Objections to monarchy

[Forster Keys]

Obviously 'God' meant for the cardinals to be bribed.
*nods*

yes sometimes the Lord works in mysterious ways...

Men sin... but God's plan and will will always triumph in the grand end of things...

Well I guess the Right Faction of the NSW Labor Party works in mysterious ways too.

[The Emerald Legion]

It's even more delusional than democracy. It's a sad attempt to ground oneself to the world by clinging on to the foolish ideals of the long dead.

Democracy at least is actually effective at meeting it's goals. Even if it's goals are misguided. Monarchy is nothing more than an overgrown tradition of nepotism. It is neither noble, nor uniting.

[Xsyne]

yes sometimes the Lord works in mysterious ways...

Men sin... but God's plan and will will always triumph in the grand end of things...

Translation: 'God' favors corruption.

There's a reason why God is called the Father.

[Esternial]

Monarchy is mainly about culture more than anything, though it all depends on the king. Our former king Albert II was a very compliant king, unlike his predecessor who - for example - initially refused to sign the law legalising abortion. I'm not sure what Philip will make of it, but I'm hopeful that he'll walk along the same path and act as a figurehead rather than an actual leader.

The only problem I have with our royal family is the shitload of money they get, which is partially because Albert II was so compliant that politicians agreed to load him and his family with cash.

[Free Soviets]

it seems to me that there is a strong negative relation between the power of a monarch and how well a society flourishes. the only decent monarchies have all been ones in which power is held by elected representatives and monarchs are mostly for waving in parades. and this is even under 'good' monarchs. historically, they just haven't been able to secure peace and prosperity as well as democracies.

at a guess, it'd be because powerful monarchs get involved in games of international dominance and prestige, which are based on displays of personal wealth and power rather than keeping people happy. the people they have to impress or dominate are other rulers, not the populace being ruled. the incentives are all wrong.

and for all the talk about democracies leading to people plundering the treasury, it just doesn't happen as much as it does with a bunch of inbred nobility running around controlling stuff. established democracies are actually pretty decent at managing wealth, though they do fall prey to the short term stupidities of the people from time to time. but the stupidities wind up making people unhappy, and democracy gives people a way to fix that without starting civil wars.

the only real difficulties for democracies seem to come during the transition state, before democratic norms have become engrained in society (and especially in the military), or during one of the times when the world is thrown into chaos and authoritarians are able to use it to their advantage. but these problems seem to be no worse than what you get with monarchies, and, in many way, appear easier to deal with.

[Augarundus]

it seems to me that there is a strong negative relation between the power of a monarch and how well a society flourishes. the only decent monarchies have all been ones in which power is held by elected representatives and monarchs are mostly for waving in parades. and this is even under 'good' monarchs. historically, they just haven't been able to secure peace and prosperity as well as democracies.

at a guess, it'd be because powerful monarchs get involved in games of international dominance and prestige, which are based on displays of personal wealth and power rather than keeping people happy. the people they have to impress or dominate are other rulers, not the populace being ruled. the incentives are all wrong.

and for all the talk about democracies leading to people plundering the treasury, it just doesn't happen as much as it does with a bunch of inbred nobility running around controlling stuff. established democracies are actually pretty decent at managing wealth, though they do fall prey to the short term stupidities of the people from time to time. but the stupidities wind up making people unhappy, and democracy gives people a way to fix that without starting civil wars.

the only real difficulties for democracies seem to come during the transition state, before democratic norms have become engrained in society (and especially in the military), or during one of the times when the world is thrown into chaos and authoritarians are able to use it to their advantage. but these problems seem to be no worse than what you get with monarchies, and, in many way, appear easier to deal with.

Sorry, but there are a few problems here. Notably the total absence of any statistics or analysis. I will provide both:

1) According to Jedidiah Royal (in "Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives", Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction Policy at the US Department of Defense), the correlation between democracy and war is greater than that of monarchy and war because, democracies are subject to 'diversionary theory' which "suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. [...] This tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to a lack of democratic support." Particularly in the case of the United States, where evidence has proven that "weak presidential popularity [is] statistically linked to an increase in the use of force".

