/liberty/ - Liberty

i already do visit your board every day

>>66348

Nice. I considered shilling your board here just today. I've started visiting it recently, and it looks very promising so far.

You gotta add flags to your board, by the way. For visitors from /liberty/ and other boards, and so on.

I should mention I'm not the BO. However,

>>66363

>i already do visit your board every day

>>66366

>it looks very promising so far.

Thanks.

>>66366

>You gotta add flags to your board

I'll try seeing if the BO will do that. Thanks.

https://madmonarchist.blogspot.be/p/myths.html

Monarchy is the best form of government.

>>66388

I never saw it from this point of view.

Interesting.

I'll try to leave a shitpost now and then, or maybe finally read all those EvKL books I've had sitting around. I want a space on this website with good reactionary discussion but /pol/ has chased out everyone but Nazis.

>>66388

>president-obamas-family-costs-the-us-20-times-what-royal-family-costs-the-uk

But what if you add the prime minister?

>>66388

>>66405

What is better than a benevolent dynasty?

A bad king is easier overthrown than a tyrannical state.

Monarchies are self-correcting and flexible, which is a testament to how long mankind has been using this form of government.

Democracy is mob rule. Tyranny of the majority. It only cares about quantity, not quality or truth. If 51% of the people are retarded and 49% actually know politics and economics, tough luck.

The French revolution was a mistake.

>>66388

is the mad monarchist mad because he is a monarchist?

>>66543

Any thoughts on the ancien regime system v. the constitutional monarchy system?

Ew

>>67046

All the stuff about inbreeding and degeneracy seems like leftist propaganda. Keep in mind they think we need open borders to avoid incest. How many royal families were significantly inbred? How many actually degenerate (and degenerate compared to what?)?

The point about non-democratic regimes needing a larger bureaucratic state to cement power is quite good (although part of this comes from democratic citizens not really realising how 'closed' the seat of power actually is)

>>67078

But I asked how many.

>>67046

>blaming isolated or complicated events to a broad and general monarchy

This is just as retarded as commies saying imperialism is because of capitalism.

>>67078

Succession laws are important.

Maybe monarchies would do well to disavow morganatic requirements and not allow children born from incest to be considered part of the succession.

Then again, I kind of consider leaders who are literally retarded to be an improvement.

>>67082

Actually a pretty good question but there are more stories like this. My more pertinent point is they were basically all an extended family at the height of European Monarchy and wars still happened. If you want to try blame the bankers I'd argue Rothschilds are pretty much just an international noble house like Habsburg or whatever. If you claim they aren't "legitimate" nobility I'd like to see a non-arbitrary or circular way of deciding this in lieu of the guillotine - which itself isn't really an argument.

>>67084

>Marxian theory isn't convoluted and over-complicated enough!

I think the simplicity of my model is its strength, of course it's just a very broad stroke overview and there is much to fill in but I think it paints enough of a general outline on why monarchy (or autocracy or whichever term makes you least butthurt), whatever its previous strengths is a fool's game in the 21st C, due to the nature of technology, which is all an new factor and also almost entirely irreversible. This changes the ballgame to such a significant degree any dream of restoration of an old order must take it fully into account, which was my emphasis here. Whereas in the past you indeed have a far richer picture and my model would be indeed be a cartoonish oversimplication, where you have e.g. Catholic Church (also an autocracy, now captured by a Leftist figurehead), mercantile trade, the very complex feudal system, and so on, in complex homeostases which may have balanced the need to seize everything through the most raw and base of human nature… things have indeed changed forever now.

>>67137

>My more pertinent point is they were basically all an extended family at the height of European Monarchy and wars still happened

Correct

It would make sense if democracies were less likely to wage war because of the ease of protest and the ability to punish politicians.

A complicating factor is lobbying, but overall suppressed countries seem more likely to do bad things

>>67163

Democracies are among the most belicose of all governments. The aims of democratic wars are more total, often aiming at the destruction of the enemy and a complete overhaul of his political system, economy and official ideology. Such wars did exist during the Middle Ages, but they were religious wars. The fervor with which the Albigensian Crusade or the Thirty Years War were waged is now commonplace in all major wars. It is somewhat tamed by the fact that the modern generations are in general less violent and that it's harder to get away with atrocities in an age where footage can travel around the globe in less than a day, but that isn't failsafe. Democracies have gotten away with deliberately starting famines, firebombing and nuking highly populated cities,

The means of waging war have definitely become more total. Some forms of conscription have always existed, but large scale conscription of a sizable portion of the population, not so much. That only started with the French Revolution. Subjects are harder to shame into submission than citizens, because while the subject betrays his king or liege if he refuses to fight his war, the citizen betrays a part of his own identity as well as his fellow brothers if he refuses. The higher taxation under democratic governments does the rest.

