A politician in a democracy has two fundamental incentives: getting re-elected, and getting rich while he can. All of his decisions are focused on the short-term, either to enrich himself, or to push through enough legislation to gather votes for a re-election.
A monarch in a hereditary monarchy is incentivized to actually better the country. He wants to leave a better country for his children, and his standing as a monarch is directly tied to the standing of his country, the better off the country is, the better off he is, both from a wealth, ego, and influence perspective. He can also make unpopular decisions, and long-term focused decisions, since he doesn't have to worry about losing his power unless the country is in crisis.
Or he can focus on banging as many women as possible while his country rots. Like you said, he doesn’t face any consequences until it’s truly a crisis.
> He can also make unpopular decisions, and long-term focused decisions
👑💀
> King Leopold II of Belgium (Congo Free State): Created a system of forced labor to harvest rubber, resulting in the deaths of approximately 10 million people and the systemic mutilation of workers.
Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible) of Russia: Established a reign of terror, employing secret police to torture and execute members of the nobility.
King Henry VIII of England: Imprisoned, tortured, and executed subjects without due process, while using bribery and coercion to dominate parliament.
Qin Shi Huang (China): While unifying China, his rule was marked by brutal tyranny, burning books, and burying scholars alive, leading to his widespread abhorrence by his subjects.
Peter the Great (Russia): Brutally suppressed rebellions, including ordering the execution of 2,000 rebels and personally participating in the execution of his own son.
King Darius (Persia - Biblical account): Issued an unjust decree forbidding prayer to anyone but himself for 30 days, resulting in the death sentence for Daniel.
Visigothic Kings (Spain): Deprived Jewish communities of their legal existence by forcing baptism, destroying their communal organizations.
King Farouk (Egypt): Known for corrupt, indulgent, and erratic governing, including alleged kleptomania, during a time of significant national hardship.
Roman Emperor Galerius: Initiated intense persecution of Christians, ordering the destruction of churches and the torture and execution of believers.
Medieval English Forest Laws: Various kings enforced the "law of the forest," which mandated blinding and castration for hunting in royal forests.
In a monarchy, the "cost" of failure is concentrated on the King. One bad natural disaster or shit luck in general will have you ousted.
In a democracy, the "cost" or "responsibility" of a mistake is spread across dozens. Like a corporation in a sense.
Shit happening is easier for a distributed system to absorb than concentrated ones.
This is so stupid how would a natural disaster effect a monarch in the slightest. If Miami gets flooded and the king lives in DC why would he give a shit. There’s still plenty of citrus plantations in the rest of the state to continue paying taxes and uphold his power. If Miami is represented by someone who lives there and is held accountable to constituents then if they do not serve the people they will lose their position of power and ideally be ostracized from their community.
This is extremely dumb. Your point about democracy is easily handled with term limits and laws regarding campaign finance and personal wealth. Term limits are self explanatory. The US has so many campaign finance laws that keep political donations from personally enriching the candidate. There are already a lot of regulations of how the personal wealth and assets of politicians should be handled while in office, like blind trusts and making asset trades and income public. We need more laws about this and they need to be constantly updated because greedy people will continue to find ways around them. Despite the subverting of these laws the amount *most* politicians profit off their position is orders of magnitude less than monarchs would.
(Unrelated to the overall argument but, Trump has consistently broken and subverted these laws and is just never held accountable despite doing things that are blatantly illegal. I only bring this up because one of the main goals of his presidency is to concentrate power in the executive branch like a monarch and undermine democracy at every opportunity)
Your point about a monarch having the countries best interests at heart is completely unfounded and dumb. A monarch would live completely shielded from any hardships his populace faced and his children would as well. He wouldn’t care at all about leaving a better world for his children because they would inherit all his power and wealth and never want for anything no matter how terrible the average citizen’s quality of life. You say that his standing as a monarch is directly tied to the standing of his nation but this is completely untrue. His right to rule is divine and he can never be removed from power so he doesn’t care at all about his standing, as long as he continues to have unlimited wealth and power he has no reason to care about the average citizen besides being profitable enough to pay their taxes.
The fact we’re even having this conversation is proof that project 2025 is working and we are heading towards a post constitution world where the government exists to serve those in power and exploit the citizens rather than represent them.
Monarchy has more accountability. The ruler goes down with the ship. Democracy is a revolving door of thieves. The politicians and capitalists rob and ruin society and then quietly sit somewhere funding the next rotation of thieves. Any society which relies on the intelligence of the major population is doomed.
Remember in (recent) history when nobody was worried about being sued into poverty for blasphemy against Dear Leader, or shot dead in the street for sassing, not threatening or assaulting, immigration cops?
Seems like so long ago. All that freedom just evaporated overnight like morning fog
People suffer unduly for their want of a Monarchy. They secretly yearn for the power and continuity of rule, and to be removed from the political process.
> [They secretly yearn for the power and continuity of concentrated rule](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/16/27/49/1627490293b97fcae903f844460f8c4a.gif)
Patrimonial monarchy is based because he has to negotiate between all the nobles and free cities, constitutional monarchy is just democracy (gay) and "absolute" monarchy is an Enlightenment fiction (ultragay).
22 Comments
Quiet-Picture-7991@reddit
CuTTyFL4M@reddit
Valuable-Chipmunk784@reddit
ToaKraka@reddit (OP)
CuTTyFL4M@reddit
Plennhar@reddit
Arcane_Monkey@reddit
wordjedi@reddit
BeelzebubTerror@reddit
rectal_expansion@reddit
rectal_expansion@reddit
WhiteSepulchre@reddit
Antique_Umpire1534@reddit
Antique_Umpire1534@reddit
rectal_expansion@reddit
wordjedi@reddit
AgitatedKey4800@reddit
wisdompuff@reddit
wordjedi@reddit
Judah_Earl@reddit
AnalysisParalysis85@reddit
nnuunn@reddit