How could anyone have ever thought monarchy was a good idea?

look up the word church.

If you have a single family of accumulated wealth and political power and significant noteriety, who becomes king or queen is less significant than the place they join in marriage. Why do we want to listen to god instead of ourselves?
That's why bastard is a formal way to shit on someone.

>>522746
It is, though.

>>522746
>How could anyone have ever thought monarchy was a good idea?

Tbqh the emergence of specialization and hierarchy in pre-history almost precipitated the rise of monarchy, although when humans were isolated to small villages and tribes, the priestly class were the rulers pretty much.

>>522746
It's the best form of government for getting things done quickly. Unlike dictatorships it has a clear plan for succession where the next monarch is trained from birth to rule. Just because it doesn't necessarily your snowflake opinion like a democratic republic might doesn't mean it's a poor form of government. And judging by the fact that you make shitty off topic threads I'd say your opinion is pretty worthless.

>>522746

because constitutional monarchy is the best system of governance that we as a species have yet discovered

File: cool_fedora5.jpg (85KB, 541x608px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 541x608px

>>522792

>>522807
>someone calls you out for your shit-posting
>ha-ha fedora
Every time.

>>522807
You sure showed him.

>>522746
That guy seems to think it's a great idea.

I believe it dates back to the tribal leaders of old when the alpha would lead the people, it just sort of evolved when "nations" started

>you will never have nude servant girls

why live

File: aristotles-classification-of-government.jpg (19KB, 554x150px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 554x150px

Which is the best /his/?

But it is.

>>523647
Speak for yourself.

Why does anyone think democracy is a good idea?

Do you trust the average retards on the street to vote for someone? Or do you trust someone who was raised and educated from birth with governance in mind? Most non-brainwashed people want the latter. Its only til relatively recently in human history that blindless adherence to the democratic model became popular.

>>523755
Democracy beyond community matters is really awful, I can't understand why anyone thought it was a good idea.

>>522746
was going to post this >>523633
now there's nothing to be done

>>522746

Obviously having a bunch of plebs deciding what to do dependant entirely on how they feel, is a much better plan.

File: ilya-glazunov-the-market-of-our-democracy-1999-e1268332476558.jpg (1MB, 2800x1427px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2800x1427px

>>523781
>the ideology of democracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCOTa6rnlI

>ITT: fat kids having delusions of power thinking that THEY will get to be the king, when in reality they'll be stomped, laughed at by the king's croonies, overtaxed and sent to die for some stupid war
WE

>>523755
If a leader is shit, you have a senate, and you have voters who can get rid of them. With any kind of autocratic government, you have the risk of the leader being shit.

>>523795
Which democracy thankfully prevents

>>523795

>he thinks none of that happens under democracies

>>523651
Religious monarchy. Hierarchy is part of human nature. Everybody should be squashed between people. Social life should be your effort to serve those below and appease those above. Ultimate responsibility for your decisions is on you, and fear of those both above and below yourself will cause you to make decisions in an unselfish way. When you make masters out of slaves, and slaves out of masters, there is no longer anybody to please or anybody to appease. All decisions are made in selfish interest, and individual people learn to follow suit in their personal lives.

When you take the responsibility for government and place it in the hands of one man, and squash him between his entire country below and God above, most of the time fear of both will cause him to act unselfishly. A nation that eliminates this hierarchy, either in favor of making everybody rulers or elevating the ruler to godhood, will be beset by materialism, depravity, and decadence.

>>523796
Shitty democratic leaders are rarely forced out of office.

People were (wrongly) turned off from democracy after the Peloponnesian War.

>>523755
It still works.

>>522807
>post has nothing to do with atheism
>f-fuh dora!

pack it up. this meme has no meaning anymore.

File: 1417605316312.jpg (18KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 512x384px

>>523804
>Bad things happen even under good systems therefore we should stick with the worst possible system

File: guerras carlistas.jpg (159KB, 2000x1143px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 2000x1143px

>people still confuse absolute monarchy (an Early Modern phenomenom) with traditional monarchy (peculiar to Middle Ages Europe)

By the way, heredity is good enough for the mafia and big corporations, who have a lot more to lose than the government if they go badly.

File: 426562.png (424KB, 1000x554px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1000x554px

How could anyone have ever thought that democracy and universal suffrage were a good idea?

>>523812
>It hasn't collapsed entirely yet, so that means it juts works

This is how retarded you are.

>>524021
>Medieval European Monarchy
Great! So decentralization and feuding between noble houses.

