No.4783
>Its Another LARP board
Ok lets get this out of the way.
Absolutism ended on the 30th of Janurary 1649 when people realized that the divine right of Kings didnt actually mean all that much on account of the Kings Head and Body being on separate sides of the room
for the next few centuries the Monarchies of Europe chugged along slowly being whittled away by Liberal-Democracy and the rise of capitalism breaking the landed families previously almost universal grip on wealth
this coupled with advances in technology simply made Monarchy and Feudalism less efficient which over all led to its abolition throughout the entirety of the developed world (Western Monarchies are Republics in name only)
As a General rule attempts to restore monarchy after the divine right of kings was done away with has always failed
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4789
>>4783
You know what else is impossible, OP?
COMMUNISM
Yet so many people think they can do it. There already are Dei Gratia monarchies around the world.
>LARP
Aren't all you political animals LARPers to a degree?
>divine right of Kings didnt actually mean all that much on account of the Kings Head and Body being on separate sides of the room
Yeah, then you found the French Revolution. The Bolshevik Revolution. And many heads besides the king's head went falling off. Criminal regicide only proves brutal force and the arbitrary desire of republicans to seize their own power.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4791
>As a General rule attempts to restore monarchy after the divine right of kings was done away with has always failed
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4792
>>4789
Pretty sure OP's point was that once people stop believing in the Royal Lie (in the Platonic sense) of "Divine Right," it's pretty hard to get them believing in it again. Because that genie's out of the bottle it's all-but-impossible to get the public believing in a monarch's right to rule again. And like it or not, the ability of a government to rule is predicated on the citizenry consenting to that rule.
>inb4 STOP THINKING REPUBLICANS ENLIGHTENMENT GET OUT REEE
Consent to rule need not mean an enthusiastic endorsement of the government. It need not mean agreement with the policies being passed. At minimum, consent of the citizenry implies nothing more than that they be apathetic enough about the government that they not object to it. Because the idea of kigns has been so thoroughly ridiculed and dismissed in contemporary Western society, and the idea of "divine right" even more so, any monarchist trying to establish himself will likely not even be able to generate that minimum level of consent.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4795
>>4792
Divine Right isn't about what % percentage of who believes what. The United Kingdom still has a Queen that rules by the 'Grace of God'. The Counter-Enlightenment is about maintaining this social order from the will of the mob.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4796
Anarchists are always self-defeating. I thought >>4792 this anon agreed not to look through the lenses of social contract theory.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4797
>>4795
>The United Kingdom still has a Queen that rules by the 'Grace of God'.
The UK and most other western Euro Kingdoms are all basically Republics all but in name with the kings and queens holding only the most vestigal powers and influence
Though the UK is closer to Monarchism as that it keeps a Privy Council / House of Lords as opposed to Norway or Sweden for instance where it was dissolved
>>4796
Are you implying im Anarchistic?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4799
>>4797
>Are you implying im Anarchistic?
No, but that anarchist told me that he didn't view social contract theory, but he already confirmed he does. he thinks like a republican Regardless, I'm only playing mean because he's tossing around words like 'Royal Lie'.
>The UK and most other western Euro Kingdoms are all basically Republics
Nah, I still recognize the United Kingdom as a monarchy. If the Queen is still there, and it's Dei Gratia, I don't really care.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4800
>>4795
As the frog said, those powers are largely ceremonial, and their citizens just view them the way Americans view Hollywood celebrities. If those monarchs tried to actually govern they would meet a considerable amount of resistance.
>>4796
>this anon agreed not to look through the lenses of social contract theory.
I'm not "looking through the lenses of social contract theory" and I never was. I made a statement of fact–any ruler, regardless of disposition or policy, cannot govern a populace in active revolt against him. You can argue they have no right to be in revolt, and you can argue that the king could and would crush such a rebellion, but I don't think it's possible to deny that, if the populace is in revolt, the king cannot govern. If it is possible to deny this, I'm more than open to your arguments.
>I'm only playing mean because he's tossing around words like 'Royal Lie'.
Then I think you've misunderstood me. I don't hold Plato's Republic in all that high regard and didn't mean to suggest otherwise. What I meant by that phrase is that for something like "divine right" to be effective, people need to believe that it's true. Regardless of whether or not a king actually has divine right, if no one acknowledges that he has divine right and no one heeds his commands, the distinction is rather academic. Is this not the case?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4801
The only reason Monarchs were overthrown and whittled away was because of (((freemasons)))
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4802
>>4800
It just surprises me because that's the Hobbesian lenses. You take the view of "inference" and how consentual government isn't openly stating it. I thought you were individual about this. Why does it have to be The People™ or citizenry now?
>people need to believe that it's true.
Divine Right is a top-down view rather than a bottom-up view of sovereignty. Nothing said.
>if the populace is in revolt, the king cannot govern
You make it out like it's the total sum of the People™ in revolt. That's what it's all about. There can still be governance in a state of rebellion. Maybe in a civil war? Definitely not the other side.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4803
>>4802
>It just surprises me because that's the Hobbesian lenses
Locke and Hobbes aren't the only political theorists who ever lived. Rothbard, and Hoppe after him, echoed the sentiment that governments survive by implicit consent.
