No.1999 [Last50 Posts]
Hello /monarchy/, lolberg from /liberty/ here. How would history change if, at the end of the Revolutionary War, Thomas Jefferson was declared the first monarch of the United States? With my admittedly limited knowledge, these are the immediate implications I can see:
>French Revolution can't use it as a historical precedent, or ideological motivation. Revolution might still happen but won't be nearly as popular or widespread.
>Without FR, Marx and his shitty ideas have far less influence, assuming Marx even tries to peddle his nonsense at all.
>Without American democracy and/or FR as inspiration, no pressure for other European nations to become democratic
>Without the European divide between monarchies and democracies, and without democratic warmongering and nationalism, world stage no longer set for WWI
>Even if Marx managed to influence some people, without WWI Germany never smuggles Lenin back into Russia
>Without Lenin Communist Revolution never happens and Marxism (again, assuming it even survived this far in history) never becomes widespread
>Without Treaty of Versailles and economic clusterfuck of WWI, WWII never happens
>Without WWII, and without commies in Russia, Cold War never happens
>Without Cold War fucking hippies never happen
>Modern world is far less war-torn, far less cucked, far more prosperous
And that's not even taking into account the internal changes in the US:
>No more incentive to continue increasing gov't size by appealing to demographics
>Progressive Era, even if it happens, need not have influence over policy
>No Prohibition
>No Central Bank and no fiat currency
>No Keynesian fantasies
>Great Depression much less 'great', assuming it happens at all
>No welfare state
>no Department of Labor and similar anti-market bullshit
Thoughts? Is this accurate? Will OP continue to be the eternal faggot?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2000
>>1999
>Without American democracy and/or FR as inspiration, no pressure for other European nations to become democratic
The eternal Anglo would still proceed to screw all of Europe. You seem to underestimate the implications of your proposal for the US though. They would probably become a lot more like the HRE with sovereign princes residing over the states than a lolberg hereditary dictatorship, cementing the power of the land owning class as it was initially meant to be. Would the expansion towards the west have happened? Would immigration even have been allowed? Etcpp.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2001
>>2000
>hey would probably become a lot more like the HRE with sovereign princes residing over the states than a lolberg hereditary dictatorship, cementing the power of the land owning class as it was initially meant to be
Still sounds better than what we ended up with, and the Articles of Confederation (or the royal equivalent) would likely become more permanent over the Constitution, keeping things nice and decentralized. I think the US would still be pretty lolberg as far as foreign policy goes, though. The isolationism/noninterventionism attitude will stay almost for a certainty. I would predict that mercantilism would be abandoned in favor of free trade (or something closer to free trade) as well, because capitalist sentiment was a big part of the Revolution, after the whole tax thing. As for the more explicit domestic policies, I've got no way to predict what happens when Jefferson kicks the bucket, and there's no reason to assume his prodigy will be as explicitly pro-liberty as he was. However, tax hikes will almost certainly be less dramatic and happen less often, because per Hoppe that's an intrinsic property of monarchies. By the same token, the Jefferson dynasty wouldn't churn out new legislation like toilet paper the way Congress does. Even if it doesn't turn into some market utopia overnight, it's still a superior alternative to the republic.
>Would the expansion towards the west have happened?
Certainly as far as the Mississippi river. You've got all those largely-untouched resources ripe for the taking, who wouldn't try to go for them? Plus, monarchy or no monarchy, all that post-Revolutionary sentiment of independence is still there. Past the Mississippi, it all depends on what exactly happens with France and Napoleon in this alternate reality. If post nuFR, Napoleon still becomes Emperor of France, and wages a war of conquest, he'll still need the funds to do so, and selling the Louisiana territory is still a very expedient way of doing so, with the added bonus of pissing off the Brits. And if that acquisition happens, it's only natural to assume that Americans will eventually want to settle their new clay, and exploit their newfound resources.
>Would immigration even have been allowed
Who knows. If it is, it would probably be more restrictive than the policies that we got historically. Also, if WWI doesn't happen, there wouldn't be a mass influx of refugee immigrants either.