File: 1921 in russia.jpg (86KB, 800x563px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x563px

>>524035
>feuding between noble houses

Still a lesser death toll than a single war between centralized states.

I mean, how come people still say centralization is good after the 20th century?

File: 1413967102626.jpg (23KB, 353x269px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 353x269px

>>524035
>Game of Thrones is based on real life

>>524021
Big corporations have board you know. Who can elect to remove Windfall Profitz III if he fucks the company up

>>524041
Not that anon, but it loosely is.

>The novels and their adaptation derive aspects of their settings, characters, and plot from various events of European history.[8] A principal inspiration for the novels is the English Wars of the Roses

>>524040
Yeah, similar decentralized paradises like Somalia or Tribal Afghanistan sure are great places to live in whoopee.
>>524041
Medieval Thrones barely got to control their whole realms due to the cancer that is Feudal Obligation & Rights.

File: fronde.png (444KB, 600x481px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 600x481px

>>524045
Traditional monarchies had aristocratic parliaments for the same purpose. Absolute monarchs crushed them, and then people wondered why things went so badly afterwards.

>>524055
Modern Somalia and Afghanistan are still better than Somalia under Siad Barre or Afghanistan under Najibullah.

>>524062
>Absolute monarchs crushed them, and then people wondered why things went so badly afterwards.
Absolute Monarchies had something better: Meritocratic Bureaucracy.

>>524068
>Civil War and Lawlesness are better than stability
We're done talking, you child.

File: nomenklatura.jpg (62KB, 200x295px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 200x295px

>>524073
So did the Soviet Union. We saw how that turned out.

>>524077
M8, most of Europe's governments stemmed from those meritocratic bureaucracies.

>>524076
Centralizing dictators spent their entire time in power at a constant state of warfare against traditional society.

>>524083
And we are seeing how that is turning out now that these "meritocratic bureaucracies" decided that would rather rule Arabs and Africans than Europeans, who are deemed too unruly.

>>524084
>Centralizing dictators spent their entire time in power at a constant state of warfare against traditional society.
>constant state of warfare against traditional society.
Traditional Societies usually get defeated.

As opposed to, you know, keeping the traditional societies alive...and having eternal tribal wars to no end over inane shit.

>>524102
>Traditional Societies usually get defeated.

That doesn't mean they are worse, just that they are less efficient at fighting.

>having eternal tribal wars to no end over inane shit

Still better than having global wars, or widespread street crime derived from a state of anarcho-tyranny.

At least when you are feuding you know who may kill you, and you can always seek refuge in a towerhouse.

>>522746
Better than progressive ideologies, not as good as fascism.

>>524102
By the way, even though traditional societies are often defeated, the more their traditions and institutions remain, the better.

There is a reason why England, with it's Magna Carta and ancient liberties, became what it became, while China, where the feudal nobility was crushed 2000 years ago, just goes from periods of stable stagnation to civil wars all the time.

Or, the difference between Switzerland, where medieval institutions still survive to the present day, or Portugal, where the House of Avis established the first centralized country in Western Europe by the 15th century.

File: sorrywest.png (49KB, 251x185px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 251x185px

>>524127
>England is better than China

>>524137
At least it was. England because just another socialist shithole after 1945.

>>523796
Unlike in democratic societies where pandering to an important demographic will let you get away with murder - literally, on occasion. Just look at cities like Baltimore, Detroit, etc. or any city where one political party is entrenched beyond reproach.

File: Qin battles the Zhao Kingdom.jpg (583KB, 1000x673px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 1000x673px

>>524127
>China under Feudal Nobility.
>The whole period is literally known as the "Warring States."
>Alternatively the "Winter of the Zhou."
>Lasted 500 years.
>Started with close to 40 competing kingdoms, fiefs, dukedoms, and whatnot that got whittled down to 7.
>Meanwhile Dynastic squabbles are usually over within a century or so. Save for two famous incidences.
Nice argument, friendo.

I want all these Hobbesians and Burke-aholics to leave.

>>523761
in early America only the Landowners and other educated types could vote

File: 1275354731138.jpg (43KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x376px

>>524159
>Why, let's just abandon democracy and make our elites even less accountable! What could go wrong?

File: antifragile.jpg (17KB, 313x475px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 313x475px

>>524160
It was also the period of greatest cultural fluorescence in the history of China. It wasn't even so bad, more people died in Qin Shi Huang's repressions than during the "Warring States".

Of course, the later dynasties also gave peace to China, but the problem with destroying the intermediary corps of society is that when the central authority falls (and it always falls, sooner or later), the fallout ends up being much worse. The "Warring States" were a period of peace and prosperity compared to the Three Kingdoms, or the Warlord period more recently.

Likewise, the impact of the fall of the Soviet Union in Russian society was made much worse by the fact that the Soviets completely dismantled Russian civil society.

>>523817
It didnt have anything to do with Atheism originally either, newfag. It was originally just a joke about the bad Fashion decisions of fat gamer types, as should be obvious

>>523812
Just see what's happening in democratic countries. We are degenerating our societies. The best system would be a monarchy but with the monarch elected according to his or her skills of governance. This would only be possible with a king having many sons and daughters with multiple women, tho.

>>524194
>It was also the period of greatest cultural fluorescence in the history of China.
Nice false argument, friendo.

That period of greatest cultural fluorescence in the history of China was the Spring and Autumn period. The last years of the Zhou Dynasty. The period before the Warring States. Nobody liked the Warring States.

Furthermore China has always been the rule of the stronkest thanks to their belief in the Mandate of Heaven. Those who can provide the best form of governance: will govern. You could say that when this belief rose up during the Zhou period it spelled the end of Chinese Nobility. Because it destroyed their justification for being noble.

Not to mention that aristocracy was replaced anyway with the rise of the scholar-bureaucrat.

>>524215
>Those who can provide the best form of governance: will govern.

Except when, y'know, the people blame then overthrow the emperor when there are floods and earthquakes

>>524223
Katrina hurt Bush's approval ratings more than the Iraq War.

>>524223
>the people blame then overthrow the emperor when there are floods and earthquakes

Not that easy. Not that arbitrarily either. Takes more than a simple earthquake or flood to call out the emperor out for losing the Mandate.

Well, you could, but enjoy your 50 man bid for the Imperial Throne that gets wiped out by the nearest police force.

>>524223
>>524235
>implying Katrina wasn't bush losing the mandate of heaven

>>523755
Because often the monarch was not edutaced on how to govern, only that he is the king and everyone should obey him and his will is absolute. A democracy has methods to prevent someone to obtain absolute power (even if they don't always work) and tends to be a better way for society to voice it's own interests

>>523804
>>523803
They have been far less common on democracies

File: CRP77ZyUkAAGi1E.jpg (134KB, 640x858px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 640x858px

>>524267

>>524073
>Absolute Monarchies had something better: Meritocratic Bureaucracy

I dion't knew "meritocratic" meant "controlled by the nobility"

>>524279
>LE SINGLE DROP OF POISON TEEHEE
>All those dynastic wars.
Kek.

>>523806
>Social life should be your effort to serve those below and appease those above
You wrote that backwards on purpose, right?
Cause de facto what happens is effort is put forth to appease ( at least, only making sure they aren't so mad they are willing to kill you) those below and serve those above.

File: cambodia.jpg (117KB, 553x369px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 553x369px

>>524274
If people in the Middle Ages were as overtaxed, stomped and laughed by the ruling class croonies as they are now, they would have rebelled by now.

The thing about monarchy after the 20th century is what's the point?

All the arguments for monarchy are done better with fascism. At least fascism has a semi-meritocratic way of choosing their leader, with monarchy it's just arbitrary chaos.

Even as no less a monarchist than Thomas Carlyle pointed out, the hope is that by raising someone from birth to be a leader they will be a good leader. Which is not only the kind of tabula rasa thinking that reactionaries hate, but also most often wrong.

>>524286
Uh, quite a few monarchs were just murdered without much fuss because they sucked.

>A conspiracy was organized, some months before it was executed, by Counts Peter Ludwig von der Pahlen, Nikita Petrovich Panin, and the half-Spanish, half-Neapolitan adventurer Admiral Ribas. The death of Ribas delayed the execution. On the night of 23 March [O.S. 11 March] 1801, Paul was murdered in his bedroom in the newly built St Michael's Castle by a band of dismissed officers headed by General Bennigsen, a Hanoverian in the Russian service, and General Yashvil, a Georgian. They charged into his bedroom, flushed with drink after supping together, and found Paul hiding behind some drapes in the corner.[41] The conspirators pulled him out, forced him to the table, and tried to compel him to sign his abdication. Paul offered some resistance, and one of the assassins struck him with a sword, after which he was strangled and trampled to death. He was succeeded by his son, the 23-year-old Alexander I, who was actually in the palace, and to whom General Nikolay Zubov, one of the assassins, announced his accession, accompanied by the admonition, "Time to grow up! Go and rule!"

Not saying it is a rule of thumb, but it wasn't too uncommon either.

>>524286
The worst dynastic wars are the ones that follow centralizing kings, like the Time of Troubles in Russia after Ivan the Terrible, or the Hundred Years War after Philip IV of France.

Because, as someone said, when you destroy civil society and concentrate all powers at the central government, and then the central government fails, shits his the fan in the worst ways possible.

>>524309
They wouldn't as in the middle-ages peasents armed with scythes and pitchforks at best would get absolutely destroyed by the king's heavily armed and armoured professional army no matter how many of them there were.

This is why popular uprisings only starting seeing any success after guns were invented and relatively freely available.

>>524336
I didn't say anything about peasant rebellions.

To view the Medieval society as merely divided between "nobles" and "peasants" is terribly simplistic. It ignores the plethora of guilds, communes, free men etc.

And yes, they could defeat the king.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnano

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Morgarten

Not to mention that most often the petty nobility would ally with them against the centralizing power of the king, such as during the Barons' War, that gaves us the Magna Carta, ever heard of that?

Whatever is good in democracy comes from that tradition. I wouldn't even oppose liberalism if it were based upon an extended conception of Medieval liberties, instead of bullshit like "equality" and the "general will" that Rousseau got out of his ass.

File: 1261391074812.png (155KB, 372x311px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 372x311px

>>524251

>>524373
>Whatever is good in democracy comes from that tradition. I wouldn't even oppose liberalism if it were based upon an extended conception of Medieval liberties, instead of bullshit like "equality" and the "general will" that Rousseau got out of his ass.

Those tend to flow fairly freely in a homogenous society anyway.

Most people today can barely handle democracy let alone a bunch of serfs. Also it was the people with weapons who thought monarchy was a good idea. Might makes right.

It is good and bad in many ways, democracy and a monarchy have their pros and cons like all others.

>>524209
That just means you have the same leaders as a democracy, but with much less accountability, and more absolute powers. The only reason any modern countries have monarchies today is because their rulers are so boxed in by checks and balances that they have no power anyway.

Monarchy with enough checks and balances is the best form of government.

>>524373
The retards literally use the word "peasant" as a substitute for "commoner", essentially implying all commoners were peasants. I tend to ignore such posts altogether.

I find it interesting that the most powerful hellenistic dynasties tended to be fuck ups in the long run, and ended up being dominated by the oligarchic republic that was Rome.

If one looks at the specific histories, it is actually a great exception to see a successful monarchy, much less a dynasty. For every enlightened monarch you had maybe ten mediocre and several mad ones.

>>523755
The things is you could easily find the average retards amongst the monarchs and aristocrats

>>524329
>Societies become bigger
>Complain about bigger wars.
Boo fucking hoo.

That said, wars are more frequent under feudalshittery. I'd rather have a big one off and a few generations of peace ather than some shitty continuous low-intensity conflict that would happen indefinitely and fuck me, my children, and their grand-children.

>>524847
Pretty much because at that point it is no longer a monarchy

>>524891
christianity helps mitigate decadence, the pagans are more likely to suffer from the 3 generation trap, the first generation is brilliant and rises to power (greatest generation), the 2nd is raised right but lives off daddy's money and doesn't see the importance of the values he taught (boomers), the 3rd are raised wrong and have none of the knowledge generated by the greatest generation, often throwing their wealth away or sliding into mediocrity (millenials)

File: Prince.jpg (42KB, 474x318px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 474x318px

>>522746
For example: every new dictator or a thievish president want money for them-self. Monarch, because he had a country, can not steal from a them-self treasury.

>>526040
You do realize that absolutist monarchies were a thing for like 200 years tops? Conflating monarchy with absolutism is a goid way to out yourself as a retard.

>>524919
But society didn't actually became bigger, it became smaller, it's just the state that became stronger.

And my point is that the war that follows these "few generations of peace" tends to be worse than anything that went on before.

it was and it is.democracy doesn't work because half of the voters don't really have any idea what they are actually voting for. average human is simply too stupid to govern anything.

>>526257
Onto Roman Empire democracy not every citizen had power of vote

>>526257
How is this an argument against democracy and not against shitty schools?

>>522746
I assume monarchy was just a natural progression of feudalism. I know little about that era admittedly but it wasn't all darkness.

>>522792
It's the utter dissonance within democracies that influenced Socrates to even make his philosophy, right?

>>524090
And there is is folks.
Can't escape that argument anywhere online now. Thanks /pol/

>>526283
i'm a finn and we have probably the best public school system in the world. and still people here are just as stupid as anyone else when it comes to politics.

>>524901
This.

