/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

Welcome, OP. I hope the same.

>>3663

>we are both nationalists after all

I don't know about that.

>>3683

A sovereignty is a combination of a people and their justice. The sovereign nations, and the belief of nations, becomes nationalism in a pre-revolutionary concept of nations. Distinct groups and cultures forming together as a heritage between people. A sovereign nation is a national government. By no means is it popular sovereignty, just that a sovereignty extends to a people somewhere and some land. And nationalism is the belief of nationality and pride in this heritage, being born of that sovereign nation and having this loyalty to someone in their national history and heritage.

Popular sovereignty is government "of the People", but sovereignty consists between a people and their justice. A crown exists to rule over a people, and a crown becomes the symbol of justice and authority. A sovereign nation is a land where the sovereign and his people are. This is like a lineage because throughout this shared heritage, where people have a common ancestry of blood and loyalty, they become like an extended family and are nationalities.

If you take someone of a foreign race, and a foreign nationality, into a sovereign nation, they are an outsider to this heritage. The nation consists of a race, a common heritage/culture, and a sovereign. Put someone of a foreign race into a sovereign nation, they cannot change their heritage and past loyalties and cannot change their race. Put someone of a foreign nationality (combination of heritage/loyalty), same race, they can change their loyalty, but their heritage remains the same.

I like nationalism and don't see anything wrong with sovereign nations. I dislike monarchists who pretend that the concept of nationalities and therefore nationalism (belief in nations) doesn't work with monarchies. They take one view (a correct view, but misguided) of paternal dynastic loyalty. Nations are built on loyalty and common ancestry, and ancestry begins with individual dynasties and a common loyalty to a sovereign. Dynastic patriotism is correct and vital to a nation. And a royal dynasty is very meaningful to a nation as a sovereignty. It extends a familial view that was of paternal households and paternal loyalty, and it goes between people who were loyal and who were of that shared ancestry called nationality.

During the dawn of the 20th century, WW1 monarchies were integrating nationalism as a concept with royal absolutism very well. Most nations and empires incorporate their sovereign as a part of the nation. I don't know what to see why a monarchy and nationalism needs to have conflict as two concepts, since they both are very interrelated imo. Both prioritize blood and loyalty. Dynastic patriotism and nationalism shouldn't go against each other. It only finds conflicts in imperialism and being ruled by a different nationality. I think that other forms of nationalism take a really Darwinist view of nationalities as their own species and only through this lenses. Imperial dynasty, although ruling above nations, isn't anti-national and against the concept of nations. It is just a higher power above nations and in certain cases incorporates nations to a new sovereign and have shared loyalty, only a lack of heritage compromises an empire from becoming a much larger nation. In certain cases, the imperial dynasty takes on two nations and integrates that structure. It's really complex and if we're talking about the Austro-Hungarian Empire, I wouldn't have an easy answer.

Like >>3663 OP stated, there are some historical grievances between different kinds of nationalism and different monarchies. Hitler and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Hitler didn't value dynastic patriotism as the same as national patriotism. But there are different types of nationalism and different nationalities. I don't think monarchists should ditch nations as a concept or give up on nationalism. If anything, monarchists should compete to secure monarchies as an integral part of a nation and not the other way around.

Despite what I said about dynastic patriotism, a sovereignty could toss between any ruler hypothetically. If a person ascends to that status, or a conqueror comes, life isn't fair and sometimes it does happen. There are instances of different races ruling over another. In Mexico, Maximilian I became an emperor. There is still a sovereignty of Mexico, but a foreign sovereign. People cannot really choose sovereigns alone. Then you have colonial governments ruling over foreign subjects. This sometimes depends on the native hierarchy and also where the monarch is. Overall, the monarch rules as an imperial head of state. This could bug nationalists and it could not. It still doesn't erase the nature of sovereignty and power relationships. I also don't think it is an ideal myself, but it is something that could happen for better or for worst.

A monarchy is constitutes stronger principles of hereditary leadership, blood, and loyalty. I don't think the institution really stands for going against nations. There are complex situations and conflicts with nationality/loyality, but life is made of conflict. It's the best anyone could hope for.

