Are monarchies more stable than democracies

The key thing to understand is that law absolves us of a need to be moral.
Put a fence outside of your lawn, and your child will not have to fear the road; take the fence away, and the child will learn to fear the road. Absence of law calls for the learning of value.

In much of the medieval world, people had to defend themselves, feed themselves, fight for themselves, and the people understood the difference between loyalty and coercion.
When you know the government will feed you when you're hungry, for example, then you know you don't need to work.
And when there's punishment for the crime of intolerance, you know you have to show "loyalty" to diversity unconditionally, otherwise you're labelled a racist.

The medieval world didn't trust anybody when it wasn't appropriate; and though it might have been illegal to renounce loyalty, the loyalty was still earned by the King, because it was important.

Point is, the way people thought and acted were different, because the circumstances were completely different.

And when a baby was born to become king, he lived with that role in mind his entire life, and was consumed by it, not just the pride of being king, but the pride of being a GOOD king. His goal was never intended to be crooked, unlike a president who can affect change for himself and retire with his family inna woods; the king knew it was his goal for his entire life to become what a king ought to be.

This work-pride was what made people more efficient, because the thinking is really simple. If I identify as a whore, then being a whore would be my main source of pride. If I identify with whores, I would become a whore. In 2 sentences, that's how you fix modern women. Anyway, the fishermen prided honour among other fishermen; and it was by the honour of their identity that they became good fishermen.

users.erols.com/mwhite28/govt2000.htm

Consider this: Nothing lasts forever, and almost every nation on the planet has seen at least one violent or unconstitutional change in leadership over the past hundred years. In fact, there are only a handful of countries that have had an unbroken chain of legitimacy since 1900 -- the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, probably Canada -- all democracies. In theory, it doesn't have to be this way. Monarchies, for example, are supposed to pass father to son, but none have survived the past hundred years without surrendering power to liberal parliaments. (The only absolute monarchies still around are younger than the 20th Century. [q.v.]) Single-party states are supposed to have orderly transitions of power, but here too, none have managed to go a full century without collapsing. Compared to all these failures, democracy looks a bit tougher.

>Idiotic Tory History.

Monarchs are kept in check the same way that a company's shareholders keep their CEO in check. The only people he answered to were his principal backers and financiers and they expected him to maintain their rigged economy and unearned privilege. Common folk were kept unarmed and uneducated in order to control them better

>Even the term "Absolute Monarchy" just meant a Kingdom was modernized
fixed it for you. And then it was modernized further into the representative democracies that we have today, where you don't have to wait a generation to replace your head of state if your monarch is a drooling moron who leads his country to ruin

Most of those countries are monarchies.

>Sure, provided your emperor isn't an asshole or a literal retard. Which you've got like 50% chance of him being. What then hotshot?
And is democracy much better?
Your last election had a billionaire who changes his political positions on the whims of his daughter (who has a ideology opposed to those who elected her father) and the other was Hillary Clinton

youtube.com/watch?v=WkNL_cfVyWU

>Rigged economy and unearned privilege
The dark Marxist emerges.

One bad election and mediocre do-nothing president won't ruin the United States, but one bad monarch can, and often did, completely fuck a country over

>The dark imbecile emerges
right, because I'm so sure that society would be a better place if crawling out of the right vagina was the only prerequisite for higher office instead of merit

Your last president (and political elite) increased identity politics to the point that your society is completely fractured and elected a populist. Not to mention the super smart foreign policy that destabilized the Middle East and North Africa even further, leading to unrest in those areas without any benefit to anyone and to a huge refugee crisis.

The one before that sent you in a costly and unnecessary war, which also destabilized the Middle East

given how every democratic nation is currently busied with its own destruction one would like to think so

I'm I would also like to mention that Charles II, for all his limitations was not someone who harmed the Spanish Empire.

That billionaire will be around for four years and is constrained in almost every way by the other elected officials independent from him, not to mention the apparatus of the government.

A shit king, meanwhile, rules for decades.

>crawling out of the right vagina was the only prerequisite for higher office instead of merit
>Monarchies didn't do meritocracy
O am I laffin.jpg.

