Would you prefer having a king over a president/politcian?

Would you prefer having a king over a president/politcian?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=17kjn_nc8Oo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

If i can be king. If not then no

Philosopher King, yes.

>Implying we don't already have a god emperor

whats the fucking difference

Of course, but no Victor I. or some cuck Hapsburg again.

yes... a politician changes every few years in elections... a king gives continuation of rule

I would prefer to have an AI made decisions.

Yes. Monarchy is the godly way to govern.

FUCK KINGS
PRINCIPAL RUFFIAN OF SOME RESTLESS GANG
GAS THE KINGS REVOLUTIONARY WAR NOW

Well duh

A king? Yes
Any of our current future kings? No

Jacobite restoration is the only way

This
Rationality would finnaly kill subhuman scum, including us retards browsing Sup Forums

AI would genocide nigs, possibly whites too and leave only high IQ asians. Then genocide those too once eugenics and DNA modification creates superhumans

>implying ai wouldn't annihilate all life that was not instrumental to its core programming

Hmm would I like a collection of oligarchs or an absolute monarch

I guess the collection of oligarchs, but you need to give us more details, OP

Kings are pretty cool, but if I were to be living in a monarchy, I'd hope it'd work somehow like Italy did under Mussolini.

>including us retards browsing Sup Forums

this

Nope this is you're king. Hapsburgs are rightful heirs of all.

cringe. he didnt evenhave the balls to fully pull out of the iran deal

Autocracy is ideal

Id settle for a queen.

t. Plato.

That's treason!

>REBEL SCUM

The randomness of a monarch is far superior to the enormous selection pressure for pure evil implicit in any democratic system.

As long as it's Trump. Wouldn't have to worry about bullshit politics no more

An absolute leader would be good, but the process of selecting each new absolute leader would need to be designed in such a way as to make sure that he would only do what is in the majority’s best interest.

Otherwise, you may have a great king for several decades who brings a nation to prosperity, and then his heir is inept or becomes corrupt and ruins everything.

no

Everyone is a traitor until they win

youtube.com/watch?v=17kjn_nc8Oo

Kings are good if they are a good but says nothing about the issue of succession and stability.

Monarchy would be nice, though I prefer a merit based dictatorship.

yes. diarchies are pretty cool

What about s technocratic king. Kings are leaders of progress and advancement while other heads are given the role of conducting affairs of government they are best suited. Demonstrated and ranked proficiency dictate the leaders of tomorrow.

An actual King would be nice. Some """Queen""" who sits around on her cunt all day rubber stamping legislation is pretty shitty though.

>merit based dictatorship
Those break down quickly.

If I felt he had a divine right to his throne then how could I not support him?

Sure, but the same could be said for new monarchies. Once a monarchy's position is solidified they become much more stable but this can all be ruined by a single weak/tyrannical/stupid king.
I think a merit based line of succession(dictator picks qualified successor) would probably work.

this

No, fuck Monarchism scum
Sup Forums was made specifically for you cucks, now stay there

yes

Of course

Monarchies and Empires will occasionally see leaders like Marcus Aurelius arise.

Democracies will always be ruled by Machiavellis.

For every philosopher king there is some useless inbred who fucks everything up. The true answer is rulership over one's self.

Ironically Aurelius is the best but worse Philosopher king. He couldn't teach his own flesh and blood how to be a competent leader or good person.

That's because it's not something that can be taught

Then he ought to have thrown his son from the Tarpeian Rock to avoid him becoming Emperor. Or at least barred him from succession.

God emperor or bust kiddo

lack of liability is the problem with any totalitarian type of government. Together with human nature, of wanting cash and pussy. This is why humans can't be trusted as totalitarian leaders.

>Would you prefer having a king over a president/politcian?
No, regression to the mean and the eventual shitty king.

>Would you prefer having a king over a president/politcian?

I wouldn't. But I would prefer a King over a bunch of fucking Danes raiding my country at will.

That would depend on the king and the president/politician

a king but in the Polish-Lithuanian model where they are elected

Yes Philosopher King

Plato at it again

If he starts a crusade we can talk.

checks and balances, presidents dont have final say on laws

Engineer a god emperor like super human that is immortal. In that case yes.

Yes

No while they might be good for a while eventually you are going to get a real piece of shit in line for the throne