Monarchism

Sup Forums, I have a philosophical question for you

Why do we all agree to live in democracies? Why do we willingly give power to the masses, which we know to be stupid and easy to manipulate?

Don't get me wrong. I've been a classical liberal all my life. I believe that eceryone should be heard and have their opinion be expressed. But I also believe that many such opinions are fucking stupid and unrational.
It's not a left/right preference. There are many rational and well thought arguments on all sides of the political spectrum. But, and that's a thing that's been bugging me lately, thr masses absolutely don't care for reason, beauty, tradition, progress or art. They simply follow their celebrities and try to be the most popular shithead by following the latest hashtag and trend.

I really don't like thinking like this. I've always have been a firm believer in democracy, but when I ask myself "why?", I simply don't know how to answer.

I've recently been thinking how the right to power shouldn't be given, but earned. Through education or whatever, but what bothers me is how even supposedly educated people just don't care.

Monarchism has always been my pet ideology. I've always liked the nationalistic aspect to it and Brazil has a good general view of our emperors, especially Pedro II. He's always seen as a republican put in an unpleasant situation, and he used his powers to actually try to improve the country. But he was never as effective as he could, especially because of the petty power plays between his elected officials.
The whole ideology is starting to become worringly attractive for me, and I really don't see as much downsides to it than democratic corrupt governments.

Other urls found in this thread:

the-good-news.storage.googleapis.com/assets/pdf/unqualified-reservations-gentle-introduction.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Go watch Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Its literally this debate played out from both sides. You might find it interesting.

>Why do we all agree to live in democracies?

We didn't. Fascist monarchy is objectively the best form of government.

>Why do we all agree to live in democracies?
Because Democracies are le best thing eva [in paper] !!!XDD They give you the freedom [and nothing to do with it] so you can do whatever you want [and thus you become spoil and start using your voting power for your own personal gain]
>I've recently been thinking how the right to power shouldn't be given, but earned.
In a perfect democratic system that would happen too, but in reality elections are a popularity contest. On the other hand "Everybody gets what they deserve"
The whole ideology is starting to become worringly attractive for me, and I really don't see as much downsides to it than democratic corrupt governments.
Monarchies can be as corrupt as democracies, but at least they o not sugar-coat it

>he feel for the government meme

Democracy is literally there to stop revolts from the retards. No matter how good you govern eventually they'll get mad and rise up, but when they vote they've only themselves to blame so they grump and change parties.

This only happens if you educate the masses

>we decided

I have some news for you... Read which group was hell-bent on removing Nicholas II of Russia and Wilhelm II of Germany.

A lot of people think that we live in a democracy for the reasons people like Rousseau wrote ; Because humans have free-will, because the masses should have a right to think, to have a say in their State, and all of that.

It is wrong.

We need a democracy, but not because the citizens are good ; We need a democracy because no one is good enough to get in power. We don't choose our leaders because our choice will be a good one. We choose our leaders so that we can legitimately take their power away once they start shitting things up.

Whoa whoa, can you tell us?

I assume Jews, but what specifically??

...

Wrong

But we can't guarantee that we can always take the shit folks from office
You've probably seen how Brazil has recently impeached our commie president after a series of fuckhuge corruption scandals

The thing is, it didn't and won't change shit. Our Congress is full of literal prostitutes, football players, actual fucking clowns, not counting the political dynasties who've been stealing money from the country for the last 100 years. The people just get satisfied to blame a single fuckwit that is unlucky enough to become the target of the media

We'll never clean our government, because the average retard simply doesn't care enough

>I've recently been thinking how the right to power shouldn't be given, but earned. Through education or whatever, but what bothers me is how even supposedly educated people just don't care.

Wew lad quit watching Game of Thrones and read about ancient Orders.

The world is run by people who know somebody who knows somebody; regardless of the type of government.

>GoT
I've actually haven't seen it yet. What does it say about the whole subject?

>and I really don't see as much downsides to it than democratic corrupt governments.
Its a rollercaster. A god-emperor can have an incredibly incompetent son who'll drive country from top to bottom. In democracy goverment mirrors nation.

>Monarchies can be as corrupt as democracies, but at least they o not sugar-coat it
Wrong. Democracies tend to over-blown all the bad stuff, since in democracy the opposition always throws as much shite, as humanly possible, on the ruling party, effectivelly ruining reputation of everyone but the best. Thus in democracy a universally respected statesmen can only be the one who does nothing. In monarchy the ruler controls media and supresses the negative opinions.

Can you not post anime trash on a Monarchist thread? You're as bad as a leftist.

People who larp as monarchists are basically distilled autism. Democracy is the only way to organize mass society. Fascism failed, communism failed. Democracy is all we have.

Yeah.

Democracy can work it just needs good leaders, strong leaders. They need room to work (less transparency) and you need to have faith that they're in it for the good of the people. Someone groomed from birth to fill this role is probably going to do a better job than someone who can read and repeat back popular opinions.