Monarchy doesnt mean the king wasnt elected, he could very well be. But what it provides is someone who is determined to let the country prosper for a long time. He doesn't just secure 4 good years by exploiting the future and retires after he had fucked up the country

>who is determined to let the country prosper for a long time
>or someone who is determined to hunt all the time and leave country to ruin
>or someone who is determined to wage wars and sell property of the crown in order to have money for the wars
>or someone who is determined to stay in his comfy throne and will suppress technological development in order to keep his subjects in dark
>or someone who will be a whore to a foreign monarch

>muh muzzies

And the refugee crisis is Germany's fault

The real question in this thread is, why do some monarchy succeed while others fail?

I blame education. You see anecdotes about the great monarchs being attentive during lessons and obedient to their parents. This s why China's monarchs were mostly beneficial to China and governed well. The Emperor's tutors placed great emphasis on the Chinese Classics which provided many examples of what to do and not to do as a ruler, such as governing fairly, providing aid to the people, etc. It also placed emphasis on Confucian filial piety. Louis XIV was a great example as well. His mother and Mazarin brought him up to be a ruler by giving him an atypical education where he was taught by example. This contrasts to monarchs such as Louis XVI, who studied subjects such as foreign languages, geography, and history, which, while being useful as a ruler, provide little guidance on how to actually rule.

>You are trained to do your Job since birth, how will a peasant ever be able to compete with someone who trained to be a govermant official for his entire life.
And if you were trained to clean toilets since birth, you'd just accept your place, OP? Really? While some dim-witted moron is king because he was born into it?

Constitutional monarchies, where all the power exists in the hands of an elected body.

Democracy is best for homogeneous populations, and monarchy or other more restricted authority based systems are best for diverse populations.

In a democracy, in-group concerns always trump state concerns. Communists make the argument that the only groups are just economic classes and the other divisions are just fabricated by the upper class. I don't see any reason to dismiss race, religion, or other divisions of groups as "fake" just because it blows a hole in communist theory. They're real and undetectable in a voter's mind, and nothing will change that. And demographics tend to vote for their perceived group interests. As a result, tensions rise over time instead of falling, since there is a clear oath to more power for your group and an insecurity around any existing power it has. An absolute monarch however, could declare a chunk of land or certain specific laws for only one group, and assuming it wasn't outrageous, it'd be accepted, since the only alternative to accepting is rebellion. Most things aren't worth rebelling over.

Power is a zero sum game, and democracy puts power in flux. It's inherently unstable unless the voters have roughly homogeneous identity. The more diverse it gets, the bigger the strain and more tensions rise since "those fucks" are stealing "our shit" (relative power).

Is this the redpill in text form?

Sure, a series of bad presidents could ruin a country, but you have to have an entire generation of them to equal the negative potential of one bad monarch

>I would also like to mention that Charles II, for all his limitations was not someone who harmed the Spanish Empire.
>During the reign of Charles II, Spanish power and prestige declined at an accelerated pace, that started in the last years of Count-Duke of Olivares' prime ministership in the 1640s. The economy, on the whole, was depressed between 1650 and 1700, with low productivity, famines, and epidemics.[13] Spain's economy (especially in Castile) crumbled. This was partially due to plague outbreaks, for example during 1676–1685, and partially due to the heavy taxation and huge casualties caused by the almost continuous warfare. The period 1677–1686 was the lowest point; there was famine, natural disasters, and economic chaos. Emigration to the New World increased; with the population of Spain decreasing by nearly two million people during the 17th century: nearly 1.25 million from plagues, and 300,000 from the expulsion of the Moriscos. Spanish territory shrank with the loss to France of some territories in the Spanish Netherlands.[1]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain#Legacy

Not only are you totally wrong about his reign, but his inability to produce an heir also harmed Spain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession

>>Monarchies didn't do meritocracy
Just because your government bureaucracy is meritocratic doesn't mean that the ruling family is.

>Your last president (and political elite) increased identity politics to the point that your society is completely fractured and elected a populist.
This isn't the first time something like this has happened, it probably won't be the last. The only difference is that Democracies solve their differences with ballots instead of bullets.

>Not to mention the super smart foreign policy that destabilized the Middle East and North Africa even further, leading to unrest in those areas without any benefit to anyone
Keeping your enemies divided and fighting amongst themselves while profiting from their wars and their natural resources is plenty benefit... to us.

> to a huge refugee crisis.
I guess Eurocucks will just have to manage. It's not like they're pulling their own weight militarily

Democracies are extremely good at generating generation after generation of invalids to rule.

