No.3918 [View All]
How do you compromise individual sovereignty with monarchy? The notion that the individual is law-maker and sovereign. Individual justice and individual choice. With monarchy, the rule of one. The rule of dynastic, hereditary rulers. It has conflicts and potential benefits for a libertarian monarchy. Where does it fall into harmony?
>individual sovereignty
I admit, I am very skeptical. I find limitless justifications for regicide with this notion. I don't think there is a government on this planet that truly observes individual sovereignty with utmost respect and absolute dignity. People? Tell that to the demagogues. Individuals? Individuals have separate notions of sovereignty and respect for other other individuals. My compromise is an individual sovereign – a monarch. This is my bias, but I am willing to listen.
Other monarchists are welcome to speak for their notion of sovereignty.
____________________________
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.4905
>>4765
>To say you're anti-egalitarian is one thing, then to become anti-egalitarian is another.
I could say the same about you.
>not all libertarianism is anarchism
Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchy/anarchism it is anarcho-capitalism, ie. the market is the only real alternative to the state as a mechanism for organizing society, and is in fact much more efficient at it.
>Huey Long much
Never heard of him.
>Democratic. Egalitarian. Non-hierarchical.
Bullshit assumptions. It's impossible to argue with you when all you're capable of is building strawmen and creating a position for me which I don't agree with myself.
>Sovereigns are not traitors
Never said they are, you did.
>This is an assumption that makes even the likes of Tsar Nicholas II to be a traitor
Never said that. Though what gives one man the right to be above rule and not another?
Read:
>you are a traitor to yourself and your own kingdom
If another man were take your land, steal your money, fuck your virgin wife, and send your children to war for his own profit, you wouldn't say "thank you sir", you would defend your property, just like the tsar would defend his from foreign kings.
NO MORE THINKING LIKE SUBJECTS
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.4907
>>4905
>If another man were take your land, steal your money, fuck your virgin wife, and send your children to war for his own profit, you wouldn't say "thank you sir", you would defend your property, just like the tsar would defend his from foreign kings
Hypothetical madness. There are millions of people. If you mind your own business and stick to your shit, this probably won't happen to you. Also, like I said, you can do whatever you want against tyranny.
>>4904
>I think it worked quite well and the king was highly respected and never deposed, though he was elected
Elected by whom? I don't presume all electoral monarchy is completely bad. The most prejudice comes with electoral monarchies of the mass democracy variety.
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.4908
If a king does crazy shit to someone or tries to kill someone, my only attitude is shit happens when that king gets killed and just move on. They can be replaced with an heir or pretender.
>my concern
Kings being executed by their own government, by republican govts for "war crimes" (like for the Kaiser after WW1), or by insurrection of the mob.
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.4909
This king was killed by a monkey.
SHIT HAPPENS
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.4910
LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY
I don't want "regicide" to become a "codified" language of THIS is when you kill the king. It should come almost naturally. If a king does something horrible to you, you have the ability to go for it. That is what I would consider "natural" since it was personal. I don't want regicide to be anything established as a norm or public responsibility. To have a codified language of regicide is a dangerous game. It should be unspoken. It should be what's in your heart.
We're in an age where people are looking to call "tyranny" and have an ideological hatred of monarchy. If a king is really bad morally, and doesn't do anything with you, it's not your job to kill him. Just move along. I don't want monarchs being "executed" for "war crimes"and so on. It's imperative to leave that way of thinking concealed and unspoken as possible so it doesn't become publically acceptable to end monarchy, a monarchy can be replaced with an heir/pretender, and people can move along.
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.4911
>>4907
>Hypothetical madness.
Do you not understand how analogies work, or…?
Besides, we're freaking monarchists and anarcho-capitalists here. If we can't discuss the hypothetical we have nothing to discuss.
>Also, like I said, you can do whatever you want against tyranny.
We're in full agreement there. The difference is that we consider "tyranny" to cover any form of coercion or violation of prop rights.
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.4912
There are plenty of awful kings that were assassinated or killed. I want that attitude to just be "move on" or "thank god" rather than "this is it: we're going to set an ideological precept for killing kings." If we take that 'divine right' mentality into account, and that king was just one of those bad kings that had what's coming to him, it really should be the "thank god" mentality.
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.4916
>>4905
>fuck your virgin wife
If you didn't fill that bietch with seed by the time you got married, and had beautiful offspring, she probably cheated anyways. This world is full of SLUTS. I wouldn't be surprised if she went to the king, at this rate.
>steal your money
A king usually inherits so much wealth and crap this is probably unlikely.
>take your land
In a war.
>send your children to war
Fighting for their country™
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.4917
DOES YA GIRLFRIEND SUCC YA DIQQ?
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.4923
I doubt Imperial Russia appealed perfectly to all ancap principles. If we take NAP and evaluate the Tsardom, I don't think it would be the best results. It was a government and Tsar Nicholas II was the head of state. Railroads? Those were built by the imperial russian regime and private enterprise. It seems like the big elephant in the room. Not to mention democratic-oriented people already calling "tyranny" like Theodore Roosevelt because they felt that being a tsar wasn't good enough to rule over other 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.4924
>>4923
>I doubt Imperial Russia appealed perfectly to all ancap principles.
That's given for the the vast majority of countries that exist or have existed, you take what you can get. However, before the Bolsheviks took over, Imperial Russia was actually a pretty friendly place to free-market ideals. For 17 of the 25 years preceding WWI, Russia was the fastest growing economy in the world. By the time WWI began it had overtaken France as the fourth-largest industrial economy. The laws in place were quite liberal, economically speaking, and if Imperial Russia were around today it would have scored 18th in the entire world on the Economic Freedom Index. Sure it was backwards compared to some of the other Euro economies, but it was very quickly catching up to them.
On top of that I have Russian heritage, so even if Imperial Russia hadn't been so liberalized I'd be sticking that flag on for the sake of my blood regardless.
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.4925
Know your sphere.
Sovereignty should be all about the stability of the realm. The King has his place. The Church has there place. The nobility have their place. The ordinary people have their place. This encompassing sense of "mine" and "our" called 'propriety' goes across the entire scale of sovereignty. When kings act as insubordinate, this disturbs the stability of sovereignty. Peasants are fine to comply with the hierarchy, even if it disturbs their sense of 'mine' in certain cases, as long as it doesn't abolish the entire sense of 'mine' and 'ours'.
EXAMPLE
Benito Juarez killed Maximilian, Emperor of Mexico, and immediately confiscated church property. This abolished the sphere of the church and their sense of "mine" and "our" and this inevitably lead to instability. This lead to the government of Juarez later confiscating private property. This is a disturbance. The Emperor was killed. The church displaced. Natives abused.
There are bad kings that disturb the stability of a region. They flip the scale and interact with lower levels of the hierarchy. They can abuse someone. As long as they don't abolish that sense of "mine" and all private property for everyone, it should generally be careful with mad kings and their abuses. Given that and everything I discussed, it isn't the business of "monarchists", who are in the lower sphere, to deal as monarchs in the upper sphere.
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.4926
>>4904
>All else is secondary consideration, albeit quite important. I don't really understand your objection, apart from the fact that to consider regicide is to destabilise the monarchy, so it should be a last resort, but that goes without saying
You wouldn't understand that if I didn't come in here, lecture you about it, and tell you why you should seal your damn lips about regicide and NEVER associate with it 'good'.
>I don't really understand your objection
I don't really understand why you're such an autist. Okay, so it's okay for John of Salisbury to say it in his context. I give you two saints and explain that even pagan emperors and their authority should be respected. This doesn't include just Christendom alone. This circumstance for regicide is as if one emperor were to destroy the entire church, not only in his country, but the entire state of Christendom. We already established that worst pagan emperors have made martyrs and this understanding still sits.
>but it's okay for John of Salisbury to argue because it was in his context
If this is true, then why are you being such a faggot and not arguing in OUR context? This is one of the worst times in Western history and you're telling me that "regicide" is legitimate in certain circumstances and even important for True Monarchists™. If it fucking goes without saying, why the fuck are you saying it?
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.4928
>>4924
That's what I'm trying to say this entire time. Why can't we have that "even" space where some monarchs don't have NAP in terms of totality. I'm pretty sure there was a Rothbard piece on how to peacefully try and establish that anyways. I'm simply warning people that regocide makes things worse, even with good intentions behind them.
>TL;DR
Have your politics and economic recommendations. Have your opinions. I think that if a monarch finds something that works and brings prosperity, it should be promoted and retained. It is always important to promote success where it's found.
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.4930
Okay, let me try to slice some bread.
Have private courts and private law institutions. Have this negotiation between these peers. Just as long as this remains in "their sphere" and the king has his court in "his sphere". A sense of "mine" and "our" across the entire 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.4931
This song could teach a lesson Until the times do alter
But not very ideal, just a horrid song.
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.4938
>>4907
Elected by the nobility, which comprised of between 6 and 10% of the population, so quite a large group, usually at least a bit educated and instilled with elementary chivalric virtues. Magnates and prelates had a large say in creating the camps and political options. Elections tensed to focus around dynasties as well, as in you would elect the son of the dead king, if capable and available.
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.4939
>>4926
Do you respect the most glorious of earthly empires, Byzantium? If not, then we have little common ground. For me Byzantium did nothing wrong and their model of monarchy is perfectly fine. Besides, removal of a king does not have to be regicide. Should I read and reply to your screeching in depth or is this sufficient?
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.4944
>>4939
I am sorry for screeching. I get pretty upset when regicide is taken lightly. Of course the removal of a king cannot be regicide. When we talk about 'the' king and emperors, generally not. Just don't remove kings for whatever petty ideology… It's nobody's real business to "remove" an Emperor except for those generally around the same rank.
I don't think we really have common ground, though.
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.4960
>>4910
lmao, you are one mentally-ill motherfucker.
>I don't care about anything you say, I'm right because my feels say so!
>my feels are more important than your feels!!!1
>>4916
>If you didn't fill that bietch with seed by the time you got married, and had beautiful offspring, she probably cheated anyways. This world is full of SLUTS. I wouldn't be surprised if she went to the king, at this rate.
Yeah, I guess that's true, even though standards were a bit different back then.
>A king usually inherits so much wealth and crap this is probably unlikely.
From who? Where did his ancestors get wealth from? What are taxes? There's not much that the government has that hasn't been stolen from someone.
>In a war.
My land isn't really MY land when someone else decides the rules for it and how I should live on it.
>for their country
What's theirs about it? The country belongs to the king, it's his property. The king wants more resources and more people to tax and rule over, so he sends some lads to die in a pointless war for some far-off shithole, and he doesn't see anything wrong with it, because from his point of view he's just expanding his business.
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.4965
>>4960
>my feels are more important than your feels!!!1
Feels are important. Emotions are what move people.
>There's not much that the government has that hasn't been stolen from someone.
Conquest, family, nobility giving money, taxes, guilds, loyal subjects, making deals. Kings naturally grow and expand through a heritage that snowballs overtime or collapses in wealth.
>My land isn't really MY land when someone else decides the rules for it and how I should live on it.
No, there is still an overall sense of propriety. It's just that the king is a higher rank. There is a sense of "mine" and "our" consisting with sovereignty. I'd argue that if you didn't have a place you belonged to, you have no sense of mine anyhow; thereby, without a hierarchy and a chain of subordinates, there is no belonging and rank. It's not that someone rules the land, but someone rules over you. You can decide how you want to live. You can face consequences for it. It's just how much power, command, and influence that you have that really counts. Not all people have the same authority in this hierarchy.
>What's theirs about it? The country belongs to the king, it's his property.
He rules over a particular realm and people. The sovereignty belongs to the king, as in that he has the right to be king through birth and his inheritance. The country and lands simply reinforce his sense of property and also your sense of property. Since it is 'their' country, how could you object to 'someone' having a country? If a king cannot have a country, why should you have a plot of land? It's just that a country is so large and vast, and people are born on it. I can say that this is 'my' country because I belong to that land, consist with those people, and even have property there without abolishing the sense of it being someone else's 'country' because we are generally share a culture, identity, language, and rank with a sovereign. There is a sense of general 'belonging' to 'somewhere' and 'someone'. Just as a parent and a child belong together naturally and the child generally needs to trust with a parent.
>expanding his business
This generally lets more of 'his' people have land to settle and resources to interact with. It's just taking that land from another monarch and another bunch of people.
>There's not much that the government has that hasn't been stolen from someone.
There hasn't been a wholly honest time where people haven't been in wars, contests, competition, fights, and theft from others. Why do you limit this evil to 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.4967
>>4965
If a father owned a household, but they called it "our household" because within that household the mother had items in the kitchen she bought, the child had toys he owned, and the dad has a car. It's this relationship united through marriage. This is a 'ship' and 'vessel' sense I consider to be sovereignty. They belong somewhere, the father is head of the household, and people have their places. If there is a divorce, the household just splits and the relationship ends.
You might think it's obnoxious that there is a hierarchy and kings being kings, but by what right do you have to own an animal? If animals aren't subordinate, you have no place ruling over 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.4968
>>4967
**Not to the Arthur relationship and paganism referring to kingship as a marriage between a feminine deity. This same sense of "marriage" and "loyalty" is what monarchy is all about with sovereignty.
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.4969
>>4967
**Note: Kings are human and equally capable of being human, their hierarchy is that they're invested with superstitious power. Of course anyone in the hierarchy can do horrible things to each other. A monkey doesn't recognize the right of kingship and is totally capable of slaughtering that king. It's just that a king and his sovereignty are a vector for hierarchy and stability. Someone mistreating a dog can be viciously killed. Seeing as kings are subject to reason, and are both human and sympathize with humans – but have a hierarchy above their subordinates, they are responsible for them because God reigns over them and if they abuse their authority… bad things could happen by mysterious means.
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.4970
>>4967
**LAST NOTE:
You might be thinking, "What rights do I have then, if a king has a divine right?" The king has 'rights' in his sphere. You have rights in your sphere according to divine justice. You are responsible for your actions and these consequences and the king is responsible with the subjects. The hierarchy within the kingdom builds itself with people giving oaths and loyalties to each other with their separate responsibilities.
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.4979
>>4965
>>4967
>>4968
>>4969
>>4970
>expecting me to read and reply to all that shit
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.4981
>>4979
Honestly, if you want something more palatable, you can just read something else. Pardon my animosity.
*Correcting a mistake:
>>4701 (You)
*Don't put your faith in persons, definitely not. But always keep true to loyalty and faith in God as I return to look at this.
Let me cut it to you short:
#1. This has the potential be a mutual relationship.
