No.3442
Why should a monarch care about promoting modernisation, taking care of the poor, or staying out of futile wars?
Of course he might- but on the other hand, he may only build palaces, enrich himself and his relations, and wage war to expand the domain of his exploitation.
A Republic operated by and for the people seems more likely to create the first kind of Ruler than pure chance. You may try to argue that Republics are simply controlled by money, but in fact Continental Europe has very stringent laws about political donations.
____________________________
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.3443
>modernization
>taking care of the poor
>staying out of futile wars
What is this? What do you want, OP? I can't answer your faggot questions.
>he might flippantly spend 99.9% of the budget on royal parties and palaces
>while a republic, operated by "the People" would be frugal with its money and spending habits
You need to stop thinking like a republican… We all want royal parties. That's the end-game. To siphon money away from the bureaucratic agencies and deplete them into royal parties. If we can't have another Versailles built, then I'm afraid Western civilization is dead. Think of all the jobs we could produce with construction projects and palaces being built for the monarch's esteem. You didn't think of that, did you?
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.3444
Why trust anyone, OP? It really doesn't matter what you and I think.
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.3452
>>3443
> I can't answer your faggot questions.
Then gtfo out of the thread,
>>3444
>Why trust anyone, OP?
Trusting no-one is worth considering. What I'm trying to get across is that if we aren't to trust those in power we should support accountability.
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.3453
>>3452
Political lobbying is a phenomena with representation in government. The aristocratic vote will always manifest in a society somehow. Hobbes mentions that even an aristocracy benefits from a monarchy because that justice is within the hands of an authoritarian and thus all factions receive justice whether they like it or not. At least, the aristocracy becomes more benevolent. I honestly don't care about money interests and political representation, tbqh with you OP. That's what republicans care about as in other manifestations of checking and balancing and representing "The People". The central problem is popular sovereignty is a myth and a people are not sovereign over themselves.
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.3454
>>3453
Wtf do you even mean by 'the aristocratic vote'? What makes one an 'aristocrat'?
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.3455
>>3454
Although not technically aristocrats, I mean unequal representation in a council. Socialists, as democratic idealists, dislike lobbying because it reinforces unequal representation of influence on the public officials with money interests.
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.3456
This is also what Hobbes has to say about a monarchy and public wealth.
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.3457
In Hobbes' terms (although I don't entirely agree with this basis), the People manifest themselves in a sovereign while the door is open. When the door shuts, and the Sovereign becomes a willpower over the People, that's when consent becomes obedience to that system to justice… as far as a sovereign is able to protect a people. But a multitude is not a people – it is a faction of a people. Where the sovereign justice resides is where sovereign power benefits a people and technically is the people (because they consent to that justice as long as they aren't rebelling).
I agree with Joseph de Maistre's terms more, even if he's a bit more aristocratic, that a sovereign power is more elusive. His mandate on this issue is likewise to Hobbes, but there's a hierarchy in terms of where power comes from. Power > Sovereignty > Consent. Power goes from person to person, as elusive as it is, and sovereignty carries the weight of justice over a people, as the people consent in obedience or reject in rebellion (which is also another manifestation of power, but unlike Hobbes, it carries the weight of a divine influence). Maistre takes a middle ground between divine right and social consent.
Look at the 4rd image. "The first soldier was paid by a king." No contracted soldier, as a fighter with loyalty, would exist without a person he is loyal to. This institution enlists and creates soldiers, and without it there wouldn't be soldiers fighting on behalf of anyone – but rogue fighters. Here it is asserted that sovereignty established itself from a succession of ancestry and fathers, but I'll admit might is right and that is another way.
That's the last time I'm going to rape you with screencaps, but this is where I stand on the issue.
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.3458
>>3442
No government is clear from political lobbying and aristocratic influences, but a monarchy has a stronger basis for government because it lies within a single person. There will always be an elite that has influences and whims over the rest of society. The important aspect is making sure they know their responsibilities, and that we cross over to making an aristocracy of virtues as best possible. An authoritarian government allows for an equal basis for justice since everyone is subject to that power. Most rulers enrich themselves, but a monarch is already rich and doesn't need to loot people for more wealth. There is already a rich heritage and inheritance with a monarchy. There are figures that enrich themselves, like the Shah of Iran and having many luxury vehicles, but then the democracy also enriches people and wastes money on social/political pandering to different political groups/followers. What luxuries a monarch buys these days is little in comparison to what is bought with pandering for a multitude. We see that with great self-entitlement with minority groups that demand reparations, with class (for example; middle class demanding public works, assistance in higher education, and other things; as in wealthier class and tariffs/subsidies/lobbying; with the poorer class, with desire of safety net, public transport, and so on) – and worst of all, from politicans, making promises to certain political groups with the entire budget. This popularity contest is all about how to spend money to begin with, and the popularity contest doesn't spend it frugally.
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.3459
>taking care of the poor
The poor will always be poor.
But let's think of politics from the first model. A family, starting with a father, withholds a debate about who gets what. The brother wants an allowance, and the sister wants an allowance for shopping. Which of these "political" groups will receive their allowance? That is the earliest model for politics, as political interests developed into civic interests for different professions and different classes and different demands. A monarchy is subject to reason, as Bossuet describes. A paternal authority doesn't spoil the brat, as a father doesn't give everything to his son or daughter; because a father's primary goal is raising them to be good offspring, and giving them everything is unreasonable. Political interests are built on conceit and desire for one group only, so they're automatically destructive. A government based on political interests is less a government, but it leans towards abuse of other groups. A monarchy's primary interests is providing justice through sovereignty (which is a combination of a people and their justice) and bringing harmony. All members of that family remain together because they love each other. This love is the harmony between an authority and liberty.
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.3460
If you think a market-based economy is sufficient to mostly provide for people to a certain degree, then I don't know what you want to take care of the poor. The best safety net outside of public assistance is actually their families. A poor person could try relying on their family and relatives for help, or their friends. There is no cure-all for social ills, though, as sometimes people are abandoned. Sometimes families reject certain individuals. Sometimes life is unfair and despotic.
>staying out of futile wars
War and peace are two states of being. You can't promise eternal stagnant peace. There is bound to be conflict wherever you walk. A government should prioritize a strong military first and foremost.
I don't see why monarchies get the prejudice of being the warmongering nation-states. Socialists prescribe that it's the bourgeois element, and nationalists feel that popular sovereignty wouldn't allow needless wars. WW1 is considered the tragic war (and it is), but WW2 is a propagandist war. As soon as popular governments seized power, and monarchies disappeared, these governments made propaganda and legitimized their wars through their popular conceit and idealism. Their war is the righteous war, while the previous government (the monarchy) is the reckless warmonger. The reality is WW2 had far more consequences. causalities, and overall death than compared to WW1. Total war is very unrestrained, and a war between peoples and masses is much deadlier. The worst part is WW2 was so propagandist and justified in the republican view, it doesn't matter how many millions died in waged battle. They lament about tragic loss in WW1, but their propaganda and ideology doesn't make them lament about their justified wars. The US went against pacifists in WW2 and didn't take kindly to the opposition to the war. The Axis had conceit that they did better than their predecessors, yet they also suffered in defeat. These propagandist wars are no better.
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.3462
>>3442
There's my answer, OP.
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.3463
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.3471
>>3456
Seems like he's saying that more persons in government must translate to more illicit taking of wealth, and more nepotism in office, which doesn't really follow.
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.3472
>>3457
>No contracted soldier, as a fighter with loyalty, would exist without a person he is loyal to.
What would you call the hired warriors of a Republic? They are soldiers.
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.3473
>>3458
It's not just about how much is spent, it's about how it's used.
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.3474
>>3459
Is it always true that a monarch is subject to reason? He may be or he may not. And what is the proof that a monarch's interest is in providing justice and bringing harmony? Often he will want to destroy his enemies rather than provide justice to them or create harmony.
Look at what happened to Jews, Protestants, Catholics, and political enemies of the Tsar.
>>3460
>I don't see why monarchies get the prejudice of being the warmongering nation-states
I didn't claim that monarchies are the most warmongering- only that a country with popular sovereignty seems less likely to wage futile wars.
Modern wars have been more total but you have to account for technological change. Saudi Arabia, as a modern monarchy, seems willing to use modern strategies of war.
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.3476
>>3474
>And what is this proof that a monarch's interest is in providing justice and bringing harmony?
>justice
Because that is the monarch's office. As the head of state, and the bearer of a crown, the monarch has the authority that justice springs from.
>harmony
Peace and reconciliation would be any head of state's wishes. But a partisan usually heaps scorn, so there's that.
>justice and harmony
These are what governments are for.
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.3477
>>3476
>Because that is the monarch's office. As the head of state, and the bearer of a crown, the monarch has the authority that justice springs from.
So your reason for the King's wanting to provide justice is 'cause he's the King'. Lmao
>Peace and reconciliation would be any head of state's wishes.
