/liberty/ - Liberty

>The remaining absolute monarchs in the world don't seem very totalitarian

An absolute monarch isn't just a bloke in a funny hat anon. An absolute monarch does not in fact have absolute power. In order to maintain his grip on the ship of state he must ensure the loyalty of a number of people, by any means necessary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs&t=205s

>>87084

The only thing AnCaps have to say is that a monarch is supposedly less capable of driving his nation to ruin as he supposedly doesn't have the time for it, unlike the multitude of party members and their friendly cronies embedding themselves in every nook and cranny of the establishment and economy. However, history has enough examples that some find the time when they want to.

>>87085

>a monarch is supposedly less capable of driving his nation to ruin as he supposedly doesn't have the time for it

That presumes the monarchy we're talking about operates like its the 18th century. North Korea is the best example of what an absolute monarchy would look like today.

>>87088

> like its the 18th century.

lol this nibba thinks 18th century monarchies are the same as earlier ones

>>87088

NK was still founded officially on communist principles and enforces state authority through a party.

>>87089

>lol this nibba thinks 18th century monarchies are the same as earlier ones

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I say that? Which earlier ones?

>>87091

>NK was still founded officially on communist principles

A totalitarian state makes the implementation of murderous policies of any kind possible. Giving one person and their descendants the right to rule over you and hoping they don't ever act with anything less than perfectly good intentions is stupid.

>enforces state authority through a party

Why are monarchists so hung up on appearances? Do you think a king wouldn't have a group of people to help him rule? What does it matter if Kim calls them party members instead of royal advisers or ministers of the crown?

>>87088

We have no way of confirming Kim is the guy in charge and not some shadow council of party members pulling his strings.

>>87093

>We have no way of confirming the Tsar is the guy in charge and not Rasputin pulling his strings.

>>87085

> The only thing AnCaps have to say is that a monarch is supposedly less capable of driving his nation to ruin as he supposedly doesn't have the time for it

Hoppe et al also make the argument that, because the monarch is the "owner" of his realm (unlike a president who merely becomes its curator for a few years), he has an incentive to think about the land's long-term productivity, and modifies his policies as such. An elected ruler by contrast doesn't give a shit about the long-term consequences of his policies since he'll be out of office by then, so he has an incentive to maximize short-term production and bled the country dry as quickly as possible, regardless of the long-run damage to the country. Because of this there's an incentive for the monarch to keep his policies somewhat liberalized, especially taxation and other forms of theft. There are of course counter-examples like the House of Saud, but given the people and culture of that region there's no reason to believe that democracy would make those areas any freer.

>>87094

The Tsar didn't even end up killing that many people compared to the communists, his mistake was getting into World War I.

It's an incredible wave of idiocy that has led to a resurgance of absolutism. There is no sense and no justification for giving to a man a power so total he is not accountable to anyone. What if he decides all your property is his? What's to stop him? Isn't that his prerogative as the absolute, unrestrained power in the nation?

As long as said absolute monarch is well-educated and virtuous, then I wouldn't mind his reign.

>>87097

This line of reasoning ignores the shit load of elected representatives who try to remain relevant in politics even if their office is term limited. There's a lot concern about leaving a legacy behind and most American Presidents could have behaved a lot more, a tremendous degree more selfishly and on higher time preference if they weren't concerned about how their party and colleagues would fare after they were gone. Flesh and blood human beings aren't just motivated by creature comforts and wealth; ideological victories, a sense of fulfillment, a mark on history, and other more intangible goals also drive politicians.

Ultimately I see no reason why the type of office has an effect on the type of man. There will be elected officials who want their bust and pedestal as badly as thoughtful kings want their lands to remain fruitful. Likewise there will be opportunistic elected officials with high time preference and monarchs who let personal grudges or family matters overrule objective policy decisions.

>>87108

Absolutism isn't even how most monarchies throughout history were run. It was a latter time innovation not much older than the Enlightenment era popular sovereignty that followed it. Most historic kings were "first among equals" and had to play ball with the aristocracy, the skilled trade guilds, and the clergy. The king's actual authority was hella checked and balanced.

>>87098

Stalin killed more people because his grip on power was more absolute, not because he called himself the General Secretary of the Party. Tyrants are tyrants, the name they give themselves doesn't matter.

>>87110

>This line of reasoning ignores the shit load of elected representatives who try to remain relevant in politics even if their office is term limited. There's a lot concern about leaving a legacy behind and most American Presidents could have behaved a lot more, a tremendous degree more selfishly and on higher time preference if they weren't concerned about how their party and colleagues would fare after they were gone. Flesh and blood human beings aren't just motivated by creature comforts and wealth; ideological victories, a sense of fulfillment, a mark on history, and other more intangible goals also drive politicians.

That only further supports my point. The drive to "leave a legacy" encourages statesmen to pass broad, sweeping policies that make a large number of noticeable differences in a short amount of time, regardless of the long-term consequences. Because people have short attention spans and don't pay attention to long-term shit, they'll only remember the fact that President X made a big change that "solved" some problem and not think about it further than that. Just look at how many people continue to suck FDR's rotting paraplegic cock, in spite of his New Deal idiocy having been shown to have made the Grad Depression longer and deeper time and time again. Or on the other side, look at the abortive depression of the 1920s, which was stopped precisely because Calvin Coolidge was bedridden at the time and neither he nor the Fed were able to make any sweeping action to "fix" the economic slowdown, and because of that the problem fixed itself. This aversion of disaster was far and away a better outcome to the Depression of the 30s, but no one gives a shit because there was no sweeping action.

>>87118

>Stalin killed more people because his grip on power was more absolute,

No stalin killed more people because his power was NOT stable and absolute. Countries where their leader is safe do not have mass killings. Mass killings are a sign of insecurity. Chinas government now for example is very stable and there are no mass killings, 60 years ago it was not stable and required a constant struggle.

>>87109

It's worth noting that what is tolerable and what is good are not synonymous here. A government with any power at all, let alone absolute power, has all the tools to do harm. It is only through wisdom that they might not do harm, but isn't it better to refuse your potential enemy his weapons?

>>87140

China might not have executions the size of central park and it might not have targeted mass starvation but you'd have to be an absolute retard to believe they weren't killing people all the time or imprisoning them (which, really, what is the functional difference?).

>>87148

>they weren't killing people all the time or imprisoning them

I assume you mean *are not. A few people but a pretty trivial amount. Especially compared to the population

Old absolutist monarchies needed to share the true power of the nation with aristocracy, bourgeoisie and military. Lot of corruption existed in the sense those "parties" struggle for power between them and internally between them.

It was a form o government and had a state that could be used to fuck with the population when wanted, without having to comply to he laws as of today, at least, officially.

If a system like this would to be implemented today, would become totalitarian just because of the power the central government can have.

I prefer governments with decentralized power.

>>87182

>I prefer governments with decentralized power.

I prefer governments where power is absolute and leaders need not fear for their security or control. No one wants to rule a gulag. Once a government is secure in its position, it is able to lessen its security restrictions and allow economic / etc growth.

>>87182

>I prefer governments with decentralized power.

I prefer governments where power is absolute and leaders need not fear for their security or control. No one wants to rule a gulag. Once a government is secure in its position, it is able to lessen its security restrictions and allow economic / etc growth.

>>87123

And I fail to see what insulates absolute monarchs from this behavior. History unfairly shits on Herbert Hoover for adhering more closely to your recommendation for sober and long-term thinking leadership, and he was limited by elections and federalism too. Meanwhile, why wouldn't a monarch, especially one who liked to consider himself an enlightened philosopher king, try to make a series of big changes to look like he were doing something? Because he wouldn't have to worry about pleasing the masses? I can't imagine any scenario today where an absolute ruler who isn't Kim-tier would just have no regard for what the commoners thought about his reign if only out of a sense of self-preservation. Not with today's technological sophistication especially so. And even in ancient times we can point to examples of powerful monarchs and autocrats who did exactly this.

