The countries with the highest quality of life, most progressive social policies, most robust and bouyant (read 'not swimming in debt') economies, and best overall performances on lists like GDP/PCI are: Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Australia (not necssarialy in that order)
Some of these countries are remarkably similar to one another (Canada-Australia, Norway-Sweden) but there's not much linking them as a single group - they're in different parts of the world, have completely different histories, speak different languages, and have economies based on nothing similar.
The only thing I can come up with is that they're all constitutional monarchies. Having a king or queen must, therefore, be beneficial for a country. If we expanded our list, we'd have countries like the UK, Netherlands, USA, Germany, Belgium, Brunai, and Bahrain. Of that list, only two are NOT monarchies.
This leads me to conclude that republics, while extoling the rights of the citizen, are not as effective at actually improving the daily life of the people as a parliamentary monarchy.
Why is this? I don't know for sure, but here's a theory: these monarchies have never suffered the bloody effects of a revolution (like France), but rather they evolved slowly into a balance between the rights of the individual and the greater good of the state.
This would prove that slow, natural evolution of a society (the basic tenant of conservativism) is more effective than sudden dramatic shifts in social and economic policy (revolution)
Or, this could just be me trying to was time while making it look like I'm actually doing work. Who knows?
Some of these countries are remarkably similar to one another (Canada-Australia, Norway-Sweden) but there's not much linking them as a single group - they're in different parts of the world, have completely different histories, speak different languages, and have economies based on nothing similar.
The only thing I can come up with is that they're all constitutional monarchies. Having a king or queen must, therefore, be beneficial for a country. If we expanded our list, we'd have countries like the UK, Netherlands, USA, Germany, Belgium, Brunai, and Bahrain. Of that list, only two are NOT monarchies.
This leads me to conclude that republics, while extoling the rights of the citizen, are not as effective at actually improving the daily life of the people as a parliamentary monarchy.
Why is this? I don't know for sure, but here's a theory: these monarchies have never suffered the bloody effects of a revolution (like France), but rather they evolved slowly into a balance between the rights of the individual and the greater good of the state.
This would prove that slow, natural evolution of a society (the basic tenant of conservativism) is more effective than sudden dramatic shifts in social and economic policy (revolution)
Or, this could just be me trying to was time while making it look like I'm actually doing work. Who knows?