What is it about monarchy that made it so prevalent around the

>>2104200
> is it about monarchy that made it so prevalent around the world throughout history?

It's simple

>And why has it recently been in decline?

The world got complex

>I'm the guy in charge around here, you all work for me or you get the wheel
It's a system even a uneducated peasant can easily understand.

>>2104200
>What is it about monarchy that made it so prevalent around the world throughout history?

Because the people disagreed they were killed by the soldiers of the king.

>And why has it recently been in decline?

Because we have now internet,and those fuckin monarchists are so dumb that they made constitutions,hahahaha,fuckin idiots.

>>2104200
It's a natural development of the pack hierarchies of lower animals.

Decline? People seem to think 'democracy' or 'republics' work better. They don't.

>>2104230
I smell a serf not working my wheat fields

File: Will em.png (69KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 225x225px

>>2104230
>They don't.

Www Ldd Hoootly

>>2104244
>>2104245
'Democracy: The God That Failed'. Read it.

Monarchies are better than republics or democracies as they lead to greater progress.

File: 1464140523590.jpg (35KB, 229x343px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 229x343px

>>2104258
>Monarchies are better than republics or democracies as they lead to greater progress.

>>2104262
Your uneducated opinions are meaningless. Read the facts.

>>2104282
Your uneducated opinions are meaningless. Read the facts.

>>2104230
>tfw no succession war

>>2104200
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzSQsQwHoxA

>>2104282
Monarchies, in general, are both less stable and less efficient than democracies. Yes, really.

>be monarch
>whine about not having more shit
>A: Fuck up your country
>B: Get executed

>>2104282
If you think one book by an Austrian """economist""" settles anything, you need to read more widely.

The human at the top of a hierarchy needs a successor to stop chaos erupting whenever they have a sniffle. Adoption or choosing a successor from among the powerful can be confusing and risky, whereas following the custom of inheritance makes your heir obvious and indisputable, it also presents a picture perfect image of family to the public.

Also no one rules alone. You need people to guard you while you sleep, make sure your wine isn't poisoned, command armies far from the capital and occupy the highest offices of state. These tasks in turn need successors who are well educated and have a decent standard of living to preserve their health, a rarity in the past. To secure their loyalty the system needs to support a culture, lifestyle and privileges they are unlikely to find anywhere else and worth more to them than a bag of gold. An aristocracy emerges.

>>2104431
> efficient
What does this even mean in this context?

>>2104258
>'Democracy: The God That Failed'
This is literally babby's first contrarian political essay by now

>>2104644
In fact we should probably switch the fedora meme to Hoppean libertarians and neoreactionaries since they've largely stolen the role of Dawkins-style atheists by now.
>"The God Delusion". Read it.

>>2104431
>monarchies
I think you meant "primogeniture". Ultimogeniture is the best shit ever invented apparently worked well for basically everyone who practiced it.

>>2104431
> Monarchies, in general, are both less stable and less efficient than democracies
Couldn't be more wrong. Read more.

>>2104644
Have you read it? Yeah, thought so.

>>2104200
>What is it about monarchy that made it so prevalent around the world throughout history?
It works pretty well with agricultural societies.

>And why has it recently been in decline?
It works shittingly in industrial societies.

Personal control and hereditary succession is an easy way to consolidate and transfer power. See organized crime and corporations. Even companies in the stock exchange still have their founding families having a say in corporate matters more often than not.

Which leads to the fact that monarchy is not in decline. It's just not explicit anymore. The House of Rothschild, George Soros and his son, the Rockefeller family, they are pretty much dynasties. In old days they would be open about their power and put a crown in their heads. They don't do it anymore and leave figureheads in "charge", so it appears that Presidents and Prime-Minister have any actual power.

>>2104774
>Have you read it? Yeah, thought so.
Nice assumption, faggot. I've read more authors associated with the NRx movement than you can name. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's Liberty or Equality is a similar and better treatment of the same subject, though both books are trash.

>>2105029
rothschilds and rockefellers are just trust fund babbies at this point