Just a reminder that voting for someone doesn’t dictate how they’ll act after they’ve been voted in.

Monarchs "own" their office whereas Presidents are tenants inhabiting an office. Monarchs must think long term because in 10 years they'll still be the one in office. A president can follow policies that reap short term gains and leave the problems it creates for the next guy or the one after him to deal with.

An interesting monarchy to look at is the Brazilian one. The emperor could dissolve the parlament but it was never commited and people could openly attack the goverment but emperor Pedro II encouraged that saying that "Propaganda is fougth with more propaganda" and was generaly speaking an well beloved figure in the Empire But the moment the country turned into an Republic it was a military dictatorship, that became an oligarchy later on, wich was really corrupt and opressive unlike the Emperor

If a King attacks and supresses his own people, its like a man destroying his own Home.

Bad rulers loose the "mandate of heaven", as the Chinese say. It means more than loosing power, it might mean the extirpation of the kings bloodline, or at least big difficulties for the sons and grandsons. It is thus biologically smart to yield power responsibly, for the sake of your descendants

10:24 In 1920 the german monarchy had been abolished , and replaced with the Weimar republic . Wilhelm had gone into exile a year earlier.

Power does not corrupt, it only reveals the true intentions of the wielder.

Another thing (somewhat unrelated though getting closer as time goes on...) is that in a Monarchy the ruler knows that they will have to deal with the consequences of their actions rather than being able to pawn it off on the next person voted into that position.

I've heard some people bring up the Bourbon monarchy, the one that was destroyed during the French Revolution, as an example of a failed or corrupt monarchy, however, I have always seen it as that King Louis simply wasn't prepared for the role and much of the corruption came from the power hungry people around him and he was more influencible and his wife didn't have much influence. Those who brought this up usually forget that the "superior" republic system that came afterwards completely failed and led to the deaths of thousands of innocents. I also kinda find it funny that Napoleon who is famous for aiding in destoying the monarchy and being pro republic, yet he ended up creating a monarchy.

Really puts in perspective the meritocracy meme as those who have the most “merit” were the ones who connived and back stabbed the best.

Moral of the story: no matter the system, it's people who will always be the ones to create problems.

The problem with Monarchy has never been corruption, but rather, the incompetence of incompetent monarchs.

Power does not corrupt. Unacountability does. Winners dont write history. People with pencils do. PS. (edit) some people have questioned my reasoning so i'll add to this comment what ive written below: (1)Argument: Vietnam war. -Who won it? -North Vietnam. -Who wrote the history down? -USA. -Why? -Becouse the USA has hollywood (the pencil) and its american narratives that are globally believed not Vietnamese narratives. -How many Vietnamese movies about the war youve seen? -Likely 0 -How many American movies about the war youve seen? -Likely plenty + cultural refrences in shows and media FROM THE AMERICAN POV (2) Argument eastern front of ww2 -Who won? -Soviets -who wrote down the history -nazi generals -why? -Becouse many german generals were interview by allied (mostly USA) command and got to write many narratives that are still believed today. One partical common one is generals blaming hitler for their own loses even when they were to blame. The reason they got to write history is becouse the winners=allied powers, were now in a cold war against soviet union, so they interviewed former nazis who faced the soviets.

The one exception to your rule would be King Henry VIII who in many ways recklessly threw out centuries of tradition for his own personal lust and avarice

The Carol II thing is BS. The guy basically played all the factions off each other until he could assume absolute power

Eric of Pomerania is an interesting case study. From Monarch of the Kalmar Union to Pirate Lord of Götland

I'm a monarchist and I'm proud

By far, the best system was employed by the Romans, namely the Julio-Claudian and the Nerva-Antonine dynasties. The ruling Emperor would adopt what he believed to be his most able general or statesman as his son and named his as successor. This avoided the possible issues that would occur if the biological sons grew up spoiled and/nor not in touch with reality (as it happed rather often in bloodline dynasties).

