I will not live and pay taxes in a country that has a monarchy or death penalty.
This is a rather interesting statement, so I hope you don’t mind if I ask some questions for clarification;
I’m assuming that the no-monarchies position is ideological, based on it’s proximity to your death penalty objection, but it’s not entirely clear what the specific objection is. Could you answer which of these types of country you would / would not live in, assuming for the moment none of them had the death penalty?
A representative democracy with a nominal ruler who in practice has little power, like the Commonwealth nations or Japan.
A constitutional monarchy where there is representative democracy but the ruler does exercise political power, like Thailand or Liechtenstein.
An absolute / near absolute monarchy with no significant democratic representation, like Dubai or Saudi Arabia.
A de-facto non-hereditary dictatorship (i.e. ‘President for Life’) with limited democratic representation, like Venezuela or Russia.
I’m also curious about how strong those preferences are. For each of the above categories you listed as not being willing to live in, about how much money would you pay to avoid having to live in a country like that?
(I’m not debating for or against monarchy right now; personally I’m a monarchist, but I’m also a bit sick of debate. This is about curiosity rather than rhetoric.)
It’s curious that you happened to mention countries where I have sometimes thought I’d like to live (Japan and Dubai for their urban design, Thailand and Russia for cultural reasons). But then I have to remember what it’s like to actually live there and, by the fact of participating in civil life, to implicitly support the state of affairs. Other countries I like are similarly objectionable on further thought (New Zealand and the Netherlands have monarchs; Ireland and Costa Rica are oppressively Catholic).
My position is a Thoreau-like one: I do not want public policy decisions to be made by someone who is not accountable to the persons whom those decisions will affect. Even if the monarch has no ruling powers, the idea of supporting the luxurious lifestyle of one privileged family at the expense of taxpayers is abhorrent to me.
Many factors other than the political system drive my country ranking list. I would choose Canada rather than Venezuela, but Venezuela rather than Saudi Arabia. But, to properly answer your question, if the political system were the only factor that mattered, my order of preferences would be 1-2-4-3 on your list, accounting for the fact that I see more hope for Russia than for Saudi Arabia (here hope = the likelihood of their next head of state being democratically elected). Excluding military juntas (e.g. Myanmar), non-hereditary dictatorships tend to perish with their founder (even if Hugo Chávez’s successor Nicolás Maduro manages to get himself re-re-re-elected, he won’t live forever, and by then voters will be sick of everything he stood for). Even the committee dictatorship in Myanmar hasn’t lasted more than one generation yet.
I have no experience translating my preferences into money I’d spend to avoid an outcome, but I would do everything in my power to get out of a civil war or a place where religious and sexual minorities were outlawed (or move to change the law if it were feasible).
This is a rather interesting statement, so I hope you don’t mind if I ask some questions for clarification;
I’m assuming that the no-monarchies position is ideological, based on it’s proximity to your death penalty objection, but it’s not entirely clear what the specific objection is. Could you answer which of these types of country you would / would not live in, assuming for the moment none of them had the death penalty?
A representative democracy with a nominal ruler who in practice has little power, like the Commonwealth nations or Japan.
A constitutional monarchy where there is representative democracy but the ruler does exercise political power, like Thailand or Liechtenstein.
An absolute / near absolute monarchy with no significant democratic representation, like Dubai or Saudi Arabia.
A de-facto non-hereditary dictatorship (i.e. ‘President for Life’) with limited democratic representation, like Venezuela or Russia.
I’m also curious about how strong those preferences are. For each of the above categories you listed as not being willing to live in, about how much money would you pay to avoid having to live in a country like that?
(I’m not debating for or against monarchy right now; personally I’m a monarchist, but I’m also a bit sick of debate. This is about curiosity rather than rhetoric.)
It’s curious that you happened to mention countries where I have sometimes thought I’d like to live (Japan and Dubai for their urban design, Thailand and Russia for cultural reasons). But then I have to remember what it’s like to actually live there and, by the fact of participating in civil life, to implicitly support the state of affairs. Other countries I like are similarly objectionable on further thought (New Zealand and the Netherlands have monarchs; Ireland and Costa Rica are oppressively Catholic).
My position is a Thoreau-like one: I do not want public policy decisions to be made by someone who is not accountable to the persons whom those decisions will affect. Even if the monarch has no ruling powers, the idea of supporting the luxurious lifestyle of one privileged family at the expense of taxpayers is abhorrent to me.
Many factors other than the political system drive my country ranking list. I would choose Canada rather than Venezuela, but Venezuela rather than Saudi Arabia. But, to properly answer your question, if the political system were the only factor that mattered, my order of preferences would be 1-2-4-3 on your list, accounting for the fact that I see more hope for Russia than for Saudi Arabia (here hope = the likelihood of their next head of state being democratically elected). Excluding military juntas (e.g. Myanmar), non-hereditary dictatorships tend to perish with their founder (even if Hugo Chávez’s successor Nicolás Maduro manages to get himself re-re-re-elected, he won’t live forever, and by then voters will be sick of everything he stood for). Even the committee dictatorship in Myanmar hasn’t lasted more than one generation yet.
I have no experience translating my preferences into money I’d spend to avoid an outcome, but I would do everything in my power to get out of a civil war or a place where religious and sexual minorities were outlawed (or move to change the law if it were feasible).