All I can say is it is much worse in the world today. People complain about nationalities and foreigner monarchs. In the cosmopolitan world of democracy and parliamentarianism, they have taken social contract and civic loyalty to another level. Just as it proposes that a people can choose any monarch they desire, now it's any leader is able to choose any people he desires. You find it with open border immigration policies and globalization. With civic nationalism without concrete blood and only paper status citizenship rather than heritage. It might not even be a question of loyalty since they take rapefugees. Then you have (((subversive))) influences lurking about and sheer political dogma, partisanship, and seeing people as a completely interchangeable.

Monarchists know that history builds a character and heritage with what a people spend and do together with their sovereignty. Sovereignty and a people should not be changed and when they are replaced and changed, they cannot go back. They are just genocided and removed.

Monarchy and nationalism are kin. I think monarchies have much more to offer in their paternal and ancestral nature to nationalism than republicanism or even any partisanship. There is a great potential for a stronger nation and monarch. They definitely complement each other somewhere along the line.

>>3687

MM tackles it in his article.

https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-root-of-current-french-crisis.html

>Despite what some think, nationalism was not a purely post-revolutionary invention, though it certainly did become more pronounced in many places after the French Revolution, largely because of the impact the French Revolutionary Wars had on other, neighboring countries such as Italy and Germany. However, long before the French Revolution there was the German First Reich, officially the, “Holy Roman Empire of the German *Nation*” which included all people of the German nationality. France, likewise, clearly had a kind of nationalism before the Revolution. During the Hundred Years War, the French fought long and hard to oppose being overtaken and ruled by the English in spite of the fact that the English looked like they did, worshipped as they did and even had kings who were in many ways more French than English. Yet, they still understood that they were French, the English were not and wished for France to remain French and not become English. Throughout the Middle Ages, everyone knew that a Frenchman was a Frenchman. He was not the same as a German or an Englishman or an Italian or a Spaniard. Pre-Revolutionary Europeans understood the concept of nationalism, it was only that in those days, faith was more important than nationality. That did not mean that nationality did not exist or was inconsequential but that there was more to it than that.

He also wrote this article I like.

https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/09/what-countries-are-made-of.html#comment-form

>In demonstrating how peoples make countries, one will also see quite clearly how, even in our very republican-dominant age, monarchies loom very large given the fact that throughout most of human history, in every part of the world, monarchy has been the dominant form of government, growing naturally from the expansion of families into clans, clans into tribes and tribes into nations.

>People make countries just as people make cultures and when people move from one country to another they take their culture and all that has formed them to their new home. When the English moved to America, they established New England, built English homes, operated according to English law and so on. They did not start living as the Mohawk or Iroquois or Huron lived simply because they were in North America. Similarly, when the Spanish came to Mexico, they did not start wearing Quetzal-feather headdresses, building pyramids and taking up human sacrifice. They brought Spanish culture with them, though there was a greater blending of people in Mexico because the Spanish did not bring any women with them, only soldiers and priests. Hence why the majority of the population in Mexico is mixed-race and the population of the United States has been predominately European. All the actions and inactions of all who have gone before them have made each population what it is today. Even when people try to imitate others, they are still bound by their own accumulative history. The first German Reich, for example, called itself the “Holy Roman Empire” but it was still quite different in a number of ways from the original Roman Empire because the German and Italian people were different and had vastly different histories.

>>3844

>Hey! do you know that without the King personal approval of fascism, the fascist regime should have been imposible, but it was not the case as the King approved fascism, also the Italian Liberal Government of 1922 wanted to smash Mussolini and the Blackshirts, but the King dismissed the Government and named Mussolini Prime Minister, starting the Fascist Regime, which lasted until the Great Fascist Council in 1943 used the Italian Army to force the King to remove the government, after the "Coup d'état" of the Great Fascist Council the King had no power in Italy, because the Military Dictatorship of Pietro Badoglio (1943-1945)

>/fascism/ and monarchy dont work together,just look at how italy split due to conflicts with the king and the fascists/mussolini.

