>* The abolition of the English monarchy led to the brutal military dictatorship of Cromwell, which ended only with the reestablishment of the monarchy. And no

>* The abolition of the English monarchy led to the brutal military dictatorship of Cromwell, which ended only with the reestablishment of the monarchy. And now that monarchy has a lot less power than it did. >* The abolition of the French monarchy led to the military dictatorship of Napoleon, which ended in a cataclysmic continent-wide war and the reestablishment of the Bourbon monarchy. And now France is a roughly-democratic republic. >* The abolition of the German and Austrian monarchies led to Hitler. Same for Germany. >* The abolition of the Russian monarchy led to the Soviet Union and the mass murder of tens of millions. Not so much the same for Russia, but I'd take the Russian Federation or some parts of the USSR over the Tsarist dictatorship. It's worth a strong mention that many countries which freed themselves of imperial control by the monarchy or republic of another country didn't end up in a disastrous state. The United States, Ireland and India are good examples. >Hierarchical power is a human universal Some kind may be, though it shouldn't be confused with monarchy. Hierarchy is not equal to a monarchy, and modern republics show that power can be distributed at least a little better, with success. >its reemergence in even more violent forms within the space of a few years, decades if you're lucky. And then the emergence of freedom, apparently - when most monarchy is abolished or minimized to the point of being powerless, we benefit. Arguably, the abolition of monarchy is not sufficient to do away with the unjust power of the state, but it is sufficient to do away with a certain unjustified power of man over another man.