Let's talk about monarchism and how it could be applied

The monarch should have no say in economic matters.

The monarch celebrates international relations, is the last stance regarding judicial power (not an appointed and easily infiltrated Supreme Court), and can veto the parliament.

It should be something like the papacy, the monarch has theoretically absolute powers, but he can't change law and customs. In particular he can't decide for the dissolution of the nation by merging with overarching super states like the EU, or via mass immigration of foreigners.

>>2428386
I agree. While recently I have been heavily leaning towards Monarchism because of my recent disillusionment with American politics, I worry about the monarch having too much power.

>>2428386
Cont.

Domestic and economic affairs are the job of the chancellor and his ministers. The chancellor is elected by parliament, but the monarch can veto that decision or dissolve the parliament no call new elections at any moment.

The monarch the head of the military, the defense minister merely advises him. The monarch also be required serve in the military and be an officer himself.

The monarch should also have resources to have independent from hostile (((economic interests))). The lands, real state etc owned by the state should belong to the monarch personally, but he is forbidden by law to sell them. (Yes the monarch is under the law.) Just like the pope can't just decide to sell St. Peter's basilica. Or the Sistine chapel.

>>2428407
>recently I have been heavily leaning towards Monarchism because of my recent disillusionment with American politics

You think peasants weren't 10x as disillusioned as you are?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts

You really are one of those stupid faggots that hates the current system, but has no real solution for its problems, so you assume adopting a nominally alternative ideology will fix something. All politics is functionally oligarchy you philistine.

>I worry about the monarch having too much power.

Absolute monarchy was a relatively rare system of government and its apex shortly preceded the sudden growth of liberalism in the modern era. It lead to an increase in bureaucracy as an absolute monarch necessarily requires a complex system of delegates to micromanage his vast dominion of power. The feudalism that preceded it was far more mutually obligated and symbiotic in nature, not that you know anything about it, because you're a reactionary sweatbeast meme politicker who never read a book.

If you're worried about a ruler with too much power, your answer is checks and balances like "separation of powers", and further limitations like "popular sovereignty" and "rule of law". Sound familiar?

>>2428364
Monarchy simply can't be depended upon to work reliably. A weak king is a puppet. A strong king is a tyrant. An insane king is a danger to all.
There is also the moral and political/philosophical implications of a monarchy. Divine right is absolutely bullshit. Also, what the fuck is a king anyway? Is he king of a people or a land?

>>2428428
Finally and most important of all, the monarch is the father of the people and should serve the people, not abstract principles and foreign entities.

The people should have means to criticize the monarch within lawful limits if he fails to do that. Freedom of speech and association should be guaranteed.

There should be a state religion, but otherwise religious freedom is guaranteed.

The monarch is understood as appointed by God, and the state church serves to legitimize this.

He also represents the nation, the ceremonial part is very important, civic and religious.

>>2428460
>There should be a state religion, but otherwise religious freedom is guaranteed.
>The monarch is understood as appointed by God, and the state church serves to legitimize this.

People won't swallow this shit today. Move on.

>>2428444
No need for hostility. I'm really just weighing my options here. Though since you seem oh so enlightened, why don't you tell me about a good political system that ensures unity while having a strong holder of power?

>>2428464
>why don't you tell me about a good political system that ensures unity

This is primarily influenced by economic prosperity and cultural factors. You're still in the mindset that politics fixes everything. The divisiveness that exists in modern democracy is merely a formalized remnant of the natural conflicts of interests that have existed throughout history, such as Populares and Optimates. Society cannot ever *really* be unified, because everyone has different goals that are often conflicting. It can just avoid disunity to the point of escaping social collapse, and the failure of monarchy to do this was the impetus behind democracy and later communism.

>while having a strong holder of power?

This isn't desirable whatsoever. Discussion and debate - especially over a period of time - allows people's emotions to settle down, criticisms to be raised, and discourages outlandishly stupid or cruel misuses of power in politics. You're putting all your eggs in one basket with anything but an ostensible monarch, and any vices or insanity within himself can cause suffering for the whole country.

Why the obsession with "stronk" anyway? Sometimes more diplomatic, technological or otherwise counter-intuitive solutions are a much better answer to societal problems than military muscle and restrictive legislation, but the "MUH ABSOLUTE MIGHT" attitude that comes prepackaged with monarchy/fascism barely recognizes this. I don't think overwhelming might isn't going to solve any real problems we have like the overuse of antibiotics, phosphorus depletion, weapons of mass destruction, climate change, rising energy prices in a society dependent on largely one fuel source, etc.

>>2428444
None of the things you mentioned preclude a monarchical rule. In fact the enlightenment philosophers who came up with all that had a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy, in mind.

>>2428364
>could be

Do you guys not realize there are several actual (non-figurehead) monarchies that exist today?

