[rajin444]

Ironically enough, one of the strengths of a monarchy is a good king could absolutely prevent this and set the empire on a path to enriching the British populace. And if not they run a high risk of losing their head.

Nowadays we’ve all embraced democracy (oligarchy run by demagogues) and it’s a lot harder to hold anyone accountable. Everyone knows the British monarch is “powerless”, so they quibble amongst one another over whos political party is to blame.

[fullshark]

A monarchy is more responsive to the needs of its citizens than a representative democracy? I realize we've all become jaded cynics over the western flavor of republic recently, but history and even present day monarchies show this to be nonsense.

[rajin444]

Do any modern western governments truly represent the interests of their people? They're all suffering from fragmentation and discord. Without high trust culture, they end up balkanizing their people and being ruled by oligarchs.

I think the non representative democracy the US initially was worked well (as history can attest to). Fully representative leaves you with demagogues (as the current day can attest to).

> history

There have been plenty of good kings who saw it their duty to see to their people. This is more or less the default for how humans operate (families, tribes, businesses, etc.).

> present day monarchies

There are not any left in western society that I'm aware of, so there's a bit of a sampling bias.

[allemagne]

If you can ignore all the bad examples then you can definitely confirmation bias your way into any type of government.

The reality is that if you're looking for government to solve all your problems then you're going to always end up disappointed. You agree that history attests to the success of the US, but let's not kid ourselves. It's still the most successful country the world has ever seen on multiple metrics. That's not because its non-representative (aka flawed) democracy happened to put the right people in charge, but because the power of the government was deliberately limited by the rule of law.

I agree we should be worried about demagoguery. At the very least, though, I'm grateful that there isn't just one absolutely powerful person, explicitly above the law, that can fall under the influence of a Rasputin or their favorite concubine.

[version_five]

I tried thinking through the upstream assertion, and I can't say I believe it.

But I am curious about how the accountability structure of a feudal system rolling up to a monarch compares to modern democracy. To some extent isn't each level still accountable to the levels below it - a peasant uprising will be the downfall of a noble, and an aristocrat uprising will be the downfall of a king. It's not immediately clear either that this would be worse than whatever system we live under, which in most places has no accountability and where democracy (voting) is mostly a theatrical exercise that changes nothing.

[allemagne]

It's immediately clear to me that I'd rather not have to storm the bastille every time the Baron's nephew embezzles money from the city government.

My neighbors and I just want someone competent in charge of local zoning policy. I'll take my theatrical vote over someone explicitly above the law theatrically pretending to give a shit.

[ChatGTP]

Singapore?

[boomboomsubban]

>And if not they run a high risk of losing their head.

This happened to roughly one British monarch, Lady Jane Grey and Mary Queen of Scots make it "roughly." Do you think there was only one monarch who failed to enrich the British populace?