Monarchism

File: 1446326979579.png (307KB, 453x577px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 453x577px

I'm unironically a monarchist desu

>>1698989
>>1698992
>DUDE just throw a dice and let it decide who rules the country I don't care LMAO

>>1698989
It is a central part to the stability of a government, country and empire. However a king without a parliament is asking for a revolution.

>>1699023
>rulers are prepared from their birth to assume power
>DUDE its just a dice roll LMAO

>>1699023
Well democratic elections almost always select someone who is bad for the position, you would have better luck with something arbitrary like a dice roll.

File: 1470718293846.jpg (139KB, 640x963px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 640x963px

>>1698989
This

>>1699037
>implying you can't have the iron will of the people
Honestly it's like these people don't even study successful totalitarian states

File: Queen_of_canada.jpg (29KB, 400x450px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x450px

I'm a monarchist, though I can understand why people from countries with no real tradition of monarchy would be against it.

File: 4d679dadb3e312ee7cab745cc5627faeb9ed528e_hq.jpg (78KB, 540x510px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 540x510px

>>1699047
>hates actual autocracy
>installs a new one

Even if good, good autocracies depend on their leaders and if no heir is set, then once the leader dies, it all comes falling down, i.e., based Tito

>>1699057
>can understand why unenlightened fools wouldn't understand the benefits it would bring because they're peasants

FTFY

>>1699057
>queen of canada

You know I'd like a canadian monarchy if the royals were actually canadian and not foreigners.

>>1699077
I've got higher opinions about republics like Venice than republics that were founded on liberal rebellions or whatever, but for an American (for example) to be a monarchist would go against the entire national myth.

The thing I find really sad about contemporary liberal republics is that they have no nobility; there is practically no one in a position of power to promote decency since they're more concerned with winning the next popularity contest.

>>1699104
The crown should always come before things like country and nation. Besides, it makes no sense to call Canada's queen a foreigner, what's foreign about her? What does it even mean to be "foreign" to a country with such a loose identity?

>>1699031
>>rulers are prepared from their birth to assume power
You don't need monarchy for that. Just institute a ruler academy for gifted citizen instead.

>>1699104
>actually Canadian
But they're Canadian citizens and that's what makes a Canadian in Trudeau world

>>1699119
>ruler academy for gifted citizen
sounds like a harem anime

>>1699122
See? Even harem anime get political systems better than monarchists.

>>1698989
All forms must be eradicated.

>>1699031
How'd that work out for Commodus? Shall we go down the list of miserable kings who had every opportunity of family grooming?

I'd rather have 4-8 years of a shitty President than someone who has a whole lifetime of fucking up to do.

>>1699127
weeaboos shouldn't be allowed to govern

>>1699140
You're not my waifu! You can't make me not govern the nation!

>>1699106
>The thing I find really sad about contemporary liberal republics is that they have no nobility; there is practically no one in a position of power to promote decency since they're more concerned with winning the next popularity contest.

The germans actualy have the positition of president for that, who isn't elected by the people at all and doesn't have any political power either. In fact it's just the "Kaiser" without calling him that.

>>1699113
>>1699121

She is British. That makes her a foreigner.

File: pistol-duel.jpg (263KB, 780x487px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 780x487px

>>1699150
>no one in a position of power to promote decency
Yeah, because nobles were paragons of humanity

>>1699150
I don't mind the idea, Canada's Governor General works in a similar way. Still, every election is a break with history, there's no long term forethought, and I would say that the symbolism and aesthetics are worse. There's something to be said for inheriting a duty that's rightfully yours rather than necessarily being the most qualified for the job (though I think more often than not monarchs are qualified) or the most popular choice.

>>1699158
She's also Canadian. There are governors general and prime ministers within living memory who came from other countries. What about all of the Canadians who are culturally British, speak with British accents, etc. but reside outside of the country? Are they not Canadian?

>>1699162
Relative to elected leaders generally yes.

>>1699119
I like it
>The best of the best get put in Ruler Academia
>The rulers have to be prime speciemens, the school encourages the formation of cliques, physical and mental contests and even has tons of sanctioned competitions
>Top 16 Ruler candidates fight it out in a battle of wits, muscle and knowledge
>1st, 2nd and 3rd place become eligible for election by the Parliament
Thanks guys, I know what my next Light Novel pitch will be like.

>>1698989
I think people nowadays who call themselves monarchists have nationalist tendencies.

Which is CONTRARY to monarchism. At all.

An absolutely idiotic ideology followed only by idiots and lunatics.

>>1699199
>Relative to elected leaders generally yes.
A Noble has no inherent value or potential besides the prestige of his name. An elected leader demonstrates merit, or often the pretense of.

I don't care if you're Lucius Baldwin III, 1st Earl of St. Limeyfuck. What could your family lineage possibly mean to me, and why should I even bother acknowledging you exist?

>>1699106
>entire national myth
What myth? What kings have held power in our nation?

>>1699331
An elected leader only demonstrates popularity.

If you think inheritance is important, you should be able to see the value in your name's reputation. It's something to live up to (or redeem).

>>1699343
The USA's founding myth is freedom-fighting revolutionaries throwing off a tyrannical King George III. If you're an American monarchist you're faced with saying that US history has been a mistake from its inception, so it's understandable that most Americans aren't monarchists.

>>1699382
>US history has been a mistake from its inception
>implying it hasn't

File: 1dcc1d008d07f31d3cfc2763d407f7de.jpg (548KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1920x1200px

>>1699382
>The USA's founding myth is freedom-fighting revolutionaries throwing off a tyrannical King George III
I don't see how. The Brits were already fucking around with taxing us, some forms of which were completely illegal, and we had no form of representation in government to account for this.
When we wished to purchase foreign items that avoid the tax, the British bullied us into buy THEIR product.
These kinds of things get worse and worse long before they get better, and we were smart to carve out independence when we did.

So fuck King George, fuck your Union Jack, and fuck your rain drenched shit rock islands.

>>1699488
Well that's the narrative anyway.

>>1699496
Elaborate or fuck off wasting my time with sarcasm

>>1699488

>getting butthurt that your mother country asks for a tax on products like tea which THEY are bringing into your country from the other side of the world
>the mother country who had just fought a war which if they'd lost would have probably meant 13 colonies clay being ceded to the French or Spanish
>proceeding to get in bed with French and Spanish, as well as breaking the law by smuggling, in order avoid that tax which was implemented to help pay for said war
>throw all your toys out of the cot over it instead of just not drinking tea if you hate helping support British Empire who paid out the ass for your protection so much

ENTITLED

>>1699488

Your country is free because a few rich guys didn't want to pay taxes anymore. Good writers though, really knew how to work up the mob. Now look at you, Israel's attack dog with your currency controlled by a (((private bank))).

Your constitution is also being trashed and your now spewing out cultural marixsm across the west.

But yeah, 'Merica, fuck the British.

What baffles me about democracy is, if a guy who's in power for 4 years do good things, then another guy from opposing ideology wins the next election and (partially or fully) undoes what the first guy did, and this cycle repeats, the country is being ripped apart in a tug of war. It recently (20 years give or take) happened in my country. It was shit, then some dudes started propping stuff up. Things were looking good for the future, then some whackos get in power and accidentally everything. We're fucked for two generations, and thats being generous.

A monarch's work would be much harder to undo, and if a retard tries to, he gets his head chopped off, figuratively speaking.

>>1699524
The American colonies were some of the most prosperous in the entire empire. They were perfectly capable of paying a little more for tea. They didn't have representation, but neither did anyone else, so what? American colonists had it better than pretty much anybody else in the world at the time. Lower taxes than Britain itself, one of the highest standards of living, cheap land, more food, plenty of space. They had no reason to complain.

I think it was more a case of liberal ideologues whipping up people into a hysteria where they felt wronged for things that weren't actually wrong. They resented the British giving rights and protections to Catholics and natives, they didn't like having to house their own soldiers in residences, they didn't like marginally higher duties on tea (even though they just bought smuggled tea anyway). 1790s rebels were just spoiled whiners.

