Will we ever see a monarchy resurgence in Europe?

Will we ever see a monarchy resurgence in Europe?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/UK7cX5Ez-rI
youtu.be/cMzP_zsf2Sk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_II_of_Romania
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Hopefully. It's the only God approved form of government after all.

>tfw I live in a republic
>tfw I'm going to hell

No.

In its most traditional form? No. Politics in the west is getting more populist and authoritarian. Whether you go right or left, Trump or Bernie, there is a common trend among both their movements.

The theme is that they will be paladin Presidents that will get into office, bring the evildoers to heel, and fix the country through their force of will.

Perhaps society is shifting back to monarchy, but not in the manner of the ancien regime. More in the manner of having a plebiscite electing the strongman

Not enough Louis XIV threads imo

Yes. People are getting sick of politicians. Even Manny Macaron said France needs a king, and Romania is getting closer to referendum.

>The theme is that they will be paladin Presidents that will get into office, bring the evildoers to heel, and fix the country through their force of will.

You diagnosed the problem but fucked up the solution

I didn't prescribe a solution. I was merely describing the current political climate in terms of each side and what they believe

I'm so sorry OP, but it won't happen. Our fates were sealed in 1918.

Russia is the only country where it's a possibility. A very, very small possibility. Elsewhere in Europe, it's not going to happen.

Will we ever see a resurgence of catapults in modern warfare?

No, you retarded mouthbreather. Monarchy, Aristocracy and Primogeniture are fucking stupid by design. If you want to LARP, go somewhere else you wig-sniffing fag.

Good goy. White monarchy is stupid. Only banking dictatorships are acceptable, right?

Yes. Catholic monarchy is the best form of government.

Pro Fide, Lege et Rege

t. card-carrying member of a Polish Monarchist organisation

>korwin having a chance
zgniłem zuchu

But still Poland is probably close than most of Europe, pic related are the results of the most recent election broken down by age, and below is my translation into meme:

>18-29 year olds:
26.6% Religious Right-wing
20.6% Meme Alliance of Anti-Establishment Right-wing Populists
16.8% Literal Monarchist Ancaps
14.4% Generic Pro-Europe Centrists
7.8% Generic Pro-Europe Centrists 2
5.2% Western-style Degenerate Lefties
3.7% Farmer Mafia
3.4% Post-Communist Lefty Alliance

>30-39 year olds:
30.6% Religious Right-wing
23.8% Generic Pro-Europe Centrists
12.6% Meme Alliance of Anti-Establishment Right-wing Populists
10.8% Generic Pro-Europe Centrists 2
5.8% Western-style Degenerate Lefties
5.6% Post-Communist Lefty Alliance
5.1% Farmer Mafia
4.8% Literal Monarchist Ancaps

>40-49
38.7% Religious Right-wing
25.8% Generic Pro-Europe Centrists
8.2% Generic Pro-Europe Centrists 2
7.7% Meme Alliance of Anti-Establishment Right-wing Populists
6.4% Post-Communist Lefty Alliance
5.9% Farmer Mafia
4.1% Western-style Degenerate Lefties
2.6% Literal Monarchist Ancaps

>50-59
47.1% Religious Right-wing
23.0% Generic Pro-Europe Centrists
7.3% Post-Communist Lefty Alliance
6.2% Farmer Mafia
6.0% Generic Pro-Europe Centrists 2
4.9% Meme Alliance of Anti-Establishment Right-wing Populists
3.2% Western-style Degenerate Lefties
1.8% Literal Monarchist Ancaps

>60+
48.7% Religious Right-wing
28.1% Generic Pro-Europe Centrists
9.3% Post-Communist Lefty Alliance
5.1% Farmer Mafia
3.8% Generic Pro-Europe Centrists 2
2.0% Meme Alliance of Anti-Establishment Right-wing Populists
1.8% Western-style Degenerate Lefties
0.6% Literal Monarchist Ancaps

Only a matter of time until strongmen establish dynasties.

Are you shitting me? There's literally no "God approved" form of government.

The only one is under God Himself. No human rulers.

>going to hell
Hell is propaganda perpetrated by the Catholic Church to scare the populace into submission.

>Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach—men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.

No. The democracy meme is too powerful. Even dictators have to stage sham elections to legitimate their rule. Monarchies in this day and age can't acquire political legitimacy and instill loyalty from the population.

bible states pretty firmly that hell exists
you can't really call yourself a christian if you don't believe in hell

It's kind of unnecessary now, though, if we go by the Bible. Plus, the Dante interpretation which is what we use now never did reconcile.

Vova getting his kids to power?

A very, very small possibility is still an overstatement.

It's 2017, not 1717.

>Literal Monarchist Ancaps

Should a return to monarchism occur, would a people select as the ruling dynasty a prior family, ennoble some schmuck and his descendants, or what?

From the ashes of masons and kikes a new regime based on divine will flourish.
Our goverments have been hijacked by human garbage just like it happened in Athens or Rome but God will always fond his way to give its children a king

>divine right

Nah, and if it would happen it will still be ceremonial because of democracy

>Nah, and if it would happen it will still be ceremonial because of democracy
>Nah monarchy won't return to Athens and if it would happen it would be ceremonial
>Nah monarchy won't return to Rome and if it would happen it would be ceremonial
Oh sweet summer child

>Primogeniture
> stupid
Oh boy how old are you?
Primogeniture----> inheritance of all familiar goodies.

Poast monarchist tunes

youtu.be/UK7cX5Ez-rI

House of Piast is extinct. So is the House of Jagiello, and Sobieski. Who would be the Polish king?

>monarchists
UUUUHHHHHHGHGBBLLIFFPTH

I'll be the polish king, you ass hat. I'm a descendant of King Kurwa, the first king of the Pollack tribes, who was the first guy and everybody else is usurpers do the throne is mine and if you claim otherwise I'll kill you.

Per the 1791 Commonwealth constitution it should be the Albertine Wettins, so right now it would be Rüdiger, Margrave of Meissen.

Though the Polish monarchists are open to other options and there's been some discussions about it. The three main alternatives would be a Gediminid family (like the Jagiellons were), most likely the Czartoryscy, the Żywiec branch of the Habsburgs, or a whole new dynasty.

I'd go for a Lubomirski if I had my way but that's not a very popular opinion.

this gives me so much feels that I want to be ruled by an eternal king whom would tell me who to fight and with whom to live.

Iktf

youtu.be/cMzP_zsf2Sk

>Habsburgs

ruh roh

>Farmer Mafia

we have reached peak Slav

ok now for the important question...would you Eleonore von Habsburg?

I'm sorry user, no room for one of the most historically significant figures to ever live with all the important WE WUZ, race-baiting, Hitler fap, and random American partisan bullshit threads that this board needs

I want to but I am a smelly NEET

I'm an American I'd rather die than fuck royalty.

I've known Austrian women hotter than that.

Most of Europe is under a monarchy.

>It's current year, not current year - 300.
What do you mean by this

>m-muh pathetic Republican pride
Redneck plebian

The concept of republic is nearly as old as monarchy, should we get rid of it too then?

You're both plebs. Fucking royalty is a guaranteed ticket to a life of luxury and a place in the nation's history. Just ask Kate Middleton. And yes I'd give Eleonore the ol' slap and tickle. I mean, she's the hottest Habsburg I've ever seen

>No Habsburg chin
2/10

Do you even know why you feel that way? Or is it just what you've been told to think?

Speaking as someone under a monarch i quite like, keep standing up for your principles.

>You're both plebs. Fucking royalty is a guaranteed ticket to a life of luxury and a place in the nation's history. Just ask Kate Middleton. And yes I'd give Eleonore the ol' slap and tickle. I mean, she's the hottest Habsburg I've ever seen
Jackass, katemiddleton married into a ruling royal family, the Habsburgs ain't gonna rule jack fucking shit for a long while.

He feels that way because even a basic reflection on the idea of monarchy shows it's either an absolutely terrible idea (As her family happily demonstrated) or just a cute cultural activity (IE, Britain) that is of no major significance.

A royal family doesn't have to rule to have wealth and influence you fucking moron. Besides, the British royal family isn't exactly 'ruling' the UK in the sense that they exercise any real control

Do you seriously think that the post ww1 habsburgs are going to be written in the history books? At best they'd be notable for the creation of the little entente, the Hapsburgs today are almost completely irrelevant.

>a basic reflection on the idea of monarchy shows it's either an absolutely terrible idea
False. Such a conclusion is only somewhat understandable since you've admitted to only a basic reflection, wherein you've found only one real bad spot, which even monarchists agree needed to be fixed (and could easily be fixed).
Contrasted with every other political system, excepting that of some advanced technocracy we've yet to conceive, it still reigns supreme in the fields of representing the people, governance, and inability of corruption.

>a heriditary position that almost by nessecity is cloistered within a bubble of wealth and requires the delegation of advisors is defended against corruption and is representative of the people
Quit talking out of your ass dude.

