>Monarchies are more stable than democracies >succession crisis ensue
>Monarchies are more decisive than democracies >Monarch doesn't even know the issue and doesn't have the balls to enact it red-taped bureaucracy prevents you from talking to the monarch
>Monarchies are not as factional or divisive as Democracies >court is controlled by a clique controlled by the monarch's mom, one controlled by the general, one by the eunuch, with the monarch spending years to grasp his legally owned power from them
>Monarchies are loved by most people! >Revolutions ensue only to be crushed with violence until they won't
>Monarchies protect us from the random tyranny of the people >Monarchs proceed to make laws out of his ass and executes anyone that looks at him funny
>Monarchies are born from the best genes and personally trained by the best king >until they're another Commodious
they are only better for when you get a once in a generation genius like frederick the great or something but in the long run it's not worth it, an empire can suceed for 500 years and all it takes is a few bad/mediocre kings in a row for it to collapse.
Daniel Watson
if your an aristocrat or nobility their good
Lincoln Thompson
until the purge happens or when the monarch decides your land should be their land
Jason Johnson
You have someone to look up to and someone to represent the nation. They serve the people.
Brody Ward
problem is nationalism pretty much destoryed that concept by making EVERYTHING represent the nation
a flag, a song, a piece of paper, an elected head of state, dead people, idols in fact it's probably better for the symbol not to be a person so they can't disappoint you with their many flaws.
Jayden Gonzalez
pure monarchy is bad. constitutional mornachy is better than presidentialism, though
Leo Hughes
>genius >taking all that Slavic land and not colonising it leading to generations of violence >taking Silesia irrevocably changing the balance of power and making Britain break its hapsburg alliance But how often did that happen Absolutist a shit Constitutional bicameral parliamentarian is guuchi
Camden Sanders
>frederick the great >genius >Prussia literally only survived the war he 'pre-emptively' started because Peter III was a larper.
Brayden Morales
>Commodius >monarch This must be b8
Lincoln Walker
I'm more and more turning towards this. Often enough, constitutional monarchs are the guys that push against authoritarian populism. They are some of the most "progressive" regimes worldwide.
Julian Cox
sure give me two examples of constitutional monarchy outperforming a republic.
Monarchies have been the de facto rule of government throughout the world for a reason: while it has flaws it is the government which most naturally forms and operated best in times of extremis. It is far easier to coordinate a war effort and enact reform when you only need the approval of yourself. Rome almost collapsed in on itself were it not for the rise of the Augustus.
Aiden Powell
This monarchy is the natural human government.
Dylan Hernandez
Luxemburg, belgium, netherlands, danmark, norway come to mind.
Doesn't matter though, because these countries, just like their republican west european counterparts will fall apart in two generations
Levi Cruz
>court is controlled by a clique controlled by the monarch's mom, one controlled by the general, one by the eunuch, with the monarch spending years to grasp his legally owned power from them
You forget >Trouble is isolated in the top levels of government. People are largely left alone.
Meanwhile, in """Enlightened Democracies""" >Use popular support to drive political goals/careers. >Political divisions run into the populace, leading to factionalism at best to genocide and pogroms at worst.
Liam Fisher
> Left alone and powerless.No taxation without representation is right.
> Civil wars happened in monarchies as well as genocide and pogroms.What genocides and pogroms did democracies carry out?
Charles Collins
>Civil wars happened in monarchies as well as genocide and pogroms Thanks primarily to: encroaching liberal-spawned Nationalist ideals. >What genocides and pogroms did democracies carry out? Seriously?
Leo Thomas
>Democracies are more stable than monarchies >Ambitious corrupt men break the law to get to the top and then turn country into a dictatorship
>Democracies are more decisive than monarchies >Can't get anything done because opposition parties block anything they don't like
>Democracies are not as factional or divisive as monarchies >Corrupt politicians that represent no one keep getting elected because people will vote for their party no matter what.
>Democracies are loved by most people! >People vote back and forth between parties every 4 years and nothing changes leading to widespread discontent
>Democracies protect us from the random tyranny of a single person >Elected leaders make themselves president for life and execute any opposition.
>Elected leaders are the most experienced politicians and lawyers, with Harvard degrees >Until they're another Macias Nguema
Why are democracies good again?
Grayson Baker
> Seriously? > Yes
Robert Hernandez
> Ah yes,happens every election
> >Retarded ideas being shot down is bad
> > As are the voters,so are the elected.
> No better system than democracy to prevent this
> As are the voters,so are the elected.
Carter Perry
>Thanks primarily to: encroaching liberal-spawned Nationalist ideals. Just how old do you think history and human civilization is? 500 years?
Samuel Nguyen
This way of formatting your posts is faggier than a gay orgy in a cigarette shop near the woods.
Jeremiah Jackson
If you say so fag
Carson Phillips
Ooh good comeback, did your bf help you write it?
Camden Perry
Nah i wiped it off your mom
Charles Watson
>Monarcucks
Imagine being so cucked by fantasies of Royal grandeur that you actually believed in monarchies, let alone absolute monarchies!
>Monarchies have been the de facto rule of government throughout the world for a reason
Yes, because aristocracy existed to maintain the balance of power between themselves and the monarchy. The people beneath them lacked power and were not aware of any better system.
>while it has flaws it is the government which most naturally forms and operated best in times of extremis [citation needed]
I can think of quite a few times when Monarchies did not operate well in extreme circumstances. E.g. 30 years war, European Wars of Religion more broadly, Bronze Age collapse, all the fuckeries during the crusades, etc, etc.
>It is far easier to coordinate a war effort and enact reform when you only need the approval of yourself >Apparently this is a good thing. Yeah, wouldn't it be great if I could just start any old fucking war to benefit myself and my cronies, forcing my citizens to die for me? Enact either moronic or selfish reform without all these annoying experts and opponents to voice their protest and concern.
>Rome almost collapsed in on itself were it not for the rise of the Augustus. Stop pretending to be smart.
Ryder Lopez
Yeah well you smell and probably have poor taste in music.
Aiden Price
>ITT: Whig bullshit 1) Not every monarchy was an absolute monarchy. 2) Not every case of monarchy operated on the same level either. 3) Democracy wasn't some unknown thing that 18th Century humanists just discovered. Most of the time democracies existed in monarchies, it's just that they were small governments since really, it was the only way popular participation can happen before modern communication and transportation made it statewide. In medieval European Kingdoms, city governments were democratic. In Imperial China, village governments were democratic.
Justin Jackson
>Trouble is isolated in the top levels of government. People are largely left alone.
wew. The people are forced to endure the BS of the ruling classes while paying the tax without representation. Furthermore, delusional are you that you think they are "largely left alone". Maybe in a medieval hamlet in the middle-of-fucking-nowhere. Even then, famine through incompetence, marauding armies, the tax that they have to pay, etc.
>Use popular support to drive political goals/careers. Better this than simply forcing people to bend to your will by threat of violence. At least in a democracy that bad politician that you imagine must appease his supporters in some way.
Remember that in a democracy, politicians owe a great deal of loyalty to those below them, because it is the electorate who decides if they have any power at all. In non-democratic systems of government, it's the other way round, hence the unrestricted bullying of the lower classes.
Camden Jackson
People believing that the efficiency of a society rests entirely on the type of regime are the worst of retards. There are exemple of efficient and prosperous monarchies, like there are exemples of efficient and prosperous republics ; It depends of the time, of the place, even of factors are that are entirely non-political. There are even small theocracies that worked fairly well.
Dylan Wilson
>Better this than simply forcing people to bend to your will by threat of violence WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG
Mason Morgan
What if,check this out,the regime factors in.I know right?Crazy
Thomas Jones
>Better this than simply forcing people to bend to your will by threat of violence.
>be a American >follow the law >get shot anyway Ah yes, the obviously superior system.
Jacob Collins
>The clock isn't broken,it's right twice a day >be a serf >follow the law >get decapitated anyway
Adrian Peterson
>I know nothing about medieval legal systems It's ok user, no one else on this board knows history either.
Leo Russell
>i know nothing about american legal system It's okay user,no one does
Leo Johnson
>constitutional meritocratic fascism with democracy at a municipal level
Caleb Gutierrez
sure when democracies are not democracies it's shit but when people actually follow its laws most of the point you have don't apply
>Democracies are not as factional or divisive as monarchies No one said this, point was you'll get factionalism no matter the government
