Why people suddenly decided that monarchy is no way to rule over a country when it worked for thousands years and more

Protip - the idea of a republic is over 2000 years old

Today, 30/4, is the birthday of the current Swedish monarch Carl XVI Gustaf. The Swedish research company SIFO made an investigation on how many swedes wanted to keep Sweden a monarchy. 1 out of 4 people wanted to make Sweden a republic, a number that has drastically increased since 1995.

Source: Swedish newspaper 'Dagens Nyheter'

If it didn't work, it wouldn't exist

Bullshit. Democracy limits freedom more than most monarchies.
Just take a tour through the middle east and north america and see which countries fit the western values better,muslim democracies and """freedom""" fighters,with monarchies like Morrocco or Qatar.

Because going backwards is something that happens. Democracy is an illness that will probably end in this century.

Widespread democracy and the current idea of nation states haven't existed for very long.

We could easily revert to a monarchy.

Explain niggers.

Gypsies. Gypsies exist.

Explain slave plantations

Gypsies do function though, even if they mainly do it in their own retarded little ways.

slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/

sort of difficult to establish monarchies

you sort of need perpetual war and instability

When conditions got shitty for them and the middle class realised they could rule by themselves without having to bow to some dude with a crown.

The sudden abandonment of kingdom existed therefore it worked

monarchies never "worked" the way you think, there was constant class war against the bourgeoisie, as well as conflict with other nobles and the clergy/merchant clases.

Divine rule is no longer accepted since religion is separated from state.

And elected monarchs are no different to democracies.

Most European countries did not depose of their monarchies. They either kept them and instituted democratic reforms, or they were occupied and the head of state had to abdicate. France and Russia are largely the exception.

Those aren't true democracies. Real democracy hasn't been tried yet.

Real democracy if you mean direct democracy is the most retarded thing there is.

>look at the cool Nation-State structure our king used to curtail the pesky nobility, maybe we can run it ourself

Augustus!

10/10 jej'd hard, nice meme.

>implying people have any real say in democracy and that elected leaders are anything more than figureheads--which monarchs also often are
muh finance capitalism
firms = the real actors, senpai. governments, academics, etc. are all cucked

Because the countries that went the root of democracy outperformed the rest until it became the adopted standard.

How many of you fuckers have read Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan? If you haven't read that book don't comment.

That is some major bullahit

>Democracy limits freedom more than most monarchies.
Most """""""""""""""""""Monarchies"""""""""""""""""""""""nowadays are cucked dynasties under the thumb of constitutions and parliaments.

You want real Monarchies? Saudi Arabia. Oh joy, going to jail for criticizing either the King or the Clerical Power base of the dynasty.

If we were still under a monarchy we wouldn't have progressed any further.

I have. What's your point?

It's hard to theoretically justify that a hereditary family should rule a country as they see fit. While a government responsible to the people and elected by them is alot easier.

This is retarded. You have swallowed the "democracy brings progress :DDDDD" meme. Is so stupid that someone can believe that is not even funny.

Monarchies had to follow law,Democracies just ignore it,that is a good justification to me. Any political system can just be justified just by tradition alone btw.

>Monarchies had to follow law
because of democratic reforms and the growing power of parliament?

Well played

I didn't say anything about democracy, just that there's a reason why we eventually moved away from monarchies: because it was no longer useful to us. Useless things slow down progress.

Why people suddenly decided hunting and gathering is no way to feed a tribe when it worked for millions of years and more?

Nope. The respected law way before that. Kings had to follow the law and make ,not the other way around. Even before parlamentarism. And there is nothing wrong about a strong aristocracy that opposes the monarch

That is stupid. How did monarchies slow down progress? This stupid really. Monarchy was abolished for multiple reasons,but progress had nothing to do with it.

>How did monarchies slow down progress?
Same way Christianity did, by placing value in the "one ruler," as if any one human or family of humans that are found through politics ought to rule. If we didn't eventually grow past that and into the scientific age of poly-pantheistic libertarianism we wouldn't have scientifically progressed as quickly as we did, because it infected people's morale.

>monarchies slow progress
major sgt. bullshit

But having no power corrupts even more absolutely

>muslim democracies and """freedom""" fighters, with monarchies like Morrocco, Qatar
Well the Arab monarchies and theocracies are pretty backward and anti-Western, while democracies and "soft" dictatorships like Turkey, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria etc seem fairly western for all their posturing. They aren't much more conservative and traditional than the average Eastern European country at least.
The most backward countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Islamic State/Caliphate) are extreme forms of monarchy (Iran is more of a theocracy by definition, but the head cleric's powers are closer to a German-style constitutional monarch.)

That is as dumb as it gets. Garbage logic really. The industrial revolution and age of exploration started under monarchies.

>Turkey
You can get jailed if you call Erdogan golum
>The others
Absolute shitholes,with multiple conflicts and inestability.

Arab monarchies in the other hand are stable,and more prosperous.

>Arab monarchies in the other hand are stable,and more prosperous.
>Saudi Arabia is a fount of press freedoms and religious tolerance
Try saying that without laughing.

Oh and btw that grand monarchy is the last state on earth to outlaw Slavery. 19fucking60's

Thats ok, but they were also legislators, so it's kind of pointless, you set the law as you see fit, and rule with it. In democracy you elect legislators.

Personally, I find it bizarre, that you still have unelected hereditary monarchies in europe, that still have support from the people.The idea that you are taxed so that a royal family lives in leisure is hard to justify

>You can get jailed if you call Erdogan golum
Besides the fact that Erdogan set Turkey back a few decades, what do you think the penalties for insulting a monarch is?

>Absolute shitholes,with multiple conflicts and inestability.
The goalpost was:
>see which countries fit the western values better
not
>which countries can bribe their populations with oil money better

The laws were older than the monarchies some times. When the king tried to break those laws there were huge revolts.

>Monarchies had to follow law, Democracies just ignore it
What on earth are you rambling about?

Saudi Arabia has lots of censorship. So does Russia for example. Western culture is not just limited to classic liberalism

Just shitting on your opinion that Arab Monarchies are more transparent than republics.

>And there is nothing wrong about a strong aristocracy that opposes the monarch
There is though if you wanted a centralized modern nation state.

Do you know what the basis of monarchy are? Monarchy was a pact between a region and a king,and the king had to swear to obey the lands and priviledges of its land.
For example Frederick the II tried to tale the lands of a farmer by force,but the Prussian judges didnt allow him to as he was breaking the law. A democracy would just expropiate the land or create and express law to fuck the farmer

But did it continue under monarchies?

The fact that the US has been THE cultural, military, scientific, and economic giant of the world for the past 100+ years, and not under a monarchy, is practically evidence of the connection I'm making.

Centralization is bad. It is not even arguable. The HRE and renaissance Italy flourished in every way under a decentralized society

What do you think my point is? The Leviathan argues for an absolute monarchy/autocracy. If you haven't read the book then you're likely unfamiliar with the main argument behind why monarchies could be favorable.

No its not. The US had lots of free space,and Europe was overpopulated. If you connect the dots you can see that there is a clear answer of why the US is superior. A huge population boom,which made the economy flourish

Of course there's multiple factors. Not being under monarchical rule is one of them though, and the fact that the US didn't choose to re-establish monarchical rule.

No it has nothing to do with that. Lots of space+ no inmigration limits=profit.
Is that simple. The rest of America failed at this,except Brazil and Argentina,and Brazil was a monarchy at first

Efficient institutions perspective. Same reason pirates were democracies.Modern weaponry and a society needed to produce it strongly favour democracies.

This is the easiest explanation I know of:

ianwelsh.net/the-technology-of-violence-and-its-effect-on-prosperity-and-freedom/

We do have dictatorships, but they are relatively weak and tend to exist because democracies prefer to extract resources from them, and thus support the tyrants.

>US at the forefront of tech and culture in the 20th and 21st centuries
>isn't under monarchical rule, country collectively chose not to be before it grew to the power it became (because it was against its vision for the future)
>GUYS THERE IS NO CONNECTION AT ALL NO POINT IN EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING THIS

Suit yourself.

>US
>People dont speak Swahili when it grew to power,and has never being spoken in the US
>GUYS THERE IS NO CONECTION AT ALLL NO POINT IN EVEN ACKNOWKEDGING THIS
Suit yourself. Your argument is dumb. I brought you evidence and you just ignored it. Keep living in your buble m8

>People dont speak Swahili when it grew to power,and has never being spoken in the US

There's a connection with that too — the US wouldn't have even formed if a bunch of dumb Africans speaking Swahili showed up (which they wouldn't have, as history shows us they never did, because they're dumb Africans still stuck in Africa). It had to be ex-Europeans speaking European languages (mostly English) for it to work (as history shows us).

I mean, are you retarded or something? How do you not see how all the preconditions are causally tied with the events that happen?

You are a retard. Whites can speak Swahili too. A language has nothing to do with race. Nor does democracy with success,as it can be seen in Southern Europe.

>Arab monarchies in the other hand are stable,and more prosperous.
Yeah, oil don't have anything to do with that.

Iran is doing wonders with oil...

Yeah, and Iran is or at least was one of those absolute Monarchic like states ((theocracy))
Also, that Embargo they got is fucking a lot of shit up for them.

And when they were a monarchy they were doing better ;)

Pretty natural if we consider they were still running on the secularism from the more democratic period.
Then the Monarch made sure the only strong opposition was found among the mullas.

>If it didn't work, it wouldn't exist
It worked only for the Kings and the army that he commanded. They had complete control of most of the population, who's benefit wasn't considered.

>there are actually people in this thread that haven't read Moldbug

>Preconditions of an event have nothing to do with the event.
Fuck off, mongoloid.

Is monarchy the ideal form of governance
>heir is raised from birth by a king to be the best possible leader
>there whole life is dedicated to their kingdom

Yes, anyone with a brain knows monarchy is the best form of government. Are you just now figuring this out?

>there whole life is dedicated to their kingdom
Most Kings I have read about seem to have cared more about their own personal glory or their own dynasty than their kingdom.

It's the ideal form of nihilism. Polytheism > Monotheism

The best firm of government is an elected monarch in a constitutional monarchy like Malaysia. All the benefits of centralization, legitimacy, executive strength, just the right amount of choice and good food.

>own personal glory or their own dynasty than their kingdom.
That's the point, dingus. You can't have either of those without being a good ruler. It motivates you

But the point was that Monarchs spent their entire lives caring about their own Kingdom.
That point flies out through the window if said Monarchs are ready to start costly wars because they want to give their brother a throne in some irrelevant part of the world.

You have no clue have you? The kings had to swear the law. Some people like Frederik the II werent able to expropiate because it was iligal. Democracies can just change the law as they wish

If only woman taller than 5'1 could emigrate to America the results could have been the same. The success of America was despite being a democracy. At first only landowners could vote so it was basically an aristocracy.

Ever heard what a constitution is?

Are you from a first world country? Yes?

Congrats. Youre living in a centralized country.

No but ive thought about this on and off
Yeah this is probably the biggest problem but it honestly makes more sense than electing to complete stranger with possibly no experience

>than electing to complete stranger with possibly no experience
but that doesn't usually happen either if you're referring to democracy

Don't those in most countries mainly elect people who have been working as ministers in other parts of the government or that worked as Generals before the election?

>Centralization is bad
>Here, let me give you the warring cockpits of Europe as an example why centralization is bad.

The most developed states in Europe are decentralized micro states like Lichestein.
Switzerland is also very wealthy and is very decentralized

Read moldbug

Actually, the most centralized countries are third world shitholes like India, China and most Latin American countries, because they inherited Western radical ideas with no traditional basis to counterbalance.

For example, we think of France as the quintessential centralized country, but actually France has a long tradition of intermediary corps resisting centralization, most of all the Church. Meanwhile in countries like Brazil centralization was achieved in the early XIXth with no resistance, and ever since the country has always been governed by the most trendy shit that comes from Europe, such as radicalism, positivism, dirigisme etc.

The fact that it keeps not working doesn't stop Brazilian elites from always trying new trends, so now we are socialist and guess what? It's sucking again.