Monarchy or republic?

Monarchy or republic?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=F6zSmtxzwjM
youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

youtube.com/watch?v=F6zSmtxzwjM

Hindu theocracy.

Monarchy. The God-King rules with a divine mandate, with a lineage that have had subjects for generations. This means the Ruler cannot sell out or betray his country. Because he IS the country. And unlike in a republic the Monarch must answer to God.

Meanwhile in a republic the leader can just sell out his country at anytime, just for personal gains, why would he care if the country goes into decline as long as he lives well? Even if his blood succeed him, they don't have to answer to anyone, thus it is certant the ruler will missuse his power. To not forget rulers of republics don't need to have blue blood, making them unfit to rule! What makes one think a slave can suddenly become the master? Without divine mandate the country will be ran by demons and turn into degeneracy and fall.

>wanting vagina lottery
shiggy diggy

What you've wrote about monarchism is the worst sequence of non-sequiturs I've ever seen.

How can someone write this and think to himself "yep, there are logical connections between those statements"?

Almost perfectly wrong.

Kings can neglect their country and still profit, and still provide a secure future for your children. Citizens profit when their city profits, their descendants are most secure when the city is peaceful and prosperous.

Kings make wars. Citizens make stuff.

Same goes for every man on earth.

Because you simply refuse to understand after years of demonic influence.

That is were you are wrong, if a monarch neglet his duties he would be puniched by Heaven, which would again let lose the fury of his subjects! How would a King provide for his successor when there is no country to be ruled?

Citizens only profit by the grace of their King who shares the prosperity of his Kingdom with his subjects.

>That is were you are wrong, if a monarch neglet his duties he would be puniched by Heaven, which would again let lose the fury of his subjects! How would a King provide for his successor when there is no country to be ruled?

He would provide for his children by spending the countries money on them.

How can citizens get rid of a bad king?

>Citizens only profit by the grace of their King who shares the prosperity of his Kingdom with his subjects.

While the King is picking the rice and crafting the tables, the citizens are sitting back doing nothing?

Republic.
Not necessarily democracy.
Definitely not liberal democracy.

>by [bullshit meaningless metaphysical force I cannot quantify to you in any way shape or form]
>THIS IS HOW WE SHOULD MAKE GOVERNMENT GUYS, BASED ON WHAT ~~~~~~I~~~~~~ SAY THE SKY SAYS!

Monarchists.

Republic because the king would shape the state to his desires while the people would shape it to theirs.
I am no king, I hold no great wealth, I am no military man, so my desires are closer to those of the people than those of the aristocracy or soldiery.
The republic suits my needs and wants better.

>Doctor Pavel, I'm China.

Sorry the monarchist in this thread is a moron. Let me have a go.

1. In a republic or democracy the ruler has no necessary interest in preserving the country. A ruler can easily sell out the country, let his term end, then move to another country with the wealth he extacted from the country he ruled. And if he doesnt do this, his incentive relies in securing future votes for a second term or for his party, allowing the incentives that caused mass immigration into white countries. A monarch knows that the country's future is his child's future. He thus has a -biological- incentive to maintain the country to the best of his ability.

2. The massive beauracracy that develops in republics and democracies allows rulers to shift blame "my hands are tied", "congress wont act on this issue," "the opposition did everything they could to make this program fail." It is entirely too easy to avoid fault for your actions as ruler in a democracy, whereas the monarch is the singular representation of state power. Even in cases where bad events are not the king's fault, the king is still blamed! This makes the king incentivized to focus on everything his administration is doing to make sure they are helping the country.

3. What does a citizen do when their government becomes too large or authoritarian? Well as we have seen in modern democracies and republics, nothing. They are too complacent. But what could citizens do in a monarchy? Well monarchy has to come in a package with dukes, counts, etc etc. With powerful vassals too keep the monarch in check, the regular citizen needn't worry about organizing a revolution, their local duke has an incentive to maintain his own rights and prosperity. This also allows a great deal of autonomy. Different counts will run their lands differently allowing people to vote with their feet and move to the best ruled lands. This allows the effect that states rights in the US was designed for.

There you have it, the king can do whatever he wants because he has divine right to rule these people. I don't think he would feel responsibility for his people, this is more of a nation state thing

>A monarch knows that the country's future is his child's future.

So they have an incentive to spend as much money as possible on maintaining rule.

>This makes the king incentivized to focus on everything his administration is doing to make sure they are helping the country.

So what punishments should a King face if the country sees a decrease in standard of living? Execution? Public beating? They'd probably just invest more money in keeping people from finding out they messed up.

>What does a citizen do when their government becomes too large or authoritarian?

Historically they haven't had much luck. The peers of the king have had good deals, but then the system is designed for their benefit.

You are actually describing North Korea. By monarchist ideology, North Korea is the most prosperous country on Earth.

