At 06:43 13/01/00 -0800, Philip Madsen wrote:
>Dion, this response of yours ignores two important considerations.
>(a) The principle of a hereditary head of state is more stable , whether
>benevolent or malevolent is not a factor. (though this system by its nature
>tends to cause the holders family to try to remain popular.)
By your argument, a dictatorship is to be preferred over democracy because
of your claim that the dictatorship would be more stable. Interestingly
enough, the various monarchies around the world have shown themselves to be
unstable at the best of times. At the worst of times, their countries were
turned into giant slaughterhouses as one greedy megalomaniacal sadist
fought another greedy megalomaniacal sadist who didn't disagree with the
concept of hereditary king... just disagreed as to who's head should wear
the crown.
>(b) An elected head of state has a limited time in office, Popularity
>becomes secondary to accrueing as much moola in the bank with the handsome
>super package. Thus Corruption and control by special interests like the
>money power, allows for the undermining of the 1st principle stability.
As opposed to the absolute monarch who can spend much more time accruing cash.
Alister
--
"Let us not fool ourselves, half a century after the adoption
of this Declaration (of Human Rights) and supposedly under its
protection, millions of people have died in the world without
reaching the age of 50 and without even knowing that there was
a universal document that should have protected them."
Roberto Robaina, Cuba's Foreign Minister
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
