Why people suddenly decided that monarchy is no way to rule over a country when it worked for thousands years and more.
>>1064273
>it worked for thousands years and more
[citation needed]
Because people don't just pick a form of government on if they work or not but how well it works and treats its own population?
Having Absolute Monarchs that in theory at least own their own population don't work well with modern ideals of freedom and stuff.
Cool dynasties died long ago, the shitty ones were left and they were kicked.
>>1064275
>there were no kingdoms over 1000 years ago
you might as well ask me for a citation proving 1+1=2
>>1064273
They got lazy & became degenerate inbred
>>1064296
Existing and working are two different things.
Litteracy + availability of printed books
The enlightenment + technological revolution
American frontier rrbellious sentiment and victory showing that people can rule themseles
>>1064273
Because a free people don't want to be ruled by a bunch of inbred assholes by default. We elect them instead.
absolute power corrupts absolutely
Protip - the idea of a republic is over 2000 years old
>>1064273
Today, 30/4, is the birthday of the current Swedish monarch Carl XVI Gustaf. The Swedish research company SIFO made an investigation on how many swedes wanted to keep Sweden a monarchy. 1 out of 4 people wanted to make Sweden a republic, a number that has drastically increased since 1995.
Source: Swedish newspaper 'Dagens Nyheter'
>>1064409
If it didn't work, it wouldn't exist
>>1064291
Bullshit. Democracy limits freedom more than most monarchies.
Just take a tour through the middle east and north america and see which countries fit the western values better,muslim democracies and """freedom""" fighters,with monarchies like Morrocco or Qatar.
>>1064273
Because going backwards is something that happens. Democracy is an illness that will probably end in this century.
>>1064273
Widespread democracy and the current idea of nation states haven't existed for very long.
We could easily revert to a monarchy.
>>1064493
Explain niggers.
>>1064493
Gypsies. Gypsies exist.
>>1064586
Explain slave plantations
>>1064592
Gypsies do function though, even if they mainly do it in their own retarded little ways.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/
>>1064273
sort of difficult to establish monarchies
you sort of need perpetual war and instability
When conditions got shitty for them and the middle class realised they could rule by themselves without having to bow to some dude with a crown.
>>1064493
The sudden abandonment of kingdom existed therefore it worked
>>1064273
monarchies never "worked" the way you think, there was constant class war against the bourgeoisie, as well as conflict with other nobles and the clergy/merchant clases.
Divine rule is no longer accepted since religion is separated from state.
And elected monarchs are no different to democracies.
>>1064273
Most European countries did not depose of their monarchies. They either kept them and instituted democratic reforms, or they were occupied and the head of state had to abdicate. France and Russia are largely the exception.
>>1064502
Those aren't true democracies. Real democracy hasn't been tried yet.
>>1064662
Real democracy if you mean direct democracy is the most retarded thing there is.
>look at the cool Nation-State structure our king used to curtail the pesky nobility, maybe we can run it ourself
>>1064465
Augustus!
>>1064662
10/10 jej'd hard, nice meme.
>implying people have any real say in democracy and that elected leaders are anything more than figureheads--which monarchs also often are
muh finance capitalism
firms = the real actors, senpai. governments, academics, etc. are all cucked
>>1064273
Because the countries that went the root of democracy outperformed the rest until it became the adopted standard.
How many of you fuckers have read Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan? If you haven't read that book don't comment.
>>1064729
That is some major bullahit
>>1064502
>Democracy limits freedom more than most monarchies.
Most """""""""""""""""""Monarchies"""""""""""""""""""""""nowadays are cucked dynasties under the thumb of constitutions and parliaments.
You want real Monarchies? Saudi Arabia. Oh joy, going to jail for criticizing either the King or the Clerical Power base of the dynasty.
>>1064273
If we were still under a monarchy we wouldn't have progressed any further.
>>1064734
I have. What's your point?
>>1064273
It's hard to theoretically justify that a hereditary family should rule a country as they see fit. While a government responsible to the people and elected by them is alot easier.
>>1064885
This is retarded. You have swallowed the "democracy brings progress :DDDDD" meme. Is so stupid that someone can believe that is not even funny.
>>1064894
Monarchies had to follow law,Democracies just ignore it,that is a good justification to me. Any political system can just be justified just by tradition alone btw.
>>1064912
>Monarchies had to follow law
because of democratic reforms and the growing power of parliament?
>>1064662
Well played
>>1064909
I didn't say anything about democracy, just that there's a reason why we eventually moved away from monarchies: because it was no longer useful to us. Useless things slow down progress.
>>1064273
Why people suddenly decided hunting and gathering is no way to feed a tribe when it worked for millions of years and more?
>>1064916
Nope. The respected law way before that. Kings had to follow the law and make ,not the other way around. Even before parlamentarism. And there is nothing wrong about a strong aristocracy that opposes the monarch
>>1064932
That is stupid. How did monarchies slow down progress? This stupid really. Monarchy was abolished for multiple reasons,but progress had nothing to do with it.
>>1064947
>How did monarchies slow down progress?
Same way Christianity did, by placing value in the "one ruler," as if any one human or family of humans that are found through politics ought to rule. If we didn't eventually grow past that and into the scientific age of poly-pantheistic libertarianism we wouldn't have scientifically progressed as quickly as we did, because it infected people's morale.
>>1064932
>monarchies slow progress
major sgt. bullshit
>>1064465
But having no power corrupts even more absolutely
>>1064502
>muslim democracies and """freedom""" fighters, with monarchies like Morrocco, Qatar
Well the Arab monarchies and theocracies are pretty backward and anti-Western, while democracies and "soft" dictatorships like Turkey, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria etc seem fairly western for all their posturing. They aren't much more conservative and traditional than the average Eastern European country at least.
The most backward countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Islamic State/Caliphate) are extreme forms of monarchy (Iran is more of a theocracy by definition, but the head cleric's powers are closer to a German-style constitutional monarch.)
>>1064962
That is as dumb as it gets. Garbage logic really. The industrial revolution and age of exploration started under monarchies.
>>1064969
>Turkey
You can get jailed if you call Erdogan golum
>The others
Absolute shitholes,with multiple conflicts and inestability.
Arab monarchies in the other hand are stable,and more prosperous.
>>1064977
>Arab monarchies in the other hand are stable,and more prosperous.
>Saudi Arabia is a fount of press freedoms and religious tolerance
Try saying that without laughing.
Oh and btw that grand monarchy is the last state on earth to outlaw Slavery. 19fucking60's
>>1064912
Thats ok, but they were also legislators, so it's kind of pointless, you set the law as you see fit, and rule with it. In democracy you elect legislators.
Personally, I find it bizarre, that you still have unelected hereditary monarchies in europe, that still have support from the people.The idea that you are taxed so that a royal family lives in leisure is hard to justify
>>1064977
>You can get jailed if you call Erdogan golum
Besides the fact that Erdogan set Turkey back a few decades, what do you think the penalties for insulting a monarch is?
>Absolute shitholes,with multiple conflicts and inestability.
The goalpost was:
>see which countries fit the western values better
not
>which countries can bribe their populations with oil money better
>>1064984
The laws were older than the monarchies some times. When the king tried to break those laws there were huge revolts.
>>1064912
>Monarchies had to follow law, Democracies just ignore it
What on earth are you rambling about?
>>1064981
Saudi Arabia has lots of censorship. So does Russia for example. Western culture is not just limited to classic liberalism
>>1065008
Just shitting on your opinion that Arab Monarchies are more transparent than republics.
>>1064939
>And there is nothing wrong about a strong aristocracy that opposes the monarch
There is though if you wanted a centralized modern nation state.
>>1065006
Do you know what the basis of monarchy are? Monarchy was a pact between a region and a king,and the king had to swear to obey the lands and priviledges of its land.
For example Frederick the II tried to tale the lands of a farmer by force,but the Prussian judges didnt allow him to as he was breaking the law. A democracy would just expropiate the land or create and express law to fuck the farmer
>>1064972
But did it continue under monarchies?
The fact that the US has been THE cultural, military, scientific, and economic giant of the world for the past 100+ years, and not under a monarchy, is practically evidence of the connection I'm making.
>>1065017
Centralization is bad. It is not even arguable. The HRE and renaissance Italy flourished in every way under a decentralized society
>>1064887
What do you think my point is? The Leviathan argues for an absolute monarchy/autocracy. If you haven't read the book then you're likely unfamiliar with the main argument behind why monarchies could be favorable.
