Monarchism is the only way

Monarchism is the only way.
>refute this

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVI_of_France
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos,_Prince_of_Asturias
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Liberty
archive.org/stream/WeAnti-moderns/WeAnti-moderns_djvu.txt
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>this guy was a pretty good ruler
>now that he's dead let's make his 18yo kid the new king. Surely he'll rule as good as his father.

But muh human rights.
Oy vey and muh unregulated international markets.
How am I going to make shekels in a monarchy?
Democracy is good for the GDP and that is what is good for you goy, trust me.

>all monarchies must be hereditary

The Ottomans may have been onto something with the whole fratricidal succession thing. Downside is you end up with a bunch of omnipotent sociopaths.

>being sent to war expand someone elses property

yeah, no. interests don't align.

Can't. It's correct.

What's the point otherwise?

>18yr old
Guess we're getting rid of modern medicine? And yea, odds he will rule well, because he's been learning how to do so since birth, and has to do well, otherwise he's robbing his own children.

>implying that if you were the king, you wouldn't make your kid hour heir.

How is that any different from any other government?

>implying I wouldn't execute phoneposters like you first

>King Nigger

Problem with monarchy is that if you get a shit leader, you're stuck with him for 40 years. In American democracy you only have to deal with a shit leader for 4-8.

>Monarchism is the only way.
there's democracy too you know. get with the times, this isn't 1600 anymore

GIVE
ME
THE
DUMPLING

Exactly

>it's the current year so your ideas are bad
Fucking liberals leave

I like most aspects of monarchism but all politicians should be decided over merit rather than being part of a family..

>And yea, odds he will rule well, because he's been learning how to do so since birth, and has to do well, otherwise he's robbing his own children.

Did you fall asleep in social studies or something, cunt?

All of British history already has refuted you though

>Monarchism is the only way
>current year
>other forms of governments like democracies or epistocracies have not been theorized or implemented yet.

>current year means we need to have media Jews controlling our government and telling us we want it

Having politicians is part of the problem which a monarchy solves. Besides, people are often tricked into thinking of merit as a single path. It can work in the opposite direction.

Nope. Aced it. What point were you trying to make, Leb?

Tough luck pal

Not if you know the kid is a mouthbreathing aspie desu.

In monarchy the leader is roughly equivalent to the "owner" of the country, so there is an incentive to not be too much of a shit leader and think of the future or your children and your lineage will be at risk.
In democracy the leader is not the "owner" but the "manager" of the country, so you want to be as shit as you can get away with in 4 years.

I won't because you are right

>What is eugenics and gene therapy?

current year means that in addition to monarchies, there also exist other forms of governments, hence disproving that monarchies is not the only way, whether it be the best or worst way

There are more scenarios that would result in a shit ruler than a good ruler. Obviously if you have a downy kid, you arnt going to put him in power. But if you have a marginally passable kid, you might.

> got BTFO by Fnench nationalism
> never been applicable ever sence

Here the thread ended.

Monarchism: 40% insane or mad, 40% thinking only in them and making stupid wars that only are good for him, 20% great leaders thinking in the country and improving it.

In practice with monarchy you either get very good leaders or extremely shit leaders

>he doesn't know

Oh, I agree. But it isn't necessarily the case, and I'm sure there are examples out there.

That also leads to situations where autocrats tend to "gamble for resurrection" in pretty significant ways. A poorly run autocratic government could mean that the dictator gets ousted and usually worst. A poorly run democratic government usually ends with the democrat leaving office with nothing else after that. This creates incentive for autocrats to create distractions from domestic problems and pursue crazy high risk high rewards policies when they have only their heads to lose.

Charles "Gargoyle Gargler" the Second

there are several differences:

a) your degree of involvement in the decision making process.
b) your degree of involvement in deciding on who makes decisions
c) you chance of alignment with the interests of decision makers and
d) your degree of profiting from state venture
e) also your ability to veto and confederate

>President
>Leader of a democracy
Have you read Plato? Every Democracy is ruled by oligarchs. That's kind of why wealthy Plutocrats spend trillions of dollars spreading Democracy to every corner of the Earth...

Who is this guy I keep seeing being posted everywhere? Can someone give me a quick rundown on him?

I roughly remember seeing something along the lines of "It's true that monarchy/absolutism might give you a Nero and a Caligula, but it might give you a Vespasian or a Marcus Aurelius. Democracy won't give you a Caligula, but it also won't give you a Vespasian." Wish I could remember where I read that.