Wrong lmao I just gave examples of where h'd rather kill his enemiees
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.3478
>>3477
Listen, kiddo. Everything I said applies to all governments. I don't know what you want about why monarchy is better or why it isn't. It's frankly not a primitive form like most contemporary prejudice will tell you; just go look at the footage in the music thread. These monarchies were still prominent toward the beginning of the 20th century, our modern era, and they prospered.
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.3479
>>3478
Tsar Russia didn't prosper, iirc, and he didn't exactly succeed in keeping harmony if that was his goal.
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.3480
>>3479
Russia is a big country and isn't wealthy like Western Europe. However, Russia had amazing innovations for its time period despite all the words said of it as a land of reactionary backwater. You don't take Russia and compare it to Western Europe with its industry and colonial empires. For Russia in the time, there was rapid industrialization and the autocracy built railroads and coal came to be available.
>keeping harmony
A revolution and a war happened. But the Russian Empire had been for centuries. Shit happens. People tend to undermine that there were periods of peace as there are periods of turbulence.
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.3481
>>3477
A crown is akin to a constitution in that it is another authority that is about sovereign justice. You focus on the king, but not the monarchy. While the king is the monarchy, the monarchy itself is present as an authority.
>>3473
Money is spent to be used. Money is circulated throughout the whole economy. To pander with politics and promises, I say, the politician leads people astray. You mentioned Hobbes >>3471 and it meant multiplied pandering to a BIGGER mass. A democracy operates on pandering for votes and public support, and to gain such public support it means to pander and sell other people out in favor of your people – your multitude.
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.3482
Harmony is also compliance and love of government enough. I'm going back to your central question because I'm growing bored. If you truly want to know the motives of a monarch, I will being with >>3442 your prompt again. You ask, "why?"
>why should a monarch care
Because the monarch is the successor of his ancestors. The monarch inherits the legacy of his household. This paternal authority is the same paternal authority that men hold as fathers. This ancestral wisdom is a source of inspiration and influence on the monarch. Great monarchs look back to their ancestors to guide them. Their tradition is following the actions their hereditary parents took and their achievements.
The monarch also owns the country as its sovereign. It is the monarch's estate to visit and take care of. It is his life office.
As sovereign of a people, the title bears that the monarch is theirs and since the monarch is responsible for them, the monarch has this to remember that the sovereignty of a land changes and goes between the men in history.
The discipline of monarchs is their God and Divine Right to this office. Their authority and right is sanctified from a divine mandate and this proceeds to resemble all rights by a crown. This is an office of virtue for them.
Monarchs are akin to paternal authority. When I say harmony, it is their love and responsibility to stay with a people.
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.3483
When I speak of "subject to Reason"… I refer to Bossuet and his properties of royal authority. It doesn't matter what an assembly thinks is reasonable or what The People™ think if the monarch is being reasonable. Say, a monarch goes and says, "I will shoot myself in the head and live." Does it, and doesn't live; he is subject to reason. Everything is subject to reason.
If you want a concise answer, Hobbes does address this issue in Leviathan. Even though a person could be dragged to court, the subject has the ability to speak on his behalf.
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.3484
The problem with democracy is its totalitarian instinct. It calls upon the masses, seeks to control the masses, and seeks to manifest through the total will of the masses. This is the great multitude. It focuses on the masses for partisanship. It seeks to propagandize way more than a monarchy does. A monarchy is an authoritative government that doesn't call upon the masses in such a way. While Hobbes believes the sovereign is already the total consent of the people, it is still an authoritative control and isn't in the delusional state of "getting power through masses in political pandering while the door is still open". His consent is totally different as people consent moreso than just saying they agree. It is what they do. But the terror of democracy is the thought of the multitude and multitude only. Two gigantic waves clashing and pouring. The desire to control the People entirely by means of democracy and justification through voting startles me. The aspiration of totality disturbs me.
A monarch looks to an authority. The consentual basis is much toned and relates to responsibility as an office rather than a game of control and politics. Like I often say, Hobbes' consentual ideal isn't my idea as much and it's one of the things I disagree with him about. I prefer Maistre's explanation of a mixed answer; because it is true that the sovereignty of a nation is a combination of the people and their sovereign. It is also the authority. What is authoritarian is much better than what is totalitarian in aspiration. I used to talk with MM (Mad Monarchist), and I recall him saying that he agrees more with Filmer (who wrote Patriarcha) than Hobbes. The patriarchalists focused on paternal authority as an expansive thing – from family, to tribe, to nation. It sounds like a much more benevolent form. While Hobbes' social contract theory is really foundational for many governments.
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.3489
Honestly, OP, I don't know what else you would like. Go hence and return to your world of boring politicians and their orator ways.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.