Monarchy and Democracy II

Thank's Con. Also, to make this debate easier for the readers, I would respectfully ask if you would respond to my contentions/subpoints with their headings ("Corruption", for example). I'll refute Cons case first, then defend mine.FrameworkMy Opponent is mistaken. My definition states that Kings generally gain their status via birth--not always. Rome (when it was not a republic) was an elective Monarchy. The argument is silly anyway, having an elected King is clearly not what comes to ones mind when they think of democracy. I'll bring cards to support this if it ever becomes a major point of clash. Voice expression XA my Contention 3 here, Monarchs are on balance more less corrupt than democracies. Turn the SOPA example, because the fact that such an oppressive hinderance to public access of information was even considered for legistlation speaks volumes about the oppressiveness of modern Democracies. Cons Magna Carta example makes a case for constituional monarchy, not democracy. There is simple no substance behind this argument anyway; to argue that people are more free now than they were under Monarchy is just absurd. Literally every year governments pass heaps of new paper laws into legistlation, encroaching on every aspect of their civilians lives, the power of the American government, to name an example, has experienced non stop growth and has engaged in the wanton slaughter of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens for merely wanting to peacefully leave their country[1]. Democracies have the power to spy on their citizens [2], execute their citizens, and detain them without consequence[3]. The principle of victim compensation, held during the monarchial age to be the fundamental pillar of justice has totally disappeared during the democratic one[4]; the Korematsu ruling gave the government the power to imprison their citizens, and the U.S. governments commitment to peace and non intervension has been replaced by a policy of warmongering. Modern democracies everywhere are trying implement National ID systems, so that big brother can constantly keep tabs on us. This is further unwarranted when we examine the extremely anti-liberal policies that get implemented once the bigotry and ignorance of the mob seeks into democratic legistlation[5].Balanced powerMy Opponents system of checks and balances needs to be more fleshed out. I understand the need for brevity, but to merely assert this as "self explanatory" is fallacious; I'll refute the general idea anyway. My Opponents argument runs under the ignorant assumption that the system of checks and balances will remain. The modern history of the U.S. disproves this. Consider that the power of the Federal Government has done nothing but grow. Robert Higgs contrasts the early American government with today[6]:"There was a time, long ago, when the average American could go about his daily business hardly aware of the government...he could decide what, how, when, and where to produce and sell his goods...Just think: no farm subsidies, price supports,or acreage controls; no Federal Trade Commission; no antitrust laws; no Interstate Commerce Commision...no National Labor Relations board; no federal consumer "protection" laws; no Security and Exchange commision; no Equal Employment Opportunity Commision, no Departnment of Health and Human Services...There were no general sales taxes, no Social Security taxes, no income taxes. Though governmental officials were corrupt then as nw, they had vastly less to be corrupt with. Private citizens spent about fifteen times more than all governments combined. Those days, alas, are long gone."Democracy ensures a steady increase of governmental power.The initial premise is foolish to begin with--why should we assume governments will adhere to checks and balances when governmantal officials have the power to amend them? Only the Supreme Court, the least democratic of U.S. governmantal institutions, has bothered to uphold the constitution, and their confirmation requirement in the Senate has weakened even their integrity. Constitutionally limited governments are a myth. CorruptionThis is just simply false. As my case shows, Democratic elections ensure corruption. Hoppe writes[7]:"The selection of governmental rulers by means of popular elections makes it practically impossible that any good or harmless person could ever rise to the top. Prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Thus, democracy virtually ensures that only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government; indeed as is the result of free political competition and selection, those who rise will become increasingly bad and dangerous individuals."My Opponent has yet to argue any impact as to why satisfying the whims of the mob is good, and his Rome example is not only not fleshed out enough to be an actual point, but it also is much closer to an elective Monarchy, which has historically existed[8], than a democracy. ==My Case==WarMy Opponent misunderstands my point--it isnt that Monarchs avoid war entirely, but rather that ones devoted to self interest (as most were) will be more careful about it. My opponent brings up some exceptions, but this just serves to prove my point even more--these examples are so significant precisely because they're exceptions. Besides, none of them brought destruction on the scale of modern total wars. That individuals fought over the title of King proves that princely disputes tend to be personal ones, not ideological ones. My Opponent then procedes to attack my sources instead of logic. World War I became an ideological conflict once the U.S. got involved and Russia withdrew, and World War II was an ideological conflict between Liberal Democracy and Facism. Iraq was a mixture of political, ideological, and economic factors but there can be no doubt that the ideological difference between the liberal democratic U.S. and the theocratic Iraqian dictatorship played a significant part in the war propaganda. He essentially drops the diplomacy point--he does not dispute the unique monarchial advantage of marriage and treaty fufillment, thus conceding to them. His only objection is based off a poor understanding of the argument, monarchs will try and solve disputes other ways because they have an incentive towards retaining wealth. His objection to the assassination point is silly; generally when monarchs are disposed, it is because another is ready to take his place. This ensures that incredibly incompetent monarchs will not remain in power. To his impeachment point, I ask how many rulers have actually been removed from office due to impeachment? EconomicsAccountabilityCon makes the incredibly ridiculous argument that there are no historical examples of democratic governments ruining a nations economy. He concedes to the arguments by dropping the logic. Practically every major recession has been the result of failed government intervention; I'll link a CATO article explaining this to better illustrate the point to those who dont understand it. He concedes that monarchs can go bankrupt- meaning that they are less likely to rack up debt, like government officials. TaxDrops tax increase evidence. Vote Pro if you dont want bigger taxes. He argues that Kings didnt force their subjects into failed public education and economically destructive social programs. My point exactly. FiatSilly response, the U.S. money supply is controlled by the federal reserve. USFG uses Kenyesian economics. Dropped historics. P.R.TyrannyDropped and thus conceded. Did not justify how it "not related".CorruptionDropped, thus conceded. Sure kings can be corrupt. Elected officials practically always are.Law and OrderDropped and therefore conceded. His attempted turn is unwarranted. Democratic governments hold much more power than monarchial ones ever did. Vote Pro. Sources:http://www.debate.org...