You just showed the exact opposite of eugenics. What point are you trying to make here?

Nah, those are just the ones who get publicity. Bad leaders are very rare, and should be necked. Apathetic/moderate kings are still fine because the country should be able to run on it's own.

a) No. How many US citizens voted to invade the middle east?
b) No, you're given a pre-set list of approved people to "choose" from. And odds are that choice doesn't matter.
c) No, because they only have to appeal to the ones seen to vote for them. A monarch is apolitical, and can represent everyone
d) Varies. More an issue of what you've got at the time.
e) No, because YOU have no such ability, and as we've seen in the US, a new Confederation would get hammered.

Horribly inbred king of Spain whose death caused a succession crisis. A lot of other countries were pretty strict on whom the king could marry to prevent so many cases of consanguinity.

Maybe a compromise? Perhaps an aristocratic republic, or what the US was supposed to be.

America has been a "democracy" and in 200 years they became the biggest superpower in history.

Why refute it? I'm related to the last king of Ireland and need subjects to obey my will. Get on your knees before your new master.

>What point are you trying to make here?
Royalty isn't famous for picking genetic stock when they look for a spouse.

>Nope. Aced it. What point were you trying to make, Leb?
Drop the proxy dickhead. Also,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVI_of_France
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos,_Prince_of_Asturias
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

That's just the tip of the iceberg right there, dumbshit. Hereditary ruler-ship is horrendous because no matter how hard you train a retard, sociopath or dandy manchild to be king, they will never acquire the intellectual ability or character to be an effective king and then you're stuck with their incompetence for 40 years or more.

Hapsburg dynasty of the HRE inbred heavily to keep power to themselves.
This lovely lad is the result of much of this inbreeding.
>died at age 38 with no heir
>heavy verbal, mental and physical disabilities, also infertile and prematurely balding
>couldn't even chew food properly
>economies flatlined, famines and plagues swept in
>only accomplishment was issuing a report on the inquisition
his arranged-marriage wife was qt though and there's a city in belgium named after him

>a) No. How many US citizens voted ...

i listed differences of political systems, you dingus.

and e is a hint at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Liberty

Back before we had a proper understanding of genetics and eugenics? Shocker!

>Including the Georges
>And Leopold
>Even funnier, including Ivan the Terrible
Lol.
And way to encourage my point. There are only a handful of notably bad monarchs.
>Hereditary ruler-ship is horrendous because no matter how hard you train a retard, sociopath or dandy manchild to be king, they will never acquire the intellectual ability or character to be an effective king
So again we're going back to the pre-Enlightenment level of tech for your argument? We have good schools now, and great medical ability. There's no reason we should have any of those concerns.
>and then you're stuck with their incompetence for 40 years or more.
Once more, an incompetent monarch could still be fine, as long as he leaves well enough alone. If not, that's what the axe is for.

And where do you think I'm proxying from?

Yes, and your list was flawed. You could have at least brought up the Swiss Canton system. Because anywhere else, the only involvement the plebs have is, at best, a token show of hands for whatever the government decides to let them feel involved in (and they've already decided themselves).
>e is a hint
A bad one, with fuck all backing.

>He doesn't know who George the III and IV were.
>He thinks that that list is anywhere near complete.
>He thinks that kings didn't receive the best education.
>He thinks that medicine can prevent psychopathy or poofy manchildren who prefer hunting and eating to running a country.
>He thinks that the axe was ever common.

Jesus Christ son, read a book. Better yet, try naming even one democratic leader who was as bad as Louis XVI, Charles II or Leopold II. I'll pretend to wait.

>And where do you think I'm proxying from?
Not Australia that's for sure.

>And Leopold

Heh, just noticed this one. So you think that the guy who mismanaged the colonization of the Congo free state so hard that he had it confiscated from his family by the Belgium parliament was an effective ruler?
Muh buildings and nigger nigger pull da trigger, though, right?

>Yes, and your list was flawed. You could have at least brought up the Swiss Canton system.

are you somehow retarded? it's a list of ways different political systems can differ from one another. there's not a single mention of any concrete system. anything else wouldn't make sense, because you asked:

"How is that any different from any other government?"

not "how is that different form parliamentary democracy as seen in Zimbabwe?", which you somehow believe because you're trying to attack some us-centric bullshit - and in your head this somehow makes sense.

