Give me one solid argument for absolute monarchy, please

As long as I am the king, I don't see counter-arguments

This

socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hobbes/Leviathan.pdf

Here's several.

Merit is a meme, humans are stupid savages that vote based on their instincts not rational reason.

As oposed to organicaly created?

people are servile and don't want to be held accountable for decisions

The monarch generally knows their eventual position from birth so they can train their whole lives for it and if they're competent it's really easy to get things done. Bureaucracy is minimal.

>Bureaucracy is minimal.

user, the rise of absolute monarchs as opposed to feudal monarchs in pretty much everywhere was made possible by the rise of a bureaucracy, whom the monarch can replace without fear of offending people with an independent power base.

Your king isn't going to run around collecting taxes, recruiting people into the army, passing judgment on every criminal, finding out information relevant to make decisions, etc. himself. He needs a bureaucracy.

A quick look at the postmodern western societies tells us that the current system doesn't work.

>The monarch generally knows their eventual position from birth so they can train their whole lives for it and if they're competent it's really easy to get things done.

That's the theory. In practice, it invariably produced people who enjoyed the good life that their royal status brought to them. Their lives were full of parties, hunts and screwing maids rather than hard studies. Besides, no studies can ever prepare a man for real life, as anyone who ever finished a college and entered the jobmarket can confirm. The problems is, royal children never could experience real life with everything being provided for them.

>Bureaucracy is minimal.

Dude, what a bullshit. The absolute monarchy was the birth of bureaucracy as kings needed an administrative apparatus that could bypass the traditional feudal bodies.

So far, it's the most efficient form of government. So it works, for now.

I'm the king and this is treason.

How is it more efficient than the monarchies of the past?

Natural selection. The strongest and most able are on the top. The ones that can contribute the most to the society are in the best position to do so, and if the top becomes decadent, a younger and better group takes over.

Biologically, it's the perfect form of society.

Because it out-competed them out of existence, duh.

i think an elective monarchy in a state with complete ethnic and cultural homogeneity would work pretty well. however this is not possible in the modern world

Plebs need someone who either knows what he's doing or can take all the blame.

>Natural selection. The strongest and most able are on the top.
>Mfw

France? They elect the head of state directly and this guy is know as the "monarch republicain".

If you have a wonderful dictator that could make all the right decisions and rule well, it would be better to give him the reigns rather than place any limits to his power most of the time.

Trouble is, people like that are very, very, very rare, just ask the Roman Empire.

No barbaric revolutions is what lead to the democracy meme.

define organically created

Thank you for saying this. People seem to believe that history went Absolute>Constitutional>Republican, but in fact it actually went Feudal>Absolute>Republican/Constitutional, with each later form of government more bureaucratic than the former. Medieval (Feudal) Kings had significantly less power than the absolute monarchies of the enlightenment era because feudal Kings were subject to the opinions of their vassals who could not be removed from
Power whereas absolute monarchies in which the functionary positions (tax collection, military officerships, etc.) changed from the vassalized aristocracy to the burgher bureaucracy which allowed the monarch to quickly replace or kill anyone that might be a threat to power.

>No barbaric revolutions is what lead to the democracy meme.

Hurr, republican/constitutional monarchy governments outcompeted absolute monarchies. That means, they were more efficient.

No they were forced on others.

It turned out that the states that were constitutional could either force their system onto others or inspire people to do that themselves.

That means, they were more efficient in their propagating and staying power.

This so much. Absolutism was quite rare.

Being completely ethnically and culturally homogeneous was virtually never possible. Maybe for tiny, isolated islands... even then you run into the inherent problems of autarky.

Polytheism will always devolve into monotheism, and from the sepultures of a monotheistic system returns a polytheistic one in time. This is a cycle we will never escape from.

There is no argument "for" it. It is inevitable. Despite memeing this guy was actually closest to it.

>As oposed to organicaly created?
Yes?
Find a Non-Western Democracy. You can't.

>Find a Non-Western Democracy.
The Lanfang State in Borneo was a colony of Chinese merchants that decided to be their own country for protection.

The leader of the state was the clan head, but he was not a king as the whole country was organized as a Kongsi ("Clan Hall"), where every family sends a representative to a meet and they get to decide shit.

This was in 1700s. Way before China was influenced by the west.

That said there were a lot of """"democracies""" in Southeast Asia, but these were representative democracies at best where heads of families get to sit at tribal/chieftain's council.

better than tribalism

There is no perfect form of government. Any argument you make for any system eventually faces a challenge of "fairness". "logic", or "effectiveness". Government can be justified (society needs some form of organization to function) but no state can really be justified. That is to say, one would be hard pressed to find adequate explanation as to why person or group should rule and another shouldn't.
Since any form of government can yield good or bad results and no form of government can be "the best" then from whence an institution of government derives its authority is not nearly as important as how it treats people.

A self sustaining system is not the same thing as an efficient system

Efficient at doing what? The government's only purpose is to support itself.

All these wrong opinions.

Monarchy, including despotism, is the best form of government for growth and prosperity.

Read 'Democracy: the God that Failed'.

Is that why the 3 major powers of today aren't ruled by a king :^)?

A government has to support a country or a nation. A government that just supports itself and doesn't GOVERN is a useless, meaningless institution

>be also noted that the realities of being raised in a royal palace (luxuries, flatterers, lack of contact with outside world) are rather detrimental for both character and worldview.
super retarded, worth of super plebeian. there is nothing better than having power and money in order to know to stop trusting people.

whereas the pleb who get into power have no idea on how to manage people attracted to you because you have power

your metric for ranking countries is chosen so that monarchies are elft out

In the short term. Longer term stability is best exemplified by Britain.

>your metric
Power, influence, territory, wealth? Nearly every country formed within the last 100 years has sought every form of government besides Monarchy.

>In the short term
Our current models of Republics/Democracies are very very young, comparatively speaking. Who are you to know if they can't last?

>by Britain.
And what power does Elizabeth truly hold today? They probably keep her around for the money her estate generates.

Turks doesn't have this problem

What about atheism?