>While the King is picking the rice and crafting the tables, the citizens are sitting back doing nothing?
Not at all, but if it wasn't for the King's protection and just rule there would be no peace and seccurity for the people. To not forget the King's forebeares was the one who led and gave the people tools and ideas that made them prosper.

>He would provide for his children by spending the countries money on them.
But how can he spend money from a country he does not own?

>How can citizens get rid of a bad king?
If the ruler act according to laws of dao. He would be invincible and be omnipotent. Therefore the King degrees and rule by laws. These laws make even a bad King a mediocre one.

But there is always a change of corrupt officals getting the ear of the King. If this was to happen, the Heaven would allow the people to rise against the injustice. But only by a leader provided by Heaven.

>Sorry the monarchist in this thread is a moron. Let me have a go.
>Well monarchy has to come in a package with dukes, counts, etc etc. With powerful vassals too keep the monarch in check, the regular citizen needn't worry about organizing a revolution, their local duke has an incentive to maintain his own rights and prosperity. This also allows a great deal of autonomy. Different counts will run their lands differently allowing people to vote with their feet and move to the best ruled lands.

Confucius please go

Absolute power means absolute responsibility.

If it is most of a nation state thing, how come Iceland and Japan are the only obes left?

>must answer to God

Means answering to himself or the clerical class

...

China's got it all figured out my niggas

>Not at all, but if it wasn't for the King's protection and just rule there would be no peace and seccurity for the people. To not forget the King's forebeares was the one who led and gave the people tools and ideas that made them prosper.

You mean the ones who conquered and made it illegal to criticize them.

Does the king do this protection personally, or do they get someone else to do it?

Getting caught was part of my plan.

Constitutional Monarchy

Not that pussy ass PM bullshit but good ol "we have parliment but the king is de facto executive head of state"

Technocracy

Is that what kids listen to these days?

It baffles my mind why someone would willingly choose to be a servant to someone whose only feat needs to be that of being born into the ruling family.

Not that guy, but

No, because spending money is putting the country, and hence the monarch's offspring, in debt.

No 'punishment' is necessary. People aren't stupid enough to equate the decrease to the monarch. Again, the monarch has no interest in, and will actively try to avoid, any decrease in his/her estate, that is, the people and lands.

The monarch has no interest in 'big' government as it takes away from their rule.

There are far more successful monarchies (in the Greek sense) than there are North Koreas.

Wow lad, do you hate technology??

> Teenager who doesn't understand monarchy at all

People *like* being in a monarchy. Imagine that, son.

How's it any different than how it is today?

>No, because spending money is putting the country, and hence the monarch's offspring, in debt.

Yes. They're putting the country in debt for the benefit of their offspring.

>No 'punishment' is necessary. People aren't stupid enough to equate the decrease to the monarch. Again, the monarch has no interest in, and will actively try to avoid, any decrease in his/her estate, that is, the people and lands.

So they'd never know their monarch was abusing them, and this would be okay?

>The monarch has no interest in 'big' government as it takes away from their rule.

They'd want a government big enough to provide them with profits, to hide their mistakes, and to kill their enemies. Every individual who has gained control of a country and intends to keep it spends money on these things.

>There are far more successful monarchies (in the Greek sense) than there are North Koreas.

Such as?

>then move to another country with the wealth he extacted from the country he ruled.
Which is exactly what modern monarchs worldwide are doing and have been doing for ages. Take the future king of Thailand, for example. He's been living in Germany for the past two decades or so. His son will have lived in Germany for far longer than he will have lived in Thailand.
And even before this modern era, monarchs have never lived among their subjects. They've always lived in their secluded little communities totally shut off from their subjects, which easily enables them to not give a shit about what happens outside of their little palace.

>A monarch knows that the country's future is his child's future.
Every peasant that doesn't have the money to move away as easily as a rich monarch knows that far better.

> shift blame "my hands are tied",
A monarch can do the same blame-shifting to his administration, as long as he has one or more people working with him.

>whereas the monarch is the singular representation of state power.
As is any head of state. Doesn't take a monarch for that.

>Even in cases where bad events are not the king's fault, the king is still blamed!
Oh boy, any politician could sing a song of that, especially heads of states.

>3.
Holy shit, all that wishful thinking.

A happy servant is still a servant.

Empire with non hereditary selection of ruler. Emperor chooses his successor.

I like widely dispersed authoritarianism because the tendency is that so long as the provincials fork over some resources, micromanagement is not likely. It is a bald faced protection racket, which is what any government is, but it is honest.

>emperor makes a bad choice
>successor is shit
>he picks someone even more shit
>millions suffer

Pretty much the issue with authoritarianism, the whole country suffers for one man's bad decision. It's not that different in democracies though, where a whole country suffers because they enabled a decision like the dumbfucks they are. All perfect societies as they're shown must have some paranormal factor into them otherwise they'd crumble

Evola please go

is the rule for rulers video right
youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

>A monarch knows that the country's future is his child's future. He thus has a -biological- incentive to maintain the country to the best of his ability.
Monarchs can totally sell their country or parts of it. It is their private property. When they have trouble managing it all they can even hand it over to some other guys that will have their backs. See feudalism. They can extract as much wealth from it as their subjects will allow before successfully revolting. This is basically what banana republics do and those are often family businesses.