#2. It doesn't have to be forceful, and it isn't always forceful. There is only so much one man can do to an entire populace, It's not like he could achieve Real Communism™ or something and actually abolish the entire sense of propriety.
#3. Life is made of loyalty and hierarchy, not equality of contracts. There is can be a sense of ownership even with the king as an insubordinate as >>4967 (You) it is here.
#4. Government is bad, but people are bad for demanding it.
#5. Bully the Hobbesians. (Sometimes I use Hobbesian arguments, but I ultimately reject a few things of his.) Leave the Divine Right absolutists alone. It's really the Hobbesians that generally want these things. There's nothing wrong with autocracy, as we established, though.
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.4982
>>4981
*Also, I settled the deal with private courts over here. I used to be skeptical about it, but it can have a place as much as the king has a place and the church has a place and everyone knows their spheres. >>4930
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.4984
>>4981
> It doesn't have to be forceful, and it isn't always forceful.
I think you misunderstand what is meant by "forceful." Whether or not an interaction is voluntary is just as much about what may happen, as it is about what does happen; even if the king isn't actively harassing a citizen, if the government system implies that aggression is permissible and justified, it remains coercive whether or not that power is exercised. As an example, consider the phrase "taxation is theft". This remains true even though the IRS doesn't hold people at gunpoint and demand they emptying 40% of their wallets, even though they most people file their income tax of their own accord. Even though this is "voluntary," the fact remains if anyone decides to say no, men with guns show up at his home to persuade him into paying. And if he chooses to defend himself, he's gunned down like a dog in the streets.
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.4991
>>4984
*Beneath monarchs was also a hierarchy of nobility and others that probably wouldn't want to be taxed especially. If you were a peasant,
>I think you misunderstand what is meant by "forceful." Whether or not an interaction is voluntary is just as much about what may happen, as it is about what does happen; even if the king isn't actively harassing a citizen, if the government system implies that aggression is permissible and justified, it remains coercive whether or not that power is exercised. As an example, consider the phrase "taxation is theft"
We should understand each other pretty well, though. A monarch naturally should have a difficult time with this because his legitimacy is owning property and having an inheritance, having a place in his hierarchy, and the monarch has a vested interest in taking care of what is his own as far as he is responsible for how he rules to a supreme justice. It was never an easy option, though, with this world. Taxation? Wasn't taxation fairly low and almost none-to-rare in the Middle Ages until situations demanded it? Now, the door to Hell is always laced with good intentions and we find that sometimes ideological altruism and this ideal of "wanting to take care" of everyone is generally bad. I doubt there would be a long and happy reign if a monarch rose taxes so high, abolished entire senses of propriety and declared communism, and went along picking off peasants. (Which isn't to say this arbitrary rule couldn't exist, but at least it isn't ideological communism where everyone is a kulak and also become a partisan).
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.4993
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.4994
>>4991
>Wasn't taxation fairly low and almost none-to-rare in the Middle Ages until situations demanded it?
Well, yes. That's one the reasons you have ancaps here on this board at all, because low taxes are one of those things that make monarchy the least bad alternative. And zero taxes would of course be better than low taxes, but that's not what I trying to say.
The taxation example was just that, an example. I wanted to show how a lack of explicit coercion doesn't mean that there isn't implicit coercion still present in the system. And monarchy still has that, albeit in far lesser amounts than other governments. But back to your previous post for a moment:
>#1. This has the potential be a mutual relationship.
Why just "potential?" If the contract between a king and his subject is truly mutually beneficial, the king wouldn't need coercion to enforce it. Good ideas don't require force to implement.
>#4. Government is bad, but people are bad for demanding it.
The implication in this statement is that, were people to stop "demanding" it, government could not be justified. I personally don't think there's anything besides inertia that makes people demand government. John Q. Normie likes the government because he likes his world to be stable and understandable, which makes him averse to anything that would change it in a big way. Add to that public schools drilling him with propaganda and dependency, and he becomes instinctually scared of anyone against the government. However, in ancap I contend that same person would be just as, if not more so, resistant to the establishment of a state in ancap. Because ancap and freedom is what he knows, and is used to, he will naturally resist any attempt to dismantle that. Further, one thing to consider is that, while many plebs will refuse to leave their gilded cages, scoffing at freedom (true freedom, mind you, not some egalitarian pot smoking fairy tale) as more trouble than it's worth, once they leave the cage, precious few of them go back. Once they've experienced the truth and joys of liberty, the attitude towards freedom changes. True Libertarianism has a very high retention rate of followers, and I don't think that's an accident.
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.4995
>>4994
What do you make of the likes of Napoleon Bonaparte as Emperor and Augustus Caesar? Bread and circus catering? It isn't public schools that drill this propaganda. Total war and conflict.
>Add to that public schools drilling him with propaganda
It's everywhere you go. Propaganda. I will admit that public institutions propagandizing has lead to the mess unfolding. There are dedicated revolutionaries out there just as we're both dedicated in explaining these things.
>true freedom
True freedom will always require responsibility and authority of some kind. It requires what is honorable. And we already had this discussion with self-interest and what is honorable, seeing as how what is honorable becomes self-interest. However, I don't really care for freedom for freedom's sake alone. It sounds like a void. Of course I don't want to be free, like you said with my self-interest and need for belonging. This is inevitably a frustration with most monarchists because there are certain types that value freedom without understanding this vital truth. They must be responsible for their actions. I understand morality and moralism usually calls for a nanny state and morality being enforced and nobody is perfect. Morality just requires authority and justice. Whether we call that private or justice, or whether it's enforced or not, it always will require an authority.
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.4996
>>4995
*Don't take that the wrong way when I say that about freedom. I'm just saying "when I don't want to be free from" as in I don't want to be free from general people I like and feel obligated to be around. Of course freedom will have choices and free choice and independent will. We will never be independent of our choices and their consequences.
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.4997
>>4995
*private or public, not private and justice
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.5002
>>4995
>What do you make of the likes of Napoleon Bonaparte as Emperor and Augustus Caesar? Bread and circus catering?
Yeah, promising gibs is a standard tactic of demagogues, and that was the method they used. Sure, public schools haven't always been around, but the point is that the state apparatus maintains its legitimacy through extensive, tax-funded propaganda campaigns. In addition to the fact that these apparatus exist, I think the most compelling evidence for it is trying to talk normies about your edgy ideas–I know that whenever I talk about ancap with a normie, they not only all give the exact same "what about ___" arguments against it, they give them in almost the same order, too. I'm sure you've noticed something similar with monarchy if you've ever tried talking about it with someone outside of imageboards. This level of programmed response is just to me confirmation that the state only survives through a combination of propaganda and inertia. Inertia causes people to prefer the status quo to massive changes, even if the changes are for the better, so long as they are in relative comfort. Propaganda makes sure that this desire for inertia is directed towards the state and not something else. I would wager that, should a truly privatized society ever be established, after a generation the inhabitants would be just as if not more resistant to the formation of a state as the current plebs are in resistance to the dissolution of it–because for the people in the privatized society, having no state is the status quo.
>True freedom will always require responsibility and authority of some kind.
Like you say, we've already had a discussion about how true freedom puts pressure on people to be responsible men or face severe consequences, so I'd rather not rehash it.
> However, I don't really care for freedom for freedom's sake alone
Neither do I. No one does. Freedom isn't desirable for its own sake, it's desirable because everyone has some goal or desire they want to pursue outside of freedom, and no one wants to be restricted from pursuing that goal.
>Of course I don't want to be free, like you said with my self-interest and need for belonging
You might accuse me of sophistry here, but I would say that you really do desire freedom by desiring those things–you want the ability to pursue those things unrestricted. You would object heavily if someone declared that a need for belonging was "racist, patriarchal, and bourgeois", and put you in a cage for having a sense of belonging, wouldn't you? In that sense, you desire freedom, because anything that prevents you from achieving this goal is a restriction of your freedom.
One of the things that I desire in life is to marry and bear children. Does this mean I'm "anti freedom" because I'm denying myself the lifestyle of a hedonistic bachelor? Not at all, it just means I've chosen to exercise my freedom in this manner instead of another one.
>Whether we call that private or justice, or whether it's enforced or not, it always will require an authority.
I think you and I might agree on more than either of us is willing to admit. But my big objection is this–why does the authority need to be a monopolist? Why is it necessary for him to collect his income through the force and theft of taxation? I don't think I've ever heard a satisfactory answer to this; authority is gained part through tradition and part through competence, neither of which are diminished in the least by voluntaryism. So why insist on giving justice coercive power, if justice is done just as if not more easily without it?
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.5003
>>5002
>You might accuse me of sophistry here, but I would say that you really do desire freedom by desiring those things–you want the ability to pursue those things unrestricted
All right, you got that me. I am pretty much virtue-signalling at that point. My point is that I generally hear the word "freedom" and "liberty" repeated with things I don't like and begin to associate it with something bad.
> Does this mean I'm "anti freedom" because I'm denying myself the lifestyle of a hedonistic bachelor? Not at all, it just means I've chosen to exercise my freedom in this manner instead of another one.
I marked that when you said, "On top of that I have Russian heritage, so even if Imperial Russia hadn't been so liberalized I'd be sticking that flag on for the sake of my blood regardless." Which is a good thing.
> But my big objection is this–why does the authority need to be a monopolist?
Well, with all I've recently said about sovereignty, this is an innovation I said that there might as well be private courts as long as the king has his court.
>So why insist on giving justice coercive power
Why not? The only gist I'm getting so far is you wait for coercive power to be justified. Justice is coercive somewhere along the line when the person is guilty of a crime. Okay, maybe they can pressure him into the accepting the trial. The verdict? I'm only a bit skeptical about this.
It's not so much that authority needs to be monopolist, but that there needs to be vertical rather than horizontal. There are usually more than one king or emperor. Each emperor is somewhere and people generally have a belonging around that place. My problem is that somethings I get the impression that this is all about popular sovereignty, but without the government. Having "The People", but without the government. We need an individual sovereign.
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.5011
>>5003
*To solidify my point here:
The United States can hardly do with libertarian candidates. Ron Paul and others? Then you get the likes of Gary Johnson. I don't think this can work bottom-up, when the United States is a country that generally should value liberty culturally.
But we already have a fairly libertarian-leaning monarch, Hans Adams II. It didn't need a grassroots movement. And then there are some libertarians who talk about a "transition" period, but if you need a transition period to establish this, why not stay in the transition zone and why does it always have to be a dictator figure for some of these people? I know these are just memes.
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.5015
>>5002
What are your thoughts on…
>pic related
And for general information, before this, Maistre argued that people are not sovereign over themselves.
>If sovereignty is not anterior to the people, at least these two ideas are collateral, since a sovereign is necessary to make a people. It is as impossible to imagine a human society, a people, without a sovereign as a hive and bees without a queen: for, by virtue of the eternal laws of nature, a swarm of bees exists in this way or it does not exist at all. Society and sovereignty are thus born together; it is impossible to separate these two ideas. Imagine an isolated man: there is no question of laws or government, since he is not a whole man and society does not yet exist. Put this man in contact with his fellowmen: from this moment you suppose a sovereign. The first man was king over his children; each isolated family was governed in the same way. But once these families joined, a sovereign was needed, and this sovereign made a people of them by giving them laws, since society exists only through the sovereign. Everyone knows the famous line,
>The first king was a fortunate soldier.
>This is perhaps one of the falsest claims that has ever been made. Quite the opposite could be said, that
>The first soldier was paid by a king.
>There was a people, some sort of civilization, and a sovereign as soon as men came into contact. The word people is a relative term that has no meaning divorced from the idea of sovereignty: for the idea of a people involves that of an aggregation around a common center, and without sovereignty there can be no political unity or cohesion….
Mark that word. "The first soldier was paid by a king." What he means by that is civilization begins with sovereignty. It begins with subordination. It begins with hierarchy and union between a heritage, a people, and their sovereign. As for heritage, a family. As for sovereign, an individual. As for a people, merely a sovereign nation with a history shaped by this continuation of actions.
The laws statement might be controversial, but it did say they needed laws and you often say that we need a legal system, but just a private one. 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.5016
Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>5003
>The only gist I'm getting so far is you wait for coercive power to be justified.
The question was meant to be rhetorical. I'm not so much waiting for a justification as I am saying I don't think one exists. Given that coercion is wrong, and given that justice can be done effectively without coercion, the logical conclusion is that justice should be done without coercion. The point of contention here is the latter one—obviously I think it can be done, you and others may disagree.
>Justice is coercive somewhere along the line when the person is guilty of a crime. Okay, maybe they can pressure him into the accepting the trial. The verdict? I'm only a bit skeptical about this.
Believe it or not, even the verdict can be enforced purely through social and market forces. Usually this ends up being the threat of blacklisting and banishment, thereby either isolating the deviant individual or forcing him out of society entirely. There are a couple historical examples of this, namely the Icelandic Commonwealth, and the British merchant courts, which were almost completely privatized until the end of the 19th century. Robert Murphy has a nice video explaining how a private, voluntary prison could operate.
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.5017
Afraid I'm working at the moment, but I'll take a look at this as soon as I am able.
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.5020
Okay, when you come back, I'll continue to tell you about the DIVINE RIGHT OF CAPITALISM.
Just a joking
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.5021
>>5015
>>5020
I'll have to say I agree with the general idea but object to the specific idea. I would say it's true that a prerequisite for society and civilization is tradition–ideas, norms, and customs whose existence predates the birth of most members of the society–and elders–men who have proven themselves through skill, achievements, seniority, etc., whose word carries considerable weight merely because of their elevated position. Historically, a hereditary king whose word is absolute law is one of the more common ways that these prerequisites have been expressed, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is the only way. The best way? Perhaps, that's a debatable point, but certainly not the only way. One variation, the one I care about, is the distinction between hard power and soft power. The king's word being an absolute law, to the point that he can use any amount of coercion to enforce it, versus the king's word simply being greatly respected, and it being generally understood it's in your own interest to listen, because the king/business magnate/oldest guy in the tribe has more experience than you, more knowledge than you, and probably knows what he's talking about. This is actually how most monarchies started out, as a more-or-less voluntary arrangement where people listened to what were technically unenforceable orders because they respected the man giving them. It was only later, after the kingdom became more bureaucratically entrenched, did that get reinterpreted as the king's word being absolute.
