Prove that monarchies are not the superior way to run a country

This isn't the fault of monarchy, only of the people inhabiting the role.

Exactly the complete opposite. The state is the monarchy and the monarchy is the state; hence the monarch has a *personal* responsibility to his family to rule it well. Republican/democratic politicians are by definition temporary and hence have no reason to maintain the long-term stability of the country.

> he thinks genes make you a good leader
> he thinks that just because someone was a good leader it automatically means that their children will be good leaders

it's far easier to be a monarch than a president. so long as you keep the military loyal, you don't have to stay in touch with the people, you dont even have to be a good diplomat. just surpress any uprising, burn any literature that speaks bad of you, and pay writers to write great stories about you

>i.e. every monarch in history

>Exactly the complete opposite. The state is the monarchy and the monarchy is the state; hence the monarch has a *personal* responsibility to his family to rule it well. Republican/democratic politicians are by definition temporary and hence have no reason to maintain the long-term stability of the country.
This can also mean that monarch cares more about their prestige than the actual country. Or they're just literally incapable of doing the best work or even good, and you can't change them, or even worse are openly malicious to the country, and you still can't replace them.

How does it feel to have the spirit of a cuck? Don't you strive to be a freeman? I simply can't understand the mindset of a man who wants to be ruled.

But, in truth, "Hitch-22" shows us more how Hitchens is a great pamphleteer — like Thomas Paine — rallying against perceived social injustice and religious fanaticism. While his targets are sometimes wrong — like Mother Theresa — his originality of argument is always refreshing.

>Prove that monarchies are not the superior way to run a country

They encourage political violence by having no outlet for someone adversely affected by policy other than armed revolt.

Armed insurrection is bad and should be avoided where possible.

>This isn't the fault of monarchy, only of the people inhabiting the role.

Yeah, the monarch.

Turns out they're a big part of the system.

>I simply can't understand the mindset of a man who wants to be ruled.
This so much. The uncucked way is the way of self-responsibility and self-reliance. Not following a leader whos only reason to be a leader is, that they were born in the right family.

The monarchy isn't the person inhabiting the role. Hence why monarchs use 'we' instead of 'I'.

Their prestige *is* the country. Can't replace them? Monarchs have been regularly deposed throughout history.

by paying your taxes, by voting, by registering your car and gun with the government, you are submitting yourself to the rule of washington. i see no difference between being ruled by a monarch and being ruled by a president. the only difference is one has term limits

is there anything wrong with armed revolt? revolting reminds the people that their nation is worth fighting for. even thomas jefferson once said that there should be armed revolts against the government every decade or so

First there are two crowns: the person who is the monarch at the moment, and the sovereign, that is the idea of the monarchy as itself.

Which means that, while yes monarchs can be changed before their death, that can only be done through violent revolution or abdication, and one is way less acceptable than a orderly transfer of power of the republic, while other might be tricky to get, especially if the monarch doesn't want to abdicate. I rather wait 4-5 years for next election, than 50+ for a new monarch. Also the modern republic has various options to shorten the term if the ruler proves to be really bad, and it's done peacefully.

>politicians do badly, get voted out of office
>absolute monarch does badly, civil war kills millions

>is there anything wrong with armed revolt?

Yes. Assuming your state is composed of people who are all supposed to be on the same side, having them kill each other is a net loss and a gain for your rivals, whomever they might be.

>revolting reminds the people that their nation is worth fighting for.

How does it do that? It reminds them that their government failed them in some manner.

> even thomas jefferson once said that there should be armed revolts against the government every decade or so

So? Just because Jefferson said something doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea. Jefferson also thought that the American experiment should avoid material wealth and success, devolve into little farmer-communities, and base state lines around mathematical principles instead of where people actually lived, and those ideas are stupid too, despite their source.

Furthermore, in an absolute monarchy, political activism serves what purpose exactly? It's not like the populace gets to have a voice.

when the princess gets BLACKED and instead of king you get a KANG

>Monarchs have been regularly deposed throughout history.

Great, so you have a political system that can't be changed by the common people except through civil war or revolution.

First
Jefferson was talking in context of a actual rebellion going on at the time, defending it, to be a good thing in long run. Second, what if I told you that all the positives that Jefferson talked about can be achieved with open discussion in a democratic, republican society?
Even Jefferson admitted that, saying that the rebellion wouldn't happen if people would be properly informed and would participate in political discussions.

Yes. That's the point.

>The state is the monarchy and the monarchy is the state; hence the monarch has a *personal* responsibility to his family to rule it well.