>>87140

Governments that are stable and absolute also have the means to better hide their atrocities, although sympathetic press organs abroad can also be helpful.

>>87245

>History unfairly shits on Herbert Hoover for adhering more closely to your recommendation for sober and long-term thinking leadership

False. Any sober analysis of Hoover's policies shows that he was as much a progressive as Wilson was. Even members of FDR's "brain trust" of intellectuals conceded that they were only expanding on what Hoover started. So Hoover is not an effective counterexample to my point.

>Meanwhile, why wouldn't a monarch, especially one who liked to consider himself an enlightened philosopher king, try to make a series of big changes to look like he were doing something?

Incentive. The realm will never not be his private property, so there's no reason for him to go on a mad dash throw some shit together before he's voted out. And yes, there are monarchs who had grand projects, such as the pyramids, but these were neither as common nor as grand in scope as that of democrats.

But none of that is the point. You're being disingenuous by focusing on these lavish projects when the real difference is day-to-day policy, most prominently tax rates and similar intrusions into routine business. And these infractions are the important ones because the degree of interference in regular business is that which most greatly determines economic productivity and freedom. And historically, monarchs have always levied smaller percentage taxes than their democratic counterparts, and the rate of increase of taxation was always lower in monarchies.

>>87248

>Any sober analysis of Hoover's policies shows that he was as much a progressive as Wilson was

No he was not. That's just plain wrong. You admit so yourself in affirming that the policies he was convinced to pursue had to be expanded on by FDR's administration. Regardless, the historical narrative is still that he didn't do enough and that he was erring on letting the problem resolve itself, so my claim about how history remembers him, if unfairly, is true. He pioneered intervention in the economy to get it back on track and yet is still spun into some do-nothing figure.

>Incentive. The realm will never not be his private property, so there's no reason for him to go on a mad dash throw some shit together before he's voted out

He can consider it his private property all he likes but the reality remains that there are other stakeholders and flesh and blood humans living on his property. If they get restless and angry enough doubting his wisdom or competence, that's enough of an incentive to throw something together.

>but these were neither as common nor as grand in scope as that of democrats.

I doubt this is true.

>But none of that is the point

Yes, it is. I have no reason to put faith in absolute monarchs as more friendly to liberty than democratic systems. I've never put much stock in Hoppesean thinking along those lines tbqh. Seems like a lot of wanting to believe and contrarianism than substantive historical analysis.

>And historically, monarchs have always levied smaller percentage taxes than their democratic counterparts, and the rate of increase of taxation was always lower in monarchies.

Pretty sure this was refuted in the anti-neoreaction guide.

>>87063

Most of the remaining absolute monarchs rule over small patches of land so they don't have the ability or options to be massive faggots/have to embrace capitalism at some level.

>>87110

> if they weren't concerned about how their party and colleagues would fare after they were gone.

They aren't. It's called political debts. "You donated X to my campaign so I owe you Y returns." Usually it's a "you scratch my back I scratch yours" situation where minimal effort is actually needed since people will lap up the bullshit you spew at them.

>>87248

Don't forget that the difference between the US and Mexico is literally 1% growth rate per year over several decades.

>>87245

>Governments that are stable and absolute also have the means to better hide their atrocities,

Yes because leaders WANT to run a shitty gulag and not a profitable country. When you own a car your first instinct is to never clean it and drive it off a cliff.

>>87280

>Yes because leaders WANT to run a shitty gulag and not a profitable country.

Says who? Leaders generally want a better position, devotion and fame, maybe implementing some kind of ideology. All of these definitely do not help.

>>87286

You heard it here first folks. Dictators want to run a starving shit hole and not lichtenstein.

>>87293

*Liechtenstein

>>87262

Not even talking about political debts. They write books, sell speaking events, work with charity foundations, try to get libraries opened in their names, work on local campaigns, endorse advocacy groups/PACs. Stuff that just isn't readily explained so cynically by revolving door cliches. Believe it not, some people believe in this "bullshit" that they sell and want to see it play out in the real world the way they envision it in their minds.

>>87293

I know you are trying to be sarcastic but you are actually correct, and history if full of such examples. Dictators prefer a shit hole to run because it's easier to lord over and control a powerless society. It doesn't effect their ability to live in decadent luxury and arguably enables it.

>>87388

>It doesn't effect their ability to live in decadent luxury and arguably enables it.

That's right. Liberty believes a company owner has no incentive to increase the value of their company as long as they have nice wine.

>>87255

>>but these were neither as common nor as grand in scope as that of democrats.

How many monarchs have nearly enough to fund world wars and welfare on the same scale? How many of them will fuck up the country to the same degree as democracies do and face no punishment by simply formally relinquishing power to someone else? It's not remotely close.

>>87737

>Dictators want to run a starving shit hole and not Liechtenstein

LOL

>>87739

Liechtenstein is ruled hereditary monarchy where the rulers have transformed it into a tax haven that they exploit to increase personal wealth. They have taken this tiny area of 60 square miles and have now have 10 billion dollars from it. That is around 100 million dollars per square mile.

>>87740

Continued: when you notice that the GDP of the entire country is 5 billion dollars you realize how impressive this is.

>>87747

<powerful autocratic regimes in this day and age are without exception terrible places to live because autocracy can only be effectively maintained in conditions of poverty and misery

Funny how Europe managed to be so successful under monarchal rule then, no? You need study cause and effect a little more closely. The reason 3rd world shitholes are the only places where kings still reign is because said 3rd world shit holes were the countries that were the most isolated from the wave of (((Enlightenment))) sentiment that spread throughout the civilized world. The House of Saud is shit, yes, but so is the entire fucking Arabian Peninsula–because of the shit people and shit culture, it will be a horrible place to live whether it's ruled by a monarch, oligarchs, a republic, or a democracy.

>>87761

Absolute monarchy =/= totalitarian government though. An absolute monarch can withhold exercise of their power by choice or by lack of interest. Napoleon had more power than any of the absolute monarchs before him despite representing republicanism and democracy.

>>87738

>>87293

Doesn't Liechtenstein have a limited monarchy and not a dictatorship?

>>87819

The only difference between a dictatorship and monarchy is legitimacy. The prince of Liechtenstein is legitimate and his power stable. You can tell his power is secure for he is not constantly fighting to maintain it via executions, and etc.

I can see how most dictatorships are relatively poor. But how did Chile and South Korea progress so well under Pinochet and Park?

>>87733

Liberty believes correctly, then, and that view is consistent with how the "company owners" in question have behaved in the real world.

>>87734

>How many monarchs have nearly enough to fund world wars and welfare on the same scale

All of them that have led a nation of historic significance, actually. There were both wars with higher death tolls than the named two "world wars" and wars spanning multiple continents over longer time periods with more severe economic ramifications than the Seminal Tragedy. Pretty much all of them except some of the Aegean belligerents in the Greek squabbles were prosecuted by monarchies. Welfare wasn't something invented by Democrats in the 1930s and centralized governments head by monarchs (Ottoman Sultanate comes to mind) in antiquity often set them up around the time of their empire's decline.

>How many of them will fuck up the country to the same degree as democracies do and face no punishment by simply formally relinquishing power to someone else?

It's by no means unheard of or rare for monarchs who sense a revolt's axe hanging over their necks to abdicate or be bloodlessly deposed and forced into comfy exile.

>It's not remotely close.

According to you. I find it comparable.

>>87751

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of Exceptional Individuals on /liberty/ who care dick all about human freedom. At least /pol/ aren't hypocrites.