No.6695
Alright, i've been recommended the board and have lurked for a while and although i probably won't stay i thought i might share my thoughts on the subject. Do whatever you want with them.
Monarchy's success is not universal but is often enough not due to some chivalry, religion or other imaginary pretentious sophistry to cover up and justify the monopoly on force but simply from the fact that monarchs follow the order that requires less reinforcement from them, leading to less politicaly active reign, therefore allowing greater economic freedom from politically motivated intervention. When it's not the case and either the ruler or some other influential institutions intervene problems quickly follow, though as long as the inheritance of authority is in place the system still has the ability to recover with the next, less leftist ruler.
The monarchies' structure is good because it relies on a more apolitical model(i.e. the order is in place regardless, it's stable and doesn't create political climate as it exists almost without actual involvement of most people, even monarch is required to just live an offspring, basically), something that demoracies or other popular rule systems lack, succumbing to populism. If the situation changed like it might have been during modern times in the field of modern politics then monarchies would likely lose their traits and fall apart, as it's not the absolte potential power that held them together but lack of questioning and testing it. With modern abilities and communications it would also be easier to ruin the country in one generation,rendering another feature of monarchy nearly useless. Still i do like minarchist monarchies for what they are, as spontaneous and unintentional protectors of freedom and predecessors of other systems that attempted to solidify what is most important to progress, knowledge, prosperity and self-realization, possibly being better at that then many earlier attempts. Adding democracy because of the spread of egalitarian populism was a mistake, it should have been constitutional civic monarchy instead
Anyway, here it is, probably gay or something but forgive me as i'm probably not doing 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.6696
>>6695
>consequentialist
>chivalry, religion or other imaginary pretentious sophistry
Did you become a libertarian because you thought it would allow you to smoke unlimited cock?
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.6697
>>6696
No, i became a libertarian because it's a system that is best at creating value, both technological, cultural and physical, as well as allows autonomy and secession and works without its people following any special order, well meaning or even trust towards each other. Smoking cock doesn't fit into any of my plans.
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.6698
>>6696
Oh, and
>disliking your semantic games being called for what they are
>not being high on your own farts
Do you think monarchy would allow you that too?
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.6699
>>6697
>libertarianism
>cultural
>works without its people following any special order, well meaning or even trust towards each other
The modern world is a direct cause of your (((enlightenment))) values. Libertarianism has failed and failed harder than most other ideologies besides communism.
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.6701
>>6699
>works without its people following any special order means it doesn't have any
You seem to be blinded by your butthurt about your projection of authoritarianism fetishes on me so much you lost your ability to read. Cool yourself, you worthless serf retard.
>Libertarianism has failed and failed harder than most other ideologies besides communism
Coming from something that is considered a dead ideology bashing someone who sympathizes you it's pretty funny
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.6702
>>6699
>muh enlightenment
Whatever, kiddo.
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.6703
What do you think of the arguments/counterarguments in the FAQ, OP?
Also, there are a lot of other libertarians floating around on this board. I think Russiaboo is one of 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.6704
>>6703
There's a few of us, yes. Although we tend to use deontological, absolute truth and a priori arguments rather than (((consequentialist))) ones. And I could be wrong, but I don't think any of us are fedora-tippers.
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.6705
>>6695
>simply from the fact that monarchs follow the order that requires less reinforcement from them, leading to less politicaly active reign
All I do is moderate this board, and I have to say that this is the truest thing I have read on this board. I probably shouldn't be saying this (and I'm kind of breaking my own personal rule in replying to a non-meta thread, but I suppose I can let it slide for once), but eventually, you get so goddam sick of it, and it becomes enough of a chore (which is ridiculous for me to say, because I do so little and such a shit job of it), that you effectively have a built-in institutional incentive to find ways to moderate the least amount possible.
I wonder how much it really pulls over to monarchism, and if stable monarchies become liberty-oriented not because of any complicated or high-minded political science argument, but just because the King wants a damned vacation or a 4-hour workday. More classical liberal society -> less stuff to manage -> less work.
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.6706
>>6695
>>6696
I will give you this much, though: consequentialist arguments are viable for arguing in favor of a monarchy, since no anarcho-capitalist is able to argue in favor of any kind of state on deontological terms.
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.6707
>>6703
I haven't found any kind of FAQ, sorry. Could you point it out for me? It's not in the sticky nor does a search of the catalog give any results.
>>6704
The problem with deontological libertarians is they use thee same arguments as consequentialists in favor of the system, yet lack either the brains or the balls to go further and overview the benefits and adapt them to the goals of the opponent, proving that it's best for his value system specifically. Instead, they stop at few points and make it look like they are everything and it's everything there is to it and when faced with rejection try to prove that their value system is superior instead, undermining someone else's in the process and contributing to the view of libertarians as holier-than-thou pricks. And it's not like their arguments are any good or organic either, with most of them ending on "because i say so", appeal to religious beliefs or personal attacks. It's not like they are more adept at the use of purely logical arguments either, nor are consequentialists rejecting those in any way. It's just instead of searching "an absolute truth" or whatever they call the continuation of their ego and self consequentialists uncover relative benefits, more often using game theory in the process when looking into the potential structure of the ancap society, and this logical discipline is probably the second only to math among disciplines not based on empirical data, but on some basic premises.
>>6705
Thanks for the honest response. As i said i probably won't stay here for long but i sincerely wish your place luck and i'd be upset if it was overrun like other do.
>>6706
This autism will probably be the biggest thing that stands between libertarians and other, more moderate groups that could be pretty close ideologically, be it monarchists, classical liberals, minarchists or even some of the more adequate conservatives. This is also the cause of the conflicts that will a lot longer be present among libertarians, like the questions about abortion, child sex and marriage and so on, going over and over without any hope of consensus, or even slight improvement.
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.6708
>>6707
>where be the FAQ?
It is actually in the sticky:
https://8ch.net/monarchy/about.html
There's a "common arguments" section stuffed in 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.6709
>>6701
>1000s of years of uninterrupted monarchism
<capitalism is SO DEAD xD get with the times gramps, you racist lol
Literally the same argument commies make against capitalism and the free market.
And libertarian US lasted how long before devolving into the puddle of shit we see now?
>You seem to be blinded by your butthurt about your projection of authoritarianism fetishes on me so much you lost your ability to read. Cool yourself, you worthless serf retard.
Not an argument.
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.6715
>>6708
Alright.
>Anti-Democracy
Good but it fails to mention that it's not just financially unsustainable but fails also because popular vote, even if worked exactly as intended and not abused, is a worse way to make decisions and choices for an individual due to lack of knowledge and information of the others at the very least. And
>always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a Monarchy
Is wishful thinking, really, unless you call established warlords monarchs. They mostly stay as dictatorships, devolve into tribalism, keep afloat by selling resources to others or improve, often only so they can fail again.
>Anti-Egalitarianism
Eh, i'm not into "ought" arguments and don't really like the idea of "men should be unequal" either, as in undermining some to maintain inequality but as long as i have opportunities to improve i don't mind someone being better, it's only if they are only better because they made everyone else worse then it's the problem.
>Divine Right
I'm not religious, do not view religious institutes as useful to most people compared to what to what negatives they produce and have formed a very strong distrust and became displeased over discussions with them and christians specifically. Also doesn't apply to other religions.
>Libido Dominandi
Well, yes, though it's less pronounced on lower levels of democratic orders. it's also partially my point - by having a system where you don't make an effort to become the ruler you're less likely to be politically active. I guess that'd apply to systems where the leader is picked absolutely randomly among citizens as well, though it's easier faked and so on.
>Lifelong Training
Well, some things just can't be fixed with training so there almost always be someone somewhere that is better fit to rule but that's not really the point, the point is that picking an apolitical leader is easier than a well intentioned active one, and that's enough for things to keep going, albeit unintentionally.
>Irrationality
Only good for someone who is irrational himself, unfortunately, and we've likely passed this period already. That's why we're talking about it in rational terms, even on your list.
>Monarchist Time Preference
Again, i put more trust in King's passiveness than i do in his well meaning. Otherwise, inheritance system would be rather pointless but it plays a significant role that i described in the OP.
>Societal Failsafe
Well, in theory it could be true but in reality i think a more active and opportunistic leader is more ready to act against danger, even though he's the one starting it more often than not.
>Stability
I'm also skeptical to this argument, as it largely ignores the conditions in which the systems existed. In our time of intense communications, fast travel and reach things happen far more quickly compared to times when it could take weeks just to deliver a basic message. It was also a lot less free resources to manage so more time and effort was put into survival, further slowing down the life flow.
>Traditionalism
>Many Monarchs spend a majority of their time performing ceremonial or religious functions
Ok but it wouldn't really do much with even moderately modern communications.
>the functions of the Monarch is one of a conservative traditionalism serving to preserve the culture or religion of a given society
Could mean protectionism and leave us with a theocracy with zealots holding power instead of a non-invasive and comfy dude doing his stuff with his family. Could mean rejection of improvement and progress, leaving them out competed by more technologically advanced ones. Either way, my position on traditions is that those of them that serve a practical purpose wouldn't go out of use.
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.6716
>>6715
>Test of Time
See slightly above, it seems like an appeal to ignorance and nitpicking, as we could compare tribalism the same way and give ti even more history and ignore all the bloody things it did, passing by the fact that it existed during a whole another time period and under different conditions.
>A bad king is no worse than a Democracy
Debatable, with absolutism the king's power can be equal to a communist dictator like Mao or Pol Pot, and it can be as bloody and tyrannical as those, even with historical context of time, like those same Chinese dynasties.
>A good king, however, is absolutely god-tier
I dunno, a politically active king that isn't a magical superhuman being doesn't strike me as an ideal. I'll admit that a passive king that does his things with the low taxes and otherwise keeps economy intact is quite good, though best would be if he was intentionally trying to preserve the economic freedom.
>Nothing else comes close
For a monarchy advocacy page i'd let that slide but such an uncompromising stance isn't likely to attract newcomers any better.
>It's like playing a strategy game - all of them are monarchies
This is factually untrue and obviously so. You very often play as a dictator, tyrant, mayor, president, leader, commander, etc, and only among historical games you are called a monarch, while even among fewer of those you actually act like one, with rituals, traditions, ceremonies, family bonds and diplomacy based on that. For the most part it's like playing a president during medieval times - you balance between aristocracy, church, your goals, intrigues and enemies, manage resources around these things and have the political power of a full-on dictator. This is so obvious it probably should be removed to not undermine actual arguments made before.
>>6709
>Literally the same argument commies make against capitalism and the free market.
Except capitalism isn't a failed system, nor has a history of falling apart like house of cards, unlike communism or monarchy, communist faggot.
>US
>libertarian
Just shut up and admit that you don't know shit, you son of a fucking nigger whore.
>lasted how long
Well, i guess you should go back to the cave then, it certainly has lasted longer than monarchy, your retarded bootlicking filth.
>devolving into the puddle of shit we see now
Seems to be doing better than Britain, tbh.
Looking at your intellectual capacity and dumb assumptions it seems you're some nigger from /pol/ so you probably should stick your tongue up your ass and return there, letting actual people and not biomass talk.
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.6720
>Except capitalism isn't a failed system, nor has a history of falling apart like house of cards, unlike communism or monarchy, communist faggot.
>monarchy
Remind me what Old Egypt and Han China were?
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.6727
>>6716
>Except capitalism isn't a failed system, nor has a history of falling apart like house of cards
Do you think that by saying something over and over again, it will become true?
>it certainly has lasted longer than monarchy
Pick up literally any fucking history book. Almost ALL successful governments prior to the American Revolution we monarchies. The one notable exception was the Roman Republic and both the Roman Kingdom and Imperial Rome lasted longer.
>Seems to be doing better than Britain, tbh
Britain which is now a republic founded on the same enlightenment values as your niggertarian ideology
>Looking at your intellectual capacity and dumb assumptions it seems you're some nigger from /pol/ so you probably should stick your tongue up your ass and return there, letting actual people and not biomass talk.
Take your own advice you illiterate niggertarian.
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.6728
>>6727
>Do you think that by saying something over and over again, it will become true?
You certainly do.
>Almost ALL successful governments prior to the American Revolution we monarchies
Oh, so tribes, empires, warlord gangs are now monarchies? Gotcha, nitpicking historicist scum.
>Britain which is now a republic
So the royalty doesn't matter?
>same enlightenment values as your niggertarian ideology
Quit sperging out, fucking retard. "Anything that isn't my brand of regressive barbarism is muh enlightenment" is not an argument.
>Take your own advice
Fuck off to /pol/, fuck off from this thread, kill yourself and any of your family and offsprings.
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.6730
Not the anon you were responding to earlier.
>>6728
>Oh, so tribes, empires, warlord gangs are now monarchies? Gotcha, nitpicking historicist scum.
The Roman Empire is considered a monarchy despite the Roman Emperor declining the name of monarch not to offend republican sensibilities, but recognized for its monarchical themes and influence. There are other monarchists that defy the standard convention of the typical hereditary monarchy. There is a butthurt clique of electoral monarchists who go around like bratty noncomformists, as if they were a cool kid's club, because they aren't the first thing thought up when someone thinks of a monarchy. There are monarchists who consider Emperor Napoleon I to be a monarch. Monarchists like to grab what we can get a hold of. We're biased this way.
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.6731
>>6728
>Oh, so tribes, empires, warlord gangs are now monarchies? Gotcha, nitpicking historicist scum.
What do all of these things have in common? A single supreme authority, not unlike a monarchy. You're grasping at straws.
>So the royalty doesn't matter?
Literally nothing more than figure heads at this point.
>Quit sperging out, fucking retard. "Anything that isn't my brand of regressive barbarism is muh enlightenment" is not an argument.
Calling me a sperg doesn't make niggertarianism not enlightenment trash. Maybe if there was an actual difference, you could list how niggerrtarians and enlightenment niggers differ, but you can't because there isn't a difference. You both hold the same fake values of freedom and equality. You are the same dogshit ideology with a different name.
>Fuck off to /pol/, fuck off from this thread, kill yourself and any of your family and offsprings
Take your own advice, you illiterate niggertarian.
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.6732
>>6716
>Debatable, with absolutism the king's power can be equal to a communist dictator like Mao or Pol Pot, and it can be as bloody and tyrannical as those, even with historical context of time, like those same Chinese dynasties.
Certain electoral offices and Presidents have more power than certain absolutist monarchs. In the world today, republics are capable of doing things they couldn't. The title of 'Lord Protector', for Cromwell, was arbitrary and parliament wanted to make him into a king for some constraint. Absolute monarchy also has the benefit of not being reliant upon upholding ideological socialism. People look at regimes like North Korea and the first thing they have a quarrel with is not Juche or Socialism, but the hereditary nature of the government. The ideal of popular sovereignty has done more of an impact than absolutist regimes, imo, despite what dissenters will say. They say an absolute monarch has no boundaries, but that only exists in the hypothetical world. They have their limits when it comes to religious authority, their power being Divine Right and their morality being a keen measure of power, along with laws/canons constituting a realm. The absolutist doesn't rely on socialism or popular sovereignty (except in the Hobbesian), and they rely upon the influence of later imperial Roman Law (Justinian Digest/Institutes), the Early Church, primogeniture, and other niche examples.
If we lived in a world with only communist regimes, I would argue that DPRK wouldn't be the worst. You mention monarchy when it comes to Communism, but you forget to mention that these Communist regimes are mostly republican and hinged on democratic thought. Just because DPRK – Democratic People's Republic of Korea – is the odd bird that plucks a few people's feathers, doesn't mean those other communist regimes weren't problematic too.
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.6736
>>6730
Well, at least you accept the tendency for historical nitpicking, i can respect honesty.
>>6731
>A single supreme authority, not unlike a monarchy
Ok, communism is monarchy now.
>You both hold the same fake values of freedom and equality
>fake values
>unlike true values of worthlessness and servitude
I already told you that "everything that isn't a monarchy is muh enlightenment" is not an argument, fucking slavenigger.
>Take your own advice
You first, scum.
>>6732
>Certain electoral offices and Presidents have more power than certain absolutist monarch
And certain absolutist monarchs have more power than presidents, that's my point. Democracies do expand their power beyond what was intentionally provided, yet it's dishonest to reject that monarchies can also be corrupted and turn into genocidal shithole not dissimilar from socialist states. And i don't mean to undermine monarchy here, i just want to point out that ANY X IS BETTER THAN ANY Y statements are easily refutable and don't hold much power in an argument.
>They say an absolute monarch has no boundaries, but that only exists in the hypothetical world
To be fair, an absolute monarch has no boundaries, his rule is absolute. Why is that he doesn't exploit these boundaries to their fullest is another question we're discussing here.
>They have their limits when it comes to religious authority
Not really, no. Say all you want about God and stuff but unless in a country where the church has more control(and power, in property too) than the kind he is not that threatened by the church, aside from rejection that might or might not even work, as there were times when a king established a new church after that, and it worked.
>their power being Divine Right and their morality being a keen measure of power
Could be true but i've come to the point where i don't accept these ideas. I'll leave it to ancoms to base their society on the impulsive beliefs of human beings.
>laws/canons constituting a realm
He can rewrite any law he wants, literally.
>The absolutist doesn't rely on socialism
Depends on what you call socialism. if it's a system of centralized government with large control over the country's resources and assets then the monarchy would fit, somewhat.
>popular sovereignty (except in the Hobbesian)
I mean, if we don't equate popularity with democracy then he doesn't. but nor does Hobbesian, i don't know where did you dig out that assumption. It's up to you whether you think that a good king that attracts more people in his kingdom and betters off economically from that "relies on popularity", but i just want to say that having demand for something is not the same as the those who have this demand dictating the supply side.
>they rely upon the influence of later imperial Roman Law
What do you mean by that? it seems to me that monarchy more than other examples relies on monarch's individual judgement and not some sound model of human actions and decisions.
>Absolute monarchy also has the benefit of not being reliant upon upholding ideological socialism
I mean, what if the king becomes infested with the idea?
