Monarchism

A monarch will never have to appeal to the common lowest denominator in order to be elected. His rulership is not a result of showmanship or spending, he does not need favors from private interests in order to assume his position, thus he will owe no such favors to anyone.

A monarch is trained and educated his entire life for the purpose of running a nation.

A monarch has the luxury of thinking long-term about politics, as he does not have to worry about reelection. There is no party line to adhere to, no political affiliations beyond the nation itself.

>The absolute ruler may be a Nero, but he is sometimes Titus or Marcus Aurelius; the people is often Nero, and never Marcus Aurelius.
Monarchism has a longer and more glorious track record than our disastrous experiments with Democracy which have only led to spiritual decrepitude and frightening instability.

I'm against estate/death/inheritance taxes.

>>134889070
a monarch doesnt have to lie and apeal to the plebs of society to get into office.

also a constitution would prevent a monarch from giong on a power trip.
the monarch also has to prtect his country at all cost since its literaly his inheritence.

democracy is a failed experiment.

File: 1500858753255.png (812KB, 800x516px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 800x516px

>>134890694
This. A modern monarchy needs a set of laws that even the monarch cannot change. i.e. freedom of speech, right to own guns, protection of private property, ect. The monarch is the embodiment of the Law, the abstraction of law itself must remain higher than its abstraction in order to prevent a tyranny. You get a Nero or a Vlad the Impaler when the embodiment of law usurps the abstraction.

>>134892380
*the abstraction must remain higher than the embodiment

>>134889070
There's a fantastic argument for it in Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans Herman Hoppe.

Essentially the Monarch is expected to act out of self-interest in not expropriating state goods and the public will act out of self-interest in refusing to grant goods to the monarch.

>>134889799
>A monarch is trained and educated his entire life for the purpose of running a nation.
Aye.
>>134889070
Most importantly, Monarch owns, politicians rent.
Buy a car, and you will be taking care of it like its your own child.
Rent a car, you are going to shit all over it , as long as you can avoid extra costs.
Its basic human instinct, cannot be overridden.

>>134892607
Wait so you just expect people not to steal but don't stop them?

>>134892607
Everything is better than a democracy,but the problem is the state,individualism and capitalism will solve this

>>134889070
Feudalism is the original welfare state

>Guaranteed job
>Guaranteed housing
>Guaranteed retirement
>Incentivization for employer paid health care
>Wages immune to inflation
>Rights codified into law
>Can't be fired without lawsuit/criminal charge
>Guaranteed protection from criminals/bandits

If feudalism weren't so unrelentingly shitty, it would be every socialist's wet dream.

>>134889070
Monarchism barely exists anymore. Only constitutional monarchism exists. Why are burgers so retarded?

File: abdullah II.jpg (44KB, 480x481px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 480x481px

>>134889070
>and feudalist
No one here is a feudalist, monarchists typically advocate for a monarchy running the nation in an executive role, but for the economy to either fascist, distributist, or capitalist.

>>134893889
The difference between a welfare state and a feudal state is that the monarch would jail you or remove you from his land if you refused to work. Calling a feudal state a welfare state is like calling a military base a welfare state. Sure you're given food, housing and pay, but only because you are expected to work and if you refuse you're brought before a tribunal.

>>134894377
>if you refuse you're brought before a tribunal.

Sauce? The disabled and sick were not kicked off their feuds, but cared for by their family and by the lord if they had no family.

Feuds were not run like a modern business. If you did not work, you did not eat. Because you were the one growing your food.

File: rey_juan_carlos_jeques_620x265.jpg (40KB, 620x265px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 620x265px

>>134889070
Monarchies in the democratic countries are left over. They only cause public expenditure and do not solve anything

History. Tradition. Unity. Symbolism. Also, this >>134889799

A king rules a realm, his subjects a nation. A PM runs a country like a company and its citizens are just cubicle dweller consumers with no loyalty or fealty to anything.

>>134894644
Being sick or old is not "refusing" to work. Refusing is actively choosing not to work, being sick or old is not having the ability to work. Perhaps a military base isn't the best comparison, it's more like an oil rig or a mining town, really. You're under contract with the lord (company) to work until the end of your contract and until then you are given access to the company store and lodging.

>>134889070
There was a patronage system and relationship in medieval society that made social mobility potentially quite high. Maybe not for common peasants, but for anyone involved in the court. It stemmed from the top and continued down.>>134889070

>>134897409
Perhaps you should read the third line of my post. And perhaps you should learn more about how the feudal system worked in practice.

Feuds did not end like modern contracts. They were life time contracts. Later in the period, they became multigenerational contracts, binding your children and the lord's legitimate heirs as well, usually indefinitely.

Serfs who did not work left the feuds and could generally be forcibly returned, though that was extremely rare in practice as the average runaway became a mercenary or bandit.

If a serf refused to work, the lord would not care. It would be his fellow serfs and family who would compel the mythical proto-NEET into working by refusing to share their food.

There were no company stores in the feudal system. People grew their own food and gave the lord his rightful share.

>>134897671
>Social mobility was high
>for the 1% of nobles who serve in the monarch's court!

Even the average noble had close to zero social mobility. Feudalism was designed for stability, not to satisfy personal ambitions. That's why it lasted over a millennium and why the Holy Roman Empire was able to become such a convoluted mess without collapsing in on itself.

File: knugpose.jpg (69KB, 400x536px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 400x536px

>>134889070
He brings in tourists. Americans, Germans, Russians, French and Finns throw money at literally any bullshit with "royal" written on it.
A powered president (e.g. USA) would get delusions of grandeur or show strange behavior like Finland's routine sacking of the elected PM.
A symbolic president (e.g. Germany, Italy) does nothing more than what the king already does.
Just electing a symbolic president costs at least as much as the royal house. Then come the expenses of actually having the president and maintenance of facilities.

With the recent government crisis, Sweden can chug on while the politicians fight in their sandbox.

>>134889070
monarch is much cheaper, but also randomness in ruling, he does how he feels. can be dangerouse.

you know who to blame

>>134893889
hes right.

>>134899192
>but also randomness in ruling, he does how he feels. can be dangerouse.

a constitution of basic rights would elevatie that as it would keep the monarch on leash.

>>134898958

>retard on history:the post

You know that feudalism changed significantly over a 1000+ years and there is more to social mobility than becoming a noble from a serf? It wasnt any harder than becoming the CEO of a fortune 500 company or a minister right now.

Serfs had plenty of opportunities for advancement, even women. They could even join a convent and get educated if they wanted. They also commonly inherited property if they could manage it. Women running inns or mills was not unheard of.

>>134889070
What does /pol/ think about elective monarchy? King elected for life by nobility (nominally also people "born to rule"), but not hereditary.

>>134899575
I was addressing the other anon's post, if you didn't notice, who was talking about social mobility by patronage from the monarch.

Retard History: The Post's main thesis is that a very, very small percentage of the nobility was able to gain royal patronage, while the vast majority were minor nobles who died with the same level of assets as they were born with.

Retard History: The Post did not even address serfs. It's hard to keep track in a 10 hour documentary, I know.

Also
>>134899575
>even women.

I like that you believe the women's rights were worse in the Middle Ages meme. Non-noble women were not "subjugated" until the early Modern era and only in countries were serfdom was abolished. The Middle Ages was a time when the average person was a subsistence farmer. We couldn't afford to lock women in the kitchen and have them sew doilies. There was work to be done and a big part of it was trying to raise 10 children in a desperate attempt to exceed a 0.5% growth rate.

>>134899575
This guy is kind of right.
Usually, a simple pleb that did well in battle could technically become a Lord, have a small land and become a noble, if appointed by the highest authority of a realm.
You people seem to forget that while you can only go up the social pyramid when a place is left empty, it happened a lot. Families without heirs, disowning by higher authority, backstabbing by other lords, etc.
While stable, the feudal political situation was pretty dynamic in itself.

>>134894249

That and Feudalism isn't really suitable in our time since the idea of the Nation State is a big thing now. Back then the Monarch would see the territory of the "nation as his/her property. However these days the Monarch would be working to serve the Nation rather than own it.

Honestly my opinion of Monarchy was solidified after reading about the Empire of Brazil. How fast it went downhill after a non-popular coup happened is ridiculous.

The only problem with Monarchy is the event the Monarch is unwilling to be the Monarch. As I mentioned Mexico had that problem when Pedro II wanted to be a teacher and was angry that his life was dictated to be Emperor rather than following what he wanted to do.

On the plus side education was apparently great since he found it so important.

>>134899989
>What does /pol/ think about elective monarchy? King elected for life by nobility (nominally also people "born to rule"), but not hereditary.

could be a valeuble solution the thing is that royality would likely vote in their self intrests and alot of backstabbing would happen to get into power.

like democracy it would have the same problems on a smaller scale.

>>134898958
Peasants still had opportunities outside of becoming actual nobles or knights or whatever. Although I am sure it happened on rare occasions. If we are talking about Western Europe, serfdom steadily declined over the years and more people moved into cities to become smiths, inn-owners, artisans, traders, etc.

Feudalism was far from stable friendo. If were talking pre 1066, the first action of diplomacy was war. You first raided your neighbors lands before you even negotiated. The warfare was so bad as to prompt the papacy to declare both the Peace of God and the Truce of God, although they only achieved success in parts of the HRE and France. What was one of the purposes of the Crusades? A means of uniting Christianity against a shared enemy to prevent the constant warring between Christians. Of course there was more to it and a real belief that played a critical role in it, but Urban II was a consummate politician. His ability to organize such an expedition when other popes failed to do so, for instance.

>>134899457
>not monarchy then

thats dictatorship

>>134899989
Those are coups, and aristocrat influence battles.
It is inevitable with the monarchy, and benign if kept under minimal restrictions.
>Without having +50% shares on a S&P company, the aristocrat is ridiculed.

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

1MB, 1804x2440px

>>134899989
I'm in support of elective. Let's admit it, a monarch in modern day's complicated world would need to be fucking smart to fight antagonistic forces. Hereditary monarchy is unlikely to provide a king smart enough to rule. He would just get used by his advisors and probably not stay in power because he would fuck up.

There should be a system that would weed out the best candidates for the current king to select from. Maybe have the election process during military conscription. The ones scoring high on the IQ tests would be further filtered to tests measuring wisdom, general knowledge, values, understanding of geopolitics. Of course things like height, appearance and charisma would be taken into consideration in later process. You would get the most fit ruler with the testings.

>Monarchism

The Cucks ideology

>>134905485
Communism, the gib me dats, nigger ideology

>>134900256

Honestly, one of the biggest tricks is that "social mobility" happened, but mostly the other way around.

A nobel will stand by his nation as a whole because of the 5 children he has, only one will inherit his title. The other four will remain nobility, but not of the same rank as the father-Nobel was.

The nobel knows damn well that of his many grandchildren the majority will be way lower ranking - and some will be commoners - than he was. And this even if his eldest son rises in rank.

Thus, nobility as a class actually cares about the common people. They simply don't want to be thought of as one, but they will have to care because his progeny will mostly be of a lower rank.

That is very important compared to the idea we have now of "social class" and how "elites" look at the "commoners", assuming their progeny will be of the same class as them.

>>134889070
It works.