>>One monarch can literally just ruin everything! >That's a pretty big what if and a rare one at that. It seems to me that Republics can have poor leaders, even a string of poor leaders and survive. Yet Monarchies in the modern world are dependent upon always having an unbroken line of great leaders. France is a great example of this. Louis XVI wasn't actually that bad a leader. He was not stupid and somewhat pragmatic considering he once talked down an angry mob that burst into his palace. Maybe not super intelligent in the way that Hitler or Stalin was, but not an idiot like he is portrayed. But he suffered from the flaw of a vacillating personality. A trait that he did not pick up from his father who was an arrogant but confident king. And this one major flaw doomed France to one of the worst orgies of senseless violence on earth.
Tsar Nicolas II wasn't a tyrant or an idiot. But, like Louis XVI, he was not as confident as his father and he allowed himself to be swayed by advisors and doomed his nation and his family. Keizer Wilhelm II doomed his monarchy by getting his nation in a pointless war. Infact. wars in general are TERRIBLE for monarchies. Monarchs who start large wars tend to lose power.
Another problem with monarchism as it existed in the 18th century is that it was not nationalistic. I'm sorry, but claiming that it was is ignorant of the facts. Almost all monarchs of the 18th & 19th centuries were strong proponents of multi-ethnic imperialism. And in 1848, nationalists emerged as one of the leading opponents of the monarchies.
Camden Gomez
Anyone who's read Hoppe knows that the transition from monarchy to democracy was a mistake, and actually led to less freedom overall
And OP you should emphasize more that under most monarchies power was actually really distributed where most people were only concerned with their locality. It was hardly rule by an iron first
Kayden Perry
I'm sympathetic to it, but some reading material would be nice. Anyone?
Joseph Perez
>implying What do you think 'we wuz kangs' means?
Michael Thompson
>>One monarch can literally just ruin everything! This isn't really the case though. In ww1 none of the monarchs wanted war. They were all literally cousins. But in Britain, real power came from the parliament, who wanted war; in Germany power was with the Generals, who wanted war; in Russia power was with the nobles, who wanted war.
Monarchs, even absolute monarchs, still have a balance of power that prevents them from doing anything they want carte blanche.
>But republics have a balance of power Yeah, a balance where all politicians are bought and paid for by banks. A bank balance.
Oliver Young
Monarchist here. I want an absolute monarch but he must be ultra-nationalist or fascist.
