Monarchy: Good, or bad?

Monarchy: Good, or bad?

Is spreading the idea that "all men are equal" truly a good idea? What about the inspiration and devotion that can come about from the common man looking up at their betters?

The Rothschild is behind all monarchy's

>the only requirement for the job is being born from the right vagina

yeah no

like all forms of government, it depends.

You can have a good or bad monarchy just as easily as you can have a good or bad democracy.

>Is spreading the idea that "all men are equal" truly a good idea?
No. All men are not equal.

It's 50/50.

If you're lucky enough to get an enlightened autocrat, you're golden.

You can also get an idiot or worse and the moron has complete power to fuck things up. And removing them undermines the principle behind monarchy to begin with.

Statistically republics are less democratic than monarchies

Monarchs are superior to populist demagogues.

>No. All men are not equal.

It depends. I can see what you mean. But all men have an inner world, emotions. One man's emotions should not be subject to another of higher rank, regardless if he has the means to. Subjugation, hierarchy, breeds suffering. No one deserves to suffer.

Source?

Monarchies larger than the city-state are unable to function within the modern state apparatus and so aren't able to endure as independent states when trouble arrives (saber rattling, economic uncertainty, domestic upheaval).

Besides that, whereas a republican or federalized or constitutional or even Communist system allows for the effective delegation of power, monarchy allows people with no ability, interest, or even capacity (if they should be born retarded) to perform some of the most important jobs in a country. And who holds the monarch accountable for his or her inevitable illegalities? Who holds the state accountable to the weal of the people? What assurance do the people have that the respect for the monarch is well-earned if the monarch does nothing worthy of respect?

The monarchist will argue that there will be some kind of (traditionally republican) state apparatus that will perform all the necessary duties of the state; the monarch will control that apparatus somehow, although in fact the monarch will come to be controlled instead. And if that apparatus is present, what differentiates the monarchic state from the federal one, besides a figurehead leader?

Worship celebrities if you want. Or great leaders. Or good people. Or God. But don't worship monarchs.

Egalitarianism exists as insurance against your own oppression. It's not a moral judgement, it's establishing equality under the law to minimise your chance of getting fucked by the state. If you're in a position wherein that is unlikely, for example by being extraordinarily wealthy or having legitimate political power than egalitarianism is irrelevant to you. If you're a Joe Average wage slave than it benefits you.

8 monarchies on the left, 1 on the right

>No one deserves to suffer.
I disagree. We deserve everything that comes to pass in our lives.

I'm not terribly familiar with the monarchies in any of the countries on the left. How many such rulers have any remaining legislative or executive power?

Bad. All men are equal in that all have the potential to do great things and should be allowed the opportunity to do so. You can find inspiration and devotion in other ways, ie to role models who arent aristocrats, to the gov, to an ideology, to your nationality, the choices are endless. Assuming that someone is fit to rule because they are chosen by go or because they are related to a previous leader is retarded. Also having to treat someone as better than yourself just because they were born spits in the face of egalitarianism, if you want to go back the dark ages, be my guest but know that statistically you are more likely to me a serf or a peasant than anyone in the kings court.

None I believe, except the Grand Duke of Luxembourg who I think has some minor executive powers

So they are actors paid to perform in a period piece, every day for the rest of their lives.

As a burger, I find this concept peculiar, but it works for them, so...

Why is constitutional monarchy the best form of government?

A French journalist said to me once that the monarchy was one of the things that have saved Britain from Fascism. What he meant was that modern people can’t, apparently, get along without drums, flags and loyalty parades, and that it is better that they should tie their leader-worship onto some figure who has no real power. In a dictatorship the power and the glory belong to the same person. In England the real power belongs to unprepossessing men in bowler hats: the creature who rides in a gilded coach behind soldiers in steel breast-plates is really a waxwork. It is at any rate possible that while this division of function exists a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power. On the whole the European countries which have most successfully avoided Fascism have been constitutional monarchies.

- George Orwell

Constitutional monarchy with very limited executive power for the monarch is clearly the superior form of government.

They aren't just actors though.

Ostensibly, parliament operates only at the pleasure of the Queen. The military however is loyal and answers to the queen. It's pretty much a mutual agreement but the monarchy isn't simply an actor. She could tell Parliament to go fuck itself should they take any action that was deemed dangerous and she has the military power to back it.

Monarchs usually had advisors. A totally retarded king could still be a good ruler. Charles the second was actually one of the best Spanish Harsburgh rulers

>Bad. All men are equal in that all have the potential to do great things and should be allowed the opportunity to do so
So inheritance should be abolished?

Bad

>Is spreading the idea that "all men are equal" truly a good idea?
Absolutely. But recognizing that not all humans are equal doesn't compute to monarchism as fundamentally the people who happen to be born into nobility aren't guaranteed to be the best a society has to offer.

Were this to be the case then the deposed houses of Europe would presently be accomplishing great things. But they're not, they're absolutely irrelevant and are only remembered for the greatness of their distant ancestors.

> What about the inspiration and devotion that can come about from the common man looking up at their betters?
Because they're not better. They're inbreeds that were lucky enough to be born and supported by monarchist cucks. There's a lot to be said for the inspiration that comes from the actual greats of society like artists, scientists and generals. But there is nothing to be gained from drawing inspiration from wastes of oxygen like Princess Diana, as much as she's worshipped by the public.

>Princess Diana
She was not a monarch.Besides the point of monarchy is not to have a person as a role model is to keep one family in charge of the goverment.Lots of companies operate like that and work perfectly fine.

> TheCrown.jpg

That series sucks ass, it's a lame chick flick with ridiculous distorted history where everybody was apparently plotting to overthrow Queen Victoria....

I know. But she's exalted precisely because of her place in the nobility.

>Besides the point of monarchy is not to have a person as a role model is to keep one family in charge of the goverment
1. I was responding to OP's point rather than making a general criticism of monarchy.
2. Just because it works decently doesn't mean it works optimally.

>2. Just because it works decently doesn't mean it works optimally.
No system works optimally.Rulling in some cases is beyond the rulers reach. Monarchies usually are not really as polarized as democracies and monarchs usually care way more about the long term as they don't rely on popular votes to be in charge.I would say that those are the main advantages of monarchies. I still believe that theocracy like models are superior to monarchies

>Lots of companies operate like that and work perfectly fine.

Indeed and that's how a monarchy should be run; as a "corporation". The best suited male of the royal family should inherit the throne, regardless of whether he is the son or grandson or uncle or nephew.

The fundamental value of a monarchy IMO, is that the monarchs would be only concerned with what's best for the people and nation, as selling them out (as is frequently the case with elected officials *coughNAFTAcough*) destroys their and the royal family's legacy.

Optimal doesn't mean perfect so much as it means the best possible.

>Monarchies usually are not really as polarized as democracies and monarchs usually care way more about the long term
This is the thing about monarchism. The arguments for it generally conjure up a duality between democracy and monarchy which is as we both know not the case.

And even still I would hazard that of the two democracy is still preferable as it's much more transient. If a president is irredeemably bad then it's simply a matter of not voting for them next time. If a monarch is irredeemably bad (as they often were) revolution or at the very least a coup almost becomes an inevitability.

>This is the thing about monarchism. The arguments for it generally conjure up a duality between democracy and monarchy which is as we both know not the case.
I brought democracy as it was what replaced most absolute monarchies.
>And even still I would hazard that of the two democracy is still preferable as it's much more transient. If a president is irredeemably bad then it's simply a matter of not voting for them next time. If a monarch is irredeemably bad (as they often were) revolution or at the very least a coup almost becomes an inevitability.
Not really.Royal families are there for a reason.Not all monarchies have to be primogenitures.

This. People always forget this.

Furthermore if you avoid inbreeding there's not a very big chance that the son of a genius king will be a dumbass.

...the original fascist country (Italy) was a monarchy

>If a president is irredeemably bad then it's simply a matter of not voting for them next time. If a monarch is irredeemably bad (as they often were) revolution or at the very least a coup almost becomes an inevitability.

But if a monarch is bad, his bad policies and practices can simply be over-turned by the succeeding monarch.

In a democracy, bad polices end up haunting the society for generations, as it's virtually impossible due to political reasons to eliminate them.

First of all a monarch does not come from "noble stock", his family are simply warlords running a mafia protection racket who killed anyone who did not submit. The only "grooming for leadership" comes from learning how to suppress dissent, not actually running the state well. Secondly the idea that an authoritarian system, whether absolute or oligarchical, is less corrupt than a modern democracy is simply laughable. an authoritarian system REQUIRES corruption in order to function. Let me put it like this, any authoritarian leader maintains his power through the loyalty of privileged groups. In the case of a feudal monarchy it's the landed aristocracy, in the case of a modern junta it's the military. In all cases the authoritarian must serve those groups needs instead of the nations. If he does not those groups withdraw their support and he is overthrown. This means that the state is specifically designed to cripple itself for the betterment of the autocrats supporters over the interests of the nation. Thus because the law is not actually meant to address their needs, the population must turn to either corruption or revolution in order to survive, both of which are harmful to the well being of the nation. As for the belief that democracies cannot produce great leaders America alone provides several counters to that claim. Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Adams, and more all able to be strong and powerful leaders capable of both pushing thorough rapid reforms and guide the nation through crises while remaining subject to the rule of law and the democratic process. But what about the bad ones? A bad monarch or other dictator can destroy his nation utterly, meanwhile it is generally agreed Nixon was the Worst president yet the nation was able to chug along without falling into ruin and get rid of him without a civil war or a revolution.

>I brought democracy as it was what replaced most absolute monarchies.
But why is this relevant to any defence of monarchy though?

>Not really.Royal families are there for a reason.Not all monarchies have to be primogenitures.
That's an absolute non-sequitur that in no way addresses my argument. Of course not all monarchies are hereditary. This does not make it any more immune from an potentially getting an irredeemably bad monarch.

>not all men are equal

what did Veeky Forums mean by this

So the English parliament is basically the finest example of delegation ever.
wtf I love monarchy now. That is brilliant

>But if a monarch is bad, his bad policies and practices can simply be over-turned by the succeeding monarch.
Yes, in the next lifetime. Fantastic.

>In a democracy, bad polices end up haunting the society for generations, as it's virtually impossible due to political reasons to eliminate them.
There however is the potential to repeal them which politicians will very well capitalize on in campaigning regardless of whether or not their attempts will actually succeed. This is what's important here as it keeps the public pacified.

>Ostensibly, parliament operates only at the pleasure of the Queen.
As the Civil War and the glorious revolution have proven it's the monarch that answers to parliament rather than the reverse.

>But why is this relevant to any defence of monarchy though?
It was just to compare it with one model.All advantages are relative
>That's an absolute non-sequitur that in no way addresses my argument. Of course not all monarchies are hereditary. This does not make it any more immune from an potentially getting an irredeemably bad monarch.
Sometimes the members of the royal family dethrowned the king.It has happened more than once

The Crown is about Queen Elizabeth II. There's another series out now about Queen Victoria, maybe you're confusing them.

>>In a democracy, bad polices end up haunting the society for generations, as it's virtually impossible due to political reasons to eliminate them.
> There however is the potential to repeal them

Except there really isn't, NAFTA, Patriot Act, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, etc. are never going to go away as too many people have a say in the matter and too many of those people have their fingers in the pie.

> which politicians will very well capitalize on in campaigning regardless of whether or not their attempts will actually succeed.

Oh sure, they'll capitalize on the discontent with this or that policy but they'll only use that to get into office, whereupon they further fuck the People with their own shitty policies while leaving the previous shitty policies in place.

The problem with democracy isn't democracy, it's with the inevitable corporate controlled bureaucracy that grows up around it.

>It was just to compare it with one model.
Which is exactly what I'm saying is a dodgy tactic. You can make any system look good by comparing its strengths with the weaknesses of another system, this does not mean it's the system that does this the best.

>Sometimes the members of the royal family dethrowned the king.It has happened more than once
If you acknowledge this then you should acknowledge that dynasties are no more resilient to demagoguery and petty politics than democracies. As it's still fundamentally a game of pacifying the people you need to please.

Not to mention I would assume that the amount of kings dethroned by their dynasties are fewer than the amount of kings dethroned by revolutions and coups.

>The Crown is about Queen Elizabeth II. There's another series out now about Queen Victoria, maybe you're confusing them.

