User talk:Meshakhad

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Meshakhad!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Blue (pester) 22:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits on Judaism etc.[edit]

Could you please give some details for your edits? I wasn't aware of a thirteens tribe... larronsicut fur in nocte 16:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


I think it's broken. Can you fix it? Test in a sandbox or via "preview"? Thanks. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


Bangarang, motherfucker. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 18:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


Never expected to see you here.--Madman (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Sorry, who are you? (talk) Meshakhad 23:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Monarchist, eh?[edit]

Why? FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem with modern democracy is that politicians tend to be interested in the short term, as that's what gets them re-elected. A monarchy with limited power, if combined with an elected legislature, could provide a counter to this, as a monarch can expect to be in power for decades. (talk) Meshakhad 21:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
1: Why is short-term bad? 2: If elected legislators only care about short-term, why have them at all? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
1: If you only think in the short-term, long-term consequences can creep up on you until it becomes too late to deal with them. 2: So that the people have a say, and so they can deal with short-term problems. If I had to choose between an absolute monarchy and a pure democracy, I'd pick the democracy any time. But a constitutional monarchy combined with an elected legislature offers the best of both worlds. (talk) Meshakhad 19:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
1: Could you not also say that the monarch's long reign hurts their people? The monarch cares about amassing their personal wealth and maintaining control, both of which often were and are at odds to the interests of the people. (Think how Spain fell from being a major colonial power to a backwater, not least due to the royal policies. The shift took centuries, but the mostly-democratically run Britain far surpassed the monarchic-Spain in the 1800s.) Short-term interest makes you interested in the welfare of the people -- because if they aren't happy, you don't get voted in. Also, considering that policies such as the Constution and the New Deal have been rather longlived, I'm not sure why democracies are any more inherently short-term than monarchies. Further, consider that changing the disposition of a monarch can take seconds -- they get mad at an ambassador and declare war -- while changing the dispositions of the people can take decades.
2: Let me pose an idea: Why not have long-term elected representatives instead of kings? If you're in power for, say, 6 years or 8 years or 26 years or 50 years, then you'd get all the supposed benefits of a king plus all the benefits of letting people have a say. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 21:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Good points, both of those. As to the latter, we might also consider a system similar to what the House of Lords is becoming. (talk) Meshakhad 22:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)