Monarchs are the ultimate safeguard against Tyranny.

Sounds like something a liberalized cuck Brit would say. Monarchy is for idiots.

>>3379103
a king is inherently superior to a democracy, a tyrant whoever is not. The UK, and its monarchy, however, are not kings. Which is why that place has devolved into retardation.

File: Versailles 3.jpg (201KB, 1063x679px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1063x679px

Monarchy is future, society just needs to be reminded that some people are stronger or more successful than others.

>>3379103
A President could easily fulfill that role so what is your point?

File: 1503196559117.jpg (55KB, 239x239px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 239x239px

>>3379142
>liberal
>monarchist

File: 1000463-bbc7e145e757332396146d36535849e3.jpg (264KB, 1321x2048px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1321x2048px

>>3379347
indeed

File: r883693_8781693.jpg (33KB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 512x288px

>>3379103
>If the government gets corrupt, the country would support a Monarch dissolving the govern-

>>3379103

Mandate of heaven?

>>3379347
Those peoples children return to the mean without selective pressure.

>>3379103
except the tories are still in power.

Didn't work for Italy

>>3379447
The ultimate check and balance

>>3379103
According to Plato's The Republic, the best form of governance gotta be a righteous king, followed by a benevolent dictator,followed by a group of patriarch, followed by democracy, lastly some form of tyranny

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_five_regimes

>>3379387
Liberals are huge proponents of constitutional monarchy, especially now that republics have acquired a heavy statist reputation.
HHH and other radicals think they're being edgy for supporting monarchies but they're just following their liberal instincts.

>>3379103
Wait, I've got an idea. What if we had a system of checks and balances between different branches of the government? Then we wouldn't need a monarch at all.

Monarchy historically is the most stable form if government in the west and that's an undeniable fact

>>3379103
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-srLjMRjoVI

File: 1478473570157.jpg (74KB, 637x627px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 637x627px

>>3379103
>If the Monarch is corrupt, the government would be able to work around that, or the people would get rid of or replace the Monarchy.

>>3381484
Not if your talking about lack of wars or internal conflicts.

>>3381329
That's a load of bullshit. It's traditionalists and ancaps who are pro-monarchy (ancaps simply replace king and aristocracy with CEO and shareholders). Liberals want a more egalitarian society so they favor more democratic reforms which, if anything is accused of creating a tyranny of the majority, which is the opposite of a monarchy

>>3379103
Its an explicit system of power, rather than an implicit system of power. You know whose in charge and why. The why is usually religion so the monarch has to at least pretend to be moral even if they are crazy.

>>3379103
>If the Monarch is corrupt, the government would be able to work around that, or the people would get rid of or replace the Monarchy
Or the Monarch uses the military to ruthlessly suppress them and deprive them of arms.

Democracy uses ballots instead of bullets to replace crappy leaders.
>having a King prevents the government from getting too terrible.
No, it causes the opposite: the King prevents a terrible government from being reformed, leaving violence as the people's only reprieve

>>3379103

Also a monarch has a vested interest in preserving the traditional and spiritual character of a Nation as they are intrinsic part of it, they often serve in the military too so they are more in touch with life and death than your average politician and are likely to be braver.

Basically they have a loyalty to the nation beyond career ambition. Which is why Republics are dogshit after the first idealistic generation that brought it about has died off.

>>3381538
Actually, what he has a vested interest in preserving is the status quo, even if the entire country is up in arms because it's a corrupt, exploitative shitshow, the king sides with his primary financiers over the "nation" and prevents people from doing anything to address their grievances, which makes violent revolt a matter of inevitability

>>3381555

It's not 100% full proof like if you say they become beholden to their creditors. But that is just the case of maybe one particularly reckless monarch, its possible for the institution to be revived and returned to stability in the next generation. The institution still reinforces a sense of duty and chivalry beyond simple material concerns.

>>3381579
99% of all historical societies were conspiratorial oligarchies. Monarchy's take on that was having a chief executive whose job was to enforce the will of said wealthy elite. For most monarchies that was appeasing powerful land owners.

And while a monarchy needs an entire generation to return to stability, a democracy can replace shitty leaders within the span of an election cycle, mitigating whatever long term damage that might have been inflicted and creating a "natural aristocracy" based on merit rather than title or privilege of birth

>>3381604
>And while a monarchy needs an entire generation to return to stability, a democracy can replace shitty leaders within the span of an election cycle, mitigating whatever long term damage that might have been inflicted and creating a "natural aristocracy" based on merit rather than title or privilege of birth

Doesn't matter if you can get rid of a democratic leader in a single election cycle when you get the same shit come in to replace them. The problem with Republican Democracies is systematic, you encourage people who are good at persuasion but not necessarily good at anything else to be in power. And since there is no aristocracy or birthright to power it creates career politicians who only care about their own personal advancement as opposed to living up to aristocratic values and the accomplishments of one's ancestors who build the nation before.

