Is Democracy any good?

Absolute Hereditary Monarchy:
>Incentive for leader to do right by the nation, as it his/her property.
>Incentive to make long-term positive changes for nation, because nation will eventually be child's property.
>Don't have to rush ideas due to no term limits.
>Future monarchs spend their entire lives being prepared to lead.
>Monarch is free to be honest as saying something true, but offensive bears little consequence.
>Monarch is not beholden to special interest groups because they do not need money for election campaigns.

Liberal Democracy:
>muh placebo effect.

Liberal democracy is the single best and most successful way of government there's ever been.

>Still fail harder than any other country.
Remember germany?

Yeah because King Louis the XV and Tsar Nicholas II weren't major fuck ups?

>Monarch is not beholden to special interest groups because they do not need money for election campaigns

You do know that monarchies throughout history, and especially in France, would sell damn near anything for money to finance themselves, including noble titles and obligations.

I like playing with the idea of monarchism, but don't fail to realize its real problems.

is that the one we have now? are you joking?

yes. actual democracy (direct democracy first, representative only where it has to be, with 2-year turns max and random drawings instead of elections), in all affairs of life. Pretty good.

do you understand the absurdity of using such a system in a modern nationstate.

no

>Incentive for leader to do right by the nation, as it his/her property.
Doesn't that mean they can act like some rather sore tyrants as it's their property?

>Incentive to make long-term positive changes for nation, because nation will eventually be child's property.
Can't it just as well work the other way around as whatever happens they will still be on the top of things as long as they don't fuck up to badly?

>Future monarchs spend their entire lives being prepared to lead.
Some of them also spend their time being retarded but still getting the crown because they were born first.
>Monarch is free to be honest as saying something true, but offensive bears little consequence.
They may also have a much bigger interest in constraining some truths the people want to spread to a bigger extend than democratic leaders as that truth may hurt them quite a lot.
>Monarch is not beholden to special interest groups because they do not need money for election campaigns.
Weren't many kings basically the bitchboys of their advisers, clergy and nobles because their power relied so much on their support?

It's the best system humanity has come up with. Monarchists are just special snowflakes with rose-tinted glasses.

One of the problems with short terms and term limits is that it basically makes politicos and staffers the true power because they are the only ones around long enough to understand how the machine works. And because they are such experts they keep getting hired by every new generation of "term limited representative", which I scare quote because the true power in such a system is ultimately the en-elected, unimpeachable, and unaccountable staffer. Honestly term limits and limited representation are not as obvious as they might seem. You're really just shifting the lump in the rug to somebody you didn't elect and can't fire.

>rose tinted glasses
Are all monarchists optimists?

Rose-tinted glasses when viewing the past.

No

What does this picture represent?

I am not familiar with this specific pot, is it famous? Is it supposed to be Harmodius and Aristogeiton killing Hipparchus? Both have beards so I am not sure. Also if so, why is it cracking? Who's the person on the left?

Anyone know?

Actually I think it's certainly this. The fabric on his arm is the same as the statues and that must be the sister on the left there.

Ok so anyone know why it's black-figure then?

>Incentive for leader to do right by the nation, as it his/her property.
>Incentive to make long-term positive changes for nation, because nation will eventually be child's property.
The interests of the monarch do not interest that of the state or the people. The interests of the throne and the nation can come into conflict easily; a leader can choose to sacrifice the interests of the nation to maintain their throne in a way in which democratic leaders simply cannot do as they would be booted out of office. Political leaders in democracy will have children who will grow up in the nation, so they too have an incentive to try their best for the nation.
>Don't have to rush ideas due to no term limits
Democracies have bureaucracies that continue regardless of leadership, leadership does not instantly switch, and the people are able to judge results and decide for themselves.
>Future monarchs spend entire lives being prepared to lead.
There have been so many fuck up monarchs that that is not a full proof system. Besides, what do you call politicians working their way up through the political process if not preparing to assume political responsibility?
>Monarch is free to be honest as saying something true, but offensive bears little consequence.
Monarchs have to be concerned about offending people too, what do you think happens if a monarch offends all of their nobles and key wealthy people? They revolt.
>Monarch is not beholden to special interest groups because they do not need money for election campaigns.
That is just bizarre, again, what do you think happens if everybody dislikes the monarch? Monarchies have to base their support on somebody, and these will be specific factional interests. Generally throughout history they base it upon the state church, and upon wealthy land owners, sometimes on traders and other men of commerce too. They also desperately need money; in France they continually sold titles and positions to anybody willing to pay up.

