/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

Its a weak argument but: "which one would you rather, a person that has taken up politics late into their life or someone thats been raised from birth to be a leader and trained to run a country".

>>420

>I feel like having a monarchy around helps combat the idea of equality, which is inherently opposed to liberty.

Sometimes I wonder if maybe the idea of liberty is also opposed to liberty.

For myself, I agree with the argument that monarchies can be more favorable to liberty and freedom, but I also feel like societies decay when people are constantly exercising more meaningless choices relative to the amount of purposeful choices they make. Monarchy seems better at adding that center of purpose to society which in once sense naturally restricts liberty but at the same time allows for a far greater plethora of choices within the framework of people's clearly defined roles, which can yield much better results than a society where people are given a seemingly infinite amount of choices but no framework in which they know how to grade and rank the various choices given to them and thus squander important opportunities and fall into misery OR a society where people are apparently given so many choices, so much liberty, only to find that freedom has been taken from them in those areas of life that genuinely matter most and eventually just can't stand being alive knowing that no matter what choices they make, all they're doing is passing the time between now and their death.

People I think are generally happier when they have a clear idea of what role they are to play in a given society and exercise their freedom within that role and stop trying to be something they can't only to fail and feel like trash for not being able to do it.

>>466

I took what you wrote, and mentally replaced where-ever you said 'liberty' with 'personal responsibility,' and it made a lot more sense.

In any case, I think the central point is much more one of "Inherent equality is a dangerous and false idea."

>>470

>Inherent equality

I prefer the term absolute equality or equalitarianism to describe that. We can in fact speak of an inherent equality between all human beings to the degree that all human beings are of the same species and come from the same Creator who expects from all men regardless of rank or status certain things to be respected in their relations with one another.

What is really destructive is this attempt to impose total equality and put an end to any and all "privilege" in the name of equal human rights, privilege or selective rights being a cornerstone of monarchies and aristocracies.

>>472

>We can in fact speak of an inherent equality between all human beings to the degree that…

I'm not even sure I want to accept that. It's not a far step from there to "All men are born equal," which is completely false.

>>474

The problem is that if we deny any and all equality between humans, then we can no longer speak of universal systems and ideas of government which respond to the human condition at all and so then we basically throw the monarchist argument under the bus. If we presume that monarchy is a universal system of government that has appeared in practically every civilization on earth in some form or another because it responds best to the human condition, this presumes a certain universal character to humanity wherever you go, regardless of race, religion or creed, and with that universal character based on the least common denominator between each and every human community, you then must have some kind of code of ethics that applies to any and everyone that possesses that human character.

Keep in mind, that when we talk about human rights, we're not necessarily saying that certain classes of people don't retain their privileges over others, we're only speaking of the minimally acceptable justice rulers are expected to show their subjects. So I don't think it hurts us to acknowledge the concept of a universal set of human rights based on a notion of equality between people, what we need to fight are false notions of human rights and equality based on false philosophical premises and anti-classist tendencies.

>>475

I disagree that equality is a logical necessity for ethics.

>>476

Unless you're arguing that every individual human being is a separate species unto his or herself, then the existence of commonalities between human beings that allows us to identify them all as humans necessitates that a code of ethics take into account a certain inherent equality between all human beings on some level. If human beings weren't equal in any respect at all, we wouldn't be able to identify human beings as a collective group of similarly structured organisms sharing a common origin and organize rules on what all those who meet the minimal requirements for being human are allowed or not allowed to do. Even in Scripture, there are commandments which are universally binding on all people within the community of believers. A man is entitled for instance to not have his wife coveted by others, or to not have his property or life taken unjustly. This presumes a measure of equality in that all men are held accountable before God for not following his divine ordinances and the king whose person or family is anointed by God to lead, is expected to observe certain rules with respect to his treatment of all those subjects beneath him, whether they are of high standing or low. Whether or not certain privileges are granted to one class of subjects over others is irrelevant because in any collective society there is always a consistent or semi-consistent set of rules with respect to the rights or privileges of all subjects regardless of standing which the ruler is expected to continue to observe if he wants to stay on God's good side and if he expects there to exist any semblance of order in society that gives the society anything close to a collective character.

