I think America's system of 4-year terms, limited to 2 terms, is fine as it is. With rare exceptions, presidents already have lots of political experience when they enter office, and 4 years is enough time for a president's policies to show their effects and provide plenty of information to voters by the time the next election rolls around. Eight years is probably enough time for one politician to be in office. Twelve years might be fine, too, but we already have lots of excellent candidates for the presidency; we don't really need to re-use the same one for more than a decade.
I am not sure. Historically, Presidents achieve the most very early in their Presidency. I think it would be beneficial to have them rest in between and have time to think about new legislation in-between.
Making money as a tax haven is barely any better than making money as a drug cartel. The severity might be different, but at root, all you're doing is enriching yourself at the expense of others.
Moving to a whole new country is a massive sacrifice just to escape a vicious dictator. People should not have to give up their jobs, leave their homes, flee their homeland, and lose contact with all their friends and family just because one powerful person is abusing them. (...)
Is not exactly to a new country. Is much more like move from one city to another.
As for Liechtenstein: it has a high GDP, but that is because it is a tax haven. It only works because it leeches the wealth of other countries. Even if you think low taxes are ideal, it wouldn't work half as well if every other industrial country did the same. It also does not scale, it is no coincidence that tax havens are usually very small countries. It's also the last country in Europe to grant women the right to vote (barely, with about 51% of votes) in 1984. I would hardly call that country exemplary.
What is the problem with tax havens? Privacy and low taxes are two amazing things. I rather any tax heaven than in any "tax hell" where you doesn't even have the right of private propriety. And yes, if the government forces me to hire with basis on affirmative actions, enforces an harsh labor law, and take more from the profit than any other shareholder, for eg, he is "owning" my company. He is determining what i can do, in what therms and how much of the profit i can reinvest.
And yes, most countries on the Earth fall into this "semi socialist" category and those who have little interventionism tends to have very harsh immigration laws. I really wish that the private city projects become an reality
In what universe should it be acceptable that the President of the United States is having White House employees sign NDAs?? We've totally lost our minds. How is this even legal in regards to a public official??
Moving to a whole new country is a massive sacrifice just to escape a vicious dictator. People should not have to give up their jobs, leave their homes, flee their homeland, and lose contact with all their friends and family just because one powerful person is abusing them. (...)
Is not exactly to a new country. Is much more like move from one city to another.
As for Liechtenstein: it has a high GDP, but that is because it is a tax haven. It only works because it leeches the wealth of other countries. Even if you think low taxes are ideal, it wouldn't work half as well if every other industrial country did the same. It also does not scale, it is no coincidence that tax havens are usually very small countries. It's also the last country in Europe to grant women the right to vote (barely, with about 51% of votes) in 1984. I would hardly call that country exemplary.
What is the problem with tax havens? Privacy and low taxes are two amazing things. I rather any tax heaven than in any "tax hell" where you doesn't even have the right of private propriety. And yes, if the government forces me to hire with basis on affirmative actions, enforces an harsh labor law, and take more from the profit than any other shareholder, for eg, he is "owning" my company. He is determining what i can do, in what therms and how much of the profit i can reinvest.
And yes, most countries on the Earth fall into this "semi socialist" category and those who have little interventionism tends to have very harsh immigration laws. I really wish that the private city projects become an reality
I think there is a lot wrong with low taxes as a generality, but that is not the point I want to argue here.
The issue with tax havens is not low taxes per se, it is that a tax haven shelters profit that are made elsewhere. It only works for Liechtenstein because they are very small and because the global economy allows company to shift their profits around.
If your ideal of low taxes would be enacted everywhere, Liechtenstein would have to raise their own taxes. It's an unsustainable model.
As for your private cities, I suspect that Rapture is a pretty good model of what would happen. The last project of that sort I was observing ended up with the people contributing to buying the required land being scammed.
