Communism and to some extent liberalism and other "progressive" ideologies revolve around the denial of hierarchy and people being given what they had not earned.
The reason they think "Well if I was in charge I'd fix everything!" is also due to a naive understanding of power as well as a deep seated jealousy and envy of people who do have it.
People who want what they cannot reasonably have must gain it due to subversion and secretive tactics. This is the slow process of "equality" to stop giving power to people who can use it well, and instead give it to people who will misuse it.
Liberalism's objection to monarchism and hereditary rule was that
a) It was painfully obvious that a Monarch could not actually be trusted to be interested in the prosperity and safety of his Kingdom.
b) The aristocracy was clearly unqualified to govern in any sense as it became easily corrupted
c) Hereditary rule was utterly useless in guaranteeing that competent leadership or an administrative state could be preserved.
All of these have been repeatedly proven true.
Liberalism is not about supplanting the Monarchy with a new order of bureaucrats, it is about limiting the power of the government entirely so that the people may live unmolested by those who dream to control them.
If that is true then liberalism has been a total failure. Corruption has certainly not been solved, and if anything, is worse than it has ever been.
a) It was painfully obvious that a Monarch could not actually be trusted to be interested in the prosperity and safety of his Kingdom.
How do you figure that? A monarch has numerous motivations for doing so. For one he wants to pass something good on to his children, because the land is their inheritance. For two he does not want to have riots in his kingdom. And for three, if he is challenged and defeated by an outside power, he and his family would be murdered. I'd say those are pretty damn good motivations.
Now let's compare to the modern day. A politician can lie or steal and not worry about being put to death. They have zero interest in the nation. Why should they? They will eventually leave their office and it will be someone else's problem. In ancient history, if a ruler was doing a bad job of ruling his nation, do you know what happened? A ruler who is doing a better job and generating more wealth decides to invade and take it over. Today this is impossible. If France is taxing its people to death, what is the recourse? All you can do is vote for someone who may or may not be lying just to get into office. There is no hope that a better manager of his kingdom might decide to claim your country for himself and improve it.
History. Particularly military history. Particularly the military history of the West and the Anglosphere specifically.
I'll go over why each and every single one of your points has been proven wrong by monarchs who do the opposite of what they say.
For one he wants to pass something good on to his children, because the land is their inheritance.
Wrong. This assumes that the monarch has such a desire to pass anything to his children, or is even capable of having children. Very often, monarchs have failed to give two shits about their own kingdom because they were busy engaging themselves in a litany of wars or conquests, and took no interest the domestic state of the country which they really didn't care about. This was a particular problem with Richard The Lionhearted, who really didn't even give a shit about England, and saw it a worthless backwater. Not like France and the Holyland.
Not to mention that the King does not have such ownership, when he is typically in conflict with his lords, who have their own land and property to pass on. Very often, monarchs will be happy to destroy the territory of less loyal lords, while rewarding more loyal lords as an act of political sabotage and loyalty.
For two he does not want to have riots in his kingdom.
Absolute hogwash. Monarchs have repeatedly stoked mobs of people into violence as a methodology of control. I shouldn't even have to explain this to you, it is literally the origin of the word Tyrant. This is sheer historical ignorance on your part. Riots are not always allowed, but riots are sometimes intentionally allowed as a methodology of control, demographic replacement, and justification for larger political strategic actions.
And for three, if he is challenged and defeated by an outside power, he and his family would be murdered.
Total nonsense. The installing of vassal monarchs on behalf of larger empires is maybe the entire history of the Hapsburg Empire.
A politician can lie or steal and not worry about being put to death.
It was literally impossible for Kings to commit crimes in Europe. The execution of a King was the invention of an English popular uprising that declared popular sovereignty, in opposition to "Divine Right of Rule". The English decision to execute their King for crimes against his own Kingdom was considered utter madness, and anti-monarchical.
There was never a justifiable reason to execute a king according to the philosophy of most monarchical systems.
They have zero interest in the nation. Why should they? They will eventually leave their office and it will be someone else's problem.