>>1699557
>A monarch's work would be much harder to undo, and if a retard tries to,
As would a monarch's fuckups be harder to undo. If you get an extremely shitty one, there's nothing you can do for 60+ years.

>>1699542
>getting butthurt that your mother country asks for a tax on products like tea which THEY are bringing into your country from the other side of the world
It was their attempt to create a monopoly. Also, No Representation.

>the mother country who had just fought a war which if they'd lost would have probably meant 13 colonies clay being ceded to the French or Spanish
Is there a alternative potential history where British would have not fought France if her territories was threatened? Britain and France were already duking it out for centuries. The fact we were among this particular dispute is incidental.

>proceeding to get in bed with French and Spanish
Yeah, dealing with pompous, arrogant Brits who thought they were better than us kinda rubbed us the wrong way.

>as well as breaking the law by smuggling, in order avoid that tax which was implemented to help pay for said war
They were not entitled to create a monopoly. Not mention much of the money went to funding the remaining British Forces on the continent, which we had no need for.

Again, if they were such loving benefactors, then why were we denied political footing equal to those on the home island?

>instead of just not drinking tea
They taxed everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765

>>1699567
>They were perfectly capable of paying a little more for tea
Enough about the goddamn tea. The Brits deliberately wrote some of the taxes to suppress growth in the colony and establish dominance of British courts.

>They didn't have representation, but neither did anyone else, so what? It was illegal. But If you're content being a little bitch at the whim of our lovely mother country without the slightest say in the matter, be my guest.

>blablablabla American standards were great
Yes, they were. Too bad Britain fucked up a great investment.

>>1698989
Putting the fate of a nation in one pair of capable hands is way better than giving the power to a buttload of complete retards.There just needs to be a system (rebels are not to be considered as a system) to to change the curse when the leader is only leaving shitstains everywhere.

Democracy in the modern world is a meme anyways

>>1699567
>ideologues whipping up people into a hysteria where they felt wronged for things that weren't actually wrong. They resented the British giving rights and protections to Catholics and natives, they didn't like having to house their own soldiers in residences, they didn't like marginally higher duties on tea (even though they just bought smuggled tea anyway). 1790s rebels were just spoiled whiners.

>T. Anglo

>>1698989
Wherein it is an appointment as opposed to an inheritance, I am all for it.

Celtic culture was nice about that. People hailed the bards, the bards chose the king from the people. It was not necessarily hereditary.

>>1698989
Im american
Literally any system but ours at this point is worthwhile

>>1699488
>>1699542

Sir, we merely wanted, if we were to be taxed as Englishmen, to be REPRESENTED as such. In Parliament, with our own lords and commons. Preferably with His Grace Sir Benjamin Franklin, Duke of New England, as our lordly governor.

>>1699059
>>1699037
I want to see this now. Sus?

>>1698989
Take a child, raise him to be capable of ruling a people properly. Then instill in him a nationalist philosophy so he wants to help his people. Then when his father dies, give him all the power and wealth. Now you have an incorruptible leader with the ability and desire to do what's best for his people.

File: 1448645101253.gif (65KB, 501x504px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 501x504px

>>1699567
Temporary material wealth doesn't matter if you don't have the power to legally protect it. Sure, looking back we can say, "oh, it was only a small tax, no big deal." The colonists saw the writing in the wall, and knew that if they did not secure political voice, there would more small steps until they became a glorified banana republic.

Hell, at first they didn't even want to leave. They sent letters to the king saying "Hey your majesty, we love you and are your loyal subjects, could you maybe stop Parliament being cunts and maybe give us a little voice in governing ourselves?" It was only after George told them to go fuck themselves that they decided to go their own way.

Pic very much related, it's you.

File: 1406714577438.jpg (383KB, 848x1250px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 848x1250px

>>1700302
Legend of the Galactic Heroes.

>>1700313
> instill in him a nationalist philosophy
> raise him to be capable of ruling a people properly
Because you can easily educate anybody into the whatever role you want? Some sort of meritocracy where you can raise children and choose the most capable ones could work here, but it weak as fuck to the corruption.

>>1700349
>Because you can easily educate anybody into the whatever role you want?
If you start from birth, yes.
>Some sort of meritocracy where you can raise children and choose the most capable ones
The heir is the firstborn male.

>>1700288
That would have been nice, no?

>>1700366
> If you start from birth, yes.
Some people are just born retarded, so it is out of the question.

neo-monarchism is a meme, but before states became more centralized it was practically the only option

>>1700380
Obviously the firstborn able male

>>1700388
And if the son proves just to be a poor leader? Not all bad qualities are disabilities.

>>1699135

For every one of those you have three times as many who did a sufficient to great job. Monarchical fuck ups make for interesting history so people tend to focus on them in their studies and then fall victim to confirmation bias in regards to the system.

>>1700396
Did you forget what the upbringing is? This is 90% more likely to produce a good leader than any Meritocracy

>>1700401
> 90% more likely to produce a good leader
This is why Venetian Republic was able to function for thousands of years uninterrupted, while no shitty monarchy could come even close to that.

>>1700399
>For every one of those you have three times as many who did a sufficient to great job
>source: my ass

Even if all you said is factual, that still leaves a 1/4 chance a country has to deal with a colossal shitbird for his/her entire mortal life. No thanks.

Leadership is not in blood, but in merit. Simple as that.

File: image.jpg (97KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 620x388px

you can't tell me this isn't comfy af

>>1700410
>thousands

>>1700424
>winning the national popularity contest means you're qualified to be a leader or that you're a meritorious person

Makes as much if not less sense that someone legally inheriting their leadership.

File: image.png (13KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 200x200px

>>1700410
>Venetian Republic
>thousands of years

>>1700442
> national popularity contest
Meritocracy isn't based on popularity contests.

File: 1462752003280.jpg (9KB, 250x190px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x190px

>>1700442
It may be so, but the power of the government should come from the consent of the governed, and that is lost in a Monarchy. A shitty government may result from a democracy or republic, but in that case it is the fault of the voters, not a family mishandling raising their heir. And when you do get the inevitable terrible leader, you've got a far smaller threshold to hold them accountable. Bad representatives can be voted out. A bad monarch requires a revolution.

>>1699119
Because that won't backfire with political backstabbing?

>>1700442
>Lifetime of skill development
>Somehow not meritous, or at least moreso than someone who can lie his way to popularity

>>1700460
> won't backfire with political backstabbing
And monarchy somehow pure from intrigues and coups of every kind?

>>1700460
> Lifetime of skill development
You can waste your lifetime of something and still be shit in this sphere, especially compared to the actually talented peoples.

File: 1462752315681.jpg (147KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 960x720px

>>1700460
>Lifetime of skill development
And how do you guarantee that will happen? What incentive do the Monarchs have to act in the interest of the nation and not their own?

>>1700464
Of course not. Nothing is. But it shouldn't be as bad under monarchy, as we have a set procedure which can't be rigged.

>>1700467
The best educators combined with eugenics should make it a pretty safe bet. Or at least so that the worst thing to happen would be an average monarch.

>>1700471
They have to pass their nation onto their children. It's in their interests to make sure it's a good'n. They can't exactly bugger off after their term is ended, either. The buck will always stop with them, and the only real way they can do better is by ensuring that the country does better.

File: 1462752258526.jpg (42KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x480px

>>1700476
>It's in their interests to make sure it's a good'n
It isn't, though. It's in their interests to make sure their kin continue to be wealthy and powerful, but that by no means translates to doing what's in the best interests of the people or the nation.

>>1700471
Monarch has everything. That's why they're incorruptible

File: 1473227214024.jpg (95KB, 467x700px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 467x700px

>>1700487
>Monarch has everything. That's why they're incorruptible

>>1700476
>They won't get any debilitating drug addictions. After all, they're the king!
>They won't engage in nonstop self-serving behavior to the detriment of the country. After all, they're the king!
>They won't succumb to vice in any way, shape, or form. After all, they're the king!
>They'll be fucking awesome each and every time. After all, they're the king!

>>1700476
You mean it's in their best interest to ensure their own power and survival, however that may be achieved.

>>1700487
This is dumb.

>>1700484
I am king
I want my kin to be wealthy and powerful
If I don't do right by my people, they will kill me and my kin.

