Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
The Royal Edge: Why Monarchs Are More Responsible With Power
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 08. 2024
- Power inevitably leads to corruption...Or that is what we have always been told. In this video I delve into the topic of the dynamics of power, specifically how they differentiate depending on what kind of Leader is in power. I make the argument that Monarchs are, in almost every scenario, more responsible with wielding and holding power than typical Dictators or Presidents. Join me in uncovering the enigmatic truths behind royal power and its impact on governance.
Patreon: / lavader
Twitter: / lavader_
0:00 - Introduction
2:41 - The Theory Of Power
7:33 - Difference Of Execution
14:50 - The Responsibility Of Power
22:01 - Conclusion
------------------
Sources Used:
blog.apaonline...
pubmed.ncbi.nl...
/ d869212b1f62
"The Kaiser and his Times" by Michael Balfour
"The Russian Revolution" by Sean McMeekin
"On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth" by Bertrand de Jouvenel
------------------
Music used:
Ergo Phizmiz - Open Your Head
------------------
Tags:
history documentary, ancient history, ancient rome, power, monarchism, monarchy, dictatorship, germany, joseph stalin, stalin, mao zedong, mao, lavader, romania, yugoslavia, history, politics, republic, republicanism, queen elizabeth ii, elizabeth ii, royal family, the royal family, charles iii, king charles iii
Monarchs "own" their office whereas Presidents are tenants inhabiting an office. Monarchs must think long term because in 10 years they'll still be the one in office. A president can follow policies that reap short term gains and leave the problems it creates for the next guy or the one after him to deal with.
Monarchs also seek to strengthen their dynasty as a whole and not just themselves, so yeah, longterm planning
@@ibraheemshuaib8954 which however also gives a monarch more reasons to go to war for.
a president can't really bring a nation into a war over a personal or family feud. a monarch can.
@underarmbowlingincidentof1981 unfortunately yes. But monarchs are usually opportunists that wait for the right moment to invade. A democracy planning to go to war would make it very obvious they're gonna go to war, a monar hy can potentially stay silent till the best moment.
@@underarmbowlingincidentof1981 Currently it is the opposite, the kingdom is the property of the monarch and his dynasty, therefore it is not advisable to initiate direct conflicts (at the risk of losing part of his domain) or external interventionism (at the risk of losing the support and/or tolerance of his subjects) if there is a possibility of defeat. On the other hand, the leader of a democratic society cannot initiate direct conflicts if not in self-defense (real or self-perceived) or that of his allies, but he can drag his country to intervene in an external conflict with barely the support of the first electoral majority and the silence and/or disinterest of the non-militant majority disappointed with politics, which implies long-term internal debt.
@@underarmbowlingincidentof1981that. Is literally not how monarchy works, family frauds can launch presidents into war, additionally it’s easier for a corrupt democracy to sway government into war like how America wrongfully did in Iraq in 2003. Much harder for a monarch to go to war, also a family feud in either government would hardly start a war with todays constitutions and rules of succession which were absent back then
Just a reminder that voting for someone doesn’t dictate how they’ll act after they’ve been voted in.
someone who doesn't do what he promised to the people who vote for him would be toppled very quickly or at the very least, grow so unpopular that he wouldn't be reelected
@briantarigan7685 wait you unironically believe that?
Remember kids, if you think representative democracies aren’t real democracies, the solution is to institute an absolute monarchy which is even more undemocratic!
@@divoulos5758 lol, that's what always happen, meanwhile, all of you monarchist are blind to the historical facts that happen in the last centuries, what happen to the Romanov, Holhenzolhern, Osman, and many others? All are either dead, or deposed and exiled.
The only monarchies that survives are the one that relinquish almost all their power and act as a mere fancy decoration for their state
Accept it, your sytem are practically dead a century ago, the Republic and Democracy stand triumphant
Unless they want to get re-elected!
(also party's can be held accountable... you wouldn't vote for a valueless party would you?)
An interesting monarchy to look at is the Brazilian one. The emperor could dissolve the parlament but it was never commited and people could openly attack the goverment but emperor Pedro II encouraged that saying that "Propaganda is fougth with more propaganda" and was generaly speaking an well beloved figure in the Empire
But the moment the country turned into an Republic it was a military dictatorship, that became an oligarchy later on, wich was really corrupt and opressive unlike the Emperor
@@maxstenzel1797 he was the last good ruler the country had and had massive plans that could launch tha Empire into the world stage, if only dreams could be real...
Pedro II dissolveu o parlamento várias vezes
And it's important to note that it was the wealthy landowners who overthrew Dom Pedro due to him abolishing slavery. So, he was acting according to the will of the people and fought for the people, and the wealthy bourgeoisie overthrew him. It really overthrows (haha) the liberal and socialist notion of monarchs inherently representing the elite class and being against the common people.
@@milko540
A progressive monarch does not mean monarchies are progressive. The issue with monarchs is that their authority is focused on an individual who has very little accountability. Just because X was a charismatic, intelligent and progressive leader doesn’t mean his son or daughter or niece or nephew or uncle or aunt etc. will be.
@@realdaggerman105 Well, I don’t even think progressivism is inherently good. I disagree with a lot of Pedro II’s reforms but my point was that monarchy is typically apolitical. You can have a right leaning monarch, or a left leaning monarch, or a neutral one. Monarchy is not a political ideology as much as it is a form of government.
The tired argument of “but what if his son is le bad..” is just so gay at this point, we understand this is the case but still believe monarchy is a more effective institution than rampant mass democracy, or populist dictatorship.
If a King attacks and supresses his own people, its like a man destroying his own Home.
I don't know a single monarch in the Western world today that isn't either (1) actively participating in the destruction of the people they're ruling over by internationalists, and castigating those people for resisting while at it, or (2) passively standing by whilst reaping all the material benefits and privileges that still come with their station while neglecting any sense of duty or responsibility to it.
These supposedly based monarchs are welcome to start defending "their Home", i.e. making themselves useful in the fight of "their" people for survival anytime now. Anytime now. Yep. Anytime. *Cough* Anyone? *cricket chirping*
Christopher guys a numbskull. We’re talking about deeply Christian (Catholic) monarchs that actually wielded power
@@christophe9602 Apart from the King of Great Britain, I'm not aware of other monarchs who are abusing their populace. Can you point me to some others?
@@christophe9602Most western monarchs have lost all their power and are merely figureheads who aren't allowed to express any of their political opinions and believe that if they tried using their powers there'd be significant backlash from the parliament, possibly turning their country into a republic. King Felipe of Spain is in my opinion, the best monarch in Europe. Taking into account the limited powers he has, he isn't passive, he takes an active role in the Spanish state, like dissolving the parliament in 2016 and holding new elections or constantly condemning Catalan separatism.
@@christophe9602sure the French did that and so did the Brits
Both ended without a head. Ironic, rivals with the same fate and less then a century apart
Bad rulers loose the "mandate of heaven", as the Chinese say. It means more than loosing power, it might mean the extirpation of the kings bloodline, or at least big difficulties for the sons and grandsons. It is thus biologically smart to yield power responsibly, for the sake of your descendants
And knowing about the mandate of heaven, how many Chinese Dynasties rose and fell? How fare the wise Emperors of China today?
@@realdaggerman105 Chinese Dynasties have lasted over 4 thousand years, currently it is just replaced with a party instead of the emperor. By the times of the Song, Ming, and Qing Dynasties, officials of the court have gotten more power over time. It is to a point where the everyone but a few great emperors will play a leadership role but the government can run without them. Like emperor Wanli of the Ming literally didn't attend court for 10 years, but the government ran without him, not efficiently but still lasted a while. The Qing after the Taiping rebellion was effectively ruled by the court and Cixi's interference was what screwed it up. In many cases, the current regime is really just an extension of the system with different notes.
not for Japan tho "Insert Western philosophy to romanticize their barbarism" Their emperor is still considered the sun just pretend and act like a Christian until Atomic Bomb LOL.
*lose
It doesn't matter what's smart, if they can act in a destrutive fashion with no checks, eventually you'll get an idiot without a preservation instinct or someone outright mentally ill who can't be removed from the throne and runs the country into the ground.
And this "losing the mandate" probably means people dying in a civil war and country being ruined, cause again how else are you gonna displace the monarch.
Another thing (somewhat unrelated though getting closer as time goes on...) is that in a Monarchy the ruler knows that they will have to deal with the consequences of their actions rather than being able to pawn it off on the next person voted into that position.
You realize politicians want to be re-elected and even if it is their last allowed presidency they tend to either running anyways or make a political dynasty by making their sons to become the next party leader
generally speaking the fear of execution is always something to look out for when ur a monarch (sword of damocles)
yeah but do monarchs really care about that?
not really.
in theory they should but they simply dont.
@@underarmbowlingincidentof1981They do, else they cant function and hold power.
@@rarescevei8268 that's like saying all democraticaly elected officials do what is best for the people because they want to be reelected and hold power.
but in truth they don't
monarchs don't either
be it the giant palaces built by french kings and queens or the giant parties thrown by the schah of persia. they are human. they are fallible.
I've heard some people bring up the Bourbon monarchy, the one that was destroyed during the French Revolution, as an example of a failed or corrupt monarchy, however, I have always seen it as that King Louis simply wasn't prepared for the role and much of the corruption came from the power hungry people around him and he was more influencible and his wife didn't have much influence. Those who brought this up usually forget that the "superior" republic system that came afterwards completely failed and led to the deaths of thousands of innocents. I also kinda find it funny that Napoleon who is famous for aiding in destoying the monarchy and being pro republic, yet he ended up creating a monarchy.
That's something I've also noticed as well. Pax Tube touched upon it in his video on the French Revolution.
You cant blame Napoleon too hard for that, at the time monarchies were pretty much the only thing most people ever knew back then, even if republics existed way before in rome, most of europe didnt know how fo handle one too well at the time
There’s another thing to consider. When monarchies fall there’s temporary anarchy before order is restored. When Republics fall there is civil war and often genocide. Fallen empires gave us early medieval Europe. When we destroyed the concept of empire we got fascism.
@@MisterPeckingOrder That is false. Republics fall all the time with a peaceful transfer of power. You're comparing the fall of a monarchy with the complete destruction of a republic. A king dying is comparable to a cabinet or leadership being booted out, which is something that happens all the time peacefully.
