/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

More importantly – is NAP just a secularized divine right for anarchists? It comes with the premise that everyone has a divine right. It simply removes divinity. It gives everyone an individual sovereignty. They might suggest that divine right is an authority to rule. In hereditary monarchy's case, it is an inheritance based on birth as an individual sovereign. I don't see why anarchists hold us in contempt for violating the notion of 'rights' when we promise the notion of a 'divine' right. It seems counter-productive. I want to strike an accord with libertarians, but their ideals never allow for it.

>Divine Right

Is simply holding authority with grace for as long as you are able. It can be discarded or thrown away with providence the same. It is illicit and contrary to willpower to be rebellious and anti-justice. This is where the notion of divine right is misunderstood. My quarrel is how does a government built on property, familial bonds, and divine right come into conflict with the notions of rights? – For simply being a government, that is. A government is contrary to the nature of liberty, but I would argue not against the notion of civil liberty. You are welcome to have rights. The problem is no perfect government exists. No government is bound to respect rights. The only thing that matters with the notion of 'divine right' is that monarchs are responsible from their power wielding from the grace of God. They are responsible. They could be discarded and they could return. All that matters is they became an authority and they are responsible for sovereign power aka justice for their people.

>justice, authority, and rights

Liberty, in a solid term, is the ability to do just about anything with a right. The right to kill (often seen in war) and the right to rape and the right to do anything. Civil liberty, on the other hand, is rights according to justice and responsibility. In a wholly liberal society, nobody is free if they are not responsible. You need consequences for your actions. If you are not responsible, someone is responsible for you and you are not truly free. The monarchist notion of civil liberty is actually freedom from liberty – freedom from mass verdict and individual justice. Liberty begins and ends with laws. Civil liberty begins with restraint and obedience, respect for other's rights to exist, and justice.

>NAP as a divine right

Everyone has an authority to their propriety. This is the individual basis for justice, and everyone receives power on terms of the NAP. They do not violate each other's sovereignty. The problem is the nature of sovereignty is not about laws/ideals. It is about sovereigns and law-makers. In the monarch's case, they are responsible and if they steal and wrong other people – they are responsible and might suffer accordingly from the perspective of divine right. The problem is it doesn't come from popular mandate to decide. I don't think every individual, as a sovereign, aligns with the ideal.

>this discussion

Might be completely wrong. I might have misunderstood the concept.

>>3923

I have no answer to resolve this conflict. I need to study and re-evaluate it. As for these answers, I might have a few things to say.

>why so many libertarians become anarchists

This is where I don't see most libertarians are pragmatic. I feel that a view of kingship is sacrilegious and a swap in and out ordeal. A good representation of this ideal is from John Milton who thought that parliament could behead the king and order in a new one. This comes from his period in the Cromwell era.

>Locke

No clear answer for his political treatise. My only notion is that the divine creator is an authoritarian. Mind you, even as a monarchist, I am sometimes prompted to agree with this importance of property. With these people, that is frankly where the world begins and ends.

>Where I would disagree is the idea that such a person has the right to impose his wills upon others

This is where I tend to disagree. I have no resolved answer. I am not saying it is ideal. Neither do I believe anyone should violate others. The individual sovereign loses his power as soon as his head comes under the grinding axe. Perhaps for the best reasons. The nature of justice requires spirit and not ideals (because it isn't ever ideal). And as a hereditary form of government, the king inherits his right as a sovereign. This term of sovereignty isn't tied to a NAP – perhaps a constitution. And if you spend time around this board, you will find where this conflict delves. We tend to view it as castration of a monarch's authority for a parliament's authority.

>You seem to be conflating libertarianism with democracy and mass appeal

I recognize libertarianism as a different root. It isn't the same offspring of the French Revolution and Rousseau. My concern stands with how libertarian ideals rotate around monarchy today and manifests itself. It is the second predominate ideology. I see libertarianism as dangerous in its own right. I don't view libertarianism as damaging as the democratic doctrine, but I notice it shares problems. It definitely values human life much more to a degree. It just has its own separate slew of problems.

>sanctity of property rights

Monarchists understand this concept well enough.

>Libertarian vs. Monarchist dilemma

Anon, I am going to reference you to Bossuet. There are many absolutist approaches to this particular trouble. The many of us find the conflict between libertarian ideals and monarchy in the English Civil War. Mad Monarchist sympathizes with them and also feels that it is a misunderstood history between a king and subjects.

Article related is an absolutist outlook.

https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/06/monarchy-is-not-tyranny.html#comment-form

I would refer to other sources another time. For now I am providing this. I will post it here.

>>3918

In an absolute monarchy there is one king and everyone is his subject whether they like it or not, the subjects are not masters of their own fate, so they are turned to serfs, because that is only in the best interest of the monarch when managing his affairs. In libertarianism/ancap, every man is an absolute monarch and every man can choose which lord to surrender to and to what extent (either in a permanent arrangement as a slave/servant or temporary one as an employee), and since they are all free, they will be working towards their own interests, and not for someone's else.

Ancap is basically a highly decentralized monarchy. Monarchy itself isn't perfect because it's centralized and you're putting all your eggs in one basket, if the head of your household fucks up, then it's just your family that suffers, but if the head of the government fucks up, then everyone suffers.

>>3927

Hoppe is a nice contemporary figure. However, I don't see enough praise around your circles for Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. He wrote a book Liberty or Equality. He addresses the exact problem.

Here is a passage from Nehemias Americanus (a chapter in Cotton Mather's Magnalia Christi Americana). This might interest the burger anons.

>>4058

Good. We don't need people who call tyranny and reject most monarchs for ideals. I am sure there are many dynasties that aren't the perfect model.

>pic related is a fine, but a tyrant to other people

>>3964

>Monarchy itself isn't perfect

You got it.

>In an absolute monarchy there is one king and everyone is his subject whether they like it or not

The individual is not independent of the world around them. They are born in the world with parents and a family. It is unequal where status comes and falls between individuals. They are not all equally responsible in a social hierarchy. Everyone is subject to the life they live. The monarch wields throne and crown to ensure that absolutely things remain his own as for the rest of society to have their own.

