Whats your opinion on it? Is it an ok system?

The worst.

5406066 No

5406066 Yep.

5406066 In a world where republics are at the point of separating the executive and the legislature but not able to even to split state and government one would think the priorities are misaligned.

Scandinavia has never committed democide,
The UK has never committed democide,
A dominion has never committed democide.

5406066 Hmmmmm. Well, I'm Canadian and it seems to be working just fine...so I guess it works.

5406153 Forgive my ignorance but what's democide?

5406432 my guess, it means death by Democracy

5406066 The first generation Monarch are usually a strong leader usually leaving the country they rule in a better shape in which they founded it in only to have rest of the family fighting over the country while they leave it to rot and abusing what made it powerful in the first place.

5406432 Democide is the act of Genocide by a Democratic Government. Like if the UK started eliminating Jews on a Auschwitz level. Middle eastern countries are infamous for Democide.

5406490 Britain is lucky it's monarchs didn't let the country rot. And they are lucky to have had that Rebellion make them go Constitutional.

5406432
5406490
5406497 Democide is actually a more comprehensive definition of genocide. Whereas Genocide properly specifically refers to the destruction of a specific ethnicity or race of human (typically by mass slaughter) whereas democide is defined as "the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder".

Essentially genocide would say, include shit like the Jewish Holocaust or the Armenian genocide, whereas democide would include all of that PLUS shit like the Trail of Tears in the United States where the Native Americas were all but death march'd to reservations, as well as the political isolation of any specific group of people within the country.

A good rule of thumb, though inaccurate, is useful in thise regard: Genocide = Genes, the persecution/murder of a race, of a genome. Democide = Demographic, the persecution/murder of any group of people within a nation, sociological, cultural, racial, religious, etc.

ISIS for example, doesn't commit mass genocide, it is, however extremely guilty of vast and pervasive democide.

5406524 Huh. Well I learned something.

I say oh hell to the fuck no. Democide is a system that guaranteed destruction

5406066
Every system has it's upsides and downsides. The upside of a monarchy is that if you get a really good leader, he has the power to change everything. The downside is that if you get a really bad leader, he has the power to change everything. Dictatorships are the modern incarnation of monarchy with a different title passed from father to son, such as the Kims or Assads.

On the balance, the bad kings mess things up worse than the good kings can fix them - especially when messes include wars - so monarchies rarely stack up well compared to republics. England, for instance, under it's parliament ultimately outcompeted all the Louis of France and Napolean. Imperial Germany fared better than Austro-Hungary or Imperial Russia because not everything was left up to the Kaiser.

5406920 >not everything was left up to the Kaiser being a good thing
>It was mostly his hawkish ministers pushing for war when he left things in their care when he went on holiday.

kek

5406432 Handyman provided a good definition.

5406497 No Pauline, it isn't.

5407298 Someone already explained it to me. A bit slow on the uptake are you?

5406153
You do know that the European monarchies are monarchies in name only?

5408433 Hi,

Lorenzo is committed to providing tailored responses to you.

If you are American, go to one. If you are not an American, go to two.

1) You do know what a monarchy is, rather than a synonym for authoritarianism just like what Uncle Sam told you?

2) The European monarchy that I am most familiar with, the UK is more than a monarchy in name only. The head of state is the Queen Elizabeth II, her royal assent is required for legislation to pass; she appoints Cabinet, she dissolves parliament in order for elections to be held; this is in addition to her reserve powers; which we can see demonstrated in the 1975 dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by then governor-general Sir John Kerr, who was appointed at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

Can't say for the Nordic monarchies, but I know that the only iteration of Germany that was overtaken by a Nazi was the Wiemar Republic

Oh great, now you've done it. We won't be hearing the end of this for days.

5407114
Honestly, if you stack up all the situations where ministers were responsible for wars against the almost infinitely larger amount of cases where monarchs, dictators and petty lordlings were responsible for them, the monarchies will universally come out worse. World War 2 was caused by non-royal politicians... but ultimately, the first wasn't, and things like the Thirty Years War regionally wiped out as much as 50% of Central Europe's population. Only the Black Death has ever been able to do as much. Compared to how almost ludicrously peaceful the world has been since the end of WW2, monarchies never measure up well. Even with all the wars that we have had, it's still the calmest period in all of human history.

5408467 I am not denying that monarchies are not at fault for their fair share of bloodshed throughout history, I was actually just mocking the faulty logic in Veylon's reasoning here, and pointing out the absurdity of his point about the superiority of say, The German Empire over its more autocratic neighbours (Austria-Hungary and Russia) was because the Kaiser, despite his own absolutism, did have some decentralization of power in his ministers, or that Britain beat Napoleon because of the superiority of the parliamentary system in Britain and not, say, the fact that Britain had a far superior naval tradition protecting it from the predations of Napoleon or, before him, the revolutionary governments of France and their hilariously peaceful wars of revolution. Or the fact they ultimately beat him because the Duke of Wellington was a badass and the Prussians helped out. As if a country's legislative system and its virtues of government alone determined whether or not it would be successful at slaying whatever dragon happens to be threatening the world order at the time and not the quality of its dragonslayers. I maintain if the old world empires had been republics instead of monarchies, the Great War would likely have happened anyway, though likely for different reasons (IE, it wouldn't be the Assassination of the Archduke that'd make Austria-Hungary want to put Serbia in its place)

You are free to believe in the superiority of a democratic or republican system because the world is now peaceful since WW2 and choose to believe it is because the world has turned into 99% republics that that is the cause, and I am free to choose that a little thing called nuclear hegemony and MAD has a lot more to do with that than democratic idealism, neither of us will actually be proven right until we are both long dead and this era of history has past and its left to the history nerds of the future to argue about with the benefit of longer hindsight. Either that or I could be proven wrong tomorrow if everybody threw their nukes away and wars didn't suddenly erupt, but I am sure as fuck Pakistan and India would go at it immediately if nukes stopped being an issue. It all depends on how viable you think the reasoning is behind the Democratic Peace Theory, which I increasingly view dimly because every time there is an example of democracies waging war, it either doesn't count, its against a country that isnt a democracy and hence also doesn't count or said country 'wasn't a real democracy' anyway and so it doesn't count, which sounds very like the excuses socialists give to handwave the fuckdickery of communist regimes as not being really socialist. Sides even if you don't count actual wars, the century just past has actually been the bloodiest in human history even without the charnel houses of great wars between the great powers of the modern era, hence Lorenzo's point about democide, non-monarchical governments, statistically, are actually more likely to engage in that sort of chicanery over time and this is because non-monarchical governments almost always tend to be ideologically driven nations, the only thing you can quibble about is it tends to be socialist/communist countries that do most of the heavy lifting in the horror department, outside of the Nazi regime of course.

5408478
I don't, really, not necessarily. I meant to point out that arguing wrong against wrong doesn't add up to "right" for either side. While I agree with Veylon to a degree - a bad king can fuck up more than a good king can fix and he has much, much more time and much less restraint to do so than an elected, limited-term official - we haven't lived in a world of democracy for long enough to really make conclusive statements either way. In any case, my dislike for monarchy and preference for democratic, elected forms of government isn't based in practical considerations to begin with, but rather in sheer moral principle. I think monarchies are an actual moral evil.