[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ 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: a297516c3431ef8⋯.png (39.37 KB,420x490,6:7,German_Pepe.png)

 No.641

Please Note: I'm a Monarchist who posts on >>>/liberty/, because I didn't know about this board. I am copy n' pasting a thread >>>/liberty/65239 that was posted there, because I want this place to get traffic. Please don't ban me if I broke the rules.

I'm not sure where there is a larger aggregation of monarchists so I might as well ask here. What legitimizes a monarch? "Bloodline" is not an argument, by the way.

But even if it were, what about countries that are historically without a monarch or their only monarch is imposed by foreign powers. Assuming most monarchists are edgy burgers, how would you bring about your style of monarchy to the USA or whatever state after a presumed balkanization?

____________________________
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.642

Original OP here to read your answers, thanks anon

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.644

Hello OP.

>What legitimizes a monarch?

For myself, there are two answers. The first is probably the answer I rationally accept, and the second is probably the answer I emotionally accept.

First:

Do you really want legitimacy? If you want a limited government, legitimacy is not something you want government to be perceived as having. I don't think monarchies are 'legitimate.' But, I also don't think that any government is 'legitimate.' Which is the benefit to a monarchy. Any governmental system isn't all that different, the only difference is the smoke-and-mirrors to which they make people 'believe' that they hold the power (when really they don't). To that end, at least in a monarchy people have the truth. And because of that, historically a monarch couldn't get away with very much taxation at all, least of all any egregious form of direct taxation.

On a personal level, I like monarchies just because it blows away the smoke-and-mirror games and politics and makes it clear to me what I can really do and what's honestly within my abilities to change. Hoping that one can make a change through spending the enormous amount of time in campaigning and running a PAC or making a political party or something like that is a fool's errand. When those options are closed off, it's much more clear what you can really do to better your life (move, bribe, assassinate, etc.).

Second:

Oddly enough, Rothbard's argument AGAINST monarchism.

>Let us say that Ruritania is ruled by a king who has grievously invaded the rights of persons and the legitimate property of individuals, and has regulated and finally seized their property. A libertarian movement develops in Ruritania, and comes to persuade the bulk of the populace that this criminal system should be replaced by a truly libertarian society, where the rights of each man to his person and his found and created property are fully respected. The king, seeing the revolt to be imminently successful, now employs a cunning stratagem. He proclaims his government to be dissolved, but just before doing so he arbitrarily parcels out the entire land area of his kingdom to the “ownership” of himself and his relatives. He then goes to the libertarian rebels and says: “all right, I have granted your wish, and have dissolved my rule; there is now no more violent intervention in private property. However, myself and my eleven relatives now each own one-twelfth of Ruritania, and if you disturb us in this ownership in any way, you shall be infringing upon the sanctity of the very fundamental principle that you profess: the inviolability of private property. Therefore, while we shall no longer be imposing ‘taxes,’ you must grant each of us the right to impose any ‘rents’ that we may wish upon our ‘tenants,’ or to regulate the lives of all the people who presume to live on ‘our’ property as we see fit. In this way, taxes shall be fully replaced by ‘private rents’!”

I know Rothbard's response to his own hypothetical. But emotionally I find his hypothetical more of a convincing case for monarchism than his arguments later to dispute this. If you really wanted to argue about the ethics of land theft when you could invariably get into incredibly muddy waters studying the history of deeds-especially on the American continent–then I could see such a shell-game by an astute King of Ruritania working. I mean, fundamentally monarchy works off of a principle of inheritance, and thereby property rights anyways, so…

>how would you bring about your style of monarchy to the USA or whatever state after a presumed balkanization?

The second answer I gave was essentially rooted in property rights, and so is my answer here.

The Grand Duke of Luxembourg started out as a guy who bought the land on top of a very important and strategic hill from a nearby monastery, and then he built a house there. Over the next several centuries it became the Great Duchy. I would suggest something similar. This, of course, means that the United States would become a much more fine patchwork quilt of very tiny countries. Of course, I don't think that's a bad thing.