>The eternal Anglo would still proceed to screw all of Europe
How do you mean? Is there some specific policy or tendency to which you are referring, or do you believe that the Anglos will always, somehow, find a way to muck things up regardless of circumstance?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2002
>>2001
>because capitalist sentiment was a big part of the Revolution, after the whole tax thing.
I'd call that a myth. The original USA was not nearly as much about being a lolberg as modern Americans would like it to be. Free trade would not have been in the interest of the great land owners so it was not implemented historically and I do not see how giving the land owners more power would have changed that. I guess it all depends on the amount of power that Jefferson would be able to amass in his person and if he was really so fanatic about 'liberty' in the end. Reality tends to shatter dreams.
Historically speaking Louis-Philippe, Roi citoyen, was a proclaimed liberal and used the revolution in the 1830s to claim the French throne. Within years he changed his position radically and became a conservative (being a conservative meant opposing free trade at that time among other things), flirting with the Ultraroyalists from time to time,because of the experiences he made as a king.
>Also, if WWI doesn't happen
There would still be unresolved issues in Europe regardless of America. America plays a rather insignificant role in European politics until WWI. Even if we assume that by your scenario the French Revolution never happens, and that let's say Germany is never formed because the German federation lasts or never exists because the HRE is not annihilated, even then there would still be a major conflict of interest among European powers. A France that did not have to suffer the revolution would be stronger than historically, and a non unified Germany would be unable to contest its claim to European dominance. It is possible that all of Europe would become a French satellite under those circumstances. Mind you that Spain was already Bourbon since the early 1700s. Britain could not allow that. Not even getting into Japan here and its interactions with the US in the 19th and 20th century (I see the major potential for a Anglo/French proxy war in Japan here possibly 'replacing' WWI). The consequences of the USA being a monarchy and possibly minarchist and isolationist would be severe, but I do not think that they'd enable humans to resolve their issues without wars. That would take a miracle.
>How do you mean? Is there some specific policy or tendency to which you are referring
The UK tried to maintain a balance of power in continental Europe since the late middle ages. They would intervene once a nation was getting too ambitious and, if need to be, lead wars to curb their power. They are also the major supporter of liberalism in Europe since the 17th century.
> or do you believe that the Anglos will always, somehow, find a way to muck things up regardless of circumstance?
I in fact do believe that too, but I try to not let it taint my judgement.
But to not sound too negative; if the USA had wanted to make Jefferson King then they could have done that. And if they had wanted to be a libertarian country they could have done that too. And if they managed to conquer the whole continent from west to east coast then no one could have ever stopped them from being isolationist but themselves. Would all of this have curbed leftist ideology in Europe? Probably to some degree. Would it have prevented some great war in Europe at one point? Probably not. Would the USA be more libertarian if they chose to be more libertarian in the beginning? Most likely.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2003
>>2002
>I'd call that a myth. The original USA was not nearly as much about being a lolberg as modern Americans would like it to be. Free trade would not have been in the interest of the great land owners so it was not implemented historically and I do not see how giving the land owners more power would have changed that.
It wasn't lolberg in the modern sense, but Adam Smith certainly had an influence on the Founding Fathers. And one of his ideas was that free trade would be more beneficial to said landowners in the long run.
>But to not sound too negative;
To be fair, I'm also being overly optimistic. It's unlikely that the American Revolution would have as profound an effect on the FR, and by extension WWI, as I'm implying. I'm simply of the opinion that those two events have done the most to set the current shittery of Europe in motion, and it's nice to believe that some time-traveler could eliminate both of them, and fulfill my strange libertarian fantasies, in one fell swoop.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2004
>>1999
There would be instant division between Catholics and protestants over the religion of their king. I mean, beyond the usual. Was Jefferson a mason?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2005
>>1999
If we go by the assumption that the French revolution doesn't happen or doesn't win, then Napoleonic wars are unwaged. Rothschild dynasty will not manage to scam themselves into power. The whole banking cabal would have fallen in its womb.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2006
>>2004
Originally the US was an Anglo-Saxon puritan nation. There were no Catholics to dispute anything. And even if there had been, we have seen how the British dealt with their numerous Catholic subjects. They killed them.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2007
>>1999
I mean, it would be awesome, but it never would have happened. Jefferson was a Jacobin through-and-through. Nobody in the American Revolution came anywhere close to reactionary monarchism, not even Hamilton.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2008
>>2006
>"Originally the US was an Anglo-Saxon puritan nation"
>he doesn't know that Maryland was literally set up as a colony for Catholics, prior to the America Revolution
>>2004
Why do you think that Thomas Jefferson was a Protestant?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2009
>>2002
> Free trade would not have been in the interest of the great land owners so it was not implemented historically
Do you even history? Lincoln supported large tariffs and the South was completely against this. The South was full of landowners and the North was full of industry. The North wanted protectionism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2011
>>2006
It had many denominations. The Puritans were dominant, but there were also Quakers, Anglicans and Catholics, and probably many others.
>>2008
Yes, Maryland it was. I forgot which colony was the Catholic one, thanks.
I also remember that Maryland was extremely tolerant, which changed the more power the Puritans won.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2012
>>2008
Maryland was multidenominational. The USA as a whole where still anglo-saxon protestant. A minor state with some Catholics can be safely ignored and doesn't change that. That's like saying California is not a liberal stronghold because the eastern counties tend to vote conservative.
>>2009
I hope you realize that mid 19th century and the declaration of independence fall in completely different time periods, namely pre Industrialisation.
>North was full of industry.
>>2011
>It had many denominations. The Puritans were dominant, but there were also Quakers, Anglicans and Catholics, and probably many others.
Sure. The same was true for Prussia, yet no one would contest that Prussia was a Protestant nation.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2013
>>2006
>Originally the US was an Anglo-Saxon puritan nation.
I forgot to mention that the North was the only "Puritan" part, outside of the North (Virginia and the rest of the South) it was Anglican country, this is why the Civil War happened, it was Roundheads/Puritans vs Cavaliers/Anglicans, English Civil War part 2.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2014
>>2012
Anglicans are Protestants too. It was a Protestant nation, no doubt, but to say they would have killed Catholics is just false.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2015
>>2012
I can't see how landowners would go from protectionism to free trade in less than a hundred years, care to explain?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2016
>>2012
US was anti-mercantilist, which pretty quickly evolved into full-on support for laissez-faire capitalism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2017
>>2013
>Virginia and the rest of the South
That may very well be I am not learned on the specific details of denominations in the US of the 18th century, but 13 colonies: Virginia and the rest of the South~ Great Britain:Wales
>>2014
Anglicans self identify as Catholics. But that ain't gonna bring Thomas Moore back to life.
>>2015
It is just what happened historically. The USA was initially ruled by this class and was protectionist at its founding. Different people that at a later point belonged to the same class had other interests 70 years after that. The emergence of factories and mass produced goods must have played a role in it, but there is no specific answer I could give.
>>2016
England was anti mercantilist too yet the corn laws were still a thing
> which pretty quickly evolved into full-on support for laissez-faire capitalism.
