Democracy vs Monarchy

>A system of government in which all adults have a vote in electing representatives. This means that people's interests are represented, stands as a safeguard, bad leaders can be easily replaced and mandates that any leader must prove his/her ability at administration, ability to make connections and deal making before achieving power
>Authority is in the hands of a guy who got the position by being a member of an inbred family in accordance to arbitrary rules regardless of competence or virtue because one of his remote ancestor was an iron age warlord able to impose some brutal modicum of order over squabbling clans which sufficed until something better could be built upon it.
Why do we still have people who think the latter is any good?

Other urls found in this thread:

madmonarchist.blogspot.com/p/myths.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_five_regimes
marxists.org/subject/left-wing/gik/1930/
sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/liqe/liqemcicee.html
napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/articles/napoleon-hitler-the-improbable-comparison/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>Why do we still have people who think the latter is any good?
Because it was rule by ministers,that usually thought on a mid to long term basis. Democracies just think in the short term,leading to major fuck ups, just to win elections.

Democracy is a myth

Because the former makes the party more important than the leader. People are not loyal to the state, only to their chosen ideology.

If the former is as good as you say nobody would think the latter is worth anything.

madmonarchist.blogspot.com/p/myths.html

Warning: You will be BTFO

The majority of people represents more the "iron age brute" than a noble who is not only genetically prepared to rule, but also spends his life in preparation.

The majority has no more legitimacy than any minority, that is your mistake. Legitimacy comes from moral values and intelligence. A car is not driven by the majority, yet you think a nation can be ruled by it.

There are mathematical models to prove you that democracy doesn't work in it is pure form, but that the elections must be guided by some kind of elite in order for it to be more stable. In America, for example, you are in fact accepting to choose from a very small pool of candidates, and more interesting, from only 2 parties(yet somehow 1 party would be a ebul nightmare in Americans' mind).

The majority has no interest in Physics, nor Decision Theory, nor basic Math, yet wants to drive a nation into doom because, basically, they feel like it.

>madmonarchist.blogspot.com/p/myths.html
lol

>Not true. Actually, most monarchies in the world today are more democratic than most republics in the world.

Because those monarchies are effectively republics with a fancy figurehead.

Anyway, all of these arguments are only against liberal democracy in the model of the United States, not democracy as a concept.

And what kind of faggot quotes himself?

this

It is good and right for a country to be ruled by a King of a Royal family, and a council of appointed ministers who are selected for expertise in the chosen field and loyalty to king and country, not popularity and loyalty to the party-leader-of-the-month.

Monarchy = Stability, Tradition, Patriotism
Democracy = Anarchy, Progressivism, Egotism

nirvana fallacy

I'd rather have a good king than a mediocre democracy(or republic in the case of the Western World) but I'd also rather have a mediocre democracy than a mediocre king.

>Stability
You mean successional wars, fraticide, assassinations and similar
>Tradition
Doing things a certain way out of cultural inertia regardless if they are still valid.
> and a council of appointed ministers who are selected for expertise in the chosen field and loyalty to king and country,
You mean toadies appointed by the whims of one person to serve HIS needs, not the need of the state or the people.

it's not about muh system vs muh system

it's about leadership and aristocrats of the spirit

>a noble who is not only genetically prepared to rule, but also spends his life in preparation.
You mean "horribly inbred"
>A car is not driven by the majority, yet you think a nation can be ruled by it.
Because cars are not nations.

>You mean successional wars, fraticide, assassinations and similar
yeah, I'm so glad that Europe stopped doing that and wars stopped happening, oh wait it didn't, it lead to a century of genocides and dictators and the most destructive war the planet has ever seen.
>Doing things a certain way out of cultural inertia regardless if they are still valid.
Systems of government do not depreciate in value because of the year it is. You're lucky to even get real responses when you use such fallacious non-argument garbage to try and get the frothy diarrhea turd that is your point out of your asshole.

>it's not about muh system vs muh system

That's exactly what it's about.

