No.5752
The liberal view is that there is no objective good; a person can base his behaviour on nothing but his own desires. The liberal approves of my decision to become a Buddhist as much as he would my decision to become a rock star, a drug addict, or a woman. Therefore the liberal's political principle is that the government should not meddle in our individual choices. He tolerates immigration; cultural diversity does not bother him.
The conservative view is that there is an objective good; we have responsibilities which restrict the range of our moral behaviour. Therefore the conservative disapproves of my becoming a drug addict, as this is irresponsible; or promoting rock music which promotes more irresponsibility. He questions transgenderism because the subjective identification with a particular gender is less important to him than the objective reality. He questions immigration because the social regulation which is important to his system is threatened by cultural diversity. A huge, alien city does not regulate behaviour so well as a closed, conformist village.
Monarchy and nobility reinforce the view of objective good; their claim is to be the 'betters' of any society, entitled to a higher place by their superior breeding and behaviour. They have to listen to the best music, have the strongest marriages, and the prettiest daughters. A monarch or noble must really behave better than the rest of the population or the whole system fails.
____________________________
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.5753
>>5752
The best duties a monarch could rely on start with military ceremony and attending of religious holidays and institutions. Fraternize with the soldiers and show integrity is the most modest thing a monarch usually does. People love the organic and paternalistic character of monarchy, especially as the national monarch who is their blood and heritage, like a son or father of the nation. They don't call it the fatherland for nothing.
>their claim is to be the 'betters' of any society, entitled to a higher place by their superior breeding and behaviour
it is their responsibilities and status that make them special. Their breeding? Maybe their heritage and fame. As for superiority, it is the powers that reside with them that are superior for the virtue of their office and the role they take. There is still a history of saintly kings, and then a history of scandalous kings. Best to have someone reprimanding a scandalous king like Bossuet.
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.5754
>>5752
Whilst I don't know that a Monarch or noble must strive to to behave better in every single way possible, it certainly is true that have a responsibility to act within their certain caste however the whole thing does not necessarily come falling apart if this is not upheld but will certainly deteriorate. Take the unique case of King Charles II who was not particularly a pious man (at least in the protestant faith) and not to serious either which was not considered very kingly for the time, especially by the puritan population of England. Whatever the case he was still beloved by much of the population of England hence his name the Merry Monarch and in terms of "superior breeding" he was certainly no saint having many bastards which he took proper care of. Despite all of this, through his reign he established a Royal Society of Scientist causing a surge in scientific achievement, which he actively encouraged, established and expanded new and existing colonies in the New World, and rebuilt London after the great fire. I think the words of the Earl of Rochester sums it up well, "We have a pretty witty king, who's word no man relies on; Who never said a foolish thing, nor never did a wise one."
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.5780
>>5752
>that the government should not meddle in our individual choices
Individual choice and freedom do matter, as long as you are responsible on behalf of your actions and don't commit some impious sacrilege or something. As for the duty of morality, Christendom and sovereignty needs not only the duty of kings, but the church to fulfill this role on keeping stability and welfare.. Your individual choices are not everyone's responsibility to account for and a monarch just needs to punish the wicked.
>to what extend should higher command infringe?
Enough to preserve peace and well being. You would be surprised how some monarchies have been hands-off on these issues in the past. There's a line between barbarism and puritanical roundhead meddling.
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.5791
At its core the primary duty of a monarch is to provide for the security of his subjects. to that end he must collect taxes to raise forces to enforce law and order, respond to pressing emergencies such as fire or flood, and to secure borders and the interior from outside aggression.
I may also be necessary for a monarch to organize public works projects and to maintain and improve critical infrastructure.
the role of government has always been to deal with the problems that are too big for any one man to handle. The Monarch must understand he is as much a servant of his subjects as they are servants of him.
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.5844
>>5791
>At its core the primary duty of a monarch is to provide for the security of his subjects. to that end he must collect taxes
The primary duty of a tyrant is to provide for the security of his thralls by violating their security through theft. That is what you've just said. Do you not see how this inherently contradictory?
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.5845
>>5844
how can you steal from a slave if he/she is yours?
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.5852
>>5844
in traditional feudalism the lord owns the land the peasants live on. in that sense taxes are rent. in a more modern sense all government is meant to provide certain services, usually security and critical infrastructure. how does the monarch maintain his army if not with money? how is the monarch going to get that money? sell T-shirts on Etsy? have a bake sale?
the people produce resources and generate wealth, and the king takes a portion of it to spend on shit like capable fighting men to deal with bandits and other threats to the peasants.
we can argue semantics till you're blue in the face but the bottom line is that taxation is only theft when it's misused.
using tax money to pay for a wall to keep out the mongols is a good and noble public works project, using tax money to pay for the importation said mongols into your capital is a traitorous act, and theft.
how do you think a monarch is going to maintain power? with kind words or with an army?
to not understand such a basic principle of society is only possible if you've never thought about it at all.
repeating "hurr durr taxation is theft" isn't thinking about it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5857
>>5852
>how is the monarch going to get that money
I'd have a lot more respect for a monarch that made his money on the market (perhaps by charging a fee for the services he provides rather than levying a tax).
>to not understand such a basic principle of society is only possible if you've never thought about it at all.
Imagine being so arrogant that you assume everyone who disagrees with you can be defeated with arguments from your 7th grade Civics class. More than a few people have written extensively on why taxation is not just theft but provides inferior services to market transactions.
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.5858
>>5857
Funny how there's never been a single example of a large scale society working like Anarchniggers say it should.
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.5859
>>5858
There are actually several. But I'm not going to name them because arguing from example is nigger-tier. Everything is "without precedent" until some pioneering chucklefuck goes out and makes the first precedent, so it's not a valid argument. Arguing from "DAE DERE'S NO EXAMPLES DOH" is nothing more than a tacit admission that you're a cowardly normie who doesn't dare step outside the overton window.
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.5861
>>5859
How's Africa doing?
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.5862
>>5861
>Ooga Boogas operating by ultimate incarnation of "might-makes-right" ideology
>land redistribution
>Fuck whitey, Marx told me so
>libertarian in any way
Meanwhile, Europeans that accepted individual rights and market economies are far and away the most successful nations in the world.
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.5863
>>5857
>perhaps by charging a fee for the services he provides rather than levying a tax
so imposing a 6% income tax on everyone is fine so long as it's called "citizenship dues" or "government fees?"
sounds an awful lot like arguing semantics to me.
>Imagine being so arrogant that you assume everyone who disagrees with you can be defeated with arguments from your 7th grade Civics class.
Imagine not understanding principles of government that have been understood by everyone as early as 800 BC.
>More than a few people have written extensively on why taxation is not just theft but provides inferior services to market transactions.
I'm willing to bet these authors all had names including "Stein," "Berg," and "baum."
>>5859
you won't "argue from example" because every "stateless" state that arises pretty much immediately falls into civil war, or, if the people are especially intelligent, get stemrolled by a neighboring nationstate, because there was simply no administrative mechanisms in place to effectively defend from outward threats.
because all anarchist utopias inevitably disappear up their own assholes, figuratively speaking.
>Meanwhile, Europeans that accepted individual rights and market economies are far and away the most successful nations in the world.
and all that happend while they were being ruled over by monarchs.
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.5867
>>5862
>getting raped by Achmed and/or refusing to breed
Funny how Israel (Jews demand other Jews to serve other Jews regardless of "muh rights") is notably more fertile than the cucks in Sweden.
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.5872
>>5863
>so imposing a 6% income tax on everyone is fine so long as it's called "citizenship dues" or "government fees?"
Imagine not knowing the difference between "pay the tax or I put you in a cage" and "pay for the service or you don't get service"
>I'm willing to bet these authors all had names including "Stein," "Berg," and "baum."
Not an argument.
>you won't "argue from example" because every "stateless" state that arises pretty much immediately falls into civil war, or, if the people are especially intelligent, get stemrolled by a neighboring nationstate, because there was simply no administrative mechanisms in place to effectively defend from outward threats.
Has literally never happened. All you're really doing is proving my point that appeals to example is nigger-tier argumentation.
>and all that happend while they were being ruled over by monarchs.
Monarchy is the closest form of government to lolbergism. The European monarchies put objectively more stock in individual rights than other nations, had objectively freer markets than other nations, and were objectively more libertarian than other nations, and as a result were more successful than other nations by any reasonable metric. Your saying, "but dey were monarchies do" doesn't change any of this. Kill yourself redditspacer.
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.5875
>>5872
Ever notice that the most fertile (read: healthy) societies that aren't in Niggerland are the likes of Amish, select Muslims, Israel?
None of them practice your lolberg (read: liberal) garbage to a notable extent.
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.5876
>>5875
You're appealing to example like a nigger, but fuck it, I'll bite.
>Amish
Heavy emphasis on self-determination and independence, with a "leave me the fuck alone" culture. That's pretty libertarian, and pre-1787 Quaker and Amish communities were de facto ancap. This supports my point more than it does yours, so thanks.
>Muslim
You're gonna have to be more specific here, but Muslim state are almost all shitholes and I wouldn't want to live in any of them. The few that aren't complete garbage like the UAE got there because of a market economoy
>Israel
It's literally a parasite state that only exists because billions of dollars worth of gibs are transferred from a productive, capitalist, free market economy to Israel. And even then, Israel has a pretty liberalized economy, scoring in the top 30 of the Economic Freedom Index.
Thanks for helping me prove my point, I guess.
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.5879
>>5872
>Imagine not knowing the difference between "pay the tax or I put you in a cage" and "pay for the service or you don't get service"
so what prevents a government from exactly that? simply making it so the person gets no protection under the law until they pay their back taxes?
you do realize that generally tax collectors would just go around and collect the taxes, when people refused to pay the taxes would simply be collected by force.
because the whole point of tax collection is to get money for the state, and throwing someone in a dungeon costs money when they could be making money to collect on taxes later.
again you're splitting hairs, because whenter you get tossed in the rape cage or have your power and water shut off the end result is more or less the same. you comply or bad things happen that prevent you from living a good quality life.
>Not an argument.
WE FOUND THE JEW, EVERYBODY!
>Has literally never happened. All you're really doing is proving my point that appeals to example is nigger-tier argumentation.
in the absence of a state, Somalia has fallen into a complete clusterfuck of perpetual warfare among a collection of warlords and weak userper states all claiming tright to rule but none being strong enough to beat all the others.
Ireland was once a stateless society like you advocate, and was quickly conquered by the english.
literally every primitive tribal society that has ever existed, is another good example. especially since they were always steamrolled by large state actors.
>The European monarchies put objectively more stock in individual rights than other nations,
good to see we agree on something, at least.
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.5880
>>5879
>you do realize that generally tax collectors would just go around and collect the taxes, when people refused to pay the taxes would simply be collected by force.
…Yes? That's rather the prime argument against taxation, why would I not be aware of it?
>again you're splitting hairs, because whenter you get tossed in the rape cage or have your power and water shut off the end result is more or less the same.
Except in ancapistan, the state wouldn't have unilateral control of utilities. And there would be competing service providers for both utilities and for security. I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to say here so there's little I can do to provide a rebuttal.
>muh Somalia
Somalia didn't liberalize its government, then collapse. Somalia collapsed because it had an extremely authoritarian, borderline commie government, which then collapsed because that's what happens to commie governments. In fact, the standard of living in Somalia right now is higher than it was immediately before the collapse, suggesting that the federal government becoming nonexistent actually made things better–Somalia's a shithole now, but it was an even worse shithole prior to 1990. You have to compare apples to apples, and comparing a nigger country with average IQ of 65 to the first world doesn't qualify.
>Ireland
Gaelic Ireland was a good example of a stable and functional society that remained so without an overarching state. It would have gotten conquered by England regardless of its organizational structure, due to the inherent advantages England had. If you can provide a definitive report showing that specifically that decentralization somehow left Ireland unable to defend itself (despite history showing the opposite is true, see: US forces in the sandbox, Vietnam, the American Revolution, and others), be my guest. "DAE OIRLAND GOT CONQUERED" hardly qualifies as such, however.
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.5884
>>5880
>…Yes? That's rather the prime argument against taxation, why would I not be aware of it?
okay so lets break this whole tangent down:
I say money is neccessary for the state to function, and to that end taxes are necessary.
You start up with taxation is theft, then offer alternatives that are essentially the same thing as taxes only it's not called that.
I tell you it's he same fucking thing
>no no u guize it's totally different because the mechanisms we use to coerce people into paying the government, that is totally not the exact same structure as every other state, is totally different!
whether you're making them take a holiday in your dungeon or ostracizing them from society coercion is still coercion. the state, no matter the exact structure or responsibilities, is at its core an amoral coercive body.
that coercion will happen, and it will be done by someone. be it a road company or a king's tax collector.
that's why it's often argued that democracy is replacing one tyrant a thousand miles away with a thousand tyrants right next door, and the very existence of home owners associations shows that there are always going to be petty tyrants willing to fill any power vacuum they can find.
this is why monarchy is in a few ways preferable to other forms of government; a bad king can be replaced with an awful lot less difficulty than you can replace a bad government.
and if there is no centralized power structure someone is going to make it, and then they are the tyrant, and if everyone is bred to be their own people and do their own thing they're going to be fucked.
