Absolute Monarchies: Why Are They So Successful?

[maskedmelon]

I thought I would start a thread to highlight the virtues of monarchies. It has grown increasingly apparent that this discussion is vitally important to our community, so I in its you to share your thoughts, so long as they are not shit-filled.

First and foremost, monarchies are the result if excellence. Only the fittest candidate for rule is capable of extinguishing competitors and subduing all others. This consolidation of power affords the monarchy a level of efficiency unimaginable in other forms of government.

Absolute rule by the fittest also ensures only the best selections are made for positions beneath the crown. If there were more qualified an adjudicator, then he would have the crown. Would he not?

List of Successful Monarchies:

Monaco
Japan
Persia
New Zeland
Saudi Arabia
Rome
Sweden
Mongolia

[Nihilist_santa]

I thought I would start a thread to highlight the virtues of monarchies. It has grown increasingly apparent that this discussion is vitally important to our community, so I in its you to share your thoughts, so long as they are not shit-filled.

First and foremost, monarchies are the result if excellence. Only the fittest candidate for rule is capable of extinguishing competitors and subduing all others. This consolidation of power affords the monarchy a level of efficiency unimaginable in other forms of government.

Absolute rule by the fittest also ensures only the best selections are made for positions beneath the crown. If there were more qualified an adjudicator, then he would have the crown. Would he not?

List of Successful Monarchies:

Monaco
Japan
Persia
New Zeland
Saudi Arabia
Rome
Sweden
Mongolia

Its the whole 5 regimes thing again. The philosopher kings/aristocracy wont stay that way. Eventually things descend to the point which we are at followed by a tyranny.

I've read people like Juilius Evola and how he argues for Monarchy. Its pretty good when you are in a "golden era" but think about the "rags to riches in 3 generations" story and apply that to countries. The spoiled that live well due to the wisdom of those who suffered before always end up in some mob ruled orgy of decadence that brings everything down followed by the "strong men" of history that become Tyrants or they through benevolent dictatorship can lay the groundwork for a new golden age. Its kind of a crap shoot because of that whole deal about shitty people being attracted to power.

Im a bit of a damned if you do damned if you dont type though.

[Daywolf]

Honestly, I'm a Monarchist by heart, something I've said many times, though not here. But in practice regarding government, I am not. If we could remove the human factor...
So this thread is about inbreeding? :o

[Swish]

New Zealand has a parliament, and still has the British flag in the corner... they love the Queen.

[Nihilist_santa]

To answer the main question in the OP though the reason they are successful would be twofold.

1. They are for most purposes autocratic. They don't have to compete with other political parties to accomplish their goals.
2. Cultural and blood ties to the people, land and history. Divine right etc. Its built in nationalism and probably more resistant to outside influences.

[Naethyn]

As Dan Carlin would say, rolling the monarchy dice often leads to ineffectual leaders. If you consider how many total monarchies have existed, this is a very slim number that didn't roll poorly enough to lose power.

[Blitzers]

Honestly, I'm a Monarchist by heart, something I've said many times, though not here. But in practice regarding government, I am not. If we could remove the human factor...
So this thread is about inbreeding?:o

No just your gene pool.

[maerilith]

If you define success by the illusion of wealth and existence of a set of a "servant" class aka slave, sure, they're great.

[AzzarTheGod]

If you define success by the illusion of wealth and existence of a set of a "servant" class aka slave, sure, they're great.

Yes the Monarchs only have the illusion of wealth.

The Queen is bankrupt and the Crown isn't one of the oldest banks in Western Europe. Its a sure thing they have no money.

[Raev]

Sauda Arabia is not a success story. They are currently going bankrupt due to low oil prices (and too many gold plated Ferraris, I guess) and they are also the primary sponsor of Islamic terrorism including 9/11.

[iruinedyourday]

Your list indicates the results are random

[maerilith]

Yes the Monarchs only have the illusion of wealth.

The Queen is bankrupt and the Crown isn't one of the oldest banks in Western Europe. Its a sure thing they have no money.

I wasn't talking about the queen. But thanks for singling my generalization down to one finite example.

I am describing the idea that people really think those listed "succesful" "countries" erm "monarchies" are "wealthy" by any "succesful means".

They are.... kind of "lolz..." (I'd rather live in Norway or Finland (probably some kind of royalty there but IDK) but I'll leave you t figure out what I meant by my comment. Try and be a bit more holistic in your approach to thinking perhaps?