Democratic countries seem to be far more prosperous than nondemocracies, and there's obviously the issue of human rights abuses being far more common in nondemocracies. Every third world person from Russia or China that I know is so grateful to live in the West. All you edgelord faggots who say it sucks should go move to North Korea, the least democratic country on Earth. Should be a paradise for you.

Having said this, I do not think constitutional monarchies are bad. They do a lot to preserve a sense of legitimacy, culture and order, and in the case of the British I believe they mostly direct their influence to pro social causes and charities. Absolute monarchy was not that common in history.

I personally prefer representatives to direct democracy. The public is very extreme on certain issues like vigilantism that can disrupt rule of law, and it makes unpopular-but-necessary policies like public sector job cuts almost impossible. People like having a figurehead and it's good for international relations to be visible in this way. Also referendums are very expensive, if they were done digitally perhaps not, but then they would be vulnerable to hacking.

>black-figure

We actually discussed that in art history class in college. Basically, it wasn't because Greeks were black, its just the artists had a thing for painting black on red because it was artistic.

Sometimes they would paint red on black depending. They just didn't have white pain that worked at the time.

No. Putting power in the hands of the common man is guaranteed self destruction.

There's a reason murica is a republic

It provides consent from the governed (or most of it), and that's important.

It never, ever, said it would make good decisions. In fact, the populace is most likely to make knee-jerk decisions.

>Incentive for leader to do right by the nation, as it his/her property.
And his main interest will be holding onto that capital rather than take risks with it, stifling the economy.
>Incentive to make long-term positive changes for nation, because nation will eventually be child's property.
Which child? That's the question which sparks notoriously bitter succession wars which can completely ruin a country.
>Don't have to rush ideas due to no term limits.
And no way of stopping a monarch's bad idea from wrecking the economy.
>Future monarchs spend their entire lives being prepared to lead.
People pampered from birth to assume the throne tend to have wildly skewed views of the world verses politicians which have to work their way up the ranks, networking and earning the trust of their constituents.
>Monarch is free to be honest as saying something true, but offensive bears little consequence.
Monarchs have a way of brutally suppressing any literature which criticizes them in any way
>Monarch is not beholden to special interest groups because they do not need money for election campaigns.
Nonsense, a monarch is beholden to his wealthy aristocratic backers the way that a CEO has to answer to his shareholders. If anything the presence of special interests is much, much worse in a monarchy

No black figure is the first way Greeks and other people painted pottery. Clay is red, so they'd just paint black figures on it and leave the rest bare. Sometime in the Archaic period I believe they switched to red-figure for some reasons such as it's easier to portray three dimensional figures. After the switch, black figure was only used for amphoras used as prizes in athletic competitions, such as the Panathenaia. I asked this question because the assassination of Hipparchus happened after the switch to red-figure pottery.

Also I should clarify that red-figure is not red paint it's just the red clay. They'd paint the outline of the figures and then fill in the area outside of the pot with black paint.

Suddenly a wild inbreeding appears and the debased monarchs are even more suspectible to pressure groups than ever.

Eh. It's one of the better systems out there. But not the best.

democracy a shit
aristocracy NOW

This post made me realize that I've been to harsh on autistic people and that I should be more considerate and sensitive of their severe mental deficiencies.