The phrase “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” is something of a truism, I think a more appropriate phrase would be something like “absolute power enables absolute corruption,” power itself does not cause corruption, it’s the traits exposed that leads to corruption.

It must be realised, that this monarch must come from somewhere, a monarchy must start somehow, and it almost always comes from a form of dictator. So for a monarchy to even exists, a dictator type figure must initiate its procession.

22:00 “Power amplifies traits already present.” The same is true for testosterone.

Which type of Monarchy is the best? Feudal, Absolute, Constitutional, Symbolic or Semi Constitutional just to name a few types of Monarchy.

I generally agree with all above said, but I would add, that power itself does indeed corrupt, because of the nature of dictatorships. If you became a dictator, then so can anyone else, if he amasses more power than you (and it takes shockingly little to overthrow a government), so a dictator has to do everything i his power to disempower his people, otherwise, by the same logic that gives him legitimacy (=power) he can be overthrown. A monarch on the other hand, has no reason to fear anyone but his firstborn son. So, if he maintains that relationship, his throne should be perfectly secure

a monarch is tied to the land, a dictator is tied to the government if a monarch fails, they fail their family, their legacy, their people and their history. if a dictator fails, they fail themselves, and their ambitions.

Power doesn’t corrupt, the praise that comes along with it does.

My problem with monarchies is I cannot be happy unless I am the monarch

I feel like an elective monarchy with a parliament that is limited is the most effective system. Nobody branches off into extremism and theres very little room for corruption whilst also having representatives to keep the monarch in touch with reality just in case there might be a negligent king or queen

i really dont understand how you only have 15k subs, you deserve way more ngl

it is a shame most people nowadays despise monarchy

In India there is the ancient concept of Rajdharma, which means duties of kings according to it the king must always treat his people as his own family and must do anything which is in the interest of the kingdom and it's people (including war when necessary). This concept was taught to princes by their gurus, for their entire youth. This practice led to the belief among the masses that a king is the incarnation of God Vishnu (lord and preserver of the world).

It should also be noted that Caligula was quite disliked by the nobility and senate, which is where a good chunk of the horror stories about him come from.

Monarchies work best when they rule over populations that are of the same ethnicity, heritage, culture, and religion. Unfortunately, once monarchies expand rule over people who are of different races, religions, heritage, cultures, and ethnicities that's where monarchism reaches its limits.

German (Kaiserreich) monarchy was the best, it combined federal monarchy with a parliament, constitution and some democracy. It protected regional cultures and strengthen every German state in the Reich. If there's a good king, he will rule his entire life, if there's a bad king, the people will force him to give the throne to the next in line, the next in line will learn from his predecessors. Meanwhile, the modern German government politicians publicly state their request to ban the only oppositional party and commissioned the state secret police to observe the opposition.

This is exactly why God intended monarchies to be by bloodline. Judah, being the wisest tribe of all mankind, at least theoretically speaking, is the way in which God shall become the world's last ruler, just as he was the world's first.

i agree on the matter that power doesn't corrupt, it reveals a man's true nature. that's about all i can agree on with this video sadly. much of it seems fine in theory but history paints a different picture, history is full of monarchs with no regard for their people, of sadist and perverts who use their place of power to sate their desires, and while you will get those in any system of government only in a monarchy or dictatorship do you get that for life. you say a king is dependent on the sentiment of his people, but really he is most dependent on the sentiment of this key people: the military, the ministers, the church, but not the subjects. while i can agree that monarchs are raised from birth to rule, life is not so simple, the child raised to rule may get kicked by a horse or catch the plague and die, and the son that was never expected to rule ends up being pushed into a position he has no means of handling, equally such a younger brother may plot for the former to happen so he may take the throne. a child raised in nobility may know how to be a noble, and you hope that this knowledge translates to how to rule a country full of people he fundamentally DOES NOT understand (and in the case of some early english monarchs don't even speak the same language) also corruption isn't just taking money, corruption is acting in a way which is to ones OWN benefit but to the detriment of the organization to which they are responsible. a king who engages in acts of debauchery, sadism, and cruelty is corrupt, it may make him feel good, it may benefit him in some way, but it hurts the people he is responsible to and puts a stain on the legacy he has inherited. as for why someone would "burn their own house down" there are a number of reasons, if the monarch hates his parents, hates his country, and/or hates the weight of responsibility he bares he may wish to burn the house down out of spite or to be rid of that responsibility. it's not a rational response but people are not fundamentally rational.

Nice argument. Unfortunately, Minecraft with the boys back in 2015 begs to differ.

Here in Brazil the more traditionalist monarchists study how the Brazilian authoritarianism was a good thing in the nation, and one of the simples reason for this study is the fact that almost every good government had an authority regime, be on the colinial era, the monarchy or even the not so democratic eras of the republic

Money, and power, enhances the person you already are. Hence why most aristocrats partook in agriculture from early ages - which fostered their sense of care; went through the best education their nation had to offer; are instilled with a sense of purpose higher than oneself, notably through religion; and were more impervious to monetary corruption as they practically already had everything. One thing that is really worth noting is the relation of bad monarchs to their childhood, friends, and life events. -King Henry 8th was a rather good King, charming and the lot. However after a severe jousting accident in which he struck his head, he suffered from brain injury which left him more impulsive and intolerant. -Henry VI was poorly educated and suffered from a severe mental illness that rendered him incompetent. -Richard III was never destined to be King. Instead, he seized it from his brother's children. -Mary I was never destined for the throne. etc. In Russia, the Tsar's were notably brutal and careless (particularly since every person of power wanted to party. We all know the saying of one being the sum of the 5 people you spend the most time with), and such was the nature of their aristocrats. In France, the King's were glutenous, and harboured a deep sense of unbother and apathy - such was also the nature of their aristocrats. A Kingdom without religion is doomed for failure. As King, or a Lord, you are expected to embody the best aspects of a nation. That is: manners, control, discipline, reserved, polite, etc. And if there's one thing anyone with eyes can see, it's that people are incredibly bad at coming up with their own morals. Whilst I do not believe in a God, or anything of the sort, in a non-Christian time of impertinence, apathy, individuality; attempting to regain perspectives adequately becoming of the benefits of a Constitutional Monarchy is somewhat pointless. No-one believes you more than yourself. And in a time where "democracy" is preached left, right, and centre, with any alternative being evil, it's a pointless endeavour. In spite of people complaining about the very same government they voted for. It's almost as though popularity votes based on FPTP is entirely moronic. Oh well. God save the King!

Can you recommend any books on monarchism?

As a fellow monarchist, I am extremely happy to find a likeminded individual such as yourself. I have subscribed to support what I believe is the most flexible, reliable, and stable governing system there is. Oh, and Happy New Year!

Med Monarchism

After his second term, Theodore Roosevelt met with His Imperial and Royal Majesty Franz Joseph. Teddy asked the Kaiser what was a Monarch's role in the 20th Century? His Apostolic Majesty told the President, "to protect My People from their Government."

I would recommend watching ccp Gray's "Rules for Rulers" The reason the Kaiser tolerated the democratic socialists is because the wealth of his state arose from the people. The king of Belgium is a perfect example of how a king will act reasonable when the people have leverage over him and monster when they don't.

The issue with monarchs having absolute power is the fact that if a bad monarch is ever in office, then removing them is difficult. The wisdom of the masses will always be superior to the wisdom of the few, and if a democratically elected official fails to appease their voting base they will not be reelected. So elected officials are encouraged to do what is best for the people if they want to actually stay in power, but the issues of corrupt officials and leaders is exclusive to a system that has the power consolidated to a few, even in a representative democracy this is a issue; that is why direct democracy is the superior system.

Excellent summary of your ideas overall, coming from an American. I think your consideration of other points of view is great.

What you're observing here isn't that monarchs and monarchies are more responsible with power than populists, it's that they're more experienced wielding it. With the best example off the top of my head being the English King's dissolution of Parliament several times before his powers were sufficiently limited, these monarchs didn't stay their hand because of some monarchical responsibility collectively understood, it was because they have been doing this for a while, and watched the dissolution and suppression of democracy fail horribly in France, England, and other places, and knew that suppression was a terrible idea. The populist dictators you mention, on the other hand, had no such experience, and look at where that got their regimes, with only China existing to this day after sliding back to a kind of authoritarian liberalism. Actually, the best example of this is Louis XIV and his enlightened despot idea. He waited until the moment was right, conceding to nobles and the populace, before kidnapping the heirs of the nobles and forcing the nobility to follow his every rule, creating one of the strongest autocracies in history because he came from an experienced line and *knew it would work*. You talk about safety from corruption, but corruption isn't generally used as a criticism of monarchism, rather it's disconnection from the subjects and lack of respect for rights, which, based on the admittance you made about secret police, as well as the consistent blunderings of monarchs across the world (from Dynastic China to Mercantile Spain to Ottoman Turkey to George III in America), you don't seem to clear up. You're right, their well-off upbringing and status prevents corruption, but creates a sharp disconnect from the populace which can (doesn't mean it always does, but it still often does) make them unfit to rule. This can also be shown as the flaw behind your "moved by affection" quote and argument: Sure, that'd be, and has been, the case for many monarchs, ruling as well as possible to keep the people on board. But often (as best shown by Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette), a sharp cultural and economic disconnect from the populace makes this hard to impossible to do, and one not so easily bridged by a self-serving need to do so, even if that need is there. Another problem you seem to ignore is the lack of a clear heir present in most monarchical systems. Like with the War of the Roses and other such squabbles, yes, monarchism would be much more clean and better if there was a clean system from one ruler to the next. But often monarchies and their passing of power is extremely messy and complicated, which means that often the ruler does fight for their power, and depending on who wins, was not groomed for it. Kind of like those other dictators you talk about. Quick side note before my last point: Monarchs do defend an ideology: Monarchism, lol. Historically, monarchs have done massive, sweeping campaigns to stop democratic ideals from being spread, executions and arrests galore. Same with State Communists, Monarchs have an authoritarian state to maintain, which by necessity keeps power and privilege out of the hands of most people, and use a monopoly on force to maintain it. They're just historically kinder and more clean with it to the public eye. Finally, why is monarchism better than democracy? The entire video, you only described why monarchs are better than populist dictators. But one of your main arguments for monarchy is that the Kaiser preserved democracy, which is precisely the problem. How can you argue that monarchy preserves people's rights, when the system is designed in a way that one person holds all of the political, social, and economic power of a country? Even if they are responsible, and give people good and safe lives without suppression, they still inhibit the rights to exercise political, economic, and social control of their own lives by necessity. At best, monarchs preserve peace and order, but by definition they do not preserve rights, which democracy, for all of its flaws, has a built in preservation of those rights as well as the built in ability and interest to preserve peace and order as well. Even when its at its best, monarchism does not give people the rights and dignities democracy does on a normal day. There is a reason why they have relied on faith-based mandates in the past to justify themselves. Unless they work at their peak all of the time, there is no good justification to be made for its usage.

Hey! So, this is sort of an open question to anyone in this comment section. For context, I am at the moment agnostic on the monarchy vs no-monarchy questio. Does anyone know of some good debates that have been done between a monarchist vs anti-monarchist? (If it is a debate that Lava set took part in I would definitely want to listen to that, but any other people debating would be great too)

3:03 I’ve always said the same. It’s the same as alcohol. Alcohol doesn’t make people violent, or whatever other trait, it just amplifies and lets out whatever traits are already there. Alcohol is like power. Power is like alcohol. It’s why they say: “Drunk with power”.

First. 🎉🎉. I wish my country also had a monarchy today.

I do mostly agree with this point, but I can't help to remember Napoleon III

Great video! I just came up with a comparison for the whole video as well. (dunno if someone has already said it) It is like placing an dog with rabies next to a baby as opposed to one that has been trained its whole life to guard the baby.

