[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]

/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

They're just LARPing, right?...right???

Name
Email
Subject
REC
STOP
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload4 per post.


IN CASE 8CHAN IS DOWN: http://txti.es/monarchy FOR NEWS ABOUT WHERE TO REGROUP

File: c02510e171fd2b7⋯.jpg (49.61 KB,474x704,237:352,th.jpg)

File: a0822efe15401c7⋯.jpg (255.99 KB,1280x837,1280:837,Cp8QpD2VIAAw-WW.jpg large.jpg)

 No.5277

For a reason unknown to me, the concept of a king alone aggros people on the board. Or, at least, it had brought about aggro in the past. What is absolute? A monarchy where the king is solely king and this authority is inviolable and typically unfettered and the top of temporal hierarchy. That is the easiest way I would clarify it. The rule of the monarch, at the top of the hierarchy, with the other members of the hierarchy. As Maistre defined it, 'a centralized aristocracy'. It isn't limited to Western civilization. Absolute monarchy comes in different forms. It has manifested itself throughout the ages. The sole role of monarchs as sovereigns is nothing new.

>absolutism is all about 'arbitrary' power, 'totalitarianism', 'big gubmit', 'the modern state', 'social contract theory'.

This is a big misconception. People tend to throw around a word salad without really defining their terms. Throwing words like 'authoritarian' and 'totalitarian' as if they were one and the same annoys me to death. Is monarchy an 'authoritarian' structure? Indefinitely, I think, because the institution relies on authority of great spiritual foundation, culture, justice, and the family. To despise all authority is to deprive all people of rights, actions as fathers, and their own self-autonomy. Authority is spread across the board, not limited to only the government, but the entire state of sovereignty. Parents have authority. People have authority over their property. Teachers have authority over students. People have authority in the things they produce and create. Authority is in initiative and intuitiveness. Authority is nothing limited to the state, but it does consist with hierarchy and control. Sovereignty extends to the entire state of living in a particular realm, not limited or separated to the government. It is propriety and authority across the board, vertical within a hierarchy and the dominion of monarchy, church, and people. It is right and wrong because the character of monarchies is so unrestricted to ideologies, even absolutism itself, that it really depends on the character of the monarch.

>absolutism is modernism/Enlightenment

This is right and wrong. It depends on how you view what is 'modern' and what is 'absolutism'. It doesn't begin in the 'Age of Absolutism'. It doesn't begin with social contract theory and Thomas Hobbes. That is another way of viewing absolutism and the modern state. Yes, Thomas Hobbes innovated social contract theory (which was a thing before Hobbes and something Hobbes reversed on Whigs who used it; it didn't come from nowhere). Most critiques of absolutism are pertinent of Hobbesianism/social contract theory and the concept of the modern state through social contract theory. This is just another fashion, so-to-speak, of the absolute. King Louis XIV is said to be the quintessential absolute monarch, but is a far cry from being the 'first absolute monarch'. And not to forget that in Christian hierarchy and understanding of monarchy, it goes back way before King Louis XIV and Bossuet (who didn't even espouse social contract theory). The Divine Right of Kings goes back to the Biblical Times, King James I, and then Bossuet. But even before King James I, it was formalized and understood in coronation ceremonies and the rudiments of Christendom with Emperors and the Church Fathers. Outside of Western civilization, the oldest of monarchies still had strident similarities to the absolute and the spiritual bedrock of wielding divine authority.

>absolute monarchy is tyranny

This is another matter of debate and how you view monarchies. Most people suggest that monarchy in general is just tyranny. I could say that democracy is anarchy, aristocracy is oligarchy, and monarchy is tyranny. It is counter-productive. If a king cannot have what is absolutely his own, where do ordinary people stand in having their own? And propriety no longer inviolable. It isn't 'arbitrary' or 'totalitarian'. There is always the potential for what is evil no matter what you draft. Because what is arbitrary is so far from absolute, it is impossible for it to enslave everyone arbitrarily, especially without repercussions not to mitigate the sacred characteristic of monarchy, but it is subject to reason and regicide should be avoided

>absolute monarchy is throne and altar only

Maybe ideal for some. Maybe not for those who want more government. Like how presidents have cabinets, monarchs have their choice of advisors, aristocrats, churchmen, prime ministers, chancellors, and even representatives. Absolute monarchy is not 'all doing', but simply 'all powerful' as an authority built on hierarchy and temporal power and spirituality. It is more of a status as being a 'king'.

>absolute monarchy cannot be constitutional

This is untrue. Absolute monarchies can have constitutions. Meji Era Japan is a good example.

____________________________
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.5278

File: cbff6a433de1dd6⋯.jpg (110.83 KB,960x720,4:3,Enlightened Monarchs.jpg)

On the concept of 'Enlightenment', I find it a broad brush to stroke to call the entire absolute concept of monarchy as 'Enlightenment'. And honestly, I don't care what anyone calls 'Enlightenment' outside the implications of that term. I don't care what is 'modern' outside the implications of that term too. It's retarded namecalling. The Enlightenment, as a political philosophy, was the rejection of traditional authority and divine-oriented politics for revolutionary idealism & 'in the vacuum' mentality, social contract theory, and different schools of thought/philosophies. Does anyone on this board honestly think themselves entirely excluded from modern terms of thinking?

