(((democracy)))

Spoke with a monarchist recently. Really made me wonder about my own views on democracy. Tell me Sup Forums, is democracy a red-pill or a blue-pill?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/T_rI9ETu0gI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord_Era
twitter.com/AnonBabble

monarchy is great if you're the monarch !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

List of Advantages of Monarchy
1. It brings about a solid government.
Monarchy’s singularity of power provides people with a symbolic and focused area for group loyalty and identity. There will only be one individual who will make the decisions, so they will be made quickly, and there will be fewer arguments with regards to new policies going to be imposed.
2. It can lead to leadership stability.
A monarch has life tenure and is not subject to national elections, unlike other heads of state under other political systems.
3. It offers more savings for the government with the absence of elections.
This form of government reduces the huge amounts of expenditure of the country from the elections, as there is no need to elect the next leader. The existing monarch will be the one to choose who his or her successor.
4. It allows for a non-partisan leadership.
Monarchs are born to rule without the obligation to answer to anyone. On the other hand, politicians need to win the elections and reach out to the people to try to win their votes, which is something that monarchs do not really experience.

5. It encourages respect for the ruler.
The masses will have greater respect for their monarch than an elected president, as the latter can rule for only a certain term.
6. It lessens cases of corrupt practices.
Nations that are being ruled by monarchs experience less corruption. Also, these rulers know that they are not ruling for a term, so they most probably have no lust for money. They do not intend to misuse their authority for corrupt practices.

7. It looks into family as a state model.
A monarch is considered as the country’s father and the subjects are his children. This form of government is an organic kind of human organization that everyone can easily relate to.
8. It does not share blames.
A monarch would not share the blame or pass it to others once he makes a bad decision in the same way that politicians do. However, it is just him while politicians are hundreds.
9. It encourages leadership suitability.
An heir to the throne will be taught the proper ways to rule as early as his/her childhood years, while traditional politicians only learn about these things when they are already grown up.
10. It is useful for civilized and undeveloped societies.
In the beginning of time, man was barbarous and uncivilized—he was not at all disciplined. During such a time, monarchy was the only form of government that made man disciplined and law-abiding.

Democracy is the biggest blue-pill, anyone that says otherwise are kikes. Until a few decades, a democratic Europe has managed to fucking end white europeans and the USA too.

List of Disadvantages of Monarchy
1. It might lead to a poor leadership.
Monarchy requires a single person ruling the entire country as long as he or she lives. This means that the masses do not have the power to remove him or her from leadership even if he is not functioning accordingly.

2. It does not allow democratic legitimacy.
A monarch is not elected or chosen by the people, unlike politicians.

3. It might lead to having a leader who might not be as serious as needed.
A person who knows that he or she will rule the country for the rest of his or her life might not take the responsibility to serve for the betterment of the people seriously. He is aware that he or she does not answer to anyone, which can lead to economic disruption.

4. It lacks democratic accountability and liability.
If a monarch has become an inefficient and bad leader, he cannot be held liable by the people.

5. It invests much power and fame to a single individual.
A monarch is recognized as a supreme legislator, judicator and executor. Though he is helped by personal advisors, he still has the final say, and no other person is allowed to break this.

6. Its structure is very difficult to change internally.
In the event that monarchs become irresponsible and ineffective, it can be quite difficult for the people to force these leaders out or replace them with those they think are more effective.

7. Its hereditary office for its leader is not justifiable.
The post of monarchs is the highest, and only a competent person should hold it. If a head of state’s office is hereditary, the leader shall hold it irrespective of his capability, which might create problems for the administration.
8. It can degenerate into tyranny.
Power can corrupt anyone, and after sometime, a king or his successors might degrade themselves and exploit the people, bringing into the administration tyranny.
9. It can lead to inequality of wealth.
In a monarchy type of government, the leader, his ministers and the ruling class would amass wealth, but the common people’s plight would remain miserable. Neither the public would get higher positions nor enjoy any kind of special right.

Monarchs are born leaders. They are trained to lead from their birth. They often have a lot of military experience and studies before they become king. Unlike corrupt politicians who wants personal benefits.

