How come monarchy was a world wide phenomenon? How could a system

Evolution from tribal society.

>>1892680
>beat up people and make them submit to you
>you're a kang now
Is this so complicated?

>>1892680
It makes perfect sense.

>powerful warrior conquers or unites people
>becomes ruler
>his rule inherited by son

if it doesn't make sense to you, you're a cuckold who sees nothing wrong in having his wife impregnated by another man

>>1892680

Because giving power to whoever wins a popularity contest in which people who are still hormonally imbalanced, borderline retards and people two steps from the grave vote in it makes soooooooooo much sense.

Considering the education at the time it's not an awful idea

>>1892680
>bandits steal town crops
>form an armed force to take care of them
>people submit to you because in exchange for their servitude you grant them security
>they live happy lives

>>1892680
Well just think about the issues with governments back then. Communication was so shit that it is inevitable that some centralization would make things more efficient. Also realize how much weaker governments were back then, with some exception like Greek Egypt it was actually very easy to get away from governmental control. The modern formstyle of governments are a direct result of the increasing power of governments and the ability to communicate with people who didn't live in your village.

>>1892680
The fact it worked for so long showed it is the best system of government, letting the subhuman masses decide for their laws is completely retarded.

>>1892680

>It may not be perfect but is the best one there is

>It's the most natural system

>>1892842
It was the best system for the time; it is pretty unstable in the long term now. The best you can get is a strong bureaucracy

>>1892680
>How come monarchy was a world wide phenomenon?
Monarchy is basically just the propertization of the state. It's basically the natural outcome of societies based around inheritable private property.

>have group
>can't do shit if everyone is going on their own path
>cool kid volunteers to lead the group
>becomes leader

monarch just evolves from that

>>1892802
for most of history

king = general (sometimes judge too because you gotta have an arbiter at times)

Not only can they kill you but they can kill people that try to harm you so there's carrot and stick right there. This system is only retarded because not much thought is put into it. It's just occurs naturally.

You can't really run democracy on something bigger than a city-state tho. Rigging would be easy as shit.

It wasn't popular. A monarch was someone who basically enslaved people via violence and would take resources from them while cranking out propaganda on the young.

>>1893713
kys

>>1893713
Sounds just like every other form of governance to me.

Because it was somewhat a natural outcome. Naturally you have a hierarchy, a group, a need to for leadership. The hierarchy decided who became the leader of the group. Now, what happens to the leader apon positional removal? Well, it is passed down through hierarchy - which happens to be the ruler's blood. Now, if they were elected, you would be following National Socialism's system of leadership. To quote Goebbels, "Republic or Monarchy? Neither and both!"

File: 1477394536432.jpg (94KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 960x720px

Here's a better question. When are we going to stop bullshitting around and get back to Monarchism? Mix in the good parts of Democracy so that power always changes hands.

>>1892842
>masses decide their laws nowadays
Where? Direct democracy is almost nonexistant and legislative power is almost always composed of somewhat educated rich class folks

>>1893772
Because you're doing what National Socialism and what Fascism did - trying to create a Republical Monarchy.