Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Which one, I'd say anarchy.
Because it is man's nature to want power, so we'll always be fightring over authority, so it would be better to have everyone EXACTLY equal.
But what do tou thinbk?

_________________
Remember your special and unique, but so is everyone else, so your not all that diffrent!

Sure, and then when you have no one to enforce your laws, a crime rate through the roof, and exponentially degrading morals, you can look around and say, "Yep, I sure am glad everyone's equal."

No, Communism is where everything is equal. Anarchy is the allowance of drug lords to run the country and resources, all while committing genocide to the people of the country. See: Somalia.

As for the question, I'd go with Monarchy, though I'd rather have a Republic.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

THAT IS COMPLETELY THE DEFINATION OF "NOT ANARCHY"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

_________________
Remember your special and unique, but so is everyone else, so your not all that diffrent!

Anarchy's the lack of a government... which means no government jobs i.e. the police, the military, any other body which would be able to keep order. You can't trust everyone to be good if you don't have a way of punishing them.

Umm, no? Somalia is an anarchistic government which is now controlled by drug lords, and the reason I brought it up was the fact that all anarchistic governments lead to this. Like you said, all people strive for power, so Anarchy is an impossibility.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

Even if a country has a monarchy, they are not completely ruled by the royal family. Eg, Great Britain. They have a Queen, and Tony Blair, the Prime Minister. He makes most of the important decisions, not her.

Australia is a constitutional monarchy, meaning the Queen is our head of state, jsut a figurehead, but we still have a PM, our own Parliament and Ministers etc. The only real say that the Queen has is with the appointment of the Governor General, of which she takes the Executive Council's advice anyway. The GG assents to all legislation on the Queen's behalf, she doesn't get a say.

But what really irks me is when they say that CHarles will be the future King of Australia. No, he will be the King of England. We're independant, dag-nabit!

_________________

The US has an idiot in power. How the heck that happened we will never know.

_________________

dude, people say that all freakin texans are stupid, rich cowboys who walk around with guns, and wear those hats, thats not true, i live here, i know, most people here are near-poverty.
my take on the subject, not monarchy, not anarchy, just the system we got now.

_________________

The problem with anarchy is that it never survives. In a true state of anarchy, the strong will always rise up and take control. The result could be good or bad, but anarchy can never last.

_________________

Personally, people who want anarchy seem to be emo and punks who can't ever manage to form a plan. It's great you want changes, but whining about your life isn't going to change very much. A monarchy is what a civilized nation naturally forms, unless you have a mastermind like Socrates, someone who can rise against nature to make a reform. Anarchy will not work for the reason that anarchists don't work.

_________________

I don't agree with your entire post, but this bit is definitely sig-worthy.

_________________

OFF TOPIC'd!!-whats Sig-worthy?

BACK ON TOPIC'd!!! Things like government and stuff like how everything should be is like a several new stepp's walts.

It starts off with one new country, with no help from other countries, start off with no sort of government, I.E. Anarchy. then someone takes power and usually forms a monarchy, then the people revolt because they want to make their own rules, then once they have gained power, they create a government like what we have, then, one president take over using Marshal Law and eventually creates a dictatorship, in which eventually they get into a war, in which they get destroyed, and is thus reserved back into Anarchy,then the proccess starts all over again.

wow, i gues thats not really a walts

_________________

Umm.. I'm not sure that a government that implodes upon itself, then creates a war is necessarily a good way for a government to function.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

Because enough people disagreed with you to vote him into office. And no, I wasn't one of them.


[Bill Shatner] MUST.....REFRAIN.....FROM......TEXAS.......JOKES![/Bill Shatner]

_________________

With anarchy, there is complete chaos. No-one's on power, and it's every man for himself. In a true monarchy everyone's ob it to please the Royal. Whatever they domand goes. No free will, just work. Either way someone will get the short end on the stick.

_________________

<Peter Griffin Laugh> heheheheheh! Shatner.

with anarchy, there is only total chaos, with everyman for himself; but when your stairing down the barrel of a S.P.A.Z Shot-gun, He's The Boss. so i guess in anarchy, the man with the forced followers is king.

_________________

The last time that we had total Anarchy was the Dark Ages. Now that was a grand old time.

_________________

The Dark Ages weren't anarchic. Europe didn't experience a lack of government; rather, it experienced a lack of Roman government. In the west, the empire did indeed break down before various barbarian tribes, but these tribes and their kingdoms had rulers and governments of their own. And they were better off because they didn't have Romans lording over them. Furthermore, the eastern empire, centered in Constantinople, remained intact. In fact, the standard of living during the so-called Dark Ages was significantly better than it was a few hundred years later in the Middle Ages, when the Plague hit.

Anyway, I would prefer absolute monarchy over anarchy. You get screwed over either way, but at least in a monarchy you have a better idea of how it'll happen.

I'd much rather sacrafice the structure of an anarchy for the freedoms of a monarchy.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

...which is me!
the problem with monarchy is that authoritives use their powers for EVIL, so in anarchy people form mobs and control themselves, if anyone wants to suddenly take control, then you form a mob and seek the out the person!

_________________
Remember your special and unique, but so is everyone else, so your not all that diffrent!

Ugh.


No, kings and queens of a monarchic rule are not destined to use their powers for evil, and quite frankly, your entire "authority sucks" argument is just annoying. As for your "mob rule" bit, I think that it's a given that having people randomly killing for power is a bad thing.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

And what if you have an EVIL mob? You can't hope to unify people like that. Besides, why would anyone work under anarchy? And if no one works, then who makes the food? You'd have us all regress to a primal hunter-gatherer state.

And most mobs are evil. Most mobs do stuff like organized crime, lynching of minorities, things like that. So, no, I cannot agree that mob rule would ever be a good thing.

On the other hand, at least with a monarchy, you could at least get a good king every now and then, and even a bad king could keep the mobs under some restriction.

_________________

Since when did I say that?
....And yes I know mobs aren't a good idea, but a good king every once in awhile will mean totla chaos for the rest of the time, so actully, both of these governments suck.

_________________
Remember your special and unique, but so is everyone else, so your not all that diffrent!

Right here:

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

That means "some" not all, let's just leave it at both governments aren't very good.

_________________
Remember your special and unique, but so is everyone else, so your not all that diffrent!

Anarchy in the UK....?

classic