Monarchies.
>The monarch is trained from birth to govern his state as his duty.
>Even if he sucked, monarchies also tend to have a big support system consisting of other people trained since birth to govern and be his ministers, or something like China with a meritocracy in place.
Liberal Democracies.
>Lul, public office experience not necessary for running for public office XDDDDD
What did liberal democracies mean by this?
Other urls found in this thread:
fortune.com
twitter.com
Ugh....pretty much the exact opposite is true. Liberal Democracies tend to elect older men as leaders, whereas monarchies inevitably end up giving full power to edgy 13-year olds.
If both systems were running at peak efficiency both systems would be great. Humans just ruin things because they are awful.
>inb4 some american says "but inbreeding"
For the last time nobility didn't marry relatives to keep their blood "pure blue" it was a political decision to maintain family power.
>what is the deep state?
>Old = wise XD
Being old doesnt mean you have extensive experience in statesmanship.
>>The monarch is trained from birth to govern his state as his duty.
>The people can't be wrong!
t. Banana Republics.
>inb4 some american says "but inbreeding"
>For the last time nobility didn't marry relatives to keep their blood "pure blue" it was a political decision to maintain family power
how does this reason contradict that inbreeding is an issue?
And being an inbred somehow does?
>LE MEMEZ XDDD
Marrying cousins was fuck normal at the time, even plebs did it.
Liberal Democracies
>the leader is elected from among the people, ensuring that they represent the needs of the electorate
>even if they suck, they have a term limit and/or checks & balances ensuring they can't fuck up the state for too long
Monarchies
>"mmmph mmmmbbllartgh" *dies and causes a succession war*
Yeah, but leaders should always be held to a higher standard. Letting inbreds run the show is a recipe for disaster.
ugh.. conservative republics have checks & balances. Liberal democracies are just mob rule.
>Switzerland is a horrible place to live
>conservative republic
Americans should never be allowed to talk about politics.
>Leaders should always be held to a higher standard.
>elects someone with no experience nor training for public office.
Democracy is for cucks
>Monarch.jpg
why did you post a picture of a shitty meme clickbait app, did this game convince you monarchy is the way to go
>all monarchies are absolute monarchies
Americans.
An elected leader is almost always going to be better than an inbred autocrat with no accountability, I agree.
DELET THIS, RING A BELL
Tell that to the third world.
Modern eugenics could potentially be used to breed leaders. We also know inbreeding is a short term solution that will only bring long term problems for a family. Monarchy in a modern context would not be Spanish Habsburg tier.
Liberal enlightened autocracy is the patrician form of government
>implying there is anything wrong with cousins marrying
>Modern eugenics could potentially be used to breed leaders
pure fiction. we don't have a high enough understanding of genes to be able to reliably choose traits and most of what we do know consists of this gene makes you more likely to have this behavioral trait, not certainty. not to mention that there is no agreement on which traits are neccisary for a ruler and different types of rulers work better in different situations.
fine as long as they adopt
>it's really good to give supreme power to someone based on their birth
>but if it doesn't work great then an aristocratic class will run the state just fine hehe xd
Well, which is it? Should monarchs have supreme power or not? It seems to me that by giving a (obviously nonexistent) failsafe built in to monarchies, you're conceding that giving some random child absolute authority without accountability is a bad idea.
>Monarchy in a modern context would not be Spanish Habsburg tier.
Monarchy in a modern context is a bunch of glorified welfare recipients LARPing as aristocrats.
>All monarchies have to be absolute monarchies.
Again, Americans.
>having a child with your cousin is somehow wrong
>muh genetic defect
It only raise the odds from 2 to 4% user, and so does having a child with a 35 yo woman.
Okay, so you're conceding that absolute monarchy is a bad idea. So why even bother giving the monarch any power at all? You could have a national lottery picking leaders at random and that would still be a better system.
>When I was still new to the royal palace, I looked out the window and saw a guard standing in the middle of a courtyard, nothing to protect. Nothing to guard. No doors. I couldn't figure out what he was guarding. And so I asked around, no one knew. Not even the emperor. Finally they searched through the old records and found the truth: that 200 years before, as winter came to an end, the emperor's daughter saw the first flower growing up through the snow. To keep anyone from walking on it she assigned a guard to stand watch over it, everyday. After that she never gave it much thought, and thus never countermanded the order. As a result, every day, for 200 years, a guard would stand in that place, long after the flower was gone. Long after the reason had been forgotten. Long after the princess was gone. As I said, these things happen [in a monarchy].
