Is monarchy a good form of government?

[Conserative Morality]

Let's try European.

Always a favorite. Well, let's start with France - both le ancien regime and the Bourbon restoration were traditional monarchies whose replacements were infinitely better than the stagnating and inefficient government that preceded them. I understand, however, that the Revolutionary ideals of the French Republics may taint my view of these things, so I'll move on to another country.

The overthrow of the Ottoman monarchy - both in by the Young Turks in stripping the Sultan of his power, and by Ataturk in transforming the Empire into the modern Turkish Republic; were both incredible milestones.

I don't believe there's much mourning over the loss of Italy's monarchy, is there? The Italian Republic seems to be doing just fine.

Austria-Hungary's subject states were mostly replaced by competent republics - though the experiment was cut short by WW2.

Greece and the abolishment of its monarchy really show the weakness of traditional figureheads in the face of modern governance.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It makes for a more interesting history in my opinion. But republics are better, just not as interesting.

But how are republics better?

For one, they are ruled by a group of representatives that provide more opinions than one guy on the throne, unless said guy has a split personality as they are wont to have. Depending on the kind of republic, these officials could have been elected by the people instead of attaining their post through other means.

[United Marxist Nations]

For those who think the USSR had just as bad a quality of life:

The Soviet people also benefited from a type of social liberalization. Women were to be given the same education as men and, at least legally speaking, obtained the same rights as men in the workplace. Although in practice these goals were not reached, the efforts to achieve them and the statement of theoretical equality led to a general improvement in the socio-economic status of women. Stalinist development also contributed to advances in health care, which marked a massive improvement over the Imperial era. Stalin's policies granted the Soviet people access to free health care and education. Widespread immunization programs created the first generation free from the fear of typhus and cholera. The occurrences of these diseases dropped to record-low numbers and infant mortality rates were substantially reduced, resulting in the life expectancy for both men and women to increase by over 20 years by the mid-to-late 1950s.[6] Many of the more extreme social and political ideas that were fashionable in the 1920s such as anarchism, internationalism, and the belief that the nuclear family was a bourgeois concept, were abandoned[citation needed]. Schools began to teach a more nationalistic course with emphasis on Russian history and leaders, though Marxist underpinnings necessarily remained. Stalin also began to create a Lenin cult. During the 1930s, Soviet society assumed the basic form it would maintain until its collapse in 1991.

Urban women under Stalin were also the first generation of women able to give birth in a hospital with access to prenatal care. Education was another area in which there was improvement after economic development. The generation born during Stalin's rule was the first near-universally literate generation. Engineers were sent abroad to learn industrial technology, and hundreds of foreign engineers were brought to Russia on contract. Transport links were also improved, as many new railways were built, although with forced labour, costing thousands of lives. Workers who exceeded their quotas, Stakhanovites, received many incentives for their work, although many such workers were in fact "arranged" to succeed by receiving extreme help in their work, and then their achievements were used for propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... E2%80%9353)#Changes_in_Soviet_society

And things only got better later on, when more of the harsh policies were gotten rid of.

[The New Sea Territory]

A benevolent dictatorship is still inherently authoritarian.

Authoritarianism is favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. A dictator could theoretically protect individual freedoms.

The very existence of a dictator is a violation of individual freedom to engage in government.

[Old Tyrannia]

But how are republics better?

Less power in the hands of one man (or woman).

The majority is not always benevolent, you know. Democratically elected leaders can be just as bad as those that come into power by hereditary means. And very few monarchs through history have truly been all-powerful.

This. This is why we are the best of friends.

Looking at history, monarchies have tended to be invariably much better than whatever replaced them, and monarchs have tended to be decent more often than not. In all forms of government, the important thing is to make sure there are checks on the leader's power and no one institution or individual is all-powerful. An executive constitutional monarchy with a Parliament and a politically active monarch seems like the best system for ensuring this to me, but even more autocratic monarchies like Tsarist Russia are preferable to totalitarian republics like the Soviet Union. I can't think of a single traditional monarchy that has been overthrown and replaced by a better government. Not one.

Roman Republic begs to disagree. And I'm talking about when it began with the overthrowing of the Roman Kingdom, not its end.

Wasn't the Roman Republic a corrupt oligarchy ruled by the Patrician class? I doubt that the average Roman was tangibly better off with the Senate in charge than they were under the King.

The quality of life for most under the Soviet Union was not much better, and that's just for the ones who weren't massacred, starved to death or exiled to Siberia.

Which does not refute that life in Imperial Russia was shit.

But it does go to show that overthrowing the monarchy didn't help matters. In fact, it probably made them worse.

[The Orson Empire]

Ha. No. I see no reason that a dictatorship + idiotic traditionalism is a good form of government.

Monarchs aren't always authoritarian.

They may not be authoritarian at first. However, giving absolute power that has no limits to a single person will eventually corrupt that person. Ever heard of the saying "Power tends to corrupt, but absolute power corrupts absolutely"? That applies here.

[Shaggai]

It is absolutely a good, proper, and moral form of government.

This. This is why we are the best of friends.

Looking at history, monarchies have tended to be invariably much better than whatever replaced them, and monarchs have tended to be decent more often than not. In all forms of government, the important thing is to make sure there are checks on the leader's power and no one institution or individual is all-powerful. An executive constitutional monarchy with a Parliament and a politically active monarch seems like the best system for ensuring this to me, but even more autocratic monarchies like Tsarist Russia are preferable to totalitarian republics like the Soviet Union. I can't think of a single traditional monarchy that has been overthrown and replaced by a better government. Not one.

Monarchies may be better than the systems that immediately replace them, but that doesn't mean they're good. In fact, it makes them worse. Because they get replaced.

[Geilinor]

Monarchs aren't always authoritarian.

They may not be authoritarian at first. However, giving absolute power that has no limits to a single person will eventually corrupt that person. Ever heard of the saying "Power tends to corrupt, but absolute power corrupts absolutely"? That applies here.

That applies to absolute monarchies, but not constitutional ones.

[The Fascist American Empire]

Except that's not really an argument against "monarchy" as such its an argument for competent monarchs.

Many of the Tsars were quite competent; it didn't do much to help the position of the peasantry.

Well, in all fairness, there was one who freed the serfs, I forget his name, but after he was gone his successors made it worse than ever before.

[Conserative Morality]

The majority is not always benevolent, you know. Democratically elected leaders can be just as bad as those that come into power by hereditary means. And very few monarchs through history have truly been all-powerful.

Democratic governance is not supposed to produce good or bad leaders. Democratic governance is merely a method of reflecting the will of the people in government - in terms of practical efficiency, there's little difference in one group of elected officials vs. another group of appointed officials. However, a Republic with strong enough traditions allows this form of democratic governance to serve two purposes - the ability to remove officials, regardless of their power within the state; and the reflection of popular opinion, making democratic society ultimately more stable.

There are other things that come along with democratic governance, but these two are the real purposes of a republic.

Wasn't the Roman Republic a corrupt oligarchy ruled by the Patrician class? I doubt that the average Roman was tangibly better off with the Senate in charge than they were under the King.

Patricians and plebeians were locked in a long-lasting power struggle throughout the history of the Republic, in which rights and appointments were constantly being fought over. The Republic was a corrupt oligarchy, but it allowed plebeians to have a voice, and opportunities to advance themselves.

But it does go to show that overthrowing the monarchy didn't help matters. In fact, it probably made them worse.

Regarding the Russian Revolution, it's one of those situations where while the symptoms were exacerbated, the causes were successfully combated.

[Glasgia]

Absolute monarchy is definitely not. Symbolic monarchy is not preferable, but it's tolerable in most cases.

If it's a constitutional monarchy like the UK, Netherlands, or Japan then I see no problem with it.

If it's an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or Tsarist Russia, then no.

Problem is the Dutch royal family gets a part of the tax we, the common people, pay and then randomly build giant houses in random countries. Or the government uses our money to buy an aweful ship for the former queen. Stating it's a present from the common people. Thing is, we've never been asked about our money being put in that damn ship.

No, even the Dutch constitutional monarchy is a complete disaster.

Do you at least get substantial amounts of tax income from them like in Britain? Britain is actually making a couple Million dollars from their royal family thanks to tourism, despite the maintenance costs.[/quote]

Lol nope we aren't. Though we receive £200,000,000 in tax from the royal family, which alone isn't good reason for their existence as other rich people also pay a lot in tax, we lose out on roughly £250,000,000 from inheritance tax exemptions, loss of yield through inflexibility on royal estates, servicing the royal debt and generally paying for the royals to prance about and be royal.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Roman Republic begs to disagree. And I'm talking about when it began with the overthrowing of the Roman Kingdom, not its end.

Wasn't the Roman Republic a corrupt oligarchy ruled by the Patrician class? I doubt that the average Roman was tangibly better off with the Senate in charge than they were under the King.[/quote]
It was during the days of the Roman Republic that Rome made great leaps forward, and they're the ones to whom we owe some aspects of modern government; though I admit they did need to occasionally give power to just one person, and they were corrupt near the end, but so are most governments that get overthrown, and being ineffectual or overbearing is as bad as corruption.

But it does go to show that overthrowing the monarchy didn't help matters. In fact, it probably made them worse.

Actually, as that dirty Commie (JK you lovely Socialist doll) stated above, not really.

[The New Sea Territory]

Monarchs aren't always authoritarian.

They may not be authoritarian at first. However, giving absolute power that has no limits to a single person will eventually corrupt that person. Ever heard of the saying "Power tends to corrupt, but absolute power corrupts absolutely"? That applies here.

This could be considered a slippery slope fallacy.

I wouldn't say that it will definitely corrupt that person, but that it's very, very likely, as with all forms of statism.

[Alexandreon]

Many of the Tsars were quite competent; it didn't do much to help the position of the peasantry.

Well, in all fairness, there was one who freed the serfs, I forget his name, but after he was gone his successors made it worse than ever before.

That was Alexander II, known also as Alexander the Liberator. But the very same Tsar also crushed Polish January Uprising of 1863/64 and combatted all attempts of liberalization of the Empire, at least in terms of granting the nations under Russian rule more autonomy.

[The New Sea Territory]

They may not be authoritarian at first. However, giving absolute power that has no limits to a single person will eventually corrupt that person. Ever heard of the saying "Power tends to corrupt, but absolute power corrupts absolutely"? That applies here.

That applies to absolute monarchies, but not constitutional ones.

Constitutional Monarchies are in name only. The monarch has little power, so why have a royal family anyway? They are glorified celebrities that are funded by the state.

[United Marxist Nations]

That applies to absolute monarchies, but not constitutional ones.

Constitutional Monarchies are in name only. The monarch has little power, so why have a royal family anyway? They are glorified celebrities that are funded by the state.

^This.

[Old Tyrannia]

Let's try European.

Always a favorite. Well, let's start with France - both le ancien regime and the Bourbon restoration were traditional monarchies whose replacements were infinitely better than the stagnating and inefficient government that preceded them. I understand, however, that the Revolutionary ideals of the French Republics may taint my view of these things, so I'll move on to another country.

The Reign of Terror and the French Revolutionary Wars weren't much of an improvement if you ask me. I suppose if you're a militaristic anticlerical republican...

The overthrow of the Ottoman monarchy - both in by the Young Turks in stripping the Sultan of his power, and by Ataturk in transforming the Empire into the modern Turkish Republic; were both incredible milestones.

The Young Turks were responsible for the Armenian Genocide, weren't they? And I really don't see how the Turkish Republic was a great improvement on the Ottoman Empire.