Oh yeah, you're right. I haven't gotten around to the Elizabeth II tv series yet but this new series about a young Victoria, is lame.

>Implying Monarchs arn't controlled by powerful interests.
How do you think Monarchs keep power? Divine Right?

>Except there really isn't
The key word is potential. They can potentially be repealed. This does not mean they can be repealed in any likelihood.


The point this serves is that the public are content to think that next time around they will be repealed. As I say it's a pacifying force.

>Oh sure, they'll capitalize on the discontent with this or that policy but they'll only use that to get into office, whereupon they further fuck the People with their own shitty policies while leaving the previous shitty policies in place.
Absolutely.
As I think I said before I'm not defending monarchy.

>If you acknowledge this then you should acknowledge that dynasties are no more resilient to demagoguery and petty politics than democracies. As it's still fundamentally a game of pacifying the people you need to please.
Poisoning someone doesn't need the popular support.
>Not to mention I would assume that the amount of kings dethroned by their dynasties are fewer than the amount of kings dethroned by revolutions and coups.
Not really

You should give The Crown a try, it's really good, especially the episode about the great smog of London.

>>Implying Monarchs arn't controlled by powerful interests.
>How do you think Monarchs keep power? Divine Right?

Well, as we’re throwing around rules here for a hypothetical “perfect” monarchy, it would presumably have the power to disregard or by-pass moneyed interests.

A politician (particularly in the U.S.) simply cannot get elected without corporate money and once they take those thirty pieces of silver, Wall Street owns and controls them for life.

>Monarchy: Good, or bad?

Good

>Is spreading the idea that "all men are equal" truly a good idea?

Equal before God, yes. Of course people aren't equal in stature, it's just that monarchy is honest about it whereas with republics there is a big game of pretend going on.

What about the inspiration and devotion that can come about from the common man looking up at their betters?

Monarchs obviously aren't always better people (and they aren't somehow inherently better because they are monarchs), but I would say that they generally tend to be more inspiring.

I think that monarchy (constitutional or absolute) is the best form of government, though. There is something to be said for someone simply inheriting what is rightfully theirs rather than being the craftiest politician, best orator, etc..

>Poisoning someone doesn't need the popular support.
Now this is just dumb. You totally missed the point.

My point was that for the monarch it's still just as much of a game of pacifying their dynasty as it is for a president to pacify the electorate.

Additionally if you need to bring up illegal solutions in defence of your legal system you've failed. A good system should be able to defend itself within it's own parameters. Democracy has the advantage of having the power to do this via impeachment. If murder is your idea of a clever failsafe to bad leaders then you should re-evaluate this system.

>Not really
Not really an argument.

>>Except there really isn't
>The key word is potential. They can potentially be repealed. This does not mean they can be repealed in any likelihood.

The point being, a monarch is essentially a “free agent” and could simply declare X policy (such as NAFTA) as being shit and force the congress / parliament to come up with a new plan, or just impose his own new plan if necessary.

Definitely see what you mean, and because I'm rusty at posting I don't think I worded that how I wanted to. Essentially, I think suffering should be eliminated from human existence. I know that may sound like peace-loving hippy crap, but who the fuck wants to suffer? If there is something that can be done about lessening or eliminating suffering from the world, then we should do it.

>You should give The Crown a try

I've already got it downloaded, but I wanted to watch the two series in historical order.

Republics are just asking for a shadow oligarchy to control the country via their wealthy financing political candidates I mean puppets you stupid American goyim.

The only systems without moneyed interests are anaracho-primitivism, because there's no fucking money, communism, because there's no fucking money, and socialism because it is explicitly anti moneyed interests.

That's how it works on paper but realistically if the Queen tried to interfere proactively in the democratic process she'd start a constitutional crisis and probably wouldn't last another week

Indeed, but my point is you need to wait an entire lifetime for this to happen after the first monarch imposed it.

Obviously people aren't really going to like the idea of waiting some decades to see the change they want. Whereas in democracy they're content enough to be deceived that change is always around the corner.

For instance. Imagine that the US was a monarchy and NAFTA was imposed by King Bill Clinton. We would be fully aware that there is zero chance of this being repealed until Bill dies. Whereas as it stands whatever demagogue comes along next to promise to repeal it is enough to pacify people.