>Communist regimes are mostly republican and hinged on democratic thought
More like on the imitation of those. I've yet to see a communist regime where the whole process hadn't become completely imaginary. DPRK is just unique in that it went to hereditary rule in some shape instead of some basic central authority dictatorship.
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.6737
>>6736
>He can rewrite any law he wants, literally.
In theory, but often it's interpretation of law. Honestly, some laws can be bad laws. Laws for the sake of laws – no good, let's admit. There might be a few essential laws, but some statutes aren't necessarily that essential to a society.
>What do you mean by that? it seems to me that monarchy more than other examples relies on monarch's individual judgement and not some sound model of human actions and decisions.
The French absolutists relied on Ulpian's writings and other sources to help justify themselves.
>I mean, what if the king becomes infested with the idea?
That's a problem, but we like to think the traditional form of monarchy prevents it. Rooted in a patriarchal familial structure, with contradictions of class and wealth, along with the church, but there's only so much a structure works to delay these problems. Especially in this democratic age, there is nothing you can do and monarchy is no perfect government, only another type and another one for another time and another place; the art of politics is taking the opportunity to say it is the time for monarchy, when the political climate is just right. This is going to shock you, but at this rate – people want a kind of tyranny, and tyranny in the unconventional sense, but a strong leadership and fast action to resolve the crisis we have today.
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.6738
>>6737
>>6736
>What do you mean by that? it seems to me that monarchy more than other examples relies on monarch's individual judgement and not some sound model of human actions and decisions.
Individual judgment is sometimes better than the judgment of a partisan clique. If you asked me which is better to reason with, a group of partisan lackeys supposedly representing the People, or a monarch whose mission is to watch over the ruled, I would say that an individual monarch could reason better. A clique institutionalized is much more difficult to argue with, because they reinforce each other and mute their opponent with their size in numbers. From personal experience, whenever I try to take on a wolf pack, that is the way it is because they all have to support one another. An individual monarch can be reasoned with and often has to negotiate to get his way. In popular assemblies, they fail to negotiate and the rule of the few easily exhausts itself compared to a solid monarchy.
While a monarch has individual judgment, I don't think there is a sense of lawlessness even in autocracy. It is just that a monarch is not as subject to laws as an ordinary person because they aren't the ordinary person. Men rule in society, and men enforce the laws; laws are only matter when they work with reason, but they aren't reasonable for their own sake. There is always going to be a ruler and a ruled, and people are not sovereign over themselves. When the laws and aristocracy become conceited in their laws beyond the framework of reason, and what morality predicated these laws and what laws come to abuse themselves, they sometimes do need to be rewritten or ruled over. Sometimes monarchs introduce laws and compile them; Emperor Justinian, and other monarchs. Monarchy is not rule without laws. As some republicans complain, laws could be the instrument of oppression. As for natural law, some even go as far to say that royal authority as far as it is paternal. Absolute monarchy is the recognition of men who are above laws only because they rely on a higher power and are responsible to this higher power.
>ot really, no. Say all you want about God and stuff but unless in a country where the church has more control(and power, in property too) than the kind he is not that threatened by the church, aside from rejection that might or might not even work, as there were times when a king established a new church after that, and it worked.
Yes, but it looks awfully bad when your esteem comes from this institution. Monarchs like Henry VIII have only been able to do this because of the Reformation, an already potent shift in the social order.
>yet it's dishonest to reject that monarchies can also be corrupted and turn into genocidal shithole not dissimilar from socialist states. And i don't mean to undermine monarchy here, i just want to point out that ANY X IS BETTER THAN ANY Y statements are easily refutable and don't hold much power in an argument.
Yes, but the problem with monarchy is it is more apparent. It is like a pig being butchered. Nobody here said that government was a perfect business. That is the ugly side to all governments – they naturally abuse power, but they also struggle for what is good. Maistre makes it clear. There is the ruler and ruled, no matter the laws, but a temporal authority and a higher authority; the abuse of power is so natural to man it cannot be helped. He wills what is good, but he also wills what is bad. He is subject to his own peers since there are no angels on Earth, superior beings, to weigh them down. Honestly, I get the jig you're just another libertarian with problems to settle with absolutism, not monarchy itself. I'm one of the few absolutists, and a many monarchists here believe in the rule of law.
But when it comes to laws, I don't think laws can discipline a monarch. When it comes to the abuse of power, I think it isn't laws even on an individual basis, but virtue and a higher power that disciplines the individual. Monarchy is often stable and reliant when it collides with religion, because a common theme of religion is self-discipline and worship, ceremony and temperance.