>>1065031
No its not. The US had lots of free space,and Europe was overpopulated. If you connect the dots you can see that there is a clear answer of why the US is superior. A huge population boom,which made the economy flourish
>>1065042
Of course there's multiple factors. Not being under monarchical rule is one of them though, and the fact that the US didn't choose to re-establish monarchical rule.
>>1065047
No it has nothing to do with that. Lots of space+ no inmigration limits=profit.
Is that simple. The rest of America failed at this,except Brazil and Argentina,and Brazil was a monarchy at first
>>1064273
Efficient institutions perspective. Same reason pirates were democracies.Modern weaponry and a society needed to produce it strongly favour democracies.
This is the easiest explanation I know of:
http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-technology-of-violence-and-its-effect-on-prosperity-and-freedom/
We do have dictatorships, but they are relatively weak and tend to exist because democracies prefer to extract resources from them, and thus support the tyrants.
>>1065070
>US at the forefront of tech and culture in the 20th and 21st centuries
>isn't under monarchical rule, country collectively chose not to be before it grew to the power it became (because it was against its vision for the future)
>GUYS THERE IS NO CONNECTION AT ALL NO POINT IN EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING THIS
Suit yourself.
>>1065092
>US
>People dont speak Swahili when it grew to power,and has never being spoken in the US
>GUYS THERE IS NO CONECTION AT ALLL NO POINT IN EVEN ACKNOWKEDGING THIS
Suit yourself. Your argument is dumb. I brought you evidence and you just ignored it. Keep living in your buble m8
>>1065116
>People dont speak Swahili when it grew to power,and has never being spoken in the US
There's a connection with that too — the US wouldn't have even formed if a bunch of dumb Africans speaking Swahili showed up (which they wouldn't have, as history shows us they never did, because they're dumb Africans still stuck in Africa). It had to be ex-Europeans speaking European languages (mostly English) for it to work (as history shows us).
I mean, are you retarded or something? How do you not see how all the preconditions are causally tied with the events that happen?
>>1065127
You are a retard. Whites can speak Swahili too. A language has nothing to do with race. Nor does democracy with success,as it can be seen in Southern Europe.
>>1064977
>Arab monarchies in the other hand are stable,and more prosperous.
Yeah, oil don't have anything to do with that.
>>1065143
Iran is doing wonders with oil...
>>1065158
Yeah, and Iran is or at least was one of those absolute Monarchic like states ((theocracy))
Also, that Embargo they got is fucking a lot of shit up for them.
>>1065172
And when they were a monarchy they were doing better ;)
>>1065181
Pretty natural if we consider they were still running on the secularism from the more democratic period.
Then the Monarch made sure the only strong opposition was found among the mullas.
>>1064493
>If it didn't work, it wouldn't exist
It worked only for the Kings and the army that he commanded. They had complete control of most of the population, who's benefit wasn't considered.
>there are actually people in this thread that haven't read Moldbug
>>1065140
>Preconditions of an event have nothing to do with the event.
Fuck off, mongoloid.
>>1064273
Is monarchy the ideal form of governance
>heir is raised from birth by a king to be the best possible leader
>there whole life is dedicated to their kingdom
>>1065217
Yes, anyone with a brain knows monarchy is the best form of government. Are you just now figuring this out?
>>1065217
>there whole life is dedicated to their kingdom
Most Kings I have read about seem to have cared more about their own personal glory or their own dynasty than their kingdom.
>>1065217
It's the ideal form of nihilism. Polytheism > Monotheism
>>1064273
The best firm of government is an elected monarch in a constitutional monarchy like Malaysia. All the benefits of centralization, legitimacy, executive strength, just the right amount of choice and good food.
>>1065252
>own personal glory or their own dynasty than their kingdom.
That's the point, dingus. You can't have either of those without being a good ruler. It motivates you
>>1065288
But the point was that Monarchs spent their entire lives caring about their own Kingdom.
That point flies out through the window if said Monarchs are ready to start costly wars because they want to give their brother a throne in some irrelevant part of the world.
>>1065197
You have no clue have you? The kings had to swear the law. Some people like Frederik the II werent able to expropiate because it was iligal. Democracies can just change the law as they wish
>>1065205
If only woman taller than 5'1 could emigrate to America the results could have been the same. The success of America was despite being a democracy. At first only landowners could vote so it was basically an aristocracy.
