Without invoking some kind of mystical divine mandate can you give a single reason why a hereditary for life rule is better than any of the alternatives?
>can you give a single reason why a hereditary for life rule is better than any of the alternatives?
It encourages politicans to think about the long-term well-being of their country instead of simply stealing everything that isn't nailed down before they get voted out.
Yeah that's bullshit, the shah spent millions of dollars on a fancy party in the desert while his countrymen were poor as shit
And anyway just elect the chief of state for life insteaad of praying to god his son isn't a mongolid
Did the Shah import millions of immigrants into his country the way Canada and Sweden have done? Every country has wealth inequality, but at least Iran probably has a future.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
They abolished the monarchy and didn't do that dumb frick
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Give them time. Globalism comes for everyone eventually.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Did the Shah import millions of immigrants into his country the way Canada and Sweden have done?
Tbf Iran like most non white countries are shit holes where not even immigrants want to go.
>single reason why a hereditary for life rule is better than any of the alternatives?
Paper is really expensive and centrailized rule becomes very hard in preindustrial societies. Peasants also can't read and write, while also spending most of their time labouring to survive.
Because every other alternative is more expensive and requires a large mass of the people to be literate at least.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
It requires the same amount of people to be literate, if there's a job within the nation's bureaucracy that requires literacy it'll be the same if it's under a king or under a prime minister.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
So what's the problem with monarchies if its all the same?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Ideally we want the people in leading positions to be there because they are the most qualified to do the job, not because they were born to the right family.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Who decides by what standard rulers should meen the criteria for?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Whoever elects or appoints them or a group of experts/philosophers, you could set it up however you want.
True nobility grows from the bottom and diea at the top, thats why it eventually fell out of favor, the bloodline when at the top becomes polluted into their "noble bloodline" at the top, riddled with incest and circular Crown-Grabs. Hence why Romans, Ehyptians, did it.
Yeah, it can happen at the bottom but the smaller pool makes it exponentially more likely.
actually I think it would be more accurate to say that they mostly only cares about having the support of landed vessels, and keeping the support of landed vassels meant allowing normal people to be treated like shit
it didnt the richest most successfull highest quality of living countries are almost all monarchies
Kingdom of Danmark
Kingdom of Norge
Kingdom of Sverige
Kingdom of The Nederlands
Kingdom of Belgium
Granduchy of Luxembourg
Kingdom of Spain
Kingdom of Jordan
Qatar
Bahrain
Oman
The united Arab emirates
Jordan
Kuwait
The Sultanate of Brunei
Singapore
Japan
or are leading countries in the medical fields or some industry or otherwise great to live in or are otherwise superior in every way to their nextdoor neighbours
Malaysia
Thailand
Cambodia
Bhutan
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
all the greatest most succesful countries in history where all monarchies empires kingdoms etc
and most countries where monarchies because it is a system natural to human nature and they actually work unlike suicidal Democracies and republics which are easily corruptible
It ruled for the overwhelming majority of human history. It's been less than two centuries since it stopped being the default, and democracies have already done irreversible biological damage to themselves that can only lead to a dark and brutal age. Once the systems of digital control and physical comfort break down, there will be madness not seen since 1200 BC, and it will be kings, and only kings, who will be able to create healthy societies again. It's the human default, if not nature's default, and it will come again.
Without invoking some kind of mystical divine mandate can you give a single reason why a hereditary for life rule is better than any of the alternatives?
>can you give a single reason why a hereditary for life rule is better than any of the alternatives?
It encourages politicans to think about the long-term well-being of their country instead of simply stealing everything that isn't nailed down before they get voted out.
Yeah that's bullshit, the shah spent millions of dollars on a fancy party in the desert while his countrymen were poor as shit
And anyway just elect the chief of state for life insteaad of praying to god his son isn't a mongolid
Did the Shah import millions of immigrants into his country the way Canada and Sweden have done? Every country has wealth inequality, but at least Iran probably has a future.
They abolished the monarchy and didn't do that dumb frick
Give them time. Globalism comes for everyone eventually.
>Did the Shah import millions of immigrants into his country the way Canada and Sweden have done?
Tbf Iran like most non white countries are shit holes where not even immigrants want to go.
>Typically, US presidential inaugurations cost about US$100 million.
every four years
>single reason why a hereditary for life rule is better than any of the alternatives?
Paper is really expensive and centrailized rule becomes very hard in preindustrial societies. Peasants also can't read and write, while also spending most of their time labouring to survive.
How are any of those arguments for monarchy?
Because every other alternative is more expensive and requires a large mass of the people to be literate at least.
It requires the same amount of people to be literate, if there's a job within the nation's bureaucracy that requires literacy it'll be the same if it's under a king or under a prime minister.
So what's the problem with monarchies if its all the same?
Ideally we want the people in leading positions to be there because they are the most qualified to do the job, not because they were born to the right family.
Who decides by what standard rulers should meen the criteria for?
Whoever elects or appoints them or a group of experts/philosophers, you could set it up however you want.
True nobility grows from the bottom and diea at the top, thats why it eventually fell out of favor, the bloodline when at the top becomes polluted into their "noble bloodline" at the top, riddled with incest and circular Crown-Grabs. Hence why Romans, Ehyptians, did it.
Yeah, it can happen at the bottom but the smaller pool makes it exponentially more likely.
because they were mostly selfish deranged idiots who didnt give a shit about their people and thought of them as nothing but cattle
actually I think it would be more accurate to say that they mostly only cares about having the support of landed vessels, and keeping the support of landed vassels meant allowing normal people to be treated like shit
Monarchs are inbred morons
Monarchs losing wars to revolutionaries and being deposed destroyed the mistique surrounding monarchies. Everyone saw that they were just dudes.
it didnt the richest most successfull highest quality of living countries are almost all monarchies
Kingdom of Danmark
Kingdom of Norge
Kingdom of Sverige
Kingdom of The Nederlands
Kingdom of Belgium
Granduchy of Luxembourg
Kingdom of Spain
Kingdom of Jordan
Qatar
Bahrain
Oman
The united Arab emirates
Jordan
Kuwait
The Sultanate of Brunei
Singapore
Japan
or are leading countries in the medical fields or some industry or otherwise great to live in or are otherwise superior in every way to their nextdoor neighbours
Malaysia
Thailand
Cambodia
Bhutan
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
all the greatest most succesful countries in history where all monarchies empires kingdoms etc
and most countries where monarchies because it is a system natural to human nature and they actually work unlike suicidal Democracies and republics which are easily corruptible
> it is a system natural to human nature and they actually work unlike suicidal Democracies and republics which are easily corruptible
>Kingdom of Danmark
>Kingdom of Norge
>Kingdom of Sverige
>Kingdom of The Nederlands
>Kingdom of Belgium
>Kingdom of Spain
You've posted some of the most cucked, 'suicidal' countries ever. Also, Singapore is a republic.
Monarchism in a pure form is very rare. Most monarchies are actually some version of oligarchy. Oligarchies are still quite common today.
It ruled for the overwhelming majority of human history. It's been less than two centuries since it stopped being the default, and democracies have already done irreversible biological damage to themselves that can only lead to a dark and brutal age. Once the systems of digital control and physical comfort break down, there will be madness not seen since 1200 BC, and it will be kings, and only kings, who will be able to create healthy societies again. It's the human default, if not nature's default, and it will come again.