Considering how easily most countries transitioned to constitutional monarchies (or the royalty simply becoming figureheads), why did it take so long for democracy to catch on?
>>794830
Because absolute monarchs didn't want to give up their powers in the first place?
>>794830
Maybe it had something to do with, I dunno, the rise of the bourgeoisie and capitalism?
>>794830
Democracy supported by capitalism is essentially feudalism except that power is no longer linked to the ownership of land and divine noble bloodlines, but to money and merchant pleb bloodlines.
Wake me up.
>>794841
This.
Monarchy is shit. The only people who defend it are brits because they can't badmouth it without catching flak for technically being ruled by a monarch.
>>794864
>MUH B-BLOOD.
Worse than religious extremism IMO.
>>794864
Except that unlike Feudal display to legitimise the state, capitalism tends to require the assent of the individualised universal "man", which is most readily achievable by democracy, but can be achieved by other varieties of capitalism such as popularism, stalinism or fascism.
>>794868
>Not wanting monarchy where the heirs are indoctrinated from birth to serve the nation above anything else
>>794881
>telling any one human being they alone are capable let alone the best option for determining the course of an entire country without a word from the people
>gambling the prosperity of a country on one a position that has nothing to do with merit
Brits will defend monarchy no matter what.
>>794896
>Not having merit to rule a country after having literally been raised to do it
>Thinking the people know what's best for them when they're constantly putting corrupt idiots in power simply because they get elected at some popularity contest
Take me away, I've seen enough desu
>>794905
>Raised to X = Good in X.
K.
>>794935
>Not raised to X = Just as likely to be good at X as someone raised to X
Well, fuck, everything is clear now
>>794905
No nation should have that much concentrated executive power. Brits know it, which is why they alway stipulate CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy, trying to gloss over the fact that one need not have a monarchy to begin with in that case. Britain is just like the US but on paper they are ruled by the Kardashians.
>inb4 concentration of absolute executive authority is the only way to make a nation great again
Go back to whatever hole you crawled out of authoritarianboos.
>>794942
Centralization of power necessarily means tyranny.
's just how it works.
>>794940
This isn't 1000 BCE. Countries have populations of hundreds of millions. Assuming you even know how to properly raise someone to be a rule, which you don't, there will still be countless people with more merit to rule.
>>794940
>Not raised to X
>But went to university
>Or done civic work
>Done political work from grunt-level to higher office.
>Have been in leadership positions and is considered to be a good leader for it by his peers.
Furthermore the cunt whose subject to the popularity contest? He's not supreme ruler of shit. The monarch is. Making him dangerous if he fucks up.
At the end of the day, Monarchists-especially in countries where Monarchies have abdicated/deposed- just want Kings so they can live in some fairytale land like in their animes/games/dragonbrained novels or some shit.
>>794963
>Current year
>Assuming you even know how to properly raise someone to rule
I guess you can't be taught to rule if you're kangz
>More people with merit to rule
Well, yes, it is always possible to have someone who's better than you at something. Doesn't mean that someone necessarily exists, though.
>>794983
>Raised to X
>Not going to university
>Not doing civil work
>Needing to work way up from the bottom, essentially establishing grounds for corruption
>B-But muh humility
The last point is the only one I'll concede, some people just aren't cut out to lead.
>>794977
Would Jesus want you to be so butthurt all the time?
>>794990
>>Current year
You are misunderstand that meme. It's about social progress, not population.
>>795008
>Implying you have to be Christian to dislike useless PC bullshit
>>794905
>muh popularity contest
Literally the entire neo-reactionary argument.
>>795006
>Kings are nobul and are trained for this shit.
>ELECTED OFFICIALS AREN'T, THEY'RE AUTOMATICALLY CORRUPT!
>>795024
That's what most elections are, really. You can twist it any way you like, in the end, if you're a decent enough manipulative bastard with sizable support behind you, you have a shot at office.
>>795025
Not really what was saying, but aight.
>>795020
Why else would you be butthurt about BCE? If you're atheist, its literally just a minor name change. Christ becomes more meaningless if you're of another religion.
>>795028
Sure, in a Republic you have a fairly good chance of getting some asshole elected to office. In a monarchy you have a decent chance of some retard getting put on the throne.
Only difference is you can't remove said retard from the throne without a revolution or a coup of some sort.
>>795032
>If you're atheist, its literally just a minor name change.
So why change it?
Most supporters of the notations admit that it's just for political correctness, which I find really fucking retarded tbqh famorino.
>>795037
That's why you restrict their power with a reasonable constitution, but don't hamper it in such a way that they become a literal figurehead. And you always have a fairly good chance of putting a retard in a leadership position, just look at America and Bush.
>>795042
I just like that it looks more clinical and 'official' personally.
>>795045
Sound like a faggot
>>795045
>looks more clinical and 'official'
Autism
>>795042
No one here changed it. You are the one making a hoopla about it, and the reason for you making the hoopla was called out.
Glass houses and all that.
>>795051
>No one here changed it.
Never knew that they used BCE/CE a hundred years ago fampai
>>795058
What?
>>794830
There have been many historical attempts at instaurating democracy, some of which where even successful, It just so happens that a return to monarchic or aristocratic roots is inevitable.
