You guys can’t possibly be serious when you promote non-democratic forms of government on this board, can you...

the top tax bracket here is less than 40% you dumb neet

did I mention I'm an alcoholic?

>non-democratic forms of government
>immediately thinks of totalitarianism
Goy,
why? I'm a liberal autocrat & most importantly, a political cynic. As long as you don't live in 1960's China, Stalinist USSR or in Cambodia, keeping your mouth shut and doing what you're told will keep you alive.

>Yes I want to get fucked up the ass by the state

Attached: smug laughing.gif (864x368, 1.08M)

I'm dead serious you bender, China is going to have unquestioned global supremacy in under 50 years thanks to their authoritarian rule
>but most of china is a shithole
Correct but it's developing incredibly quickly because of the long term planning a one party system allows
FUCK DEMOCRACY

Don’t make me post the webms, zhang.

You go ahead and post whatever makes you feel better mate

Read Eumeswil, libretardian larper.

I'm sure our monarchy is more reliable than our politicians.

Not pictured: The metric ass ton of corruption involved in a planned economy

...

i unironically support enlightened monarchism

Attached: 1545415864892.gif (255x217, 26K)

>You can only be an anarchist or an authoritarian, there is no middle ground

Attached: lol.jpg (707x960, 117K)

So a national mascot controlled by the parliament?

He's right you know. The average citizen is a retard; I score on the good end of the curve and I dont think I'm qualified to say what the best course of action would be for our country, yet I see everyday people too dumb to make something of their life smugly assured they have it all figured it out for me and our countrymen.

no

The King isn't controlled by parliament. He's part of the government and only talks things over with the ministers. But it's a state secret what they discuss.

The ministers explain themselves to the parliament (the people), the senate (who represent the provinces), and the King (who represents the state).

Can the king be abdicated by the parliament?

No. The King and 1 minister can fire the parliament though.

no

Attached: v99Cb45.png (500x375, 229K)

And before politicians are allowed into parliament, they have to swear allegiance to the King.

>You do realize you’d be the first ones up against the firing wall
no, it would be the loud "classic liberal" and "free speech" types which is something i would thoroughly enjoy
im a good goy loyalist so dictators would love me

right, because being fodder is so much better

your response just strenghtens my resolve in supporting dictatorships cause i know your kind will get the bullet

so would you numbnuts that’s how being fodder works

I would die knowing that I leave behind a better world.

dont care, im happy with it, youre not, so you lose
in democracy im miserable so i lose

The Dutch system is a bit contradictory. The assumption is that the King is nearly powerless and has barely no say in political affairs. But on paper it's a sleeping giant with powers all throughout the executive and juridical branch..

And legally nobody knows what would happen if one day the King and one of his buddies in the government decide to exercise all his powers. Because such an abuse of power hasn't happened in over 150 years.

>literally a happy slave
sipping up master’s cum must be a croat national pastime

I used to be like this but after years of observing the passive indifference of the people I was trying to "help" I realized I don't give a fuck about them or their progeny either.

That, and the fact that the incredible complexities associated with governing a society can't be smashed down into a byte sized ideology and executed reliably indefinitely. You're better off just looking for ways that fuck with whatever is working the least than actively trying to fix shit, and focus directly on specific objectives rather than overarching grand strategies.

But in WW2 for example the Queen fired the Prime Minister for being in favor of working with the Nazi's.

>Because such an abuse of power hasn't happened in over 150 years.
And what happened last time?

If some monarch tried to use their political rights in a modern constitutional monarchy the most likely scenario is that they'd be quickly carted off to a mental hospital by the police.

And that’s a good thing

slavery is mans natural state
enlightenment was a mistake

my ancestor :^)

Yeah of course bro we just said the n word ironically xD

Attached: reddit.png (225x225, 5K)

Only faggots like you are afraid of the state. Responsible citizens have nothing to fear.

Absolute cringe
At least when mainlanders said that it's because they've been indoctrinated their whole life
You, in the free world, want to be a mindless slave.Sad.Pathetic.Disgusting.

Attached: eyeroll.jpg (559x575, 21K)

>You do realize you’d be the first ones up against the firing wall, right?
Why?

I'm against all forms of government.

lmao you would get your dick cut off if anyone found out you were browsing Jow Forums bro

based

>You do realize you’d be the first ones up against the firing wall, right?
Projection.

>free world
you have obviously never been to europe if you think its free world
theres nothing free here

Back then the King had nearly absolute power. And when the parliament was critical about certain decisions he made, he decided to just fired the parliament a couple times instead. Eventually the parliament decided to stop approving of the governments finances (a bit like the shutdown in America) and the King had to give in.

As a deal they traded some of his power for complete immunity. From then on 1 minister had to co-sign all government decisions, while the ministers would also be responsible for everything that the King did. So if the King would do something stupid, a politician would get in trouble over it. Which is why he refrains from openly doing politics.

But if the King would refuse to sign a law for example. Or refuse to instate a new government. Then the responsible minister would get in trouble over it.

So in theory, if the King would say (behind closed doors) that he doesn't want to sign a law. Then the government has no choice but to reject that law publicly, if they don't want to get in trouble. But nobody knows if the King exercises this power behind closed doors or not.