Georgian parliament ponder monarchy

[Adrian Laguna]

Well Marina has a .... thing for restoring Monarchies in just about every damn universe I've seen her write fanfiction in

She also writes original fiction, which is, btw, what I'm referencing. Though thanks to inter-dimensional travel it can also meander into fanfiction.

Historical Czars and Kings were more close to that than Marina's utopia, sorry.

Oh right, because the Roman Republic were just nothing but goodwill toward their neighbours after they deposed their king, and all that conquering the known world nonsense didn't happen until after a certain someone got named Dictator for life. Then we have the bastion of liberty and democracy known as United States which has never invaded anyone for no good reason. Oh and the British Empire, everyone knows that they spent the entire 19th Century raping Africa because of that powerless Monarch of theirs, why Parliament had nothing to do with it! And don't get me started on the French Republics, they never went on colonial adventures, it's all them Kings fault I tell you!

And since I've ranted this much, I might as well invoke Godwin's Law and point out that Adolf fucking Hitler was elected to office.

Sure there's been some pretty fucking awful Monarchs, but guess what? There's been some pretty fucking awful everything else. Monarchies don't have a monopoly on stupid, ignorant, malicious, or otherwise bad rulers. Furthermore, both the best of rulers and the worst of rulers are limited by the people. Charles V didn't force Cortez and Pizarro to go and topple the Empires of Mexico and Peru, they jumped at the chance. George Bush didn't run off into Iraq by himself, he had the people of the United States right behind him in full support. On the other side of the coin, even the best of leaders will have a hard time running a third-world nation. From all I've heard President Lula is a competent administrator with good ideas, the right man for the job, but in his (paraphrased) words, "If this was easy I wouldn't have a job."

The fact of the matter is that we're often little more than apes in suits. Now I'm not really a nihilistic person, I could spend all day talking about how awesome we humans are, I really could. However, while the best of us can be truly awe inspiring, but the rest of us are a painful reminder that it's only 2% of our genetic code that keeps us from swinging from trees. Unfortunately, the best of us aren't always our leaders, much as we'd like it to be so.

[K. A. Pital]

And since I've ranted this much, I might as well invoke Godwin's Law and point out that Adolf fucking Hitler was elected to office.

Sorry, man, but you're full of shit. If monarchy has no real net positive effect on politics, it's redundant. If it has a net negative effect on politics, it's harmful.

Show me that monarchy has a net positive effect on political, economic and social structures. And that this positive effect outweighs the costs of re-installing monarchic institutes which is a costly venture.

Monarchies don't have a monopoly on stupid, ignorant, malicious, or otherwise bad rulers.

Monarchies have a monopoly on an idiotic, anti-democratic and anti-technocratic system of succession in the state apparatus.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The fact of the matter is that we're often little more than apes in suits. Now I'm not really a nihilistic person, I could spend all day talking about how awesome we humans are, I really could. However, while the best of us can be truly awe inspiring, but the rest of us are a painful reminder that it's only 2% of our genetic code that keeps us from swinging from trees. Unfortunately, the best of us aren't always our leaders, much as we'd like it to be so.

So... how does that defend monarchies, which have consistently been totalitarian by nature and actively oppress their people or squeeze them for taxes?

Do I have to bring up the Emperors of East Asia where they are revered as Gods?

[K. A. Pital]

If we take Adrian's argument that monarchies are no worse than other forms of government at face value, that still doesn't excuse monarchy since it's political mechanisms are anachronistic.

The fact that monarchies have been abolished in most part of the world speaks good enough that it's a regressive and shitty atavism of a medieval-like society.

In fact, most systems which tend to have regressive results, such as dictatorships, often become such way due to monarchic residues or building the state apparatus along the monarchic system.

So, monarchy is either redundant or harmful, in which case it should be dying it's own death and the sooner the better - just as another atavism, religion, should.

[Pelranius]

Well, I've heard (but I don't have the statistics) that the British monarchy is a money maker, since the revenue it supposedly generates from tourism and media activity is enough to make up for the costs of royal upkeep.

[Dartzap]

Well, I've heard (but I don't have the statistics) that the British monarchy is a money maker, since the revenue it supposedly generates from tourism and media activity is enough to make up for the costs of royal upkeep.

They cost less than the President of France.

