Would kings better rule europe?

Would kings better rule europe?

Monarchy is is endlessly more effective than democracy, but for every Frederick the Great there are two fucking Wilhelms II fucking everything up.

>Implying Europe matters anymore

monarchy is dog shit you ignoramus

Jesus. A Marly pic this early in the day.

> Dick
> Diamonds

sauce pls.

Pic = thicc

no, but kangz might.

delete this the world is not worthy

Clearly. If the Founding Fathers of the United States knew what came later, they would have gladly paid those fucking taxes.

People nowadays blindly praise democracy in the same way people used to praise monarchies in the past. Blindly following your ideology without giving any thought to it.

Nowhere did I write that monarchy is preferable to democracy, I only wrote it is a more effective and efficient way of government. Yet I also noted the huge potential for abuse. Nations seldom prosper more than under a talented leader having direct control over most of the government. In the same vein there is no faster way to lead a nation to ruin than a bad leader having absolute control.

/thread

Applies to every totalitarian ideology btw fascistcucks

No I like domekracy because it allows me to vote gör SD and play Modern Werfwr jej! :)

POR LA GRACIA DE DIOS

Anything involving a meritocracy i'm for.
The monarchy is the best solution, but the modern monarchy, not the old "every third one is mad" ways of doing it.

I would make the extensive constitution that is above the king. With Supreme Constitutional Court.
With parliament that is directly elected, but easily vetoed by the King.
And the house of representatives; that is the group of elected "regional" representatives that have the capability of amending and suggesting laws.

Imagine having a hair to the throne has been prepared for his role
his entire life, schooled for it and known by the people.

>his entire life, schooled for it and known by the people.
Yeah imagine if he gets the (((education))) from (((experts))) thats a great idea! thank (((you))) for posting it.

I think it's superior in the fact that you have a ruling class who's economic and class interests are tied to that of the nation. Thus, they tend to create extremely conservative societies. A good example is the Muslim nations that have monarchs. The nation is their property, their company, and their subjects are their employees. The current ruling classes could care less about preserving the nation. They're just management.

The only really benefit Democracy seems to have is that they tend to be wealthier than Monarchies, but is not always true. Rome was very wealthy.

Oh, and the other added benefit of Monarchies: a ruling class that Jews can never hope to ever infiltrate, subvert and take over

Thats why jooooos killed every king in europe

don't be rtard. Having a sense of a duty embedded deep inside of u, and being used to high politics from young age will do wonders for ya.

a 5year old girl would better rule europe

When you are electing presidents; what u are actually doing is putting your blind fate into his self-described virtues.

The modern monarchy is cucked to no end.
Medieval monarchy lasted longer, has less deaths in war, and was grounded in strong traditional values.

I did not imply to any currently existing example, nor am i aware of one.

>kings
why would you want blacks ruling europe?

She is real life Fat Princess
Monarch rule confirmed best for Europoors

...

The UK still has a 'monarchy' which I was referring to as cucked. I'd argue the papacy is also monarchic though it's just as cucked as well.

The English queen has few powers, that's not ruling.

FUCK. NO.
I get that people on Sup Forums don't like to read and go off the cuff, but the Middle Ages were FUCKED UP.
Inbreeding, Stifling science for personal gain, forcing their interpretation of religion on people, etc.
Anyone who thinks that Medieval Europe was a move in the right direction are memeing or ignorant as fuck.
It was, on the other hand, far better than literally everything around it.I think that was taken place during Asia and South America's golden era.

this. (((they))) wanted to implement (((their))) deceptive ((("democratic"))) systems although Europe

Let's be clear here. We are not talking about Cosmetic Monarchy.
And i think we are not that stupid to think that Middle age Monarchy would work in any sort of civilized and enriching way.

plus they have a much greater interest in ensuring they leave a good legacy for their descendants

>middle ages
>not excellent tier for scientific progress
who's the one memeing here?

Hah, it's true.
>Little girl do you want the bad men here where they can hurt you or far away where you will never see them?

Democracies give you Bushes and Obamas for every Trump though

>Age of Enlightenment = Dark & Middle Ages
Idk, you tell me.

that's why you need a monarch who is chosen by merit rather than inheritance or (((elections)))

It depends princess.
Monachy or republic, the head of state must defend the law, and the law must be just and promote fredoom, equality (not equalitirism) and help the self-made man (women) to arise so he can help is family, friends and known/loved ones.
In most cases the monarchs are more decisive when they decide to act, on the other hand they act less often the presidents.

they already do

Hello Hans, big fan

>lol it's in the name guise, it must be true
kys

>kangs

>australian education

>comparing Bush and Obama to the destruction and suffering caused by various kangs and emperors throughout history

Holy shit those tits are fantastic

>austrian education

>Loses argument undeniably
>strawman your way out
Never Change, Australia.