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.5026
>>5021
As we established, royal authority is absolute and subject to reason. It's not that his word is absolutely enforced, but rather absolutely regal. Laws just don't enforce themselves and don't come into being themselves. Someone has to set them up. If there was a royal decree, in one of those wild hypothetical monarch situations. Absolute is simply with respect to a king's divine right to rule rather than being divinely omnipotent and arbitrary. Absolute monarchy actually benefits from an abundance of private space and decentralization, contrary to what some think, because the less the king can control, the less risk and difficulties there in being absolute. If it was totally arbitrary and the king owned all property, it would be near impossible for that king to operate and function with regard to it. As for royal decrees, if everyone has a sense of propriety and a sphere. It and a stability of sovereignty, a royal king has family, tradition, organized religion, God, nobility, and people around him and everyone's will is independent. The thing to understand is the top of this hierarchy is God and this is the ultimate authority that holds everyone responsible and because of this they are have this grace. What makes the king absolute is being one and sacrosanct of having kingship, just as property is considered inviolable. Of course neither meet their total ideal, for the king likewise total arbitrariness. It is impossible for a king to wield total control over your will. Consider it this way: If a king owes his absolute power to God, how far could he go to undermine morality and order without crippling his own power? Of course this has the other balance shift of being sacrosanct. Absolutism is not about the king's word being arbitrary. If the king commands you to do something so sacrilegious, nobody has to abide with it and should outright reject it as nonviolently as possible. Their willpower is independent of the king. He cannot just throw them around like ragdolls using the force and the darkside magic.
>>5021
>It was only later, after the kingdom became more bureaucratically entrenched
That's the problem with everything over-time they say. Societies accumulate laws like a plague.
>did that get reinterpreted as the king's word being absolute.
This is arbitrary. There are conceptions like natural laws and moral foundations. There can be private law in private spheres, like we settled earlier. There can be church law. The thing about this hierarchy is everyone has a different place and a different matter of influence where they belong. There is a kind of balance and stability. You're right that a king cannot just do anything he wants. It's just tha
>These four attributes of arbitrary government were (I) that subjects are born slaves and none are free, (II) no one possesses private property, the prince controls all sources of wealth and there is no inheritance, (III) the prince can dispose of the property and the lives of all in his realm at his whim and finally (IV) there is no law but the will of the ruler.
Look here:
>“It is one thing for a government to be absolute, and another for it to be arbitrary. It is absolute with respect to constraint - there being no power capable of forcing the sovereign, who in this sense is independent of all human authority. But it does not follow from this that the government is arbitrary, for besides the fact that everything is subject to the judgment of God (which is also true of those governments we have just called arbitrary), there are also [constitutional] laws in empires, so that whatever is done against them is null in a legal sense [nul de droit]: and there is always an opportunity for redress, either on other occasions or in other times."
Constitutional laws, meaning laws from different spheres. This means, if someone steals what is legitimately theirs, that force can always ask for it back legitimately since it was theirs and if they don't it will be classified as immoral. This means it would be heinous for a king to rob from the poor, the aristocrats, or the church too much with taxation, but the king still remains a stability for these spheres of sovereignty.
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.5027
>>5026
*dying societies accumulate laws like a plague.
>taxation
Honestly, I've deeply contemplated this. Part of the problem is that people become incredibly condensed in urban areas and adopt a collectivist mentality, while rural is more independent and spread apart. This inevitably leads to those who want public access and those who want restraint to private in the same confines.
Also, it's usually that kings aren't good enough and people want to participate in government and form bigger governmental bodies. This increases the public's interest in politics which inevitably leads to those who want to increase power and vie for it. When a king already has so much power, it's less likely he will feel the incentive to increase his power more and more with himself already considered absolute and people showing humility and compliance.
That's as good as it gets. Take it or leave it. I tried my best.
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.5028
>>5025
>absolute monarchy actually benefits from an abundance of private space and decentralization, contrary to what some think, because the less the king can control, the less risk and difficulties there in being absolute
>If a king owes his absolute power to God, how far could he go to undermine morality and order without crippling his own power?
>If the king commands you to do something so sacrilegious, nobody has to abide with it and should outright reject it as nonviolently as possible.
No arguments there, again it's one of the reasons I'm sympathetic to monarchy at all. You do seem to acknowledge that even with "divine right," the king is subject to his own laws and can be disobeyed if his orders are sacrilegious, and run contrary to ethics. You aren't really pushing for taxes so I have to assume that you'd be fine with a voluntary payment system if you thought it was functional, so I'll stop beating the coercion drum. You also implied (pardon me if I'm misreading you here) that you'd be fine with a voluntary system of verdict enforcement, if you thought it was feasible, but at present don't think it's feasible. My one point of contention, and a place where I don't think either of us could change the mind of the other, is the idea that the king's word must be obeyed as long as it's not immoral or sacrilegious.
