(12-29-2017 09:15 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I think, due to many of Habsburg's arguments, that a monarchy will yield the best potential result. A republic will never produce someone that can accomplish what Alfred the Great, Augustus Caesar, Constantine, or Charlemagne did because of the restraints of checks and balances and the political special interest forces needed to maintain power. On the other hand, it will also yield the worst potential result. A republic will never produce a Caligula, King John, Philip II, Nero, or Ivan the Terrible due to the same restraints.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Democracy/Republics trim the extremes for overall benefits to a society. I'd argue that in addition to that, the downside risk to having monumental failures is significantly lower in a democracy/republic than a monarchy. IMHO, the risk of getting a rotten ruler outweighs any benefit that a truly gifted ruler can give you. The analogy of gov't vs economy is valid. You probably believe that an economic system that is largely capitalistic is much better than a command economy. The same would be the case for governing systems. Given your examples of great vs terrible monarchs/emperors - my analogy to economics holds because all of your examples are of rulers not affiliated with a constitutional monarchy (at least an entity with a strong constitution).