It depends on the type of monarchy you have. But the big difference between a monarchy and a democracy is the monarch and aristocracy are invested in the well-being and prosperity of their subjects and lands. Their life, wealth and well-being of their entire family is directly connected to their actions.
Politicians in a democracy are rarely held accountable. In some democracies they're never held accountable. CEOs and other manager locusts can destroy companies, communities, the environment and will not only walk away scot-free but will also be paid millions for it.
A monarchy is comparable to a private family owned business where the family will lose everything if they fuck up while a democracy is a publicly traded corporation where no one is held accountable.
Democracies are in essence no different from corporations.
It depends on the type of monarchy you have. But the big difference between a monarchy and a democracy is the monarch and aristocracy are invested in the well-being and prosperity of their subjects and lands. Their life, wealth and well-being of their entire family is directly connected to their actions.
All well and good 300 years ago, now transport is so cheap and easy that street shitters can be shipped in as economic units.
If doesn't care at all about his own prestige and if he and his entire family wants to get lynched by his own people then he obviously can do that. If he gets replaced the situation can be improved rapidly.
If you replace the president in a democracy he first has to demolish the entire system and rebuild to achieve anything. Which is only possible by becoming a dictator. Hitler is the best example for that. He wouldn't have been able to achieve anything if he hadn't abolished democracy and radically cleaned house.
Democracy doesn't mean "checks -and-balances" on power. You can democratically elect a dictator not so different than how the Roman Senate appointed dictators when required.
Some monarchies have so many checks-and-balances on their power through whatever means (such as threats to family) that they too are unable to accomplish anything of note.
Democracy doesn't mean "checks -and-balances" on power.
Yes, it does.
You can democratically elect a dictator
Yes, you can democratically vote to abolish democracy.
Some monarchies have so many checks-and-balances on their power through whatever means (such as threats to family) that they too are unable to accomplish anything of note.
Yes. A monarchy is anything but a flawless system. But it at the very least isn't designed to bullshit you into thinking you're the one in charge while allowing subversive elements to control every layer of the system making it impossible to change the system from within. Because it is fundamentally designed that way.
If a monarch gets deposed the subversive elements might not just lose control over the nation but are in very real danger of getting killed themselves. If the president or ruling party changes literally nothing changes unless.... you do it like Hitler and get rid of democracy.
It depends on the type of monarchy you have. But the big difference between a monarchy and a democracy is the monarch and aristocracy are invested in the well-being and prosperity of their subjects and lands. Their life, wealth and well-being of their entire family is directly connected to their actions.
Politicians in a democracy are rarely held accountable. In some democracies they're never held accountable. CEOs and other manager locusts can destroy companies, communities, the environment and will not only walk away scot-free but will also be paid millions for it.
A monarchy is comparable to a private family owned business where the family will lose everything if they fuck up while a democracy is a publicly traded corporation where no one is held accountable.
Democracies are in essence no different from corporations.
All well and good 300 years ago, now transport is so cheap and easy that street shitters can be shipped in as economic units.
There's nothing stopping a King from owning foreign businesses and having all his prosperity tied to foreigners.
If doesn't care at all about his own prestige and if he and his entire family wants to get lynched by his own people then he obviously can do that. If he gets replaced the situation can be improved rapidly.
If you replace the president in a democracy he first has to demolish the entire system and rebuild to achieve anything. Which is only possible by becoming a dictator. Hitler is the best example for that. He wouldn't have been able to achieve anything if he hadn't abolished democracy and radically cleaned house.
Democracy doesn't mean "checks -and-balances" on power. You can democratically elect a dictator not so different than how the Roman Senate appointed dictators when required.
Some monarchies have so many checks-and-balances on their power through whatever means (such as threats to family) that they too are unable to accomplish anything of note.
Yes, it does.
Yes, you can democratically vote to abolish democracy.
Yes. A monarchy is anything but a flawless system. But it at the very least isn't designed to bullshit you into thinking you're the one in charge while allowing subversive elements to control every layer of the system making it impossible to change the system from within. Because it is fundamentally designed that way.
If a monarch gets deposed the subversive elements might not just lose control over the nation but are in very real danger of getting killed themselves. If the president or ruling party changes literally nothing changes unless.... you do it like Hitler and get rid of democracy.