This wouldn't be the case if there wasn't political tension and division prior to that split. The reason they split was WW2 and factions. Lest we forget that post-WW2, the liberal democratic NWO evicted the House of Savoy from Italy and abolished it.

>fascism is ultimately a product of the democratic cancer

Fascism is far more royalist in sentiment sometimes than liberal conservatives. I don't see why we pat them on the head without lofting an eyebrow. I don't see why monarchists seem to think there's an imperative to be pro-Allies when the Axis had monarchies as well – and I don't understand why being pro-Allies or pro-Axis counts towards being pro-monarchy. The Old World Order suffered extensively.

<But fascist anti-royalist opinions!

These are usually wavering and motivated with difficulties. However, I have yet to see a fascist execution of a monarch. I have seen the French Revolution and the leftists execute a monarch, the regicide of King Charles I in the name of liberty, and the Bolshevik execution of Tsar Nicholas II – but no fascist execution of any monarch. More fascists have suffered for being pro-royalist and I sympathize with this. On this board, there are certain people who clamor about the guillotine and liberty, in the name of monarchism.

Hitler and National Socialism are a different story. They seem uncompromising towards monarchy sometimes. They are no worse than the republicans in some instances. However, Hitler isn't at fault for the downfall of the German imperial monarchy. Hitler didn't remove the German monarchy. He simply took power away from republicans. And then there's the case where Hitler prevented the restoration of the Austrian monarchy. That goes as a historical grievance between monarchists and national socialists. As for fascism, it is not the same as national socialism. I take a neutral stance on Axis and Allies like my own non-alignment movement.

In short, fascists aren't such a menace as some people make them out to be.

The fascist variety of Strasserists and Fangalists are a unique case. They seem more democratic and possible ground for anti-monarchy sentiments.

https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2016/09/fascism-fascism-and-monarchy.html

>The term “fascist” has been so-overused in modern political discourse that it has become something of a joke, an epithet that is hurled at an enemy rather than a serious accusation. Everyone has probably heard the quip that the modern definition of “fascist” is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal. Few really know what it means, it is simply another way of calling someone evil. The political left is mostly responsible for this, calling anyone who is not a communist a “fascist” but right-of-center liberals have also taken to it, conceding to the left that “fascism” is simply another word for absolute evil and instead arguing that the leftists are the “real” fascists. Referring to radical, Islamic terrorists as “Islamo-fascists” or Jonah Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Fascism” being but two examples of this. Add to this the fact that a standard fascist economic model, corporatism, has been appropriated and re-defined as synonymous with plutocracy and it is no wonder that there is a huge amount of ignorance and confusion on the subject of fascism. So, what is actual fascism and what sort of record does it have regarding traditional authority? First, we must define our terms.

>A distinction, first of all, must be made between “Fascism” and “fascism”. There has only ever been one Fascist regime in history and that was the regime of Benito Mussolini, the inventor of Fascism, in Italy; first the National Fascist Party in the Kingdom of Italy and briefly the Republican Fascist Party in the Italian Social Republic in that part of northern Italy Mussolini was allowed to control. Defining Fascism has never been very easy. One can, as I did back in my university days, buy copies of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ by Karl Marx and ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’ by Benito Mussolini and read both (they are very small books). You will likely come away with a very firm understanding of what communism is all about, where they want to go and how they want to get there, how they see the world. On the other hand, you will likely come away with a sort of understanding or sense of what Fascism is about, the spirit that drives it but nothing very concrete. That is because, as Mussolini himself often said, Fascism was more style than substance. It was about “unity” and “action” rather than any specific set of bullet points or a party program. Mussolini famously said once that the Fascists only program was, “to smash the heads of the socialists”.

