Yes, and at that it still beats the alternatives. 

Long ago in the time of dinosaurs, slates and my college days, I remember reading something about forms of government and what was best.  In an ideal world, the worst form of government is a democracy, with a Monarchy being the best.  Since god kicked us out of that world 6,000 to 6million years ago, the best form of government in the non-perfect world is the democracy (or representative democracy) and the worst a monarchy.

I do not love it, but I do not like the alternatives a whole lot more.

Besides, I can vote for the opponent every 2 years, even if I agree with the cretin's promises!  Yea, I know, tilting at my windmill again.

Monarchy is not technically a form of government but a form of state. Monarchies are different from republics in that the sovereign is not the people (as it is in a republic) but a prince (possibly even a foreign prince) of some kind.

The United States and the (past) Soviet Union are republics, but the Soviet Union wasn't democratic.

The United Kingdom and Saudi-Arabia are both monarchies, but the United Kingdom is not a dictatorship.

Both monarchies and republics can be democracies (or representative democracies). And both can be dictatorships or anything in between.

My own definition of "dictatorship" puts in contrast to legitimate government, which in my opinion doesn't have to be democratic. I define a "dictatorship" as any system in which the ruler's power is limited neither by a constitution nor by tradition. (Both a constitution and traditions may allow for elections as a method to control the ruler.)

North-Korea is a republic. As is Libya and Saddam's Iraq. Jordan and Luxemburg are not. Nevertheless I consider the last two states with legitimate governments. (I don't consider the Saudi "king" legitimate. He says the constitution is the Quran, but in reality Saudi power is limited by absolutely nothing.)

Personally, I like monarchy and democracy and accept a republic only as a worse alternative. I find that having the people be the sovereign only creates an imbalance when one group has power over another. (This is not a problem when the nation is formed by agreement as in the US or Switzerland.)

But the three most important features of any state are stability, justice, and democracy; in that order.

I see why you are not an American.  Before the time of dinosaurs, slates, and my college days, an American said "those who would sell their freedom for security, will find out they have neither".  So stability, while high, is not the highest.  I do not see freedom on your list, but if you represent that with Democracy, that has to come first.  All else will flow from that.

Those are easy words for those who live in a land as naturally safe as the USA.

Because your land is so naturally safe, it is easy to put freedom above safety.

About a form of government... hmm.. What do you think of the one proponed in Starship Troopers? (the book). The one where only people who gave parts of their lives to the government, but are no longer part of the service, can vote and take office?

I always thought people didn't took their voting right seriously because it was an automatically-granted right in our countries. Since it's so easy to have it, people don't value it.

whenever I’ve brought up that nearly half of Americans pay zilch to the fed in income taxes they scoff that it’s probably some far right propaganda. Nope. It’s real.

Here's where the propaganda comes in: they know people are going to mistake "47% pay no income tax" for "47% pay no tax at all."  If the statistic were, "47% pay no Social Security tax," no one would be repeating it on talk radio and blogs because it would be obvious that those people are paying other taxes and are not worthless deadbeats.  (Even though the effect would be similar -- Social Security tax collects 75 cents for every $1 the income tax collects.)

The actual number of people who pay no net taxes at all is 10%.  I think the 47% figure is propaganda for creating the image of lower income people as freeloaders.

(I had links for the percentages but removed them to get this comment to submit -- fourth try now.)

Birth.

Freedom is not something government provides.

And if democracy comes first, how can there be freedom? Democracy before a constitution is simply tyranny of the majority.

And a constitution without stable government is empty words.

I know you are playing devil's advocate, as we are second to you in that regard (we have 2 neighbors, you have 1).  But that was not the case when the statement was made.  America made itself that way, but back then, there were more enemies than any European Country had.  And still the statement was made.  And yes, I still believe it even if I was living in 18th century America.

This is a fascinating concept and one that really belongs on its own blog so that it can be discussed and dissected.  The short answer is of course we are granted the right.  The long answer has to do with inalienable rights that were the focus of our founders.  In other words, you can lose rights, but you cannot earn rights. 

So while I like the concept of Starship Troopers (one of the best authors in the biz BTW), I do not support it for America.  Yes, that means we will have plenty of slugs with us.  But the price of freedom is never cheap, and that is one of the prices we pay.

As to your second part, unfortunately, you are right again - partially.  People who have the right do not see the real price, and so they value it cheaply.  Much like any government program.  Those who benefit do not value it because they did not pay for it.  But the price is not cheap, as it is paid for with the lives of many of their fellow citizens.  Those who understand that, do not take it so lightly.  But from past trends, that appears to be about 50% of the population.  Surprisingly about the same that pay taxes (although the 2 groups are not the same).

I disagree with your statement above.  Clearly, while there are poor in America (there is virtually no Poverty regardless of that propaganda), it is not 47%.  The statistic is not being used to show who is a dead beat, but to refute the allegation that the rich are not paying their fair share.  Clearly they are as they are supporting not only the poor, but another third of the country as well.

No, but freedom is something government takes away, and that is the point.

And trading freedom for stability is the point of the quote.  You can, there is nothing to stop you.  But as we see daily, once a freedom is lost, it is lost forever, or until people rise up and rebel as happened 235 years ago.  I did not say stability was worthless, but if that is your primary goal, then the old USSR or even China is the place for you.

dp

Freedom is also something government guarantees. Without government, there is no freedom, except the freedom of whoever is strongest in a given exchange. (Once somebody is strongest in any exchange, there exists a government.)

Both are missing the other two elements of good government.

And I don't find the _old_ USSR very stable.

Have to disagree with this. I work, I have a real estate business, I launched a cosmetic company this year, I work for DHS part time, I write books and this year we are launching a publishing house. I pay no taxes because I work. I file my taxes and get a refund. I got back 154 dollars more than they took from me. So I pay taxes but I get it all back plus. I had to lie on my taxes to get it down to only 154 dollars. If I didn't lie the IRS was going to give me 954 more than they took from me. If I get audited then I will file an ammendment and get the other 800, if not then all is well. The point is that I am poor, lower income and almost on food stamps. (buy my book) Most self-employed people pay little or no incime tax at the end of the year because we work. It is not propaganda, and it is the poor or nearly poor. Look at me from the outside and some people think i am well off, not true, so I believe the number of 47%. If you want to change that number all you need is a flat tax of 13% and the government will make a ton of money. Too bad the people that write the tax law don't understand business. If those clowns tried to run my business I would be broke in 90 days.

Paladin, you don't pay income tax, but you pay self-employment tax, right?  In large and painful quarterly installments?  That's social security tax, and it's a real tax.

Clearly they are as they are supporting not only the poor, but another third of the country as well.

Your "clearly" depends on the 47% statistic, which is in dispute here.

Nope, because I have a "day job" with the government I am able to avoid that mess.

I don't understand your statement, please expalin.

Not sure how that loophole works, Paladin --

My unclear quote was saying that Dr Guy was appealing to the fact that the rich support 47% of income tax payers to counter my assertion that the rich actually don't support 47% of taxpayers.  But I may have been wrong about what he was arguing -- I think when I said "this is propaganda against low-income taxpayers" I was thinking "the bottom 50%" and he was thinking "the actually poor."  So he spoke up and said "No, it's not propaganda against the poor, because 47% includes a lot more people than just the poor."