking over from the Weimar Republic) USUALLY are initiated by such an individual (one with one or more extraordinary personal powers) but the problem of succession is:

1) succession through birth doesn't guarantee competence.

2) succession through infighting, though perhaps supplying more 'selective pressures' to use an evolutionary term, can still produce a mediocre to incompetent leader: see Brezhnev and Chernenko in the Soviet Union.

Cheers!

Shai Hulud

It's indeed been a while since the last really mad one. Fortunately.
It's still a risk though, and unless there were some real advantages it's not a risk we should take.

Probably less than a royal wedding. That's true. But I don't really see that as an advantage though.

It's true that it's probably not possible the reach a prefect democracy, but that doesn't mean we have to make it any worse.
Our royal family has a quite a few questionable pages (if you can call genocide questionable) in it's history.

I don't agree that a constitutional monarchy works any better than a constitutional republic though.
France, USA, ... There are plenty of examples of countries who work fine without a monarchy.

64% of them. 88% of the people actually voted. (standaard.be, you need a subscription though.)
But there would have been economic consequences for them too, and Liechtenstein is a tax haven.

Shai-Hulud

Evangelion

They just don't make 'em like they used to...

*sigh*