Is monarchy a good form of government?

[Distruzio]

Whereas several dudes in control of a whole country is really, seriously, a better option?

Yes, if those dudes are elected representatives.

Mmmhmmm... so, in what way do monarchists present an argument hostile to that in this thread?

[Afro-Euasia]

Yes and no,yes because we don't have to wait 3 months for a law to pass,and no because a king can suppress its people.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Yes, if those dudes are elected representatives.

Mmmhmmm... so, in what way do monarchists present an argument hostile to that in this thread?

Depends on the monarchists in question. A constitutional parliamentary monarchy or something along that line is fine if the monarch is competent and/or greatly limited in power (Hence why I hate Britain for its food and people and not its monarch); an absolute monarchy, not so much (If the leader is at least competent and fair I might give a pass for a single generation, but no nepotism). My definition of monarchy is very vague: a government with a monarch as head of state. A monarch: the head of state of a monarchy. Really, there have been so many kinds of monarchies that the definition has to be broad. I mean, how can an elective absolute monarchy be in the same category as a hereditary parliamentary monarchy if not because of presentation?

The issue I mostly have is with nepotism in a system where the monarch has a large amount of power.

[Benuty]

An inbred blood cult does not a good government make.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

An inbred blood cult does not a good government make.

Don't you always use,"An X does not a Y make?"

[British Prussia]

I think a monarch should just have enough power. If it's too much, well, you might get someone like Joffrey Baratheon on the throne. If it's not enough, well, there isn't much a monarch will be able to do, which means it's pretty much a republican democracy already. Let's say, stopping Mussolini or the Imperial Red Army from completely taking over the country.

[Liberaxia]

Monarchy is a moral abomination. Democratic republicanism is superior.

[Liberaxia]

Monarchy is hardly an acceptable form of government in this modern world. A "Good monarchy" would depend on the monarch, but humanity is rarely known for its responsible use of power.

But if humans really are so irresponsible, what's more likely- one person turning out to be responsible, or a majority of people turning out to be responsible? Why is one tyrant worse than a thousand or a million?

History.

[The UK in Exile]

Monarchy is hardly an acceptable form of government in this modern world. A "Good monarchy" would depend on the monarch, but humanity is rarely known for its responsible use of power.

But if humans really are so irresponsible, what's more likely- one person turning out to be responsible, or a majority of people turning out to be responsible? Why is one tyrant worse than a thousand or a million?

Democracy is homeopathic Monarchy, it takes something incredibly dangerous and dilutes millions of times until it can't do any real damage.

[Yenove]

pretty sure Liechtenstein is slightly monarch. no?
they don't mind. I think.

[Celritannia]

Monarchy is a moral abomination. Democratic republicanism is superior.

Not really.
Plenty of species in the animal kingdom have one leader to rule them. The Alpha Wolf for example.
Yes, these creatures roam in small groups, but you cannot deny that in some respect, have one person to look over the many is sometimes necessary, but not entirely essential.

This also depends on the form of Monarchy people refer to.
As I stated before, I am an non-hereditary Arbitrational Monarchist, since I follow the original term and not the modern cultural implication.

[Sebastianbourg]

pretty sure Liechtenstein is slightly monarch. no?
they don't mind. I think.

Yes, Liechtenstein is a monarchy (a principality to be precise). They seem to be quite happy with the monarchy and in 2012 they rejected a proposal to strip the Prince of his veto power.

[Distruzio]

Monarchy is a moral abomination. Democratic republicanism is superior.

What is it you're so fond of saying?

"Democratic Republicanism is just a zing word."

[Distruzio]

But if humans really are so irresponsible, what's more likely- one person turning out to be responsible, or a majority of people turning out to be responsible? Why is one tyrant worse than a thousand or a million?

Democracy is homeopathic Monarchy, it takes something incredibly dangerous and dilutes millions of times until it can't do any real damage.

Oh, is that how it works? Magic?

[The Martial State]

Insofar as monarchies are freer than democracies, yes.

[District XIV]

Insofar as monarchies are freer than democracies

Source?

[The UK in Exile]

Democracy is homeopathic Monarchy, it takes something incredibly dangerous and dilutes millions of times until it can't do any real damage.

Oh, is that how it works? Magic?

No, Dilution.

[Arkinesia]

No. 1450 was a long goddamn time ago.

[British Prussia]

No. 1450 was a long goddamn time ago.

Democracy's even older... By that logic, we must all follow North Korean Communism or Mussolini's fascism because they're newer ideologies.

[Old Tyrannia]

No. 1450 was a long goddamn time ago.

I'll never understand the assumption some people make that because something has been around for a long time, that means it must be bad.

Time to demolish the Pyramids of Giza, eh? And as for democracy- well, 550 BC was a really long goddamn time ago.

EDIT: Ninja'd by British Prussia.

[Immoren]

Time to demolish the Pyramids of Giza, eh?

Isn't this what they did in the Brave New World?

[Old Tyrannia]

Time to demolish the Pyramids of Giza, eh?

Isn't this what they did in the Brave New World?

I don't know, I've never read it. But perhaps I should. It sounds like an enlightening book.

[Immoren]

Isn't this what they did in the Brave New World?

I don't know, I've never read it. But perhaps I should. It sounds like an enlightening book.

IIRC in the book's history the one of the efforts by the World Power to create population that was happy and content was to destroy all traces of past history (and art, culture, philosophy etc.), except for select people in alpha caste, so that people would live in present instead of burdening themselves with past.

[Old Tyrannia]

I don't know, I've never read it. But perhaps I should. It sounds like an enlightening book.

IIRC in the book's history the one of the efforts by the World Power to create population that was happy and content was to destroy all traces of past history (and art, culture, philosophy etc.), except for select people in alpha caste, so that people would live in present instead of burdening themselves with past.

Sounds somewhat like 1984. Although I've read that Huxley and Orwell's dystopias are rather different.

[The UK in Exile]

No. 1450 was a long goddamn time ago.

Democracy's even older... By that logic, we must all follow North Korean Communism or Mussolini's fascism because they're newer ideologies.

Except the argument put forward for democracy is rarely "well its exactly how (and who) it was in 1450 and it worked well then".