/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

Well you've got better time preference than a democracy, for one. Various forms of it have generally been the most stable throughout history, and personally I believe it mirrors the hierarchy of heaven.

It's time-tested. Actually, from all systems, monarchy has the best track record. No contest. A bad king is no worse than a Democracy, in the end, and still a lot better than, say, Chinese Communism.

A good king, however, is absolutely god-tier. Nothing else comes close. It's like playing a strategy game - all of them are monarchies.

As an Australian, monarchy is one of the only living links back to our Anglo-Celtic heritage and founding. Republicans want to sever this link to make us just another deracinated stamp in a passport integrated into Asia.

Also philosophically the British monarchy is an Aristotelian mixed regime, which is the best possible regime to live under. To make it more ideal, the monarch should be given more power.

Basically my argument is tradition, but I also believe it is a true tradition justified by reason. In my context, the argument for monarchy is far more powerful than those for a republic.

God save the Queen!

A lot of the critiques of democracy I've read so far seem to be talking about an American style, two party democracy. Do you think a democracy where there is more than two parties who are forced to coöperate a lot (like Germany, I believe) could overcome those critiques?

>>116

>why are you a monarchist? I want to know why you think monarchism is better than other political systems.

I'll start with negatives against democracy / current government.

I don't like "mob rule"

I don't like people only being in power for 3-4 years ( nothing can get done in long term )

I don't like people only being in power because of what they said on a certain number of days.

I don't like the "grassroots" of democracy nowadays. Consider if "#blacklivesmatter" got to everyone on twitter, then a candidate only has to come up and say "black lives matter that's why we're increasing welfare" and bam, they have a huge voter boost for little-to-no reason, thought, or planning.

people generally can't fathom large projects and ideas, let alone how to run a country. people only vote for what benefits they can get asap. "we need to build our train network" gets lost to "$5 increase to pension."

once people are elected into power, they have about 3-4 years where they're still largely learning the ropes because they havent had power before. compared to people being born and learning how to govern from birth.

mob rule is hardly even in effect if you have a look at UK's last election, UKIP lost out but had second/third highest amount of voters.

I'm an Australian and the public's reaction to Tony abbott being elected was the final eye opener. they voted him in then gave him a hounding every time he tries to mention that things aren't as peachy as we'd like to think. I feel very sorry for the dude.

>reasons I like monarchy

someone born into power, spends his whole life learning how to lead, and comes from a family that owns the country - so the country is always at the forefront of the family's interest.

the reason monarchy isnt "popular" nowadays is because multinationals and profit at the expense of the nations would cease to exsist,

>literally the jew's fault [/pol] :^)

>>187

I also forgot to mention that humans have made monarchs for thousands of years, and it's only nowadays where we think "wow monarchism sucks everyone should have a shot at the microphone to voice their stupid dribble and vote for their dumb ideas"

monarchism is literally the most natural form of government.

>>149

This is like, your opinion man. You cannot tell what is better unless you state what goals you want to reach.

And for your information, Chinese communism in the 5°-60's unfucked the Chinese society, removed the traditionalist thinking, gave it a fast forward industrial revolution and get the country ready for capitalism. Today China is big, powerful and may become the next superpower. Without Mao, it would just be a big Afghanistan.

>>157

This is an excellent reason to be against monarchy. Read it again.

>>185

French here.

No, it doesn't. Democracy at the media age favour greedy politicians bastards ready to do everything for a little more over competent and kind politicians, and when everyone in important places of political parties is one, the political landscape look like one big party with a lot of internal dissensions. I believe it is a natural phenomena. If the people let the power be taken by anyone, it will not be beneficial for them.

A good democracy can exist, but it require actual informations, not a media cast, actual concerned citizens, not consumerist zombies and political debates, not closed echoes chambers on the internet.

>>187

What about 12 year old kings? What about weak kings? What about powerful kings that does not care about the country?

He, we once told the king that he should be more cautious at how bad things are in the state, and explained him why he should not leech this much money over the common man. He answered "I am the state."