But many become decadent and end up just living a lavish life style since they are not accountable to anyone

A multitude of rulers is not a good thing. Let there be one ruler, one king.

I'd add that monarchs have a bigger desire for the betterment of the nation, while politicians only care about votes and what they can do in their term(s), the ruler will have a son, and he will want the best for his son, so he will try to improve the nation the most so his son will succeed.

Yes, but often this has failed throughout history.

>many become decadent and end up just living a lavish life style
Except for the English Charles, who else have done that?

Democracy is a bluepill because it's mob rule, and hands power to bankers and Jews.

"Vote for me, go-I mean guys, and I might throw you a shekel."

Versus:

"The Jew seeks to undermine the monarchy, to undermine the very foundation of our state. He will not succeed."


The monarch controls the executive, the treasury, the legislature, the courts, and the armed forces, securing them against the international menace.

Err what? Every single King/Queen you retard. Better yet, name a King/Queen that didn't do that.

Why do you think their powers were eroded in the first place?

Truly a wonderful thread in a sea of shit

That is why the military and the citizenry must be empowered. Weak rulers will be overthrown, while strong rulers, who will undoubtedly have the support of the people and the army, will be protected.

Monarchism is the natural state of humans

>T. authoritarian

The current constitutional monarchy with a bit more power to the soveirgn sounds perfect desu, as in the monarch sets a wide agenda and the people vote for parties on their specifics in how they'll enact that agenda with the power of the monarch to veto anything. Basically the monarchy writes talking points for the parties.

Also don't give the parliament to end the monarchy, that's dumb

It is impossible to have the support of everyone. The military and the citizenry have different interests while the military holds all the power. If the military is separated from the monarch, then we either get regional warlordism or a military dictatorship.

Their powers were eroded by the nobles who, until the late 1800s, made up the overwhelmingly majority of MPs. The dukes and counts of old simply swapped their titles, taking parliament seats instead of thrones. It was a reaction against the centralisation of monarchies and the development of absolutionism after the end of the Middle Ages and feudalism.

This. Pure monarchy is drivel.

simply read some hans hoppe

democracy by definition is mob rule, nonetheless certain groups (media, think tanks, etc) hold most of the power so it devolves to oligarchy

Also, would you take better care of a house if you owned it? Or if you were renting it and could pillage its coffers?

Yeah, the monarch needs some restraint otherwise all it'll take is one moment for shit to go mental. Like when Nixon got drunk and ordered nukes but his secdef refused, of he was king then we'd probably have died in a nuclear holocaust

>all these monarchism threads lately

Is Sup Forums finally becoming reactionary/traditionalist?
Its the biggest redpill there is to swallow.

youtu.be/T_rI9ETu0gI

Ah, yea, Democracy: The God that failed was recommended to me

A monarch is bigger than the state. A personification of nationhood and above politics and petty responsibility. They only answer to God.

If you get rid of a monarch, you give complete and total control to the nobility AKA Bilderbergs, secret societies (Skull & Bones), the Masons, etc.

Democracy doesn't exist. You elect people from those aristocratic houses who only care about those houses.

The king is a hereditary ruler whose house is the nation and his immediate royal family.

The average person is infinitely malleable by its rulers. The average person is average and quite dumb to things outside of his sphere of interest.

Hence why the populace must be armed and educated politically. An educated and heavily armed populace, together with the military, would be capable of maintaining stability. The military is going to overthrow weak rulers with the support of the populace, who will naturally desire a strong ruler. An armed populace will guard strong rulers against the disloyalty of those in the military, who will be unwilling to fight against their own families.

How about an elective monarchy coupled with this parliament and a constitution? The monarch would be there for life and not be subject to anyone after coronation and electing someone would weed out incompetency

It depends on if the monarch is competent.

Same with dictatorships. Unless they are ruling against the citizen's will.

Legend of the Galactic heroes touches on this a lot.

Any election will inevitably become a population contest controlled by the international weasel, and a constitution only serves their interests by restraining the ruler, as does a parliament.