The correct comparison to a falling republic (aka people wanting to overthrow the institutions entirely to either re-establish or create new ones) would be comparable to revolution against the institutions of the monarchy in its entirety. Not just institute a new king. Which has caused plenty of major European wars including genocide, religious persecution, or half cause the 30 years war that upended Europe. And order is not simply re-established afterwards that's for sure.
@@Pwn3540 Only Netherlands get a reverse treatment, After their independence from Spain, they were a Republic and After Napoleon, a Monarchy. Probably GDP admins skill is required.
10:24
In 1920 the german monarchy had been abolished , and replaced with the Weimar republic .
Wilhelm had gone into exile a year earlier.
He probably meant the 1912 election
based PFP
The info he gives is of the 1912 election
@@user-qn1wo1yg4s Never Again
the great trial
Power does not corrupt, it only reveals the true intentions of the wielder.
It does, there are few People who could resist it, Marcus Aurelius comes to mind, he Talks about the urge. King david from the bible is another example, sending a man to death to steal his wife, even tho he ultimaly regrets it, he still Fell for the temptation. He didnt want Power to abuse it, he didnt even choose it, and was by all Accounts a pretty good King.
There's that similar saying that 'power does not corrupt it just reveals'
@@giftzwerg7345there are also such things as benevolent dictators as well. Some dictators were also able to resist the temptation to abuse power. Kemal Ataturk is one such example. While he was an authoritarian dictator, he also ended Shariah law in the newly reformed Turkey and allowed women to vote among many other reforms. Joesph Broz Tito was another such example. While yes he took out several IMF Loans and made Yugoslavia take on a ton of debt, he was possibly the only thing keeping such an ethnically tense region from completely falling apart as it eventually would after his death. He also had the enormous balls to stand up against Stalin and be a neutral country in one of the most polarizing times in history.
The only question - is it worth it?
@@giftzwerg7345 King David was not born in to the power. He grew up as a shepherd.
Moral of the story: no matter the system, it's people who will always be the ones to create problems.
It is particularly hard to beat human nature, and without God, its impossible and unjustifiable to do so.
The problem with Monarchy has never been corruption, but rather, the incompetence of incompetent monarchs.
How bout a meritocratic monarchy where the heir must do an exam or be considered unfit for the throne? Failing exam means you take another exam with the next in line
@@ibraheemshuaib8954 I mean that sounds good, but is there some real world proof or equivalent of it?
@@osmaniesquijarosa4308 I don't think there is......nor is there a place where elected officials sit down and take an exam.
@@ibraheemshuaib8954 that’s a shame, the idea holds promise, but it needs to be developed a bit further to counteract unforeseen shortfalls and so on.
@@osmaniesquijarosa4308HRE was the closest you’ll get, the idea was such that it was an elected position.
Really puts in perspective the meritocracy meme as those who have the most “merit” were the ones who connived and back stabbed the best.
In a perverted Machiavellian sense thats meritocratic
@@followingtheroe1952 lmao
As my foundations of history teacher would say: "Cheating itself is a skill that has merit to it"
Monarchy is a meritocracy
@@dashua1735yesnt, Monarchy CLAIMS meritocracy, like modern rich famillies who inherit their money from their ancestors and managed to merely stay rich.
Monarchy is only meritocratic in its first few generation after its founding
Power does not corrupt.
Unacountability does.
Winners dont write history.
People with pencils do.
PS. (edit) some people have questioned my reasoning so i'll add to this comment what ive written below:
(1)Argument: Vietnam war.
-Who won it?
-North Vietnam.
-Who wrote the history down?
-USA.
-Why?
-Becouse the USA has hollywood (the pencil) and its american narratives that are globally believed not Vietnamese narratives.
-How many Vietnamese movies about the war youve seen?
-Likely 0
-How many American movies about the war youve seen?
-Likely plenty + cultural refrences in shows and media FROM THE AMERICAN POV
(2) Argument eastern front of ww2
-Who won?
-Soviets
-who wrote down the history
-nazi generals
-why?
-Becouse many german generals were interview by allied (mostly USA) command and got to write many narratives that are still believed today.
One partical common one is generals blaming hitler for their own loses even when they were to blame.
The reason they got to write history is becouse the winners=allied powers, were now in a cold war against soviet union, so they interviewed former nazis who faced the soviets.
Winners write history, they're the only ones who're alive to write.
@@nahx6205
Who won the Vietnam war?
@@stanisawzokiewski3308 North Vietnam...?
@@nahx6205 German soldiers after ww2 had a great time writing history
@@nahx6205and America still wrote their Version of history… really Are you pretending do Not understand what was the other guy Point in asking you who won? Even more the USA Version is the Most popular one and only communist Listen to the North Vietnam Version so this easily disprove the axiom that only winners can write history…
By far, the best system was employed by the Romans, namely the Julio-Claudian and the Nerva-Antonine dynasties. The ruling Emperor would adopt what he believed to be his most able general or statesman as his son and named his as successor. This avoided the possible issues that would occur if the biological sons grew up spoiled and/nor not in touch with reality (as it happed rather often in bloodline dynasties).
that's awesome, we should revert to the roman governance system, the system where there was famously rare peaceful transition of power. the system of governance where your legitimacy is solely based on whether or not your security guards decided to assassinate you yet.
Nero and Caligula were both in the Julio-Claudian dynasty and among the first 5 emperors. System definitely had its faults.
Unfortunately it also meant the Romans had no formal method for succession, so inevitably a powerful enough general realized he could just take charge if he wanted to, and Rome was subject to civil wars forever after.
@@realdaggerman105 Caligula started pretty strong, he was very popular in his early years, but he developed epilepsy and became paranoid. In addition, some historians argue that most of the outlandish deeds of Caligula were fictitious and/or propaganda.
Regarding Nero, he was unofficially elected by his mother, Agrippina (Claudius' wife), who made all the necessary arrangements and, presumably, even poisoned Claudius.
I wasn't saying the the system is perfect or bulletproof, but probably the best one recorded in history.
@@MisterPeckingOrder Generals staging coup d'etats isn't a phenomenon specific to the Roman Empire. In its case, it happened when there were weak/very unpopular emperors.
The one exception to your rule would be King Henry VIII who in many ways recklessly threw out centuries of tradition for his own personal lust and avarice
Karl 1 Great caused lot of death for his empire(not to save it, but to expand), Peter 3 russian started war to gain popularity, Ludovic 14, Frederick the Great. Hell, take even reason of napolionic wars, monarchs would not accept some "peasant" to rule over France.
Separation of Church and State in the US Constitution sounds unbelievable until you remember that the King of England was the head of state AND church.
@@cfroi08 Before Henry VIII there was always a distinction between the church and state, but not an absolute seperation
@@williamjohnson3093 exactly. I mean where does the state get it's morality from? And does it expect people to turn off a core part of their identity and culture once elected? What if they represent Christians?
All of these things are why the Founding Fathers ideas were incredibly awful but the UK wasn't without flaws either.
Not all monarchs have been good. Monarchy, however, has always been good.” - Corneliu Zelea Codreanu (1899-1938)
The phrase “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” is something of a truism, I think a more appropriate phrase would be something like “absolute power enables absolute corruption,” power itself does not cause corruption, it’s the traits exposed that leads to corruption.
Also power, like most significant things can have an effect like a drug, so someone who’s never had power even if they spent their whole lives working to get it, will be overwhelmed and consumed by it since it would happen in one massive event, on the other hand monarchs from a young age are periodically exposed to power in ever increasing amounts (i.e. a prince or princess getting more responsibilities like working as either a military officer or government administrator) and since their exposure is more controlled and more importantly over a greater length of time they’re more likely to not let it consume their thinking may indeed even allow them the chance the gain wisdom that they could pass on to the next generation.
It must be realised, that this monarch must come from somewhere, a monarchy must start somehow, and it almost always comes from a form of dictator. So for a monarchy to even exists, a dictator type figure must initiate its procession.
Indeed, so it depends on if they are able to create a source of legitimacy aside from their own power to help their successors stay on the throne, as it were.
not necessarily, sometimes it's just a very wealthy and successful family has a lot of kids who grow up to be wealthy and successful. a lot of monarchies grew up from a time where land was plentiful and if you could keep it and cultivate it, it's yours.
Elective Monarchies would like to have a word with you.
A great example of it is North Korea, as they are at this point an absolute monarchy.
@@BB-hx4mj
Bruh... it's really not. The succession is not based on rules, instead being on the whim of the dictator. It just worked out to be a father-son thing so far, but who's to say it will keep working in the future?
a monarch is tied to the land, a dictator is tied to the government
if a monarch fails, they fail their family, their legacy, their people and their history.
if a dictator fails, they fail themselves, and their ambitions.
I generally agree with all above said, but I would add, that power itself does indeed corrupt, because of the nature of dictatorships. If you became a dictator, then so can anyone else, if he amasses more power than you (and it takes shockingly little to overthrow a government), so a dictator has to do everything i his power to disempower his people, otherwise, by the same logic that gives him legitimacy (=power) he can be overthrown. A monarch on the other hand, has no reason to fear anyone but his firstborn son. So, if he maintains that relationship, his throne should be perfectly secure
this is why i think dictators should have an end game of establishing a new order under them, creating a new monarchy(regardless of whatever system existed b4), give the power hungry an outlet to go for like making a large parliment with prime minister(s)/chancellor(s).
it is a roll of the dice but should not only satisfy potential rivals within the nation but satisfy the large democratic powers around the world.
after any grab for power you need to let your grip of it go.
Your argument makes sense but I think you come to a weird conclusion. You are basically saying that people with power that have an unstable platform have to dedicate much more effort in order to stay there, makes sense. That means a conclusion of "unstable power corrupts", as you have to do bad things in order to stay in power, which I feel like doesn't need much justifying. You however state this as an argument for "power corrupts" to which I don't see the connection. Basically, you agreed that in monarchies, power wouldn't corrupt. In which case it would be wrong to say "power corrupts" generally.
