Is there a legitimate modern case to be made for Monarchism? I haven't met anyone in person that actually believes this is an ideal way of governing, but I'm sure many exist somewhere out there. I feel like it's hard to argue because frankly the idea of giving somebody almost absolute power based on their bloodline or something similar is inherently flawed.
Are there any monarchists on /his/? Is there any argument to be made for monarchism that wouldn't rely on historical examples, considering arguments could also be made in the other direction through historical examples?
>>996318
Check this, especially chapter 2 onwards:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/
Monarchism tends to be based entirely upon the "enlightened monarch," which is what early French philosophers were hoping to achieve. However, it's hopeless idealism.
>>996318
>I'm sure many exist somewhere out there.
Canada.
>>996328
Holy shit
>>996337
Not really what I'm talking about, I grew up in the UK and support the royal family but I don't want them to actually have significant political power.
Unless I'm mistaken and you're saying there are legit monarchists in Canada?
>>996318
The Gulf Countries are literally the last Monarachists and they only survived thanks to Oil
>>996328
>http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/
This is very informative, thank you
>>996347
For Americans the strong feelings for the Queen throughout Canada is strange, he may be confusing the English affection for the Royal family as in your case with a desire for the monarchs to hold political power
>>996328
Yo where the fuck did you find this
>>996328
>this article is as far as most people read on neoreaction
>neoreactionaries themselves consistently stress the importance of primary sources to better understand history and ideology, and how secondary sources are too easily distorted
>most people's main source on neoreaction is a secondary source
>>996318
I wouldn't call myself a monarchist, and on paper it sounds crazy, but at the same time (small?) monarchies are among the most happy, free and wealthy countries on earth. I'd love to understand why, but there seems to be some positive evidence.
>>996385
>get your worst arguments completely BTFO in a giant blog post
>w-well it's just a secondary source now
Go to bed Asinineov.
I have probably read more NRx and quasi-NRx material than you, by the way.
>>996328
>>996354
>heavy left biased blog tries to refute a political stance they don't agree with
The parts on Monarchism do seem pretty good. But holy fuck, the other parts of this blog about progressivism, competely disiregards one of the reasons why there's a massive left bias in academia, one of the big ones being hiring bias by leftwing academics:
>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2002636
>http://www.aaup.org/article/rethinking-plight-conservatives-higher-education
I also see no mention of the impact of Islamic migrants, who have ideals which directly counter modern left ideals, but whom the progressives welcome with open arms, simply because they are classed as a minority group, but they will openly hate Christians. They are importing a large number of people who absolutely fucking hate gay people, hate Jews, and generally treat women like second class citizens. This is why they've started using the term 'Regressive Left' to describe these progressives.
>>996441
>Slate Star Codex
>left-biased
>>996441
Your problem is, you think Left Wing is anything but Marxism-Leninism.
You probably even use buzzwords like "cultural marxism"
>>996397
But it's not a primary source on what neoreactioanries believe, you can't use someone attacking arguments supposedly made by a group to learn about said group.
>>996372
This is true. The person I always see as the "king" so to speak of America is George Washington. I will never understand how Canadians can view the English Queen as their own. It just doesn't make sense to me.
>>996328
>1.1 But if we’re going to blame leftism for rising suicide rates it’s kind of weird that it would choose the decade we had a Republican President, House, Senate, and Supreme Court to start increasing
>Not considering that from a Reactionary PoV both Republicans and Democrats constitute "The Left" as an outgrowth of the Enlightenment and the ongoing march of Liberalism & Progress
Fuck, I don't even buy into the Reactionary schtick but at least read the shit before criticizing it. This FAQ has already fucked itself up right at the start.
>>996318
Absolute monarchism has its upsides and downsides but constitutional monarchism is quite moderating
>>996480
I get where you're coming from but that also seems like moving the goal posts a bit.
>>996498
Yes and no. Neo-Reactionaries are playing a different ballgame where the traditional left/right paradigm breaks down, as far as they are concerned both Dems and Repubs are "Left".
Afterall, in some cases they're literally clamoring for a monarchy... pretty much any representative political party is going to be left of them by definition.
>>996480
I get your point, but the Republican party does or did profess to be concerned with family values, Christian values, traditional gender roles, law and order etc, especially in the period he's discussing. If suicide rates start rising under such an administration, social decay is not the first explanation that should come to mind.
You're also completely cherrypicking here. It was just a jab he took in passing.
>>996394
in this video is says that swaziland is the last absolute monarchy and there is vast wealth inequality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M5Ok8a6o1g
>>996480
Yea but the Dems are considered more left than Reps, so by right the sucide rates should have dropped when the Reps are in control
There isn't. I understand why you would want a tyrant to rule. The one particular guy can be good. What is a point of dynasty of them? Sooner or later retarded son of last king would be new king.
>>996318
>Is there any argument to be made for monarchism that wouldn't rely on historical examples,
Yes, but unfortunately so many are relient on being against other positions.
The crux of the arguments are that a monarch has more control, but less need for direct intervention, and is able to have better long term planning.
To start with qualifications, a monarch will have had a life time of prep work for the job. They don't have to trouble the country with popularity contests every few years. This also means that the person in charge doesn't have to pander to the feckless majority who vote for what sounds like their best interests, or best suits their biases. Then because they don't have to worry about getting kicked out of office, they can plan for the real long term, rather than pretending to be obligated to accomplish something in a term of office or have it reflect poorly on the next candidate.
Since they're not going to be leaving the job until they die, there's less concern about corruption. They already have everything, what more could be offered? They certainly can't just pilfer for a few years, get voted out and bugger off elsewhere.
They have to pass the job onto their children, too, so they have the best reason to make the patrimony as good as possible.
>>996328
This is ignores many underlying social trends, social reasoning, paints in broad strokes, and doesn't even address the problems being presented while painting anyone or any idea that is strictly within the author's own select form of the political compass to be reactionary.
Why is Communist Stalin a reactionary? Well, he killed a lot of people so he must be.
>>996790
Try reading it again with your brain turned on.
>>996733
lol some of those arguments are fair but saying that "they aren't corrupt" is retarded
they just spend the money
>bcuz god wants me 2
that people earn, it's the same thing as corruption except they do it shamelessly
>bcuz god wants me 2
>>996826
>they just spend the money that people earn
Doesn't everyone? I'm not sure i see your concern.
>>996733
> the person in charge doesn't have to pander to the feckless majority
In practice they are pandered to feckless minority of aristocracy that was arguably even worse.
>>996942
Yes, but that's not a requirement.
>>996932
In a democracy or soft dictatorship, the elites might steal public funds to build palaces and live in luxury.
In a strong dictatorship or absolute monarchy, the elites can openly spend public money to build themselves palaces and live in luxury, plus they often steal even more to do the same without pissing off their subjects by their reckless spending.
>>996980
Ah right. My point was that they already would have everything like that. They wouldn't need to do such things, especially as it would be detrimental to their patrimony.
>>996986
>My point was that they already would have everything like that. They wouldn't need to do such things, especially as it would be detrimental to their patrimony.
I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying that aristocrats wouldn't build new palaces or spend insane amounts of money on extravagant court life and insane projects? Because they were rather infamous for doing that.
In fact, the most common advice from Chinese sages to their rulers was something like HOLY SHIT STOP SPENDING SO MUCH ON USELESS LUXURIES, AT LEAST TRY NOT TO NEGLECT MILITARY SPENDING YOU SUICIDAL FOOL.
It was kind of a hot topic.
What I don't understand about monarchists is that they seem to prefer Early Modern absolute monarchy, which as a historical phenomenom was responsible for the centralization of power and the dissolution of aristocracy and clergy in European countries, a process that the revolutions and the rise of democracies would only exacerbated. Basically, the Jacobins were the heirs of Louis XIV, they fulfilled his political project.
So it's kind of strange to see "monarchists" railing against democracy and demotism at the same time they idealize a political movement that depended upon demotism to advance it's interests.
I would understand monarchists if they looked back to medieval monarchy and it's limited, descentralized form of government instead, but that seems not to be the case.
Pic related. Most reactionaries lament the French Revolution, they consider it the beginning of the end. I don't care, I think the Bourbons had it coming. What I lament is the defeat of the Fronde.
PS: I've read Mencius Moldbug and it always seemed to be that his "monarchism" was something more complex that "I like crowns and stuff". He did read his Jouvenel so he couldn't stupidly believe that absolute monarchy was a reactionary ideology. I believe that for Moldbug, having a figurehead representing the state would make people more prone to resist it's expansion (as they were during the days of Louis XIV). When you obscure the fact that Power exists behind the veil of "popular will" ideology, you have no resistance to the expansion of the central government authority to control every single aspect of human life.
>>997013
>aristocrats
What have they got to do with it?
>HOLY SHIT STOP SPENDING SO MUCH ON USELESS LUXURIES, AT LEAST TRY NOT TO NEGLECT MILITARY SPENDING YOU SUICIDAL FOOL
It sounds better in the original Chinese. But yes, that would be of paramount importance to a monarch.
Perhaps I'm just a romantic, but I do kinda think that a monarch nowadays would have more restraint (or at least have it drilled into them by their tutors). What with constant surveilance by the media, and risk of revolt.
But in my fantasy kingdom too, the monarch would be paid via % of the GDP, or similar.
> communism can't exist because human desires are literally limitless and can't be satisfied
> absolute monarchy is incorruptible because you will just stop spending money sooner or later
>>997014
Yes, Moldbug's main concern is "formalizing" power, though I don't think he's so hostile to the expansion of government authority.
Anissimov is more in the "absolute monarchies sure as well" category.
Overall, I think most neoreactionaries try to shill monarchies simply because they want to undermine the hegemony of democracy and rehabilitate alternative/hierarchical government systems.
Nyan Sandwich has a love-hate relationship with the fucking Ottoman Empire.
>>997035
I don't know how many properties you own, but after a couple, you really do start to lose desire for any more. There'd reach a point where the person who has everything runs out of things to waste money on, or at least their income would outstrip it.
>>997043
>Overall, I think most neoreactionaries try to shill monarchies simply because they want to undermine the hegemony of democracy and rehabilitate alternative/hierarchical government systems.
Then they should really read Jouvenel to realize that "democracy" is just an expansion of the ideology of absolute monarchy, which sought to enlist the support of common people against the nobility, but without the king. It's basic high-low alliance against the middle.
An aristocratic republic is more prone to hierarchical government than monarchy, being mostly an assembly of notables.
>Nyan Sandwich has a love-hate relationship with the fucking Ottoman Empire.
You mean that state where the central government authority of the sultan used slave soldiers and slave bureaucrats to usurp the power of the aristocracy and centralize everything during it's height, creating in the 16th century a monstrous State that Europe wouldn't see again until the XIXth century? Case in point about how monarchists don't fucking understand what they are talking about.
>>997034
>What have they got to do with it?
Monarchs are aristocrats, you know. At the very least, the extended royal/imperial families formed the top aristocracy in the realm. If there were other prestigious noble families (say, former ruling dynasties, or foreign princes and dignitaries, or famous regents, or just competent officials who kept marrying into the other families) they lived in luxury as well. Try just counting the number of people who were buried "with imperial honors" (meaning a significant portion of the country's GDP went into furnishing their tombs) in Chinese history.
>yes, that would be of paramount importance to a monarch.
In theory. In practice, there's a good reason that advice had to be repeated over and over and over.
> I do kinda think that a monarch nowadays would have more restraint (or at least have it drilled into them by their tutors). What with constant surveilance by the media, and risk of revolt.
I get your point and I agree. On the other hand, virtually every strong dictator and non-ceremonial monarch in recent history have appropriated and wasted ridiculous amounts of wealth.
>>997077
>Monarchs are aristocrats, you know.
Yes, but typically people using the term go for the full usage. My apologies.
My issue with that in particular was that only the monarch would be the one getting paid, as it were. Not that i've come up with a means of policing this hypothetical, mind.
>On the other hand, virtually every strong dictator and non-ceremonial monarch in recent history have appropriated and wasted ridiculous amounts of wealth.
And pretty much all of them got #rekt in some form or another. At the very least, it'd mean screwing over their patrimony, which is certainly against the whole long term planning point.
I'm kind of a closet monarchist that leans slightly to the left. I don't really believe in leftism anymore but I think a monarchy is the only way to incorporate some of the the worthwhile things that leftists want. I mean look at all the European countries like Britain, Norway and Sweden they incorporated the few good things that the left wing advocates like healthcare and whatnot, they are all constitutional monarchies. That's the only way to ensure social goods that the left appreciates without all the destructive shit that accompanies leftwing and marxist bullshit.
>>997096
I don't see the necessary connection between monarchy and social democracy. Countries don't become stable and rich by having monarchies, they remain monarchies by being stable and rich.
>>997114
You can argue that monarchy leads to stability by legitimization of ruling power.
Holy fucking shit people stop mixing up the concentrated autism also known as "neoreaction" with actual monarchism.
>>997122
the US has been far more stable than some certain Europena nations that have been monarchies.
>>997137
> civil war
> stable
>>997133
>Wake up, get out of bed get ready to serve my lord Schlomo II.
>Year is 17 A.G., recently moved to Schlomo II's patch after being promised a bigger bread allotment than I was receiving under Chaim III
>Fuck yeah, this is progress oops I mean restoration. Fuck yeah.
>King's self driving bus takes me to the palace for work
>Bus takes a tunnel underground so we can enter through the servant's entrance in the basement
>On my way in notice a group of new recruits in HR taking IQ tests at a row of terminals
>One of the screens starts flashing red, electronic alarm sounds "130 IQ PLEB DETECTED"
>Drones swarm in and grab the goy, er guy taking the test, drag him away
>Thank Gnon, can you imagine living with such imbeciles
>Get ready to start work
>All real work is done by superior robots
>Humans receive payment by entertaining the king
>Just got a huge promotion from the groveling department
>Put on my crab suit
>Enter the royal throne room. Schlomo II sitting on his throne
>Spend the rest of the day dancing in crab suit for King Schlomo, singing hymns to Gnon
>Almost at the end of shift, master of entertainment comes in and tells King its time for the final entertainment
>>997149
>Dis gon be good
>130 IQ pleb from earlier is brought out by drones set before king
>Master of Entertainment: "Sire this man is guilty of poisoning our world with his low IQ DNA"
>King: "Accused, have you anything to say in your defense"
>The Accused: "Sire, I may be dumb but I have always been loyal. In the year 15 B.G. I started an NRx twitter feed with Moldbug quotes and reactionary cat memes"
>The whole throne room is silent waiting for the kings reply
>Crab dancers, grovelers, the royal family, hangers on, royal joke duck, all silent
>King: "Ha! No man of 130 IQ could truly comprehend the sacred NRx texts. You are a mere entryist. Feed him to Gnon!"
>A cheer goes up, the whole room starts chanting: "Gnon Gnon Gnon Gnon"
>A screen lights up on the opposite side of the room with a cold indifferent visage
>A fiery pit opens before the screen
>The king's drones drag the screaming pleb into the pit and he dies an awful death
>The visage drones: "This pleases Gnon. Now more crab dancing."
>Fuck. Gotta work overtime
>Shift finally ends and robo-bus takes me back to my techno-hovel
>Eat my bread allotment while watching The Radish Report
>What a great time to be alive
>>997151
>NRx
Get out.
Most Monarchists are Anarchists, they believe the monarchy would leave them alone.
The principle advantage to monarchy is that it ensures a consistent, stable, uncontested political succession which is not subject to machination. No other political system provides that.
>>997014
>>997076
The idea that democracy is a permutation of absolute monarchy is only vaguely true. It's an absurd oversimplification, which only somebody who advocates for an aristocratic republic would take to heart.
>>997197
>which is not subject to machination
>>997187
I'd say it would just be less intrusive. It'd still have presence, as good government should, but without the need to pander to Us v Them mentality, it would have less need to be a part of the every day. Instead, just focusing on what actually needs to be done.
>>997151
Dark enlimeme is just an example of how Americans fuck up everything.
Give Americans Christianity, they turn it into megachurches, snake handling and Christian zionism
Give Americans food, they turn it into KFC and McDonalds
Give Americans rugby, they turn it into the NFL
Give Americans monarchism, they turn it into neoreaction
>>997206
Meaning it's not like a one party state in which succession is controlled but internally divisive.
>>997197
>Stable succession
Have you actually torn up all your history books and used them for kindling? Or do you keep them for extra-strength toilet paper for those really tough days?
I'd call that a meme, but it's actually not. Have you ever heard of the - I dunno - War of Austrian Succession? Spanis Succession? Wars of the Roses? Spanish Armada? 100 Year's War? Even the 30 Year's War was as much about Habsburg dynastic expansion as religion.
>>997197
>The principle advantage to monarchy is that it ensures a consistent, stable, uncontested political succession which is not subject to machination. No other political system provides that.
That's not really true. The history of monarchy is rife of succession wars and the exception, France, is so remarkable that it is called the "Capetian Miracle".
>>997197
wew lad
>>997218
We got birth certificates and genetic expertise today so succession is guaranteed.
>>997218
>A handful of meme wars negate the tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of bloodless successions
>>996331
Napoleon proved it can be done.
Most if not all monarchist arguments fall apart under historical scrutiny. Historical monarchies were very frequently corrupt, violent, unstable, prone to corruption and dynastical machination. The only reason that totalitarian republican regimes of the 20th century were bloodier than any monarchy is that technology of oppression and mass murder advanced with time.
Honestly modern monarchists are just anarchists in denial who want their anarchy to be presided over by an omniscient and impartial god-king who would forever preserve the status quo they like. Sadly no such entity has ever existed.
Republics and monarchies are both equally prone to wars. Venice was a republic, so was Genoa, go look up how many wars they did.
>>997244
how does that disprove the fact that just as many monarchies were violent?
the only decent thing about neoreactionaries is their critic of democracy and liberalism, and Nick Land being related to them
>>997250
Nick Land is a marxist troll. He pretends to be a neoreactionary but his political objective is to advance capitalism so much that society breaks down and communism becomes viable again.
>>997218
>>997220
First, monarchy existed for thousands of years, and there have been far more of them than republics, so I don't think pointing out a bunch of succession wars is fair. I think if a bunch of democracies had existed 400 years ago, they would have faired even worse.
Second, the less monarchical a monarchy was, the less stable the succession. One of the aspects of the increasing absolutist nature of european monarchies over time was the increasing stabilization of the succession.
>>997246
Because they weren't, and you're just going off the more publicised stuff.
>>997246
A republic is not inherently less violent than a monarchy is my point.
>>997262
Give Imperial Rome a proper instrument of succession and it's perfect.
>>997238
Napoleon I proved that one great man can rule extremely effectively. His nephew was a drooling cretin.
Elective monarchy is interesting desu senpai
>>996318
Hans Hermann-Hoppe.
>>997285
That's why hereditary succession is wrong. The throne should pass to the most qualified individual. If that just so happens to be your son, then fair enough, but if he's a drooling retard, pass the throne on to the brilliant general or statesman who is your right hand.
>>997246
Peloponnesian War and the history of ancient Athen. Hoi polloi are violent as fvck.
>>997297
They tried that in both Romes. Didn't work.