>it's about leadership and aristocrats of the spirit
>muh metaphysics and spirits

not him but it really isn't. The two systems intermingle and to sometimes huge degrees depending on the case being discussed. This false dichotomy between "monarchy" and "democracy" is the same stupid shit as fedoras and Christians arguing over what belief system better facilitates "science". Getting kind of irritated and fed up with it, actually.

Inbreeding is very easy to avoid, mate. You can't be seriously saying this.
>Because cars are not nations.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT, REALLY? CARS ARE NOT NATIONS? I DIDN'T KNOW THIS

oh, and that is unless this thread is specifically about absolute monarchy, in which I case I would say that it never existed to any significant degree for a significant period of time anyway almost anywhere, nobody believes in it, and that this thread is just a whole bunch of retarded strawmanning horseshit.

>yeah, I'm so glad that Europe stopped doing that and wars stopped happening, oh wait it didn't, it lead to a century of genocides and dictators and the most destructive war the planet has ever seen.
Modern Dictators had the aid of machine guns, gas, artillery and similar and larger populations. Even so the medieval
>Systems of government do not depreciate in value because of the year it is.
It's 1800, to send a message a thousand kilometers ASAP means writing it down and giving it to one of a series of horseback riders which at best move at 20km/h on average.
It's 1850, to send a message a thousand kilometers ASAP means giving it to the guy at the telegraph station who sends it across that distance at C.
Systems of government arise because of what works best with the technology and infrastructure at hand. When technology changes older systems built around the supremacy of the Knight on the battlefield, 2% of the population being literate or long communications loops

>Systems of government arise because of what works best with the technology and infrastructure at hand. When technology changes older systems built around the supremacy of the Knight on the battlefield, 2% of the population being literate or long communications loops
Jesus fuck, you do realize democracy predates feudal monarchy in Europe, right?

What does this have to do with telegrams? What does this have to do with literacy?
What are you even trying to argue?

Read here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_five_regimes

It is amazing how Plato was able to tell exactly what happened, 2000 years ago.

But how would you choose a good Aristocratic system?
How can you be certain that you are getting a Socrates, a Marcus Aurelius, an Epictetus instead of a Seneca?

He actually provides a guide of how to create a good ruler in his book The Repúblic. He specifies that he must follow only the truth and the well being of the state

>Democracy = Anarchy

Easier said than done.

>not wanting Plato at the Head of your country

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development annually puts out a list of the best countries to live in based on a variety of factors and monarchies invariably outrank republics by far. Last year, 2012, is a typical case with 8 out of the top 10 best countries to live in being monarchies; the only republics to make the top 10 were the United States and Switzerland. If republics are so great, shouldn’t their people be living better lives than those in monarchies?

A constitutional monarchy is about 63x better than a republic.

forgot the link
>http://
>madmonarchist.blogspot.
>co.uk/p/myths.html

>The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
You should stop reading complete shit and start reading this
>Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution
marxists.org/subject/left-wing/gik/1930/

A democracy is too unstable in the sense that a government doesn't have time to do anything but pander to the voters which are at most half the country most of the time.
A monarchy with solid rules on sucession would have more or less the same governmen for a long time and they could actually change things.
Only big plus a democracy has is that its easier to safeguard our rights but if there would be a monatchy who did the same I would be up for it.

By "monarchies", you mean figurehead monarchies that are de facto just as democratic as the United States.

>democracy
i cannot stress this text enough in my lifetime.
sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/liqe/liqemcicee.html

>Why do we still have people who think the latter is any good?
Democracy is a luxury that only very recently arose. After the collapse of the Roman Empire, feudalism was the best way to run Europe without bandits and the like overruning everything and destroying civilization to such an extent that even basic agriculture would be impossible. The great revolutions arose from dissatisfaction with the Feudal system after it became outdated due to power being concentrated with the monarch, away from the nobility, and the introduction of standing armies that replaced feudal levies and vassals.

The thing is, philosophically speaking, that almost everyone who argued for a form of democracy argued that either the people were virtuous, or should be made virtuous. This is why the terror of Robespierre, ironically enough criticized most harshly by people who believe in democracy, was so important. He needed to enforce virtue for a republic to remain functional. This is also why the West is causing its own suicide: we're not only no longer virtuous, we've denied the very existence of the concept of virtue. Robespierre believed that, with the right guidance, man could be made virtuous.