I don't believe there's much mourning over the loss of Italy's monarchy, is there? The Italian Republic seems to be doing just fine.

Ha. Ha. Ha ha. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Austria-Hungary's subject states were mostly replaced by competent republics - though the experiment was cut short by WW2.

Not really. Most of Austria-Hungary's Slavic domains became part of the eventual Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Austria became a weak short-lived republic before becoming a para-fascist dictatorship under Engelbert Dollfuß' Fatherland Front, and was finally invaded and conquered by the Nazis. Hungary became a military dictatorship after going through a brief civil war against communist insurgents. Czechoslovakia did reasonably well, I suppose, except for the ethnic tensions between Czechs and Slovaks and being forced to give up territory to Nazi Germany and its allies before being finally conquered completely.

Greece and the abolishment of its monarchy really show the weakness of traditional figureheads in the face of modern governance.

No, it doesn't. I literally have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion.

Many of the Tsars were quite competent; it didn't do much to help the position of the peasantry.

Well, in all fairness, there was one who freed the serfs, I forget his name, but after he was gone his successors made it worse than ever before.

Tsar Alexander II. He planned to give Russia its first elected legislature, too. Then he was murdered by a Narodnik revolutionary. This helped to harden his son and grandson, Alexander III and Nicholas II, against reform and led to the Empire becoming more authoritarian and autocratic rather than less.

[Valentir]

No, any form of Monarchy is shit.

#DeathtotheQueen

[Pandeeria]

No, any form of Monarchy is shit.

#DeathtotheQueen

This right here, folks.

[Old Tyrannia]

No, any form of Monarchy is shit.

#DeathtotheQueen

Republicans: So nice and reasonable they wish for the death of elderly ladies out of spite.

You people are absolute gifts to the monarchist movement.

[Andzhalswoodosia]

In the broadest sense, a monarchy is a government that is stylised as to have a 'monarch'. Some of you realise that just because something is officially or unofficially a monarchy, doesn't mean it's not democratic. A democracy doesn't need an elected head of state, providing those with power are elected. A monarchy does not need to be despotic for it to be classed as a monarchy.

We know what a monarchy is!

[The New Sea Territory]

The Reign of Terror and the French Revolutionary Wars weren't much of an improvement if you ask me. I suppose if you're a militaristic anticlerical republican...

Stop jabbing at people who dislike the idea of some rich, religious, conservative asshole sitting around and oppressing the rest of the population. The French Revolution failed, but that doesn't mean it's reasons for starting were incorrect. Being militaristic is, in my opinion counter-productive, but sometimes necessary, and don't act like your glorious king won't be militaristic either. Being anticlerical is the closest thing to virtuous, if such a thing were to exist. I'm not to big on republicanism, but it is infinitely better than monarchy.

[Shaggai]

Always a favorite. Well, let's start with France - both le ancien regime and the Bourbon restoration were traditional monarchies whose replacements were infinitely better than the stagnating and inefficient government that preceded them. I understand, however, that the Revolutionary ideals of the French Republics may taint my view of these things, so I'll move on to another country.

The Reign of Terror and the French Revolutionary Wars weren't much of an improvement if you ask me. I suppose if you're a militaristic anticlerical republican...

...who likes free speech, freedom of the press, not starving to death...

[The New Sea Territory]

No, any form of Monarchy is shit.

#DeathtotheQueen

Republicans: So nice and reasonable they wish for the death of elderly ladies out of spite.

You people are absolute gifts to the monarchist movement.

People whose power is based on some watery tart throwing a sword at them deserve to be removed from power. If they resist, then death is likely inevitable.

[United Marxist Nations]

The Reign of Terror and the French Revolutionary Wars weren't much of an improvement if you ask me. I suppose if you're a militaristic anticlerical republican...

...who likes free speech, freedom of the press, not starving to death...

Agreed, the bourgeois-liberal republic was a great step forward from the feudal monarchy.