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.646

File: 07d0bb8386905e5⋯.jpg (571.75 KB,825x1227,275:409,King_Henry_VIII.jpg)

>>642

>>644

>What legitimizes a monarch?

I don't know if this counts, but bouncing off of what >>644 said, I feel as if Monarchy's that spring to life out of "thin air" legitimize themselves; a monarchy is self legitimizing. Why did someone decide one day that King x of England, the first King, had royal blood? Was it that he claimed to be a descendent of a King from before? Was it that he claimed, all of a sudden, that he was descended from a God? Either way, the idea of a monarchy springs to life when people agree to be governed. In the very same way that the American system of government works today, because people simply agree to it, so would a monarchy work the same.

"Legitimizing", in my eyes, means that the King or Ruler of the land is fair, wise, and is a "man of the people." Once the monarchy starts, and continues on, unhinged, that is what legitimizes it. I think it's the same as a business, in modern day times. What legitimizes my, say, tire business, if I choose to start one? The fact that customers like what I offer, and I do good work. Now, starting a monarchy is a very different road, (i.e what legitimizes the start of a monarchy?) If that's the case, I think, again, the populace legitimizes it. When choosing a monarchy, they reject Democracy, Fascism, and Communism. They themselves legitimize it.

My final point, if you don't agree, is that the person with the highest IQ on earth would also be an acceptable answer. I think most would agree that an America run by someone with a 185 IQ would make logical sense, and even emotional sense as well. Who better to protect the people than a genius, a man who sees what all others neglected?

> their only monarch is imposed by foreign powers

I think, personally, this will never work. People, on a base level, are tribal. They want someone they can trust, someone born on their land, that looks like them. A definite quality is a home-born Ruler or King, in terms of being legitimate or not.

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.648

File: 71035e227ad6cae⋯.png (402.86 KB,3003x1416,1001:472,Anarcho-Monarchism-4-1.png)

Thoughts on anarchomonarchism? Because I feel kinda drawn to 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.649

>>648

Oh dammit, I wanted to make this a new thread. Sorry guys, cannot delete this on my phone.

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.651

>>648

You should go to this thread:

>>460

Did you see this link, btw?

>>467

I like his definition of it, "It is merely a syncretic starting political position; I advocate either anarchism OR monarchism."

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.653

>>646

>I think, personally, this will never work. People, on a base level, are tribal

Would that be a problem if the king acknowledges the separate ethnic identity of X population and treats them accordingly, respecting their tribalist tendencies?

I mean, pre-revolutionary Europe's monarchy hardly ever had nationally determined borders, and for example the pre-unitary italian states were more often than not subject to a foreign king, yet all those populations are still there

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.659

>>646

>I feel as if Monarchy's that spring to life out of "thin air" legitimize themselves; a monarchy is self legitimizing.

Would you agree with

>>610

>The same way money comes about, the same way law comes about, and the same way language comes about. I would argue there is a certain property of emergence in their legitimisation, and that they are legitimised culturally through a history of birthright and their connection to their lands and country.

?

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.664

>>659

I just checked, but I don't have a whole lot of time to answer. The short answer is yes, I agree with what that anon (>>610) said.

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.669

>>641

> "Bloodline" is not an argument, by the way.

>

It is. And it is the answer. the first takes his fair share by force. His legitimacy is that he is at least able to crush anyone who openly opposes his legitimacy. All the others by the virtue of being his ancestor. And with each added monarch the claim becomes stronger. That's why Japan will stay a monarchy forever while European monarchies who thought one house could lose its right to land because of some silly inheritance law won't. The end.

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.745

>>641

"Bloodline" is an argument for an individual monarch, just not for the system of monarchy. The arguments for monarchy have been laid out in a couple of other threads, but to clarify on why bloodline is a good argument, it comes down to constitutionalism; what defends the people's liberties is constitutionalism and a balance of powers, which is best achieved in monarchic mixed government, and within such a system the principle of heredity serves the important function of excluding the politicians and generals from taking the top spot for themselves, preventing conflict over the issue of the righteous inheritor, ensuring an upbringing essentially from birth with the goal of fulfilling the role in mind and so on.