The drive "to keep people happy" which you suggest monarchs do not have is, in fact, linked to an increase in violence. Note that this is not just a statistical correlation (unlike the contention that monarchies are poorer or more warlike than democracies) - Royal proposes a theoretical causal relationship that these statistics show to be accurate.

2) Not sure how exactly to respond to your economic points, given that you've really not made any specific claims here. Hans Hoppe provides great analysis on the incentive structures that make democracy comparatively more wasteful and short-sighted with respect to economic policy (democratic leaders have little to no stake in the long-term stability of a nation - only in their short-term reelection, so they must plunder the nation's coffers to pay off their friends: they have a low/short time preference for consumption. Monarchs have a long-time preference, meaning they have a preference for capital accumulation, not capital expenditures). Your only response was "democracies are pretty decent" (no warrant for this claim).

Opponents of democracy have provided a theory (see: Hans Hoppe's), and the empirical evidence is obvious: modern day western debt crises and economic catastrophes. History very clearly proves the case that democracies are short-sighted.

3) Civil wars don't occur in democracies? Funny, because I can think of one that did.

4) Democracies are not internally stable, as Hans Hoppe, professor Emeritus of Economics from the University of Nevada Las Vegas, shows: "Fourth and intimately related, the democratic-peace theorists claim that democracy represents a stable "equilibrium." This has been expressed most clearly by Francis Fukuyama, who labeled the new democratic world order as the "end of history." However, overwhelming evidence exists that this claim is patently wrong. On theoretical grounds: How can democracy be a stable equilibrium if it is possible that it be transformed democratically into a dictatorship, i.e., a system which is considered not stable? Answer: that makes no sense! Moreover, empirically democracies are anything but stable. As indicated, in multi-cultural societies democracy regularly leads to the discrimination, oppression, or even expulsion and extermination of minorities — hardly a peaceful equilibrium. And in ethnically homogeneous societies, democracy regularly leads to class warfare, which leads to economic crisis, which leads to dictatorship. Think, for example, of post-Czarist Russia, post-World War I Italy, Weimar Germany, Spain, Portugal, and in more recent times Greece, Turkey, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, and Pakistan. "

[Tlaceceyaya]

it seems to me that there is a strong negative relation between the power of a monarch and how well a society flourishes. the only decent monarchies have all been ones in which power is held by elected representatives and monarchs are mostly for waving in parades. and this is even under 'good' monarchs. historically, they just haven't been able to secure peace and prosperity as well as democracies.

at a guess, it'd be because powerful monarchs get involved in games of international dominance and prestige, which are based on displays of personal wealth and power rather than keeping people happy. the people they have to impress or dominate are other rulers, not the populace being ruled. the incentives are all wrong.

and for all the talk about democracies leading to people plundering the treasury, it just doesn't happen as much as it does with a bunch of inbred nobility running around controlling stuff. established democracies are actually pretty decent at managing wealth, though they do fall prey to the short term stupidities of the people from time to time. but the stupidities wind up making people unhappy, and democracy gives people a way to fix that without starting civil wars.

the only real difficulties for democracies seem to come during the transition state, before democratic norms have become engrained in society (and especially in the military), or during one of the times when the world is thrown into chaos and authoritarians are able to use it to their advantage. but these problems seem to be no worse than what you get with monarchies, and, in many way, appear easier to deal with.

Sorry, but there are a few problems here. Notably the total absence of any statistics or analysis. I will provide both:

1) According to Jedidiah Royal (in "Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives", Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction Policy at the US Department of Defense), the correlation between democracy and war is greater than that of monarchy and war because, democracies are subject to 'diversionary theory' which "suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. [...] This tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to a lack of democratic support." Particularly in the case of the United States, where evidence has proven that "weak presidential popularity [is] statistically linked to an increase in the use of force".

The drive "to keep people happy" which you suggest monarchs do not have is, in fact, linked to an increase in violence. Note that this is not just a statistical correlation (unlike the contention that monarchies are poorer or more warlike than democracies) - Royal proposes a theoretical causal relationship that these statistics show to be accurate.

2) Not sure how exactly to respond to your economic points, given that you've really not made any specific claims here. Hans Hoppe provides great analysis on the incentive structures that make democracy comparatively more wasteful and short-sighted with respect to economic policy (democratic leaders have little to no stake in the long-term stability of a nation - only in their short-term reelection, so they must plunder the nation's coffers to pay off their friends: they have a low/short time preference for consumption. Monarchs have a long-time preference, meaning they have a preference for capital accumulation, not capital expenditures). Your only response was "democracies are pretty decent" (no warrant for this claim).

Opponents of democracy have provided a theory (see: Hans Hoppe's), and the empirical evidence is obvious: modern day western debt crises and economic catastrophes. History very clearly proves the case that democracies are short-sighted.

3) Civil wars don't occur in democracies? Funny, because I can think of one that did.

4) Democracies are not internally stable, as Hans Hoppe, professor Emeritus of Economics from the University of Nevada Las Vegas, shows: "Fourth and intimately related, the democratic-peace theorists claim that democracy represents a stable "equilibrium." This has been expressed most clearly by Francis Fukuyama, who labeled the new democratic world order as the "end of history." However, overwhelming evidence exists that this claim is patently wrong. On theoretical grounds: How can democracy be a stable equilibrium if it is possible that it be transformed democratically into a dictatorship, i.e., a system which is considered not stable? Answer: that makes no sense! Moreover, empirically democracies are anything but stable. As indicated, in multi-cultural societies democracy regularly leads to the discrimination, oppression, or even expulsion and extermination of minorities — hardly a peaceful equilibrium. And in ethnically homogeneous societies, democracy regularly leads to class warfare, which leads to economic crisis, which leads to dictatorship. Think, for example, of post-Czarist Russia, post-World War I Italy, Weimar Germany, Spain, Portugal, and in more recent times Greece, Turkey, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, and Pakistan. "

1: Is that unpopularity causing wars or wars causing unpopularity? How about unpopular presidents being the sort of people to engage in wars?

2: Monarchs have a long-term preference to help themselves.

3: Free Soviets did not say that civil wars do not occur in democracies. He said that democracy gives people a way to fix problems without civil wars, because there is an easier way to get rid of a shitty leader.

[Augarundus]

1: Is that unpopularity causing wars or wars causing unpopularity? How about unpopular presidents being the sort of people to engage in wars?

2: Monarchs have a long-term preference to help themselves.

3: Free Soviets did not say that civil wars do not occur in democracies. He said that democracy gives people a way to fix problems without civil wars, because there is an easier way to get rid of a shitty leader.

1. Royal's statistical analysis establishes a causal relationship - he takes timeframe into account on this question. The evidence indicates that leaders who are already unpopular (specifically as a result of economic downturn, but not exclusively so) frequently go to war - their popularity frequently rises during wartime (e.g., Bush II).

2. Yes...?

3. Monarchies also allow people political access without civil war (Physiocrats in 18th century France, for example... it is very possible to influence a monarch - even an absolute monarch - without taking up arms against him). Civil wars are also prevalent (probably even moreso - haven't looked up the stats on this, but this seems to be the case throughout Latin America and Africa... the vast majority of which is not monarchic, but vaguely democratic) in democracies, so, at best for the democratic peace theorists, this is a moot point.

[Tlaceceyaya]

1: Is that unpopularity causing wars or wars causing unpopularity? How about unpopular presidents being the sort of people to engage in wars?

2: Monarchs have a long-term preference to help themselves.

3: Free Soviets did not say that civil wars do not occur in democracies. He said that democracy gives people a way to fix problems without civil wars, because there is an easier way to get rid of a shitty leader.

1. Royal's statistical analysis establishes a causal relationship - he takes timeframe into account on this question. The evidence indicates that leaders who are already unpopular (specifically as a result of economic downturn, but not exclusively so) frequently go to war - their popularity frequently rises during wartime (e.g., Bush II).

2. Yes...?

3. Monarchies also allow people political access without civil war (Physiocrats in 18th century France, for example... it is very possible to influence a monarch - even an absolute monarch - without taking up arms against him). Civil wars are also prevalent (probably even moreso - haven't looked up the stats on this, but this seems to be the case throughout Latin America and Africa... the vast majority of which is not monarchic, but vaguely democratic) in democracies, so, at best for the democratic peace theorists, this is a moot point.

2: Yes. Exactly. They want to help themselves; they are not beholden to a large portion of the population.

3: People with power can influence the monarch, you mean. Not the common people.

[Czechanada]

If one abolishes the state, then there is a much higher chance of equality existing.

Your point is contradictory.

[Distruzio]

If one abolishes the state, then there is a much higher chance of equality existing.

Your point is contradictory.

... maybe you should read beyond the first paragraph because I didn't suggest abolishing the State. Anywhere.

[Free Soviets]

it seems to me that there is a strong negative relation between the power of a monarch and how well a society flourishes. the only decent monarchies have all been ones in which power is held by elected representatives and monarchs are mostly for waving in parades. and this is even under 'good' monarchs. historically, they just haven't been able to secure peace and prosperity as well as democracies.

at a guess, it'd be because powerful monarchs get involved in games of international dominance and prestige, which are based on displays of personal wealth and power rather than keeping people happy. the people they have to impress or dominate are other rulers, not the populace being ruled. the incentives are all wrong.

and for all the talk about democracies leading to people plundering the treasury, it just doesn't happen as much as it does with a bunch of inbred nobility running around controlling stuff. established democracies are actually pretty decent at managing wealth, though they do fall prey to the short term stupidities of the people from time to time. but the stupidities wind up making people unhappy, and democracy gives people a way to fix that without starting civil wars.

the only real difficulties for democracies seem to come during the transition state, before democratic norms have become engrained in society (and especially in the military), or during one of the times when the world is thrown into chaos and authoritarians are able to use it to their advantage. but these problems seem to be no worse than what you get with monarchies, and, in many way, appear easier to deal with.

Sorry, but there are a few problems here. Notably the total absence of any statistics or analysis. I will provide both:

1) According to Jedidiah Royal (in "Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives", Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction Policy at the US Department of Defense), the correlation between democracy and war is greater than that of monarchy and war because, democracies are subject to 'diversionary theory' which "suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. [...] This tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to a lack of democratic support." Particularly in the case of the United States, where evidence has proven that "weak presidential popularity [is] statistically linked to an increase in the use of force".

The drive "to keep people happy" which you suggest monarchs do not have is, in fact, linked to an increase in violence. Note that this is not just a statistical correlation (unlike the contention that monarchies are poorer or more warlike than democracies) - Royal proposes a theoretical causal relationship that these statistics show to be accurate.

the democratic peace is fact. it is the central fact of international relations, actually. it is simply true that democracies are more peaceful (especially towards each other - they do get into wars with non-democracies, particularly when the other guy invades) than non-democracies. glancing at his chapter in that book you cite, the claim you quoted seems to be saying something totally different than what you implied. basically, royal's claim is that economic liberalism and integration lead to an increase in economic crises, and economic crises cause a greater increase in war-likelihood for democracies than for autocratic states. but it says nothing about the overall likelihood.

non-democracies are more than twice as warlike as established democracies. during times of economic crisis, non-democracies remain more warlike than democracies, but democracies do catch up a little bit.

2) Not sure how exactly to respond to your economic points, given that you've really not made any specific claims here. Hans Hoppe provides great analysis on the incentive structures that make democracy comparatively more wasteful and short-sighted with respect to economic policy (democratic leaders have little to no stake in the long-term stability of a nation - only in their short-term reelection, so they must plunder the nation's coffers to pay off their friends: they have a low/short time preference for consumption. Monarchs have a long-time preference, meaning they have a preference for capital accumulation, not capital expenditures). Your only response was "democracies are pretty decent" (no warrant for this claim).

Opponents of democracy have provided a theory (see: Hans Hoppe's), and the empirical evidence is obvious: modern day western debt crises and economic catastrophes. History very clearly proves the case that democracies are short-sighted.

democracies are richer than non-democratic states. democracies are the richest societies to ever exist in all of human history, with the only non-democracies ranking anywhere worth mentioning making all of their money selling oil to rich democracies.

outside of greece, there is no real debt problem in the modern west - its all an artifact of either shoddy policy that has been utterly counterproductive to recovery or simply imagined in the delusional minds of Serious People and glenn beck fans.

meanwhile, absolute monarchs routinely liquidated the treasuries and ruined their countries pursuing all sorts of dumb ideas. france and spain and russia spring immediately to mind.

also, hoppe is a worthless hack.

3) Civil wars don't occur in democracies? Funny, because I can think of one that did.

i didn't say they don't occur. i said that democracies offer a way to remove the leadership fucking things up without having to kill 'em (or have the force to do it, and thereby force concessions). we call them 'elections'. non-democracies lack these.

4) Democracies are not internally stable, as Hans Hoppe, professor Emeritus of Economics from the University of Nevada Las Vegas, shows: "Fourth and intimately related, the democratic-peace theorists claim that democracy represents a stable "equilibrium." This has been expressed most clearly by Francis Fukuyama, who labeled the new democratic world order as the "end of history." However, overwhelming evidence exists that this claim is patently wrong. On theoretical grounds: How can democracy be a stable equilibrium if it is possible that it be transformed democratically into a dictatorship, i.e., a system which is considered not stable? Answer: that makes no sense! Moreover, empirically democracies are anything but stable. As indicated, in multi-cultural societies democracy regularly leads to the discrimination, oppression, or even expulsion and extermination of minorities — hardly a peaceful equilibrium. And in ethnically homogeneous societies, democracy regularly leads to class warfare, which leads to economic crisis, which leads to dictatorship. Think, for example, of post-Czarist Russia, post-World War I Italy, Weimar Germany, Spain, Portugal, and in more recent times Greece, Turkey, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, and Pakistan. "

remember that time i said that the big problem spots for democracies are during the transition time, before democratic norms have fully set in, and during times of crisis? yeah...

also, hoppe's idea about the cause of economic crises are fucking laughable. as is the idea that somehow democracies are worse than non-democracies when it comes to discrimination, oppression, and expulsion or even extermination of minorities. then again, he is explicitly in favor of discriminating against and expelling minorities he doesn't like. so here he's just being disingenuous.

[Minarchist States]

it seems to me that there is a strong negative relation between the power of a monarch and how well a society flourishes. the only decent monarchies have all been ones in which power is held by elected representatives and monarchs are mostly for waving in parades. and this is even under 'good' monarchs. historically, they just haven't been able to secure peace and prosperity as well as democracies.

at a guess, it'd be because powerful monarchs get involved in games of international dominance and prestige, which are based on displays of personal wealth and power rather than keeping people happy. the people they have to impress or dominate are other rulers, not the populace being ruled. the incentives are all wrong.

and for all the talk about democracies leading to people plundering the treasury, it just doesn't happen as much as it does with a bunch of inbred nobility running around controlling stuff. established democracies are actually pretty decent at managing wealth, though they do fall prey to the short term stupidities of the people from time to time. but the stupidities wind up making people unhappy, and democracy gives people a way to fix that without starting civil wars.

the only real difficulties for democracies seem to come during the transition state, before democratic norms have become engrained in society (and especially in the military), or during one of the times when the world is thrown into chaos and authoritarians are able to use it to their advantage. but these problems seem to be no worse than what you get with monarchies, and, in many way, appear easier to deal with.

Sorry, but there are a few problems here. Notably the total absence of any statistics or analysis. I will provide both:

1) According to Jedidiah Royal (in "Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives", Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction Policy at the US Department of Defense), the correlation between democracy and war is greater than that of monarchy and war because, democracies are subject to 'diversionary theory' which "suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. [...] This tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to a lack of democratic support." Particularly in the case of the United States, where evidence has proven that "weak presidential popularity [is] statistically linked to an increase in the use of force".

The drive "to keep people happy" which you suggest monarchs do not have is, in fact, linked to an increase in violence. Note that this is not just a statistical correlation (unlike the contention that monarchies are poorer or more warlike than democracies) - Royal proposes a theoretical causal relationship that these statistics show to be accurate.

2) Not sure how exactly to respond to your economic points, given that you've really not made any specific claims here. Hans Hoppe provides great analysis on the incentive structures that make democracy comparatively more wasteful and short-sighted with respect to economic policy (democratic leaders have little to no stake in the long-term stability of a nation - only in their short-term reelection, so they must plunder the nation's coffers to pay off their friends: they have a low/short time preference for consumption. Monarchs have a long-time preference, meaning they have a preference for capital accumulation, not capital expenditures). Your only response was "democracies are pretty decent" (no warrant for this claim).

Opponents of democracy have provided a theory (see: Hans Hoppe's), and the empirical evidence is obvious: modern day western debt crises and economic catastrophes. History very clearly proves the case that democracies are short-sighted.

3) Civil wars don't occur in democracies? Funny, because I can think of one that did.

4) Democracies are not internally stable, as Hans Hoppe, professor Emeritus of Economics from the University of Nevada Las Vegas, shows: "Fourth and intimately related, the democratic-peace theorists claim that democracy represents a stable "equilibrium." This has been expressed most clearly by Francis Fukuyama, who labeled the new democratic world order as the "end of history." However, overwhelming evidence exists that this claim is patently wrong. On theoretical grounds: How can democracy be a stable equilibrium if it is possible that it be transformed democratically into a dictatorship, i.e., a system which is considered not stable? Answer: that makes no sense! Moreover, empirically democracies are anything but stable. As indicated, in multi-cultural societies democracy regularly leads to the discrimination, oppression, or even expulsion and extermination of minorities — hardly a peaceful equilibrium. And in ethnically homogeneous societies, democracy regularly leads to class warfare, which leads to economic crisis, which leads to dictatorship. Think, for example, of post-Czarist Russia, post-World War I Italy, Weimar Germany, Spain, Portugal, and in more recent times Greece, Turkey, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, and Pakistan. "

This is really interesting. Thank you, I bet the AnMons would like to hear this. However, I believe this report might have American bias, because Canada is also a democracy yet doesn't have the means to commit large scale war. The Canadians have never been"rallied" in that effect.

[Costa Alegria]

non-democracies are more than twice as warlike as established democracies. during times of economic crisis, non-democracies remain more warlike than democracies, but democracies do catch up a little bit.

So are you implying that a modern, constitutional monarchy isn't a democracy?

[God Kefka]

Monarchy is better because at least you have a special class of people, the nobles and the king, being trained and educated from youth to rule, be noble, and do what is right.

Democracies do nothing but breed bootlicking filthy politicians who compete against each other for votes and misleading the public... more obsessed with winning the next election when they do win an election than actually governing the country.

Because kings can't lose upcoming elections and have a clear card to rule... there is space for them to rule justly and above petty politics. Every once in a while and more often than not, you get a very good strongman.

Democracy? Give me a break. The vast majority of people who are idiots/mediocre fools will always threaten the leaders of democracy with the possibility of losing the next election... thus preventing them from making smart choices. Stupid people vote for stupid decisions and if they don't get their contradictory ways... they vote for the next idiot.

''I want more public healthcare but DON'T raise taxes...''

''Give me less taxes but more education and defense spending...''

