Monarchism

>can understand why unenlightened fools wouldn't understand the benefits it would bring because they're peasants

FTFY

>queen of canada

You know I'd like a canadian monarchy if the royals were actually canadian and not foreigners.

I've got higher opinions about republics like Venice than republics that were founded on liberal rebellions or whatever, but for an American (for example) to be a monarchist would go against the entire national myth.

The thing I find really sad about contemporary liberal republics is that they have no nobility; there is practically no one in a position of power to promote decency since they're more concerned with winning the next popularity contest.

The crown should always come before things like country and nation. Besides, it makes no sense to call Canada's queen a foreigner, what's foreign about her? What does it even mean to be "foreign" to a country with such a loose identity?

>>rulers are prepared from their birth to assume power
You don't need monarchy for that. Just institute a ruler academy for gifted citizen instead.

>actually Canadian
But they're Canadian citizens and that's what makes a Canadian in Trudeau world

>ruler academy for gifted citizen
sounds like a harem anime

See? Even harem anime get political systems better than monarchists.

All forms must be eradicated.

How'd that work out for Commodus? Shall we go down the list of miserable kings who had every opportunity of family grooming?

I'd rather have 4-8 years of a shitty President than someone who has a whole lifetime of fucking up to do.

weeaboos shouldn't be allowed to govern

You're not my waifu! You can't make me not govern the nation!

>The thing I find really sad about contemporary liberal republics is that they have no nobility; there is practically no one in a position of power to promote decency since they're more concerned with winning the next popularity contest.

The germans actualy have the positition of president for that, who isn't elected by the people at all and doesn't have any political power either. In fact it's just the "Kaiser" without calling him that.

She is British. That makes her a foreigner.

>no one in a position of power to promote decency
Yeah, because nobles were paragons of humanity

I don't mind the idea, Canada's Governor General works in a similar way. Still, every election is a break with history, there's no long term forethought, and I would say that the symbolism and aesthetics are worse. There's something to be said for inheriting a duty that's rightfully yours rather than necessarily being the most qualified for the job (though I think more often than not monarchs are qualified) or the most popular choice.

She's also Canadian. There are governors general and prime ministers within living memory who came from other countries. What about all of the Canadians who are culturally British, speak with British accents, etc. but reside outside of the country? Are they not Canadian?

Relative to elected leaders generally yes.

I like it
>The best of the best get put in Ruler Academia
>The rulers have to be prime speciemens, the school encourages the formation of cliques, physical and mental contests and even has tons of sanctioned competitions
>Top 16 Ruler candidates fight it out in a battle of wits, muscle and knowledge
>1st, 2nd and 3rd place become eligible for election by the Parliament
Thanks guys, I know what my next Light Novel pitch will be like.

I think people nowadays who call themselves monarchists have nationalist tendencies.

Which is CONTRARY to monarchism. At all.

An absolutely idiotic ideology followed only by idiots and lunatics.

>Relative to elected leaders generally yes.
A Noble has no inherent value or potential besides the prestige of his name. An elected leader demonstrates merit, or often the pretense of.

I don't care if you're Lucius Baldwin III, 1st Earl of St. Limeyfuck. What could your family lineage possibly mean to me, and why should I even bother acknowledging you exist?

>entire national myth
What myth? What kings have held power in our nation?

An elected leader only demonstrates popularity.

If you think inheritance is important, you should be able to see the value in your name's reputation. It's something to live up to (or redeem).

The USA's founding myth is freedom-fighting revolutionaries throwing off a tyrannical King George III. If you're an American monarchist you're faced with saying that US history has been a mistake from its inception, so it's understandable that most Americans aren't monarchists.

>US history has been a mistake from its inception
>implying it hasn't

>The USA's founding myth is freedom-fighting revolutionaries throwing off a tyrannical King George III
I don't see how. The Brits were already fucking around with taxing us, some forms of which were completely illegal, and we had no form of representation in government to account for this.
When we wished to purchase foreign items that avoid the tax, the British bullied us into buy THEIR product.
These kinds of things get worse and worse long before they get better, and we were smart to carve out independence when we did.

So fuck King George, fuck your Union Jack, and fuck your rain drenched shit rock islands.

Well that's the narrative anyway.

