Why do monarchs and monarchists still exist? I can't possibly imagine a justification for this.
If god is obsolete, then so are monarchs. Nobility is a waste of space.
We don't like you Whiggish faggots on /his/, please go back to whichever board spawned you.
>>935416
Why don't you argue your case for monarchy instead of calling me names?
>>935409
>Implying the world is completely logical
>Implying modern western forms of government are so much better
Power will rest in the hands of those who can seize it from someone else and then hold onto it. In some cases those people are feudal nobles.
>>935437
What do you propose should replace monarchies? Democratic republics?
>>935437
Because he is parroting Moldbug.
Because every narrative you believe is bullshit and you should stop thinking of history in terms of rigid progression from one form of X to another form of X.
Tolkien had an interesting justification for monarchies. He thought that anybody who actively wanted power was not fit to rule. Therefore he thought that it would be best to have someone who didn't really care in charge. I don't agree with this but still interesting to hear his justification.
>>935465
Tolkien wrote awful books. I couldn't fap to Frodo and Sam.
>>935409
The British Royal family bring in shitloads of money far outweighing their cost.
They're literally a tourist attraction and cultural unifier.
>>935478
That's a justification applicable to the British monarchy and the British monarchy alone, less to other royal regimes across the world and much less to monarchists who wish to restore monarchies in other countries out of nowhere.
>>935409
The best government is a combination of monarchy, democracy, and aristocracy tbph familia
America almost got it right but they gave too much power to the Democratic and aristocratic portions. Probably out of fear of tyranny, but ironically enough tyranny is pretty much required to sustain a healthy democracy.
>>935409
I imagine it's the same underlying emotions that cause somebody to be a cuckold fetishist
>>935465
I've never heard it but I have to agree that it's an interesting approach.
Well literally anything makes more sense than democracy.
>>935465
So basically he agreed with Plato.
>>935441
But why should people have so much power based on birth rather than merit?
>>935496
He's actually kind of getting at a big point of monarchies.
See, modern government tries to get away from the fact that charismatic individuals and those they can bond with dictate the course of a state. Monarchy basically models itself entirely around said individuals.
This is useful both in internal and external affairs for a country. Internally, having a figurehead to rally the populace around is much easier to manage than trying to get people excited for an ideal (religion, nationalism, etc.) since even when everyone has the same ideal, people will want to go about things different ways.
Externally, diplomacy is simplified. If other world leaders like your king, essentially they like your country. This is much simpler than the modern juggling of countless involved parties of diplomats, spies, and soldiers.
Monarchy is essentially the natural evolution of tribal governance, and people will agree to it if they feel the leader works in their best interest. Unfortunately for the populace, while a good leader can do more good, bad leaders can do more bad.
>>935514
>
America almost got it right but they gave too much power to the Democratic and aristocratic portions
Actually you have it completely backwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWpk4kdgQAM
>>935465
I had a conversation about this with a French monarchist once
his justification was that being bound to the state forever forces most monarchs to act in the interest of their countries. presidents, prime ministers and chancellors are only in power for a few years and get to retire and enjoy the money they've embezzled in privacy and pass it on to their children who will never have to work. Kings and Emperors know they will be under scrutiny their whole lives. they also know that making mistakes and giving people a reason to abolish the monarchy means their children will lose their chance to inherit their position, so they have to work to protect that
another big problem with the monarchist argument is "but why does that person in particular deserve to be made king over anyone else? Why not draw a lottery?"
his justification for this was that France has been ruled by the same dynasty since forever. there are no "pretenders"
>>935533
It's not a question of should. It's just about how things are. If you're referring to the comment debating whether modern govs are better or not, I'm referencing the fact that each systems have positives and negatives. Truth be told, I'd rather live in an active monarchy or dictatorship actually working to changing something about itself or its neighbors than the stagnant granola-eating mess the west has become.
That is an opinion however, and you are free to dispute it.
I crown myself king of /his/
>>935533
Because birth is random. No one chooses to be born to a certain family. Additionally, those who rule as monarchs should be those who do not wish to rule: this results in better government and less tyranny. Thus the best way of deciding who receives the power of a monarch is by the most random of methods: birth.
