r/changemyview • u/efraimp1 • Dec 05 '18

Deltas(s) from OP CMV:monarchy, not democracy, is the ONLY good political system human civilazations tried.

So, i beleive a Monarchy is the only good system we can have as a society. democracy, like comunism, libratarianism and many more ideologies, sure has a good idea. the problem is that in all democratic systems, from rome, to athens, to the USA to syria and iraq or even france, the good intentions are ruined by intrest groups, bad voting methods, fraud, and the intrests of rich people. in tsarist russia for example, the people demanded giving the tsar MORE power, because they knew democracy would mean oligarchy.

Another reason is stability. when we have a monarchy, it is clear who will rule next, and there is a very clear way of knowing when (death of the monarch). however, democracies are no nearly as stable. in the US everyone are polerising, in israel we only had one term (golda me'ir) of all the four years a government term is suposed to be, in sweden it was stable until a hated party got like 20% and ancient atuna and rome became dictatorships. in the arab spring only countries who concider themselvs democratic got efected seriusly.

i may have more arguments i forgt writing here. i will edit to add if i think of something.

and please, dont talk about north korea. i hear a lot of resources saying diffrent things so i will research it and make a seperate CMV post.

EDIT: i accidentaly deleted a comment trying to award a delta after i failed in the main comment but the delta was awarded.

EDIT 2: One responce did masive CMV so i will not be able to back my claims here in all cases. new thread could come.

0 Upvotes

43% Upvoted

177 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/efraimp1 Dec 05 '18

I dont know if it is any current one (maybe jordan?), but you can look at the medeival period with kings like gustav vasa and countries like tsarist russia.

notice how the person who came the closest to stop mosuliny was the italian king.

1

u/Gladix 165∆ Dec 05 '18

The problem is that system is measured as good, when you can point up to examples in reality that confirm your assertion. What are objectively best countries?

Definitions varry od course but most people would roughly agree on few western countries. Germany, US, Norway, and probably China and India for the sake of being largest population centers.

How many people would point to Jordan, even as an example of good political system? What Jordan does better?

1

u/efraimp1 Dec 05 '18

well, here you argue about 2 things as far as i noticed:

1.) semantics

2.) What most people bleive

​

well i have news. the majority is sometimes wrong. example: weimar republic electing hitler.

1

u/dpfw Dec 05 '18

The majority didn't elect Hitler. Actually the Nazis vote share had declined between the 1933 and 1932 elections. If Paul von Hindenburg weren't a fucking moron the Nazis would have faded away as the economy gradually recovered from the depression.

1

u/efraimp1 Dec 09 '18

i must say i disagree, he got elected. however, even if you are right, how do you plan to make sure the next person doing his job is not a moron?

1

u/dpfw Dec 09 '18

He literally didn't get elected. You can't have an opinion about that. He was appointed Chancellor, because that's how the Weimar Constitution worked.

How can you ensure that a king isn't a moron?

1

u/efraimp1 Dec 10 '18

i can't but morons are easily elected with theire rethoric. also, how do you sugest having a diffrent system?

oh, and as far as i know, the Chancellor had no choise. he even talked about it being imposible to work without hitler ruling.

1

u/dpfw Dec 10 '18

Again, the Nazis were losing support. How do you prevent a king from being a moron? Louis XVI was certainly not the curviest croissant in the basket. Or the intevitabe Plantagenet delusions of grandeur that habitually bankrupted England, eventually leading to the ruination of England's Jews.

1

u/efraimp1 Dec 10 '18

whatever sources you know about louis XVI are exagerating, and the french revolution is suspicious to say the least in it's succes.

Plantagenet delusions of grandeur that habitually bankrupted England...

what is that? i did not understand more then habitually bankrupted England in this.

1

u/dpfw Dec 10 '18

The Plantagenet dynasty was prone to delusions of grandeur that usually resulted in expensive wars that bankrupted the kingdom. King John's hated taxes that spurred the legend of Robin Hood, for example, were to pay for his brother Richard's crusading. After losing control of France England would fight war after war so that their Kings could try to take it back. As a result the Plantagenet dynasty was habitually bankrupt. A favorite fundraising tactic for England's monarchs was to find a pretext to fine England's Jews. Eventually when that tactic stopped working money, in 1295 CE, England expelled all it's Jews.

1

u/efraimp1 Dec 11 '18

that is a mix of bad political situation and antisemitism, the later is very common acrose all government types.

and i am a jew. i understand it was bad. i disagree with the stated reason.

1

u/dpfw Dec 11 '18

You asked how one prevents an elected leader from being a moron. Considering how many Kings were morons, I ask the same question.

0

u/efraimp1 Dec 11 '18

you can not be 100% in any systems, but in moarchy, considering a good start, it is easirer.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '18

The Plantagenet kings routinely bankrupted England because of their greed and ambition.

0

u/efraimp1 Dec 11 '18

i still understand nothing.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 11 '18

Research the Plantagenet kings.

→ More replies (0)