>>440

most of people in brunei are not rich

In short, i like monarchies because the monarch can basically act as a giant red emergency button. Politicians are short sighted. Have no view of state or long term, to enmeshed in campaigns and elections. A sovereign is not. So when things are ok, the sovereign can act as a glorified ambassador. If things get messy, he steps in. Not a purely ceremonial, neither a fully administrative. A "semi-presidential" one, one might say. It curbs the worst traits of both, monarch and politicians. Monarchs can do shit, vide the last king of Nepal and the current king of Thailand, a fucking and shameful playboy.

>>1056

It's not an argument that would set the world on fire, but for me it's simply de Maistre's argument that Monarchy is fundamentally irrational.

Democracies are rational polities, since they rely on a fairly logical system of operation (elections, representation, greatest good for the greatest amount etc., as well as derivative issues like female rights, equality before the law, freedoms of speech, press, assembly etc.). However, as they are rational, they can be attacked rationally. What can be built up with reason can be just as easily dismantled by it, to the point where they themselves become increasingly tyrranical, elitist and dynastic.

Contrast this with monarchy. A man is appointed by God, to rule with complete authority over a whole nation, and because of this his son gets to succeed him and his whole line gets to rule for centuries, millenia even. And yet this most irrational system has lasted for untold millenia and has only very recently given way to the aberrations of democracy and secularism which are buckling under their own rational weight. Irrationality such as this is basically formless and cannot be properly rebutted, especially when monarchies are basically earthly microcosms of the Kingdom of Heaven. For the believer, what God decrees is settled, but what man decrees has to be endlessly and "logically" justified.

I've probably mangled the good Comte's argument, but basically the fact that monarchy as a system is something so odd and unreasonable is what makes it a great and lasting institution.

>For me, it's Hoppe's "Monarch have longer time preferences than elected leaders" argument.

he did not take into consideration that monarchs have incentive to keep population poor because monarch fears being dethronized by envious lords and wealthy ppl

>>1071

A monarch with a wealthy people will tend to be beloved by them (not necessarily, but more than if he causes famine after famine). He will have more prestige, and better chances if it comes to a war, as he'll have more resources to mobilize. He'll also get more money for himself, because you can neither plunder a poor people nor trade with them. His lords, if they think he's purposely treating them like shit, will not enforce any of his decrees. A monarch has lots of incentives to increase the wealth of his people, and the historical record shows that they worked. There's a reason the French kings patronized the physiocrats.

>>440

Oil money

>>1072

>A monarch with a wealthy people will tend to be beloved by them

i think that only when they are wealthy due to privileges

>>416

>>416

Elected officials have a short time frame to enact their campaign promises, a monarch is under no such time frame.

A politician seeking reelection spends the last years of his term shmoozing around for more votes from the elite, and thereby serves the interests of the affluent while leaving everyone else in the rain.

A monarch will probably love his people, their culture, and history and won't seek to replace them with foreigners. A politician might latch onto foreigner votes and the two will empower each other and turn the country to chaos.

t. American

>>1079

>A monarch will probably love his people, their culture, and history and won't seek to replace them with foreigners.

Monarchy was international as fuck. The monarchs were all European, of course, but that hardly narrows it down. The king still saw the people as his people, but their nation wasn't his nation. That the king was, in a sense, an outsider, was the reason why multiculturalism worked in Europe for the most part until the First World War. Or well, not multiculturalism as we have it. Just the opposite of ethnostates. Austrohungary had like a dozen different ethnicities and no one was really bothered, whereas modern Yugoslavia couldn't handle half that number.

Monarchs as being above partisan figures is a good argument.

>>416

Most people are inherently bad, so it's easier to find one ruler that is morally sound, than allowing the bad/neutral majority to elect liars and crooks over false promises.

Also It's in the best interest of a Monarch to not fuck up the country because

>His face is known globally

>He has a descendant that will inherit the country

>he's one against potentially everyone else in case of a fuck up

>>2589

>>2600

> it's easier to find one ruler that is morally sound

How are you gonna ensure every new monarch is "morally sound", especially if the throne is heredatory?

>His face is known globally

So is the face of other heads of state, not an argument for monarchy. Besides history has shown plenty times that being well-known doesn't prevent rulers from doing awful shit whatsoever.

>>420

>equality, which is inherently opposed to liberty

Do you have an argument for this that isn't based purely on feels>reals?