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.5885
>>5884
I said all that to say this: the state is coersion.
it is amoral and coercive. no matter how nice or polite the people in charge are, or how soft the methods of coercion are, the state is still a social machine meant to coerce people into obeying laws and customs.
if you don't do that then you don't have a state, you don't have a society, and there is nothing to prevent anyone from just fucking off and joining a neighboring ACTUAL state. nor is there anything stopping that ACTUAL state from just moving in and setting up shop.
because you ultimately have no mechanisms in place to prevent that and even if you wanted there was no way to get the funds to implement it because everyone was already paying out to a dozen other services and wasn't about to shell money out to a fifth service that they would never actually see the benefits of.
>give me $60 out of your $600 weekly pay check.
is objectively better than
>give me $80 a month for the power you use.
>give me $40 a month for the water you use
>give me $100 a month for natural gas
>give me $50 a month for national defense
>give me $90 a month for law enforcement
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.5888
>>5880
>US forces in the sandbox
Achmeds don't win in wars. They still don't. Amerifats are just so dysfunctional a country that they can't even exterminate filthy goat fucking rats.
>Vietnam
Were getting steamrolled by American troops and could have been burned off the map if the US wasn't such a cuck country.
>the American Revolution
You mean how they depended on help from the French and still needed the British to not focus all their attention on them (see, the colonies weren't that important)?
>>5885
You can just head to Africa or some isolated tribe if being expected to contribute triggers you.
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.5890
>>5876
>Heavy emphasis on self-determination and independence
You mean depend on the goodwill of their neighbors/government.
>That's pretty libertarian, and pre-1787 Quaker and Amish communities were de facto ancap.
None of which had remotely large population, all genetically homogenous, and had the geography for it. Tell them to try that in the Middle-East.
>You're gonna have to be more specific here, but Muslim state are almost all shitholes and I wouldn't want to live in any of them. The few that aren't complete garbage like the UAE got there because of a market economoy
Oil money and foreign lackeys, actually.
>It's literally a parasite state that only exists because billions of dollars worth of gibs are transferred from a productive, capitalist, free market economy to Israel. And even then, Israel has a pretty liberalized economy, scoring in the top 30 of the Economic Freedom Index.
Jews are expected to help other Jews. And indeed they do (go look up nepotism in higher education). Considering how Western Jews are perhaps the most successful and fertile ethnicity alive nepotism has served them well.
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.5891
>>5884
>monarchy is preferable because it can be easily replaced
What is this nonsense?
>>5880
>extremely authoritarian, borderline commie government
Totalitarian*.
Authority and authorship is totally great for autonomy and overarching social structure that is absolutely orderly and proficient for the whole.
Anarchism is typically postmodernist and borderline destructive. Go ask all the other people who identify as 'anarchists'.
>stable and functional society that remained so without an overarching state
I would rather take a structure, such as arches and anything hierarchical, than the absence of structure.
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.5896
>>5891
>What is this nonsense?
are you seriously going to take someone that far out of context when literally anyone with a brain and eyes can read what they actually wrote?
>this is why monarchy is in a few ways preferable to other forms of government; a bad king can be replaced with an awful lot less difficulty than you can replace a bad government.
>a bad king can be replaced with an awful lot less difficulty than you can replace a bad government.
>a bad king can be replaced
>this is why monarchy is in a few ways preferable
the monarch is not the monarchy. if he was the kingdom would fall to ruin the fucking moment the king dies. we have this thing called the line of succession that ensures when one king leaves the position for whatever reason there is another immediately available to take his place. in this case if the ruler is a cunt he can be removed either with popular support, or just by killing him off, and replacing him with the next guy in line who may be better for everyone. it's up to that successor to be better, lest the same thing happen to him. because let's be realistic, if a king gets so unpopular that the country fires him and even his guard are on board with it he's fucked up bad and anyone taking over is inheriting a huge mess.
i'm beginning to think this /monarchy/ board is just full of edgelords who don't know the first fucking thing about monarchies.
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.5899
>>5896
>a monarch is not the monarchy
A monarch wearing the crown is what monarchy is.