>I thought you were individual about this. Why does it have to be The People™ or citizenry now?
I'm not sure what you mean here exactly. It doesn't "have" to be the People™ or citizenry, those are just convenient words to use when talking about arbitrarily large groups of individuals.
>Divine Right is a top-down view rather than a bottom-up view of sovereignty
I don't deny that. But the direction of authority isn't what I was contending. My point is, if the king says "God has given me the right to rule," and his knights, his family, and the peasants all say "no you don't, fuck off," he is not able to rule.
>Maybe in a civil war? Definitely not the other side.
So we're in agreement that, at the very least, the king is unable to govern those who are rebelling, because by definition they do not heed his words.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4804
>>4803
Consent by inference straight outta Leviathan.
>Locke and Hobbes aren't the only political theorists who ever lived.
It's not that they're just "the only" political theorists. They're social contract theorists.
>I don't deny that. But the direction of authority isn't what I was contending. My point is, if the king says "God has given me the right to rule," and his knights, his family, and the peasants all say "no you don't, fuck off," he is not able to rule.
Again, that's Hobbes. That's legit the total sum of commonwealth. It seems you recognize social contract theory yourself, but you just don't like it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4805
If I were an anarchist, I would be extremely skeptical to even accept the so-called rulebook of social contract theory. That sets you up for disaster.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4806
>>4804
>It seems you recognize social contract theory yourself, but you just don't like it.
I wouldn't say that's a fair characterization. The only part I recognize is a tautology that is self-evidently true, whether you believe in the rest of social contract theory or not, namely
>people who do not want to be ruled cannot be ruled
Libertarians only bother to point this out to show that, once people are educated on the undesirability of the state, and are educated on the viability of free market economics, once they reject the validity of the state en masse there really isn't anything the state can do to stop them.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4807
>>4806
>Libertarians only bother to point this out to show that
Most anarchists in general like to screech about it.
>pics related by that Marxist cartoonist
Honestly, if you feel that way, and recognize it by inference, I''m afraid the social contract theorists have you by the balls. My general concern with anarchists is they always fall for the trap. Anarcho-syndicalists? They want to use the same means of abolishing property in the most self-contradictory way. It's why communists always end up becoming a totalitarian hellhole with the state bringing things under an arbitrary and public domain. They fall for the trap.
>once they reject the validity of the state en masse there really isn't anything the state can do to stop them.
You're talking 100% of the people. You would have to make the most propagandist drive to achieve this.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4808
>>4807
*Note on this comic
People always diss it and stuff and feel that way. But the moment they spin around and start talking, they almost ALWAYS start talking in terms of social contract theory. It's like how some lefties feel edgy enough to talk down about Rousseau and the French Revolution as 'bourgeois', but they always inevitably return to their roots of thought.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4809
>>4807
> I''m afraid the social contract theorists have you by the balls.
Maybe I'm just slow today, but I don't see how. I don't think the individual has any obligation to the state, I don't think taxation is voluntary, and I don't think the state is doing anything to protect what freedoms I have remaining. Again, I think you're misinterpreting what I said, because the one place where you could say I might agree with the social contract was something you didn't explicitly deny. If you don't mind terribly, I'd like a clear yes or no answer to the following question: Does saying "the government is not capable of ruling over a group in active rebellion against it" make me an advocate of the social contract? Maybe I'm more ignorant of SCT than I should be, but I've never liked it all that much, and I certainly don't think of myself as an advocate of it now.
>You're talking 100% of the people.
Doesn't have to be 100%, as state soldiers are a tiny minority in comparison to the people they rule. Further, they don't have to wholly defeat state forces, just get the state to leave them alone. It just has to be a critical mass of people within a given region. Bundy Ranch was too small a number; the entire state of Texas would be more than enough. Values in between have different probabilities of success depending on circumstances.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4810
>Doesn't have to be 100%, as state soldiers are a tiny minority in comparison to the people they rule.
That's closer to the traditonalist view.
Though it lends way to the authoritarian variety of "might of the sword". It's just that social contract theorists usually refer to it as despotism. It has a degree of truth that leadership by right of concept can work. Monarchy as a government is just spiritual, traditionally and conceptually. You can still get your foot caught with the social contract theorists even if you argue about the right of conquest. They'll just go around it and say stuff along the lines of "well, it's still consentual and whether they consent is really where power begins."
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4812
>man doesn't need a sovereign to be more than Nigger Tier
>liberals believe this
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4815
>>4810
If the monarch's rule is primarily spiritual, then why does he need to be head of state at all? He could be a voluntary actor on the market, and sell his services as a monarch to those who desire his guidance and authority. To quote an overused line, good ideas don't require force to implement.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4816
>>4812
read nietzsche or stirner
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4829
>>4816
Tell us what the Niggers in Africa accomplished compared to the racist meanies in Renaissance to Victorian Europe with their kings and segregation and lack of democracy
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4853
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4920
Speaking of things problematic with social contract theory. If it was popular sovereignty, and then it was The People™ who did these things, it would make the whole country guilty like the Germans post-WW2. .
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.