>>1700490
>>1700497
What can you offer someone who has everything?

>>1700484
>>1700494
>It's in their interests to make sure their kin continue to be wealthy and powerful
How are they going to do that with a shitty country? You seem to imply that every monarchy is North Korea whilst ignoring the Luxembourg or Lichtenstein types.

>>1700487
Pretty much. A politician can be bought. A monarch could never really have a price.

>>1700492
And that could happen to literally anyone. But a king has to live with long term planning like few else do.

>>1700512
>tax havens are wealthy
Well I never.

>>1700518
>Missing the point
Shocker.

>>1700506
>What is absolute power corrupts absolutely?

>>1700524
>I don't understand long term planning and effects, so no one else would either.

>>1700524
A canard.

>>1700522
Luxembourg and Liechtenstein aren't rich because of the wise decisions of their monarchs, if that's what you were implying.

File: image.jpg (54KB, 496x559px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 496x559px

>>1700528
>ignoring the point this hard

>>1700536
>mfw history is filled with powerful leaders being self serving

>>1700540
Yea? Why not? Are you saying their monarchs been working against their nations?

File: 1461457454251.jpg (75KB, 451x720px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 451x720px

>>1700500
>If I don't do right by my people, they will kill me and my kin
Which is why they can use force to suppress dissent. The argument of "oh they can just overthrow a bad king" is retarded on so many levels. The king can and will do everything they can to cling to power to the detriment of the people, and even a successful revolution is a terrible way to have a check on a Monarch's power due to the devastation it brings and destabilizing effects it has on a nation.

Accountability through elections is far more effective and stable than a Monarchy ever will be.

>>1700506
When has a king ever had anything? There's always more land, more wealth, more prestige, more power.

>>1700512
>How are they going to do that with a shitty country?
By abusing power to concentrate wealth in the hands of their family.

>>1700544
I'm saying that their riches come independent of their monarchs. Unless you're saying that the massive economies entirely surrounding those two countries, all of which are non-monarchical, aren't the cause of the riches of Luxembourg and co.

>>1700459
A bad monarch requires humility. Rebellion is immoral.

>>1700548
>Which is why they can use force to suppress dissent.
It is far less efficient than just helping the people. Unless you're some communist who thinks all commoners want is gibs.
>The king can and will do everything they can to cling to power to the detriment of the people
Why? It would be so much easier to cling to his power by aiding the people. Why is it assumed all the king wants is to maintain power? The thought never entered the mind of the greatest monarchs in history.
>a successful revolution is a terrible way to have a check on a Monarch's power due to the devastation it brings and destabilizing effects it has on a nation.
If a monarch truly needs to be deposed his opposition will be so substantial it would overwhelm any defenders who don't defect that almost no damage would occur. Civil wars are rare.
>Accountability through elections is far more effective and stable than a Monarchy ever will be.
The only state to last over a thousand years was a monarchy. Your theory is counter-factual fantasy.
>When has a king ever had anything?
Every king has had more than any elected official, every elected official has had the incentive to reach for more.
>There's always more land, more wealth, more prestige, more power.
Again with the assumption monarchs are narcissistic sociopaths.

>>1700543
>ignoring
How so? Your point seemed to be that they'd have power, so they'd decide to be corrupt, which would ultimately be against their interests, and everything they would be taught.

>>1700548
>The government can and will do everything they can to cling to power to the detriment of the people
FTFY. It's not exclusive to any one type.
>even a successful revolution is a terrible way to have a check on a Monarch's power
I disagree (even though it sounds edgy as fuck). It means that it would only happen in the most dire and required of circumstances, and the successor would certainly watch his arse.
>There's always more land, more wealth, more prestige, more power.
That sounds like a problem for other countries?
.By abusing power to concentrate wealth in the hands of their family.
Except there won't be any wealth to concentrate if they run their nation into the ground. There's more profit to be made with happiness.

>>1700554
>I'm saying that their riches come independent of their monarchs.
And I'm saying you're myopic for not realising that it isn't entirely independent. China is rich, so why isn't North Korea? At the very least, the monarch is doing only gentle touch and letting the nation run itself, as he should. Ergo, it's a success for the monarchy.

>>1699106
> liberal republics
Merely a bunch of corrupt politicians who don't have a shred of shame when they sell their own people. The only "republic" worth of something is the Chinese Republic.

>>1700590
>ultimately be against their interests, and everything they would be taught.
And yet they always do. I am amazed at monarchists demonizing the population to be stupid while proclaim their monarch to be in theory incorruptible


Also
>thinking China is on good relations with NK
>thinking NK can trade with whole world like those European countries

You are so full of shit with your lack of awareness in geopolitics

>>1700623
>And yet they always do.
Always? 100% of the time? You're saying that at no point would a monarch understand how to remain prosperous?
>demonizing the population to be stupid while proclaim their monarch to be in theory incorruptible
Not the entire population, obviously. Just the prole masses who live short term and support things against their interests.
>thinking China is on good relations with NK
Wasn't implying it was. Maybe that has something to do with NK's "monarch"?

>>1700623
>I am amazed at monarchists demonizing the population
>Ugh, like, I can't even right now...

>>1700563
>A bad monarch requires humility.
Slave morality. There is no honor in watching your people be exploited while doing nothing. If a Monarch feels entitled to bear the largest responsibility for the country, then his negligence or malice only deserves the largest retribution.

>>1700641
>Slave morality
Euphoria
>There is no honor in watching your people be exploited while doing nothing.
Communism is the logical conclusion of this worldview.

>>1700646
>Communism is the logical conclusion of this worldview.
LMAO so fighting against tyranny is automatically communistic? USA may be the most powerful nation that has ever existed, and it was born directly and unequivocally out of rebellion. Truly it's quit the shining beacon of Marxism.

Go back to community college.

>>1700442
>Muh popularity contest
Flawed as it is, it allows and promotes the exchange of ideas and policies to which the public can partake in.

A Monarch has no obligation to do anything more than to say "lol do this cuz I'm King."

>>1700512
>A monarch could never really have a price.
Easy. More.

Jesus fucking christ you Monarchfags are like Trump supporters.

>>1700679
>More
More what? Who could have more than the monarch to be able to offer it?

>>1700676
>A Monarch has no obligation to do anything
He does if he actually wants his nation to succeed. A king can't be king without a country.
>it allows and promotes the exchange of ideas and policies to which the public can partake in.
If the media was unbiased, perhaps.

>>1698989
not a philosophy

Monarchy is a natural state in which people choose a leader to do all the politics and military shit because they're too lazy to do it themselves

Republics (and constitutional monarchies) are actual governments where monarchies and just what you get when you leave societies alone.

>>1700682
More territory? More gold in your purse? More power?

Look at Henry VIII. He caused a total religious shitstorm, breaking his loyalty to the Pope just so he marry a new woman that he killed soon after.

No matter how many 0's you have in your vault, another 0 is always more tempting. This is extremely simple stuff, and the fact you seem so obtuse to the history of monarchs corrupted by this seems dishonest.

>>1700634
Yes I am saying that bad monarchs like the proles u mentioned will "live short term and support things against their interests"

If the proles are a majority then you are massively generalizing, if minority they won't matter that much

>Maybe that has something to do with NK's "monarch"
>being this willfully ignorant
Once again look at te fucking geopolitics of East Asia you retard. Your counter-example to the other anon's claim that those European countries are wealthy regardless of their monarchy is stupid

>>1700640
No it is simple cognitive dissonance to compare monarchy at ther theotical best to democracies/republics at their worst in real life.

Look both have different strengths, requirements, and weakness. But the key republican arugement (which I am susprised The Yang poster didn't use even though Yang utterly BTFO Reinhard with it) is that whatever happens to the republic, the responsibility lies on the citizens. If it implodes or sucks, the blame goes to everyone. The same can't be said for a monarchy, and the subjects are just victims of circumstances.

And no, retorting with the people overthrowing the king when they suck is stupid since that was how modern republics were created in the first place

>>1700687
> A king can't be king without a country.
He can be a King in a dying country and not give too shits when he's on his deathbed.

