Democracy vs Monarchy

So, what's better?

>which is better AIDs or cancer?

both are pretty bad

Republic, where the constitution contains a clause stating it cannot be amended

Republic

>many degenerate cannibal pedophiles conspiring to steal your wealth
>one family of kike subservient degenerate cannibal pedophiles conspiring to steal your wealth

Equally subhuman.

My country is a parliamentary and democratic monarchy. Your comparison does not make any sense.
By the way, if I have to choose I'll stick with the democracy

Monarchy a shit. But Princess Leonor a hottie, I'd bow down and worship her.

>I reject republicanism. At the head of races, above the elite, there is Monarchy. Not all monarchs have been good. Monarchy, however, has always been good. The individual monarch must not be confused with the institution of Monarchy, the conclusions drawn from this would be false. There can be bad priests, but this does not mean that we can draw the conclusion that the Church must be ended and God stoned to death. There are certainly weak or bad monarchs, but we cannot renounce Monarchy. The race has a line of life. A monarch is great and good, when he stays on this line ; he is petty and bad, to the extent that he moves away from this racial line of life or he opposes it. There are many lines by which a monarch can be tempted. He must set them all aside and follow the line of the race. Here is the law of Monarchy.

Have a look what system provided more stable societies. Monarchies were pretty based, especially in the 19th century.

Except Russia...Russia's sucked.

Bicameral legislature where all members are elected by lottery.

It's like Jury Duty on steroids.

Why choose democracy? Commies and socialists love democracy because of how easy it is to fuck it up. Karl Marx says it all when gaining power and Alinksy as well, if you like democracy I'm going to assume you're a commie.

>Democracy makes Rumanian citizens out of millions of Jews by making them the Rumanians' equals. By giving them the same legal rights. Equality? What for? We have been here for thousands of years. Plow and weapon in hand. With our labors and blood. Why equality with those who have been here for only one hundred, ten, or even five years? Let's look at the past: We created this state. Let's look at the future: We Rumanians are fully responsible for Greater Rumania. They have nothing to do with it. What could be the responsibility of Jews, in the history books, for the disappearance of the Rumanian state? Thus: no equality in labor, sacrifice, and struggle for the creation of the state and no equal responsibility for its future. Equality? According to an old maxim: Equality is to treat unequally the unequal. What are the reasons for the Jews' demanding equal treatment, equal political rights with the Rumanians?

Well, im going to assume you re a tard too. Ciao

Democracy.

Don't you want your vote to matter? Just put it in this little box I designed. I'll tell you who your leader is.

Between the two?
Monarchism
All of them?
Fascist goverment

Benevolent monarchy > democracy

mi negro

>letting people have the ability to speak
or
>absolute regime controlled by a single person that some people a hundred years ago decided to be ruler

>my utopic fantasy > real life
no shit

>letting people have the ability to speak
>implying

As Churchill rightly said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

monarchy it is

Caliphate > all.

Russia's monarchy couldn't've sucked so bad if it outlasted France's by more than a century.

And the only ones who really wanted to overthrow the Czar were the worst people in history

>not having goðar

>ciao
>he thinks he is from a proper European cousin
You are the retarded cousin of the European nations

Don't be this degenerate Bulgaria, please.

that sounds pretty shitty, like dooming a society to eventual failure due to antiquated legislation

How is appreciating beautiful girls "degeberate"?

And you are who would love to be the retarded cousin of Europe, instead the shit you really are. So shut up bitch, if we want we fuck you kiddies.

silly question

Its called pedophilia usually. And yes, its for degenerates.

Depends on if you are the monarch or not.

Universal suffrage democracy

haha wow what a zinger!

>letting people have the ability to speak
retard spotted

W T F
The
Fuck

The fuck did you say you little bitch....I'm the monarch of over 500 commonwealth states...

Why would anyone want to be cucked by a fucking dynasty and not have his voice heard to make decisions ?

Really, can someone tell me why this board likes monarchy so much? I don't get it

This. Sadly that thread shows up how bluepill Sup Forumsacks still are.

Probably didnt even read books.

Democracy, where marxists/socialists/leftist disenfranchised

I look at it this way. A good monarchy is 100x better than a good democracy.

A Good Monarch will focus upon the longterm future of the nation at all times. A good Monarch will protect his people far better than a group of oligarchs, with their conflicting ideas/ideals of right and wrong ever will be able to. A good Monarch will be able to unite the people unlike how divisive political parties destroy a nation.

However, a BAD monarch, and there have been far too many, can quite literally destroy a country outright so fast it isn't even funny. He will spend the treasury on stupid parties/vanity projects/awful ideas, kill those whom wish to bring advice he may not like, turn the people against each other in a far more rapid way that a group of oligarchs can ever do.

The reason why so many societies claim to be democratic nowadays, is because people remember the awful monarchs far more than they remember the good ones. And people would rather have a bad Democracy rather than a bad King, because at least you "have a say" in how a bad Democracy is run. With a bad king the only way to stop the pain and bleeding is to revolt, which at best ruins the nations, or can outright fucking obliterate it if a foreign nation decides to start meddling, which happens all of the time.

Fascism

Well if you're an idiot that doesn't vote, of course you'd feel your voice isn't heard

you're one of those guys

Good one Limey

Republic.

>I know, we'll make it illegal for the government to violate the law!!1!

Because it's more likely for one person to be smart than 51% of the population.

However, power corrupts.

>Monarchy.

Memes aside: neither. Both depend on the vitality of the virtues of their citizens and leaders. All of the rest is mere beaurocratic formality.