On the other hand, you have both enlightenment thinkers (Voltaire) and counterrevolutionary thinkers (de Maistre) arguing in favor of a monarchy. That is because both, regardless of their ideas, agree with the democrats that a democracy only works if the people are virtuous. However, they disagree that people either are or can be made virtuous. Voltaire heavily distrusted the masses, and inspired Napoleon to become Consul for Life and later Emperor instead of preserving the Republic.

In other words, democracy works if you believe in the virtue of the masses, monarchy works if you do not. The problem is how you maintain a line of virtuous rulers. Securing one virtuous ruler is easy enough, but what about his sons? And their sons? And their sons?

Though of course I'm being a little dishonest here: most republics are not full democracies and for good reason. Even though Robespierre implemented universal suffrage, there was nothing in Rousseau's texts implying that he was in favor of it. America's founding fathers wrote entire pieces in the Federalist Papers explaining why and how democracy needs to be limited. President Andrews was among those who wanted to move power away from the American people at large and concentrate it in established elites, while still maintaining a republic.

Democracy is a system of petty factions controlled by merchants and bankers. It's terrible for the same reason the shareholder system of ownership is often counterintuitive.

Monarchy has its drawbacks, but is a much better system and reinforces identification with family rather than individual. Anti-monarchists will often try say things like North Korea is a monarchy, but while monarchies are authoritarian, they are almost never totalitarian, in fact almost no pre-modernist society was save for arguably Sparta or other weird examples. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, very commonly is what takes the place of monarchy (China, Russia, Germany, post-Revolutionary France, England under Cromwell, to name some examples).

>post-Revolutionary France
>totalitarian
U fookin wot m8?
napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/articles/napoleon-hitler-the-improbable-comparison/
The closest valid accusation to Napoleon being totalitarian is seen in the book "How Napoleon's empire self-destructed" and that accusation relies mostly on... wartime propaganda. Or rather the censoring of newspapers.... during war.... which also happened in both the Coalition countries and the Entente during WW1.

>Cromwell
>Totalitarian
U double fookin wot m8? He only barely abandoned the monarchial system. Do you know what title he gave himself? "Lord Protector". Do you know what that title means? It means the man who rules in the absence of a king. He was pretty much the same as the Stadhouder in the Netherlands: Republican, but neither revolutionary nor totalitarian.

China, Russia and Germany make sense but that's more due to the nature of communism and fascism than to everything that's not monarchy being totalitarian.

>emphasis on wage-labor and commodity-production triggers me so I'll worship something just as retarded like the family or heraldry that would make larpers blush

>very commonly takes the place of monarchy
Not really. How many democracies are there in the world today? How many dictatorships?

Anyway, whining about the entire population having the right to vote is moot because, to my knowledge, just about every nation in the world has some sort of judicial oversight of legislation, and generally has an appointed but not elected group that have the power of veto over legislation. The public is just one of the powers that be in a democracy, as it should be.

>He only barely abandoned the monarchial system.
Yeah, he rather went for a lot more control. He micromanaged clerics and purged those who didn't pass ideological muster, and cracked down hard to "improve public morality" (plays were completely banned under his administration).

>He micromanaged clerics and purged those who didn't pass ideological muster, and cracked down hard to "improve public morality"
Doesn't sound too much out of line with what other state churches imposed around Europe.

Define "democracy". Because you'll find that very many definitions don't apply to all countries we commonly refer to as democracies. For example, if we refer to them as countries based on popular sovereignity, England isn't a democracy (it has parliamentary sovereignity).

>family is retarded
Damn modernists

Yeah, Europe is mostly democracy now, but they had to endure the unimaginable hell from all the totalitarianism and bloodshed that bridged the transition from monarchy to democracy.

> every nation in the world has some sort of judicial oversight of legislation, and generally has an appointed but not elected group that have the power of veto over legislation.
Yeah, and that isn't helpful either.

