Final answer:
The decision between preferring a stable absolutist state or a contentious parliamentary state is a matter of personal values and preferences, reflecting a difference in governmental stability and the distribution of power. Absolutist states offer a centralized unitary structure with significant power concentrated in the figure of the monarch, while parliamentary states provide more debate and checks and balances.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question you've asked delves into the realm of historical models of governance, particularly whether one would prefer living under an absolutist state like France or Austria, or a parliamentary state like England/Great Britain. Absolutist states, like the ones mentioned, were typically characterized by a unitary system where the central authority had significant power, often held by a monarch. These states promised a kind of governmental stability but not necessarily policy stability, because the decisions and personality of the monarch could markedly impact the direction and consistency of policies.
Contrastingly, England's parliamentary system represented a model where a contentious debate was more commonplace, reflecting various perspectives in decision-making. This system could lead to policy stability but occasionally at the cost of governmental stability if the parliament became deeply divided. Parliamentary systems often allow for greater checks and balances between branches of government, and the power of the monarch or executive is more contained.
The choice between these types of states depends on personal values and preferences, the desire for participating in governance, and the level of power one wishes to bestow upon a single ruler versus a representative body. The historical context and the outcomes of these state models offer much to consider when thinking about the preferable form of government.