Is monarchy a good form of government?

[Forsher]

Historically speaking you're far more likely to be overtaxed under a monarchy then a republic.

Not really... for instance, the British Empire only taxed the American colonies at 1-2% of their income, Louis XIV's government taxed about 5% of France's GDP, and there are several monarchies today that I could live in where I would be taxed far less than I am currently.

This is nothing to do with whether or not a state is a monarchy or a republic.

[Trotskylvania]

Historically speaking you're far more likely to be overtaxed under a monarchy then a republic.

Not really... for instance, the British Empire only taxed the American colonies at 1-2% of their income, Louis XIV's government taxed about 5% of France's GDP, and there are several monarchies today that I could live in where I would be taxed far less than I am currently.

You're comparing a time before widespread commodity production, when most economic production was subsistence production, whether frontier yeomanry or feudal manors. Local authorities, whether among the yeomanry or in feudal manor, used compulsory labor or goods in kind as a substitute for the payment of currency.

To say nothing of the fact that the feudal system ensured that all surplus value was taken by the nobility, the church or the crown.

Baby Jesus cries everytime a libertarian tries to write about pre-21st century history. It is invariably filled with the worst sort of anachronism and romanticism.

[Gingeska]

Polish-lithuanian style constitutional monarchy wasn't bad. With electing the king and the Sejm having a lot of power.

But generally, no.

Republic > everything else

[Seleucas]

Not really... for instance, the British Empire only taxed the American colonies at 1-2% of their income, Louis XIV's government taxed about 5% of France's GDP, and there are several monarchies today that I could live in where I would be taxed far less than I am currently.

You're comparing a time before widespread commodity production, when most economic production was subsistence production, whether frontier yeomanry or feudal manors. Local authorities, whether among the yeomanry or in feudal manor, used compulsory labor or goods in kind as a substitute for the payment of currency.

To say nothing of the fact that the feudal system ensured that all surplus value was taken by the nobility, the church or the crown.

Baby Jesus cries everytime a libertarian tries to write about pre-21st century history. It is invariably filled with the worst sort of anachronism and romanticism.

Except I specifically mentioned there are monarchies today that don't tax as much as the US. Nor does this explain why the British Empire had such a handful trying to impose basically the same sort of taxes (excise in particular) that the American Republic was able to levy with far less difficulty; certainly without sparking some farcical war (not to mention that many states allowed for peonage even into the 20th century, regardless of the abolition of slavery.) As far as Louie, I don't think the merchant republics taxed less than contemporary monarchies, but I might be mistaken. In any case, my rent alone is roughly equivalent to what was paid to a feudal landlord in kind; on top of that, I have to pay my local, state, and Federal taxes, as well as the various fees I need to pay to the government.

In any case, I don't see how my straightforward observation that I would be paying less tax in some other countries, or that the British Empire's taxation of the colonies was miniscule, somehow romanticizes monarchy. My preference is simple; I'd rather pay less tax to a monarchy than more to a republic, as I really put no stock in voting. (But, conversely, I would rather pay less tax to a republic than to a monarchy.)

Not really... for instance, the British Empire only taxed the American colonies at 1-2% of their income, Louis XIV's government taxed about 5% of France's GDP, and there are several monarchies today that I could live in where I would be taxed far less than I am currently.

This is nothing to do with whether or not a state is a monarchy or a republic.

I could see a republic taxing more than a monarchy, and vice versa. I would just prefer to be in whichever one taxes me less.

[The New Sea Territory]

Why do you dislike freedom? Do you have any logical right to rule for said strong monarch? Did he become King of the Britons because the Lady of the Lake threw a sword at him?

I don't. I want an elected Parliament with a Monarch strong enough to stop stupid legislation from becoming law. I wholeheartedly believe in the divine right of monarchs to rule their countries, that's my justification.

So you're going off the assumption that a divine being exists to give said right, making this entire claim lacking of rationality.

[Soselo]

Open-source governance is infinitely preferable to monarchy, this includes the constitutional brand.

[Soselo]

I don't. I want an elected Parliament with a Monarch strong enough to stop stupid legislation from becoming law. I wholeheartedly believe in the divine right of monarchs to rule their countries, that's my justification.

So you're going off the assumption that a divine being exists to give said right, making this entire claim lacking of rationality.

The assumption that a divine being doesn't exist to give said right, is equally irrational.

[The New Sea Territory]

So you're going off the assumption that a divine being exists to give said right, making this entire claim lacking of rationality.

The assumption that a divine being doesn't exist to give said right, is equally irrational.

Well, no it isn't. It's rational to not believe a god exists if there is no evidence for him. So, until proof that a divine being exists to give said divine right, and evidence of the actual transaction between the family and the divine figure comes to light, it's pretty rational to say that divine right is an irrational justification for authoritarian governance.

[Noord]

Constitutional monarchy, maybe.

[Dracoria]

Like any other despotic rule, it relies too heavily on the individual monarch at the time. It's very possible to have a great monarch who is father to people and friend to children. Nothing says their next of kin won't eat live puppies and use orphans as ammunition.

[True American States]

Due to the fact that most absolute monarchies thrived back when feudalism was in place and began to crack and splintered (with more and more peasants wanting freedom) once it fell I'm gonna have to say No.

[The Fascist American Empire]

...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.

One might even say that France was Communist before it was cool.

[Lalaki]

As long as the country is a free democracy, it is up to the people whether or not there should be a monarch,

[Themiclesia]

Monarchy, from μόνος "alone" ἄρχων "ruling" is neither inherently good nor bad; often I contend that few forms of government are inherently good or bad.

A kleptocracy is inherently bad for the public, for the government steals from them. A republic is inherently good, for the government pursues the welfare of the public in the most inclusive possible sense.

[Old Tyrannia]

Due to the fact that most absolute monarchies thrived back when feudalism was in place and began to crack and splintered (with more and more peasants wanting freedom) once it fell I'm gonna have to say No.

Actually, historically absolutism replaced feudalism under monarchs such as Louis XIV of France and Peter the Great of Russia, who centralised state power under the monarch at the expense of the former feudal elite.

[Laerod]

Except I specifically mentioned there are monarchies today that don't tax as much as the US.

Such as?

[West Aritian]

constitutional monarchy. Of Course Yes

Absolute Monarchy Fuck No

[Rephesus]

For me, an absolute Monarchy today is basically just an autocracy, but I actually prefer Constitutional Monarchies to Republics.

Why?

Simple, Monarchs have no power, yet they are not elected and the common citizen tends to like them. They are a source of stability in the nation, they have a lot of influence and that influence can be used to ensure a nation stays stable, for example in Thailand today, the King always tried to mediate between Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts, or post-war Spain Juan Carlos helped the nation stabilize and democratize. You can see the effect in the middle east/Arab world, some of the most stable nations are constitutional monarchies. Look at Jordan, or Morocco. You can also see it's affect on a common person's political beliefs, in Scotland the "Yes" tend to avoid mentioning the monarchy so they don't offset a large number of people who actually like Lizzy or the occasional republican. The "No" appeal to Monarchy as a binding force between Scotland the the rest.

Overall, I'm a fan of Constitutional Monarchy, simply because it helps things run smoothly. Where I am not a fan of it, is when the Monarch resides in a different nation, like commonwealth countries. I feel it's a bit of a waste, and the people in the various countries are more disconnected from the royal family than the home nation, despite the variety of tours and visits.

[Ifaltannia]

Constitutional Is Amazing, 1.There's Some Democracy Involved And 2.
Holy shit have you seen how much the U.K makes of the royal family? Fucking hell!

[The UK in Exile]

Constitutional Is Amazing, 1.There's Some Democracy Involved And 2.
Holy shit have you seen how much the U.K makes of the royal family? Fucking hell!

No. We haven't. Its never been reliably calculated.

[Ifaltannia]

Constitutional Is Amazing, 1.There's Some Democracy Involved And 2.
Holy shit have you seen how much the U.K makes of the royal family? Fucking hell!

No. We haven't. Its never been reliably calculated.

the royal family brings in about £176M to the UK treasury. And that does not include the money made by restaurants, hotels, cabs and stores. I think that is what is called a good investment.

[Papait]

Monarchy is inheritly inequality, and to give someone so many extra rights just because they were born right is wrong.

I am not per se against dictatorship though, however as a monarch would not be right.
A dictator must get to power himself, not have his ancesters do it for him

[Larthinia]

I don't like monarchy, but the royal party of Larthinia has gained very many votes...So....

[Ittasraagna]

No. We haven't. Its never been reliably calculated.

the royal family brings in about £176M to the UK treasury. And that does not include the money made by restaurants, hotels, cabs and stores. I think that is what is called a good investment.

Woah!

[The UK in Exile]

No. We haven't. Its never been reliably calculated.

the royal family brings in about £176M to the UK treasury. And that does not include the money made by restaurants, hotels, cabs and stores. I think that is what is called a good investment.

Well it cost the UK economy 1.2Bn last year.