/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>1263

Because conservatism hasn't existed for decades if not over a century.

if you consider the individual to be the smallest unit of a civilization, and not the family, you're still a liberal.

Not to mention, even conservatists think that women not only go to school at the same age as boys, but also study the same things

age 18-25 is the most fertile period for a woman, good thing she can ride the cock carousel in college without any peer pressure or outside judgement, with additional "rape" laws in place too

>>1265

not only should*

>>1265

>if you consider the individual to be the smallest unit of a civilization, and not the family, you're still a liberal.

It makes sense to see the individual as the smallest unit, as long as you keep in mind that the individual is embedded in some community. Most individualist philosophers would agree with that. Most, not all. Ayn Rand wasn't a fan of family values and she had a great influence.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn called himself a personalist to discern his own position (and that of other scholastic philosophers) from such an atomistic individualism. I don't think that term is necessary, but if it was, I'd adopt it.

>Not to mention, even conservatists think that women not only go to school at the same age as boys, but also study the same things

Compulsory education in general is a retarded idea. If schooling wasn't forced on everyone, then the children with less talent could learn a good trade early on and keep out of political affairs, and the highly talented children, whatever gender they are, could study in a less poisonous, mediocre environment. Then we'd have fewer female "intellectuals" but the few we would have would be genuine and not just fulfilling a quota.

And it's not like people couldn't afford private education nowadays. We've made cars a minor investment and plasma TV's are already outdated, it's only goods delivered by the public sector that poor people could somehow never afford.

>age 18-25 is the most fertile period for a woman, good thing she can ride the cock carousel in college without any peer pressure or outside judgement, with additional "rape" laws in place too

That is why I stayed away from the parties. Honestly, fuck college- and university-culture. It's degeneracy through and through.

>>1318

Individual doesn't exhibit all the traits of a civilization on a micro scale, however family does.

>common history

centuries of being on a map as a single nation <=> grandparents, parents and children

>common language

self explanatory

>Common land

Territory of a nation <=> a household

I usually classify ethnic group under land because the two overlap however the family also exhibits that to a larger scale, instead of ethnic group you have a blood relation

Because modern "conservatism" is really free-market liberalism that has become status quo.

>>1486

how do we have free market if i cannot buy weed legally?

>>1486

A free-market system is inherent to traditional monarchy. More so than to liberalism, in fact.

>>1495

Name a single traditional monarchy that implented a free market ideology! Thought so.

>>1493

bleach. Drink it.

>>1496

Free market should be confined to borders of one's nation.

It's only logical to treat your people preferentially compared to outsiders.

>>1496

Be less butthurt, anon.

>Name a single traditional monarchy that implented a free market ideology! Thought so.

Well, by todays standards, they were all neoconservative shitlords. Tax rates between five and twenty percent, no income tax, no talk of nationalizing whole industries, and no printing money like a maniac and claiming that you cannot go bankrupt at all. They weren't free market paradises, what with the mercantilism and all, but still a lot better off than today's governments. And most importantly, they respected property rights. Name a single contemporary governent that sees property titles as something given that it cannot mess with. They all follow a positivistic conception of property, and when they do have hints of a laissez-faire ideology, it's either utilitarian or based on romantic and shallow notions, not anything as exalted as the idea of a natural law.

Also, the late French Crown patronized the physiocrats, who were quite laissez-faire, probably more so than Adam Smith. So there's that, too.

>>1499

>Free market should be confined to borders of one's nation.

>It's only logical to treat your people preferentially compared to outsiders.

If anything, you should treat them as good as possible, which can mean treating them preferentially, but doesn't have to. When free trade benefits your nation, then it makes no sense to restrict it just to treat outsiders even worse than your own citizens.

Now, if your case is based on ethical and not economic considerations, then you can pretty much ignore that argument. One anon here did just that, and that's why I consider his defense of protectionism one of the few genuinely good ones. However, very few people are actually willing to do that.

>>1499

nations have no borders

>>1496

If Britain does not count, then we might as well play the "no country has ever implemented a free market system" game.

>>1512

free market is spontaneous

>>1513

Only once property rights have found widespread acceptance. Then the rest takes care of itself, but only then. At least this much ideological work is necessary.

>>1514

>Britain is not even a real monarchy bro. From Cromwell to expelling the Stuarts I'd rather call them a faggotarchy

Actually true. Beware the eternal anglo.

>>1514

IM CIA