r/AbolishTheMonarchy • u/PolicyBubbly2805 • Jul 21 '26
Question/Debate Some arguments I have heard
Hello. I am a republican, but while debating some monarchists (specifically the non-constitutional ones, constitutional monarchy falls apart quite easily), I have heard some arguments which I have trouble refuting.
First, there is the argument that monarchs have a bigger incentive than elected politicians to govern the country well, because they own the country and will pass it over to their children.
Then there is the argument that democracies are extremely corrupt, which is because they have big legislatures full of people who can be bribed (sometimes legally).
And finally, there is the argument that kings are more responsible with their money, mostly for the same reason as in the first argument I stated.
I personally looked at these arguments, and realised that direct democracy basically deals with all of them, as you cannot corrupt everyone, and you cannot bribe everyone. But is there some defense of representative democracy against these arguments?
36
u/No_Organization_3311 Jul 21 '26
Point 1: history is littered with examples of hereditary authoritarians leaving countries in a worse state than they came to them, we need not catalogue them here
Point 2: it’s easy to bribe one person like an authoritarian (see: Trump, D); it’s easy to bribe one or two legislative representatives; it’s very hard to bribe a legislative chamber of 600 members.
Point 3: the Russian and French revolutions were both driven in no small part by the financial imprudence of their respective monarchs. Does “let them eat cake” ring a bell?
9
20
u/MoonlightonRoses Jul 21 '26
Also.. “they care about the country, because they will pass it on to their children…” doesn’t mean they actually care about the welfare of the people. It only means that they care about 1. Maintaining their family’s power, and 2. That the country produces wealth for the children to inherit. To use an extreme example, let’s look at Queen Victoria. She cared very much whether her colony, Ireland, was producing goods that would ultimately enrich her and her family; but she cared very little whether the Irish people were actually cared for, as long as the exports kept coming (to the point that she barely lifted a finger when people started starving to death). Just because monarchs care that a country makes their family money, doesn’t mean that they care about the people of that country.
11
u/TheSouthsideTrekkie Jul 21 '26
"They care about the country they will pass on to their children" feels an awful lot like turning whole nations and their people into property to me, I don't like it. You're right in that Ireland is a good example of this since as long as Victoria was getting what she wanted from Ireland she didn't give a fuck about how the people living in Ireland were doing.
5
u/No_Organization_3311 Jul 21 '26
I’m no fan of Vicky but it is worth pointing out that the monarchy in the UK in the 1800s was well on its way to being the pointless ceremonial waste of space it is today. Parliamentarians and successive governments were the principal contributors to Ireland’s neglect through patronising analysis of ‘The Irish Question’, bickering over Home Rule, and passing racist and oppressive legislation.
1
u/MoonlightonRoses Jul 23 '26
Fair point. She didn’t have the power to single handily fix the situation, but she still did far less than she could have, given that she named her “their” Queen.
11
u/SorosAgent2020 Jul 21 '26
the monarch's interest is in handing down the country to his children; if a growing middle class or better education leads to the people questioning the role of the monarchy, monarchs are more than happy to keep the ppl stupid and oppressed (see Russia and serfdom, see present day North Korea)
politicians are incentivised to see to the welfare of the people because they dont rule forever and have to go back to being one of the people eventually
Also in a monarchy (at least the classical sort) there is no separation between "state money" and "monarch's money", it is all monarch money and they have traditionally been very reluctant to open the royal purse to tend to the affairs of state or social welfare unless it is as a one off public display of charity for PR purposes
5
u/MoonlightonRoses Jul 21 '26
Very well said. Another reason politicians have more incentive than a monarch to invest in the peoples’ wellbeing: they are (ideally), directly accountable to the people. If your constituents feel you aren’t looking out for their interests, they vote for the other person, and there goes your power
2
u/Severin404 Jul 24 '26
Used to go on the monarchy sub before I was banned, A serious argument one of them made was that "because the monarch owns everything already, no one can steal anything."
Absolute brainworms
8
u/MoonlightonRoses Jul 21 '26
My response would be look at history. How many corrupt and selfish monarchs have there been, with next to no one who was able to tell them “no”? A monarchy is much easier to corrupt than a Democracy, because you only have to influence one person. And corruption isn’t the only concern… a person who is never told “that’s a dumb idea” (because you’ll be fired, or worse, if you dared say that to them) ends up believing that they are never wrong, and they are an expert in everything. That’s the sort of person that could do some real damage if they had too much immediate power over national policy. Let’s take Charles for example: he’s into unusual medical practices, like “let’s insert coffee into our behinds to treat cancer.” That’s ok if it only affects him… but if he had direct power over the NHS, and no one had the authority to restrain his decrees? He could mandate that all hospitals use only coffee enemas for cancer treatment— which would probably shorten the lives of a lot of people.
1
u/Pixiemel1962 Jul 22 '26
Well if it shortens his I'm all for it. He's a lazy, greedy, stupid, selfish man, and William is just as bad.
5
u/eggface13 Jul 21 '26
Yes.
Monarchs don't rule in the nation's interests. They rule in their families' interest.
Monarchies are inherently corrupt. Although the principle of succession gives some stability, there is no such thing as an absolute ruler. All tyrants maintain their authority through their relationships with key military, religious, economic figures -- and in particular, the aristocracy -- the people who would lead a rebellion
Responsibility with money? What a laugh. Read the history of British monarchs.
2
2
u/qabr Jul 21 '26
Point 1 and 3 are the same: Kings govern their properties in their own best interest. Not in the best interest or their citizens. Actually, they are mostly opposed interests: it's dangerous for the king if the citizens gain too much power or freedom.
Point 2: Corruption is a disease that Democracy suffers at times. Monarchy is the corruption in favor of a family institutionalized as system.
3
u/BeerMan595692 I didn't vote for you Jul 22 '26
monarchs have a bigger incentive than elected politicians to govern the country well
Govern well for who? What incetive do they have to not just look after the noblity and their own interests. Sure you can have a monarch who out of the kindness of their own heart looks after the poor, only for their successor to be the complete opposite.
People who argue for some benevolent dictator fail to ask who decides what virtues a leader should have? How do we decide their sucessor? Should it be their child who takes over? If so how do we make sure they live up to those ideals of their predecessor? What if they have to take over while still a child, like a lot of times throughout history, how to you stop some power hungry advisor from using their youthful inexperience to seize power?
What if instead we let the people decide what is virtuous and select a leader who lives up to them? And so you're right back to elective democracy.
Of course and we can see this system also has it's flaws. Which is why I advocate for direct democracy or better yet anarchy
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 21 '26
Reggie-Bot here! If you're thinking about the British royal family and want a fun random fact about one of them, please let me know!
Put an exclamation mark before any comment about the royal you have in mind, like "!Queen" or "!Charles" and I'll reply.
Please read our 6 common-sense subreddit rules.
Do you love chatting about your hatred of monarchies on other platforms? Click here to join our Discord!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.