That's a very bold statement with nothing to back it up. I could just as easily say that monarchies are extremely good at producing children completely unfit to rule.

>Common folk were kept unarmed and uneducated in order to control them better
Education in europe became a thing again under monarchies.

You fucking whig trash think that material condition were ripe for Industrialization in 11th. Literally how retarded can you be.

Also your favourite modern state educate their populace just enough so they can participate in the economy for that sweet GDP dickwaving.

>It's not like they're pulling their own weight militarily
Oh, so you are a Trump supporter now. Go watch more West Wing american pig, so you can jerk yourself off about how you are saving the world.

See: every democracy in the long-term

Gonna laugh when the West collapses in your face cuck.

Has a democracy that didn't die in its infancy, let's call it 50 years, ever actually collapsed? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but since you know so many that didn't work in the long term, I'm sure you have a list.

>Education in europe became a thing again under monarchies.
No, it became a thing under the Catholic church, and it was specifically the rise of absolutist monarchies of the early modern era which were a backlash against that educated elite, who thought that science and learning were detracting from people's relationship with God, and lead to massive sectarian strife.

>You fucking whig trash think that material condition were ripe for Industrialization in 11th. Literally how retarded can you be.
Settle down, sperglord. You aren't making your point any more succinctly just because you REEEE about it

And industrialization requires more than education, it requires a complex variety of factors, of which having an educated population is one of them.

>Also your favourite modern state educate their populace just enough so they can participate in the economy for that sweet GDP dickwaving.
and put people on the moon. Notice how that's not the flag of some monarch who was birthed into power.

>Y-yeah, just you wait!

>Oh, so you are a Trump supporter now.
I'd rather have Donald Trump as a president than Charles II as a monarch

> Go watch more West Wing american pig, so you can jerk yourself off about how you are saving the world.
Nah, I think I'll just sit here still being not-mad, and drink your delicious cuck-tears

Little democratic Switzerland once bordered the Holy Roman Empire, the kingdom of Savoy, the Duchy of Burgundy and the Arch-duchy of Austria and the Kingdom of France as well.
Now guess who's still standing...

>See: every democracy in the long-term
Monarchical dynasties collapse with far greater frequency
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_succession

The moon thing is something a double-digit % of your population doesn't even believe it happened. Also your other big opponent during that era(a non-democratic totalitarian beast) beat you in the space race.

Every country has its share of imbeciles. The difference is that we don't put them in power just because they were birthed out of the right vagina.

You're thinking of the UK. Only 6% of Americans buy into the moon landing conspiracy. Also I love all of the historical revisionism on who won the space race. Nobody from any country believed it to be the USSR back in the day, but history has a way of developing contrarians, I suppose.

>Common folk were kept unarmed and uneducated in order to control them better
>Unarmed
MUH GUNS! MUH GUNS! MUH SECOND AMENDMENT!

Fucking idiot. Weapons ownership laws are a very recent thing all over the world (maybe except Japan). Most were about by 20th Century states. Democracies most of them lmao.

From Europe to China, monarchies had little to no weapons ownership laws that prohibited people from having arms. In fact most of the time they encouraged them because armed civilians could help the law keep the peace or could become an emergence reserve in wartime, as in the case of Chinese village posses or Urban Militias in Europe.

In German and Italian cities, Militias organized themselves into either guild or neighborhood units wherein guildsmen/neighbors pooled their money to buy weapons and armor. In addition Civic Charters in many european cities often required people to undergo a term's service in the urban militia undergoing training, law enforcement patrols, and garrison duty. In England, in 1138, the Assize of Arms required every freeman to own a weapon and present themselves for military service in wartime. In China, the big empire they have meant soldiers- the usual law enforcer- could not leave their garrisons in the fortified cities and fortresses or risk spreading the army thin. As such Chinese Imperial State empowered peasants in the countryside to own and maintain weapons and organize into posses to deal with various troubles, giving every three villages one legal officer (the county prefect) to oversee arrests and actions made by peasant militias and hold trials and investigations for arrested suspects.

>Weapons ownership laws are a very recent thing all over the world
Prohibitions against carrying weapons existed since ancient times.

