/TDE/

monarch is the embodiment of the spirit of the people.
everything else is just powerful interests playing you like a pawn, all modernity, all enlightement is just a farce.

A monarch is essentially a landlord, so you'd be choosing your monarch by writing up a contract with him (or an agent), moving onto his property, and paying rent.

>You want to worship some retard and have him tell you what to do
Kings are not dictators.

>so you don't have to think because responsibility is hard
When you have a population whose majority does not know how to properly manage land and resources, why would you put that entire population in charge of its land and resources?

>unironically supporting Aurini's bullshit

But how do you guarantee that the monarch isn't one of those "inbred retards"?

So why wouldn't it be better to restrict voting rights rather than putting all your faith in one guy who's bound to act in his own interest? Neocameralism is fine by me, but monarchies would need to be small and competitive to keep up the quality of government.

>the best of us
That's not kings.
>monarch is the embodiment of the spirit of the people.
How blindly idealistic can you get? A monarch loves the people like a rancher loves his cows. They're mildly valuable alive so he doesn't slaughter them all immediately. They don't give a shit about the citizenry. They don't have any connection with the citizenry, they have more connection with a foreign noble than a peasant.
>Kings are not dictators
Yes, they are.
>When you have a population whose majority does not know how to properly manage land and resources, why would you put that entire population in charge of its land and resources
Why do you think you and everyone else are too braindead for personal responsibility but one man won't be? What will be special about him that he'll be the one non-retatd among us?

see

That's just idealistic, self-hating bollocks.

and just who are you espousing for the "Monarchy"

Anarchy, for the enlightened, means the period of chaos between two established Orders.

Monarchy is the established Order.

Your entire post stinks of the same degenerate anarchism behind the original enlightenment.

If vomit is light.. a thousand rats vomiting down everyone's throats isn't enlightenment to anyone other than those drowning in it.

Fuck Mormons.

Read up on the guy before you move to his land.

>restricting voting rights
I'm not opposed to limited democracy. Hans-Adam II has expressed approval of it in some form. The thing is you have to be careful with it and only use it for matters on which all voters are experts. Voting on a medicine-related move without a majority doctor population would be silly, but voting on replacing the monarch would probably be fine.

>monarchies would need to be small and competitive to keep up the quality of government.
See pic related. I also recommend his full lecture, "What Must Be Done".

>Yes, they are.
Kings do not have cults of personality, and kings do not give willy-nilly self-serving orders (not if they want to prosper, at least).

>Why do you think you and everyone else are too braindead for personal responsibility but one man won't be? What will be special about him that he'll be the one non-retatd among us?
The king, being a landlord, should be somewhat knowledgeable about the management of land and resources. If he isn't, vote with your feet and move to another domain.

Contrast this with today's world, where all the idiots in a giant swath of territory can vote on issues like medicine, natural resources, and manufacturing regulations with zero expertise on any of those matters. I'm arguing for a meritocracy, or expertocracy, if you will. The king should be someone who knows about managing land, and he should appoint appropriately expert ministers to assist him on matters like finance, medicine, roads, manufacturing, agriculture, etc., rather than having publicly elected snakes who succeed by playing to the camera.