Based

And what if the monarch is shit, what if the people don't agree on his political views ? Well not a problem, just wait until he dies and totally not expect his son to be the exact same

You do realize how useless Athenian democracy was?

In one instance, one faction sent their best admiral on an expedition. Two weeks later, that faction stopped attending the vote, and another faction recalled him to be tried for war crimes.

Alcybiades, I believe.

And don't forget pic-related. Pretty sure all of us at Sup Forums would've been fed Hemlock by now.

it's not my fault you're underage

I've been anti-democracy for awhile now. The various quotes on the subject from H.L. Menken pretty much sums up "why".

The failure of Ryancare coupled with Trump's victory in November has forced me to reconsider my views. Democracy appears to work really well sometimes.

Who knew?

This, mostly. What do you all think of elected monarchies?

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

>hurt durr degenerate
What is actually wrong with it? Oh, you have no answer because you're just parroting the bullshit you've been taught?

oh no ive been caught

My preferred political party is illegal here.

Good monarchy? & no tinted glasses (BO was a good pres)

OF THE PEOPLE
BY THE PEOPLE
FOR THE PEOPLE

You didn't read the second half of my post. Yes bad monarchs are the fucking reason monarchy has fallen so far out of favor these days. Retard kings fucking kill countries, look at Kaiser Willhelm II for fucks sakes. The German Empire could have entirely surpassed the British one of good ole Kaiser Billy wasn't a fucking RETARD, especially when he fired Bismarck FFS.

That just devolves into whomever can lie/hand out GIBS! the most to win, that does not qualify/prepare a person for the type of responsibility needed to be a King. It produces FAR more bad kings than good ones.

Can't get enough of us, can you Destiny?

That's worked out really great hasn't it.

The feds wouldn't violate the law nearly as much as they do if states chose senators as they did in the old days before the 17th Amendment

Yep. I was interested in the Brit perspective... fuck this! I'm going back to Re&@it

sent from my iPhone

Don't remember who wrote it, but the quote goes something like:
>I'd rather have a dictatorship for when it's a good dictator things go very well and naturally if it's a bad dictator things to very bad, but in a democracy it's never truly good and of course never truly bad
Does someone know it? There's an image of it as well.

Yes.

Sounds like the heinlein line on Robert A. Heinlein
“Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is that it is eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried.”

oligarchy

>btfo the British Empire
>btfo the Confederate traitors
>btfo the Nazis
>btfo the Iron Curtain
>put a bullet in Bin Laden's skull
>only nation on the moon
>world's dominant economy and military

Americans literally cannot stop winning.

thats fucking hilarious

It's a similar message, but that's not the one I was thinking of. I almost feel like it was a Greek/Roman, or maybe an Italian philosopher.
Found this one by Heinlein as well though, pretty good too:
>Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.

...

>gets cucked by nignogs and mexicans

>peasants have more authority than God and can choose leaders better than he can

This is what Democrats actually think. Lol.

WHY WHY WHY

I can watch fucking beheadings, suicides, maimings and all that shit and not bat an eye, but this makes me freak the fuck out

>useless
If it were useless it wouldn't have been so successful. It developed financial and military influence beyond any at its time. Also I meant it more in a sense of restricted voting rights like 18th/early 19th century US. And we've also progressed as a society since Athenian days. Thanks to them in no small part.

>And don't forget pic-related.
They also regretted the decision immediately and built him a monument. Too little too late, I know. But they weren't slaughtering people for speaking out like you suggested.

Yes, lets archive that one please

>implying Socrates wasn't a homosexual degenerate who corrupted the youth

Basically a Jew.

>the decision of the majority must be the best option for the majority, there's no way the majority consists of easily-manipulated unintelligent spineless individuals
>this guy was pretty good overall for the country, he governed well, made us win wars and made out economy better. Let's make his son the next ruler, surely he'll be just like his father in every way.

Pick your poison.

...

Monarchy doesn't have to be ancestral.

A solution could be to "go public" and have a state modeled after a share-issuing corporation. The majority share-power (split between however many people) chooses the Executive.

It's like an elective monarchy, but more fluid. the joint-stock model has proved its usefulness maybe it is the answer?

>muh degeneracy
>authority is inherently good
lmao

Monachy ofc
Democracy is total bullshit and won't work on a national scale no matter how hard you try.

The majority will always be too stupid to understand politics.

What happens when Comrade Corbyn and London ally Sadiq Khan decides to oust the UK monarchy family?

Is that the one of the problems of the change in UK demographics with foreign people - don't recognize an Anglo white rich family with their own people?

> t. /leftypol/

Even if the monarch himself chooses the next one, eventually someone sinister will end up on that throne. Besides, people aren't perfect, giving anyone full power over a country is generally a bad idea. Even if you find the perfect ruler, the next one won't be as good.

History repeats

Monarchy, not that it isn't without significant problems too.

Nothing is foolproof.

The second you apply the corporation model to a state, you bring all the backstabbing, treason and fight for power with it.
Works, but not really peaceful.

>authority is inherently good
>final redpill is ancap
lmao

Anarcho-primitivism is the only answer.

Far easier to depose a monarch than to overthrow a democratic government. Also, the fact that the monarch holds title to all lands in the nation means he is subjected to market forces like any other capital-owning firm. More often than not, he will act in a way that responsibly improves his wealth, which results in an increase to the wealth of everyone living in the nation. Politicians, on the other hand, have every motivation to favor short term profit at the expense of long term growth.

Democracy when Hilary Clinton gets BTFO
Monarchy when "princess" diana trys to cuck the royal family
Why do you ask OP?

both if the system is done well

That's what African niggers and native Americans had before the white man showed up. Look what happened to them.