@@phobics9498 Well, you are more or less correct. However, I am observing, that the fact, that power doesn't corrupt in European monarchies is a deviation from the norm. "Power corrupts" is the rule, and monarchy is an exception. It is the very system of the Catholic monarchy (a term I use to describe the evolved system of monarchy, which is also used by protestant and some orthodox monarchies), that prevents power from having the corrupting influence it otherwise would. And even in Catholic monarchies we see, that corruption manifests itself, when succession is not properly attended to (e.g. Henry VIII, whose line was quite illegitimate, and who struggled to secure his succession). And I think this is an important observation, because it informs us of how monarchies ought be set up; for example, I think having parliament decide, who the heir should be, when succession is uncertain is a bad move (e.g. James II&VII). Having a finite number of heirs, like the Dutch royals, is also needlessly risky. etc...
that's not true, a monarch has to fear a lot of people: his first born son, all his other sons, his military leaders, the leaders of the clergy, his lesser nobles with ambitions for the throne, his wife, and all the other monarchs around him.
@@tuseroni6085 All these people were key to his power, and were they not behind him on a given issue, he would find it significantly harder to rule - true. But he needn't have feared they would try to usurp his throne (and kill him in the process). What they'd do would be force a Magna Charta onto him, which seems perfectly reasonable. I cannot think of a single incident, when a more distant heir to the throne orchestrated the deaths of the King and his successors in order to claim the throne, outside of the Wars of the roses (which was a rather exceptional era of turmoil). Even if it did happen, it was quite rare, and it would be rarer still, if a modern monarchy were to adopt a rigid succession family tree, like they have in the UK, where they know the next 800+ heirs, and there's no debate about it.
But the point is, the prospect of loosing power in a bloody coup, certainly justifies (to the dictator, anyway) political repression. The prospect of a gradual decrease of political power, not so much. And even if it did, political repression of the common men would do nothing to help the monarch stabilize his power
Eric of Pomerania is an interesting case study. From Monarch of the Kalmar Union to Pirate Lord of Götland
And it haven't ended with Eric becoming the lord ruling over Gotland, as due to his corsair activity he was forced to flee and returned to Pomerania, inheriting Słupsk/Stolp and Stargard and becoming one of Dukes of Pomerania
Which type of Monarchy is the best? Feudal, Absolute, Constitutional, Symbolic or Semi Constitutional just to name a few types of Monarchy.
Depnds on the place and the type.
@@ladosdominik1506Agreed, but personally I would prefer Semi-Constitutional Monarchy.
absolute feudal
I think England has shown the strengths of Constitutional Monarchy but also the corrupted version of that where the Parliament became an oligarchy that actually controls the country with the monarch having very little power to do anything other than manage the collapse
I would prefer a strong constitutional monarchy, in which the monarch has executive power and the (unelected) government cabinet has legislative power.
The Carol II thing is BS. The guy basically played all the factions off each other until he could assume absolute power
Monarchies work best when they rule over populations that are of the same ethnicity, heritage, culture, and religion. Unfortunately, once monarchies expand rule over people who are of different races, religions, heritage, cultures, and ethnicities that's where monarchism reaches its limits.
Very true. United national, cultural, linguistic, religious, and philosophical identity is essential to the survival of a monarchical government. This is partially why European nations are loathe to receive immigrants, for fear of the erosion of their United national identities as a holdout of their monarchical past
@@auggieeasteregg2150 from my point of view I can only see monarchies being restored to power if the society is ultra-conservative, patriarchal, traditional, and ethnically homogeneous. You cannot expect people to accept the rule of a monarchy that is foreign or not a part of the majority population.
Hmm look up Mughals Empire, Turkic muslims (spoke Persian) ruling already very culturally different parts of entire India, Afganistan. And the positive effects it had on the development of India. Idea of a nation was invented in 18th century and was used as a tool for rulers to justify expansion. Before that peasants in middle ages didn't care if they worked for a French of German noble for example.
@@user-yz5su1js8e Looking at Austria-Hungary, I beg to differ. Look at Lavader's video on Bosnia.
There are many examples of foreign monarchs being great at their job. Catherine the Great was from Germany, Charles XIV John of Sweden was from France.
@@sliftyyCarol I too.
I would recommend watching ccp Gray's "Rules for Rulers"
The reason the Kaiser tolerated the democratic socialists is because the wealth of his state arose from the people.
The king of Belgium is a perfect example of how a king will act reasonable when the people have leverage over him and monster when they don't.
it is a shame most people nowadays despise monarchy
wait till America has their own Bonaparte
They don't despise monarchy. They despise what they've been wrongly taught monarchy is
@@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723 it'll be me
I want to say that I am an Italian and love Mazzini and my republic
You might say that's in no small part due to Enlightenment-propaganda, but I'm gonna say the quality of the monarchs around nowadays certainly doesn't help it any.
Power doesn’t corrupt, the praise that comes along with it does.
You're right, being the person who is responsible for most of the things in society, bootlickers and careerist will make a field day kissing your ass boosting your ego to climb high in the social ladder. As monarchs are still humans, they aren't immune to psychology.
In India there is the ancient concept of Rajdharma, which means duties of kings according to it the king must always treat his people as his own family and must do anything which is in the interest of the kingdom and it's people (including war when necessary). This concept was taught to princes by their gurus, for their entire youth. This practice led to the belief among the masses that a king is the incarnation of God Vishnu (lord and preserver of the world).
It should also be noted that Caligula was quite disliked by the nobility and senate, which is where a good chunk of the horror stories about him come from.
The problem I see with this video is that it relies on the last vestiges of monarchies in Romania, Yugoslavia, Germany and Russia. The issue with this cherry picking is that these Monarchies new that they had to have a guarantee liberties and couldn't become tyrannical because the people would simply overthrow them. This can easily be seen in how Monarchies began to operate after Napoleon, The French Revolution and the near revolutions of 1850 spread fear of being deposed into the hearts of every Monarchy. But if you were to rewind to the 1700s, you would find that Monarchies were extremely out of touch, ruthless, corrupt and malevolent beings who entire basis for power was from some God given right. There is also the issue of justification of power, how do you justify monarchies? By stating that they are the best candidate? What happens when one monarch is simply corrupt and incompetent? Is he deposed in a civil war, or allowed to burn the country down while his country men suffer? The issue I have is that Monarchies eventually breed stupid and incompetent men and women who don't care about maintaining the facade of power such as Nero and all Julio-Claudian rulers after Augustus. Republic and democracy while yes not always voting in the most competent at the very least have the ability to change their leaders if they do a bad job, unlike monarchies. Sure, populist dictatorships are worse, but when you set the bar so goddam low even Elon Musk looks like a good candidate for President, your being dishonest. A direct comparison between Democracy and Monarchy is a better comparison, than genocidal dictatorships. Also while yes, Monarchs are often more educated than dictators, that does make them more competent than Presidents. Also with Monarchies, you often have a entire system of nobles under them, and that is where the real corruption lies, as nepotism and what your name means matter more than you value for the country. You focus to much on the monarchs themselves than the system that surrounds them, a system based on blood, marriages, Sexism, and not meritocracy which is what Republic strive for (they don't always achieve it but it's better than autocracy).
People don't overthrow monarchies because they're tyrannical, people overthrow monarchies because people are jealous dogs, this is the truth
@@user-jf5qw6vg3h Yes, The French king wasn't overthrown because people were starving. And the Spanish king didn't lose the Netherlands because he was burning people alive. It was all just jealousy.
@@user-jf5qw6vg3hjealous of those not starving to death, yeah. idiot
A few points:
1. It's perfectly reasonable to inspect monarchies in their most developed form. Obviously, the system improved through the ages, and the problems 17th century monarchies had, the 17th century republics had as well. This conversation is all about what system is best for us now, and so, we would do well to discuss both monarchies and republics as they have fully evolved over time.
2. Meritocracy isn't always the best system. Particularly when it comes to holding power over people, it is much better, to empower someone less competent, with a strong sense of duty, than someone more competent, who thinks he earned that power over you, which leads me to
3. No power is legitimate. Not elections, not birth-rights, not anything else, can justify your right, to wield power over me. But yet, someone must. And monarchy conceives of that more as a duty, a sacred trust, than a right. The monarch is just acting in the place of Christ (and if Christianity teaches us one thing it is, that you are not as good as Christ). Thus the monarch is (usually) compelled to exercise his power with restraint. How much restraint have you seen shown by elected politicians on either side? That's because, they are taught, that they are actually legitimate. But just think what that means:
"I rule you"
"Why?"
"Du-uh; because your neighbours chose me!"
"Ok; but I didn't. So... why do they have the power to impose a ruler onto me?"
"Ughhhhhh... because there's more of them...?"
How is this legitimate
4. The nobility actually played a key part in most of our history (really since the fall of Rome, till the colonial era). It was just the most effective way of imposing power, and the most fair one, because it enabled a degree of a redress of grievance to the Lord, who was much closer than the King, and could actually correct an injustice. There are also instances of nobles being removed for being corrupt on the petition of their people to the Monarch. But you're right, in the age of exploration the nobility had to be reformed, and there was corruption, that's true, just as in any upper social class. Are we better off with having Kardashians and the like in our upper class? I doubt it.
@@praetoriancorps French people were not starving, this is a myth, France was the wealthiest nation in the world, in fact Louis XVI's reign was much better than that of the previous Kings, also Marie Antoinette was a charitable woman, a virtuos one as well, she opened houses for widowed mothers in France, she helped the poor, and was known for her kindness, the only reason she was hated was simply being Austrian. The Spanish King lost the Netherlands because a group of MONARCHS revolted against him, they are called Statdholders, The Dutch Republic was a federation of monarchies. And my point is still correct. If the leader wears a Crown instead of a Hat there is a much higher chance of being overthrown, so is the case with a leader wearing a mantle and one wearing a coat, people are jealous, and that's what socialism stands for, because they did nothing in their life and ended up poor, the rich must also share their misery.
Money, and power, enhances the person you already are. Hence why most aristocrats partook in agriculture from early ages - which fostered their sense of care; went through the best education their nation had to offer; are instilled with a sense of purpose higher than oneself, notably through religion; and were more impervious to monetary corruption as they practically already had everything.
One thing that is really worth noting is the relation of bad monarchs to their childhood, friends, and life events.
-King Henry 8th was a rather good King, charming and the lot. However after a severe jousting accident in which he struck his head, he suffered from brain injury which left him more impulsive and intolerant.
-Henry VI was poorly educated and suffered from a severe mental illness that rendered him incompetent.
-Richard III was never destined to be King. Instead, he seized it from his brother's children.
-Mary I was never destined for the throne.
etc.
In Russia, the Tsar's were notably brutal and careless (particularly since every person of power wanted to party. We all know the saying of one being the sum of the 5 people you spend the most time with), and such was the nature of their aristocrats.
In France, the King's were glutenous, and harboured a deep sense of unbother and apathy - such was also the nature of their aristocrats.
A Kingdom without religion is doomed for failure. As King, or a Lord, you are expected to embody the best aspects of a nation. That is: manners, control, discipline, reserved, polite, etc.
And if there's one thing anyone with eyes can see, it's that people are incredibly bad at coming up with their own morals.
Whilst I do not believe in a God, or anything of the sort, in a non-Christian time of impertinence, apathy, individuality; attempting to regain perspectives adequately becoming of the benefits of a Constitutional Monarchy is somewhat pointless.
No-one believes you more than yourself. And in a time where "democracy" is preached left, right, and centre, with any alternative being evil, it's a pointless endeavour.
In spite of people complaining about the very same government they voted for. It's almost as though popularity votes based on FPTP is entirely moronic.
Oh well. God save the King!
I see where you are coming from sir but I must disagree. Religion, while being a “moral compass guiding people” is also possibly the most dangerous and abusable part of a monarch.
Powerful religious leaders had large sways over the kings and emperors of old even after the reformation, especially after the reformation. Morality should not control the monarch but the people should. Not in a republic kind of way, in the sense that the monarch’s first priority should always be the benefit of the people and than the nation. And as for the nobility…well you know the old saying “you’ve gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelette”
Marginalizing their power should suffice if they exist at all.
@@Whiskers4169Yes, Religion can certainly be used in awful and horrifying ways but thats the weakness of ppl more then the institution of religion itself. Religion, when practiced properly, is supposed to give you a strong moral framework and belief in things beyond yourself. I also believe religion is actually important for a healthy and civilized country to flourish. Any society that completly abandons the tennants of a strong religious and moral center generally always ends in debauchery and self interest. I see these "fake" religious types all the time and there not true practicing ppl of faith. They dont actually believe in things beyond themselves and just use the institution to gain more power for themselves. It takes a lot of strength and character to be a true person of faith.
@@Whiskers4169 that is assuming the faults within religion. Most religions can be dissolved into sects that have extremist ideologies. Due to those ideologies They want to become different hence they change the central text and teachings corrupting the religion to benefit them. Causing the "dangerous religious kings". I king that has been true to the text and true to one's self will be true to the state and hence true to the people.
@@aliatar9325 yes but that only works for lutherian christians when talking about christianity and even then the texts can be misintrepited or mistranslated so there is still a lot of danger and this isnt hypotetical this shit happened multiple times and still is happening
@@jbellflower83
What defines a ‘true’ believer? Most of the least religious countries in the world today tend to have the lowest rates of crime and happiest populations. Contrary to popular belief, people don’t need to believe they will be punished for eternity if they do bad things to be incentivised to aid others. Most people, though prone to acts of laziness or selfishness or cruelty, are also predisposed to generosity and empathy and kindness. Monarchs are just people. They are not ordained by god to rule us, but something they found out works when you repeat it enough. It has also been incredibly useful historically.
The Eastern Roman Emperor asked the Pope to launch the first Crusade. This action to reclaim and secure his own eastern frontier led to tens of thousands dying and many times more over the next few hundred years. The clergy have historically worked with those in power to oppress the people. When they took Jerusalem in 1099, they also slaughtered the Jewish and Muslim citizens.
Religion has plenty of good messages. But they also have plenty of bad ones. Their teachings are in my opinion best used as supplemental and much more metaphorical to help colour ones understanding of the world. But definitely shouldn’t dominate it.
German (Kaiserreich) monarchy was the best, it combined federal monarchy with a parliament, constitution and some democracy. It protected regional cultures and strengthen every German state in the Reich. If there's a good king, he will rule his entire life, if there's a bad king, the people will force him to give the throne to the next in line, the next in line will learn from his predecessors.
Meanwhile, the modern German government politicians publicly state their request to ban the only oppositional party and commissioned the state secret police to observe the opposition.
What a historically illiterate comment. Under the German monarchy, minorities such as the Poles were suppressed and Polish leaders even said that they would have been content living in Germany if that didn't happen.
The same with the catholics.
Given Germany had colonies you could even argue that the genocide of the herero people was a genocide of a people native to German territory by the government.
But you can expect from someone who thinks the AfD is a competent party? lol
It only lasted for 2 kings lmao, the first one was a puppet of Bismark, the second one was a manchild with confidence issues. " If there's a good king, he will rule his entire life, if there's a bad king, the people will force him to give the throne to the next in line, the next in line will learn from his predecessors." , you talk about as if they lasted for a thousand years.
@@pyotrbagration2438 3 kings*
Thank the cigarette industry for never having witnessed a liberal Kaiser in action
@@3chmidt Sorry I didnt mention the 80 day king that never got out of bed, left that as a strawman for you.
They did the secret police thing in America too, not just Germany, and by now nobody even cares
i really dont understand how you only have 15k subs, you deserve way more ngl
I feel like an elective monarchy with a parliament that is limited is the most effective system. Nobody branches off into extremism and theres very little room for corruption whilst also having representatives to keep the monarch in touch with reality just in case there might be a negligent king or queen
Extremism is only bad because you think it is. Its a buzzword of sorts.
Elective monarchy is the same rubbish as democracy. Unaccoutnability because you can just be voted out and disappear. Where is your stake in it? Why would you care if you rule bad?
Check out history of Poland if you think that elective monarchy is a good think, if elective it should be among dynasty members not everyone like in Poland. And I think that the best type of monarchy would be primogeniture, constitutional but with very limited parlament
@@m24pl64ohhh yeah, Poland was a kingdom during the interwar period wasn’t it. They never got the chance to elect the king tho
What is this? the HRE.
We start electing monarchs and that’s just a republic but fancier with mostly parliamentary power
Here in Brazil the more traditionalist monarchists study how the Brazilian authoritarianism was a good thing in the nation, and one of the simples reason for this study is the fact that almost every good government had an authority regime, be on the colinial era, the monarchy or even the not so democratic eras of the republic
22:00 “Power amplifies traits already present.” The same is true for testosterone.
It is the same thing, different scales.
@@luigimrlgaming9484 bro me testosterone low pleaze give power
This is exactly why God intended monarchies to be by bloodline. Judah, being the wisest tribe of all mankind, at least theoretically speaking, is the way in which God shall become the world's last ruler, just as he was the world's first.
You know, it's actually funny how, while a *liberal* might find these points hard to argue against, a leftist would say *you haven't even argued against their position*. You also carefully step around the fact that while there can be good people who happen to end up in charge of a monarchy, there is *not a single peaceful way to remove a bad monarch*. There's also the fact that Monarchs are *by no means* more inherently responsible than elected leaders, as they lack any need to please the general populace, just the bureaucratic (aristocratic or otherwise) and millitary classes at minimum.
As a right Winger, you're right, and all of those are reasons to support monarchy
@@auggieeasteregg2150 what, a complete avoidance of accountability to the general public?
I think its a problem in general. You try to vote out a current politician and watch him be just as much of a bastard. There needs to be incentive to be a good leader either by threat of revolution (2a style) or by voting another government lacky in a democracy that still has the bureaucrats to deal with and all the legislature to deal with like a monarch would. Scale is a consideration and no monarch is truly absolute. You cannot rule on your own. Nor can you rule by a stupid committee that takes decades to decide on anything.
@@huntre111 It's not complete, though pretty close. That's particularly true in reference to the individual more than the whole of society. When you think about it though, it's similar logic to the establishment of the supreme court, as it's meant to be the final authority on any matter brought before it. In truth, there is no flawless system, as each system requires someone to be in power, and the effectiveness of that person has direct and measurable effects of the lives of the ones they govern. I simply think monarchy has a legitimate claim to being the most stable and effective system of governance
@@auggieeasteregg2150 That only works if you assume that an individual will, without incentives, work in the best interest of the populace. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't, just like with democracies. However, there are two main reasons that I see Democracies as superior even if you're eyeing up stability over accountability.
1) There exists a non-violent method to remove an individual from power if they prove to be unfit for leadership. In any monarchy, or really any autocracy, part of the reason it's not a democracy or oligarchy, there is no legalistic way to remove a bad leader from power, or even just one which you disagree with. Democracies have elections, frequent or infrequent, where interest groups can come together to compromise and draw lines in the sand to shake out the least objectionable government between them. There are regions where no majority can be formed, as in many areas in sub-saharan africa where dozens of tribes who don't trust each other are lumped under one democratic government, but this works for the most part.
2) Democracies are more resiliant during crises than autocracies. It's dumb, but when things go terribly wrong as in a black swan event, one of the first things that gets blamed for the calamity is the leader themselves. If you lack a safety valve for that anger at the leader, whether it's justified or not, then things get violent. Having that mechanism from reason 1 to remove leaders from office without violence means that the anger can be soothed, and then the problem can be solved by the rest of the adults in the room who also want the problem solved. The leader who was removed could even (though not likely) be re-instated once the anger dies down or the crisis passes, whichever comes first.