There were 'Enlightened' autocrats who were receptive to the ideas of the Enlightenment and Voltaire. There were also monarchs who rejected the ideals of the 'Enlightment' and were still absolute. It makes no difference to me. The only controversial ground for most people is the idea of 'absolute' monarch being chief law-maker, autocrat, and the divine right. Chief law-maker might be controversial for some. Autocracy? I tend to view autocracy in a comfortable lenses. And divine right is something all monarchies tend to have, even the non-absolute monarchies have a theoretical basis for a monarchy as 'By the Grace of God'.

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.5279

File: de0cc7633f33613⋯.jpg (108.45 KB,570x793,570:793,il_570xN.606126371_jpit.jpg)

File: 6e465b75908e6f8⋯.jpg (34.46 KB,508x689,508:689,Zeus-King-of-Gods.jpg)

The pagan premise of the absolute and divine right also existed in separate variations. Not all pagan monarchies were this way. Not every culture had this understanding. It is exclusive to some nations and some cultures to have this view on the role of kingship.

>pic related the 'Lady of the Lake' presenting the sword Excalibur

The pagan understanding of divine right and kingship related to the legend of King Arthur and the Christian variation. This had been described as a 'marriage' for this concept of the state as the king 'married' the female spiritual guide and become this way by that right of marriage. In other

>other cultures

Zeus in Greek mythology as a 'paternal' figure and God of Justice. The pagan rite influencing European monarchy through the 'orb' and 'scepter' with Thor having a 'rock' and 'hammer' and receiving power by replicating this appearance. Early Christian coronations and adaptions had their own understanding between different cultures too. Monarchy exists on a strong spiritual framework and the 'absolute' concept of monarchy needs it to become legitimate because hierarchy requires virtue. The monarch needs an element of the supernatural or prestige to have this kind of status. The aristocratic ideal demands it. In the Roman Empire, the absolute understanding is often transferred to Augustus and his imperial cult. An Emperor. In Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, the concept of a 'leviathan' is described as a 'mortal god'. As King James I proclaims, Kings are like God's lieutenants. Emperors themselves have had such an impact on the development of Western civilization it ought not be ignored.

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.5281

The most frustrating thing for me is on the issue of consent.

People are so perturbed about everyone consenting to monarchy, that monarchs themselves are the ones who have to consent to republican legislation. Nobody really conceives that they don't bother half as much about assemblies/'representative' government other than voting supposedly resolved this issue and there's no way democratic governments can become in any form arbitrary or forceful because 'The People' can just dismiss and orchestrate such a government at whim. This is obviously 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.5367

I think the whole discussion is moot since we have reached a stage in development where absolutism is a term better reserved for democracies than monarchies. Even the Sun King did not have such wide coffers.

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.5370

File: 3f4c2f12c0a241b⋯.jpg (91.27 KB,960x720,4:3,1446450388105.jpg)

>>5367

This is a misconception on the term of absolutism.

It's not my fault democracies are so totalitarian and arbitrary in their nature, but not absolutist. Why does the divine character and unmitigated authority of kings bother people? Why is authority such a bad word in the modern era?

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.5375

File: d7b0f0fe9ef7f0b⋯.jpg (20.76 KB,376x442,188:221,02.jpg)

>hurr durr you're basically communists

This is why I hate half of you with a passion.

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.5381

>>5375

That picture gave me cancer

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.5386

>>5375

Ok you commie.

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.5404

File: dac9fee5cfae615⋯.jpg (26.15 KB,350x350,1:1,0312804012_1_35.jpg)

This board has become divided between Chinese legalists and Chinese Confucians. Except Confucians observe the Mandate of Heaven

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.5683

Another misconception is that absolute monarchy has nothing to do with natural law. This is debatable, like everything said above, and depends who you ask – but if you read chapter III of Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, this is contended. Positive Laws do not infringe on the natural power of kings.

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.5781

File: 8b627a48232bfbd⋯.jpg (3.86 MB,3048x4773,1016:1591,louis xvi.jpg)

>>5375

NAZBOL GANG

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.5782

>>5781

Moncom gang at it again.

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.5978

File: d2403f15027fe96⋯.mp4 (521.85 KB,1280x720,16:9,Ace_Ventura_cheeky_laugh.mp4)

>>5277

That's an awful lot of words you've used to create such a murky cloud. If an Absolute Monarch doesn't have Absolute power, in what sense is his power Absolute? In what sense is he Absolute?. If he does, he is definitively a Tyrant, a Dictator, the law is in his mouth. Why you'd twist words so confuses me. If you love the idea of a state-father there's no reason you should have to muddle the issue. Perhaps you're just trying to make it more palatable to others. In any case, you're wrong.

>To despise all authority is to deprive all people of rights, actions as fathers, and their own self-autonomy

Here is some of your greatest work. Redefining freedom as slavery. Beautiful. Exactly what I'd expect from someone with your psychological complex. To despise people violating your rights is to have no rights at all, to despise any violations of your autonomy is to lose your autonomy. That is what you've said here. Terrific.

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.5980

>>5978

>Redefining freedom as slavery

<hey, it's not like… you want… George Orwell's BIG BROTHER, h-huh, OP?

>Absolute? In what sense is he Absolute?

Monarchy, the rule of one; absolutely regal, that's what!

>If he does, he is definitively a Tyrant, a Dictator, the law is in his mouth.

I don't care how you cry big bad wolf. A dictator is a speaker who speaks, and people listen and take command. A monarch receives the mantle of authority gracefully, uses command with a majesty like a lion, and has not only consent of other subjects but dynamic of divine right. It is about a different kind of power resonating with the monarch, not only the popularity 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.5985

>>5683

natural law has no meaning or rather is has the meaning you want it to have because it is not real, like god

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]