blah the Prussian

Well, incest does kind of make the risk of sex linked diseases like Hemophilia higher. That's about it, though.

The issue with this is that while this did turn out optimal rulers for a time, it also ended up as the reason for Rome's fall. The problem with this kind of succession is that there was no legal precedent whatsoever for who would become the next emperor. That basically made any general with enough support feel free to proclaim himself Augustus whenever there was a new Emperor. This was taken to ridiculous extremes in the later days, when the Empire was in a near constant state of civil war, and was the reason for the fall of Rome. Now, as for democracy, I fail to see how there won't be incompetent Presidents. Look at the Johnson administration in America, or pretty much any Mexican President ever except Juarez. The difference is that a king or queen always has access to e best education in the nation, and so is more likely to be competent that whoever gets enough corporations to endorse them. If anything, hereditary rule is most consistent. Finally, the big advantage to hereditary rule is that the monarch doesn't owe their power to anyone. A common problem in Republics is that the President has to cater to whoever supported them, or risk losing their power. This is actually true of all types of government other than monarchy. Monarchs, however, can concentrate solely on what is best for the nation.

Bah, Squirtle and Bulbasaur must unite against the true enemy, Charmander! Welcome to the forum.

Bonjour, il est mon espoir que vous apprécierez votre séjour sur le forum . Vive l'Empereur et à long vive la France ! Ouais , Im un bonapartiste . Ce message d'accueil fait avec Google Translate.

I'll agree with you about Caligula, but in all honesty Rome was more of a military dictatorship than a hereditary monarchy (at least before Byzantium) since the emperors would select their,heirs by adopting sons who weren't related by blood. With Kim, I wouldn't say that the person is necessarily the problem; I would argue that the system of North Korea itself means that Kim might believe his own propaganda. If anything North Korea is more of a theocracy than a monarchy, as no monarchy has ever had the level of worship for a leader exhibited in North Korea. Really, NKs system is so unique it might warrant a whole new classification, but that's not the point of this discussion, is it? Fair enough. First of all, I wasn't saying education makes you a better person, but in general it makes you more competent. That was all I was saying. It is equally likely for monarchs and democratically elected leaders to be evil. Secondly, this seems to be the biggest point of disagreement between us. I don't see how being extremely wealthy makes you more likely to act in your own self interest. On the contrary, if one is born with everything, that makes them less likely to have personal ambition, as they will probably be content with what they have, in contrast to the nouveau rich, whose ambitions will likely never be sates. All of this is just conjecture of course, but it seems logical to me.

I was joking.

Firstly, the assumption that there will eventually be tyrants produced is faulty, as if the King is a decent judge of character then chances are they'll disinherit any potential sociopaths. The best possible leaders are astronomically more likely to be monarchs, due to them being far better educated than most others. I would also challenge the claim that democracy weeds out the worst possible leaders. For starters, the Nazi party came to power at least partly through democracy. Democracy also gave us such wonderful leaders as Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover, and George W. Bush in the US alone. Finally, Joffrey is probably a bad example as he is a. a fictional character and b. never had real power; if I recall correctly his mom was running the show.

In all honesty, maybe the best thing would be if we let the South secede again as a new Confederacy, get all the blacks and gays the fuck out of there, and then the North can join Canada. You Rebs can have your states rights, we get free healthcare.

Damnyankees makes me think of this alternate history I read once. In any case, I just can't see why it would benefit anyone for Texas to be independent. @Chiki: No it really isn't.

In a dark room, underneath Berlin... Bugsy opens the door to the Fuhrers study, saluting as he does. Bugsy: Hiel Hitler! Hitler: Ah, Generaloberst Bugsy. Well, how went the offensive? Did the Battle of the Bulgs succeed in destroying Shuuda's team? Bugsy: Mien Fuhrer, I am happy to report that our offensive has succeeded in putting his Gyarados out of action. Hitler: That is not enough. Herr Bugsy, do you know what becomes of under performers? Bugsy: The worst horror Germany has ever produced, Sir? Hitler: That's right! Curry sausages! Bugsy was never heard from again. Man, I have a weird sense of humor.

Oh, and this was not an inevitability. Nothing in history is.

So what exactly is so terrible about polygamy? As long as women can have multiple husbands too it doesn't seem bad to me.

To secede from the United States is treason of the highest order. Any attempt to do so will rightfully be met with overwhelming and devastating force.

The Commonwealth is a bit of a special case, considering everything. I like to think of it like Canada is in a personal union with the UK' Gus Elizabeth II is just as much queen of Canada as she is of Britain. Incidentally, there were plans when Canada first became a dominion to have one of Victorias sons as King, but the US threw a hissy fit about it.

I really can't see how the Prussian system inspired Naziism. Naziism was never reactionary. It was right wing, to be sure, but there is a difference. The Nazis were always contemptuous of the nobility, particularly the Prussian Junkers. It would be a mistake to compare any period in Prussian history to the system of borderline deification the Nazis had in place with Hitler. Imperial Germany had some of the best social justice in Europe (admittedly mostly due to the SPD and Bismarck) and was a haven of tolerance for Jews. I fail to see how that inspired the Nazis social darwinistic worldview. Finally, the Nazis only really gained popularity after the Great Depression hit; context would thus suggest hat their popularity with the people was due to economic issues, and certainly not due to some sort of nostalgia for the Imperial age. Regarding Imperial German war goals, if I recall correctly they planned for a bunch of German aligned states to be set up in the east, to annex some of France, and to get some colonies, right? I fail to see how that was different from what the Entente imposed on Germany; the Germans lost their entire colonial empire, and lost some land to France. While we're on the topic of imperialism, lets talk about the Middle East. The UK and France carved up the Arab lands of the Ottoman Empire, colonizing Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon. They then divided the spoils with no regard whatsoever for ethnicity or religion. Originally they planned a complete partition of the Ottoman Empire, making the state completely disappear from the map. If that's not criminally imperialistic I don't know what is. Meanwhile, Austria-Hungary suffered a similar fate as Russia, with Hungary in particular being economically devastated. So over all, I don't see how German war aims that might not have even been applied are any more imperialistic than what the Entente got away with. I will concede the point about the polls, however. Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying Wilhelm was a good Kaiser, he just wasn't as bad as people make him out to be, for the reasons I listed.

@Rapier: That "except for dictators" is a pretty big except, considering that the likes of Hitler were democratically elected. But yeah, jackasses like Caligula being in power is a risk. There also is a middle ground between absolutism and a crowned republic, for example Imperial Germany and Meiji Japan, both of which had considerable success before putting the wrong people in power (both military dictatorships with the Emperor as a figurehead). And yeah, Brazil had a pretty good run as a monarchy. Pedro II was probably the perfect example of an almost completely benevolent ruler. Here you go for Germany, I assume you don't particularly care about Georgia.http://www.thelocal.de/20130425/49371 I will say, however, that it is pretty hilarious how the article treats a guy thinking it would be pretty rad, actually, if he was made Kaiser of Germany as news. Now, you did make an argument regarding Wilhelm II that kind of bothers me for how terrible it is. Just because there are a few bad apples, doesn't mean the entire system is broken. That would be like if a monarchist said "democracy is bad because Herbert Hoover, Andrew Johnson, and Woodrow Wilson (a whole other rant) were terrible Presidents. In addition, I would challenge the claim that Wilhelm II was that terrible. Obviously his big mistake was WWI, but the Reichstag supported the war as well. So did pretty much every leader of a nation who went to war. You don't hear David Lloyd George being talked about as an idiot, do you? If Germany won the war (it's defeat was not Wilhelm's fault) then Wilhelm II would be a national hero. I'm sorry if I come off as patronizing saying this to a German, but it's just my opinion about the man.

Incidentally, for some restoration stats, 1/5 Germans support a restoration, and a whopping 70 percent of Georgians support a restoration. I support restoration for most exiled monarchies across the world, and support all existing monarchies except Saudi Arabia.

Lancer evolves into a Pokemon thats actually useful in competitive play, so take him. The Uhlans shall triumph over whatever may stand in the way of total victory in this Nuzlocke!

Oh, okay. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Are there any meaningful choices outside what version of the game was obtained?

Is this done with a computer program or something?

No, the closest thing we have to a monarchy in today's world would be the UK, Sweden, Jordan, Japan, the Netherlands, to name a few. Allow me to vehemently disagree with this statement. An aristocratic oligarchy would have all the indecision of a democracy combined with all the potential tyranny of an autocracy. It is the worst form of government in terms of how good it is for a nation, for sure. I pretty much agree with this, specifically the second part, as that is I assume the part you want people to think of as your conclusion. Simply put, the difference between a monarchy and a family despotism is that the family came to power usually due to the support of certain elements, be it the military for the Gaddafis or Stalinist Russia and Maoist China for the Kims. Due to this, they have to put the interests of this faction over the interests of their nation, or risk losing their power. Also, most monarchies today are also democracies; not so with family despotisms.

Hereditary rule is, in my opinion, both the best and most stable way of determining a successor. A popularity contest of who can appeal to the lowest common denominator most effectively seems to me to be a terrible way to determine who will rule. Dictatorships have their advantages, I suppose, but ht issue there is that whenever the dictator dies, there is a power struggle, unlike in a monarchy where the eldest chid of the monarch will succeed. Your description of the Declaration of independence seems to me to be correct; may I merely add that it represents a heinous act of treason against the crown? First off, let me say I do not support absolutism; I support the Prussian model for constitutionalism, where the monarch holds a great deal of power, but they do not rule with absolute power. Now, in general I would disagree with you about one thing: it is not usually the monarch or President who is corrupt, but the politicians. However, there is one key issue with combatting corruption in a Presidential Republic, and that is that the President owes their power to someone, namely the politicians and businessmen who supported them. Once the President gets in to power, they have to let those who supported them get away with whatever they want, lest they lose what power they have been given. This is a problem in all forms of government except monarchy; even Hitler owed his position to his Nazi cronies. Only a monarch is free to act completely in the interests of the state without worrying about losing power.

I can't be the only member here who is a monarchist, can I? Ive wanted to make a topic about this for a long time. I just find monarchy to be as a system better than presidential republicanism. The entire notion of true democracy was relatively recent; Monarchy worked as a system for the entire history of humanity up until around the American revolution and the enlightenment. Thats pretty much a preface to my thoughts, but yeah, feel free to try to rip my opinions to shreds.

There are a lot of things in our history where we wonder how it could have been up for debate. Slavery comes to mind. That the new generation now has that opinion about gay marriage shows why it was allowed in the first place.