The list goes on. Democracy is ruled by sheeples. Much better to have an insulated class of people trained to rule; they can be corrupt some of the time but not ALL of the time (like in democracies where everyone is a pawn of the corporations/special interests and slaves to the masses).

Dictatorship of the few competent > Dictatorship by the majority who are sheeples

Besides... most European monarchies really weren't that bad and had a great deal of respect for religion. A great deal many of them WERE divinely ordained...

[Tlaceceyaya]

Sorry, but there are a few problems here. Notably the total absence of any statistics or analysis. I will provide both:

1) According to Jedidiah Royal (in "Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives", Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction Policy at the US Department of Defense), the correlation between democracy and war is greater than that of monarchy and war because, democracies are subject to 'diversionary theory' which "suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. [...] This tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to a lack of democratic support." Particularly in the case of the United States, where evidence has proven that "weak presidential popularity [is] statistically linked to an increase in the use of force".

The drive "to keep people happy" which you suggest monarchs do not have is, in fact, linked to an increase in violence. Note that this is not just a statistical correlation (unlike the contention that monarchies are poorer or more warlike than democracies) - Royal proposes a theoretical causal relationship that these statistics show to be accurate.

2) Not sure how exactly to respond to your economic points, given that you've really not made any specific claims here. Hans Hoppe provides great analysis on the incentive structures that make democracy comparatively more wasteful and short-sighted with respect to economic policy (democratic leaders have little to no stake in the long-term stability of a nation - only in their short-term reelection, so they must plunder the nation's coffers to pay off their friends: they have a low/short time preference for consumption. Monarchs have a long-time preference, meaning they have a preference for capital accumulation, not capital expenditures). Your only response was "democracies are pretty decent" (no warrant for this claim).

Opponents of democracy have provided a theory (see: Hans Hoppe's), and the empirical evidence is obvious: modern day western debt crises and economic catastrophes. History very clearly proves the case that democracies are short-sighted.

3) Civil wars don't occur in democracies? Funny, because I can think of one that did.

4) Democracies are not internally stable, as Hans Hoppe, professor Emeritus of Economics from the University of Nevada Las Vegas, shows: "Fourth and intimately related, the democratic-peace theorists claim that democracy represents a stable "equilibrium." This has been expressed most clearly by Francis Fukuyama, who labeled the new democratic world order as the "end of history." However, overwhelming evidence exists that this claim is patently wrong. On theoretical grounds: How can democracy be a stable equilibrium if it is possible that it be transformed democratically into a dictatorship, i.e., a system which is considered not stable? Answer: that makes no sense! Moreover, empirically democracies are anything but stable. As indicated, in multi-cultural societies democracy regularly leads to the discrimination, oppression, or even expulsion and extermination of minorities — hardly a peaceful equilibrium. And in ethnically homogeneous societies, democracy regularly leads to class warfare, which leads to economic crisis, which leads to dictatorship. Think, for example, of post-Czarist Russia, post-World War I Italy, Weimar Germany, Spain, Portugal, and in more recent times Greece, Turkey, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, and Pakistan. "

This is really interesting. Thank you, I bet the AnMons would like to hear this. However, I believe this report might have American bias, because Canada is also a democracy yet doesn't have the means to commit large scale war. The Canadians have never been"rallied" in that effect.

My social teacher last year had war-related posters all over her classroom. War propaganda bullshit. I'd call that sort of thing back when it was going on rallying.

[Vazdania]

Monarchy is better because at least you have a special class of people, the nobles and the king, being trained and educated from youth to rule, be noble, and do what is right.

Democracies do nothing but breed bootlicking filthy politicians who compete against each other for votes and misleading the public... more obsessed with winning the next election when they do win an election than actually governing the country.

Because kings can't lose upcoming elections and have a clear card to rule... there is space for them to rule justly and above petty politics. Every once in a while and more often than not, you get a very good strongman.

Democracy? Give me a break. The vast majority of people who are idiots/mediocre fools will always threaten the leaders of democracy with the possibility of losing the next election... thus preventing them from making smart choices. Stupid people vote for stupid decisions and if they don't get their contradictory ways... they vote for the next idiot.