I think the historical record also shows that democracies wage war just as often as monarchies do. A king who has to pay for a war out of his own pocket will be less eager to start it just to appease some of his subjects. He will be more eager to end it with a genuine peace than a democracy because chances are the enemy is his distant cousin and married to a slightly less distant cousin, too. He also can't just leave office after four years and leave the war to his predecessor if it goes downhill, not without losing face.

>>67170

A complicating factor might be that democratic countries have had to fight against non-democratic foes for most of their history.

But there haven't been many wars between democracies.

After the threats to democracy had (in the eyes of most) been defeated, conscription, military spending and war have been reduced. This is surely no coincidence.

>>67170

Well I don't disagree that liberal "democracies" are cancer too, for a wide variety of reasons. But what of global finance and other (often shadowy) transnational interests operating above the reach of the citizen sovereign, however? I don't like too much counterfactual blame re-apportionment that often characterizes these discussions, that they were vulnerable to external domination to begin with is a design flaw, but diagnosing the whole problem is crucial to moving forward.

Besides, liberal democracies hardly function much at all as advertised, and they tend to alter the citizen (aiming at the mind) rather than allowing the citizenry to alter them, and so on, and have been steadily becoming nakedly dystopian regardless of their historical worth. And another problem with either democracy or ideological autocracy is the ease at which the security apparatus can become an semi or fully autonomous structure and then manipulate all surface politics through subterfuge, blackmail and psychological warfare.

I agree that European monarchy got an overly bad rap due to Enlightenment/Jacobin propaganda. But that doesn't mean we can segue back and it'll be all comfy and idyllically feudal again, because we still have all this other shit going on now that you can't just roll back. Not to mention we still have absolutism in operation now, Thailand's royals are extraordinarily rich and the place is a fucking hive, House of Saud and so on.

>>67170

protip: democratic Switzerland

>>67550

Protip: confederacy.

>>67586

was it democratic or what?

>>67550

Switzerland was a loose confederacy for most of its history, and the federal level had almost nothing to say and wasn't really democratically organized. They had some kind of parliament, but its purpose wasn't popular representation, it was coordination between the individual cantons. Switzerland didn't become democratic on the federal level until Napoleon invaded it. Among the cantons, I don't know how democratic they really were at various times, but I do know there was a nobility and I can imagine that some had very limited suffrage. I also know that there were a number of civil wars within Switzerland, among the more or less democratic cantons.

>>67170

Also, important to note, wars were often short-lived due to finance constraints until the introduction of central banking.

>>66366

>flags

Done. Sorry for the wait.

Advertising the board again. The board has potential, even if it lacks users and activity.

>>67651

Had to go through /sudo/. It looks like the issue with flags are resolved, and they are back again.

>>68003

Thank you.

>ancaps itt accepting the inevitable result of their ideology

Impressed tbh

>>68975

monarchy did nothing wrong

>>69083

Remove yourself

>>66348

Hoppe is a bad example. I mean Feudalism is preferable to Capitalism for fucks sake

>>66348

>ancap, consitutionalism

Why would you discuss things diametrically opposed to your interests

>>66388 (checked)

wtf I'm a monarchist now?! ….so long as said monarch actually stays down to earth and in touch with the people. Actually, where does monarchy with in with an American National Sociality perspective? (protect rights of the people, help your fellow man, no free gibs for lazy shits, nationalism not globalism, limit the rich/stop exploitation of poor, businesses should pursue societal good not just bottom line, can the kikes, muh funz, etc.)

Convince me anons.

>>75486

im retarded sorry so many typos and things wrong with that post.

>where does monarchy fit in with and

>American National Socialist

>long lists

>Forgot flag

Polite sage for double post.

>>75486

>protect rights of the people

Monarchial government doesn't exactly do more to "protect the rights" than other forms, it's better to say that monarchies erode those rights much more slowly than other kinds of government, e.g. democracy. It is in the monarch's best interest to keep the plundering and coercion of his people (and their rights) at a minimum. He understands that if he plunders less now, he will reap more rewards in the future, because higher rates of taxation destroys an economy's incentives to be productive. Democratic leaders don't do this, instead maximizing current-production at the expense of long-term ability, because they don't care what happens once their term is up.

>Help your fellow man

I'd argue that the Church will be more successful in facilitating charity than the government. And as the influence of government falls, the influence of the Church and similar institutions will rise. Further, the fewer taxes you have to pay, the more income you'll have available to help your fellow man.

>no free gibs for lazy shits

Same basic idea about what I said above under "protect rights of the people." The monarch knows long-term productivity of his nation's economy is in his best interest. Gibs, even if they're not given to lazy shits (but they always will be) destroy productivity both in the taxes you need to levy to establish gibs, and the additional incentive you provide not to work.

>nationalism not globalism

What constitutes "nationalism" and "globalism" is arbitrary and really fucking annoying to deal with. Seeing as you're a /pol/ack I think I have a rough idea of where you stand though. Without gibs, immigrants and refugees don't really have an incentive to come into the country. This isn't a democracy so no "antidiscrimination" laws would be passed, so even if some undesirables do wander in, private property combined with freedom of dissociation is enough to keep those few that come across anyways cloistered in their own personal shitholes away from productive society. As for the "protecting American businesses" aspect of nationalism vs globalism, the best way to do that is free trade (and remember, backroom agreements like TPP ain't free trade, they're regulations pretending to be free trade). Under free trade domestic businesses are encouraged to keep their quality higher because they have to compete with imported goods. If the imported stuff is a lot cheaper and they can't compete, that's better for Americans because consumer prices go down. Prices going down means we all have more disposable income to buy more things. Desire to buy things (demand) means the economy's suppliers will increase their production to fill out the growing economy, and to do that they have to hire people. So, free trade is a net gain in employment for country. Those people not working in industries where other nations are more competitive can work in the growing industries where America has a comparative advantage over its competitors.

>limit the rich/stop exploitation of poor

The rich can only "exploit" the poor when they lobby the government and can use it as an attack dog. Monarchs can't really be bribed in the same way elected officials can, so the rich lose their lobbying power, and thus stop sucking at the government teat.

>businesses should pursue societal good not just bottom line

I think this is a bit of a nonsequitur honestly, because in many cases showing your customers you care about society will help your bottom line, while being a short-term profiteer that spits out shite products means people won't buy them, because they have shite quality.

>can the kikes

Pro-Israel movements only gain influence through lobbying, and like I said before kings really aren't influenced by lobbying. Hollywood propaganda movements really only matter when the drooling idiots who watch Hollywood have the power to vote, which they don't have in a monarchy.

>muh funz

All rulers fear an uprising by the people, but the monarch does more than others. In democracies the people are willing to convince themselves that the government is somehow "for the people," and will convince themselves that infringements on their rights are made "for their own good." Under a monarch, no one is under any such illusion, they're aware that the king is the ruler and them the ruled. This makes them much less friendly to the king or his agents, and thus any attempt to disarm the public would immediately be met with suspicion, if not outright revolt.

Wonder what you guys think of Liechtenstein. It's a monarchy but it is kind of libertarian in terms of how the prince rules and how his people behave.

>>75488

>it's better to say that monarchies erode those rights much more slowly than other kinds of government, e.g. democracy

Wrong, it erodes them much more quickly because monarchism holds natural rights as being bestowed by the king, not God.

>the best way to do that is free trade

Wrong, the best way is protectionism, because under free trade imported goods would be so plentiful as to disincentivize American goods.

>that's better for Americans

Wrong, because it makes America economically dependent on other, potentially hostile, nations.

>>66388

We were more free under most of our monarchs than we were under Cromwell thats for sure

>>75492

Tell me, why do you buy your automobiles from manufacturers? Isn't it better to shop local and put one together yourself with your family? That way you don't become economically dependent on potentially hostile foreign elements.

>Wrong, the best way is protectionism, because under free trade imported goods would be so plentiful as to disincentivize American goods.

Prove it. The only goods that would be "disincentivized" are the sectors where American industry is at a comparative disadvantage anyways, i.e. goods the consumers (including American consumers) want less than the foreign competition. On top of that, by removing competitors through protectionism, ALL American manufacturers are going to see a dip in quality because they are no longer competing. By buying shit for cheap from other countries, we have more domestic wealth, which results in your exporting sectors, the place you're competitive, to grow. This is basic economics. Arguing against free trade in the name of protectionism is no less retarded than trying to abolish Ford and Chrysler to "protect" GM.

>b-but the other countries have cheaper goods because of US regulations!

If regulations are the problem then fucking deregulate. Don't screw your consumers even harder by making them pay more for inferior products.

>>67078

inbred retards makes up a tiny fraction of royals

>>75492

Forgot about this:

>Wrong, it erodes them much more quickly because monarchism holds natural rights as being bestowed by the king, not God.

Yes, because that's proven to be oh-so-true in practice, hasn't it? There's not a single soul in America that claims the government bestows our rights on us, and that it's our privilege lick the democratic boot, that's just crazy talk.

>>75497

The difference is that is at variance with republican principles, while it is the expression of monarchist ones.

>>75495

>Isn't it better to shop local and put one together yourself with your family? That way you don't become economically dependent on potentially hostile foreign elements.

Car manufactures are not a nation.

>The only goods that would be "disincentivized" are the sectors where American industry is at a comparative disadvantage anyways, i.e. goods the consumers (including American consumers) want less than the foreign competition

So? The question isn't of the quality of the goods, it's of the practical advantage to the American people as a whole. Also, you're objectively wrong, American goods are right now far higher quality than Chinese ones, but that doesn't stop 90% of our goods from being marked 'MADE IN CHINA'.

>On top of that, by removing competitors through protectionism, ALL American manufacturers are going to see a dip in quality because they are no longer competing

When do they stop competing with each other?

>By buying shit for cheap from other countries, we have more domestic wealth, which results in your exporting sectors, the place you're competitive, to grow

We won't be exporting anything because we'll stop producing anything and instead just import everything for cheap. making us the effective slaves of other potentially hostile nations

>>75499

>Why? What's stopping these principles from being adopted in a monarchy

The idea that the will of the king is the supreme law of the land

>If anything, monarchy is an even better place for it because monarchs were frequently depicted throughout history as divinely-appointed judges that enforced God's law rather than inputting their own

That is not how divine right of kings was understood. The thinking was that in them was invested sovereignty, granted to their persons the right to do whatever they so desired. If this meant murdering a thousand children, so be it. All resistance in any way was strictly prohibited as the thinking was the king had absolute unchallengeable authority on earth in exchange for being subject to a stricter judgement in death.

>You say this is at variance with Republican principles, but then why has every Republic since the history of Man deviated from "Republican" principles?

It is a false charge. Every government period has breached its purpose at some point. A constitutional republic just provides a firmer shield against it.

>Why did monarchies, despite not espousing these principles, consistently have smaller governments and lower taxes?

Feudalism.

>Semantics

No the difference is massive.

>Let me rephrase it then, why do you buy things made in states other than your own, allowing yourself to become a slave (in your reasoning) to these outside companies?

I'm not dependent on other parties.

>Clearly it's not so advantageous if Americans are willing to buy goods manufactured in China.

You place too much faith in the common rabble.

>Maybe because "quality" of goods isn't all that goes into a consumer's decision-making process?

It ought to be.

>Why don't we exclusively buy products hand-crafted and made to order by a crack team of virgin monks, those would be higher quality than what we use now.

They would be of lower quality because they would be less efficient. But I don't see how a cheap peice of crap designed to break after 3 days is superior in quality.

>Every innovation the Japanese auto market has that makes their cars cheaper or more fuel efficient is one the American makers don't have to worry about stealing their customers

Why can't the Americans emulate them to gain an edge on their American competitors to increase profit?

><This means they want to buy more shit

Here's the problem; where's the more shit coming from?

><They buy more factors of production, build factories, etc. to have the ability to produce more shit for consumers to buy

Oh shit, that's a great point, except, hang on, where are all these American factories? Oh, that's right, in China.

><one of the factors of production necessary to expand is labor.

><i.e., they need to hire more people to be able to meet demand.

><As a result, importing cheaper goods=net jobs increase

It is cheaper to outsource these jobs to higher population countries, because with a greater human supply there comes a greater labor demand, meaning they will exchange their labor for less pay.

>>75500

K. Get back to me when you've read what comparative advantage is, I have better things to do than teach basic econ to a mercantilist.

>>75508

>basic econ

<economics means making alot of money, not oikonomia

>>75509

I take it you're not interested in reading about economics then.

>>75515

If it's economically good for America, to put American businesses out of business, then "economics" is (((worthless)))

>>75522

It sounds to me like you've dismissed most of economic theory without doing any kind of serious reading or study into it. Which is your prerogative I suppose, but makes why you browse /liberty/ somewhat confusing. "How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn't" is really quite light reading, and many more technical alternatives are pretty easy to get into as well. All of them show that specializing in what you're good at, and allowing your weaker industry to be imported, is a net benefit to both American businesses and American consumers.

>>75492

>>75500

>Wrong, it erodes them much more quickly because monarchism holds natural rights as being bestowed by the king, not God.

>The idea that the will of the king is the supreme law of the land

You obviously don't understand anything of late medieval legal theory.

The idea of sovereignty already limited the power a king practically held. In the old feudalist regimes, sovereignty as we know it wasn't a thing. Everyone had his dominion over which he had sovereignty, the king as much as a simple serf. Under absolutism, this changed, and sovereignty became vested in the king. Still, the idea of dominion lived on, as late as Frederick the Great and the anecdote of his encounter with a simple miller, who plain told him that he'd take him to court if he messed with his property.

You also underestimate the influence of the natural law idea. In the oath of Ludwig XIV, he swore to protect for everyone what the law pertains to him, which you'll notice presumses that the job of the king was to protect rights that already existed prior to his rule. There's also the fact that the idea of a natural law was greatly developed by the scholastics.

There was also the idea that the rule of a king had to be just because justice was seen as being a necessary attribute of his rule. So when he was about to make an unjust decision, his ministers had the duty to convince him not to make it. An unjust decision, even if it was legal in the positivistic sense, wasn't conform with his rule. If too many such decisions piled up, then the conclusion that the king forfeited his right to rule was not far off.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Betrand de Jouvenel talked about this at length, and both are first rate political philosophers.

>>75530

This.

If baking your own bread instead of buying at a baker is a stupid idea, then the same holds true among nations, mutatis mutandis. Just as I save myself time and effort that I can then invest into other projects if I buy my bread, so does America save itself capital and labor that can be invested into other domestic industries.

>>75531

>You obviously don't understand anything of late medieval legal theory.

Late medieval is Renaissance, which brought challenges to the traditional doctrine of divine right

>The idea of sovereignty already limited the power a king practically held. In the old feudalist regimes, sovereignty as we know it wasn't a thing. Everyone had his dominion over which he had sovereignty, the king as much as a simple serf

You're really playing fast and loose with the definition of 'sovereignty', aren't you?

>Under absolutism

It was absolutism under feudalism (just with unofficial limitation on the king's power by his dependence on the lords for soldiers), firstly, and secondly, it was still feudalism in the Renaissance. Charles 1's struggle with parliament leading up to the English Civil War doesn't make any sense unless it was feudalism.

>Still, the idea of dominion lived on, as late as Frederick the Great and the anecdote of his encounter with a simple miller, who plain told him that he'd take him to court if he messed with his property.

"L'etat c'est moi"

>You also underestimate the influence of the natural law idea. In the oath of Ludwig XIV, he swore to protect for everyone what the law pertains to him, which you'll notice presumses that the job of the king was to protect rights that already existed prior to his rule

Yes, it does, but the thing was this was the ideal. It was equally held that the king had the authority to strip them of their rights and they weren't to do anything about it because the king would have a real bad time in hell instead.

>There's also the fact that the idea of a natural law was greatly developed by the scholastics.

Aquinas' teaching is less about rights and more about good deeds, scholastic natural law is primarily about a natural inclination toward God's law.

>>75545

>It was absolutism under feudalism

What about the Magna Carta?

>>75576

Just play Crusader Kings if you want to see how it really was.

>>75594

False, you doublenigger. Protectionism is a retarded meme that even basic bitch economics blows out of the water.

>>75545

>Late medieval is Renaissance, which brought challenges to the traditional doctrine of divine right

No, the Rennaissance succeeded the late medieval era, and the legal structure of monarchism has continuously changed for centuries.

>You're really playing fast and loose with the definition of 'sovereignty', aren't you?

I didn't define it, and neither have you. If you think we should clear up the terminology, then why aren't you doing that? Or, why haven't you done it from the very beginning?

Be that as it may, you ignored my point, which was that the very structure of the state back then was different. It was different both in law and philosophy and in how authority and power were actually vested.

>It was absolutism under feudalism (just with unofficial limitation on the king's power by his dependence on the lords for soldiers), firstly, and secondly, it was still feudalism in the Renaissance. Charles 1's struggle with parliament leading up to the English Civil War doesn't make any sense unless it was feudalism.

The "unofficial" limitation on the kings power was absolutely official. That was the entire gig of the whole system of feudalism, that the king depended on his lords, they depended on their vassals, and so on. Hence why the Magna Charta was written in the form of a contract, not a mere statute. Contracts all presuppose a certain equality between the parties. A contract between a slave and his owner would be just as absurd as a contract between a dictator and his subject.

Speaking of parliaments, they originally started as a feudal institution, at least in the medieval era (not sure about the Greeks and Romans in this regard). The king called on them to ensure that his decrees would actually be carried out, because he did not have absolute authority over his subjects and had to gain their consent. I don't think China, with its history of officialdom, ever had parliaments, up until recently. Peru under the Incas, which was even more centralized, certainly didn't. This shows again that the king didn't hold the kind of power you say he did.

>"L'etat c'est moi"

Yes, and also:

>he swore to protect for everyone what the law pertains to him, which you'll notice presumses that the job of the king was to protect rights that already existed prior to his rule

Which can be reconciled easily with the above quote if we assume that back then, the state was not seen as identical with the legal order, nor as its creator. If anything, this is another point in favor of what I said.

>Yes, it does, but the thing was this was the ideal. It was equally held that the king had the authority to strip them of their rights and they weren't to do anything about it because the king would have a real bad time in hell instead.

Only under Martin Luther did that become the doctrine, while Saint Aquinas - the scholastic philosopher - defended the right of resistance and even regicide, and claimed that to act against your conscience is sin, which means that if you really feel like you must kill the king, killing him is not a sin (simplified). This is also reflected in the rulership of Protestant kings compared to Catholics, and even in the behavior of countries with a Catholic history compared with those that were Protestant (or, in the case of the US, colonies - Anglicans were the worst, Puritans followed up, and Catholics were generally the most tolerant).

>Aquinas' teaching is less about rights and more about good deeds, scholastic natural law is primarily about a natural inclination toward God's law.

Look here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2095.htm

>As Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5) "that which is not just seems to be no law at all": wherefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice. Now in human affairs a thing is said to be just, from being right, according to the rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above (I-II:91:2 ad 2). Consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law.

His theory of natural law definitely had legal implications. It was not just a guide for personal conduct.

>>75329

:(

>>75489

It is my dream to live there some day, I will learn some German and be rich one day. They probably still won't want me though. Anyway, I will visit often enough to hope my future kids find somebody there to marry so I can live with them.

>>75638

before I die

>>75596

idiot

Would the long-term ideological and economic benefits of monarchy (going by how they were outlined by HHH) still be in place if the King had the choice of bequeathing the kingdom to an heir of his choice, rather than going purely by succession rites?

>>75936

>Would the long-term ideological and economic benefits of monarchy

What, you mean the benefits of having no freedom but what the monarch grants to you?

>>75945

The monarch and what army?

>>75945

As opposed to having no freedom but what parliament grants you?

>>75947

His Majesty's army

>>75956

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

>>75961

Splendid. Now, where did your argument go?

>>75936

bumping this, because our resident revolutionary LARPer seems to have derailed things.

What is your opinion on an elected monarch like with HRE?

>>76760

>ambassador comes back

>ignores >>76087

PLS RESPOND

>>75936

I could opine a bit here if you want, but I don't really know.

Opining now

Historically, dynasties that did not depend on long, established succession rite did not seem too successful. Kind of similar to if you wrote your own will without any legal knowledge on some loose leaf and got it notarized. I mean, I guess it's legal and it would work in theory, but you're probably still going to have a high likelihood of having trouble.

I do think that succession law is really, really important in monarchies. People seem to treat it with the same importance as creating a will (which…incidentally is actually pretty important), but by changing succession law you can start to differentiate between what political studies would call completely different forms of government. With the correct succession law you could avoid Philip V of Spain, family bloodsports, wars of succession, and uphold property rights and the rule of law above that of the monarchy.

>>76789

>>76790

Begone, you dumb fuck.

What are you, a democrat? How atrocious.

>>77298

Ignore those soyboy fucks.

>>77298

>>77314

Nice non-arguments, authoritarian cucks