He's more likely to be held accountable. Unlike in a democracy where rarely anyone gets held to account for catastrophic failures or corruption, the monarch will lose the support of his people, and subsequently; his military. The monarch's well-being and legacy is tied directly to the fate of his nation, rather than how many dirty hands he can shake that will do favors for him. No system can 100% account for the greedy nature of humans, but I believe monarchy limits it more than democracy.
@@baseballworldwide9439 No offense but that's a very optimistic interpretation of checks and balances. The thing with monarchies, specifically absolute monarchies, is that they can change the rules as long as they have the support of the military and possibly elites depending on the system. The people are rarely factored into the game of power, the only example of where they were was Denmark which I will give is the gold standard in statecraft; however this was a rare example who's factors went beyond just being a monarchy. The fact is that monarchies are simply flimsy as a state and depend entirely on the training of a well meaning and sound minded monarch. This doesn't happen often and is very hard to do consistently over the generations. All it takes is a mistake in the succession line or a tyrannical ruler to pop up and destroy the country. The argument for democracy is that the people are directly involved in the system of governance and so have a check on who they choose to represent, sort of imitating the Danish monarchy in the rights and powers of the population but taking a more enshrined approach closer to the roman's. Where the roman republic failed is that when times got tough they instituted a king to make full dictatorial power and he abused it, leading to his death. Which then led to a power grab from greedy and ambitious individuals that led Rome into an era of empire. This empire was propped up via slave labor and imperialism which leads to stagnation and decadence. Now moving on to the ancient Greeks and their take on democracy. Their democracy was almost direct and shows what happens when you give the people too much power, people tend to get swept up in ideas, ideologies and slogans; leading to elect someone who promises to fix everything via tearing down the system and putting themselves at the center of the new government (almost like a monarchy). What tends to happen after that is either through draconian practices, not sharing power, or not being able to handle solving a nations issues effectively (mind you most people are not geniuses of statecraft) This will most often lead to either said draconian practices or the fall of the regime and we play the whole game again. What i now question to you is, what happens when one group or person has too much power or holds it for too long, they eventually abuse it. What's the solution, checks. Checks are simply giving power to a group to make sure the other group(s) don't have too much power. I will also give that constitutional monarchies seem to have a better track record than democracies and republics in terms of falling into dictatorial rule and that probably has to do with an additional check above the governance and acting almost like a independent arbiter if need be and not solely relying on the checks below. Putting governance in the middle of the power game instead of at the top. Anyways all this to say, Monarchies by themselves don't really have track records if every monarch is free to do how they please and so the idea of monarchy cannot accurately be judged as inherently a good or bad thing. I would like to point out I'm only responding to this comment and not the video as a whole, I wanted to emphasize the importance of checks in a government. Thank you for reading.
@baseballworldwide9439 So we invest the entire fate of the nation with one man? And if he is bad then we have to organize a coup to oust him? Which will cause 1000x more damage and pain than simply just ousting the incumbent in the next election?
This is a very common concern with monarchy. My question for you would be what happens when you have a horrifically bad president. It seems that the president can get away with murder. Every system is corrupted and corruptible as long as it has corrupted and corruptible people within it. However, that does not invalidate the system. Or else all systems would be invalid.
Another thing about birthright is that monarchs are prepared for rule from birth by people that know the ins and outs of the system, from a long lineage of people that have been learning what works and what doesn't. Monarchs are generally more qualified to rule than most politicians.
I suppose that aspect is arguable. It certainly doesn't always turn out that way in practice. One could also argue that monarchs run counter to conservative values in that they are unearned positions, as is the notion of an aristocracy, generally. I am not a conservative, but that might be something a conservative would argue.
Speaking as someone who lives in a monarchy, at least a nominal one. I may agree with you in theory, but one of the key problems of monarchy is once you have a monarch who is not interested in ruling or is incapable of exercising power, and power gets delegated to another institution, the monarchy is very unlikely to ever get power back. Once a monarchy becomes ‘constitutional’ it’s only a reign or two away from becoming a purely symbolic, politically powerless institution, particularly in a society where a perceived popular mandate is the established source of political legitimacy.