I cant
Long live the king

Closet monarchist here
You can't.
A good king is the best government on planet earth

>He doesn't know who George the III and IV were.
Of course i do. Which is why it's hilarious that you included them. You know Parliament was in charge during their reigns, right?
>He thinks that that list is anywhere near complete.
Of course not, but the point still stands.
>He thinks that kings didn't receive the best education.
Not always.
>He thinks that medicine can prevent psychopathy or poofy manchildren who prefer hunting and eating to running a country.
It can prevent the former, and the later is handled by proper discipline and education. Spare the rod, spoil the child and such.
>He thinks that the axe was ever common.
Nope, I'm saying it could be.

>try naming even one democratic leader who was as bad as Louis XVI,
Louis was fine, you uneducated pleb. He was just surrounded by pricks and gifted a shitty situation. Plus, the Americans Jewed him, and the French people were retarded pissants.
>Charles II
No one is arguing against how shitty he was.
>or Leopold II.
What are you imagining the problem is with him? Just a bit of faffing about with savages?

And leaders like Whitlam, Bush, Carter, and Blair would be on that shitlist.

>Not Australia that's for sure.
But you're the one arguing against Australian institutions? Ergo, you're a Leb or a Wop from Melbourne, i assume. Certainly not a true son of Britain.

>it's a list of ways different political systems can
>can
Of course they can. But i'm talking practical application. We could say the CAN work magically with faery dust.

And i wasn't arguing from a strictly US point of view. They just happened to be an example. What i said could apply to any "democracy."

>Monarchism is the only way.
>refute this
"The counter-revolution will not be a reverse revolution, but the reverse of the revolution"

-t. de Maistre

archive.org/stream/WeAnti-moderns/WeAnti-moderns_djvu.txt

You also must consider the reverse.
If you get an amazing leader in a monarchy, you have him for 40 years. If you get an amazing leader in American democracy, you only have them for 4-8 years.

>In American democracy you only have to deal with a shit leader for 4-8.
Or 200+, because changing politicians is just cutting the heads off hydras.

>Of course i do. Which is why it's hilarious that you included them. You know Parliament was in charge during their reigns, right?

Even a cursory knowledge of that time period would have prevented you from saying something so astoundingly ignorant. During that period the King chose the prime minister, was able to issue proclamations, deploy military forces, declare war and had veto power on policy. There's a pretty good reason why George the III is blamed for Britian's defeat by the American revolutionaires, maybe you should read up on it some time?

>Louis was fine, you uneducated pleb. He was just surrounded by pricks and gifted a shitty situation. Plus, the Americans Jewed him, and the French people were retarded pissants.

Absolutely astounding. His inaction, ignorance and failed policies were directly responsible for the fall of the french monarchy. He fucking went hunting the day that the Bastille was captured and didn't even notice it happened.

>What are you imagining the problem is with him? Just a bit of faffing about with savages?
Like I said, his management of the free state of congo was so disastrous for the region that the government had to forcefully take it away from him and the place never recovered.

>But you're the one arguing against Australian institutions?
Monarchical rule has never been an Australian tradition, retard. Stick to American history.

>was able to issue proclamations, deploy military forces, declare war and had veto power on policy.
Much like now. But not really. You might want to look up the Glorious Revolution, champ.
>There's a pretty good reason why George the III
Because he was the figurehead. Duh. He didn't handle the military affairs, though.
>is blamed for Britian's defeat by the American revolutionaires
Oh let's be real here. The Americans didn't win the rebellion, the French did.
>His inaction, ignorance and failed policies were directly responsible for the fall of the french monarchy.
He tried plenty of things. He had a slew of advisors, all of which he acted upon. They were just all feeding him self serving lies, or were themselves incompetent.
I concur that it doesn't ameliorate him, but it's hard to entirely blame someone for trying to do better but is only ever given wrong info.
Plus, America Jewing him out of the money spent winning their rebellion, his being blamed for the weather, and the peasants being incapable of understanding foreign diplomacy (vis buddying back up to Austria by marrying Marie) because of their pettiness caused the destruction of the monarchy.
>Like I said, his management of the free state of congo was so disastrous for the region that the government had to forcefully take it away from him and the place never recovered.
Indeed a shame, but worse things have happened at sea.
>Monarchical rule has never been an Australian tradition,
>retard.
Oh the irony! Australia has always been a monarchy. If you were Australian, you might know that.
>Stick to American history.
I can manage both. Clearly better than others here.

Monarchism is the greatest form of government, so good that it's used in Heaven.