Everything plaguing us due to the Enlightenment. Shitting on tradition. Virtue-signaling. (((Human Rights))). All of it. Men like Hume and Locke and Kant self-flagelatingly assumed that all men are motivated by reason. Men are motivated by tribalism and economic interest after that.

you didn't even exist in the middle ages
you know nothing

I think middle age monarchy wouldn't work now simply because everyone is raised on the concepts of individual freedom, egalitarianism, and essentially Enlightenment ideals. Egalitarianism is anathema to monarchy (of power worth noting) as we have all seen with the French Revolution and the results of WWI.

Yet the more egalitarian political systems become ie. socialism, communism, democracy, the objectively shittier they become.

In anycase, tell me what:
"The monarchy is the best solution, but the modern monarchy, not the old "every third one is mad" ways of doing it."
looks like, as you're ruling out middle age monarchy from your proposition.

why is there belgian flag in german painting?

>Everything plaguing us due to the Enlightenment.
I disagree. I think the Enlightenment asked questions that need to be answered but haven't.
> Shitting on tradition. Virtue-signaling. (((Human Rights))).
Some traditions are fucking retarded. Like Islamic tradition of inbreeding. Some basic human rights are an improvement on our society. The government shouldn't be able to kill whoever it wants for any reason and we should all be allowed to own property outside the government. Again, it asked questions that still need to be answered.
>Men like Hume and Locke and Kant self-flagelatingly assumed that all men are motivated by reason.
Reason does have something to do with it. Lack of education can change the perception of individual reasoning. If you accept the world being flat, you won't sail to the edge of the earth, etc.
>Men are motivated by tribalism and economic interest after that.
Men are motivated by a perplexing amount of stimuli. We still doesn't understand very much about psychology and there is an infinite amount of knowledge we haven't explored.

Life is not black and white, sempai. There is always more to learn.

Well burger, if you've done any research on medieval history you'd know there was quite a lot of scientific progress being made between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance.

The Church certainly had a hand in it, despite what mainstream pop culture would have you believe. Christian monks and scholars opened the first universities, preserved the works of antiquity to give us classics that would have otherwise been lost today, and formed the primordial bedrock of modern science & technology.

Well...Proxy Burger(?)
That's where I think you're argument falls apart.
I didn't say that scientific knowledge didn't progress, I said science was stifled for personal gain.
What you just did was strawman my argument.
You're arguing with yourself and not with anything I've said.

Chosen by whom according to which valued merits? This system of power which you are referencing is pure fantasy and has been proven to not work all throughout history

I would be happy to.

like i said Monarchy but that has strong constitution behind it. Constitution that guarantees civilized freedoms. Basically, Monarch in this case would be similar to today's presidents. But he would not be elected but rather "breed".
We are not talking here about totalitarian regime.

Mommy milky

you're a massive idiot. the foundations for the west's scientific dominance of the world were laid in the medieval period, and all of that advancement was supported and often executed by monks in monasteries (who also founded universities). go read god's philosophers and correct yourself

>Monarchy but that has strong constitution behind it
so a gelded monarch like those in europe right now who don't really rule?

>strawman
Go read my other comments, snowflake.

implying science isn't being stifled now: race, climate change, genetics, gender

Fair. I think constitutional monarchy is pretty based tbqh.

Let's not lie Sup Forums Plato got it right in The Republic. Rule by Philosopher Kings chosen because of their intelligence and wisdom is the best governance system

>Strawman
>Implying the rate of scientific advancement today is, in any comprehensible way, similar to advancement in the Dark & Middle Ages.
>Advocating for any kind of constitutional monarchy
(you)

The point that people often miss is a problem of continuity in modern Democracies.
The notion of reformation of the nation/its culture requires it.
With democracy, you constantly have one step forward/one step back.

If the monarch has extreme vetoing and has tools of today's presidents, how the hell does he not "rule" then

some kind of business aristocracy who elect a king would be best

Yes. (((Democracy))) is bad and will always turn into majority or mob rule and thus a tyranny, while monarchy preserves freedom over equality. Read Liberty or Equality.

>implying Stephan Molymeme is fit to be a ruler on any capacity
>implying philosophers have infallible intelligence or wisdom
Honestly, A society without government makes more sense.

Kings throughout history have been extremely anti Jewish you stupid shill

lol no.

They had centuries to do it right. America showed up with a constitutional Republic and outdid them all within 200 years.

>Inbreeding, Stifling science for personal gain, forcing their interpretation of religion on people, etc.
>this is an argument against monarchy
>muh strawman

As Hoppe puts it: Democracy is a musical chairs were the temporary public officials tend to loot the coffers of the nation than benefit their constituents, whereas monarchs actually own the nation and have an interest to preserve and improve it for their progeny as well as the responsibility to keep their subjects happy.

>>this is an argument against monarchy
>>muh strawman
>Implying monarchies all over the world haven't had a problem with inbreeding, manipulation against industries, and forcing philosophical and religious views on the people they control.
wew.

of course

>that's why you need a monarch who is chosen by merit rather than inheritance or (((elections)))
lol neck yourself retard that's how you get a cuck like barras who is only good at treading water

really you need someone who overthrows the old king in a coup like napoleon

We already have aristocrats and monarchs today, they just have a different way of ruling compared to before.

...

America was good for as long they had a wasp aristocracy.
now wasp became sjw atheists and your country is run by jews
good luck for the next 200 years

Well said. Which is better is likely situational, and dependant on the ruler. In today's world, I think a noble ruler would be better, if only because he would view his nation as "his" and thus, protect them from the globalist cancer. On the other hand, if a king turns out evil, or (as in the case of the recent English kings/queens) in the pocket of the globalists, then they are ineffective at best and a tyranny at worst.

>posts that picture
>that flag
You're worse than leafs

>tools of today's presidents.

it's okay, better than no monarchy at all, except when you put restrictions on the king with a constitution in the name of what do you do that?

A king has the right to govern the people by divine rights, by what right would anyone supercede the king with a piece of paper confining him from ruling over certain things?

Either you believe in divine rights rulership in which case you let him rule, or you don't and you're lost in secular fiat government.

Indeed. Well said, good sir.

It was not an aristocracy.

The first mistake we made was accepting too many immigrants. We were a small nation and had no fucking clue what to do with all our land.

The second mistake was thinking the Communists were only a military threat. Their ideological subversion had fucked up our society royally.

>implying making value judgements against monarchy and not attempting to point out internal inconsistencies is a valid argument
>implying I can't just go tirade against your political beliefs in the exact same way
lad.

they don't rule, in what was do the monarchs of Sweden, Spain and the UK rule over their people. The only example I can think of is the power the queen of England has to veto a law after it has passed the Houses of Parliament.

Not the divine rights, not religious (necessarily) Monarchy By the rights that the constitution and the interests of his people gave it.
Constitution should be highest binding contract between all people of the state/kingdom (lol).
Constitution is the tool that preserves rights of the people, and also gives mechanism to stop the Monarch from going out of that contract with his people, aka constitutional Court.

U are presuming lots of things that are not glued to the notion of Monarchy.

>I could argue against you if I want, but I don't want to.
wew.

The choice isn't actually between Monarchy and Democracy, its between Monarchy and Oligarchy. If you don't know this then you don't know anything yet

>Constitution should be highest binding contract between all people of the state/kingdom

you don't understand. I'm asking you who say that by what authority does anyone seek to impose upon the king a constitution which will seek to restrict his rule (which he got by divine rights)?

>by what right would anyone supercede the king with a piece of paper confining him from ruling over certain things?
by saying no.

>divine right
this is a meme, you don't need divine right to be or proclaim yourself king. Look at Napoleon he fucking crowned himself and the pope couldn't do shit, so much for divine right. Look at Rome, emperors come and go in rapid succession, so much for divine right.

Constitutional monarchy makes sense because it's like having a land owner with a bill of rights to protect yourself from unjust prosecution. Absolute monarchs are able to execute you or marry your wife because he can and everyone listens to him until he pisses enough people off to riot and dethrown him.

Again the notion of "divine" rights are not necessary for the Monarchy, think rather about "constitutional rights and obligations".
As for who would ensure the practice of Constitutional right, Again on a first line you would need Constitutional Court. Then the Army is the one that (if everything else fails) ensures the rule of law.

>The second mistake was thinking the Communists were only a military threat

This is the second biggest mistake anyone ever made made. First was trusting a Jew in the first place.

this goy fucks

There are several forms of succession which aren't always hereditary so inbreeding is their fucking degeneracy, not a valid argument against monarchy.
Science and technology generally helps the nation so if anything it would be supported by the monarch and simply taxed later.
All civilizations require its citizens to abide to some sort of ethics. This is why we have had laws since Hammurabi. As for beliefs, monarchies don't necessarily require conforming viewpoints, and this form of authoritarianism isn't exclusive to monarchy.
lad.

>an user finally gets to the root argument
>Would Patriarchal Monarchy better rule Europe today?
This is no argument here, there are too many variables. All other post are shitpost.

Democracys biggest flaw is that it creates a caste of temporary managers who only care about the nation enough to not get 'dethroned' so to speak, anything beyond that is just pure self-interest that doesn't need to reflect upon the nation. Giving somebody power over something he isn't directly tied to (like childless leaders for example) for only 4 years encourages the kind of broken governship motivated by self-interest with little regards for policies/agenda of the previous leader or the future ones.

Merkel is an amazing example.

There is a pattern with monarchs and that's you get a great king.... His son may be a good king but not great and then by the third king, the grandson you have a tyrant. The tyrant will raise a weak king and then the process either ends with a new line of a new type of governance.

marley pulz

*rubs hands*

Hey we speek english in these parts you go on back to mexico now

i realized it doesn't matter what political organization is vigent. What matters is who is on top.