Monarchism

>unrational

just your average monarchist everyone

thanks for the useless wall of text you dumb piece of shit. what a giant waste of time.

I know for some reason you think it to be true, but the whole world does not revolve around Brazil.

Democracy is a big fucking joke. Sure it works when the governing bodies are city states with a few thousand people in said city states, expand the populations massively and there are almost an equal amount of people put out as there are people who aren't.

It just makes it easier for the people with all the money to corrupt and get more money, you cannot corrupt someone with absolute power, all you can do is hope he does the 'right' thing.

>beauty, tradition and art
That's pretty spooky

Every political system looks good on paper and is shit in real life. You are never going to be happy with your country's current political system.

Calm down lad. I'm just saying that we did have a choice here in Brazil
But I'm afraid of how much I agree with you

we need a king desu

See the idea of deliberative democracy, the ideal speech situation, and public sphere. Habermas offers a way for democracies not to be ruled by idiocy.

>implying Charles Martel did anything to protect France from the muslims
>implying he didn't purposely allowed them to invade to fuck with the duke of Aquitaine

So like the Sejm? It went down in history as synonym to clusterfuck

I never agreed to my country being democratic. Fucking oppressors.

>Aqua-tan
>aqua
>tan

Based Ben "Shove the Jacobin on the trash bin" Garrison

>People implying Monarchs aren't easy to manipulate
Are you for real?

The Sejm was a clusterfuck because of how many people were part of it. 1/3 of the population of the Commonwealth were part of it, and each had their own petty dynastical ambition in place of the desire to improve the country.
I'm thinking more in the line of the College of Cardinals, but with "nobles" raised and educated to put the benefit of the people in favor of their own

To be fair, Nicky was a notorious spineless cucklet

Won't the idea of any traditional aristocracy sort of disappear if you give them work depending on the merits of their actions rather than their blood?

I hate democracy too, but come on, we've done better with it than we have with monarchs. You can't really make much of an empirical case for the merits of monarchy.

I love these memes

Democracy only works for well-educated populations, who are capable of critical thought. The system we live in systematically promotes exactly the opposite traits, because a bunch of the proverbial "sheeple" are easier to manipulate than people who think for themselves.

>Industrial Revolution happens as Monarchy's are on the decline and liberal ideas are in full swing
>We are so much better now without Monarchies!

I'm using the monarchical terms because they sound nicer tbf

Differently from American Democrats, I don't believe that power should come from a vagina

Nope. Democracy doesn't work because the amount of people involved makes any individuals choice meaningless.

I honestly can't tell what you're trying to say. That the industrial revolution is bad...?

>Differently from American Democrats, I don't believe that power should come from a vagina

literally what

>Implying Liberalism didn't win because of Industrialization and changing material standards

>First female president!

I'm saying that people give too much credit to Democracies when they only look so good because they came about at the same time as the Industrial Revolution.

...

You don't think its a great milestone that we are about to get the first female president this election?

Just saying that electing someone because he is the first female president isn't such a good way of picking a good nomine.

>all these people spouting the "muh stupid masses" meme as if they're not part of it

The point of Democracy isn't that it's the best, but that it's the least shitty option out there. There's no objectively right way for a government to run, and government relies on making policies that strike an acceptable balance between pragmatism and preserving the rights of the people. Because that balance is so subjective, the only way to ensure that you're governing "right" is by consulting the masses and letting them choose who gets to lead.

Any non-elected form of government detaches the policy makers from the people it affects. Sure, you may have a benevolent monarch, but in general a monarchy provides little incentive to provide for anyone but the privileged governing class while detaching the leadership from any consequences of their actions because lolhereditary rule.

>detaching the leadership from any consequences of their actions because lolhereditary rule.

The great thing about a Monarchy is it is very easy to blame the Monarch and kill his ass when things go wrong. The French showed that very well.

>the French Revolution
>easy
You realize that was followed by two and a half decades of war and millions dead, right?

The point of Democracy is that you have a built-in process for holding the government responsible. Sure, revolution is always an option, but violent resistance against the government is incredibly difficult, because you're going up against a party that has the monopoly on force in the nation. For a revolution to succeed, you'd need things to be so thoroughly fucked that not even the disproportionately powerful government can stop a popular uprising. There is no built-in means for holding any officials accountable, whereas Democracies have regular elections where that is done.

You don't think it's a good that our leaders come from diverse backgrounds. I mean, Clinton has faced unimaginable sexism all thoughout here career. Even today, people are still using the old sexist witch hunt from the 90's to define her as 'untrustworthy' when she is anything but.

Diversity should have no impact whatsoever. Wasnt it MLK that said a person should be judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character? The same applies sexes. Whether her election would be a milestone or not does not matter, because I would sooner have a milestone president ten years from now than a poor president today.

I mean, she's definitely untrustworthy. Her lies are well documented and legion. Whether or not she's the best candidate is another matter entirely.

I don't really see why diversity should be the sole or most important reason to pick someone rather than merit.
And not sure if she really is treated like that just because she is a woman, we got some similar cases in my country where people cry women only get a certain treatment because of their sex despite men often getting treated even worse with even more shady reasons for the treatment.
And she is quite a notorious coat turner, if that means anything.

>Clinton
>not untrustworthy
Seriously, with all the scandals that have followed the Clintons through their careers, the *best* possible case is that they're just criminally incompetent and coincidentally happen to surround themselves with tremendously unethical people.

And diversity for diversity's sake is never a good idea. Giving someone an important position purely to fill out some arbitrary diversity requirements is just as bad as blatantly denying them the position for their background. It means that you think so little of whatever demographic group they belong to that we "owe" it to them to give them the position.

Sure, it would be great to have a woman president, but only if she was better than the other candidates and not practically the antichrist like Clinton is.

>I don't really see why diversity should be the sole or most important reason to pick someone rather than merit.
Because it's the CURRENT YEAR

Name them, you will find that they are all lies created by the masculine media to discredit a strong woman. And please, don't bring up the e-mails. Everyone knows that's just a beat up.

>Hillary attempts to remove Billy Dale from the White House travel office where he worked for 32 years by accusing him of a federal crime
>New administrations are allowed to fire and replace travel office staff but haven't for over 3 decades
>instead, Billy Dale who served 7 presidents even voting for Clinton, is fired (with 6 other staffers), locked out of his office and setup to be crimnally implicated
>on inauguration day, clinton's third cousin Cahtherine Cornelius calls to inform she will be working in the office: never ceases to demand control thereafter
>later Dale is called by a man, Darnell Martins later identified by feds, to make arrangements to embezzle money from White House charters
>Martens is partners with the Bloodworth-Thomasons, Hollywood producers and friends of the Clintons, in travel agency TRM
>investigation later reveals Harry Thomason was in talks with Hillary to take over White House charter business
>Dale was accused of embezzling $14k that couldn't be accounted for due to missing logs
>Meyers immediately informs the press core Dale and company were being fired for criminal misconduct
>Dale's legal bills estimated at $750K, plea bargain of $69k fine + jail sentence and CANNOT declare innocence
>meanwhile the IRS begins to audit Dale
>investigation lasts 30 months and his son and daughter are subpoenaed
>multiple reporters volunteer to serve as character witnesses (inc Brit Hume, Sam Donaldson), jury debates for less than 2 hours, Dale found innocent
>independent council finds sworn testimony of Hillary Clinton to be factually inaccurate

JUST TIRED SEXIST CANARDS GO I mean, GUYS

>You realize that was followed by two and a half decades of war and millions dead, right?
Yeah and a Reinhard figure came out of it.

>The point of Democracy is that you have a built-in process for holding the government responsible.
Except in the small amount of time someone is in power in Democracy they can make enough connections to keep their family in high seats of power, look at the Bush's, Clinton's and Trudeau (not USA). In 50 years the USA will be a roulette of 5 families holding top positions in Government.

>masculine media
Well played. Have my last (You)

That's called compromise. Would you rather everyone's opinion counted for very little (democracy) or nothing at all, except for one guy's? (monarchy)

My father had a friend (who was also a woman) who he would send a special book to to get the signatures of US presidents. Inside the book he had a multitude of presidents, as well as famous people like the last living veteran of the civil war. During the Clinton presidency, he sent the book to his friend to have it signed by president Clinton, and asked that Hillary sign it as well. It came back with one signature because said contact was afraid Hillary would steal the book and therefore did not want to risk it.
True story, you can believe my father or not but it happened. Thats proof enough for me.

>Democracy is bad because small groups tend to acquire disproportionate amounts of power
>therefore it's better if we invest all power into a single family

??

>Except in the small amount of time someone is in power in Democracy they can make enough connections to keep their family in high seats of power
Yes, that's an issue, but it's easier to address than in a Monarchy. They may still be incredibly powerful, but they're nowhere near as powerful as a royal family in a Monarchy, and they're still subject to the same election processes to maintain their positions of power.

>Would you rather everyone's opinion counted for very little (democracy) or nothing at all, except for one guy's? (monarchy)

It's not that your voice counts very little, it doesnt count at all. In both systems, you get no say. Hell, in monarchy, the king still holds court.

It is a lot easier to murder 1 family then a whole bunch.

>and they're still subject to the same election processes to maintain their positions of power.

The USA has the choice between a criminal who has connections to a previous President and a billionaire clown this election that is the best the election process could bring up.

In a Democracy the people have all the power. Anyone can nominate themselves and if more people vote for for them they win. The problem is just that people are easily manipulated. It's not that the people don't have power, they're just shit at using it.

But its not arbitrary diversity. Society has been set up by men to serve men. You talk about 'merit' but don't consider that the very concept of merit itself can be used to keep women and POC out of positions of power. Merit is not so strictly defined thing, it is defined by men to help other men stay in power. I hate to say it but 'merit' is a spook.

>the desire to choose people with more competence for the job is a spook

I'm in a similar situation to OP, desu. I like classical liberal values, but I can't help but be attracted to monarchies and hierarchical structures of the past.

Yes, 'the people' have all the power. But who the fuck are 'the people'? It's not an actual person, it's just something we made up. By giving everyone a voice, no one has a voice.

Mate, you can't compare an idealised version of monarchy with the shitty real-life version of democracy. Either we compare the shit version of both or the ideal version of both.

In the ideal version of monarchy, the king holds court where a small percentage of the population gets to have their say, he chooses whether or not to listen to them. Whether you will actually affect any decision-making then relies on things like: the opportunity cost of listening to you (e.g pissing off another part of the population), the king's mood, his principles and ideals etc. It all rests with him and his advisers.

In the ideal version of democracy, you get to vote in the people who will represent you and because they have a mandate to serve you and your region's interests (since this is the ideal version) your voice will be heard. Just by voting alone you have already influenced the rule of the land. Furthermore, in based countries like Switzerland where Referenda are common, your opinion gets counted on an almost monthly or yearly basis for all sorts of important issues. The key here being that Switzerland has an educated enough population that doesn't vote for memes every time there is a referendum. You will also find that the most advanced European nations are ruled by coalition governments (often comprising of more than 2 parties), which means everyone gets their say.

>>>/tumblr/

But what you define as 'competence' are socially-ingrained attitudes that happen to favor men.

Preach it, user.

Dorks BTFO.

Merit is merit. There are women who ascribe to the idea of merit and meritocracy the world over, many of them feminists. This immediately negates the idea that the notion of merit is a patriarchical invention. Whether the notion is abused as an excuse for men to promote other men that is a different matter. You cannot discredit the actual notion of merit because of that but you can discredit those who abuse it.

I have a voice, bitch nigga.

>In the ideal version of monarchy, the king holds court where a small percentage of the population gets to have their say, he chooses whether or not to listen to them. Whether you will actually affect any decision-making then relies on things like: the opportunity cost of listening to you (e.g pissing off another part of the population), the king's mood, his principles and ideals etc. It all rests with him and his advisers.

Fair point but all of these problems arise in a democracy. If a president could get more votes by not listening to you, you wouldn't be heard no?

>Just by voting alone you have already influenced the rule of the land.

I disagree. Democracies commonly have situations where voting or not voting has no influence on the outcome of the election.

>You will also find that the most advanced European nations are ruled by coalition governments (often comprising of more than 2 parties), which means everyone gets their say.

Everyone gets a say if their say lines up to these parties. Having an opinion that lines up with the kings doesn't mean you get to have a say in the kings decisions.

>gender
>matters

If we are using an idealised version of merit that has no place in reality, it is useless. We need to see what actually occurs and what occurs is that people shut good women our of the process because of 'merit' only to put in a stupid man.

T. W Churchill

Who is going to define the "merits"

The dumb masses?

>. If a president could get more votes by not listening to you, you wouldn't be heard no?
No, because the president doesn't have absolute power.

>I disagree. Democracies commonly have situations where voting or not voting has no influence on the outcome of the election.
But it indisputably does. If you vote your vote counts, even if literally everyone else votes against you you still got to have that 1 vote.

>Everyone gets a say if their say lines up to these parties.
Which is why you can form your own party.

See lads? People like these are the reason I don't believe in democracy

What if he was your king?

>If you vote your vote counts, even if literally everyone else votes against you you still got to have that 1 vote.

But having that vote doesn't change the outcome, so whats the point in having it.If voting is good because you can change the policies of the nation, you would have to actually be able to affect the policies.

Lets say there are two flavours of ice-cream, vanilla and chocolate. If I ask you what flavour you want and no matter what you say, give you vanilla, do you really have a choice in the flavour of ice-cream you get. Hell in my country with compulsary voting, you wouldn't even get to say that you don't want ice-cream.

At least in tumblr they will consider radical ideas. Not like this place and its 'free speech'.

>idealised version of merit
There is no such thing. Merit is a notion and as such exists only in the ideal, as does meritocracy. If a person claims to be meritocratic but is not (what you are complaining about), then that is not a fault with the idea of merit or meritocracy it is a fault of the person and has nothing to do with gender. This is demonstrated quite clearly by the countless examples of women who have been promoted to jobs for which they were far less skilled than other women (or men) on the claimed basis of merit, when in actual fact it was through connections or whatever politics were at play. I fail to see what gender has to do with democracy and monarchy and if you have a more female appropriate system you would like to propose please do so.

