Led by a dixie king
I'm not larping
It wouldn't be led by a king
not necesarily
What?
Kings are good.
A dictator, sure
but not a king
Thats just too blatant for Americans
What's really the difference between a kingship and a hereditary dictatorship aside from aesthetics?
@Weaboo Kempeitai Nothing
Right
aesthetics matter
They do
I agree
Lots of people don't like the ethos of royalty nor the costs of their lavish existence. Dictators tend to have a more tapered image.
reed Schmitt
the difference is that one is a Republic
assuming that its not a Republican Kingdom
Well, yes, but what is Republic ruled by a dictator? Just a monarchy that says it's not a monarchy.
it looks like the difference is surface level but actually it says a lot about the underlying political ethos of the state
tons of Republics have been ruled by dictators
very few have ***not*** at some point
the dictator has to say that he is ruling in the name of the people
whereas the King does not have to say this
he is sovereign in his own right
Kings family rules by Devine right
Well, that's basically what I said.
And we all know religion is doodoo
Ruling for the people is an aesthetic. You're functionally the same as a monarch.
no not an aesthetic, an ethic
Enlightened despotism is just reskinned despotism
with it, you open yourself up to greater powers, but also greater moral vulnerabilities
it's despotism plus the people are too educated to fuck over
too greatly
I have pot roast to eat <:yay:638817157840502815>
nice
No, dictators claim to rule for the people. Just as monarchs can choose to be either benevolent or despotic, dictators also have that choice.
https://news.yahoo.com/jewish-leaders-seek-better-policing-144008015.html
There isn't a moral or ethical vulnerability, but there is a vulnerability to being couped, since your house isn't sacred. The monarch is the person, not a position, basically.