@SorcererV1ct0r I think the problem with your examples of failed states being worse than the preceding monarchies is that your argument depends entirely on perspective. I would argue it would be more valid to say that the problems in the countries were the result of the actions of their monarchs, than that the problems resulted from the loss of their monarchs. For instance: - in Germany the Weimar Republic was set up to fail as a result of war reparations and the German monarch had significant responsibility for taking Germany into an unnecessary war. - in both Russia and France the revolutions were the direct result of extremely inefficient and self-serving leadership by the monarchs.
If those countries had had a form of government more responsive to the needs of their population their histories would have been very different.
Isn't the expression, "can't have your cake and eat it too" lol
Sorry to be grammar nerding here, but it's "Can't eat you cake and have it,", not the other way around. You can have your cake and eat it, but cannot eat it and still have it.
Isn't the expression, "can't have your cake and eat it too" lol
Sorry to be grammar nerding here, but it's "Can't eat you cake and have it,", not the other way around. You can have your cake and eat it, but cannot eat it and still have it.
That distinction doesn't even make sense. Anyway, you're wrong
In what universe should it be acceptable that the President of the United States is having White House employees sign NDAs?? We've totally lost our minds. How is this even legal in regards to a public official??
It’ll be tossed because as far as I can tell, the book isn’t about the campaign but about his time in the White House.
The campaign isn’t being infringed upon. Trump is just attempting to bully this guy, which might have worked a year ago, but won’t anymore.
And guess which book will probably hit the best seller mark because of this backlash?
The issue with tax havens is not low taxes per se, it is that a tax haven shelters profit that are made elsewhere. It only works for Liechtenstein because they are very small and because the global economy allows company to shift their profits around.
(...)
As for your private cities, I suspect that Rapture is a pretty good model of what would happen. The last project of that sort I was observing ended up with the people contributing to buying the required land being scammed.
Is just states competing.
About private cities, was considered unconstitutional on Honduras, but Rapture is a awful caricature. During Renaissance, existed some cities very similar to private cities and was nothing like Rapture;
I think the problem with your examples of failed states being worse than the preceding monarchies is that your argument depends entirely on perspective. I would argue it would be more valid to say that the problems in the countries were the result of the actions of their monarchs, than that the problems resulted from the loss of their monarchs. For instance: - in Germany the Weimar Republic was set up to fail as a result of war reparations and the German monarch had significant responsibility for taking Germany into an unnecessary war. - in both Russia and France the revolutions were the direct result of extremely inefficient and self-serving leadership by the monarchs.
If those countries had had a form of government more responsive to the needs of their population their histories would have been very different.
Wilhelm abdicated exactly because he found himself unworthy for the throne after his awful decision on WW1. If Germany had picked an prince to be the new King instead of insisting on a Monarchy, i an sure that WW2 will not happen.
Masculinity Report, USA 2018 A bespoke US study for Harry’s, in partnership with Dr. John Barry of University
College London, exploring positive masculinity in 21st Century America.
KEY FINDINGS
America’s most content men have good job satisfaction, value their health, have a good income, are
over age 50 and are married.
• American men are largely happy, with an above average Positive Mindset Index (PMI), and typically
have a more positive outlook on life than men in the UK.
• The strongest predictor of a positive mindset in men – by far – is satisfying employment. Hard work
is the cornerstone of a contented man that all else is built upon.
• Significantly, American men now place more importance on their mental health than their physical
health, while appreciating the two are fundamentally intertwined. Older men, especially, are tuned
into the needs of their minds, as well as their bodies and souls.
• The third driver of positivity is income, and while it may be true you can’t buy happiness, the
contentment of providing for others, especially one’s family, is a central pillar of American men’s
sense of positive purpose.
• Next is health, and across the board is driven by, in the following order, good grooming, eating well,
living longer and exercise.
• Men’s mental health is also related to connecting with others through sports, and connecting with
friends by listening and giving advice.
• The modern American man is a moral man. When asked what characteristics he aspires to, he
chooses values that put the needs of others over his own. At the top were – honesty, reliability,
dependability, being respectful of others and loyalty. At the bottom was athleticism (having a
perfect body), proving the route to genuine contentment is who you are on the inside – not how
you look on the outside.
• In terms of relationship status, forget the myth of the carefree bachelor. Across the board, married
men are the happiest, with this especially being true in the South.
• Things can only get better! As men mature, their positivity rises and they become more likely to
have a healthy and positive outlook on life. The over-50s were the most content group.
• In terms of sexual orientation, heterosexual and homosexual men (who made up 11% of the sample)
scored very similar levels of PMI (3.7 v 3.6). Can we take this as a positive sign that gay men are
feeling more self-contentment and pride than in the past generations? However, a note of concern.
Some 14 respondents indentified as ‘non-binary’ and 10 as ‘female to male transgender.’ The mean
PMI score of non-binary participants (3.02) and especially female-to-male transgender participants
(2.63) spell out significantly lower levels of wellbeing compared to the other participants. These
findings have important clinical implications for non-binary and transgender men. These are
populations, who, although smaller in number, are more likely to need mental health support.
Wilhelm abdicated exactly because he found himself unworthy for the throne after his awful decision on WW1. If Germany had picked an prince to be the new King instead of insisting on a Monarchy, i an sure that WW2 will not happen.
Kaiser Wilhelm II did not abdicate because he felt "unworthy" of being the Kaiser. He abdicated because post WW1 Germany was in the throes of a socialist revolution due to the crushing economic and social conditions as a result of the war. He had hoped by that abdicating, he could stop Germany from losing its Monarchy.
Your examples are all using the fallacy of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc,' which means "After which, therefore because of which". Just because Hitler came after Weimar doesn't mean it is *because* of Weimar. He came to power because of a number of significant and complex socioeconomic conditions, the two biggest of which were the Treaty of Versailles and The Great Depression. Not because the guy before Hitler wasn't a king.
Yeah, that's what I said. You say it's the other way round. 1. It's irrelevant. The meaning of X and Y is the same as Y and X. 2. The idiom's as I put it. Not as you put it.
Kaiser Wilhelm II did not abdicate because he felt "unworthy" of being the Kaiser. He abdicated because post WW1 Germany was in the throes of a socialist revolution due to the crushing economic and social conditions as a result of the war(...)
Unworthy was an expression, but he putted the nation above his desires, Germany din't turned into an failed socialist state, but turned into an failed social democracy. And without the centralization of Germany, it will be impossible. During the second Reich, each German state "member" has his own law. After Weimar republic, there was an centralized government and it made ridiculous easy for Hitler to ascend into the power.
Just like Dom pedro II who hated being the Emperor and always saw the throne as an Burden but did everything that he could to improve Brazil. Brazil had one of the biggest merchant marines, biggest railroad infrastructure, and now, many different constitutions, many different reforms and ... HIGHEST number of homicides in the world with more the double of the second place, with the most dangerous cities in the world and "favelas" everywhere.
Can you imagine you at 5 yo get the responsibility to run an continental country?
Same goes to Russia. Soviets killed everyone from Romanov family, even children and Russia din't turned into an totalitarian expansionist state and now is an corrupt democracy.
GDP is meaningless, and Lichtenstein is beyond meaningless. The simple fact is, monarchies are unstable. If the monarchies in Brazil, Germany and Russia were so great, why did they topple? (...)
As i've said, on Brazil was because the decision to ban slavery was unpopular among the rich farmers who lobbied in favor of a military coup. On Russia was a coup and on Germany, they had many tries to restablish monarchy.
The issue with tax havens is not low taxes per se, it is that a tax haven shelters profit that are made elsewhere. It only works for Liechtenstein because they are very small and because the global economy allows company to shift their profits around.
(...)
As for your private cities, I suspect that Rapture is a pretty good model of what would happen. The last project of that sort I was observing ended up with the people contributing to buying the required land being scammed.
