Not all monarchs are tyrants, in fact there have been many fantastic kings throughout history who have done great things for their people. We've seen that a republic can still impose tyranny upon its people when it becomes corrupt. I'd also argue that a good monarch can clear out the trash much more easily than in our system.
All systems have their merits and shortfalls. I'd say that history shows that no single form of government is perfect or is worth having forever. They do better to evolve with the state of the people.
A republic only works if you have a population with a solid moral compass who isn't afraid to kick the shit out of their leaders when they get out of line. We're far from that. Instead, the people are falling further down the hole of debauchery in their excesses while the leaders gain more power feeding off the power of corporations and others of great influence.
All systems have their merits and shortfalls. I'd say that history shows that no single form of government is perfect or is worth having forever. They do better to evolve with the state of the people.
A republic only works if you have a population with a solid moral compass who isn't afraid to kick the shit out of their leaders when they get out of line.
In other words:
"Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies" -Declaration of Independence
There's a lot to be said for monarchy, because the system ties personal success of the leader to the long term success of the country, on a scale lasting for generations instead of a few years. You want to be a good king, a rich king, with a stable home? You take care of your country. You want your kid to have a good life? You make sure you set the country up for long-term success so they can be a successful monarch.
Compare that to a situation where the ruler is in charge for 4 years. You want to be rich? Loot the country. You want your kids to have a good life? Loot the country. Whatever happens 10 years from now doesn't matter, you got your piece and skedaddled.
Of course, if you have shitty monarch this doesn't work out and it's even harder to get rid of them, but the fundamental system is at least designed to foster long-term thinking and growth. Unlike this bullshit, which is designed to attract looters and megalomaniacs to the highest offices.
You also have to figure that the original thought was for Washington to be king. Now imagine a system where the king would have all of the powers of the president, but have them for life while Congress and the Courts provide the checks and balances. Obviously, certain aspects would have to change a bit, but it would have been an interesting system.
Succession could be done in two ways. One is just plainly through lineage, but one can also argue for a Roman style where the monarch adopts someone who they feel will do the job well and groom them to be ruler.
I'd love to see the Roman system tried again in modern times. Mostly just to see what happens - do the globalists infiltrate, or does it provide a stable bulwark against the infiltration?
Not all monarchs are tyrants, in fact there have been many fantastic kings throughout history who have done great things for their people. We've seen that a republic can still impose tyranny upon its people when it becomes corrupt. I'd also argue that a good monarch can clear out the trash much more easily than in our system.
All systems have their merits and shortfalls. I'd say that history shows that no single form of government is perfect or is worth having forever. They do better to evolve with the state of the people.
A republic only works if you have a population with a solid moral compass who isn't afraid to kick the shit out of their leaders when they get out of line. We're far from that. Instead, the people are falling further down the hole of debauchery in their excesses while the leaders gain more power feeding off the power of corporations and others of great influence.
In other words:
"Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies" -Declaration of Independence
There's a lot to be said for monarchy, because the system ties personal success of the leader to the long term success of the country, on a scale lasting for generations instead of a few years. You want to be a good king, a rich king, with a stable home? You take care of your country. You want your kid to have a good life? You make sure you set the country up for long-term success so they can be a successful monarch.
Compare that to a situation where the ruler is in charge for 4 years. You want to be rich? Loot the country. You want your kids to have a good life? Loot the country. Whatever happens 10 years from now doesn't matter, you got your piece and skedaddled.
Of course, if you have shitty monarch this doesn't work out and it's even harder to get rid of them, but the fundamental system is at least designed to foster long-term thinking and growth. Unlike this bullshit, which is designed to attract looters and megalomaniacs to the highest offices.
You also have to figure that the original thought was for Washington to be king. Now imagine a system where the king would have all of the powers of the president, but have them for life while Congress and the Courts provide the checks and balances. Obviously, certain aspects would have to change a bit, but it would have been an interesting system.
Succession could be done in two ways. One is just plainly through lineage, but one can also argue for a Roman style where the monarch adopts someone who they feel will do the job well and groom them to be ruler.
I'd love to see the Roman system tried again in modern times. Mostly just to see what happens - do the globalists infiltrate, or does it provide a stable bulwark against the infiltration?