The Instigator
Statesman
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Paradigm_Lost
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

America should have followed Alexander Hamilton's model and set up a Constitutional Monarchy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,311 times Debate No: 3886
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (14)

 

Statesman

Pro

I would prefer to debate a political conservative on this issue. I really don't want to debate a populist liberal on this who is foolish enough to believe in something like "the more democracy the better" (mob rule) This is because it would turn this debate into something I don't want it to be at this time. At the time Alexander Hamilton was hated by many for suggesting this idea. I'm sure I'm going to recieve a similar reaction. I'm going to present Hamilton's idea and then let my opponent respond.
1.A monarch who is elected for life (on good behavior)
2.A senate elected for life (on good behavior)
3.A House of Representitives that is elected every 3 years.

I should also add that the monarchy would not be hereditary. My premise is that the president and congress are too busy pandering to fickle and un-educated popular opinion in order to get elected to do what's best for the country. An elected-for-life Senate and Monarch would eliminate this problem.
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"I would prefer to debate a political conservative on this issue."

I find most parity with libertarian ideals, which in itself is a bit too nuanced to claim allegiances with either liberalism or conservativism, however, I definitely lean more to the right. Hope that works for you.

"1.A monarch who is elected for life (on good behavior)"

I think this is a bad idea for a number of reasons. Lets just go ahead and give a person that is the cause of much cognitive dissonance as the perfect illustration for why your (Hamilton's) plan is less appealing under scrutiny: George W. Bush

Imagine having this twice elected official in the White House for the rest of his natural life. You make it contingent upon "good behavior." What exactly that constitutes is unclear to me, and some clarification would be greatly appreciated.

As it stands now, good behavior would seem to mean anything that is not an impeachable offense. GWB could potentially continue in the manner he has without hindrance or without ever leaving office because no one can unambiguously prove misconduct on his part. A lot of people have made innumerable assertions of misconduct on his part yet he has managed to survive all of the allegations. Why should we expect anything different in the future?

The Constitution specifies the maximum time a president can assume office. I assume that much of the Constitution you are in disagreement with being that Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian politics differed markedly. In fact, the two vied for the affection of this fledgling nation with heated debates.

How much of the Founding documents that enshrines the United States of America are you actually in disagreement with being that you desire a Constitutional Monarchy?

"2.A senate elected for life (on good behavior)"

We run in to the same problem as I've outlined above. These sentiments were shared by Thomas Jefferson when he gave reasons for setting term limits. The reasons are "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress." This makes sense because it lends itself to oligarchic thinking.

People sometimes become disillusioned over time. People get old and develop ailments that would prevent them from delegating their authority with clarity. Imagine having Reagan as senile as he became in his latter years, running the country on the whims of a flippant thought.

"3.A House of Representatives that is elected every 3 years."

Why only the House of Representatives?

"An elected-for-life Senate and Monarch would eliminate this problem."

Can I ask how since you have not yet divulged any details at this point? Platitudes sound nice, but they don't offer the reader any insight on to how a plan might work out in practical terms.
Debate Round No. 1
Statesman

Pro

Statesman forfeited this round.
Paradigm_Lost

Con

Paradigm_Lost forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Statesman

Pro

I apologize for missing the second round of this debate. I had finals and was unable to devote time to much else but studying. Thank you for accepting this debate. While I definitely see the problems you've pointed out, I would say that there are many problems with the current system of government and that no government can ever be perfect because they are designed and run by imperfect people. So while I can agree with you that this system of government would have it's faults I would disagree that it would be worse than the system we have now. I am also a libertarian. I am going to write in Ron Paul's name when I go to vote in November. During a debate Dr. Paul said something that really stuck with me. He said that it is no wonder we have extreme amounts of crimes being committed in this country. People see their government steal from it's people everday through the welfare system. The government takes the money from the rich and gives it to the poor. Most people try to justify this because the government is the entity taking the money. Bottom line though is that it's stealing. Dr. Paul was absolutely right. One of the biggest concerns of Hamilton, John Adams, and many of the other founding fathers was that the poor would be protected from the rich, but that the opposite would not be true. Too much government leads to despotism but too little leads to anarchy. This fear has now been realized. Our government responds to every wish of the mob even if that wish is to steal from certain citizens simply to make the majority's life easier. Remember, everyone has rights not just the majority. As Hamilton put it, our current system is "democracy checked by more democracy." Hamilton also proposed that when it came to the elected for life Senate only people of great property should be allowed to vote for it. The common people would vote for the House of Representatives. This system would have protected the rich from Franklin Roosevelt's socialist policies. Also, because we would still have a House of Representatives the common people would still be protected. I also believe that this system would have been good for another reason. I don't like big government. I think that over the years America has started getting away from the principles of Liberty that it was founded upon. With our government set up according to Hamilton's model the Senate and the House would have very different outlooks on what was better for the country. (One looks out for the rich the other for the common.) This would mean that because of their disagreements less laws would be put into action. This would have been the ultimate check and balance on the government's power.
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"I apologize for missing the second round of this debate."

No worries... I was out of town anyhow. Looks like we both forfeited round two.

"One of the biggest concerns of Hamilton, John Adams, and many of the other founding fathers was that the poor would be protected from the rich, but that the opposite would not be true."

Then I am a little confused because prior to this statement, you quipped that Ron Paul and yourself believe that the government rips us off to feed a bloated welfare system, all of which I agree with, however this is a clear contradiction. As well, it no sooner answers how the Hamiltonian system will eliminate or mitigate this effect.

In the final analysis, my opponent has not substantiated any of the claims he initially made nor did he explain how he would have implemented them, indeed, he even neglected to explain how Hamilton planned on implementing these policies. It then becomes just more platitudes with no actual solution that is so prevalent among bureaucrats.

My opponent could not argue the fact that under his Hamiltonian policy change, there would be nothing barring from someone such as George Bush to be in office for LIFE -- an enormous drawback if you ask the average American.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it is the Constitution which stipulates term limits. Why do you suppose that is? It is to keep down tyranny and as a checks and balances system. The Voters, as in, "We the People," elect who we want, the way the Constitution says. Under your Hamiltonian system, the Constitution would be vastly different and only a few people would have the right to choose their elected officials. I say, let a good system breathe. Sometimes attempting to make improvements only makes things worse. And since the US Constitution is the benchmark and model for ALL other nations, I scarcely can see why under your plan something might actually be improved.

For these reasons vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

These are facts.

And EXACTLY why pro's entire premise is not only flawed but fatal.
Posted by b3rk 9 years ago
b3rk
Voted con because people who still support Ron Paul are not only extremely silly but also dangerously incompetent.
Posted by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
seeing as the pro never rebutted any of the problems con pointed out, or explained how hamiltons policys would of avoided the ones he brought up, i am forced to vote con
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
"Debate it how you want, but don't be a jerk."

Ditto.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
"I really don't want to debate a populist liberal on this who is foolish enough to believe in something like 'the more democracy the better'."

Debate it how you want, but don't be a jerk.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by timothykcct 8 years ago
timothykcct
StatesmanParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by revleader5 9 years ago
revleader5
StatesmanParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
StatesmanParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ahundredhighways 9 years ago
ahundredhighways
StatesmanParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
StatesmanParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Greendonut 9 years ago
Greendonut
StatesmanParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by b3rk 9 years ago
b3rk
StatesmanParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
StatesmanParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
StatesmanParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
StatesmanParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30