Veeky Forums will defend this.
no
the right to violate the rights of the people belongs to the people
...
Okay then, how much power SHOULD we give to a 10 year old with Down's syndrome because his dad croaked before he had any other heir?
Or, why not find another way to choose competent government?
>Okay, so you're conceding that absolute monarchy is a bad idea.
No, I'm saying you cunts operate on a notion that all monarchies are absolute.
>So why even bother giving the monarch any power at all?
Jesus, that tends to be a cultural question heavily dependent on context. In the likes of Multiethnic Empires, the monarch represents the ultimate third party, who is above race, especially if the empire was dynastic. There's also the expedient that the monarchy possesses the power to protect your ass militarily. But then the humanists think along the lines of the "enlightened despot" in which you have a monarch who is classically trained in the liberal arts. Whole fucking gamut m8.
If we have a high enough understanding to select traits that might be beneficial we have enough information. Successive generations of breeding will only increase the chances of having desired traits appear. A monarch also does not work alone. Modern governments don't have a single man running all aspects of government, the same was true of governments in the past and any government in future. Breeding and educating people to fill certain roles in government for a life time would be more efficient than elected positions.
We are discussing a modern monarch with political power. Please don't drag your poor understanding of the British monarchy in to this.
But the democratic structure can´t sustain itself for long without collapsing
>That guy in the background with no face.
Got me to laugh.
>Somehow can afford several dollars worth of clothes
>Just doesn't sell them to buy food.
The poor is poor because they can't think or innovate.
Honestly I can't understand why normies spend money on these games, they have less gameplay value than the original RTK, and similar graphics.
>why did you post a picture of a shitty meme clickbait app
They tend to have nice concept art t.b.h.
You know I knew a guy who said the exact same thing, rudolf golden bum
The context of the episode is that the empire took most of the food to prevent the rebels from taking it.
Rudof did nothing wrong
When society starts to degenerate, a strong man is necessary to fix it.
Also autocracy are better for A E S T H E T I C S
So true. Le merchants will buy their clothes for food.
Except having a retard baby
that was pretty bad
And monarchies can't sustain themselves for long either. They always grow decadent, and then they are usurped by jealous rivals, plunging the nation into civil war. The peaceful transition of power through democracy is the only way to avoid this fate.
>said the teenager faggot who is a native of >Young=Wise/Experienced
>Old= Stupid/Teen
your post makes your argument more truer.
I won't explain it to you because I'm too lazy to teach stupid people. You don't deserve it.
(((Phezzan)))
History really never changes.
And he wasn´t an hypocrite and didn´t allow that baby to live.
Democracies hinder the growth of great men
>Democracies hinder the growth of great men
Yeah, because hyper-centralizing society around a tiny group of inbreds is great for character development
We don't know that for sure. Athenian democracy lasted for about 300 years, until Alexander ended it. So until the USA has lasted 300 years, we can say that no democracy has survived 300 years, and that would be a true statement. After that we go for the new record. But we can't say that democracy can't be sustained, because you are basing an infinite prediction (something cannot ever be), based on a finite example (limited lifespans of democracy), not to mention that if that were a credible proof it would also prove every other form of government to be impossible to sustain which makes the assertion useless if the point of the argument was comparison.
...
but the right thing would have been to abdicate the throne to a more genetically capable family member
He did give the throne to his grandson
Everything went to shit when the gay Kaiser came 10 generations in or something.
>Athenian democracy lasted for about 300 years, until Alexander ended it. So until the USA has lasted 300 years, we can say that no democracy has survived 300 years, and that would be a true statement.
>that no democracy has survived 300 years
>and that would be a true statement.
>Being this historically ignorant
You are not worthy to so much as look upon the flag of the Republic.
>tfw feudalism would literally be a utopia with our current technology
America is a conservative republic. Liberal republics didn't exist till the French Revolution.
>Implying we don't have feudalism right now
>What did liberal democracies mean by this?
Democracy puts a lot of faith in the voters not to fuck it up. The people are supposed to be smart enough to pick the best among them to rule, theoretically delivering an even higher quality leader than monarchy.
Of course, when our country was founded, only land owners (the wealthy and educated) could vote. Universal suffrage is the problem, not the underlying idea of voting.
Being trained from youth does not guarantee the intelligence or temperament to rule, nor do good ministers assure good governance.
Liberal democracies can also fuck up but there is a key difference. The populace is invested in a liberal democracy in a way they are not in a monarchy, So the system itself remains stable even when its run by a colossal fuck up.
At least in democracy, you can't get a guy who prefers to shoot crows instead of ruling country.
DELET THIS
>Merchants
>Feudalism
K.
No one has ever said that Venice was a democracy. It was a republic.
>Liberal democracy
It didn't allow women to vote until 1972ish
In addition, Switzerland is a Confederacy, with more power being delegated to the Cantons.
Prior to 2016 it was an /x/ tier conspiracy theory
The United States is a republic as well
We are more democratic than Venice ever was, or is.
>America is a conservative republic. Liberal republics didn't exist till the French Revolution.
Wrong.
>Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. It is also called western democracy. It is characterized by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world.
America is a liberal democracy. Don't confuse the way your parties handle the terms "conservative" and "liberal" with the actual definition of such things.
If America was founded as a """""conservative republic"""""" then it wouldve resembled a traditional City Commune. Except that wasn't the case.
Yes, a democratic republic, unlike Venice.
That and the fact that most of those planets are desert shitholes that were very slowly being terraformed. With their stockpiles gone they can't even produce enough to subside on.
Neither can any other system, which is why Reinhard repeatedly voices his opposition to the idea of making a dynasty.
The problems I had with monarchy is that they don't know when to transfer power to a worthy heir.
>impling he did his duty worse then some shitty French/US president
How are you gonna gain public office experience without running to public office
XDDDDD
>
When you say monarchy is great and democracy is shit it's natural to assume you want an absolute monarchy.
>monarchy is the best form of government because it worked in this one anime
What's the difference?
>No one has ever said that Venice was a democracy. It was a republic.
This is a nonsensical and completely INACCURATE distinction.
A republic is merely a nation in which the head of state is elected by some process involving democratic representation.
A democracy is a political system in which the font of authority is the people (either some or most of them), and in which the government is, at least, in principle, responsible and accountable to an electorate.
The Republic of Venice was both a 'republic' and a 'democracy' at least after the founding of the Maggior Consiglio in 1172, just as classical Athens was, just as the United States currently is, just as my country (the UK) is NOT, as while we are a democracy, we are not a republic.
Based Londo
>And monarchies can't sustain themselves for long either.
Current Queen Magrethe II of Denmark is a direct descendant of Gorm the Old who ruled from 936 to 958. They were never ursurped until the King of Denmark slowly began relinquishing his power in the 1800s.
Granted they eventually got their "peaceful transition of power through democracy", but only after 900 years of more or less undisputed rule.
>the monarch represents the ultimate third party
No, the ultimate third party would be a man chosen at random from the population.
I'm quite certain that Denmark is a democracy now. The "monarch" is a just a vestigial remnant of the past.
>Democracies hinder the growth of great men
No, they just get lost in the masses of great men.
Did you intentionally miss the point, did you just not read the post, or did you not bother to read the previous post and thus miss the context?
The claim was that a monarchy wasn't sustainable because jealous rivals would ursurp them, but that has not been the case with the Danish royal family as they ruled until democracy took over.
Who would they sell it to? The Alliance forces already have uniforms, and the Alliance civilians have more stylish clothes, there is no fad for used overalls.
>republic is merely a nation in which the head of state is elected by some process involving democratic representation.
A republic is simply a nation in which there is no monarch. Both a democracy and an oligarchy qualify as a republic. But democracy and oligarchy are very well differentiated in all the histories, which you would know if you had read them.
American here. That's rich. Our politics have been dynastic for half a century (Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, I'm willing to bet we'll see another Trump thanks to dumbass Republicans) and that's only because families are selling support to banks, insurance companies or the military industrial complex. It's almost an oligarchy at this point.
They do sometimes. Sometimes being the key word.
We are basically 19th century France. But even 19th century France was more democratic than 12th century Venice.
>Wanting a shitty Anglo-Japanese style """"""monarchy""""""