>>997297
But then there is disagreement over which general is most qualified, and it's the diadochi all over again.
>>997231
Venetian republic was one of the most stable governments in the history. See how it isn't monarchy?
>>997324
>One example on a small scale outweighs everything else
>>997014
I've never met a monarchist who espouses absolute monarchy as the only correct system, most are constitutional monarchists in some way or another, they mostly get their differences on what clauses the constitution should contain
>>997318
Because it has fuck all to do with traditional reaction/monarchism, it's just a bunch of pimply autistic STEM neckbeards who want to create a rational society where autists get to be nobles. Literally secret treehouse kind of shit.
>>997318
Modern tech is still not capable of popping out perfect ubermensch babies on a regular basis.
>>997318
> physically perfect
You need psychological perfection here and even today modern psychology just isn't that good. So in the end you roll the dices.
>>997324
The Republic of Venice wasn't a "republic" though, It was a "crowned republic"; a elective monarchy.
>>997336
I wasn't talking Brave New World stuff. But we can detect most major problems with the fetus, and abort/disinherit any which slip through. The tech is only going to get better, and make it more viable.
>>997340
I used physical as a catchall. No matter what, you'd still have to train the child.
>>997297
There's a few problems with that, as "the most qualified person" is a vague as fuck term. There will have to be some kind of committee or an elective body who will judge who is the "most qualified" and more often than not, such bodies tend to be corrupt.
>>997342
The doge (Literally commander) was originally a Byzantine duke.
>>996318
>Is there a legitimate modern case to be made for Monarchism?
No
>I haven't met anyone in person that actually believes this is an ideal way of governing, but I'm sure many exist somewhere out there.
muh heritage, lewronggeneration and Wewuz are the guiding principles of monarchism. They dress it up in such nonsense notions as "degeneracy" to try and fool themselves that it is anything else.
>>997342
What is difference between elective monarchy and republic?
>>997353
> nonsense notions as "degeneracy"
Nice strawman here. Truth is that degeneracy of modern world is self-evident but you would be hard pressed to name even one degenerate monarch.
>>997353
So your position is fingers in your ears and shouting?
>>997347
Implement measures to prevent corruption. Imperial China had the "censorate" which could investigate any official for corruption (This should include the sovereign), and had its own internal agents that prevented it from becoming corrupt. A senate would be necessary to moderate the sovereign's rule, but the sovereign should be chosen from a list of "national notables" selected for their intelligence and skill.
>>997374
Sounds like it'd just wind up as corrupt as Rome.
>>997367
name me one first world monarchy where the monarch actually has an active hand in governing the country.
>>997374
The censorate would eventually end up corrupt, too.
>>997381
Saudi Arabia
>>997381
Not him, but Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Qatar.
>>997381
Technically, the Vatican.
>>997381
Monaco
>>997381
Monaco, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, and Andorra.
>>997402
Roman Republic, i meant. But even the Empire.
>>997423
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Brunei are first world, the fuck are you talking about? They're literally some of the richest and most developed countries on Earth.
>>997423
All these places do really well under their monarchies despite being tiny?
>>997257
nope.
Lands accelerationism as nothing to do with marxist leftist accelerationism.
He's basically a technofile who unironically hopes for the advent of transhumanism via AI formation
>>997456
Accelerationism as a whole is a leftard meme. And Nick Land is a monumental cucklord.
>>997456
>unironically
Why would someone ironically wish for that?
>>997456
Transhumanism is the most neckbeard ideology this planet has ever created.
>>997456
This whole techno-commercial wing of neoreaction is the most hilariously deluded one. They worship entrepeneurs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos who are massive leftists.
He thinks that cryptography will make private property independent from social control. As xkcd pointed out, you just need a wrench, and a lot of people are willing to lend their hands to the government to use that wrench against any dissident who thinks that cryptographically storing information will keep them away from the outreach of the State.
Including Musk and Bezos.
>>997478
>26 minutes of pure autism
>>997480
>As xkcd pointed out
point discarded
>>997480
>This whole techno-commercial wing of neoreaction is the most hilariously deluded one.
That's not a "wing". That's literally ALL there is to neoreaction.
>>997480
desu, that wing really just wants to make Cyberpunk real.
Its kinda funny, in a way
>>997478
It could also bring about utopia, so that's worth supporting I guess.
>>997501
>utopian ideologies are worth supporting
>>997509
What ideology?
>>996547
>>996708
If you read any Neo-Reactionary material, it's plain to see that they do not have any fondness for either the Republican party or any representative party.
>But Republicans tout family values!
I don't recall them asking for a literal king.
>You're jusr cherrypicking a joke!
It's section 1.1, literally the first thing he has to say after introductions. And he squandered those words on a 'joke' that willfully misinterprets the Neo-Reactionary use of the term 'Left'.
These are monarchists we're talking about ffs, and they've dubbed themselves "Neo-Reactionaries" after the Reactionaries who fought against the French Republic. Everything even remotely democratic is "left" to them, it isn't that hard to understand and this FAQ's author spends his first bullet-point demonstrating he doesn't even grasp that much.
Thinking what the Republicans do versus the Democrats matters to a Neo-Reactionary is like thinking what an Aristocracy does versus a Monarch is relevant to someone living in a democracy because the Aristocrats are relatively more like democracy compared to a Monarch.
>>997515
Any.
>>996441
>competely disiregards one of the reasons why there's a massive left bias in academia, one of the big ones being hiring bias by leftwing academics:
He's mentioned that a few times, and he's hardly let-wing biased.
>>997516
Neoreactionary =/= Reactionary.
>>997239
Your argument fell apart at >very frequently
This isn't the case
>>997543
>wtf is 8gag
8ch
>>996318
Just going off the cuff, I've got no problem with a King so long as he's benevolent. A ruler who actually has the people's best interests at heart, is competent enough to realize his goals without causing undo upheaval and unrest, and who doesn't put his own personal interests above the nation is fine.
Finding these qualities in one man, however, is a daunting task. Finding them in an entire family line is next to impossible. In a way, this sort of hope would be a proto-benevolent AI ran government in which an AI would administer to the laws of the nation without bias.
Also, this assumes that there is a "best" interest for the people at large. Within a nation, some people will have desires that run opposed to others with no clear way to say who's right and wrong.
>>996318
Enlightened monarchies imo are the perfect form of government. There are historical examples of such systems but the only real difficulty is replacing an enlightened monarch with another enlightened monarch.
>>997558
This.
Napoleonic-era rationalism-based monarchies are god tier.
>>996460
It's sourced.
