Monarchist thread

Would you trust a company that is run as a democracy? If apple held votes by the public on how they should manage their money, how they should build the next generation of phones, how they should pay their employers. Could a company like this survive?

Why should the plumber, vet, painter or factory worker decide the laws of trade, taxation or tariffs? Are they capable of understanding the complexity of trade?

The pro-democratic crowd is based on emotion, they need a large social status quo that is "democracy is one of the most wonderful things ever" repeated again and again without any argument behind it at all.

The reality with democracy is that the countries laws will hit a medium of the countries average intelligence when the public are allowed the vote. And the average person is not intelligent or even well informed enough to understand and create laws to best govern the people.

People naturally vote for their government of choice to have more power, leading to a power creep over the centuries in which these democratic governments have far more control over society and your life then any monarchist government had in the past.

The only up-sides the democracy is that it (in theory) stops run-away power in the elite. However this is easily countered by constitutions and the ability for a country to veto a leader. Democracies turn the political landscape from who can control the most industry holds the most power, to who can control the most media and politicians hold the most power.

On first thought it might be ironic that you are more free under a monarchy, but when you look at how power snowballs, and minds controlled under a democracy. Then you understand that all you did was replace one tyrant for another. And at least in monarchy the person at the top has been educated for that role, and has their power restricted. The elite that run the country are there via meritism.

Other urls found in this thread:

forward.com/opinion/340090/meet-the-french-jews-who-love-marine-le-pen-and-her-far-right-party/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

So our capitalists overlords are the monarchy of today, and they have a lot more skill in subversion since they have the scientific theory and our browsing history (our inner more thoughts digitalised).

Someone is going to be on top, its the way things are. What system you're under acts as a filter. Right now the system we live in, the filter makes sure that the people at the top got there via Creating products, knowing how to manipulate the markets, and knowing how to manipulate people.

The very people who come out on top of this game are the most unfit to rule over us, because the came ensures that only the heartless wins.

>people at the top got there via Creating products..
Yes, when capitalism first arrived, that's how the first people got there, though nowadays i'd say there's an air of aristocracy to it. People will give their riches to their kids to invest, and so entire families and upper classes and more likely to stay at the top.

>The very people who come out on top of this game are the most unfit to rule over us, because the came ensures that only the heartless wins.
We are still democracy's no matter how powerful these corporations are. They can only pressure a government so much. If democratic governments of the world could collaborate with each other, they could set even stronger terms than there are now for how much influence these massive elite's can implement.

Bump.

There are companies run by democratic process. Many of them function well and are more likely to survive the first years than normal businesses are.

Oh you mean public companies with shareholders?

After all, a monarchy puts a face to the head of state, and a recognisable one at that. Everyone knew who the bourbon dynasty was, knew how competent their ruler was, knew how they were taught and it was an interesting concept to have your ruler advance as you did, whereas in a democracy, you get into power just by being well connected and having a serpent tongue. It is nothing more than a glorified popularity contest, where the contestants are swapped out every few years and you probably never heard of them before that point.

My opinion is that a feudal monarchy is a good way to go, but that it must also be open to revolution, as a recognisable brand/family/ruling dynasty has certain restrictions as OP said, yet a democracy is an insidious thing that claims tricks the people into voting away their civil liberties whilst only being truly able to support the covered, mainstream and well funded candidates who will hide their intentions behind 50 pages of a manifesto written like a riddle-book.

Tocqueville is my nigger

For people skeptical that a genetic linage is a viable method for selecting a leader. Keep in mind that the King/Queen themselves dont "rule" the same way a CEO of a company does. They act as an administrator for the more competent people who actually run the country themselves. And they also act as a solid center to where the power itself lays, so if any ambitious person does seeks to have total power at the cost of the people, then the monarch has the ability to strike them down and strip them of the power they hold.

He also described communism.

That's only in a constitutional Monarchy, which the UK is.