>If the media was unbiased, perhaps.
The Monarch is the ultimate bias. Dissent against me and thou shalt be slain.

>>1699488
Lol the colonials literally where all smuglers anyway so they could make more money for themselves. But once the brits cracked down on this to repay for the French and Indian war the American where all up and arms. Also its just not true that the Americans had no representation. They had two seats in parliment. Now that's not enough to change much but, it's just a blatant lie that they didnt. I'll agree yhe British taxes where installed very poorly but the fact is the American colonials just didn't want to pay taxes and wanted to be able to break the law again. When you break it down you begin to see how redicules the whole American Myth is.

>>1699488
Not to mention the colonials begged England t go to war with the French so the could settle the Ohio River valley. Like it was literally a war the colonies asked for.

File: Robespierre.jpg (47KB, 800x1014px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 800x1014px

>>1698989
>>1698992
>>1699030
>>1699031
>>1699036
>>1699057
>>1699077
>>1699113
>>1699302
>>1699311
>>1699557
>>1700262
>>1700253
>>1700313
>>1700427
>>1700442
>>1700500


FUCKING MONNIES GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY REPUBLIC

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

if an idiot can come into power and the country stay the same then it's a good political system

File: Song Dynasty Bureaucrats.jpg (231KB, 1262x865px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1262x865px

>>1700384
>but before states became more centralized it was practically the only option
That positivist bullshit.

Monarchies invented centralization. China, the Roman Empire, and 15th-19th Century Europe says hi.

>>1700735
If an ididot comes into power and the country stays the same it was probably shit to begin with

>>1700720
>the colonials begged England
>Like it was literally a war the colonies asked for.
Bullshit. It was a rather small territorial dispute which, after Washington's first defeat, was exacerbated by PM Thomas Pelham-Holles demanding revenge.

First of all a monarch does not come from "noble stock", his family are simply warlords running a mafia protection racket who killed anyone who did not submit. The only "grooming for leadership" comes from learning how to suppress dissent, not actually run the state well. Secondly the idea that an authoritarian system, whether absolute or oligarchical, is less corrupt than a modern democracy is simply laughable. an authoritarian system REQUIRES corruption in order to function. Let me put it like this, any authoritarian leader maintains his power through the loyalty of privileged groups. In the case of a feudal monarchy it's the landed aristocracy, in the case of a modern junta it's the military. In all cases the authoritarian must serve those groups needs instead of the nations. If he does not those groups withdraw their support and he is overthrown. This means that the state is specifically designed to cripple itself for the betterment of the autocrats supporters over the interests of the nation. Thus because the law is not actually meant to address their needs, the population must turn to either corruption or revolution in order to survive, both of which are harmful to the well being of the nation. As for the belief that democracies cannot produce great leaders America alone provides several counters to that claim. Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Adams, and more all able to be strong and powerful leaders capable of both pushing thorough rapid reforms and guide the nation through crises while remaining subject to the rule of law and the democratic process. But what about the bad ones? A bad monarch or other dictator can destroy his nation utterly, meanwhile it is generally agreed Nixon was the Worst president yet the nation was able to chug along without falling into ruin and get rid of him without a civil war or a revolution.

>>1700716
> to repay for the French and Indian war
Which Britain had escalated.

> Now that's not enough to change much but
It was not enough to change anything at all, and thus effectively No Representation.

>I'll agree yhe British taxes where installed very poorly
Some very poorly, others deliberately designed to suppress colonial development.

> just didn't want to pay taxes
They wanted to be taxed as Englishmen, which is not how they were treated.

> and wanted to be able to break the law again
One could argue the taxes as implemented by the British were already illegal. I also like how you ignore Britain wanted a monopoly on colonial trade.
>When you break it down you begin to see how redicules
Yes, if you break it down at a high school level.

>>1699030
A king with a parliament is the senate appointing a co-dictator

>>1700699
>More territory?
That's the problem of another nation.
>More gold in your purse?
Best way to do that is to be profitable. But after a certain point, it starts to lose value.
>More power?
Bit abstract. How much more power could an absolute monarch get?
>Look at Henry VIII. He caused a total religious shitstorm, breaking his loyalty to the Pope just so he marry a new woman that he killed soon after.
Yea, that's one example of a dude needing a legal heir, so he said to fuck the consequences.
>the fact you seem so obtuse to the history of monarchs corrupted by this seems dishonest.
The fact that you only have a few examples seems dishonest too. A few bad apples don't negate the entire history of human government.

>>1700701
>Yes I am saying that bad monarchs like the proles u mentioned will "live short term and support things against their interests"
Again, missing the point. The proles are like that because they never learned any better. Someone having long term consquences drilled into their head from birth is a safer bet than a popular dropkick.
>Once again look at te fucking geopolitics of East Asia you retard.
Fun fact, a forest is made up of trees.
>Your counter-example to the other anon's claim that those European countries are wealthy regardless of their monarchy is stupid
It didn't even need an example, i was just trying to be fun. Those monarchical nations don't exist in spite of their governments, their governments are what enables them by fist or by absence to do well or not.

>>1700705
>He can be a King in a dying country and not give too shits when he's on his deathbed.
This is true, and as such the concern will end with his or the nations death.
>The Monarch is the ultimate bias. Dissent against me and thou shalt be slain.
As opposed to any other government?

>>1700699
Henry VIII had neurosyphillis

>>1700701
>the responsibility lies on the citizens. If it implodes or sucks, the blame goes to everyone. The same can't be said for a monarchy, and the subjects are just victims of circumstances.
That's not argument, it's an appeal to feels
>omg the poor ppls

monarchism is just a contrarian ideology in today's world

there's a reason it's called the "ancien régime"

File: image.jpg (24KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x600px

>>1700791
>his family are simply warlords running a mafia protection racket

>>1700906
>there's a reason it's called the "ancien régime"
That's because it's 2016

>>1700887
>That's the problem of another nation.
....of which the other nation can offer the greedy monarch. For so many words you're not that smart.

>Best way to do that is to be profitable.
Yes, and doing shady deals is very profitable.

>How much more power could an absolute monarch get?
Power over more regimes and populaces.
>As opposed to any other government?
Obama doesn't have people executed for calling him a nigger.

>Yea, that's one example of a dude needing a legal heir
And a Monarch doing whatever fuck he wanted in pure selfishness.

> only have a few examples
Napoleon III, Tsar Nicholas II, Bloody Mary, Nero, Leopold II, Caligula, King John of England, Commudus, Elagabalus, at least 20 popes, Ivan the Terrible.

>This is true, and as such the concern will end with his or the nations death.
Would it have been nice to have the ability to remove him, then? Not even revolution, just the most essential checks and balances.

>As opposed to any other government?
Obama doesn't have people killed for calling him nigger. There's 1000's of hours of video of both factual and conspiratorial dissent against the US government on youtube, and there they have remain watchable for years. You can get a crowd of thousands in front of the White House teling Obama to go to hell, and it can go on as long as you please.

Now, imagine saying Henry VIII was fat behind his back.

I grow tired of you.

wew, Republicans got really BTFO ITT

>>1700943
>Obama doesn't have people executed for calling him a nigger.
No he does it because people point out his wife is a man
Ignoring the rest of your post because it's typical 'omg kings are tyrants xD' shitposting.

>>1700954
You just look like he blew you the fuck out and you can't refute him now.

>>1700954
Name one political opponent Obama has imprisoned or killed for opposing his policies or for personally slighting him or his family. Wait you can't name even one because there are none. Why don't you go back to jacking off your obsolete monarchical system instead of lowering the level of discourse.

I wonder how all these monarchists always seem to forget about all the democratic leaders who have wielded vast powers and led their nations in bold successful new directions. It kinda refutes their wanking that only some authoritarian strongman can come and save them.

