How shit would monarchism in the modern world be? The only real example I can think of is the King of Jordan...

The Prince of Liechtenstein still has power.

Monarchy is certainly better than democracy, if only because of the low-time-preference tendencies of monarchies, as compared with democracies.

I think that an Andorra-like system, with a hereditary king and an elected prime minister governing in conjunction with similar or equal power could be a nice compromise to having a figurehead that doesn't anything beside sign their name on the laws.

>low-time-preference tendencies of monarchies
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Take a look at Thailand after Rama IX died and tell me how that is going. Or the Nepalese monarchy after their crown prince took an MP5 to his family.

And how are you supposed to hold a king accountable in a system like that? Accountability is the staple of democracy, and without having the constant threat of losing power, and, worse, without being able to select the most fit executive, there's no incentive for the king to really meet the needs of the people.

>Monarchy is certainly better than democracy
No. For every Deng Xiaoping you have plenty of Maos. Limits on time in office and regular elections have many purposes. They're supposed to prevent any one executive from consolidating power to become a dictator, make it more difficult for unfit executives to gain office (or continue ruling if they're in place). Without a means to truly check an executive, you're left with an executive who starts to lose their ability to govern as they age (Haile Selassie) or a demagogue who's been so successful in the past that he's rose far beyond his expertise and silenced all his critics (Mao, George Lucas).

And democracies are perfectly capable of long-term strategy. Staggering legislative elections helps preserve experience and planning among the lawmaking, and just because a different guy is the executive doesn't mean that they're just going to undo everything the last guy did - even if there's a huge difference in politics. Sure, they may fuck around with petty things (usually domestic issues that are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things), but important things like honoring treaties and obligations made by previous executives are the norm among democracies.

Read some Hoppe.
Basically, in a monarchy, the government and state are the private company and estate of the monarch. Now, that means that the monarch's wealth can be categorized into two types: capital and income. The capital is the total value of his estate, including the value of his subjects, while the income is the usable money in his purse. A king will have a small amount of his capital turn into income over time, as taxation occurs. Now, he could increase taxation suddenly, to, say, pay for a war, but that income he gets would no longer help his capital exponentially grow. So, in the long term, he will be losing money by having a large amount of capital turned into income. That means the peasantry also lose money, since their money is the capital. So, a monarch who knows he'll be in power until his death, and his so will rule after him, will want to keep taxation low, so that his capital can keep growing. Not to mention, to keep his subjects happy.
The difference with an elected leader is this: they are a caretaker. The government isn't their company, the country isn't their estate. Since they likely won't be able to draw upon the capital in the future, they'll be more likely to want to comsume now, since money not made now is money never to be made. They'll have a higher time-preference. This all, of course, assumes purely self-interest of both leaders.
By the way, time-preference is one's willingness to invest. One's willingness to not eat a potato now that they know can become ten potatos next month.
Basically.

>Tactical bike helmet

let's have a look between France and England histories since the end of Napoleonic age:

>England: despite the election system, the presence of a permament authority in the form of the king/queen legitimated by law and tradition helped to ensure nobody would take too much power and change the system

>France: taken almost a century to create a Repubblican system who didnt fall to dictatorship/imperial demoagogue/restored monarchy within a decade or so

Even after that, it's cyclicaly plagued by internal crisis, who lead to drastic change to the republican system (Frenchmen are living now in what, the sitxth republic in barely two centuries?)

That makes sense. Elected officials do certainly have a tendency to run based on how much free shit they can give the people, instead of what will make the nation grow in the long-term, because it is not the long term success of the nation that matters to them, but only their short-term popularity.

Not all monarchies are absolute. The checks are the nobles one has the please, the easily rousable peasantry, the constitution in constitutional monarchies, Etc.
And a monarchy doesn't need to have no elements of democracy. Look at the English Parliament.
Assuming purely self-interest, which is the motivation of nearly everyone, and especially monarchs and elected politicians, a monarch's low-time-preference is certainly much better than an elected leader's high-time-preference.

Elective monarchy when

>Elective monarchy
Terrible idea. Hereditary or nothing.

>Elected officials do certainly have a tendency to run based on how much free shit they can give the people, instead of what will make the nation grow in the long-term

Giving people free schooling, free libraries, free roads, free police, etc. has helped nations grow long-term. It's good for stability because it makes people less angry about other inequalities and it helps prevent a radical under-class from forming.

...

