Objections to monarchy

[Genivaria]

A ruler raised to power is far better then one born to it.
One has to earn it, the other merely inherits it.

Not many politicians in power in the USA earned their positions.

If nothing else you're required to give a good speech.

[The Parkus Empire]

I'd honestly like someone to say with a straight face that all monarchs are entitled and none of them earned their positions, because I need a laugh.

Unless they won an election, usurped power, overthrew someone, initiated some kinda coup, or use something other than their last name or a religion to justify their existence in such a privileged class, then most monarchs didn't do shit to earn their position.

Now, many monarchs may have been good leaders once they were in power, but why did they get that position of power in the first place? Because King Daddy and Queen Mommy fucked.

Napoleon got voted in as emperor, iirc. 'Course he usurped power before that.

[Forsher]

Not many politicians in power in the USA earned their positions.

They still did more than Elizabeth II.

All she did was get birthed.

And spend the next fifty plus years not doing anything that would result in no longer being Queen?

Monarchs who are crap tend not to be monarchs for very long. Destablisation and/or republicanism have been the usual replacements.

Monarchy?
A superstructural relic of societies founded on feudalism. It has no actual meaning nowadays.

(Image)

George III, Louis XVI, and Nicholas II can rot in hell.

Well, if hell existed. But you know what I'm saying.

George III really wasn't that bad. Slightly mad, yes, but not bad.

[New Randia]

*shoots him* Problem solved, war's over.

shooting me is not as easy as it sounds. better men than you have tried.

[New Randia]

why not just vote in a new monarch every fifteen years?

[The Parkus Empire]

*shoots him* Problem solved, war's over.

shooting me is not as easy as it sounds. better men than you have tried.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9noL7HHBSxU

[New Randia]

shooting me is not as easy as it sounds. better men than you have tried.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9noL7HHBSxU

thaaaats funny...

[Wikipedia and Universe]

First of all, the OP reeks of a false dichotomy between hereditary monarchy and electoral democracy. It addresses only democratist criticisms of monarchy, and it answers most of them with tu quoque arguments. I'm a democratist myself, but I have no difficulty bringing up more general criticisms of monarchy. For starters, I don't think someone is qualified to be a leader just because their parents were. As proof, one need look no further than the madness that occurred in the Roman Empire during the reign of the emperor Nero. After he was sacked, IIRC, the Romans began to choose their emperors based on merit rather than bloodline. This monarchist alternative to hereditary monarchy is one of many alternatives the OP (apparently deliberately) never discussed. The OP also made a number of generalizations about the leadership in liberal democracies, including the selection thereof, and presented them in such a way as to portray them as closed to debate and scrutiny. One such claim we were expected to accept as true was that the electoral process actually invariably selects for incompetence. The comparison between the U.S. Supreme Court and a monarchy was also amusing.

[The Parkus Empire]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9noL7HHBSxU

thaaaats funny...

Nah, homie, nah it ain't, ain't fuckin' with no gangsta like you, homie. You got mad skillz with the burner, homie, you dump on me like I da truck, homie. You strait up villain dangerous, a one-man-gang an' shit.

[Old Tyrannia]

Monarchs (and their families) are inbreeding,

Blatant lies.

of the bluest blood imaginable,

Yes. So?

and a part landed political/social class that reigns supreme.

Ugh, the grammar, so.... bad....

And its only justifications are "god" and a birthright.

Unlike republican leaders, who win a popularity contest and/or get the top job by proving they are the slimiest, most outrageous liars and backstabbers in the pool.

why not just vote in a new monarch every fifteen years?

Because that would defeat the point of having a monarch.

Monarchy?
A superstructural relic of societies founded on feudalism. It has no actual meaning nowadays.

(Image)

Ultra economic libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are schools of neo-feudalism, I'd say, so this makes sense.

Monarchy predates feudalism. Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, Sparta, the Hittite Empire, the Roman Kingdom... None of them were truly feudal, but all were hereditary monarchies.

[The ivain isles]

Monarchs (and their families) are inbreeding,

Blatant lies.

of the bluest blood imaginable,

Yes. So?

and a part landed political/social class that reigns supreme.

Ugh, the grammar, so.... bad....

And its only justifications are "god" and a birthright.

Unlike republican leaders, who win a popularity contest and/or get the top job by proving they are the slimiest, most outrageous liars and backstabbers in the pool.

why not just vote in a new monarch every fifteen years?

Because that would defeat the point of having a monarch.

Ultra economic libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are schools of neo-feudalism, I'd say, so this makes sense.

Monarchy predates feudalism. Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, Sparta, the Hittite Empire, the Roman Kingdom... None of them were truly feudal, but all were hereditary monarchies.

The Romans actuaully had an elected monarch, iirc. It was an attempt to institute a hereditary line that led to the establishment of the republic.

[Old Tyrannia]

The Romans actuaully had an elected monarch, iirc. It was an attempt to institute a hereditary line that led to the establishment of the republic.

Good point well made, although the last two kings (Servius Tullius and Tarquinius Superbus) came to the throne via familial ties to the last king rather than being elected. Servius Tullius was actually well regarded; it was Tarquinius Superbus whose actions brought about the abolishment of the monarchy.

[Indira]

As far as dumb ideologies go, absolute monarchy is a bad idea. Might I suggest studying history before coming out with such garbage? History shows that basing leadership on genetics and breeding is a bad idea. In fact, any form of government that has unaccountable leaders has been shown to be nothing short of bad, especially in the long term.

[Old Tyrannia]

As far as dumb ideologies go, absolute monarchy is a bad idea. Might I suggest studying history before coming out with such garbage? History shows that basing leadership on genetics and breeding is a bad idea. In fact, any form of government that has unaccountable leaders has been shown to be nothing short of bad, especially in the long term.

Bullshit. The majority of history's most successful societies have been monarchies of some form or another. Ancient Egypt, Imperial China, the Roman and later Byzantine Empire, the Mongol Empire, the British Empire... Nor are monarchies necessarily "unaccountable;" most historical monarchies have been bound by the law and tradition of their domain. By contrast, some of the most ineffectual, short-lived or outright despicable regimes have come to power via the democratic process. Adolf Hitler, for example, was elected. Even as early as ancient Athens, Socrates was forced to commit suicide by the democratic leadership of the city because he disagreed with them.

[Vazdania]

As far as dumb ideologies go, absolute monarchy is a bad idea. Might I suggest studying history before coming out with such garbage? History shows that basing leadership on genetics and breeding is a bad idea. In fact, any form of government that has unaccountable leaders has been shown to be nothing short of bad, especially in the long term.

Bullshit. The majority of history's most successful societies have been monarchies of some form or another. Ancient Egypt, Imperial China, the Roman and later Byzantine Empire, the Mongol Empire, the British Empire... Nor are monarchies necessarily "unaccountable;" most historical monarchies have been bound by the law and tradition of their domain. By contrast, some of the most ineffectual, short-lived or outright despicable regimes have come to power via the democratic process. Adolf Hitler, for example, was elected. Even as early as ancient Athens, Socrates was forced to commit suicide by the democratic leadership of the city because he disagreed with them.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO burn.

[Condunum]

Not many politicians in power in the USA earned their positions.

If nothing else you're required to give a good speech.

Until we can actually produce a system where you're required to rise on the merits of your intellect and skill, we cannot use our system to criticize another. It's the pot calling the kettle a darker shade of black, it doesn't work.

[Genivaria]

If nothing else you're required to give a good speech.

Until we can actually produce a system where you're required to rise on the merits of your intellect and skill, we cannot use our system to criticize another. It's the pot calling the kettle a darker shade of black, it doesn't work.

So what you want the Turian Hierarchy? I'm down with that.

[Condunum]

Until we can actually produce a system where you're required to rise on the merits of your intellect and skill, we cannot use our system to criticize another. It's the pot calling the kettle a darker shade of black, it doesn't work.

So what you want the Turian Hierarchy? I'm down with that.

Minus the shaming of the person who promotes you to a new position, yes. Meritocracy is nice.

[Telsia]

NO REPUBLIC! MY COUNTRY, MY MONARCHY, MY CONSTITUTION.

Keep Australia a Constitutional Monarchy!

[Genivaria]

So what you want the Turian Hierarchy? I'm down with that.

Minus the shaming of the person who promotes you to a new position, yes. Meritocracy is nice.

What's wrong with that one? It's supposed to discourage promoting people before they're ready.

[Old Tyrannia]

So what you want the Turian Hierarchy? I'm down with that.

Minus the shaming of the person who promotes you to a new position, yes. Meritocracy is nice.

You say meritocracy, I say social Darwinism.

[Genivaria]

Minus the shaming of the person who promotes you to a new position, yes. Meritocracy is nice.

You say meritocracy, I say social Darwinism.

Not seeing the Social Darwinism.

[Old Tyrannia]

You say meritocracy, I say social Darwinism.

Not seeing the Social Darwinism.

The principle is the same. You rise through society on your own merit, leaving the weaker members of society behind. Thus, you end up with an elite that feels it has the right to be an elite, because they were the best of the bunch, and therefore feels no obligation to the lower orders of society because it's their own fault for being unsuccesful.

[Genivaria]

Not seeing the Social Darwinism.

The principle is the same. You rise through society on your own merit, leaving the weaker members of society behind. Thus, you end up with an elite that feels it has the right to be an elite, because they were the best of the bunch, and therefore feels no obligation to the lower orders of society because it's their own fault for being unsuccesful.

I don't see that. Not everyone is cut out to be a leader, that doesn't mean that you're inherently 'better' then the others.
If anything it should provide a degree of empathy with your troops after having to be a grunt like everyone else.

[Blasveck]

Not seeing the Social Darwinism.

The principle is the same. You rise through society on your own merit, leaving the weaker members of society behind. Thus, you end up with an elite that feels it has the right to be an elite, because they were the best of the bunch, and therefore feels no obligation to the lower orders of society because it's their own fault for being unsuccesful.

Are you pro-monarchy?