Osler's Razor

Given the turd sandwich that was the "will of the majority" from 2001-2008, I say no way.
 

Perhaps the "best interests of the majority" might be something other than the will of the majority as expressed through our imperfect representative democracy...
 

A bold statement from the man holding the rifle(Justin) and a contemplative statement from Anon 12:44.

Trying to figure out who the monarch should be would be hard enough. It also seems to me that in Western Europe where monarchy's still exist (Great Britain, Norway, Spain, Monacco etc... and Japan) there is some form of representative government standing behind them, enacting the laws, collecting the taxes... The monarchs are at this point ceremonial representatives of their respective countries. They are looked to for their consistency and apparent level-headedness.
 

No, because I believe in the fundamental right of self-determination for all people.
 

What if it was Santa? What if he got to be the monarch?
 

Given the turd sandich that is the "will of the majority" that started in January 2009, I say no way.

AMT
 

Oh snap! See what AMT did with your words there Justin "Big Game Hunter" T. He turned 'em around and used 'em against you. Boom!!

(that last "Boom!!" was meant to indicate the sound of my head exploding as I pondered the ramifications of AMT's awesomeness)

Osler - can next week's Political Mayhem Thursday be about our feelings about the new MTV show "Jersey Shore?"
 

I second RRL's petition for discussion on the "Jersey Shore." We must discuss "The Situation".

AMT
 

I think this question has religious undertones (at least Christian). But I don't think you can limit "best interests" to the majority. So, I'm all for Santa.
 

Acting in the best interests of all the people creates a conflict of interest. Such a monarch would be inconsistent. The idea that we may generalize people into a single uniform mass is dangerous.
 

I also want to cast a historic vote for Santa.

If we can't get Santa--how about Plato?

Or even better, how about a Santa-Plato ticket?
 

Back to the question - I don't think a monarchy would work here. I think the will of the majority should elect the 'best' turd for the job every 4 years.

Let's face it, being President can be a pretty 'crappy' job!
 

Man, I really sent the tone of this discussion down the toilet.

My nominations for monarch are the following, in order:

Argbf
Prince
Larry Bates
Hannah Montana (but NOT Miley Cyrus)
Leslie the Austin weird guy
 

Also, one does not vote for kings. Watery twits should lie in pools and dispense swords. If I said I was King of America because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, I'd get real respect.
 

Too many variables in your question to say for sure, like what is the "best interest of the majority?" Is it what the majority says it is, or is it what some other entity (i.e., the monarch) decides is best? And how is the monarch picked?

If we're talking about some kind of perfect superbeing as the monarch, then heck yeah a monarch would be good to have. This isn't incompatible with RRL's individual self-determination (on which our nation and culture are based), because I think it would eventually result in a very efficient, hands off government. Since we're dealing in humorous hypotheticals, it's important not to automatically import the idea of tyrannical regimes into the general concept of monarchy.

Incidentally, I've just posted on my own foray into dynastic government. So as an experienced autocrat I'd like to humbly nominate myself for the position of American Sovereign.
 

I think it'd be dangerous -- the closest example I can think of a benevolent monarch/autocrat is Bhutan, or possibly Nepal pre-monarchy. The problem is that the king/queen, without a check on his/her power never, or rarely, stays benevolent.

Honestly, I might throw in my lot with Obama; I still have the faith.

Different thought experiment: what if we could be ruled by a computer that was constantly collecting poll data, so every decison was a calculation based on the simple results of a range of polls on every issue that necessitated decision. How is that different than this proposed ideal?
 

Monarchs are inherently tyrannical, in so far as the definition of tyranny includes, "a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler." Look, they may not be like what we traditionally think of as tyrannies, lining people up against the wall and executing them for believing, thinking, behaving differently. But, if, for instance, the monarch decides it is best for the majority to ban smoking, make it illegal, that is a tyrannical act.

And it would be one I would oppose by smoking more than anyone has ever smoked before...BOOM!!

Don't forget, new episode of Jersey Shore tonight at 9 p.m. Everyone loves The Situation!
 

RRL's head has exploded an inordinate number of times today!
 

I've got lip gloss, hair gel, fake tanning spray, and my "situation" ready for some guido and guidette action!!! Jwow 4 life. Peace haters.
 

BOOM!!

(Michael's reference to both "guidos" and "guidettes" made my head explode again...I'm officially giving it to Michael for best post I've ever read on the Razor...if you'll need me, I'll be juicin')
 

I think Lane's post is up there with the most colorful ever, too. I mean, watery wits lying in pools, and moistened bints lobbing scimitars? Wow. I have no idea what that means, but it sounds . . . . bad.
 

@Swissgirl:

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony.
 

Such a system exists and it's called Singapore. Its resulting in a shockingly wealthy country with long life spans and broad cultural (ethnic and religious) diversity all on a tiny rock with no natural resources to sell.

Democracy is very good at preventing tyrants from getting in office to begin with and very good at changing them out non-violently if they do get there.

Its very bad at doing unpopular things that HAVE to get done (Raising taxes or cutting spending to avoid deficits, the freight train of social security solvency coming at us, meaningful progress on global warming, etc).

Democracies also don't work in countries where identity politics reins. In situations like this, the majority consistently votes to marginalize the minority until the minority end up picking up rocks and bashing the majority in the head with them. Democracy has been successful in the US largely because of the "E pluribus unum" attitude that died with neoconservatism.

Unfortunately identity politics in the US post JFK era has only gotten worse accelerating more in the last 10 years especially with the Christian right pushing hard for a merger between the government and their religion of choice. (I swear some people won't be happy until we have government issue Baptist priests while imprisoning the nonbelievers)
 

David - you gotta post this stuff on Thursday so that nobody misses out on reading it. Comedy this good shouldn't be relegated to only those of us that still check out the political mayhem comments a day after the mayhem dies down.

1. "Such a system exists and it's called Singapore." Isn't Singapore a republic? With elections and everything? A parliment? A cabinet? Am I missing something? They have a monarch with total power?

2. If democracy is effective at slowing down or even preventing action on the "man-bear-pig" that is global warming, then I consider it democracy's greatest accomplishment.

3. "because of the "E pluribus unum" attitude that died with neoconservatism." - I'm being completely serious here, I have no idea what you're talking about and would love for you to explain what you mean.

4. "Unfortunately identity politics in the US post JFK era" - yes, ever since JFK identity politics has gotten worse, because issues about him being a Catholic, and about Nixon being a Quaker never came up back then.

5. "I swear some people won't be happy until we have government issue Baptist priests while imprisoning the nonbelievers" - when you guys talk about the "politics of fear" isn't this exactly what you're talking about? Or, is it ok when you do it and direct it at christians, because you're sane and they're clearly crazy?
 

1. Singapore is indeed a republic. Of sorts. It has a ruling family that is far from the ornamental one in the UK. I'd go as far to say that the parliament is largely ornamental. (China for example considers itself a republic)

Likewise, Jordan under King Hussein was rapidly modernizing and is one of the bright stars of the middle east (not perfect but doing very well for a country with no oil). He was a great king that was genuinely working for the betterment of his people (and modernizing it as quickly as the Bedouins could handle). His son who now rules the country is a selfish idiot who can't even speak the national language of his own country. This highlights the "peaceful regime change" problem of dictatorships.

Point is, good monarchies exist. The problem with monarchies is when you have a bad one and no peaceful way to fix the problem.

2. Some people believe in science, some people believe in unicorns, further discussion here is probably not productive and definitely off topic.

3-5. "E pluribus unum"="From many, one". It used to be on all of our money until congress changed it in the 1953(or 4, not sure) to "In God We Trust" mostly to differentiate the American brand from the godless commies in the cold war era. Our country was founded on religious and cultural diversity and Bush Jr. forward, the GOP started pushing a hard core push to merge evangelical faith with the US government. This definately wasn't Reagan-esque view of things but the GOP from Bush Jr to today seems to define itself as the party to try to merge the evangelical faiths into the US government.

Some of us like a little separation between church and state.
 

Well, while I appreciate the definition of what "E pluribus unum" I actually knew what that meant. What I was interested to know was what a neoconservative was. And of course, by that, I wondered whether you defined neoconservative in much the same way that Keith Olbermann does, which is not to attach it to any particular ideology, but simply to use it as a catch-all term for anyone you don't like.

As far as Reagan is concerned, the modern evangelical movement can largely be traced to Reagan, and his relationship and courting of preachers like Pat Robertson. I know that liberals are now fond of pointing to Reagan as the kind of conservative that conservatives should be, but it would be helpful for them to know something about the man before they did so.

As far as Bush, and his effort to merge the USFG with the protestant evangelical movement, well, I don't know what to tell you, other than I think you're being more than a bit paranoid. But when I see the black helicopters landing with little crosses on them and rounding up the non-believers, I guess you can tell me, "I told you so."

Oh, by the way, I agree completely about the unicorns/science thing, by the way. Which is why I find your absolute belief in manmade warming so confusing.

Also, someone that believes Bush was actually making an attempt to turn the United States into a theocracy should be a bit more careful about making fun of someone for believing in unicorns...

And what is so wrong with having a little faith and believing in unicorns anyways??
 

I believe in unicorns and therefore I will be one of those 'non-believers' rounded up in the black helicopters with crosses on them.

No seriously, there are real issues with a 'true' monarchy. You you pointed out in Jordan the next generation is not the same as the prior and there are levels of disinterest, etc... How does a country adjust from a beloved monarch to his next in line. If the people don't like the next generation they have no recourse.

What about in Japan? The emperor's only son married a lovely women who wanted to be a career women and not sit home at the palace and have lots of babies. Apparently succession is through sons and not daughters, unlike Great Britain which contemplates both. Fortunately for the Japanese, the emperor has evolved to a symbolic role in the country.
 

No, I don't think at any point in the near future we'll see black helicopters with little crosses on them (Thank you for th imagery, it does amuse); only that a lot of the right wing political rhetoric I hear seems to advance that position.

I hear a whole lot of "America is a CHRISTIAN NATION, everyone else should leave" either implicitly or explicitly particularly in regard to anyone of the Islamic faith.

What the GOP did enshrine in law is government funding of Churches like Chinese do.

True story, I've worked with them. The Union Gospel Mission, which receives government funding mind you, will deny food and shelter to homeless people if they don't show up for church enough or make enough "spiritual progress".

Likewise, the GOP push to have the government make value judgments on marriages I find bizarre. You see, they only want the government to make a value judgement when issuing a marriage license to a couple that violates the rules of their private faith. Hardly a party representing the freedom of others.

Christine: Japan is an odd duck between their emperor, elected government and non-elected bureaucrats. As it stands right now the non-elected pretty much run the show.
 

Liberals are fond of painting Reagan as the type of conservative they want? I always thought it was Goldwater.

Anyway, I think I'm with you on this one RRL. David seems a little confused, if he's not the liberal version of ALL CAPS GUY.

On the other hand, you are an educated and intelligent man, so I have to ask: do you think the state of climate science is so settled that you can say that man is not contributing in a significant way to the warming trend?

I ask because, as I understand the issue, admittedly from a lay perspective, the debate does not focus so much on whether it's happening or whether we're contributing to it, but rather the relative values of contribution and what must be done. The problem lies in that each "side" of the issue seems to have taken the most unscientific predictions or data points and attempted to use them as a political scare tactic to push people toward one side or the other.
 

Psst. Lane. Yes I'm trolling a bit although I am a genuine leftie.
 

I figured as much David. Good job getting RRL to bite.