>>2428460
State religion? Gtfo. Everyone had enough of that shit after the 30 Years War, the French Wars of Religion, the Jacobite rebellions, and the Pope fucking with European politics.

Westerners are tired of fucking state religions and that's why secularism has historically been on the up and up.

>>2428444
>>2428444
Most of those were do to political or social strife. Not because of the stystem of governance. It's about social reform. Also if we count BLM social reform riots as "revolts" you'll find America has a lot up in tell the present day.

>>2428503
You have a "realistic" view of monarchy and an idealist view of democracy. In democracy people don't "discuss" issues and then calm down. Democracy is the autistic and short-sighted, high time-preference war of all against all for scarce resources, and therefore is the least stable form of government of them all. Democracy is only stab,e in the US due to its practically unlimited capacity to print money.

>>2428463
>>2428463
>People won't swallow this shit today. Move on.

If the US is a model to how the West would react to an incompetent leader(That is, some superficial protesting but maintaining overall apathy and disillusionment in the system) they definitely aren't going to take substantial action against a competent leader just because of religious formalities

>>2428538
Except western nations do have a state religion, and it's called liberalism.

There's nothing wrong with state religions. Britain has it, Germany has it, Thailand has it.

It's for ceremonial purposes. You talk as if western people give enough of a shit to fight religious wars at this point in history. No. There's one religion for the state and everyone else can practice the religion that they want. Everybody is happy.

File: 1462046669949.jpg (2MB, 1034x1280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1034x1280px

>>2428538
>I don't know what state religion is: the post

I'm sure Britain really is sore from all that inquisitorial action the Anglicans church is taking

>>2428556
>Liberalism is a religion!
Wow really activates my almonds!

>>2428503
A strong leader can represent the will of the people and the nation, I don't much see what is wrong with that.

>>2428570
Make no mistake, liberalism is a religion, complete with its own dogmas, crooked morals and secular saints and feast days such as MLK and his day.

It's the official religion of UN. It's no coincidence that normies expect the catholic pope to act like the UN Secretary General, because that's what they think a religious leader looks like.

File: Capture.png (2KB, 188x43px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 188x43px

>in this day and age

File: kaiser.jpg (91KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 650x650px

>monarchism is incompatible with moder--

"but feudalism sucked so it's the king's fault :^)" is not an argument. the venetian republic existed for a long-ass time and was an equally miserable place to live in during the middle ages for the average person.

>>2428587
>& humanities

Ok I get that there's no obvious candidate for state religion in the US. So if you live there, fine, forget about that. You can have a rabbi and a pastor on official events, with the rabbi always reminding the nation about the holocaust and that Israel comes first.

>>2428591
>Implying this is humanities

This literally, unironically, belongs in /pol/ by fucking definition. Why does this board have 0 moderation?

>>2428596
Butt = blasted.

>>2428596
To be honest /his/ has a much higher level of discourse and diversity of opinion. This is a superior alternative to /pol/ by all measures of discussion and I can see why anon wants to debate the merits of monarchy on this board instead of the one that is predisposed to support it for the sake of supporting reaction.

>>2428601
So /pol/ is fucking shitty, that is not the problem of this board. There's a million different places on the internet you could go to discuss modern politics, so why did you choose the history board on this specific site? What is even the logic? Can't you google? Or are you afraid to slither out of 4chan? Fuck this place, I give up.

>>2428583
The best organizations aren't one man shows where one guy micromanages everything. They're decentralized with a strong emphasis on right action and a culture that enforces intelligent decision making and dedication. You can die tomorrow and someone will step up and you will know that whoever will replace you simply can't fuck up.

Also, the authority in one person results in the empowerment of the gatekeepers at the expense of outsiders, and his inner circle will eventually become filled with sycophants and flatterers. Look at the Byzantine Emperors, the Qing, the Ottomans. Court intrigue, corruption, and nepotism brought them low. Enlightened monarchy is a meme, because one man can't do everything. Whenever he delegates, he has to trust someone else to do their job with selflessly and honestly, and we all know this doesn't ever work.

The best form of governance is an oligarchy, where equally powerful members keep others on their toes and accountable to the party line.

>>2428570
They have sacred days, like MLK day.
They have "transformative experiences" at exclusive places where the sages teach them their beliefs.
They have dogmas as in beliefs that couldn't possibly have been validated by evidence.
They have groups of people that fight for adherence to the principles they've devoted themselves to even if the heretics are just privately so.

Totally not a religion.

File: saudi_royal_family.jpg (157KB, 736x487px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 736x487px

>>2428533
indeed tho i dont think what it represents is what OP had in mind

>>2428609
>so why did you choose the history board on this specific site?

Familiarity, convenience, freshness of outlook, and liberty of discussion unseen in the majority of websites.