But did it? Obviously free trade at the least was not part of this 'laissez-faire capitalism' then.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2018
>>2017
So England isn't a Protestant country, but a Catholic one?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2019
>>2018
This is what Anglicans unironically believe.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2020
>>2019
When did anyone start paying attention to what Anglicans believe?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2022
>>2020
The Anglican clergy sure isn't, so why would anyone else?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8036
Remember That the Truth is Greater than anything that has ever been or will be. The Founding Fathers were caught copying the words of patriots from a document sent to them in May 1775. Known as the Meck-Dec, it declared independence before the one they issues in July 1776. It clearly called for the independence from England ./… later England would burn all the evidences & more… because it's bigger the than anything Americans can even imagine. May 20, 1775 was a declaration made by followers of Jesus Christ & Truth. The founding fathers has a hidden agenda which followed the sun gods. Q3352
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8037
>>8036
Oh yeah, that's another benefit of Thomas I reigning. No one will ever have to knit what a Qtard is.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8048
>>8036
What is Real Freedom About?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8050
>>1999
A Jeffersonian monarchy would still have many Democratic elements, and nationalism would have happened no matter what.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8051
>>2001
Jefferson was one of the most interventionist founding fathers there was.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8052
>>8050
What makes you so certain about nationalism? If there was no frog revolution to kick it off, its prospects in the future become weaker. And in the early States, tribalism and primacy of the states tended to win out over national sentiment. Without the centralizing measure of the Constitution, these attitudes would have blossomed.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8070
>>8037
McKnitt? How did you know? Homework? …
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8073
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Me. Here. Good Feelz Frens
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8077
>>8052
Nations are a political reality, not an invention. Instances of what was basically nationalism can be seen throughout history. The Scottish rebelling against the English. The Maccabees rebelling against hellenization. Boudicca rebelling against Rome. Hell, half the reason for the division between Britain and the American colonies was because Britain wasn't treating them like proper parts of Britain, despite how developed they'd become.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8079
>>8077
You're conflating ethnicity and in-group preference with political integration. Nationalism arose due to a significant centralization of power into nation-states. Before this occurred, tribalism was very much the norm.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8081
>>8079
The biggest difference between ethnicity and nation is whether the group considers itself to be a political unit. Nationalism IS a type of in-group preference. Also, the rise of the nation-state as we know it today occurred at a time of large empires, not small tribes.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8084
>>8081
Nationalism is in-group preference, which is why it's preferable to globalism. Tribalism is an even more selective in-group preference than nationalism.
> Also, the rise of the nation-state as we know it today occurred at a time of large empires, not small tribes.
Not really. The rise of nationalism coincided with empires, becoming particularly visible with the French Revolution and Napoleon's continental spergout. But the nation-state came before that, in the 1500s and 1600s. This was when the notion of sovereignty really came into fruition, as kings consolidated their power and established firmer holds on their territory. Prior to this, rule was much more decentralized. Most men cared not who the king happened to be at the time, for the royal court was far from them, and few of its deliberations had any consequence on their daily lives. As such, no sense of nationalism existed, for people had no reason to fell camaraderie with men hundreds of miles away. Tribalism thrived, organically. Nationalism came after the nation-state was completely in place, consolidated by the sovereign. It was an artificial creation by the newly-consolidated government to encourage men to abandon their in-group preference of tribalism in favor of membership in a larger, less selective in-group: the nation. Men who were once part of one's out-group were forcibly made into their in-group. So, even if nationalism is an in-group preference compared to the modern alternative, it is decidedly less of an in-group than the tribalism it replaced.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8086
>>8084
Your idea that nationalism is incompatible with decentralized government is faulty.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8088
>>8086
I didn't say nationalism is incompatible with decentralized government, I said tribalism is incompatible with centralized government. It's theoretically possible to pursue nationalism with decentralization, so to that end they aren't incompatible. Practically speaking however, you would never see such a pairing in the wild, because nationalism only ever forms *after* a government centralizes. You need a centralizing government to impose the monoculture in which nationalism thrives and tribalism wanes. Without that centralization, the monoculture necessary for nationalism will never form. Left to their own devices, the many different regions develop on their own, culturally and ethnically distinct from one another. They have no reason to feel solidarity with the other regions, full of strange people in faraway places. So, nationalism never overtakes tribalism.
If you're a nationalist, pardon me if that's the wrong impression I assume you're an anti-globalist, yes? Consider all of the reasons you oppose globalism. Borders becoming meaningless as rootless migrants travel en masse to countries where they are ethnically and socially incompatible. National sovereignty becoming meaningless, inferior to the will of the UN. The erasure of national identity so that everyone can become a "global citizen."
Every problem that you have with globalism, I have with nationalism, only on a smaller scale. Nationalism has the same effect on a country that globalism has on the world. It is because of this that, while I will always support nationalism over globalism, I would support tribalism over nationalism. It's the least bad option in contemporary politics, but it's still a product of the Enlightenment and mass democracy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8121
>>8088
Nationalism is part of the cause for the US declaring independence in the first place. The idea that nationalism has always ment a centralized government is simply not true. I understand what you're saying, but it's simply wrong. Nationalism is not simply the artificial product of a government imposed monoculture. That wouldn't in any way explain the nationalism movements towards the end of the heyday of imperialism. American colonists viewing themselves as distinct from the British was nationalism. The mestizos viewing themselves as distinct from both Spaniards and natives, resulting in the Latin American wars for independence, was nationalism. Plus, the middle East and Africa have shown that trying to artificially create a nation doesn't really work.
Again, nationalism wasn't created by the enlightenment.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8122
>>8088
>>8121
>another debate on nationalism on /monarchy/
Fugg.
>>8121
Nationalism is codeword for democratic thinking, imo, because nations are dependent on essentially people. What people really dislike about nationalism here is that it brings about these democratic urges. I, for one, don't mind a tiny bit of democracy as long as its under the foot of a despotic regime. The Enlightenment preached sovereignty of the People over the sovereignty of kings. I typically step in to defend the nationalist position on this board, but I see the correlation.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8127
>>8121
> That wouldn't in any way explain the nationalism movements towards the end of the heyday of imperialism.
Nationalist movements after the end of a long period of centralization disproves the argument that nationalism comes out of centralization?
>American colonists viewing themselves as distinct from the British was nationalism.
Not really, because the American colonists also viewed themselves as distinct from one another. Virginians and New Yorkers didn't have all that much affinity for one another beyond a common distain for George III. This is proven by the extremely decentralized nature of the Articles of Confederation, which gave each colony autonomy on a level similar to sovereign countries. Then, as the federal government centralized with the Constitution, pan-Americanism began to foster. This pan-Americanism really came to a head after the Civil War, whose result was a further reduction in the sovereignty of states in favor of the federal government.
>Again, nationalism wasn't created by the enlightenment.
Your own examples undermine this. The "end of the heyday of Imperialism", which is to say the 18th and 19th centuries, are when the Enlightenment started coming into full swing.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8128
>>8122
>Nationalism is codeword for democratic thinking, imo
Good for you, you're wrong.
>>8127
>Nationalist movements after the end of a long period of centralization disproves the argument that nationalism comes out of centralization?
Given that they were in opposition to to the central authority, yes.
>>8127
>Not really, because the American colonists also viewed themselves as distinct from one another.
>>8127
>Not really, because the American colonists also viewed themselves as distinct from one another. Virginians and New Yorkers didn't have all that much affinity for one another beyond a common distain for George III.
Irrelevant. The seperation between them and the British was, and was seen as, much more significant.
>This is proven by the extremely decentralized nature of the Articles of Confederation, which gave each colony autonomy on a level similar to sovereign countries.
No it isn't, because we both already agreed that nationalism can exist in a decentralized system.
>Your own examples undermine this. The "end of the heyday of Imperialism", which is to say the 18th and 19th centuries, are when the Enlightenment started coming into full swing.
Except as I've said and demonstrated, nationalism predates that. It's a phenomenal, not an invention.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8130
>>8128
>Given that they were in opposition to to the central authority, yes.
No, the method in which they separated is proof of the connection between centralization and nationalism. Before Spain colonized them there were multiple tribes and peoples living in the region. Then Spain comes, and centralizes the area. After the centralization process the individual peoples have had their peculiarities washed away. Hence, instead of separating back into these constituent parts, they are only able to separate as "Mestitzos", citizens of "Mexico". The tribal identities were washed away by centralization, nationalism takes its place. The same thing happened in Germany. It was only after the many members of the HRE were brought together into a single political unit that notions of German nationalism became apparent. Before that, there was no nationalism, but Prussian tribalism, Bavarian tribalism, Osterreich tribalism, and so on.
>The seperation between them and the British was, and was seen as, much more significant.
That doesn't disprove their separation in the slightest. Was all of Europe a single nation during the Crusades because they temporarily viewed not being kebabs as more significant than their individual separations?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8131
>>8130
You're oversimplifying Latin America and Germany and acting like contrary examples didn't exist. Similar peoples united under a central authority will tend to form a united nation, yes, but that's predicated on them being similar. There was never a real Austro-Hungarian identity, for example, certainly not in the Balkan part of the empire.
>That doesn't disprove their separation in the slightest.
I wasn't arguing that. A nation is not interently uniform. The HRE created the idea of a German nation, but even today there are regional differences. Same with Japan, England (and I mean England, not Britain or the UK), Italy, etc.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8140
>>8128
>Good for you, you're wrong.
How am I wrong? Keep in mind that when I refer to democratic thinking, I'm just just referring to representative government or parliamentary sovereignty which is usually oligarchical. I'm talking about the unity of a people and the other end of the spectrum between a people and their ruler.
Look, I don't have a vendetta against nationalism like some people on this board. I'll listen to you, anon.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8141
>>8131
>was never a real Austro-Hungarian identity, for example
And to my knowledge, there wasn't much in the way of Austro-Hungarian nationalism, either. The different nations within the empire kept to themselves and their own affairs. The empire's rule was decentralized, and nationalism didn't really form.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8146
>>8140
>How am I wrong?
Because being devoted to your nation has literally nothing to do with what type of government you think is best. The idea that nations/nationalism is a liberal/democratic/enlightenment concept is something regurgitated by people who are so obsessed with imperialism that they think any attack on imperialism is an attack on monarchy.
>>8141
>And to my knowledge, there wasn't much in the way of Austro-Hungarian nationalism
That's essentially what I just said.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8147
>>8146
>The idea that nations/nationalism is a liberal/democratic/enlightenment concept is something regurgitated by people who are so obsessed with imperialism that they think any attack on imperialism is an attack on monarchy.
<muh imperivm autists and muh NRx
The idea that it is an Enlgihtenment idea comes to the French Revolution and the idea of the NATIONAL assembly and its association with 'The People' and leading the Revolution.
>>8141
>Because being devoted to your nation has literally nothing to do with what type of government you think is best
When I talk of democracy and democratic thinking, I don't refer to specifically democratic government, but the idea of popular sovereignty and nation as a unity. I also refer to the tendencies of the many as a political force that penetrates this discussion – what are the interests of the many people who are being ruled, not them as rulers.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8148
>>8146
I'll have to disagree with you on that first part. I'm by no means an imperialist or an NRx, but I can certainly see the connection between nationalism and democratic ideals. In addition to the empirical basis of nationalist movements nearly always being populist, democratic ones, there is not a great deal of difference in conceptually between the abstract ideals of "the nation" and "the people". They aren't one and the sane, but there is a connection.
>That's essentially what I just said.
And considering governance in Austria-Hungary was comparatively decentralized, with the tributary nations for the most part managing their own affairs, I think this serves to reinforce my point rather than yours. Less centralization paired with lack of nationalism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8156
>>2001
I must ask though, would the replacement of mercantilism with free trade ensure a country with no poor folks years later on?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8163
>>8156
Yes, definitely. The only possible benefits of mercantilism or protectionism are in the extreme short-term. The longer term your viewpoint is, the more pronounced the benefits of unrestricted trade becomes. Not only does free trade reduce the costs of living, it makes your economy more dynamic, more adaptable to change. Even setting aside all the inefficiencies, cost increases, and rent-seeking with protectionism and pretending they don't exist, the problem with it is it tends to lock you in to a single sector of export good. If the market situation ever changes (which never happens, right?), and you become better suited to something else, that's going to cause problems for you.
One example of this is how burgers seem to have a fetish for being the automakers of the world, and keep trying to protect their mass-market car industry. Letting the japs have the car market and focusing on something else would be far more beneficial, but since this is what the protectionists memed and are continuing to meme, we're locked into throwing money at this industry when it would be far more advantageous to focus elsewhere.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8164
>>8163
Whats ironic is that American cars are ass compared to Japanese cars. I live near a Chrysler plant and the local union boys are suck. If they aren't chimping out over them not getting to go to the county fair all week because they need the entire week and not just a day they purposefully do their jobs wrong and sabotage cars they are making to the point where it will endanger a consumer if they drive one of their cars shenanigans include: installing the airbag wrong, "forgetting" to add bolts to a car door, installing a carb wrong, etc
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8165
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8166
>>8164
Preaching to the choir here, I live 30 minutes from the Motor City but I drive a Toyota. Aside from 1.5 ton trucks and larger, I don't see much point in getting a burger car. Seems like we've got a couple Hilux fans here, you have good taste.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8167
>>8147
>The idea that it is an Enlgihtenment idea comes to the French Revolution and the idea of the NATIONAL assembly and its association with 'The People' and leading the Revolution.
And Hitler drank water. The fact that someone does something doesn't mean they came up with the idea.
>When I talk of democracy and democratic thinking, I don't refer to specifically democratic government, but the idea of popular sovereignty and nation as a unity. I also refer to the tendencies of the many as a political force that penetrates this discussion – what are the interests of the many people who are being ruled, not them as rulers.
Calling that democratic thinking is misleading at best.
>>8148
>governance in Austria-Hungary was comparatively decentralized,
It had to be. Centralized rule over such a varied range of peoples never could have worked.
>>8163
This is only true if you look at real life like it's a fucking video game. Free trade fucks the working poor of wealthy, developed countries that practice it, and the lowered prices offset almost nothing for them. The prime beneficiaries of free trade in the current global economy are the wealthy mercentile elites that are often a threat to monarchy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8169
>>8167
>Free trade fucks the working poor of wealthy, developed countries that practice it
This is objectively and demonstrably false.
>The prime beneficiaries of free trade in the current global economy are the wealthy mercentile elites that are often a threat to monarchy.
So is this, especially when one considers said elites are the first in line to call for putting an ever-increasing amount of regulations on international trade, the most recent examples being TPP and NAFTA.
>inb4 dose are free trade!!11!!!
Even a cursory examination shows this is false; to suggest this implies a total lack of understanding on what "free trade" actually means or what its implications are.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8173
>>8169
>This is objectively and demonstrably false.
Objectively and demonstrably true, actually. Lowering the barriers to cheap foreign labor hurts the native working poor.
>Even a cursory examination shows this is false
You're talking out of your ass. I'm not familiar with the contents of the TPP, but NAFTA is absolutely about free trade. The point is removing trade barriers.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8180
>>8167
>Free trade fucks the working poor of wealthy, developed countries that practice it, and the lowered prices offset almost nothing for them.
Free trade isn't some kill or be killed battle royale. It only seems that way if you're a loser with a scarcity mentality.
It's disgusting to see socialists on this board.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8181
>>8173
>Lowering the barriers to cheap foreign labor hurts the native working poor.
Wrong. Lower prices do not just mean cheaper products. They imply greater net disposable income available to the population. This translates into greater demand for goods, including domestic goods, which requires domestic producers to increase production. Increasing production requires hiring more people to produce more. And this is ignoring the effects of increased foreign demand on your domestic industries, causing a further increase of employment. All reductions in production cost, regardless of the source, will cause a net increase in employment. Trade is not a zero-sum game, and thinking about it in those terms is fallacious. These assertions are derived from a priori truths and may not be denied without an a priori refutation. Prove comparative advantage doesn't exist or git out.