It's survival of the fittest now. The end justifies the means, I'm afraid.

Somebody has read The Prince.

If everyone was armed, wouldn't there just be warlordism? This actually ends up giving a lot of power away from the monarch since anyone who disagrees would just revolt or something like nobles used to do.

To compare them:
>Spain
>Monarchy
Succesful

>UK/Gibraltar
>Monarchy
Succesful

>Portugal
>No Monarchy
Shit

And they are beside!

There's not a single democratic country in the world, democracy is one huge lie.
Instead of one person having ultimate power, it's just a small group of people.

I've had it for a while but I haven't actually bothered.

Anyone who disagrees will be put down. It's as simple as that. If the entire populace is armed, the ruler will always have supporters. He just has to keep a slim majority on his side along with the military, and he is set.

Fair enough
It raises similar points about keeping the citizenry armed and balancing them against the military.

>Monarchy is better

>muh stability
Constant coups and succession wars
>muh savings and shieet
Palaces made of solid gold blocks
>It encourages respect for the ruler.
Arabian princes snorting coke jpg
>It lessens cases of corrupt practices.
Russian Empire, modern monarchies
>It looks into family as a state model
You mean playground with constant feasts
>It does not share blames
King is innocent! Fucking nobles are to blame1
>It is useful for civilized and undeveloped societies
Tugas really believe this.

Wouldnt there be more groups than just those who support the king and those who disagree? It would turn into a bunch of different cliques fighting each other for power and nothing gets done. Look at China, not a king, but similar concept.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord_Era

Also, who is to become a modern monarch?

Hello Lenin

A 100,000 man battle royal held in a multi-terrain area of 100 km2
No weapons, other than what you can craft from your own environment

The winner is announced King

All forms of government are just ways of finding benevolent dictators, they just have different filters on tyranny.

I think that the British style constitutional monarchy is probably the best government type there is out there currently, however it can be improved with one or two changes that I think are worth adding in:
As the portugese guy says there are many disadvantages of a monarchy as well as advantages. If the constitutional monarchy were correctly adjusted it can reap the benefits while eliminating much of the weaknesses.

0. All constitutional changes must be made via popular referendum
This isn't perfect but it's the best we've got for important changes for now
1. Parliament runs the country by default as is now
2. At any time during rule, the king/queen may intervene in state action and do as they wish for ruling
These two laws in conjunction allow the state to function if there is a crappy, disinterested monarch like King Louis XV of France. What if he does want the power of state intevention though, and is clearly shit?
3. Any time parliament may hold a vote regarding the competency of the Monarch. If it is decided that the king is incompetent by a 3/4 majority, he will be barred from intervention in the state
To try and prevent bad heirs ascending:
4. Succession will be determined by an election of nobles, deciding who is the best to rule out of the kings closest relatives closest relatives

Though these four rules won't make a perfect monarchy, it gives a good monarch power to rule the country but prevents a bad monarch from fucking shit up too much. Although parliament can reject the king, it isn't often that they'll agree with a three quarters majority so he still has power to affect the country.

Also as is now in the Commonwealth, the military swears loyalty to the monarch, so if worst comes to worst, a coup can be launched like in Thailand.

>constant coups

Arm the populace.

>succession wars

The monarch appoints their successor. Hereditary rule is not guaranteed.

>palace made of solid gold blocks

You have to let yourself live.

>Arabian princes snorting coke

Degenerates. The monarch shall be a philosopher king.

>corruption

See the censorate in the Chinese Empire

>king is innocent

The ruler is not above the law. The ruler exists for the state, not the other way around.

That is why the military must be dependent on the state and the populace. Rome's military was obedient when it was bound to the king and, later, the senate. After the power of the senate was removed, and the power of the generals was increased, the military became disloyal. Soldiers became dependent on their generals for their livelihood, rather than the emperor or the state.

There will indeed be competing factions, this is why the ruler will be required to play them against each other, while securing the support of as much of the populace as he can. The ruler's faction must always be the largest, or, failing that, the one with the most alliances.

exactly this. As I said earlier, this is how i'd do it

So if I understand you correctly, the military, the monarchy, and the citizenry are checks for each other?

