Why would anyone be a totalitarian/monarchist in this day and age? Men are fallible creatures and anyone with power is likely to abuse it.
True, I'm actually an anarchist. But that's besides the point.
It's the year 2016 and people are still monarchists and why exactly? in this current year what can justify the legitimacy of any monarch? is anyone really still a believer of divine rights?
Then what grants the right of rulership to the king in the eyes of someone who doesn't believe divine right? military genius?
Because few people are truly satisfied with the current status quo. They see the gridlock in the political system and believe that having the decisions be made unquestionably by a centralized power figure solves the problem. Of course, this usually overlooks that said monarchists/totalitarians usually want themselves or someone like themselves in this seat of power: a means of overwriting the will of the governed in favor of only one's personal ambitions. It also tends to ignore the measures that are always necessary to be taken to keep power in the hands that top individual; effectively cronyism built explicitly into the system instead of an unfortunate corruption.
Then the title of king becomes a thing which easily comes and goes and he would probably be elected in virtue of whether he's capable or not than a lineage where nepotism and hederitary are the norm.
True, I imagine a person would be a monarchist for the reasons you mentioned, but then they are monarchists out of ignorance.
If you weren't expecting such a /pol/-tier response, you should not have created such a /pol/-tier thread.
To answer your question, I would say that people would be totalitarian/monarchist because, with having democracies and republics around for so long, they are able to see the fruits of this tree of liberty. They see this tree of liberty as synonymous with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil from the Garden of Eden, and they see that in growing such a tree, one opens a Pandora's Box.
If men are fallible creatures and anyone with power is likely to abuse it, then why give it to as many people as possible? I've never really understood how such an argument can be used as supporting decentralized government. In taking the powers of government away from the few and giving it to the many, you are completely denying what such a precept would imply. Government is a people's business, and can never be separated from it, and the execution of governmental power can never be done by anything other than a human mind. Just because you take the execution of governmental power away from one does not mean you give it to a machine, as people are not such.
Please explain why monarchism is the answer. You may even take a modern day example, such as Denmark, and show what good it would to transfer the power back from their parliament to the king.
>Constant believed that if liberty were to be salvaged from the aftermath of the Revolution, then chimerical Ancient Liberty had to be reconciled with the practical and achievable Modern Liberty. England, since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and then the United Kingdom after 1707, had demonstrated the practicality of Modern Liberty and Britain was a constitutional monarchy. Constant concluded that constitutional monarchy was better suited than republicanism to maintaining Modern Liberty.
Looks like the second one.
>Men are fallible creatures and anyone with power is likely to abuse it.
thats why there is a type of meritocracy
its just behind the scene cause most people cant see the bigger picture and accept that sometimes bad shit needs to happen
>unironically thinking there is a better form of government than constitutional monarchy
absolute retard tier response
The issue with monarchist regimes and totalitarian regimes is that they are generally Autocratic or Oligarchic therefore that power is far more concentrated in one or a few places. With no checks or balances provided it mean, whilst the ability to by bypass dissent is there, any kind of meaningful debate or qualms about a policy are also bypassed therefore leading to an echo chamber wherein stupid people can make bad decisions with worse repercussions and there is no real way to punish them for these mistakes. It can work wonders for countries but it can also lead to the downfall of them and the echo chamber nature of them means that those that take over may well repeat the mistakes of the past and make the country even worse.
5/10 made me reply