Elaborate or fuck off wasting my time with sarcasm

>getting butthurt that your mother country asks for a tax on products like tea which THEY are bringing into your country from the other side of the world
>the mother country who had just fought a war which if they'd lost would have probably meant 13 colonies clay being ceded to the French or Spanish
>proceeding to get in bed with French and Spanish, as well as breaking the law by smuggling, in order avoid that tax which was implemented to help pay for said war
>throw all your toys out of the cot over it instead of just not drinking tea if you hate helping support British Empire who paid out the ass for your protection so much

ENTITLED

Your country is free because a few rich guys didn't want to pay taxes anymore. Good writers though, really knew how to work up the mob. Now look at you, Israel's attack dog with your currency controlled by a (((private bank))).

Your constitution is also being trashed and your now spewing out cultural marixsm across the west.

But yeah, 'Merica, fuck the British.

What baffles me about democracy is, if a guy who's in power for 4 years do good things, then another guy from opposing ideology wins the next election and (partially or fully) undoes what the first guy did, and this cycle repeats, the country is being ripped apart in a tug of war. It recently (20 years give or take) happened in my country. It was shit, then some dudes started propping stuff up. Things were looking good for the future, then some whackos get in power and accidentally everything. We're fucked for two generations, and thats being generous.

A monarch's work would be much harder to undo, and if a retard tries to, he gets his head chopped off, figuratively speaking.

The American colonies were some of the most prosperous in the entire empire. They were perfectly capable of paying a little more for tea. They didn't have representation, but neither did anyone else, so what? American colonists had it better than pretty much anybody else in the world at the time. Lower taxes than Britain itself, one of the highest standards of living, cheap land, more food, plenty of space. They had no reason to complain.

I think it was more a case of liberal ideologues whipping up people into a hysteria where they felt wronged for things that weren't actually wrong. They resented the British giving rights and protections to Catholics and natives, they didn't like having to house their own soldiers in residences, they didn't like marginally higher duties on tea (even though they just bought smuggled tea anyway). 1790s rebels were just spoiled whiners.

>A monarch's work would be much harder to undo, and if a retard tries to,
As would a monarch's fuckups be harder to undo. If you get an extremely shitty one, there's nothing you can do for 60+ years.

>getting butthurt that your mother country asks for a tax on products like tea which THEY are bringing into your country from the other side of the world
It was their attempt to create a monopoly. Also, No Representation.

>the mother country who had just fought a war which if they'd lost would have probably meant 13 colonies clay being ceded to the French or Spanish
Is there a alternative potential history where British would have not fought France if her territories was threatened? Britain and France were already duking it out for centuries. The fact we were among this particular dispute is incidental.

>proceeding to get in bed with French and Spanish
Yeah, dealing with pompous, arrogant Brits who thought they were better than us kinda rubbed us the wrong way.

>as well as breaking the law by smuggling, in order avoid that tax which was implemented to help pay for said war
They were not entitled to create a monopoly. Not mention much of the money went to funding the remaining British Forces on the continent, which we had no need for.

Again, if they were such loving benefactors, then why were we denied political footing equal to those on the home island?

>instead of just not drinking tea
They taxed everything. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765

>They were perfectly capable of paying a little more for tea
Enough about the goddamn tea. The Brits deliberately wrote some of the taxes to suppress growth in the colony and establish dominance of British courts.

>They didn't have representation, but neither did anyone else, so what? It was illegal. But If you're content being a little bitch at the whim of our lovely mother country without the slightest say in the matter, be my guest.

>blablablabla American standards were great
Yes, they were. Too bad Britain fucked up a great investment.

Putting the fate of a nation in one pair of capable hands is way better than giving the power to a buttload of complete retards.There just needs to be a system (rebels are not to be considered as a system) to to change the curse when the leader is only leaving shitstains everywhere.

Democracy in the modern world is a meme anyways

>ideologues whipping up people into a hysteria where they felt wronged for things that weren't actually wrong. They resented the British giving rights and protections to Catholics and natives, they didn't like having to house their own soldiers in residences, they didn't like marginally higher duties on tea (even though they just bought smuggled tea anyway). 1790s rebels were just spoiled whiners.

>T. Anglo

Wherein it is an appointment as opposed to an inheritance, I am all for it.

Celtic culture was nice about that. People hailed the bards, the bards chose the king from the people. It was not necessarily hereditary.

Im american
Literally any system but ours at this point is worthwhile

Sir, we merely wanted, if we were to be taxed as Englishmen, to be REPRESENTED as such. In Parliament, with our own lords and commons. Preferably with His Grace Sir Benjamin Franklin, Duke of New England, as our lordly governor.