I think you, like him, are looking at past monarchies and autocracies with rose-tinted glasses and ignoring the very real issues that cropped up within them. From the tsarist autocracy that locked peasants into serfdom until the dawn of the industrial era, to bloody wars of succession both great and small, to expensive vanity projects from Versailles to the pyramids which were constructed not because they benefited the nation, but because they benefited the ruler. With democracies, we have short-sighted decision-making and pork-barrel corruption, but I think those are acceptable trade-offs to avoiding 5 and 6 digit body-counts because the blue blood decided to fight over who gets to inherit some piece of land inside the nation.
i agree on the matter that power doesn't corrupt, it reveals a man's true nature. that's about all i can agree on with this video sadly. much of it seems fine in theory but history paints a different picture, history is full of monarchs with no regard for their people, of sadist and perverts who use their place of power to sate their desires, and while you will get those in any system of government only in a monarchy or dictatorship do you get that for life. you say a king is dependent on the sentiment of his people, but really he is most dependent on the sentiment of this key people: the military, the ministers, the church, but not the subjects.
while i can agree that monarchs are raised from birth to rule, life is not so simple, the child raised to rule may get kicked by a horse or catch the plague and die, and the son that was never expected to rule ends up being pushed into a position he has no means of handling, equally such a younger brother may plot for the former to happen so he may take the throne. a child raised in nobility may know how to be a noble, and you hope that this knowledge translates to how to rule a country full of people he fundamentally DOES NOT understand (and in the case of some early english monarchs don't even speak the same language)
also corruption isn't just taking money, corruption is acting in a way which is to ones OWN benefit but to the detriment of the organization to which they are responsible. a king who engages in acts of debauchery, sadism, and cruelty is corrupt, it may make him feel good, it may benefit him in some way, but it hurts the people he is responsible to and puts a stain on the legacy he has inherited.
as for why someone would "burn their own house down" there are a number of reasons, if the monarch hates his parents, hates his country, and/or hates the weight of responsibility he bares he may wish to burn the house down out of spite or to be rid of that responsibility. it's not a rational response but people are not fundamentally rational.
Nice argument. Unfortunately, Minecraft with the boys back in 2015 begs to differ.
As a fellow monarchist, I am extremely happy to find a likeminded individual such as yourself.
I have subscribed to support what I believe is the most flexible, reliable, and stable governing system there is.
Oh, and Happy New Year!
Someone being born into authority doesn't dictate they'll act in your best interest either. It can be easily argued (and shown in history) that a Monarch's best interest is to extract as much wealth and power from the populace either for themselves or for the ruling class (usually nobles). While a democratic leader in a free and fair country is responsible for the betterment of their nation in order to maintain their power and the power of their political party. If the democratic leader deviates too far from that then their own party can remove them or change leadership. If all fails then that party is replaced by another one who is capable of positive growth for the nation.
Yes there are hurdles in democracy, yes there will always be some level of corruption (there always some corruption any form of government, especially Monarchy, in most Monarchies its just the king giving land and wealth to his friends and the Nobility); but democracy is the only major form of governance that holds political leaders accountable for the betterment of the people or they will be replaced.
Monarchies have always been full of corruption, and you can't deny that, even modern European ones have it.
Med Monarchism
Holy shit Monsieur Z
20:09 if monarchs are already born in a position of power wouldn't that lead in them being cut off from the rest of their population which live much worse lives than them? Their education during their early life is very important so if they are not shown what they need to do correctly or don't wish to become monarchs, that can have devastating consequences for a nation that is created to be rulled by them
Great to see more based monarchist content! Praise be to the Rule of one. No to the rule of the few and the rule of the many.
Rule of the one is like the rule of the few, but the few is just one. How is that any different?
A monarchy isn't an oligarchy and an oligarchy isn't a monarchy. So no, they are not alike.
@@epistemo3442 It's the same principle, but in stead of having a ruling class, you have one ruling person being the class by himself. And that's only applicable to an absolutist monarchy anyway. There were plenty of monachys that were oligarchys.
Absolute Monarchism is redundant. Monarchism is simply just one man rule. So saying absolute Monarchism is like saying Monarchism monarchism. People who advocate for constitutional, semi-consitutional, feudal, and so on monarchy are actually advocating for a mixed state which is a combination of monarchy with oligarchy or democracy or the combination of the three but with emphasis on Monarchy.
@@epistemo3442 The monarch doesn't always have absolute rule over the country. Only the strongest monarchs in history have held totalitarian rule. More often than not, the influence of rich or powerful oligarchs played a role in the government sepperate from the monarch's rule. This is oligarchy within a monarchial rule. It doesn't have anything to do with democracy. Your definition of real monarchy ( *ahem* , absolute monarchy) is rarer in history than such oligarchies. Idk why you'd rather stick to such a narrow definition of monarchy, when it doesn't include most governments that are and were considered monarchys.
It reminds me of people who'd claim that Stalinism or Maoism is the only real communism.
What you're observing here isn't that monarchs and monarchies are more responsible with power than populists, it's that they're more experienced wielding it. With the best example off the top of my head being the English King's dissolution of Parliament several times before his powers were sufficiently limited, these monarchs didn't stay their hand because of some monarchical responsibility collectively understood, it was because they have been doing this for a while, and watched the dissolution and suppression of democracy fail horribly in France, England, and other places, and knew that suppression was a terrible idea. The populist dictators you mention, on the other hand, had no such experience, and look at where that got their regimes, with only China existing to this day after sliding back to a kind of authoritarian liberalism. Actually, the best example of this is Louis XIV and his enlightened despot idea. He waited until the moment was right, conceding to nobles and the populace, before kidnapping the heirs of the nobles and forcing the nobility to follow his every rule, creating one of the strongest autocracies in history because he came from an experienced line and *knew it would work*.
You talk about safety from corruption, but corruption isn't generally used as a criticism of monarchism, rather it's disconnection from the subjects and lack of respect for rights, which, based on the admittance you made about secret police, as well as the consistent blunderings of monarchs across the world (from Dynastic China to Mercantile Spain to Ottoman Turkey to George III in America), you don't seem to clear up. You're right, their well-off upbringing and status prevents corruption, but creates a sharp disconnect from the populace which can (doesn't mean it always does, but it still often does) make them unfit to rule. This can also be shown as the flaw behind your "moved by affection" quote and argument: Sure, that'd be, and has been, the case for many monarchs, ruling as well as possible to keep the people on board. But often (as best shown by Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette), a sharp cultural and economic disconnect from the populace makes this hard to impossible to do, and one not so easily bridged by a self-serving need to do so, even if that need is there.
Another problem you seem to ignore is the lack of a clear heir present in most monarchical systems. Like with the War of the Roses and other such squabbles, yes, monarchism would be much more clean and better if there was a clean system from one ruler to the next. But often monarchies and their passing of power is extremely messy and complicated, which means that often the ruler does fight for their power, and depending on who wins, was not groomed for it. Kind of like those other dictators you talk about.
Quick side note before my last point: Monarchs do defend an ideology: Monarchism, lol. Historically, monarchs have done massive, sweeping campaigns to stop democratic ideals from being spread, executions and arrests galore. Same with State Communists, Monarchs have an authoritarian state to maintain, which by necessity keeps power and privilege out of the hands of most people, and use a monopoly on force to maintain it. They're just historically kinder and more clean with it to the public eye.
Finally, why is monarchism better than democracy? The entire video, you only described why monarchs are better than populist dictators. But one of your main arguments for monarchy is that the Kaiser preserved democracy, which is precisely the problem. How can you argue that monarchy preserves people's rights, when the system is designed in a way that one person holds all of the political, social, and economic power of a country? Even if they are responsible, and give people good and safe lives without suppression, they still inhibit the rights to exercise political, economic, and social control of their own lives by necessity. At best, monarchs preserve peace and order, but by definition they do not preserve rights, which democracy, for all of its flaws, has a built in preservation of those rights as well as the built in ability and interest to preserve peace and order as well.
Even when its at its best, monarchism does not give people the rights and dignities democracy does on a normal day. There is a reason why they have relied on faith-based mandates in the past to justify themselves. Unless they work at their peak all of the time, there is no good justification to be made for its usage.
Very well said. I would also like to add that he completely ignores modern examples of modern abolsute monarchies which are incredibly authoritarian. Modern monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Thailand which absolutely impose police states. The Saudi Royal family is well known for their murders of journalists and political dissidents, and to act like the Russian Tsar's wouldn't have done something similar if the technology had been available to them is incredibly dishonest. One just has to look at their handling of calls for political change like the Decemberist Revolt to know that they did not want to ensure political freedom. The reason why most of these monarchies didn't build massive surveillance states like dictators did is that most absolute monarchies were dissolved before there was the technology to create one. Generally people are going to want to hold onto whatever power they have, and while abolsute monarchy doesn't presuppose the surpession of rights, rights are often suppressed within abolsute monarchies
I take a little issue with the idea being disconnected from the populace makes monarchs worse rulers than democratic leaders, oftentimes democratic rulers are just as disconnected as monarchs are. I don't believe that a democratically elected leader like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump can relate to or connect with the average American anymore than King Charles can relate to the Average Brit. Of course this raises the question of if being connected to the populace makes someone a better ruler or not in the first place. A monarch who is able to diagnsoe a problem and fix it is a better ruler than a democratically elected leader who grew up with a problem and is unable to fix it.
If "Lavander" wanted to make an effective case for monarchy he should've focused on more legitimate defenses of monarchy such as the preservation of national identity and the ability of monarchs to act as political mediatiors rather than arguing that monarchs preserved democracy and liberal values which monarchy is directly opposed to.
@@redpanda7967 Well put. About the democracy not being good for connection with the populace, truth be told I am an anarchist, so you won't see me defending democracy in that arena either. But, despite the isolation of capitalism making liberal democratically elected rulers still separated in class from their populace, this is relatively better than monarchs still, because the rich are still a part of the same populace to some extent (and democracies dont require the rich to rule, at least not officially), while a monarch is essentially living in a different world from their populace from birth. Both hold the problem, but democracy still edges out monarchs on average in my opinion.
I agree with your argument, but coming from a continent where democracies are a complete failure, I wish we could have a strong monarch that can put an end to all the insecurity and poverty that our beloved democracy has brought to us.
I would rather live peacefully under a King that manages dutifully a country, than under a democratic order that is beyond worse than the monarchism that many despise with their very soul.
@@mecanimetales4647 I completely understand that, and it is understandable that one would look to alternatives such as monarchism, but don't you think that we should find a new solution as opposed to going back to an ideology that a lot of the time ended up even worse for the people? I don't want to suggest to you what such a solution would look like, but I suggest you diagnose the problem within the system and either fix it within or design another without that problem, rather than tying yourself to a golden leash for stability. Liberal economic instability will not be fixed by going to a more restrictive political system, as far as I am concerned.
@@redpanda7967which is why there should be a balance between the two of them. I wish for a constitutional monarchy who represents the will and national pride of their people, but has strict limitations to their power. I wish for a semi constitutional monarchical government in which the rule is divided into two: a monarch who is directly descended from the people who created the state in the first place, and a prime minister elected in a semi direct democratic manner; with the power directly electing themselves on the local level up to the parliamentary level, and the parliamentary representatives acting more as a representative democracy who elect one amongst themselves by popular vote as prime minister to rule jointly with the monarch somewhat like the old Roman councilor system in which there were two who couldn’t run the country without the consent of each other.
First. 🎉🎉. I wish my country also had a monarchy today.
To put it shortly:
If you were to compare the worst monarch and the worst representative leader, you would say the worst monarch had too much power and too little respect for their people. It took a war to overthrow them. But you would say that the worst representative leader was too weak, too stupid, or too corrupt to use their power effectively. It took an election or a vote of no confidence to get them out of office. Do I even have to say more?
Well, I will. I have questions: What if a monarch is raised wrong, and so grows to be an uncaring a-hole? Or what if a certain leader turns out to be a good monarch but a bad parent, so their heir has a strained relationship with them, eventually going (either consciously or subconsciously) after paths in direct opposition to the one that kept the regime stable? What if the heir has something wrong with them that prevents them from being a good leader? For example, what if they are a psychopath, or narcissistic? What if they are just human and have flaws that prove too difficult to hammer straight? Like what if they develop a big ego, or less charisma than any populous party leader? Also, if a monarch is bad, how do you actually go about replacing them? If the monarch cleans up their act, are they allowed back in office after some time? Is it possible that whoever moves and removes them from office will become corrupt? How will royal infighting for the crown and other positions be decided? Or, if a monarch is bad, will the country have to endure their misprofits for potentially 80 years or more? What if the monarch is decadent, or lazy, or a poor judge of character? What if circumstances turn dire, and the people feel a need for immediate change? A need to revolt like in France? Such a drastic change would most likely not be a good solution, but starving people are not going to analyze history when there is a populous movement promising them all their fantasies. With elections, at least, people feel they have an outlet to get rid of insufferable powers. This is a flaw when you feel you are doing something but aren’t. But it is also a virtue when you think of all the destruction you could cause when desperate and without a proper voice reaching to the top. Also, most prime minsters and presidents weren’t that bad. It’s more that in the modern day, our representatives are very easily corruptible. They should want power because it’s one of the best ways to make their lives (and the lives of those they care for) better. But apparently corrupt payment can fill that role better now. All this to say that it seems to me that instead of going backwards to find solutions we should go onwards to tweak our new system. Nothing is going to be perfect, but we have (for a long time now) been writing and editing our laws to make out lots as good as they can be. Why rewrite everything now? The only way a monarchy would work is if you could guarantee the heir will have a respectable moral character, be interested in politics, be a decent judge of character, have decent instincts, have a very nice understanding of economics, be a good communicator, and all with a competent military mind. And you would have to guarantee this every single time. It’s a good theory but reality may not conform to continually produce the ideal scenario. It only takes one great leader to fix all a nation’s troubles. But it also only takes one bad one . . .
I’m sorry to say that if your point was to reason that Monarchism is overall the best form of government, you failed. If it was, however, to say that Monarchism should generally be distinguished from ruthless dictatorships (and are generally better forms of government than them), you succeeded. But that is a very easy point to make. I also wonder if your admiration of Wilhelm, and your personal political leanings, are influencing your conclusions (as opposed to the other way around).
“We have the worst form of government . . . except for all the others that have been tried.”
Not everyone can be Queen Elizabeth II, and we should not let our grief for her rewrite our constitutions. It is as fanatical as revolutionaries to think and say that if we were to just put power into one person’s hands, and the hands of their descendants, everything would work out.
İstg you are like the only sane mf here
@@thatonecrusader7209 you’re here too
The issue with monarchs having absolute power is the fact that if a bad monarch is ever in office, then removing them is difficult. The wisdom of the masses will always be superior to the wisdom of the few, and if a democratically elected official fails to appease their voting base they will not be reelected. So elected officials are encouraged to do what is best for the people if they want to actually stay in power, but the issues of corrupt officials and leaders is exclusive to a system that has the power consolidated to a few, even in a representative democracy this is a issue; that is why direct democracy is the superior system.
I'd disagree, þe wisdom of þe few is more often better þan þat of þe masses.
@@StarsBarsAndCheese How so? Monarchies and autocracies never actually work. They are inherently un-meritocratic and are prone to inequality and corruption.
Athens is a direct democracy, and I don't find living in the time and place a thought I'd entertain. And that is for something so geographically small. If anything, there should be more checks and balances as well as more accountability on representative democracy. And oh, more education. Curtailing educations is one of the things that hurt the people long term. Since it means it allows them to control and silently take away rights and rob them blind. Be them leaning from left or right on the political compass.
Talk to the average voter and you will find out that the wisdom is not in the masses
@@gustavoh5143 im sure as hell it ain't with the majority of elites in history. You can argue for Seneca, Frederick The Great, Baron Montesquieu, and, some more.
They are charge to not just care for their own estate and legacy but to the masses too.
Just like the masses not many has the wisdom and just as susceptible to selfish interest.
After his second term, Theodore Roosevelt met with His Imperial and Royal Majesty Franz Joseph. Teddy asked the Kaiser what was a Monarch's role in the 20th Century? His Apostolic Majesty told the President, "to protect My People from their Government."
Did a pretty shitty job at that then
@@dylanroemmele906 did better than most and even after he died, he did better than Carl Renner (the Commie Jew) who betrayed his emperors twice and his country 4 times.
“Power does not necessarily corrupt, nor is it necessarily a magnet to those corruptible.”
*cites a paper by showing an image of an article in which the title literally presents the nature of power as either corrupting or attracting the corrupt*
The article also comes to the exact same conclusion as him, maybe read it first.
I'm a monarchist and I'm proud
corruption is inherent of democracy precisely because no one has enough power, someone who does hold all the power has no incentive to be corrupt
That’s not true. Pure greed and ego are enough to corrupt anyone. Avarice is inherently insatiable
By that logic, if someone corrupt has total power, what’s incentivizing them from not being corrupt? This ruler can be doing the bare minimum to keep society functional, wasting resources for his own personal benefit like glorious super projects or extravagant lifestyles instead of bettering society. A natural disaster could happen to a rural community and the ruler can ignore it if it’s “too much work to deal with” or “not worth helping” because nothing is holding their power accountable! Even if they’re not selfish, there’s also “ends justify the means” type of leaders - we don’t need to imagine how that goes.
A good system needs good people!
Nah not even remotely true lol. The monarch has to keep the loyalty of his nobility and other powerful groups in order to keep some semblance of power. The king doesn't just have absolute power because he feels like it.
@@Ely-zf4yt You aren't talking generally. Not all monarchies even have nobility. Historically they did but it's not like it would be weird to see an absolute monarchy depending on the time period.
@@phobics9498 the VAST majority of them did. If they didn't, then they had some other upper class which helped them rule. No emperor rules alone.
Great video! I just came up with a comparison for the whole video as well. (dunno if someone has already said it)
It is like placing an dog with rabies next to a baby as opposed to one that has been trained its whole life to guard the baby.
Can you recommend any books on monarchism?
Excellent summary of your ideas overall, coming from an American. I think your consideration of other points of view is great.
3:03 I’ve always said the same. It’s the same as alcohol.
Alcohol doesn’t make people violent, or whatever other trait, it just amplifies and lets out whatever traits are already there.
Alcohol is like power. Power is like alcohol.
It’s why they say: “Drunk with power”.
A monarch with power is still going to mean it depends on the person whether they use it for good of the nation or their own gain. Just look at the Saudi monarch and how wisely he is using the vast oil riches
A monarch with power is a monarch with varying levels of accountability. Without accountability, a monarch with power will easily be just as bad as the worst dictators. The atrength of democracy is accountability of those in power via elections, where the will of the population at large cannot be ignored
I agree as far as I can tell this is the only comment to even mention the Saudi monarchy when it is a current day monarchy that is incredibly brutal, I'm not familiar with many more monarchies but Ivan IV the Terrible is another good example about how bad it can be if the monarch is bad.
Its always a pleasure to meet a fellow Constitutional Federal Monarchist.
You earned my sub with that fantastic and well planned and executed presentation.
He's a Traditional Monarchist (Including Me)
@hofnarrtheclown ah, well then I guess that makes me more of the realist between the two of us, because although I partly agree with traditionalists I know in today's world Traditional monarchies are the least to ever be reinstated
@hofnarrtheclown still a good lad, though
Edit: (stupid autocorrect)
@@Domjot5569 What did You Mean to Say Before the Autocorrect had Prevented It?
Here is my opinion on government, It does not matter what system your government uses. The reason for argument about which government system is superior, is based on how well a government system does. This debate will continue to go on forever, as there is no better form of government as long as it governs correctly. Innately this issue is specifically opinionated and one that does not matter. In essence a Kingdom could govern as well as a Democracy or Dictatorship. This really boils does to an issue of morality, aka should people vote or not, how much influence should the common person get? Ideological, Political, and Moral issues matter more in governance than how that state, itself, is governed. These are my opinions on this issue, and frankly I see this debate as useless and unnecessary.
Weirdo shitposting in favour of his favourite aesthetic for autocratic governance. Low-key sad ngl
My problem with monarchies is I cannot be happy unless I am the monarch
People lived under Kingdoms for 10 Millenia, it's a you problem.
My problem with democracies is I cannot be happy unless I am the president
@@herp_derpingson Then gather a base of voters, and get yourself elected
I do mostly agree with this point, but I can't help to remember Napoleon III
It is Pretty Much the People that Let to Napoleon III's (Napoleon II) Downfall
The constitutional monarchy is certainly a lot better saying america and how politically divided it is while people hate or love politicians they come together around the monarch all political sides
England doesn't seem to be any more politically unified than America. Conservatives and "Labor" seem to hate each other just as much as Republicans and Democrats.
Ah yes. Monarchies have historically rallied every side. That’s why Europe is full of them today! Russia, France, England for a while, Germany, Italy, Greece, etc. all brimming with monarchy.