>hre
>stable
kys

>Burgers not realizing that a king can and will appoint ministers and dignitaries and deputies if he is invalid or interested in ruling
>all monarchy is absolutistic
>an asshole or a literal retard. Which you've got like 50% chance of him being
"asshole" is very vague. I assume you are referring to a possible sociopath or somebody really fucking BASED that will triger normies 24/7 once in office such as Domitian, Augustus, Edward VIII or Wilhelm II. Clinical retardation is a relatively rare condition and the likelihood of it only increases in case of consanguinous marriage. This is recent knowledge that a modern monarchy would heed to avoid a retarded ruler. Nonetheless, regents and bureaucrats would substitute the monarch in the contingency of a mentally disabled ruler acceding.
>historical events completely extraneous to the form of government has resulted in a power transition (WWI, WWII for East European monarchies, both events virtually swept monarchy from Europe and hint: if they were republics the same course would have been fulfilled) so it doesn't work in any instance
Are you a brainlet or dishonest?
>democracies cannot enact federative reforms and devolve power
>non-European monarchies with no tenable notion of Legitimacy collapse more often
Color me shocked
>Charles II was a bad """"ruler"""" because natural calamities happened during his reign

Reminder that a socialist market economy mixed with Prussian constitutionalism/any other form of executive parliamentary monarchy is the ultimate redpill

Lmao, ancient niggers are even worse at prohibition considering most everyone's military systems at the time was Militia-based.

Autism.

Existence of militias don't mean that you were able to walk around with a sword whenever you wanted.

You still owned the weapons bub.

Forgot to expand on two points:
Sociopathy is a rare condition also, odds of a sociopathic or antagonistic monarch's acclamation to the throne are long.
>the same course would have been fulfilled
By this I mean that the nations would have been defeated militarily if all they differed in was civil organization.

>the virgin liberal rebuttal vs the chad SocMon disquisition

Surely OP is just baiting, right?

>in an alternate Earth
>European monarchies somehow survive the 20th century and develop similarly to current European republics
>Most existing republics are failed South American shitholes
>If republicanism works why are almost all existing republics shit? Republitards BTFO!

>In an alternate Earth
>by sheer coincidence every time you flip a coin it lands on heads
>if coins have two sides why does it always land heads? fair coiners BTFO!

Judging by his post OP is baiting, a secondary English speaker or pretty dim

t. on his side

>Fucking idiot. Weapons ownership laws are a very recent thing all over the world (maybe except Japan). Most were about by 20th Century states. Democracies most of them lmao.
Dear God, I step out for a little bit and come back to this turbo-autist begging for a monarchical boot on his
own throat with no means of addressing injustice or fighting back. Is this what degenerate Euros are actually like?

Tyrannical governments depriving people of arms goes all the way back to ancient times. Greek-city states required that full citizens to be armed while foreigners and lower class citizens were forbidden from owning them, now why do you think that is?

The English bill of rights specifically codifies the right to bear arms because that's exactly what the monarch was doing to the common folk in the 1680's, while the battles of Lexington and Concord were specifically skirmishes of Americans trying to prevent British forces from seizing arms.

In the 12th century the Catholic Church was banning crossbows because they were giving commoners a fighting chance against a fully armored and trained knight.

It wasn't so much of an issue in pre-gunpowder times because there was only so much damage someone could do with an axe or spear, and any farmer could grab his pitch-fork and go out fighting. A firearm allowed them to project force that much more effectively, and that's when governments started weapon seizing programs in earnest, because the only way to fight back against a firearm is with one of your own. But anywhere you get ruling classes trying to suppress lower ones, you get weapons confiscation.

>Pure unadulterated memes about premodern military systems.
It's like I'm in /k/.

>Greek-city states required that full citizens to be armed while foreigners and lower class citizens were forbidden from owning them, now why do you think that is?
Lower class citizens served in the psiloi (missile troops), with simple, ranged, weapons and maybe a small shield and a sword because they can't afford to be heavy infantry like the richfaggots do. I dunno about foreigners "not being allowed" considering that greeks hired shitloads of foreign mercenaries like Scythians or Celts.

Not everyone is Sparta
>In the 12th century the Catholic Church was banning crossbo-
Meme.

>It wasn't so much of an issue in pre-gunpowder
This is where the /k/ stupidity starts.