And they do lots of charitable stuff as well, eco villages and the like. Prince Charles recently saved a stately home from being sold off to a private owner for £44 million quid and gave it to the nation, heh

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I wouldn't call Franco's reign a "period of suffering and chaos". Certainly the events leading up to it qualify, but by the time he croaked they were half a century old. Also, I beleive it was generally understood that the Monarchy would be restored when he stopped being in power. I'm told it's commonly said of Juan Carlos that Franco groomed him well.

I was referring more to the Civil War and the periods of instability that preceded it. Remember it was the second Spanish Civil War and that's not counting the three Carlist wars, all of which happened in about 90 years of time, so that Spain had a civil war only a little more than once every 15 years in that period of time.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The previous government where fascist genocidal dicks.

Historical Czars and Kings were more close to that than Marina's utopia, sorry.

Talorans aren't humans, and I'm fairly ambivalent about their attempts to govern Earth. I don't know how this subject got started in the first place, anyway, as it doesn't have much to do with real life, does it?

[Adrian Laguna]

Stas, I don't have a problem with your stance that monarchies are outdated, and that there are superior methods of government available. In fact, I would be inclined to agree with you to an extent. What I do have a problem with is equating Monarchies with the phrase "fascist genocidal dicks", when they are clearly not. In fact there's many monarchs who've been forces of good. Nipponese Emperor Meiji was a driving force in the industrialization of his country, which improved the quality of life of millions. Then there's the Rama IX who has been key in maintaining stability in Thailand for decades now. My point is that monarchies are not inherently evil as you implied, but rather that that they've got their good sides and bad sides like other governments, and that the good-bad balance is not lopsidedly in favour of democratic, republican, or parliamentary governments.

I don't know how this subject got started in the first place, anyway, as it doesn't have much to do with real life, does it?

It was a convenient catalyst.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well Marina has a .... thing for restoring Monarchies in just about every damn universe I've seen her write fanfiction in

She also writes original fiction, which is, btw, what I'm referencing. Though thanks to inter-dimensional travel it can also meander into fanfiction.

That has what bearing on his point?

Historical Czars and Kings were more close to that than Marina's utopia, sorry.

Oh right, because the Roman Republic were just nothing but goodwill toward their neighbours after they deposed their king, and all that conquering the known world nonsense didn't happen until after a certain someone got named Dictator for life. Then we have the bastion of liberty and democracy known as United States which has never invaded anyone for no good reason. Oh and the British Empire, everyone knows that they spent the entire 19th Century raping Africa because of that powerless Monarch of theirs, why Parliament had nothing to do with it! And don't get me started on the French Republics, they never went on colonial adventures, it's all them Kings fault I tell you!

And since I've ranted this much, I might as well invoke Godwin's Law and point out that Adolf fucking Hitler was elected to office.

Who shit in your monarchist salad? Ever heard of tu quoque? This is all fallacious garbage that says nothing to refute what he said.

Sure there's been some pretty fucking awful Monarchs, but guess what? There's been some pretty fucking awful everything else. Monarchies don't have a monopoly on stupid, ignorant, malicious, or otherwise bad rulers. Furthermore, both the best of rulers and the worst of rulers are limited by the people. Charles V didn't force Cortez and Pizarro to go and topple the Empires of Mexico and Peru, they jumped at the chance. George Bush didn't run off into Iraq by himself, he had the people of the United States right behind him in full support. On the other side of the coin, even the best of leaders will have a hard time running a third-world nation. From all I've heard President Lula is a competent administrator with good ideas, the right man for the job, but in his (paraphrased) words, "If this was easy I wouldn't have a job."

The fact of the matter is that we're often little more than apes in suits. Now I'm not really a nihilistic person, I could spend all day talking about how awesome we humans are, I really could. However, while the best of us can be truly awe inspiring, but the rest of us are a painful reminder that it's only 2% of our genetic code that keeps us from swinging from trees. Unfortunately, the best of us aren't always our leaders, much as we'd like it to be so.

