Monarchism is the only legitimate system of goverment. Prove me wrong

>His authority is derived from God himself
>"Nah, it's alright, God doesn't have to be real whatever"
Fucking proddies ruining everything, as usual
So? Harry is a literal nobody in the succession line who wouldn't get the crown even if the family was decimated. He could be fucking ladyboys in thailand for all I care.

Says the guy who has a French dynasty, re-installed by a dictator, ruling his country. Haven't you got the memo, Spain is royally fucked, pun intended.

Monarchy is good. But the people must make sure that the monarch represents the people. Or else, to the guillotine.
If you think about it, they are representing their people. Jow Forums represents a minority, the majority in those countries are normies who think that shit is cool.

Bonapartism is the true redpill.

Only catholic monarchy care about national wealth and prestige

>be spain
>have a mentally disabled monarch because of succession
>fucking based system!

Imagine being such a cuck you'd let some dude rule over you because it's his (((BIRTHRIGHT))).
Fascist-technocracy is the only true form of meritocracy and legitimate government a state should aspire for, fuck freeloading aristocrats

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

How is that any different than democracy

Why do we need a government?

To be fair that family has been reduced to a tourist attraction, much less having any real authority anymore.

Monarchism isn't inherently a bad system when compared to something like democracy, but for those same reasons you can have terrible politicians, you can have terrible monarchs. Only difference is loyalty, without that a monarchy crumbles, and usually so does the kingdom.

>Fascist Technocrachy

Based. Something similar to the political system of the People’s Republic of China, where people who have been elected by the party due to their skill can lead the nation.

Because the UK is fucked and there's no turning back

You are not wrong. Monarchies losing their power is the only reason corruption is running rampant in Europe.

To keep retarded anarchists like you in line.

It worked realy shitty in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, numer 1 reason why this country got rekt

If democracy is anytime someone votes for something, then sure. That's a pretty broad category then, though. I'd say democracy is rule by the people. An elective monarchy could very well be a small number of electors from the aristocracy who vote on candidates with royal legitimacy via lineage.

Because freedom is a meme.

England's last and only hope might be that evil bitch Queen dying and having a God fearing King rise up.

America had it pretty close.
>House members should have a one term limit
>Senators should be elected by the state legislatures and not by popular vote
>Supreme Court Justices should have mandatory retirement at 75
>Birthright citizenship should be repealed in cases where the parents are not citizens
>You shouldn't be allowed to vote unless you're a net tax contributor.

But we don't try to improve the system. We degrade it.

Every man a King

Is there anyone based in the royalty other than prince Charles? He will never be king.

>Throwing your country under the bus so you can LARP as Caesar
A la lanterne for all Bonapartists!

We should have just listened to Washington before he croaked and not form parties knowing it'd only divide the nation.

I'm the king now, god told me in a lsd trip. Where's my fookin crown

William is very likely quietly based as well.
>Married a good, middle class English qt
>3 gorgeous kids with proper royal names
>Cares about the environment
>Always acts with charm and decorum
>Has spent whole life preparing for the Crown
Charles is allowed to be more open cos he's old enough to not give a fuck, William has to play the statesman for a while. Harry somehow got all the worst qualities of Lady Di, Princess Margaret, and great-great uncle Edward, but Wills is still possessed of some virtue.

monarchy is a death cult, rewarding a meritless inbred moron because their ancestor was supposedly decent is totally stupid
Nobody is rewarding anyone, a king is king by divine right and because of the succession laws present in each princedom.

And how you want to do that? Voting demagogues
in the pockets of pressure groups? Why do you think this person with "personality" and "determination" cares about the country at all? He has four years to plunder what he can without getting caught, ensure a reelection and get a comfy retirement. That's what he's in for. He's not interested in reforms or actually good policies, only in increasing his popularity for the next term and get enough votes to keep plundering. Not to mention how their allegiance doesn't belong to the people he represents, but to the powerful groups that got him to rise in the party and finance his increasingly expensive campaigns.

Nah, it could've worked to some degree. The problem was the veto system and the sejm being too big to function properly. being totally surrounded by powerful absolute monarchies didn't help either

>Implying based Charlie was in any way bad to his territories
Charles and his ministers managed to finally control the wild inflation that endangered the treasury, achieved peace in the empire after a century of endless wars, and managed to keep the empire together against the fucking Louis XIV, not to mention that under his rule Spain was actually prosperous. Even as an imbred he was ruler by right, and he sure showed it

>Monarchism

Attached: LOL.jpg (1200x854, 236K)

I can't, because you're right.

Attached: 07-20090403_gaf_u66_197.jpg (1300x1398, 691K)

what a shit painting, they forgot to add pillows filled with diamonds which were used as shields

Monarchism does indeed beat communism OP. But, just as collectivization of authority is a bad thing, so to is centralization of authority.

The only answer then is individual monarchy (every man his own king), also known as
Anarchy.

Anarchy btfo's monarchy and communism, et al, for the same reasons -it places the rights of the individual above the whims of either a potentially nefarious dictator and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Anarchism can't exist without communism, and if it could it would be crushed by global capitalism anyway.

>Still Believing in (((Republics)))
>Not having a chad king ruling his nation with love and willing to sacrifice for the sake of their people with immense glory and prestige

Attached: 13062873_10153825442768778_1848083574453841684_o.jpg (1600x1200, 388K)

>Still believing in (((monarchies)))
>Not having a Chad Fascist Republic Dictator ruling his nation with love and willing to sacrifice for the sake of their people with immense glory and prestige

>His authority is derived from God himself
Divine Right doesn't real.

>politicians are so great, i want them to have ultimate power over me
>there is no flaw here

Who would run your nation then?

Sweden has a monarch, at zero points has he tried to help us with our crazy politicians.
Monarchy is just as much of a lie as is democuckry.
Moral people should be elected to monarchs though, having a single point to both praise when doing well and depose when doing bad is better

>Fascism
>Republic
Pick one

>Divine right isn't real
Says you

Who would willingly decide to become a slave? Fuck off, cunt.

Attached: ancap 2.png (1270x862, 191K)

monarchism in the modern day where the population is armed would be very effective, a king would have every reason to be benevolent.

Until I come with my minigun and shoot you and your family, stealing your property because I'm stronger,

I’ll pick both thank you very much. A leading council rules the nation of the party, elected by a lower assembly of party officials. The leader is picked and elected by this council

Attached: 716E14CD-043F-4E62-AB10-6C84E6F19D59.jpg (350x233, 11K)

Republic just means no monarchic ruler.

This, commieanon has it right

there wasn't a single king/emperor who wasn't indebted to a third party
if you actually think someone in a position like that gives a shit about plebs like you, you are beyond dumb lol

So basically elective monarchism whenever the ruler dies the parliament choose who would be next since primogeniture laws aren't applied to said government

How can he help you if you filthy usurpers blocked him from any sort of real power?

Horseshit. Only a filthy communist would be so stupid as to write this shit.

First off -your last 'point' is fucking retarded. The "capitalism" you fear, can only exist where there is a government to enforce monopoly and control competition in the marketplace, via regulation and licensure of a given area of the market. Which wouldnt exist in an anarchist society and since people need things and cant currently do it all, there would be zero barriers to entry into the marketplace. Which would result in competition and more to the point, no one single market entity would be able to amass a large enough amount of wealth, necessary to ...somehow...outman and outgun the society, entire...

That withstanding your commie fuckwittedness, there in fact, can be NO ANARCHY -with communism. Anarchy means no rulers. If anybody has authority over another....as is the case with communism...then you cannot have anarchy. See how definitions work...and dont give me the crap-otkin and soi-kunin -redefining of a pre existing term, as what ever the fuck they needed it to be, in order to sell their degenerate, lazy, anti human dribble.

Anarchy means now, what it meant when it was coined, in ancient greece -No rulers.

Now get the fuck out of my helicopter.

monarcucks BTFO

The original intent of the appointment of a king, was protection of the people. If everyone is able to protect themselves - Why even have a king at that point.

In a way yes. But the leader can be booted out of his position in a vote of no confidence (For example when Mussolini was voted out) But instead of the elective monarchy of the old days where every lord could vote, only the council of higher party members who have been elected from the lower assembly can vote on who the next leader is

The end goal of communism is anarchism. As long as private property exists you're trading one form of slavery for another. You can't have an anarchist society without abolishing private profit and indirect benefit.

A monarch. An anti-politician.

You'd need to get some kind of confirmation from God that it is. Until then, no. Nor does it need to be.

you cant take us all out.

>Still kills millions of people in forms of forced labor (basically slavery)
Hypocrisy of commies

>The end goal of communism is anarchism

Yeah, the gensek and his party mooks will gladly hand over their power to the people.
You're just a useful idiot.

Attached: cool story bro.png (1165x1075, 728K)

No, puts everything on the king. Nat Soc is literally rule via the philosopher kings, Hitler just fucked up being too aggressive. For its first run though it did wonders for Germany, in the pre war time everything was going so well.

>Prove me wrong.
All western Monarchies are constitutional and the monarch is just a symbol while the whole decision making is done by the Parliament or other institutions that replaced the monarch long time ago.
The only legitimate system of government is a Theocracy.

Look at the soviet union past stalin retard. Consistently more liberal, to the point where it collapsed.

Current papacy is a joke

>A system in which the governing body has a legitimate interest in the health and wellbeing of his subjects is superior to governments in which you have no rights but to perish for the good of the State
We've lived in neofeudalism for a while and it's just not working out. I think we should go back.

The end goal of Communism is the destruction of the middle class to create a huge gap in power between rulers and subjects.

And what makes you think a monarch will be any different from a politician? Monarchs like politicians have an equal chance of being corrupt, for example. If the son of a businessman inherited the company of his father, he could still always sell the business to another company. It makes very little difference on whether someone is a monarch or a politician. The Roman Empire struggled when Marcus Aurelius made his own son autocrat of the Roman Empire. Birthright shouldn’t make you a ruler

The middle class is the bourgeoisie.

I can agree with you there but the problem is if a monarchy needs to be legitimate otherwise political stability is uncertainty that's why birthright laws are popular among-st monarchs

You still had KGB breathing down your necks, no matter how "liberal" it seemed on the surface. Don't kid yourself, you stupid cunt - if you dared to step out of line, you were done.

Politicians are by nature short term. A hereditary monarchy MUST think long term if it wants to survive. This necessitates them keeping the nation prosperous, and their people on their side. They can't just sell out and bugger off, because it would be a net loss to them.
Whereas a politician has to plan for retirement. His children won't inherit the position, so he has no reason not to scourge and exploit it, and then feel free to bugger off somewhere which hasn't been stripmined.
> Birthright shouldn’t make you a ruler
Given that it gives you the absolute best chance to be a good ruler, over every other person, yes it should.

Elective monarchy is flawed for the same reason democracy is flawed: power is insecure. A hereditary system leaves no doubt regarding who has power and who will succeed in the event of a ruler's death. Without a guaranteed long-term dynasty, a ruler has a greater incentive to focus on accumulating as much wealth as possible during their reign.

Oh, so do you believe in hereditary monarchy?

>Criticized goverment
>KGB Officer knocks on your door and shots you behind the head along with people who are suspected of revolting against the goverment

>The end goal of communism is anarchism.

Sure. But -communists- are stupid and cant perform basic reasoning. As you have displayed with this very conversation, by not comprehending the argument made in my previous post, which preemptively refutes that, which I anticipated you would make in your response to it.

Ill repeat it here :

>there in fact, can be NO ANARCHY -with communism. Anarchy means no rulers. If anybody has authority over another....as is the case with communism...then you cannot have anarchy.

What is the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Hint: Its not anarchy...

>As long as private property exists you're trading one form of slavery for another.

Only when there is a government to enforce the collective protection of said property -remember what I said about the communist inability to draw logical conclusions...?

Private property is a right; in fact it is -the- right. All human life requires property, and if I lash a sharp rock to a stick and use it to junt an elk -the resulting resources are mine...not yours...

>You can't have an anarchist society without abolishing private profit and indirect benefit.

>cant have society, sans initiatory force, without...initiatory force...

You just say shit without thinking it through.

I do as it has legitimacy compare to elective monarchy and since royal families often marry to other, realms can have international stability

How about provide some proof outside of mass civil unrest in satellite states. Why do you think capitalist windbags never talk about gulags past 1956?

>a king is king by divine right and because of the succession laws present in each princedom.
if god shows your king is no longer acting with divine authority then you need a new king, god doesn't always favor the same family, god's blessing can be removed which is why the people are tasked with imposing god's will

Alright, here you go:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre

"Autoritarian-ancap dictatorships"

I understand what you are saying. But this makes the monarch put its family before its nation. Let’s say you are the King of Austria, but you have a claim on France, you can force Austria into a war so you can become King of France, making it your main Kingdom and effectively making Austria a minor country.

Or in another scenario, what if your kid is incompetent and you have a far more competent man in your council?

But I am interested in what you are saying, do you believe a monarch should have some form of constitution so it is bound by its people?

>Basically you

Attached: 1555068365021.png (475x637, 604K)

And I earned my right to be one fair and square. Sorry but I don't like being on the same level as Tyrone, I produce more than he does so I deserve more. I am socialist though in that I think pure economic freedom is bad and human greed must suppress for the good of society. But unlike commies I believe there is 3 tiers of humans and the lower/middle should have a sharp distinction.

Yeah, noticed that too.
>You WILL participate in a free market economy with free competition or you're going for a helicopter ride
Chile was a fluke that somehow worked out in the end, but it shouldn't be taken as an example of ancap.

>there wasn't a single king/emperor who wasn't indebted to a third party
Most hereditadry rulers weren't. Sure, they relied on some portion of the nobility if they were embroiled in a succesion conflict, but their debt was repayed by giving away the lands of the nobles defeated. Plebs were, when possible, protected by the monarch to balance out the power of nobility

>if you actually think someone in a position like that gives a shit about plebs like you, you are beyond dumb lol
It's enough with him leaving us alone and not wasting our money on retarded policies

King Nicholas II, the last King of Russia
He did dig his own grave
Fucking retard
Common people and the army massively supporting the Reds is the direct result of his incompetence and rampant corruption that surrounded him.
He had a talent for being a fuckup.

I could propose to you a semi-constitution monarch where a king's power and actions are in check and guide him to a more wise decision but not to the point where branches of government are separated from the king its self to the point of basically what is the British royal family is, a figure head

National Socialism is a philosophy, an ideology, not a "system of government", kiddo.

Attached: 1540086737754.png (358x356, 42K)

The intent of a king is to provide justice and administrating the realm. It's not casual that the most revered quality in a king is his sense of justice.

Basiquement tu as tort, prouve-moi que j'ai faux.