Your criticisms of representative government are noted, and like I said before, that form of government has its own list of cons. But then all forms of government do. It should also be noted that the founding fathers were well aware of the potential cracks in the wall. Those cracks couldn’t be mitigated by the government itself, however. Only by the people, and they made this plainly known time and again. A couple of examples which come to mind: “Such a form of government is only fitting for a moral society. It is wholly inadequate for any other.” So is that on the government or the people? Or some combination of both? And then the one about: “it’ll work until the people realize that they can vote themselves favors from the treasury.” Moving on… The idea that “poorly performing monarchs get ousted when they fuck up too big” is a load of absolute horseshit. I don’t need to read your little book to know it because I know history, and history does not back up that ridiculous assertion. If anything, history proves it to be 100% false. The basic principle that power divided amongst many provides more safeguard than absolute power in the hands of a single dude is not only proven through history, it’s just plain fucking logical. I will concede one thing to your argument, though. Which is, a monarchy is the best form of government if Jesus is the monarch. But until that day comes, no thanks. Also, I would like you to tell me which of the monarchies currently on the planet is so great. The British one? The Saudi one? Pray tell, which one? And why don’t you live there if it’s so wonderful?