You need to not be so personally emotionally invested in a political abstraction. I've never seen someone fly so far off the handle merely because someone reacted negative to a pithy citation that some woman on the Internet writes about glorious fantasy monarchies by saying most monarchs were assholes. That's the psychobabble. From a logician's perspective, everything you did say was long-winded non sequitur's or tu quoque's.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Stas, I don't have a problem with your stance that monarchies are outdated, and that there are superior methods of government available. In fact, I would be inclined to agree with you to an extent. What I do have a problem with is equating Monarchies with the phrase "fascist genocidal dicks", when they are clearly not. In fact there's many monarchs who've been forces of good. Nipponese Emperor Meiji was a driving force in the industrialization of his country, which improved the quality of life of millions. Then there's the Rama IX who has been key in maintaining stability in Thailand for decades now. My point is that monarchies are not inherently evil as you implied, but rather that that they've got their good sides and bad sides like other governments, and that the good-bad balance is not lopsidedly in favour of democratic, republican, or parliamentary governments.

Meiji was not personally responsible for those reforms, as the bafuku was simply replaced with a different set of oligarchs which reacted more forcefully to interaction and encroachment from the West. Also, the selfsame culture and constitution under Meiji was highly xenophobic and chauvinist and led to the aggressive expansionism at the expense of China, Russia, and Korea and to subjugation and human rights abuses of all their enemies, most highlighted in the Second World War in the Pacific and the Second Sino-Japanese War.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej has consistently intervened in popular representative politics and lent legitimacy to military coups on several occasions. His rule is not compatible with modern standards of self-determination, civil liberties, and representative democratic politics.

[Gil Hamilton]

Stas, I don't have a problem with your stance that monarchies are outdated, and that there are superior methods of government available. In fact, I would be inclined to agree with you to an extent. What I do have a problem with is equating Monarchies with the phrase "fascist genocidal dicks", when they are clearly not. In fact there's many monarchs who've been forces of good. Nipponese Emperor Meiji was a driving force in the industrialization of his country, which improved the quality of life of millions. Then there's the Rama IX who has been key in maintaining stability in Thailand for decades now. My point is that monarchies are not inherently evil as you implied, but rather that that they've got their good sides and bad sides like other governments, and that the good-bad balance is not lopsidedly in favour of democratic, republican, or parliamentary governments.

I don't know about that. Didn't Emperor Meiji enslave Korea to get that "improved quality of life for millions"? I wonder what the Koreans or Taiwanese would say about the change in the quality of their life due to the Japanese monarchy, but I'm sure it would be full of very strong language.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The fact of the matter is that we're often little more than apes in suits. Now I'm not really a nihilistic person, I could spend all day talking about how awesome we humans are, I really could. However, while the best of us can be truly awe inspiring, but the rest of us are a painful reminder that it's only 2% of our genetic code that keeps us from swinging from trees. Unfortunately, the best of us aren't always our leaders, much as we'd like it to be so.

So... how does that defend monarchies, which have consistently been totalitarian by nature and actively oppress their people or squeeze them for taxes?

Do I have to bring up the Emperors of East Asia where they are revered as Gods?

Totalitarianism is not and never has been a feature of a monarchist state. In fact that form of control stands directly against feudal principles, and one of the most important point of a monarchist institution is that its power relies on tradition and ceremony as established ab antiquo. Totalitarian governments regiment society for efficiency. Monarchies are the most inefficient governments possible, and traditional monarchies in fact have far, far less control over their citizens than the modern United States did. Only Russia, in fact, of 19th century monarchies, even required passports. Entrance and residence in the countries were generally not controlled at all, until populist paranoia and the aftereffects of the First World War.

[Kanastrous]

Yeah. George Orwell writes about that, in various As I Please columns.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What about a kind of revolutionary monarchism, like Bonapartism?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Totalitarianism is not and never has been a feature of a monarchist state. In fact that form of control stands directly against feudal principles, and one of the most important point of a monarchist institution is that its power relies on tradition and ceremony as established ab antiquo. Totalitarian governments regiment society for efficiency. Monarchies are the most inefficient governments possible, and traditional monarchies in fact have far, far less control over their citizens than the modern United States did. Only Russia, in fact, of 19th century monarchies, even required passports. Entrance and residence in the countries were generally not controlled at all, until populist paranoia and the aftereffects of the First World War.

What do you mean by "power relies on tradition and ceremony established ab antiquo? As much as some king relies on myth alone to stay in power, the reality is often the king has to jostle with his feudal lords or whatever is equivalent in any monarchy and the King in question can be dethroned by a duke or lord in some civil war or assassination etc. Moreover, certain monarchies have been known to wield incredible power. The Great Wall of China, by the way, was a result of a fair of mobilisation of resources to build, not least lots of dead people, to put it mildly.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What do you mean by "power relies on tradition and ceremony established ab antiquo? As much as some king relies on myth alone to stay in power, the reality is often the king has to jostle with his feudal lords or whatever is equivalent in any monarchy and the King in question can be dethroned by a duke or lord in some civil war or assassination etc. Moreover, certain monarchies have been known to wield incredible power. The Great Wall of China, by the way, was a result of a fair of mobilisation of resources to build, not least lots of dead people, to put it mildly.

Have you ever read any of Foucault's works? The gist of it is that power in the traditionalist state relied on paegentry and spectacle whereas power in modern states relies on a panoptical surveillance apparatus, and social indoctrination which causes people to police themselves. In short, in traditionalist states, people respect and obey the monarch through being awed by ceremonial spectacle and open displays of power; in modern states they do so because they are under continuous surveillance and are raised from childhood inoculated with the idea that they must police themselves to adhere to social norms. In short, for example, in a traditionalist society the function of public executions wasn't to deter crime but rather to socially reinforce state power. Court ceremony provided a peaceful adjunct to that by disassociating the monarch from daily life, and, indeed, humanity.

It was indeed possible to overthrow a monarch while retaining the traditional system, but this had to be done by people of appropriate blood or divine favour and in certain established forms for the coup to be popular and successful, or else the whole of the establishment would turn against the new ruler, as happened on numerous occasions: Lady Jane Grey's name comes to mind, and Cromwell's.

[Adrian Laguna]

You need to not be so personally emotionally invested in a political abstraction. I've never seen someone fly so far off the handle merely because someone reacted negative to a pithy citation that some woman on the Internet writes about glorious fantasy monarchies by saying most monarchs were assholes.

Actually, the reason I'm flew off the handle is because I wanted to. I've been itching to engage in some self-righteous ranting, and this thread provided an opportunity to scratch. I'll be saving that rant for posterity, it is beautiful, logical fallacies or not.

Also, the selfsame culture and constitution under Meiji was highly xenophobic and chauvinist and led to the aggressive expansionism at the expense of China, Russia, and Korea and to subjugation and human rights abuses of all their enemies, most highlighted in the Second World War in the Pacific and the Second Sino-Japanese War.

I think that's more a symptom of the age. Most nations that industrialized in the 19th century engaged in wars of aggression and imperialistic adventures, regardless of what kind of government they had. You could say Nihon was simply doing what ol' Europe was doing, only more so. Imperial Japan is the bastard child of Feudal Japan and European Imperialism, with elements of both dominating different parts of it.

I don't know about that. Didn't Emperor Meiji enslave Korea to get that "improved quality of life for millions"? I wonder what the Koreans or Taiwanese would say about the change in the quality of their life due to the Japanese monarchy, but I'm sure it would be full of very strong language.

Meanwhile, further south the democratic United States of American was busy brutally subduing a Filipino insurgency. Though in the defence of the US, a lot of Americans voiced strong opposition to this. It's the dark side of industrialization, the need for raw materials in turns draws a need to establish influence abroad in order to secure said raw materials. Though there are also social factors that influence imperialism, sometimes projecting power abroad and holding colonies was simply a matter of national pride. The point remains though, that industrialization is demonstrably good for the quality of life of the people in the nation that is industrializing, though it often suffers from growing pains.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Have you ever read any of Foucault's works? The gist of it is that power in the traditionalist state relied on paegentry and spectacle whereas power in modern states relies on a panoptical surveillance apparatus, and social indoctrination which causes people to police themselves. In short, in traditionalist states, people respect and obey the monarch through being awed by ceremonial spectacle and open displays of power; in modern states they do so because they are under continuous surveillance and are raised from childhood inoculated with the idea that they must police themselves to adhere to social norms. In short, for example, in a traditionalist society the function of public executions wasn't to deter crime but rather to socially reinforce state power. Court ceremony provided a peaceful adjunct to that by disassociating the monarch from daily life, and, indeed, humanity.

It was indeed possible to overthrow a monarch while retaining the traditional system, but this had to be done by people of appropriate blood or divine favour and in certain established forms for the coup to be popular and successful, or else the whole of the establishment would turn against the new ruler, as happened on numerous occasions: Lady Jane Grey's name comes to mind, and Cromwell's.