I want to see this now. Sus?

Take a child, raise him to be capable of ruling a people properly. Then instill in him a nationalist philosophy so he wants to help his people. Then when his father dies, give him all the power and wealth. Now you have an incorruptible leader with the ability and desire to do what's best for his people.

...

Temporary material wealth doesn't matter if you don't have the power to legally protect it. Sure, looking back we can say, "oh, it was only a small tax, no big deal." The colonists saw the writing in the wall, and knew that if they did not secure political voice, there would more small steps until they became a glorified banana republic.

Hell, at first they didn't even want to leave. They sent letters to the king saying "Hey your majesty, we love you and are your loyal subjects, could you maybe stop Parliament being cunts and maybe give us a little voice in governing ourselves?" It was only after George told them to go fuck themselves that they decided to go their own way.

Pic very much related, it's you.

Legend of the Galactic Heroes.

> instill in him a nationalist philosophy
> raise him to be capable of ruling a people properly
Because you can easily educate anybody into the whatever role you want? Some sort of meritocracy where you can raise children and choose the most capable ones could work here, but it weak as fuck to the corruption.

>Because you can easily educate anybody into the whatever role you want?
If you start from birth, yes.
>Some sort of meritocracy where you can raise children and choose the most capable ones
The heir is the firstborn male.

That would have been nice, no?

> If you start from birth, yes.
Some people are just born retarded, so it is out of the question.

neo-monarchism is a meme, but before states became more centralized it was practically the only option

Obviously the firstborn able male

And if the son proves just to be a poor leader? Not all bad qualities are disabilities.

For every one of those you have three times as many who did a sufficient to great job. Monarchical fuck ups make for interesting history so people tend to focus on them in their studies and then fall victim to confirmation bias in regards to the system.

Did you forget what the upbringing is? This is 90% more likely to produce a good leader than any Meritocracy

> 90% more likely to produce a good leader
This is why Venetian Republic was able to function for thousands of years uninterrupted, while no shitty monarchy could come even close to that.

>For every one of those you have three times as many who did a sufficient to great job
>source: my ass

Even if all you said is factual, that still leaves a 1/4 chance a country has to deal with a colossal shitbird for his/her entire mortal life. No thanks.

Leadership is not in blood, but in merit. Simple as that.

you can't tell me this isn't comfy af

>thousands

>winning the national popularity contest means you're qualified to be a leader or that you're a meritorious person

Makes as much if not less sense that someone legally inheriting their leadership.

>Venetian Republic
>thousands of years

> national popularity contest
Meritocracy isn't based on popularity contests.

It may be so, but the power of the government should come from the consent of the governed, and that is lost in a Monarchy. A shitty government may result from a democracy or republic, but in that case it is the fault of the voters, not a family mishandling raising their heir. And when you do get the inevitable terrible leader, you've got a far smaller threshold to hold them accountable. Bad representatives can be voted out. A bad monarch requires a revolution.

Because that won't backfire with political backstabbing?

>Lifetime of skill development
>Somehow not meritous, or at least moreso than someone who can lie his way to popularity

> won't backfire with political backstabbing
And monarchy somehow pure from intrigues and coups of every kind?

> Lifetime of skill development
You can waste your lifetime of something and still be shit in this sphere, especially compared to the actually talented peoples.

>Lifetime of skill development
And how do you guarantee that will happen? What incentive do the Monarchs have to act in the interest of the nation and not their own?

Of course not. Nothing is. But it shouldn't be as bad under monarchy, as we have a set procedure which can't be rigged.

The best educators combined with eugenics should make it a pretty safe bet. Or at least so that the worst thing to happen would be an average monarch.

They have to pass their nation onto their children. It's in their interests to make sure it's a good'n. They can't exactly bugger off after their term is ended, either. The buck will always stop with them, and the only real way they can do better is by ensuring that the country does better.

>It's in their interests to make sure it's a good'n
It isn't, though. It's in their interests to make sure their kin continue to be wealthy and powerful, but that by no means translates to doing what's in the best interests of the people or the nation.

Monarch has everything. That's why they're incorruptible

>Monarch has everything. That's why they're incorruptible

>They won't get any debilitating drug addictions. After all, they're the king!
>They won't engage in nonstop self-serving behavior to the detriment of the country. After all, they're the king!
>They won't succumb to vice in any way, shape, or form. After all, they're the king!
>They'll be fucking awesome each and every time. After all, they're the king!