Is just states competing.
About private cities, was considered unconstitutional on Honduras, but Rapture is a awful caricature. During Renaissance, existed some cities very similar to private cities and was nothing like Rapture;
I think the problem with your examples of failed states being worse than the preceding monarchies is that your argument depends entirely on perspective. I would argue it would be more valid to say that the problems in the countries were the result of the actions of their monarchs, than that the problems resulted from the loss of their monarchs. For instance: - in Germany the Weimar Republic was set up to fail as a result of war reparations and the German monarch had significant responsibility for taking Germany into an unnecessary war. - in both Russia and France the revolutions were the direct result of extremely inefficient and self-serving leadership by the monarchs.
If those countries had had a form of government more responsive to the needs of their population their histories would have been very different.
Wilhelm abdicated exactly because he found himself unworthy for the throne after his awful decision on WW1. If Germany had picked an prince to be the new King instead of insisting on a Monarchy, i an sure that WW2 will not happen.
With Wilhem you now entering into the realms of fairy tales. He was clearly forced to abdicate, it wasn't a personal choice - and the population would not have accepted the prince either.
As for states competing: so was the nuclear arms race & the Vietnam war. There are competitions which end with everyone being a loser, competitions where there is at least a clear winner and there are competitions where everyone gains. It being a competition says nothing by itself about whether it is a good or a bad thing.
Finally, some more thought for food: the German Empire had only two Emperors (I think we can ignore the 99 day rule of Frederick). One out of the two made as you yourself said an "awful decision on WW1". Given that track record, why are you so confident about the next Emperors being any better? Literally 50% of the Emperors led Germany to ruin.
But I think will quit the discussions on the merits of Monarchy with this. You are the only participant who is arguing pro-monarchy, which makes this a bit one-sided, and your arguments are restricted to youtube videos and unsourced statements of facts (e.g. in the above: which Renaissance cities at which time?).
The issue with tax havens is not low taxes per se, it is that a tax haven shelters profit that are made elsewhere. It only works for Liechtenstein because they are very small and because the global economy allows company to shift their profits around.
(...)
As for your private cities, I suspect that Rapture is a pretty good model of what would happen. The last project of that sort I was observing ended up with the people contributing to buying the required land being scammed.
Is just states competing.
About private cities, was considered unconstitutional on Honduras, but Rapture is a awful caricature. During Renaissance, existed some cities very similar to private cities and was nothing like Rapture;
I think the problem with your examples of failed states being worse than the preceding monarchies is that your argument depends entirely on perspective. I would argue it would be more valid to say that the problems in the countries were the result of the actions of their monarchs, than that the problems resulted from the loss of their monarchs. For instance: - in Germany the Weimar Republic was set up to fail as a result of war reparations and the German monarch had significant responsibility for taking Germany into an unnecessary war. - in both Russia and France the revolutions were the direct result of extremely inefficient and self-serving leadership by the monarchs.
If those countries had had a form of government more responsive to the needs of their population their histories would have been very different.
Wilhelm abdicated exactly because he found himself unworthy for the throne after his awful decision on WW1. If Germany had picked an prince to be the new King instead of insisting on a Monarchy, i an sure that WW2 will not happen.
With Wilhem you now entering into the realms of fairy tales. He was clearly forced to abdicate, it wasn't a personal choice - and the population would not have accepted the prince either.
As for states competing: so was the nuclear arms race & the Vietnam war. There are competitions which end with everyone being a loser, competitions where there is at least a clear winner and there are competitions where everyone gains. It being a competition says nothing by itself about whether it is a good or a bad thing.
Finally, some more thought for food: the German Empire had only two Emperors (I think we can ignore the 99 day rule of Frederick). One out of the two made as you yourself said an "awful decision on WW1". Given that track record, why are you so confident about the next Emperors being any better? Literally 50% of the Emperors led Germany to ruin.
