![323216d1332517887-king-george-vi-odd-raf-uniform-per-zio-nuccio[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ePt7PBr.jpg "323216d1332517887-king-george-vi-odd-raf-uniform-per-zio-nuccio[1].jpg")
Is Monarchism a better system than Republicanism?
>>76619384
Yes.
the system doesn't matter. The ideology behind does.
it's hard to figure out the ascension policy. divine right is a form of idolatry and is irrational.
>>76619384
Autocracy allows an individual more control and easier access to push agendas, policies, etc.
A republic allows input from the people.
A good monarch that loves, cares, and respects his citizens will always be more efficient than a republic. The problem occurs with what happens when that monarch no longer rules? What if he goes booku crazy Game of Thrones style? All it takes is one bad decree to truly oppress the people. I'm not talking about 3rd wave feminism bullshit when I say oppress. I mean real life fucking oppression where you're entire family is going to get muckducked for disagreeing with the crown. This is why the UK has a constitutional monarchy and isn't like North Korea or some Nigger African Warlord state despite both having "royalty."
You either Yang Wenli or play the genetic lottery and hope to be born noble. People are fucking retarded and as much as I'd love to be a noble getting fat on other people's dime I'm going to have to say I'd rather put up with the bullshit corruption and have the option to slay the problem.
Yes Monarchy is the only legitimate for of government. Any downsides of Monarchy are nothing compared to the alternatives.
>>76619384
Yes
>>76620527
The people, the quality of the people and the values of the people behind it matters.
A constitution is only as good as the people it is intended for.
>>76619384
Yeah. The American revolution was an absolute mistake.
No, unless it is a mixed and balanced government like they knew was the best system way back in Aristotle and Cicero's day. Half the great days of Rome and of the United States both occurred under a political system that tried to mitigate the dangers of rule by one/rule by few/rule by many but also embrace the strengths of each. And the other half of Rome's great epoch was when at least lipservice was paid to this ideal with the princep being first among equals and not an oriental god-king or shadow-of-god-king like in the dominate era.
For every example of abysmal republicanism you can find two examples of godawful monarchism. Absolute Monarchists behave like communists or islamists in their utopianism and no-true-scotsman of "well -my- monarch would be perfectly rational and only practice everything I agree with and nothing I disagree with :^)".
A constitutional monarchy when one has the traditions and established monarchy (Britain) is ideal, although >>76620527 has it right - if Britain had an absolute monarchy it would be a different kettle of fish than if say, some ultra liberal monarch in the Scandinavias were absolute in power.
>But a man my here object, that the condition of subjects is very miserable; as being obnoxious to the lusts and other irregular passions of him or them that have so unlimited a power in their hands. And commonly they that live under a monarch think it the fault of monarchy; and they that live under the government of democracy, or other sovereign assembly, attribute all the inconvenience to that form of commonwealth; whereas the power in all forms, if they be perfect enough to protect them, is the same; not considering that the estate of man can never be without some incommodity or other; and that the greatest that in any form of government can possibly happen to the people in general, is scarce sensible, in respect of the miseries and horrible calamities that accompany a civil war; or that dissolute condition of masterless men, without subjection to laws, and a coercive power to tie their lands from rapine, and revenge: nor considering that the greatest pressure of sovereign governors proceedeth not from any delight or profit they can expect in the damage or weakening of their subjects, in whose vigour consisteth their own strength and glory, but in the restiveness of themselves, that unwillingly contributing to their own defence, make it necessary for their governors to draw from them what they can in time of peace, that they may have means on any emergent occasion, or sudden need, to resist or take advantage on their enemies. For all men are by nature provided of notable multiplying glasses (that is, their passions and self-love_ through which every little playment appeareth a great grievance; bu are destitute of those prospective glasses (namely, moral and civil science), to see afar off the miseries that hang over them, and cannot without such payments be avoided.
>>76623381
Absolute Monarchism had/has a role but that is when the society and state are in a place of chaos, unpredictability and diffused power. Syria is closer to that medieval paradigm than France or the United States so it needs an absolute monarch like Al-Assad. In the absence of a strong centralized power there you get the baronies and duchies and princely fiefdoms of all your Islamist, Alawite, Kurdish or Hezbollah fighters. In that situation a strong monarch challenges the 'too many chiefs and not enough indians' situation, and historically speaking usually looked to a stronger burghers middle class (Britain, France) or church (Spain) to challenge those provincially minded nobles.
But the US today or Europe today does not need that kind of strong armed 'monopoly on violence' absolute executive. We do not need a tyranny from Brussels in the form of an unelected bureaucracy and we do not need it in the form of an unelected king.
Don't try the no true scotsman bullshit. Rome went from the four great emperors immediately to commodus. The greatness of Caesar and Augustus and reasonability of Tiberius quickly led to the retarded flavians. Because it so happens the court does not exist in a vacuum.
Hell, Henry the 8th went from a fit, virile, cultured and brilliant king arthur in the flesh to a corpulent, paranoid, ruthless tyrant.
>>76624024
Whoops not the retarded flavians, they were good emperors. The retarded Julio-Claudians.
Flavians only took power by armed coup rather than succession. Whoops, here I thought hereditary or chosen succession was a good thing. :^)
>>76619384
yes
>prevents populism
>allows for more long term planning
>rulers are actually prepared for it and not selected randomly
it's objectivily better than democracy
>>76619384
It's the people that make for a successful and stable state, not the ideology or system itself.
Just look at Europeans, they've tried virtually every flavour of government, yet it always ends in tears for them.
>>76620527
Ah, the rare and elusive tophat hitler.
>>76624370
what about that king of spain who was literally retarded?
It can be. It can also be MUCH worse. All it takes is a crazy monarch to inherit the throne and it can all come tumbling down
>>76625274
high ranking officer took care of the kingdom, but i agree that retarded people shouldn't be able to inherit anything
>>76623381
>>76624024
>Aristotle
I don't know about Aristotle's political views, but Plato, his teacher, wanted the philosopher king and system of hereditary "guardian" class and Alexander the Great, his pupil, was Alexander the Great.
>Absolute Monarchists
question wasn't about absolute monacrchy's, any monarchy that were to be established today would be a constitutional monarchy. There have been very few constitutional monarchy's established with Russia working it's way towards an Aryan-led Christian constitutional monarchy before the Jewish Bolshevik's upended it.
Like true communism, true constitutional monarchy's, particularly ones that declare Christ as the Supreme Leader, are yet to be attempted by man.
