What would be your ideal social system? I've left it multiple choice because I know their not all mutually exclusive
Could you also explain why you feel that the system you pick is the best.
Personally I'm a monarchist, Because that is our tradition and I feel that it suites human nature better than any of the other options, the monarchy would run on socialist lines somewhere in the grey area between NS and communism.
Cattle die, kinsmen die,
the self must also die;
but glory never dies,
For the one who is able to achieve it.
Sayings of the High One.
I am a monarchist at heart and would have liked it if Sweden had maintained a strong and influential kingdom with a sovereign king. Democracy was followed by socialism, and in the wake of socialism followed the downfall of our society and nation.
Democracy doesn't seem to be a viable political system longterm. Politicians can only think ahead to the next election cycle & take what they can get while in power. A Royal Dynasty would have proprietary interest in the longterm wellbeing of its nation & people. But with a monarchy there is still the danger of a sovereign who might be in favor of liberal/multicultural policies - a lot of wealthy, highborn people are like that. And there is the influence of their queen. For example Queen Silvia - I have the impression that she is liberal & a feminist. Not to mention she is 1/2 Brazilian & her son & younger daughter seem very swarthy by (indigenous) Swedish standards. The crown prince of Norway married a coke-snorting disco queen. Prince Charles married Diana, who had a fondness for Muslim men. So even though I think monarchy is the way to go, it still has its faults.
'Let's Go Brandon!'
Meritocracy
Unfortunately, the Swedish royal family has not gone untouched by the changes in our society. Had the king maintained his previous position of power and superiority in our country, I doubt that his choice of a wife would have been handled in the same, careless way. I think the expectations would have been higher and he would therefor have taken someone of a more noble and worthy birth. He would also have had more to say about things than he has today when he is forbidden to speak about political issues, and would not be obliged to follow the dictates of an atheistic and republican ideology.Originally Posted by Æmeric
But unfortunately, the situation today is what it is and I have no hopes of us ever having a strong royal family again. Those days are gone, but I still support our monarchy and would have liked it if we would have chosen a different path all those years ago when democracy was on the march.
An ideal political system for me will be lots of different ones for different people depending on their worldviews. An all encompassing political system that appeals to everyone is just that - an ideal.
Aristocracy.
"Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)
Isn't aristocracy really a phenomenon which is present in all political systems, and essentially in all distinguishable groups of people.
I would say that it is but I'm guessin that Jager means an aristocracy that is born in rather than generated by the popular press and one that actually has some reall power over the people under it.
Cattle die, kinsmen die,
the self must also die;
but glory never dies,
For the one who is able to achieve it.
Sayings of the High One.
None of the above!
A decentralized constitutional republic with non-universal suffrage, similar to that formed originally in the US.
If power is too narrowly concentrated, then those people tend to rule the country with disregard to the wishes of the general populace, and also it only takes one idiot to royally screw over the country. On the other hand, as we can see from numerous current examples, if you let everyone vote, society degenerates at an increasing rate, due to the large number of people who will short-shortsightedly vote for politicians who promise them to 'have their cake and eat it too', and then this creates and environment which creates more degenerates, and the cycle continues.
Not strictly hereditary, since that does not allow for 'regression toward the mean', but not anti-hereditary: for example, if you only allow men with post-graduate degrees to vote, and the vast majority of those with post-graduate degrees have a father with a post-graduate degree, then that is just too bad.
Contact Congress on immigration
Contact Congress to reject banker bailout
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Ben Franklin
The United States
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks