No.2137 [Last50 Posts]
Ok you /liberty/-flavored LARPers, explain to me how is monarchy different to other types of goverment. Tell me how in your autistic minds it is better than fascism. Tell me how will it all work in practice.
____________________________
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.2138
>/liberty/-flavored
Please explain >>950 and then all the neo-mercantilists ( >>236 ) that keep rearing themselves up.
>explain to me how is monarchy different to other types of goverment [sic].
>Tell me how will it all work in practice.
Why are you talking like monarchy is some weird, hypothetical or historical anomaly? You've got millenia of examples to pick and choose between different forms of monarchy. In fact, it would probably behoove you to choose a particular sub-type of monarchism otherwise this conversation will get confusing fast.
Also:
>in your autistic minds
We know this is you, Mr. Redditard >>2042. lrn2stylometry.
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.2139
>>2138
lol butthurt. Those 2 soyboys probably came from /liberty/. I said "/liberty/-flavored" because you are all autsitic losers, like /liberty/.
I'm not that guy, newfriend, keep lurking and you may discover who I am.
You did not answer my questions. Why do you prefer monarchy over what we have? What would be different? How could it possibly be better than fascism?
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.2140
>>2137
it is not hard to be better than fascism
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.2142
>>2137
A monarchy can be fascist. Monarchy has been proven to work long term. There is no republican dictatorship that lasted long term though. qed
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.2144
>>2142
argument of duration fallacy
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.2145
>>2137
>Tell me how in your autistic minds it is better than fascism.
For one, it can be put on a rational, not just an emotional and aesthetic basis. The emotional nature of fascism can be seen in its followers, who scroll past the sticky in womanly hysteria to ask the same questions that were already asked before. Also, read a book, dumbass.
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.2146
>>2144
Argument of argument of duration fallacy fallacy.
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.2149
Because the responsibility is left to one man, who's held accountable instead of being divided into the mass.
if that one man fucks up, he can be dethroned and install another man.
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.2150
>>2144
>argument of duration fallacy
How's that a fallacy? Isn't being stable an essentially quality of a good government? Why don't you just say where I am wrong instead of starting to jew around?
>>2149
> he can be dethroned
no
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.2152
>>2150
A bad king can be a dethroned, so a good king can take his place.
This process is repeated thorough history.
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.2153
>>2152
Give examples 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.2155
>>2153
Richard II vs Henry IV is a notable example.
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.2156
>>2155
So tell us about it? What time are we talking about? What country even? One of them was a bad king and the other a good one and then everything went alright? How did he get dethroned? How did he took the throne? What were the risks? How can this be a reasonable policy?
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.2157
>>2153
Every single Chinese dynasty that fucked up too much got overthrown through the concept of the "mandate of heaven"
The only one that didn't get overthrown and replaced with a new dynasty were the Qing, who were overthrown and replaced with a republic that didn't last long.
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.2158
>>2157
And China is a communist dictatorship now because of it and was conquered by barbarians in the past because of it. 'A king can be dethroned' is not an inherent principle of monarchy nor should it ever be. Historical anecdote misses the point completely, I could as well say any king can be replaced by a republican dictatorship and point to Cromwell.
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.2159
>>2158
An inherent principle of democracy, perhaps not, but it is an inherent property of politics. To build a political structure on the idea that revolutions are good (a la republicanism) is wildly stupid, but it is equally unwise to build a political scheme on the assumption that they will never happen.
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.2160
>>2159
That was supposed to say “An inherent principle of monarchy, perhaps not.”
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.2161
>>2156
I hope you're OP, because those kind of questions give me hope that you're actually serious about discussion.
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.2162
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.2163
>>2161
That guy here, I will answer.
Richard II was a bad English king who mistreats his subject and gets dethroned by Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Hereford, a much more capable warrior/politician.
Henry Bolingbroke becomes Henry IV, and while his reign was full of turmoil and assassination attempts, he sires Henry V who was one of the better kings of England and nearly wins the Hundred Years War.
Unfortunately, his grandson, Henry VI was a shy and passive ruler.
More information on these people can be found in Shakespear play, Richard II, Henry IV Part 1+2, Henry V and Henry VI Part 1+2+3.
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.2164
>>2158
China is a communist dictatorship because of the failure of the republicans, NOT the monarchists.
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.2165
>>2163
>That guy here,
You are me?
>Richard II was a bad English king
> Henry Bolingbroke… much more capable
>… his reign was full of turmoil and assassination attempts
>.. nearly wins
>his grandson, Henry VI was a shy and passive ruler.
You are not making a very strong case here. So this is the best example to justify thronerobbery?
>>2164
And I wonder just how China could turn into republic.
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.2167
>>2165
>You are me?
I'm the guy you ask question.
>You are not making a very strong case here. So this is the best example to justify thronerobbery?
I'm making a very strong case considering England would be much worse if it's ruled by Richard II than Henry Bolingbroke. Henry VI was also replaced by Edward IV, a much more capable ruler. The circle thus repeats again.
>And I wonder just how China could turn into republic.
Because it has a child emperor!
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.2169
>>2152
The dethronement of bad kings is not a function of monarchy. What you're talking about is popular sovereignty. But the first principle of monarchy is that sovereign authority comes from God.
A king can only be deposed by God. When this happens, it is not necessarily to punish the king; He may permit regicide rather to punish his subjects, if they become wicked and turn against him.
>>2157
The Mandate of Heaven is called the Mandate of Heaven because it comes from Heaven. If the Emperor loses the Mandate, he also loses his throne; but this depends on the will of god.
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.2170
>>2169
If a bad king gets into the throne, his subjects and land would suffer, thus the king would suffer.
Ergo, it's natural to remove him and install a better king to heal the land.
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.2171
>>2169
>The dethronement of bad kings is not a function of monarchy. What you're talking about is popular sovereignty. But the first principle of monarchy is that sovereign authority comes from God.
Not how the divine right works. It's not an unrevokable right of the king to do whatever he wants. If he himself forfeits his divine right, by acting unjust and unreasonable for most of his reign, then he can be dethroned or even killed. The thing to remember is that the divine right was not the right to rule arbitrarily, it was the right to rule with wisdom and justice. This is how it was viewed for most of the Middle Ages until Martin Luther came along and proclaimed that resistance against a tyrant is wrong, because God instituted him and if he acted unjust and oppressive, then God simply thought you were an asshole. That was a far cry from the view held by, say, Saint Aquinas. It is also one reason why protestant kings were less restrained in their rule, the other being that they didn't have to accomodate the Catholic Church. Frederick the Great and Gustav the Great were perhaps two of the most tyrannic kings in Western history and they were both protestants.
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.2172
>>2170
Neither you nor the people should decide which king is good enough for which nation, nor which nation deserves what kind of suffering. A king is a man with a mission. He might fail this one as we all may, but it is not on us to prevent him from trying. As long as a king does not violate divine law neither should we.
>>2171
Divine right is a renaissance concept. People in the middle ages have about the same view on it as we have on beaming.
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.2173
>>2172
>Divine right is a renaissance concept. People in the middle ages have about the same view on it as we have on beaming.
Wasn't sure about that, but it makes sense. I wanted to read a book on the divine right for a year now but haven't gotten around to it.
My argumentation still applies, though, whether we talk of a divine right or not. Kings in the Middle Ages couldn't rule completely arbitrary. It's ahistorical to suppose they could, extrapolating from modern legal and political philosophy into the past.
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.2174
>>2137
>explain to me how is monarchy different to other types of goverment [sic]
There is a function of government that is performed by someone completely chosen by heredity.
>Tell me how in your autistic minds it is better than fascism.
What features of fascism do you find to be ideal?
>Tell me how will it all work in practice.
There are many different forms of monarchism. This needs to be narrowed down to answer properly. In general, however, look at a historical case of monarchism, it has existed since virtually the dawn of human civilization.
>>2139
>Why do you prefer monarchy over what we have?
>What would be different?
Long=run time preference and anti-egalitarianism baked into the political system.
>>2142
>a monarchy can be fascist
Truth. Fascists also tend to be predisposed to monarchies, c.f. Spain and especially Francisco Franco.
>>2157
You have people arguing against you, but China really was the pinnacle of governmental stability relative to some place like Europe. At least China was able to manage centuries long periods of stability.
>>2173
Give the example of the yeoman complaining to Bismarck already.
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.2175
>>2145
> emotional
>fascism
Stopped reading there
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.2176
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.2179
>>2172
A king's subjects i.e. his flocks have full rights to determine whether the King is doing a bad job or a good job.
A King is not immune to criticism.
>As long as a king does not violate divine law neither should we.
He violates it if he abuses his flock and his land, those he sworn to protect.
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.2180
>>2179
>A king's subjects i.e. his flocks have full rights to determine whether the King is doing a bad job or a good job.
no
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.2181
>>2180
Yes.
Or are we playing fantasy land where the king is always right?
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.2182
>>2181
Are you playing fantasy where popular sovereignty exists?
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.2183
>>2182
No, we exist in reality where the flock can topple their king.
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.2184
>>2183
We exist in a reality where jews can kill millions of Ukrainians and no one bats an eye. Does this make it right?
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.2185
>>2184
It doesn't make it right, but it means we have to prepare for that stuff.
Be a good king and kill 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.2229
>>2137
Monarchy is the natural state of man. Fascism is merely the revolt against vile democracy and the birthing of the new aristocracy.
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.2236
>>2229
naturalistic fallacy
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.2237
>>2236
its not a fallacy kike
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.2241
>>2236
Justify your continued breathing.
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.2242
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.2253
>>2236
Fallacy fallacy you jew.
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.2254
>>2253
czyść mi kibel polaku
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.2258
>>2253
What is with the growth of people that don't understand what "fallacy fallacy" 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.2561
>>2229
This post is correct. Liberalism belongs in the fucking trash as its reign has amply demonstrated and fascism is a return to the historic norm. But by the same token, I think that traditional monarchs and fascist leaders can't coexist. It leads to power conflicts which obviates one of the biggest benefits of trashing liberalism. Codreanu and Mussolini both got burned by their king (and both kings got jack shit for it, serves them right for trusting Jews), and on the other side, Edward VIII was forced to abdicate because he was friendly to fascism.
Fascists who are fond of traditional monarchy have to understand the leader as a new kind of king, not try to set a king and a leader up as coequal.
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.2562
>>2561
Fascists are totalitarian in nature, and it is best they have a king. A king is their sovereign and the fascists are able to benefit from the king's authority.Their hunger for power is their downfall. Monarchy and the NWO is irrelevant to me. Some monarchs were pro-fascist (a minority, I admit) and the rest weren't. Sovereignty is invaluable to the nation, as much as the nation is invaluable to sovereignty; because they consist together, the fascist and the king benefit from cooperating. Sure, two powers can conflict, but if the King and the Fascist stay in their respective realms – that being the fascist over the people, and the sovereign over authority – they can possibly cooperate. You can't blame the conflict and escalation of a war on this, because wars naturally dishevel governments.
If the authority of the king stands as sovereign over the law, and the fascist as dictator comes out to handle consent, it is possible. Monarchy works upon consent and authority, so if fascists work upon dictating to the people the authority of the monarchy, and the monarchy's authority reinforces the fascist state (in promise that no other partisanship takes over, being the central problem – other political bodies)… it would potentially work.
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.2563
>>2137
From Machiavelli's "The Prince":
"I will not here speak of republics, having already
treated of them fully in another place. I will deal
only with monarchies, and will show how the
various kinds described above can be governed and
maintained. In the first place, in hereditary states
accustomed to the reigning family the difficulty of
maintaining them is far less than in new monarchies;
for it is sufficient not to exceed the ancestral usages,
and to accommodate one's self to accidental circum-
stances ; in this way such a prince, if of ordinary
ability, will always be able to maintain his position,
unless some very exceptional and excessive force
deprives him of it ; and even if he be thus deprived
of it, on the slightest misfortune happening to the
new occupier, he will be able to regain it.
We have in Italy the example of the Duke of
Ferrara, who was able to withstand the assaults of
the Venetians in the year '84, and of Pope Julius
in the year '10, for no other reason than because
of the antiquity of his family in that dominion. In
as much as the legitimate prince has less cause and
less necessity to give offence, it is only natural that
he should be more loved ; and, if no extraordinary vices make him hated, it is only reasonable for
his subjects to be naturally attached to him, the
memories and causes of innovations being forgotten
in the long period over which his rule has existed whereas one change always leaves the way prepared
for the introduction of another. "
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.3211
It's not better than fascism. It IS fascism, but with a lower time preference.
Fascist dictatorships fail after their leader dies. Monarchies fail after their leading family dies (or utterly fails).
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.3230
>>2165
>And I wonder just how China could turn into republic.
And I wonder just how Germany could get divided into two countries and then turn into a republic.
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.3231
>>3230
Germany was made into a republic during WWI when the jews staged a coup that defeated the German war effort.
And I wonder just how the Spanish South American colonies could turn into republics exclusively.
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.4029
>>2137
(Absolute) Monarchism is not bound to a specific political direction. A monarch can, in theory, radically change a lot of government policies without fearing as much repercussions from his followers like a dictator or elected leader would. You could make entire economic sectors state-owned and privatized again if deemed necessary.
Communists for example would kill their leader if he privatizes economic sectors again that were state-owned before as its conflicting to their basic ideals, a Monarchs playground is more open there.
Monarchs are less likely than other heads of government to fuck shit up for personal gain.
Others don't have to care what happens after they retire, if the country goes to shit they can just take their family to a foreign country and live in a nice villa guarded by private security. Monarchs are much more likely to be careful about their actions, because they have to think about the long term effects that it can have for their children, who will eventually inherit their position as the head of state.
So even if the current monarch doesn't even have any sense of obligation towards his subordinate countrymen something fascist states are not immune to either, he'd atleast reign to the best of his abilities for his own childrens sake.
A downside of an absolute monarchy is of course that he could just start a war for petty squabbles, but the main reason why that happened in the past internal disputes of a giant family with several generations of systematic incest and resulting mental defects is no longer given and completely preventable for the future.
And arguably the constant wars were (and would still be a desperately needed) necessary evil to keep the human population in check, living space is eventually going to run out, humanity is becoming decadent if times are too good for too long and delusional retards, like SJWs, mostly came to existance in large cities.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.