As with many tin-pot dictators who rule over their country as if they were a monarch, they also don't give a shit what happens to their country, because their interests only matter within the glorious capital city, and the most prosperous core of it. Let the rest of the people starve. This is common among monarchs and dictators alike.
In ancient history, if a ruler was doing a bad job of ruling his nation, do you know what happened?
Normally, not a damn thing until the next heir came to power. He could run his country into the ground for 70 years, suppress every uprising, and then let his son take over and do something slightly different. This is something that happened with Pharaohs, Czars, and Emperors alike.
A ruler who is doing a better job and generating more wealth decides to invade and take it over.
Again, no. Expanding your empire's influence is only one part of the agenda of a ruler. The Hittites are not going to conquer Egypt just because the child-king of Egypt is literally to young to properly rule. The weakness is useful for the Hittites to develop their kingdom and expand their influence unmolested, but it is not justification to conquer a kingdom. In fact, it is likely that many kingdoms will simply stay out of it to avoid embroiling themselves into a political situation they simply don't care enough about to solve. They have better things to do.
If France is taxing its people to death, what is the recourse?
Popular disruption, civil disobedience, and thankfully some kind of voting system which can unseat the established power structure to a small degree. Under a king, like literally every king where high taxes were imposed (like under China, Japan, Islamic Caliphates, Ottoman Empire... the list goes on forever), the only option would be mandatory death and starvation.
Extreme taxation... literally to the point of death and famine, is absolutely not unheard of among monarchies. It's very familiar. Normally because a monarch has gone on yet another ridiculous military campaign that will benefit no one, but the army needs grain so... die.
There is no hope that a better manager of his kingdom might decide to claim your country for himself and improve it.
Again, there is under most western systems with term limits. Where there is absolutely zero hope of a better manager of his kingdom is under a monarch.
Seriously, I don't think you know anything about the history of monarchs.
Wrong. This assumes that the monarch has such a desire to pass anything to his children, or is even capable of having children. Very often, monarchs have failed to give two shits about their own kingdom because they were busy engaging themselves in a litany of wars or conquests, and took no interest the domestic state of the country which they really didn't care about. This was a particular problem with Richard The Lionhearted, who really didn't even give a shit about England, and saw it a worthless backwater. Not like France and the Holyland.
That's not typical at all. Historically the thing monarchs cared about most was their legacy and their heirs. What do you think the conquests were about? Expanding and enriching their territory. How is that not caring about your country? You want it to be bigger and better. Obviously their motivations are also selfish, that just comes with the territory.
Not to mention that the King does not have such ownership, when he is typically in conflict with his lords, who have their own land and property to pass on. Very often, monarchs will be happy to destroy the territory of less loyal lords, while rewarding more loyal lords as an act of political sabotage and loyalty.
Well a King relies on his lords to help secure his land. If they are rebellious he is going to try and depose them and reclaim it. I don't know where you are getting the idea that he wants to destroy their territory from, because that's HIS territory.
Absolute hogwash. Monarchs have repeatedly stoked mobs of people into violence as a methodology of control. I shouldn't even have to explain this to you, it is literally the origin of the word Tyrant. This is sheer historical ignorance on your part. Riots are not always allowed, but riots are sometimes intentionally allowed as a methodology of control, demographic replacement, and justification for larger political strategic actions.
Nobody who is in power wants a revolt on their hands. The people who foment riots are those who want to take power for themselves. If you already have control, then anarchy is not profitable for you in any way. The word tyrant is from a brutal response to something like a riot, not from starting one.
Total nonsense. The installing of vassal monarchs on behalf of larger empires is maybe the entire history of the Hapsburg Empire.
So is the routine massacre of royal families. Look at Rome, Byzantium, Russia, etc.
As with many tin-pot dictators who rule over their country as if they were a monarch, they also don't give a shit what happens to their country, because their interests only matter within the glorious capital city, and the most prosperous core of it. Let the rest of the people starve. This is common among monarchs and dictators alike.
No it was very uncommon for that to happen throughout history. You wouldn't stay King long if your people were starving to death.
Again, no. Expanding your empire's influence is only one part of the agenda of a ruler. The Hittites are not going to conquer Egypt just because the child-king of Egypt is literally to young to properly rule. The weakness is useful for the Hittites to develop their kingdom and expand their influence unmolested, but it is not justification to conquer a kingdom. In fact, it is likely that many kingdoms will simply stay out of it to avoid embroiling themselves into a political situation they simply don't care enough about to solve. They have better things to do.
Yes they would. The death of a King was often an opportunity for a rival to declare war and annex territory. Any weakness in a rival was an opportunity to strike, and a child-king is a great example of that.
Popular disruption, civil disobedience, and thankfully some kind of voting system which can unseat the established power structure to a small degree. Under a king, like literally every king where high taxes were imposed (like under China, Japan, Islamic Caliphates, Ottoman Empire... the list goes on forever), the only option would be mandatory death and starvation.
Doesn't happen. A kingdom doesn't survive very long if the people are starving to death.
Again, there is under most western systems with term limits. Where there is absolutely zero hope of a better manager of his kingdom is under a monarch.
Seriously, I don't think you know anything about the history of monarchs.
You have a very naive view of history, and a poor understanding of people in general. Life back then was hard for everyone. We simply didn't have the technology that we have today. We all live individually better than any king in history did. A monarchy is not inherently bad or evil. Historically they had more of a stake in the success of their kingdoms than politicians do today, because politicians just pass their problems onto the next guy. A king doesn't have that option. His problems either go on to his children or end up with him getting wiped out.
Communism and to some extent liberalism and other "progressive" ideologies revolve around the denial of hierarchy and people being given what they had not earned.
The reason they think "Well if I was in charge I'd fix everything!" is also due to a naive understanding of power as well as a deep seated jealousy and envy of people who do have it.
People who want what they cannot reasonably have must gain it due to subversion and secretive tactics. This is the slow process of "equality" to stop giving power to people who can use it well, and instead give it to people who will misuse it.
Liberalism's objection to monarchism and hereditary rule was that
All of these have been repeatedly proven true.
Liberalism is not about supplanting the Monarchy with a new order of bureaucrats, it is about limiting the power of the government entirely so that the people may live unmolested by those who dream to control them.
If that is true then liberalism has been a total failure. Corruption has certainly not been solved, and if anything, is worse than it has ever been.
How do you figure that? A monarch has numerous motivations for doing so. For one he wants to pass something good on to his children, because the land is their inheritance. For two he does not want to have riots in his kingdom. And for three, if he is challenged and defeated by an outside power, he and his family would be murdered. I'd say those are pretty damn good motivations.
Now let's compare to the modern day. A politician can lie or steal and not worry about being put to death. They have zero interest in the nation. Why should they? They will eventually leave their office and it will be someone else's problem. In ancient history, if a ruler was doing a bad job of ruling his nation, do you know what happened? A ruler who is doing a better job and generating more wealth decides to invade and take it over. Today this is impossible. If France is taxing its people to death, what is the recourse? All you can do is vote for someone who may or may not be lying just to get into office. There is no hope that a better manager of his kingdom might decide to claim your country for himself and improve it.
History. Particularly military history. Particularly the military history of the West and the Anglosphere specifically.
I'll go over why each and every single one of your points has been proven wrong by monarchs who do the opposite of what they say.
Wrong. This assumes that the monarch has such a desire to pass anything to his children, or is even capable of having children. Very often, monarchs have failed to give two shits about their own kingdom because they were busy engaging themselves in a litany of wars or conquests, and took no interest the domestic state of the country which they really didn't care about. This was a particular problem with Richard The Lionhearted, who really didn't even give a shit about England, and saw it a worthless backwater. Not like France and the Holyland.