Try dislodging the Murica' propaganda for a moment and think:
A hereditary position is ideal because it allows full transparency. It also ensures that the leader is going to do well, because he has to pass it on to his son. Corruption is nigh impossible, because how could a citizen bribe their monarch? The monarch already has everything. And since there's no (((election))) process, the monarch is able to represent the best interests of all their people, not just focus on gerrymandering and pandering.

They might well not be, but by fucking a Habsburg you've got a better chance of it than by sitting on your ass, posting on an anonymous imageboard like we both are

>be multi billionaires
>irrelevant

>A hereditary position is ideal because it allows full transparency. It also ensures that the leader is going to do well, because he has to pass it on to his son.
Every single person living within a nation has to pass the world they've influenced onto their son, this is true of any ruler, in addition, "full transparency"? Please go into further detail.
>orruption is nigh impossible, because how could a citizen bribe their monarch?
Easy, Monarchs are people, they can't know everything about every subject, so monarchs need advisors, who don't hold ultimate power, and can therefore be bribed.
>he monarch already has everything. And since there's no (((election))) process, the monarch is able to represent the best interests of all their people, not just focus on gerrymandering and pandering.
He's also completely insulated from the effects of his descision, if the Monarch continually fights costly wars, the only thing that hurts for him is the economic performance of his realm (which beyond a certain point he doesn't have to care about), democracies (that aren't built fucking terribly) force rulers to rule in a way that most people approve of.

I coronate her vagina as the Holy Roman Entrance.

>Every single person living within a nation has to pass the world they've influenced onto their son, this is true of any ruler,
Not so much. A president can up and leave after his term. He has more incentive to strip mine the place and work for his masters (banks, pharma, oil, etc), then sod off to another country with the wealth.
A monarch can't do that. They're bound to their land as it's personification. It's transparent because you know where the buck stops. They have the power to make and break whatever. They can't just fire their staff, or have their MPs get replaced by "vote" with a clone and pretend it's different.
>Easy, Monarchs are people, they can't know everything about every subject, so monarchs need advisors, who don't hold ultimate power, and can therefore be bribed.
Absolutely true, but given that it's the exact same of other systems, it's still slightly better in a monarchy due to the monarch being the final check and balance. Elected leaders have to fear popularity hits. As in, a governmental scientist pushing for homo acceptance can win favour in a democratic system, and thus can't be discomforted by actual fact. A monarch could analyse the counterpoints and take action without fear of losing some seats/votes.
>He's also completely insulated from the effects of his descision
Where do you think his wealth comes from, though? It's in their best interests to have their nation be prosperous. Yes, that doesn't mean they'll be flawless all the time, but they aren't going to want to drive their golden goose through the floor. Or he might risk open revolt.
> democracies (that aren't built fucking terribly) force rulers to rule in a way that most people approve of.
Not so much. Remember that for most cases, 51% is the maximum amount of people they need to keep happy. Far lower with gerrymandering. And they don't even need to keep them happy, just have the (((media))) tell them they're happy and to keep voting for them.

Are you really that authoritarian in real life? You want to crave an authoritarian type of government?

>Not so much. A president can up and leave after his term. He has more incentive to strip mine the place and work for his masters (banks, pharma, oil, etc), then sod off to another country with the wealth.
A monarch can't do that. They're bound to their land as it's personification. It's transparent because you know where the buck stops. They have the power to make and break whatever. They can't just fire their staff, or have their MPs get replaced by "vote" with a clone and pretend it's different.
I assume you're arguing from a position of absolutism, Monarchs can absolutely just leave, Abdication is a thing, and if the king truely is "the final check and balance" (which assumes he has total power) then he would be able to do this with few problems, Peter the Great is an example of a monarch with total power fucking something up horribly to the detriment of his subjects, who didn't care about his subjects culture whatsoever.
>Absolutely true, but given that it's the exact same of other systems, it's still slightly better in a monarchy due to the monarch being the final check and balance. Elected leaders have to fear popularity hits. As in, a governmental scientist pushing for homo acceptance can win favour in a democratic system, and thus can't be discomforted by actual fact. A monarch could analyse the counterpoints and take action without fear of losing some seats/votes.
If your argumentation is bad, and your "proof" unable to convince the population, then you've made a shit argument and it probably shouldn't be law, and elected rulers can and have made very unpopular descisions, such as Abraham Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, and the 13th ammendment of the constitution of the united states of America.
1/2

People don't want freedom, especially not unhappy or passive or untalented people who can't make freedom work in their favor. People want duty and honor and a cause to subsume their ego which is nothing, nothing, nothing alone.

>Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a grudging way, have said to people “I offer you a good time,” Hitler has said to them “I offer you struggle, danger and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet

>Where do you think his wealth comes from, though? It's in their best interests to have their nation be prosperous. Yes, that doesn't mean they'll be flawless all the time, but they aren't going to want to drive their golden goose through the floor. Or he might risk open revolt.
A king's wealth obviously comes from their kingdom, but Peter the Great still had a grand palace and a beautiful crown whilst russian men were living and dying in awful conditions under serfdom, economic power can often lead to the worening of living standards for the population (See the early industrial revolution)
>Not so much. Remember that for most cases, 51% is the maximum amount of people they need to keep happy. Far lower with gerrymandering. And they don't even need to keep them happy, just have the (((media))) tell them they're happy and to keep voting for them.
Once again, this is the case with shit democracies, fptp is a terrible way of selecting delegates, these problems can be solved with proper fucking gerrymandering laws and a more proportional system of delegate selection, you're looking for reform, not restoration.
2/2

Even if you need clean your nation of corruption and disorder and even if the people don't want freedom, shouldn't they at least have the rule of law and have basic natural rights that all people are born with? You may laugh at the concept of rights but what if the strongman is a despot and he decides he doesn't like you?

>Monarchs can absolutely just leave
Not in quite the same way. Like, a president or prime minister is expected to piss off after their term and hand it over to the next vandal. A monarch wouldn't benefit from such an action.
>Peter the Great is an example of a monarch with total power fucking something up horribly to the detriment of his subjects, who didn't care about his subjects culture whatsoever.
>Peter the Great
Whut. He did as much as he bally well could for his people.
> and your "proof" unable to convince the population, then you've made a shit argument
I want to agree, but you're giving the general populace too much credit. They're mostly women, and operate on feels. You don't need a good argument, you just need to sway their feelings.
>elected rulers can and have made very unpopular descisions, such as Abraham Lincoln's emancipation proclamation
Didn't mean to say it was an impossibility, but look at it now. One side will do something, then as soon as the "other" side gets in, they reverse it. Perfect distraction.

>but Peter the Great still had a grand palace and a beautiful crown whilst russian men were living and dying in awful conditions under serfdom
Well yea. It's the same principle as a CEO having a Mercedes while his workers might have a used Ford. Distribution is an important consideration.
Besides, they weren't that badly off under Peter, and he did help them with as many western advancements as he could implement. Later is when things rolled back a bit.
> these problems can be solved with proper fucking gerrymandering laws
Why would a (((politician))) ever want to do that, though? Hell, we've seen it here where they bitched about gerrymandering, so all they did in power was fix it to suit themselves. Then the next party did the same thing again.
All it did was pass the buck around, and like with any elective government, prevent long term planning and projects (something monarchies are able to accomplish with ease).

>Not in quite the same way. Like, a president or prime minister is expected to piss off after their term and hand it over to the next vandal. A monarch wouldn't benefit from such an action.
Yeah, a monarch would never run away with a nation's finances, that'd be ridiculous!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_II_of_Romania
>Whut. He did as much as he bally well could for his people.
Sorry, this was a Fuck up on my part, i was talking about the first miracle of the house of brandenburg and Peter III
>I want to agree, but you're giving the general populace too much credit. They're mostly women, and operate on feels. You don't need a good argument, you just need to sway their feelings.
Guess what, good arguments take the emotions of the people into account, people are emotional creatures, in all aspects of life, be that economic, military, or administrative, the opinions and "feels" of people are important, if they weren't then we wouldn't have a myraid of good reforms.
>Didn't mean to say it was an impossibility, but look at it now. One side will do something, then as soon as the "other" side gets in, they reverse it. Perfect distraction.
Reform's that work will fail, and be overturned, as much as i advocate for a form of public healthcare, Obamacare hasn't achieved its goals, the emancipation proclamition didn't siginificantly damage America, neither did the 13th ammendment or jim crow reversal.
>Well yea. It's the same principle as a CEO having a Mercedes while his workers might have a used Ford. Distribution is an important consideration.
Besides, they weren't that badly off under Peter, and he did help them with as many western advancements as he could implement. Later is when things rolled back a bit.
I was making a broader point, which is that a monarch is always going to be detatched from those his policies hurt, the well being of a population shouldn;t be dependent on the feelings of the ruler
1/2

Austria. They wanted their Hapsburg emperor back until the socialists in the 1960s shut it down

>Why would a (((politician))) ever want to do that, though? Hell, we've seen it here where they bitched about gerrymandering, so all they did in power was fix it to suit themselves. Then the next party did the same thing again.
All it did was pass the buck around, and like with any elective government, prevent long term planning and projects (something monarchies are able to accomplish with ease).
Look, i can tell you're an American, the Constitution is nearly 200 years old, Gerrymandering wasn't a political process at the time of the signing of the consitution, there's a reason that the Consitution is very brief, it's because the Constitution to some extent needs to be flexible, Europe has a strong tradition of rebuiling countries when political problems build up (see the modern history of France) Monarchy is not a solution to these problems, your proposed solution is treating a situation that needs reform (Like a new constituional convention) and proposing despotism, which sacrifices the innumerable benefits of democratic governments.

One can hope

>i can tell you're an American
Nope. Ya'll just have lots of good examples of why democracy is shite.
>the Constitution is nearly 200 years old
I'm not blaming the constitution. Hell, i think monarchies should have a constitution as well. It's the democratic process i have issue with.
>Monarchy is not a solution to these problems
It really is, though. I mean, in the USA, it's *A* step, not the only one, but in general a monarch would benefit every country far more than Murdoch puppets can.
>which sacrifices the innumerable benefits of democratic governments.
What benefits might those be? Or rather, benefits to anyone but the plutocrats who actually control them?

>Nope. Ya'll just have lots of good examples of why democracy is shite.
I come from the UK, Gerrymandering has been solved with private electoral commissions, Judging by the "Shite" i'd take it your scottish, in which case you've got a form of proportional representation for the devolved parliament.
>I'm not blaming the constitution. Hell, i think monarchies should have a constitution as well. It's the democratic process i have issue with.
Everything you've said so far implies an absolutist government, the monarch can't be a final point for legislation if the constitution doesn't affect legislation (in which case, the effective power in limiting a shit king are tiny)
>It really is, though. I mean, in the USA, it's *A* step, not the only one, but in general a monarch would benefit every country far more than Murdoch puppets can.
You haven't made a single argument in favour of this, Despots are insulated from the effects of their descisions, and can implement policy that hurts the majority of the citizenry.

>What benefits might those be? Or rather, benefits to anyone but the plutocrats who actually control them?
I've said, Democraticly elected leaders require the consent of their people, meaning their descisions can't directly harm the populace, due to the fact that successful reforms are readily adopted by democratic countries (mostly) effective reforms aren't likely to be rolled back, think about the NHS, the NHS was an effective service that people like, i seriously doubt the Conservatives like the NHS very much, but to get rid of it would be electoral suicide, so they have to try and slowly dismantle it, and these actions can be undone very quickly.

>(((rights)))

Hahahahaha!!!! Another faggoterian that autistically screeches about muh (((constitution))), muh (((rights))), muh (((civil liberties))).

Go suck a warlords boot you faggot.

>Judging by the "Shite" i'd take it your scottish
Still nope. I would say where, but honestly i'm liking your Sherlockian methods of trying to deduce it.
The Jocks do have an interesting system, though.
>Everything you've said so far implies an absolutist government, the monarch can't be a final point for legislation if the constitution doesn't affect legislation
Really depends on the constitution. I wouldn't have it be some massive document, but just a couple of general guidelines. Things like "no inbreeding", "primogeniture", "freedom of speech and assembly", "right to bare arms", maybe "no abdicating under normal circumstances" and a few bits about the defense of the state implying justification for necking a truly irredeemable king and placing his son on the throne.
> Despots are insulated from the effects of their descisions
Only so far as they can protect themselves.
Politicians are insulated by the media telling people any decision is a good one which they chose themselves. If a despot starts hurting enough people, no army is going to protect him.
>Democraticly elected leaders require the consent of their people
They don't though. Unless you had mandatory non-secret ballot, perhaps. Otherwise you're really just hoping and trusting, while the plutocrats decide what really happens.
>meaning their descisions can't directly harm the populace
Immigration laws and many economic policies would certainly beg to differ.
>the NHS was an effective service
It's been a bloated shitpile for a long time, bro. Good in theory, but in practice far too generous, which harms the nation.

Make me faggot. The previous user was right, faggots like you don't want (((rights))) so a could strongman will put people like you in line.

How do you start a kingdom when your kangz have been gone for centuries?
Do you really need a descendant, are people still autistic about that?
Our parliament is retarded and the worst, our government is literally an oligarchy.
I think this is true for a lot of countries too, there would be a big opportunity for someone to step in the coming happenings.

