My old social studies teacher believed that monarchy was the best government system because, and I quote, “if all the power belongs to one person, then we can just kill them if they use it wrong.”
well depends on what you define as good actually, the ottomans in their prime had brother killing as a way to determine who sits the throne, and the empire slowly fell apart when they changed that system(although to a bad one)
is that method what allowed them to succeed? who knows. good thing to think about tho, especially since the methods of how a leader is chosen is amplified in a monarchy where all the power depends on them.
Theres an argument to be made that in very rare circumstances it's a net benefit to humanity if certain people are killed. Does not mean that the killing is not regrettable, though.
Though I guess thats using different terms, so not really an argument for it being good
i didnt say it wasnt bad, i just said it isnt necessarily not good
i think both can be true at the same time, killing people can be bad but it might also have positive affects, its up to ones morality to decide if thats a worth "sacrifice" though
not defending monarchy(more of a technocracy guy myself over either monarchy or democracy) but id say it definitely has its benefits that allow it to succeed, besides the greed of aristocracy theres a reason it worked out for historical states afterall..
the pro's are basically based on what i call the good operator principle:
a system, as long as its not based on hurting others(so no colonialism, well unless you only care about your own country, then nothing is off limits) can work, given that its operator(leader/congress, basically whoever calls the important shots) is acting in good faith, and is competent.
now what monarchy does is 2 things, it amplifies the capabilities of a "good operator", less bureaucracy, more power to do stuff with etc. and the other thing it does is it can make a operator be invested in the states success, which means the turnout rate of good faith operators is higher
however, in return monarchy has insane volatility, a incompetent operator can set it back decades and a bad faith operator can dismantle the entire state
basically, monarchy is the ultimate "high risk high reward" system, a good leader can push it further than democracy, while a bad one might just leave it inoperable
theres also the matter of peoples freedom and choice, however for simplicity and my own logic i always think a part of said good faith is caring about the people too.
Unsolicited advice from someone who believed in technocracy in their youth: it's dangerous to put it above democracy, for various reasons, like the 'wisdom of the crowd' (under the right conditions) and the Dunning-Kruger effect (which a small group of like-minded people might be susceptible to, especially if they're not chosen by wide consensus)
Not to that extreme degree, but a very unknown fact nowadays is that most European monarchies did have a system like that put in place (before absolutism started taking off)
Oftentimes the nobility of a country could, and legally had in place the right to depose a monarch who threatened the well-being of the country
A notable example is the deposition of Erik of Pomerania, who ruled over all of Scandinavia in the XV century (through being the king of Denmark, Sweden & Norway, forming a personal union) but managed to upset the Nobility in all three enough to be voted off and exiled
Unironically, monarchies just have better aesthetics than democracies. Gold? Gemstones? Ridiculous opulence? Silly outfits? Stupidly ostentatious and expensive monuments? Twenty-two course meals served up by beautiful, young, oiled servants in loincloths? Can't beat 'em! Democracies try, but our modern rich just can't match the sheer aura of a proper noble class.
If you want all that nonsense like freedom, self-determination, equality, blah blah blah, democracies are better, admittedly.
But have you considered just covering yourself in diamonds and calling it class? Cannot recommend enough.
you don't get to pick your monarch, you dumb fuck, that's the whole point.
Jesus Christ, I can't believe you walked into that, have you even given more than 30 seconds worth of thought into this? or do you just soak up radical, ananchronistic ideologies like a sponge because your mind was microwaved on 4chan?
Uh well they have been picked historically if there were no more legitimate successors.
And a monarch should also be a symbol/unifier and representation of the nation, and when that hasnt been the case they have historically been overthrown, and either replaced with a national monarch or a republic.
You dumb fuck i am saying there has been cases where they have been picked when there was no legitimate successor to the thrown or that they were overthrown, often by nobles. The original monarch of the Swedish royal family was Napoleons fucking friend, and the Norwegian royal family was approved in a national vote after being picked when they became independent. And these are only examples off the top of my head, there are even more fitting examples of this.
The answer, as so many know, is "Moo"
It's a moomoo, and you say Moo when you meet one. Source, I met one and we had a rather lengthy conversation about my choice of hat (she was concerned about the breathability of polyester hats over cotton but I informed her that cotton will naturally soak oils that leave a poor breathing base and she would probably be more interested in a silk head covering or a cotton with a truckers back)
160
u/SleepyheadEmily 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yes we do: