Why is monarchism frowned upon so much these days?

Why should he get to rule over this entire country? I could get behind it if the kingdom was the size of Massachusetts, but a big ass country with lots of different kind of people should be run by the people

Not implying that all democracies are 100% fair to the people, but having 1 person and his family rule over everyone else by virtue of having inherited is dumb

>Europe is also choking on Turkish refugee cock
Syrian. And that's mostly abated now.
>political union that controls their borders, trade, and foreign policy
You're vastly overstating the EU's power.
>But yeah, as long as that GDP that's been artificially inflated with debt keeps going up, goy!
That isn't the same as HDI.

>And that's mostly abated now
You have a new terrorist attack every week and your political leaders constantly calling for more immigrants, increasingly nervously assuring you that they promise they'll assimilate this time

Because a king is the heir of people who have done the same thing for centuries? Surrounded by the friends and family who have helped them as well?

Its not rocket science, a monarch and their heir is, ideally, like a master and an apprentice. If the monarch is a dirtbag, then sure go ahead and do as says.

Inevitably, however, your republic will go down one of two roads. An oligarchy, or a closet monarchy like the USSR, Yugoslavia, Nazi Germany, or so many others. France made a whole new decision, and crowned her monarch with a referendum from the French parliament. Begin the cycle anew, and learn from the mistakes of the past.

tl;dr. Revolutionary empires under philosopher kings will always demolish republics.

we can complain about Europe having lax immigration policies and enforcement if we want.
But unless there's a causal link between that and end of monarchic rule, I'm not sure why that's relevant to this thread.

so you're willing to revert to monarchy and risk one of those political leaders having absolute or pseudo-absolute power over immigration policy?

That's extremely disruptive and no guarantee that the next guy won't try to stop from getting his head chopped off via tyranny.

Cause then you get this

And you don't think there is at least one shitty monarch per 100 years? Just because your daddy ran shit doesn't mean you're going to be great at it, or do what's best for potentially millions of people who couldn't give a fuck about you and are just trying to make a living

Again, I'm not arguing that republics/democracies can't be shitty, they often are, but I don't think exactly ONE person in charge is any better than a group of elites that people decide on

>OP thinking it is really easy and efficient to kill a fucked up monarch

Elected representatives and career civil servants are more efficient intermediaries than feudal nobility.

>this kills the monarchist

Willy had like 12 people who had to sign off on the war. Hitler had one.

Its not as absolute as the liberals meme it out to be.

>Why is monarchism frowned upon so much these days?

-Because monarchy fails to adequately distribute power in conditions where wealth isn't tied to rent.

-The tradition and legitimacy that made it so strong now works to strengthen republics. - its greatest strength is now its greatest weakness.

- A tendency to resort to tyranny and suppression of the press if their power is not severely limited

-Requires a very religious or superstitious society to legitimize the monarch.

-Its inability to relieve dissent at political mistakes made by the monarch; in the information age blaming ministers no longer works

-The absurd difficulty it would take to establish an effective monarchy with sufficient nobility to deal with fertility problems.

>First Europeans abandoned their kings, and now they've abandoned God. Things haven't gone so well for them since.

Reading this, part makes me thing you have not had a very serious look at history, or at the very least take a hyper idealised view of it that as an axiom rejects all material developments.

>europe has never been wealthier or more peaceful
>but there are brown people living there now who occassionally commit violent acts
>Things haven't gone so well for them since.

But not every king will be wise. For every Cyrus the Great or Darius there's a Xerxes.

>ctrl+f: Nationalism
I see nobody wants to blame the main culprit.

Once you place the primacy of the nation above the monarchical dynasty in terms of state formation, the kings become useless and you'd start demanding shit like "democracy" or "universal suffrage" based on "being members of a nation."

He was literally a highly successful king.

>Things haven't gone so well for them since.

I don't know, we're pretty well off?

Oh never mind, you're a ameriturd /pol/tard.

And yet the highest terrorist kill count still goes to the US of A, not to mention the russian tier crime rates you've got going on there. Fuck off you stupid burger.

Because there is no better government than a monarchy with a great king, and no worse government than a monarchy with a shit king

>First Europeans abandoned their kings, and now they've abandoned God. Things haven't gone so well for them since.
Well, looking at france, which since it's revolution has had a proud tradition of seperating church and state, they've become a mainstay of europe, their capital is considered a cultural beacon, endlessly beautified in media to the point of their being a name given to people underwhelmed by the city of lights when they do arrive, they championed one of the most common (and effective) governments, under these governmental systems the computer and internet you are using were made, france funded the rebels in the 13 colonies to create the strongest military power in human history, France created a colonial empire to rival the British (both of which used governments based upon the ideas put in to practice post revolution) , and created very high living standards for her citizens.

You're so utterly full of shit it hurts.

He ran Spain better then modern Spaniards.

Hey fuck it, let's look at Britain as well.
Well, we never officially abandoned our kings but slowly depowered them in favour of our own system of democracy, used widely by our former colonies established under our rule which extended across the entirety of the planet, this empire was created under a depowered monarch and a empowered house of commons, under these governmental systems a variety of British men and women shaped the world as we see it today, John Maynard Keynes revolutionised the fields of economics, as did Adam Smith, there's also the father of the modern computer, Alan Turing.

Under the head of Sir Winston Churchill, the advancements we had made in our Navy and Airforce prevented german invasion of the mainland, whilst in the african theaters we also did rather well, whilst under monarchs we were defeated and taken for the Normans and the Scandanavians, we also introduced Common law and Habeus Corpus, two legal advancements that remain today.

We also voted to leave the EU, which ironically under a monarch estalbished today probably wouldn't have happened, looking at the beliefs of our modern nobles.

>and no worse government than a monarchy with a shit king

How about a democratically elected Leader plunging the world and his own country into a massive, self-destructive war? I don't see much of a difference, except that the monarch is at least beholden to his heirs and less likely to throw Nero decrees around.

Hey, Triple fuck it, let's go for a European triple and look at the Germans.
Well, under monarchy, they were divided into a collosal clusterfuck that was the HRE, before unifying under a single soverign, effecitvely becoming a world power, they preceded to lose a war when allied to the other great empire of europe, create a decent republic which was overthrown by a second monarch, who preceded to push his economy into a complete war focus, pushed his people towards war, create more effecitve kiling machnies, allied to a similar country to the south, he managed to take france and then be fucked by 3 of the world's superpowers at the same time, with a brief stint of utter dispair and horror under the watchful eye of a communist autocrat,their republic on the other hand has been largely successful, the government in germany has been remarkably stable and their economy strong.

Royalty is frowned upon. Monarchy of some sort is still universal. In order to get attention for being radical, 19th century people focused on changing names so they can feel smart instead of changing anything substantial.

>hurrrr I need someone to tell me what to do cuz im stoopid

Germanics shouldn't be allowed to post tbqh

>shit
>shitty
>shit

>normie arguing skills

>dude
>fuck
>shit
>fucking
>shit shit shit
>fucking

>I only consume popculture trash (what's a book lmao u shittin me nigga) so I have to substitute every lapse in my vocabulary with profanity

>since it's revolution
>they've become a mainstay of europe

Wrong; They were before.

>their capital is considered a cultural beacon, endlessly beautified in media to the point of their being a name given to people underwhelmed by the city of lights when they do arrive

We'd be saying the same of other cities had some other factions won critical wars, who cares.

Paris had been a cultural centre long before the revolution too.

>under these governmental systems the computer and internet you are using were made

Monarchy would not have prevented the creation of these devices. Just because their appearance synchronized with democratic governments should not lend said governments credit for a correlation without causation.

>France created a colonial empire to rival the British

Not necessarily caused by a republican government. See: Spain

>You're so utterly full of shit it hurts.

Lmao@u and your pop level of historical comprehension

>under these governmental systems a variety of British men and women shaped the world as we see it today, John Maynard Keynes revolutionised the fields of economics, as did Adam Smith, there's also the father of the modern computer, Alan Turing.

None of these couldn't have occured under an executive monarchy

>Under the head of Sir Winston Churchill, the advancements we had made in our Navy and Airforce prevented german invasion of the mainland, whilst in the african theaters we also did rather well

Ok, fair point I guess, republicanism had elected some competent officials in times of need

> whilst under monarchs we were defeated and taken for the Normans and the Scandanavians
>This is all the military accomplishment of British monarchy boils down to

lel

>modern nobles.

You're thinking about "elites". Nobles, as in classical aristocracy, would be hesitant to relinquish prerogatives to a supranational entity, a progressive one at that.

If you want to be controlled, I'll be your king. My first order is to suck my dick.

>Well, under monarchy, they were divided into a collosal clusterfuck that was the HRE

Yes, that was a highly decentralized model of feudal monarchy. And?

>before unifying under a single soverign, effecitvely becoming a world power

You omit the fact that they were as powerful as the republics whose achievements you've ascribed to republicanism and had comparable living standards to them.

I'll disregard the rest of this post because I'm not interested in defending Hitler.

You use logical fallacies, ommision and selection of your very simplistic view of history to make a flimsy argument against monarchy.

In other words:

>You're so utterly full of shit it hurts.

Also convenient how you omitted Spain which for a while prospered as a power under a monarchical system.

Bad example given how quick Willy was to try and suck up when he thought that a WWI veteran would restore the monarchy.

