Sure mate. Hereditary successions were usually smooth. In elective monarchies, there were more power struggles. Do you have anything to add other than insults?
Is that so? I would assume democracies last a lot longer than 10 to 50 years? Considering that most of the world has democracies and they tend to be at least since WW2 that does not feel right.
Considering I don’t know any democracy that laster longer than 200-300 years and there are a lot of monarchies that lasted for many hundreds or even thousands of years.
Sure mate. Hereditary successions were usually smooth. In elective monarchies, there were more power struggles. Do you have anything to add other than insults?
Not to mention that monarchies last way longer than democracies on average throughout history.
Is that so? I would assume democracies last a lot longer than 10 to 50 years? Considering that most of the world has democracies and they tend to be at least since WW2 that does not feel right.
Considering I don’t know any democracy that laster longer than 200-300 years and there are a lot of monarchies that lasted for many hundreds or even thousands of years.
And how are the material conditions for the average working-class person in those monarchies?
How much autonomy did they have over their lives compared to the 200 or 300 years they would have lived under a democracy?
How much suffering happened under monarchy compared to democracy?
Because if all of you are measuring is how long the ruling class can subjugate the working class, then sure I’m monarchy is better.
It doesn’t mean I want to live under one, but you go ahead.
Looking at today’s monarchies, the conditions are about the same as in today’s democracies.
The same?
The same average amount of suffering.
It’s obviously the most important parameter. If the govt system can’t even sustain itself for long enough, then it’s not even worth considering it.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.