>Only so far as they can protect themselves.
Politicians are insulated by the media telling people any decision is a good one which they chose themselves. If a despot starts hurting enough people, no army is going to protect him.
Amries propped up serfdom and slavery for fucking centuries, and there were no serious rebellions in response to the early conditions of the industrial revolution
>Still nope. I would say where, but honestly i'm liking your Sherlockian methods of trying to deduce it.
The Jocks do have an interesting system, though.
Well shit, ain't got a clue then.
>They don't though. Unless you had mandatory non-secret ballot, perhaps. Otherwise you're really just hoping and trusting, while the plutocrats decide what really happens.
You need votes to get elected, you can't win an election without votes, please show me proof that all elections are rigged or fuck off.
>Immigration laws and many economic policies would certainly beg to differ.
Have you even been awake this year? in the UK and US voters have voiced a pretty clear distate for immigration that is being implemented in government, through Trump and Brexit.
>It's been a bloated shitpile for a long time, bro. Good in theory, but in practice far too generous, which harms the nation.
Yeah, when you underfund a system it dies, big fucking shock, the NHS has overwhelming public support, you fart knocker.

Also
>Really depends on the constitution. I wouldn't have it be some massive document, but just a couple of general guidelines. Things like "no inbreeding", "primogeniture", "freedom of speech and assembly", "right to bare arms", maybe "no abdicating under normal circumstances" and a few bits about the defense of the state implying justification for necking a truly irredeemable king and placing his son on the throne.
Completely retarded, what is the purpose of a constitution if not to limit the power of a monarch? having a "Lol u can kill and replace the monarch if he pisses you off" clause doesn't adress the central problem that the king can piss off whoever he wants at any time.

Nigger, G-d told the fucking Israelites having a king was a bad idea, but the insisted on it

>Amries propped up serfdom and slavery for fucking centuries
Because people were disparate. One tribe would have no problem helping enslave another, even if they were neighbours, because they weren't those people. Large scale nationalism means you'd have more trouble with this now, and fewer soldiers are going to want to ventilate their kith and kin.
>and there were no serious rebellions in response to the early conditions of the industrial revolution
Kinda were, though. They were just suppressed very quickly.
>Well shit, ain't got a clue then.
Australia, old boy. Thought you might have guessed from my saying parliament earlier. But thanks for playing.
You need votes to get elected, you can't win an election without votes
No, you need people to believe you have votes. That's where the media comes in. Having worked as a ballot counter a few times, i could certainly tell you how easy they would be to fake, if you even needed to. Let alone with the American system of ballot machines.
> in the UK and US voters have voiced a pretty clear distate for immigration that is being implemented in government,
Aye, but these are systems which have been in place for decades, and have always been detrimental. They're only now being addressed in public.
>when you underfund a system it dies
It has always had plenty of funding for what was intended. But the plebs abused it.
>the NHS has overwhelming public support
Of course it did. It's free gibs. Sponges don't complain about free shit.

>what is the purpose of a constitution if not to limit the power of a monarch?
To provide some yard sticks of if something is going well or not. Duh.
>having a "Lol u can kill and replace the monarch if he pisses you off" clause doesn't adress the central problem that the king can piss off whoever he wants at any time.
It wouldn't be as simple as, "Unhappy today? Go neck your sovereign!" but facility for a monarch who is beyond salvation to be moved on more quickly than his lifespan is letting him. Not a good king. Not a mediocre king. Not even a bad king. But one who, by his continued life, is actively destroying his nation, and the only solution is to liberate him of that life.
The king has to be able to piss people off, otherwise we just have a democracy where only happy and pleasant things can be spoken of.

>tfw you wuz nobles nd sheit
>tfw you'll never be one yourself

Take the Kingdom of Greece. They didn't have any Hellenic royal descendants left (or if they did, the proof was scant), so they just invited a Danish royal prince to become King of the Hellenes. It was seen as having more dignity than choosing a local noble who was probably little more than a glorified peasant at that point.

>Because people were disparate. One tribe would have no problem helping enslave another, even if they were neighbours, because they weren't those people. Large scale nationalism means you'd have more trouble with this now, and fewer soldiers are going to want to ventilate their kith and kin.
Okay, let's assume this does happen, you have a Charlie 2 instead of a Charlemange, After the people defeat the king, then what? What ensures that the kings son isn't another Charlie 2? Contraint on the Monarch is the obvious solution, and as this continues we can see the soft decline of the Power of British kings, when the mkonarch does something retarded, power was transferred to Parliament to ensure it didn't happen again.
>Kinda were, though. They were just suppressed very quickly.
I'd argue that socialism was a form of "rebellion" against the living standards imposed by the Industrial revolution, personally, if the king is ultimatley subject to the will of the mob, how is that any different to a democracy?
>Australia, old boy. Thought you might have guessed from my saying parliament earlier. But thanks for playing.
You need votes to get elected, you can't win an election without votes
No, you need people to believe you have votes. That's where the media comes in. Having worked as a ballot counter a few times, i could certainly tell you how easy they would be to fake, if you even needed to. Let alone with the American system of ballot machines.
Fuck, it's always Australia, but anyway, making the claim that the democratic nations of the world are universally rigged is a pretty bold claim, saying it would be easy to do doesn't mean it's happened, even then, if a system existed in which the government could just rig any election, how the fuck would the Brexit refferneda or election of Trump happen?
1/2

