Why do people think I'm trolling when I say I want an absolute

>>2987877
because you could endup with Obama or George Bush for a whole lifetime

its terrible

Why do you think that people considering absolute monarchy retarded means they think the only answer is liberalism?

What's wrong with constitutional monarchy? And remember not to go full retard and think that every constitutional monarchy means the monarch is some powerless figurehead, it just means there is a certain fundamental system of laws that the monarch is not above.

>>2987893
>this meme again
End this shitty meme, nobles/aristocrats or another claimant would depose the ruler if he was bad.

>>2987901
>Why do you think that people considering absolute monarchy retarded means they think the only answer is liberalism?
Because the majority loves sucking on the dick of liberalism. So I assume if you think I'm "trolling" and are opposed to what I'm saying, you are automatically a liberal.

>What's wrong with constitutional monarchy?
There's nothing wrong with it but it ends up turning into liberalism with, for example, the parliament permanently gaining more power over the monarch in Britain.

>>2987906
the best ruler didn't always win

>>2987920
>There's nothing wrong with it but it ends up turning into liberalism with, for example, the parliament permanently gaining more power over the monarch in Britain.

The "it inevitably turns into" argument is retarded and to show what I mean, absolute monarchy inevitably ends up turning into tyranny.

>>2987937
You don't get the best president either if the previous bad president's party loses by vote. It's honestly the same parallel as with monarchy. We should literally do away with democracy since it's kind of the same thing, only this time it's labeled as liberalism. Why try to recreate another system if it's almost the same as the old system?

>>2987877
Because people try to see the best in you, and figure you're just trolling instead of being genuinely retarded

>>2987906

Civil wars aren't a workable fucking solution to bad rulers.

Democracy might lead to plenty of shit rulers, but they're generally not there for very long and if the democracy is healthy, power transitions peacefully. If you've got a shitty ruler and can't convince him to abdicate, it needs to be done with force. And usually whatever ruler comes into power next needs to consolidate his rule against other pretenders, which is usually also a violent process.

>>2987955
>implying tyrants are worse than an impotent group of politicians deciding things ultimately

>>2987973

They are.

I'd rather have a gaggle of idiots who can't get anything done than an utter cunt who can.

>>2987966
>absolute monarchies
>retarded
>he's on a history board
You need to go back.

>>2987973

Consider these two scenarios.

You've got an absolute monarch, he's above the law and can do as he pleases.
Then you've got a monarch with considerable authority yet bound by a constitution, let's say "no pissing in the mouths of your subjects" for simplicity's sake.

Would you rather have a dick inherit the former throne or the latter? Do you want your king to piss in your mouth?

You can have a powerful monarch who is still constitutionally bound on certain things considered to be so important to your society that the king shouldn't fuck with them. Why leave it up to "well he wouldn't be that bad because he'd be overthrown if he was!" when he can structurally be prevented from being that bad?

Daily reminder, you should ignore literally anyone who espouses the following political ideologies

>anarcho-anything
>neoreactionary
>monarchist
>communist
>fascist
>libertarian
>any type of theocracy

>inb4 stirnerpost

Just let OP die.

>>2987985
>Oh there's a problem that needs fixing
>Guess I'll alert the authorities
>Authorities bicker about what to do.
>It's taking taking forever
>They're not doing anything? Wtf?
>Problem becomes bigger and bigger
>The next authorities come in
>Hey can you please fix this problem?
>They do the same shit
How is this better than
>Oh there's a problem that needs fixing
>Guess I'll alert the authority
>Authority immediately fixes the problem without delay because other retards aren't slowing him down
Hmmmm

>>2987993
Okay fine, I agree. But the constitution should give the monarch equal power to whomever keeps the monarch in check (parliament, nobles/aristocrats). It shouldn't devolve into liberalism, which was the eventual fate of Britain's government. It should be a dual thing rather than the king or the parliament having more power over the other.

>>2988017
This is why the filibuster was a mistake, not why republics in general are.

>>2988017
>Authority immediately fixes the problem without delay because other retards aren't slowing him down

Because this is a very optimistic idea which is very far from reality. Absolute monarchs don't get given a magic bullet on their accession that lets them fix any problem because they've got unquestionable deciding power. Take private businesses, how many owners have complete control and still fuck it up?

Also, if the authorities in a democracy are bickering about what to do, there's probably not an answer that's so simple that any fucking monarch could do it in the snap of a finger. What if the absolute monarch acted swiftly and decisively in an utterly awful way? Imagine, say, a terrorist attack.

In a democracy there's uncertainty. What response is too much, too little? This is discussed, usually a compromise is reached. Perhaps the response is delayed. Your absolute monarch takes swift action - he has all the conspirators rounded up and executed. Everyone who knew the conspirators get the same treatment. He's utterly ruthless, he stamps out any potential for a repeat attack. After he's done, it turns out the guy was some lone nutjob and the others had nothing to do with it. Do you find this an unfeasible situation? Are you such an optimist to think no absolute monarch would ever act too rashly to the greater harm of everyone than if nothing at all had been done? What if the monarch decided clemency was the answer, perhaps he's soft hearted, only for it to turn out there were conspirators and they did repeat the act? He isn't infallible.

>>2987877
>I want an absolute monarchy back

No you don't

>>2987877
>Why do people think I'm trolling when I say I want an absolute monarchy back?

For the same reason people do when people say they are anarcho primitivist and any anarchist or far left ideology.

At worst it gives an impression of antisocial sentiments at best it demonstrates that you are so deep into idealism and utopian thinking you might as well be LARPER in life.

>Modern monarchs are some of the most well educated and smartest people around
>Even deposed monarchs descendants are still more highly educated
>B-But assholes! A-And inbred/stupid rulers!

Because psychological testing, proper education systems and the knowledge that inbreding is bad don't exist in the modern world.

It doesn't have to even be a King, we live in an age where breeding, training and educating rulers is a possibility.

Democratically elected test tube and labratory trained rulers need to become a reality. The only possible down side is an educator corrupting the trainibg system and even if that was the case it can be avoided if a dozen of such children were raised at the same time and the smartest and most capable of them all became the bext ruler.

>>2988017
What if the absolute monarch decides that you're the problem that needs "fixing"? What if he decides to convert all his subjects to Islam and who resists needs to be hanged?

>>2988310

That would never happen because he imagines a world where the absolute ruler conforms to his own ideologies, which are all obviously correct.

File: Rey_Carlos_II_de_España.jpg (190KB, 800x1192px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 800x1192px

>>2987877
Probably because the only way you could genuinely want the return of oppression under a lineage of inbred schemers is if you are a total submissive, if you think that you'll somehow gain power in the new order of things, or if you've spent all your parents money on EUIV dlcs and bad period pieces.

>>2987906
Because states with strongman leaders who can only be replaced in coups ir uprisings are typically the most successful in the world today.

>>2987906
>claimant would depose the ruler if he was bad.

This isnt the 1500 how many "nobles" and "aristocrats" have their own armies?

Monarchy is a terrible form of government because large investiture of powers in the hands of a single person creates a highly fragile system where a single bad idea is able to become law without a single check on its progression and doom the nation.

>>2988017
>Oh there's a problem that needs fixing
>Guess I'll alert the authorities
>Authorities bicker about what to do.
>Realize that authorities are incompetent
>Decide to take matters into my own hand
>Organize and succeed in solving problem

let me guess, you just watched legend of galactic heroes and think the monarchy presented in that anime is analogous to real world monarchies

for every frederick the great there were a thousand frederick the shits

>>2989035
>muh self-governance
Hello minarchist