>>1700972
Joan Rivers was killed for saying Michille Obama is a tranny

>>1700943
>....of which the other nation can offer the greedy monarch.
Still not seeing how this is a problem? If the other nation is willing to sacrifice itself to another, let it happen.
>Yes, and doing shady deals is very profitable.
Not in the long run. Or rather, what shady deals are you imagining here?
>Power over more regimes and populaces.
Great!
>Obama doesn't have people executed for calling him a nigger.
Nor do monarchs. Slander hasn't been a capital offense for quite a while. Times have changed.
>And a Monarch doing whatever fuck he wanted in pure selfishness.
Not pure selfishness. Again, he needed an heir for the good of the nation. So only partial selfishness.
>Napoleon III, Tsar Nicholas II, Bloody Mary
Not that bad.
>Ivan the Terrible
Full retard. He was a great king, and Commodus was alright, just apathetic.
But if that's your list, then it's pretty pro-monarchy given how many thousands didn't make the cut (and yes, i know there are others. I can think of several Chinese ones)
>Would it have been nice to have the ability to remove him, then?
Yea, with blood. Again, I know it sounds edgy, but having a simple, painless way to start over isn't that great. Things should be fixed, not replaced on whim of popularity. If those checks can work on a bad government, they can work on a good one too.
>Now, imagine saying Henry VIII was fat behind his back.
Get with the times, gramps. In that period if you called someone a braggart, you'd be staring down a blade.
>I grow tired of you.
Because you know you have no real arguments?

>>1700983
Of course not. Any government can be great in the good times. Monarchy just has better odds of having those good times.

>>1700954
>No he does it because people point out his wife is a man
Factual, I'm sure.

>Ignoring the rest
My original and only point has been Kings are vulnerable to profound corruption of both mind and government. You can have a decent man of vision, then one blow to the head or whatnot can shift his personality into something terrible.

I've yet to hear a substantial reason why his subjects should tolerate this, and I doubt I hear it now.
Feel free to kneel, peasant. If his Highness wants you to wet his dick, then you've been trained since a boy to know all the right moves :^)

>>1700944
>ITT: Monarchy is good because Monarchy is good

>>1700914
How are they not? Their only true authority was gaining enough military strength to kill anyone who would contest them. It's why monarchies were inundated with constant insurrections and wars because the moment any lesser noble gathered what he thought was sufficient military power he would try to overthrow whoever was in charge. They didn't have a mandate from the masses when they founded their dynasties, and I would hope you don't seriously believe in nonsense like the mandate of heaven or divine right of kings as legitimate sources of authority.

>>1700990
>Of course not. Any government can be great in the good times. Monarchy just has better odds of having those good times.

Ha! the first world lives in the most prosperous, healthy, wealthy, safest, most educated and scientifically advanced era of human history and there isn't a true monarch in sight.

>>1700992
>peasant
I'm well-born

>>1701011
The first world has always been like that. Maybe the government type is more about the subtleties?

>>1701011
Are you seriously defending Modernity?
Go back to leddít.

>>1700914
It'is true

>>1701022
Are you seriously saying times were better when almost everyone was a starving, uneducated, superstitious peasant?

>>1700887
>But after a certain point, it starts to lose value.
Doesn't seem to stop billionaires nowadays. They can buy pretty much anything they want, and yet they are eager to amass more wealth. Why? Furthermore, having wealth also encourages you to do shady things to protect your wealth (see: any high-earning tax evader; i.e. almost any high-earning person).

>Bit abstract. How much more power could an absolute monarch get?
Even absolute monarchs aren't omnipotent and their power largely depends on their supporters, like the bureaucrats that have to realize the monarch's policies, and the regular feudal monarch greatly has to worry about the power of his vassals, while modern constitutional monarchs are pretty much powerless bitches of their governments.
Also, there tends to be more than one country in the world, even if they were all to be monarchies. A monarch may seek powers these other countries wield. See: Willie II.'s pointless navy dick-waving contest.
Lastly, even if the world was united under one monarch, there not only exist geopolitical power comparisons, but also temporal ones. A monarch will have to compare himself to previous (and sometimes hypothetical future) monarchs.

>Best way to do that is to be profitable.
Profitable for your own purse, that is. Just high enough for people not to revolt and there's nobody to stop you from spending most of it on fat court parties, chariot races, drugs and whores.

>>1700887
>A few bad apples don't negate the entire history of human government.
There is no normative value in the mere fact that most of human history had monarchies, just like there is no normative value in the mere fact that throughout most of human history there were no constitutional rights. This is just a stupid naturalistic fallacy, in addition to being a dubious claim in the first place.

>it's another monarchists get utterly btfo thread

These are like the /his/ version of the Monty Hall problem threads that pop up now and then. 100 people with factual knowledge, and 1 troll or genuine idiot.

>>1700990
>Still not seeing how this is a problem?
The greedy monarch takes the land in exchange for a useless war against a nation he had no quarrel with.

>what shady deals are you imagining here?
Taking bribes from enemies, exploiting the civilians in taxes, hoarding the kingdom's stock.

>Great!
Yes, foreigners who's culture you have no knowledge of. But submit them to your model anyway.

>Nor do monarchs. Slander hasn't been a capital offense for quite a while. Times have changed
Go to Saudi Arabia and insult the royalty. Dare you.

>Again, he needed an heir for the good of the nation
And he failed and failed and failed again, and people died for it. Need I remind you the wars that resulted from English separation of the Papacy?
And why would anyone want a heir of that awful man?

>Not that bad.
Nappy III was beyond incompetent, Nicholas II was an idiot oblivious to the suffering of his people and pressed the policies that continued to hurt them. Bloody Mary is a perfect example of your precious Monarch

>Full retard. He was a great king
A great King doesn't kill his own children out of rage, among the myriad of other pointless psychopathic acts.

>Commodus was alright
Commodus was the start of the decay of the Empire.

>Get with the times, gramps. In that period if you called someone a braggart, you'd be staring down a blade.
Alright, I'll call you a faggot. Faggot :^)

>But if that's your list, then it's pretty pro-monarchy
It would take hours to accumulate it properly. You should learn the principle of charity.

>Because you know you have no real arguments?
I've rebutted all you've said. You've given not a single legitimate reason to prefer a Monarchy over a Republic. Even my British friends say they only keep the Royalty in power is because of the massive tourism that it generates.

>>1701016
Still gotta suck his dick if he commands.

>>1701056
>Commodus was the start of the decay of the Empire.
Funnily enough, he was also the start of the abolishment of the meritocratic adoption system people like Caesar and the Good Emperors ran.
Rome started its fall when it started choosing its emperors like a true monarchy: hereditarily.

>>1701051
>They can buy pretty much anything they want, and yet they are eager to amass more wealth. Why?
Why not? Who isn't like that? The point was that after a certain point, it's more about defending your wealth than generating more revenue.
>Furthermore, having wealth also encourages you to do shady things to protect your wealth
Only where necessary.
>Even absolute monarchs aren't omnipotent and their power largely depends on their supporters
Of course, but your idea of power is still abstract. Like, what are you expecting them to want to be able to do, when they're already able to pass law on whim?
>A monarch may seek powers these other countries wield.
I just don't see the issue there, as long as it isn't harming his own country.
>Profitable for your own purse, that is.
For a monarch, a profitable country is most profitable to his coffers.
>Just high enough for people not to revolt
If that's the case, they can't be too hard off, or have it harming the nation. Much like most of the west now, i suppose.
>This is just a stupid naturalistic fallacy
Not when the point was that there have been thousands upon thousands of monarchs who were good or at least passable, compared to the few noteworthy bad ones.

>>1700887
>Again, missing the point. The proles are like that because they never learned any better. Someone having long term consquences drilled into their head from birth is a safer bet than a popular dropkick.
Again who is say to the proles can't have those same long term consequences drilled?

>get BTFO for using NK
>LOL was trying to have fun
Kill yourself

>>1700904
Not a matter of feels but of self determination. I will admit it is a subjective argument. After all some people will always want to live on their knees

>>1701056
>The greedy monarch takes the land in exchange for a useless war against a nation he had no quarrel with.
Okay?
>Taking bribes from enemies, exploiting the civilians in taxes, hoarding the kingdom's stock.
Why would they need to be bribed? Back to what are the offering that they couldn't have to begin with out in the open?
>Yes, foreigners who's culture you have no knowledge of. But submit them to your model anyway.
This is an incredibly variable hypothetical, bro.
>Go to Saudi Arabia and insult the royalty.
Probably end up beheaded. What's your point? That's more to do with them being sandpeople, because the same would happen in many places if you insult Mohammad.
>And why would anyone want a heir of that awful man?
Because that's how the system works. Sure, he was a dick, but sins of the father, and such.
>Nappy III was beyond incompetent,
Yea, he was a bit useless. But at that point, there was fuck all he could have done.
>Nicholas II was an idiot oblivious to the suffering of his people and pressed the policies that continued to hurt them
Hardly. He was a decent Tsar, and just needed to keep up the good work of his grandfather, but the seeds were too deeply sown for revolution at that point.
>A great King doesn't kill his own children out of rage, among the myriad of other pointless psychopathic acts.
No, but he does expand the nation greatly. And yea, his rage was a shame, but one had to be hard as coffin nails there.
>Commodus was the start of the decay of the Empire.
Arguable. He didn't help, mind, but let's not get this into a Roman Empire thread.
>Alright, I'll call you a faggot. Faggot :^)
And you're welcome to. Because civilised people don't care about petty insults anymore.
1/2

>>1701056
2/2
>It would take hours to accumulate it properly.
But would it outweigh the great/good/average/acceptable monarch list?
>I've rebutted all you've said. You've given not a single legitimate reason to prefer a Monarchy over a Republic.
You've given emotional pleas on the assumption that all people are bad. Actual reasons are longevity, transparency, and control.
>Even my British friends say they only keep the Royalty in power is because of the massive tourism that it generates.
Then they're idiots. The tourist money would be there without the British monarchy. The actual funds they bring in are part of the Crown Estate, and well outweigh the costs.

>>1701081
>Again who is say to the proles can't have those same long term consequences drilled?
Nothing. They absolutely could. But until then, go with the safer bet.
>get BTFO for using NK
>Ever think that NK would be a good argument
This isn't /pol/, bro. Anyway, the point was nations can be influenced from their leaders by presence or absence. Care to address that instead?
>Not a matter of feels
>but of self determination.
Isn't that just feels? Plus, with democracy or a republic, the onus is really on the politicians, but they pretend it's the fault of the citizens.

>>1701075
>Why not? Who isn't like that? The point was that after a certain point, it's more about defending your wealth than generating more revenue.
Your point was that monarchs are immune against the allure of wealth and subsequent policies that may fvaour the monarchs' own pocket in disfavour of the populace's well-being because they already are wealthy, but that's both historically and in comparable cases presently not true.

>Only where necessary.
It is always necessary. If you can gain wealth, there are ways for you to lose or gain less wealth, even if the monarch was granted a permanent budget.

>Of course, but your idea of power is still abstract.
What non-abstract concept of power is there?

>Like, what are you expecting them to want to be able to do, when they're already able to pass law on whim?
The ability to actually enforce that law.

>I just don't see the issue there, as long as it isn't harming his own country.
Look how the naval race with Britain and colonialism, both starting out of sheer vanity, turned out for Germany. The total devastation of the continent. But you don't even have to go that far. Dick-waving contests always exist for monarchs. Who can thrower the bigger party, who has the higher fountain, who has more power over his populace, who can buy more shinier things...? All questions that can be resolved through exploitation of your populace to buy them or wars you plunge your country into to gain them by force.

> or at least passable,
Sounds like moving the goalpost. The comparison group needs to be the hypothetical non-monarchical governments.

>For a monarch, a profitable country is most profitable to his coffers.
The same would go for anyone else in the country then, so there'd be no reason to give a monarch preference. But it's not even true. His coffers aren't synonymous with the state's coffers.

>If that's the case, they can't be too hard off, or have it harming the nation.
Or the monarch has power to suppress them.

>>1701084
>Okay?
Is a useless war, potentially devastating the economy and population not enough?

>Why would they need to be bribed?
To do something against the interests of his people, aka serving the interests of his enemies. Baby stepping you through each obvious implication and consequence is why I am tired of you.

>Back to what are the offering that they couldn't have to begin with out in the open?
MORE. MONEY. You have 5000 dollars right? 5005 is better.

>This is an incredibly variable hypothetical, bro.
A hypothetical that can potentially lead to decades of decay of a people that were traded like a a card.

>What's your point?
That Monarchies exist today which violently suppress dissent. Your claim was wrong and I proved it wrong.


>Because that's how the system works.
"Welp, let's hope these next 60 years are slightly less shitty"
That just makes me sad.

We can go back an forth on individual monarchs another day. It

>>1701105
>but that's both historically and in comparable cases presently not true.
I disagree that mega-rich are comparable. I mean hell, they're probably richer than many monarchs would be. And yes, there have been some who have fallen to greed, but that's still short sighted of them (and any government type), since it's not something they would need, when they could have more by not doing that.
>It is always necessary.
Absolutely, but i should have expanded on that by saying in cases where they feel they're being unfairly taxed, or there's no reasonable recourse to preserve your wealth.
>What non-abstract concept of power is there?
I'm not sure bro, you were the one bringing it up.
>The ability to actually enforce that law.
Which they'd already be able to do.
>All questions that can be resolved through exploitation of your populace to buy them or wars you plunge your country into to gain them by force.
Also true, and also not exclusive to monarchy (USA, for one), but that again comes back to whether or not it's prudent in the long term, or if they're shooting themselves in the foot.
>Sounds like moving the goalpost.
Why? A passable monarch would be one who doesn't cause bad shit to happen, and thus the country takes care of itself. That's still pretty generous on the opposing side when you think of all that could include.
>His coffers aren't synonymous with the state's coffers.
Depends on where you think his income is coming from. If it's not from the state itself, then he's really just a CEO.
>Or the monarch has power to suppress them.
With psychic powers? Everyone who isn't the monarch is the populace, remember. So i'm assuming you mean suppression with the military, which would be made up of the people who too are being suppressed, and thus may not like the idea.

>>1701090
>assumption that all people are bad
Yeah, go fuck yourself if that's the conclusion you want to make. I'm arguing in the worst case scenario for a Monarchy.
I find my math still solid. 4-8 years of shit is better than +50 years of shit.

>longevity
Current models of republics are very young. Dishonest
>transparency
No government is transparent. If the King wants something secret, so it shall be.

> The actual funds they bring in are part of the Crown Estate, and well outweigh the costs.
I'll allow actual brit bongs to touch upon that.

>>1701126
>Which they'd already be able to do.
"I hereby proclaim that the moon shall be owned by the Crown of Tuscany!"
And thus it was?

>>1701110
>Is a useless war, potentially devastating the economy and population not enough?
Which side? If his own, yes, that's pretty bad, and shouldn't have passed the planning stage. The monarch, his predecessor, and his lifetime's worth of teachers/advisors have fucked up somehow.
>To do something against the interests of his people, aka serving the interests of his enemies.
Which is an absurd implication. Once more, what gain could be made of hoisting ones own petard?
>Baby stepping you through each obvious implication and consequence is why I am tired of you.
You make up absurd hypotheticals and are weary of me wanting justification for an otherwise happy monarch turning into a cartoon villain?
>MORE. MONEY. You have 5000 dollars right? 5005 is better.
It is, but you're clearly not someone who has much in the way of finance to be blind to risk management. The monarch would presumably have limitless funds anyway, and be taught to manage them, so why would he risk them for so little extra, which would obviously be found out.
>That Monarchies exist today which violently suppress dissent. Your claim was wrong and I proved it wrong.
Fair enough, i'll concede the point. Can we now focus on white people?
>A hypothetical that can potentially lead to decades of decay of a people that were traded like a a card.
Assuming such a thing were to happen. What if we were talking instead about a German monarchy wanting to absorb Saxony. Probably not so bad.
>"Welp, let's hope these next 60 years are slightly less shitty"
Or top the guy who is making them shitty?

>>1701090
oh and

>control.
Napoleon shook up all of the candy ass Monarchies, save for Britain. I can probably concede your point in the more ancient medieval eras of rampant disease, lack of technology, illiteracy, and general strife.

To touch upon longevity again, just because a state has a change of flag or system doesn't mean the end of the cultural identity. China, for one, even with the purges of Mao, retains plenty of its ancient heritage and is a superpower to this day.

