Justify Monarchy to me /his/ and not the style of monarchy seen

The most common argument against monarchy is that the monarchs aren't as intelligent or as qualified as presidents and prime ministers, but Monarchs (Outside of a few) are trained in statecraft and politics from birth. They're arguably more qualified than anyone else.

Of course, some monarchs ascended to the throne without being taught statecraft (Nicholas II, henry VIII) And these rulers are noticeably terrible, and the main arguments against monarchy.

>>2286587
>qualified
>presidents and ministers
Qualified in knowing how to manipulate maybe.

The biggest argument I have for Monarchy is that once in a while someone who may not act purely out of self interest might gain ultimate power.
In modern politics this is impossible since those who are already in power will prevent it

>>2286575

God said so

>>2286706
The Neoreactionaries call it "The Myth of the Fnord". Without going into their autistic ramblings, it essentially says that someone whose position is secure will work to make sure it stays secure, and if their position is secure by making sure the common people are happy, then the monarch will do their best to make sure the common people are happy.

I'm not opposed to the notion of trying out new styles of government, but the Myth of the Fnord clearly has holes

>>2286575
>>2286587
Democratic systems select for the best politicians not the best rulers.

Monarchs are trained from birth in matters of state. Not in people pleasing. They can make choices politicians can't do.

Monarchs have a more long term approach to state matters, as they know they will be there (or their kids) to suffer the consequences.

Monarchs due to their already great wealth are less likely to be corrupt.

Monarchs better represent their country in foreign affairs. Because of their long view approach (deals made 10y ago are still valid). They also represent more than roughly 1/2 of the electorate.

Monarchs are outside the class system, and can thus represent better their citizens. As they are not attached to a particular class.

Monarchs are at the center of a nation and thus can better focus patriotic aspirations.

File: 1.png (1MB, 1804x2440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1804x2440px

>>2286738
Basically this

A monarch's whole purpose of life is to lead his nation.He has all the power but he also has all the responsibility. There are no disagreements or inefficiencies of the democracy. Monarch is the nation.

>>2286753

Wrong!

Monarchs give power back to us, the people. Without poor knaves, one is only a king of bunch of buildings.

>>2286772
As i said, monarch is the nation. Without a nation, there is no monarch.

>>2286587
Some monarchs like Emperor Meiji done more for their nation then any president also

Stability and being able to take decissions fast is way more important than anything else in country.

>>2286575
Compare the king of Spain or the king of the Netherlands to their president or prime minister. There is your fucking answer

>>2287121
These men haven't been trained in politics since birth like an actual absolute monarch would be.

File: 1485064566436.jpg (117KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1280x720px

>>2287121
>and not the style of monarchy seen in the U.K. and Japan, a monarchy with actual power.

>>2287126
This. British and Dutch kings and queens aren't raised to rule, they're just glorified celebrities for pkebs to gossip about at this point.

>>2287143
This. I'm a Brit and everyone here loves the monarchy. I'd respect them but they have literally 0 responsibilities and just get treated like hot shit since birth. Fuck Them.

>>2286575
Impossible. Imagine living during the times of Henry VII who had ministers that acted like thugs, extracting money from the people by force, imprisoning others for whimsical reasons just so that they could take their small plot of land, forcing them into debt by the way of making up non existant charges. Imagine this happening to all the working and middle class population. Now imagine that Henry VII dies, only to be succeeded by Henry VIII the LARPer who bankrupts the country by playing knight all day and puts the whole world against the country just because a girl is playing hard to get. All your life living under tyrants. No thanks.

>>2287154
Firstly, Henry VII's economic reforms were primarily aimed at the already corrupt nobility. These reforms were only imposed lightly or not at all on nobles he trusted and knew weren't supporting pretenders. He went further and GAVE noble titles to commoners, rejecting the nepotistic system that had dominated Europe.

Henry VIII was shit, but shit because his father never trained him in statecraft and was abused by him to an extent.

>>2287154
>>2287221
If the king is shit, you just have to replace him. Constant threat of rebellion keeps him in order.

>>2287135
I mean compare how qualified they are compared to their PM. Theking of Spainq speaks 7 languages. Got honours in his degree and has military experience. The president of Spain barely knows how to speak one language

>>2286575
Ideally they are trained from birth to rule and would care about the country as his name and family is tied to it.

>>2287254
> as his name and family is tied to it.

Which is a big problem because a) it forces you to put someone from the family on the throne to rue even if he happens to be a bumbling retard, like Charles "el hechizado" Habsburg and b)matters of state are taken as personal so you have wars starting because one monarch called another "fag".

>>2287303
Well i said ideally. I don't believe in monachry. I'm just starting what people in support of it use.

Absolute monarchists are literally LARPing, unless they want to live under Islamic law.

>>2287244
>the king of spain
>the president of spain
Your comparison group shouldn't be the president, but the whole of the Spanish parliament. I'm pretty sure that those hundreds of people combined know more than just the one king.

>>2286776
>>2286772
>>2286753
Monarchy is against nationalisme you giant plebe.

>>2286753
>He has all the power but he also has all the responsibility.

Problem is, when you have all the power, you can neglect responsibility.

>>2287464

>monarchy is against nationalism

the monarch is usually the most potent national symbol that exists

Read Liberty or Equality by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddhin (free on the Mises Institute website). Less autistic than Moldbug while making the same basic points.

>>2286724
Monarchs acting in the interest of common people do so in order to keep the high nobility in check. When the high nobility takes over again (France in the 1770s) they spend the crown's money and if the monarch is weak the whole thing goes down.

File: Charles_II_(1670-80).jpg (169KB, 674x880px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 674x880px

>>2286575
Hi

Most people arguing in favour of a Monarchy bring up the Monarch's upbringing and preparation as an argument, but it makes me wonder whether the quasi-religious component of the ruler having a divine right to does not matter to them.

Would the people who are in favour of a Monarchy be fine if the next ruler was randomly selected from all children of a certain age within the nation, where the child is then given a Monarchic upbringing, education etc.?

File: 1485007804485.png (106KB, 346x327px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 346x327px

Why do some people seem to think a monarch rules alone ? Ministers ,councils, Parliaments, estates general... History doesn't lack such examples.
Monarchy doesn't revolve entirely around it's ruler.

>>2287905
All of them subject to the Monarch's whim. Henry VIII had very capable ministers and councelors, but their job was to satisfy him first and serve the kingdom second. And when they didnt they lost their heads.

>>2287608
If everyone was absolutely biologically equal, and the child was guaranteed to be a member of the ethnicity of the nation? I don't see why not.

The problem is that we ARENT all biologically equal; choosing a random babby to be the new king might minimize the risk of inbreeding, but all the same it also removes a key bonus of the whole "making a ruler" thing: you can tell EXACTLY what might be wrong with them, and you can make them smarter via genetic engineering. I assume the babby will also be tested to make sure they aren't afflicted with some crippling disease of course.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying HURR MUH DIVINE BLOODLINE, but the prospect of having a king who is literally engineered to lead is one that shouldn't be disregarded.

I also see purely pragmatic problems with your idea, but then they offer interesting ideas as well (if the King is essentially an orphan, they truly are detached, as already pointed out).

The Catholic Church is technically an absolute Monarchy under the Pope, and you can't name a single war the Catholic Church caused.

>Crusades
Self-defense

>>2288161
>Crusades
>Self-defense

Wasn't one of the crusades about seding the major surplus of second and third born noble sons to do some dicking about in mudslime land, so the firstborns can inherit shit in peace?

>>2288155
>a member of the ethnicity of the nation?
Monarchism doesn't even favour ethno-nationalism, as evidenced by the countless foreign monarchs throughout the centuries.

>English monarchy
>hasn't had English monarchs for 700 years

>>2287608
>but it makes me wonder whether the quasi-religious component of the ruler having a divine right to does not matter to them.
It doesn't. Mandate of Heaven is far more important than Divine Right.
>Would the people who are in favour of a Monarchy be fine if the next ruler was randomly selected from all children of a certain age within the nation, where the child is then given a Monarchic upbringing, education etc.?
No, because it's missing key points for the boons of monarchy.

>>2288161
>Crusades
>Self-defense


>Byzantines ask for help
>Pope calls for crusade
>Angry mobs appear in the holy lands every couple of decades causing more damage to the Byzantines then to the Muslims

>Self-defense

>>2289662
>Muslims steal Christian lands over and over
>Rape, murder, and pillage all through Christendom
But it's unfair when the Christians fight back. And let's quietly forget that the Mongols did even more damage.

>>2289682
>Fight back
>ruin christian empires
>Muslims take over said empire getting further into Europe then before the first Crusade

fucking brilliant.

>>2289719
Didn't say it was perfect. Would have been fine though, if not for the kikes running Venice. Then the king of France being a backstabbing Jew by getting rid of one of the pillars of Christian defense.

>>2289726
In the first Crusade the Crusaders were so shit with logistics they just pillaged Byzantine Towns.

>>2289732
Only for a bit. Then they went and captured the goal.

>>2289736
and failed to return it.

>>2289741
They returned it to Christendom for a while. If you mean about returning it to East Rome, then they had no real obligation to.

>>2286575
Sovereignty in the hand of the exception. That is, actual sovereignty, with a definite and concrete point of reference. The monarch will be the ultimate decider and point of reference which is to prevent political deadlock that resulted from weakness and indecision. It will be the possible condition for the universal concrete in politics.

Hence, the position of the real monarch should purely remain undecidable. Otherwise he won't be a true sovereign. Meaning that both hereditary monarchy and elective (systematic) monarchy are out of the picture, because it's already decided from the start.

Christian monarchs are believed to be chosen by God so are Muslim monarchs also believed to be chosen by God

>>2286587
Then why don't we simply have an elective monarchy?

>>2286746
Hereditary a shit, Nerva-Antonine dynasty forever.

>>2290437
Because then it's just a democracy, with all the pitfalls.

>>2286575
It brings peace freedom justice and security to your empire. Regencies and protectorates stall a bad king until he dies. Compare the Royal Society being funded by the monarchy to Woman's music groups in Africa funded by the government, which was a better use of money.

>>2286575
Because it is tied inextricably to the safety and wealth of their family, and they have a family reputation to uphold, monarchs actually have a reason to care about their country and try to govern it well

File: 1484954688172.png (65KB, 654x962px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 654x962px

>>2286706
>In modern politics this is impossible since those who are already in power will prevent it
yeah, that always works

>>2290509
You're adorable.

>>2288155
My point is that a lot of people argue quasi-religious. If it was just about the 'functional' properties of Monarchy and not about the religious element of having a ruler who is somehow "chosen" to lead by a higher force, then you could come up with such a scenario where all the functional benefits are present but the religious element are stripped off. And to many people arguing in favour of Monarchy this doesn't seem as appealing because in the end, they argue from a quasi-religious (i.e. unreasonable) point of view.

>>2289473
>No, because it's missing key points for the boons of monarchy.
Like what? I'm certain we can add them somehow.

>>2290598
That selection could end up being mighty non-random, and invite politicking. Plus, it ignores the legacy aspect. A monarch should do well because he has to pass it on to his children, and their children. If all his work is for naught, and the power just passes to some other bastard, why should he care to do well?

File: 1352e945a7577011757c96c926dcb024.jpg (10KB, 236x300px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x300px

>>2286738

>>2287608
You're talking to people with a meme tier knowledge of history (at best).