>Monarchy itself isn't perfect because it's centralized and you're putting all your eggs in one basket

Monarchy is imperfect because it is human. It is a sovereign body and accounts for more than public and private domain. It is above politics and responsible as sovereigns. Absolute monarchy is not arbitrary monarchy. I will confess that we both hate communists for being arbitrary and totalitarian. I don't want to D/C too hard. I respect libertarian insights and ideals as far as it pitches… until it strikes at the character of monarchy. I generally agree that all government is imperfect and contribute to the loss and sacrifice of individuals. However, monarchy resembles something very individual. I draw this line in the sand.

>>4088

>says all this

>gets Hans Hoppe dubs

Good man. Why Intelligentsia, incidentally?

>>4098

>Why Intelligentsia

Because I read books and make propaganda. That's basically what the intelligentsia class was during the empire, a bunch of autists who educated normalfags on politics and had some kind of political influence on society because of their ideas.

My family were also technically a part of the Soviet Intelligentsia (doctors and engineers) during Soviet times, so unlike most people, they were able to afford the life of typical middle-class westerners even in the USSR, though they were always very anti-communist in private.

Why Cossack?

>>3918

>The notion that the individual is law-maker and sovereign.

Has never existed and will never, unless you are alone outside a greater power's territorial jurisdiction. Even then, you are still subject to natural law. The highest law.

However, various degrees of liberty can be permitted. I say permitted because ultimately there is always a supreme military force in any space. This force can decide what to permit.

>>4261

A Monarchy could enshrine the NAP as the law for everyone but the Monarch and agents. There could be a minimum of laws. A constitutional Monarchy could even say the NAP is the rule, and no laws can be made. But the Monarch is the supreme judge of the NAP. You could also add in that the Monarch could intervene is cases by personal interest.

A Constitutional Libertarian Monarchy has never been tried. Sounds like a good concept though.

>>4276

>So /pol/acks finally met up in real life?

Well if /pol/ was white, used twitter instead of imageboards, and jerked off to Nicholas II instead of Hitler, then yeah.

>>4275

>Is the king not also subject to the laws of the realm?

Also amusing that you bring this up, because both Queen Elisabeth II and King George III (the king who cased the American Revolution) technically violated their oaths to protect and expand the realm (or at the very least not allow it to shrink).

>>4443

…In any given space you cannot have a 'free market' on judgement. Doesn't' work… There can be only one supreme justice in any jurisdiction.

Now as for selecting this supreme justice, I think it should be the Monarch (or in feudalism) the local aristocrat. I actually support Electoral succession, where the people select the Lord's successor from among his/her children.

>>4634

However, I believe the family is the basis of society. The Mother, especially, is the foundation of society. Any system that doesn't take this into account suffers.

Throwing in a few of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's articles.

>>4662

>With monarchy, the rule of one.

Just because the word means rule of one does not make the ideology about one person imposing their will. That's despotism or autocracy, things that monarchist thinkers did not support, unless you consider enlightenment cucks to be monarchists.

>The rule of dynastic, hereditary rulers.

Portuguese contract kingship. "As long as the king respect these laws the pars of the realm will consider him their king, and if not… not." Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: si non iuriabis, non regnabis. It's just like with papal infallibility. The pope is infallible, BUT if he makes a mistake, he simply is not the pope and must be deposed. Regicide under certain circumstances is perfectly legitimate for a true monarchist, as even John of Salisbury accepts. As a libertarian I subscribe to voluntary, culture based kingship. A monarchy that does not pay homage to a king, but to a crown. We serve the Corona regni, not the rex, but die pro fide, rege et lege.

>>4674

>That's despotism or autocracy, things that monarchist thinkers did not support, unless you consider enlightenment cucks to be monarchists.

>As a libertarian

>enlightenment cucks

>A monarchy that does not pay homage to a king

I'm sick and tired of idealists like this that have no time for kings. Have a mixed worldview about dissing the Enlightenment and praise of libertarianism. And make fealty without faith in persons, but in contracts. This excludes loyalty to anyone. This surpasses any monarchist understanding of hierarchy and even contracts. Yes, a crown is like a contract, but it is holy and it begins with a supernatural willpower invested in someone. This is the hierarchy of Christian monarchy… Kings are invested with power and authority… to rule by the Grace of God.

>Regicide under certain circumstances is perfectly legitimate for a true monarchist

Go to >>>/liberty/, you subhuman. If you are more concerned about regicide and having constitutions, you belong there.

Cancerous peasants like >>4674 this rabble here. They need to leave this board. Trigger-happy cunts that are more concerned about killing kings than restoring them. Holy and mighty about "modernism" and "Enlightenment cucks" while succumbing to those worldviews almost entirely with their masquerade of checks and balances, social contract of Lockean variety, and a strong absence of loyalty… This holier-than-thou language about who is more Enlightened and who is more 'Modern' is killing me. If you're a libertarian, you have no right to banter about what is 'modern' and what is 'Enlightenment'…

YOU ARE A PRODUCT OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT

Don't give me this crap about absolute monarchy being an Enlightenment and show me this pseudo-feudal view of 'checks and balances' as vassalship. An absolute understanding of monarchy is hierarchy built upon vassalship, starting with loyalty to a king. Not to a piece of paper, but to SOMEONE. It is about a hierarchy of people, not equality of contracts. This Christian hierarchy is built upon the responsibility of each member. The king, being sovereign, has the most responsibility and this is how the aristocratic ideal survives in Christian monarchy.

<'true monarchists believe this'

God Almighty, why is /monarchy/ full of suito-monarchists?

You might be wondering about the nature of this authority and whether you have the right to choose leaders… through a social contract theory… I must ask you – is this your choice to make? Sure, you might think it belongs to The People™ to choose. It is rebellious to choose regicide without thinking. You are a mere peasant. This is the truth. You don't have any right to "choose" to kill any king. And whether you think it is yours to determine or an angry mob, you are no better than >>>/leftypol/ and their Bolshevik mentality. A God-ordained authority to do with kings starts with fate and this fate isn't through insurrection that kings ought to be killed.

>waaah, why can't us monarchists lop off the heads of kings!?

Absolutely disgusting.

STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

To all libertarians with love of Imperial Russia and this mundane hatred of autocracy, I have a motto:

"Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality!"

This 'contract' ideal without the concept of 'oaths between vassals' is pure castration and handing over power to parliaments and bureaucratic politicians. It might be laced with good intentions and inorganic laws without law-makers and supernatural deities. It might have the best liberal formula. It might surpass that 'primitive institution of monarchy with kings'. It is just another -ism and basically replicating the North Korean juche ideal of using the system as a means to an end. Sure, it is debatable about the status of kings and whether they are subject to laws, fine; but the traditional view of vassalship nowhere places it within a format of 'checks and balances' and 'vassals without hierarchy' in this shit-flinging about who's more Enlightenment than who. It might be an exception for some regions, but traditional monarchy definitely was never about it.

For our sanity, stop crying for regicide. It should be the last thing any monarchist should support for in this current state of the world. I don't care about your justifications or thoughts/appeals about hypothetical evil monarchs and this ordeal of crying wolf. No regicide on /monarchy/.

>>4713

>Cicero, the stoics and the School of Salamanca all predate the Enlightenment. Bastiat, Locke, et al were contemporaries of the Enlightenment period, but the degree to which they were actually a part of it is debatable

Talk about disingenuous. Guess who the Enlightenment thinkers were reading? Yes, Cicero and others. Now, the artificial republicanism that relies on ideology and New World anthropology is another story. I frankly don't care about what is Enlightenment and what is Modern. If peddling regicide, the death of a virtuous and imperial throne, is part of your game, then count me out.

>No one in this thread suggested this, where are you getting this idea?

This term of thinking is everywhere. The pseudo-feudalists never think in terms of what vassalship is as an exchange of loyalties; they only borrow the ideal of contracts. The autocracy is simply an extended version of vassalship where there is a hierarchy. This is a big difference between certain liberals and monarchists; hierarchical thinking. It isn't, as was put, an equality of contracts, but a hierarchy, that I am speaking on behalf of.

>Kings are men, men are fallible and have free will. A man given divine right, therefore, stands to lose it at any time through his actions.

This sounds like it's borderline egalitarian rubbish that liberals are transfixed on promoting. Kings are human, yes, but not merely just men. It isn't yours to determine whether they have divine right or not and it certainly doesn't belong to the multitude. This loss of favor doesn't come about with insurrection and rebellions. Usually it comes with a disease, an invading army, or simple death. Yes, monarchs are subject to reason and can't obviously command a person to kill himself. I am simply tired of liberal individualistic extremes of taking consent and NAP and inorganic like we all live in the vacuum.

It's just insufferable.

<don't you dare touch my secularist rights and everything must be consented to bit by bit and with total inference

<divine right and authority are illegitimate

>and how about regulations?

<there should be the least of government expansion

>a constitution is another form of it and inorganic peddling

When monarchy is understood as the highest reproduction of this, I fail to see why libertarians promote contractalism to such a degree. If they hate the modern state so much, and modern political theory, they should stop thinking in terms of it. The biggest problem is the old-fashion view of the 'sphere of sovereignty' simply predates Lockean outlook of separating civil society and government. Instead the traditional view is a big vessel we're all trapped in regardless of what is public and private. As I put it, sovereignty consists with both public and private propriety. It is supposed to be the overall sense of it. Then we talk about ideologies and such things like we have any actual control over it. And we hold contempt like this. What was social contract theory before the Enlightenment? A nuisance. Thomas Hobbes, the most famous secularist theorist of social contract theory, actually took his theory straight from the Whigs and reversed it on them. I don't know why libertarians view it as some form of communism (and sometimes promote democracy – what Hoppe clearly states is a form of soft communism). Indeed, that theory was taken from republicans and reversed on them to prevent their destructionist ways of tearing down all hierarchy, all structure, and all institutions to have their representative government ideals.

What frustrates me the most is it's a dead bird they tend to kick around in terms of thinking. 'Divine Right' and understanding obedience to authority for prosperity and peace simply don't have a place in the modern world where there's an anarchistic drive of the anarchist individualism or the anarchist collective of the proletarians. Why kick around a dead bird? It's not blocking any libertarian's efforts to achieving their anarcho-commune. Their squirms with the modern state all rely on social contract theory, not the hierarchial views of old, that push around in the world today.

>>4733

>What frustrates me the most is it's a dead bird they tend to kick around in terms of thinking. 'Divine Right' and understanding obedience to authority for prosperity and peace simply don't have a place in the modern world

There you go again, putting words into everyone's mouth. Most of the libertarians here are Hoppeans that very much appreciate traditionalism, and prefer personal loyalties to what you call "contractualism". Libertarians would be the first in line to denounce any normie prattling on about the social contract, yet you imply we all shill for it. Certainly no one here (or even most of 8chan) would have even the slightest sympathy for democracy, yet you go out of your way to condemn people for this imagined sleight.

I can't even say you're using a strawman argument, because there's no one to strawman—the posts you make have nothing to do with to whomever it is you are responding. You just find anything that goes against your orthodoxy of what /monarchy/ "should" be, and use it as an excuse to go on a multi-post tirade about how much you detest these fictional Republicans that lurk in every corner. You don't make an effort to respond to other posters or even comprehend the point they are making, and if I must be frank it's gotten quite irritating. Your bulldozing past posts to continue your soapbox makes it impossible to speak with you in any meaningful way, and that rather defeats the point of visiting a forum.

All you prefer to do is follow me around to have counter-arguments. I'm moreso just pissed off at this general attitude floating around monarchist circles. It is always a "You're more Enlightened" than me stand-off and an attempt to de-legitimize the absolute standpoint on monarchy.

>how much you detest these fictional Republicans that lurk in every corner

If people could stop acting like republicans, I couldn't have to step around every corner to menace them. They take the lenses of social contract theory and look through them without understanding it. They take that playboy attitude towards monarchy as a means of wearing suits and collecting votes. It's not a business of calling out shills as much as it is telling them to try adopting a different perspective. The feudal ages didn't have an individualist perspective like we do today. I don't like when people tell me Western Civilization is about that one value: liberty; and then nothing else to care about for the legacy of it. I don't like people who snobbishly tell off about Divine Right yet admit that those monarchies were the way to go.

