I already responded to part 2.1 of Scott Alexander’s Anti-Reactionary FAQ, “are traditional monarchies secure?” in the Monarchy FAQ, where I showed that traditional monarchies are more secure than republics.

I will respond to it again, in a much shorter format. Scott writes:

Much of the Reactionary argument for traditional monarchy hinges on monarchs being secure. In non-monarchies, leaders must optimize for maintaining their position against challengers. In democracies, this means winning elections by pandering to the people; in dictatorships, it means avoiding revolutions and coups by oppressing the people. In monarchies, elections don’t happen and revolts are unthinkable. A monarch can ignore their own position and optimize for improving the country. See the entries on demotism and monarchy here for further Reactionary development of these arguments.

In monarchies, elections don’t happen and revolts are extremely rare. Yes, a monarch can improve the country more than a politician who has to worry about their own position. This argument is explored at length in Democracy: the God That Failed.

Such a formulation need not depend on the monarch’s altruism: witness the parable of Fnargl. A truly self-interested monarch, if sufficiently secure, would funnel off a small portion of taxes to himself, but otherwise do everything possible to make his country rich and peaceful.

Actually, the success of a kingdom does somewhat depend on the monarch’s altruism. If he gets completely lazy and stops governing, the kingdom will suffer. It depends less on the monarch being personally exceptional. An average king will do.

But some of my smarter readers may notice that “your power can only be removed by killing you” does not actually make you more secure. It just makes security a lot more important than if insecurity meant you’d be voted out and forced to retire to your country villa.

It does make you more secure. Historically, approximately 2-5% of kings or presidents are assassinated. Kings are no more likely to be killed than presidents.

Actual monarchies are less like the Reactionaries’ idealized view in which revolt is unthinkable, and more like the Greek story of Damocles – in which a courtier remarks how nice it must be to be the king, and the king forces him to sit on the throne with a sword suspended above his head by a single thread. The king’s lesson – that monarchs are well aware of how tenuous their survival is – is one Reactionaries would do well to learn.

Actual monarchies are more like the Reactionaries’ idealized view in which revolt is unthinkable, and nothing at all like the Greek story of Democles. Read history.