/liberty/ - Liberty

>>83185

>personal belonging

>stealing

>>83204

>Fascist

<Any authority at all is fascism

"*something* is TRUE liberty." Do you all ever stop?

>>83204

>gas your own people

>gas anyone

>at war with Kurdish socialists

>fascist

>t. Liberal Democrat

Checks out.

>>83230

>Totalitarianism is the ideology seeking to dismantle the identity of ordinary people and make experimental hellholes.

> What gave the authoritarians a bad name?

Because enforcing a certain way of thinking certainly does not dissolve an individual.

>>83231

Partisanship and democracy is all about that.

.

>>83232

This is why ancaps reject democracy, aka "mob rule".

>>83232

>Partisanship and democracy is all about that.

Both of which are rejected by thinking ancaps. Monarchy is the least worst system of government by most respects, and it is certainly leagues better than democracy. However, it still has many of the pitfalls that are endemic to government in general, and for that reason a natural order is superior.

>>83241

>for that reason a natural order is superior

What is this natural order?

>>83243

Your mother.

>>83283

I do not wanna die even if there are other people left, even genetically similar.

>>83285

Nobody wants to die.

We all live in the pursuit of life and honor, not death.

>>83286

Honor - no. leave your trics for someone else, but you've got to think of something better to get my resources. Same for family, state, nation and any other thing.

>>83288

Yessir, no bumping shall be done.

>>83283

>If that is your honor, then why not pursue the honor of monarchy?

Because a monarch is still a statesman, one who involuntarily imposes his will upon others. Even if market forces encourage a monarch to rule with a gentle hand, he still rules–a gilded cage is confining nonetheless. Even if they have no personal quarrel with the king or his policies, men should be free to reject his rule, without fear for their lives or their property. Their neighbors may shun them, merchants may refuse to deal with them for this transgression, and if they are renters their landlord may evict them. But these are all voluntary actions, without coercion. If accepting the word of the king is voluntary, then all is well and good–but at that point, I would hesitate to call the king a king. Pontifex would be more appropriate.

>What is more natural than the change in generations, from father to son, being honored?

Sure. But you don't need a true monarchy for that. A man's home is his castle, and his land is his domain. He need not have subjects to tax to pass it down to his heirs.

>>83292

> It also profits you and your future offspring.

I do not care if it benefits my child if i'm dead.

Your nigger "honor" is nothing more than another social doctrine to act as you tell them. No thanks, we've had plenty of moralfags here already. Go fuck yourself outta here.

>>83290

>free to reject his rule

That goes to their own detriment.

If they reject his rule, they don't get the benefits of the rule. Same applies for why communists can rightfully be thrown out of helicopters. Same goes for treason and criminals, who break laws against the liberty & livelihood of other people.

The social contract has reduced people to opinions and replacing their sovereignty, thereby allowing them to be replaced themselves, like we see today with state-backed multiculturalism.

>>83299

>That goes to their own detriment. If they reject his rule, they don't get the benefits of the rule.

In what way, besides the market ostracizing that I touched upon? Perhaps one man, or a group of them, decided that they prefer the rights-enforcement system provided by a more secular insurance agency. Or perhaps they wish to found a system of their own devise, which they feel provides better services to the monarch, at a better price. If the benefit of the monarch's law is as self-evident as you claim it is, then it should be able to sustain itself by voluntary invitation alone, because in the marketplace the monarch's services are preferable to his competitors.

>

The social contract has reduced people to opinions and replacing their sovereignty, thereby allowing them to be replaced themselves, like we see today with state-backed multiculturalism.

I'm no fan of multiculturalism but besides opposing it, I really can't tell what you're trying to say in this sentence.

>>83292

>honor

>honor

>honor

Look, I have no problem with being honourable, but if you're gonna throw a word like that around so cheaply then you probably don't care about it in the first place, either that or you're really trying to look like a fool by appealing to honour on a board that understands that everything - including honor - can be bought and sold for the right price.

Also, trying to institutionalize honour is as stupid an idea as leftists trying to institutionalize kindness.

>>83290

>A man's home is his castle, and his land is his domain. He need not have subjects to tax to pass it down to his heirs.

This.

>>83316

It isn't that I want to institutionalize honor, it's that every institution depends on honor. I don't toss it around because I think it cheaply, but because civilization depends on it.

If some socialist agency dishonored the public, then they would lose all value.

If Congress in the US didn't honor the Constitution, they would lose all credibility.

If a monarch didn't honor the legitimacy and heritage of his household, then he loses favor and discipline.

In the Feudal age, honor was the social mobility between the classes. You could be an honorable knight and your deeds would account for your status.