We both have an agenda. You're for libertarianism and I'm for what I consider an orthodox monarchy. I'm not afraid of being upfront about my prejudices and my inclination that /monarchy/ should be about kings rather than without kings. I am for Patria Potestas and Dei Gratia. I will repeat the chief offense:

>A monarchy that does not pay homage to a king, but to a crown.

This is -not- the general view; yes, the crown plays a symbolic role and is like a binding contract, but a crown was made to be worn. You cannot make out the crown like a constitution in this right and settle for inorganic ideology. And this isn't for the political class to check with their balance.

>That's despotism or autocracy

I generally view communism as despotism: it is the urge to reduce everyone to manual laborers. Autocracy? Well, I don't think there's an escape from the reality of autocracy. I don't view autocracy as a bad thing. And finally, this showboating:

>unless you consider enlightenment cucks to be monarchists.

You need big balls to talk this way, call yourself a libertarian, and make that mighty denunciation. We already discussed how libertarianism is tangentially relatable to the Enlightenment. Which is fine. If what we called "Enlightenment" was cool, I bet none of you would have a problem with it. I'm not about calling out about the terrors of Enlightenment or Modernism like this guy is.

Libertarians don't understand this orthodox reverence for monarchy and royal authority as something akin to sacred. I call upon the memory of St. Thomas More, who died to a monarch whom many consider a tyrant. Last words being "I die the King's good servant, but God's first". King Henry VIII certainly is a tyrant by many people's standards, but I cannot call upon instant insurrection. I feel that this is the price of government, and I don't accept anarchism as an answer. Good times and bad times come and go. I cannot control this even if I tried.

>>4742

>but your presentation is so autistically obnoxious that you thoroughly kill any desire to interact with you.

This is why I go by 'Peasant' and not 'Aristocrat'. I am not grabbing empirical data and looking into long-term debates. A filthy peasant isn't concerned with tit-for-tat argumentation. Generally, argumentation is a craft for expanding your own worldview. The only knowledge a person generally expands and advances is their own point of view because they present a point, build on it, and return to it.

>>4707

Jesus, your whole post is just made up of bullshit assumptions that you have about what libertarians supposedly believe, which we actually don't.

>For our sanity, stop crying for regicide.

No one is crying for regicide you delusional schizo. A leftist looks at a king and says "no one should live like this", a libertarian looks at a king and says "everyone should be able to live like this".

>"Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality!"

I have a better one:

AUTOCRACY FOR ALL!

You can decorate your posts with all kinds of pretty, holier-than-thou phrases, you can try to explain away your cuckery as something above politics and above human understanding, but the fact is that you are a traitor to yourself and your own kingdom, because you would happily surrender it to another man - a thief who would take it by force. Have some self respect.

My only assumption is we should be careful how we apply the Lockean view and when it's generally okay to start throwing around "traitor". The chief conflict is whether it is acceptable. I disagree that we should use it. I just want to leave kings to being kings.

I'm going to fuck off and stop monsplaining.

>>4752

>I'm just assuming that there's something egalitarian about this

Very big assumption, considering Rothbard wrote a book titled, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

>I'm just assuming that there's an extreme appliance of social contract theory.

Also a big assumption, as libertarians are among the most vocal of critics of social contract theory.

>I'm just assuming that they generally are for inorganic political entities like constitutions

You're three for three with, you guessed it, huge fucking assumptions. Lysander Spooner is one of the biggest critics of constitutions to have ever lived. Further, libertarians are first in line to denounce what you call "inorganic institutions." Most of us don't especially care to get involved in politics or the bureaucracy, politics gets involved with us. We just want to live our lives in peace, without inorganic pencil-pushers robbing us of half our wealth for the privilege of being told how to conduct our business.

Your entire soapboxing tirade is based on the dubious thesis that "libertarianism=enlightenment." Rather than take the time to learn even the slightest thing about what it is you argue against, you simply use this notion as a substitute to informing yourself, then pull declarations out of your ass with no basis except this. And after this supreme display of boorishness, you have the gall to parade around in a sense of smug superiority, because you can't even fathom that you might be in error.

>>4755

>Most of us don't especially care to get involved in politics or the bureaucracy, politics gets involved with us. We just want to live our lives in peace, without inorganic pencil-pushers robbing us of half our wealth for the privilege of being told how to conduct our business.

It's not that I make assumptions. I doubt anarchism can live up to what anarchists tell us. I generally conflate my problems with ancaps as the same with anarcho-syndicalists and communsts. They want anarchy. And anarchy is not monarchy and doesn't seem to need monarchy. It's either no-man's land or everyman's land. I don't think that the anarchist hatred of the Constitution is that it limits the authority of a king, but because it's not good enough.

>Lysander Spooner is one of the biggest critics of constitutions to have ever lived.

I would contend this.

>Very big assumption, considering Rothbard wrote a book titled, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

You know, explaining how libertarianism is anti-egalitarian is absolutely necessary. Yes, I generally view libertarians as an off-shoot of Lockean political theory and the American view of all men being created equal. I will admit that you are making good progress in changing my mind about libertarianism.

>>4635

Pagan monarchy isn't as matriarchal as you would think. It simply puts an emphasis of the "divine" on feminine qualities. However, it doesn't completely abandon the need for masculine influence. I would suggest that Pagan outlook on sex is a firm balance and equilibrium. It's just that men are still men and these men are still meant for fighting and taking their role as men.

<how does pagan monarchy represent this?

Like it is explained >>3604 here, the pagan monarchy has a ritualistic marriage between the 'king' and the 'feminine deity' and this union is the state of kingship as a kind of marriage. Or, the deistic absolute where the king is filled with the power and crown of that deity that is masculine. You see, pagan monarchy isn't necessarily all the same. In Japan, the Emperor is holy. We discussed how this tradition lives on in Christian understanding of monarchy and King Arthur taking Excalibur. I recommend this reading on Celtic kings.

Honestly, I'm going to throw a bone to our libertarian compatriots. This BASED BLACK MAN makes a valid point about wealth and pushes back this idealist. Always seeking to call for "exploitation". As far as things like 'distributism' go and other options, I give it to the marketeers that at least their system works and isn't too idealized. Don't hang me. I generally agree with what distributists often say

>>4757

>Debatable. The anarcho-capitalism, or "natural order,"

I feel monarchy is the natural order. End of story.