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.6739
Personally, I think a problem with many monarchists is they recognize the staples of a tyranny, because it is so infamous, but they don't recognize when other governments overextend themselves. A monarchy is going to have a bit of tyranny whether you like it or not, seeing as how there is no perfect government. The rule of one is based on this subjective ground where a bit of tyranny is bound to happen. A wise tyrant keeps his tyranny confined to close quarters and gives tyranny to criminals who really deserve it. A smarter tyrant even spares his enemies, waiting for the opportune time. Tyrant is a scary word because the world has this prejudice against monarchy for being long-standing and prominent form of government. The problem is many monarchists know the tell tale signs of tyranny, but they don't recognize the inherent problems of other governments – they often become own ideological opponents for not bothering to see the problem of aristocracy or democracy.
An aristocracy kills itself in a much longer process than a tyranny. When tyranny goes too far, it is very clear apparent and it can absorb a lot of abuse and last if done with enough political skill, but aristocracy meets its downfall from its own victory. The rule of law is one opportunity for the aristocrats to advance their own interests, when the monarch isn't looking into it (although I would argue a monarch could also take advantage of laws with oligarchy, too). Aristocracy's death is slow and painful, the over-extension of burdensome laws over a long period of time, countless regulations and oligarchic distance from the public it claimed to protect and even represent. When the oligarchy is exposed by its excess of laws, its uselessness, and its plutocracy, it is the perfect breeding ground for monarchy to return, or at least a tyranny to kick off the oligarchs for their excessive laws and blatant weight on the peasants. There are other conditions for monarchy, but this is one of the staples; it is one of the reasons the idea of monarchy is becoming so popular in libertarian circles. Politics is a cycle and a struggle, and there are times where the brilliance of monarchy really stands out. It's not a matter of preventing tyranny for me, but making tyranny with the least force its punch. I accept tyranny as an inevitable trait of an established monarchy. For a long-lasting monarchy, there needs to be self-discipline for the monarch not only from laws, but other institutions and other means of discipline.
With that said, I think it's annoying when monarchists focus only on the obvious bad tropes of democracy, like mob violence and irrational behavior (again, when group-think goes wrong). It is important to balance oligarchy with democracy, and democracy with aristocracy, from the perspective of the monarchy, rather than balancing the monarchy with the democracy, or the monarchy with the aristocracy. When it comes to that point, when you aren't looking at how monarchy fits the social order and works to undermine these two forces, you might be on the wrong foot.
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.6740
>>6738
>Individual judgment is sometimes better than the judgment of a partisan clique
Yeah, though your point about arguing with Monarch doesn't really strike me, you've got not much more room to prove anything or build a valid defense. I mean, sure, a monarch that has some self respect and at least some neutrality can do better than an average model-based system but the benefit of the latter is more universal, versatile, as personal and biased judgement from an irrational person can make it a lot harder to negotiate anything that even harsh and non-compromising entity like roman law. Granted, monarch isn't necessary that way but there's only so many things he can reach and introducing other actors makes the system a lot messy and complicated without some external mechanism, process or set of rules to resolve the issues.
>it looks awfully bad when your esteem comes from this institution
Ok, maybe, though I'd be very wary of the church having too much influence and turning all your shit into politically active eternally butthurt theocracy.
>you're just another libertarian with problems to settle with absolutism
My point was that the kings does hold power even if he's not using it to its full extent. It's not a problem per se and i'm not really opposed to most types of monarchy but one has to be wary of omnipotent institutions to not end like communists who build totalitarian dystopias, hoping that they will once magically stand aside and leave.
>I don't think laws can discipline a monarch
Yeah, neither do i. He's beyond the laws and even in his system the laws function only as supplementary orders around his authority, clearly recognized as continuation of his will. If it wasn't so he wouldn't be a monarch, as these laws would come from some other source, be it "the people", some other leader, institution, etc.
I think i kinda lost the point we were discussing if there was any, what are the thesises we've come to since we've come a bit away from the OP?
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.6741
I don't care if /monarchy/ is wrong. I just really like all the long-form actual discussions going a million different directions.
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.6742
>>6736
>Ok, communism is monarchy now
Communism is libertarian egalitarianism taken to it's logical conclusion.
>true values of worthlessness and servitude
<faith and heritage are definitely not values
>I already told you that "everything that isn't a monarchy is muh enlightenment" is not an argument, fucking slavenigger.
Anything that espouses the fake values of freedom and equality is.
Face it, you're just a moderate leftist. A boomer neo con at best.
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.6743
Well, this thread went to shit fast. Fedora-tipping consequentialists just kill everything they touch, don't they.
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.6744
>>6743
Don't worry, you've always been a failure.
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.6745
>>6742
>Communism is libertarian egalitarianism
>libertarian egalitarianism
You're retarded.