>Critics have long said this was because Mussolini was simply inconsistent, shallow and needed an excuse. Mussolini himself, however, called it being flexible and pragmatic. He often said that action was more important than political dogma, that what works today may fail tomorrow and what failed today may work tomorrow. Fascism rejected the notion that there was some specific political formula that would solve all problems but insisted rather that circumstances change and the State must be able to adapt. In other words, do not make specific promises but lay out a broad vision and do what it takes to get there. Try something and, if it doesn’t work, discard it and try something else until you find what works best and then do more of that. Strength in unity, symbolized by the fasces, was the most important principle but other than that, the most important thing was action, to do rather than to talk, to act rather than to argue, forget the legalism and do what must be done and be limited only in the regard of doing what is proven to work. “The machine, first of all, must run!” as Mussolini once said.

>Beyond pragmatism, Mussolini tended to refer to Fascism in almost religious terms, as a spiritual movement as well as a political one, it was about regaining a sense of national pride, cultural preservation and glorification as well as bringing about a unity that included Church and State as well. This came into being with the signing of the Lateran Treaty which resulted in the Holy See, finally, recognizing and endorsing the Kingdom of Italy and Italy becoming an officially Catholic country (in law as well as in practice). This was huge news at the time, a true historical event and Mussolini was hailed as “the man who gave God back to Italy and Italy back to God”. As for the monarchy, Mussolini himself, in socialist days, was adamantly against it, was initially against it after inventing Fascism but later backed the monarchy and urged his supporters to do the same. The “diarchy” of King and Duce prevailed during most of the Fascist Era with Mussolini being supportive of the monarchy in public but often derisive in private. Of course, when the King dismissed him from office in 1943, he reverted back to zealous opposition to the monarchy, which is not surprising.

>Looking, more broadly, beyond “Fascism” which is, strictly speaking, limited to Italy, to “fascism” as in those regimes most often identified as fascist, we can see some common themes and some of these explain why Mussolini the Fascist had very different views on church and crown than Mussolini the socialist. Regimes labeled as fascist tend to be very nationalist and that by itself means that they are not all going to be the same but will draw on the unique histories and cultures of the peoples involved. They tend to emphasize ‘fraternity’ but not ‘equality’ and tend to favor traditional values. Unity is almost always paramount and fascists reject democracy, liberalism and any form of civil rights that could be damaging to national cohesion. Religion tends to be respected, though of course, that is usually contingent on it not being a source of division (or, in other words, dissent).

>Organization, regimentation and discipline are greatly emphasized by fascist regimes and often an emphasis on the “greater good” of the nationality. The fascist goal of unity also carried over into the economic sphere where the means of production remains largely in private hands but with restrictions in place with the aim of ensuring unity between ownership and labor and the good of the nation. Regimes of this sort tend to organize their economies around industries, forcing workers and owners to unite behind industrial codes, in ways which vary slightly and have different names depending on the country in question, from corporations, national syndicates, vertical trade unions and do on. The broad idea was ending the owner/worker divide, keeping the economy largely private but subject to state regulation in the name of the national interest as well as economic independency and, initially at least, a total rejection of international finance and general dislike of borrowing and lending.

>Finally, taken altogether, despite what the leftists think, who see fascism around every corner, the fact is that there have been relatively few fascist regimes around the world and fewer still that had the chance to live out a normal life as it were, which can make it hard to pass judgment on them in a rational, dispassionate way. From the point of view of one who supports traditional authority, there was nothing in the most basic fascist platform that would preclude one from supporting them. Some fascist types were pro-monarchy and others were not but their basic common themes; a focus on national unity, aversion to multi-party democracy, corporatism, support for traditional values, putting your own nation first, a self-interested foreign policy and a goal of as much economic self-sufficiency as possible, contain nothing inherently opposed to traditional authority.

>Personally, the only acceptable form of classical liberalism was that embodied by such conservative thinkers as Edmund Burke. The problem is in maintaining that style as liberalism carries within it the seeds of its own destruction as should be all too clear now. As someone known for having more positive things to say about Mussolini than is considered acceptable in polite society, I will not hesitate to point out again that the liberals today seem intent with their overreaching to prove him right more every day in his assertion that, “The liberal state is a mask behind which there is no face, it is a scaffolding behind which there is no building” or that, essentially, the whole system is a fraud with freedoms for the favored but not for all. The basic liberal system, based to a large extent on idealism, works only in so far as the ground rules are evenly applied and universally adhered to. Such is no longer the case today so that the point of view of the fascists, that every state is essentially totalitarian and the only options are whether it is a totalitarianism that favors your worldview or suppresses it, supports your people or endeavors to destroy them, becomes, I would think, nearly impossible to refute.