What nobles?
What would be nobility in modern age?
What "peasantry"? Peasantry is a huge minority in modern developed countries, and it's certainly not classical peasantry.
Your argument is basically "person can't rule like he's God", yet that's just stating the obvious.
However, as the other guy told you, such a person has no interest besides accomodating the elites, which maintain him in power.
You would be creating an entirely artificial and obsolete system for literally no reason but your misguided fetishism.
Monarchies, nobility, feudalism, all those things developed over centuries because various factors dictated it, and made it useful.
Humans as species, in the sense of human cultures and human technology, progressed far beyond that level.
Monarchies still exist, true, but they are either constitutional monarchies where monarch has little or no power, or just remnants of previously backward cultures.
I don't think monarchy is "evil" or anything, it just doesn't offer any real benefits.
Especially not diluted monarchy some people argue for in an attempt to reconcile their fetishism and simplistic worldview with reality.

Also, you people do an idiotic thing, in the sense you imagine the worst possible democratic leader as a poster-boy for democracy, and the best possible monarch as an example why your idea is so good.
According to you, every democratically elected leader was a sociopath who didn't have any desires in life but to maintain power.
Fuck off with your simplistic childish fantasies.

>Modern democracies
For the last fucking time modern governments are called REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLICS NOT DEMOCRACIES.

Those are certainly good, but only when they are within the budget of the nation. Too many economies today are based on the endless growth of debt.

>free schooling, free libraries, free roads, free police
Doesn't exist. They aren't free.
And most of these would be better privatised.

Are you spazing out about them not being direct democracies? Most people understand that we refer to countries governed by popularly elected representatives when we say democracies.

Lots of "modern governments" don't even call themselves republicans because they rest on constitutional monarchical states like the UK and Spain.

They are free in the sense that they cost nothing (or very little) when you are actually using them. The costs are spread out among the population via taxation, which scales by income level, meaning that wealthy people pay proportionately more than people with less spare income, which is only fair. For people with little-to-no income, these services are essentially free, which again, is a good thing because it prevents an easily radicalized under-class from forming.

They are free for the poorest.

Back in the times of Augustus, welfare and public works were handled by the wealthiest families, so our system isn't really that original.

>What nobles?
>What would be nobility in modern age?
The rich. The influencial.
>What "peasantry"? Peasantry is a huge minority in modern developed countries, and it's certainly not classical peasantry.
By that, I mean the non-governmental public.
>Your argument is basically "person can't rule like he's God", yet that's just stating the obvious.
>However, as the other guy told you, such a person has no interest besides accomodating the elites, which maintain him in power.
Without the approval of the people, a monarch cannot rule. And by "approval," I mean perceived legitimacy. The people must perceive a king as having the right to rule, and bad kings often lost that approval. Which leads to revolution. So most kings will try to appease the populace.
>Monarchies, nobility, feudalism, all those things developed over centuries because various factors dictated it, and made it useful.
>Humans as species, in the sense of human cultures and human technology, progressed far beyond that level.
This idea that humanity is constantly progressing is wrong. Not everything is a constant improvement upon the old ways.
>Monarchies still exist, true, but they are either constitutional monarchies where monarch has little or no power, or just remnants of previously backward cultures.
Like Liechtenstein, right? A very backward culture. Anyway, that's literally no argument other than that the nationalist republican propaganda has been successful.
>I don't think monarchy is "evil" or anything, it just doesn't offer any real benefits.
Low-time-preference rulers.
>Especially not diluted monarchy some people argue for in an attempt to reconcile their fetishism and simplistic worldview with reality.
I'm not arguing for diluted monarchy.
Listen, I could go on about this until I've basically read you Democracy: The God That Failed, or you could read it for yourself.

>which is only fair
How?

>here's no incentive for the king to really meet the needs of the people.

The people, or rather- the nation that those people live in are his property. His incentive to do right by the country mirrors a household head's incentive to keep his household in good order.

So you've just never opened a history book ever, I presume?

This and the certainty that the politician is more corrupt than the monarch.

See >Also, you people do an idiotic thing, in the sense you imagine the worst possible democratic leader as a poster-boy for democracy, and the best possible monarch as an example why your idea is so good.

>People with more money have to pay more

It's literally impossible to devise a more fair system.

Monarchies existed and functioned for tens of thousands of years before being supplanted by popular democracy about a century ago, and that political model is already coming apart at the seams.

This, the monarch is more stable, therefore he needs to cater to the elite less than career politicians. Still, in the end everyone is corruptible and all governments will degenerate over time.

