Why would anyone be a totalitarian/monarchist in this day and

>>520824
>in this day and age

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S THE [[[[[[[[[[>>>>{CURRENT YEAR}<<<<]]]]]]]]]] AND SOME PEOPLE ARE STILL MONARCHISTS

File: 1437945529229.jpg (301KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 800x600px

>>520831
I was expecting a reply like this.

>>520836
Maybe you should consider the fact that if one man is fallible, then the rule of many people is just many fallibilities in one government.

>>520843
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?

>>520848
You don't have to believe in divine right to be a monarchist.

File: 1445122523490.jpg (475KB, 980x952px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 980x952px

>>520859
Then what grants the right of rulership to the king in the eyes of someone who doesn't believe divine right? military genius?

>>520866
I'd relate it to something similar to the Mandate of Heaven; the right and legitimacy of you and your lineage to rule derives from whether you can bring well-being to the people.

>>520824
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.

>>520843
A government with many flawed humans can arguably commit lesser atrocities than a single, powerful, and flawed human can.

>>520877
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.

>>520881
True, I imagine a person would be a monarchist for the reasons you mentioned, but then they are monarchists out of ignorance.

>>520824

You must be blind to look at the current political systems of Europe and North America and not understand why somebody might imagine that a better system could exist?

>ITT people disregard the fact that constitutional monarchy is a liberal principle par excellence

Do you even Benjamin Constant?

>>520824
>in this day and age
Why does this always come up? Republics are far older than the kind of monarchies we have today.

>>520895
You must be blind to look at past totalitarian/absolutist systems and not understand why they were complete fucking shit and everyone abandoned them.

>>521487
Is it considered liberal because it is liberal or is it considered liberal because liberalism was born in the British context?

>>520824
>>520836
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.

Because King Salman sends me my oil Riyals, I don't need to vote.

>>520895
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.

>>523547
>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.

File: eye-of-providence-lbx.jpg (121KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 600x600px

>>520824
>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

File: tumblr_lxyp9qgYjY1r0p8d9o1_400.jpg (22KB, 250x294px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 250x294px

>unironically thinking there is a better form of government than constitutional monarchy

>>523580
>le charlatan hegel
absolute monarchy or bust

It is a fine display of ignorance for someone to classify and categorize monarchy as synonymous with absolutism.

>>523558
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