False dichotomies in politics

[FollowingHim]

Democracy and communism are not opposites. They are the same thing at different stages of evolution.
Left and right are not opposites. They are two different ways of achieving the same end.

We have all been misled into arguing, and even going to war, to fight for the success of one of two different "alternatives" that in reality are no different at all. And in doing this, our energies have been misdirected so they are not used in opposing the system as a whole.

Satan's intent is to rule this entire world. And that process of seizing control continues, unopposed and even helped by our petty political squabbles in nations, and wars between them.

As I have quoted elsewhere, Karl Marx stated in the Communist Manifesto:

What will be the course of this revolution?
Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. ...
Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. ...
It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. ...
Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

The goal of both democracy and communism is to centralise all power in the hands of a State. Communism does this overtly and rapidly. Democracy does this gradually and deceptively. But both go to the same end. The only reason different systems exist in different places is because some societies were already ripe for takeover, and others needed a slower and more deceptive route to get there.

Within a democracy, the "Left" advocates socialism - which for instance means the State acquires and directly controls key resources (e.g. airports, railways etc) "for the benefit of the people". The "Right" advocates fascism (though they don't use that word any more) - which means key resources are acquired by large corporations, which are then regulated by the State to direct what they will do, again "for the benefit of the people". The end result is the same, what name is printed on the ownership papers is just different. The same goes for other industries - the Left will promote government-provided healthcare, the Right government-regulated private insurance, but both will generally agree on restricting "alternative" medicine and centralising control of the system under regulatory bodies that decide what medicine you may (or must) or may not use.

What was World War 2? It was a fight between fascism (Germany), and an alliance between democratic socialism (the Western allies) and communism (Stalinist Russia). Both fascism and communism are great evils, both Hitler and Stalin murdered millions of people. And the West was allied with the biggest murderer of the two - Stalin. The greatest battles and most loss of life were on the Eastern front, not the Western that we are more familiar with. Looked at from that perspective, this was a war between two different forms of tyrrany. One form of tyrrany (communism) won, and took over Eastern Europe - but the results may hardly have been different for the people there had the other tyrrany won.

Following that, we had the cold war. This was a struggle between democracy and communism. But both are means to the same end! And throughout the cold war, and accelerating afterwards, our democratic societies have raced downhill towards communism. So what did we achieve?

What was the point in all this politics, and all this death?

The point was a grand distraction. The point was to keep us all fighting the "bad guys" over there without noticing the "bad guys" taking over us also.

The real dichotomy is not between democracy and communism, but between big bureaucratic government and small government.
It is not between fascism and socialism, but once again between large government and small government.

And although small democracies may be possible, the smallest government possible is a monarchy - a government of one person. One person who may have many personal faults and might oppress a few people here and there, but simply doesn't have the interest or ability to control the lives of all their subjects.

And our ultimate goal is to be citizens of a monarchy led by our true King, Jesus. Who lacks even those faults and will oppress nobody.

 

[rockfox]

Democracy and communism are not opposites. They are the same thing at different stages of evolution.

Well, I'm not sure the central premise is exactly right, but it gets a like for many good points. The founders of the US were certainly suspicious of democracy and esp. universal franchise. And our 'representative democracy' has turned out to be far worse than direct democracy would have been. If the voting franchise had not been widened, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation; communism and the erosion's of liberty wouldn't have been able to gain a foothold.

Hitler and Stalin murdered millions

I'd find the whole literally Hitler thing hilarious if it weren't so nefarious. We choose to back Stalin, a man who had killed well over 7 million people before Hitler had even secured power.

smallest government possible is a monarchy - a government of one person

That's not really true. The apparatus of a state under a monarch can grow just as big as any other form of government. It's just a different way of picking the ruler. And it is prone to endless bloody wars of succession.

 

[FollowingHim]

All good points on the detail, all overviews are simplifications!

That's not really true. The apparatus of a state under a monarch can grow just as big as any other form of government. It's just a different way of picking the ruler. And it is prone to endless bloody wars of succession.