>>997566
Rationalism is meme that needs to die.
>>996460
Of course it isn't. It's the anti-reactionary FAQ. Its the reactionary FAQ that's a secondary source about neoreaction.
>>997549
And I have no problem with Korean ferryboat captains as long as the ship doesn't tip over and sink
>>997576
>current year
>not being enlightened by your rational mind
>not in a constant state of euphoria
*tips fedora*
>>997586
Exactly my point (I think). Finding someone who meets the criteria above is going to be so difficult as to warrant finding another form of government. Even if you do find someone who can do all of those things, there's no promise his successor will.
>>997381
The ones who are so loaded they can subdue the population with cash. Oil countries and/or some micro-states, mostly.
>>997516
>it's plain to see that they do not have any fondness for either the Republican party or any representative party.
Most of them certainly have a boner for France's Front National and other European far-right parties, Singapore's PAP, Putin and Trump. They're also fond of the usual /pol/ darlings in US and British political history.
>I don't recall them asking for a literal king.
Except that has nothing to do with suicide rates and social decay. Context, nigger.
>It's section 1.1, literally the first thing he has to say after introductions. And he squandered those words on a 'joke' that willfully misinterprets the Neo-Reactionary use of the term 'Left'.
Once again, it's not unfair to point out that the rise in suicide rates happened at a time when "conservatism" was resurgent, or at any rate at a low point for far-left policies and social liberalism. Let's grant that the Republican party is the ineffectual right wing of the "Progressive" or "Leftist" current: if going left was the cause of the decay, we should have seen a mitigation of the symptoms rather than an increase, but oddly enough the exact opposite is true. Thus he turns to other explanations.
>this FAQ's author spends his first bullet-point demonstrating he doesn't even grasp that much.
Scott understands NRx pretty well, which is why even NRx blogs keep linking to him and reposting his articles approvingly (not this one obviously.) His "Reactionary Ideology in a Nutshell" is even presented as introductory material in NRx reading lists, while Land, Nydwracu, and Konkvistador follow his blog and occasionally participate in the comments section.
Once again, you're merely cherrypicking a clumsy joke and focusing on it exclusively.
>>997365
Elgabalus. Nero. Caligula. Ci Xi.
>>997716
Only have a truncated reply here since I'm in a rush...
>Most of them certainly have a boner for France's Front National and other European far-right parties, Singapore's PAP, Putin and Trump. They're also fond of the usual /pol/ darlings in US and British political history.
You mean they like political factions that they can use to get one step closer to their goal?
>Except that has nothing to do with suicide rates and social decay. Context, nigger.
It does when anything they might implement has to go through a democratic process. Arguably it is the failure of democracy at fault here, not the Republican party. That's why it matters.
>Once again, you're merely cherrypicking a clumsy joke and focusing on it exclusively.
Perhaps, but my point is that once you get to the meat of the FAQ he opens with a "clumsy joke". If that really is the case, he needs to manage that re-write post-haste. Unless he intends his FAQ to actually be treated as a joke.
>>997197
>ensures a consistent, stable, uncontested political succession which is not subject to machination.
>
>
>
>
>one man should rule over everyone else because they will be somehow less fallible than everyone else
How exactly?
>>997297
>if he's a drooling retard, pass the throne on to the brilliant general or statesman who is your right hand.
Then the machinations start all over.
>>997437
>Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Brunei
>Not complete shitholes
>>997860
They aren't
>>997860
No, they aren't. Qatar is literally the wealthiest country on this fucking planet and the other two are not that far behind. They also have really low crime rate, especially compared to their neighbors.
Monarchism can only be defended in a conservative sense (ie that current monarchies should stay that way). Monarchism as a current ideology is unfortunatley like the more immature strains of anarchism which have tunnel vision and focus on certain historical settings in the mistaken belief that they can be replicated in modern times without the need for innovation or adaption to the technological, social and economic changes. Anarchists have Catalonia 1936 Monarchists have things like Louis XIV's France or Alexanders Russia.
Both spend the majority of their time critiquing society whilst having an exteremley vague notion of how those changes would be achieved and spend even less time working towards that. For the anarchist they await a nation/worldwide general strike and for the monarchist they await an aristocratic coup. Both ideas which allow them to be ok with being passive critiquers
>>999177
We have functioning monarchies right now, in 2016. While the number of successful anarchist societies totals a big fucking zero.
>>999082
Everything you said is true, but you need to take domestic statistics from those countries with a grain of salt
>>999196
Read the first line again - monarchism can only be defended in a conservative sense.
The defences and justifications you will see of contemporary monarchies will be principally conservative ones rather than justifications that include implementation and creation.
>>997844
>One man should perform surgery because he's somehow less fallible than everyone else
>>996475
>I will never understand how Canadians can view the English Queen as their own
Because she literally is. There is a legitimate political position called "Monarch of Canada" and the queen currently holds this position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada
>>997297
>What is elective monarchy
>>996318
>Monarchs having absolute control
This fucking meme.
Please do research before making a bold assertion such as that.
>>996318
There isn't a single case. Just look at how shitty Saudi Arabia, Bourbon France and Tsarist Russia were.
>>997844
Because they are bred and raised to rule, by the virtue of that. While in democracy most voters are not only not educated, they don't even give a fuck enough to be educated about anything.
>>1000324
Saudi Arabia isn't shitty at all. They're rich as fuck, their unemployment rate is below 5% and their murder rate is 0.8 per 100k people, which is significantly better than most of western Europe and the US.
>>1000324
Fine, prosperous until bad weather, and fine plus getting better?
>>1000326
Not to mention that it's a rarity for the voters to actually decide anything. They just vaguely pick the party who gets to have power for a while. Then those "representitives" decide everything. And it's made as difficult as possible to have the voters decide particular matters (referendum).
>>1000349
Also, VAST majority of voters care about what their preferred politician says, rather than what he does.
I mean just look at Trump, guy profitted from NAFTA and gets his shit produced in China yet he's hailed as a protectionist.
>>1000337
The Saudi government is skating on thin ice. They need the oil money to pay off various clans and families in their state just to stay in power. They're ruling on borrowed time. No one really wants them but they manage to keep everyone under wraps by creating an enormous welfare state designed at effectively bribing the populace not to overthrow them for siding with the US.
Seeing that the US is getting chummier and chummier with Iran, the Saudis are freaking out.
>>1000337
You are seriously mistaken about the severe problems the Saudis have. Money and political power is concentrated and squabbled over the various sub groups and families of the Saud Dynasty which creates huge issues of corruption. Combine this with terrible bureaucracy and education problems
Likewise they have huge unemployment issues
>As of 2008, roughly two thirds of workers employed in Saudi Arabia were foreigners, and in the private sector approximately 90%.[39].
