Comment by willmadden

Dynastic monarchies have one advantage over liberal democracies: If you want your bloodline to stay in power, you are incentivised to leave the country off better than you inherited it - if you act out too much, there's a good chance your offspring will follow you not on the throne, but on the guillotine. This immediately makes 'fuck you, I got mine' style politics unfeasable.

There is no such thing as a benevolent monarchy, if that monarchy exists as anything more than a figurehead. No position of absolute and uncheckable power, least of all derived from a claim of divine right or racial purity, can be considered benevolent.

Yes, an argument can be made. And such an argument can and should be quickly discarded with a glance at the last thousand years or so of human history. We tried it. Rolling the dice that the next king or tsar or emperor to own the people will at least treat them kindly. And we decided that being owned by a government in which we have no franchise is a bad idea. A very bad idea.

In a monarchy at least there's a chance of getting a good ruler by the genetic lottery. In a political system almost inevitably the people who get to the top are the best liars and manipulators, not good people.

If we ever could find a Superman who would agree to be a benevolent monarch, sure. The only problem is that Superman is actually a work of fiction (and even a fictional one would refuse the role) and real people have, let's say, not so stellar record of being benevolent. It's one of those nice ideal arguments that works very well as long as you are allowed to assume magical entities that can't actually exist in the real world.