In theory that sounds plausible, but can you name me one true monarchy, either historically or present-day, which has implemented as much control over individual citizens as Western democracies do? By which I mean controls of everyday life - somewhere where you need to ask permission to build a house, homeschool, not vaccinate, and all that sort of thing? Or name a true monarchy with total tax rates as high as Western democracies? It's a genuine question, I cannot think of a single example, but it might exist.
By "true monarchy" I mean that for example the UK is not really a monarchy, it's a democracy that has retained a nominal monarch. I mean somewhere that is truly ruled totally by a monarch.

 

[FollowingHim]

The founders of the US were certainly suspicious of democracy and esp. universal franchise. And our 'representative democracy' has turned out to be far worse than direct democracy would have been. If the voting franchise had not been widened, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation; communism and the erosion's of liberty wouldn't have been able to gain a foothold.

Did their suspicious and cautious start down the road of democracy, e.g. vesting power in multiple legislative bodies and having a constitution, simply slow down the evolution into communism? And was this actually necessary, the only way that staunchly independent colonists would have been able to be slowly drawn under oppression? Might it not have been PRECISELY what Satan needed to do in order to take America over, taking a centuries-long perspective?

All frogs have to be boiled slowly to stop them jumping out of the pot, that lively frog just needed the heat turned up a little more gradually than the others. So democracy in America may have begun earlier than in most other countries and been set up in a way that decayed to communism more slowly, by design, to ensure the plan's ultimate success.

 

[Mojo]

All good points on the detail, all overviews are simplifications!

In theory that sounds plausible, but can you name me one true monarchy, either historically or present-day, which has implemented as much control over individual citizens as Western democracies do? By which I mean controls of everyday life - somewhere where you need to ask permission to build a house, homeschool, not vaccinate, and all that sort of thing? Or name a true monarchy with total tax rates as high as Western democracies? It's a genuine question, I cannot think of a single example, but it might exist.
By "true monarchy" I mean that for example the UK is not really a monarchy, it's a democracy that has retained a nominal monarch. I mean somewhere that is truly ruled totally by a monarch.

I'm thinking the Holy Roman Empire was pretty controlling.
The monarchies of the modern Middle East are beginning to lose some control, but they are pretty close to what you describe.
It's been a while since I studied it, but serfdom was essentially a form of slavery. You can't get much higher taxed than that.

 

[rockfox]

but can you name me one true monarchy, either historically or present-day, which has implemented as much control over individual citizens as Western democracies do?

In earlier times the UK monarchy had more effective power than today and developed quite the bureaucracy; particularly at the peak of their empire. Think back to the 1700's and the time of state monopolies. For example only those companies who had the king's approval could print the Bible (and only 1 version); other versions had to be smuggled in. Only approved companies could import certain commodities to the colonies, etc.

Byzantium had quite the tax rates. I'm not sure what the rates were, but high enough that historians credit them with playing a role in the people's willingness to embrace the caliphate. Rome long had a propensity to kill you and take all your wealth when it became financially/politically convenient.

Imperial Rome (Caesars were essentially kings) had all sorts of taxes. Customs taxes. Taxes on orphans. Taxes on unmarried men or childbearing age unmarried women. Inheritance taxes. Sales taxes. Religious taxes. Poll taxes. Slave taxes. Property taxes. According to one account...

During the final death throes of the Empire, Emperor Galerius (reigned 305-308) imposed a higher capitation tax (from the Latin word “caput” meaning “head”) on each person in the Empire. Surveyors would arrive on a person’s property and measure every spot of land, number all the vines and fruit trees and make lists of all animals and their kinds in order to tax the assets of a landowner. Slaves were beaten to extract information on hidden assets of their masters. Wives were tortured to bear witness against their husbands and sons were strapped to the rack to force them to reveal their fathers’ assets. Imaginary assets, given under torture, were entered into the books and were taxed as real assets. The head tax was imposed on a sliding scale on every one in the Empire including children and babies. The people were further outraged when the rulers levied a “death tax” not only on those who had died but, also, on their dead animals. It was said, “We cannot live or cease to live without being subject to taxes.” When Galerius was confronted with mendicants who could not pay any tax, he caused them to be assembled in groups, put them in boats and sunk the boats because, as he said, he had compassion on them and did not want them to remain indigent. This draconian action, also, insured that none, under the pretext of poverty, should elude the capitation tax.

And we thought the IRS was bad.

Beard taxes anyone? That was an English monarchy innovation; maybe that makes me biased against Kings?