We had no other choice than getting rid of theses suckers. Monarchs is what destroy monarchy.

>>188

We have cars for less than a century. Are you riding a horse?

business deserves representation. perhaps more so, because its interests directly effect national security. I see no reason why the politicians shouldn't be in bed with business

>>217

Because the King should not look out for his merchants, he should look look out for his people.

The heart of a Monarchy is not just the King, but the people as well.

>>220

5/5

Personally, I find the greatest reason to support just the smallest form of monarchy, e.g. a figurehead, is that it reinforces the truth that there is no such thing as equality. I believe that equality is a notion that will devolve into such demagoguery that even to have it attacked at a symbolic level is a worthwhile thing to have.

>>216

>This is like, your opinion man. You cannot tell what is better unless you state what goals you want to reach.

Agreed. Please state yours.

>And for your information, Chinese communism in the 5°-60's unfucked the Chinese society, removed the traditionalist thinking, gave it a fast forward industrial revolution and get the country ready for capitalism. Today China is big, powerful and may become the next superpower.

To clarify. Are you defending the cultural revolution?

>This is an excellent reason to be against monarchy. Read it again.

We're not seeing what you are. Explain.

>What about 12 year old kings? What about weak kings? What about powerful kings that does not care about the country?

At this point I believe it is necessary to distinguish between the absolute monarchists and the constitutional monarchists and the aristocrats (fwiw, the degeneration of the ancien regime from an aristocracy to "L'etat, c'est moi" is it's downfall, IMO, but I believe others here will disagree with me) and the mere figurehead monarchists.

>A good democracy can exist, but it require actual informations, not a media cast, actual concerned citizens, not consumerist zombies and political debates, not closed echoes chambers on the internet.

I believe I will depart ways from others here, but democracies will necessarily devolve into ochlocracies just like monarchies can devolve into tyrannies.

I think others here might argue about one being more stable over the long run or less likely to happen than the other, but for my part, I do not mind taking to your Montesquieu and requisitioning a balance of power even in a monarchy.

>We have cars for less than a century. Are you riding a horse?

With all due respect, I think his point still stands. The benefit of traditionalism is the same as relying on evolutionary methods to solve problems. They utilize the dispersed local knowledge (in the political case, through multiple generations) that may not be available to a singular person or to a singular generation of peoples. C.f., Hayek. Admittedly, this is not an argument meant to convince people one way or the other, it is a mere heuristic.

>>185

I think thats worse actually. Democracy, by the nature of political parties, is a natural environment for the corrupt. Any politician who is good at backstabbing, lying and bribing is going to be much more successful than a principled one, thus the party structure incentivizes terrible leader. A multi-party democracy is a tougher environment for politicians and that leads to better adapted ones. IE. even worse people.

>>359

to play democrat's advocate, there are some serious flaws in the America and European democratic systems which could be remedied, possibly resulting in a more effective democracy. The voting system in America, for example, forces all the things which we hate about democracy to manifest and grow. Other voting systems have been proposed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

>>216

>What about 12 year old kings?

Exception rather than rule. A modern monarchy would never have something like this happen though.

>What about weak kings?

Bad, but not a problem unique to a Monarchy. There are weak democratic leaders as well.

>What about powerful kings that does not care about the country?

A King is the figurehead of his people, chosen by God to lead them. There is a bigger bond between a King and his people than in other systems. Also not a problem unique to a Monarchy.

>>362

exactly. People freak out when they hear the word "king" and think "oh no what if he doesn't care about his people" but they fail to realize that our democratically elected officials give zero shits about their subjects, and most people don't even notice. A king can be raised as a good Christian ruler with all the skills and character traits necessary. If his father was a good king, and his father trains him, the child is likely to also be a good king.