Hm, a post is missing. Going to try and repost.

Might have accidentally deleted it

>>4751

>Jesus, your whole post is just made up of bullshit assumptions that you have about what libertarians supposedly believe, which we actually don't.

I am assuming. I have an immense prejudice against the liberal types. To say you're anti-egalitarian is one thing, then to become anti-egalitarian is another. There is quite a bit of bullshit floating around. I only leapt out and criticized this contractalist and not all libertarianism is anarchism.

>No one is crying for regicide you delusional schizo. A leftist looks at a king and says "no one should live like this", a libertarian looks at a king and says "everyone should be able to live like this".

Huey Long much.

>AUTOCRACY FOR ALL!

Democratic. Egalitarian. Non-hierarchical.

>You can decorate your posts with all kinds of pretty, holier-than-thou phrases, you can try to explain away your cuckery as something above politics and above human understanding, but the fact is that you are a traitor to yourself and your own kingdom, because you would happily surrender it to another man - a thief who would take it by force. Have some self respect.

Jeez, where to begin. Sovereigns are not traitors. This is an assumption that makes even the likes of Tsar Nicholas II to be a traitor. This is my problem.

>>4764

It's separated by one degree, as close to natural order as a government will ever get, I can grant you that much. Monarchists treat the realm as their private property and are thus responsive to many of the same incentives that private property owners are, making their imposition on the market minimal. But even a minimal imposition is an imposition nonetheless, which is why the true natural order is the unimpeded market.

>>4765

>Democratic. Egalitarian. Non-hierarchical.

Saying these things doesn't make them true. The market is meritocratic and merciless. Meritocracy is by its very nature anti-egalitarian and very hierarchical.

I'm not for meritocracy. It is constantly being substituted to mean something else. There are many people under the impression that democracy is meritocratic. And likewise, with social darwinism, they complain that inheritance just ruins this structure. I don't care for meritocracy as much as aristocracy. While aristocracy sounds fine and dandy, I prefer monarchy as a counterweight to influences. Whenever I feel that authoritarian gets tossed around, it is mistaken for totalitarianism. That drive for influence.

>>4701

>>4702

>not understanding that true monarchy is libertarian and that libertarianism goes way back before fucking Locke.

You both read John of Salisbury and 02 read Kantorowicz also and get back to me. Khaldun would not hurt as well.

>>4837

I said social contract theory also goes before Locke and still called it a nuisance. I don't care what book you flash before me. Regicide is a sacrilegious act, you nigger faggot.

>4837

>Support for replacing a king is not anti-monarchical.

It's called 'Treason'.

>divine mandate may be withdrawn.

Not your choice to decide.

Let me make something clear:

#1. This sense of sovereignty, before Lockean civil society, was singular as a whole. The relationship between all members of society were seen as a singular vessel encompassing many things, even with the regal authority and the church. Mad Monarchist presents it in certain articles. The relationship and status of imperial authority was so incremental for Christendom and temporal power was not something to just rebel against. The role of emperors is far important in Western civilization. Even before Christendom, kingship was seen as a very spiritual role in society and required virtue. It isn't about private or public, separation of church and state, or any of that matter. It was just seen as a vessel, even since the classical understanding.

#2. Even pagan emperors and the worst tyrants still have authority across the globe from the Divine Right perspective. It isn't limited to Christian monarchs.

#3. Calling "tyranny" is another thing, but calling for "regicide" is a very serious matter and you faggots take it way too lightly. Yes, invading armies, diseases, and such things do matter. However, if you read St. Thomas Aquinas' De Regno on the subject of 'Tyranny', it is a very serious matter. For instance, tyrants can even be sent as punishment, good kings can be misinterpreted as 'tyrants', and there is also a need for faith that tyrants can change their hearts become good. We don't pretend that there is no such thing as tyranny. If you read 'Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet' and find the distinguished 'absolute' and 'arbitrary' monarchy, you find that there are such things as tyrants – but this is no means to cancel out what is absolute.

#4. Monarchy is monarchy. Don't make this case that true monarchy™ is libertarianism or some ideological mold. Frickin' ridiculous. If what you''re trying to define as libertarianism is regicide, you aren't making a good case for libertarianism.

https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/10/church-and-empire.html

>Today, liberals love to talk about the “separation of church and state” as being something great, something which ended religious wars in the western world and which they take sole credit for. The more atheistic liberals think this is good because it prevents the state being dominated by organized religion and the religious liberals like it because it prevents the churches from being dominated by the government. In this regard, the religious liberals have a powerful arsenal to defend their case by pointing to the state churches of northern Europe which preach a pale, so watered down as to barely qualify as Christian form of Christianity and which practically no one attends as opposed to the United States where, while still rapidly declining, church attendance is comparatively robust. However, the problem with both arguments, though the atheistic liberals in particular, is that no separation of church and state really exists in the western world, even in America. To go even further, such a thing has rarely existed even from the beginnings of Christianity.

“The character of Kings is sacred; their persons are inviolable; they are the anointed of the Lord, if not with sacred oil, at least by virtue of their office. Their power is broad—based upon the Will of God, and not on the shifting sands of the people's will…They will be spoken of with becoming reverence, instead of being in public estimation fitting butts for all foul tongues. It becomes a sacrilege to violate their persons, and every indignity offered to them in word or act, becomes an indignity offered to God Himself. It is this view of Kingly rule that alone can keep alive in a scoffing and licentious age the spirit of ancient loyalty, that spirit begotten of faith, combining in itself obedience, reverence, and love for the majesty of kings which was at once a bond of social union, an incentive to noble daring, and a salt to purify the heart from its grosser tendencies, preserving it from all that is mean, selfish, and contemptible.”

– Archbishop John Healy of Tuam

Let's add to that the distinction between what is 'absolute' and 'arbitrary' for monarchy. Another note that the 'Divine Right of Kings' isn't solely to be confused with absolutism. A note here.