15:58 This is just demonstrably not true. There are scores of monarchs that have fled their country to reside in another once their throne was lost. The most famous being the Jacobites who fled England, not once, but twice in a hundred year span. Kaiser Wilhelm II, Mohammad Reza Shah, Emperor Bo Dai, King Haakon VII, and Queen Wilhelmina are all in recent memory. However I will give a honorable mention to King Christian X who heroically did not flee Denmark during WW2, though he was the exception not the rule.
I don't even feel like watching that far into the video considering how ahistorical his point of view is. Next thing he'll say is that there's only ever been one Pope at a time and that they always wielded their power with virtue.
@@WicketdeBarricada This is not even my major criticism of monarchy as such. I just feel like it is a bad point in need of revision. I can name half a dozen monachs that have fled their realms within the past 80 years. The point is just manifestly untrue.
The problem is that the presidency is essentially a rotating position of King. You can see writings from the founding fathers seeing the fault in that power. We should have had an executive branch like that of Switzerland where it is very weak
@@baseballworldwide9439 I agree with this statement. The best way to make that type of power dynamic is to have a contiguous population that gained power over centuries. Old money families are important for that, the ones that survived through male heirs leading/working ceaselessly to compete. I think it is possible but we would need more freedom of association in the US
@@mikexstad1121 The president in the US since the time of the Founding Fathers had more executive power than the King of Britain. They thought it was balanced because we could swap them out every 4 years.
Interestingly, the type of monarchy supported by the Doctors of the Church isn't the hereditary monarchy endorsed here. Yes, Aquinas said that monarchy is the best form of government, but it can also be the worst depending on the nature of the monarch. Both Christ and Satan are Kings. Therefore, Aquinas actually recommends a mixed regime with elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and polity (i.e. "good" democracy). The system Aquinas describes in De Regno is an elective monarchy. St. Robert Bellarmaine proposes a similar system of elective monarchy based off the Papacy. Many great Catholic monarchs throughout history were also elected monarchs, such as the Holy Roman Emperors and Kings of Poland-Lithuania. The Pope, Abbotts, and Mother Superiors all essentially operate as elected monarchs too. I agree with many of the points in this video and would also say that hereditary succession was better than most people today imagine, but elective monarchy is both more practical and actually closer to an ideal form of government for this side of paradise.
My friend, I would say every single point that you've brought up can be countered by a single man, Czar Nicholas II. I would recommend doing some research on him and i believe all 8 of your points he would've met and yet he failed miserably as a ruler.
What about The French Louises, English Georges, the Wars of Spanish Succession, the Ottoman Turks, the various Caliphates, the Chinese Dynasties. You're thinking to small. Lol
Even though Czar Nicholas failed every point in the video it is important to remember that his father the Czar never really taught him nor had a tutor for him.
He who god hands victory to. That's the divine right, god allowed you to survive the war to become king. Being king isn't fun, ya limited to what the people will put up with, in democracy you get civil wars, in monarchies you get peasant revolts, the soldiery are peasants so it'd be a handful of knights against a horde of peasants. To change kings is a drop of poison, to change democracy is an ocean of blood
my brother in Christ you need a script. I lost track of what you were talking about more times than you had reasons. maybe edit out every time you clear your throat. either way I disagree with your core message, the problem isn't the system being wrong. it is the size of the population that the system is managing. whether it's a monarchy, a republic or a socialist commune. the leaders are more likely to take care of their people in small countries. if we want good life for the most people we break up big countries into small ones, the smaller the better.
@@ericthomas6726 never said it would happen, I said that is what is required. look at all the smallest sovereign states, in every case the people who live there are happier wealthier and safer than the people in surrounding larger nations. in. every. single. case.
No he can't Roger Williams debunked all his arguments in his 17th cent. works Mr. Cotton's Letter lately Printed, Examined and Answered (London, 1644) (cf: Publications of the Narragansett Club, vol. ii) The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience (published in 1644) John Cotton and others of the period are the best promonarchy writers I can find. See also Thomas Hobbes John Locke, Francis Bacon
@@spadeespada9432 literal heretics arguing for separation of church and state. It's important to remember that at his time the King of England was the head of the Anglican Church. So you need at least that context to understand why he argued for separation and why it is a different case for catholic monarchies. 2nd the Enlightenment has been thoroughly disproven. What did they want freedom from? Liberty to do what? What type of brotherhood? Equality? No one is equal we are all unique made in the image of God with different upbringings and friends. The solution they propose with democracy, is no different than equally distributing political power like communists.
-Hans Hermann Hoppe’s ‘democracy the god that failed’ - quite expensive for a book but the best book on this topic. -Thomas Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ - written in the 17th century, Hobbes is a pretty famous philosopher, it stands the rest of time. Both argue from philosophical and non-religious perspectives (they don’t just say that monarchs have divine right to rule, they don’t even consider that).
The Pope is an elected monarch. St. Thomas Aquinas described a mixed constitution in his book "On Kingship." That constitution includes an elected king who rules for life and an aristocracy. There must be a peaceful way to depose a bad sovereign because Catholics don't revolt. But there's a problem. Elective offices attract ambitious liars. Some monarchies aren't hereditary.
The problem with a monarchy is that it undermines and kills meritocracy. Why should I acquire the necessary skills to be a good ruler if I'm just going to inherit the position anyway? In a democracy you have to convince your citizens that you are and will be a capable ruler and if that doesn't happen the people have the power to choose a better leader. In other words, in a democracy the leaders have to be accountable to the people whereas in a monarchy they don't. If you have a bad and incompetent king the people are stuck with him until he dies and the next king takes over. In most cases the next king, the son of the previous king, is just as incompetent and useless as his father was because he doesn't answer to anyone other than himself and the nobility who are just as incompetent and lazy as he is hence he doesn't need to change anything. Democracy might not be perfect because of how easily politicians fall into corruption but at least the leaders are forced to do something positive for their subjects or else they will be quickly removed from power and their names disgraced in the public eye. A king more often than not doesn't care about his people's opinions because to him his authority comes from "God himself." In the long run, democracy is a far better system than a monarchy.
Okay but the issue is in the premise that running for office is equal to running the government. First of all, if I’m good at propaganda, I can simply create the impression of success, or blame predecessors for what happened. Or you might have a program but the downsides don’t show for a while and you just retire before to make the downsides someone else’s problem. You get credit for bringing good things, and the next guy gets blamed for the bad parts.
Wow! Credit for your bravery! I respectfully disagree with most of what you said. I have a feeling that the printing press was the beginning of the end for Monarchy. And now that we are living through “printing press 2.0” there is just no chance for anything besides a symbolic one. One reason it worked was the lack of information people had access to. Consider that Louis and Marie Antoinette almost escaped France because few people knew what they even looked like. Also when your life depends on it you can find a great deal of love and respect for a King and/or Queen.
Hey I saw your recommended book below, would it be possible to also include some general histories and case studies that highlight the value of monarchism?
Thomas Hobbs "leviathan" if you can read middle english it's pretty in-depth. Even then there's modern English versions. People seem to forget english is one of the older written languages in northern Europe/Scandinavia (Britannia is an island in the North sea, thus making the English Nords who talk funny. We go boink boink not Bork bork.
Monarchy is far superior to democracy. In most cases, of course there are exceptions to the rule. The current world hegemon does not allow for any Christian monarchies, they would be quickly overthrown. But we can look into the Arab World. As a general rule monarchies are stable and safe and republic /democracies are unstable and fake. Monarchies: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Morocco, Jordan, Oman, Republics: Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Algeria, Lybia The only working Arab Republic I can think of is Tunisia.
Inherently there are no incentives for a monarch to serve the people, and the so called "tests" are nowhere near consistent or sufficient to create a suitable leader. That is the core idea why democracies, although flawed, always contribute to better living standards compared to monarchies/autocracies
Like right now? Most of the western world developped itself under monarchic authorities or mixed systems requiring a strong executive. The tests have more to do with teaching heirs to rule which is often a good indicator for good monarchs across history. Bad or mediocre monarchs have more often than not recieved a mediocre training in that regard, like Nicholas II, Paul I of Russia. There are however more mediocre, corrupt or bad politicians and the mere ability of replacing the left wing cleptocrat liar with a right wing cleptocrat liar does nothing to guarantee that the new ruler will be better than the former. Having institutions regulate the heirs and allow the best and most willing one to take over after having properly learnt the business of ruling seems more coherent.
For me, I have recently recently had a mind shift. My question is now which system create more and better Saints. It seems to me pretty clearly that that is monarchy.
@@lord_woodhaven6426 No, The Trinitarian Theophany does because the individual Saint SEEKS the transforming union with God AND follows through. The Catholic Church only confirms the obvious and not so obvious. Monarchs encourage the promulgation of Virtues otherwise he is just a tyrant and will be thrown out eventually if virtues are strong in the people.
My first question is what happens when you have a bad Monarch
He's more likely to be held accountable. Unlike in a democracy where rarely anyone gets held to account for catastrophic failures or corruption, the monarch will lose the support of his people, and subsequently; his military. The monarch's well-being and legacy is tied directly to the fate of his nation, rather than how many dirty hands he can shake that will do favors for him. No system can 100% account for the greedy nature of humans, but I believe monarchy limits it more than democracy.
@@baseballworldwide9439 No offense but that's a very optimistic interpretation of checks and balances. The thing with monarchies, specifically absolute monarchies, is that they can change the rules as long as they have the support of the military and possibly elites depending on the system. The people are rarely factored into the game of power, the only example of where they were was Denmark which I will give is the gold standard in statecraft; however this was a rare example who's factors went beyond just being a monarchy. The fact is that monarchies are simply flimsy as a state and depend entirely on the training of a well meaning and sound minded monarch. This doesn't happen often and is very hard to do consistently over the generations. All it takes is a mistake in the succession line or a tyrannical ruler to pop up and destroy the country. The argument for democracy is that the people are directly involved in the system of governance and so have a check on who they choose to represent, sort of imitating the Danish monarchy in the rights and powers of the population but taking a more enshrined approach closer to the roman's. Where the roman republic failed is that when times got tough they instituted a king to make full dictatorial power and he abused it, leading to his death. Which then led to a power grab from greedy and ambitious individuals that led Rome into an era of empire. This empire was propped up via slave labor and imperialism which leads to stagnation and decadence. Now moving on to the ancient Greeks and their take on democracy. Their democracy was almost direct and shows what happens when you give the people too much power, people tend to get swept up in ideas, ideologies and slogans; leading to elect someone who promises to fix everything via tearing down the system and putting themselves at the center of the new government (almost like a monarchy). What tends to happen after that is either through draconian practices, not sharing power, or not being able to handle solving a nations issues effectively (mind you most people are not geniuses of statecraft) This will most often lead to either said draconian practices or the fall of the regime and we play the whole game again.
What i now question to you is, what happens when one group or person has too much power or holds it for too long, they eventually abuse it. What's the solution, checks. Checks are simply giving power to a group to make sure the other group(s) don't have too much power.
I will also give that constitutional monarchies seem to have a better track record than democracies and republics in terms of falling into dictatorial rule and that probably has to do with an additional check above the governance and acting almost like a independent arbiter if need be and not solely relying on the checks below. Putting governance in the middle of the power game instead of at the top.
Anyways all this to say, Monarchies by themselves don't really have track records if every monarch is free to do how they please and so the idea of monarchy cannot accurately be judged as inherently a good or bad thing. I would like to point out I'm only responding to this comment and not the video as a whole, I wanted to emphasize the importance of checks in a government. Thank you for reading.
@Obergefellwuzgay okay, don't
@baseballworldwide9439 So we invest the entire fate of the nation with one man? And if he is bad then we have to organize a coup to oust him? Which will cause 1000x more damage and pain than simply just ousting the incumbent in the next election?
This is a very common concern with monarchy. My question for you would be what happens when you have a horrifically bad president. It seems that the president can get away with murder. Every system is corrupted and corruptible as long as it has corrupted and corruptible people within it. However, that does not invalidate the system. Or else all systems would be invalid.
Another thing about birthright is that monarchs are prepared for rule from birth by people that know the ins and outs of the system, from a long lineage of people that have been learning what works and what doesn't. Monarchs are generally more qualified to rule than most politicians.
I suppose that aspect is arguable. It certainly doesn't always turn out that way in practice. One could also argue that monarchs run counter to conservative values in that they are unearned positions, as is the notion of an aristocracy, generally. I am not a conservative, but that might be something a conservative would argue.
Speaking as someone who lives in a monarchy, at least a nominal one. I may agree with you in theory, but one of the key problems of monarchy is once you have a monarch who is not interested in ruling or is incapable of exercising power, and power gets delegated to another institution, the monarchy is very unlikely to ever get power back. Once a monarchy becomes ‘constitutional’ it’s only a reign or two away from becoming a purely symbolic, politically powerless institution, particularly in a society where a perceived popular mandate is the established source of political legitimacy.
15:58 This is just demonstrably not true. There are scores of monarchs that have fled their country to reside in another once their throne was lost. The most famous being the Jacobites who fled England, not once, but twice in a hundred year span. Kaiser Wilhelm II, Mohammad Reza Shah, Emperor Bo Dai, King Haakon VII, and Queen Wilhelmina are all in recent memory. However I will give a honorable mention to King Christian X who heroically did not flee Denmark during WW2, though he was the exception not the rule.
I don't even feel like watching that far into the video considering how ahistorical his point of view is. Next thing he'll say is that there's only ever been one Pope at a time and that they always wielded their power with virtue.
@@WicketdeBarricada This is not even my major criticism of monarchy as such. I just feel like it is a bad point in need of revision. I can name half a dozen monachs that have fled their realms within the past 80 years. The point is just manifestly untrue.
The problem is that the presidency is essentially a rotating position of King. You can see writings from the founding fathers seeing the fault in that power. We should have had an executive branch like that of Switzerland where it is very weak
It's a lot easier to have that weak central authority in a homogenous, high-trust society like Switzerland than it is in countries like the US.
@@baseballworldwide9439 I agree with this statement. The best way to make that type of power dynamic is to have a contiguous population that gained power over centuries. Old money families are important for that, the ones that survived through male heirs leading/working ceaselessly to compete. I think it is possible but we would need more freedom of association in the US
If you think the Presidency is a kingship, then No Child Left Behind failed you and you should've been left behind.
President is not a king, there are three branches of government and a judicial system lol
@@mikexstad1121 The president in the US since the time of the Founding Fathers had more executive power than the King of Britain. They thought it was balanced because we could swap them out every 4 years.
Interestingly, the type of monarchy supported by the Doctors of the Church isn't the hereditary monarchy endorsed here. Yes, Aquinas said that monarchy is the best form of government, but it can also be the worst depending on the nature of the monarch. Both Christ and Satan are Kings. Therefore, Aquinas actually recommends a mixed regime with elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and polity (i.e. "good" democracy). The system Aquinas describes in De Regno is an elective monarchy. St. Robert Bellarmaine proposes a similar system of elective monarchy based off the Papacy. Many great Catholic monarchs throughout history were also elected monarchs, such as the Holy Roman Emperors and Kings of Poland-Lithuania. The Pope, Abbotts, and Mother Superiors all essentially operate as elected monarchs too.
I agree with many of the points in this video and would also say that hereditary succession was better than most people today imagine, but elective monarchy is both more practical and actually closer to an ideal form of government for this side of paradise.
My friend, I would say every single point that you've brought up can be countered by a single man, Czar Nicholas II. I would recommend doing some research on him and i believe all 8 of your points he would've met and yet he failed miserably as a ruler.
What about
The French Louises, English Georges, the Wars of Spanish Succession, the Ottoman Turks, the various Caliphates, the Chinese Dynasties. You're thinking to small. Lol
@@spadeespada9432They all ended with a Czar Nicholas lol, lmao even
Well a monarch must wish to be a monarch and not believe too much in his own power. Those are the main flaws that ruined Czar Nicholas's reign.
Even though Czar Nicholas failed every point in the video it is important to remember that his father the Czar never really taught him nor had a tutor for him.
Great points
Who becomes the monarch, though? I call dibs.
He who god hands victory to. That's the divine right, god allowed you to survive the war to become king. Being king isn't fun, ya limited to what the people will put up with, in democracy you get civil wars, in monarchies you get peasant revolts, the soldiery are peasants so it'd be a handful of knights against a horde of peasants. To change kings is a drop of poison, to change democracy is an ocean of blood
The man who establishes one
my brother in Christ you need a script.
I lost track of what you were talking about more times than you had reasons.
maybe edit out every time you clear your throat.
either way I disagree with your core message, the problem isn't the system being wrong. it is the size of the population that the system is managing.
whether it's a monarchy, a republic or a socialist commune. the leaders are more likely to take care of their people in small countries.
if we want good life for the most people we break up big countries into small ones, the smaller the better.
That's just stupid and will never happen. You might as well have said nothing. That's how meaningless your opinion is.
@@ericthomas6726 never said it would happen, I said that is what is required.
look at all the smallest sovereign states, in every case the people who live there are happier wealthier and safer than the people in surrounding larger nations.
in. every. single. case.
Great video! Subbed :)
Can you recommend some books for arguing for monarchy from a philosophical POV.
One of my personal favorites for a topic like this is "They Have Uncrowned Him" by Archbishop Lefebvre 👍🏻
@@CatholicMonarchistPodcast Archbishop Lefebvre is absolutely the best man to talk about a catholic monarch. Sure.
No he can't Roger Williams debunked all his arguments in his 17th cent. works
Mr. Cotton's Letter lately Printed, Examined and Answered (London, 1644)
(cf: Publications of the Narragansett Club, vol. ii)
The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience (published in 1644)
John Cotton and others of the period are the best promonarchy writers I can find.
See also Thomas Hobbes
John Locke, Francis Bacon
@@spadeespada9432 literal heretics arguing for separation of church and state. It's important to remember that at his time the King of England was the head of the Anglican Church. So you need at least that context to understand why he argued for separation and why it is a different case for catholic monarchies. 2nd the Enlightenment has been thoroughly disproven. What did they want freedom from? Liberty to do what? What type of brotherhood? Equality? No one is equal we are all unique made in the image of God with different upbringings and friends. The solution they propose with democracy, is no different than equally distributing political power like communists.
-Hans Hermann Hoppe’s ‘democracy the god that failed’ - quite expensive for a book but the best book on this topic.
-Thomas Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ - written in the 17th century, Hobbes is a pretty famous philosopher, it stands the rest of time.
Both argue from philosophical and non-religious perspectives (they don’t just say that monarchs have divine right to rule, they don’t even consider that).
This is a really great and informative video. It helps me to understand why Monarchy is the best form of government. Keep up the good work!
Do you believe in “Right By Conquest”? also do you suppose the king would wear a crown, In modern times it seems out of place.
Those are irrelevant questions.
The Pope is an elected monarch. St. Thomas Aquinas described a mixed constitution in his book "On Kingship." That constitution includes an elected king who rules for life and an aristocracy. There must be a peaceful way to depose a bad sovereign because Catholics don't revolt. But there's a problem. Elective offices attract ambitious liars.
Some monarchies aren't hereditary.
The problem with a monarchy is that it undermines and kills meritocracy. Why should I acquire the necessary skills to be a good ruler if I'm just going to inherit the position anyway?
In a democracy you have to convince your citizens that you are and will be a capable ruler and if that doesn't happen the people have the power to choose a better leader. In other words, in a democracy the leaders have to be accountable to the people whereas in a monarchy they don't. If you have a bad and incompetent king the people are stuck with him until he dies and the next king takes over. In most cases the next king, the son of the previous king, is just as incompetent and useless as his father was because he doesn't answer to anyone other than himself and the nobility who are just as incompetent and lazy as he is hence he doesn't need to change anything.
Democracy might not be perfect because of how easily politicians fall into corruption but at least the leaders are forced to do something positive for their subjects or else they will be quickly removed from power and their names disgraced in the public eye. A king more often than not doesn't care about his people's opinions because to him his authority comes from "God himself." In the long run, democracy is a far better system than a monarchy.
Okay but the issue is in the premise that running for office is equal to running the government. First of all, if I’m good at propaganda, I can simply create the impression of success, or blame predecessors for what happened. Or you might have a program but the downsides don’t show for a while and you just retire before to make the downsides someone else’s problem. You get credit for bringing good things, and the next guy gets blamed for the bad parts.
Monarchy, at least constitutional monarchy usually has some elected body like Parliament.
Wow! Credit for your bravery! I respectfully disagree with most of what you said. I have a feeling that the printing press was the beginning of the end for Monarchy. And now that we are living through “printing press 2.0” there is just no chance for anything besides a symbolic one. One reason it worked was the lack of information people had access to. Consider that Louis and Marie Antoinette almost escaped France because few people knew what they even looked like. Also when your life depends on it you can find a great deal of love and respect for a King and/or Queen.
Hey I saw your recommended book below, would it be possible to also include some general histories and case studies that highlight the value of monarchism?
Thomas Hobbs "leviathan" if you can read middle english it's pretty in-depth. Even then there's modern English versions. People seem to forget english is one of the older written languages in northern Europe/Scandinavia (Britannia is an island in the North sea, thus making the English Nords who talk funny. We go boink boink not Bork bork.
am more of a theocratic national syndicalist..
but i appreciate another guy bashing "muh democracy" ew
Monarchy is far superior to democracy. In most cases, of course there are exceptions to the rule.
The current world hegemon does not allow for any Christian monarchies, they would be quickly overthrown.
But we can look into the Arab World. As a general rule monarchies are stable and safe and republic /democracies are unstable and fake. Monarchies: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Morocco, Jordan, Oman,
Republics: Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Algeria, Lybia
The only working Arab Republic I can think of is Tunisia.
Inherently there are no incentives for a monarch to serve the people, and the so called "tests" are nowhere near consistent or sufficient to create a suitable leader. That is the core idea why democracies, although flawed, always contribute to better living standards compared to monarchies/autocracies
Like right now? Most of the western world developped itself under monarchic authorities or mixed systems requiring a strong executive. The tests have more to do with teaching heirs to rule which is often a good indicator for good monarchs across history. Bad or mediocre monarchs have more often than not recieved a mediocre training in that regard, like Nicholas II, Paul I of Russia.
There are however more mediocre, corrupt or bad politicians and the mere ability of replacing the left wing cleptocrat liar with a right wing cleptocrat liar does nothing to guarantee that the new ruler will be better than the former. Having institutions regulate the heirs and allow the best and most willing one to take over after having properly learnt the business of ruling seems more coherent.
For me, I have recently recently had a mind shift. My question is now which system create more and better Saints. It seems to me pretty clearly that that is monarchy.
Monarchs don't make saints, the Catholic Church does.
@@lord_woodhaven6426 No, The Trinitarian Theophany does because the individual Saint SEEKS the transforming union with God AND follows through. The Catholic Church only confirms the obvious and not so obvious. Monarchs encourage the promulgation of Virtues otherwise he is just a tyrant and will be thrown out eventually if virtues are strong in the people.
I would say the prominence of the Church on society coinciding with the predominance of European monarchies is a confounding factor in that analysis
Want a king? Go to Britain
Britain is a monarchy in name only. The royal family there is a joke
Lmaoooooo monarchists
Thats what im sayin
Is it even worth listening?
Yeah its pretty funny
No gods, no masters!
Lmfao
NERD!!!!!