>the fake values
Why are they fake, serf?
>freedom and equality
Why do you equate them, dumb nigger serf?
>you're just a moderate leftist
<t. serf with no sense of ownership or belonging that believes in everyone's equality under a monarch
Why don't you resize that you've been leftist all along?
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.6746
>>6743
>Shit up a thread with your whining and personal attacks like a son of a plague rat you are
<See guy, that's all because he's wrong, ignore me not having any argument whatsoever and being a sneaky little bastard!
Oy vey, really.
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.6747
>>6745
>Why are they fake, serf?
They affirm nothing. What are the differences between an iranian lolbergtarian and an english one? Nothing aside from race. Whereas an iranian monarchist and and english monarchist have so little in common, they are hardly recognizable as the same ideologically. They have completely different worldviews (christianity and islam), they practice completely different traditions, and the monarchs they support even play slightly different roles. Whereas niggertarians like you merely espouse unbridled cultural degeneration and deviancy.
>Why do you equate them, dumb nigger serf?
Do you even speak english? I'm not equating them you nigger cock sucker. I'm saying that you're a nigger cock sucker because you believe in freedom and equality.
<t. serf with no sense of ownership or belonging that believes in everyone's equality under a monarch
>Why don't you resize that you've been leftist all along?
There is no such thing as equality under a monarchy, there is a definite hierarchy, from serfs to nobility to aristocrats to royalty.
You, on the other hand, still believe in a shit political system like democracy where everyone gets the same amount of say and everyone is treated the same under the law regardless of how stupid and useless they are. Quite fitting seeing how stupid and useless you are yourself.
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.6748
>>6747
>What are the differences between an iranian lolbergtarian and an english one?
There is no "iranian" or "english" libertariansim", you dumb bootlicker, the differences come when you look outside of it, as it's not an ideology that spreads itself like cancer everywhere it can reach.
>Whereas an iranian monarchist and and english monarchist have so little in common, they are hardly recognizable as the same ideologically
They are both serfs, just like you are.
>you merely espouse unbridled cultural degeneration and deviancy
t. uneducated inbred serf
>I'm not equating them
But it seems like you're unable to say one apart from another. Some illness symptom, perhaps?
>you believe in freedom and equality
There you go again, saying things you don't know the meaning of. Go back in chains, scum.
>there is a definite hierarchy, from serfs to nobility to aristocrats to royalty
Oh, no, my dear leftist friend. The nobility are just serfs who were awarded by the monarch, they are still all equally subjects to the monarch's rule.
>You, on the other hand, still believe in a shit political system like democracy
AHAHAHA, imagine being this oblivious. I mean, serfs don't deserve education but that's just bizarre.
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.6754
>>6748
>There is no "iranian" or "english" libertariansim"
That's exactly the problem. Niggertarianism is a globalist shit ideology.
>They are both serfs, just like you are.
It's funny how you keep trying to use that as an insult. Better a servant to a good and responsible leader than a slave to some money grubbing corporatist kike like you.
>t. uneducated inbred serf
Not an argument. Maybe you should try demonstrating how niggertarianism is opposed to cultural degeneration? Oh, that's right, you can't.
>But it seems like you're unable to say one apart from another. Some illness symptom, perhaps?
It's almost like I'm dealing with a nigger cock sucker who believes in both of these things.
>Oh, no, my dear leftist friend. The nobility are just serfs who were awarded by the monarch, they are still all equally subjects to the monarch's rule.
<eVerYoNE iS SuBJeCT TO lAw ThEREfor UR A cOmmUNIst xD
>There you go again, saying things you don't know the meaning of. Go back in chains, scum.
Not an argument. Maybe you should try demonstrating how niggertarianism is opposed to freedom and equality? Oh, that's right, you can't.
>AHAHAHA, imagine being this oblivious. I mean, serfs don't deserve education but that's just bizarre.
Okay, so tell me, O wise one, what specific infallible brand of leftism that has never been tried do you believe in?
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.6756
>>6754
>Niggertarianism is a globalist shit ideology
You seem to fail to read, your nigger serf. Libertarianism doesn't expand and consume everything it touches, leaving national and cultural differences to the people to resolve.
>Better a servant to a good and responsible leader than a slave to some money grubbing corporatist kike
<This much projection
And you never realized that it was the same all along, tool.
>Maybe you should try
Maybe you should try to make an argument yourself instead of repeating "prove me right" over and over, nigger serf?
>Not an argument
Not an argument
>t's almost like I'm dealing with a nigger cock sucker who believes in both of these things.
<Still is butthurt denial
At least try to say they separately, you know. it might get worse if you don't.
