Monarchy saves the world

[AntiochusIII]

Yes Wizard, a monarchy is as good as the person who embodies it.
Kralizec, democracy died out with Athens MM years ago. The current political system is based on the roman (client-patron) system. This implies that citizens don't play an active role in society, but they transfer their power to the political parties, as in Ancient Rome.
Deomocracy is that political system proposed by Thomas Morus in "Utopia", the falanstere project and the soviet system before Lenin took power and overthrew the soviets.That was democracy.
Monarchy-Despotism. Let's separate those ideeas a little. Despotism/tyrany appears when a warlord overthrows the previous goverment and starts to rule autocraticly and without legitemacy so he often tries to wipe out his opposition.( Hittler, Alexandru Lapusneanul, Stalin,and nearly every dictatorthat walked the Earth).
Monarchy is the political system where one person exerts his full influence over a number of subjects supported by tradition and lineage. The monarch acts like a balance, moderating all political life. He can promote development, liberalism and teritorial expansionism.
Well Antiochus, think about that. Before the Meji era, Japan was ruled by a shogun. a military despot. The start of the Meji era ( Monarchy) inaugurated a series of reforms that transformed Japan into the third economical power after the EU and USA.
It is tough choosing the right monarch, but once the right one has been chosen, all things really start to move.

False.

The Romans never had anything like modern political parties. The closest they ever came to that were the factions of the Republic, based around, still, individuals with king-like powers over their subjects competing with each other with mobs on the streets and occasionally armies. The strongmen, the corrupted senators, the demagogues, and the generals. None expressed any ideological positions as their cases for leadership. This is far from the modern political party. True, it is still a body of men; true, it's purpose is to take power; but no, it was not Romans. The modern political parties--at least, the really significant ones--are tied, at least theoretically, and in their birth, to the ideologies they professed.

Everyone recognize that what we call as "Democracy" today is a Democratic Republic. You don't express any point by reiterating that, sadly.

You support monarchy by lineage. That is foolish. Again, what in the world allow one dumbarse to think that since his daddy was king he has a legitimate right to oppress everyone else? None; absolutely none. Neither the "Divine Rights of Kings" of the Medieval Age, the natural and quite frankly violently cruel "The Strong Rules," or the "Monarch as justified by Hobbes (the evil necessity that is better than the even worse state of nature" are really grounded on firm arguments. They are dreams and propaganda and the iron mail of the fist and the chain upon the masses under their rule. Nothing more.

What was an ancient king, a king with absolute power you are supporting? A despot, that is. Any attempt to define between them is either propaganda or futility.

Tradition--what is tradition? How does tradition come into being? Traditions are intertwined with the conditions of society. If tradition obstructs society, then tradition will die off. If the traditional women's role is to serve and be subservient, then in a modern society the tradition must go. You are committing the old argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy here. Just because it was there; just because daddy was king, doesn't mean it's right or fair. What is is not the same as what should be.

And your example, Japan, displays your further lack of knowledge on history. The so-called Meiji monarchy is never a true monarchy in the sense you are demanding. Power lies with the prime ministers, the generals, the officials, the ones who were once revolutionaries, rebels, and became leaders, rulers, and commanders--these are the people who truly drove Japan forward; who commanded Japan's armies in her ruthless expansion. Not Emperor Meiji. He was little more than a symbol. The extend of power of Hirohito himself was disputed even today--it seems unlikely that he had any more power than what the military was willing to relinquish to him and obey.

You say it's tough choosing the "right" monarch. I'm skeptic that a monarch should even be chosen, but for it's own sake: tell me, how do choose the "right" monarch? What if those millions of the "weak" masses and thousands of the maniacs were chosen, instead of this hypothetical, mythological ubermensch that we are "supposed to choose"?