Is Monarchy the most stupid and illogical form of governance?

Is Monarchy the most stupid and illogical form of governance?
For every righteous and just monarch there are two evil ones and 10 incompetents.
>Hey i united everyone and have proven my worth as a leader but i'm about to die
>Hmm i guess i should give all control to my moronic son who's going to crash everything i've ever built up into the ground
Seriously it's just so stupid.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >For every righteous and just monarch there are two evil ones and 10 incompetents.

    Nothing like some made up stats to kickstart a nice debate

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It made sense in the past when only 1 in every 100 people could even afford to be given any sort of formal education. Nowadays though it's the equivalent of simping for the trust fund kid and thinking that their spoiled ass knows how to run your life.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >only 1 in every 100 people could even afford to be given any sort of formal education.
      That ratio still applies if you mean actual, proper education, not factory-style schools where you are just a number who is supposed to learn things that you won't necessarily use in life, in front of a teacher that won't lift a finger if someone feels like bullying you to kill time

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Better to have 9/10 times a bad monarch at whom you can legitimately cast blame than 100% of the time have an amorphous blob of incompetent "representatives" "elected" "fairly" by "educated voters".

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you knew how destructive civil wars were you wouldn't be saying that.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The American civil war was between two republics

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And it happened once. If it happened every other generation America would not have become a world power.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Britain is a monarchy and has had three civil wars in the last 900 years, of which one involved a Republican faction and the most recent one (the Fourtyfive) was barely felt

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, the zog mulatto welfare perpetual enslavement we have now is FAR better than the odd bloody war.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I mean if you prefer Somalia so much you can always go live there

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The 2010s called it wants it shitty retorts back.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Spanish civil war
        the Russian civil war (remember the monarchy was over thrown by republicans before the Bolsheviks took their turn at revolution)
        the Chinese civil war
        the Nigerian civil war
        ...etc, republics are not immune to civil wars.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And yet those are a drop in the bucket compared to the civil wars of monarchs.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            casualty wise, both civilian and military or "number" of civil wars specifically?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Both.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because there have been waaaay more monarchs lol

            I’m not even a monarchist I think it’s retsrded

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >you can legitimately cast blame
      Monarch (tyrants) can easily shift the blame to saboteurs and enemies of the people too.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dictatorship and the ideal of absolute power is the only way a state can be run when the ability of the state to function is weak. It's telling that when the state became more capable of actually acting, autocrats were sidelined such as in the 19th century and many of them just outright abolished in the 20th. A monarch or a dictator is a useless institution in the modern world because any action can easily be done by the state and the officals running it.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Monarchy was a good innovation at the time because it established stable and lawful succession. It followed Roman despotism which often resulted in strong capable rulers but devastating civil wars to get there. Modern Republics are superior because it has lawful and stable succession but also a way to change out incompetent or malicious rulers.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Modern Republics are superior because it has lawful and stable succession but also a way to change out incompetent or malicious rulers
      Replacing figure head leaders so the servile masses think they are making a change while the unelected bureaucrats can continue to sell out the country to corporations and other nations. For ((whom)) is this form of government superior?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        For everyone. You want accountable rulers that are constantly being overthrown, that's how you get Africa.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You want accountable rulers that are constantly being overthrown, that's how you get the Roman Empire
          Correct

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Most people don't want to live in Africa anon.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Africa is the way it is because of Black folk no magical democracy is going to change that, also you didn’t read my post correctly

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If I had to choose between living in my nice comfy air conditioned house in a republic or living as some slave being worked to death in a mine in the Roman Empire, that's not exactly a difficult fricking choice.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What does the industrial revolution, which occurred in in the Britain, have to do with what form of government we have are you moronic?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            in Britain*
            My apologies

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also what we consider healthcare first started in the German Kaiserreich

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't want to work in a Victorian era factory either.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You still haven’t addressed my point, what does this have to do with what form government a country has, pic rel “democratic” USA

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly my point. Why should I yearn for a monarchy so I can go back to the 'good old days' of the Roman Empire?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We were discussing which form of government had the better leadership, then you decided to use the moronic “muh air conditioning” argument and now your saying that point was that this was a bad argument. Are you merely pretending to be moronic?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The UK has a 15% government approval rating.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >can continue to sell out the country to corporations and other nations.
        But European monarchies were first selling interests of the countries when they went international. International marriages to expand empires with lands if different nations, inheritance wars etc.
        French and Brit people fought pointless war for hundred years because their Monarchs were relatives. It's worst fruits of international corporativism. Have fun with country been sold to some dick in Spain as dowry for your stupid royal princess.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That also happens in Monarchies too or have you forgot the past 200 years of human history

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People who want to live in monarchies are either disgusting, servile cowards, or despicable tyrants.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You really hate Belgian, Dutch and Scandinavian people, uh

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They are weak, servile cowards for choosing to raise a king above themselves, yes.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Who doesn't?

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Monarchism is 95% of the time just democracy with different coat of paint. There is no functional difference between Denmark with a monarchy and Denmark without a monarchy.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In democracies, people who shouldn't have a voice in society have the right to vote. They also outnumber the people who should have a voice.
    Why should women and pensioners vote? Why should they have a bigger voice in the government? In times of war, the government will rely on able bodied men to staff its armies and fronts, well why shouldn't only men who are willing to be drafted vote?
    Democracies always oppress and isolate their own fighting class in favour of everyone else, since everyone else outnumbers the men willing and able to fight for the regime.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Democracy is the worst type of government, except for all others that have been tried.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I didn't say or imply any of this.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well you did imply it, just didn't say it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No I didn't, I never said I have a problem with democracy or that democracy is shit.
            I'm saying people who wont fight and die for their government shouldn't dictate society.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Monarchy has been the norm throughout time, democracy was the one that was tried and failed with Greeks and the Romans and with us today

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Monarchy is not exclusive with democracy. The UK, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Canada are all monarchies.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you used pic rel yes your examples no, their merely decorations

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They're not. The monarchs are the guardians of democracy. If you eliminated parliament and put the kings in charge with absolute power, they would just use their power to re-instate democracy. Democracy is dominant today because that's how the monarchs like it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They're not. The monarchs are the guardians of democracy. If you eliminated parliament and put the kings in charge with absolute power, they would just use their power to re-instate democracy. Democracy is dominant today because that's how the monarchs like it.

            Absolutely braindead take

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >”We should have a monarchy, but only if the monarch only does exactly what I want them to do!”

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >In times of war, the government will rely on able bodied men to staff its armies and fronts, well why shouldn't only men who are willing to be drafted vote?
      Well this is how it was in ancient Athens Democracy who invented Democracy in the first place. But then term was hijacked and completely different regimes (that you describe) are sold to people as "Democracy".
      Same term hijacking happened with marriage.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The definition of democracy was changed in the 19th century so that political parties could increase their domination of society by appealing to more gullible voters. A republic governed by a small number of commoners is a democracy, it has nothing to do with universal suffrage.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you realize the people who should be voting got fooled/became those who shouldn't vote and then granted the vote to the people who shouldn't. Keeping the vote out of the hands that should not have it is a sisyphean task

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do so many morons think that the only form of monarchy is absolute monarchy with primogeniture?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because that's the only kind of monarchy they'll accept, whenever you point out that Sweden is a monarchy too they go all "nOt rEaL moNarChY!"

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I honestly agree with that to an extent, a number of European republics like Germany or Finland are almost identical to the European monarchies with a powerless president fulfilling a mostly ceremonial role (although having a king in that role is alot more soulful).
        However, the "real" monarchies are still very different from each other, infact I don't think any of the monarchies that are still around meet their stereotype of a monarchy as non-Europeans usually don't do primogeniture while Monaco and Lichtenstein are semi-constitutional and the Vatican is of course elective.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can one of you libshits explain to me how, if someone is a good leader, his son wouldn't be so? Even if we argue from a leftist viewpoint, someone raised in a palace and who everything he wished his whole life would never make a bad person or politician, because as we know it is the bad material conditions what makes people evil.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Liberalism and monarchy are not incompatible, in most monarchies are liberal.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Define liberalism

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Modern progressivism.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >For every righteous and just monarch there are two evil ones and 10 incompetents.
    >>Hey i united everyone and have proven my worth as a leader but i'm about to die
    >>Hmm i guess i should give all control to my moronic son who's going to crash everything i've ever built up into the ground

    Extreme overgeneralizations and exaggerations.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Byzantines had a good system that allowed them to survive so long, pic related.
    Shit would have continued, but Paleigos became obsessed with hunting down ambitious generals, resulting in decline.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It wasn't really a consistent cycle as your pic implies, many strongman emperors like Basil II were part of a long running imperial dynasty. And I'd argue that Constantine XI could have been the same, he had already shown himself very capable as the Despot of Morea by unifying the peninsula and subjugating the Duchy of Athens. The problem was that every cycle left the empire weaker, the strongman reconqueres could never restore the borders that existed before the last time the empire faced catastrophy, and eventually it got too weak to survive.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Is Monarchy the most stupid and illogical form of governance?
    It's very logical if you understand that there are different forms of state genesis. Monarchies are continuation of "stationary bandit" genesis of the State (opposite to social contract genesis). In that light Monarchy is very logical.
    Imagine your bandit leader who subdued some land and forced all residents to pay you under threat if the violence (racket sheme , sometimes is called taxes). Why don't not make your descendants to continue to run this mafia business? Very logical I say.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Could say the same about any elected politician only this time the whims of the people put them into power, which is even worse.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most monarchies ALSO have elected politicians.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OP once again demonstrates how all anti-monarchical thinking is based on failed assumptions about reality that have been demonstrated false time and time again. Yes, people suck, and many kings suck. But the people you keep sending to replace them with are often much worse. Republics simply do not have better track records in any way, to claim otherwise is nothing more than rank historical illiteracy.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Republics may not have a better track record, but are they really worse either? Is Denmark so much better than Germany? Is Sweden so much better than Finland?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        C'mon, Denmark and Sweden are fake monarchies. Next thing you are gonna call Russia as "democracy".
        Name real monarchies like SA or Brunei.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Denmark and Sweden are fake monarchies
          You do realize that you don't get to choose what the monarch does right? If the monarch wants progressive democracy, you get progressive democracy.

          It sounds like what you actually want is just conservative republicanism.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I remember thinking about this once and ended as it's a logical extreme that I mostly forgot
    >who is most fit for the job?
    >the person who won ofc
    >since he passes on things to the next generation such as skills and traits
    (boomers would never)
    >therefore his son would be the best for the job
    >unless you want another war everytime the king dies
    something like that

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Monarchy
    Cringe
    >Warring feudal aristocracies
    Based

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just take a look at all reigning monarchs today and ask yourself if you want to be ruled by pozzed cucks like them.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *