So, a few months ago, Aemilia Sophia and I had a debate on Discord about whether a republic is better than monarchy. Aemilia Sophia and me have a lot in common. Both of us are Latin language lovers, both of us struggle with a psychotic disorder and take Risperidone for it, and both of us are anarchists. Aemilia Sophia is an anarcho-syndicalist while I am an anarcho-capitalist. So we agree that anarchy would be better than both republic and monarchy. However, which is better, republic or a monarchy?
My arguments for monarchy being better than a republic are:
1. Short-term rulers in a republic do not tend to be aware of, or at least do not tend to care about, the long-term consequences of their policies. Monarchs would be on power their whole life, and their children will also be on power, so they would probably be aware of and care about long-term consequences of their policies.
Aemilia Sophia's argument against monarchy is that rulers in monarchy do not actually care about the results of their policies as long as they do not cause a violent revolution. Rulers in a republic have to care about something other than just a violent revolution.
I was wondering what you think.
My arguments for monarchy being better than a republic are:
1. Short-term rulers in a republic do not tend to be aware of, or at least do not tend to care about, the long-term consequences of their policies. Monarchs would be on power their whole life, and their children will also be on power, so they would probably be aware of and care about long-term consequences of their policies.
FlatAssembler Wrote:Hmm... I am not sure that's [republicanism] a good idea. Short-term rulers in republic do not tend to care about long-term results of their policies.2. Empirically, we see that life in monarchies is better than life in republics.
FlatAssembler Wrote:And yet many people here [in Croatia] would kill to be able to move to Norway [Norway being a monarchy, and Croatia being a republic].
FlatAssembler Wrote:Free speech seems to really be quite good in Nordic countries [which are mostly monarchies, rather than republics]. I mean, the Danish Study arguing that masks do not work probably could not be published in the midst of a pandemic in most countries [Denmark being a monarchy].
FlatAssembler Wrote:But Norway was one of the countries that did the best in COVID-19. It had no excess mortality in 2020 at all, if I am not mistaken. A lot better than Croatia, which had 17% excess mortality.
Sweden also did pretty well. It had only around 2% excess mortality, if I am not mistaken.
All Nordic countries did well [primarily because they were investing heavily in healthcare before the pandemic, unlike Croatia where hospitals were already overwhelmed before the pandemic].
Aemilia Sophia's argument against monarchy is that rulers in monarchy do not actually care about the results of their policies as long as they do not cause a violent revolution. Rulers in a republic have to care about something other than just a violent revolution.
Aemilia Sophia Wrote:And yet they are better than monarchs, who only care about their policies as far as it doesn’t get them beheaded. The president must also be afraid of a bad electoral turnout, not just a violent revolution (though, of course, that too)
I was wondering what you think.