>I don't see much of a difference, except that the monarch is at least beholden to his heirs and less likely to throw Nero decrees around.

You think elected leaders suddenly stop caring about their own children or that they cannot be enamored by the nation the represent?

>How about a democratically elected Leader plunging the world and his own country into a massive, self-destructive war?

In defence of that kind of War is much easier under authoritarian regimes and monarchies on average have been far more authoritarian than republics.

that's a tacky crown

>In defence of that kind of War is much easier under authoritarian regimes

Define authoritarian. Then justify your point.

>and monarchies on average have been far more authoritarian than republics

Literally incorrect. Life under feudalism was much less restricted than life in a modern social-democratic welfare state. Whether this translated into better quality of life or not is another matter, but for the better part of their existence monarchies are far less intrusive.

Is "authoritarian" the new buzzword for "disagreeable regime" on the normieweb?

European monarchies are all barbarian germaniggers, i don't care that they're gone

>Most powerful state in European History drove it's last King away and established a Republic
Really fires my neurons.

>plagued by a century of non-stop civil war only to revert to a monarchy in all but name

Wasn't it officially a monarchy by the time West Rome fell?

_Because_ they abandoned God. We have abandoned morality, rejected the guidelines which once set us straight -- we have charged headfirst into the responsibility of self-governance, both in public and private spheres, and found that we are critically not worthy.

Depends on what you mean but Aurelian and Domitian are generally considered the ones who dropped the charade.

Because democracy and meritocracy became all the craze.

Almost a shame, since the British monarchy seemed to be getting to the point where they were turning out successive, decent kings and queens right as the power was being stripped back from them

Victorian values and dutiful second sons work wonders.

You can't replace a bad monarch. For as shitty as democracy is at least there is some possibility of shitty leaders getting thrown out.

>You can't replace a bad monarch
Many monarchs in history have been made to abdicate.

>DUDE SHITTY SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT I CANNOT EXPRESS MYSELF SHIT LMAO

Can literal shitposting be an offense?

Monarchy lacks the feedback loops that functioning governments need. If a monarch chooses he can act against the wishes of the people and if you believe in the power of a monarch their isn't much you can do. Now if it were only five years this might not be bad, but imagine an incompetent or worse and actively malignant monarch for 35 years. You can see enough dictators to know how poor that system works. And if you say that you should remove poor monarchs when they displeased the people, I fail to see how that is different that elections.

So basically you can't remove shit monarchs.

Also, the question I have is what is the basis of support for the monarch. Is it the people, capitalist, the military, the church. Who does the monarch need to rule in a modern age. The only examples that it makes sense to take from are dictators since they are the monarch of the modern age.

Is "normieweb" the new buzzword for "people I don't like" on /pol/?

Well if you replace monarchs till you get to a good one isn't that a lot like elections, except usually violent and highly diaruptive.

A multitude of rulers is not a good thing. Let there be one ruler, one king.

Because people are degenerate faggots who think life is all about pleasure and an absolute Catholic monarch who imposes morality is "creepy".

Is /pol/ the new buzzword for "conservative people on Veeky Forums" where you came from?

If a monarch chooses he can act against the wishes of the people

Just because he has the ability to do so will not mean he will act upon it. Also, defying the popular mandate usually manifests itself much more benignly than you imagine.

>but imagine an incompetent or worse and actively malignant monarch for 35 years

Gets assasinated by dissenting elements within a state if he truly does that bad of a job in such a window of time. A heir to the throne will gladly jump into his position earlier especially if it earns him the praise of his subjects. Monarchs normally want to remain in power.

Civil war isn't the only means of deposing a monarch

>Who does the monarch need to rule in a modern age. The only examples that it makes sense to take from are dictators since they are the monarch of the modern age.

incoherent

The monarch would perform the same function as some branch of the separated powers of the state. I am not advocating for absolute royal authority.

My ideal model is a constitutional monarchy where an elected assembly can propose laws which can be reviewed then accepted or refused by a king. It's too much of a liability to vest the populace with total power.
If you tried to validate your fluency before me with this post it's still garbage.

No, because it's within a dynasty whose self-interest is directly connected to the interest of the state. Abdication is an extraordinary circumstance. Actual *elective* monarchies are shit because the "monarchs" end up focusing all their efforts on making their position hereditary or just profiting as much possible from their it for the sake of themselves and possibly their descendants.

Which is the same thing that elected rulers do in republics/democratic systems; it is a succession of rent-seekers. Proper monarchs are not rent-seekers; they have already found it.

No there isn't. They just get replaced with another popular retard (puppet).

>monarchs having absolute power was actually a relatively new concept that didn't appear until the 16th to 17th centuries

What is the Roman Empire from Tiberius to the Fall of Rome Alex?

>"monarchs" end up focusing all their efforts on making their position hereditary or just profiting as much possible from their it for the sake of themselves and possibly their descendants.

What are political dynasties in the US and abroad?

Like I said, that is the common theme of non-hereditary systems.

Monarchy is for cucks.

>HDI
>People still think this is an accurate predictor of the overall welfare of a people

Materialists get out

>you can't replace a shitty monarch

True but you can't replace a shitty oligarchy either you goddamn bourgie

Ok I understand you now

because its not what you imagine how it is

its not a good willed ruler who considers the nation as a whole and puts his abilities in service of it
its prone to corruption far more than democracy and it spirals because of inheritance

things are going absolutely great for europe, the multicultural problems and refugee crisis are nothing but a small bump on the road

the more interesting thing is how youth is dranwed to "strong leadership" images, clearly a failure of making them feel they belong somewhere

>its not a good willed ruler who considers the nation as a whole and puts his abilities in service of it
Says who?
>its prone to corruption far more than democracy and it spirals because of inheritance
Literally how? Democracy has no accountability. Monarchy has less incentive for corruption, too.

>youth

Shut in autistic virgins are a marginal error in the grand scheme of things.

>Shut in autistic virgins are a marginal error

>He doesn't know their numbers are growing by the day

Your lifestyle is over, bitter milennial

the candidate for FN made it to 2nd round
several quazi dictators have support from younger generations
the general attitude of being disappointed in liberals/democrats is affecting the new generations, the only response so far is "dont be racist be progressive haha" from the political side that is supposed to mobilize and influence them

Minimal support. Also, from shitheaping peasants and on the deathbed grumpy elderly fucks. Nice company you keep.

Plz the french youth supported the far left and the center far more FN

>the far left and the center far more FN

Yes because the youth in france are either indoctrinated morons who think think that the French Revolution was the best shit to happen to the world ever and who suck the dicks of the whole Paris commune, or are just not french and vote for more gibs.

>muh Derrida
>muh Robespierre
>muh Sartre

French people are faggots, they deserve Nice and more.

>shitheaping

>haha mom! I said shit again! Am I not so defiant of authority XD XD XD!

>First Europeans abandoned their kings, and now they've abandoned God. Things haven't gone so well for them since.

So why is the U.S the most powerful country in the history of humanity, a country which was founded on republicanism and resistance to aristocracy?

>U.S
>the most powerful country in the history of humanity
Nyet.
And whatever is Mandarin for No.

>First Europeans abandoned their kings, and now they've abandoned God. Things haven't gone so well for them since.
Things weren't exactly going good for Europeans even when they had kings

Okay, lets say you're right.

Neither the USSR nor Maoist China were or are monarchies.

Well, what would you use? Inequality adjusted HDI? HDI • x?

>implying you cant elect retards

That's true. But correlation =/= causation. Nukes and whatnot.

I don't think monarchism, apart from a symbolic kind, lends itself to a hypercapitalistic and technological world.

There are too many pitfalls in having political power subsumed into one person, even if that person is excellent at alot of things.

If you do, at least you'll probably deserve them.

but they're not
they contribute a lot to tourism
its just that modern monarchs are essentially welfare niggers

>I don't think monarchism, apart from a symbolic kind, lends itself to a hypercapitalistic and technological world.
Yea, why's that?
>There are too many pitfalls in having political power subsumed into one person
More pitfalls with not. It's a matter of accountability and investment.

>its just that modern monarchs are essentially welfare niggers
Don't know how they're funded, eh?

>More pitfalls with not. It's a matter of accountability and investment.

Yeah, and a king has no accountability. And even if he did have accountability he could just ignore it.

When you have absolute power you're essentially shielded from the consequences of your actions.

Move to a monarchy then and stop bitching, no one wants your antiquated LARPing bullshit happening anymore, not in the civilized world anyway.

Switzerland hasn't had a monarchy since its birth in the 13th century and all things considered we have been doing fine in the past and still do in the present

>Yeah, and a king has no accountability.
>When you have absolute power you're essentially shielded from the consequences of your actions.
See: Already in one, so not bitching.
And how is anything but monarchy really civilised? You're forced to the lowest common denominator at all times with democratic systems.

Which absolute monarchy allows you to post on a Kamchatkan Waterboarding Sophistry Forum?

Individualist retards going HURRR I CAN BE A LEADER DURRR.
What retards have been removed in the US government? Oh wait none at all, republics rely on using political parties to keep the moronic masses distracted and stupid thus they never realize they are being enslaved at all.

There sadly aren't any European absolute monarchies left. Closest would be Monaco or Luxembourg.

God you are obnoxious. As if the use of profanities correlates with the quality of an argument.