I'm not gonna answer to everything everyone said, too much to quote and answer to.

Quick points:

Monarchies aren't more stable then republics. France was a monarchy for a thousand years, and it was at war most of that time. Invading, getting invaded and fighting in civil wars. Most monarchies only had that. War against other monarchies or civil wars for power, so it isn't as different as a republic in stability for real.

Existing, isn't a proof of stability. The Roman Empire which you guys praise so much, had mostly bad emperors. The only thing that kept it alive was it's exceptional military. Legions could fight well under any emperor, but they failed at the end as the system got corrupt after every year and military spending got slashed as there was no more money left. The Roman Empire at it's fall was probably more corrupt then most actual democracies.

Also, democracy is a fairly new system, as we know it only exists since the American independence and the French revolution, so it's normal that we haven't see any country with more then a few centuries of it... And please don't call the Roman Republic a democracy, it was all but it. The Athenian city was also a bit more of an oligarchy then a democracy for real.

PS: Franco was a really bad person, and also a poor leader. Don't suggest him to be better then Dilma Rousseff. If I had to choose between them, I would for the first time become a militant of the worker's party.

"I prefer the republic because in an autocratic system the needs of the average person tend to be ignored in favor of people with something to offer to autocrat."

Exactly. The autocrat is the state (see Louis XIV: L'etat, c'est moi). Thus, the people with influence have something to offer to the state. The "average person" is poor, and has little property and nothing little to offer the state. Therefore, they just vote themselves subsidies and welfare until the nation collapses. A republic would be fine since the elite are making the actual decisions, but in today's world, communications make it impossible for DC people to ignore idiots in California. Thus, we need a system like Poland-Lithuania's: a king with a lot of power, but he is elected not by property-less peasants, but by nobles with a stake in the country and a decent education. They have enough property they won't just vote themselves money and wreck the country. And then they can restrict his power if he does poorly, and if necessary have a little revolution here and there. Honestly, a tweaked Poland-Lithuania seems ideal

"The Roman Empire which you guys praise so much, had mostly bad emperors."
And it still managed. Think about what could happen if we could make sure our emperors weren't insane, like in Poland's system.

Edited 3/2/2016 02:44:30

X some people can't be bought out that was my point in bringing up majority consensus.

They're politicians - they all made their jobs on being bought out, and "sponsored". A good politician won't get anywhere in most systems.

you're making assumptions without evidence now. Also out of thousands of politicians its impossible for all of them to be corrupt.

Edited 3/2/2016 03:27:47

No, you made an assumption in that not everyone can be bought out. I disagree. Also, my evidence - lobbying and the importance of money in votes.

X some people can't be bought out that was my point in bringing up majority consensus.

thats not evidence. You have to prove every single politician has been bought out by some special interest group but you haven't you just referenced a job title given by corporations and special interest groups. The burden of proof lies upon you to prove it not upon me to disprove it. Learn about basic logic m9. Although I'm sure you're a HS drop out.

Edited 3/2/2016 03:53:13

The burden of proof lies upon you to prove it not upon me to disprove it. Learn about basic logic m9.

No, you made a claim saying something is not; a negative claim. Back your claim up. http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

thats not evidence. You have to prove every single politician has been bought out by some special interest group but you haven't you just referenced a job title given by corporations and special interest groups.

Prove to me first that every single politician has a pure heart. Tell me when you've finished in 10 years.

Although I'm sure you're a HS drop out.

I could school you any day. Curb your hostility or I will unroll some artillery.

BUUUUUUUURN , RUSSIAN GUY FTW

I suggest a parlamentarian monarchy!

Edited 3/2/2016 20:11:40