You mean it's in their best interest to ensure their own power and survival, however that may be achieved.

This is dumb.

I am king
I want my kin to be wealthy and powerful
If I don't do right by my people, they will kill me and my kin.

What can you offer someone who has everything?

>It's in their interests to make sure their kin continue to be wealthy and powerful
How are they going to do that with a shitty country? You seem to imply that every monarchy is North Korea whilst ignoring the Luxembourg or Lichtenstein types.

Pretty much. A politician can be bought. A monarch could never really have a price.

And that could happen to literally anyone. But a king has to live with long term planning like few else do.

>tax havens are wealthy
Well I never.

>Missing the point
Shocker.

>What is absolute power corrupts absolutely?

>I don't understand long term planning and effects, so no one else would either.

A canard.

Luxembourg and Liechtenstein aren't rich because of the wise decisions of their monarchs, if that's what you were implying.

>ignoring the point this hard

>mfw history is filled with powerful leaders being self serving

Yea? Why not? Are you saying their monarchs been working against their nations?

>If I don't do right by my people, they will kill me and my kin
Which is why they can use force to suppress dissent. The argument of "oh they can just overthrow a bad king" is retarded on so many levels. The king can and will do everything they can to cling to power to the detriment of the people, and even a successful revolution is a terrible way to have a check on a Monarch's power due to the devastation it brings and destabilizing effects it has on a nation.

Accountability through elections is far more effective and stable than a Monarchy ever will be.

When has a king ever had anything? There's always more land, more wealth, more prestige, more power.

>How are they going to do that with a shitty country?
By abusing power to concentrate wealth in the hands of their family.

I'm saying that their riches come independent of their monarchs. Unless you're saying that the massive economies entirely surrounding those two countries, all of which are non-monarchical, aren't the cause of the riches of Luxembourg and co.

A bad monarch requires humility. Rebellion is immoral.

>Which is why they can use force to suppress dissent.
It is far less efficient than just helping the people. Unless you're some communist who thinks all commoners want is gibs.
>The king can and will do everything they can to cling to power to the detriment of the people
Why? It would be so much easier to cling to his power by aiding the people. Why is it assumed all the king wants is to maintain power? The thought never entered the mind of the greatest monarchs in history.
>a successful revolution is a terrible way to have a check on a Monarch's power due to the devastation it brings and destabilizing effects it has on a nation.
If a monarch truly needs to be deposed his opposition will be so substantial it would overwhelm any defenders who don't defect that almost no damage would occur. Civil wars are rare.
>Accountability through elections is far more effective and stable than a Monarchy ever will be.
The only state to last over a thousand years was a monarchy. Your theory is counter-factual fantasy.
>When has a king ever had anything?
Every king has had more than any elected official, every elected official has had the incentive to reach for more.
>There's always more land, more wealth, more prestige, more power.
Again with the assumption monarchs are narcissistic sociopaths.

>ignoring
How so? Your point seemed to be that they'd have power, so they'd decide to be corrupt, which would ultimately be against their interests, and everything they would be taught.

>The government can and will do everything they can to cling to power to the detriment of the people
FTFY. It's not exclusive to any one type.
>even a successful revolution is a terrible way to have a check on a Monarch's power
I disagree (even though it sounds edgy as fuck). It means that it would only happen in the most dire and required of circumstances, and the successor would certainly watch his arse.
>There's always more land, more wealth, more prestige, more power.
That sounds like a problem for other countries?
.By abusing power to concentrate wealth in the hands of their family.
Except there won't be any wealth to concentrate if they run their nation into the ground. There's more profit to be made with happiness.

>I'm saying that their riches come independent of their monarchs.
And I'm saying you're myopic for not realising that it isn't entirely independent. China is rich, so why isn't North Korea? At the very least, the monarch is doing only gentle touch and letting the nation run itself, as he should. Ergo, it's a success for the monarchy.

> liberal republics
Merely a bunch of corrupt politicians who don't have a shred of shame when they sell their own people. The only "republic" worth of something is the Chinese Republic.

>ultimately be against their interests, and everything they would be taught.
And yet they always do. I am amazed at monarchists demonizing the population to be stupid while proclaim their monarch to be in theory incorruptible

Also
>thinking China is on good relations with NK
>thinking NK can trade with whole world like those European countries

You are so full of shit with your lack of awareness in geopolitics