If you could contact me I need help with some monarchy debates from a secular perspective

The constitutional monarchy is certainly a lot better saying america and how politically divided it is while people hate or love politicians they come together around the monarch all political sides

Its always a pleasure to meet a fellow Constitutional Federal Monarchist. You earned my sub with that fantastic and well planned and executed presentation.

I think our biggest issue is we’ve been cucked enough, and made docile enough that we can’t fight back against tyranny. So we have no way to overthrow dictators now as we had a way to overthrow monarchs of the past, and people are less likely too. So there’s no threat of being overthrown, so they do what they please

20:09 if monarchs are already born in a position of power wouldn't that lead in them being cut off from the rest of their population which live much worse lives than them? Their education during their early life is very important so if they are not shown what they need to do correctly or don't wish to become monarchs, that can have devastating consequences for a nation that is created to be rulled by them

corruption is inherent of democracy precisely because no one has enough power, someone who does hold all the power has no incentive to be corrupt

To the question on what first comes to mind when the topic is power, the answer is superman.

I used to believe that, but I honestly can’t reconcile the dagger Franco’s got after his death, at this point, all monarchies are decadent

Interesting. Have you done any comparison of Constitutional Monarchy and Constitutional Republic? Or do you consider the later also populist dictatorship?

The problem I see with this video is that it relies on the last vestiges of monarchies in Romania, Yugoslavia, Germany and Russia. The issue with this cherry picking is that these Monarchies new that they had to have a guarantee liberties and couldn't become tyrannical because the people would simply overthrow them. This can easily be seen in how Monarchies began to operate after Napoleon, The French Revolution and the near revolutions of 1850 spread fear of being deposed into the hearts of every Monarchy. But if you were to rewind to the 1700s, you would find that Monarchies were extremely out of touch, ruthless, corrupt and malevolent beings who entire basis for power was from some God given right. There is also the issue of justification of power, how do you justify monarchies? By stating that they are the best candidate? What happens when one monarch is simply corrupt and incompetent? Is he deposed in a civil war, or allowed to burn the country down while his country men suffer? The issue I have is that Monarchies eventually breed stupid and incompetent men and women who don't care about maintaining the facade of power such as Nero and all Julio-Claudian rulers after Augustus. Republic and democracy while yes not always voting in the most competent at the very least have the ability to change their leaders if they do a bad job, unlike monarchies. Sure, populist dictatorships are worse, but when you set the bar so goddam low even Elon Musk looks like a good candidate for President, your being dishonest. A direct comparison between Democracy and Monarchy is a better comparison, than genocidal dictatorships. Also while yes, Monarchs are often more educated than dictators, that does make them more competent than Presidents. Also with Monarchies, you often have a entire system of nobles under them, and that is where the real corruption lies, as nepotism and what your name means matter more than you value for the country. You focus to much on the monarchs themselves than the system that surrounds them, a system based on blood, marriages, Sexism, and not meritocracy which is what Republic strive for (they don't always achieve it but it's better than autocracy).

Okay, I have watched the video. I disagree when you quote Betrand De Jouvenel. I utterly despise him for his temper tantrum against Monarchial Absolutism. To quote someone: "Jouvenel always making slants against monarchical absolutism in his writings and under the influence of Tocquevillism. Everything I like about Monarchy, Jouvenel writes off as ugly and undesirable, modernity and atomization, condemns the pre-eminence of one" Any monarchist who uses Jouvenal as part of their chief intellectuals is a massive red flag. Although, I agree with the fundamental premise that what power only does is that it amplifies the person's inherent traits.

As far as rethinking the idea that power does not corrupt but instead reveals, I would say you have a good point. But I would also say human character is not stagnant. If a person gets into a position where they can essentially do whatever they want with no apparent consequences, their character and sense of duty will deteriorate (at least for some time). It is far easier to pretend to be a good person than to be a good person. Though I think your case (that the path to power is more corrupting than power) was very strong. Ultimately, if we could get back to an age where those in power lived among us and had to adhere to socializing in a community after their term is over, I think that would be best. I do not want mob rule, but term limits and citizen rule will aid the person wielding power to feel that they are holding something that gives them the ability to make the world better when it is their time to shine while also ensuring they keep an understanding that any distraction takes away from time to get that done and to make a difference for the community they only temporarily serve.

