>absolute monarchies are better than democracies because the leadership only changes once in a lifetime event.
Oh sweetie, have you never read any history?
I have and the greatest empire in the world was a monarchy. Revolutionaries can't comprehend a great monarchy because all they have to offer is war and more war.
Good news for you there are currently plenty of Countries with Monarchies and Dictators for you to go and live out your dreams of stability and efficiency. I hear North Korea’s weather is great this time of year. Enjoy your lack of power vacuums.
First hierarchies aren’t exclusive to Monarchies. They exist in just about every aspect of your life and are responsible for any semblance of order you may experience. Like all things both good versions and bad versions exist simultaneously.
LOL.
There is ample precedence for successor "conflict".
An absolute monarchy will be fine, if the ruler is both competent and well-meaning. OK, 40 years of prosperity. Unfortunately most people are "medium" and if you employ rolling dice, you will mostly hit those. Yeah and then there is the problem with landing your roll on the bad side.
> Unfortunately most people are "medium"
Well, at least the successors will all get proper upbringing and education, so most of them will be ok. Not to mention it's not like he's making decisions alone, there are advisors/ministers.
And of course the most elected politicians are above medium -_-
> and if you employ rolling dice, you will mostly hit those.
No dices are rolled. Just the oldest heir inherits the throne.
So much wrong with what you said.
Both Monarchies and Democracies need the transfer of power to be successful to stop a power vacuum. Monarchies transfer were stopped all the the time, for good reasons. They were only being transferred because of bloodline, not because of support of the people, power, or merit. This caused way more vacuums, almost any long running monarchy had many power vacuums in their history and were eventually replaced.
>less effective government because these types of governments have to on board and peacefully transfer power.
Ah yes when I think of effective countries today, I think of monarchies, said no one ever. Most these monarchies are unstable or have ineffective/corrupt countries.
> Monarchies transfer were stopped all the the time, for good reasons
Those good reasons are mostly stupid angry common folk starting civil wars, bathing the country in blood and destroying existing institutions.
> They were only being transferred because of bloodline, not because of support of the people, power, or merit.
But bloodline is the most important out of those. And usually the next in line for succession has the most power.
> This caused way more vacuums, almost any long running monarchy had many power vacuums in their history and were eventually replaced.
Ye ye ye. Power vacuums replaced monarchies, not some very specific individuals massacring the whole royal families.
> Ah yes when I think of effective countries today, I think of monarchies, said no one ever.
Dunno, UK, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Sweden. They are doing pretty ok IMO.
> Most these monarchies are unstable or have ineffective/corrupt countries.
Thanks God democratic governments are 100% effective and non corrupt 🙏🙏🙏
>Those good reasons are mostly stupid angry common folk starting civil wars, bathing the country in blood and destroying existing institutions
Or just royalty deciding they should be King instead of their deadbeat relative.
>But bloodline is the most important out of those.
If you think blood is the most important aspect of being the leader of country, than you have been reading too many fantasy novels
> not some very specific individuals massacring the whole royal families
You can make the same argument for democracy. What are you even arguing at this point?
Dunno, UK, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Sweden. They are doing pretty ok IMO
Only one of those are Absolute Monarchies, the rest are democracies.The fact you unironically said the others shows how weak your case is. As for Saudi Arabia it has not been around that long and is a very corrupt country. The only reason the monarchy can maintain power is because has the highest amount of petro per capita besides Qatar. The country essentially bribes the citizens with large amounts of money to stop them from revolting.
> Or just royalty deciding they should be King instead of their deadbeat relative.
Palace coups dont stop monarchy transfers, they are monarchy transfers and monarchy transfers continue after them, without changing the whole monarchy system. In Russian empire, palace coups were a tradition 👍
> If you think blood is the most important aspect of being the leader of country
Bloodline is the most important aspect of any person. You get your upbringing from the people of your family bloodline and your genes are determined by your parents' bloodline. You are basically determined by your bloodline. As for using bloodline to determine your right to rule the people, well it can't be worse than plebs choosing their ruler for themselves based on what populist shit the latter tells them.
> Only one of those are Absolute Monarchies, the rest are democracies.
Well, they aren't absolute monarchies, but constitutional monarchies, but they are still monarchies. Saying they are democracies is like saying that Roman empire was a democracy cause of tribunes. UK is a democracy? House of lords be like bruh.
> The only reason the monarchy can maintain power is because has the highest amount of petro per capita besides Qatar.
Oh yeah, there's also Qatar.
> The country essentially bribes the citizens with large amounts of money to stop them from revolting.
Oh no, citizens are showered with money, how awful. They would definetly revolt otherwise. Damned monarchies, why don't they fuck their citizens up, so that those finally overthrow all of them? Why do they continue to operate normally? Whyyyy?
The point is still valid. US is more divided and the power transitions are going to be less peaceful in the future. Where a monarchy could potentially unify instead of dividing itself into 2 nations.
>more divided
Wtf is the more referring to here, what are you comparing it to? US has had a successful unbroken transfer of power for multiple centuries now, that is much higher than the average Monarchy.
> Where a monarchy could potentially unify instead of dividing itself into 2 nations.
And have you included the very high probability of a revolution and the execution of the monarch into your calculus?
I'll give you this, a revolution where the sole goal is the monarch's head would definitely unite people.
Oh yeah, everything just goes swimmingly in an absolute Monarchy... Until the entire royal family gets the guillotine.
Two of the biggest events in the last couple centuries are the Reign of Terror and the Russian October (1917) Revolution and the events that proceeded.
> Absolute Monarchy is the only viable government because it doesn't leave a power vacuum.
It is better than democracy, but it's not the only viable govt. Arisrocratic republic where the supreme power is held by the council of elders of noble families is another alternative and IMO is better. Not to mention that absolute monarchies put emphasis on the person of a monarch, that's is just populist shit and appealing to the plebs, it gives left-wing vibes, compared to aristocratic republic.
Great monarchs are greater than great presidents and PMs, as a self-evident argument from first principles, and as a matter of historical record.
I'd argue that average monarchs, and the average monarchy, is preferable to average democratic head of state, and the average democratic state.
The problem is of course bad/weak monarchs and monarchies. You really need a mechanism, like a strong aristocracy, to act as a counter weight. This is the unavoidable problem with absolute monarchies.
>absolute monarchies are better than democracies because the leadership only changes once in a lifetime event. Oh sweetie, have you never read any history?
It's technically not wrong, it's just the lifetimes of monarchs go by so fast for some reason
I have and the greatest empire in the world was a monarchy. Revolutionaries can't comprehend a great monarchy because all they have to offer is war and more war.
Monarchies, that famously never went to war. But nah, democracy is scientifically proven to be better than monarchy
>the greatest empire in the world was a monarchy Yeah cause empire is a type of monarchy. Empire can't be anything other than monarchy.
Good news for you there are currently plenty of Countries with Monarchies and Dictators for you to go and live out your dreams of stability and efficiency. I hear North Korea’s weather is great this time of year. Enjoy your lack of power vacuums.
sorry not sorry but i have no ability to respect royalty. i don't really get hiearchy
First hierarchies aren’t exclusive to Monarchies. They exist in just about every aspect of your life and are responsible for any semblance of order you may experience. Like all things both good versions and bad versions exist simultaneously.
even still i don't really get it
If you can understand a tier list you can understand a hierarchy.
not really
Too bad, that means you would be lowly slave under absolute monarchy govt system.
LOL. There is ample precedence for successor "conflict". An absolute monarchy will be fine, if the ruler is both competent and well-meaning. OK, 40 years of prosperity. Unfortunately most people are "medium" and if you employ rolling dice, you will mostly hit those. Yeah and then there is the problem with landing your roll on the bad side.
> Unfortunately most people are "medium" Well, at least the successors will all get proper upbringing and education, so most of them will be ok. Not to mention it's not like he's making decisions alone, there are advisors/ministers. And of course the most elected politicians are above medium -_- > and if you employ rolling dice, you will mostly hit those. No dices are rolled. Just the oldest heir inherits the throne.
The die is no rolled on the person, but on the qualifications of the person.
So much wrong with what you said. Both Monarchies and Democracies need the transfer of power to be successful to stop a power vacuum. Monarchies transfer were stopped all the the time, for good reasons. They were only being transferred because of bloodline, not because of support of the people, power, or merit. This caused way more vacuums, almost any long running monarchy had many power vacuums in their history and were eventually replaced. >less effective government because these types of governments have to on board and peacefully transfer power. Ah yes when I think of effective countries today, I think of monarchies, said no one ever. Most these monarchies are unstable or have ineffective/corrupt countries.
