Rev. Jack Teano can't help but get into the discussion...
"They can replace him? Isn't a fundamental premise of a monarchy that power is passed through heredity, not that people can pick and choose?
I am extremely concerned by this growing monarchist movement.
Perhaps in extreme cases of some unstable nations a monarchy has benecial, but Eutopia meets none of those critiera. It is is not a dictatorship, it is a stable, free society. Nor is it extremist, to neither the political left nor political right.
It STRONGLY disagree with your statement that the most stable nation of the world are monarchies. The most powerful nations of the world, and the stablest, have long given up such pretentious trappings.
Constancy, impartiallity, all of the benefits you attribute to a monarch are true only on an individual by individual basis. A Monarch can clearly be unstable, impartial, extremist, etc. That is why it is better to have a government that spreads power over several people and why it is better to have government that is elected by the people, so that bad leaders can be removed.
A Monarch, chosen from one particular family of one particular ethnicity and culture is NOT able to unite all races, creeds, classes and political beliefs especially in the Eutopian case of artificially installing a monarch. Why would people automatically pledge loyalty and give up their authority to some arbitrary individual who they feel may have nothing in common with them?
If Monarchs are invariably more popular than elected president's, kindly explain the American Revolution, French Revolution, and Russian Revolution.
You make these claims about monarchs being so wise and above partisan politics and special interests? What possible justification can you give for this? Througout time monarchs have played factions against each other trying to strenghten their rule and put down political enemies.
You claim that by retaining certain constitutional powers, or at least denying them to others, a monarch is the safeguard against civil or military dictatorship. What is to then prevent the monarch from becoming a dictator? If you claim it is because they are a figurehead, then how can they safeguard the public against dictatorship? If you claim because their powers are limited by the constitution, this presumes the consitution cannot be overridden, and if it cannot then there is not threat of a dictatorship for them to protect us from.
You point to example from world war II and claim that the Italian King removed Mussolini from office in 1943. Where was the Italian king in all the years leading up to this action, which I question, since Mussolini held on to power until the Allies landed in Italy? In fact, Mussolini overpowered Vittorio Emmanuel, sent the royal army off to fight in Africa and established his own military rule with loyal partisan troops. The king was nothing more than a prisoner or a puppet during this time. Not really a great asset to the people. In fact, Mussolini was able to bully the king into consenting to Il Duce's rule, thereby giving himself more legitimacy.
The good works you ascribe to many monarchs are notable, but remember that these are families that have grown rich at the expense of their people. Living subsidized lifes with family money going back for generations, all taken from the people. It is only right that they give back, and while I appreciate their charity I think it is no more honorable than the poor widow the meager bit she has to help others.
I think that fundamentally, a monarchy goes against the very natural rights of man, that all men are created equal and should have equal opportunities to make themselves great based upon their deeds and their actions, not based on an arbitrary hereditary pedigree.
I will fight any attempt to take away the rights of Eutopian citizens by arbitrarily elevating one citizen or family over another.
Who's with me? "
Rev. Teano then orders himself a tall cold one, to help lower his blood pressure.
