Is monarchy the ultimate redpill in running a country?

Is monarchy the ultimate redpill in running a country?

>is subjecting yourself completely to somebody else alpha male behaviour?

Depends on how you're defining "redpill".

If you mean it in the original context of

>The secret way that things are really being run that the people in power don't want you to know

Then obviously not. Monarchies aren't generally a thing anymore, and nobody bothers to hide ti.

If you mean it in the 2015ish /pol/ way of

>DA JOOOOOOOOOOZ DEEEEEEEED EEEEEEEET

Then again, obviously not.

If you mean it in the modern /pol/ way, of

>Something I believe because of shitty jpegs

Then I guess you have a case.

monarchists are by default, cucks

Humans subconsiously create monarchies even in close knit groups, you ever notice in your social circle there is one of your friends who is basically the leader of your circle.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with monarchy at all.

Republicans are cucks to corporations and bankers.

your confusing a leader with a hereditary ruler

>implying monarchists don't

>tfw you've grasped the true nature of imperium / regera / command / auctoritas
>tfw you will never make plebs come to the same realization as you
>tfw mere "politics" is a laughing matter to you now

Monarchys can execute bankers, republics are literally the slaves of bankers.

when was the last time a monarchy executed somebody in Europe?

400 years ago and European monarchies dont even exist they are just decorations at this point.

>Monarch executes bankers
>Other bankers leave
>Nobody will lend your shitty kingdom money
>You become the equivalent of North Korea
>Your neighbors invade your realm and gang-rape the royal family.

What is the purpose of government, i would say that the betterment of the population, stability of the state, and accountability and ability to "course correct" out of bad ideas as a good qualifiers, so let me run through them
>betterment of the population
The king only has incentive to increase the total ammount of cash made by the people in aggregate, encouraging shitholes like china, that produce vast GDP despite fucking horrendous living conditions, in comparison democratic governments incetivise the government to increase the wages of larger groups of the population, in order to get reelected, or sufficently increase the living standards of enough people in order to get reelected, monarchy also incetivises lower levels of education, smarter peasents can more effectively overthrow you, whilst poor dumb jackasses can't.
>accountability
A king is accountable to the people who allow him to remain in power, the military, the police, other conduits of power for the ruler, meaning that the only way to hold the government to account is to be a high ranking government official, the citizenries only defense against shitty terrible government decisions is to start a revolt, which in the modern era would be put down through force or have the monarch fuck up so bad that the government allows him to get overthrown, democracies are, accountable to the people, which means a few things, democracies will be less prone to massive long term projects due to the need to gain votes from the electorate, and democracies must directly serve the will of the people, this is partly why democracies educate more, smarter people can see what you're doing and why, and are less swayed by shit parties.
>abilityto course correct
If we assume that the monarch has final sya, then there is no ability to do this, at best you'll have advisors who can dissuade the leader from shit ideas, and in the worst case you have a short fat korean screaming about how he's totally going to nuke the USA

decorations who are above law and get paid millions by peasants

Monarchy is good if you don't live in Australia, Canada or New Zealand. I don't know how it would be to live without a monarch, so I can't really answer the question. I think it's good to have a person who represents the country till his dead.

Shut up jew.

>Australia, Canada or New Zealand
The dominions? The monarch works well in westministerial systems in order to limit prime ministerial power by arguing that powers the PM is trying to exert still remain with the monarch.

>Monarchy is good if you don't live in Australia, Canada or New Zealand.
Literally why? We benefit greatly from our monarchy.

>Monarchy is good if you don't live in Australia, Canada or New Zealand.
Monarchy is great in Canada. We get an old lady who sometimes visits and waves, and we wave back. Sometimes here children and grandchildren visit too, and pose for postcards, and wave, and sometimes they help businesses by publicly buying stuff, which makes the stuff they buy officially cool.

Monarchies need not be hereditary.

They need be if they want to work.

Elective monarchies work(ed) just as well. Sometimes you got strong, able rulers, sometimes you got weak idiots. Just like with hereditary monarchies. The only difference is that if the weak idiot has a weak idiot child, you aren't stuck accepting that child as your future leader.

>Elective monarchies work(ed) just as well.
No they didn't. Look at the HRE. It comes back to populism, but on a smaller crowd.
>The only difference is that if the weak idiot has a weak idiot child, you aren't stuck accepting that child as your future leader.
But now we shouldn't have to worry about that thanks to scientific advancements.

>Look at the HRE
Outlasted the french monarchy. Wasn't cucked by Parliament.
In the end it as done in by an emperor who didn't inherit his title.

Not if it is a socialist republic

>But now we shouldn't have to worry about that thanks to scientific advancements.

Wow, that's some amazing arrogance. People can be fucked up for a lot more reasons than just their genetic shortcomings.

If you really want a monarchy, get an emperor who adopts and grooms a successor.

An active executive branch is needed to keep government in check than just wave at people

>Outlasted the french monarchy.
So? It had it e-z mode by not having French citizens.

>Wow, that's some amazing arrogance.
I think you mean logic.
>People can be fucked up for a lot more reasons than just their genetic shortcomings.
True, but if we can mitigate or eliminate the latter, then the other shortcomings can handled by education.
>If you really want a monarchy, get an emperor who adopts and grooms a successor.
Why? Didn't work for Rome.
Not to mention that without inheriting progeny, the emperor has less reason to care.

fpbp

Swearing allegiance to some ruler is just being a cuck

>Elective
No just stop, voting is a meme that implies that humans collectively can make good decisions and arent just glorified popularity contest. Keep monarchies as hereditary to limit the power to a small group of people.

I'm not really for elective either, but hereditary is the worst. It's too easy for fuck-ups to get power, too hard to remove them from power, and there's really no motivation to improve as the position is more-or-less guaranteed.
A meritocratic monarchy would be best. Have ever successive monarch given the position by trial of some sort.

No. It's 2017.
I wonder if there were people in the taverns during the 1500's discussing how tribalism was better...

>but hereditary is the worst. It's too easy for fuck-ups to get power, too hard to remove them from power, and there's really no motivation to improve as the position is more-or-less guaranteed.
Pretty sure you mean elective, there.
Whereas a monarchy is still meritocratic, but not in the standard path. They're trained from birth for the job, and when it comes to hands on experience, they don't have to bow and scrape to petty voters. Or more realistically, plutocrats who actually decide who'll be the figurehead.

>No. It's 2017.
GG no re.

Yeah because rich trust fund kids riding on daddies coattails with no true adversity in life are known for their stellar leadership and ability to relate to the normal populace.

Anarcho-monarchism is much more sensible imo.

Why the fuck would anyone live under a an absolute monarch willingly? What's so good about it? Educate me

I'd be OK with monarchy only if I was the king

>Anarcho-monarchism

What about an appointive monarchy? Non-hereditary, but instead the monarch is forced to name a successor, which can be related to them but shouldn't necessarily be? Like Gibbon's Five Good Emperors.

>What is a false dichotomy?
Or do you really think management of a nation isn't some kind of struggle?
You're also ignoring what i said about training from birth.

Less bureaucracy. No partisan politics, with the media forcing propaganda down your throat for one side or the other. More efficient, and capable of long term goals. And of course national unity.

You're still going to have backstabbing and politicking, though. Not to mention that the monarch won't necessarily give it his all, since he'll have to provide for his own children. That's where having his first born son be the next king ensures maximum dedication. Because no one is going to want to have their child inherit a shitshow. Basically the opposite of an elective system where you can rort it for yourself, and leave the next sucker to clean up the mess.