[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]

/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

They're just LARPing, right?...right???

Name
Email
Subject
REC
STOP
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload4 per post.


IN CASE 8CHAN IS DOWN: http://txti.es/monarchy FOR NEWS ABOUT WHERE TO REGROUP

File: 23b7910e997df84⋯.png (419.75 KB,600x400,3:2,ClipboardImage.png)

 No.7181

Why is monarchy better than other non-democratic alternatives- for example, rule by the church or rule by secular bureaucrats?

If we share the tragic view of human nature, the tendency among monarchs and aristocrats will be to descend into profligacy over time, and that is what happened.

Of course institutions can also become corrupted but at least there, there is the chance of reform. Monarchs and aristocrats cannot be removed except by death.

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.7182

File: eb50dae7239521f⋯.png (458.35 KB,500x667,500:667,Bishop_of_Stockholm.png)

>>7181

Monarchy is the least bad form of government because of time-preference. The monarch has the lowest time-preference of all the possible rulers, and as such, thinks has the longest time horizon and thinks in the longest term. He is encouraged therefore to be even-handed in his rule and minimalist in his policy, for he understands that this is to his benefit. For instance, he knows that if he taxes less now, his realm's economy will grow all the faster, allowing him to plunder a larger gross profit later, even if the percentage is lower. Other rulers have no such incentive to think in the long term, and will simply plunder as much as they can in the short term with oppressively high tax rates, to the extreme detriment of the realm.

>rule by the church

Monarchs rule by divine right. Attempting direct rule through the church would only cause the church to lose its luster as an eternal spiritual guide–as the clergy gain political power, they lose sight of their original purpose and become deficient at providing it. You can see this by observing how the Protestant nations (in which head of church and head of state are one and the same) have succumbed much more fully to degeneracy than their Orthodox or Catholic cousins. I don't want to see the Church corrupted, so I don't want the church to rule.

>secular bureaucrats

Bureaucrats are the bane of all creation and one of the worst things to come out of democracy, and its coked-up younger brother communism. Why on Earth would you suggest democracy's inbred bastard child as a non-democratic alternative?

>If we share the tragic view of human nature, the tendency among monarchs and aristocrats will be to descend into profligacy over time, and that is what happened.

Of course, no human is fallible. But monarchies descend far, far, slower than any of the alternatives, and provide certain positive incentives which the alternatives do not. Hereditary succession, for instance, does not lend itself to rewarding those who crave power, for the line of succession is predetermined. Democracies, or even dictatorships with cognatic succession, actively encourage liars, sociopaths, and sycophants to seek power. With monarchies, such a man may occasionally gain power, but only through an accident of genetics–the system does not reward the dregs of humanity the way other systems do.

>Of course institutions can also become corrupted but at least there, there is the chance of reform. Monarchs and aristocrats cannot be removed except by death.

But in this same statement, you prove the efficacy of monarchies. A theoretical "bad" monarch's reign ends with his death. But a bad institution will survive the death of its head, even the death of most of its upper leadership. There is no chance of reform. You can't kill a bureaucracy, even if you're the head of that bureaucracy and wish to kill it from the inside. There's far too much inertia and red tape to even attempt such a thing, to the point that anyone who wishes to "fix" a bureaucracy usually gives up, burns the whole thing down, and builds a completely new institution. Bureaucracies actively resist change with all their might, even change that is to the benefit of every member of that bureaucracy. But it only takes one man to restore a declining monarchy.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.7183

File: 7c4b7a33def3d5e⋯.jpg (41.74 KB,456x598,228:299,6a00d83451c45669e20168e9e7….jpg)

>>7181

>Why is monarchy better than other non-democratic alternatives- for example, rule by the church or rule by secular bureaucrats?

Give me one example of how those alternatives could ever compete with the aesthetics of monarchy. I doubt it, OP.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.7184

>can just use google to see loads of abuse by modern "leaders"

>no muh corruption

Just letting you know, there wasn't a Medieval Joseph Stalin.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.7222

>>7184

Not to mention Trotsky.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.7331

>>7181

Monarchy beings distinct cultural advantages. Theocracy violates seperation of church and state, and doing so is ultimately bad for the church.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.7360

>>7184

>Just letting you know, there wasn't a Medieval Joseph Stalin.

Fuck me, this is an amazing one-liner.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.7369

>>7184

The average anti-monarchist, to be fair, is not interested in defending Stalin.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.7381

>>7369

Stalin in many ways was the fruit of Liberalism/Enlightenment/Modernity. Also goes for Hitler.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.7399

>>7381

They were the fruit of the enlightenment undermining itself. Marxism and Fascism are both anti-enlightenment ideologies. Liberalism is the only one that can actually be properly compatible a monarchy. Marxism outright hates the idea of monarchs, and Fascism has shown repeatedly that they'll dump the monarch at the first moment the monarch disagrees with the fascists, because fascism is a totalitarian ideology. That's not to say that there haven't been instances of liberal monarchies where the monarch was forced out, but it isn't a literal inevitability.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.7402

File: 57c929058be4769⋯.jpg (119.81 KB,1200x686,600:343,DB98nNYV0AETOm0.jpg)

>>7399

>and Fascism has shown repeatedly that they'll dump the monarch at the first moment the monarch disagrees with the fascists, because fascism is a totalitarian ideology. That's not to say that there haven't been instances of liberal monarchies where the monarch was forced out, but it isn't a literal inevitability.

>and Fascism has shown repeatedly that they'll dump the monarch at the first moment the monarch disagrees

Gee, it's not like anyone else ever does this…

Where's the proof? What do you make of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu and others who supported their monarchy – or, if you listen to horseshoetards, about Francisco Franco who restored the monarchy? It's hard to be sympathetic to the liberalist who sees everything next to the typical parliamentary constitutional monarchy as tyranny.

I don't care what is referred to as totalitarian. The squeals about a fascist one-party state don't bother me as much as a multi-party state. A political party is inherently totalitarian like any other. They desire the mind and will of the People™.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.7409

>>7402

>Gee, it's not like anyone else ever does this…

>>7399

>That's not to say that there haven't been instances of liberal monarchies where the monarch was forced out, but it isn't a literal inevitability.

>Codreanu got along with King Carol II

Are you fucking high?

>Franco restored the monarchy

He restored the position, declared himself regent for life, and left the throne vacant until the 70's.

>All parties are totalitarian

A: Big tent parties are by definition not totalitarian

B: You're talking about the inside of the party. I'm not.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]