Social Question

Joker94's avatar

How different would the United States be today if it functioned under a monarchy?

Asked by Joker94 (8180points) March 20th, 2011

Besides the obvious “we’d have a king” thing. How would life under an American King be different from how it is today?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

20 Answers

incendiary_dan's avatar

Is just waiting for the first W reference.

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

Taxes would go up.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

There would be another country west of the Mississippi River, maybe two. Speaking French and Spanish. Alaska would speak Russian.

Kayak8's avatar

Well, we might actually have a queen! The army would have snazzier uniforms, we would have a royal family of our own to feature in People magazine, and the overall “pomp and circumstance” might increase delightfully . . .

ragingloli's avatar

Well, it would function.

josie's avatar

There would be protests and perhaps even violent revolution-again

zenvelo's avatar

It wouldn’t have expanded much beyond the northern tier of the original states. Those who didn’t like a monarchy would have hightailed it out of there for the frontier long ago.

Nullo's avatar

Depends on what kind of monarchy.

anartist's avatar

Like UK only bigger?

Nullo's avatar

@ragingloli The man raises some good points. And a “benevolent dictatorship” could, theoretically, work out pretty well – provided that you could install infallible or effectively infallible people. The Pope does not, in fact, count; rather, he is only considered infallible when making the ex cathedra statement that he is infallible when making ex cathedra statements.
An absolute monarch who really does know best (and could reliably act upon it) would be best, butI don’t think that we’re going to see anything reliably close to that ideal until we have the actual Theos Himself doing the cratia.

I am reminded of Italy, a country where the President has a handful of official functions, none of which are especially critical. A monarchy in the same vein would be very pretty for social occasions.

chocolatechip's avatar

Canada would be a lot bigger (geographically and politically).

ragingloli's avatar

And which theos would that be?
I do not consider someone, whose only option of solving a problem is global genocide, as someone who “knows best”.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

I’m not sure it would be that different. From what I understand of the US, only the rich can afford to be in politics, and the poor are woefully neglected. Monarchies have historically looked after the rich and given them peasants as thralls. In the feudal system, the monarch primarily sought favour with lords with land and men who could finance their wars. In the US political system, politicians primarily seek favour with their constituents who fund their campaigning and political career.

Nullo's avatar

@ragingloli The One that’s there, naturally
You illustrate the point well: there may be circumstances where the right thing to do would be unsavory enough never to get voter approval.

ragingloli's avatar

“The One that’s there, naturally”

There are literally thousands of gods out there.

“there may be circumstances where the right thing [genocide] to do would be unsavory enough never to get voter approval.”

If you really think that genocide is ever the “right” thing to do, especially for a supposedly almighty “god”, who could just make them all virtuous with but the wave of a hand, then I feel sorry for you.

Nullo's avatar

@ragingloli Ah, but pretty much all religions are mutually exclusive. (The only exception that I can think of is Baha’i, which AFAIK fails to address that inherent exclusivity.) The number of different beliefs has no impact on the number of extant deities. Of course, we both know which God I was referring to.

God is rather fond of free will on general principles, hence He cannot “just make them all virtuous with but the wave of a hand.” I’m rather certain that you would appreciate that.
The command to annihilate the Caananites (this is what you were referring to, no?) was issued because, “Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.” The Israelites didn’t follow through, and sure enough, this happened. Quite a few times.
Eternal damnation, after all, is worse than death.

ragingloli's avatar

I was referring to the flood, actually, which it committed itself.
(You can add the extinction of the dinosaurs to that list, if you want) do you even believe in dinosaurs?
I’m rather certain that you would appreciate that.
How can I appreciate anything when I am dead?
Seriously, between getting slaughtered and getting my brain rewritten a bit and still be alive, I will take the latter option.

mattbrowne's avatar

A lot of jobs would be created by the tabloids.

Nullo's avatar

@ragingloli Oh, that. Suffice to say that God will bring judgment, but always gives the righteous (or at least the penitent) a way out. It’s a common theme in Scripture, appearing in both Old and New Testamens; most of the instances are in Genesis.

The existence of the dinosaurs is not a matter of belief. Their nature, timing, and yes, even their ultimate demise, are.

Fortunately, you don’t have to pick between the two. You’re not dead right now, are you? And you are in possession of your wits. You may still take the way out that I alluded to above. Your personal judgment and its consequences are for after you’ve left.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther