I doubt that and even if it was true that would not be typical of Monarchies.
I suggest you review the history. The police state is a very modern development.
The Jacobins were much worse I agree but that does not prove anything about Republics in general.
The jacobin experience is quite typical of unstable democracies.
Rather a broad brushstroke for such a large and diverse era, but never the less there were benefits to centralized power, which is why my plan gives it to the Steward.
The executive in your system is not significantly different from an American President or an English PM; he is a political animal dependent on others, which defeats the whole purpose of centralization (1 guy is no better/different than 100 guys if the 1 guys is subservient to the 100 guys, he's merely their agent). He is not comparable to a monarch.
The Nobles overcame Monarchy because by it's very nature it created and fed them with nothing to check them
Again, I suggest you review the history, as the above is factually untrue.
Hardly since they are the ones he must placate to stay in power, at most it changes who they are.
To beat a dead horse...
A politician who faces election is less secure than a politician who doesn't. Both elected and unelected governments face the risk of coups and revolutions. On balance, an absolute monarch is has much greater job security, ceteris paribus, than an elected politician. Hence he has to pay out fewer favors. This is clear a priori, and supported by the historical record.
They are not the only source of political power, and would be even less so in my system, since you would not need so many politicians and therefore would not need as much campaign money.
Fewer politicians doesn't mean less money spent on campaigns. The fewer the politicians, the more important/valuable each is, the more costly his election. Note the cost of Senate races versus the cost of House races. And, regardless, even if the total spent were less for some reason, that doesn't change the situation; if politicians are selling out for smaller sums they're still selling out, the result in terms of policy would be the same.
And they must give greater regard to the rights of the people if they wish to run for office.
Because...?
Religion is the single most important subject in the universe, even for atheists, what you believe about it affects everything else.
I humbly contend that having food is more important than being able to attend your preferred church, but maybe I'm an oddball.
Not really, Kings make their claim to the throne by "Divine Right", therefore those who worship any other god or follow any other set of priests are a threat to their legitimacy. Kings are far more likely to suppress "infidels and heretics."
The record suggests otherwise. First, you have to understand that the rise of democracy coincided with a general decline in the importance of religion. If the Bourbons were still in power in France, it's likely that the the rate of church attendance in France would still be in the gutter. So, the seemingly more tolerant attitude of modern democracies is really a reflection of religion ceasing to be an issue of prime political importance. Second, democracies have an even greater need to manipulate public opinion than monarchies - democratic media must convince people to vote for a specific candidate, monarchic media (including the pulpit) need only convince the people not to revolt (something they're extremely unlikely to do in any case). That the content of such propaganda has become secularized isn't really important. Third, in light of first point above, the proper comparison is not between 18th century monarchies and modern democracies, but between 18th century monarchies and their democratic contemporaries. The Anglican church in democratic Britain was established until late in the 19th century. Until just before the French Revolution, Catholics in England could not own land. English Jews were not emancipated until the 1850s. I believe you're familiar with the theocratic character of the yankees in their democracy across the pond.
the culture is what would make the difference not the form of government.
Logic and facts suggest otherwise.
You have to take the good with the bad. You can't filter out the ones that didn't work.
I'm not merely calling bad one-man rule dictatorship, and good monarchy. I'm explaining why some are good and some are bad - the difference their stability. A person who is 30th in a line of hereditary kings is more secure than Joe Zilch who seized power yesterday in a coup. As for the list you posted, none of those among the bottom 10 are monarchies, they're the most unstable types of dictatorships (some may better characterize as failed democracies on the verge of dictatorship [e.g. Venezuela], and others which are clearly dictatorships weren't until very recently). These cases illustrate rather than refute my point. The best thing for those states would be for the dictators/proto-dictators to consolidate power to such an extent than there can be a peaceful transition to their sons or other chosen heirs. Do that for a couple generations and you have a monarchy.
P.S. As for the place of actual monarchies on the economic freedom index (Heritage), all are above the world average: 1 in the top ten (UAE), 3 ranking ahead of France, and the worst, Oman, just three spots behind Italy.