Now with a monarchy making a prosperous nation is good for the crown. However the temptation to put personal fulfillment above national interest is always there. Contrasted to a democratic system what's good for an elected official is whatever will win him the popularity contest that is the next election, which is sadly, not always inline with the countries best interests.

That's why nationalism is my 'pet' idealogy, but I agree democracy is a deeply flawed concept and Monarchies or similar systems have existed for eons for a reason.

How do we stop it? Are you man enough to stop adapting the cultural mannerisms of my country? I bet not.

We see it across the globe, in your HD's, your media, your very bodies are draped in American culture. Shit...you're reading this message on an American website.

The music you listen to, the movies you watch, and even the porn you fap to is American.

At what point is enough enough? When do you plan to stop the hypocrisy of shitposting anti-American threads? We all know you're obsessed and addicted to our way of life.

The first step to recovery is admitting you all have a problem.

ITT, I want to see: "I am an Ameriboo, I have a problem."

>thinks elections are actually for real

fucking kek

I think this is the wrong thread, bud

Or is this a new pasta? I'm thinking of saving it, tbf

If you are not a Reactionary Monarchist you are human scum.

Exactly
A monarch IS the State, to quote the French. He has no reason in life, other than to conduct his country forward. Of course, a monarch shouldn't be chosen by a dynastic process, but a meritocratic one.
I kind of like the Greek idea of a philosopher-king. Someone with knowledge, highly rational that has no other reason to exist other than to lead his country.
Maybe a choosing process should be a bit like a parliament, or a Supreme Court. There are indications between the members of a college and they themselves elect the person they discuss is the best.

It has its problems, but having people being raised to be leaders and to acknowledge their faults would be a great process of creating such a system

If we go the meritocratic route, how will we avoid making it become like a technocracy, where the current "monarch" has everything to gain by keeping progress and other people down so his son can take the throne afterward?

This seems like a big issue.

Parliamentarism is one of the best ways to keep the peasants from rebelling. It gives them illusion of power.

>Why do we all agree to live in democracies?
I'm just waiting for the king to ascend to the throne. Public perception..
>"Don't get me wrong. I've been a classical liberal all my life. I believe that eceryone should be heard and have their opinion be expressed" a monarchy is best when so.
>I really don't like thinking like this. I've always have been a firm believer in democracy, but when I ask myself "why?", I simply don't know how to answer.
A lot of people have suffered under monarchism. Newsflash - the same amount has suffered under democracy with population trends.
checkin' the
>77xxx777

>We didn't. Fascist monarchy is objectively the best form of government.
Freedom > fascism; free-choice > authoritarian
"fascism" is temporary at best....
>We choose our leaders so that we can legitimately take their power away once they start shitting things up.
What if you didn't have to worry about that? A constitutional monarchy.. (a common sense constitution)

Welcome to reaction. Here's your obligatory 100k-word essay on why popular government sucks.

the-good-news.storage.googleapis.com/assets/pdf/unqualified-reservations-gentle-introduction.pdf

I don't thnk I understood your question

But I think that the monarch shouldn't have absolute powers. Maybe the college could participate in the discussions of leading the country forward, while the king/emperor has the final say on the matter

I think that the system of monarchies of the past were weak and prone to internal errors and mistakes. Power through a vagina isn't the best way to choose it (though I think American Democrats don't agree with that)
I don't think a monarchy is the same as an authoritarian government. Assertive, yes, but civil liberties should be allowed to all

let me try to say it another way

Person A gets into power because he has the most talent.
Person B is an up and coming talentful person
Person A has person B murdered because person B threatened Person A's position.

Democracy is communism by the back door. As people realise they can use their vote for personal economic gain, politicians begin to buy votes with offers of increasing spending on X and Y, ensnaring more of the population in the welfare net. As more people become trapped by welfare the conservatives have to promise not to cut public services in order to remain electable. This is happening in literally every western nation. Any right-wing victories just slow the rot down rather than eliminating it completely. We need a strong government that isn't a slave to every whim of the masses to tell people to do pic related.

The monarch wouldn't have absolute power in the system I'm imagining, and would only conduct the country with more broad decisions. The college of "nobles", or people especially educated and raised to bring the country forward, would advise the monarch and lead the country in the day-to-day, and the monarch could, theoretiaclly, be opposed by the college.
Succession would be like the College of Cardinals. When the king dies, he would be replaced by the noble voted by the college itself to be the most apt at leading, and I think that most of the time it'd be hard for the dead monarch to actually influence the next election.

How much administrative power does the monarch actually need, compared to how much he merely needs to delegate and regulate?

If the monarchy is hereditary, there is no doubt as to who is the heir, and the heir(s) recieve lifelong training for rule by their parents, and their mission in life is to govern, and their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their dynasty is tied to the wellbeing of the nation. Additionally, you can practice eugenics with the royal family by keeping marriage to respectable and healthy people of merit, so you have the best chance of the next ruler being especially fit.

If by any chance they are inherently shit or uninterested in a particular field, how much of that field can be delegated to someone better suited who is subject to Royal oversight?

Just my two shillings.