Monachy is Awesome

in politics •  7 years ago 

The more people one has above them the more shit one gets


I had a friend that moved to Kuwait from the United States. This individual lived in many countries so he has an extensive experience about living under different forms of government. Personally, I don't adhere to any political system but I would have to agree with my friend that if I had to choose from the current political systems I would pick monarchy without a second thought.

The reason is rather simple. In all other systems, whether it is a Democracy, Republic, Communism, Fascism and all the flavours in between, one has to deal with a lot of people. In other words, you are liable to many individuals and due to the bureaucracy of every system the hassle multiplies when you try to do anything. You need permissions from almost everyone. You are like a baby asking the teacher if you can do something all the time.

In Kuwait, where monarchy thrives, people have to follow simple rules and basically adhere to the prince's wishes. The prince of the small country is rather reasonable and offers a lot of freedoms to the citizens. My friend enjoys the best time of his life and on a daily basis regrets to have wasted so much time in the United States, undergoing all that brainwashing in order to be kept in line.

I lived in the States for a few years as well and I thought the country was pretty fucked up when it came to basic freedoms. It would never cross my mind though that so many Americans move abroad to countries that have monarchy as a system and have such a great epiphany when it comes to politics.

It makes one wonder how much brainwashing goes on in the media from a country that basically controls the entirety of the world when it comes to culture, economy and politics. It makes one evaluate many things that we have been taught to believe and sometimes hate, just to serve specific agendas from our dear governments.

I would rather get fucked by one individual rather an group of individuals. This is my simple logic when it comes to political systems which I am not involved. I would rather be controlled by one guy rather than have ultimate power trickle down to thousands of authoritarian autobots that dictate every move of my life.







Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Erm... You don't have to choose between one ruler or numerous rulers. You can choose liberation and the absence of hierarchy. 'Democracy' was designed from the beginning to be little more than a facade for the purpose of control.

This is so apt. I could not put it any better.

So the current prince of Kuwait is wise and benevolent. There is absolutely no guarantee that his son will be.

Not in the short term, but in the medium and long term, a people gets the government (or no government) that it deserves. "The cost of Freedom is eternal vigilance"

True.

It'll be up to the prince's way of raising his children.
But then, education of the young is probably what affects the success of every form of government.

Democracy is a superb idea in theory, in my opinion, but it's implementation is a bit lacking (Ok... VERY lacking in many aspects).

Personally, @kyriacos, I'll refrain from recommending the local populace to switch back to Monarchy here in France... I don't want them to overreact and start a new Guillotine trend ! (this is a Joke, just in case it isn't clear ;) )

From what I understood is that as long as there is money for everyone, everything runs smoothly.

There is absolutely no guarantee that his son will be.

Even if his son is evil, he can't undermine the court. In Kuwait,

The parliament can be dissolved under a set of conditions based on constitutional provisions.[199] The Constitutional Court and Emir both have the power to dissolve the parliament, although the Constitutional Court can invalidate the Emir's dissolve.

So, if the evil son you speak of dissolves the parliament, the court will reverse his decision.

The National Assembly is the legislature and has oversight authority. The National Assembly consists of fifty elected members, who are chosen in elections held every four years. Since the parliament can conduct inquiries into government actions and pass motions of no confidence, checks and balances are robust in Kuwait.[198]

Checks and balances are robust in Kuwait.

Kuwait's checks and balances are better than that of UK, where the queen can theoretically block any or all actions of the government.

In "theory" checks and balances are extremely robust in many countries (ie. the United States). Unfortunately, in practice, unconstitutional activity is a constant and increasing phenomena.

One of the better things about a monarchy is that you know who is in charge. In The USSA you don't. There is no person to call out for Obomba-un-care. There isn't even any accountability in local police. Its, well, if you don't like it, then vote against me in the next election.

precisely. democracy actually dissolves any sense of responsibility. it is always some other guys fault.

I have family who stayed in Kuwait and they tell me how curropt the government is all the time

This sounds interesting. Keep elaborating. It is important for people to hear about other forms of government than their own.

Any examples of what is so great compared to what was so bad?

I strongly agree that democracy has split the population a lot. Especially if the candidate fighter for the government very much. Not infrequently people also come out with the number of candidates.

America many years ago had the same political system but had a vision, the American dream. then everything was great. I think that it is not the fault of a country, but the culture and education of those who govern. The monarchy also has in North Korea but...

If you can't have anarchy, a benign monarchy would be a close second. Having one leader can have its downsides, looking at North Korea.