In truth, human society on a mostly global scale has evolved quite a bit. Monarchy as a system, like we've seen, would also have to change in order to properly fit in. The recently departed Queen Elizabeth did her part, as did her husband King Philip during WW2 and etc, which is also very important. A Constitutional Monarchy could work well for a few nations, and would less likely be as tyrannical as many have been in the past. Monarchy has its flaws for sure, but Democracy is often appraised so highly as if it is without many problems as well. It's not the end-all be-all of political perfection some foolishly think. At the end of the day, both are merely a couple of options in the varied pool of systems of government.

everyone's human, they'll use power differently. Lavader is right, it doesn't necessarily corrupt.

Power doesn't corrupt. Moral cowardice does.

If you haven't, you should read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: the God that Failed" and any book by Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

A monarch with power is still going to mean it depends on the person whether they use it for good of the nation or their own gain. Just look at the Saudi monarch and how wisely he is using the vast oil riches A monarch with power is a monarch with varying levels of accountability. Without accountability, a monarch with power will easily be just as bad as the worst dictators. The atrength of democracy is accountability of those in power via elections, where the will of the population at large cannot be ignored

Just discovered your channel today. As a fellow Monarchist your channel is a godsend.

“Power does not necessarily corrupt, nor is it necessarily a magnet to those corruptible.” *cites a paper by showing an image of an article in which the title literally presents the nature of power as either corrupting or attracting the corrupt*

Just to help you and whoever saw the thumbnail, 'thereof' is one word, not two. When separated, 'there of' implies another word follows to further illustrate whatever is being intimated.

Where'd you get the film at 22:30 from?

A democracy is heavily dependent on different groups being represented in government, thereby allowing power to shift in elections and putting pressure on those elected to perform well. The issue with democracy is that everyone to appointed by the same means, an election, that necessarily precludes a balance of power as power will be determined by whoever can buy the most votes from the poor by stealing from the middle class(not the rich, as they can bribe or lawyer their way out of taxes). This by default creates an incentive to bribe the poor by depriving the middle class, creating more poor who need to be bribed, a self fulfilling loop that bankrupts the nation and results in a dictatorship. The only barrier against such a decline is good faith and ideology. The problem with monarchy is bad kings, not like Kaiser Wilhelm II but like John Lackland and Peter I 'the Great' of Russia. Kings who get their country into terrible wars that devastate their country, that pass reforms that predate upon the poor and peasantry and incentivize cruelty to their subjects, and have very little check on their own personal power. Like, taking a step back and disregarding the separate time periods, it's incredible just how similar the reigns of John Lackland and Peter I were. I guess the major difference was that John Lackland lost, and so much of the damage he did was undone, while Peter I didn't and so his reforms and ambitions remained and were justified and would go on to haunt Russia into the 19th Century (If you're curious what exactly I mean by this, much of the state sponsored alcoholism, oppression of peasants and serfdom, and military incompetence originated with his rule. In the short term it benefited Russia, hence allowing them to win in the Great Northern War, thus why he's considered 'Great', but would be utterly corrosive in the long term).

Spicy Topic.

In the United States originally politicians didn't run for office. It was expected that others would nominate them and run a campaign to elect them on their behalf. There was an expectation of modesty and humility for those elected and you didn't really want people who seemed determined to get the job.

Like others have said, it is a rare pleasure to see someone who shares this opinion in this monotone world of politics

FINALLY! I am so happy someone says it: power does not corrupt. It just reveals our innermost selves!

I wish you could use Ottoman Empire as an example too.