No, actually, he doesn't. He has a personal responsibility to do just well enough that he doesn't get invaded and that one of his underlings doesn't start a civil war against him. You have a childishly naive view on monarchy.

Democratic republics, while not perfect, at least do have the limiting factor that a politician has their career to worry about; fucking up too badly can shaft them.

>Republican/democratic politicians are by definition temporary and hence have no reason to maintain the long-term stability of the country.

You fucking moron. Most politicians would like to continue their career in politics and typically live in the countries they rule. So they have the same basic pressure a monarch does (can't fuck up badly enough to get invaded or cause a civil war) plus the pressure that their continued presence as a member of government is dependent on not fucking up too badly.

If Oswald Mosley were a member of the kind of absolute monarchy you desire, he'd have been able to drive his country straight into the ground with his pants on head retarded ideas, but instead he wound up fucking what was a previously quite successful political career by being a crazy moron.

youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

>Civil war
>Peasants throw out the king
>replace it with socialism or democracy

What now?

inb4 farfetched as if it's not EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN REALITY

Which is a fucking moronic idea, because civil wars and revolutions (which were fucking endemic to monarchies) are fucking awful for societies.

You're predicating your argument on the assumption that a monarch would be 'bad' or 'mismanage' the state. There have been dozens of kings and queens in, for example, England; there has been only perhaps one or two who have spectacularly failed as good monarchs; and they swiftly moved on.

The number of bad republican politicians is a much higher percentage.

You're the moron, son. You're assuming that the need for governmental change is necessary - the whole fucking point of monarchy is that it's not - it's stable, and has no fucking need of it.

>one or two
>England

3/10 you'll get replies

Then that is the way it goes. The point of the thread is that monarchy is inherently a better form of government.

nice circular logic

>the monarchy has no accountability!
>So replace it!
>well replacing it usually leads to violence in the streets
>WHY WOULD YOU EVER TO REPLACE IT OMG

James I
Edward VIII

I'll wait.

>The point of this thread is to bait whiggists

FTFY LARPer

Forgetting about the crazy one already I see, bong.

I'm not saying that. You're predicating your argument on the question 'WHAT IF I WANT A DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT? WAH! WAH!'

The point of monarchy is: you don't. The point of monarchy is to provide good, stable government. The need to change a government is minimised.

I'm pretty sure there were way more bad or at least inept kings than good. And England/UK isn't the best example for "absolute monarchy" as it's parliamentary monarchy since the glorious revolution, and since then monarch really lost the function that it supposedly preforms.

Pretty sure there's even more, but just the most well known:
Richard Lionheart
John Lackland
both Charles
James I
George III
Henry VIII
who ever the king was during war of the roses...

>I'm not saying that

>Can't replace them? Monarchs have been regularly deposed throughout history.

>I'm not saying that

nice backpedaling + goalpost shifting

you lost, try again another time

inb4 WASNT ME as if there's any other autist arguing for monarchy on this board

Unirionically posting CGP Grey video

No, you fucking dipshit. As social and material conditions change, so too do our methods of organization need to change. Under monarchies they was accomplished occasionally by sweeping reform under a particularly far-sighted monarch, or more often through civil war and revolution. Democratic societies have made it so that our method of change need not rely on winning the genetic lottery or violent upheaval of society.

Or do you think social and material conditions are never going to change?

>, England; there has been only perhaps one or two who have spectacularly failed as good monarchs

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Let's see, just in the space of a few centuries, you have

>Henry VI, who quite literally had some sort of mental illness and would got into a catatonic, helpless state, sometimes for YEARS, and essentially created the Wars of the Roses by trampling all over the political compromises as to what to do when he zoned out when he woke up.
>Edward V, who was a non-king, completely under the control of his uncle Richard, who managed to piss the barons off so badly that yay, armed revolution and a new dynasty on the throne!
>Richard the III himself, who did eventually crown himself king.
>Edward VI, armed rebellion and bad economy yay, but probably unavoidable when you have a child-king.
>Mary, who started another round of religious strife over her catholicism and burning protestants at the stake, and got herself overthrown by Elizabeth.
>Charles II, who couldn't control his spending, and quarreled so badly with Parliament that you got the ECW and a huge reduction in royal power.

That's what, a bit over 200 years of reigning, and I'm counting 6 shit kings, nevermind the rest of the history of the British isles.

there's also edward the confessor

>bungled his succession so hard that the English throne was occupied by franco-norman dynasts for centuries afterward

>Thomas Jefferson once said

Don't take a single thing he said seriously as it applies to actually running a nation. His ideals we're solid but the application is retarded.

No, having armed insurrections every decade or so isn't good for the longevity of a nation.

>ITT a monarchist gets blown the fuck out by people with a halfway decent grasp of history

Truly the greatest feel of them all.

then explain why subsaharan nations still exist roughy as they were created in the 60's

>goteem

>itt butthurt degenerate supporters of democracy think they beat monarchistS in a debate over the superior system of government

Monarchs are chosen by God.
Presidents are chosen by oligarchs.

Hmmmmm, really makes you think...

trying to twist jeffersons words to work against monarchies and failing

>No, having armed insurrections every decade or so isn't good for the longevity of a nation.
Right, that's why Republics > Monarchies, as there is no civil war every time the leader is chosen.
This guy sums it all up pretty well
slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/

You're a sad sad man, if you think you're winning this argument.

>monarchists
>blind assertions left and right, appeals to their own romanticized notions of the inherent good nature of monarchs, no actual historical claims to validate their positions
>republicans
>examples of fuckup monarchs occurring several times within short spans of history, pointing out that civil war is needed to change such a society to new material and social conditions, demonstrating that politicians have more much reason to be interested in long-term consequences of their rule than monarchs

Yep, you sure beat them. But hey, you got to call us degenerates. Because surely no monarch was ever a fat, decadent pervert.

>IMPLYING EVERY MONARCH FACES A CIVIL WAR UPON ASUMING THE THRONE

you're fucking retarded

i made this thread, replied once, then went to the store to pick up some water. but i give props to whoever has been arguing for me, he's tried

>Because surely no monarch was ever a fat, decadent pervert

last time i checked, bill clinton wasn't a monarch

Yeah because Jefferson was a monarchist, so his words are totally about how monarchies should work.
Again The tree of liberty quote, was written in a specific time frame, about a specific rebellion: Shay's Rebellion. Where he also talked about an idea of informed people, who would use the information to choose their representatives better and use a non violent way to influence change in government. And if you read his later writings, you'll see that in his later years he was more and more in support of that, and less for armed rebellion. Actually he only supported armed rebellion against tyranny and unjust monarchy.

They do.

Republics place a number of qualifications on leadership (Virtue, culture, will of the people, ability, capability, knowledge, education, etc).

Monarchies (And Dictatorships) require none of that and ultimately only come down to "You do what I say because I will hurt you if you don't".

So yes, there is a possibility of Civil War every time a new monarch assumes the throne because the only qualification for being a monarch is "My army is the strongest", and while "I'm the smarter candidate" can easily be demonstrated in a debate, "My army is the strongest" can only be demonstrated via war.

at this point in time it's very evident that you're just shitting on your keyboard. just because he changed his mind later in life, that doesn't mean he didn't believe the thing that he no longer believes. if hitler came out of his bunker and said to the russians "sike guys, anti-semitism is wrong and i no longer support what i did", do you think they'd say "its alright comrade, you're forgiven" and suck his meaty cock? no. kill yourself

>he thinks monarchies have to be hereditary

El mejor rey de España, le duela a quien le duela, literalmente neutralizó la amenaza que suponía Francia, a la vez que aseguraba la unidad del reino de España al poner al mando un Borbón (especializados en el puñetero absolutismo centralista). Esta decisión también ayudo en los asuntos que concernian a los putos fueros de los catalanes y vasco-navarros, que se acabaron jodiendo con la llegada de la flor de Lis al trono (tuvieron que apoyar la decisión de su rey, Carlos II, y no las infulas del Archiduque de Austria).

Desde el futuro salvado que creaste, o gran monarca, te saludamos los españoles fieles aun a la corona, VIVAN LAS CADENAS. VIVA EL REY. VIVA ESPAÑA.

>there is a possibility of Civil War

dont you dare try to backtrack on what you said you goddamn democratic supporter of equality kidney looking ass bastard. you said that every single monarch in history faced a civil war once they took the throne, you didnt say there was just a chance

fuck off spic

all attempts at political systems are basically autism and the resulting society will be far more influenced by the spirit of the age rather than what system you decided to force into place

also historically absolute monarchy which seems to be what everyone here is talking about is a precursor to democracy

>nit picking
Yeah, nah, sounds like you're a fragile cunt who got put in his place.

What the fuck? That's not even the real problem. The real problem is that you're desperately trying to defend monarchism with words of a republican. That doesn't even make any sense.

>Which leaves them completely out of touch with the actual needs of their country
Then they haven't been trained to rule, obviously.

No way. A monarch has a constant target on their back. A president can sod off at any time and is able to share any and all blame. Not to mention that they can ban anything speaking ill of the system, but they don't need to, since they can just tell the people that it's what they want.
It's allegedly an elected government, right? That means that enough people have to support them.