>>1065330
Ever heard what a constitution is?
>>1065034
Are you from a first world country? Yes?
Congrats. Youre living in a centralized country.
>>1065411
>than electing to complete stranger with possibly no experience
but that doesn't usually happen either if you're referring to democracy
>>1065411
Don't those in most countries mainly elect people who have been working as ministers in other parts of the government or that worked as Generals before the election?
>>1065034
>Centralization is bad
>Here, let me give you the warring cockpits of Europe as an example why centralization is bad.
>>1065342
The most developed states in Europe are decentralized micro states like Lichestein.
Switzerland is also very wealthy and is very decentralized
>>1065411
Read moldbug
>>1065342
Actually, the most centralized countries are third world shitholes like India, China and most Latin American countries, because they inherited Western radical ideas with no traditional basis to counterbalance.
For example, we think of France as the quintessential centralized country, but actually France has a long tradition of intermediary corps resisting centralization, most of all the Church. Meanwhile in countries like Brazil centralization was achieved in the early XIXth with no resistance, and ever since the country has always been governed by the most trendy shit that comes from Europe, such as radicalism, positivism, dirigisme etc.
The fact that it keeps not working doesn't stop Brazilian elites from always trying new trends, so now we are socialist and guess what? It's sucking again.
>>1065496
France is centralized as hell. That is why it is going to become soon a failed state.
>>1065427
You didn't prove centralization is good, though. You just depicted it as more efficient at inflicting suffering, which shouldn't be surprising to anyone familiar with 20th century history.
I mean, saying that decentralized rule is bad because the centralized monarchies of Sweden and France fucked up the HRE in the 17th century is like saying liberal democracy is worst than National Socialism because Nazi Germany defeated the French Third Republic in a few weeks in 1940.
>>1065478
>The most developed states in Europe are decentralized micro states like Lichestein.
It has high GDP per capita because it's a tax haven. Something's that's completely unsustainable on bigger scale for obvious issues.
>>1065510
They resisted for a long time. It was only Gaullism that managed to finish the job Louis XIV and the Jacobins began, because the traditional right was slaughtered during the "liberation".
>>1065512
Switzerland,The US,Canada or Australia are quite decentralized too compared to most of Europe. Btw the banking sector in Switzerland is around 7% of the GDP. Manufacturing alone triples that %.
>>1065512
Centralization is also unsustainable on a long term unless you actually want the history of Europe to become like the history of China and Russia where states rise and collapse with a lot of bloodletting inbetween.
Because muh political franchise, muh democracy, muh suffrage, muh muh muh
>>1065518
The true revolution spoke Basque. The French revolution has caused a lot of harm and problems.
>>1065205
Not OP, but correlation does not equal causation
>>1065527
Also
>reddit/twitter filename
>1861-1928
>A fucking monarchist spaniard
>>1065552
Sure thing cunt. The french revolution destroyed institutioms that worked fine for centuries,and ruined the live of millions of people. It destroyed culture and cultural identities, and the whole movement was based on revanchism and molding society. Only Marxists cunts can think high of such an atrocity.
>>1065552
>T.French history student who actually studied the Revolution
You studied Jacobin propaganda. I'm sure they didn't even mentioned the genocide in the Vendee.
>>1065568
>Ad hominems everywhere.
Can you refute that the french revolution unlike the American, was just a destructive revolution that tried to kill,and killed, cultures,traditions and institutions that benefited everyone like comunal lands?
>>1065202
>2016
>thinking Moldbug's autistic bullshit has any merit
There are scores of better reactionary and illiberal writers you can spend your time reading.
>>1065217
They were raised from birth to carry on the dynasty. They usually did learn enough to be competent statesman, insofar as that would allow them to maintain and grow their power. Their kingdoms were much like private estates today, free to be traded away for political/economic/military gain - the will of a populace might be a factor, but it wasn't the "why" of things got done.
Monarchies, feudal and absolute, were just extreme institutionalized political nepotism.
>>1065582
>implying they don't teach about Vendée in fucking middle school
Honestly, I heard a lot of young adults claiming they were never taught about this or that in history class because muh propaganda muh conspiracy, and in every case it turned out that the morons simply hadn't paid attention and forgot.
>>1065602
Are you saying that things that the revolutionaries destroyed like regional cultures were good? Are you saying that the destruction of institutions that benefited the common folk like comunal lands were bad? Are you saying that the lunacy of the revolutionary leaders was good? And the millions of inocent people that died because they wanted to preserve their little piece of land and culture? Only a Marxist cunt can approve of such a destructive force like the French revolution,which was based purely on revanchism and bloodthirst.
>>1065625
Show me the sources of what you're talking about i dont understand your incoherent monarchist rambling
>>1064273
What do you mean "work"? That's key to the whole question.
>>1065629
Treason to totalitarian regimes such as the French Republic is loyalty to humanity.
Pic related. Another "traitors who refused to go to war to defend the nation in danger and rather worked in hand with the english".
>>1065635
Hippolyte Taine, Alexis de Tocqueville, Benjamin Constant, they talk a lot about the effects of the Revolution in French institutions, of the horrors the Jacobins imposed.
Shit was so bad that it created a Christian revival, see François-René de Chateaubriand. But as I said, no one read these guys anymore, all the historiography about the French Revolution nowadays is Marxist propaganda so it is pointless to debate.
>>1065635
Arent you study the revolution cunt? Dont you know that only 1/4 of the French people spoke French? And the revolution target the weaker cultures and openly genocide them? Dont you know the level of lunacy that the revolution arrived with Robespiere,in which he tried to create his own religion and calendar?
>>1065640
Yeah fuck equality before law and freedom of speech thats tyrannical.
Fuck abolition of slavery thats also tyrannical.
Fuck a regime elected by the french citizens instead of an absolutist tyranny.
>>1065640
This. The weaker cultures were trying to defend themselfs for the lunacy of a bunch of maniacs like Robespierre. They were defending their religion,culture and land. If someone considers those people traitors they deserve to be sterilized.
>>1064273
its not that it worked or not but how it worked
society developed to the point where a significant and influential part of the population wanted things to work differently
simple
>people
Not people. The bourgeoise decided.
>>1065661
If part of the French people didnt want that,yes it is tyranny retard. Imposing democracy,a language,a culture,a religion or a calendar is tyrannical.
>>1065654
Link me to some shit, because i know the crime if the revolution fairly but genocide and culture wiping arent part of them
>>1065655
The only region who didnt speak french in its gigantic majority was britanny i dont know what you're inventing
The calendar was great i wished wed still use it.
Le culte de l'etre supreme was just patriotism and republican values that replaced christians prayers. Its stupid but it kinda worked.
>>1065670
By that logic everything is tyrannical.
I hate French people so fucking much
>>1065688
>I explain centuries of research to people who will react like this anyway
>>1065670
many french revolutionaries would agree, they didnt realy have any qualms about it tho, they were proud of using terror for the cause
>>1065661
You have a very distorted image of what the French revolutionaries were actually doing. It's clear because you think "abolition of slavery" was a thing.
They didn't care about "equality before law" and "freedom of speech". The Jacobins project was a remodeling of the entire real world through political action, because they believed that just like Newton laws showed the hidden mechanisms of the physical world, there should be social laws that did the same for human society, and that they could find it through "Reason".
In this context, it's absurd to see the revolutionary regime as anything other than an even worse absolutist tyranny. As Bertrand de Jouvenel says, the job of the French Revolution wasn't to end absolute monarchy in France, but to fulfill it, to finish the job that Louis XIV began.
Don't get me wrong, I think that France was fucked up way before 1789, I'm not one of those reactionaries that lament the Revolution, I'm one of those that lament the defeat of the Fronde. What I always try to do is make things clear. The French Revolution wasn't about "freedom" and "liberty". It was, just like the Russian Revolution afterwards, about the substitution of a tyranny that had grow weak and incompetent for a strong and effective tyranny.
>>1065683
About cultural genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergonha
>When at the mid-19th century, primary school is made compulsory all across the State, it is also made clear that only French will be taught, and the teachers will severely punish any pupil speaking in patois. The aim of the French educational system will consequently not be to dignify the pupils' natural humanity, developing their culture and teaching them to write their language, but rather to humiliate them and morally degrade them for the simple fact of being what tradition and their nature made them. The self-proclaimed country of the "Human rights" will then ignore one of man's most fundamental rights, the right to be himself and speak the language of his nation. And with that attitude France, the "grande France" that calls itself the champion of liberty, will pass the 20th century, indifferent to the timid protest movements of the various linguistic communities it submitted and the literary prestige they may have given birth to.