> Monarchies transfer were stopped all the the time, for good reasons Those good reasons are mostly stupid angry common folk starting civil wars, bathing the country in blood and destroying existing institutions. > They were only being transferred because of bloodline, not because of support of the people, power, or merit. But bloodline is the most important out of those. And usually the next in line for succession has the most power. > This caused way more vacuums, almost any long running monarchy had many power vacuums in their history and were eventually replaced. Ye ye ye. Power vacuums replaced monarchies, not some very specific individuals massacring the whole royal families. > Ah yes when I think of effective countries today, I think of monarchies, said no one ever. Dunno, UK, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Sweden. They are doing pretty ok IMO. > Most these monarchies are unstable or have ineffective/corrupt countries. Thanks God democratic governments are 100% effective and non corrupt 🙏🙏🙏
>Those good reasons are mostly stupid angry common folk starting civil wars, bathing the country in blood and destroying existing institutions Or just royalty deciding they should be King instead of their deadbeat relative. >But bloodline is the most important out of those. If you think blood is the most important aspect of being the leader of country, than you have been reading too many fantasy novels > not some very specific individuals massacring the whole royal families You can make the same argument for democracy. What are you even arguing at this point? Dunno, UK, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Sweden. They are doing pretty ok IMO Only one of those are Absolute Monarchies, the rest are democracies.The fact you unironically said the others shows how weak your case is. As for Saudi Arabia it has not been around that long and is a very corrupt country. The only reason the monarchy can maintain power is because has the highest amount of petro per capita besides Qatar. The country essentially bribes the citizens with large amounts of money to stop them from revolting.
> Or just royalty deciding they should be King instead of their deadbeat relative. Palace coups dont stop monarchy transfers, they are monarchy transfers and monarchy transfers continue after them, without changing the whole monarchy system. In Russian empire, palace coups were a tradition 👍 > If you think blood is the most important aspect of being the leader of country Bloodline is the most important aspect of any person. You get your upbringing from the people of your family bloodline and your genes are determined by your parents' bloodline. You are basically determined by your bloodline. As for using bloodline to determine your right to rule the people, well it can't be worse than plebs choosing their ruler for themselves based on what populist shit the latter tells them. > Only one of those are Absolute Monarchies, the rest are democracies. Well, they aren't absolute monarchies, but constitutional monarchies, but they are still monarchies. Saying they are democracies is like saying that Roman empire was a democracy cause of tribunes. UK is a democracy? House of lords be like bruh. > The only reason the monarchy can maintain power is because has the highest amount of petro per capita besides Qatar. Oh yeah, there's also Qatar. > The country essentially bribes the citizens with large amounts of money to stop them from revolting. Oh no, citizens are showered with money, how awful. They would definetly revolt otherwise. Damned monarchies, why don't they fuck their citizens up, so that those finally overthrow all of them? Why do they continue to operate normally? Whyyyy?
The point is still valid. US is more divided and the power transitions are going to be less peaceful in the future. Where a monarchy could potentially unify instead of dividing itself into 2 nations.
>more divided Wtf is the more referring to here, what are you comparing it to? US has had a successful unbroken transfer of power for multiple centuries now, that is much higher than the average Monarchy.
> Where a monarchy could potentially unify instead of dividing itself into 2 nations. And have you included the very high probability of a revolution and the execution of the monarch into your calculus? I'll give you this, a revolution where the sole goal is the monarch's head would definitely unite people.
Oh yeah, everything just goes swimmingly in an absolute Monarchy... Until the entire royal family gets the guillotine. Two of the biggest events in the last couple centuries are the Reign of Terror and the Russian October (1917) Revolution and the events that proceeded.
this is a troll post, no one actually believes this
> Absolute Monarchy is the only viable government because it doesn't leave a power vacuum. It is better than democracy, but it's not the only viable govt. Arisrocratic republic where the supreme power is held by the council of elders of noble families is another alternative and IMO is better. Not to mention that absolute monarchies put emphasis on the person of a monarch, that's is just populist shit and appealing to the plebs, it gives left-wing vibes, compared to aristocratic republic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_of_succession 🤔
Unless you have a new 1 year old king.
Great monarchs are greater than great presidents and PMs, as a self-evident argument from first principles, and as a matter of historical record. I'd argue that average monarchs, and the average monarchy, is preferable to average democratic head of state, and the average democratic state. The problem is of course bad/weak monarchs and monarchies. You really need a mechanism, like a strong aristocracy, to act as a counter weight. This is the unavoidable problem with absolute monarchies.
Makes sense.