How do monarchists cope with the fact that every single monarch has been a tyrant? Not to mention the overwhelming majority of said tyrants have been completely incompetent clowns.
Tyranny is necessary evil against people freedom.
>muh absolute power is bad
Just kill yourself
>>720153
tyranny being inevitable, it is better if the tyrant is raised from infancy to rule rather than being the most vicious socio who murdered his way to power
>>720182
Except very often the training is for nothing, and better rulers show up who learned how to rule over the course of their life naturally.
This monarchist argument assumes that education always sticks, which it definitely doesn't.
>>720153
Tyranny isn't necessarily bad. Depends on who wields the power. Those incompetent clowns? Of course you'll have those, but a competent and caring king with the best interest of his nation in heart as well as it's full backing can put democracy to shame.
Tyranny is subjective
>>720191
This pre-supposes that monarchy should be hereditary. I disagree, it should be selective.
>>720153
Tyranny isn't inherently bad you idiot. Tyranny has done a lot of good for the human race. Read a book and take your head out of whatever ideological anus it is shoved up.
>>720225
> Tyranny has done a lot of good for the human race
Can you name at least three things?
>>720153
By becoming an even bigger tyrant.
You have an odd view of the world.
>>720194
>Tyranny isn't necessarily bad.
Scratch this, I should've kept it to monarchism and not every Monarch is a tyrant.
>>720194
>Those incompetent clowns? Of course you'll have those
Almost all leaders in history have been incompetent. All forms of government have produced roughly the same quality of leaders. The only difference is that modern democracies limit their power and influence so they can't fuck up too bad.
>>720182
> Raised from infancy to rule
> Implying this doesn't happen in democracies
>vast majority are clowns
No. Vast majority are decent, some are bumbling idiots, and some are amazing rulers.
I always hated the meme that if you arent a 10/10 monarch/tyrant you were shitty
>>720235
1: advance scientific understanding
2: advance understanding of mathematics
3: advance understanding of agriculture
>>720278
First two was done by people despite tyranny. I never heard about monarch who was mathematician or even scientist.
>>720153
Laws, codes, education/health/military/economic reforms can be adopted, tested, and phased in/out far faster than through the modern democratic legislative process.
Many bills and laws which are passed today are not the will of the people, but merely the brain children of the elected representative and often may not even reflect their constituents desires.
>>720235
improvements in armament and military tactics are probably the most obvious things, forgot about that.
>>720153
>How do monarchists cope with the fact that every single monarch has been a tyrant?
That's false you retard. Tyranny by definition is the corruption of monarchy, just like oligarchy is the corruption of aristocracy.
>>720287
>First two was done by people despite tyranny. I never heard about monarch who was mathematician or even scientist.
No, the first 2: advances in scientific and mathematical understanding, was done with money given by the state. Specifically I'm talking about the USSR - Trotsky was a tyrant, he was not elected. He gave monies towards advancing mathematics and the sciences. Arguably, the USSR never had legitimate elections, and all rulers can be looked at as tyrants. I'm not supporting communism, btw.
The Romans were quite keen on advancing agricultural output through land reform, and farming reform. Several Roman tyrants are responsible for increased agricultural output throughout the empire
Also, greek tyrants were fond of mathematics, and any king in a greek city state (or any kingdom later) who hired and payed for a mathematician was advancing mathematical knowledge.
Tyrannical systems have supported and helped the human race in myriad ways.
You have to realize that tyranny is a system of governance. It does not personally do anything any more or less than democracy personally does anything.
>>720153
Jesus Christ you imbecile. Monarchs have been some of the most singularly capable individuals in history. Cyrus, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Fredrick II...
>>720153
There are two kinds of Monarchs that stand out in History.
Extraordinary ones. And Completely incompetent ones.
The rest were just nigs who did their jobs. For every tyrant king and every visionary emperor there's like 10 LITERALLY WHO Monarchs who just ran shit. Or left their governments to do that.
>>720191
If it doesn't the monarch can relegate duties to their ministers. Whether you get an Alexander the Great or a Charles II of Spain, the point is that the top dog position is already taken, no arguments, everyone in the system advances to their apogee then focuses on whatever job they are supposed to be doing rather than constantly stabbing each other in the back.
There is a reason republics in the medieval era consisted of scattered trading city states, they are not without divisions and infighting. Only monarchs could hold vast swathes of territory together for meaningful periods of time. They were the precursor to modern nation states.
>>720246
I know. Democracy is kind of like a cross between the Holy Roman Empire and Venice with aristocratic families vying for political power. Except instead of owning land/ships they own stock.
>>720153
>with the fact that every single monarch has been a tyrant?
It's not a fact.
>a b8 thread
This is gonna be good.
>>720336
>The Romans were quite keen on advancing agricultural output through land reform, and farming reform. Several Roman tyrants are responsible for increased agricultural output throughout the empire
You're confusing less corrupt and decentralized tax and tribute collection with better agricultural science.
>>720503
I never said agricultural science. Land reform to increase crop yield represents an advance in the understanding of agriculture however.
>>720536
There were no increased crop yields, and no advances in agriculture either. Just higher taxes.
>>720536
What
That's like saying Roman tax reform increased wages and a better understanding of economics when all they were doing was raising taxes and sending more of it to the capital.
>>720660
They weren't colonizing empty land, and none of this increases understanding of agriculture
>>720752
They were colonizing land that was not being farmed (in Gaul), and understanding how to farm land that is currently not being farmed represents a huge increase in the understanding of agriculture.
But, if you are looking for specifically technological advances that increased crop output rather than just increase in farmable land - which is itself an advance in farming knowledge and shows how ignorant you are of farming (or do you think growing wheat in a forest is the same as growing wheat on grassland?) - then consider the aqueducts. Imperial Rome was the first empire to use large scale aqueduct systems to increase irrigation and thus improve crop yields. In addition to this, the Romans made several hundred small improvements to existing farming methods.
see:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plin.+Nat.+toc&redirect=true
'The Natural History' by Pliny the Elder.
>>720240
No, the only difference is when democracies fuck up, there's no one to answer for it.
>>720818
Except for the politicians involved
>>720803
>But, if you are looking for specifically technological advances that increased crop output rather than just increase in farmable land - which is itself an advance in farming knowledge and shows how ignorant you are of farming (or do you think growing wheat in a forest is the same as growing wheat on grassland?)
Yeah, because it was the Romans who discovered you could cut down a forest and turn it into farmland. You haven't listed a single technological advance discovered by the Romans in agriculture. Claiming farmland from forests and aqueducts go back thousands of years before even the Republic.
>>720803
>They were colonizing land that was not being farmed (in Gaul)
The Gallic tribes were already farming much of modern day Southern France, and the major land clearing projects that turned the north into a bread basket didn't occur until a few centuries after Rome collapsed.
The Romans weren't cultivating land that had never been cultivated, they were replacing the displaced Celtic farmers of Gaul with their own. The only thing the Romans did was spread Greek and Middle Eastern farming infrastructure into Western Europe, they weren't any more advanced at it than their predecessors either, just more prolific and exploitative. You wouldn't see actual agricultural revolution in the form of new technology, new crops, and higher seed yield variants of staple food until the Middle Ages.
>shows how ignorant you are of farming
Now that's irony!
>>720989
Julian calendar.
>>720989
Did you even read his source you filthy Barbarian snow nigger?
>>721065
>Dump a link without any reference to what it was supposed to prove (hundreds of Roman agricultural improvements? Land clearing?) and hope no one calls you out on it
>>721037
Really nigger? An expedient bureaucratic decision in Rome is the result of or lead to a greater understanding of agriculture?
>>721098
Yes.
You do realize that almost all human timekeeping has to do with agriculture don't you?
Before the calendar reform people didn't know when to plant their crops or harvest them, or pay their taxes or tithes.
>>721117
>Before the calendar reform people didn't know when to plant their crops or harvest them
>>721084
>Defend filthy barbarians with no knowledge of agriculture
I bet you think the Native Americans had value too.
>>721143
>Can't defend himself or explain the relevancy of his 'source'
>Damage control memes
>>721117
Human timekeeping has been following agricultural cycles for as long as people had agriculture. The Roman calendar was only special for its stability making it good for running a large bureaucracy. But if you've spent even a day on a farm you'd know it means shit all for determining when to plant crops. That time changes by days and sometimes weeks every year due to climate conditions, and determining the time for harvest has nothing to do with setting a specific date on a sun based calendar and everything to do with the growth rate of a crop, something that also changes because of dozens of non-calendar related reasons.
>>720153
By being historically literate.
>>720153
How do democrats cope with the fact that every single democracy in time splits the population of a country into two factions that hate each other?
>>721117
>You do realize that almost all human timekeeping has to do with agriculture don't you?
Almost all human timekeeping has to do with celestial bodies, the movement of the sun and moon and stars.
Also, I don't think you understand how farming actually works.
>>720153
It is so hard hehe...
>>720363
Thread should have ended here. The average monarch wasn't a tyrant, he was an upper class joe smoe just trying to do his job. Niccolò Machiavelli even says as much in the Prince, basically saying 'If you do an okay job in a country that's had monarchy for a while, everyone will love you.'
Now I'm no monarchist, I'm classical liberal, but I do find it funny how the modern vanguard for 'democracy' seems to equate 'rule by the majority' with 'liberty', when the two have nothing in common.
>>721117
Yep. everyone just slammed seeds into the ground with their faces and grunted, hoping that plants would grow.
>>720336
Also Peter the Great dabbled in a bunch of different sciences and was very well educated
>Monarchists
Too busy being completely incompetent clowns themselves
>>721212
Debate and civil disagreement, like adults. Power split between two factions can only ever be half as dangerous as power all given to one.
>>721475
But if the power becomes unbalanced, which it does, the favored side will attempt to purge the other and deny them their debate.
How long will it be before freedom of speech will be seen as a reactionary goal?
>>721212
lack of violence?
>>721212
Most issues split the population into two, if not multiple, factions that hate eachother.
Monarchy has at times split itself into two factions that hate eachother simply because monarchy is often two factions (church/religion and monarch) that barely tolerate eachother working together.