As to who to make the monarch in previously monarchless countries with no pretenders, there are a few routes. One could, in some cases, appoint a hero of the people, as was done in the Balkan states after these people liberated said countries. One could invite foreign minor royalty, as was common for countries whose monarchies went extinct. One could, if currently living under a dictator, have their line transition into monarchic rule.

In the US, barring exceptional circumstances (Civil War 2.0 and the next General Lee becomes King of the CSA), you would have to rely on imports simply because there is nobody in the country, afaik, with the requisite nonpartisan support for a stable start to the system. A general would be your second best, given the Murrican reverence of their military, but a blank slate starting off as a figurehead monarch would be the ideal starting point given the state of the US.

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.881

File: cca3194869c0653⋯.png (8.34 KB,420x420,1:1,1464345820147.png)

I appreciate all the answers ITT.

>>669

>It is. And it is the answer. the first takes his fair share by force.

Wow, what an incredible argument! Hey, what if I beat you up, subjugate you and your family with my gang of friends and take over your property? Then my kids will have claim to the land AND the ownership of your family and its descendants. No no anon, in principle it isn't different, in case you were wondering.

>And with each added monarch the claim becomes stronger.

>something is legitimized by the amount of time it existed

From all of the answers in the thread you are the most laughable and least consistent. You are like a teen who heard about all the negative and illogical things in a system and decided it's good because of it lets you be edgy and feel elitist in the same time. The end.

>>745

>preventing conflict over the issue of the righteous inheritor

Quick, name a time when two or more possible heirs fought for the title! Oh wait that never happened. oh wait, it did

So /monarchy/, why not just elect your monarch like you elect any other representative? What reassures you that any random person to take the throne would be more qualified than an elected official? Even in the Roman Empire the emperor got his power, de jure, from the consent of the people for him to rule over them. Why not just elect your head of state, give him reign for life, and grant him the powers of a monarch? That way he won't be able to profit short term and get away with it. After he dies the present generation elects another candidate. You could also elect a bloodline if some line of geniuses is found or genetically engineered.

And, lastly, what about other elements of government such as senate, local laws, self-rule of communities and so on?

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.891

>>881

>So /monarchy/, why not just elect your monarch like you elect any other representative?

There are supporters of electoral monarchies here, so I can't speak for /monarchy/, especially given the varying responses you've already received here. But the main issue I see with elections is that the people who run for elections actively want power. That is, I think demarchy would be a great improvement over democracy! And I kind of want to ask why you wouldn't want to support demarchy instead of democracy, or what advantages a demarchy really has over a democracy. At least a random individual is not guaranteed to have libido dominandi as they are with those in power in a democracy.

One system implements a kind of 'life-long demarchy' using the lottery of birth.

You might call such a system monarchism.

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.892

>>891

>And I kind of want to ask why you wouldn't want to support demarchy instead of democracy

I don't particularly care for either to be frank.

>One system implements a kind of 'life-long demarchy' using the lottery of birth.

Don't torture me with semantics. Having an appointed and groomed heir is not demarchy. I'm not sure how you managed to pervert "casting a lottery to choose a random leader" into "being born as heir into the ruling family is totally a lottery because we don't know what kind of person he'll be!!!!" You're presenting it as if people have the chance to be born in any different family.

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.897

>>892

>I don't particularly care for either to be frank.

And yet

>>881

>why not just elect

>would be more qualified than an elected official?

>elects another candidate

>You could also elect

If you really say you don't care for either, then you are the most closeted democrat I've ever seen.

>Don't torture me with semantics.

No one is forcing you to be part of this discussion.

>as if people have the chance to be born in any different family.

If the goal is to avoid powermongers, then this is a bug, not a feature.

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 ]