0
0

[–] PronusMagnus ago  (edited ago)

I'm no historian, but if the jewish narrative taught me something is that monarchy was the predominant political system throughout the centuries, and it only came to an end fairly recently. Now we see the systems that replaced monarchy crumbling to the ground and look at the past only to see prosperity. Having this in mind, my question to you all is this: has monarchy been the predominant political system for so much time because, at the end of the day, it's the only one that actually work?

If you have a fair ruler, why would you want to swap him/her for another? Just keep him in power until he's not able to govern anymore. And, when that happens, he/she will already have trained a capable successor.

0
0

[–] WD_Pelley ago 

I would agree with this sentiment for the exact same feelings. Sure, you might get a degenerate monarch but for a lot of the time there seemed to be a degree of localism, where the king/queen didn't care what you did in your own land so long as you paid tribute to them. I can't believe that I would ever soften up to monarchy (Roman republicanism is also something I enjoy too; I like Rome).

0
0

[–] Dudley_Doright ago 

For an in-depth study of your exact point, have a look at Hans-Hermann Hoppe's book, "Democracy, the god that failed." Available at Amazon. He argues effectively that Monarchy is a lesser evil than Democracy.

0
0

[–] 2Weird2Live ago 

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

0
1

[–] Dudley_Doright 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

THIS^ is the absolute truth. Thanks for posting.