Is the US the pinnacle of government overreach? Wouldn't surprise me, but I know other governments have been more restrictive in other ways. If the US is the pinnacle, is that a necessary result of our form of government or a reflection of our changing world, improved technology, or advances in propaganda and the technology to propagate it? Or maybe this is simply a simply a symptom of late stage empire (whatever governmental form it may take)?

 

[Mojo]

I kind of want to like your post @FollowingHim, but I'm not sure I agree enough with all the points.

I agree that it's not about left or right. It's really only about Liberty vs. Tyrrany. Can we ever be truly free while being ruled by flawed men? No. I do believe we were as close to it as possible at the beginning of our nation, but entropy naturally took over.

If you are advocating for a benevolent monarchy so distracted by getting rich that he will leave those poor souls to homeschool, not vaccinate, and practice free religion, I welcome you to start pushing for it down under. I will continue to push for a representative government completely slowed down to a halt by vigorous checks and balances. I don't want King Barak or King Donald. The quickest way to religious oppression (let's be honest, we Westerners haven't truly seen religious oppression like what our brothers and sisters experienced in the past) is by way of a monarchy.

 

[rockfox]

Did their suspicious and cautious start down the road of democracy, e.g. vesting power in multiple legislative bodies and having a constitution, simply slow down the evolution into communism? And was this actually necessary, the only way that staunchly independent colonists would have been able to be slowly drawn under oppression? Might it not have been PRECISELY what Satan needed to do in order to take America over, taking a centuries-long perspective?

So it more went the other way around. The colonies were all independent states, governed by legislatures, made up of locally elected representatives. They then created the U.S. Constitution, which with time brought them to heal as mere subunits.

I'm not entirely sure what they're conception of democracy was in the details, though I know it was associated with universal franchise and characterized as mob rule.

Might it not have been PRECISELY what Satan needed to do in order to take America over, taking a centuries-long perspective?

All frogs have to be boiled slowly to stop them jumping out of the pot, that lively frog just needed the heat turned up a little more gradually than the others. So democracy in America may have begun earlier than in most other countries and been set up in a way that decayed to communism more slowly, by design, to ensure the plan's ultimate success.

I don't know, when I read Revelations it doesn't talk of democracies, but it does talk about kings. God wasn't exactly enthusiastic about them when Israel asked for them. For certain though the Luciferian Free Masons were actively involved in the creation of our federal government.

I will continue to push for a representative government completely slowed down to a halt by vigorous checks and balances

Ya we tried that already and it failed spectacularly. It's only success was in making people think it was working and for them. We'd have been better off with the mob rule of pure direct democracy.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I believe that tyranny and dictatorships are more or less inevitable. If there's one guy in charge, he'll be corrupt, or his son will. If there's a lot of people temporarily in charge, they'll be corrupt, or their successors will. I'm against my country changing from a democracy to a monarchy because that will mean a lot of dead people. At least I know if they ever anointed me king it would mean a lot of dead people....

I believe a nation is mostly blessed by the righteousness of its people and how infested the nation is with sold-out believers in Christ. I mean the Kingship of Unified Israel lasted precisely one generation before they had a serious luciferian problem at its highest level. Democratic Representatives, Communist Chairmen, Fascist Autocrats, Anointed Kings:

They are all gonna find their way around to killing babies at some point.... they'll just justify it in different ways.

 

[FollowingHim]

Byzantium had quite the tax rates. I'm not sure what the rates were, but high enough that historians credit them with playing a role in the people's willingness to embrace the caliphate.

I've been hunting for Byzantine tax rates, and it's very difficult to find any quantitative discussion of them. There were a number of different taxes, however the primary tax that provided the bulk of government revenue was a levy on arable land by area.

On the basis of fragmentary information regarding the productivity of land, value of grain, and known taxes paid for given areas of land, Svoronos believes that land-owning peasents paid a kanon of 1 1/3 to 2 percent of their crop (to which must be added taxes like the dikeraton, annexed to the kanon), while serfs paid 6 percent or more.

If we double that to account for various other smaller taxes, that leaves the tax rate for a landowner as no more than 4%.
Again, if we double the serf's fees to account for other things, their entire "tax" rate is 12%. But they don't own land, so most of that we'd call a "lease" these days. So they leased their land, and paid their taxes, out of only 12% of their crop.