@@realdaggerman105OP said CONSTITUTIONAL monarchies, which is what just about every surviving monarchy is.
@@battadia And "constitutional monarchs" are basically figureheads with no actual power. And even then, they are not universally popular.
@@battadia
The UK is a constitutional monarchy undergoing extreme political division right now. Part of that has been caused by the royal family.
Monarchs typically will groom their heir, while dictators focus so much on consolidating power, they never get around prepping a successor.
People around here would do well to read up on their history and the histories of others. There is a reason monarchies and systems akin to monarchy started to dissapear when we no longer lived as illiterate peasants.
Haha, the reason why it collapesed is because a former cotton colony and a backward cultured and poor mongolic culture impose their ideology after world wars when european monarchies exhausted themselves. Is nothing advanced at republic, in fact is backwards for big countries.
And just for your knowledge constitutional monarchies still have their royals as soft power agents which regulates politics indirectly through diplomacy and media.
And now peasants are owned by burgeoise, lol. It changed a lot, surely everyone lives like kings now ans nobody cleans the toillettes
So much History of monarchs abusing power and here you come along with the argument “how about no, it’s actually cool”
Most of those articles about monarchs abusing their powers were conveniently exaggerated by republicans, very funny how there are very little articles about all the presidents and prime ministers that abused powers and committed atrocities
For the vast majority of european history, Individual kings or queens did not hold absolute or even near absolute power. And they especially did not have the state apparatus to exercise the tight-knit control that modern government could exercise.
But what most held them back from abusing their power was not the structural advantage of monarchy but the ideological benefits of the Christian faith.
In truth, human society on a mostly global scale has evolved quite a bit.
Monarchy as a system, like we've seen, would also have to change in order to properly fit in. The recently departed Queen Elizabeth did her part, as did her husband King Philip during WW2 and etc, which is also very important.
A Constitutional Monarchy could work well for a few nations, and would less likely be as tyrannical as many have been in the past.
Monarchy has its flaws for sure, but Democracy is often appraised so highly as if it is without many problems as well. It's not the end-all be-all of political perfection some foolishly think.
At the end of the day, both are merely a couple of options in the varied pool of systems of government.
In terms of freedom and equality, democracies share the power way more between the citizens.
@malogibeaux4946
Well, in practice sure... but some do it better than others. And that system can still be exploited.
I think this is a really one dimensional way of thought. Yes, monarchies culturally are seen as heavenly mandates, but this idea eroded exponentially over time and was a secondary thought for most monarchs. I can count the competent monarchs on two hands, then there’s a sea of incompetents or meh monarchs. Dictators are much the same. I can count the amount of objectively competent dictators on two hands (among them Lee Kwan Yew or Deng Xiaoping). Monarchs have also been genocidal maniacs (Leopold of Belgium). There’s almost zero correlation of morality with monarchical competence.
It veries too much on the personal basis. The best way of rule is a benevolent monarch/dictator. The worst way of rule is an evil monarch/dictator. Monarchy/dictatorships have a much greater potential for both good and evil from democracies.
@@dinok7630then there should be some sort of regulation for morally corrupt monarchs. A good leader is one who is completely selfless and puts others first over themself. There should be some sort of system of ousting morally corrupt monarchs from power and replacing them with someone who is selfless and ascetic, some sort of artificial selection for the most selfless and altruistic person to be named heir. Perhaps this monarch would not rule alone and would rule alongside someone else sort of like the Roman Republican system of two counselors, with one not being any more powerful than the other and both having to rule jointly.
@@mcbeaty3971 I don’t know what you mean by this, binary is in no way related.
@@dinok7630 I agree.
@EmperorofChinaItwillgrowlarger Please do give me this list of competent monarchs. I’m sure the peasantry loved toiling under their intelligent kings/queens and that’s why the standard of living was so good in the medieval era.
The Shah, Saudi King, and Russian Tzar abused their power
Which ones bro
As far as rethinking the idea that power does not corrupt but instead reveals, I would say you have a good point. But I would also say human character is not stagnant. If a person gets into a position where they can essentially do whatever they want with no apparent consequences, their character and sense of duty will deteriorate (at least for some time). It is far easier to pretend to be a good person than to be a good person. Though I think your case (that the path to power is more corrupting than power) was very strong. Ultimately, if we could get back to an age where those in power lived among us and had to adhere to socializing in a community after their term is over, I think that would be best. I do not want mob rule, but term limits and citizen rule will aid the person wielding power to feel that they are holding something that gives them the ability to make the world better when it is their time to shine while also ensuring they keep an understanding that any distraction takes away from time to get that done and to make a difference for the community they only temporarily serve.
My conclusion is whatever system there is it doesn't matter because systems are only as good as the individuals and society that is made up of it. Building can only rise to how muchh the foundations can allow it. Whatever system there is, you should first look at the people and the culture and adjust accordingly. There is no such thing as one size fits all.
Okay, I have watched the video. I disagree when you quote Betrand De Jouvenel. I utterly despise him for his temper tantrum against Monarchial Absolutism.
To quote someone:
"Jouvenel always making slants against monarchical absolutism in his writings and under the influence of Tocquevillism. Everything I like about Monarchy, Jouvenel writes off as ugly and undesirable, modernity and atomization, condemns the pre-eminence of one"
Any monarchist who uses Jouvenal as part of their chief intellectuals is a massive red flag.
Although, I agree with the fundamental premise that what power only does is that it amplifies the person's inherent traits.
Being a monarchist is already a red flag by itself, buddy xD
Sure, a red flag for people not believing in the preeminence of one.
@@manolgeorgiev9664 libtard
@@manolgeorgiev9664red flag? You mean, "monarcho-communism" 👑⚒️?
This is a joke btw.
Love your channel. ❤
Monarchy forever!
In heaven there is a kingdom, enough said.
literally the entire reasons why monarchy is so rare now is BECAUSE they were so irresponsible with their power, if they actually worked monarchs wouldn’t have been kicked out or severely neutered in their power
That’s the same as saying that the reason there are so many dictatorships is because democracies also failed.
It’s a logical fallacy.
I could say that Monarchies were the go-to system of governance for 99% of Human Recorded History and that that in itself proves Monarchies to be the better choice.
There’s nuance in why monarchies fell in popularity. First and foremost the spread of enlightenment and democratic ideas, foreign influence, propaganda, etc.
The King of Italy was ousted by the Fascists and if not for American intervention, Italy would have voted for the return of the Monarchy and King Victor Emanuel III instead of voting for a Republic, for example.
@@LuisBrito-ly1ko the vast majority of the monarchies ended up in financial ruin, constantly at war and horrifically inbred with the class divide and standards of living being absolutely horrendous, like truly is it a coincidence that we progressed immensely after enlightenment and anti monarchal ideas started to come through?
@@LuisBrito-ly1ko also there is quite literally almost no dictatorships in the world currently, there is one in europe, one in asia and a few in africa, that’s about it
this is completely different to what i said about monarchies because they quite simply DID NOT WORK and the ones that exist now are extremely neutered to the point of being ceremonial, like seriously lol the most powerful countries economically, militarily and culturally are all conveniently not headed by a monarch
@@Virgil191
That’s perception bias.
Monarchies have been far more numerous and had stayed longer in this earth than democracies did.
Of course if you pick up a 1000 years old Monarchy, you will find numerous economic recessions and periods of low living standards ( for our modern perspective ).
But I can point out in relative terms that republics/democracies have not really faired that better.
How many economic recessions did the United States have in its 247 years of existence?
What’s the standard of living in the Dominican Republic?
Not to mention that economic recessions aren’t necessarily caused by the governing system. The Black Death would have happened regardless, just to give an example.
And the standard of living was simply a result of a lack of advanced science and technology in previous eras.
-
As for dictatorships, there are different types. Military Juntas, Single-Party Dictatorship, De-Facto Dictatorships, and classic Dictatorships.
Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Belarus, Laos, Chad, Myanmar, Mali, Sudan, Venezuela, Syria, and Iran are the current standing ones.
Before them, there was Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, half of Europe, and so on.
There are 195 countries in the world. 13 of them are Dictatorships. 43 are Monarchies of various types, and at least a dozen are authoritarian countries. This leaves 127 countries as full republics/democracies.
What this data doesn’t show is the reason why there are so many democracies. Namely WW2, the end of the Cold War, of course civil wars, but also foreign intervention, of which there were many.
So, while you can say that only 6.6% of the countries are dictatorships right now, that doesn’t erase the fact that there would be far more if not for foreign action and that many more were alive in previous decades. That’s what I was referring to.
It's because monarchies create strong stable countries, preventing Jews from gaining too much power. Thus monarchies were the target of artificial revolutions which opened seats of power to jews
I've read the Russian revolution book. The source you used and what you said contradict. Your either misunderstanding most of history or lying to fit your world view. You ignored the monarchs that dissolved their parliaments as well. I'm only half way, maybe you'll make it up in the end
Did not get better. You ignored the french and English monarchs and fabricated evidence on the tzars to fit your narrative
@EmperorofChinaItwillgrowlarger too bad cope land isnt real emperor
@@malikiiversen4240Bruh just Stop Talking.
@@hofnarrtheclown you mad bro?
@@malikiiversen4240 Kinda
To the question on what first comes to mind when the topic is power, the answer is superman.
I used to believe that, but I honestly can’t reconcile the dagger Franco’s got after his death, at this point, all monarchies are decadent
Just discovered your channel today. As a fellow Monarchist your channel is a godsend.
Fr
"Already secured with money and power, so why turn to corruption?"
Yeah, that really doesn't hold true at all. Look at the stereotypical trust fund kid, born into wealth and set for life, yet there is nothing "noble" or honorable about them. They grow up spoiled, self-centered, and greedy.
Contrast this to people who come from humble beginnings and come into wealth later in life, they seem more likely to have a understanding of what they have compared to others and a greater appreciation for it for that same reason. They also seem to be a lot more competent (having built their own success instead of being born into it).
Bruh that's one of the dumbest comments ever, 🤦 you compair a child that has been educated since the day he was born to be a prince who get's aducated and disciplined since the day he was born that he serves the people and has a great burden on his back, many kings and queens even had some mental problems becouse they knew what position they were in.