>>524032
Modern Western Democracies have stood for hundreds of years with no major uprisings or rebellions, when old monarchies had an uprising and execution nearly every royal.
This is how retarded you are

>>526266
yet they still came back to monarchy when the state became larger and you had to start governing things that didn't directly affect yourself immediately.

>>526322
How many French republics have there been so far?

>>526283
We are too dysfunctional as a society to the point that fixing schools wouldn't do shit. There needs to be some philosophic revamp in the masses; ours is - surprise! - progressive ideology. Which fuels the dysfunction and which can really only come about in a free-voice culture.

I think that for now democracy needs to be swept aside for a moment while we sit down and figure shit out. But then again that will almost definitely lead to a dictatorship. Maybe something new needs to come along out of the blue before we get to that point.

>>526312
>Boohoo, People don't vote the way I do
Have any of you monarchy fags considered the possibility the monarch will have a different political view than you? What then?

>>526340
>Have any of you monarchy fags considered the possibility the monarch will have a different political view than you? What then?
monarchs are always traditional

>>522792
This pretty much.
>>523647
I'll have nude servant girls once Anime is real.
>>523755
The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

>>526334
When was the last English rebellion that wasn't Irish independence? When was the last Australian, New Zealand, or Canadian revolution?
Also, the transition from fourth to fifth republic was smooth and bloodless, and the end of the republic before that was caused by eternal conquest.

>>524045
How could someone legally remove the owner from his property? The corporation is his property, inherited from his father.

>>526347
>Monarchs are always traditional
>Like Monarchs are some kind of special breed of human
Monarchs are whatever they want to be. Plenty of Monarchs have been reformers.

>>526353
Also, The US has been stable since the civil war

>>526340
it's not about political views, it's about what you base them on. a monarch actually knows what he/she is doing but i have met people who vote somebody literally because they like his/hers hair color.

>>526385
Or skin color.

>>526385
So we replace choosing leaders based on their hair colour with choosing leaders for their parentage?
The thing about democracy is that not every voter is that stupid.
Besides, the benefits of democracy aren't necessarily the quality of the leaders, but the stability and freedom.

>>526090
So you are an advocate of fedual monarchy being the best?

>>526385
>a monarch actually knows what he/she is doing
>implying

>>526385
> A monarch actually knows what he/she is doing
Oh please

>>526312
Tell me, was Finland better off when it was ruled by a king? Because I've read about fins on /int/ who more or less saw the Swedish king as tyrants despite the fact that Finland was treated like any other part of Sweden.

>>526338
> I think that for now democracy needs to be swept aside for a moment while we sit down and figure shit out.
Why. Why not keep democracy while figuring shit out. There's nothing you can do in a monarchy that you can't do in a democracy.

>>526560
>was Finland better off when it was ruled by a king? Because I've read about fins on /int/ who more or less saw the Swedish king as tyrants

i don't think it was that bad. during the 700 years of swedish rule they really rebelled against the throne only twice so neither did they.

>>523755
Most people confuse democracy with constitutional government, because the current forms of both originated together in America.

Pretty much all of the arguments raised in democracy's favor (limited power of the ruler, protection of individual rights, legal means of removing bad rulers from office) are attributes of constitutionalism, not of democracy. A monarchy or dictatorship where the ruler is bound by a constitution would be just as good if not better than democracy.

>>526767
Who decides what is in the constitution?

>>522746
And who are you to question your king's God given right? Seize him!
>>523755
Better to have a few madmen in the mix than to have a few madmen running the whole show.

>>526334
Republics aren't democracies

>>526793
name one democracy modern day if you believe this to be true

>>526796
The US, every country in european union, etc.
I think you might have mistaken my "Republic doesn't mean the same thing as democracy" for "No republic is a democracy, no democracy is a republic"

>>526800
>Republics aren't democracies
more than understandable

>>526771
Presumably that's handled at the founding of the nation, prior to the first ruler being enthroned, so probably a gathering of military/economic/religious leaders and representatives of powerful factions among the people.

>>526860
Does anyone have the ability to change the constitution after that? Also who is responsible for making sure the monarch follows the constitution? Can he be deposed if he doesn't? Can he face criminal charges?

>>526062

Actually, the emphasis on monogamy and bastardy meant that Christian dynasties were less stable. What if your wife is barren? What if you are barren? Henry VIII syndrome applies. I've heard tell that the Turkish system was best, a hundred sons, the best man wins.

>>523806
It didn't work so well for India, nutjob.

>>526360
>Monarchs are whatever they want to be. Plenty of Monarchs have been reformers.

Don't bother. Nrxers are all basically historically illiterate.