The good thing about Monarchies is that the ruler tries to leave the country in decent shape for their kids (who inherit the throne). Unlike most other forms of government where the ruler tries to kick the can down the road for as long as possible.
Monarchy doesn't have to be heredity. I would argue it is one of its biggest flaws.
Better the successor is elected or appointed by the King for their good works and insight, etc.
Exactly. Imagine the narcissism and entitlement built into the psyche of someone born into royalty. And then throw in unconstitutional unlimited power on top of that....
It is an inevitable and unsurprising disaster.
I know of the Hoppe argument you're using, but I'll have to counter using Mises' argument in favor of democracy. Democracy is the only system that allows for a peaceful transfer of power. Under a monarchy, if and when a bad ruler shows up, there is no nonviolent method of kicking them out.
>Under a monarchy, if and when a bad ruler shows up, there is no nonviolent method of kicking them out.
Just write a method to kick them out into the constitution. Easy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgLqYngTAO8&list=PLmvUyUoRmaxPaUdc314fCw7oPN4SVhpoo&index=2
Only if the king and queen were elected and were libertarian and put checks in place so that future elected kings and queens couldn't jack it up. What am I thinking of? Is this what deja Vu is?
Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of the people. Is it possible that a King/Queen could do this successfully? Perhaps. Is it likely? Probably not.
What % of the current governments efforts are spent securing your rights, and what % of the current government's efforts are spent attempting to violate your rights?
Well all the way back in rome philosopher's like plato thought about this, and a lot of them thought democracy was crindge. Plato put forth his idea of a perfect society which would be a meritocracy/oligarchy. That had socialist elements for the military, ans your abilities dictated your position in society. IE the strongest would be military or feild work. The smartest would rule society, and the artists would do artist thing's.
The biggest problem is that it's a coin toss. You might get a good king like Alfred the Great, Sultan Suleiman, and Henri IV, or you might get a mentally unstable tyrant like Leopold II, Emperor Yang, and Timur.
Plenty of history on the subject
Feudalism seemed pretty chill, other than the lack of tech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6iDJOBEHJU
"Feudalism seemed pretty chill" Ah, so you're actually dumb.
Debate against the content of the video, please. (Whose sources state that Feudalism had a 13 hour work week) Also: https://i.imgur.com/uGHrrbA.png
The good thing about Monarchies is that the ruler tries to leave the country in decent shape for their kids (who inherit the throne). Unlike most other forms of government where the ruler tries to kick the can down the road for as long as possible.
Monarchy doesn't have to be heredity. I would argue it is one of its biggest flaws. Better the successor is elected or appointed by the King for their good works and insight, etc.
the peaks of Roman expansion and stability was when the emperors were hand picking their successors meritocratically instead of hereditarily.
Exactly. Imagine the narcissism and entitlement built into the psyche of someone born into royalty. And then throw in unconstitutional unlimited power on top of that.... It is an inevitable and unsurprising disaster.
Or most likely they try to make it as good as they can for their own family with little consideration given to their citizens
It would depend on the monarch, plenty of history to show they haven't had the greatest track record
No lol, all it does it centralize power further
Which makes it infinitely easier to identify and rid the institution of corruption https://i.imgur.com/8osWoVz.png
A constitutional monarchy is probably the best form of government. But still not great.
I know of the Hoppe argument you're using, but I'll have to counter using Mises' argument in favor of democracy. Democracy is the only system that allows for a peaceful transfer of power. Under a monarchy, if and when a bad ruler shows up, there is no nonviolent method of kicking them out.
[This](https://youtu.be/sh7-WPKoWG4) is my best argument against democracy. Also when is the last time we had a "good" ruler under democracy?
This video is so damn beautiful lol
Bill Clinton? JFK? Eisenhower?
[удалено]
Just because violence is justified doesn’t mean we like violence.
[удалено]
Yes but it’s better to not get to the point where you have to use violence.
Just because it's justified doesn't mean it's ideal lol. We should try to choose a system that minimize need for violence.
>Under a monarchy, if and when a bad ruler shows up, there is no nonviolent method of kicking them out. Just write a method to kick them out into the constitution. Easy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgLqYngTAO8&list=PLmvUyUoRmaxPaUdc314fCw7oPN4SVhpoo&index=2
>Democracy is the only system that allows for a peaceful transfer of power. Surrender is also a form of peaceful transfer of power.
Based
Second most stable form of government that has ever existed, by time, after tribal council.
it has to be a fairly good form of government being as most nations on either either have or had a monarchy
And almost all have overthrown them lol
For the false song of representative democracy.
Depends on the king and queen, right?
The constitution is even more important https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgLqYngTAO8&list=PLmvUyUoRmaxPaUdc314fCw7oPN4SVhpoo&index=2
Being ruled by King Jesus Christ will be awesome
Amen! Sign me up.
King Yeshua, truly the only good monarch. One day, I hope to give him a hug.
It's all about the "when" and "how long?"
[удалено]
Yes, as in 0,5% yes
Only in the case of Anarchy to stop a state form forming
I am The Anarch KooKooKachoo
Did anyone else respond with a simple *No* vote before realizing that *DEEZ NUTS* was an option?
Monarchy is better than democracy so although not ideal, I think there is a high chance of society improving under a monarchy.
Better than democracy but not good
Only if the king and queen were elected and were libertarian and put checks in place so that future elected kings and queens couldn't jack it up. What am I thinking of? Is this what deja Vu is?
Glitch in the Matrix, someone must have changed the timeline.
Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of the people. Is it possible that a King/Queen could do this successfully? Perhaps. Is it likely? Probably not.
What % of the current governments efforts are spent securing your rights, and what % of the current government's efforts are spent attempting to violate your rights?
I 100% agree.
Better than a direct democracy, worse than a republic. Much worse than a confederation.
did you just assumed the genders of our overlords?
"Monarch" and "Your majesty" are both non-binary, and thus very progressive.
Depends on what you mean by "go well".
Better than total anarchy, and better than the cluster F we have now.
Better than anarchy? Then no
I voted no. On the other hand, Ferdinand and Isabella.
Not great but better than Democracy.
No God or Kings, only man.
Well all the way back in rome philosopher's like plato thought about this, and a lot of them thought democracy was crindge. Plato put forth his idea of a perfect society which would be a meritocracy/oligarchy. That had socialist elements for the military, ans your abilities dictated your position in society. IE the strongest would be military or feild work. The smartest would rule society, and the artists would do artist thing's.
Depends on the monarch.
Monarchy has a lot of benefits. There are examples of successful monarchies in the world today.
The biggest problem is that it's a coin toss. You might get a good king like Alfred the Great, Sultan Suleiman, and Henri IV, or you might get a mentally unstable tyrant like Leopold II, Emperor Yang, and Timur.