>honor, honor, honor

If upholding what is honorable is wrong, then stop upholding what is liberal and free anymore.

>>83306

In the English Civil War, there were ideas floating around of having a vote to behead the king. In the modern era, the idea of replacement appeals to politicians enough that they can replace the people who consent to them, fulfilling their desire for power… Much like the Democrats in the US do with Mexicans.

>finding a system of their own devise

Then what prevents another group of people from discharging the system they devised? The problem is every king has a right to rule, and if you care about rights you'll uphold this right with regard to justice.

>>83332

antithesis of* freedom, my mistake.

Come on, let this thread die already. Nothing to see here, just another lonely statist.

>>83339

>Lelouch

am I being trolled?

>>83339

>Justice is what is upheld in court

Answer the question: Why is the King's justice the only possible justice? Why does he have this monopoly, and more importantly, why is it better than private alternatives?

>sovereignty is a gift

From whom?

>The kings have their monopoly on justice because they are sovereigns of nations

You're talking in circles. A compulsive monopoly on justice is just another way of defining a state, you can't use one synonym to justify another synonym.

>The sovereignty of kings isn't imposed, it is inherited as any son inherits the place of his father.

Doesn't mean shit, no matter what you inherit or from whom, you are still imposing your will upon others, because by definition, if your subjects can't refuse your 'justice,' it is an imposition.

>The monarch's duty is to uphold justice, as Frederick the Great said.

That's the mission statement of every government, it doesn't mean they actually execute it.

>However, the authority of office exists to bring peace and preserve the heritage of a people.

By whose order? Why are you assuming the monarch is the only one who knows how to "bring peace?" There's no reason to assume his word is more informed than any of the possible alternatives. And once again, you are avoiding the key question:

IF THE MONARCH'S JUSTICE IS SO GREAT, WHY CAN'T HE PROPERLY COMPETE ON THE MARKET, AND INSTEAD IMPOSES A COMPULSORY MONOPOLY?

>>83355

Mhm, dubs.

>why is it better than private alternatives

Because, like you said, democracy is communism lite, and adding democracy to justice makes it worse; if the king's realm is his property, then it is his far from stealing it.

Sovereignty of the King is more fair than sovereignty of the People.

>from who

GOD,

or whatever supernatural power bestowed it.

Or whatever achievement came about through the merits of his father, and the shared history of his people, who worked as vassals in the past, if that suits your plate.

>compulsive monopoly on justice

You can't have different laws of the land and expect a communist-tier democratization of justice, even if it is giving it to the People, as you insist.

>that's the mission statement of every government

Yet the discipline of monarchs is their power, and the inheritance it came from. A monarch is obligated from his private heritage and private ownership to treat the subject of justice as his responsibility.

>are you assuming the monarch is the only one who knows how to "bring peace".

By the merits of his tradition, which is basically wisdom, and the history of his kingdom, I say so.

>why can't he properly compete on the market

Justice isn't a commodity – it is the rule of law – and the monarchy is the king's property until another household takes it up.

>>83355

>by definition, if your subjects can't refuse your "justice,", it is an imposition.

So is every willpower. Consent doesn't matter when it comes to justice, and those who refuse justice as subject to it whether they are innocent or guilty.

Monarchists get out or kys.

>>83361

If justice were a commodity, there wouldn't be enough to go around. Only one willpower can enact justice, not many. There would be too many verdicts and too much strife to settle on an issue. How would justice be enforced if it were a commodity to begin with? How many courts would operate, and would the criminals be allowed to choose their court – would that be justice?

Monarchy is the closest you'll get to a privatized, market based justice because the King's sovereignty is his own inheritance. People are drawn towards honor, and justice needs to be honored throughout the courts of the commonwealth, otherwise anything might as well go.

>>83361

JUSTICE IS THE PRODUCT OF AUTHORITY, AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE MONARCH IS HIS INHERITANCE

There are other authorities that have justice and that is theirs. The monarchs take good care of their possessions and it isn't yours or any anarchists' right to steal it.

Just remember guys, it still takes one bullet to kill a king, and hiring a hitman would be even easier in ancap. Just leave those just bois and they'll go away. Their ideology is even less cared about then even ancap anyway.

>>83365

Justice isn't merely a service, it is a responsibility.

>>83365

Sovereignty isn't a monopoly, either.

There are other sovereigns and they contest in the marketplace of the world by whatever means, still guided by a sense of honor.

>>83369

looks like perrine hasn't had her afternoon blackening yet

>>83386

"i approve of this VOLUNTARY transaction" -murray "prep the bull" rothbard