>For this adherent of traditional authority, one of the biggest roots of our current evils is the existence of political parties. The basic corporatist model has long been one that I think has the potential to rid countries of that pestilence. In that way, to jump to the opposite end of the political spectrum, it is also why I have time for libertarian type ideas about the ‘privatized society’ in that regard. I would not quickly dismiss anything that would offer hope for rendering mass political parties irrelevant and ultimately extinct. If anything, regardless of any one group's view of monarchy (and this could be dangerous) the current trends of society, particularly in the western countries which have the very existence of their people at stake, the public is being forced in a nationalist direction simply as a survival mechanism.

>>4476

>trying to imply we aren't nationalists

This rant isn't to disparage any liberty-minded peasants too much. There are some good ones. The only thing that appalls me is the rebel rhetoric and social contract evaluation of monarchy as being "disposable". Nigel Farage speaks well on behalf of the Queen, Commonwealth, and Great Britain. Brexit is perhaps the highest honor to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the Queen, a fight for Her Majesty's sovereign right rather than the EU's abusive totalitarian schemes.

>pic related is what I rail at

Even Thomas Paine voted to spare the life of King Louis XIV. The benevolent thing about libertarians is their value of human rights and avoiding the democratic nuissance; that is, how the people demand more and more government intervention and accumulate laws like an undying plague. The American War of Independence is unique in that it separated and didn't end with a beheaded king. Less destructive than the French Revolution for being a proponent of human rights and justice, whereas – the ideology of the French Revolution and the belief in the General Will – threw hordes of people at each other in a fury and disparaged human life in the 'Great Terror' which Americans were appalled with.

>>4487

Well, I don't know. This rather depends. If that person went and lived in the woods and lived off the flat of the land in an isolationist state, didn't bother anyone, and seemingly respected the law and sovereignty – yes. They are free to secede. The problem is that freedom is a question of being free from other people.

>>4488

>In this hypothetical, the assumption is that yes, they would respect other's wishes in this way

My assumption is no. NAP is not ingrained in the heart's of men. Look at all the socialists and democratic demagogues who demand government. As it is seen in the story of Jews demanding a king, they bring their own reckoning and find the consequences of government. This is why I cannot embrace an anarchistic point of view. I find that after a revolution and disposal of monarchy, things tend to get only worse – especially in those revolutions where the king is beheaded – because it doesn't reveal any respect for sovereignty and rights as a concept. And my other problem is who is to determine that a King has to go? And is the premise always true that they were tyrants? Sometimes the most power-hungry fiends are behind these accusations. It's only thing to promise that you are for the liberty of the People, and it's another to actually be true to those words.

>pic related Russian Statesman and a description of the apostles of Rousseau – generally leftwing and communist.

My problem with all anarchists is they make this assumption that their political beliefs are imbibed in the soul of man and everyone will appreciate their ideals and political ideology.

>>4490

>nothing more noble than self-interest in the hearts of men

Obedience and honor are more noble. The sooner you can honor other men, and show civil obedience, the best the outcome of civil liberty with respect. You need to honor authority before you seek to rue it. If you have no capacity for honor and chivalry, there is no way any self-interest will be to the benefit of the liberty of their peers.

>Essentially, the message is as follows: "This land is my land, and I will defend it. No other man, including the king or his soldiers, is free to tread on it without my consent. I will not pay taxes to the king, with the understanding that in doing so, I forfeit my access to the King's justice, and any other privileges he may grant to his subjects. Because this land is mine and not the king's, the king may not stop me from doing what I please on my own land. I will not bother you, if you do not bother me."

Nobody has the proclivity to respect this demand with absolute certainty. As I said before, the people demand government and they receive it as their own displeasure and avarice. In democracy, it is always the mob that seeks to vote away the affluence and wealth of others.

