It's a being reminded of why monarchy is an inherently flawed governmental system episode

>It's a being reminded of why monarchy is an inherently flawed governmental system episode

s-stop

>It's another not an actual democracy calling other cunts undemocratic episode

pls stop, this is shameful

URRRRRRRRRRR
BEBOPBOPBOPBOPBOPBOP
UHUHUHUHUHUBHUHUYUU
AIIIEEEEEEEEEEE MYUJNNUMUNUMNUM UGHUK

You guys need to accidentally set Europe off into another pointless war.

He's like the real life version of this frog.

You have to ask the Pr**estants about that, we never meant any harm.

>not an actual democracy
The Americans never had any pretenses of being an unrestricted democracy. How about you fucking read the Federalist Papers for once? That book alone has contributed more to political thought than all of Canada throughout its entire pathetic existence.

An unrestricted democracy is just as dangerous as a monarchy, it is what Alexis de Tocqueville (yet another thinker who contributed more to political theory than those acres of snow north of the US) described as the tyranny of the majority.

>B-But we bend the knee to an overseas corpse that doesn't even do anything, t-that makes us better
You don't actually believe this, do you? You're just hipster Americans
>B-But there are like five French people living in our country! That makes us totally different from Canada even though on average we actually speak worse French than the British

"no"

skeleton queen and daughters fixed it.

I might be a little biased but Democracy in America and the Federalist papers are some of the best things ever written

I could to fuck her. Leticia too

>I might be a little biased
Nah mate, combined with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and the Code Civil, those documents created the modern age in political terms. Perhaps they're not the best things ever written, but politically speaking they're the best things written in the past 2/3 centuries.

Just use a feudal monarchy in which a noble council decides on the new ruler from the royal dynasty.

arent they filthy bourbons

>I might be a little biased
I can dispel that fear, because you're completely correct.

French constitutionalism is distinctly illiberal, though. The US Founding Fathers are far more favourable to me as political theorists.

hello snownigger.

>French constitutionalism is distinctly illiberal
U wot m8?

only the father, the skeletton queen cleaned part of the inbreeding by being from a pleb family outside the european royal families.

If you think that the French idea of liberté is anywhere near as grounded in individual liberty as US Constitutionalism, you're wrong. Fraternity and equality are constraints on liberty, not its cohorts.

Charles the II was a decent king though

>His argument is literally based on the French national motto
Ignoring that illogical reasoning.

>Fraternity and equality are constraints on liberty
How?
>Fraternity
Explain how patriotism is in any way a restraint on liberty? By that logic the Americans are the most unfree of them all.
>Equality
We're talking about pre-socialist equality here, as in equality before the law. The kind of equality the Assemblé Constituante demanded: no more privileges for the nobility, one man one vote regardless of social status. Not the "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" equality.

Socialism arose in the 1830s at its earliest, and even then was met with much criticism.

So why is your dictatorship based on deception better than our autocracy based on loyalty and trust?

The hapsburgs were...special, but a king never acts alone, in some cases such as the above he...doesnt really act at all.

But i suppose autocracies of then are far less powerful and intrusive to daily life than today's ,
you get a choice of several candidates and the one you hate the least can do as he pleases in conjunction with more of the same .

Your courts too have immense power, but are appointed by politically motivated people rather than on merit.


Your ABC agencies can do practically whatever they want to whoever they want and never face consequences because of the breadth of legal hoops you have today and relative lack of parties independent of or in opposition to central authority. Just look at the ATF enforcing "laws" that were never voted in.
You have states but many of those politicians go in and out of federal service, they dont really come close to the influence of guilds and towns in of themselves in the previous centuries.


What i am trying to say is that the monarchies of then operated on a different scale to the governments of today, and that the scale of today is in of itself flawed.

>implying that's an episode, and not the whole fucking series of the show 'World History'

Nah, the system is fine, they just need to tweak the ratios slightly, so the nightmare scenario of coastal America getting fucked by populism from the rest of the states can't ever happen.

A couple of million lower leading to a large college majority is fine, even if the annoying orange is a terrible excuse for a person, but if that discrepancy becomes even larger for only a slight electoral college win, that would be tyranny by the Luddites.

When you remove power from the people, it just ends up in the hands of a few aristocrats. The more decentralized, the better. I would hate the EU if I was part of it. I obviously have zero problem with ceremonial monarchies like Britain's.

Medieval power was in the hands of the aristocrats, but they did have to face the concerns of people and justify what they did, i do not think today's politicians are much different except it is shadier and there is more at play such as media manipulation.

Medieval society was a society of orders and towns, and at the local level actually "democratic" in that people would choose their own mayor, aldermen and representatives.
Jury duty, judges and courts of today, in their basic form,come from the medieval time, so does the term "felony".
Medieval society was FAR less centralised than today's, power was far more spread around.
A town in of itself had quite a lot of control, so did a noble, both could challenge the other or another of the same.if they judged that their rights were being violated, either through a normal court, the king, or violence.
Today you wouldnt even find out, the town would just dissapear or evidence of guns or drugs would be found and everyone gets arrested forever.


The nature of government, as long as it fights for and protects your rights, is irrelevant

Did you know that Thomas Jefferson helped Lafayette to write the Declaration of the Rights of Man

Someone was on the /his thread

>Spanish empire collapses under his reign.
It doesen't really matter if he even could of ruled decently, the fact that he couldn't produce an heir led directly to the downfall of his nation in the Spanish war of succession.