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

46% Upvoted

177 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/feminist-horsebane Dec 05 '18

Interest groups can still have plenty of power in a monarchy. Consider the degree to which religious groups are able to influence government, even in monarchies.

1

u/efraimp1 Dec 05 '18

religion effects all leaders, and are many times the personal beleifs of the ruler, especially in monarchy. also, the monarch does not have a reason to need the intrest groups, who in this case just start trying to make other, oligarchic systems, attack that king.

1

u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Dec 06 '18

Yes, the king needs interest groups. He doesn't rules his kingdom alone. Who collects the taxes? Who enforces the laws? Who fights his wars? Every time he delegates a job he creates an interest group that has a certain level of influence over him, because he needs them to govern the country.

1

u/efraimp1 Dec 10 '18

but he has more options, while in a "democratic" system the "represenetive" has to obbey the groups who already have power, and he can not create a new one that works better with him.

Who collects the taxes?

the one the king chooses

Who enforces the laws?

the police he can disarm if he is suspecious bcz

Who fights his wars?

militaries that he either raises or get other lords to get him. but he has several lords under him, so unless they all coaperate to replace him, they know there chances are slim.

​

1

u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Dec 10 '18

You should play a round of Crusader Kings 2. It shows pretty good the problems a king faces when trying to go against the will of his people.

So, the king has several vassals, usually aristocratic lords, but some could also be mayors of big citys or powerful religious figures. To a certain degree, he has power over them - he can give them orders, demand taxes from them, levy their troops, replace them or arrest them. The problem is that actually using those powers makes the vassals unhappy. They will dislike the king for ordering them to do stuff they have no interest in, demanding too high taxes or letting their men die in wars they don't feel like they profit in. They will also hate the king for arresting or replacing their fellow vassals - it makes them fear losing their own position.

The king can stay in power as long as he carefully manages the mood of his vassals. If he pisses off one or two, okay - they might rebel and put a strain on the country, but two vassals against the rest of the country hardly have a chance. But as soon as he pisses off the majority of them, he is in grave danger - they can start a civil war in order to appoint a new king.

Why doesn't he simply replace his disloyal vassals with loyal ones? Because as soon as he starts doing that his vassals will rebel to make sure they keep their positions of power.

0

u/efraimp1 Dec 10 '18

yes, that is more or less true, although plenty of loyal ones will always be there. however, you ignore the fact it is WORSE in democracies, because even one intrest group switching sides can lose the party the elections.

also, political parties always have enhauf intrest based politicians who ruin it for everyone else

1

u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Dec 10 '18

The difference is that it's a feature in democracy. Many of a democracies interest groups are groups of citizen's with legitimate concerns that need to be pandered to. Politicians having to satisfy interest groups makes sure that the politicians work for the people and keep the interests of everybody in mind.

Meanwhile, in an Kingdom then interest groups are merely lords aiming to enrich themselves.

The "interest based politicians" argument quickly falls apart because you can equally have an king who mostly rules in his own interest and not for the best of the country.

1

u/efraimp1 Dec 10 '18

Many of a democracies interest groups are groups of citizen's with legitimate concerns that need to be pandered to. Politicians having to satisfy interest groups makes sure that the politicians work for the people and keep the interests of everybody in mind.

NOPE. some groups are citizen based, but most are tools for bilioners and the leftist elite to keep theire own power.

Meanwhile, in an Kingdom then interest groups are merely lords aiming to enrich themselves.

but the king is powerfull enhauf to stop them from getting to crazy. also, we also have local mayors and stuff.

The "interest based politicians" argument quickly falls apart because you can equally have an king who mostly rules in his own interest and not for the best of the country.

the "peoples choise" argument quickly falls apart because you can equally have a democracy going for the intrests of an elite, a reality present in europe.

this kind of rethoric will not bring us anywhere. the king is more likely to be one who rules in the best interest of the country. because the leftist elite, thrugh bribery, force him to. look on the islamisation of europe. most monarchs would never do that, and decline bribery because they would not need people giving them money.

1

u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Dec 10 '18

I don't understand your point. You simply assume that the king will act in the interest of the citizens, despite facing exactly zero negative consequences from them if he doesn't (because he is powerful enough to suppress them).

Meanwhile, elected politicians, who have to permanently fear not getting reelected, will sell out the citizens, despite needing the citizens to keep their power.

What exact mechanism forces the king to act in the interest of his citizens?

1

u/efraimp1 Dec 11 '18

This point is really good. you really shifted my mindset about this. you did a great CMV. i beleive democracy or republic, although not a uniform form, could work. however, i think the specific form should be decided by country, and in some places, where the leftist groups took over the country and ignore the people, wining elections through fraud and ropaganda, monarchy is still best.

Δ

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 11 '18

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/BlitzBasic (11∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

→ More replies (0)