>>2428609
This falls under humanities. Sorry that this bothers you, but then why would you come to a place on the Internet that is dedicated to discuss humanities?

>>2428586
>>2428617
Idk if you two are the same people, but you're both dumb faggots who can't tell the difference between a political ideology and a religion with cosmic implications about where you go after you die or mankind's purpose in this universe. Stop coming here and shitting up my board.

>>2428594
Yes, Israel. How did I forget? Judaism is the state religion of Israel.

>B-but we can't have that anymore! Do you want to go back to the Middle Ages?
Israel is a perfectly fine modem nation.

>>2428634
>D-don't criticize my religion of liberalism or else I'll cry
Hahahaha!

>>2428613
This is the first time I've heard someone argue in support of Oligarchy. Could you explain further on why you like it?

>>2428672
Oligarchies have enough people to enforce orthodoxy and at the same time mitigate the trappings of autocracy. I believe it mirrors how human society actually operates at its highest levels, and that it enforces some degree of competition among its members. Its greatest advantage over a pure democracy is that it can actually get things done and allow for long-term planning and strategic development that can weather stresses democratically elected leaders cannot survive. "We're about free trade until we're not. We're about backing the Euros up against the Russians until we're not." It's like taking a corporation public; the stock market and shareholders are fucking autistic as fuck. But muh $0.03 EPS! Muh 2% growth! I look at family owned enterprises that have remained largely in private hands and they fare much better with fortress balance sheets, steady planning, growth, and acquitision, and clear succession plans, and they are simply less likely to overextend themselves than public corporations.
Obviously, the drawback is that one faction, usually the one with control of the army, will eventually seize power and purge the rest of the oligarchy. It's just bound to happen. And then they lose the Mandate of Heaven and there's devastating civil war. And we'll return to this debate afterwards discussing why our political ideology failed us last time, but there's nothing to discuss. Nothing can't last forever, especially not political equilibrium. Ambition and our drive to greatness make sure of it.

>>2428642
>>2428617
All these features found in liberalism are in every political ideology.

>They have sacred days, like MLK day.
MLK day is more associated with liberals, wow. I'm sure right wingers would be more enthusiastic about Veterans day or defensive of Columbus day if you asked them.

>They have "transformative experiences" at exclusive places where the sages teach them their beliefs.
Like being "redpilled" or becoming a "race realist"?

>They have dogmas as in beliefs that couldn't possibly have been validated by evidence.

Just like every single human who ever existed? We're all motivated by sentiment and there are plenty of batshit right wing conspiracy theories.

>They have groups of people that fight for adherence to the principles they've devoted themselves to even if the heretics are just privately so.

Like Breivik?

>>2428725
And what would you say are the flaws of Oligarchy? How would you amend those problems?

>>2428634
He's right. Ideology isn't' different from religion. Perhaps you can synthesis the two, and be a liberal catholic, Fascist catholic ect. But in itself ideology is the same essence of religious belief.

>>2428898
It really isn’t, ideology lacks the dimension of mystical experience that is central to most religious belief.

>>2428364
Ima go 1381 on yo ass nigga, Essex style.

>>2428364
Monarchism works when people are superstitious and believe in things like Divine Right, but these days with egalitarianism, if someone tried to declare himself "King" everyone would be skeptical.

>>2428974
B U S T T H O S E S P O O K S

>>2428460
I have read too much of China history that to know this poster is retarded

>>2428464
>while having a strong holder of power
Lol, why? Republicanism or Anarchy are the only based systems

>>2429002
I dislike Anarchism because I like having nations and not some uncontrolled group of people that are governed under a dumb NAP.

Republicanism is ok though, as long as it's a one party republic.

>>2428364

Catholic monarchism is best form of government.

>>2428886
Again, the entrenchment of any political elite is the beginning of a cancer that will result in self destruction. Oligarchy is only a sustainable practice among equals or a primus inter pares dictator with senior and junior partners that offer sufficient resistance to the dictator. As I mentioned before, the shortcoming is that whoever has control of the army will purge the others or render them powerless as he raises himself to unprecedented heights, like the Choe dictatorship of Goryeo, Usurpation of Yi Taejo, Augustus after Mutina. I praise the idea of civilian control of the military, although this just passes the ultimate power from one hand to another. Who knows what will happen in times of strife? We've all seen what happened every other time.

>>2429141
Absolutist or medieval feudal?

>>2428446
The Monarch may be a Nero or an Aurelius, the people will always be a Nero, never an Aurelius

>>2428601
>higher level of discourse and diversity of opinion
HAHA no, your heads are just up your asses. It's a fucking travesty that you are on 4chan and yet claim that one of its boards is for intellectuals only
And if you actually went on /pol/ you would see that it is not the echo chamber you think it is (that is not to say that it is high level discourse either, there are many shills on /pol/ these days)