This has everything to do with social/economic primitivism, a lack of the technological advancement, and societal complexity at the time of early monarchies. Modern monarchies such as that of Japan, Persia, very late Russian Empire, African monarchies, Arab or Muslim monarchies including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, etc. all show a synthesis in a modern society between police state oppression, political intimidation, and even the use of state terror and monarchism. In the case of the Arab states, they are definitely historical and traditional - with respect to their culture - monarchies. Your argument is only sustained using an ethnocentric/self-serving definition which is tautological: you restrict your definition of traditional monarchies to the states which obey the conclusions of your theory and then use them to support the theory. An agenda-free definition of monarchy provides several examples of monarchies with modern state oppression and terror. The main distinction is the technological capacity of the state (the capability to identify subversion and apply state oppression; exert state terror and violence against the citizenry) and the social/economic complexity of the society (the capability of the people to propagate and absorb subversive ideology and organize and resist effectively).

Quite frankly, before the modern state, the average peasant could not read, could not understand even the most threadbare agitprop, and would be trampled by the aristocrats' organized military (especially during the dominance of noble heavy cavalry). Only very recently did the technical and intellectual equipment for something like true popular resistance become effective.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Actually, the reason I'm flew off the handle is because I wanted to. I've been itching to engage in some self-righteous ranting, and this thread provided an opportunity to scratch. I'll be saving that rant for posterity, it is beautiful, logical fallacies or not.

I'm sure you'll jack off to it later. Why don't you go get some real social validation, instead of being a prima donna and wasting time of people engaging in genuine debate.

I think that's more a symptom of the age. Most nations that industrialized in the 19th century engaged in wars of aggression and imperialistic adventures, regardless of what kind of government they had. You could say Nihon was simply doing what ol' Europe was doing, only more so. Imperial Japan is the bastard child of Feudal Japan and European Imperialism, with elements of both dominating different parts of it.

Tu quoque. None of that defends the crimes committed by the monarchies you wank to.

Meanwhile, further south the democratic United States of American was busy brutally subduing a Filipino insurgency. Though in the defence of the US, a lot of Americans voiced strong opposition to this. It's the dark side of industrialization, the need for raw materials in turns draws a need to establish influence abroad in order to secure said raw materials. Though there are also social factors that influence imperialism, sometimes projecting power abroad and holding colonies was simply a matter of national pride. The point remains though, that industrialization is demonstrably good for the quality of life of the people in the nation that is industrializing, though it often suffers from growing pains.

Yet again, Tu quoque. And yet again, none of that defends the crimes committed by the monarchies you wank to. You lionized those monarchies, claiming that their crimes were fads does not exonerate their commission of those crimes. And don't pretend you didn't make the argument they were good, because you did.

Do you understand the principles of basic argumentation?

[K. A. Pital]

My point is that monarchies are not inherently evil as you implied, but rather that that they've got their good sides and bad sides like other governments, and that the good-bad balance is not lopsidedly in favour of democratic, republican, or parliamentary governments.

Monarchies are inherently regressive since superior forms of government have emerged. The fact that other forms of government have been engaged in similar misdeeds as monarchy does not really prove that monarchy is more or likewise efficient than those other forms, which is the key question, not "evil or not". Monarchy is a trait of regressive, traditionalist societies.

[fgalkin]

My point is that monarchies are not inherently evil as you implied, but rather that that they've got their good sides and bad sides like other governments, and that the good-bad balance is not lopsidedly in favour of democratic, republican, or parliamentary governments.

Monarchies are inherently regressive since superior forms of government have emerged. The fact that other forms of government have been engaged in similar misdeeds as monarchy does not really prove that monarchy is more or likewise efficient than those other forms, which is the key question, not "evil or not". Monarchy is a trait of regressive, traditionalist societies.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence to support the claim that democracy is somehow inherently superior to, or more progressive than monarchy, or are you assuming that as an axiom?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Have you ever read any of Foucault's works? The gist of it is that power in the traditionalist state relied on paegentry and spectacle whereas power in modern states relies on a panoptical surveillance apparatus, and social indoctrination which causes people to police themselves. In short, in traditionalist states, people respect and obey the monarch through being awed by ceremonial spectacle and open displays of power; in modern states they do so because they are under continuous surveillance and are raised from childhood inoculated with the idea that they must police themselves to adhere to social norms. In short, for example, in a traditionalist society the function of public executions wasn't to deter crime but rather to socially reinforce state power. Court ceremony provided a peaceful adjunct to that by disassociating the monarch from daily life, and, indeed, humanity.