I feel like elective monarchy cuts out too much of the tradition, maybe each election have a referendum on the ballot rating the monarchs performance and have the Constitution state that if they're ever to have 85%+ against them, they either get removed someway or the monarchy gets abolished

I approve of this thread. Based monarchy.

Because a monarch is born into the role, it creates someone who was literally born to lead. This compared to an elective system, where those who are elected have a thirst for power. Democracy pre selects for certain traits, as only some types of people are wiling to stand for election. They will do anything for power.

A monarch doesn't need to worry about this, so careerism is removed form the equation.

A democratically elected politician usually embarks on a career path focused on the accumulation of personal power and influence (see the Clinton's, Bushe's, Trudeau's). A Monarch Is trained from birth to be a leader. It is a much purer system.

Also no chance of being lobbyed lobbyists can't give you ANYTHING as monarch

imo democracy works fine until (((someone))) figured out how to game the system
>mass immigration
relation between race and voting tendencies are just too strong to ignore
making it such that the winning party will be able to tilt the field in their favour

Monarchy is the redpilled government for huge countries (like any modern state). Democracy would be better but only works on a tiny scale.
t. Jean Jacques Rousseau [spoiler]Did I get it right?[/spoiler]

Currently the queen here is above the law in every sense

Monarchy is the natural order. Nature is hierarchical.
We the people don't come together and vote to make something true.

Democracy is complete trash

Plebeians don't have the intelligence or reasoning capability to know what's best for the nation. They can't factor in long term or even short term necessities.

Plebeians are easily slayed by shit tier emotional arguments or television propaganda. The best form of government is meritocratic autocracy.

Right, but u cannot guarantee that someone born into it is successful at it. More often than not, the monarch sucked at his job.

It sounds like what you have a problem with is universal suffrage.

Who establishes the standards for this meritocracy?

Democracy is a grey-pill.

Always compromises, never quality.

Exactly.

This is why I'm a big supporter of Appointed senates (Would prefer a hereditary house of lords Imo)

Recent Monarchs (British, and mainland Europe) have been very sensible. See Liechtenstein. The Prince there has very strong powers and the country is thriving.

Inbreeding needs to be avoided though.

Landowning aristocrats are not a good base to build a political system on because they're as vulnerable to voting for their own economic interests at the expense of the nation.

Expand the military so it's responsible for civil service and administration. When the military is freed of political correctness and cronyism to democratically elected leaders it has operated as one of the most effective bastions of meritocracy.

> not accountable to anyone
That's the people's fault. The monarch is the first servant.

Yes.

And that's wrong. Let's say Charles was king, and he just decided to rape someone, or kill someone, ect. He should be arrested, dethroned, charged, and convicted.

Don't most European monarchs have no power?

Sometimes. But the monarch held less power than the modern president.
Local govt is run by governors who handle each area according to its needs and reports to king. It isn't a complete dictatorship.
Remember: western civilization was coddled and birthed through the Christian monarchs.
Secularism, in merely 200 years, has our children confused as to which bathroom to use. That's the enlightenment of "we the people. "

For monarchy to work, one man must be wise. For democracy to work, a majority of the people must be wise. Which is more likely?

Democracy is a tyranny of the majority in which interest groups vote for their own interests rather than the common good. It necessitates corruption because politicians must have the backing of finance, the media and the political establishment if they hope to get things done. The three are often one in the same, as they work hand in glove to shape public opinion, and control the nation. This, in turn forces politicians to betray their principles. Democracy attracts the worst bottom-feeders to lead the country, the politicians that want to enact real change will reject or be rejected by the status quo.

>willingly cucking yourself to call another man king

Yes. But the ones that do are very successful. Liechtenstein, Monaco.
And even the ones that don't are very level headed.

So glad to see an Ausfag monarchist. I thought you were all republicans.