>France has the miserable honour of being the State of Europe, and probably the world, that succeeded best in the diabolical task of destroying its own ethnic and linguistic patrimony and moreover, of destroying human family bonds: many parents and children, or grandparents and grandchildren, have different languages, and the latter feel ashamed of the first because they speak a despicable patois, and no element of the grandparents' culture has been transmitted to the younger generation, as if they were born out of a completely new world. This is the French State that has just entered the 21st century, a country where stone monuments and natural landscapes are preserved and respected, but where many centuries of popular creation expressed in different tongues are on the brink of extinction. The "gloire" and the "grandeur" built on a genocide. No liberty, no equality, no fraternity: just cultural extermination, this is the real motto of the French Republic.
>>1065683
>The only region who didnt speak french in its gigantic majority was britanny i dont know what you're inventing
Lol,you are a massive retard
Justifying the meme religion and calendar of Robespierre is as stupid as someone can get. And yes the French revolution was tyranical,they committed open genocides against the weaker cuktures in France,and killed more French people than any """evil""" foreing army.
>>1065716
I really hate France and I sincerely hope the Muslims destroy it.
Serves them right.
>>1065726
Same.
because it s a degenerated form of tribal government.
Democracy is the way of our ancestors
>>1065749
I don't know about you but my ancestors lived in a monarchy for the last 2000 years.
fucking /pol/lacks who have no notions of history besides memes think they can teach you about your country
>>1065720
1) I called the religion stupid
2) Robespierre wasnt in power by 1792 date the calendar was implemented
3)About acculturation you're 60 years off look at the link posted by the other idiot
4)War was indeed more deadly
>>1065426
>>1065418
Most people don't even know who they are voting for
You think anybody would vote for Clinton when she is OBVIOUSLY a criminal
And this hernie character is just as bad
Yet these people get significant numbers teens throwing away their money at him
And look at what's happening to trump
You think If any of Cruz voters knew how much of a rat he's being they would vote for him
Shits rigged mane
>>1065757
Most times, foreigners have better understanding of other cultures because they view it with an objective lens, while natives are too emotionally invested.
In France, for example, the whole national mythology is about the Revolution, so they can't withstand any criticism of it, while foreigners are more dettached.
>>1065756
You had more ancestors, in fact we all share a group of.common ancestors.
There were clans and tribes, all bond by blood, the law was common and made out of people will.
>>1065776
You dont have monarchist friends you know nothing.
You dont have the mainstream media making Robespierre a scapegoat
You're a fucking anglo.
>>1065735
>3rd republic not 1st
The Third Republic only implemented what was part of the revolutionary project, see the writings of Abbe Seyes.
>Also use recent historians instead of last century reactionaries.
Recent historians you mean Marxist partisan hacks? They are worth less than dung.
>>1065782
Who cares about the media? French academia and most institutions are still dominated by either Marxists or Freemasons and they love Robespierre.
>>1065771
The french revolution also tried to destroyed the weaker cultures and languages. The later republics just continued their dilusion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_France
>>1065786
Are you a freaking retard who cant googke shit?
The 3rd republic was established on the blood of the Commune a fucking socialist revolution and had for goal to restore a king.
It failed because monarchists are retard.
/pol/ get out when i correct your delusions you're inventing conspiracies
>>1065775
t. "non-biased" Trump supporter
>>1065801
>The 3rd republic was established on the blood of the Commune a fucking socialist revolution and had for goal to restore a king.
And yet it implemented most radical policies the Freemasonry wanted like the "separation of Church and state".
>>1064273
Lack of limitation on the acts of bad rulers. Nobody cares when the monarch does a good job. But if governs badly, everyone realizes that there were no mechanisms to stop him.
The republican model was developed to be a balance system between a monarchical body, an aristocratic body, and a democratic body.
In short, to avoid imbeciles, vultures or the masses, from ruining the state.
Unnecessary, but useful, to mention that the present democratic system is a perversion of classical republicanism. It is a model that gives voice to a crowd of idiots, which in turn "choose" between a bunch of opportunistic parasites who promise them, almost always, the paradise.
>>1065836
Wow its almost like peopel were able to elect other parties than the monarchists and the liberal "Just sell France to Prussia" party from 1871 to 1905.
Good job america you discovered democracy .
>>1064273
Democracy is popular now because, for thousands of years, such an idea would have been laughed off as idealistic. Now, democracy (at least, representative democracy) has shown itself to be at least as viable as monarchy. In other words, sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. But of course, in situations where the public of a country is generally full of shitheads, often times you will see democratically elected leaders who are very often shitheads as well. In a monarchy, however, things wouldn't be very different, except for the fact that whoever the shithead leader is that gets to rule over the country, they would be totally unaccountable and couldn't be voted out. Monarchy already tends toward a 'democracy' of sorts, as leaders who are totally different from their public are revolted against and thrown out. Democracy is just a way of cutting out the whole 'revolt' part and making the process a lot more convenient & a lot less messy.
The ideal system would harshly cut down on the amount of power that anyone can have, while still retaining a certain amount of it in order to accomplish certain necessities, like stopping crime or maintaining roads. And considering the fact that certain laws in the modern world can be thrown out fairly easily without that much of a problem (prostitution, drug laws, etc.), as well as the fact that crime rates tend to be largely idiosyncratic to the amount of police per capita, not as much money needs to be spent on a police force as you might think. Whether such a system would have democratically elected leaders or some other system is all hypothetical, but either way, they wouldn't have much power.
ITT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXSoWLuQ7kQ
>>1065852
People are stupid, if left to themselves they vote to take other people's monies and freedoms all the time. That's why it's important for any democracy to have a strong oligarchy and traditional institutions to counter-balance the totalitarian tendencies of "the people".
>>1065829
I never said I wasn't a trump supporter because I am
But if you can't see how fucked this election is then you are what's wrong with democracy
Are people seriously complaining that revolutionaries changed the fucking calendar? If that's tyranny then every calendar is tyrannical. Those things don't appear and spread organically, they are imposed and changed by the rulers or religious authorities. It's called a standard: either you force it on your people or you don't have one.
>>1065511
>Inflicting suffering
The Thirty Years War was done by the Holy Roman Empire to itself.
>>1064493
>If it didn't work, it wouldn't exist
Well congratulations. A lot of Kingdoms and true Monarchies don't exist anymore.
Therefore situation changed and they don't work.
>>1065912
The French aristocracy was cucked in the 17th century by Louis XIV and lost every capacity of acting as an independent power centre.
A best comparison would be the United Kingdom, where for long the existance of a native and strong aristocracy gave stability to the political system.
>>1065924
The aristocracy under the ancient regime had more power and influence than the British aristocracy ever had in the last 200 years or so.
>>1065895
Would you say I'm "on the wrong side of history?" :^)
>>1065939
What side is that?
>>1064273
slavery worked great too, why did they stop using it?
>>1066304
And neither is yours, idiot
>>1064415
>American frontier rrbellious sentiment and victory showing that people can rule themseles
>Americans think that their shitty revolution is more important that the fucking French Revolution
>>1066312
>everyone is the same person on 4chan
The extent of your intelligence laid bare.
>>1064502
have you heard of a little thing called constitutional monarchy?
>>1065527
>The true revolution spoke Basque
what do you mean by this? carlism?
>>1064273
i don't know OP
why did people suddenly stop being hunter gatherers when it worked for millions of years?
>>1065716
so fucking on point desu
>>1065692
I feel your pain brah.
Can't even have a thread about Africa without it going to total shit and killing all sens of discussion.
>>1065796
Welcome to language policy in any real nation retard.
>>1065890
But oligarchies are a total cancer on the market.
>>1065801
This is correct. The refoundation in 1871 began as a quite conservative enterprise. The Republic was only founded in 1875 if I remember correctly
>>1066397
any real nation has only one language
>>1065934
Last 200 years as in 1816-2016? Obviously.
But the average member of the gentry in 1788 had a lot more independence than its Verlsaillese equivalent. Keep in mind France didn't even have a "house of lords" back then.
>>1065531
Things that correlate are still very relevant to one another.