Feudalism seems to be the stable human condition since its been around in some state for so long. Now you have to blackwash history that we just lived in a chaotic dark age until modern constitutionalism to say that this is a bad thing. People have a bias against the way history was, and have like a Stockholm syndrome like gratitude that they were born today. Perspective is huge

The important thing to consider about elected leaders, is people have the power to elect the leader they need, when they need it. Examples of incompetent leaders exist in every shape and size

Love your channel. ❤ Monarchy forever!

One of the points you made in the latter half of the video brought an interesting thought to my mind I hadn’t considered. When the wellbeing of your people is the primary factor that determines whether your family continues to hold power and wealth, you are far more likely to act in accordance with that. The opposite is true of democracies and other forms of government that give the people the illusion of choice and influence. I just realized that the state of affairs in the US has been unnaturally extended far past where it would’ve been able to get to if it wasn’t for the governmental systems giving people the false sense that they could still change course and reconcile. No country under a monarchy would be able to be under this much polarized stress without erupting almost instantly into either civil war or a coup that just flat out removes the monarch. Instead we vote people in who say the right things and then watch as they continue to serve only the interested of them and their donors.

Very well explained ❤

@Lavander What do you think about Jack Rackam's Kiser Wilhelm video?

You know, it's actually funny how, while a *liberal* might find these points hard to argue against, a leftist would say *you haven't even argued against their position*. You also carefully step around the fact that while there can be good people who happen to end up in charge of a monarchy, there is *not a single peaceful way to remove a bad monarch*. There's also the fact that Monarchs are *by no means* more inherently responsible than elected leaders, as they lack any need to please the general populace, just the bureaucratic (aristocratic or otherwise) and millitary classes at minimum.

I’m gonna royal edge

In heaven there is a kingdom, enough said.

one thing overlooked was that monarchies didn't operate in vacuums for the most part. a king that has complete control of a country is little more than a dictator with some traditions behind him, and there are plenty of kings turned tyrants in history so no assumption should be made that a king cannot become just as bad as a dictator if not worse. divine right to rule can be just as much as a weapon to be used as much as it is a check and balance however what keeps monarchs in check is that, especially in europe, the monarchy was competing with other groups. nobles held great sway and would often clash with certain kings. Christianity also introduced the catholic church which was another force on society that competed with the monarch, and then merchant groups and traders with obsene amounts of money also could buy influence through the marketplace later on. essentially a king and a dynasty really had to work with all these other factions to keep any sort of power, as there was plenty of times the king had no real power and de-facto control may as well have been the nobles and the clergy. this competition made sure no tyrant king could really survive long as the peasants would simply move their support to other factions. this lead to things like the Investiture Controversy where the pope and king were off and on colliding with eachothers interests and it lead to a small war.

awesome video! I agree with basically all of the points mentioned in it, being a fellow monarchist myself, even though i've somewhat been shifting more to liberalism in general

Why would you look at power as a "necessary evil" it does not make sence to me. The way you'd get power may be evil but power own it's own is not evil.

So what's the difference between the European monarchies and something like a Chinese emperor? Is it the multiple wives thing that gives them a necessary large amount of power and control over all the nobles? While in Europe the nobles held the monarchy in check?

How do we get a monarchy in the first place?

So much History of monarchs abusing power and here you come along with the argument “how about no, it’s actually cool”

Great to see more based monarchist content! Praise be to the Rule of one. No to the rule of the few and the rule of the many.

Knowing how to win an election's different than knowing how to run a country, the last recent years proves this.

All Democracies and Republics trend towards Oligarchy, Oligarchy trends towards Aristocracy, Aristocracy trends towards Monarchy. Somewhere in that line things collapse and it's a toss up on what comes next but usually a Dictatorship. Dictatorships either survive long enough to become Monarchies, collapse in turn or degenerate into one of the other forms of government.

Hoppe has entered the chat.

Welp, guess Im a monarchist now

Interesting argument. It has been pointed out that the British have been more successful in removing bad Monarchs - those who broke faith with their people - than Americans in romoving bad Presidents. One point to remember is that there is no carved-in-stone difference between "King" and "President" . It depends more upon the petson and the system than the label.

what do you think about the empire of brazil from 1822-1889