>but NAFTA is absolutely about free trade
Free trade means exactly two things, no more. "I don't tariff you, and you don't tariff me." Even the most Jewish lawyer with 6 million degrees in pilpul couldn't stretch that out to more than a paragraph or so of text. The mere fact that NAFTA is hundreds of pages of text should alone tell you that it is not free trade. It is page upon page of one regulation after another, all restricting economic activity in the member countries. It is the very opposite of free trade; do not be so naive as to believe something must be true merely because some worthless bureaucrat told you as such.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8183
>>8180
Republicfags and Marxfags are equally pitiable victims of demagogery. They are largely the same except they believe in different visions of messianic economics.
Everyone,
it seems you need to be reminded…
STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8186
>>8183
There is nothing "republican" about free trade. It is completely unrelated to a country's form of government. Not even comparable to marxism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8194
>>8186
>>8183
I am not >>8183 , but this is why I avatarfag amongst the tripfags.
stop thinking like republicans
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8195
>>8186
Free trade is an ideologically loaded term. Using it presumes we all understand the word "free" to have the same meaning. It presumes that the market can only be restricted by the state, and if it is not restricted by the state, it must be "free".
A republic is rule by merchants so "free trade" has everything to do with republicanism.
>>8194
What's a tripfag?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8196
>>8186
>>8195
I should say: a republic is rule by oligarchy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8197
>>8195
>What's a tripfag?
Mostly people who namefag and have flags.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8201
>>8181
>People having more disposable income is unhelpful when production is being increasingly outsourced.
>NAFTA regulates
It regulates intellectual property. The core is entirely about the removal of tariffs. While the text does include other elements (like agreements to develop transportation infrastructure to facilitate trade) you are underestimating how thick this stuff winds up being.
>>8180
I'm not a socialist you mong.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8203
>>8201
<People having more disposable income is unhelpful when production is being increasingly outsourced.
I will say again: disprove comparative advantage or git out.
>It regulates intellectual property
It also regulates minimum wage, maximum hours, and a host of other things within the labor market. It also mandates myriad environmental regulations. It also mandated a cool $20 billion in aid money going from the US to Mexico for "environmental cleanup." It is in everything but name a regulatory document that imposes trade barriers rather than limiting them. I'll ask for a second time, are you really so naive as to think something is free trade just because some Jew on TV told you it was? No one who has actually read the text of the agreement can seriously call it free trade without being chronically retarded.
https://mises.org/library/nafta-myth
>I'm not a socialist you mong.
You're a whiny little bitch begging Big Daddy Government to pretty please give him more protections from the market so his life can be cushier. There is no word that can describe you besides "socialist."
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8238
>>8203
Different commenter here.
Libertarianism is jewish, just wanted to point that out.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8244
>>8238
What a tired, low-IQ non-argument. No, the ideology is not "Jewish" in any conceivable way. There are Jews that were also libertarians, a very different thing. There are Jews involved in every political theory (even fascism and NatSoc) which has any sort of definitive position on economics, becasue Jews are involved in any subject related to money. Compared to the disproportionately Jewish involvement in neocon circles and the many different brands of leftism, Jews in libertarianism is under-represented. This is unsurprising, because the consistent enforcement of discrimination and private property norms is fundamentally opposed to the goals espoused in the Jewish revolutionary spirit. Here's one of those few libertarian Jews talking about how much he hates other Jews because they're all communists:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/permissible-criticize-jews/
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8287
>>8203
>You're a whiny little bitch begging Big Daddy Government to pretty please give him more protections from the market so his life can be cushier. There is no word that can describe you besides "socialist."
>not trusting the state
>believing in Robinson Crusoe
To quote Obongo, you didn't build that. Also, you are not an atomized entity but one from a long lineage which you owe your life to.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8290
>>8287
>it is impossible to to form communal bonds unless they are forced on you by the state
>everyone is either an atomist or a gommunist
Brb, I need to disown my family and cut off relations with all my friends since I can only form relationships if they're state-imposed.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8300
>>8290
This is a strawman. The king is the enforcer of God’s law but ideally speaking he only has to remind you of your duty. His first option is not force.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8301
>>8244
>we’re only a bit Jewish as opposed to the other political animals, goys
lel
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.8304
>>8301
>counting parentheses is valid criticism
lel
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.