Capitan Pescanova said:My own thoughts are that an absolute monarchy is much healthier than a democracy. I share the point of view of Hans-Hermann and mikke korwin in this aspect. Politicians always do whatever it takes to win votes, they don't care about the future consequences of their decisions. Nonetheless, a king will always do what he considers is right for his country economically/socially (he might be advice by the wrong person and he also might be stupid of course).
A good analogy would be the following one:
Imagine that in one scenario, we give a flat to a given person for 10 years, and besides we don't allow him to choose who is going to receive the house after those 10 years nor to sell it. Most likely, he will not take care of the house since he will have to get it back.
On the other scenario, where we would give away the house and he could maintain the house forever. Therefore, we can assume that he will take of it in order to either sell it in the future or to give it to his children.
What history has shown us is that, modern democracy are by far more in debt than absolute monarchies from the past(excluding period of wars).
two good examples would be Monaco and Liechtenstein (Liechtenstein is not strictly speaking an absolute monarchy but still is pretty close). Both of this countries have one the highest gdp per capita in the world.
I couldn't agree more with people who say: well, but there is always a chance that the throne is taken by an idiot. even so, I would still consider it better because with democracies we will always lead by idiots and even if we get a good politician (like Donald Trump), he will not be allowed to make big changes. Other point in favour is that no modern democracy is avoiding feminism and cultural marxism. Perhaps some countries from eastern europe are reluctant to embrace this ideology for the time being. However, I think is a matter of time before all modern democracies embrace this way of thinking. Democracies are controlled by the highest bidder. As far as I can see, only dictatorships (e.i north Korea) and countries who can look as if they are democracy but in reality are dictatorships (i.e. China, Rusia) are against this movement.
Regarding stupid kings, I feel that the only way is to do like they do in Switzerland. Militar service should be mandatory for every men and they must be forced to get their rifle at home. I don't really think that a dynasty would opt for a stupid replacement that would risk their heritage (even then, I assume that when it comes to economic affairs, kings would have advisers)
infowarrior1 said:Tell me your thoughts on the video. Is Monarchy as is claimed in the video the key to lower time preference in societies?
And democracy necessarily the incentive to high time preference?
Richard Turpin said:At least with Monarchy and feudalism, if you're unlucky enough to live under a bad King, you only have to get rid of one guy. This is what happened all the time. You can't do the same with a government or the swamp dwellers that prop it up.
Pride male said:Yeah I dunno, Czar Nicholas 2, Kaizer Wilhem off ww1, king George 3, king Louie the 16th, Nero amongst other monarchs did some irreversible damage. Dont see a lot of long term thinking on their part.
At least you can get rid of the President Carters and George Bushs after 8 years. And politicians have to earn their stripes to get to the top.
Pride male said:
BlueMark said:Pride male said:
Maybe you do (and so do I), but most members of society need some kind of social mythology to keep them functioning. Members of this forum are not representative of the general population.
In democratic societies like the USA, that takes the form of civic religion, where people venerate past presidents, the Constitution, the flag, the wars that were won, etc.