>>4492

>self-interest implies honorable behavior

I disagree. You have a good view of human nature, and I don't.

>does he have the right to not be interfered with? Does he have the right, in other words, to become monarch of his own personal plot of land?

No answer. As I said, freedom is being free from other people. I don't know. You could say, "Where does this right proceed from?" and who will defend his right? If you suppose that government is for this purpose, then I suppose. And I would argue monarchy does the best job. Generally, I would agree that justice assists a person from the violence and infringement of other people, but that is just an ideal.

Answer my question.

Why do you suppose that it is their self-interest? After this whole history of popular tyranny and pandering, and the existence of states for centuries, I'm supposed to accept that this will change its course towards self-interest utopia. If it was their self-interest all along, things shouldn't be the way things are.

>>4494

>Why do you suppose that it is their self-interest?

Game theory, plus economics, plus common sense, plus personal experience. All of them point to rational self-interest and all of them have a great deal of arguments, both a priori and empirical, to support their claims. Getting into specifics on how this is indeed the case for every possible whataboutism scenario would take far too long, and would drift quite a bit away from the original talking point.

>After this whole history of popular tyranny and pandering

Surely as a monarchist you realize this is hardly the "whole history". Mass democracy has been the dominant form of governance for barely a century. What democracies existed prior to then were de facto aristocracies, as only the landed elite had any voting power. Prior to this very recent rise of democracy, "statism" and states as we know them may as well have not existed. The state did not interfere with people's lives to nearly the degree it does today.

> I'm supposed to accept that this will change its course towards self-interest utopia.

Not a changing of course, a course correction. Men were far more free to live their lives in the past, and tended to do so with comparatively minimal interference from the state. This applied even in matters of crime and punishment; British merchants famously used a series of wholly private, self-regulated courts to resolve their disputes until the end of the 19th century. The Icelandic commonwealth, too, was largely self-governing, as was Gaelic Ireland, the United States under the Articles of Confederation, Quaker communities within the States even after the Constitution replaced the Articles, among others. We have come very close to what you dismiss as "utopia" more than once, it's simply hard to see that from within this democratic prison.

Further, you seem to be misinformed as to the initial creation of states. Hobbesians love to assert that they were started by strong men with big sticks who simply chose to violently impose their will over others, but this is not the case. Most governments were formed out of voluntary private property arrangements, in which a village elder or similar individual provided protection services to people in exchange for a fee. It was through a gradual process that this protection service became a monopoly, then a compulsory monopoly, and only then that the monopolist stopped running a protection service and started running a protection racket.

>If it was their self-interest all along, things shouldn't be the way things are.

This sounds like pure sophistry to me. As time has gone on subsequent generations of increased humanity's total level of understanding, and with it our knowledge of what is "good" and "not good" for our own interests. Modern medicine is not hindered by the fact that centuries ago witch doctors punched holes in skulls and practiced bloodletting; by the same token, the fact that our ancestors did not spring into life with the totality of economic thought in their head does not invalidate contemporary advancements in economic theory.

>>4498

>And one more for luck, that's enough before bed.

You devil. Listen, I respect your views and so on, but I'm never going to agree that 'social contract' and removing monarchs is anywhere near ideal from my perspective. Just be grateful we don't have a libertarian hate thread or whatever. Honestly, sometimes I wish we did.

>Hobbesians love to assert that they were started by strong men with big sticks who simply chose to violently impose their will over others

This is not what Hobbesians assert. The proceeding information you told me is pretty much what Hobbes asserts: consentual protection with the leviathan assisting the safeguard of propriety. I espouse the Hobbesian doctrine only when goofballs resume that executing monarchs is a solution to anybody's problems. However, I choose a benevolent inter-dependency and Dei Gratia monarchy, not absolute social contract theory that most anarchists have problems with. My problem with anarchists is they conflate the two as the same.

>All of them point to rational self-interest and all of them have a great deal of arguments, both a priori and empirical, to support their claims

Hobbes makes his claim on rational self-interest AND passion. As for self-interest, it is not always the best for everyone and don't sell me the idea that it is honorable; what is honorable consists in praising others and being selfless. I hate altruism too because it's unrealistic when made an ideology, yes.

