The New York Times: Elections Are Bad for Democracy
(web.archive.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (50)
sorted by:
In the case of a monarchy, the rule of the king is balanced by the barons.
As long as everyone is doing very well under the king, the barons are very happy. If things go to shit because there is a bad king, then the barons raise armies and take the capital and install a new king.
It is a Mexican standoff. The barons have real power and means, but they are regional. A few times a year the king summons the barons to the capital, where they may only have a small bodyguard. If the king wants to have them killed, he has an army to do it.
The whole knighthood ceremony has a newly minted noble helpless, literally on their knees while their monarch has a literal sword at their neck. Both parties are vividly aware that events could take a turn. "Knighthood? lol, no. Execution!"
Monarchy absolutely isn't perfect, but real steps have been made away from the absolute rule of a tyrant.
The worst part about monarchism is that normal people are left with nothing but a patron they hope will protect them, and only does so if they are a great king.
If you get a bad one, you're stuck with that unfathomably bad one for centuries. Not just one generation of a bad king, but a bad king leads to more bad kings, and ruins the kingdom. You end up getting this 4th turning cycle among the elites that goes: Good king for 40 years, followed by "Meh" king for 40 years, followed by bad kings for 120 years, followed by a good king for 40 years.
We have that now, except the monarchs aren't publicly visible, so no one knows where to stage the peasant's revolt and who to stick in the choppy boi.
You don't have that, and you never have. As I said to CptLightning, even our shitty republican system has accountability where monarchism has none. Our aristocracies do change, and are even being challenged. Political change and accountability does and has existed to varying degrees. Feedback to rulers exists, where in a bad monarchy, it literally never does.
And that's different from our current system how? "Just vote out the bad politicians bro"? We've had generations of bad political rulers under a so-called repubilc
Tell me you've never read the experiences of people living under monarchy without telling me.
We've had political rulers you don't like. They've changed significantly over time, and their effects are limited. You have never, in your life, lived under the whims of an inbred idiot for 40 years of absolute rule. You don't know anyone who does (unless they lived in North Korea).
There is, actually, more accountability in our republican systems (shitty though they may be) than anything a monarchy would condemn us with. I literally did vote to change my state constitution after our state SC made a bad ruling. Even under the federal system, that single court case would have been precedent for 40 years. Now imagine that level of precedents, but for all policies, with no capacity for literally anyone to influence any policy or position for 1,000 miles in any direction. That's monarchism, and it's why we shot people to stop it.