When only 20% of your population does 66% percent of all work and 90% of private work you know your local population is in trouble. Especially when you get the kind of arrogance and sloth that comes from unearned wealth which means that they see a lot of work as being beneath them.
>>1000382
>corruption
>terrible bureaucracy
>education problems
Because republics never face these problems right?
>>1000388
>whataboutism
He wasn't defending republics, he was outlining how the Saudi monarchy operates.
>>1000388
>Because republics never face these problems right?
Didnt say Republics were perfect only that the account in that post about Saudi Arabia was deeply mistaken. Saudi Arabia is probably one of the worst examples one could use to push monarchism.
>>1000337
>Saudi Arabia isn't shitty at all.
t. house of saud
>>997014
Bu that's wrong you fucking pleb
t. Action Française
>>996353
Oman.
>>1000508
Gosh what a diversified and non oil based economy
>>1000525
>2% piss
>>1000607
I thought the snow mobile construction was stranger
>>1000618
this, really
>>996318
Plato makes some good arguments in the Republic I suppose.
But it all usually falls on idealism.
>>996318
>Are there any monarchists on /his/?
Yo
I've noticed three or perhaps four basic types of monarchists:
1. The so-called Neo-reactionary crowd who tend to see absolute monarchy as the quintessential form of government. These guys often tend to be of a nationalist or even fascist persuasion who admire monarchy for its favoring of "better men" by gifting them with more complete freedom to legislate and manage without any accountability to "lesser men". These guys main concern is destruction of the "cathedral" of modern liberalism and democracy. They mainly read Evola and Moldbug.
2. The "romantic monarchist" as I like to call them. For these people, monarchy brings to mind a world that prizes moral virtue, freedom, honor, family, chivalry, high culture and a greater love of nature and just a world where men are treated more like real human beings and lived under rulers bound more by the fear of God. While they may appreciate all monarchies in different ways, they are more desirous of monarchy along the old medieval lines or along constitutional lines. They mainly read Burke, De Maistre, and Guenon.
3."Libertarian monarchists" or "merchant monarchists" I suppose you could say. These guys agree with the guys in category #2 on a lot of things but don't make arguments for monarchy based very much on religion or lofty ideals. Their main concerns are economical. They support monarchy because they believe that despite the appearance of one ruler, they have offered the greatest amount of economic freedom. They see history as being a process of degradation rather than progress from aristocracy/feudalism, to absolute monarchy, to finally democracy. They mainly read Hoppe, Rothbard and Mises.
A fourth category I think might be such monarchists whose different attitudes border more on philosophic anarchism and so sometimes avoid too specific of a categorization like those above. They aren't as concerned about reviving monarchy as much as using monarchist arguments
>>1000667
And I guess a last possible category would be the "progressive monarchist." One who supports the monarchy as a cultural institution that provides connection with the past but is otherwise totally liberal in almost all modern senses of the term. This probably describes the majority of people in Britain, Sweden and Norway today.
>>999228
A constitutional monarchy is ranked as having the highest democratic accountability among any other system. However, that is a democratic system.
Personally, I like the English system: Keep the monarchy, but rule with a democracy.
>>1000667
Evola is hardly neoreaction, he appeals more to new age loons than to technocratic autists.
>>996318
An absolute monarchy with a good king is the best possible system of government. Unfortunately, heredity is rather unreliable in consistently producing good leaders, so systems to take out the trash, like elections, ultimately become necessary.
>>1000667
2nd one sounds great sign me up senpai.
>>1000667
Rothbard and Mises, really? Those are outright anarchists. If there's one author who could be considered a flagship "libertarian monarchist", it's Kuehnelt-Leddign, by a mile.
>>1000793
*Leddihn
>>1000723
>A constitutional monarchy is ranked as having the highest democratic accountability among any other system. However, that is a democratic system.
Which is exactly in line with my argument that monarchies of any kind can only be justifyed by conservative arguments which makes it a non issue in countries with no monarchies.
The UK most of all demonstrates the value of tradition being more valueable that the precise system
>>1000753
Four primary books of the neoreactionary's view of government include:
1. Patriarcha by Sir Robert Filmer
2. Democracy, The God That Failed by Hans Hermann Hoppe
3. Men Among Ruins by Julius Evola
4. Liberty or Equality by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
5. Reflections of a Russian Statesman by Konstantin Pobedonostsev
for more: http://www.moreright.net/neoreactionary-canon/
While all the different categories of monarchists I mentioned may read some of the same literature, what separates them is probably the ultimate reasons why they support monarchy more than what they read as they can read the same things and have very different opinions. And I've noticed there are lot of monarchists out there who've never heard of or read any monarchist literature but whose anxieties and desires still fall into these categories pretty well
I'd say the neo-reactionaries want a strong, technologically progressive society that is culturally and ethnically homogeneous based on a borderline social darwinist philosophy, firm autocracy, with maybe a few touches of mysticism.
The romantics want a more organic society of higher values and also believe that monarchy should include and protect diversity and have some accountability of rulers. They want man and the world to regain their innocence and see the industrial revolution as being like a second Fall of Adam.
The libertarians are concerned with shekels and private property and ultimately see monarchy as the protector of capitalism and a natural result of market principles.
The semi-anarchist crowd would almost prefer no government if it were possible. They're basically anarchists who've given up all hope in a worldwide anarchist revolution but also have no faith in collective forms of government based on spooks either. also see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarch_%28sovereign_individual%29
The progressives support a parliamentary democracy with a purely ceremonial monarchy.
>>1000901
>Leddihn, Evola and Hoppe in one sentence
Other than being monarchists (and in Hoppe's case not even that), they hardly have anything to do with each other.
>>1000901
*Five primary books
>>1000793
>Rothbard and Mises, really? Those are outright anarchists.
A good observation. Libertarian monarchists tend to agree with anarcho-capitalists on a lot of things and the line between them seems kind of thin. Hoppe, who has written Democracy, The God That Failed and From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy is himself an an-cap. To put it bluntly, for them, it's all about market shit. The king is just another private landlord whose property is to be respected and who must follow the same basic principles as any other corporate CEO who wants to have a successful enterprise and not have his employees be unhappy or unruly.
>If there's one author who could be considered a flagship "libertarian monarchist", it's Kuehnelt-Leddign, by a mile.