>When people look at their society and see someone who has power (ceremonial or executive), simply because of their birth

What legitimizes the power? It is ultimately nothing but an abstract structure. There isn't any biological/empirical difference that makes the monarch fundamentally more apt to exercise power than any commoner.

>>475

> If we presume that monarchy is a universal system of government that has appeared in practically every civilization on earth in some form or another because it responds best to the human condition

Naturalistic fallacy, crime and murder have also appeared in every existing society throughout history, no reason to encourage them though.

It's just random to pick the "monarchic" stage of human evolution as the most correct and natural one. Before there were monarchies there existed tribal structures; before that we presumably had primitive communism, a more or less egalitarian society where tribal hierarchies had not yet been imposed. And in many regions monarchy was ultimately replaced by another form of government at some point. Why pick this one temporary stage out of all stages of human history and say "this one is the natural one, the one we should strive to maintain"? Even if you'd make the case that natural=good it would still not make a lot of sense.

>>3068

i just realized how old those posts i replied to are, but whatever

>>3068

>how are you gonna ensure every new monarch is "morally sound"

You cannot ensure anything. But a monarchy does a better job than most secular governments and dropping it to the masses to decide what is moral.

>reals > feels

Not an argument.

Equality is contrarian to liberty. Liberty comes at the expense of other people, and people cannot be equally free because freedom is known to those who are alone rather than those who are among other people. It is people who exploit other people and it is people who demand the state.

>muh empirical/biological evidence

A monarchy is a biological and concrete structure. It is a relationship of blood and the descendants of a leadership. It exercises power based on the honor the institution receives and also the authority of the office. The authority is wholesome and the public consents to obey it, otherwise it is pure violence. The source of authority is varying, but it comes to the power to exercise authority and legitimacy is that the -right- to authority UNDER the justice of the SOVEREIGNTY enables the monarch to exercise it. Any commoner who praises the monarchy or consents to its system of justice is automatically subjecting himself to a higher power.

>Naturalistic fallacy

>primitive communism

Okay.

The monarchy is a patriarchal institution naturally – if you even believe that ideal of primitive communism which I doubt was a thing – and the inheritance behind the system is what all parents desire, that being the fruition of an individual; if a system is based on inheritance, it is rightfully the system that reinforces this demand.

>monarchy was ultimately replaced by another form of government at some point

So were other governments replaced with monarchies.

>why pick this one temporary stage out of all the stages of human history

It is most temperate and the natural element is good for its paternal features. There are good and bad aspects of a father, but we consider the family as the origin of society and the individual. The family was an a model for society as a whole, leading to politics with the relationship between family members.

>primitive communism

You should read Maistre who talks to Rousseau. Communists borrowed from this playbook and used their rationalism to observe the New World as an insight to the Old World. We hold that most societies developed differently, not all having the same origin and culture as your egalitarian doctrine presents. Different peoples developed in different aspects. What they share in common is this paternal structure which was an early model for government. The concept always existed, but the ideas around it revolved and persisted throughout the decades.

also

>muh social construct fallacy

That doesn't mean it's bad. If you're going to argue on a basis of muh naturalistic fallacy, don't just call it a spook and say it's bad.

Also, if primitive communism existed, I'm going to assert that primitive capitalism existed. Otherwise, wtf, where did capitalism come from?

I don't buy into the primitive argument about communism. Maistre asserts that man wasn't made for the "state of nature" and developed out of it. So, if communism is primitive other than part of the savage, people weren't created for communism. I'm not asserting to focus our ideas on monarchy because it was natural, but because monarchy was a brilliant concept to begin with and that's why it continued for centuries. It established inheritance and allowed generations to succeed with ease. It passed government and always came and went when a republican system failed.

If we're going to be primitives, I'm going to tell you that if primitive communism existed, there would be a form of capitalism that was primitive besides the obvious appearance capitalism today. Man always exploited man and labor was always an oppression to man. Therefore, capitalism in its earlier form, if it through this means of labor, would have been an escape from manual labor. The escape from manual labor lead to the creation of an aristocracy.

They always presume society is the problem except for man himself. What man creates he uses to oppress others if capitalism came out of that. Man would be naturally exploitative rather than a happy-go-lucky primitive aka a man from the clouds.