• Before posting anything about COVID-19, READ THIS FIRST! COVID-19 and Misinformation (UPDATED)
    Misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this topic, even if intended as humor, will not be tolerated!


Well-known member
Nov 15, 2006
The recent events in Ireland have made me think once again about the different state-models. There are monarchies and republics. Within those categories there are different models. Some republics are very presidentially-driven while in others the president is only a figurehead, a bit like a monarch in modern monarchies. In those countries, presidency is a retirement-job.

If there is a republican form of government, should there in that case be, at least in theory, for the president to act as a counter-force against allmighty government? The recent events in Ireland have reminded me of the episode in Australia in 1975 when the Governor-General used his powers to dismiss the Prime Minister as there was a complete deadlock and no legialation could be passed and budget was also unable to win the majority of the votes in the Aussie Parliament. Despite that the PM refused to resign but the Governor-General dismissed him. There were very lengthy constitutional debates as to whether the GG has the power to do that but he did that and therefore he has the latent power to carry out very radical decisions.

It needs to be pointed out that though Australia is officially a monarchy and the GG is the Queen's representative, Australia works like a republic.

I'm not saying that the Irish president should have the power to dismiss the government now, that would be like fire brigade arriving when the house has already burned, but she should have dismissed the government two years ago and some drastic measures could have been taken earlier perhaps alleviating the plight. But the Irish president does not have that right. So, what's the pointof having the very job?

The Doctor

Oct 2, 2009
I agree. It's seems like an almost pointless position along with the Senate. At least one of them should have some power.

The president has to sign each piece of legislation into law, but what if she refused to sign something into law because it was against her conscience?

I wonder if the situation would have been different if we had gotten to vote on the Presidency the last time around? Good chance Michael D Higgins would have got in. Would he have acted differently?

Maybe the senate should be reformed (in which case voting would have to be opened up in some way to the rest of the people).

Goban Saor

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2010
The Schaeffer Cox Solution

Schaeffer Cox is twenty six year old carpenter from Alaska. He is influenced by nineteenth century classical liberal writers, however his personal philosophy could be considered to be very libertarian. He also supports anarcho-capitalist positions such as self-governance and competing governments in the free market. Cox recommends people should hold the concepts of right and wrong over the concepts of legal and illegal. He believes that when governments becoming burdensome and overly corrupt that one must actively rebel against the state but in a non-violent manner. Schaeffer Cox is responsible for creating locally controlled militias and private common law courts. Cox says that instead of creating a third party, he created a second government.


Well-known member
Aug 27, 2009

Squire Allworthy

Well-known member
May 31, 2007
What you need is open transparent government, one where people can see where their tax is being spent and the consequences of their decisions. For that IMO you need smaller almost autonomous units, regions, that compete within an overall framework. There is a lot to be learnt from the Swiss model.

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom