Are there any decent books that argue for monarchy that won't make me cringe? Apart from Leviathan?

Why? Democracy promotes plenty of bad eggs.

They're clearly teenagers

That you can vote out after 4 years. And that don't kill you for calling them faggots

Yeah, but they have to get shit past all the other scheming, backstabbing little bastards.

>That you can vote out after 4 years
Doesn't mean the change is going to be any less of a bad egg, and this also means term limits on the good eggs.

>And that don't kill you for calling them faggots
How much is the freedom to call them faggots worth, relative to other things? If anything, our habit of calling them faggots profusely before they're even elected detracts considerably from the dignity of the office and the pride people take in their leaders. It turns leadership into something divisive instead of unitary.

OK, go suck on Mswati's cock and leave us non-monarchic plebs be you fucking queer

Leviathan was pretty cringe at times

You're the one who came into my thread, I didn't come into yours

No kidding, it's fedoratastic. But in the opposite way monarchism is usually thought of

honestly the best arguments for monarchy that I've seen come from Hans Hermann Hoppe and the Anarcho-capitalists.

Of course they predict that under a fully privatized government/economy we would all magically self-arrange into utopian societies by the power of the invisible hand, which was basically the same prediction that Communists had about a fully nationalized government/economy. But in practice they would be removing every barrier stopping the coagulation of wealth into few and fewer hands until eventually all of the capital in a country became the private property of a single individual, exactly mirroring what happened in purely nationalized places like North Korea. In both cases they're societies that have allowed ideology to blind them to authoritarianism.

Of course they wouldn't call him a "king", they'd probably use some futuristic variation of chief executive officer. And they wouldn't call them "aristocrats" they'd call them shareholders, because all of the power and access to capital in this society would flow from having the Chief Executive's favor, and that means being one of his early investors in his ruthless bid for power as he climbed the ranks because that's what having a fully privatized system means: instead of electing rulers, succession is chosen by the current reigning executives just like it is in a private corporation.

This is some real marx-tier shit applied to monarchist.

It's Hans Hermann Hoppe's own words
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed

Is there really any other academic arguing for a return to monarchy with a straight face?

I can't think so. And though I disagree with his assertion that returning to monarchy would be a good thing, he does make a compelling point about monarchy = fully privatized government.

>If anything, our habit of calling them faggots profusely before they're even elected detracts considerably from the dignity of the office and the pride people take in their leaders.
All good things. Reminds them they are elected to serve not to be served.

They're elected to serve as fathers

Should just be high clerks. With contracts spanning few years.

>Monsur Ali
How Can Mayors Be Real If Our Elections Aren't Real