/jp/ - Otaku Culture

>>15880315
Well, honestly, that's far too heavy of a subject for me to go into with just a /jp/ post. There's literally volumes of essays dedicated to the subject. So, to focus, I'll address Elza's point: That a monarchy has no basis upon which it justifies its rule except either military might, bloodline, myth (see: divine right of kings), etc. This is indeed true. So:
Morally, it's indefensible because it gives a certain family who are simply normal people (see pic) near unlimited power (in classic monarchies, esp pre magna carter) over the people for no reason other than bloodline and tradition. There's no morality to that. It has no roots in merit, no roots in serving the people, nothing. The government exists merely to support the royal family and to execute its desires. For an example of this, note Richard the Second of England (also known as Richard the Lionheart) brutally taxing his people to fund the wars which he desired to partake in. He is quoted as saying that his citizens exist to support him and nothing more. There is simply no morality in that. "Right" and "wrong" are defined by the whims of the royal family.
Rationally, it's indefensible because the ruler is selected purely by bloodline. It doesn't matter who's most fit to be ruler, it doesn't matter if the next in line is a deformed incest-monster, what matters is blood. It makes no sense. It's not good for the country or the people. The list of cruel or incompetent rulers given power simply by being born to the right parents is innumerable. It's essentially deciding leaders with rolls of the dice. Indefensibly poor.