I agree that a constitutional monarchy with limited democracy (say the vote being limited to landowning males over the age of 25) is the best form of government. Britain's decline started when we expanded voting rights and neutered royal power.

>My opinion is that a feudal monarchy is a good way to go
But the problem with Monarchy is that the ruler may or may not be fit for the job.

In democracy leaders post their manifestos and let the educated masses vote for who's manifesto they liked best.

That sounds a thousand times better imo.

>tricks the people into voting away their civil liberties
An example, please

communists are republican

>republic
>a state in which supreme power is held by the people

Aren't the main forms of decline economic?

Isn't that how dictatorships are run too. Why aren't any dictatorships doing as well as western democracy? I'm guessing there a lot more to this than just the form of government though, obviously.

Yup, the Second Republic showed how there must never be a Third Republic. The Second Republic wasn't even chosen by the people, they just threatened to beat the shit out of everyone if they didn't establish it.

>thinking that an inbred should rule you bc some ancestor of his did smth a thousand years ago

>Tricks the people into voting away their civil liberties

So to understand this statement you need to go back to the enlightenment era. This was at a time where they were coming out of hardcore monarchies who had absolute control. The reasoning behind giving this control to the king was an idea of divine intervention, where he was only the king because God chose for him to be born there. Therefore anything he wanted was to be given to him. This was being dropped for secular ideas of liberty. More specifically the ideas of natural rights and universal principles. Where each individual had rights given to him, regardless of birth or class. And that any principled idea must be applied to everyone. What is moral for one person must be moral for all.

From this you get the John Locke style Liberalism, where governments act as a tool formed by the people. They are voted on by the people and can only hold powers that the people can hold. This is the reasoning behind the American constitution and why the population has the right to own guns.

So with this idea in mind, taxation can't be moral. Government restriction on trade cant be moral. Governments overseeing social contracts cant be moral. Anything that a citizen cant do morally to another citizen, the government cant either.

So this type of Government based in principles of liberty can be easily taken away by democracy itself. Because all it takes is emotional arguments of welfare, or fear driven policies of regulation. Things that consume the liberty and gives the Government powers that the citizen would never be allowed to have.

>the ruler may or may not be fit for the job.
as i pointed out, that is why i would like the option of rebellions of a sort, in this case, pretender rebels, the Byzantines had the right idea, where although the title was mainly hereditary, it could be given to someone outside of the ruling dynasty. This happened many times, and the nobles were normally among the most educated people (or the only educated i guess) and therefore, the most qualified.

Democracy is solely based off of appealing to the masses, therefore, keep the masses brainwashed and pretend to give them top quality education, whilst also building up surveillance and passing laws that restrict the common man. It can be said that by touting democracy as the champion of all government types, and talking about all of its strengths, it boils down to appealing to an average person, whilst trying to keep them ignorant of your bad traits.

An example of voting away civil liberties is plain to see all around, to vote for Le-Penn would have been a vote for an israel loving surveillance state supporting candidate who supported the idea of french citizens including immigrant shitskins who got citizenship or asylum. Macron on the other hand, also liked surveillance state rhetoric, and had big support from his background profession, the banking industry. To vote for one, is to vote for the other, without major good change, but the same bad outcomes.

Hillary would have turned the US into an open border welfare state, So would Bernie, So would Cruz (from what i have heard), or Rubio, Trump wanted closed borders and a strong military, that could go hand in hand with greater surveillance despite his troubles with the intelligence community, but he also has publicly spoke of civic nationalism, the same as everyone who wanted to get elected, and his venture into identity politics is an inevitable outcome of pressure from 'democracy'.

I shouldn't have had to give you examples of errosion of civil liberties

>thinking some stock market tycoon should rule because he knows how to lobby politicians.

I meant socially. The economic decline was pretty much unavoidable.

