4 ms·
> monarchy results in better management of the asset that is the country > than democracy. The leader is there for life, the country is his sole > property and
by sevensor 2y ago
> monarchy results in better management of the asset that is the country
> than democracy. The leader is there for life, the country is his sole
> property and thus incentivized to improve it and views the country as
> his life's work. (Obviously there are plenty of exceptions.)
Obviously. The history of monarchy is full of bad heirs, succession
crises and aristocratic disputes over legitimacy. Under monarchy,
you don't get a say in the fact that your king is AEthelred Unraed,
Tarquinus Superbus, George III, Ivan Grozny, or Leopold II. Say what you
will about republican systems, they have their own issues. But monarchy,
as a system, is just an absolutely miserable form of government.
I wouldn't dream of trading the flawed republic that aspires to respect
my rights for the caprice of a monarch. I don't know where you got your
romantic ideas about monarchy from, but, my friend, read some history!
- Aerbil313 2y agoOh, I do read history. Obviously, the worldview, ideology and character of the monarch makes a big difference. Back in the day they understood these three to be all influenced by a man's religion. There have been many merciful, goodwilled monarchs too, admittedly less of them in the European continent. Not to mention that your administration had far less power over you in the pre-IR (Industrial Revolution) era. I imagine there had been many settlements throughout history who had no idea in which country's borders they currently are living in.