And you know damn well this is due to a force which is undermining the principal of equality by people who very much through their actions have shown they do not actually believe in equality. You need to stop legitimizing the propaganda they are putting out in order to push the oppressive government you apparently prefer.
And that is half of my point. Equality is impossible to achieve, because humans are not equal by nature. Therefore, the ideal itself is fundamentally self-defeating.
And I do not prefer oppressive government, you just have no clue.
Marxism has originated in the West*, and has thoroughly infiltrated the same. It is not an outside, or a foreign, force.
* Specifically Germany, though France also played a big part in the ideals of Communism.
Communists talk a great deal about equality, but you and I both know that this is just a hook they use to make themselves seem palatable to useful idiots. Stop conflating their moronic lie of "equality of outcome" with the idea of being treated equally under the law. It's extremely intellectually dishonest.
Many of them actually believe it. Doesn't change the fact that every time people tried to achieve equality, they ended up with tyranny.
And being treated equally under the law is as impossible as other forms of equality. Lawmakers will always give themselves special privileges, no matter the political system.
They felt strongly enough about it to fight a war over it. Do I really need to start quoting what the founding fathers of my country had to say about the matter? The issue was not specifically about unfair taxes, this was simply part of it, and was a great example of how they had no say in how they were governed. Also that people should not be placed in positions of power over others simply by accident of birth. You will never win an argument with me over this - straight up. Further, your argument about the US not being the world is completely irrelevant to me. You are making an argument against the principals the US was founded on, and I am slapping that argument right the fuck down into the dirt where it belongs.
And again, if the US had been part of, say, Holy Roman Empire, they would never have rebelled. Problem was centralization and governmental tyranny, not monarchy or equality - in fact, the monarch showed far more understanding of the problems than the government did. Which is a recurring theme throughout history. For example, if it were only up to monarchs, World War I. would never have happened - it was their governments and the public opinion that started the general European war. Franz Joseph was reluctant to invade Serbia, but the government and the public outrage pushed him into giving a go-ahead - and the exact same situation happened in literally every country.
Even Rome, which was hardly a bastion of freedom and equality, did best when it was ruled by emperors who were chosen by merit rather than by birth. They got around any such idea of leadership by birthright by adopting men they felt had what it took to lead the Empire well.
Meritocracy is by nature the exact opposite of equality... and further, whenever meritocracy was tried, it always developed into aristocracy and/or monarchy.
None of these are an argument against a nation treating people equally under the law, because all of them are against that idea themselves. The only reason these assholes are a problem is because no one has stood up to them in any meaningful way, and the people who could have actually done something just buried their heads in the sand and let them go about undermining our institutions from the inside.
Stop the strawmans. I have already stated that I do believe equality under the law is a good idea. It is just one that can never be achieved. Especially if you have a government that has no fundamental opposition.
Essentially, if the central government is as powerful as it needs to be, it does not matter what the form it takes, and monarchy is preferable simply due to expenses and simplicity. If you feel that you have to have people directly or indirectly control the central government, then it means the government is too strong. And that is not to start with the actual flaws of democracy, and representative democracy specifically. Which are actually a big part of why nobody has stood up to Communist infiltration: the media and the educational system essentially control the nation (especially if you believe that democracy truly works), so Communists have infiltrated them first. And now you have younger generations which believe that equality in all possible shapes is the most fundamental value, to the point that they want to enforce outright sameness.
No, rule by consent (as in Republics) is better than rule by accident of birth. All that will give you is tyrants.
First, monarchy is not necessarily rule by accident of birth. Again, your lack of knowledge about anything related to monarchy is rather impressive. That, or you are strawmaning. Elective monarchy is a thing, and was for thousands of years. And at any rate, hereditary principle is not necessarily bad. Unlike democracy where elections essentially ensure that psychopaths will gain the power, in a hereditary monarchy you have sorta roll of the dice - except the monarch will be trained to rule. And since state is essentially a personal property of the monarch, to be passed onto the children, the monarch has a major personal stake into how well it does. Elected politicians meanwhile only care about being reelected, and do not care whether their policies will destroy the country in the long run.
Second, monarchy does not give tyrants as a matter of course.
Absolute monarchy can produce tyrants, but even that is not exactly usual. Monarchy in general? Just no. Croatia has, during 1150 years spent under the monarchy, had weird or incompetent kings. But
out of 77 kings in total, you could maybe find one or two to be described tyrants.
Even disregarding the previous Communist rule, we've had worse tyranny in 30 years since independence than ever under an actually significent (i.e. not a complete figurehead) monarch.
Monarchy is all about power being centralized in the form of the monarch. It matters not if there are other small fries who have some autonomy - it all represents centralized power in the hands of a few tyrants.
No it isn't. Learn a bit about the monarchy and how it actually functioned throughout history. Monarchies were personal property of the monarch, which essentially meant that individual constituent parts could generally govern themselves as they liked so long as they swore the oath, sang the hymn, and supported the monarch in times of trouble (e.g. war). Even after the centralization in 17th century, governmental interference remained limited.
In fact, the fact that the monarch is head of the government and has such a significant influence on the decision-making is a major limiter in how much centralization is actually possible - modern democratic government is, due to its size, far more able to micromanage the shit out of everything.
I notice you haven't actually made an argument against the idea of these being little more than dictators under a different name.
Except for the paragraph just before it...
No. That is what monarchy represents - full stop. It matters little if the power is spread out among a few others who rule by accident of birth, this still represents a form of dictatorship, as it is rule according to the whims of these leaders by birthright.
Look, would you please stop arguing about things you are clearly clueless about? Historically, absolute monarchy was 1) an aberration and 2) never truly "absolute" to begin with.
Monarchs were not absolute dictators, full stop.
Yeah, and notice the part where we're fighting against that? That's kind of the whole point.
Fighting and losing. All I know is that Croatia was in far better shape under Habsburg rule than at any point after 1945.
Says the guy wishing the Middle Ages had never ended.
en.wikipedia.org