Monarchy and Democracy II

Alright, let's start. Before I begin, I would like to point things out with his definition: the individual gains his status via the position of his birth. This clearly distinguishes his "monarchy" from the Roman Kingdom, in which the people elected the king, and no king relied on strength to keep the throne. First off, his first major point was war. He went off on tangents on how kings are less likely to throw their country into warfare than in a democratic government. First off, there is an extremely long list of wars that have been declared by these rulers. Although the majority of kings are relatively "good," so to speak, the instability of the system leaves the country too open for bloodthirsty rulers. Allow me to illustrate with a few examples: Constantine, when he declared war against un-christian countries; Numerous fights for the chair of king (that was never a problem with the Romans) took place in Britain - for example, the War of Roses. He continued to claim the following: "Conversly, wars conducted by democratic powers tend to be total wars, where the war affects the enitre population in one way or another. Wars are no longer funded by a soveirgns personal wealth, but rather by tax payer dollars. " Which is not backed up by his sources whatsoever. His source 3 and 4 have no correlation, and his source 5 is about the Iraq war, which doesn't back up his generalization whatsoever. And his assertion has almost no point to it - all war affects the population. "Most importantly, democratic rulers are not fighting wars for profit, but rather for ideology and thus will not hesitate to destroy territories, economies, and peoples[10,13], and will not rest until their enemies are totally defeated regardless of the consequences[11, 12]. " First off, this is a direct contradiction with his previous claim that war was the "most economically destructive" activity. His second major point, Diplomacy, has almost no correlation to the first. His first point claims that democracy is not hesitant to go to war - however, he never asserts that Monarchy is any better. Therefore, he cannot come to the conclusion that Monarchs will prefer to solve disputes. He continues in his point to say that abusive Monarchs may be assassinated. I fail to see how this shows that Monarchy is better; the very point that he brings infers that it has happened before. When monarchs are assassinated, it leaves the country in turmoil due to a lack of leadership. Since democratic rulers have limited terms, they don't run the risk of assassination and CAN be impeached, as shown with president Andrew Jackson. Monarchs are life or death, which is not a stable way of running a government, for obvious reasons. His next point, Accountability can be taken apart as follows: "In democracies, representatives or presidents who cause economic destruction are not held accountable for their actions, and thus have no incentive to not run their countries economy into the ground[15]. .. even if they destroyed a nations economy. " He contradicts himself in claiming that they destroyed the economy. On the other hand, while he does have a source, he gives no historical examples on when a representative has destroyed the government. Keep in mind, if this is a democracy, there will be no complete power, and it is the people that make the decision, as was defined by my opponent. Therefore, there are no examples of a country's economy being destroyed because of democracy. On the other hand, Monarchs have gone bankrupt before, and because there is no check-and-balance system, it is completely their fault. This, again, relates to his definition. If monarchs are determined by their birth, the government is an unstable system, and therefore is prone to deleterious decisions by the monarch. His point on taxation is easy to refute. Kings did not provide mandatory education, nor did they pay for public services. The mandatory education, in fact, came around with democracy. The increase in taxes is due to the increase in government spending for public services. His point on Fiat Money directly contradicts his definition - the monarchs are supposed to assume complete authority. However, his assertion does not affect democracy; democracy does not control the economy either. His point on productivity has no source nor evidence to illustrate his point. And the idea that kings will "get rid of unproductive people" is rather ominous. His point on tyranny is not really related to this, and his point on corruption practically has no source and he admits that kings are prone to corruption. His point on order is a restatement of his entire case - again, kings are prone to corruption, and they hold absolute power, leading to the cases of tyranny. Now onto the Negation Case: First, democracy allows people to actively express their voice. This is a rather self-explanatory point, people can talk to the government directly and influence the decisions. A good example of this would be SOPA, where thousands of websites shut down and the case was dropped immediately. Furthermore, until the king was forced to sign the Magna Carta, individuals rarely had rights such as the freedom of speech, etc. that are guaranteed in a democracy. Second, democratic decisions are balanced by the power of the people and the unique government. This is another self-explanatory point. The SOPA example also furthers this point. In our democracy, we have several branches of government with a unique system of checks and balances. If my opponent brings up Britain and their Parliament, let me remind the reader that this is no longer the monarchy as he defined - the monarch doesn't have complete power over the country. His definition only allows monarchs to have complete power - which means that the decisions are rarely affected and are mostly made by his whim. Third, democracy is less prone to corruption. Due to the necessity of appealing to the masses, democracy is something that is not as prone to corruption, due to the necessity of the people's votes. Therefore, all the members are chosen according to the people - and they can be impeached accordingly. Tyranny is obviously an easy transformation for most governments run on a monarchy. Let me remind you that all of Rome is technically "democratic," as the people elected the leaders. And remember that not a single drop of blood was shed in the Roman Kingdom period over the throne. For the last portion of my arguments, I would like to point out things thus far in the debate: 1. My opponent has not won in terms of his standard - examples. 2. My opponent hasn't shown how democracy is worse in terms of corruption, neither has he aptly proved his assertions on productivity, taxation, nor accountability. 3. I have proven his assertions either incorrect or invalid, and have provided several arguments for democracy. Due to the fact that my opponent has provided absolutely no examples of his points, and only can offer a few opinions, I strongly assert that Democracy is better than Monarchy in almost every aspect.