The thing is Leddihn is pretty much read by all monarchists these days to some extent, especially thanks to the fact that his major works are now easily available for free through the Mises Institute.
But he also poses some problems for the non-neoreactionary crowd. One is his obvious Catholic bias and his tendency to depreciate the value of non-Catholic society can alienate Protestant or non-Christian readers who otherwise agree with his criticisms of the Left. Another reason is that his stances on colonialism don't sit well with some people's stronger non-interventionist feelings.
Democracy and monarchy are both extremely shitty in their own special ways.
>>1000316
Ask Poland-Lithuania how great that was
>>1000928
I'm a protestant myself and I love Leddihn. Even though he criticizes protestantism a fair bit and blames the reformation for unleashing the demon of egalitarianism, he also speaks pretty highly of many protestant aristocrats in Austria and Prussia who were loyal to the emperor.
Personally I'm perfectly fine with a Roman catholic monarch as long as he doesn't go full counter reformation like the 17th century absolutists.
>>1000914
It would be an error to think that any "school of thought" necessarily reads books only by that school or which necessarily are point by point outlines of their own ideas. The five books I listed for the NRX's should be seen less as representative of their beliefs and philosophical positions and more as ideas which each respond to different poles of the neoreactionary mind.
I would say NRX's would just say Hoppe, Filmer, Leddihn and Evola had "the beginnings of the right idea" to quote Fritz Weaver. You can find in the link I posted the "Major Works" which are mostly just long blog posts that detail their main ideas. You can also just watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-eAKnVGGBI
These days, they're also both ironically and unironically supporting Trump. I don't know why as he's almost nothing like what they want except that he pisses off SJW's.
>>1000901
Have any of these types tried to take on Stirner? Or is this primarily a movement that doesnt show up on 4chan much
>>1000968
Leddihn also wrote some positive words about muslim monarchies too and also saw the fall of Muslim monarchs as a bad thing despite the fact that he also said that there was something "Islamic" in Protestantism which he counted as a demerit. However, Leddihn also in the Portland Declaration considered "caesaro-papism" and so also by implication Orthodox and the English political order as inferior.
The more romantic monarchist, which I am tempted to describe myself as sometimes, I would say is often arguing for monarchy by appeal to perennial ideas and principles. Which particular system one prefers and why is left up to the individual decide based on their own feelings and values (whether these values have been inherited or the person has converted to them after deliberation), but the question of which is ultimately "better" is often ignored. For the romantic, the main opponents are industrialism, the overly rationalistic view of the world that takes the "magic" out of life, the decline of art, and atheism/communism, not necessarily other religions which are seen as just as much victims and in some cases maybe the last strongholds of defense against the rampages of the satanic world of the moderns. Think of some of the romantic or "enlightened" views of men like Byron, Goethe, and others. Often times the romantics could express more praise for the Ottoman, Persian and Oriental lands than they could their own societies. And today I would say people of this "romantic" persuasion are most open to the works of Ananda Coomaraswamy, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Frithjof Schuon, Rene Guenon, and TS Elliot in addition to works of classical liberalism.
>>1001031
The semi-anarchists/aristocratic anarchists I described seem to like Stirner. This sort, like I said, seem to be anarchists philosophically, not believing truly free individuals should be ruled by anyone, but that the common people need rulers to prevent chaos. But they would agree that democracy isn't preferable to monarchy or aristocracy.
But a truly free individual is his own monarch or at least God is a sufficient monarch for such a free individual if God exists, but democracy traps people in a radical co-dependence and eventually slavery to the subjective whims of the collective. In this case, monarchy would be preferable precisely because it is the government of an individual and usually this individual has to be himself from that class of truly free and unique individuals.
>>997297
You are just asking for a civil war every 40 years
>>1001131
>The semi-anarchists/aristocratic anarchists I described seem to like Stirner. This sort, like I said, seem to be anarchists philosophically, not believing truly free individuals should be ruled by anyone, but that the common people need rulers to prevent chaos. But they would agree that democracy isn't preferable to monarchy or aristocracy.
If thats the case is Nietzsche their chosen ideologue?
>In this case, monarchy would be preferable precisely because it is the government of an individual and usually this individual has to be himself from that class of truly free and unique individuals.
The very notion of a government constrains the unique one and the radical freedom undermines the legitimacy that is necessary for a monarchy to function. Union of Egoists is the only way it could go unless you miraculously got the perfect set of people.
>>1000321
What?
>>1001210
Not that anon but the notion of monarchs being pre-indsustrial totalitarians doesnt really have much of a basis in history
>>1000324
>>1000365
The Saudis offer a surprising amount of economic freedom according to heritage.org
If there's any country that's a welfare state, it's actually Iran, which is more socialist in economic practice than Saudi.
Saudi is definitely the worst of the monarchies if you're of a more liberal persuasion and disagree with the puritanism of the Wahhabi Muslim sect. If that's the case, you want to go someplace like Oman, Jordan, Kuwait or the UAE where the political and social atmosphere is more generally tolerant.
I usually see the problems of Saudi Arabia as being one that is more due to the religious character of the country, not so much the institution of monarchy. Because if you look at a country like Pakistan, which is supposed to be an Islamic Republic, there are less Wahhabis there but far more bloodletting of its large Shi'ite minority than you see in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis may capitulate to the Wahhabis desire to see them do something about the "filthy Shi'a kafirs" now and then, but the Saudis are less inclined to slaughter all the Shi'a there and they usually have the power to prevent it zealots from doing it themselves, while in Pakistan, the government is either seized by these elements or is helpless to stop them. the Sauds play this game of hit them with a stick and give them a carrot with the very religious sect they patronize. Also, Wahhabism tends to dislike monarchy because it seems to contradict the idea that all the believers (of the Wahhabi sect) are equal.
>>1000987
These guys are a bunch of White Nationalists right?
>>1001222
So monarchs didn't have all the power? Please elaborate, I'm here to learn
>>1001208
>If thats the case is Nietzsche their chosen ideologue?
I would say Stirner, Rothbard, Hoppe, Hakim Bey and Benjamin Tucker are some of their main ideologues.
>Union of Egoists is the only way it could go unless you miraculously got the perfect set of people
To quote Hakim Bey: "In sleep we dream of only two forms of government--anarchy & monarchy. Primordial root consciousness understands no politics & never plays fair. A democratic dream? a socialist dream? Impossible."