And in case you were thinking this: no, randomly selecting a member of the population makes no sense either because ideally, a leader would be taught from a young age to lead well. So unless we randomly chose from all the babies of the nation.. Which would be inherently unpopular due to the fact that people don't want their kids taken away by the government.
>>935535
>historical monarchies didn't have internal unrest (even with the added dynastic shenanigans, most assuredly) and diplomacy was done by two kings talking it out with no use for diplomats and spies
wew Lad
>>935533
Meritocracy is a pipe dream, it has never existed and never will.
Case in point, modern US. Literal oligarchic clans (Kennedy, Bush, Clinton + whoever is paying them off) directing the ship.
Monarchy is the only one that doesn't pretend to be meritocratic and actually brings some transparency to ruling the country.
>>935547
That guy needs to get "Pretenders" aren't an issue. They occurred back then because most people had no idea what their leader looked or acted like, so any asshole could claim to be a dead royal whose murder was a deception.
Somehow with modern DNA testing, I think we're fine.
>>935552
Fuck you, this is the People's Republic of /his/, and *I* am its chairman. Glory to the Republic!!
>why this historical tradition still exists
>the world should be remodelled by political action according to my vision of a perfect future!
Revolutionaries are cancerous
>>935558
Please don't greentext me and then change it. I am not putting monarchies up as a wonderful form of governance we should all be jumping ship to live under.
I was making a point of the greater importance of charismatic figures in feudal governments and some of its effects. Nothing more. I don't want to live under a kingship any more than you do.
>>935575
>why this historical tradition still exists
>the world should be remodelled by political action according to my vision of a perfect future!
Slavery abolitionists are cancerous
>>935545
Wow, never knew about that, thanks for linking the video. Very interesting stuff.
Regardless, I'm still of the opinion that the legislative branch has too much power compared to the executive branch of the US government, but I suppose that's neither here nor there in relation to the founding fathers' original intentions.
>>935570
>He was a Janitor of /his/!
>I browsed, I shitposted, I kek'd
>>935583
They were. Sharecropping was worse than slavery in the end.
>>935409
>implying democracy is good
When you get rid of a monarchic rule you either end up with oligarchy (think current America) or literal mob rule.
What I don't understand about monarchists is that they favour absolute monarchy, which was a centralizing, authoritarian political movement which modern democracies have not actually stopped, but fulfilled. The Jacobins and the Bolsheviks merely finished the job that Louis XIV and Peter the Great had already started.
If I opposed egalitarian democracies and were a monarchist, I would look into medieval monarchies, or the Holy Roman Empire instead of early modern France or Restoration England as a model.
>>935652
Because most monarchists are attracted to it by aesthetics, contrarianism and LoGH memes, not the actual underlying politics
>>935652
Loaded statement, I as a monarchist don't prefer absolute rule, rather a medieval system with a monarch held in check by the aristocracy and clergy.
>>935667
Democracyboos tend to favor a system based on what it should be like, rather than what it actually is. Vast majority of representative democracies nowadays are de facto oligarchy.
>>935667
I'm the one who posted the LoGH screencap and i don't support an absolute monarchy, stop projecting you retard.
Monarchy as a way of ruling is defunct and in effect pretty much nowhere anymore. The only place monarchy has in society is for culture and history.
>>935409
>If god is obsolete, then so are monarchs.
Exactly. God isn't obsolete, and neither are monarchs.
>>935547
This is the best line of thought for Monarchy really. It isn't about the man, it is about the institution and what the institution makes of the man.
Another benefit of Monarchy is that you don't have the democratic spectacle where politicians waste their time appealing to the masses with demagoguery. They have to spend allot less time maintaining power, and can spend more time actually wielding it and doing something worthwhile with it. And best of all, what they do will be more-so based on their own personal vision and political necessity, which will be something they are actually educated on due to their birth- instead of the lowest common denominator impulses of the masses- which are just shaped by whoever controls the media anyways. Obviously you need constitutional checks and balances which stops the king from being a Tyrant. But thats no different than how we keep constitutional checks and balances to stop the potential tyranny of the masses on the individual.
>>935409
Read more
>>935409
Anglos trying to rationalize the fact that they are on paper ruled by the equivalent of the Kardashians.