>tricks the people into voting away their civil liberties
An example, please
look at sweden
or the eu and how we surrendered our sovreinty to the eu.

the thing with democracy is its the rule of the stupid whoever is the majority wins no matter how smart or unqualified the are.
just look at election in country's like the us its propaganda that wins not the reasoning and policies.

The idea behind monarchy is basically realizing that democracy is causing more problems then it solves. But after you take away the vote, what do you believe a government should look like?

Personally i think it should operate under a minarchist system with a small government, whos job is basically defense, infrastructure and any regulations that are backed on scientific evidence.

The largest expansion in history was built on this style of Government. We went from the middle ages to the post industrial age under this, all while conquering the world. If we were to recreate expansion like that today we would be a space faring people within the century.

So your beef is with taxation. Our taxes pay for governmental administration, which allows us to have people who devote their working lives to the government meaning politicians are professional and the government is effective. This gives stability.

We also spend taxes on medical research, defence (army), infrastructure..Bloody hell I could list so much more on what taxes are spent on..

I really cannot imagine how we could NOT pay taxes.

Your idea sounds very anarchist desu.

My beef isn't with taxation. I was just giving examples on how democracy will take away liberty given time. The reason im a monarchist is because i dont believe the public is rational or educated enough to vote in the best policies.

Though i am very minarchist leaning

The idea of resurgent monarchism, as far as my understanding goes, isn't to just have any monarch, but to have - or more precisely build - the right kind of monarch. No one wants an Kim-Jong.

The idea does appear absurd at first, but we must remember that there is a difference between the monarchies of the Early Middle Ages, those of the Renaissance and those of the Colonial period. Ultimately ideas evolve as they are build on top of each other.

As the modern world progresses it becomes apparent that some flaws of democracy are inevitable - the appeasement of voters through "social programs" and the appeasement of donors through unfair deals.

The question becomes - can we have more individual freedom (remember that Germany, France and the U.K. are democracies that severly limit individual freedom) and fairer markets under a monarchy?

> rebellions of a sort
Civil war, death, damage to infrastructure and economy.

>Democracy is solely based off of appealing to the masses.
And the masses decide who goes through. It's peaceful, clean and streamlined.

>RE France
How would you get around the troubles france is facing without upping surveillance?
P.S. What's this about Penn giving aylum? She wanted to suspend immigration. Source on the Israel thing.
P.S.S

>RE USA
Democracy elected Trump, so it isn't so bad is it? The fact that the masses, who have the power, aren't seizing it by collecting, researching and discussing means the country's democracy will go to shit. Look at your election time debates, it's literally tribalistic competition, the rhetoric is "I'm better than you, you are an idiot". That kinda condescending tone wont win your side any votes.

>I shouldn't have had to give you examples of errosion of civil liberties
I'm not satisfied with what you have given.

I do believe that the monarchy has to be held to strict standards, and there has to be a natural system for dissatisfied citizens to put forward a vote of non confidence or veto any incompetent leader. This keeps the best elements of democracy that keeps the leader in check by the public, but avoids the issue of people who don't know any better controlling the rules. As for who gets to run the show? Your statement;
>No one wants an Kim-Jong
Those authoritarian style leaders can only exist because of the rules the government are restricted by. You can still have this style of leader voted in via democracy. Happens a shit ton in Africa. The issue of "Kim-Jong" style leaders is an issue of constitution and government size/power. Not an issue of democracy vs hereditary rule.

As for fairer markets under a monarchy, this too would have to be dependent on the constitution. I dont doubt that if let to themselves, the elites in a monarchy would write the laws to favor them or their friends bushiness, just as is happening now in democracy. So its important to have trade related law be controlled by a constitution. It also doesn't hurt that the person with the most power (the king) has no financial intensive to rig the system in his favor via regulations that keep the competition at bay, because he is born into power and doesn't rely on industry to keep him there. As is the case with todays billionaires that rule the system.

Who's fault is that? Not the governments, it's the people. Your parents who didn't give a shit, just like you don't give a shit. Obviously it doesn't matter all that much to you.