And yes there is something noble and honourable about it, kings and queens are like Soldiers serving their country, which is why many royal family members also served in the military to get a grasp on what they were in for their whole lives, selfless service like already said it get's indoctrinated into them since childhood.
They Could not even decide who they want to marry, since that was also a sacrifice they did for their country not to marry out of love but out of service with royal families from other nations, far from a spoild brat you talked about.
@@tiagomonteiro130 A prince whose born into wealth and set for life? Yes, a trust fund kid is a perfect comparison.
Monarchy is dumb, and I am glad I live in a country that fought a war to rid itself of it. There is nothing "noble" about them. they are born into their position, they didn't earn it, they weren't elected into it. There is nothing more primitive and barbaric than having the leader be the son of the previous leader for no other reason.
History is absolutely full of many examples of monarchs abusing their power. That's a far more realistic portrayal of a monarch than the "noble" leader than monarchists claim they are.
If you could contact me I need help with some monarchy debates from a secular perspective
Number of bullets required is 1, and this is an advantage. But that is true of both monarchies and tyrannies.. again aristotles forms pretty good stuff.
Duration preference. of a king Vs Speed preference of a dictator.
King: i can only fall down the hierarchy... thus i am compelled to focus on stability and a focus on the best options for the future..
Dictatorship: i must always prove that i climb the hierarchy.. Thus i am compelled to focus upon Right NOW, to resolve my issues.
Royalty is the top of the social hierarchy, but bottom of the physical one.
I mentioned a solution in the comments right here....
@@rat_king-you got something i can contact you on?
Hey! So, this is sort of an open question to anyone in this comment section. For context, I am at the moment agnostic on the monarchy vs no-monarchy questio. Does anyone know of some good debates that have been done between a monarchist vs anti-monarchist? (If it is a debate that Lava set took part in I would definitely want to listen to that, but any other people debating would be great too)
If you haven't, you should read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: the God that Failed" and any book by Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
A democracy is heavily dependent on different groups being represented in government, thereby allowing power to shift in elections and putting pressure on those elected to perform well. The issue with democracy is that everyone to appointed by the same means, an election, that necessarily precludes a balance of power as power will be determined by whoever can buy the most votes from the poor by stealing from the middle class(not the rich, as they can bribe or lawyer their way out of taxes). This by default creates an incentive to bribe the poor by depriving the middle class, creating more poor who need to be bribed, a self fulfilling loop that bankrupts the nation and results in a dictatorship. The only barrier against such a decline is good faith and ideology.
The problem with monarchy is bad kings, not like Kaiser Wilhelm II but like John Lackland and Peter I 'the Great' of Russia. Kings who get their country into terrible wars that devastate their country, that pass reforms that predate upon the poor and peasantry and incentivize cruelty to their subjects, and have very little check on their own personal power. Like, taking a step back and disregarding the separate time periods, it's incredible just how similar the reigns of John Lackland and Peter I were. I guess the major difference was that John Lackland lost, and so much of the damage he did was undone, while Peter I didn't and so his reforms and ambitions remained and were justified and would go on to haunt Russia into the 19th Century (If you're curious what exactly I mean by this, much of the state sponsored alcoholism, oppression of peasants and serfdom, and military incompetence originated with his rule. In the short term it benefited Russia, hence allowing them to win in the Great Northern War, thus why he's considered 'Great', but would be utterly corrosive in the long term).
iraq shows it wont work
One of the points you made in the latter half of the video brought an interesting thought to my mind I hadn’t considered. When the wellbeing of your people is the primary factor that determines whether your family continues to hold power and wealth, you are far more likely to act in accordance with that. The opposite is true of democracies and other forms of government that give the people the illusion of choice and influence. I just realized that the state of affairs in the US has been unnaturally extended far past where it would’ve been able to get to if it wasn’t for the governmental systems giving people the false sense that they could still change course and reconcile. No country under a monarchy would be able to be under this much polarized stress without erupting almost instantly into either civil war or a coup that just flat out removes the monarch. Instead we vote people in who say the right things and then watch as they continue to serve only the interested of them and their donors.
Pretty sure we’re heading towards a coup anyways tbh
Feudalism seems to be the stable human condition since its been around in some state for so long. Now you have to blackwash history that we just lived in a chaotic dark age until modern constitutionalism to say that this is a bad thing. People have a bias against the way history was, and have like a Stockholm syndrome like gratitude that they were born today. Perspective is huge
Humans spent far longer under tribal families and as hunter gatherers than under any feudal system and I don't see any of you arguing for that.
@@PwnMissile yea precedence is only a piece of the puzzle. You make a good point, expanding further at the moment is out of my depth.
People use tribal precedence to argue for communalism and different degrees of populism, which are antithetical to monarchism. Im guessing it depends on the thinkers axiomatic perspective on history, whether it hinges on individuals or instead collective trends
everyone's human, they'll use power differently. Lavader is right, it doesn't necessarily corrupt.
It Inherently doesn't Corrupt
I’m gonna royal edge
I'd argue you've fell into survivorship biases. The only monarchies that continue to survive and thrive today were ones with a modicum of responsibility for wielding power.
Who didn't? Over time responsibility grows in Royal families.
Survival of the fittest lineage
In the United States originally politicians didn't run for office. It was expected that others would nominate them and run a campaign to elect them on their behalf. There was an expectation of modesty and humility for those elected and you didn't really want people who seemed determined to get the job.
I wouldn't idealize the monarchy system. For me the best example of a successful monachy like system was that of the Chinese disnaties. The Chinese emperors were so succesful in the distant past that literally slept over their success for generations and hundreds of years until the modern age gave them a harsh wake up. Ancient Chinese monarchs even created efficient and fair administrative and legal systems and granted basic rights to their citizens, but the lack of stability within the "royalty" and inability to change ideas and adapt (caused mainly because Chinese royalty was more concern with poison each other than properly govern the country) caused the system to corrup and stagnate with the past of time.
It is also true that the reason that a bourgeois class was able to rise and gain strenght was due to European monarchs creating stable economic envioronments were people was able to make money and thrive (at least some of them), however they weren't able to adapt on time to have a much more productive and knowledgeable citizens who were tired of don't have any political participation, I think that the only monarchy which was able to adap on time (by force) was the british royalty and even so they lose a lot of influence and power, currently they only survive as some sort of big 24/7 reality show, but their legitimacy is questioned every day for the tax payers.
In my opinion for society to advance, humans have to change their government systems from time to time, democracies and republics seems to be stagnating and failing so maybe we can change to monarchies and dictatorship systems for a while (people tend to confuse dictatorships with tyrannies, but a dictatorship is to a tyranny, what democracy is to demagogy, a tyrani is a degenerate dictatorship and a good monarchy is a form of dictatorship while a bad one is a tyrani).
Spicy Topic.
You are also a liberal because you are defending a consitutional parlemantary monarchy (which is a contradiction) by defending Willhelm II negligence to suppress ennemies of German country (SPD). This is the very contradiction of liberalism (i.e republican democracy or constitutional monarchy), it tolerates forces that want to dissolve the country it supposed to gouvern. If you were a real monarchist, you would take examples of Charlemagne, Saint Louis and Louis XIV. But no you took a liberal monarchy as example. This is not monarchy because the monarch does not have all the power and can't even suppress the political ennemies of the country by suppressing bad political parties.
I believe he’s expressed in other videos and on the livestream on the Broken Crown channel that he’s a Semi-Constitutional Monarchist.
@@crusader2112 What is a semi-constitutional monarchist ? A monarchist that gives half of power to the parliament ? This is not a true monarchy because monarchy by definition the rule of one. If the parliament have a half of power, then it is the rule of many (aristocracy or plutocracy) so it is not a monarchy. To give thé half of the power to the parliament will have the same effect as constitutional monarchy, the monarch will not be able to suppress some evil because he is limited by the parliament (so he will be a semi-monarch).
@@gadzipete9444 Yes, a Semi-Constitutional Monarchy shares power with a parliament. Now, Can a parliament or some kind of elected assembly still exist in a “real monarchy?” Also, what are your thoughts on The Romanov Dynasty?
@@crusader2112 No it is not a Real monarchy. A semi-constitutional monarchy will finish by a revolution of the parliament or by a suppression of the parliament if the parliament and the king don't have the same interests (it is what actually happened with Prussia and Austria after the WWI).
@@gadzipete9444 Okay thanks. I’m American, so I still have an unconscious aim towards some kind of elected assembly. Gotta work on that, but I just can’t see how an Absolute Monarchy can rise in today’s democratized culture.
So you are putting all your eggs in a 'hope he'll turn out fine' basket. What do you think happens when someone lives a life in insane luxury and is certain that everything he sees is his no matter what?
I wish you could use Ottoman Empire as an example too.
Hoppe has entered the chat.
Power doesn't corrupt. Moral cowardice does.
one thing overlooked was that monarchies didn't operate in vacuums for the most part. a king that has complete control of a country is little more than a dictator with some traditions behind him, and there are plenty of kings turned tyrants in history so no assumption should be made that a king cannot become just as bad as a dictator if not worse. divine right to rule can be just as much as a weapon to be used as much as it is a check and balance
however what keeps monarchs in check is that, especially in europe, the monarchy was competing with other groups. nobles held great sway and would often clash with certain kings. Christianity also introduced the catholic church which was another force on society that competed with the monarch, and then merchant groups and traders with obsene amounts of money also could buy influence through the marketplace later on.
essentially a king and a dynasty really had to work with all these other factions to keep any sort of power, as there was plenty of times the king had no real power and de-facto control may as well have been the nobles and the clergy. this competition made sure no tyrant king could really survive long as the peasants would simply move their support to other factions. this lead to things like the Investiture Controversy where the pope and king were off and on colliding with eachothers interests and it lead to a small war.
I think a monarchy is a natural state of being for humans.
no that would be hunter gatherer tribes
@@malogibeaux4946 Early humans and tribes often operated on early monachy forms like Chiefdoms and Tribal Kingdoms. So I see your point, but also it doesn't disprove what I've said, infact it strengthens it.
@@scharnhorst_42 There is no proof of social hierarchy in these early humans. There weren't any monarchs. Also at that stage your standard homo sapiens group was about 150 people, far from a kingdom and not exactly a chiefdom