<This is not true as it was more about royal legitimacy than royal power. It meant that there was a sacred bloodline which God had chosen to rule and no one could usurp that rule. It also meant that the monarch answered to God alone and thus was absolute but, as the famous Bishop Jacques Bossuet (usually cited as a proponent of the Divine Right of Kings) wrote, absolute power is not the same as arbitrary power which is another mistake most people make.

>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.

>This very issue I think the aforementioned bishop addressed when he said (keeping in mind his stated difference between absolute and arbitrary power) that, "Without this absolute authority, he [the King] can neither do good nor suppress evil: his power must be such that no one can hope to escape him; and, in fine, the sole defense of individuals against the public power, must be their innocence. This doctrine is in conformity with the saying of St Paul: "Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good." (Rom. 13:3)

Heed the warning of Joseph de Maistre on regicide on the destruction of sovereignty. It creates an abyss for the well being of the entire realm. That regicide responsible for justice and impious insurrection against authority in relishing revolution and destruction of order leads to chaos.

>the Bolshevik Revolution

The regicide of Tsar Nicholas II lead to the takeover and arbitrary takeover of Bolsheviks. This lead to the destruction and wars of many lives and the harshness of revolutionary social engineering. As even St. Aquinas warned in his book De Regno… sometimes the destruction of one king that people considered 'bad' leads to a worse pandemic of tyranny. I will add that the Bolshevik insurrection could have been for their own punishment as leaders of insurrection. Indeed, they say that tyranny is for the punishment of people, but it is also for the punishment of impious rebels that take power and misuse it. There is a deep responsibility for having authority and it belongs not to a multitude.

>The English Civil War

Even though King Charles I had financial difficulties and was waging a war, we need to heed that regicide is still a dangerous game. Remember a disastrous and Puritanical takeover that lead to the deaths of many Catholic Irishmen. Again, impious war and regicide crowned with death and civil disarray. Before the Puritanical takeover, there was much liberty and not even as much moral censorship. Afterwards there became a social engineering scheme and many consequences of this takeover regarding the tyranny of Oliver Cromwell.

>The French Revolution

Not going to bother here as we seen with the Great Terror. Look at Maistre's quote and heed that warning.

<what's the meaning of this? surely we can take regicide into our own hands for the benediction of the faith?

This is a dangerous substitute. As I remind you, even pagans and the worst emperors still were heeded for their authority and temporal power. In the classical world and classical literature, it was common knowledge that BLOOD AMOUNTS TO BLOOD. Given all this information, I warn you that regicide is -not- to be taken so lightly given the possibility of severe consequences. A revolution typically makes things worse and not better. Even in the English Civil War, despite their chief aim being regicide, it was a damning thing to strive for and took much time for even the Roundheads to go towards this sacrilegious act.

Let us look at other dynasties killing others. In this particular case, another sovereign put on 'trial' in a court with another. Now, the forcible takeover of another king and brutal conquest is another. This view of regicide is still dangerous and needs to be seen for what precedents it sets up. As Mad Monarchist argues in this case, it set up the precedent for the regicide of the "English Civil War" being acceptable.

>Today marks a tragic anniversary in the history of monarchy, at least in the western world. It was on this day, 424 years ago that Mary Queen of Scots was executed by order of her cousin Queen Elizabeth I of England, allegedly for involvement in plots against the English queen but, it is generally recognized today, the fundamental reason was that her own claim to the throne of England was a threat to Elizabeth I that she and her government were not willing to tolerate. She was, of course, not the first monarch or even the first Scottish monarch to be killed by a rival -sadly. Yet, the regicide of the Queen of Scots had very far-reaching effects. In fact, in some ways, the world we live in today, so generally hostile to the very concept of hereditary monarchy, was shaped by the regicide of Mary of Scots. The reason for this, why her death has such a special significance, is the manner of it.

>For one monarch to be killed by another over a contested succession would have been nothing new. The Tudor dynasty in England began when King Richard III was killed at the battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 and his throne claimed by King Henry VII. However, what made the death of Queen Mary different was the veil of legality. The test of battle had long been accepted as a means of settling disputes, trusting that God would ensure that the righteous would prevail. It was quite another thing for one sovereign to undertake the death of another by means of the law. We are today so far removed from the sanctity with which the sovereign was once treated that it is hard for us to understand how significant this act was. Queen Elizabeth actually forced Mary Queen of Scots to answer to a court made up of Elizabeth’s own English subjects. A monarch, of much the same royal blood as their own Queen, was actually to be judged by the subjects of another. The verdict being a foregone conclusion, the sovereign of another independent kingdom was then to actually be put to death as a criminal.

>This was shocking for the world at the time and sent waves of indignation all across Europe, particularly the Catholic royal courts. Religion certainly played a part in the whole affair. It was the English Catholics who most supported Mary of Scots as their own Queen, seeing Elizabeth I as illegitimate and thus it was the Protestants who most viewed her as an enemy. However, it is worth noting that, at the time, there was greater religious freedom in Scotland under the Catholic Queen Mary than in England under the Protestant Queen Elizabeth. To be fair though, such tolerance was the exception rather than the rule in those days and not viewed as the good, liberal ideal that it is today. Queen Mary (a devout Catholic) inherited a kingdom where Protestantism held most of the power and a policy of toleration for all was an effort on her part to avoid civil war (of course other reasons were found). In England, on the other hand, the Protestants were the base of power for Elizabeth I and one of the things they most expected in seeing her become their Queen was to get rid of the Catholics and restore the rule of the Protestant establishment. For Elizabeth to have shown toleration for Catholics would have been to alienate her staunchest supporters in favor of a group which did not view her as legitimate in the first place.

>Given all of that, I would suggest that religion be put aside just for a moment in considering the ramifications of this tragedy. It cannot be put aside from the act itself for if the Queen of Scots had not been a Catholic she almost certainly would not have been executed; for that matter she may not have been forced out of Scotland and into the captivity of England in the first place. The evidence of the case against her can and has been endlessly debated, as has the religious aspects. In the same way people can argue whether or not the English were acting out of a justified strategy of defense or if the meddling in a Scottish civil war (which were far from uncommon) was more malicious. What cannot be debated was the unprecedented nature of the trial and execution of the Queen of Scots and the consequences this had for subsequent generations in Great Britain and to some extent the western world as a whole. Whether it was trial and regicide of King Louis XVI in the French Revolution or the trial and regicide of King Charles I in the English Civil War, both batches of regicides could look back to the case of Mary of Scots for precedent.