>Essentially, I think suffering should be eliminated from human existence.

The way to achieve this is to strive for the maximum amount of _individual_ freedom (as opposed to corporate freedom) with the minimal amount of compulsion.

>Well, as we’re throwing around rules here for a hypothetical “perfect” monarchy, it would presumably have the power to disregard or by-pass moneyed interests
The same is true of a hypothetical "perfect" democracy.

I can agree with that to a certain extent. I think it needs to go further, though, into mindfulness, compassion and meditation (if the individual wants to).

But a king's ultimate concern is his legacy and thus he can say; "fuck you, greedy money-lenders, I'm taking all your cash and kicking your ass out!"

A politician simply can't do that.

>The same is true of a hypothetical "perfect" democracy.

But there's no need to dream up hypotheticals for a democracy, we already have those and can see how they function.

>But a king's ultimate concern is his legacy
A king's ultimate concern is his self-interest. Which may or may not be manifested as his legacy. It may also be manifested as monetary gain.

>A politician simply can't do that.
Yes they can. As they have historically done on occasion.

That is true for monarchies too, plenty have existed in history. Either compare the theory of democracy to the theory of monarchy, or the practice of democracy to the practice of democracy.

>Imagine that the US was a monarchy and NAFTA was imposed by King Bill Clinton.

You're missing the point; a King Bill Clinton _wouldn't_ have imposed NAFTA in the first place, as he'd know it's a shitty policy that only benefits a parasitic minority on Wall Street at the expense of the American People and his own legacy as king.

President Bill Clinton also knew that full well, but even if he was morally opposed to NAFTA, he would have been forced to enact it anyway or he would have been out on his ass in the next election.

>That is true for monarchies too, plenty have existed in history.

Sure, but I saw this thread as discussion on what a modern hypothetical monarchy would be like.

>he'd know it's a shitty policy that only benefits a parasitic minority on Wall Street at the expense of the American People
This is a very naive view of politics. Plenty of people did and do believe NAFTA was and is the right policy, and they may very well be right. In the real world, things are unclear, nobody really knows exactly what is good or bad and for whom. It's totally silly to say that there are some things that are "good for the people", and everything else is only adopted because of evil (((elites))) or whatever, rather than just different people having different opinions.

It seems like an obvious attempt to frame the discussion in a way that only one side can win. Obviously if the choice is between really existing democracy and some pure perfect vision of monarchy, the latter will be better. It's no different then when commies demand that you ignore all failed communist states of the past and only discuss their totally pure untried form of communism.

>Plenty of people did and do believe NAFTA was and is the right policy, and they may very well be right.

Not to go all /pol/itics here (this being the wrong board) but NAFTA is objectively bad for the American People.

This isn't debatable.

>as he'd know it's a shitty policy that only benefits a parasitic minority on Wall Street at the expense of the American People and his own legacy as king.
You seem to be employing a bizarrely naive view that just by having the title "king" in front of his name he becomes somehow more knowledgable and virtuous. This is not at all the case. Bill Clinton enacted NAFTA because of his vested interests and (presumably) beliefs. Interests and beliefs that, I assume, he would be just as invested in by any other title.

>This isn't debatable
It obvious is given the fact that most economists disagree with you.

>It seems like an obvious attempt to frame the discussion in a way that only one side can win.

Just because Louis XVI was a jackass, doesn't mean that a modern day king would also.

What people don't get is that Democrats are authentically soft little children who think

>if I give the Republicans this, maybe they'll start calling me a communist

When the reality is that you can spend your entire term cutting taxes, bombing Reds, and deregulating industries and it doesn't make one bit of difference except to make your base lose interest.

Clinton honestly thought that if he gave the GOP NAFTA, Glass-Steagal and tougher drug laws, they'd be "bipartisan."

*stop calling me a communist

>map literally shows you that it destroys jobs
>b-but economists

Use your brain for once

>Clinton only did it to please Republicans

That's why he and his wife defend it so deferently right?

>Just because Louis XVI was a jackass, doesn't mean that a modern day king would also
Works both ways. Just because some democracies have flaws, doesn't mean democracy is a bad system. But past performance is the best guide we have for predicting future performance. It may not be perfect, but it's all we got.

>>This isn't debatable
>It obvious is given the fact that most economists disagree with you.

The same economists who work for Wall Street and profited from NAFTA...

>Clinton honestly thought that if he gave the GOP NAFTA, Glass-Steagal and tougher drug laws, they'd be "bipartisan."

Clinton didn't "give" them anything, the Democrats and Republicans are one-and-the-same, both are part of and serve the Global Corporate Elite.

>map literally shows you that it destroys jobs
One map, without the original data to back it up, proves nothing. And if the map does show what it purports to show, that wouldn't necessarily mean it was bad. It would be bad for those people who lost their jobs, but it could be better for everyone else. Who knows? More information is required.

Anyway, even if we assume NAFTA is bad, it doesn't logically follow that the people who adopted did so for malicious and self-interested reasons: they could have honestly believed it was good, but ended up being wrong.

The point is not that NAFTA is good, but that the stance that your opinions are obviously objectively correct and anyone who disagrees must have ulterior motives is a totally juvenile view of politics.

>The same economists who work for Wall Street and profited from NAFTA
Most of them work for universities or think tanks.
>everyone who disagrees with me is part of the conspiracy!

>Works both ways. Just because some democracies have flaws, doesn't mean democracy is a bad system

The power of the bureaucracy within a democracy is inevitable and due to the nature of the system, you can't remove it once it digs it's way in under the skin of the society.

In a monarchy on the other hand, the king can ignore or replace the bureaucracy as needed.

Assertions, not arguments. Why is the power of the bureaucracy in a democracy inevitable, and not so in a monarchy? And why is this bad?

>>The same economists who work for Wall Street and profited from NAFTA
>Most of them work for universities or think tanks.

And where do you think the grant money and think tank gigs come from?...

I don't know, why don't you show me?

The thing is monarchy isn't immune from this either. Eventually the bureaucracy will expand to being the supreme power. And as much as the king may try to halt or even reverse this the might of the bourgeoisie is absolutely irresistible as the history of English monarchy has proven.

When push comes to shove the king will always either have to resign himself to playing second fiddle to parliament or face the same fate as his foreign cousins.

>Why is the power of the bureaucracy in a democracy inevitable
Permanent vote base to pander.This is what Chavez did in Venezuela
>And why is this bad?
Excessive bureaucracy is a burden to the economy.

>In a monarchy on the other hand, the king can ignore or replace the bureaucracy as needed
I don't buy that kings can do this any more easily than democratic leaders. All rulers have to be attentive to their power bases, if anything it is even more extreme in a monarchy, because if he loses the support of the people with power he loses his life, whereas in a democracy he gets to stay in power till the next election and then just loses office and goes to some cushy private sector job

>Permanent vote base to pander
I don't follow, why does pandering to the electorate = power to the bureaucracy. Also, monarchs have to pander just as much, if not more.

>Excessive bureaucracy is a burden to the economy
Of course, but some amount of bureaucracy is necessary. So what is "excessive"?

>I don't follow, why does pandering to the electorate = power to the bureaucracy.

Are you suggesting that the republicans are less bureaucratic than the democrats?

Because that's absolutely retarded.

As long as he has the control of the army the king can replace bureaucrats at will

If there is a point here, I can't decipher it.

>Also, monarchs have to pander just as much, if not more.

A king doesn't have to worry about getting reelected every X years.

>Yes they can.
John F Kennedy thought the same thing.

Some political parties just create bureaucratic jobs to win a permanent voter base. This may lead to excessive bureaucracy

No, but he does have to worry about pleasing everyone simultaneously so he doesn't get Romanov'd.

So did Hitler.

>As long as he has the control of the army the king can replace bureaucrats at will
The key words being "as long as he has control of the army". So he obviously will have to pander to the military. And it's not like the army is a legion of robots, they are part of society as well. Historically, most revolutions happened when troops refused to fire on demonstrators.

>A king doesn't have to worry about getting reelected every X years
Which is precisely why he has to pander more. He can be overthrown at any minute, while in a democracy people will usually just wait until the next election.

>Some political parties just create bureaucratic jobs to win a permanent voter base
Replace "political parties" with "monarchs" and "voter" with "power" and it works just as well.