>Not a changing of course, a course correction.

You haven't corrected anything; things have only gotten worse, not better. – As far as I know, yes. Yes, people were freer in the past when there were monarchies.

>Game theory, plus economics, plus common sense, plus personal experience.

>If it was their self-interest all along, things shouldn't be the way things are.

<This sounds like pure sophistry to me.

Yeah, yeah. I understand muh a priori and muh empircal data. This is what I dislike about libertarian monarchists the most. They talk to us absolutists like primitive apes with their own sophistry.

>>4495

>Hobbesians love to assert that they were started by strong men with big sticks who simply chose to violently impose their will over others, but this is not the case.

>he hasn't read Hobbes or any other writers asserting the need for a sovereign

>or any non-cucklike anthropologists with archaeologists

FYI, they don't say that civilization was formed by that. They do say that societies without a defined state are far more internally bloody than those that do. Which is backed up by violent deaths per capita among both modern non-state societies and ancient ones.

See:

http://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gatherer/

Also, those old societies you sing the praises of had plenty of coercion in them even if informal.

I also need to assert that sovereignty goes beyond what is private and what is public.

>>4503

>What exactly does that mean? It seems public enough to me, just wrapped up in fancy terminology.

Above and encompassing power. It reinforces everything about propriety with public and private within the domain of sovereignty. The justice and people of that land receive with the monarch's civil authority which he inherited.

>>4506

>spells nigger with a capital N

Nigger.

>me and my gang

>raping your wife and daughter

Yup, definitely a nigger.

>How pray tell are you going to get me and my gang to respect your prawpatee without appealing to coercion?

>defense is coercion

>security insurance companies are coercion

Cry more, little nig.

I agree that the accumulation of laws is against liberty. When I think of civil liberty and authority, it is important to know that hierarchy and authority aren't necessarily against all civil liberties. It only matters in preventing others from infringing upon what is theirs and yours and mine.

Hobbes main point, regardless of what is ideal or justified, is that men and power makes laws and not promises and handshakes. His defense of absolute monarchy is rooted in that men rule, not laws, and it is just one individual being uplifted with power. As pic 2 relates, "one of the jacks invested with power". The leviathan is a man to prevent other men from vying over power.

>and how does this separate from De Gratia monarchy?

By the Grace of God, the monarch is responsible and should honor that source of power. This might seem absurd. It is their responsibility invested (by what command they are able to muster over men) with the sovereignty of the realm. This is the whole state of propriety and justice. This hierarchy is built on who is responsible for who and this determines their status. It isn't a bottom-top view; it is a top-down, and a body through which propriety and domain are invested with this. As I said before, all these values are reproduced here.

>Hobbes on consent

Hobbes sees that you can do anything with your body, and Hobbes even acknowledges that you possess it. What is a 'right' to Hobbes is anything you are capable of doing regardless of whether it is justified or unjustified. The social contract theory of Hobbes is more centralized and coercive than Dei Gratia because it requires a 'collective' source from the People who consent while there's a bit of reluctance and restraint. In Hobbes term, consent is very easy to let loose. Consent by inference and acceptance of the laws and non-viligante work? Yes, as much as someone recognizes that power and doesn't find themselves able to press their command and verdicts.

>Hobbes on propriety

This is where anarchists tend to disagree with Hobbes. His view is that without the state there is no strong sense of propriety. And the difference with Hobbes and Dei Gratia is that a monarch absolutely knows what is his own with the concept of his own authority. And as we discussed, this is best to provide that everyone else knows what is their own with the chief example, reproduced from the monarch, as the rightful inheritor. The Filmer view is that this naturally accumulated from the influence of families. (Another difference between Hobbes and Filmer – two proponents of the absolute from two different perspectives).

>>4503

>This is borderline worse than the tards who go, "HURR, ROTHBARD WAS PRO ISRAEL BECAUSE HE JOO."

Little did they know the master plan: mcnuke all the gommies.

Monarchy is ultra-nationalistic and extremely hateful.