Study History

>anarcho-anything
fucking stupid

Same

>Study history
>See the shitty decisions democracies make
>Become pro democracy
>Study history
>Believe in Freud
Wew

chaotic nihilism is the only right way to look at history

fight me and lose if you dare

You can be an Anarchist and a Monarchist, preferring both over Capitalism and Socialism but not an Anarcho-Monarchist.

>2008: vote for me I'm black
>2016: vote for me I'm a woman.
Umm, actually sweetie

>>See the shitty decisions democracies make

lmao you'd be a filthy peasant living in a hovel just hoping that the rains this year didn't kill his plot of subsistence oats and white cabbage

>Study history.
>Become an Early Roman Republican.

Learned HERstory, as in met my now wife studying history at university, yes

>Democracy neva did nuffin
>wez good bois

>Study entomology
>Become monarcho-communist
Anyone else?

Ave Caesar!!!

>Study History
>Realize every aspect of civilization is wrong and we're still bounded to archaic concepts and instututions from thosands of years ago.
>Become a transhumanist.

>not being an anarcho-monarchist transhumanist
do you even want to become a matrioshka brain and be worshiped as sol invictus?

study LEARING
become THINGY
who else?

You are too smart for your own good.

The issue with monarchy isn't that its inherently bad or evil. The issue is its a roll of the dice and missteps can't be undone without spilling blood

This is what I've found. Autocracy can do great things much quicker than democracy can as there's far less red tape and roadblocks that need going through.

Antonio Salazar, Frederick the Great, Lee Kuan Yew, etc. All capable leaders that definitely benefited their nations.

However, it's a double edged sword. By the same token it's easier to fuck things up as you have less eyes on the task and things are more easily done on a whim. And due to the nature of an autocratic system it's difficult to fix without blood being shed, especially in a system like monarchism as family and blood ties play a large role in polticial legitimacy.

Democracy is slower but generally more stable. Unfortunately it falls prey to apathy and corruption too easily.

That kike monkey face/ears tho.

I generally agree with you and would like to add the prolonged autocratic systems are subject to stagnation not so easily felt under democratic rule

>implying that democratic leaders are more qualified than the average popularity contest winner
>implying that the average person knows what he needs

Another big issue with autocratic systems in general is that, while they are extremely good at focusing the nation on singular or related tasks, switching gears to new issues is extremely difficult, due to the way their general organizational structure resists change. Democracies/republics suffer from the opposite issue, where they have little ability to focus on critical issues due to the nature of electoral politics and wedge issues. The same attribute, however, allows for a change in focus as simple as the election of a different candidate.

>Study History
>Become Monarcho-Syndicalist
Who else?

A selection of the best possible successor, a council made of advisors,ministers,administrator´and representators from the estates(Who would have limited autonomy) could help correcting mistakes or preventing them,there wouldn't be much bureaucracy through that anyway.

An order and some rules for princess and Monarchs to do should be created,we know from historical practicity, that an empire or state has maximum stability and chances of success if some Kind of constitution or Code of law is in place.
Preventing something as the year of 40 Emperors from happening again should not be a hard task.

Everybody says this as if there's any way of calculating man's ability to fuck things up.

>Best successor
Obviously this is a great idea as we saw with the Nerva-Antonine dynasty of Rome. Even still there will be a fuck up eventually. There will always be a Commodus eventually and if a person in any position of power disagrees with the successor selected, you have a civil war on your hands.

I can't think of a single crown or seat that didn't eventually have a fuck up or a successor. Now that's not to say it isn't good, but it's far from flawless.

>Council of administrators, ministers, advisors, and representors

Ideally yes that is a great way to make sure the autocrat in charge steers the ship correctly. Realistically? Every single person you add to the system brings in their own agenda. The more you add the more of a potential clusterfuck you're making with each of these political pieces representing their own interests. What you're describing is very much like the Ancien Regime of France which worked well for Louis XIV but didn't for Louis XVI.

Again, not necessarily saying this is a bad thing as the Ancien regime lasted a solid few hundred years but it's also far from perfect.

At the end of the day there's just nothing that can be done about human error.

You're as bad as communists who think the shortcomings of capitalism justify communism. Democracy doesn't have to be perfect for it to be way better than monarchism.

It doesn't have to be perfect, yes, but it still has to be better than monarchism as a system. Unfortunately, mob rule with a thin veneer of legitimacy does not actually compare to an autocratic ruler who has the state as their highest interest.

>Thinking monarchism equals feudalism

This

Same here

>Democracy doesn't have to be perfect for it to be way better than monarchism.
That's your personal opinion and quite frankly, it's absolute shit.

Well, what if we train the candidate for rulership from birth, so that the fuckups fuck up less, and the good ones do even better. This is instead of just running a popularity contest where random joes with enough money can become ruler because they said they'd make more handouts.

As said, i can't think of a single monarchy that didn't have a fuck up successor, even with them being raised from birth to rule.

Simply not everybody has aptittude or desire to rule, no matter how much you prepare them. And replacing them or picking somebody else proves tricky and generally leads to civil wars.

Again, that's not to say it hasn't yielded good results. But you can pick as many shitty rulers that were raised for the job as you can great ones. Probably more so.

Well, one of the benefits of monarchy is that even the most absolutely asstarded rulers have a very good reason to at least try and not damaged their country. This reason is that the state of their nation is effectively both the ruler's legacy, and their child's inheritance. This means that damage to the country as a whole is usually somewhat limited, so their (hopefully) more competent heir can pick up more-or-less where their less retarded ancestors left the country.
Democratic systems do not have this limit, because of the limits to term that elected officials have. This encourages the fuck up politician to do as much for himself as he can within that term. And since he also faces no consequences to himself or his family after his term, he is free to ruin as much as he wishes.

Heres the problem with that however, just due to the nature of autocracy, a fuck up by one person can do a whole lot more damage than one bad politician in a democracy. And even so the politician can always lose election or run out of terms to serve and have the damage reversed over time.

Even taking a monarch with good intentions that isn't necessarily a bad person like say Louis XVI, they can still fuck up and make terrible decisions (or in his case no decisions) that can be disasterous.

And you also have to take into consideration that they aren't ruling in a vacuum as well. You have plenty of administrators and advisors that also play their part for better or worse. Power struggles and political factions in court can fuck things up as well.

We have a lot of historical data for this to check and it ultimately comes down to what's been said already in the thread.

Court intrigues are basically the same thing as senatorial politics though, so I wouldn't consider them to be an upside or downside to either system. But your point about not ruling in a vacuum is good. Leadership is, at its core, the ability to assign the right people to the right jobs, but bad assignments are an issue in democracies and monarchies.

In the specific case of Louis XVI, he was fucked beyond belief by the state of France itself and by factors beyond its control. Remember that France had had several famines in the years leading up to the revolution. France was also massively in debt and the nobility that the Sun King had temporarily pacified had fallen into the trap of decadence. His decisions had little impact on the revolution starting, and I'm pretty sure only some masterful ruler like Russia's Peter could have saved royal France.

haha yes that's me

Monarchies are also popularity contests between heirs. Aristocrats play sycophant for their favorite heir. As the heirs are played against each other, you get destructive civil strife. Even fratricide.

At least with democracy these popularity contest are put in controlled forms which remove civil strife. Also the aristocrats are the voters in a monarchy, and they make stupid decisions in self interest just like the hoi polloi.

Democracy is the best, because at least you get selfish decisions that benefit at least 50 % of the population, but in monarchies it is usually just the inner circle of the king that benefits.

>Aristocrats vote for heirs
>Every single succession results in civil war
>Democratic leaders definitely do not benefit an inner circle
I'm sorry, but how many chromosomes do you have?

That's what happens when someone plays too much ck2 dude

>study history
>become trans-humanist anarcho-primitivist
who else?

>taking portugal the man, a shit band, as having any kind of useful opinions on anything

Monarcucks need to stop shitting up the board, all they do is entrench the bourgeoisie and prevent the workers from rising.

>study history
>become a Military Juntal Monarchist

>study history
>become anarcho-capitalist
me

Good

I don't know what's up with the "anarcho-" thing but yeah that's about right.

>study history
>become anarcho-pacifist

>Study history
>Become apolitical

>study history
>become a Marxist

KILL ALL CAPITALISTS AND CAPITALIST SUPPORTERS

>Anarcho-monarchist

Isn't anarchism pretty much the antithesis of monarchism?

>study Geology
>Become technocrat traditionalist

>vote for me I'm stupid

hmm.

>study history
>become a pessimist and realize all political systems will decay and fail

D-did he swallow the black pill dressing like that?

Anarcho-monarchist? Those 2 systems are completely oppossite

This. It doesn't matter how you arrange us, human error will bring down any system.

>Study history
You mean watch a few jordan peterson highlight reels

The Sassanids had a powerful privy council made up of representatives from the estates of the realm and the empire was very stable until Heraclius and Islam wrecked it. In fact, the Rashidun praised the Sassanids for always listening to their advisers before making a decision, and came to rely on the Persian bureaucracy so heavily they admitted they were incapable of running an empire.

Go way kim

That's because monarchs wouldn't consider the prospect of anyone ruling but their own children. Marcus Aurelius, for example, should have disowned Commodus. The state should always pass to the most skilled candidate.

Why be nihilistic rather than looking for positive meaning? It's just your personal emotions guiding you

The monarchs were not sages ala plato's republic, the the state is not and was certainly not synonymous with "what is good for all the people"

Most often the concern of monarchs and they're ministers was "how much can we tax peasants and cities before they start revolting?"

No one, unless he had connections to the nobility would wish to live under that form of government

>study history
>realize humans are the source of evil
>become transhumanist

>study history
>become a moderate/conservative who just want stable governance

Constitutional monarchies that allow emergency powers are the best government.

Why is that preferable to republic with emergency powers?

Anarcho-Monarchism seems contradictory
One leads to despotism and the other, well, anarchy

Tradition.

Tradition of what? A bastard ruling your country?

Pros:
Leaders groomed from birth
Expediency
Average shitizens not involved in the political process
Cons:
Leaders starting too young
Groomed leaders dieing forcing the untrained next in line to lead
One bad egg spoils everything
Transition of power is one big drama fest.

>Not being a thoecratic sun worshiper

>become anarcho-monarchist
>anarcho
Sudoku

>study history
>become historian

>Leaders starting too young
Not that common. If anything they'd be starting too old now, since we're not in the middle ages where they'll be riding into the fore of battle and die from a grazing blow.

>Leaders groomed from birth
Surely you're not implying this doesn't happen in democracies?

>study history
>become a supporter of classical liberalism

eh, could've been worse

>it's bad because it's old

heh

Monarchy is preferable to democracy, and anarchism doesn't work.

>hurf durf if you aren't monarchy you are democracy is the best xaxa fool

>study history
>become catholic monarchist

>Study history
>Realize men are too flawed for any political position to actually work and beecome a cynic
>Sleep outside in barrel, shit in theaters and masturbate in public

What is up with all the monarchists?
Anyway, if we were gonna reinstate this who would be the new royal line?

What if I want to be an Anarcho-Monarquist??

Where did I even mention democracies. Naggas Trina start shit ,daym

me

no. me.

It's literally kids who think that having less freedom would make anime real

Enlightened Despot master race.

you fucking nigger, this means war

>Study history
>becomes Hobbesian hierarchal capitalist republican

>Study History
>Become a Nihilistic AnCap/AnPrim/Minarchist