Why monarchy?

[The Wolven League]

Democracy and Republicanism is stupid, giving the people power is like letting a cat tell you what to do in life; they don't know what humans normally do, and would give you some pretty crappy advice. The people don't know about politics than what the lie-filled commercials tell them, and vote for the worst choice possible.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Democracy and Republicanism is stupid, giving the people power is like letting a cat tell you what to do in life; they don't know what humans normally do, and would give you some pretty crappy advice. The people don't know about politics than what the lie-filled commercials tell them, and vote for the worst choice possible.

How can you be so sure the monarchy won't be the same way?

[Old Tyrannia]

Democracy and Republicanism is stupid, giving the people power is like letting a cat tell you what to do in life; they don't know what humans normally do, and would give you some pretty crappy advice. The people don't know about politics than what the lie-filled commercials tell them, and vote for the worst choice possible.

How can you be so sure the monarchy won't be the same way?

... Because if there's no voting, no one can vote for the worst possible choice? Pretty damn obvious.

Nobility is by no means an "enemy of progress." What better way to be recognized than to have one of your vassels come up with the next great thing???

What better way to retain a social order than to subjugate an uneducated workforce bound to the land?

What better way to attack an opposing argument you have no real counterargument to than to attack a strawman instead?

[The Cold Place]

Democracy and Republicanism is stupid, giving the people power is like letting a cat tell you what to do in life; they don't know what humans normally do, and would give you some pretty crappy advice. The people don't know about politics than what the lie-filled commercials tell them, and vote for the worst choice possible.

Monarchy without democracy is hopelessly idiotic as it assumes that the next person in line to the throne is fully competent to rule.

It is much harder to remove an incompetent autocratic ruler than an incompetent democratic ruler.
Deposing a monarchy is also a much more messy processes.

The people don't know about politics than what the lie-filled commercials tell them, and vote for the worst choice possible.

This is not always true, take for instance either Roosevelt, and not everyone votes based off of television commercials.
There is nothing to stop a monarch from being lie filled either.

[The Cold Place]

How can you be so sure the monarchy won't be the same way?

... Because if there's no voting, no one can vote for the worst possible choice? Pretty damn obvious.

There would still be someone to vote for the worst possible choice...whoever is in control.

[Kelinfort]

Democracy and Republicanism is stupid, giving the people power is like letting a cat tell you what to do in life; they don't know what humans normally do, and would give you some pretty crappy advice. The people don't know about politics than what the lie-filled commercials tell them, and vote for the worst choice possible.

Right. Monarchy improves this by giving a few rich assholes a choice, or better yet a family, then you can get a blithering idiot or a slightly better ruler...for the rest of their life.

Sorry to say I prefer only four to five years of a moron than twenty.

[Old Tyrannia]

... Because if there's no voting, no one can vote for the worst possible choice? Pretty damn obvious.

There would still be someone to vote for the worst possible choice...whoever is in control.

That's not a vote. That's just a decision.

[The Cold Place]

There would still be someone to vote for the worst possible choice...whoever is in control.

That's not a vote. That's just a decision.

A decision can be the same thing as a vote for the worst possible choice would be.
Also, if one person, or a small group of people, are in control they are effectively the electorate.

[The Cobalt Sky]

There would still be someone to vote for the worst possible choice...whoever is in control.

That's not a vote. That's just a decision.

Even if no one is voting the leader could still be a moron. How do you propose we keep good, smart leaders forever? Also, someone has to decide who's next in line.

[The Cold Place]

That's not a vote. That's just a decision.

Even if no one is voting the leader could still be a moron. How do you propose we keep good, smart leaders forever? Also, some has to decide who's next in line.

There is a long tradition of somewhat decent sovereigns being succeeded by imbeciles.

Wilhelm ii belongs in that category.

[Old Tyrannia]

That's not a vote. That's just a decision.

A decision can be the same thing as a vote for the worst possible choice would be.
Also, if one person, or a small group of people, are in control they are effectively the electorate.

Except there's no elections. I'm not disputing the point that a monarch could make poor decisions, I'm pointing out that "the same thing could happen in a monarchy" is a pretty vague and stupid thing to say. What same thing? People mighty vote for a poor leader? Obviously not going to happen if people are not voting for their leader. A more sensible point to make would be that a monarch could possibly make the same poor decisions as an elected representative or appoint ministers who were incompetent. While being very true, however, the fact that monarchy is not immune to bad decisions hardly vindicates democracy, which is just as prone to poor decisions. The faultless government exists only in people's imaginations. Perfection is beyond the grasp of lowly mortals such as ourselves.

[The Cold Place]

A decision can be the same thing as a vote for the worst possible choice would be.
Also, if one person, or a small group of people, are in control they are effectively the electorate.

Except there's no elections. I'm not disputing the point that a monarch could make poor decisions, I'm pointing out that "the same thing could happen in a monarchy" is a pretty vague and stupid thing to say.

Actually, it is not a vague thing to say. I would further assert that a monarch would usually devolve into actions which would destabilize the nation that would be difficult to accomplish in a functional, democratic nation. $20 million dollar parties belong in that category.

What same thing? People mighty vote for a poor leader? Obviously not going to happen if people are not voting for their leader.

I am not talking about people voting for "leaders", I am talking about regular citizens voting for legislation (directly, or through representation) vs monarchs choosing legislation.

A more sensible point to make would be that a monarch could possibly make the same poor decisions as an elected representative or appoint ministers who were incompetent. While being very true, however, the fact that monarchy is not immune to bad decisions hardly vindicates democracy, which is just as prone to poor decisions. The faultless government exists only in people's imaginations. Perfection is beyond the grasp of lowly mortals such as ourselves.

No, when a democratically elected official makes a idiotic decision they can be voted out. When a monarch does the same they are still there until they abdicate or are killed/exiled.
The fact that democracy has a strategy for regime change does vindicate democracy.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Even if no one is voting the leader could still be a moron. How do you propose we keep good, smart leaders forever? Also, some has to decide who's next in line.

There is a long tradition of somewhat decent sovereigns being succeeded by imbeciles.

Wilhelm ii belongs in that category.

Yes. I'm agreeing with you.

[Zottistan]

Presumably because everybody likes to feel unique and special.

[Forsher]

Democracy and The Republic are unnecessary!

By Platonic standards yes.

Today's standards however no.

When there are posts which use today's standards to reach the same conclusion and you reply to one like this...

[Benuty]

By Platonic standards yes.

Today's standards however no.

When there are posts which use today's standards to reach the same conclusion and you reply to one like this...

Given they probably brainwash themselves concerning Plato's thoughts about Philosopher kings it is a miracle they haven't destroyed something yet.

[Forsher]

When there are posts which use today's standards to reach the same conclusion and you reply to one like this...

Given they probably brainwash themselves concerning Plato's thoughts about Philosopher kings it is a miracle they haven't destroyed something yet.

I was insinuating that you set up a strawman by proxy.

[Vazdaria]

When there are posts which use today's standards to reach the same conclusion and you reply to one like this...

Given they probably brainwash themselves concerning Plato's thoughts about Philosopher kings it is a miracle they haven't destroyed something yet.

I could hardly care about what Plato has to say on the matter. What authority is Plato on the matter anyway? His concept of Philsopher Kings is completely idiotic.

[Vazdaria]

That's not a vote. That's just a decision.

Even if no one is voting the leader could still be a moron. How do you propose we keep good, smart leaders forever? Also, someone has to decide who's next in line.

By proper education, of course.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Even if no one is voting the leader could still be a moron. How do you propose we keep good, smart leaders forever? Also, someone has to decide who's next in line.

By proper education, of course.

How do you make sure it's never corrupted? Also, if such an education is given to a select body of people, I don't see why it shouldn't be given to everyone.

[Vazdaria]

By proper education, of course.

How do you make sure it's never corrupted? Also, if such an education is given to a select body of people, I don't see why it shouldn't be given to everyone.

We can never guarantee that, just as we can never guarantee that a Democratic Republic won't be corrupted either.

However, the probability that the Executive will make good decisions ultimately increases if they are raised and educated to lead a country.

[Dinake]

By proper education, of course.

How do you make sure it's never corrupted? Also, if such an education is given to a select body of people, I don't see why it shouldn't be given to everyone.

It's a problem of practicality. Giving such an education to everyone is just not feasible.

[Vazdaria]

By proper education, of course.

How do you make sure it's never corrupted? Also, if such an education is given to a select body of people, I don't see why it shouldn't be given to everyone.

Also, not everyone wants to be a "Political Scientist" extraordinaire that the Executive must be. Some people want to be a baker, or an astronaut, which do not require this knowledge.

[Utceforp]

Democracy and Republicanism is stupid, giving the people power is like letting a cat tell you what to do in life; they don't know what humans normally do, and would give you some pretty crappy advice. The people don't know about politics than what the lie-filled commercials tell them, and vote for the worst choice possible.

Yes, people are ignorant and biased. The problem is, monarchs are people too. Democracy is inherently flawed, because any system of government that involves human beings is inherently flawed, but it's the least flawed system of government.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Democracy and Republicanism is stupid, giving the people power is like letting a cat tell you what to do in life; they don't know what humans normally do, and would give you some pretty crappy advice. The people don't know about politics than what the lie-filled commercials tell them, and vote for the worst choice possible.

And clearly you're just so much smarter than all those sheeple, baby. Mommy always patted you on the head and told you so.