>>1701131
>Yeah, go fuck yourself if that's the conclusion you want to make. I'm arguing in the worst case scenario
Worst case can happen to anything. Worst case for monarchy is still better option.
>4-8 years of shit is better than +50 years of shit.
And fifty years of shit is better than 300 years of shit that you're told you chose each time.
>Current models of republics are very young. Dishonest
Sorry, not what i was referring to. One government for fifty years will be able to get more consistant work done than one begging the people to keep them in for 3-8.
>If the King wants something secret, so it shall be.
I'm not talking like hiding the King's royal buttplug, but that a republican government can shift the blame to one elected person and have them replaced with their carbon copy, then keep going with whatever the blame was for. Problems in a monarchy ultimately are the problem of the king.
>I'll allow actual brit bongs to touch upon that.
royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/just-how-is-the-royal-family-funded-44603
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queens-finances-explained-you-need-3753404
Tl;dr is that their actual income (something in excess of £300m/yr) is confiscated by (((parliament))), and they're paid a salary in total of around £30m/yr in return.

>>1701138
Ah, thought we meant more mundane things. Obviously that would end up being in contest with anyone else who wants some lunar territory, so yes, that could wind up being a military matter.

>>1700972
Anwar al-alaqui

Too dependant on the quality of individuals, thus not resilient enough.

It works in times of crisis, when you have to cut the middle man and gotta act fast. Less ideal in prosperity.

>ITT: People thinking Absolute Monarchy is the only Monarchy, as opposed to a Constitutional Monarchy with checks and balances to prevent the bad apples in the royal family from doing batshit things

There comes a time when a people becomes suitable for self-governance, but this is only doable after civilisation has been achieved under a monarchy.


Monarchy might unironically be a good choice for modern Africa.

>>1702343
A lot of African republics are quasi-monarchical dictatorships, with one ruling dynasty, where presidentship is (not formally, of course) passed down from father to son.

>>1702330
There's only that one monarchy-fan that thinks that. Also, constitutional monarchies were adressed several times ITT.

>>1698989

Probably the best form of government in most historical eras, because outside of small city-states the infrastructure necessary for democracy isn't there and at least heredity is a fairly stable and peaceful method for choosing a new leader when the old one dies.

Now it's just the government of choice for edgy LARPers suffering from a severe case of Dunning-Kruger.

All the arguments for monarchy are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how politics actually works. It's not about somehow getting to an objectively correct policy (doesn't exist), but about creating a stable government that has the necessary legitimacy to command the obedience and loyalty of the population and can successfully mediate between the different groups with different values, interests, and priorities that inevitably exist in every society. Representative democracies are better at this than monarchies in every way.

>>1702452
>legitimacy
>democracy
The trouble with democracy is that you only need 51% of people to be fooled into voting one way, at least once. Your idealistic hopes don't really have to factor into it. Whereas a monarchy can better represent all groups, as it doesn't need to be based on popularity.

File: drift king.jpg (46KB, 500x355px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x355px

>>1698989
>>1698992
drift king is pretty important desu

>>1701044
Nice meme

Charlemagne looks like Varg

>>1699331
>I don't care if you're Lucius Baldwin III, 1st Earl of St. Limeyfuck. What could your family lineage possibly mean to me, and why should I even bother acknowledging you exist?

You could replace lineage with family wealth, why should you bother acknowledging rich people either? They still do the same thing of lording it over you.

>>1699331
>An elected leader demonstrates popularity, or often the pretense of.
FTFY
>A Noble has no inherent value or potential besides the prestige of his name.
It's meant to mean that they're the better caste. The ones who were better educated, and most of all, had more responsibility. Similar to a foreman on a job site, or the captain of an aircraft/boat, they're the ones who are meant to be prepared to take control of shit because the other peasants can't be trusted to work towards the same goal.
So a noble would have to take care of his serfs/underlings for his own benefit, and theirs.

File: 1417989385869.png (48KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x500px

>>1704232
>The trouble with democracy is that you only need 51% of people to be fooled into voting one way, at least once.
Yeah, in an absolute and direct democracy.
>What is volonté générale?
For guys who keep shitting on Rousseau, /his/ sure doesn't understand what he was trying to say.

I'd say an "ideal" system would be some vague mixture between Plato and Rousseau, a Res Publica based on representation that does favor more educated candidates. A bit like France with its Grandes Écoles except not shit.

>>1702452
>Doesn't know what is Dunning-Kruger
>Look it up
" The study was inspired by the case of McArthur Wheeler, a man who robbed two banks after covering his face with lemon juice in the mistaken belief that, because lemon juice is usable as invisible ink, it would prevent his face from being recorded on surveillance cameras."
Thanks for my daily laugh anon.

File: 1411512013982.png (1MB, 898x2895px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 898x2895px

>>1700302
Watch order, one of the best shows ive seen

File: 220px-Labille-Guiard_Robespierre.jpg (12KB, 220x285px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 220x285px

>>1698989
>monarchism
Degeneracy for barbarians

>>1698989
Seems like the hot new Internet Tough Guy meme

>WE
>WUZ
>SUBJECTS

>>1699037
A bad democracy is not a democracy you dumb fuck.
Is a Oligarchy.

>>1698989
>needing a monarchy to keep your country stable

Cuck

People only focus on bad monarchs due to history. Who are some of the best monarchs and what did they do?

File: The_Battle_of_the_Somme_film_image1.jpg (211KB, 800x411px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 800x411px

Monarchism without industry is fine
Monarchism with industry will destroy humanity

Is there anything dumber than divine right to rule?

>>1704232
All government is based on popularity, monarchies no less so than democracies. Probably even more so. A democratic government can do unpopular things and still re-elected as long as it does more popular things.Even if it becomes unpopular, its decisions are usually still accepted (not always, but most often) as opponents will just wait until the next election. By comparison, an autocrat has to constantly keep in mind his popularity every step of the way, as there is no set tenure of office, and thus no question of just waiting until the next election: if he becomes unpopular, he will be overthrown and likely exiled or killed. There was some Roman historian (maybe Livy?) who said that no one is more susceptible to popular opinion than a king.

Also, almost no one is talking about direct democracy. We're talking about representative democracy. Objectively, almost all representative democratic governments are in some sense coalitions of different interests. Whereas monarchies are just based on the will of the monarch, who is just one person with his own biases, interests, values, priorities, etc.

>>1705673
>All government is based on popularity, monarchies no less so than democracies.
I absolutely agree with all that, but even the Frenchiest of people aren't going to go to the barricades when a king implements an unpopular, yet beneficial policy. Whereas an elected government could never risk the short term popularity hit. This alone makes long term policy very difficult. In nations without term limits, they have to be careful to pander to both sides all the time, and with term limits the next guys can be entirely about reversing the last guys stuff because of the Us vs Them mentality.
>We're talking about representative democracy
Which is even worse. At least direct is indicitive of the peoples wants. Representitive is, "Yea, you totally wanted whatever we're planning because you voted for me and my vague promises instead of the other guy."
>Whereas monarchies are just based on the will of the monarch, who is just one person with his own biases, interests, values, priorities, etc.
True, but he's not just Bill from the local pub. He's the person with the most vested interest in the nation doing well, and keeping his own head.

>>1705481
And all democracy eventually becomes a Plutocracy.

File: 1386258048692.jpg (9KB, 212x238px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 212x238px

>>1698989
I ok with an almighty ruler, but only if he/she rule for the common good, and not imposing ideas for its own interest. Anyway, blood heritage is not ok.

>>1706545
>blood heritage is not ok.
Why not?

No issue with it the problem here is the inbreeding royals do, like why cant the kings just pick the best genetic women in the kingdom and breed babies from them?

>>1706088
>even the Frenchiest of people aren't going to go to the barricades when a king implements an unpopular, yet beneficial policy

Not true at all. For one, what constitutes a "beneficial policy" is not universally agreed upon. Also, frequently beneficial take time to have an effect, and the ruler can be overthrown in the meantime.