To work, they have to be.

sounds like you're a commie bastard who's trynna bury a crucial mistake he's made

so in order to defend an idea i must be of the same political belief as the creator of that idea? using that logic, mao zedong and che guevera shouldn't have been allowed to wage guerilla wars because america already did that in the 1700's

>bad politicians get voted out of office

XDDDDD

>Jefferson invented monarchism

user you're digging yourself a deeper hole

i suggest quitting while behind

>Republics place a number of qualifications on leadership
But they don't? All they require is popularity.
A monarch has to keep control of his nation. A president can just blame the people and tell them he has majority support.
>possibility of Civil War every time a new monarch assumes the throne because the only qualification for being a monarch is "My army is the strongest"
Or that they're the actual best person for the position, as they've been prepped for it for a lifetime, and have more invested than some random politician hoping to collect a pension.

>shouldn't have been allowed to wage guerilla wars because america already did that in the 1700's
Now you apparently don't get the difference between battle tactics and politics. The point being is that, first Jefferson didn't talk about the monarchies, and even if he would it would still be a shitty argument for the monarchies. It's like monarchies are good, because they too can have civil war. Don't you monarchist always blither about how monarchies are way more stable and less violent than republics? So if the change can only be achieved through war in monarchies, that could be achieved by peaceful transfer of power in republic, how exactly is then monarchy better?

>DAE all politicians are currupt LMAO?

never said he created monarchism. i said he created the idea that people should revolt every decade or so. please kill yourself

>DAE all politicians are currupt LMAO?
Not all. But enough. And they don't have to face consequences.

>he created the idea that people should revolt every decade or so

Still wrong.

How deep - can - you - go?

>Ferdinand was the eldest son of Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor and Maria Theresa of Naples and Sicily. Possibly as a result of his parents' genetic closeness (they were double first cousins), Ferdinand suffered from epilepsy, hydrocephalus, neurological problems, and a speech impediment. Upon his marriage to Maria Anna of Savoy, the court physician considered it unlikely that he would be able to consummate the marriage.[4]

>Ferdinand has been depicted as feeble-minded and incapable of ruling, but although he had epilepsy, he kept a coherent and legible diary and has even been said to have had a sharp wit, but having as many as twenty seizures per day severely restricted his ability to rule with any effectiveness.Though he was not declared incapacitated, a Regent's Council (Archduke Louis, Count Kolowrat, and Prince Metternich) steered the government. His marriage to Princess Maria Anna of Sardinia (1803–1884) was probably never consummated, nor is he believed to have had any other liaisons. When he tried to consummate the marriage, he had five seizures. He is best remembered for his command to his cook. When told he could not have apricot dumplings (Marillenknödel) because apricots were out of season, he said "I am the Emperor, and I want dumplings!" (German: Ich bin der Kaiser und ich will Knödel!).[6][7]

>As the revolutionaries of 1848 were marching on the palace, he is supposed to have asked Metternich for an explanation. When Metternich answered that they were making a revolution, Ferdinand is supposed to have said "But are they allowed to do that?" (Viennese German: Ja, dürfen's denn des?)

>difference between battle tactics and politics

gorilla warfare started as an idea
revolutions every decade is also an idea

idea = idea

>peaceful transfer of power in republics
just because your republic achieves change peacefully, doesn't mean every republic in the world does

i.e. everyone south of the sahara

but i would expect a neet american like you to be oblivious to that

stop shitting on your keyboard and try to actually prove me wrong. give me a quote of someone who said exactly "there should be rebellions against the government every decade or so" before jefferson.

>pro-tip: you cant

>gorilla warfare
lol

Again Jefferson didn't talk about revolution every decade, but more of a revolt/civil uprising every decade. And in modern times we still have those in form of protest, which are legal and mostly non violent (well at least less violent than revolutions).

And in regards to monarchies you have two, or maybe three version of them in modern world:
1) constitutional, where all the real power lies within the elected politicians and the monarch is more or less just a tradition and a cultural figure.
2) Small wealthy monarchies like Monaco or Liechtenstein, where it's easy to just keep the population content.

3) Tird world countries with absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia or Thailand, which are incredibly oppressive and will be fucked as soon as they run out of oil or whatever is that gives them money to buy peace for now. I mention Thailand in particular, as the new monarch seems pretty useless, and there might be some negative reprecautions when he starts doing stupid shit, or it might just transform into another constitutional monarchy, which are just republics with a bit of a flavour.

Much like constitutional monarchies nowadays are basically democratic republics with the dressings of monarchy, several "democratic republics" (e.g. North Korea) are hereditary monarchies in practice.

That's true.