It was indeed possible to overthrow a monarch while retaining the traditional system, but this had to be done by people of appropriate blood or divine favour and in certain established forms for the coup to be popular and successful, or else the whole of the establishment would turn against the new ruler, as happened on numerous occasions: Lady Jane Grey's name comes to mind, and Cromwell's.

This has everything to do with social/economic primitivism, a lack of the technological advancement, and societal complexity at the time of early monarchies. Modern monarchies such as that of Japan, Persia, very late Russian Empire, African monarchies, Arab or Muslim monarchies including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, etc. all show a synthesis in a modern society between police state oppression, political intimidation, and even the use of state terror and monarchism. In the case of the Arab states, they are definitely historical and traditional - with respect to their culture - monarchies. Your argument is only sustained using an ethnocentric/self-serving definition which is tautological: you restrict your definition of traditional monarchies to the states which obey the conclusions of your theory and then use them to support the theory. An agenda-free definition of monarchy provides several examples of monarchies with modern state oppression and terror. The main distinction is the technological capacity of the state (the capability to identify subversion and apply state oppression; exert state terror and violence against the citizenry) and the social/economic complexity of the society (the capability of the people to propagate and absorb subversive ideology and organize and resist effectively).

Quite frankly, before the modern state, the average peasant could not read, could not understand even the most threadbare agitprop, and would be trampled by the aristocrats' organized military (especially during the dominance of noble heavy cavalry). Only very recently did the technical and intellectual equipment for something like true popular resistance become effective.

Feudal monarchy is a legitimate category bearing real and distinct differences from the Arab or far eastern Power State of the single individual, or Despot. That said you are largely correct, but then, I haven't precisely been trying to defend Adrian, have I? I was just observing that the basic structure of feudal society is extremely hostile to totalitarianism, which is true; modern totalitarian monarchies do not have a feudal organization to their society. I am not in any way trying to suggest that feudalism is somehow better than the present day, either, just making the observation of what it is not, that is to say, totalitarian.

[Adrian Laguna]

I'm sure you'll jack off to it later.

Yes, that's the plan.

Tu quoque. None of that defends the crimes committed by the monarchies you wank to.

Yet again, Tu quoque. And yet again, none of that defends the crimes committed by the monarchies you wank to. You lionized those monarchies, claiming that their crimes were fads does not exonerate their commission of those crimes.

Of course it doesn't defend or exonerate the crimes, that was never the point. I am saying that monarchies are not the cause of these crimes as shown by the simple fact that non-monarchic governments are just as likely to commit them. Therefore you can't point to imperialism and all the evil it entails and say "monarchies are bad" unless you can prove imperialism is the fault of monarchic institutions. Proving that would be a pretty tall order in the face of the French Third Republic happily competing with the British Empire (which, btw, had a *figurehead* monarch) over Africa and the United States stripping Spain of what little empire it had remaining because they wanted it.

By way of analogy, Mr. King is a jerkass prone to drunken fits of violence. Someone says this makes Mr. King a bad man. I point out that back in the day it everyone was a violent jerkass. You say this doesn't exonerate Mr. King's behaviour. Well of course it doesn't, that's not the point. While Mr. King's behaviour is bad, he is no worse than his peers, and therefore the problem cannot be intrinsic to Mr. King. Thus, even if Mr. King does evil, he is not necessarily inherently evil.

And don't pretend you didn't make the argument they were good, because you did.

I made the argument they were no worse than other forms of government, Stas Bush was able to comprehend this, you apparently aren't. However, as I said before I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment that they're outdated and better alternatives exist.

[K. A. Pital]

Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence to support the claim that democracy is somehow inherently superior to, or more progressive than monarchy, or are you assuming that as an axiom?

It proceeds from the simple fact that monarchic institutes are based in tradition which does not have a strong connection with either logic or social utility, and even less so as time progresses. Collegial mechanisms of government have strong social utility and logical roots. Thus, the latter are also better though-out from a point of logic - the power structure, succession mechanism, etc. Monarchies usually are defined by vague set of traditions that define king's rights. Do i really need to further explain how one is superior to the other?