> I agree that a constitutional monarchy with limited democracy (say the vote being limited to landowning males over the age of 25) is the best form of government. Britain's decline started when we expanded voting rights and neutered royal power.

Mah nigga. How we move forward and pull back democracy to allow more liberty is the hardest question, I'm not sure your suggestion (which really would be a reversion to the past) would work. Politics in the UK has always moved forward with new ideas anyway, not backwards.

>How we move forward and pull back democracy to allow more liberty is the hardest question

Liberty is about how much control your ruler has over you. Not how that ruler is picked. A monarchy at the head of a small government gives you more liberty then a democratic leader at the head of a large government.

Here's the thing though - what good is a constitution if no one follows it? An example could be made of Americans and their PATRIOT Act.

> there has to be a natural system for dissatisfied citizens to put forward a vote of non confidence or veto any incompetent leader

In that case you're having more of a Hamiltonian Presidency, than a monarchy. I think a better solution (theoretically) is for the king to pass the crown, while he/she is alive, than to do so after death. This way the heir could make a peaceful transition and prove himself, before the old one has died and thrown everything into chaos.

Some liberties do have to be given up for the sake of stability, there can't be any doubt about that.
It's kinda hypocritical that you mention liberties being taken when you literally call for the democratic vote to be taken away from us. You'll have us in the palm of an unelected ruler and hope they do a good job and treat you the way you want to be treated, this is ridiculously naive at best. Once you give that power to a single person and his party, you could never check that party's power without force. This is exactly how liberties are lost.

>regulations that are backed on scientific evidence

But we already do that. What is economics? What is logistics?

Yes, exactly. 20th century democracies have proved themselves to be decisively illiberal.

The means of the crown being passed on is something im still undecided on for sure. The bonus to having it be heretical is that it eliminates that "game of thrones" style backstabbing or power grabs between large players who would otherwise be cooperating. But the downsides to having it be heretical is obvious. Someone extremely moronic getting the crown.

You think you pick your rulers at the moment? Do you think that just because the "vote" decided that person would rule, that the majority of people wanted them to rule?

Look at Trump and Hillary. Both of them had barely 50% of the vote in their own party. Most people vote on a candidate because its the closest to what they want. Come the general elections all the dems and republicans all vote for their party, despite only half of them wanting that candidate. So at the end no matter who wins, only about 1/4 of the country ever supported them in the end. This isn't even taking into account how much of an impact lobbying has on laws.

>egulations that are backed on scientific evidence

Some regulations yes. But not all. Why are all the big anti fracking laws pushed by exxon mobile? Because if you can make hurdles that only multi-billion dollar companies can jump over, then they get complete control over the market. Exxon mobile is just the first to come to mind because they are the most blatant with this. But all the banks and big pharmaceutical companies all spend hundreds of millions of dollars putting in regulations with the intent of creating an environment that their companies can navigate and thrive in but other companies cant.

This is why its dangerous to have a government who can be controlled by the business tycoons.
What do you think will happen when the rich get the right the laws they have to play by? Do you think they will play fair?

Sorry about that, was away giving counsel to others.

>bad rebellion stuff
yes, while it is true that full scale rebellions cause massive damage to economy and infrastructure, i was talking about a more moderate, Coup de'tat at the most, as i pointed out, the Byzantine transition of power was the best and most stable of its time, if not, of all time.

>Mob rule
If the citizens are not enlightened to the hundreds of potential candidates backgrounds and objectives, they SHOULD have no business electing them, but no individual could have such knowledge, and would only base their decisions on what the revealed information they are PRESENTED with, and further influenced by others around them. That is not clean and streamlined, that is a purposely complicated system of disinformation that is ripe for misuse and corruption.

Monarchies are less equal, but the people in power are only in charge because the people below support them, out of fear or love perhaps, but that system is open to be toppled by the lower classes if things become dire.