>In the past, as stated, disputes between monarchs were decided on the battlefield. In some cases diplomacy was used and, before the rise of Protestantism at least, disputes between kings would be sent to Rome with both agreeing to submit to the judgment of the Pope; the only man on earth generally recognized by everyone as outranking a monarch. Taking the legitimate sovereign of a country to be judged in a court of law was something totally groundbreaking. Here was a monarch, someone of royal blood, not being judged by God, not by the Vicar of Christ or even by the nobility of her own country but being judged by a committee of noblemen who were the subjects of another queen. This was exacerbated by the fact that the Queen of Scots had come to England for refuge, had already been imprisoned for quite a few years and in the eyes of many her execution seemed unwarranted and vindictive, regardless of the evidence produced. She was already a prisoner, completely within the power of the English queen after all. Why on earth would one Queen strike a blow against the sacred nature of monarchy and royal blood by executing another Queen, her own cousin, who was already her prisoner?

>If one can grasp just how outrageous this was considered by most of the crowned heads of Europe, it becomes a little more understandable that King Philip II of Spain launched his famous Armada against England the very next year. There were of course other and long standing reasons for the antagonism between England and Spain but it is nonetheless easy to view the regicide of the Queen of Scots as the last straw for Philip II, generally regarded as the Catholic royal champion of Europe in his day. That could have changed the course of history in a big way but, thanks to the weather and the English navy it did not have much of an impact. However, from the immediate reactions to it to the long-term consequences for the house of Stuart and the royal families of Scotland, England and France the regicide of Mary Queen of Scots set a very dangerous precedent indeed. This act sent a message that monarchs, even among themselves, could not take for granted their sacrosanct status and from that point on other peoples would look to royals, even their own, and say, ‘you can be judged’.

>>4846

https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2011/02/anniversary-of-tragedy.html

After all this, if you don't take the subject of regicide quite seriously, and still consider yourself a true monarchist for taking that view of regicide, then you're just a faggot. You should be afraid of having to even resort to regicide in the case of civil insurrection. Am I stating that there's no such thing as tyranny? Hell no. Am I saying you have no means to self-defense? You are able to do whatever you please, seeing as how royal authority is subject to reason. However, the act of regicide is very dangerous and even seeing these words "true monarchist" and "regicide" in the same sentence should give you fucking shivers.

>>4833

Back from briefly reading. I also presented a few books in order to deal with this.

>1st pic from John Salisbury reading

>2nd pic from Thomas Aquinas

They portray a very contrasting account of when it is right to slay a king. Seeing as how they're generally from the same time period, I'll just say that is good enough and if it isn't adequate I don't want to bother.

>>4833

Since you're giving me this 'Kantorowicz' fellow like a typical >>>/leftypol/ user just throws out books and tells you to read them, I'm going to be up-front that I don't really care for most secondary sources anyways. Your Arab and Jew can die slow.

>>4859

I don't know. As MM explains here, even for the worst cases, we should be careful. My biggest problem is we take attacks on the church and so on to their own ends.

>Certainly, one can imagine that when Jesus Christ said, “render unto Caesar” that some of that money was going to further causes the audience being addressed would have considered immoral. The Caesar at that time was the Emperor Tiberius who went rather off the deep-end morally at the end of his life, according to most accounts, but even at best we can imagine that tax money would be spent on things like sponsoring pagan Roman temples which the Jewish leaders Jesus was addressing would have surely denounced as idolatry.

As I put it here, also:

>This is a dangerous substitute. As I remind you, even pagans and the worst emperors still were heeded for their authority and temporal power. In the classical world and classical literature, it was common knowledge that BLOOD AMOUNTS TO BLOOD. Given all this information, I warn you that regicide is -not- to be taken so lightly given the possibility of severe consequences. A revolution typically makes things worse and not better. Even in the English Civil War, despite their chief aim being regicide, it was a damning thing to strive for and took much time for even the Roundheads to go towards this sacrilegious act.

With all that said, I feel it's important that while 'absolute monarchy', in the social contract sense, is totally arbitrary and modern, I feel that this other sense of it isn't the same as the one with the People. You have concepts of deity monarchs in different cultures and the classical understanding of absolute monarchy is likewise thrown in the heroic or demi-godlike.

Someone with direct attacks on the church definitely can get his ass kicked and killed by another public authority. I think St. Thomas Aquinas puts it that way. But I don't think just about anyone is invested with this authority. It's why I keep asking – "Is this your choice to make?" – As it were with modern social contract theorists that feel like it is your choice to make and determining to kill kings. The biggest avarice with the deal of choosing kings is those who call upon them and the demands of the multitude for requesting a king.

>>4860

Try Bossuet. His book 'Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture' is just as beefy as your book. I also threw in De Regno by St. Thomas Aquinas. And for my case on absolute sovereigns, I will point you to the 3rd chapter in Robert Filmer's Patriarcha and Maistre's Study on Sovereignty. Sure, you might say, "Many of these are modern," but they are definitely Counter-Enlightenment. I feel like the case with sovereignty, as seen through Hobbes, of this 'leviathan' and 'mortal god' (another reminder that Hobbes' Leviathan isn't independent of past influences; scholar Leo Strauss considers it just a reformed view of Aristotle's Politics – but this is contested). This sense of 'mortal god' comes from the necessary divinity of absolute monarchs and their sacred character to function. I admit, in a completely secular sense, if there was nothing special about kings… their sense of being at the top of the hierarchy as in monarchy lacks the virtuous aspect that it requires. This is why I stress hierarchy.

