Which one Sup Forums?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Rzjxy1rrkng
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

>This
rest of the world btfo

I choose a third alternative

Monarchy
Come back padre España, we fucked up

If it had to be one or the other, at this point I'd probably say monarchy desu. People are too stupid to vote and our politicians are too often bought. The system is flawed.

Go back to absolute monarchies and start over.

No.

I prefer a republic but I'm scared of ending up with President Blair and President Brown. Fuck that. I'll stick with Queen Liz.

Neither. I'd do a 360 and walk away.

Communist single party state

>Belgium

>Country

Not even Spain wants to annex those sub humans LOL.

>monarchy
>likely to be ruled by oligarchs pulling the strings of a weak monarch
>republic
>likely to be ruled by oligarchs owning the representatives

Even if the monarch is good others band up against him.
It's hopeless.

Monarchy is good in abstract (read 'Democracy; the God that Failed by Hoppe) but private, hereditary government isn't coming back any time soon.

Some sort of fascism would be preferable at this point, to unite left and right Europeans against the enemies within.

>Rightful Dutch clay

Monarchy means you could end up with King Blair.

my nigger, have u ever heard of an absolute monarchy?

Monarchy post-Tudor. Elizabethan era please.

>allowing weaklings to become monarch
There should be a survival of the fitest among the monarchs offspring and they only become heir by killing all of their siblings

>give absolute power to king
>fight for king??
>dominate all other interests
>king is for you his followers because you defend him from oligarchs
GOD KING AND COUNTRY!

I'd say monarchy. If the first monarch is exceptional, there is a high chance that his offspring will be just as exceptional. To compensate for regression to the mean, the monarch is required to have just enough offspring for desirable qualitites to manifest in one of them.

Same with a republic...

Elizabeth wasn't post Tudor

>if the first monarch is exceptional, there is a high chance that his offspring will be just as exceptional.

What a complete misunderstanding of genetics keking my ass off

name me the worst king in history, it will be better than the best republic in history.

Stanisław August Poniatowski, literally gave away the country to Russia, Prussia and Austria. 120 years and a World War was needed to get it back.

Your move.

gustavus adolphus

It's like you didn't even read the second sentence

your country was already doomed from the deluge and the complete destruction in the great northern war. pro-tip, don't trust russians.

I've learned in high school that Poland started going to shit after it stopped being a hereditary monarchy and started being an elective one. Really makes you think.

>parliamentary monarchy

Might as well list any other. We had 1 good king in the final 150 years o monarchy.

I listed that one because he was a literal traitor who went crying to the Tsar when some reforms started materialising.

Last western roman empire, deposed and lived his remaining life as a commoner while rome burned

Just like the Russians don't trust Poles because they were the first to betray them. Literally anti-White Poles allied themselves with Tartars and Mongols against Russia. What a shameful act, it was like hundreds of years ago but just thinking about it makes me think that the Poles truly deserved Katyn, Intelligenzaktion and all the other good stuff. Completely fucking shameful

Because that worked so well for the Ottomans

Yes, sorry. Meant anything after the glutinous degenerate and his faggot son

Bad kings are so fucking rare you have to literally look them up, while bad republics are so fucking abundant you just have to open a map.

I mean throw them into a pit and make them fight bare handed like spartans or something

Good kings are also rare, most while better than republics were average

Yeah because hand to hand fighting is so useful for good rulership

uhmm, that's bullshit. there were a ton of bad kings.

The worst?

>King
George VI

>Queen
Elizibeth II

> Why
Just fuck my empire up senpai

There is no greater way for man to collectivize than a republic.
Though they are just men, no amount of forethought or focusing on the past will prevent degeneracy.
We must fight it constantly and always. In that way, fascism is correct.

WTF is a "good king?"

Most monarchies these days (with the sole exception of Monaco (I think)) don't interfere in politics. They're just there to open the parliament chamber.

A good king is one that shuts the fuck up and sits on the throne. Can't be that hard.

Wrong, there is literally no monarchy on earth that is below standards.

a monarchy is in opposition to a nation. in a monarchy the monach is the nation. in a republic the people are the nation.

this is why after the revolutions around 1848 where monarchs lost power, the next century saw an increasing pride, called nationalism, among europeans for their country, its history and heritage because everyone felt that they had become a nation. this worked out fine until the middle of the 20th century the nationless jew wanted to take national identities away from people and replace it with the egotism we see today. way easy to enslave and make shekels off people not interested in working together but instead egotism. "buy everything for yourself because you are more important than you fellow countrymen or your country!"

The more absolute the monarchy the better the country.

>implying a republic isnt just an adaptable fascistic state
democracy is merely a suggestion.

Kingdoms can never be bad, republics are always bad.

>these days
Obviously good kings are ones like carlomagnus, alfred the great and whatnot and not any modern cucks

I don't recognize any society that is not a kingdom, to me it is an arbitrary primitive stone age non society.

Islamic kingdoms will always be worse than the worst republics

This. This. This.

There is no such thing as a modern day nation under monarchy.

Brunei is small enough to escape most people's notice. It sits on a speck of land along the northern coast of the island of Borneo, almost completely surrounded by Malaysia. Its leader is known as the Sultan of Brunei. Worth about $20 billion thanks to his tiny nation's oil wealth, the sultan, whose given name is Hassanal Bolkiah, is part of a ruling family, the House of Bolkiah, that has been in power since the early 15th century. Though the country has a constitution and a partially popularly elected legislative body, Bolkiah is officially both the head of state and the prime minister, so he has the political power to move the country in whatever direction he chooses.

Brunei/GDP per capita
38,563.31 USD (2013)
Country in South East Asia

Like Saudi Arabia?

Islam ruins everything

GDP means shit when you have like 10 people

Bring back the monarchy! Bring back the empire! God Save The Queen!

Kingdom of Bahrain
Bahrain/GDP per capita
24,689.11 USD (2013)
Middle East
Sultanate of Oman
Oman/GDP per capita
21,929.01 USD (2013)
Middle East
State of Qatar
Qatar/GDP per capita
93,714.06 USD (2013)
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia/GDP per capita
25,961.81 USD (2013)
United Arab Emirates
United Arab Emirates/GDP per capita
43,048.85 USD (2013)

Brunei/Population
417,784 (2013)

Brunei/Area
Image result for area of brunei
2,226 mi2

>tiny population
>a shitload of oil
>wow, they must be doing so well because they're a monarchy

What's even rarer is a smart American

>shitskin nations are comparable to White nations
Check out the cuck.

There isn't any absolute monarchy that is below standards when compared to their region.

>84985668
All of those nations are richer than anything in balkans/east europe.

Republic

Almost all of the world's most effective democracies and most competently governed states are monarchical. The Westminster system is quite plainly the best form of government.

The King of Thailand is a pretty good king, but really fucking old. Engineer and inventor and shit. Doesn't really care for his status or what people say about him.
His son is a fuck head though.

the only reason European monarchies still exist today is because the American republic has been protecting them

You guys are fucking delusional if you think that without America we wouldn't all be a part of the Soviet Union right now


Give me freedom or give me death

What's even rarer is a white swede

Give me absolute king or give me death.

>american flag

literally a cuck

I truly believe, that in certain parts of the world, people have started to mate with vegetables.

>democracy = increased freedom

I hate this meme.

>a government not accountable to its people surely will give its people freedom

not that you would know what freedom tastes like, cUcK

literally a barbarian.

FOR THE EMPEROR!
youtube.com/watch?v=Rzjxy1rrkng

Swaziland is a hellhole.

And the rest are oil countries + the Vatican.

...

>some barbarian criminal kills 50 in a town
>we need to ban all guns!
Republicanism doesn't ensure freedom.

Only a strong King can ensure the future and stability of the people and state.

So your assuming that in a democracy goverments are always accountable? Hilary still running for president, Tony Blair still free, German people oppose the policies Merkel is imposing yet are still powerless to stop the destruction of their country, similar situation in France. So the conclusion is democracy doesn't necesarily mean the government is more accountable.

>Hilary still running for president
Because the media is corrupted. A corrupt media is antithetical to democracy

>Tony Blair still free
Why shouldn't he be?

>German people oppose the policies Merkel is imposing yet are still powerless to stop the destruction of their country, similar situation in France.
The EU is undemocratic

In Europe we've been getting less free for the past 200+ years.

In the UK the government now has such a monopoly on violence you can go to prison for defending yourself against an attacker.

We're being ethnically displaced to the point that if we don't turn it around by 2050 we'll be finished.

The people's government has managed to fuck us over so hard they've destroyed what took thousands of years of gradual refinement to create.

