YouDebateIt.com Return To Home Page

YouDebateIt.com -- What advantages does monarchy have over democracy?
Topic: What advantages does monarchy have over democracy?

Which do you prefer #1 or #2?
Vote below for the better argument.
Opinion #1
Debater: The Wild Goose
Quite a few, actually.
Monarchy and democracy both have disadvantages, indeed, government is never without them. I would venture to say, however, that when the balance sheet is read, most forms of monarchy come out ahead of democracy. There are a few principal advantages, but the foremost among these is what some economists call "time preference". A politician in a populist democracy is elected for a short time, and only seeks to keep the people happy for as long as it serves his career. He is therefore more willing to run huge deficits, make unwise alliances, start "wars of distraction" and rob from future generations. Monarchs are often flawed people, and they often create disasters because of their own vanity or weakness, but monarchs have a long-term view of things, either for the duration of their own lives or, more commonly, for their own lives and that of their descendants. Neither system is perfect, but let us note that monarchs of old rarely taxed as heavily or fought wars as freely as govmts today
Supporting URL[s]:
http://www.cheetah.net
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.mises.org
Opinion #2
Debater: Matt S.
History Lesson
Monarchies of old were in an almost constant state of war. The Hundred Years War, War of the Roses, War of Jenkin's Ear, French and American, Spanish Succession- and this is before you get to the things that "technically" weren't wars.

To say that monarchies are involved in fewer wars than democracies is an out-right falsehood. To state that monarchies did not heavily tax is equally wrong. In England, a huge debate raged over whether the King could issue a ship tax over the land-locked people, who got no benefit from the ship!

Many democracies "look to the future," just look at the Democrats and Republicans today who are arguing over initiatives (especially tax ones) that won't have lasting effects for 20-30 years. Some of the best democratic politicians show little evidence of this time preference, such as Thatcher, Lincoln and FDR.

Neither of your two points (time preference or freely fought wars) are logical, or supported by actual facts.
Which argument do you agree with more? #1   #2
Which argument is more persuasive? #1   #2
READ ALL ARGUMENTS ON THIS TOPIC
POST YOUR COUNTERARGUMENT TO THE MOST RECENT ARGUMENT ON THIS TOPIC
START A NEW OR SEPARATE ARGUMENT ON THIS TOPIC
READ & JUDGE OTHER COMPLETED DEBATES
PROPOSE ANOTHER DEBATE TOPIC
Share your view. Whose argument did you like better? I strongly prefer the argument of debater #1
I strongly prefer the argument of debater #2
I slightly prefer the argument of debater #1
I slightly prefer the argument of debater #2
I prefer the argument of debater #1, but I could do better!
I prefer the argument of debater #2, but I could do better!

  
Your comments will appear on SelectSmart.com. Look for ''Visitor Reviews''.

Welcome to YouDebateIt.com
This is the place for debate with an added element of friendly competition. This is a debating and essay resource and practice tool, not a debating society or club. There are no complicated rules, but these debates have structure. Each debate consists of a topic with two opposing views.

These are short essays limited to about 150-165 words. Present your strongest argument the first time, since you can't go back to change it--as with the National Forensic League and other speech and debate formats. Read these debates, then vote for your favorite arguments.

These debates are fun, informative and give exposure to all sides of the issues. Most debates will be archived (arguments that are obscene or offensive may be deleted). The better and more interesting debates will be featured.