jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (8 posts)

Would you mind being governed by an absolute monarch who truly wanted the best f

  1. MicahI profile image83
    MicahIposted 6 years ago

    Would you mind being governed by an absolute monarch who truly wanted the best for the people?

    How would you feel about being governed by an absolute monarch that truly cared about the citizens and the state?  Although not perfect, this King would exhibit good qualities, such as compassion and mercy, but also firm qualities such as being protective of the state and forcing laws that are unpopular.  The king would be advised by a council of elected elders, in order to represent the opinions of the people.  This is not a ethical question; yes, I know many monarchs abuse their power.  This is more of a "What if?" type of question.


  2. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 6 years ago

    No, absolutely not, no absolute monarchs! The road to hell is always paved with "good intentions" One man rule is tyranny from my point of view regardless of how benign that tyrant may be.

  3. Mr-Yo LV profile image58
    Mr-Yo LVposted 6 years ago

    Sure, only if I was related to the absolute monarch himself.  I'm sure a compassionate and merciful king wouldn't mistreat his own relatives.

  4. Thesource profile image79
    Thesourceposted 6 years ago

    Surely, yes!

    That is if he knows what is best me, the people and the environment.

    Then we will not have democratic gridlock. Nothing good needs to be compromised. He would be the number one public servant. There won't be politicians taking bribes from corporations anymore. He should take care of the elderly, sick and the young. He should keep his kingdom and every citizen safe. Make sure the wealthy pay their due taxes which will prevent budget deficits. He should keep waste down. He should uphold laws to prevent human and animal abuse. He should guarantee  basic subsistence to all without conditions. In addition he should provided opportunities for all to rise above subsistence. He should give everyone basic dignity.

    Sounds good to me!

  5. mattdigiulio profile image76
    mattdigiulioposted 6 years ago

    I think concentrating power is the opposite of democracy. People need to make their own choices, ideally, and represent themselves as much as possible. I think having government of some kind is vital, but not as powerful as a monarch.

  6. MilesArmbruster profile image59
    MilesArmbrusterposted 5 years ago

    I would prefer to be leader by a group of elected officials who "truly wanted the best for the people."
    There have been a handful of monarchs through history who have ruled in a beneficial way, but without a concrete method of checks against absolute power, it is a temptation that nobody can resist. At the same time, the enormous complexity of our nation could not be realistically handled by one man. That is one problem with the office of the President - no one man can understand and manage our country. Theoretically, our 535 other elected representatives should be able to handle the breadth of our country better, but we certainly haven't seen that. Instead, our leaders are most decidedly NOT people who "truly want the best for the people." They are motivated by huge campaign contributions and the desire to stay in power by getting re-elected. I can't think of the time I last heard of any politician who represented any of my values at all. And since most of them live in the Beltway fantasyland, they have no idea what this country needs.
    I don't know about a monarch, but I would love to see our leadership become knowledgeable, selfless, humble, visionary, and devoted to what is best for our country.
    I am most assuredly NOT holding my breath...

  7. tlmcgaa70 profile image78
    tlmcgaa70posted 5 years ago

    the ideal king was connected to the land. if the land was prosperous, you knew the king was good. if there was sickness in the land, he was corrupt. if the USA were to go back to monarchies, it would have to be a system of kings answerable to one High King. the High King would have to be incorruptible. that way he could govern the lower kings wisely. tho many people do not like to accept it...we DO have a High King...a King of Kings, in CHRIST JESUS. because so many reject HIM, the land is in chaos. people don't realize that if all mankind obeyed the laws of GOD, there would no longer be wars, murders, rapists, famine, sickness. everything that plagues mankind would no longer exist.

  8. AlexDrinkH2O profile image80
    AlexDrinkH2Oposted 5 years ago

    As you stated "What if?" I've heard the statement made many times "an enlightened despot is the most perfect form of government."  In other words, if you has an absolute just and compassionate monarch (king, emperor, what have you) who could make things happen immediately, we would have a perfect world.  The operative word is "IF." Another phrase (somebody else used here I believe) is "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  Here's where human nature steps in.  You just cannot trust any one person (or group) with that kind of power - the temptation is too great.   Even if (that word again) the potentate THOUGHT he was making great decisions, they may not be the right ones.  I'll stick with Thomas Jefferson: "That which governs least governs best."