Speaking of which, if anyone wants a good source on understanding Hobbes outside of Leviathan/De Cive:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4544372?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Bossuet: (Recommend grabbing it here)

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Bossuet--Politics.pdf

>>4859

>>4860

From Robert Filmer's Patriarcha's CHAP. III.: Positive Laws do not infringe the Natural and Fatherly Power of Kings. -- I really want to stand with Filmer on monarchy as just being 'natural' and sorta 'there' as an outgrowth rather than being imposed non-consentually or whether it was 'put into place' by choice of the People™. I'm not really about this arbitrary will as much as monarchs being around the top of this hierarchy as legitimate and those beneath them should beware about subjecting the monarch to their political interests. Contracts and so forth aren't the essence of monarchy. A crown is made to be worn; sure, other dynasties can wear the crown and the "ship" of sovereignty and kingship can be swapped between different houses. I have a few problems. #1. Certain monarchists want to support houses like political parties. As you suggest, sure, you can support a Stuart of another house... But we should be mostly content with the way monarchy just is. #2. I don't want to see a repeat of the 'Glorious Revolution' and replacement of Stuarts with Hanoverian monarchs.

>>4868

A monarch -could- potentially let them do this if he was absolute. Pointing back to what Bossuet said: "Without this absolute authority, he [the King] can neither do good nor suppress evil: his power must be such that no one can hope to escape him; and, in fine, the sole defense of individuals against the public power, must be their innocence."

We tend to view absolute monarchy in the Hobbesian sense of this head of state. I will admit that the Medieval sense of monarchy was a king and his court. If a group of people peacefully call upon a monarch for their independence, and they offer the king money or a service for their independence as an exchange, I don't see why an absolute monarch couldn't allow this to happen. As stated there, a monarch that is absolute has the potential to do good for people. He could agree to them.

>>4860

Try reading Groen van Prinsterer's Unbelief and Revolution. It is a Reformed view, sure, but it takes a look at the decline of absolute monarchy in favor of ideologies and Revolutionary principle.

>>4872

>Why do you consider this necessary?

It isn't necessary.

I don't see why it has to be "anarchy or bust" with some people. Is a kind of minarchist approach with monarchy unpalatable? It might not appeal to all the libertarian economic faculties. It might not have a total obligation and the gates are open for disarray and tyranny, but to close that door is also to deny the heroic and kings that do stand up for those things. I've been repeating myself that 'absolute monarchy is not tyranny' and appealing to authority in the sense of a kingship of hierarchy. There can be a good kingship that stands with rights and propriety.

>>4864

*LAST NOTE:

When I reinforce this with parliamentary monarchy in notion and what we saw with the Stuarts being displaced. We should beware of taking a step out of the hierarchy and against kingship.

#1. A good monarchist doesn't support royal houses and dynasties like political parties. This is trashy. Stop treating such a high topic as so low.

#2. Stop thinking with checks and balances, but rather the stability of sovereignty; there should be a church and nobility surrounding the sovereign; and firmly, I state, that religion is the discipline of monarchs and it is not anyone else's to judge and decide. It is not "public officials" that feel they represent "the People" to decide this. As warned with the Multitude and this danger of democratic thinking always expanding the state more than it needs to and always stopping kings from being kings. It has always been about loyalty, authority, oaths, and standing with SOMEONE rather than inorganic ideology, a kind of autocracy across the board, but with a ruler.

#3. A good monarchist should steer away from the option of regicide as firmly and worryingly as possible. It should frankly be the last option on the table, and it should be feared. Because regicide has severe consequences if done with bad intentions and it leads to power-hungry usupers. Even the worst tyrants, as we established, were still there by Divina Providentia and I don't care whether you assert 'it is with him' or 'it is not' because this should be a difficult thing to assert. You don't just say, "In certain cases, regicide is optional" that lightly without understanding that regicide is a dangerous game to begin with and it doesn't belong to The People™, bureaucrats, lower members of the hierarchy, and so on to decide this. This is the social contract attitude.

#4. Stop trying to make out 'regicide' as something 'based' to do and something we should all be waiting for. It clearly isn't.

>Salisbury is writing in a different context, one in which the kings potentially infringe upon Church reform, appoint bishops, steal Church property and generally misbehave.

I don't care about context. Why not take the perspective of St. Thomas More in that he was a "Good servant of the King, but a servant of God's first?" I already talked about King Henry VIII was quite a tyrant by these standards and still Thomas More showed innocence in this regard and became a martyr. You can say that "they weren't the same context", but St. Thomas Aquinas clearly denounced it. Regicide doesn't take that form and a monarchist, generally as a proponent of monarchy, shouldn't take such a business in looking towards regicide as an option for themselves.

The first option of recourse should be stopping corrupting influences and dirty politicians before pointing fingers around about religious politics and supporting regicide. Kill those fools. Leave the kings alone.

REGICIDE IS GENERALLY BAD NEWS FOR MONARCHISTS! HOW MUCH DO I HAVE TO NAIL THIS INTO YOUR HEAD?!

INSTEAD OF KILLING KINGS WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THE TYRANNY OF THE MULTITUDE IN PLACING 'REPRESENTATIVES' OF THE MULTITUDE, CORRUPT PARTISANS, AND DEMAGOGUES

A "good monarchist" usually have every incentive to watch out for the mob rather than kings. A "good monarchist" generally wants to stop the tyranny of constitutions, elections, and politicians before killing what is generally sacred. A "good monarchist" probably doesn't have an urge to start killing any kings out of concern for the consequences and the imperative to be innocent, and finding regicide to be sacrilege. .

RRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

REGICIDE SHOULD BE ALMOST UNTHINKABLE AND IF YOU WERE TRULY FOR GOOD INTENTIONS YOU OUTTA REAR AWAY FROM IT IMMEDIATELY. YOU ARE JUST A PEASANT SCUM; YOU ARE NOBODY OF AUTHORITY. KNOW YOUR PLACE YA GODDAMN PEONS

>>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

>>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.

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.

This king was killed by a monkey.

SHIT HAPPENS

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.

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.

>>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™

DOES YA GIRLFRIEND SUCC YA DIQQ?

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.

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.

>>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?

>>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.

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.

This song could teach a lesson Until the times do alter

But not very ideal, just a horrid song.

>>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?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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?

>>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.

>>4965

>>4967

>>4968

>>4969

>>4970

>expecting me to read and reply to all that shit

>>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.

>>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).

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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?

Okay, when you come back, I'll continue to tell you about the DIVINE RIGHT OF CAPITALISM.

Just a joking

>>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.