Historians seem to agree that these tax rates were considered high at the time - but they're nothing compared to what we face today.

Yes, Rome had lots of taxes, so did Britain, all sorts of taxes have existed in the past and people have always complained that they are too high. But if you compare them objectively, you'll almost always find that they were incredibly tiny compared to what we have today. It's all a matter of perception. Byzantium, Rome, and imperial Britain weren't supporting welfare states. They had big militaries, but that was their major expense. Chop down the tax you pay to just the portion that goes to the military and you'll be close to the tax rate of an ancient monarchy.

In 1775, "New Englanders were only paying between 1 and 2 percent of their income in taxes." Even the tea tax that was a major trigger for the revolution was only a 10% tariff, and only on tea (which is an entirely discretionary luxury item that you can choose not to use at all). Those were the taxes of a monarch.

When you're under a king, you consider anything he takes to be theft. So you've got a low tolerance for taxes, and consider everything to be "high". But in a democracy we're told taxes are for our own good, so they manage to get us to cough up >30% without revolting.

In earlier times the UK monarchy had more effective power than today and developed quite the bureaucracy; particularly at the peak of their empire. Think back to the 1700's and the time of state monopolies. For example only those companies who had the king's approval could print the Bible (and only 1 version); other versions had to be smuggled in. Only approved companies could import certain commodities to the colonies, etc.

Yes, state monopolies were a thing - but they didn't actually affect much of your life. The state monopoly influenced what imported commodities were available and at what price. Their existence might have cost you a tiny proportion of your income through inefficiency, maybe - or possibly saved you money through efficiency gains in some cases. Really, this doesn't have much of an impact on your life. Actually, it's no different to modern state owned enterprises - our government owns a majority stake in our national airline (Air New Zealand), electricity companies, railways and other assets. This actually serves to reduce taxes, because the profits of the state-owned enterprises help to fund the state. Old state monopolies also existed because the monarch derived a monetary benefit from them - and that reduced the amount of tax he had to extract from the people.

The regular citizen could build a house, travel on the roads, arm themselves, marry, have children, and generally live their life without an enormous amount of influence from the state. What little imposition from the state occurred was resented so strongly that it caused people to revolt - and because of that, imposition was kept to much lower levels than today by most objective standards.

Finally, let's consider one of the most oppressive ancient taxes - the jizra tax imposed by Islamic rulers on Christians and Jews. As these were higher than for Muslims in the state, they formed a large portion of the revenue for these empires. Using Wikipedia (because it's late and I'm too tired to do proper research now):

The rates of jizya were not uniform. By the time of Mohammed, the jiyza rate was one dinar per year imposed on male dhimmis in Medina, Mecca, Khaibar, Yemen, and Nejran and maximum of twelve dirhams under Achtiname of Muhammad for Saint Catherine's Monastery. According to Muhammad Hamidullah, the rate of ten dirhams per annum represented the expenses of an average family for ten days.

So there was quite a range, but the highlighted section is most useful. This is a tax on adult males, so we can assume one payer per family. If we assume someone whose assets are stable, so annual expenses = annual income, then the tax rate = 10/365 or 2.7% of annual income. So the most oppressed people in the society were paying 2.7% (rough estimate, but triple it and it's still low), and the average citizen was paying a lot less than that.

 

[FollowingHim]

If you are advocating for a benevolent monarchy so distracted by getting rich that he will leave those poor souls to homeschool, not vaccinate, and practice free religion, I welcome you to start pushing for it down under.

No point promoting anything like that, it ain't gonna happen. There's a track the world is on that is prophesied and inevitable. But I think it's good to have a realistic view of what's really happening to us today, so we don't get sucked in when it comes to personal decisions (such as signing up to die fighting the commies on behalf of our own commies-in-democratic-drag). Or don't waste too much time on political action that won't actually change anything because both options are almost the same - if you must be political, at least be radical enough that success would actually reduce the size of government, even if success is unlikely.

 

[The Revolting Man]

All good points on the detail, all overviews are simplifications!

In theory that sounds plausible, but can you name me one true monarchy, either historically or present-day, which has implemented as much control over individual citizens as Western democracies do? By which I mean controls of everyday life - somewhere where you need to ask permission to build a house, homeschool, not vaccinate, and all that sort of thing? Or name a true monarchy with total tax rates as high as Western democracies? It's a genuine question, I cannot think of a single example, but it might exist.
By "true monarchy" I mean that for example the UK is not really a monarchy, it's a democracy that has retained a nominal monarch. I mean somewhere that is truly ruled totally by a monarch.

This is a bit myopic. The English monarchy didn’t allow people to leave their land or change their professions. They burned people who read the Bible. Taxes under the Tudors could be extrodainarily high and they were not exceptional. The forced “loans” were on top of that. The French were far worse and the Spanish were worse than that. I think you have a vey romanticized view of monarchy. Serfdom and feudalism existed under monarchy, were essential even. You don’t even want to talk about the abuses that happened under the sultans. There is a reason why God warned the Israelites against asking for a king.

 

[rockfox]

First off let me state, I'm not sure what the best form of government is, aside from tribalism with only Christ as King (as per the OT pre Saul). And a lot of what we're discussing is questions of history hitting the end of my depth, such as...

I've been hunting for Byzantine tax rates, and it's very difficult to find any quantitative discussion of them.

Ya that was my problem. I couldn't even find tax rate info about Tsarist Russia.

If we double that to account for various other smaller taxes, that leaves the tax rate for a landowner as no more than 4%.
Again, if we double the serf's fees to account for other things, their entire "tax" rate is 12%. But they don't own land, so most of that we'd call a "lease" these days. So they leased their land, and paid their taxes, out of only 12% of their crop.

Historians seem to agree that these tax rates were considered high at the time - but they're nothing compared to what we face today.

Quick and dirty figuring in my head on the tax rates on my corn ground put it around 6% of the value of the crop. High property taxes are mainly a problem in New England. Much of the heartland taxes based on ag use value.

Yes, Rome had lots of taxes, so did Britain, all sorts of taxes have existed in the past and people have always complained that they are too high. But if you compare them objectively, you'll almost always find that they were incredibly tiny compared to what we have today. It's all a matter of perception. Byzantium, Rome, and imperial Britain weren't supporting welfare states. They had big militaries, but that was their major expense. Chop down the tax you pay to just the portion that goes to the military and you'll be close to the tax rate of an ancient monarchy.

That's not an apples to apples comparison. This is where we get to the technology issue. Look at all the things people today demand the state pay for compared to back then, and what it costs to do. The state just does more, and what they do costs more. But maybe you'd like to do without paved roads, bridges, and health care to get your lower taxes?

Chop down the tax you pay to just the portion that goes to the military and you'll be close to the tax rate of an ancient monarchy.

In America maybe. The rest of the world, much of it with similar government, doesn't spend that much on military. And in this country the other biggest cost is welfare. Really, neither of these costs have anything to do with the form of government. Rome had a military, but it was cheaper to outfit due to technology differences and the size of their empire

. And Rome had welfare too. Not that I support welfare, but it's not part and parsel to democracy. Actually, if we were a democracy we'd have lower taxes due to tariffs; which is what mostly funded the early American state.

Actually, it's no different to modern state owned enterprises - our government owns a majority stake in our national airline (Air New Zealand), electricity companies, railways and other assets. This actually serves to reduce taxes, because the profits of the state-owned enterprises help to fund the state

So you support communism then?

The regular citizen could build a house, travel on the roads, arm themselves, marry, have children, and generally live their life without an enormous amount of influence from the state.

Except beards. You had to pay a tax on that or it'd be shaved off. Monarchy is forever tarnished in my eyes now!

So there was quite a range, but the highlighted section is most useful. This is a tax on adult males, so we can assume one payer per family. If we assume someone whose assets are stable, so annual expenses = annual income, then the tax rate = 10/365 or 2.7% of annual income. So the most oppressed people in the society were paying 2.7% (rough estimate, but triple it and it's still low), and the average citizen was paying a lot less than that.

Remember what I said about the caliphate taxes being cheaper than the Byzantinnium taxes?

the average citizen was paying a lot less than that.

So too is the average citizen today paying less than...

so they manage to get us to cough up >30% without revolting.

This is a bit myopic. The English monarchy didn’t allow people to leave their land or change their professions. They burned people who read the Bible. Taxes under the Tudors could be extrodainarily high and they were not exceptional. The forced “loans” were on top of that. The French were far worse and the Spanish were worse than that. I think you have a vey romanticized view of monarchy. Serfdom and feudalism existed under monarchy, were essential even. You don’t even want to talk about the abuses that happened under the sultans. There is a reason why God warned the Israelites against asking for a king.

Exactly. We can't compare the best monarchies against the worst modern 'democracies'.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Democracy isn’t my thing. I’m all about patriarchal anarchy. But there is no way an autocracy is preferable to democracy. All I can thinks of is Nero, Louis LXI and mad King George III. This doesn’t sound like a winner winner chicken dinner.

 

[PeteR]

I'm not sure what the best form of government is, aside from tribalism with only Christ as King (as per the OT pre Saul).

This is exactly right! All of prophecy points to the Messiah, reigning from Jerusalem over His gathered people in 'Greater Israel' (an area promised to Abraham that extends from the Euphrates to the Nile, the Med to Bahrain).

Christendom expects some spiritualized trip neverneverland, but that is not what Scripture teaches. After the Messiah reigns for 1000 years, in restored Israel (hundreds of prophecies, but see especially Ezekiel 37 with focus on 15-28 and especially the last five verses), there is a new heaven and new earth.... He'll still reign.

The false dichotomy is real and a tool of the enemy. What we need to recognize is what prophecy spells out and then move in that direction. Current political Israel is part of the step in that direction, but God has work to do there yet... The Torah awakening is part of the puzzle. Messiah will teach and enforce Torah, see Isaiah 2:1-5! Plural marriage is part of the puzzle, a) it is Torah truth, b) it leads to tribal structure, exactly as prophesied in Scripture.

Essentially, a true Biblical government, as @rockfox says, is tribalism with Jesus/Yeshua as King. And, I would add, the Torah as the law because that is what Scripture says will be the Law of the Land. We can debate the left/right, dems/repubs, democracy/communism, etc until the cows come home, but none are the prophesied solution to our mess...

 

[rockfox]

But there is no way an autocracy is preferable to democracy. All I can thinks of is Nero, Louis LXI and mad King George III. This doesn’t sound like a winner winner chicken dinner.

They're not all bad, we can point to the worst examples in any form of government and find them offensive. And I'd take an autocracy over the kind of "democracy" we're about to have in 5 years when the DNC gains permanent power in the US thanks to uncontrolled immigration of foreign, socialist inclined populations.

Plural marriage is part of the puzzle... it leads to tribal structure, exactly as prophesied in Scripture.

Where?

 

[PeteR]

Where?

Sorry, poor sentence structure. To clarify, tribal structure is the prophesied end product. (Eze. 48, Rev. 7, 20ish 'twelve gates', as well as numerous prophesies about the restoration of kol Israel, etc...) Calling references off the top of my head...

 

[rockfox]

Ok you're onto something important there. Polygyny can result in the creation of tribes, and from that nations. We see in the scriptures that God created the nations, and that He sees them as nations in heaven. In the OT He interacted with the people at the tribal level. Tribal elders were judges. God would raise up a man to lead a militia for the defense of the nation when needed, called up by tribe.

We tend to think about just the state aspect of our modern nation-state, ignoring the national part. In good government, it is there to serve the interests of the nation. In bad government, it is there to exploit them.

Now if you look at the modern state, they are largely hostile to nations. The structure incentivises sociopaths to rise to power who will work for personal gain at the expense of the nation. In places like Africa, states are composed contrary to tribal lines, compromising self governance and fomenting conflict and making it likely your rulers are hostile to the interests of your own people and culture. In places like the west the state's are feverishly importing foreigners in order to compromise and obliterate the nations. It's all one big Satanic effort to undo what God has done.

Monarchies CAN dovetail with the nation. But often they end up becoming multinational empires. Often the royalty become an aristocracy out for it's own interests, contrary to those of the nation they rule, or even through intermarriage literal foreigners. And many monarchies were formed, not from the people who excelled through armed conflict within a nation (such as in Ireland, Francia, or Daneland), but from the warrior tribe who conquered another people and made themselves the aristocrats (such as in Russia, England, Italy, and many others).