Democracies are extremely hard to maintain. It is only natural for all that diffuse power to re-concentrate after a while.
Some historical examples are the english civil war, the french revolution and, to a lesser extent, roman democracy.
>>795074
The AD/BC notation came first, ergo BCE/CE is a change/reskin of it.
Agricultural production increased enough that industrial and later service markets were able to develop. Land is still valuable, and agriculture still essential to the function of society, but the relative value of agricultural activity became dwarfed.
Democracy works because it roughly distributes authority to those with power.
The ease of the transition depended on the flexibility of the institutions of said society. Anglo countries, which invested power in Judges through common law, and had a relatively decentralized governing apparatus, made the transition easily.
>>794830
Basically, the meme that aristocrats are inherently eugenic made the common folk believe they were more able to rule, when in fact the aristocracy merely kept out of sight to maintain this illusion and used their existing influence (initially earned through brute force) to accumulate privileges for themselves, thus consolidating their rule.
The increasing literacy of the population and the advent of mass media banished ignorance and mysticism such as the hereditary superiority of aristocrats or divine right to rule, simply by making it possible for the common man to look upon his "superiors" and appraise their activities.
Of course we now have the exact same foolishness going on with capitalists and our fascination with aristocracy never completely disappeared so I guess we haven't progressed that much after all.
>>795086
The US seem pretty stable
>>796470
first two paragraphs were 8/10
last one is tinfoil/10
>>796470
>Of course we now have the exact same foolishness going on with capitalists
Nobody thinks that rich venture-capitalists have literally been chosen by god to rule of his domain.
Simply not wanting to forcibly take all of the money these people made in a society of complete voluntarism isn't a form of deification you gommie.
Every thing before that was spot on.
>>795092
Yeah, and no one here changed it. It's just some Christfag making a hoopla abou it. They are attacking PC butthurtery with Christian victimization butthurtery.
>>794896
>Wanting tyranny of the idiotic majority over meritocratic rule by the one best trained to do so, and with the most investment of any to do it well
>>794963
Potentially. I'm sure that the janitor at a university might be the best leader out there, but odds are he won't try for it. Doesn't hurt to train someone for the position as best possible.
>>799228
>Born into it
>meritocratic rule
>meritocratic rule
>meritocratic rule
>meritocratic rule
>meritocratic rule
>>799228
>meritocratic rule by the one best trained
>with the most investment of any to do it well
Like elected officials, yeh?
>>797263
>Nobody thinks that rich venture-capitalists have literally been chosen by god to rule of his domain.
Venture-capitalists do.
>>799318
Monarchies are based on ARISTOCRATIC ideology. Which is far different from MERITOCRATIC ideology.
ARISTOCRATS assume that they must lead because they come from that bit of society that is supposedly groomed for this shit. Whether or not this is true is up for question as THEY ARE NOT PROVEN. We'll only see when daddy dies and THEY GET THE JOB.
A MERITOCRACY meanwhile is a cunt who assumes leadership out of -gasp- MERIT. LIKE HE WAS PUT IN A POSITION OF AN INCREASING HEIRARCHY OF RESPONSIBILITIES AND WAS PROVEN TO BE GOOD/PASSABLE/EXCELLENT ENOUGH JUSTIFYING HIS SELECTION AS A LEADER. I suppose one could talk of ARISTOCRACY-BY-MERIT, when these meritocratic nigs form the upper class. YOU KNOW, LIKE IN TODAY'S DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS.
So if you're looking for a meritocratic government then don't complain about modern democracies. They have it. But if you wanted the burger-king crowns and ermine capes all along then yes, by all means, support monarchism. See how far you'll get IRL.
>>799357
>So if you're looking for a meritocratic government then don't complain about modern democracies. They have it.
Hah!
I would hardly consider pandering to 51% of the halfwits and slack-jawed yokels much of a merit, except in that of democracy itself.
Unless you believe that every single elected politician is infallible and nigh on descended from Heaven as regards merit.
>>799377
>Supporter of inbreeding aristos talking about halfwits
>>794868
We don't defend it, but since it has no power and generates tourism money, we keep it going
>>799402
I'd understand if one keeps Monarchy for cultural reasons. Shit binds a nation together.
But restoring it in countries that have abandoned and have been stewing in democratic-liberal ideals is pretty loony
>>799401
I support eugenics, as it would be contributory to the monarchy. Inbreeding is contrary to that, and is thankfully left to a bygone, pre-scientific age.
>>797263
They're not literally deified of course, but there's the popular idea that venture capitalists and other entrepreneurs are at least wise investors when in fact most of them simply happen to be big investors thanks to the fortune they (or their ancestors) acquired long ago, often through non-capitalist means, and they use that fortune and influence to cultivate or outright buy the talents and connections needed to make better investments. All of them do this, even Warren Buffet (who is admittedly quite talented himself.) And of course every one of them believes or pretends to believe he's Warren Buffet.
When you scratch the surface, the wealthiest people in the world are hardly worthier than aristocrats were in the past, but they are similarly held in high regard. Of course many people say the upper classes are parasites who steal our labor and suck us dry, but once again you could have heard the same thing centuries ago.