I would prefer it if any man could say he no longer accepts the king as his king, and wishes to terminate the contract (as in a tangible, worldly contract, not some social contract BS) he has with him to provide protection services. Because of what you think on divine right I don't think I could get you to agree to this, and that's fine. However, let me go back to something you said when we were discussing the king as a monopolist–you said you were fine with the idea of multiple sovereigns, each with their own territory, right? Well, I like to consider individualism to be the logical conclusion of that: just as it's okay for there to be sovereigns of different countries, so it's okay to have sovereigns of different provinces, yes? So why not sovereign of a county? Of a village? And so on until you reach the smallest constituent unit, which you can say is either the individual and the family. I don't expect you to agree with this, as I think you'll object to the idea of everyone or almost everyone having divine right, but I hope you can understand the position.
>his means, if someone steals what is legitimately theirs, that force can always ask for it back legitimately since it was theirs and if they don't it will be classified as immoral. This means it would be heinous for a king to rob from the poor, the aristocrats, or the church too much with taxation, but the king still remains a stability for these spheres of sovereignty.
This is basically the NAP, so I have no objection io it.
>Societies accumulate laws like a plague.
This is honestly my biggest problem with monarchist/minarchist solutions. It seems we agree that incentives encourage the monarch to not be arbitrary or totalitarian with his rule, and because of that monarchist governments grow extremely slowly in size and respect property rights far more. But the thing is, they still do grow, and they still accumulate laws, and, while it takes a lot longer than democracy, they do become bureaucratically intrusive. I feel that the only way to prevent government from growing to unacceptable levels indefinitely is to remove it entirely–you can't grow what isn't there.
>>5027
>Part of the problem is that people become incredibly condensed in urban areas and adopt a collectivist mentality, while rural is more independent and spread apart. This inevitably leads to those who want public access and those who want restraint to private in the same confines.
I agree with this statement, but I don't exactly see how it applies to taxation. Would it be asking too much to elaborate?
>Also, it's usually that kings aren't good enough and people want to participate in government and form bigger governmental bodies.
Sure, I can agree with that. And because "bad" kings come around much less often than "bad" republican rulers, kingdoms expand much slower. The problem is that this mechanism works like a ratchet: while good rulers might not expand the government further, they will not undo the expansions done by a "bad" predecessor. So, even if it is in fits and starts, the government grows and never really shrinks, and eventually it's plagued with the same issues as democracy. The difference being it takes a thousand years to get there instead of a hundred.
>That's as good as it gets. Take it or leave it. I tried my best.
I'd say you did very well, anon. We might have gotten off to a rough start, and we don't agree on everything, but you've made very solid and well-reasoned arguments, and I can respect your position. I've thoroughly enjoyed this talk we've had.
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.5029
>>5027
>>5028
offtopic, but from that pic, what's your take on Proudhon? Only real exposure I've had to him is mutualists on /liberty/ that try to tell me property is theft and squatting is a human 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.5031
>>5029
>the king is subject to his own laws
Even with that, I'd contest the king is subject to God and the consequences of his laws, not that he -should- be subject to them. I think that's really where we split. From my pov, this is the way things should be. A king's word generally should be obeyed unless it goes against your faith with God, who is above in the hierarchy. It's not about laws, but hierarchy, more importantly. For example, an Emperor and Pope to balance Christendom. A monarchy to balance with aristocracy/democracy. At least, that's what I think.
Let me put it this way: I don't' think a monarch can step out, decide to speak for abolishing all property, and suddenly *poof* it's gone. From the absolutist perspective, arbitrary power is so far from absolute to actually work, it might as well be doubted. The imperial/royal maintains his significant place in sovereignty and discipline while still being absolute.
He's another kind of anarchist. It's not that I post that quote out of admiration for him. I just like the image/words in context with what I said. I honestly don't have a strong opinion other than I'm not well versed in thinking in terms of anarchy. Given some of the stuff I posted, like with Maistre, I doubt I would really agree with his politics.
I have a pretty generic of the term anarchism and don't really recognize it. I've definitely had my pitches with anarchists on the other side of the spectrum and there's such I could say about it.
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.5032
>>5028
Honestly, if there's one thing you changed my mind on, it's whether there should be private courts
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.5033
>>5031
>For example, an Emperor and Pope to balance Christendom. A monarchy to balance with aristocracy/democracy. At least, that's what I think.
I can respect that, but it only works if the two opposing groups have a vested interest in staying opposed to each other rather than colluding. We tried the checks/balances thing in the states, for instance, but once the three branches realized there was no real reason for them to oppose each other, they just acted in concert to increase each other's power, mostly through the courts–the judiciary interprets whatever arbitrary power abuse the executive or legislature has committed as "constitutional," making it legal, and in return they become more forgiving of judicial activism, allowing the judiciary to pass policy from the bench that gives the other two even more justification for their tyranny, and so the cycle repeats. I don't know enough about the relationship between kings and christendom, or between the aristocrats and the king, to judge whether those relationships fostered this kind of collusion, but from what I know of history it doesn't seem like they did, or at least not as much as our system did.
you've changed my mind on the social contract, or at least you've opened my eyes to the degree that kind of thought influenced me even though I had thought I rejected it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.