Is monarchy the best form or kind of government? — Average

You use different tools for different problems don't you? If you're an up and coming agricultural society slowly transitioning from a pastoral one due to finding a place to settle long enough that people seem to tolerate, you have to decisively correct problems as they happen when they happen (famine, invasion, rebellion, etc) in order to cement your society's place in the area sufficiently well enough to begin the phase of permanent or modern society (industrial). You can't risk legions of men rebelling against you or small groups of citizens who in their ever growing freedom start to forget the horrors of survival and begin to shift their obsessions of desire from need to want, while still operating under ingrained the life or death biological mindset in every now shortsighted and selfish action. You need to stop it right then and there at all costs no matter who objects or, quite possibly, everybody will perish.

Now, once you don't have to worry about the lot of that your focus shifts to just making sure crazy, foolish, or large people don't bother or molest sane, intelligent, or smaller people so society can function as a free and friendly thing people want to and are proud to be part of and so will protect with their lives willingly and by choice, no conscription needed. This is what democracies excel at.

An excellent monarchy is better than a corrupt democracy and vice versa. Of course, common sense will tell you not only does the apple sometimes fall far from the tree, it can end up in the next city. Therefore, now that things have appeared to have settled some - for the moment - the cruel dictator telling you what to do depriving you of your wants is a larger concern than the benevolent monarch defending the kingdom against "the hordes" that would otherwise deprive you of your needs.

Reason can help to keep our thinking straight in the sense that it is truth preserving. This means that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion of a reasoned argument. — unenlightened

Isn't this only technically true in a deductive argument? I was under the impression that an inductive argument only provides good reasons to believe the conclusion is true but doesn't guarantee that it is necessarily correct.

When we get in a total mess, we might go back and see if another principle will help us better. — unenlightened

You seem to be assuming that you will survive the ensuing chaos. The consequences of self evident conclusions might be too catastrophic for you to simply use as a learning experience especially when all of society is forced to confront the ramifications of someones false political or sociological theories.

Now, once you don't have to worry about the lot of that your focus shifts to just making sure crazy, foolish, or large people don't bother or molest sane, intelligent, or smaller people so society can function as a free and friendly thing people want to and are proud to be part of and so will protect with their lives willingly and by choice, no conscription needed. This is what democracies excel at. — Outlander

Couldn't it easily be argued that democracies also excel at placing crazy, foolish, and large people in positions of power where they then proceed to molest sane, intelligent, and smaller people? Isn't this famously what happened to socrates? Maybe my understanding of athenian history is far from factual but I'd be surprised if democratic regimes never or only rarely behaved tyrannically.

inductive arguments are invalid. Obviously, my comments apply to valid arguments only.
— Average

You seem to be assuming that you will survive the ensuing chaos. — Average

No, I assume some of us will. If none of us do, your question of legitimacy has no application either.

But I see you are interested in a form of dialogue that I cannot be bothered with, so you'll have to carry on without me.

Bro don't be like that I am genuinely trying to engage in good faith.

Good OP.

We have to keep in mind the fact that some successful countries consider the monarchy as "sacred" such as Japan and Naruhito is considered as a "emperor". He is the only head of the state in the world who actually holds this heading. I don't consider him (neither Japanese Imperial Family) as "illegitimate". Also, it is clear and there are a lot of arguments proving the fact that Japan is one of the most important countries in the world. After WWII, there was a deep frustration on the figure of the emperor. Nevertheless, Hirohito remained in power until his death in 1989 because Japan understands that they would lose their culture and honour removing the sacred icon of the Imperial family.

This situation is similar in other European countries: UK, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, etc... where the role of the kingdom has a strong historical root. Furthermore politics, a lot of citizens see in the monarchy the representation of the culture and values of their nation.
Nevertheless, we have a big problem: we discovered so recently that some royalty members are corrupt or they act without integrity. This issue leads people to start doubting about how worthy is the role of the monarchy. We can say in Europe there is a deep crisis along royal families, but don't worry that much, Japan is and will still be there.

Thank you for your response it is encouraging and informative.

:up: :smile: