goddog said:
yea because the power of a king has never corrupted the men and women at that position, and they will always hold the people before their own beliefs. and never oppress ideas they dont agree with. the ternary of the many is preferable to the ternary of the few |
I was talking about a best case cenario, of course a monarchy is most instable of all the forms and can go from good to bad instantly... but a good king can do more good in less time compared to a democracy, a bad democracy might be better than a bad monarchy but a good democracy is crippled for the same reasons a bad one is... in the end the democray might be better since its more stable and there aren´t many chances for extremes but there is very little chance for drastic improvement and its easily misslead by a demagogue who then has king like powers...
Jefferson summed up my problems with democracy pretty well:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."