Why are you bleating about 'muh freedoms' from your cage? How can you look at our situation and say that it is better?

>Inb4 we have technology now that is somehow related to democratic government.

I choose Britannia

So what a king is just one dude even if he is an inbred idiot. now we have a parliament with hundreds of these idiots

>Because the media is corrupted. A corrupt media is antithetical to democracy
You are always going to have a bias media, this is one of the flaws of democracy, whoever runs the media controls the outcome of the elections, can you really say the people are free when their minds aren't?

>Why shouldn't he be?
He sent the UK into a war which the majority of Britain opposed. Very democratic

>The EU is undemocratic
The policies introduced by Merkel however were not in any way a requirement by the EU policies but was instead the German government taking a special stance, no other EUcountries have implement the same amount of pro refugee legislation like germany have

Democracy doesn't make you more 'free'. That's what idealist cucks believe

Republic with a monarchy figurehead mascot thing like Britbongs got.

Monarchic republic, royal family is just very politically connected and maintains a legitimate private force by their own funding that interfaces with the public militias, representatives are elected by the people and may be removed by the constituent militia in their region if the public calls for it via impeachment, the elected and the monarchy work to balance legislative and executive duties. The people also elect educated and well-standing members of the public to judicial office to which only those under a certain income level may serve, the income of a judge is over this amount and necessarily disqualifies them from running consecutive terms

Judges form the court, each electorate body forming a one judge region, greater regions being overseen by all judges therein and so on until the supreme court involves all judges- judges being elected may be impeached and removed by militia much as the representative body of legislators

By law one man alone may constitute a forcible militia and carry out the required duties of enforcement, defense, and impeachment if no others should rise to the occasion- the militia may levy charges on their own volition but must convene the electors to conclude a dutiful action

King/royal dynasty- executive/military head, privately funded, may be adjudged of commiting treason against their own crown- that is; the crown being inherent in the body of the people, not a jewel or throne
Representative body- as the house of representatives with higher, temporarily legally removed, committees to perform senatorial levels if dury, may be impeached or adjudged of treason to the crown
Judiciary- as representatives, candidates may not receive income of a certain amount per annun in order to qualify selectability; judges must be compensated an amount per annum that raise income over the selectability threshold, may be impeached or adjudged of treason to the crown

Continued

see

And half of the idiots in the parliament are actively working against the other half and the idiots cancel themselves out to a large degree.

You get an idiot king in an absolute monarchy and you're screwed for 50 years.

>Spain
>Country
Oh you

Royal Armed Forces- members if the crown in voluntary paid service to the Monarchy, they cannot constitute the Electorate during their service nor hold an elected office for the remainder of their life
Militia- members of the Electorate that are voluntarily armed and possess some manner of training or capacity in war, they serve as the main body of the armed forces in cohesion with the RAF during deployment and carry out the will of the legislature under direction of the executive power of the Monarchy to promote rule of law, they also serve impeachments and other removals of office-holders including the reigning Monarch at the will of the Electorate, the Militia may elect persons tk the Representative body and judiciary but may not take jury in impeachment hearings or those where treason is charged
Electorate- all natural-born citizens of natural-born parents, there is no naturalisation of immigrants, though their children, if born in the country, thus natural-born, will qualify their own natural-born children to the Electorate; immigrants do not receive a natural right of residence, those batural-born of immigrants are remanded to the immigrant parents if said persons are seen fit to be deported, children natural-born receive preferential entry status as immigrants with right of residence if so removed during minority; children that qualify as Electorates who are removed by way of a deported natural-born parent or parents receive preferential entry status as natural-borns with right if residence and may regain status as a full Elector after ten years of residence.

I am Orthodox, so monarchy.

LONG LIVE A KING!

We got that too and it fucking sucks.

Democracy simply gives power from a single governing body to whoever controls the media.

post scarcity society where in regions of high concentration democratic socialism is in effect (doesn't work without post scarcity obviously, sorry bernouts) and other regions are autonomous while having to follow galactic law

A third position does sounds good.

What would probably happen in that case is that they'd be replaced by someone in their own family.

If the monarch riles up the populace to such an extent that armed opposition is likely to arise the royal family has a vested interest in getting rid of the bad ruler, because if they do they get to keep power within their dynasty and if they don't they get killed by the people's uprising/another dynasty.

That's what Hoppe thought at least.

A Catholic monarchy is the only good kind of government.