<eVerYoNE iS SuBJeCT TO lAw ThEREfor UR A cOmmUNIst xD
IF i POST LIKE A FAGGOT IT'LL PROVE ME RIGHT, ALL HAIL EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW BTW
>Maybe you should try
See above, not an argument.
>O wise one, what specific infallible brand of leftism that has never been tried do you believe in?
None. if i did, i'd pick monarchy, as it certainly can't fail.
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.6759
>>6754
>employment is slavery
The communist outed itself once 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.6778
>>6756
>You seem to fail to read, your nigger serf. Libertarianism doesn't expand and consume everything it touches, leaving national and cultural differences to the people to resolve.
No, it leaves national and cultural differences to international bankers to resolve.
>a monarchy and plutocracy are the same
A monarch is reliant on his subjects for his own prosperity, whereas a merchant can simply pack up and move once he's ruined his host nation. Do you ever get sick of being wrong?
>Maybe you should try to make an argument yourself instead of repeating "prove me right" over and over, nigger serf?
>not an argument
Still not hearing an argument from you. My argument was that niggertarianism is a globalist shit ideology that espouses freedom and equality (faggotry and forced tolerance of faggotry) and you have yet to be able to provide any kind of counter argument.
>I can't explain how I'm not a leftist, you'll just have to believe me!
>None. if i did, i'd pick monarchy, as it certainly can't fail.
Oh I see, you're one of those apolitical guys who does nothing but post on political boards so he can tell everyone that "X is a spook lolololololol"
No one has ever said that monarchy cannot fail, only that it's superior to niggertarianism and 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.6781
>>6778
>No, it leaves national and cultural differences to international bankers to resolve.
nice imagination in there, leftist. Tell me about muh corporations next
>A monarch is reliant on his subjects for his own prosperity, whereas a merchant can simply pack up and move once he's ruined his host nation.
<Monarchs never ruined nations
>Do you ever get sick of being wrong?
Well, do you?
>My argument was that niggertarianism is a globalist shit ideology that espouses freedom and equality (faggotry and forced tolerance of faggotry) and you have yet to be able to provide any kind of counter argument.
And i'm saying that you're retarded faggot that projects your leftism on libertarianism and it has nothing to do with either equality, faggots, globalism or forcing these things on anyone. But go on, ignore that once again, you dumb nigger scum.
>you're one of those apolitical guys
Keep strawmanning, nigger.
>tell everyone that "X is a spook lolololololol"
No, but you come very close with your "cuckoldry is beautiful" spam, niggercuck.
>niggertarianism and democracy
Literally the opposite things, you niggermonarcuck.
>only that it's superior to democracy
So, that's why it got shitstomped long ago and never heard ever since, niggercuck?
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.6816
>>6781
>And i'm saying that you're retarded faggot that projects your leftism on libertarianism and it has nothing to do with either equality, faggots, globalism or forcing these things on anyone.
Prove 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.6853
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.6877
>>6853
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Civil_liberties
>Libertarians have been advocates and activists of civil liberties, including free love
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History
>In 17th-century England, libertarian ideas began to take modern form in the writings of the Levellers and John Locke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Modern_American_libertarianism
>H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock were the first prominent figures in the United States to describe themselves as libertarians;[217] they believed Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word liberal for his New Deal policies which they opposed
<translation: libertarianism is sargon of akkad tier classical liberalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_LGBT_rights
>not a single libertarian party in the entire world opposes letting gays molest children
Your turn.
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.6879
>>6877
>Kikepedia
There you go, you little faggot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchism#Safeguard_for_liberty
>H. L. Mencken
>he was an outspoken opponent of religion, populism and representative democracy, the latter of which he viewed as systems in which inferior men dominated their superiors
>Albert Jay Nock
>Nock published a two-part essay in The Atlantic Monthly titled "The Jewish Problem in America"
<translation: libertarianism is sargon of akkad tier classical liberalism
Imagine being this retarded. Can you not project your idiotic position of a political clown on other movements and non-homosexual monarchists?
>not a single libertarian party in the entire world opposes letting gays molest children
<Who is Hoppe or Ron Paul
Keep nitpicking
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.6922
>>6879
>British-American libertarian writer Matthew Feeney
Did you even read your own link before you posted it?
<Who is Hoppe or Ron Paul
a couple of absoulutely based and redpilled boomer MAGApedes.
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.6923
>>6922
Pictured: Boomer MAGApede
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.6924
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.6959
Libertarianism would totally work if it wasn't for:
>Non-Whites
>Non-Libertarian states
>Everyone who isn't either a lily white bugman autist or an Amerimutt LARPer
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.