>>71123491
The interest of a king lies in making his nation greater.

The interest of a leader in a democratic country lies in getting reelected.

That is all you need to know.

>>71123491
Constitutional Monarchy is where it's at.

>>71123687
Depends on how radical it is.

British constitutional monarchy where the king has no real power since the 18th century isn't even a real monarchy.

>>71123645
why are so based what can we learn from youß

>>71123645
>nation greater.

continue please
How can you guys explain that there wasn't a single war betwen democracies yet?

>>71125133
That has little to do with democracy and more to do with globalisation and big alliances.

>>71123491
Democracy, of some sort, is needed as a vent against the worst aspects of single leader governments.

Nero as an example.

That said, I think the USA constitution in its original form was a solid way to organize a government. The House is elected by and represents local areas (the people, property owners, have a voice); the Senate is elected by the states (the tenth amendment has teeth); the supreme court is hand picked for life by the executive and confirmed by the Senate (law can remain somewhat objective, in theory); the president and vice president positions go to the first and second place winners (this means more than one can run and the VP has some legitimate power simply because a good portion of the population had them as their first pick).

Now, I'm happy with most of that original set up. Though I'd codify some specific powers for the VP, mostly over the legislature, and I'd also codify the presidential election to be a 100% popular vote, but have the house and Senate confirm the Pres and VP, with a 2/3rds veto option.

I would also change the presidential term to 6 years from 4 and limit the term to 1, with no term limit for the VP (until they've been president for 1 term).

Limit senators to 1 term as well and keep their term to 6 years.

Limit house members to 3 two year terms, total 6 years.

Limit SCOTUS judges to 18 years, instead of life.

Finally, the right of voting should be limited to property holders. The USA was founded as a republic of landed free men.

The absolute ruler may be a Nero, but he is sometimes Titus or Marcus Aurelius; the people is often Nero, and never Marcus Aurelius.

Monarchy works with strong leader. With weak leader your nation will become like Germany with Merkel. Imagine Queen Merkel making the shot calls all over Europe.

>>71123491

I lived in Dubai for a while. Let me tell you, monarchy works well.

He wants something done, it gets done. No red tape, debate or delays. Its pretty impressive.

>>71125684
Agreed. Which is why, no matter the set up, I believe longer, single term presidencies would be ideal. They get elected, don't have to worry about elections and focus entirely on running the country. You sacrifice the benefits a leader for life can bring, but you also avoid the psychos for life problem.

>>71123491
The only way a monarchy would work is if you have a literal Immortal God-Emperor who's number 1 priority is the strength and prosperity of the human race. So, in other words. Monarchies are always damned to fall with weak rulers.

>>71123491
Democracy is a system where the lowest common denominator rules.

Mind you all, I'm not an ancap. But you want an argument against democracy look at my country.

>>71123491
>lumping all different types of monarchy together

It doesn't work like that, Nigel.

Democracy makes the people ultimately accountable, that way when things are really bad you can say "this is the future you have chosen." Like when all junior jobs become diversity hires... Oh wait the gen x who voted increasingly left don't notice that and don't believe it happens.

>>71123491
There was democracy in ancient greece, so its more than just 200 years

>>71125133
Because trade

>>71126224
Monarchies are flawed because it gives flawed men too much power. Democracies have the advantage in giving too little power to flawed men.

>Is democracy overrated /pol/?

Yes, because most voters are fucking idiots.

>>71125133
>single war between democracies yet?
Lol?
WWII, Cold War, Civil War... Remember that Socialism and Communism are extreme forms of democracy. They are put into power by "the will of the people" and spend a lot of time caring about public opinion (enough so to kill millions of people). The reason they were allowed to commit such atrocities on their own citizens is because of their single party nature. Doesn't mean they weren't legitimate. Civil War was an obvious war between democratic nations (in fact between two parties in a democratic nation). So more parties the better, but there are many way through which many parties can be reduced to few. Either way democracy shows it's ineffectiveness.

Also can you name a king that slaughtered million of his own citizens? Can you name a king (before democractic reforms) that conscripted the majority of their citizens for total war? Are you certain that its democracy that keeps total war from occurring in this day and not global economic hegemony and massive increases in technology?

>>71126461
"Democracy" back then was a autocracy
Only land men of Greek origin could vote

>>71126461
Yeah it's democracy but is vastly different.
It was 40 000 citizens ,ruling over 60k free people and 200 000 slaves (for athens ,was worse in Sparta with the zealots)
But it's just semantics. It comes down to what you define as "the people" (as in demos).