I am not even sure if North Korea is as bad as the west advertises it to be. I mean Dennis Rodman visits all the time! :)

You are correct to be skeptical comrade, but we've always been at war with Eurasia Eastasia. ;-)

Yea but Rodman is friend with the head of the state

Nice post plz vote my post..i am poor man

Kuwait isn't a monarchy, it is a semi democratic country.

Kuwait is a constitutional emirate with a semi-democratic political system.[12][189][190] The Emir is the head of state. The hybrid political system is divided between an elected parliament and appointed government.[191][192]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait

You didn't see a Democracy where every governmental leech thinks he is a dictator.
Come see Moldova, my friend!

Cyprus is similar as well

  ·  7 years ago Reveal Comment

Anarchism requires that individuals be able to rule themselves. How many people are capable of that? Not many!

  ·  7 years ago Reveal Comment

I am reasonably well educated. but if you have something to teach me, please speak up.

  ·  7 years ago Reveal Comment
  ·  7 years ago Reveal Comment

Democracy, direct or otherwise, is a very bad idea. It means "majority rules" where the majority could very well be wrong, or wrong for me.

Anarchism implies without an (external) ruler. which means that you must have an internal ruler that is in charge of your actions - rather than have external factors evoke a "reaction".

It is important to "act" rather than to "react". Very few people, and only true individuals, are capable of that.

  ·  7 years ago Reveal Comment

Why are you unable to rule yourself? Lack of discipline? Lack of vision? Laziness? Stupidity?

  ·  7 years ago Reveal Comment

I think neither is perfect, there has to be blend of both. Informal institutions set norms for governance of individuals, but it is plagued by fascism in democracy with clusters of such intolerant groups. Freedom is overrated.

Congratulations @kyriacos, this post is the tenth most rewarded post (based on pending payouts) in the last 12 hours written by a Hero account holder (accounts that hold between 10 and 100 Mega Vests). The total number of posts by Hero account holders during this period was 200 and the total pending payments to posts in this category was $3352.23. To see the full list of highest paid posts across all accounts categories, click here.

If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, please reply stop to this comment.

One of the problems with monarchy is that when someone on the upper echelons want to fuck you up he can do it easily.In democracy there is a lot of group friction that makes it very hard.

Good post,, i like that place

I can't wait to see the day when the oil dries up.

Actually you have a point about monarchy.
As with any other form of organizational control it works better when smaller.
It's an Iron Law of Bureaucracy thang

Dude I totally agree.
I'm not a fan of any governmental structure a the pathetic bureaucracy is the issue. However as you say if you have a benevolent monarchy the citizens tend to have a decent time of it. The western MSM lies constantly about the Middle East I know from my own experiences there and many other places that don't subscribe to our BS democracy.
Great post buddy.

Great post you sharing with us. I hate Democracy, Republic, Communism, Fascism and all the flavors!!!!!!

Every country has advantages and disadvantages

@kyriacos. While I do agree that you have a point, I wonder if you were a woman in a country like Saudi Arabia if you would be saying the same thing. Not being able to drive because of your sex is pretty messed up. And this is just one of the many ways people under a monarchy can be oppressed.

I agree that you talked about Kuwait, but let us broaden the spectrum and add other countries. Remember, Kuwait is just one example. Having lived in the USA, I must concur that it is a prison, but we are all in a prison. Let's hope that blockchain liberates us.

There is also the fact that things do not exist in isolation. These monarchies exist because of western influence. Chief among them is the USA. So to say that you would prefer to have one over the other is to assume that one exists without the other.

Again, I agree with some of what you say, but the issue is way more nuanced than one form of government as opposed to another.

Would your friend have enjoyed themselves that much if they were a women? I think not. Would your friend enjoy themselves in every dictatorship in the world? Probably not. You can ask him if he has to be sent to a random Western democracy or a random dictatorship, which one would he bet on. Which one would you bet on if that is the choice?

When the power is concentrated in the hands of one person, all of it is up for abuse at all times. When power is something that is spread to more people, diluted through a more complex system and processes, less of it is actually up for abuse.

If a monarch wants to ban a religion, the religion is banned. If the US president wants to ban a religion, he gets taken to court.

To put it in your terms, if you get fucked by one person, you get fucked whenever that person wants to fuck you and you get the whole dick every time. If you need to get fucked by a committee, most of the time they would be bickering about who gets to do what, what part of the dick belongs to who and all you get is part of the dick from time to time or somebody sneaking a pinky while the others are not looking. Checks and balances is not that dumb of a concept when your ass is about to be violated.