Not to mention that the King does not have such ownership, when he is typically in conflict with his lords, who have their own land and property to pass on. Very often, monarchs will be happy to destroy the territory of less loyal lords, while rewarding more loyal lords as an act of political sabotage and loyalty.
Absolute hogwash. Monarchs have repeatedly stoked mobs of people into violence as a methodology of control. I shouldn't even have to explain this to you, it is literally the origin of the word Tyrant. This is sheer historical ignorance on your part. Riots are not always allowed, but riots are sometimes intentionally allowed as a methodology of control, demographic replacement, and justification for larger political strategic actions.
Total nonsense. The installing of vassal monarchs on behalf of larger empires is maybe the entire history of the Hapsburg Empire.
It was literally impossible for Kings to commit crimes in Europe. The execution of a King was the invention of an English popular uprising that declared popular sovereignty, in opposition to "Divine Right of Rule". The English decision to execute their King for crimes against his own Kingdom was considered utter madness, and anti-monarchical.
There was never a justifiable reason to execute a king according to the philosophy of most monarchical systems.
As with many tin-pot dictators who rule over their country as if they were a monarch, they also don't give a shit what happens to their country, because their interests only matter within the glorious capital city, and the most prosperous core of it. Let the rest of the people starve. This is common among monarchs and dictators alike.
Normally, not a damn thing until the next heir came to power. He could run his country into the ground for 70 years, suppress every uprising, and then let his son take over and do something slightly different. This is something that happened with Pharaohs, Czars, and Emperors alike.
Again, no. Expanding your empire's influence is only one part of the agenda of a ruler. The Hittites are not going to conquer Egypt just because the child-king of Egypt is literally to young to properly rule. The weakness is useful for the Hittites to develop their kingdom and expand their influence unmolested, but it is not justification to conquer a kingdom. In fact, it is likely that many kingdoms will simply stay out of it to avoid embroiling themselves into a political situation they simply don't care enough about to solve. They have better things to do.
Popular disruption, civil disobedience, and thankfully some kind of voting system which can unseat the established power structure to a small degree. Under a king, like literally every king where high taxes were imposed (like under China, Japan, Islamic Caliphates, Ottoman Empire... the list goes on forever), the only option would be mandatory death and starvation.
Extreme taxation... literally to the point of death and famine, is absolutely not unheard of among monarchies. It's very familiar. Normally because a monarch has gone on yet another ridiculous military campaign that will benefit no one, but the army needs grain so... die.
Again, there is under most western systems with term limits. Where there is absolutely zero hope of a better manager of his kingdom is under a monarch.
Seriously, I don't think you know anything about the history of monarchs.
That's not typical at all. Historically the thing monarchs cared about most was their legacy and their heirs. What do you think the conquests were about? Expanding and enriching their territory. How is that not caring about your country? You want it to be bigger and better. Obviously their motivations are also selfish, that just comes with the territory.
Well a King relies on his lords to help secure his land. If they are rebellious he is going to try and depose them and reclaim it. I don't know where you are getting the idea that he wants to destroy their territory from, because that's HIS territory.
Nobody who is in power wants a revolt on their hands. The people who foment riots are those who want to take power for themselves. If you already have control, then anarchy is not profitable for you in any way. The word tyrant is from a brutal response to something like a riot, not from starting one.
So is the routine massacre of royal families. Look at Rome, Byzantium, Russia, etc.
No it was very uncommon for that to happen throughout history. You wouldn't stay King long if your people were starving to death.
Yes they would. The death of a King was often an opportunity for a rival to declare war and annex territory. Any weakness in a rival was an opportunity to strike, and a child-king is a great example of that.
Doesn't happen. A kingdom doesn't survive very long if the people are starving to death.
You have a very naive view of history, and a poor understanding of people in general. Life back then was hard for everyone. We simply didn't have the technology that we have today. We all live individually better than any king in history did. A monarchy is not inherently bad or evil. Historically they had more of a stake in the success of their kingdoms than politicians do today, because politicians just pass their problems onto the next guy. A king doesn't have that option. His problems either go on to his children or end up with him getting wiped out.