>Doesn't sound too much out of line with what other state churches imposed around Europe.
It sure was way, way, way more controlling than the CoE was under the King. Under the King, you just had to swear an oath of fealty to the monarch. Under Cromwell, you had to go through a whole background check, as well as an oversight committee to routinely monitor sermons and report preachers who were not pushing Cromwell's ideology. There was nothing like that under the monarchy.

Democracy these days is a byword for a republican democracy, the two main schools of thought being the American presidential system and the British parliamentary system.

At their base, both of these systems base their legitimacy upon popular sovereignty and the rule of law. For the purposes of this conversation, they are democracies; there isn't a large country in this world that has an absolute democracy.
I'm not sure what relevance the fact that the transition between democracy and monarchy was usually violent has in this conversation.

>that isn't helpful either
So your hypothetical monarchy has absolute power, with no checks or limits?

Semi-related

United States is not a democracy. I don't know why so many people call the US a democracy.

>I'm not sure what relevance the fact that the transition between democracy and monarchy was usually violent has in this conversation.
In virtually every case in Europe, democracy did not take the place of monarchy, totalitarianism did. Democracy might have come later, but to equate monarchism with totalitarian governments is extremely dishonest, because totalitarian governments in the West came about through *ending* monarchy. To equate the product of the abolition of monarchy, with monarchy, is ridiculous. They very distinct.

>So your hypothetical monarchy has absolute power, with no checks or limits?
Yes, except in regard to the Church, which the monarch should have no dogmatic authority over.

>if it's not direct democracy, it's not democracy

>Yes, except in regard to the Church, which the monarch should have no dogmatic authority over.
Even though the Church of England, Church of Sweden and quite a few other Protestant state churches literally designate the monarch as the head of the church?

Which is wrong, but it was an inevitable response to the RCC pushing the Donation of Constantine's message long after the actual work was shown to be false.

My position is that of Dante's De Monarchia.

I never equated the two of those, though. Nice straw man. They're similar in the only way that they're both undesirable forms of government.

I never said you did. I've debated people here before though who try to equate monarchism with North Korea, see my first post
>Anti-monarchists will often
I wasn't even addressing you

...

Whoever said that was an idiot.

Now, on the subject of absolute authority, you are assuming that the king or whatever you want to call him is a perfect ruler, who knows the best in everything and will not make mistakes. Do you not see how that lends to abuse?

it's a republic not a democracy

Not mutually exclusive terms. Republic simply means "a government which is not a monarchy or theocracy".

True, but if you look at the etymology of the term (Res Publica) it also seems to have an underlying element of the government existing for the benefit of all. It's a public matter, not the matter of kings or priests or nobles.

>Republics aren't democracies meme.
The only people who say this kind of stuff are 16-24 year olds who think it makes them sound smart to use a ridiculously specific definition of democracy.

>What does this have to do with telegrams? What does this have to do with literacy?
Total fucking idiot.

EVERYTHING.

Communications tech and infrastructure dictates how fast a governing metropole can send orders, policies, and dictates and in return how fast a fucking government can demand results from governed peripheries.

This is why shitty premodern states with shitty infrastructure can't into centralized government and must rely more on feudal arrangements or some measure of autonomy of local rulers. While those that have systems better than a fucking cunt on a horse like Rome and China can afford centralization. Except these too rely on some form of local autonomy in the peripheries because you can only do so little with premodern tech.

Anyway, modern communications infrastructure had an effect in the change of system of governance. Take fucking democracy. Sure its old, but its also small fucking scale. You can only govern meme city states and tribes with some form of democracy. But improved technology literally enabled it to be fucking possible as it shrunk the public sphere and enabled more cunts to participate in the damned process. Thus what used to be a small system of government is now possible in something the size of what used to be empires. Votes can be processed faster, policies could be communicated nigh instantaneously, and opinions on the ground reach the state faster.

You know what also rose up because of improved comms? Dictatorships and Absolute Monarchies. In reverse, a central authority can make its will far more manifest than in ages where there are meme feudal nobles and local powerbrokers. Because the existence of such infrastructure literally makes Duke X of Y's semi-autonomy useless, and you can just replace him with his cheaper substitute: an appointed governor who answers directly to you.