Tbf most of western "democracy" are constitutional republics. Democracy is a buzzwords cuz it sounds nice but the individual citizen has very few power

>>71126565
>Monarchies are flawed because it gives flawed men too much power.
Not all monarchies are hereditary. It can be run like the military or a business. Cameralism is what they call it. The successor is chosen based upon rank and merit.

>>71123491
The bible does say monarchy is the best form of government

>>71126565
Not all monarchies are absolutes. In a feudal monarchy system,it's not unheard that some nobles families are richer and more powerful that the king.

Hell ,Roman monarchy wasn't hereditary. When the king died ,the senate took power and elected a new king. It was an elective monarchy and predated well more known european monarchies by centuries

>>71126640
>WWII, Cold War, Civil War

Not between democracies, or anything of sort.

>Socialism and Communism

SU wasn't communism, and not marxist socialist.

>the will of the people

Had little to do with SU and Nazi Germany.

>Civil War was an obvious war between democratic nations

What civil war?

>Also can you name a king that slaughtered million of his own citizens?

Roman emperors had a nasty habit.
Hudred years war


The reason there wasn't so many dead in middle age was becuase there wasn't so many people to kill.


But still move the goalposts. There wasn't a single war between 2 democratic nations

>>71127695
I'm moving the goalpost? The truth is that communism and socialism are much closer to democracy than to any other political system. You just don't have a thorough enough knowledge outside of this extremely democratic era to see it.

>the will of the people
>Had little to do with SU and Nazi Germany.
This is just retarded. You seriously think they shoved their way into power? The whole few thousand of members in each party? In SU the communist party LED THE PEOPLE to revolt and assumed power as a reward. The Nazi party went through lengths to keep their approval up until the war (Reichstag fire?).

>Roman emperors had a nasty habit.
Which emperor? Certainly they killed a lot of other country's and their territory's citizens, but didn't slaughter their own, to my knowledge.
>Hundred years war
When did either side commit atrocities on the others citizens? And nobody was drafted...

>>71127695
Oh yeah. US Civil War. I guess you probably don't know much about it. But the North kept bullying the South in economic and political matters. So the South seceded and there was a big war to keep them in the union. The result was that the federal government assumed more power and states rights were withheld. All because democracy allows oppression of minority political groups.

>>71128849
Democracy failed so they had to replace it with the civil service state. The civil service state was vastly expanded during FDR. Our democracy is vestigial; we live in a bureaucratic state because democracy is shit. A bureaucratic state is more stable, but will collapse on itself very dramatically after some amount of time from corruption or ever expanding cost overhead.

>>71128617
> The truth is that communism and socialism are much closer to democracy than to any other political system

In theory, i can accept it. But all real life applications of Socialism almost universaly ended in dictatorships. SU and NG were not democracies.

>This is just retarded. You seriously think they shoved their way into power?

Yes they did you fucking retard

>Muh hitler had popular vote

Not nearly enough

>When did either side commit atrocities on the others citizens?

I don't know what you consider as atrocities, but if killing civilians, then yes, the middle ages were filled with civilian slaughters. I just picked the most famous war. I could name the reconquista, in my country we pretty much completely slaughter every muslim, to the point that the lower third of my country was unpopulated.

>And nobody was drafted
Are you being ironic?

>>71128849
Ah, the US civil war. Americans probably don't realize that there were more civil wars the US one. I thought you were talking about the Russian one.

>But the North kept bullying the South in economic and political matters.

So it was the North that bullied the south in creating slave fugitive patrols? The north bullied the South in drafting Northern common men to go out and hunt escaped slaves?

>>71130246

>Yes they did you fucking retard
Both parties had support by the people (never a consensus, but what democracy has consensus?). Otherwise the people would have otherthrown them. A few thousand people can't force their way into ruling a country without retaliation. Look at the Hundred Years War =P

>I don't know what you consider as atrocities, but if killing civilians, then yes, the middle ages were filled with civilian slaughters.
Very vague. By who, for what, etc...
>in my country we pretty much completely slaughter every muslim
Good on ya. Looks like that was them taking back land from a failing Muslim nation on the south tip of the peninsula? I'm not saying there weren't wars, just that monarchs never slaughtered their own citizens. Which is still the case.

>>And nobody was drafted
>Are you being ironic?
It was voluntary and paid. Western armies didn't have conscription until Napolean.

>>71130497
>So it was the North that bullied the south in creating slave fugitive patrols?
Don't see your point. That was a law those states had every right to enforce. The North would routinely cockblock any legislation written by a southern for no reason other than a southern wrote it. Right before the war they even barricaded southern representatives out of the state house in Washington D.C.

>>71131254
>Both parties had support by the people

So what about the police state?

>Otherwise the people would have otherthrown them.

It as a bit hard with all the repression.

>A few thousand people can't force their way into ruling a country without retaliation.

The SA surpassed 1 million iirc. Communist party won a civil war.

>Very vague. By who, for what

Just on top of my head: Hussite war, Reconquista, Charlemagne conquest of Saxony.

> just that monarchs never slaughtered their own citizens.

They don't slaughte out of fun. No state does that. People are valuable. But endless wars, crushing taxes normally have a toll on peasents

>It was voluntary and paid. Western armies didn't have conscription until Napolean.

Levies were "voluntarily and paid"?

>The North would routinely cockblock any legislation written by a southern for no reason other than a southern wrote it

Except for that law i told you. It wasn't a tyranical North vs a defensive South. History is never that simply

>>71123491
WE

>>71131866

>So what about the police state?
After they gained power? Single-party democracies are super shit. Multi-party democracies are better, but still shit.
>It as a bit hard with all the repression.
See above. They needed approval until they got in power. Thus Machiavellian. Bad governments are bad governments. Democracy doesn't imply good government, just government by the people. In fact, the people are a lot easier to trick with Machiavellian schemes because they distant.

>The SA surpassed 1 million iirc. Communist party won a civil war.
Huh, seems like they had a lot of sympathy...
Just because a party was shown to be evil and wrong doesn't mean the people didn't accept them back then.

>Levies were "voluntarily and paid"?
Taxation is theft is your argument? Yes, soldiers were paid and no one was forced into service except by circumstance.

>Except for that law i told you.
That law was a state law, it didn't apply to Northerners or outside of the state that passed it. Northern governments had no say, nor should they. Not everything is a national vote. Really shows how limited your viewpoint is. You must know nothing besides federal democracy (socialism lite). I guess that works easier when your country is the size of our states. Democracy is less effective across cultural, racial, economic, etc. boarders. You can't please everyone when everyone wants something completely different.

>>71123491
Democracy is closer to 0 years honestly. Same for Communism. They're just buzzwords to seize power.

>>71133034
> Single-party democracies
>Single party
>democracies


>Just because a party was shown to be evil and wrong doesn't mean the people didn't accept them back then.

Nazi were accepted and liked. Just not by majority, up until they assumed power. After the economical recovery and well done propaganda skyrocked the approval rate.

>Taxation is theft is your argument?

lol wut?

>Yes, soldiers were paid and no one was forced into service except by circumstance.

They were paid, i know, i just don't know how much they were paid. Forced recruitment was common.

>That law was a state law
ok

>>71123491
IT DEPENDS

No system is perfect, therefore it shouldn't be ruthlessly implemented everywhere.

Americans want democracy and they deserve it, they know how important it is to chose a good leader and they don't care how much money they get.

Dumb bigots like polacucks will never go along with democracy because their only desire is to live a good life, they don't care if the country exists. Who pays more wins, right?
Poland has done the best as a monarchy, and the more it became a republic, the more we started losing.
I fucking love my country and i can't stand those country-suiciders who defend democracy without any care.
The faster we get out of this democracy-shithole the faster we will grow as a nation.

>>71123491

You forgot

>PATRIARCHY: Dawn of Time

Shitlord

>>71133863
>>Single party
>>democracies
If Trump breaks the Republican party in two the Democrats will rule the US for the next twenty years minimum. Not exactly a one party system, but little sustained opposition, close enough.

>>71125133

Here's some wars fought between democracies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Dutch_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

>>71134658
The first is a joke

Second ok

3rd you can't really talk about democracies in the 17th century

4rt boer states were not democracies

5ft argentina was in a military junta


not being a monarcgy != being a democracy

>>71127695
SU wasn't communist, but it was a socialist state. that's why ussr means union of soviet SOCIALIST republics.
How the heck was SU not socialist ?
There was no private property and all means of production were nationalized.
Elaborate. You sound like a trotskyite

>>71123687
Constitutional monarchy is pointless since the monarch has no real power. You just get a family of spoiled brats who gets free shit for nothing.

>>71137276
Su was socialist, but not marxist socialist That is what i meant. Sorry if the message was not clear.

>>71137629
I get the idea of a secure, unafilliated, nationalistic man in charge of overseing the country. I think the monarch has the power to dissolve the parlement?