I have always been a monarchist, but not the biggest fan of the house of Windsor.
One of a monarchs jobs is to fill the position of ultimate ruler so as to stop bad actors from taking that role and abusing it.
This is one argument for the figurehead monarch being quite useful.
However, this then places more power within the hands of democratic rulers beneath the monarch.
Democratic rulers will always be flawed by default as the selection process is flawed.
People vote for them on the basis of the things that they say. Most of the time, these are embellishments or lies.
Most of you would have seen that I encourage people to vote and help explain our complicated preferential voting process quite regularly, but I do this because these are the tools we currently have, not because I beleive democracy is a good system.
Monarchs are born into the job. They’re trained from birth to rule effectively.
I would prefer to see an Australian based monarchy with an Australian family at the helm or a European royal family that has a responsible track record.
As I’ve said before, uninfringed constitutional rights are superior to that of democracy.
Democracy is not needed to ensure freedom. Respected parameters are.
A constitutionally limited King, yet operating as an absolute monarch outside of that, with full responsibility over state affairs, is preferable.
The constitution sets the parameters. And uninfringed gun rights for civilians will help tremendously to enforce it.
Future constitutions can be written in such a way as to account for the failings of the Windors. Such as anti globalist measures written into it, along with demographic protections.
It’s a long way off before we can reach conditions like this though.
It’s impossible to change our constitution now and not get screwed over by the socialists and globalists.
But in the future things may be different.
Alex James.