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.5901
>>5899
so is the uk a monarchy?
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.5904
>>5899
>A monarch wearing the crown is what monarchy is.
It's too early in the day to be hit with this level of stupid.
you colossal mouthbreating idiot what part of your brain was removed to make you think that is how monarchy works holy shit.
this isn't fucking burger king where you can get a paper crown to make you feel special. a monarch is someone who is the supreme ruler of a nation. what he wears on his head is the most inconsequential thing compared to his fucking role. no matter how much authority the position of king wields the ONLY way to get to that point is to have the full confidence of literally everyone who is in a position to make or break you. essentially the king rules by consent of the ruled, or at least the lower nobility.
without their support the king doesn't last long. to assume the various decorations alone are what makes you the ruler just shows how fucking stupid you are.
just fucking stop. turn off the computer and go spend some time in the desert. find your spirit animal and ask it why you're such a wailing fuckwit.
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.5905
>>5884
>whether you're making them take a holiday in your dungeon or ostracizing them from society coercion is still coercion.
It literally isn't. One infringes on property rights and one does not. One is an act of aggression and one does not. One inhibits voluntary choice and one does not. One is a market distortion and the other is a market process. You're either an illiterate nigger who doesn't understand what words mean, or you're playing the Marxist game of redefining words to mean whatever you want them to mean. Pick your poison, either way your redditspacing ass is not worth my time.
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.5906
>>5904
>Wah, wah, muh social contract theory!
>let me larp as an aristocrat!
>muh commercialism
Crowns are far more important than that and don't come from popular mandate. The temporal authority of monarchs is not to enforce the will of the people. Coronations happen in cathedrals, not public halls. I don't care what whiny aristocrats who claim to represent the People™ have to say.
>It's too early in the day to be hit with this level of stupid.
Crowns are made to be worn, not idolized and made into social contract schemes. This casual talk about replacing quote-on-quote "bad kings" doesn't bother me, only the concept that creating a structure that needs to constantly replaced should be the ideal.
>no matter how much authority the position of king wields the ONLY way to get to that point is to have the full confidence of literally everyone who is in a position to make or break you. essentially the king rules by consent of the ruled, or at least the lower nobility.
Authority and power residing with monarchs is naturally the higher notch in the framework of a hierarchy. This issue of "full confidence" and totalitarian consent of everyone is a Hobbesian hatch to undermine the spiritual framework of monarchy and all it stands for beyond popular consent. A monarchist partisanship doesn't work and monarchists should avoid thinking in terms of popularity, political parties, and popular sovereignty. I prefer what the answer that both a people have a role in being with the sovereign and taking the place underneath the sovereign, while the sovereign holds sovereignty with a people. This is as Maistre says in 'Study on Sovereignty'.
>this isn't fucking burger king where you can get a paper crown to make you feel special
No matter how much you disparage the role and character of monarchs, the crown and the monarch play a very mutual part. Monarchy without monarchs is pretty stupid. There is obviously a strong emphasis on both; am I denying a crown can be worn by multiple dynasties? No. I am only saying that treating the crown as a personal responsibility for the monarch. This is not some public office to shoehorn in another candidate when a few haughty aristocrats feel something is not correct.
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.5907
>>5901
The United Kingdom is a monarchy.
The British monarchy has had many dynasties and this does not mitigate the fact that monarchs play the higher role and shouldn't bow to anyone besides their God. Dynasty change is best left as rigid and unlikely as possible, rather than a swap in and swap out ideal that Lockeans and other social contract theorists admire. That is a whig fantasy.
I think conceptually a monarchy should steer away from these terms of thinking. A political party of monarchists sounds contradictory for a reason. It doesn't work with popular mandate. It is wrong. A monarchy doesn't fit in this framework.
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.5930
>>5907
>monarchs play the higher role and shouldn't bow to anyone besides their God
so why did pope wash feet of rapefugees?
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.5932
>>5930
Because the Pope is not the temporal authority, I suppose. Another subject to the European Union.
https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-popes-and-emperors.html
A good description can be found here. This is a wild card subject of debate dating back to Dante Alighieri and De Monarchia to De Maistre's On the Pope. Emperors were considered a more direct short-lined authority, temporal and holy in their own right, while Popes were considered just the spiritual domain and not the temporal authority. This conflicts with the other political tones of papal authority.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5960
>>5932
but he is a monarch
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.