But I think will quit the discussions on the merits of Monarchy with this. You are the only participant who is arguing pro-monarchy, which makes this a bit one-sided, and your arguments are restricted to youtube videos and unsourced statements of facts (e.g. in the above: which Renaissance cities at which time?).
Paul von Hindenburg severely criticized democracy and got elected.
Hitler got elected democratically and did awful decisions on WW2 too. For example, he insisted on invade Russia despite every general saying to not do that. He declared war on USA despite his pact with Japan was only an defensive pact, he delayed the delay of the Me 262 with awful demands like "it should be an bomber" and Me 262 only was launched too little too late, in little quantity and too late to intercept the US strategic bombers.
And is not only yt videos, HHH was an prominent righter and his book Democracy: The God That Failed is amazing. Doesn't matter what metric you use, modern democracies tends to be worse than monarchies.
I really don't believe the age of monarchy was as blissful as you seem to think. Europe in particular was torn apart by wars among the monarchs for centuries before the French Revolution shook them up. Monarchy is usually wrapped up in religion also which really fans the flames of conflict.
While a cursory survey of history shows numerous problems with monarchy- for example the frequent instability of the Roman Empire which was frequently racked by succession crises- looking at the UK Parliament right now I think that there could be a case for the Queen giving MPs a timeout. (Or at least banging on the wall and saying "Keep it down in there!") Perhaps that's why some countries have elected to make the head of state a mostly ceremonial position that's separate from the executive and can act in moments of constitutional uncertainty - e.g. in Ireland.
I am however sure that there is money to be made in arguing that democracies have failed in today's market.
Doesn't matter what metric you use, modern democracies tends to be worse than monarchies.
That... doesn't make any sense. First, you can't say something like "by x metrics, y is better than z" without spelling out all of the netrics you are talking about and then making an explicit comparison between all the things in category y and all the things in category z.
Second, the evidence suggests otherwise. If you want to compare the best example of monarchy against the worst examples of failing democracies, well whoop-dee-doo. But how about a simple comparison of the best vs. the best? The USA is superior to every monarchy that has ever existed, ever, in almost any metric you care to measure.
The US may have its issues but the economic, cultural, creative, snd technological forces unleashed by two centuries of democracy are like nothing the world has ever seen before. Not to mention, what I keep harping on and you keep ignoring: the number of monarchies - or indeed, governments at all - that have survived as long as America's ~232 years (depending on how you count) is pretty slim.
I mean, the worst constitutional crisis we've had in living memory is that we elected an idiotic TV star to the presidency, who is basically a big joke.
And monarchies would often throw a "Trump" on the throne every third generation or so. How many periods of upheaval and chaos began with: "Good king Fred died and his drunken wastrel son was crowned."?
The basic problem with monarchies is their defining feature - hereditary rule. Just look at the Roman Empire in the first century A.D.. Sure, some of the Emperors were good, like Augustus or Claudius, but others were tyrants, like Caligula or Nero. Since the emperor didn't have term limits or impeachment, the only way to get rid of a bad emperor was his death, which lead to bloody coups and civil wars and instability.
If you want a good example of a modern monarchy, look at North Korea. And YES, it is functionally a monarchy at this point. It may have started as a dictatorship under Kim Il Sung, but now it has a third generation hereditary leader, and the state has deified his father and grandfather (as Roman Emperors and Egyptian Pharaohs were, and in the same vein as the western "divine right of kings"). So, no matter the puffery around how power is passed from generation to generation (e.g., anointed by the Pope, slugfest by the Wakandan waterfall, sham "election" by dad's cronies, etc..), North Korea is functionally an absolutist monarchy.
I honestly can't believe we are having an argument about this. Whatever the problems with the basic concepts of democratic rule, even if you think we have failed miserably in our little experiment (and we clearly are proving that we have), there is no way the answer to the problem is "we should go back to having a king". That is taking the concept of authoritarianism to an entirely different level, though it probably does explain why roughly a 1/3 of the population in any given country at any given time in history votes the way they do. They clearly crave a strongman.
