political opinions voted for against totalitarianism

First of all I'd like to present a suggestion that monarchy after parliamentarism provided something amongst totalitarians known as "variety" - a form of theater. The belief still stands amongst monarchists that definition of opinion isn't really it's root of definition. Look for reference into my attempt to define truth in a debate as a constant paradox in my earlier arguments. Let us now sit down before our computers and think a little. What happens when truth is debated is progress really not diversion from one opinion being better than a reached agreement. The distinction however between an order and progressive debate isn't really in opposition to parliamentarism as it in effect does not drain monarchy of it's strength yet provides it with communication to it's fundament known as the people (folk I prefer as a term). However parliamentarism here in Norway after the war with Sweden led to a diminished monarchy by constitution not allowed to have political power. This might have been looked upon as beneficial for the general public yet did not happen in the United Kingdom. What the Napoleon wars had to do with this I am not educated enough in history to explain. Well then enough about history. A vote about a case or issue is the modern democratic way of solution. However we need stability in law and that stability is provided by an appointed selection of embodiment capable of making just decision. Law changes as well and isn't immune to human failure. What is elementary in this matter is a proper education in law not necessarily merely for the privileged? Birthright is indeed not a new idea. Can law be inherited? Yes, and I believe it should be as natural selection very much serves public good. The contrary would be an insult to monarchy. As we see a European Union come forth with great strength even trying to rationalise Europe as one nation with a universal constitution my opinion is that this threatens monarchy in all respectful nations who practise such a form of government. We have seen several destructive revolutions throughout time. The French revolution for one most possibly an incident caused by tendencies of loosing a war and hunger, tyranny so forth resulting in an angry and incontrollable population. Did the outcome of this revolution result in a proletarian state with no ties to monarchy? Is a body of rulement totalitarian whomever concerns about ruling a state? Is a state an illusion? I suggest you read "The Concept of Nations" which I haven't successfully found anywhere on the internet though I am quite certain it is a book written by an English author. The idea of someone chosen by a general public to be better fit to rule politically is of course debateable. Though if you ask the man in the streets he wouldn't know the difference. Maybe the basics of communication is to understand one another's opinions does not interfere with each individuals will to carry these out. A debate should go on forever is my opinion and I believe there might be such a debate somewhere. There would of course be instances of progress. I am most certain it takes time to understand one another. Further upon the fundament of this distinction between law and politics understandably quite supreme at it's origin a demand for constitution appeared in many European nations. I am aware there was an attempt of that in England as well during Cromwell. If any of you know anything about this; good links and so on please post in comments. These constitutions in some nations had roots of a revolutionary consideration. And it seems these questions proposed in modern Europe might be a threat to monarchy. The question is does the public want Europe to be one nation with a dormant monarchy ie a mere symbol of state rather than it's rule of body. As some of these constitutions were nearly terms for loss of wars there must be relevancy ie thus and therefore these wars have ended. I am aware of the term used about the great world war; "A war to end all wars" probably by ambition a concern to keep Europe out of conflict between it's monarchies. Which unfortunately did not happen. Will today's Europe transform into some sort of unionised totalitarian fascist state? Is it republican in it's root? Is the vision of a gathered allied Europe really beneficial for remaining monarchies? The rational point of view has for a long time been yes. We prefer small independent states before a vast bureaucracy impossible to rule. A bureaucracy as vast as the European Union is in itself totalitarian ie the touch between a population and it's government disappears. This seen in earlier attempts of large unions such as the Soviet Union and unfortunately sometimes the United States. My definition of a totalitarian state is in fact a government no longer listening to it's public. The proletarians of France probably had good intentions as most folk do but sufficiently enough lacked experience of ruling. We have all heard about handing cats to mice. I must however confess a strong belief in individual rights and liberty not necessarily a threat to any form of government as individuals are educated to respect it's nation by progressive truth through debates. Certainly the democratic way of rule. A democracy may however be as totalitarian as any other form of rule if it looses fundament in it's folk. That is why delegated representatives of state most definitely aren't less disposed of performing their tasks than elected ones. This however only applies to a task that is of a quest for truth rather than making it a definition. Conclusion: A state without respect for truth develops into a totalitarian state making it a definition and upholds law by defining truth. Then my adversary whomever it may be is welcome to answer for the opposite and may do so respectfully.