>>1064756
>going to jail for criticizing either the King or the Clerical Power base of the dynasty.
implying this isnt completely justified.
>>1064493
thats why they are no longer relevant
Genuine question: are monarchies and empires like they have been in the past impossible to occur again here in the modern times? Is it still possible for one of either of those to pop up again considering where the world is at now?
>>1068120
They still exist in some places. Saudi Arabia for example is definitely an old fashioned absolutist monarchy (although I dislike them because they're mudslime shitters).
>>1068135
How about empires? Are those things of the past now? And could you see something like Saudia Arabia's absolutist monarchy rising elsewhere?
I guess I'm just having a hard time imagining these sorts of things popping up nowadays considering how connected and more educated (or am i wrong about that?) the world is. But also having a hard time with the idea of a form of government going extinct.
>>1065496
>India
>Centralized.
Ok.
>>1068143
>And could you see something like Saudia Arabia's absolutist monarchy rising elsewhere?
Certainly a dictator could rise to power and get crowned for the purpose of legitimization. Several countries in post-colonial Africa actually went through that, except those "kings" literally thought a kingdom is just about bling and spending money on bullshit so it inevitably crashed. IIRC some guy literally bankrupted his country when he spent 20% of national GDP on his coronation ceremony.
>>1064273
To be fair monarchy groomed people from birth to be the best ruler possible.
However, you could not guarantee that child would actually be a decent ruler especially if the primary heir died and a relative who was not groomed to be the king was ended up being ruler.
So dictatorship and democracy both ended up finding methods of finding better rulers to end up as the ruler.
With fascism and dictatorships the strongest persons usually ended up in power where in democracy those who had the best political knowhow ended up leading.
Both were good to lead a country.
Not to say that there weren't decent monarchs over time, but you were more likely to get a good ruler using other methods other than birth rights.
>>1068163
oh wow lmao
>>1068143
Saudi Arabia has had the benefit of being a literal Medieval Shithole when it was established in 1920s. You read of its foundation and it reads of shit straight outta 1100's, with a warlord uniting other warlords and establishing a country with his name on it.
>>1065197
>They had complete control of most of the population, who's benefit wasn't considered.
Historical illiterate confirmed
>>1064273
The hubris of the middle class.
>>1068221
If the monarchs were really all that, they could have dealt with the middle class with their power.
Yet they got cucked.
Might makes right. Therefore the monarchs failed to pass the test of history.
>>1068229
It's understandable, though, because the middle class were both useful and profitable.
>>1068229
>monarchs failed to pass the test of history
Christ, yet another Marxist.
>>1064965
they dont guerentee progress tho....its a fucked system becuase you can have a fantastic, enlightened, progressive monarch who does wonders for the country and then its all spoiled becuase their kid is a despot who ruins the whole thing....
>>1065877
He's right tbqhwy
Reminder that progress isn't a good thing and shouldn't be some idolized thing
If you disagree with me you're wrong, and that's the end of it
>>1066304
Go to bed, Tyrone.
>>1064505
lmao
*tip*
>>1064622
relevant reading
>>1064729
>root
>>1066304
Gypsies being shit is not because of their race, but because they are gypsies.
>enlightement
>>1066304
rasism isnt realy applicable to gypsies, and people generaly dont dislike gypsies out of rasism, but because they have to live around them
usualy people who havent met any or dont get to interact with them automaticaly assume its rasism, but those are often people from countries where there isnt even any significant local population
I will never understand modern day monarchists.
Are they just Brits trying to rationalize the fact that they are on paper ruled by their country's version of the Kardashians?
>>1065197
What is the achamedian empire
>>1064273
WW1 killed the largest and most successful autocracies of the time, democracies filled the power vacuum.
>>1064622
I'm like half an hour into to this thing and I haven't single a single point that I'd make criticizing a democracy.
All of his arguments seem to revolve around refuting "things have gotten worse."
Obviously and demonstratably they haven't, but it's absurd to make the leap that democracy is responsible just because the rise of democracy coincides with things getting better-if that's the conclusion that he's going to make.
Things have gotten better because technology has gotten better.
Technology would have gotten better regardless of the government the nation chooses.
>>1073889
Oh wait, that was it.
The rest was just an absurdly long comments chain.
What a waste of time.