A democracy cannot properly be destroyed because its basic system is propagandised to be the most fair, and so it is the 'natural' one that people end up going for, but doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is a ridiculous notion. The same people end up being in charge in the end.


>France
chuck out all the non-Europeans and seize their assets, use that as capital to re-vitalise the infrastructure, native french people have reputedly low crime rates, even in poverty conditions. The Jihadists won't get angry, because there are extremely few native conversions to Islam, i.e. all the Islamists are not native french.

>Le-Penn
She doesn't want to persecute anyone with french citizenship, although she doesn't want dual national Israeli Jews.
sauce 4 you;
forward.com/opinion/340090/meet-the-french-jews-who-love-marine-le-pen-and-her-far-right-party/

will continue...

>The means of the crown being passed on is something im still undecided on for sure. The bonus to having it be heretical is that it eliminates that "game of thrones" style backstabbing or power grabs between large players who would otherwise be cooperating. But the downsides to having it be heretical is obvious. Someone extremely moronic getting the crown.

I think ideally you would have all family members (and them only) vote on who to get the crown. That way you minimize conflict and ensure a crazy person doesn't get the crown, while at the same time preserve heraldry.

Monarchy for France !

...

bump

i disagree, having the family be able to vote brings back the original problem into play, which is that people who are are not the countries top economists are deciding the economy. If anyone gets to vote it should be the qualified. But this brings into light its own issues of cutting deals and internal power plays. I think there isn't any way you can have transferal of power that is decided on the spot (as oppose to preordained via birth) that doesn't include a power struggle.

>USA
They allowed Trump to be elected, and now they try to corrupt his principles, but as we all know, he was not an 'ideal' candidate, he was a means to an end. An end which may or may not present itself once he has stepped down in 2024 or suchlike. Your point about tribalistic competition is the heart of the matter! The nobles who would have the interests of making their country better than another's, gives them the drive to pursue ultimate victory and to make the right decisions to achieve this, with a democracy, the people in power only care about keeping the masses contempt for them to do as those who helped them get into power, tell them to do. This leads to a shadow government pulling the strings and having puppet leaders to entertain the masses as they garner the wealth of nations around themselves, i.e. Soros, the Rothschilds, much of the D.C. elite, bank managers, etc.
And so the nation slowly rots from the inside, this is insidiousness in action.

>Liberties
I meant that if you consider yourself educated, you should already be aware of how you have had your liberties stripped;
>Identity Politics
>The mere right for your bloodline to exist (i.e. ethnic displacement via migrants) Spain is a good example where the Romans described all of them as blond haired, yet only northerners have this, showing that the 'Unification' of mankind as one would result in a north African mulatto with squinty eyes.
>the right to have weaponry
>the right to not pay taxes to allow people to erode these
>the right to decide just how your child is educated
>the right to teach your child your own craft i.e. carpentry or suchlike.
>the right to not be spied on, Patriots act for burgers.
>the right to trade using other things than government approved currency

The only way to change things in government is through a filtered, indirect way that requires indirect puppeting, and appealing to other people who have other interests, and that is IF you are already in power.

bump 2

Comfy thread.
Need more regular monarchist threads.

"King posting"

Monarchy threads are always more chill than others. No commies show up.

Regal bump

me on the right

kek

Bump for divine right.

A big part of political maturity for me was realising that order matters a lot more than 'freedom' as defined by liberal democratic ideology.

Another point is not to get hung up on arcane points about succession and royal lineage, the key point is about virtues of monarchy as a social system as opposed to democracy.

Democracy is a false god, it implies that we are all equal which is a lie.

Why do the French have simulataneously the best and worst philosophers?

hmmmm

We've always been the most ambivalent European people, I just cannot explain that. It somehow seems to be in our genes...

Finally a monarchist thread.
Democracy was indeed a mistake, we must take back the throne, who's with me?
Ayyy

Correct

>Monarchism
dropped, nice try JIDF