So what's your idea, just entrenching the status of rich people legally, and them electing a monarch? What makes you think that the kids of such group will be as successful as their parents?
And if they would be, why do they need better-than-equal status?
>monarch
>approval
The level of mismanagment where people rise up and depose a monarch is far higher than the one where people replace a democratic leader.
Potential for abuse is higher.
>the idea that humanity is constantly progressing
Technologically? You would be a retard to try to claim otherwise.
As a society? Well all factors indicate life now in developed countries is better than it ever was in human history.
>Lichtenstein
A most meme out of meme examples. A tiny "state", more like a fucking town.

How is that fair? At all?

Longevity =/= quality.

And if we're going by the retarded "muh property" argument that one user posted, it's still retarded - what's in the interests of the king or ruling elites isn't always in the interests of the people. Just look at the Guilded Age in America - plenty of robber-barons accumulated record-breaking wealth to the detriment of the rest of the population, especially their workers.

If the premise is that hereditary monarchs will make better decisions because they have more to lose, then I can disprove that with 1 image.

>According to you, every democratically elected leader was a sociopath who didn't have any desires in life but to maintain power.

That's because democracy in practice can only ever get these sorts of people in charge of the state.

Because of the hereditary nature of monarchy, you can get a Caligula, but you can also get a Aurelius. The system doesn't seek out the kind of person narcissistic enough to think they are the best man for the job of ruling the people, while also being psychopathic enough to do or say whatever it takes to get into that slot of power.

Anti monarchisti thought wouldnt be as rampant as it today thats what. Im sure kingdoms would even ban television because of how psychologically weaponizing it is.

It's the very definition of fairness.

user, literally just read the book.
riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf
I, unfortunately, need to leave my computer for a while. Read the first chapter, we can talk in a few hours.

Lol democucks think republics arent filled with sociopaths.

Violent uprising damage far more than the higher authorities. Western democracies suffer less from succession crises than old-timey monarchies did. Means for peaceful removal of higher-ups benefit all of society.

Liechtenstein is a tax haven, that is what it has going for it. That and having nice neighbors. If the state was dissolved, the people would simply integrate into either Switzerland or an EU member, tax revenue would go up marginally (probably not enough to make a noticeable bump) for a few countries and nobody would remember the place used to be it's own deal in 40 years.

How the fuck is monarch more stable?
Democratically elected ruler derrives his legitimacy from the collective will of people, in theory.
What's the legitimacy of a monarch?
And don't say "will of people", that's not a real monarchy. Because if people can just replace monarchs like socks if they don't like him, that's not a monarchy.
Except history demonstrates that all monarchies were far more corrupt than modern developed democracies.
And that shitload of monarchs let their "property" go to shit.
When social and technological progress allowed it, monarchies were simply disposed of.
In some states violently, in other states over a long period of time, and in some they still exist, but merely as figureheads.

I read Hoppe, and Hoppe is one of most contradictory idiots I ever read, and I'm pretty sure he's autistic.

See A bad monarch here and there does not prove monarchy a bad system.

>autism is a word that means obsessive person I dislike

Stop doing this.

A bad democratic leader here and there doesn't prove democracy is a bad system.
I'm not even arguing a modern hypothetical monarchy would be as bad as those in past.
But I am arguing that monarchy is inherently more inefficient and inferior system by every measure, especially in long term.
Monarchies lasted long?
Well, humans living in primitive tribes lasted even longer, so let's go back to that.
Monarchies are a thing of past. Sorry. There's a reason they slowly disappeared more or less. And no, it's not some conspiracy. Societal and technological factors that made monarchies viable systems of governments changed (if you don't want to say "progressed").

It does because bad monarchs have the power to be extraordinarily destructive in a way a president in a republic simply cannot be. Okay, let's say that a ridiculously unfit person becomes president of a Republic? What now? Well, he's got a limited term, he has to constantly haggle with parliament/congress, and on top of that, most Republics have some mechanism in place to allow the removal of a truly deranged individual from office. This can take the form of either a vote of no-confidence from parliament. Or in the American system, the Constitution has a provision where if the cabinet unanimously agrees that the President has gone insane, they can transfer his authority to the Vice President.

In a monarchy, there is literally not way to remove an unfit person from office except assassination, or revolution. He's in office for life, and there are few, if any, mechanisms to keep him in check during that time.

>Except history demonstrates that all monarchies were far more corrupt than modern developed democracies.

Literally impossible because democracy is the very state of a state being corrupted to it's core. When a state is abiding by the will of "the people", then that state has failed in it's function maintain and advance the nation as a whole.