Democracies aren't necessarily better either. It's been said that Athens was far more prone to war than their less democratic neighbors. So too has the United States been prone to war, not that we're actually a democracy having been ruled by a cabal for so long. But this tendency to war does lead to multinational empire, as with Rome, leading to rule by foreigners and death of the nation.

 

[FollowingHim]

Quick note: I agree monarchies can have many problems, as we were warned about in scripture. I just see democracy as capable of even greater evil.

I agree regarding tribalism being the better form of government.
However, consider Abraham's tribe. It contained his descendents, and those he had purchased - slaves, or you could say serfs.
And tribalism, within the tride, is basically communism. Everything is owned by the chief for the benefit of the tribe, everyone works as they are able and receives what they require. But this is a GOOD communism, because it is at a small enough level to actually be motivated by love, and be fair and efficient.
Tribalism in a nomadic society evolves to feudalism when people have fixed abodes - now the tribal head owns the land (as Abraham owned all the tribe's assets), everyone works for him, and gets what they need. We now label those people who are not free to leave the tribe as "serfs", and the chief gets called a "lord". But the change in name doesn't mean they're mistreated (that depends on the godliness of their ruler).
And when tribes form alliances for common protection, and appoint one tribal leader to head the alliance, you end up with a monarchy. But a monarchy that is limited in its power, because it relies on the support of tribal leaders / feudal lords, who can withdraw their support and declare allegience to the neighbouring king the moment the first one becomes too oppressive. This system therefore provides natural checks on the power of a monarch.
So I'm actually agreeing about tribalism. I'm just looking at it from a different angle.

They're not all bad, we can point to the worst examples in any form of government and find them offensive.

We've got to remember that we've been subjected to anti-monarchy pro-democracy propaganda for our entire lives through our education, with the worst examples being pulled out as examples of why democracy is better. But that's also because the gory bits are the interesting ones that end up in the history books. You don't hear much about the kind lord whose subjects all loved him, who avoided going to war, because that's boring.

 

[rockfox]

I agree regarding tribalism being the better form of government.
However, consider Abraham's tribe. It contained his descendents, and those he had purchased - slaves, or you could say serfs.
And tribalism, within the tride, is basically communism. Everything is owned by the chief for the benefit of the tribe, everyone works as they are able and receives what they require. But this is a GOOD communism, because it is at a small enough level to actually be motivated by love, and be fair and efficient.
Tribalism in a nomadic society evolves to feudalism when people have fixed abodes - now the tribal head owns the land (as Abraham owned all the tribe's assets), everyone works for him, and gets what they need. We now label those people who are not free to leave the tribe as "serfs", and the chief gets called a "lord". But the change in name doesn't mean they're mistreated (that depends on the godliness of their ruler).
And when tribes form alliances for common protection, and appoint one tribal leader to head the alliance, you end up with a monarchy. But a monarchy that is limited in its power, because it relies on the support of tribal leaders / feudal lords, who can withdraw their support and declare allegience to the neighbouring king the moment the first one becomes too oppressive. This system therefore provides natural checks on the power of a monarch.

So you've described how tribalism morphs into monarchy. But the sometimes abusive end state of that is radically different from the beginning. So that's not an indictment of tribalism per se. Nor should the end state of the United States be an indictment of our early form of republican government; which was radically different than what we have today. I can pin most if not all of our current problems on universal franchise combined with empire combine with token representation; all deviations from our original form.

I just see democracy as capable of even greater evil.

Is it though? We're just talking about how leaders are chosen. In a democracy it is by vote, that doesn't necessarily imply tyranny. It does imply accountability to the people though. Whereas monarch's often have some degree of absolute rule and are not accountable barring violence. And really, there isn't always a big difference in level of authority between monarchs, Ceasars, and Dictators; those forms tend to shift freely from one to another. What is a Monarch but often an absolute ruler (dictator) with hereditary succession. Feudalism, good or bad, isn't even characteristic of all monarchies.

So all the mass murders of the 20th century from dictators? Might as well lay that at the feet of monarchy (dictator by another name). And if you object to that, for sure we can blame the horrors of WW1 on monarchy. And if you object to that based on technology differences, so could I make the same case against the modern 'democractic' states which are enabled to abuse the populous via modern technology.