Because monarchy is a government that is centered around an individual who is seen as somehow distinct from the crowd and in some cases embodies virtues which should be striven for by everyone to the degree their nature allows, it probably encourages the mindset necessary for the creation of the Union of Egoists better than democracy. If the Union of Egoists is only possible among a certain small class of men who are distinguished by their natural abilities or intelligence or is something which can include everyone,there must either be means to control those who are incapable of reaching that stage of perfection so they do not violate the freedom of the social club of the egoists or there must be a suitable temporary form of government until that point is reached where everyone can be part of that social club. The monarch is then the closest individual to the Union of Egoists themselves among ordinary civil society. But another possible way of looking at it could be that there is a Union of Monarchs which is itself synonymous with the Union of Egoists, who have created a clever social system comprised of both spooks and realities (the difference not being clear to the commoners) to protect their freedom with the least physical and psychological harm to the lesser folk
Hakim Bey also speaks of "pirate utopias" that are closest thing that men can ever dream of that meets the anarchist ideal, but exist in the cracks of mainstream society in a both antagonistic/symbiotic relationship
>>997345
We can abort children who sport "literal retard" inducing conditions, and not even all of them. There is no way to prevent plain old stupidity and incompetence. Can't detect that in the womb.
>>1001411
No, but we can work against it pretty well with training, eugenics, and gene therapy. Lost hopes are why you have spares.
>>996328
>In monarchies, elections don’t happen
Well meme'd desu
It's literally I don't know what a monarch is.txt
Read Aquinas, De Maistre, Maurras and Boutang
>>1001491
also
>popular revolts
Easy, just make it an elected, non-dynastic constitutional monarchy.
Leave in ways for a king to be deposed should he prove despotic.
>>996318
>Is there a legitimate modern case to be made for Monarchism?
Of course. Let's say you want to institute traditionalist technocratic anarcho-capitalism but do not want it to be challenged by anyone ever. Saying "I want to institute a totalitarian dictatorship" or "I want to nerve staple everyone who disagrees with me" will not make you any more popular but saying "an impartial wise fairy tale king who has been EDUCATED FROM BIRTH to rule will preserve the status quo forever!" is more socially acceptable.
>>1001571
The joke is that you just described our current system right?
>>1001477
That would work if we knew anything at all about what determines intelligence on a genetic level.
As it stands we're shooting in the dark if we don't understand the underlying biochemical causes.
Eugenics at the phenotypic level has never worked. You would need an understanding of the human genome far beyond what we currently have or indeed what is possible with current technology.
>>1001495
I really really like this image.
>>1001571
>Leave in ways for a king to be deposed should he prove despotic.
>>1001663
Genetic level little important. If someone don't use his brains, even Poincare level genetics don't help.
>>1001692
Which is another reason why we cannot use Eugenics and genetic engineering to make the perfect king.
Genetic determinism cannot explain even half of all variation in human traits.
Anime primitivism will win
>>1001491
What monarchy had elections every 4-7 years?
Even the papacy, that should have a rather high turnover rate due to electing old farts, typically saw dudes ruling for decades until their death. And it's not like people can just launch a party to get their fav cardinal elected.
>>996441
>thinks Slate Star Codex is left-biased
UNINITIATED
>>996318
Monarchism is based on a fundamentally false premise: aptitude in leadership is not hereditary.
>>1006494
That's not the basis, though. Besides, anyone can have aptitude for something when they're trained in it their entire life.
>>996475
>I will never understand how Canadians can view the English Queen as their own.
Because most of the "british canadians" are descended from the british.
Most of the americans are shitmix mongrels.
>>1006529
>anyone can have aptitude for something when they're trained in it their entire life
Except that isn't true and we have it on record.
>>1006529
>That's not the basis, though. Besides, anyone can have aptitude for something when they're trained in it their entire life.
Yes it is. If it was not Monarchists would be advocating screening the population for the smartest child and raising said child up like Ender fucking Wiggin.
But no, they go for a child of the previous monarch. And not even the smartest or most moral child of the previous monarch, but the one who was farted out of said monarch/queen regent first.
>>1006562
>Yes it is.
No, the basis is that people care far more for patrimony, and long term planning is better than short term.
>but the one who was farted out of said monarch/queen regent first.
Could have Tanistry.
>>1006546
I'm not saying you can go from zero to Tesla, but with a lifetime of training, you can probably do well enough for the job.
>>1006718
If you want long term planning there are better systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UctriMuXYS0
>>1006718
> long term planning is better than short term.
Kim Il-Sung ruled 40 years and see how far it got him. Long term rulers could do bad because they can be not interested in reforms and such. There is no responsibility whatsoever for doing bad like for the most dictators.
>>1006746
There really aren't. Monarchy works most peaceably from generation to generation.
>>1006718
>I'm not saying you can go from zero to Tesla, but with a lifetime of training, you can probably do well enough for the job.
Or you could get hundreds of thousands of ambitious people who are generally good at making deals, talking to people, forming connections and similar skills useful for a leader to have to represent their constituents compete with each other for political office in lengthy careers.
It also has a good deal of redundancy built in.
>>1006784
NK is still too much of a military junta. Less accountability there.
>>1006787
Save for all the times when succession is in dispute resulting in civil war.
>>1006787
>Monarchy works most peaceably from generation to generation.
But that isn't true. Leadership succession is often much more troubled, violent in monarchies than in democracies.
>>1006788
>compete with each other
Therein rests the problem, and where actual skills for the job are less important than appearing skilled at the job, or even just popular enough for it.
>>1006810
Which has been what, 1% of total successions ever?
>>1006811
Only if you're focusing on the bad ones. To say the same of democracy really shows the faults, with opposing parties undoing what the previous ones did because it's no longer popular.
>>1006820
actually participating in politics is where you get political skills from
>>1006820
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNgP6d9HraI
So... How do monarchists plan to install monarchy back? Just crown president?
>>1006834
Yea. Political skills. A monarch would still gain such skills, without the downside of democratic politics.
>>1006843
USA is a lost hope. They could possibly beg for a legitimate patron in one of the Windsors, similar to the Glorious Revolution.
>>996318
The philosopher king today would be called the benovolent dictator
>>1006853
Which again, is a laughably small percentage.
>>1006865
Also "imaginary". Sorry systems dependent on an ideal set of events are the favored prey of the Demon Murphy.
http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/3/556.abstract
15% of monarchs are murdered. The sword of Damocles is true.
>>1006853
Maybe that's a good thing? Adds more weight to it, than just voting different later.
>>997096
Switzerland is a good counter-example... no monarchy ever.
>>1006912
Yeah, they got it sorted out AFTER the glorious revolution and the shift of power from crown to parliament.
>>1006935
But I might have to kill the next king later too.