>>116

I think I'm probably more of an anarchist at heart and the reason I support monarchy is more pragmatic because historically I think monarchies tended to be, on average at least less tyrannical and oppressive compared to modern governments based on state socialism and democracy. That and I respect the elements of high culture and spirituality that seemed more palpable in monarchical societies. I wouldn't mind a ceremonial monarch in an otherwise anarchist society who helps to preserve those elements so things don't feel bland and mundane. And I would probably support absolute monarchy over democratic tyranny

The recent revisions of history to make monarchy and aristocracy in general into a reasonable form of government are based on little more than nationalistic fascination with tradition and xenophobia.

The basic arguments levelled here in support of monarchy are: the provide continuity, they are "interested" in the peoples well being, they are impartial, and some sort of god king religious worship?

The fundamental problem of this debate is simply that the abject of failure of monarchy in the 19th and 20th century that resulted in 2 world wars and the very forms of government compared to "happy" monarchies (communism/fascism were clearly a direct result of the inability of these countries to adapt to the end of monarchy as a useful form of government in the period). Monarchy oversaw government through most of the worlds worst atrocities, fundamentally failed to promote any innovation or advancement of society and caused tremendous havoc as they were dismantled - so whats the upside to this form of government again?

Yes, a constitutional monarchy can be a successful form of government - but that is entirely due to how irrelevant the monarchy is to that government - the monarchy does nothing other than waste government resources and create tourism and misguided nationalism. In fact what are the practical differences between a republic and a CM - the cost of maintaining the royal family.

The problem today is that we are on the juxtaposition between capitalism and the post capitalist world, where the vestiges of monarchy will finally be removed - central banks, corporations, dynastic wealth - as the fundamental cause of humanities woes. kings or not are frankly irrelevant.

>>426

> the provide continuity, they are "interested" in the peoples well being, they are impartial, and some sort of god king religious worship?

C.f. >>416 for some newer arguments. IMO, the best arguments are:

- They are an inherent component of the government to think in the very, very long term.

- They serve as a natural _de_centralizing force (splitting lands between children, providing a natural incentive to check and balance the King wherever possible).

- Providing a natural cultural countercurrent to the notion that men are equal.

>The fundamental problem of this debate is simply that the abject of failure of monarchy in the 19th and 20th century that resulted in 2 world wars

Between the Congress of Vienna and WWI was unprecedented in peace, especially considering human history to that point. If anything, the two world wars were a natural result of democracy (e.g., the old "Hitler was democratically elected" canard/Woodrow Wilson screaming "Let's make the world safe for democracy."/the unprecendented number of years the U.S. itself (the prototypical "exemplary democratic state") has spent in wartime throughout its entire history (>90%)). I would argue what peace the modern world has at all has more to do with the Dell theory of conflict prevention than anything else.

>In fact what are the practical differences between a republic and a CM - the cost of maintaining the royal family.

C.f., the first answer, I think it is more than that.

Also, it is odd that you should say this, because historically Republic meant something more of a 'mixed government." Since per Plato's theory of Anocyclosis, each function of government should borrow from of the major types (democracy, aristocracy, monarchy) and be carefully balanced against one another so that it should not fall into such cycles. If you are a follower of the U.S. constitutional, for example, then we merely disagree on the term lengths (in a sense), how many, and which powers the Supreme Court Justices have…

>central banks… as the fundamental cause of humanities woes

Well, we at least can agree on something.

>>428

They also neglect the fact that presidential families, at least for the US, are also costly. I can even recall reading somewhere that the Obamas are more costly than the British Royal Family. Granted, it was an unsourced offhand remark, so take that with a grain of salt.

>>426

well said, you identified monarchies problem. It is so successful and creates so much wealth that it leads to degeneracy like democracy. Even this most stable form of government is not infallible.

>Monarchy oversaw government through most of the worlds worst atrocities, fundamentally failed to promote any innovation or advancement of society and caused tremendous havoc as they were dismantled - so whats the upside to this form of government again?

could you name a few? I will name a few from communism and democracy. American Civil War, French Revolution, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Russian gulags and the Russian front in World War II.

I suspect that you will try to compare a king harassing a few hundred aristocrats to millions and millions of dead people.