1) Most firearms limitation laws started *very late*. Around the 19th Century. But most issued in the 20th Century. Due to the appearance of the modern centralized state, massive standing armies, and the modern police forms. Euronigs and also their colonies started believing there's no point to weapons ownership anymore and they thought it was more of crime enabler. Effective small arms have been around for 300 years by that point. Even then an average cunt can still buy a firearm to protect himself. And monarchs couldn't give a shit: good for him, he has protection versus criminals and footpads
2) Monarch's primary deterrent versus rebellion has always been - surprise surprise- THE PROFESSIONAL ARMY. Come 1600s-1800s, that was the standing army. A bunch of civilians rebel? Sicc the army at them.

You'd think if monarchs were absolute fucking tyrants, all of them, they would've disarmed their people early in history, except most monarchies of the world couldn't give an ass about civilian (a distinction that was fucking nebulous in history) weapons ownership or even encourage them.

This isn't monarchical dicksucking, it's pretty much memebusting about whig history beliefs that Americans hold for some reason.

>Tyrannical governments depriving people of arms goes all the way back to ancient times. Greek-city states required that full citizens to be armed while foreigners and lower class citizens were forbidden from owning them, now why do you think that is?
WRONG. Lower class citizens were skirmishers because they can't afford full hoplite armor and weapons but still had to fulfill the citizen's requirement of showing up in wartime. So they owned weapons too but performed in a light infantry role. In addition they mostly lived in republics, not monarchies.

>It's like I'm in /k/.
Not that you'd ever have the guts to go there and learn for yourself, bootlicker

>Lower class citizens served in the psiloi
A sling is something that goat herders use to keep their flocks safe and the whole reason why the story of David and Goliath was remembered is because of how unlikely it was for them to actually defeat a fully armored opponent. Again, it was less of an issue when wealth made a huge difference in force projection, not to mention the citizens would also have time to practice and train with their weapons in an organized fashion while the lower classes would have devoted nearly all of their time to labor. There are multiple primary sources which deal with this issue, I suggest you start with Thucydides.

>meme
militaryhistorynow.com/2012/05/23/the-crossbow-a-medieval-wmd/

> /k/ stupidity

>"Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome (list of grievances including) ... by causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) ... thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) ... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."
>legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
Published 1688.

>"They next proceed to make a law which fixes a sum of money as the qualification of citizenship; the sum is higher in one place and lower in another, as the oligarchy is more or less exclusive; and they allow no one whose property falls below the amount fixed to have any share in the government. These changes in the constitution they effect by force of arms, if intimidation has not already done their work"

Plato, The Republic, Book VIII

First of all a monarch does not come from "noble stock", his family are simply warlords running a mafia protection racket who killed anyone who did not submit. The only "grooming for leadership" comes from learning how to suppress dissent, not actually running the state well. Secondly the idea that an authoritarian system, whether absolute or oligarchical, is less corrupt or easier to reform than a modern democracy is simply laughable. an authoritarian system REQUIRES corruption in order to function. Let me put it like this, any authoritarian leader maintains his power through the loyalty of privileged groups. In the case of a feudal monarchy it's the landed aristocracy, in the case of a modern junta it's the military. In all cases the authoritarian must serve those groups needs instead of the nations. If he does not those groups withdraw their support and he is overthrown. This means that the state is specifically designed to cripple itself for the betterment of the autocrats supporters over the interests of the nation. In a word, corruption. Thus because the law is not actually meant to address their needs, the population must turn to either illegality or revolution in order to survive, both of which are harmful to the well being of the nation. As for the belief that democracies cannot produce great leaders America alone provides several counters to that claim. Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Adams, and more were all able to be strong and powerful leaders capable of both pushing thorough rapid reforms and guide the nation through crises’ while remaining subject to the rule of law and the democratic process. But what about the bad ones? A bad monarch or other dictator can destroy his nation utterly, meanwhile it is popularly thought that Nixon was the Worst president in the past Century, yet the nation was able to chug along without falling into ruin and get rid of him without a civil war or a coup.

I feel like i've seen this thing before has anyone else?

>In the 12th century the Catholic Church was banning crossbows because they were giving commoners a fighting chance against a fully armored and trained knight.

What the fuck

Is there a lolberg that isn't a brainlet or gets all his history from infographic memes?

It was banned because crossbow bolts are very agonizing projectiles

To add, they only condemned its use on Christians.

Dear God, I step out for a little bit and come back to this turbo-autist begging for a nigger to mug him

>Wants to mug the guy arguing in favor of an armed citizenry
Go ahead, try it

No, but it should be copypasta in order to shut up all the cucks arguing in favor of monarchy