Is monarchy a good form of government?

[The Nihilistic view]

The best and only form of proper government is constitutional monarchy. All else is inherently inferior!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cedoria]

What do you think? Is monarchy acceptable or not?

Depends on the Monarch.

[Immoren]

The best and only form of proper government is constitutional monarchy. All else is inherently inferior!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Velkia]

if its a constitutional form of monarchy where the monarch is a figurehead I see nothing wrong with it

[Monkeykind]

The best and only form of proper government is constitutional monarchy. All else is inherently inferior!!!!!!!!!!!!

So that ranked idiot.

[The Orson Empire]

It is acceptable.

I'd welcome a return to it for a change, so long as we pick a benevolent dictator to form the new lineage.

Its good if you want firm leadership, national unity, and decisiveness against the forces of evil.

A benevolent dictator will not stay benevolent for long. Giving an incredible amount of power to a single person will inevitably corrupt them. It has been proven over and over again in Human history.

[Infected Mushroom]

It is acceptable.

I'd welcome a return to it for a change, so long as we pick a benevolent dictator to form the new lineage.

Its good if you want firm leadership, national unity, and decisiveness against the forces of evil.

A benevolent dictator will not stay benevolent for long. Giving an incredible amount of power to a single person will inevitably corrupt them. It has been proven over and over again in Human history.

What about Frederick the Great and Emperor Augustus?

[The Orson Empire]

A benevolent dictator will not stay benevolent for long. Giving an incredible amount of power to a single person will inevitably corrupt them. It has been proven over and over again in Human history.

What about Frederick the Great and Emperor Augustus?

Neither of them were benevolent. Even if they were, they would be exceptions, not the rule. While a benevolent dictatorship could go well at first, it is inevitable that someone who is tyrannical would eventually take power.

[Infected Mushroom]

What about Frederick the Great and Emperor Augustus?

Neither of them were benevolent. Even if they were, they would be exceptions, not the rule. While a benevolent dictatorship could go well at first, it is inevitable that someone who is tyrannical would eventually take power.

not if we pick someone who's really good at picking successors and so on...

[Distruzio]

Why merely constitutional?

Britain has no constitution. Would you say that the UK is a despotic nation of nations?

Of course Britain has a constitution. It is not codified, but it certainly exists.

Is a "living" constitution the same thing as a codified constitution? How so?

[Seleucas]

Of course Britain has a constitution. It is not codified, but it certainly exists.

Is a "living" constitution the same thing as a codified constitution? How so?

Isn't the main principle of British jurisprudence parliamentary sovereignty, which is about as legally positivist as one can get?

[The Orson Empire]

Neither of them were benevolent. Even if they were, they would be exceptions, not the rule. While a benevolent dictatorship could go well at first, it is inevitable that someone who is tyrannical would eventually take power.

not if we pick someone who's really good at picking successors and so on...

And how would we know who that person is? People are generally biased, and so they would pick the person they liked the most, which may not necessarily be the best for the entire country.

This is why the notion of a "benevolent" dictatorship is nonsense.

[Distruzio]

Is a "living" constitution the same thing as a codified constitution? How so?

Isn't the main principle of British jurisprudence parliamentary sovereignty, which is about as legally positivist as one can get?

Yes, indeed.

[Infected Mushroom]

not if we pick someone who's really good at picking successors and so on...

And how would we know who that person is? People are generally biased, and so they would pick the person they liked the most, which may not necessarily be the best for the entire country.

This is why the notion of a "benevolent" dictatorship is nonsense.

you would search really hard for a real man of honor... someone who can't be corrupted, impeccable moral character, is good at leadership, and good at raising successors. We should try to get someone as close to the character of Lord Eddard Stark of Winterfell as possible... a real man of honor who will always do what is right. Someone who will defy public opinion whenever it is necessary and not be bound by public opinion.

He would be selected by a council of the nation's best judges of characters and technical experts from a variety of fields. This council wouldn't be democratic (it wouldn't be made of the elected representatives of the public), it would be technocratic and meritocratic (based on achievement, expertise and merit).

When he is selected, he would be allowed to sit on the throne and start changing the nation for the better.

[Monkeykind]

Monarchies are good.

[Distruzio]

not if we pick someone who's really good at picking successors and so on...

And how would we know who that person is? People are generally biased, and so they would pick the person they liked the most, which may not necessarily be the best for the entire country.

This is why the notion of a "benevolent" dictatorship is nonsense.

That doesn't reveal benevolent dictatorships as nonsense. It, instead, reveals a fundamental flaw in the misconception that dictatorship begets meritocracy. In addition it reveals the democratic underpinnings of dictatorships.

[Fumonoxii]

First instinct is no, but there are countries like the UK or Thailand where monarchs don't actually hold any real power, and generate a fair bit of income through royal lands/resources/whatever. While I'm still against it, that might do it for some.

[Seleucas]

And how would we know who that person is? People are generally biased, and so they would pick the person they liked the most, which may not necessarily be the best for the entire country.

This is why the notion of a "benevolent" dictatorship is nonsense.

That doesn't reveal benevolent dictatorships as nonsense. It, instead, reveals a fundamental flaw in the misconception that dictatorship begets meritocracy. In addition it reveals the democratic underpinnings of dictatorships.

It seems to make a better argument for some sort of technocracy, than it does for either dictatorship or democracy. (How are the people supposed to know enough about everything to know who knows enough to have this delegated responsibility? Especially considering that the point of representation is to have someone who will have a more intimate knowledge of public policy than their constituency?)

[Distruzio]

That doesn't reveal benevolent dictatorships as nonsense. It, instead, reveals a fundamental flaw in the misconception that dictatorship begets meritocracy. In addition it reveals the democratic underpinnings of dictatorships.

It seems to make a better argument for some sort of technocracy, than it does for either dictatorship or democracy. (How are the people supposed to know enough about everything to know who knows enough to have this delegated responsibility? Especially considering that the point of representation is to have someone who will have a more intimate knowledge of public policy than their constituency?)

Again, indeed.

[The Glass Hills]

What do you think? Is monarchy acceptable or not?

It depends on a variety of things; elected or hereditary? Constitutional or absolute? And also upon the personality of the individual monarch.

In the case of the British Monarchy, I believe it does a lot of good for the country.

[Shaggai]

And how would we know who that person is? People are generally biased, and so they would pick the person they liked the most, which may not necessarily be the best for the entire country.

This is why the notion of a "benevolent" dictatorship is nonsense.

That doesn't reveal benevolent dictatorships as nonsense. It, instead, reveals a fundamental flaw in the misconception that dictatorship begets meritocracy. In addition it reveals the democratic underpinnings of dictatorships.

Only if the dictatorships are chosen by that method. To the best of my knowledge, that's never happened.

[Distruzio]

That doesn't reveal benevolent dictatorships as nonsense. It, instead, reveals a fundamental flaw in the misconception that dictatorship begets meritocracy. In addition it reveals the democratic underpinnings of dictatorships.

Only if the dictatorships are chosen by that method. To the best of my knowledge, that's never happened.

Nazi Germany? Fascist Italy? Fascist Spain? Etc etc.

[Nord Amour]

Of course not. Silly, European nationalism can never justify such a barbaric form of government. In modern society, people will almost always rebel against despotism.

[The Glass Hills]

Of course not. Silly, European nationalism can never justify such a barbaric form of government. In modern society, people will almost always rebel against despotism.

But a monarch isn't necessarily a despot.

[Nord Amour]

Of course not. Silly, European nationalism can never justify such a barbaric form of government. In modern society, people will almost always rebel against despotism.

But a monarch isn't necessarily a despot.

The OP never said, "constitutional monarchy," "British monarchy," "Norwegian monarchy," etc.

Those aren't real monarchs anyway.