>Aye, but these are systems which have been in place for decades, and have always been detrimental. They're only now being addressed in public.
That's just the logical endpoint of modern economic viewpoints, the idea that GDP is the most important measure of an economy, which would incentivise increasing production, which increases demand for labour.
>It has always had plenty of funding for what was intended. But the plebs abused it.
We spend less in terms of GDP percentage than Germany or France for a better service, saying "the plebs abused it" is stupid, because the current problems with the NHS are a lack of supply, of beds, and doctors, and no matter how unhealthy you are, you can't stop a new doctor from being hired, in addition policies such as the pay freeze have disincentivised new doctors joining the NHS.
>Of course it did. It's free gibs. Sponges don't complain about free shit.
Everyone pays, everyone gets, it's not gibs me dat if you're paying your fair shake, it's a service.

Once again, legalism is important, one man's "active destruction of the nation" is another man's much needed break up of traditional power.

>comparing the social and political situations of Athens and Rome to modern day Weimerica and Europe

what did he mean by this

>Weimerica
Oh don't be so dramatic.

>What ensures that the kings son isn't another Charlie 2?
A demonstration of what happens is probably a pretty good incentive. And I'm guessing you mean James II, because both Charlies were great.
> if the king is ultimatley subject to the will of the mob, how is that any different to a democracy?
First of all, you can't prevent the will of the mob. By it's very nature, it's an unstoppable beast. But because it's a slow, lumberous thing, prone to shooting itself in the foot and cutting off it's nose, a monarch can manage it better than a democracy. The majority of the people aren't going to one day all decide they really want to see some holes in their monarch, but given the option, they might inadvertently hoist their own petard by voting for a person or policy who will actively destroy them.
>making the claim that the democratic nations of the world are universally rigged is a pretty bold claim,
Not even saying they all are, but they all easily could be. Like, how many times have you checked out if the votes really did add up? What about the other people in your town? I'd put good money on saying they didn't, and just accepted what was told to them with either a grumble or a cheer.
>which the government could just rig any election, how the fuck would the Brexit refferneda or election of Trump happen?
Hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but you have to assume that it wasn't intended. Especially with such close margins. When you control both sides of the argument, you occasionally want to throw a bone to each to stop them getting too uppity.
>the idea that GDP is the most important measure of an economy
They're not so wrong, but they're just excluding all the surrounding factors. Such as how increasing immigration harms the economy by lowering wages, which in turn affects spending money and consumer confidence, affecting GDP. But, that is what the bosses like.
1/2

>There's literally no "God approved" form of government.

The Emperor of Japan was a living god, and he was the head of state. How is that anything but a government approved by a god?

>because the current problems with the NHS are a lack of supply, of beds, and doctors
Yea, because too many people are fat, sick, and stupid. Sick by choice, i believe is the term. And they're the ones who aren't paying back into the system, or providing means to do so.
>Everyone pays, everyone gets, it's not gibs me dat if you're paying your fair shake, it's a service.
Do people on the public dole pay into it from wealth they generate?

I concur. I won't pretend to have the full legalese document ready. But we can certainly identify the difference between deciding that your national capital would look good under a mushroom cloud vs stopping gays from getting married.
2/2

I surely hope not

>A demonstration of what happens is probably a pretty good incentive. And I'm guessing you mean James II, because both Charlies were great.
Fuck, you're right, sorry, it's 6 in the morning.
>First of all, you can't prevent the will of the mob. By it's very nature, it's an unstoppable beast. But because it's a slow, lumberous thing, prone to shooting itself in the foot and cutting off it's nose, a monarch can manage it better than a democracy. The majority of the people aren't going to one day all decide they really want to see some holes in their monarch, but given the option, they might inadvertently hoist their own petard by voting for a person or policy who will actively destroy them.
We've done this man, we've been through this, the French revolution is an example of how Kings can fail to destroy the mob, and how Kings can fail adminstratively, and politically, Having a system in which legitimate wants for reform can just be waited out just as easily as idiotic proposals is ludcirous, Shit ideas generally don't recieve votes, even if i don't agree with the Austrian school of economics i understand it's not an active effort to destroy the nation.
>Not even saying they all are, but they all easily could be. Like, how many times have you checked out if the votes really did add up? What about the other people in your town? I'd put good money on saying they didn't, and just accepted what was told to them with either a grumble or a cheer.
The possbility of an event hypothetically happening doesn't mean the even is happening, you need proof man.
>Hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but you have to assume that it wasn't intended. Especially with such close margins. When you control both sides of the argument, you occasionally want to throw a bone to each to stop them getting too uppity.
And not, i dunno, just lying about immigration figures? pretend they're falling?

>Yea, because too many people are fat, sick, and stupid. Sick by choice, i believe is the term. And they're the ones who aren't paying back into the system, or providing means to do so.
And many aren't, i'd argue that the problem is that the systems we have in place incentivise getting fat and sick, kids getting fat could be solved by regulation on fatty foods, or outright bans, the health service works, and it works well, Atlee even said the purpose of the health service was to make Britain healthier, smoking's on the down low, and that was the result of infomation campaigns and regulation, presumably that took some strain off the NHS, don't see why you can regulate Tobbacco and not Big Macs.
>Do people on the public dole pay into it from wealth they generate?
Not on JSA, but unemployed people aren't creating any wealth to be taxed in the first place, and the saftey net of JSA is presumably doing more economic good in ensuring people qualified, but without savings don't instantly become homeless and lose their economic contribution, public services aren't just abding the mob, there's serious economic consderations that were made with the provision of public services.

>the French revolution is an example of how Kings can fail to destroy the mob
So is the Russian revolution. Russian one was a bit more preventable, but the French really was a comedy of errors. It would have been mighty tough for even the best leader to keep his neck in Louis XVI's shoes.
>Shit ideas generally don't recieve votes
Have to disagree. Shit ideas just need popular packaging. That's why the Green Party have destroyed so much here.
>The possbility of an event hypothetically happening doesn't mean the even is happening, you need proof man.
Of course. I'm just saying that it CAN happen, not pointing out particular examples of where it did.
>And not, i dunno, just lying about immigration figures? pretend they're falling?
Why not both? They did that here, by saying a certain type of visa isn't as common now, so that means fewer immigrants, when really they were just on another type. Same with refugees. They claimed there were fewer*

*as in the numbers didn't inflate as expected.

But you can bet that anything happening in politics is already planned. They wouldn't give you even the sham of a choice if both outcomes weren't prepared.

>And many aren't, i'd argue that the problem is that the systems we have in place incentivise getting fat and sick, kids getting fat could be solved by regulation on fatty foods, or outright bans, the health service works, and it works well,
Man, you are preaching to the choir. But at this point in time, it's being used by too many people who aren't contributing to it, or are taking positions from people who might (and then might be able to help the economy).
>Not on JSA, but unemployed people aren't creating any wealth to be taxed in the first place
Exactly. It's the same here. They get the benefits of systems funded by taxpayers without themselves paying for them.
>there's serious economic consderations that were made with the provision of public services.
I understand stuff like JSA, but you can't deny there are large numbers of people abusing it, and using it to live, instead of actually seeking jobs. As abhorrent and ineffectual as the American system is, at least it makes a bit more theoretical sense, wherein people on unemployment have to pay back what they received when they do get jobs.
Of course in practice, that just means they don't get jobs, so they don't have to pay it back.

>It would have been mighty tough for even the best leader to keep his neck in Louis XVI's shoes
Fair point, but i think in general revolution supresison isn't a strong point of any type of government really, i just think that Democracies are more capable of passing the reforms that revolutions are most of the time calling for.
>Have to disagree. Shit ideas just need popular packaging. That's why the Green Party have destroyed so much here.
I'll rephrase it, Shit ideas don't continually get votes, without good argumentation, people know when they've been fucked, the economic failures of New Labour and Thatcherism both led to a completely bloodless "Coup", in a Monarchy a leader that enacts policy that don't hurt the people important to keeping him in power (The army and moneymen) is basically untouchable.
>Of course. I'm just saying that it CAN happen, not pointing out particular examples of where it did.
Okay then?
>Why not both? They did that here, by saying a certain type of visa isn't as common now, so that means fewer immigrants, when really they were just on another type. Same with refugees
Well that just sounds like a case of having to read beyond the headline, if the article/source had the information that's more of a matter about the economics of clickbait instead of evidence of a cartel keeping information out.
>But you can bet that anything happening in politics is already planned. They wouldn't give you even the sham of a choice if both outcomes weren't prepared.
That's a bold statement, you can't claim that you don't think that active rigging is happening and then claim everything in politics is planned, governments can and do take radically different actions, i mean you said so yourself, why would a government completely controlled by a group of oligarchs continually create and the destroy their own laws, and be so insistent intheir rivalry that they do shit like gerrymander?