>>3379103
So glad Nicholas II was there to stop Bolshevism, just like Wilhelm II stopped National Socialism.

>>3381635
Your concrete is you think a good ruler can be consistently breed, or that kings and aristocrats are not politicians.

Democracies tend towards a mean, but that is actually a strength. bad leaders can weaken a nation and great men often leave choas in their wake. A modern state can not long tolerate either. An Alexander would be poison to us.

>>3381659

Maybe certain secret societies and urban intellectuals behind the scenes wanted to get rid of monarchies because they are powerful and hard to infiltrate.

Maybe that's why all the European monarchies were systematically taken down one by one.

>>3381676

Monarchs are bred and raised to be leaders though, responsibility is instilled in them. They receive classical educations to understand the importance of tradition and respecting those who came before. Plebs aren't equipped by their birth and upbringing to wield the power of a nation state in my opinion.

The whole downfall of Europe in the 20th/21st century is a result of technocratic modernist politicians coming to power by smooth talking the people and bribing them with free welfare gibs. And they have no respect for the convention or roots of their nation and therefore think that a nation is a blank canvas that can be rewritten into a post-national economic powerhouse.

>>3381678
So you're saying, that the ultimate safeguard against tyranny doesn't actually work at all.

>>3381604
>99% of all historical societies were conspiratorial oligarchies.

>the true communism hasn't been done argument

You can't be serious?

>>3381689

Well it took catastrophic upheaval, world wars, revolutions and mass death to take down the European monarchies so its clearly quite hard to do but of course even monarchies aren't invulnerable to internal subversion and rabble rousing the peasants.

>>3381604
>mitigating whatever long term damage that might have been inflicted and creating a "natural aristocracy" based on merit rather than title or privilege of birth

But you see that the aristocracy IS the natural aristocracy. There is a reason beyond socio-economic and educational factors as to why higher classes are more intelligent than lower classes in society (on average).

>>3379386

Presidents aren't apolitical

>>3381688
Education does not guarantee a ruler will have the necessary social skills, intelligence, ethical constructs or understanding necessary to be a good ruler. More importantly the son of a monarch is unlikely to be more qualified than some other scion of the educated classes.

Your view of modern Europe is a fantasy. In any way you can measure Europeans are better off than a century ago.

Monarchys were not nationalist. A monarchies main duty was to uphold feudal obligation. It was government by barons and for barons. people without a title were little more than property, their rights more protected by the church than by their rulers.

Even the absolute monarchies just replaced feudal lords with a bureaucracy and military drawn from their descendants. No one without ties to an old family could possibly desire to live in such a society.

>>3381678
>Maybe that's why all the European monarchies were systematically taken down one by one.
Except as the British Monarchy shows, pissing off the people you delegated responsiblity of governance and legislature to can easily elad to your own downfall, James didn't need a secret society to destroy his position, he did that well enough, and the glorious revolution finished the job.

Primogeniture is a mistake in the long term. The King will marry a qt instead of the nerdy chick then his kid will be a genetic normy. Worse he will marry his cousin to keep lands in the family. The heir's throne secured, they won't put any effort into proving they are the best for the job. Unsuitable heirs, jealous siblings and succession crises are abound.

Adoptive emperors worked well in Rome for a while, however they could equally adopt someone like Nero or their own son.

Prince-electors worked well in the Holy Roman Empire until the religious wars. It seems weak to divisions.

Sultans, Caliphs and Emperors having 500 potential heirs worked well for the Ottomans and Qing for a while. Rule by concubines and eunuchs in the Ottoman Empire and China was tempered somewhat by their centralized state and bureaucracy, though it proved stagnant and inept.

In Britain parliament chose George I over James who had refused to convert to protestantism. Constitutional monarchy erodes the power of the monarch, though maybe a system where electors can choose a successor from amongst the ruler's family would work.

>>3381283
Where would a benevolent, righteous and well educated democracy fall?

>>3381708
>He has never heard of Parliamentary Republics

File: 1493222729953.png (331KB, 1142x1038px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1142x1038px

>>3382060
At the bottom, of course. Maybe just barely ahead of some tyranny

>>3382146
How so? By definition, a democracy like that would always make the correct decisions and vote accordingly