>Whereas an elected government could never risk the short term popularity hit
And yet they do, often

>He's the person with the most vested interest in the nation doing well, and keeping his own head
Those two things are not the same at all. Many things that are bad for the nation are good for the monarch, and vice versa. It's better for the autocrat if the people are uneducated, because then they won't get too many ideas of their own about government. It's better for the autocrat to keep his people destitute, as they will be too weak to revolt. It's better for the autocrat to have a repressive police state to prevent alternatives to his rule from being voiced, even though the nation would benefit from different ideas to prevent stagnation.

>>1708429
>Not true at all. For one, what constitutes a "beneficial policy" is not universally agreed upon. Also, frequently beneficial take time to have an effect, and the ruler can be overthrown in the meantime.
Exactly my point. It takes a lot more effort and cause for a king to be overthrown than for a government to be kicked out because the other guy is promising gibsmedats.
>And yet they do, often
Must be different where you are. Politicians here, and all I've seen in the media seem to be jellyfish. Or you're just setting the bar lower than I am.
>Many things that are bad for the nation are good for the monarch
How do you figure? The monarch IS the nation, so it's in their best interest for the nation to do well.
>It's better for the autocrat if the people are uneducated, because then they won't get too many ideas of their own about government. It's better for the autocrat to keep his people destitute, as they will be too weak to revolt. It's better for the autocrat to have a repressive police state to prevent alternatives to his rule from being voiced
Not always true, Saloth. Only poor leaders/despots have such fears because they only know how to lead with fear.
All those things harm the national advancement, and are thus not effective in the long term. You're confusing monarchy with despotism, where the glorious leader probably came from the lower caste, and is thus only concerned with fleecing the joint while he can. A monarch has to pass the sceptre to his son, so he's going to need to make sure it will be long term viable.

>>1708477
>Not always true, Saloth. Only poor leaders/despots have such fears because they only know how to lead with fear.
Which almost all monarchs are.
>The monarch IS the nation
Don't know where you got this idea from. Monarchism and nationalism are fundamentally opposed.
>All those things harm the national advancement, and are thus not effective in the long term. You're confusing monarchy with despotism, where the glorious leader probably came from the lower caste, and is thus only concerned with fleecing the joint while he can. A monarch has to pass the sceptre to his son, so he's going to need to make sure it will be long term viable.
But monarchs have no particular reason to care about national advancement, only dynastic advancement, which history shows to be fundamentally different things. All the things I said apply for the long as well as the short term.

>>1708680
>Which almost all monarchs are.
Disagree.
>Monarchism and nationalism are fundamentally opposed.
And where the hell do you get that idea from?
In an empire, perhaps, but it's still not a requirement.
>But monarchs have no particular reason to care about national advancement, only dynastic advancement
Those usually are the same thing. Otherwise they'll be kings of nothing. Look at the history of the Russian monarchy. They would neglect shit for a while, and it'd bite them in the arse, and it'd take a "the Great" to come along and make it good for Russia and the monarchy again.
Put simply, the dynasty can't take what isn't there, so it's in their interests to have their country do well, if nothing else, than for their own sake.
>All the things I said apply for the long as well as the short term.
They don't, though. It'll result in being overtaken by others, driving the people out, or robbing yourself.

>>1708429
>It's better for the autocrat if the people are uneducated, because then they won't get too many ideas of their own about government. It's better for the autocrat to keep his people destitute, as they will be too weak to revolt. It's better for the autocrat to have a repressive police state to prevent alternatives to his rule from being voiced, even though the nation would benefit from different ideas to prevent stagnation.
Wait... aren't they already doing this in Western democracies?

They want to ban guns.
They want to ban cash.
They want to ban privacy.
They want to ban free speech under the guise of hate speech.
They want to ban freedom of religion, because it is backwards.
They even want to increase control on what is taught to future generations to "better educate" them.

I mean, come on, man. Monarchies are problematic, but those problems are also present in our countries.

I actually love the idea of having a king to serve.

>>1708875
>to serve.
So train at the Savoy and get a job as a butler, or something? Having a monarchy doesn't really mean everyone serves the king.

>>1708914
Being a butler sounds awesome, to be honest. Especially if you're a butler that's also trained to fight.

>>1709072
It's actually a pretty cushy job (from what i hear). Good pay, and you're obviously going to have a nice place to work. Certainly nothing stopping you from also being well versed in fighting and essentially becoming the dude from Hellsing.

>>1699059

>Hereditary physical qualities have no effect on people

Objectively wrong.

>>1709135
A top-tier butler is essentially a house manager/executive.

>>1699119
>hereditary monarchy is all monarchy

>>1709175
Exactly. People who have never had staff always underestimate what they do, and how decent the job actually is.

>>1699302
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

>Monarchists think the president is in charge.
>Monarchists don't realize that it's just b8 and switch for the public to give them an illusion of control.
>Monarchists don't realize its actually the appointed officials actually governing the country.

Marcus Aurelius was not the son of the Emperor, rather, trained by Emperor Hadrian and another appointee, Emperor Antoninus.

If emperors/kings are trained and selected through merit, then that is far better than a popularity contest.

The issue is that sometimes, people suck at choosing their successors. Hadrian was good at selecting personnel. Marcus Aurelius wasn't at the end of his career.

>>1709152
>>>/pol/

>>1709212
Those points are actually pretty common monarchist arguments against "democracy."

>>1709225
Except they're pointless arguments against democracy. If that is the case then what the hell are Monarchists fighting for? LARPing? Governments under Monarchies function the same- parliaments and ministries n shiet- unless they want the feudal bullshit.

>>1709233
>Governments under Monarchies function the same- parliaments and ministries n shiet
Only if it's a parliamentary monarchy, which most monarchs have issue with. Feudal can be popular with some, but with most it's quasi-libertarian, in that the monarch sets the ship's course and leaves the people to handle the rest. Interferance is only to stop people fucking up or to give a boost.

>>1708836
>democracies are not really that democratic anymore

>>1698989
The problem generally comes with succession.

You can have the best king you want, but that fucker better have some Superhuman heir with no pretenders lying around.

And maybe pull eugenics on the royals instead of inbreeding.

>>1709247
Feudalism is a bigger fuck up than any of democracy's faults.

Literally placing people as property.

>>1698989
Too inherently authoritarian, and too inflexible due to how long the ruler stays in power.
And more importantly, it discourages personal involvement in politics.

>>1709399
>muh feels

>>1709422
Those are all positives.

File: oliver-cromwell-xlarge.jpg (297KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1280x800px

i think it's a pretty preeeetty goofy old way of doin things haha :)

>>1699104
The queen of Canada is not a foreigner. She is literally the embodiment of Canada as a government and as a country.

The queen in Canadian law is literally the ground you live in. She's written in to Canada's foundation even stronger than she is into the uks.

If you don't love Lizzy with all your heart you should kill yourself ASAP

>>1698989
I used to be a monarchist, but I'm a feudalist now.

However, a feudalist society can become a monarchy; that'd be alright with me.

But the reason I make this distinction, is because a vanilla monarchy would imply a power struggle at first. If we just roll the dice and let whoever become king rule, then he'd probably be a statist faggot because he was born into a statist society.

To be a proper monarchy, you need a transition; and to transition, you need a different core belief.

What feudal Europe and feudal Japan had in common is a warrior group that had a sense of honour. Modern people like to think they know what honour is, but nobody really knows. You would have to lived at the time to understood it better. it's like plucking a feudalist from the past and putting him in the future; he'd be completely astounded that we live so discontented with so much food and so much living space, and it's because he doesn't realize that the capitalist system keeps us in a state of anxiety for it to work; a sense of discontent to the stuff we have, in pursuit of something bigger and better; the feudalist on the other hand, came from a time where people lived in the anxiety of honour and loyalty. To know what honour is, you would have to be a product of the system that utilized honour in place of capital. A fief was a contract of loyalty, not a contract of capital. In a sense, honour was better than capital, because people were content with life. it was only in impoverished places where the people started to revolt and overthrow the system, but that's to become a primitive trade society like the middle east. Our religions are indicative of this distinction as well; the honour culture had human gods with human needs and desires, while the capital culture had a lawful god that was strict; law is only needed for an unruly people.