One of the main issues with monarchies in the past was the disconnect between them and the common people. With modern technology, that isn't an issue. We have so much information now that the people could truly hold the feet of the monarchy to the fire if need be. A constitutional monarchy with a local de centralized parliamentary system would be super comfy imo. The king is the father of our nation and the queen is our mother. It's the way nature intended.

NIce rhetoric

Nope. Lots and lots of royalists here

They are pretty basic. Napoleon used a round-about system that was based on a network of "notables." Every ten citizens elected one f their number to represent them, and these representatives elected one tenth their number to represent them, who elected one tenth of their number to represent them, ect.

I think it went -> family -> neighbourhood -> town -> county -> department -> legislature.

It's wrong morally but it's necessary, all court is the monarch versus x. It should be treated the same way as a bad monarch policy wise should be; revolt or referendum to remove

Nope. There are a few squeaky wheels (Murdoch, Turnbull) trying to push the (((republic))), but they get rebuked by the people at every turn. We hate politicians here, and don't want more. Combined with Gen Y and Millennials (same thing?) growing ever fond of our monarchy means that we're a pretty safe seat.

Our queen is a liberal anorexic divorcee slut with a previous abortion. I would have taken inbreeding any day.

Is there any example of a decent sized country wtih a successful monarchy? Liechtenstein and Monaco are like city state sized.

what if selected monarch doesn't want to lead?

I can't think of any

I'd like to refer all of you to the Principality of Liechtenstein as an example of a modern Monarchy. While not a true Absolute Monarchy, the country has given the Prince very strong powers over the Parliament.

He has the ability to veto any legislation, dissolve parliament, fire the PM. Unlike most constitutional monarchies, he can use this power whenever he wants.

The country is thriving, the citizens love their Prince. He is well educated, and highly intelligent.

Parliamentary democracy, bro. Her Majesty doesn't actually run the joint.

He has many relatives who would be eligible. Look how we got Elizabeth. She turned out great.

Victorian Britain

Better off with a Hapsburg.

>Yes, but often this has failed throughout history.
Nope.

It mostly works out well and has for the last 5000 years. A few bad apples here and there are no biggie when compared to the alternatives, where bad apples are not only the norm, but to be expected.

Right but just my borough has over 50X their population

All evidence points to this not being true. The moment you give the military political or economic power the generals tend to function just like landed aristocrats.

>Why do you think their powers were eroded in the first place?
Becase Jews and Freemasons were aware that a monarchy can't be broken. A democracy, however, can be. Easily.

Cue French revolution, Commie revolution, then the World Wars.

Could I get a basic rundown of what powers the monarch had at that time?

Tax haven.

Democracy is the vehicle for degeneration. Republics just allow this degeneration to infest all the corridors of power.

>It is impossible to have the support of everyone.
Only in democracies. Monarchs are generally loved by everyone, look at Thailand or other traditional monarchies.

The only people who disagree are naturally Jews, Freemasons, commies, etc. (Americans count as Jews and Freemasons).

>Is Sup Forums finally becoming reactionary/traditionalist?
Sup Forums is generally too invested in Hollywood memes and leftist memes.

This may be the case for homogenous populations but with the racial diversity in western nations we have now, nobody can agree on even what bathrooms we should be using.

>Also, who is to become a modern monarch?
Historically, the strongest and smartest.

Wait, masons were responsible for French revolution and socialism came out of the ideologies of classical liberalism - absolute equality.
Masons get along fine with communists. Cue Portugal and Mexico.

Noblesse oblige.

The king is the first servant of the people, to defend them against governments. He has no say whether he wants to do it or not (also, afaik, all European heirs are pretty much ok with it if the people called for them).

"I am the state" -Louis XIV

constitutions are for pussy liberals. I want a king who does whatever he wants, when he wants, like a real man should.

>and socialism came out of the ideologies of classical liberalism - absolute equality.
Nope Socialism came from Humanism, which came from Satanism, which came from devil worshipping mystery cults of the east. Same roots as Freemasonry.

I am not kidding, by the way, fire up wikipedia and go from one socialist to their teachers. Repeat. You'll be surprised.