I'm interested in becoming a monarchist

>Rooted in tradition
>established rules for succession which work as long as people follow them.
These are both true of the current republican system. In fact, disputes over succession are much less common in democracies.

>You could always have a bad monarch, but good and bad leaders are going to pop up no matter what system you're under.
It's not necessarily that monarchs are more likely to be bad leaders, it's that their interests aren't as aligned with the interests of the citizens as they would be if they had to earn reelection and there are fewer checks on their ability to fuck shit up, so the quality of your government is much more dependent on the quality of this one guy, i.e. less stable in the long term.

>I think that monarchs inspire better values, especially humility.
lol

Monarchism is the only biblical government system. Democracy simply gives more and more power to more and more sinners.

If the king is a God-fearing respected man that knows his place and his duties to his country, then yes it's the perfect form of government.

But as said before, it solely depends on the dynasty and ruling person. The next heir could turn out to be an asshole.

"I'm interested in becoming a monarchist. "
- I wonder why.

"What are the benefits of monarchy?"
- Less divisive government, efficiency, less corruption, uniformity, loyalty among others.

"Is the feudal structure of society obsolete?"
- Yes unless in agriculture-based societies.

The current republican system isn't very old at all. Succession disputes are quite rare, they don't happen at all today.

>it's that their interests aren't as aligned with the interests of the citizens as they would be if they had to earn reelection and there are fewer checks on their ability to fuck shit up, so the quality of your government is much more dependent on the quality of this one guy, i.e. less stable in the long term.

Having to "earn" reelection has little to do with acting in the interests of the citizens, and the interests of the citizens are often wrong. Liberal democracies just encourage popular leaders, not necessarily virtuous ones. There is humility in accepting that different people are born into different stations. There's nothing wrong with looking up to and serving others.

Where does sovereignty in a republic come from?

>The current republican system isn't very old at all
In America it's older than any of its living citizens and even their grandparents, i.e. long enough that people don't remember what it's like to live outside of it. Trying to revive a monarchy at this point would be opposed to the cultural traditions that today's generations have inherited. The same goes for subjects of the British "monarchy" and other cases where the monarch has become a mere figurehead. In other words, traditions change and older != more traditional.

>Succession disputes are quite rare, they don't happen at all today
Yeah, that's my point.

>Having to "earn" reelection has little to do with acting in the interests of the citizens
Nice meme but no. Democracies are usually less corrupt and the least corrupt, most prosperous countries in the world are all democratic.

>and the interests of the citizens are often wrong
lol

>Liberal democracies just encourage popular leaders, not necessarily virtuous ones.
They don't have to be virtuous, they just have to do their jobs. The ability of the people to vote out one evil bastard and replace him with a new one puts pressure on them to do that. Lots of good presidents are actually shitty people and vice versa.

>There is humility in accepting that different people are born into different stations
Nothing manmade should be accepted uncritically. I recognize the necessity of social classes, but accepting whatever arrangement of power you're born into because that's just the way it is lol is retarded. The humility should be on the part of the privileged, recognizing that they are no more entitled to their positions than anyone else but were lucky enough to be born into them. Those born into a lower station should ALWAYS be critical of those in power and looking for ways to take more of it for themselves.

>There's nothing wrong with looking up to and serving others
There is everything wrong with everyone being forced to serve one guy.

>What are the benefits of monarchy?
Is the feudal structure of society obsolete?

Before we answer either of these questions, we need to discuss this one: who gets to be king? Also, what's their authority grounded on?

this board is full Reddit

Government exists to deal with the fact that we are flawed and need an outside system to keep us functioning as a group.

If we weren't flawed that absolute anarchy should be a perfectly viable system. But we aren't and it isn't.

Monarchy is too easily broken. It is unreliable at managing corruption within the ruling class, which is a very major flaw for what it is trying to do.

It is functional but most societies tend to switch to something else when they can afford to.

Late medieval monarchy or early modern absolutist monarchy or modern cuck constitutional monarchy? Pretty different things.