Monarchy
British empire
Annex the Irish
Beg the pope to let us back in until he says yes
Give gifts to Russia and Uniate talks on restoring their monarchy

>The massive beauracracy that develops in republics and democracies allows rulers to shift blame "my hands are tied", "congress wont act on this issue," "the opposition did everything they could to make this program fail." It is entirely too easy to avoid fault for your actions as ruler in a democracy, whereas the monarch is the singular representation of state power. Even in cases where bad events are not the king's fault, the king is still blamed! This makes the king incentivized to focus on everything his administration is doing to make sure they are helping the country.
Where the king is more like the singular representation of state power is where there is most nureacracy. Massive bureaucracies developed during the centralization of power in the monarchs. And presidents and prime-ministers catch flak for stuff they don't have all that much control over anyway.

>3. What does a citizen do when their government becomes too large or authoritarian? Well as we have seen in modern democracies and republics, nothing. They are too complacent. But what could citizens do in a monarchy? Well monarchy has to come in a package with dukes, counts, etc etc. With powerful vassals too keep the monarch in check, the regular citizen needn't worry about organizing a revolution, their local duke has an incentive to maintain his own rights and prosperity. This also allows a great deal of autonomy. Different counts will run their lands differently allowing people to vote with their feet and move to the best ruled lands. This allows the effect that states rights in the US was designed for.
The local duke has the incentives to mantain the institution of aristocracy and even royalty to an extent, because hereditary leadership necessitates nepotism, putting your cousins and brothers (the leaders) ahead of your subjects. And aristocrats and monarchs impeded free movement of people all the time, so it's not like their subjects have guaranteed exit options.

>The monarch has no interest in 'big' government as it takes away from their rule.
Right because monarchs would never be interested in holding ABSOLUTE power.

The strongest monarchs were the ones that controled massive, centralized, bureaucratic machines.

Meritocratic totalitarianism.

This.

Monarchy and I'm French.

This

Ancap boi

>LOL GUYS IT'S ROME ALL OBER AGAIN EMPIRES ARE EVIL LMAO
Fuck George Lucas.

And what happens when you get some bratty little cunt who becomes king because he happened to be shat out of the right vagina? Monarchies are doomed to fail, as are republics, and as are every other system of government the human mind has thought up.

well, the empire never ended, so...

Doesn't matter. Evil people and good people will find a way to power either way, whether it be by democratic means, through seizing power with military force or being lucky enough to be born into it.

t. Teen who does not know anything about Monarchy.

Even a shit Monarch can be a good one, see Zhu Houzhao. As long as the monarch rules by law even a bad king becomes a mediocre one.

Anarcho-monarchist republic.

If you live in a largely agrarian society or at least one where wealth is tied to land ownership then monarchy, if its a society based on trade/commerce and non landed wealth a republic

Do you even historical materialism?

>As long as the monarch rules by law even a bad king becomes a mediocre one."

>As long as bad monarchs do things good monarchs do you dont have to worry about bad monarchs

Honestly, monarchy is romantic.

But it is way too easy for one person to be debauched and corrupt, so in practice monarchy is not a good idea for a country.

The reason monarchy isn't a very good idea is that power is vested in the monarch to such a degree that dialectical progression in a society cannot happen. The possibility of using your speech to discuss yourself and society out of a shitty situation or societal problems(which is what a democracy does), is extremely low when the final say is vested in one person.

That's not to say republics don't have issues, they do, but at least it has several problem solving mechanisms that don't exist in an absolute monarchy.

crypto-anarchism

What about elective monarchies? Like the Polish but in the XXI century. No one will discuss about this possibility?

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government

Communist combined with Theocracy.

>more corruption and bureaucracy
Nah, an elective monarchy takes the worst elements out of republics and monarchies and mixes them together into a cauldron of steaming shit.

Who will stop the President Pope if he decides to burn all the jews and gays?

Monarchy is for rural degenerates who need a daddy figure to worship.

Republic is for city dwellers wealthy and educated enough to demand a say in how their government is managed

>rural degenerates

produce all the food for city fags

monarchies work when the heir is adopted, like the 5 good emperors

everything else is bound to be shit

>produce all the food for city fags
And the ancient Athenians had a word for them
>literally where the word "idiot" comes from

That's exactly what I want.

>produce all the food for city fags
Only a fraction of them do. Most are NEETs in search of a scapegoat to blame because their existence in the country is a dead end life of deprivation and menial toil, and they lack the education and social awareness to understand the source of their woes so they're far more likely to believe the first strongman to come along lying to them that their problems were caused by funny looking foreigners and not by ruthless power brokers like the strongman himself.

underrated post
youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA
>You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
Monarchist logic