''I want more public healthcare but DON'T raise taxes...''

''Give me less taxes but more education and defense spending...''

The list goes on. Democracy is ruled by sheeples. Much better to have an insulated class of people trained to rule; they can be corrupt some of the time but not ALL of the time (like in democracies where everyone is a pawn of the corporations/special interests and slaves to the masses).

Dictatorship of the few competent > Dictatorship by the majority who are sheeples

Besides... most European monarchies really weren't that bad and had a great deal of respect for religion. A great deal many of them WERE divinely ordained...

[God Kefka]

Translation: 'God' favors corruption.

There's a reason why God is called the Father.

Yes... because we are all His children.

[Free Soviets]

non-democracies are more than twice as warlike as established democracies. during times of economic crisis, non-democracies remain more warlike than democracies, but democracies do catch up a little bit.

So are you implying that a modern, constitutional monarchy isn't a democracy?

no. as i said before,

it seems to me that there is a strong negative relation between the power of a monarch and how well a society flourishes. the only decent monarchies have all been ones in which power is held by elected representatives and monarchs are mostly for waving in parades.

[Greater Beggnig]

You are an enemy of the state.
*gunshot*

[New England and The Maritimes]

A monarch without a state is a man calling himself king. In that case, it has no meaning and as such probably isn't worth the amount of effort you've devoted to it.

[Forster Keys]

A monarch without a state is a man calling himself king. In that case, it has no meaning and as such probably isn't worth the amount of effort you've devoted to it.

He's not really advocating the abolition of the state.

[New England and The Maritimes]

A monarch without a state is a man calling himself king. In that case, it has no meaning and as such probably isn't worth the amount of effort you've devoted to it.

He's not really advocating the abolition of the state.

In which case he should probably admit to being pro state when the state makes things happen the way he would like them to so he can get off his high horse and talk in reality with the rest of us properly imperfect humans.

[Forster Keys]

He's not really advocating the abolition of the state.

In which case he should probably admit to being pro state when the state makes things happen the way he would like them to so he can get off his high horse and talk in reality with the rest of us properly imperfect humans.

I think that's why he talked about changing his liberal from anarcho- to libertarian monarchist in the first paragraph or two.

[The Emerald Legion]

There's a reason why God is called the Father.

Yes... because we are all His children.

The reference sailed right over your head didn't it?

Who else goes by the name "God Father"?

Monarchy is better because at least you have a special class of people, the nobles and the king, being trained and educated from youth to rule, be noble, and do what is right.

Democracies do nothing but breed bootlicking filthy politicians who compete against each other for votes and misleading the public... more obsessed with winning the next election when they do win an election than actually governing the country.

Because kings can't lose upcoming elections and have a clear card to rule... there is space for them to rule justly and above petty politics. Every once in a while and more often than not, you get a very good strongman.

Democracy? Give me a break. The vast majority of people who are idiots/mediocre fools will always threaten the leaders of democracy with the possibility of losing the next election... thus preventing them from making smart choices. Stupid people vote for stupid decisions and if they don't get their contradictory ways... they vote for the next idiot.

''I want more public healthcare but DON'T raise taxes...''

''Give me less taxes but more education and defense spending...''

The list goes on. Democracy is ruled by sheeples. Much better to have an insulated class of people trained to rule; they can be corrupt some of the time but not ALL of the time (like in democracies where everyone is a pawn of the corporations/special interests and slaves to the masses).

Dictatorship of the few competent > Dictatorship by the majority who are sheeples

Besides... most European monarchies really weren't that bad and had a great deal of respect for religion. A great deal many of them WERE divinely ordained...

A technocracy would be better. For one thing, while a monarch can be trained, that depends on their upbringing, and if by some quirk of fate your monarch comes out as a screwed up human being not fit for rule, there's nothing you can do.

Whereas Technocracy is purely merit based.