>If we weren't flawed that absolute anarchy should be a perfectly viable system
That's not true. There are scenarios in which perfectly rational and well-meaning (whatever you take that to mean) agents acting without coordination will create an outcome that is universally less preferred than if an outside entity was enforcing certain rules on all of them. Something something prisoner's dilemma, tragedy of the commons etc.

Actually both constitutional and absolute monarchism have nothing to do with feudal monarchism.
Try to find if your country has a monarchist movement and join it, it's like joining a political party.
The general goal of monarchists in societies in which the PM is the head of government and president acts as a figurehead is to replace the president with a monarch.
Such an office, while not having much with governing is very influential.

Says the redditor

There can't be an industrial monarchy? Where lords own factories instead of fields?

>I'm interested in becoming a monarchist.
I hope you like posting on internet forums unless you happen to be Thai or Saudi.

>What are the benefits of monarchy?
Consistency and stability in agricultral societies

>Is the feudal structure of society obsolete?
Yes as the merchants have surpassed the aristocratic class as the main holders of wealth and the greatest strength of monarchy - inertia - now works against it.

>There can't be an industrial monarchy?
Well firstly those factory owners overthrew the aristocrats then drove them out of other countries. Secondly because industry isn't static like oil and historical agriculture. Corporations rarely have those nice stable set ups and their owners and leaders are in a constant state of flux. Not to mention the issue of foreign business and the role they play

The only way it would work was if you created some Buy N large level business or if you implemented it as a tool of Imperialism like those european colonial compaines (ie British East India Company)

Doesnt that just apply to totalitarian governments? The efficiency of most dictators is just as good as a kings.
And what about constitutional monarchies? If their parlimentary body cant decide its just as inefficient as any democracy.

Why on earth do you think that genetics have anything to do with how well someone can lead a country? I dont understand why anyone would willingly swear allegiance and hold another man higher than themselves. How can you, retaining the dignity of being a human, say that several families are inherently better than everyone else and only they can lead. You will never be on their level even if you are smarter, nicer, better, or more deserving.

Idk how anyone can grow up in a society based on the values of the enlightenment (ie the west) and not be made sick by the idea of monarchies. The very idea is a stain on this earth.

>I'm interested in becoming a monarchist, give me arguments why monarchy is good
Yet another fucking LARP thread. Did Orthodoxy fall out of fashion?

At first god was against monarchy he only gave it because the jews wanted a king like everyone else. Also kings can be the biggest sinners.

It's the ultimate form of cuckery, the entire country working to raise and glorify another man's descendants, bowing before them, pampering them and covering them in silks and jewels while their own illiterate children starve.

Its just fucking retarded

Feudalism had constant infighting because vassalage was retarded.

The Monarch can resist the money power. He doesn't need their money to run for election or promise shit to the crowd to win them over.

In Democracy, you always end up being ruled by money elites

Plato wrote about this.

(Of course, monarchs can still become dependent on wealthy oligarchs but it's not built into the system)

With proper regulation you can curtail the money influence in a democracy but you are right its very difficult. A dictator can resist money power to the same level as a king.

>At first god was against monarchy
'no'

IMO the problem with dictators and kings is that they're very capable of causing violent atrocities to an extent that would be very difficult to implement with popular oversight. Few people can freely point out criticisms or flaws in ideas that the autocrat may cherish.

well thought-out post

Yes, he was, you moron. Have you ever read the Bible? The people of Israel were supposed to be ruled by God through prophets, not by kings. Monarchy came from pagans, it isn't favoured by God. The establishment of monarchy in Israel was just a concession to human retardation. See 1 Samuel 8:1-9.

>4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,

>5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

>6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.

>7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

>8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

>9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

Don't forget the inevitable inbreeding that actually produces genetically inferior beings

Monarch is a man of great virtue that deeply cares for its people and prepared for rulership from birth, being uncorruptable, but yet more competent than any other ruler under system where power given to demagogues or taken from common folk by force.

> real monarchy was never tried XD