Of course it doesn't change the outcome. Consensus wasn't in your favour, but everyone got the option to decide on how they wanted to vote and it just so happened that you didn't get your way. Yet everyone else did.

>If voting is good because you can change the policies of the nation, you would have to actually be able to affect the policies.
You don't get to change the policies, if you personally did then it wouldn't really be democracy. Everyone gets to have a say in it, and sometime people will disagree with you. This is not a bad thing, it's democracy working as it should.

Easy. Women and POC should get 3 votes instead of one to balance the injustices of history.

What's your point? Also there's no need for air-quotes, darling. Your right to free speech to share your opinion does not mean I am obliged to take your opinion into consideration.

Furthermore, the only "radical ideas" that Tumblr would listen to are ones that are in line with their dogma, so SHUT AHP.

>But it indisputably does. If you vote your vote counts, even if literally everyone else votes against you you still got to have that 1 vote.

Say you are in a room with 19 other people and 14 vote for option "A" and 6 (including you) vote for option "B". Your vote literally didn't matter. Whichever option you pick was going to win or lose anyway. It was predetermined. It meant nothing.

We gave them a single vote and look where it has taken us... Do you want to destroy all of civilisation you damn crazy broad?!

'Darling'? Sexist much. See this is what I am talking about. The ingrained idea of merit is used to oppress women and POC. My argument has 'merit' yet you dismiss it simply because it's not your version of 'merit'.

Ok.

You know it's just a troll at this point. It's painfully transparent. I want you to tell me that you know.

>the only "radical ideas" that Tumblr would listen to are ones that are in line with their dogma, s
Think you misspelled "Veeky Forums", bro.

No shit, it's 3am and I'm bored.

Also, Poe's Law.

>Fair point but all of these problems arise in a democracy. If a president could get more votes by not listening to you, you wouldn't be heard no?
Yes but a president faces more repercussions by not listening to you, because he is not guaranteed his position by birthright. If a head of a democratic state ignores what the elected representatives of the people suggest to him for too long his government will get a vote of no confidence and will be replaced.

>I disagree. Democracies commonly have situations where voting or not voting has no influence on the outcome of the election.
That is an issue to do with electoral law. The UK and the USA have notoriously bad and undemocratic electoral systems, the USA being the obvious worse offender (I wonder if anyone really knows how the US electoral system actually works, super-dele-what?)

>Everyone gets a say if their say lines up to these parties. Having an opinion that lines up with the kings doesn't mean you get to have a say in the kings decisions.
Those are two different things. In the case of a democratically elected coalition government made up of multiple parties, which said parties only require a small percentage of the vote to enter parliament, chances are the that the majority of the electorate voted for someone who ended up in power and given the small size of the parties, will probably have their voice heard. What you describe with the king is either coincidence or the king genuinely respected the opinion of you (and whoever else is aligned with your opinion) in which case you did have a say in the king's decision. What I am arguing is that in a properly managed democracy this will occur far more frequently than in a monarchy.

It meant something to people other than me. This is something anti-democratic stooges never seem to appreciate.

>Whichever option you pick was going to win or lose anyway.
The point is to gather consensus, it just so happens that the consensus wasn't on my side.

Democracy would work if only men voted.

I'm being dead serious.

Women should be allowed to own property and generally do what they want with their lives, but they are simply not political creatures, and have no sense of tradition, honour, or meritcracy based hierarchy. They don't understand "us" and "them" on the same level men do. It's a fucking disaster.

We put up with democracy because as stupid as our peers may sometimes be, a monarchy is only as good as the monarch.

>have no sense of tradition, honour, or meritcracy based hierarchy
>They don't understand "us" and "them"
Are you trying to make a point that ONLY women should vote?

Because if so I'm convinced?

But how do you arrive at that number? Also how do you quantify whose vote gets to count extra and by how much? Arguably in this case, you would arrive at a sort of system where counter-privilege wins you extra points so that the vote of an african-american woman descended by slaves who may have been non-CIS and/or disabled would get the maximum amount of votes, a white woman would get fewer and a white CIS male would get the fewest. Also, class would have to come into this accounting system too, so you would have to come up with a system that trawls through every person's past ancestors and their present life experience (assuming what they claim for themselves is true) and appoint them the right amount of voting points. This obviously doesn't work.

But you can affect the outcome of that vote. You can campaign, lobby, educate and countless other things. With a monarchy that is simply not the case.

You don't value honour, morals, and meritocracy based hierarchy?

Then we are on different planets.