I honestly can't believe we are having an argument about this. Whatever the problems with the basic concepts of democratic rule, even if you think we have failed miserably in our little experiment (and we clearly are proving that we have), there is no way the answer to the problem is "we should go back to having a king".
I think the main argument is about how much Democratic candidates have to worry about the whims of popularity whereas monarchs don't necessarily have to worry about that as much. In a perfect world with selfless monarchs there is a valid argument that it would be a better system. However, in the real world with real people as monarchs, not so much...
I honestly can't believe we are having an argument about this. Whatever the problems with the basic concepts of democratic rule, even if you think we have failed miserably in our little experiment (and we clearly are proving that we have), there is no way the answer to the problem is "we should go back to having a king".
I think the main argument is about how much Democratic candidates have to worry about the whims of popularity whereas monarchs don't necessarily have to worry about that as much. In a perfect world with selfless monarchs there is a valid argument that it would be a better system, in the real world with real people as monarchs, not so much...
Hypothetically speaking, whether in Brazil or the United States, who gets the grand distinction of being the first in the line of new monarchs?? Because it would almost by default have to be someone who was willing to destroy the concept of representative democracy in the first place to attain that mantle of power. Which would mean they weren't suited for it in any way, shape or form to begin with.
I mean, seriously, let's get a grip on our handlebars here. Even if you think political and economic elites and PC culture have ruined society, the idea that the solution is to go full-bore autocracy, fascism, and apparently even monarchy is just lunacy. But that sure as hell seems to be where alot of people are heading. Frankly, the idea of wanting a monarch, or even a wanna-be strongman like Trump or Erdogan strikes me as a profoundly LAZY solution to complicated problems. It's the choice of people who don't think they have anything to lose under such a regime, thus can't imagine themselves ever under the boot of oppression. And they desire nothing more than to check out and let someone else handle the work. Well, the trains ran on time in Germany. As we know all too well.
Comments
What is the problem with tax havens? Privacy and low taxes are two amazing things. I rather any tax heaven than in any "tax hell" where you doesn't even have the right of private propriety. And yes, if the government forces me to hire with basis on affirmative actions, enforces an harsh labor law, and take more from the profit than any other shareholder, for eg, he is "owning" my company. He is determining what i can do, in what therms and how much of the profit i can reinvest.
And yes, most countries on the Earth fall into this "semi socialist" category and those who have little interventionism tends to have very harsh immigration laws. I really wish that the private city projects become an reality
In what universe should it be acceptable that the President of the United States is having White House employees sign NDAs?? We've totally lost our minds. How is this even legal in regards to a public official??
- in Germany the Weimar Republic was set up to fail as a result of war reparations and the German monarch had significant responsibility for taking Germany into an unnecessary war.
- in both Russia and France the revolutions were the direct result of extremely inefficient and self-serving leadership by the monarchs.
If those countries had had a form of government more responsive to the needs of their population their histories would have been very different.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too
The campaign isn’t being infringed upon. Trump is just attempting to bully this guy, which might have worked a year ago, but won’t anymore.
And guess which book will probably hit the best seller mark because of this backlash?
About private cities, was considered unconstitutional on Honduras, but Rapture is a awful caricature. During Renaissance, existed some cities very similar to private cities and was nothing like Rapture;
Wilhelm abdicated exactly because he found himself unworthy for the throne after his awful decision on WW1. If Germany had picked an prince to be the new King instead of insisting on a Monarchy, i an sure that WW2 will not happen.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/harrys-cdnx-prod/manual/Harry's+Masculinity+Report,+USA+2018.pdf
Masculinity Report, USA 2018
A bespoke US study for Harry’s, in partnership with Dr. John Barry of University College London, exploring positive masculinity in 21st Century America.
KEY FINDINGS
How many markers can you tick?
Your examples are all using the fallacy of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc,' which means "After which, therefore because of which". Just because Hitler came after Weimar doesn't mean it is *because* of Weimar. He came to power because of a number of significant and complex socioeconomic conditions, the two biggest of which were the Treaty of Versailles and The Great Depression. Not because the guy before Hitler wasn't a king.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it
1. It's irrelevant. The meaning of X and Y is the same as Y and X.
2. The idiom's as I put it. Not as you put it.
Just like Dom pedro II who hated being the Emperor and always saw the throne as an Burden but did everything that he could to improve Brazil. Brazil had one of the biggest merchant marines, biggest railroad infrastructure, and now, many different constitutions, many different reforms and ... HIGHEST number of homicides in the world with more the double of the second place, with the most dangerous cities in the world and "favelas" everywhere.
Can you imagine you at 5 yo get the responsibility to run an continental country?
Same goes to Russia. Soviets killed everyone from Romanov family, even children and Russia din't turned into an totalitarian expansionist state and now is an corrupt democracy.
As i've said, on Brazil was because the decision to ban slavery was unpopular among the rich farmers who lobbied in favor of a military coup. On Russia was a coup and on Germany, they had many tries to restablish monarchy.
Hitler got elected democratically and did awful decisions on WW2 too. For example, he insisted on invade Russia despite every general saying to not do that. He declared war on USA despite his pact with Japan was only an defensive pact, he delayed the delay of the Me 262 with awful demands like "it should be an bomber" and Me 262 only was launched too little too late, in little quantity and too late to intercept the US strategic bombers.
And is not only yt videos, HHH was an prominent righter and his book Democracy: The God That Failed is amazing. Doesn't matter what metric you use, modern democracies tends to be worse than monarchies.
I really don't believe the age of monarchy was as blissful as you seem to think. Europe in particular was torn apart by wars among the monarchs for centuries before the French Revolution shook them up. Monarchy is usually wrapped up in religion also which really fans the flames of conflict.
While a cursory survey of history shows numerous problems with monarchy- for example the frequent instability of the Roman Empire which was frequently racked by succession crises- looking at the UK Parliament right now I think that there could be a case for the Queen giving MPs a timeout. (Or at least banging on the wall and saying "Keep it down in there!") Perhaps that's why some countries have elected to make the head of state a mostly ceremonial position that's separate from the executive and can act in moments of constitutional uncertainty - e.g. in Ireland.
I am however sure that there is money to be made in arguing that democracies have failed in today's market.
Edit: WTF with this new editor? How annoying.
If you want a good example of a modern monarchy, look at North Korea. And YES, it is functionally a monarchy at this point. It may have started as a dictatorship under Kim Il Sung, but now it has a third generation hereditary leader, and the state has deified his father and grandfather (as Roman Emperors and Egyptian Pharaohs were, and in the same vein as the western "divine right of kings"). So, no matter the puffery around how power is passed from generation to generation (e.g., anointed by the Pope, slugfest by the Wakandan waterfall, sham "election" by dad's cronies, etc..), North Korea is functionally an absolutist monarchy.
Hypothetically speaking, whether in Brazil or the United States, who gets the grand distinction of being the first in the line of new monarchs?? Because it would almost by default have to be someone who was willing to destroy the concept of representative democracy in the first place to attain that mantle of power. Which would mean they weren't suited for it in any way, shape or form to begin with.
I mean, seriously, let's get a grip on our handlebars here. Even if you think political and economic elites and PC culture have ruined society, the idea that the solution is to go full-bore autocracy, fascism, and apparently even monarchy is just lunacy. But that sure as hell seems to be where alot of people are heading. Frankly, the idea of wanting a monarch, or even a wanna-be strongman like Trump or Erdogan strikes me as a profoundly LAZY solution to complicated problems. It's the choice of people who don't think they have anything to lose under such a regime, thus can't imagine themselves ever under the boot of oppression. And they desire nothing more than to check out and let someone else handle the work. Well, the trains ran on time in Germany. As we know all too well.