No, an agrarian dictatorship led by a supreme elder is what I believe in.
Not going for the chad Discord Bubble Baron Bureaucracy.
It's always solvent
Yes, Anon I'm one as well. The main argument I think is that since human nature is corrupt/bias and supports hierachy, it is impossible to have a system where everything isn't govern by one (a few people). So all other systems are worse because they are liars. There can never be any other system and there has never been any other system. If it claims it is, then it is trying to trick you. Example, democracy tricks people into believing they have influence when they don't. While monarchy is open about how unfair it is.
One should just accept this and move past the ideas of equality. So long as people live dignifying lives they do not need to be equal.
Constitutional Monarchies are based because a population ruled by a monarch will always know who to behead if times are bad.
Republics let politicians blame their actions on the assholes/idiots who voted for them.
A monarchy is definitely preferable at any rate, but a true natural aristocracy is the ideal.
The thing about monarchy that doesn't stick with me is that I can't think of even a single person who deserves to be "royal".
>>309802>Constitutional Monarchies are based because a population ruled by a monarch will always know who to behead if times are bad.
When has that EVER
happened? And by the public in particular since that's part of the discussion. To my knowledge, Ancient China is the only circumstance where this ever occurred, and do you honestly want a nation like that?>>309806
So, you side with the Greek philosophers who universally agreed that an oligarchy is the "best" system of government. >>309817
Majority of the people who support monarchies are romanticists more than anything else. They focus on the brief 300 years of the Renaissance as the "peak" of human civilization and ignore everything bad that happened during that time, everything that lead to the period, and why those institutions no longer exist. Meanwhile, every single record of history has shown that all forms of government is corrupt, no question nor exception about it. The only question is do you want to be subservient to one individual who's appointed for life with absolute power (Because every single monarchy effectively burns their constitution and declares that they, themselves, are the government); or do you want to diversify the power among all the branches of society and class, with each niche watching over one another, and each niche being unable to govern without the acceptance and cooperation of one another.
I don't know how they'd define oligarchy, so I can't really say one way or the other.
I don't think oligarchy is the best. I just haven't heard of anyone genuinely deserving of being king.
If there were a king or royal family, who would it be?
Establishing a monarchy and royal family from nothing is a harder place to start. The most I could say is, whether in the establishment of a new royal lineage or in observing an existing one, the monarchs have to prove they've earned the title through deeds. No one can be born "deserving" the title, they only obtain the title through the blood of their father without necessarily deserving it.
Look at the deeds (good and bad) of a king like Charlemagne the Great. Would you say he deserved to be king based off of what he accomplished during his reign? By the same token, if a family seized power of say, the United States, and declared themselves monarchs, would you judge if they are fit for the role based off of what they promise to do, what they have already done, and the nature of their characters? That's how I would view the situation.
As for who it would be in the United States, I don't personally have anyone in mind and I do not think the Trump family is remotely worthy. Maybe another anon could answer that part.
Existing royal lineages across the globe don't look like they're worth salvaging. They're basically just celebrities at best now.
You're right. Modern royal families are trash and don't even leverage whatever effective social power they have as "celebrities". Unless you somehow count Prince Harry and Megahag Markel as an effective use of social clout.
I also can't really imagine any stock royal families could be picked from.
The default idea would be some political/business/celebrity dynasty, bit they're all in bed with Jews.
I thought about mentioning how most countries have defacto royal families by way of political dynasties or business moguls, but them being leashed to Jews stopped me. If not directly in bed as you say, then scared to oppose the Jewish lobby at the very least.
And in the case of the United States, our military is pretty fucked up so I can't imagine any worthy generals or other leaders stepping forth and overthrowing the government to establish a monarchy that way either. Pretty much why I can't answer that part about who would be worthy in the US, cause there doesn't seem to be anyone.
Again, this is why monarchy doesn't stick with me. Nobody has proven to be willing or worthy to be a true king in the modern age.
Ideologies that only function correctly when the correct people are in power require mechanisms to swiftly remove incorrect people from power.
The best ideologies let the ruled put themselves before the interests of their ruler.
>>309847>Ideologies that only function correctly when the correct people are in power require mechanisms to swiftly remove incorrect people from power.
Or limit their influence and power. The U.S. used to have much of this, but it was eroded over time. Easy examples are the 16th and 17th amendment. Originally, states had a say in the operation of the federal government through the state's legislature electing senators, and Congress couldn't tax the public without establishing a certain time limit for the tax to exist nor without reason. After the passage of those amendments, state's lost their power to also dictate the direction of the government, and Congress was freely able to establish an unlimited and everlasting tax upon the populace without any need for justification.
Honestly, "worthiness" isn't as big a deal for monarchies as it is for republics. For one thing, monarchs, unlike politicians, have an economic incentive to preserve the value of their domain even if they aren't morally inclined to, for reasons best articulated by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in Democracy: The God that Failed. For another, if a monarchical government sucks, it's easy to tell who to kill. In a more democratic situation, you're screwed.
We probably won't ever have any monarchs in the present-day USA, but if we do it will be after a total collapse of the federal government. It will probably either be a boomer who successfully leads a militia to victory in a small town and feels like larping as Game of Thrones or whatever boomers watch, or an autistic zoomer who will buy a third of the continental US for half of his crypto portfolio. Either way will still be significantly preferable to the ZOG shitfest we have now.
>>309851>For one thing, monarchs, unlike politicians, have an economic incentive to preserve the value of their domain even if they aren't morally inclined toBull fucking shit!
Monarchs have, time and time again, lead massive military campaigns against regions for no other purpose than to soothe their ergo, not for economic prosperity or any morally righteous duty. Hell, that's how Darius lost his war against the Scythians, and Xerexs lost the most powerful army on the planet, that numbered in the millions, to a bunch of philosophers. If you're looking for a more recent example, you have King Richard taxing the snot out of the English just to fund his little war in the Middle East.
sadly from the last thread I made on monarchism, it seems this place is fully republican.
Just because the incentive is there doesn't mean everyone will respond to it.>>309856
Nah, the intentions just have to be nuanced for the time, place, and peoples.
Any system could work with only good people working in the interests of everybody and care enough.
Many government systems (if atv east initially) are attempts or disguised as attempts at what seems just and fair for the best possible outcome.
So just simply slapping on a system of governance doesn't account for everything.
>>309854>Monarchs have, time and time again, lead massive military campaigns against regions for no other purpose than to soothe their ergo
Boy, if thats been the goal of monarchs, then monarchists should start having wet dreams about democracy.
If someone isn't worthy, why should I someone else? I'm not going to simp for someone if they haven't proven to be worth it.
Okay here'a the question. Who keeps all the wheels turning and the axels greased.
No man rules alone.
>>309860>Any system could work with only good people working in the interests of everybody and care enough.
Not communism. Read Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by (((Ludwig von Mises))). I know he's a Jew, but it's the most powerful refutation of economic communism to date.>>309862>If someone isn't worthy, why should I someone else?
Under the assumption everyone is humanly perfect any system could technically work, doesn't mean it'd work well or efficiently or with robustness.
The keys to power as it stands (((they))) control who becomes a key and who does not. They manipulate the masses as an almost unseen force.
This is shadow government is what holds much of the perceived power, only because they have the keys in their pocket one way or another. The seen governments and systems is the show and play, things do happen and could if unchained work to a degree.
The main barrier here is knowledge and secrets against knowledge and honesty.
thats why the man in charge must prioritize and reward labor above capital
>>309873>prioritize and reward labor above capital
So, the man who has built a business infrastructure by which the populace can more easily and accessible market their services and products should be given less priority and less compensation than the man who has zero aspirations beyond working his ass off as a custodian?
Does that man pay his employees a family-sufficient wage? If no then he can fuck off.