That is because the very purpose of the state is to force it's people to function towards the common cause of preserving and advancing the nation. That force is of course against the will of the people, because if it wasn't, there would not need to be force and the state that uses force in the first place. So in essence a democratic state is a contradiction. A functioning state doesn't abide by the whims of the people, it tells them what to do.

Just make it a Constitutional monarchy and add a Parliament then.

>How the fuck is monarch more stable?
Not that guy but constitutional monarchies have a vested interest in upholding the traditions and values of the nation, on which they rely for their legitimacy. A democratically elected government can get into power, lawfully change its leader without the 'collective will of the people', and implement radical changes that could well be completely reversed five years later by the next government. They are in no way more stable than a monarchy. Good monarchs rely on trusted advisers and a parliament/constitution/tradition to keep them in check. Admittedly this doesn't always work, but just like you get good and bad monarchs, you also get good and bad democratically elected leaders.

>A functioning state doesn't abide by the whims of the people, it tells them what to do.

That's an argument for communism, not monarchism.

>Too many economies today are based on the endless growth of debt
I wonder how this will end up.

Why not both?

So a modern democracy then.

Why not take it a step further and remove hereditarism from the equation entirely?

>literally impossible
Sorry, historical facts change because your idol wrote so in a book.
>when a state is abiding to the will of people
>then that state has failed
...no?
Are you trying to sound smart and just spout shit?
>to force people to function
No, the purpose of state is to ALLOW people to function, regulate their interactions within the boundaries of set law, and defend their interests.
State exist because of people, not the opposite.
>democratic state is a contradiction
No it's not. The force is there not to act against ENTIRE population, but rather minority, and a tiny minority.
Within the boundaries of law of course. We can argue about irrelevant bullshit now, but everything indicates this system functions well.
Even in autoritharian states like China or Russia, rulers depend on popular support. This it good. It prevents awful abuse.
Meanwhile, since you mentioned Lichtenstein, what about North Korea?
It's practically a monarchy. How is that working out for their citizens?

There's a flip side to that coin. Truly gifted and capable democratic leaders are hamstrung by the democratic process. Just look at the US. Every single year, everybody complains about congress not doing it's job.

People have been complaining about this for decades, and probably centuries. That's because no one is powerful to do anything. Everyone knows that the size and scope of the state is unsustainable. Everyone knows that the debt bubble is going to burst. Everyone knows this, but absolutely nothing can or will be done about it. The inertia of the system doesn't allow change.

Because we live in a democracy, so fuck future generations in the ass, the state is accountable to me, not the nation.

No?

>We can argue about irrelevant bullshit now, but everything indicates this system functions well.

I don't see that. I see fecklessness, incompetence and corruption on a scale so pervasive that no one debates whether or not the state is failing, just who's to blame for the failure.

>unironically being a monarcuck

I never said monarchy can't work. I said that monarchy is inherently less efficient, and no one really managed to dispute this ITT with some practical examples.
All these people do is choose an ideal simplistic model and then build their dream world.
Reminds me of libertarians, a closely affiliated group.
When you devise a simplistic world model, anything can work.
Practice is the ultimate judge.

What's more fair, that the guy earning 1k and the one earning 100k pay 100 dollars each, or that they both pay 10%?

>I see fecklessness, incompetence and corruption
You mean like every monarchy had?

No, I mean like every democracy ever, which is why democracy isn't getting out of this century alive, despite only recently becoming the mainstream political model.

>Truly gifted and capable democratic leaders are hamstrung by the democratic process.

If they were truly gifted and capable, they'd be able to convince parliament/congress to accept their vision.

>Everyone knows that the size and scope of the state is unsustainable.

Why?

>Everyone knows that the debt bubble is going to burst.

The US government still has a AA+ (excellent) credit rating according to Standard & Poor's, which is a privately-owned financial services corporation.

Yes, every state in the world is same, just like your state. Please stop.
Authoritharian regimes are most often far more corrupt, because accountability either doesn't exist or only exists in theory.
Society without accountability will most often function worse. I don't even need to name examples, this is a fucking history board.
You're just dishonest ideologue(s) who invent a meme simplistic world and then you pick the best example for your case and worst examples for the opposite.
AKA every democratic leader is a power-hungry sociopath, and every monarch is super-rational and dedicated. Duh.

The point of democracies is to mitigate the damage possible from a bad ruler, not ensure the best ruler. A bad ruler working for too long is far worse than a good ruler whose reign is cut short.

It's not getting replaced by monarchies though. So don't hold your breath.
As I said, people like Putin, even if authoritharian, are still "democratic" leaders, and derrive their legitimacy from popular support.

>and derive their legitimacy from popular support
Well, that, and the ability to silence anyone who opposes you.

I'm sad that Napoleon usurped the French Republic. The Napoleonic Wars were cool and all but I would have preferred France spreading liberty as a Republic not an Empire.

>monarchy is inherently less efficient
What brings you to that conclusion? Surely a monarch's longer 'term of service' as head of state than a politician's would allow greater scope for more forward planning. Let's assume also that we're talking about constitutional monarchies, as we can both probably agree that absolute monarchies are too volatile.

A system with a parliament and a monarch with some executive, but limited powers, seems the best to me. The monarch acts as a figure of unity and patriotism in a state that might otherwise devolve into radical political parties (e.g. Britain's lack of serious political revolutions and the like). They are held in check by the constitution or parliament because every leader is ultimately susceptible to corruption.

I actually agree with you that Republicanism as we know it probably won't survive the 21st century, but for completely different reasons than the ones you've stated. My reasoning is that Republicanism requires the general citizenry to have some degree of privacy in order to operate. Technology is making that privacy go away. Modern states have the ability to know basically everything about their own resident's lives. As surveillance algorithms become more sophisticated, it will be possible for a government to construct an accurate picture of somebody's entire worldview just by looking at who they went to school with, what books they've purchased on Amazon, what movies they've watched on Netflix, etc. A political party could exploit this information to stay in power basically forever, while still maintaining the guise of a republic. All it would take is the will to do so.

i understand what people are saying about what is wrong with dynastic succession but what about elective succession or even making the king choose an heir not related to him so that he can assure his plans will continue

So basically the Roman Empire, then?

Ask poland lithuania or the hre how that worked out

So a democracy then.

how about you read this instead of relying on a one trick pony meme political theorists
liberty-intl.org/2016/12/a-critique-of-hans-hermann-hoppe-monarchy-vs-democracy/
you are probably the faggot that run the Hoppean snake memes page anyway, so you can go on there and rant afterward

>making the king choose an heir not related to him so that he can assure his plans will continue

How do you enforce that? If the king says, "Okay, I'm going to pick my own son, deal with it" then who can stop him? Still the idea does have some merit, as many Roman emperors would designate their favorite general as being the next emperor if for some reason they had no suitable male children, which was a surprisingly common occurrence, usually because all the male children had been killed either by war or disease.

Except that plenty of fantastic rulers have absolutely thought themselves to be the most fit for the job. Aurelian, for example, was arguably one of the best late-Roman emperors and he absolutely engineered his way to power. This meme of "those who don't want to govern, govern best" is retarded. Caligula didn't want to rule the people. He just saw the Emperorship as a way to satisfy his insane desires. Don't conflate the two.

...

It could be done, but we'd have to get over our eugenics phobia or at least genetically design the monarch through science.

Then get the best minds in the world to raise the child. Shit wasn't this a plot of something?

Yep. Can't remember its name though.

sound like warhammer 40k emperor, but not through science, but through ritual sacrifice soul joining

Thailand is an oddity because their government is currently a Military Junta still loyal to the King.

Yeah, but in theory, if you would weed out inbreeding and have a pool of children all raised to rule from birth with high EQ and IQ, then you'd have better people than most politicians.

Or you could just breed people to bullshit the voters like we do now.

>How shit would monarchism in the modern world be?

You do live in a monarchy - only delusional people don't realize it.

youtube.com/watch?v=-R5g05Sf5_o

I like how Ruenthal shot him not for betraying the Alliance and democracy, but because he bad mouthed the Emperor.

But yeah...

>Just look at the US.
I hope you're not talking about the federal government, which was specifically designed with incredibly high barriers to getting stuff done

The problem is the founding fathers weren't smart enough to predict mass media.

And it wasn't by the time we had twitter that it was a problem. I'd say radio addresses can really fuck over a democracy (see Nazi Germany).

Issue is the idea was to vote for people who were educated who would then vote for people who were more educated than them out of their group.

However, none of that ever worked in practice (even back then) and retards usually made their way into power (even beating the shit out of each other on capital hill and challenging each other to duels).

I'd had to live in the PRC, but you can't say their government isn't competent. Its run by a committee of PHDs and they don't really care about the human cost of getting things done.

But again... I woulnd't like to live there, but there is a significant chance they will outpace us technology and power wise in the next 25 years.

Also if there was a world depression, these are people who put with millions of people starving in the streets and didn't riot and over throw their government.

I doubt we'd do the same in the US.