No.6809
Alright, let's talk about the word that scares off all the little kiddos, babbies first board-outside-/pol/, and LARPers from monarchism. What does /monarchy/ think about absolute monarchism? What is it? Would your life really be absolute shit under it? Are more 'limited' forms of monarchism preferable?
____________________________
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.6815
>another thread on absolutism
OP, what is with the thumbnail pic?
>What does /monarchy/ think about absolute monarchism?
There are absolutists, and then there is everyone else.
You'll get a ton of flak for it from the other corner of this board. It is a contentious subject with its adversaries. Such as >>1741 this thread and others.
>What is it?
Absolute means absolved. Typically, it is associated with autocracy. People usually first learn about it from Hobbes, but you'd learn also from Filmer or Bossuet. For your sake, I'll post other works of Filmer in the reading list. Heck, trudiltom youtuber knows a few essentials If anything, it is more lenient to supporting the royals over the other components of society.
>Would your life really be absolute shit under it?
There isn't much to dictate that it would be shit. A few people like to hyperventilate and say it's like living in a totalitarian hellhole, but that's a vocal minority.
>Are more 'limited' forms of monarchism preferable?
Depends. The absolutist fears that the group limiting the power is the power calling shots. An absolutist looks towards the rule of one, while others will contend it. Not all nations are meant for the same government as Maistre puts it. There is not a constitution for all of 'Man' as Maistre would say.
>absolutism
Sometimes it's a punching bag around here for those who hate it. There are too many threads on this subject like >>5277 and discussed >>3258
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.6817
If I had to be critical of absolutists, I think a handful of them don't know their stuff and then the others are polemic tryhards. There are real political zealots out there.
>screencap related
Typical opposition.
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.6818
>>6809
nice thumbnail nigger
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.6831
>>6817
I'm sure none of them would be ashamed to have mongrel grandchildren and/or dyke daughter. That's more or less the fruits of their ideology with their denial of one rule with one kind.
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.6864
>>6818
>nice thumbnail nigger
>>6815
>OP, what is with the thumbnail pic?
I fucked up and pulled from the wrong folder. Sorry.
>>6815
Thanks for all the info.
>The absolutist fears that the group limiting the power is the power calling shots.
That's a very interesting statement. I have to say that I've been thinking about absolutism lately because for the longest time there's been this voice in my brain that's shouted, "One person with absolute power? bUt THaT WouLD bE tyraNNy!" and for the first time in my life I had the gumption to suddenly wonder, "Wait, why?" I know that saying about absolute power corrupts absolutely, but if a single individual had power, would he really ipso facto be tyrannical compared to the alternatives?
I don't know, I'm still thinking about it. I guess I'm still so used to my old High School civics arguments about the convenient institutional framework provided by "checks and balances" at the moment.
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.6869
Until comparatively recently my preferred brand of monarchism has been absolutism, it being the type of monarchy which most favors low time-preferences and such. However, one thing I've been noticing lately is that absolutism has an awful tendency to foster instability and "people's revolutions" over time–whether it's the Egyptian Old Kingdom, Bourbon France, or Imperial Russia. The absolutist may be encouraged to have a longer time horizon, but it is a considerably longer time horizon than most humans are capable of achieving. As a result, absolute rule has a dangerous tendency to become arbitrary rule–and when it does, the peasants either rise up and depose the king, or they demand some share of the king's power. Neither of these thing is desirable, so absolute rule must be tempered by adherence to feudal law in the name of stability. Note that I am not suggesting that the king share power with a parliament, or some other body–down that path only lies a different form of republicanism. Rather, the king retains his autonomy, but he cannot extend it into the spheres of his vassals. Each of his vassals maintains autonomy in his affairs, but cannot interfere with another vassal lest he face the king's wrath. The document or custom that establishes feudal law should be either impossible to change or nearly impossible to change.
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.6872
>>6869
You're suggesting a balance of power between a monarch his vassals?
Why not have a full system of checks and balances between the traditional three estates?
[ANCIEN REGIME INTENSIFIES]
In all seriousness though, historically speaking, religion seems to be an absolute necessity for the maintenance of 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.6875
AristoLARPs will be whipped
>>6869
>libertarian turns neofeudalist
Imagine my surprise.
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.6876
>>6872
Religion is an absolute necessity for the maintenance of any functioning society, regardless of political organization. In its absence people simply turn their worship to adulating feminism and the state.
>>6875
Who says I'm not longer lolberg? Monarchy may be the least bad form of government, but it's still a territorial, coercive monopoly on security, with all of the negatives that implies.
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.6882
>>6876
>Religion is an absolute necessity for the maintenance of any functioning society, regardless of political organization. In its absence people simply turn their worship to adulating feminism and the state.
Kind of makes me feel like shit for not being religious.
In any case, with monarchism in particular I think it's necessary. That's not just a divine right argument, but the capital-C Church as an institution acts as an important check-and-balance against the monarch.
>Who says I'm not longer lolberg? Monarchy may be the least bad form of government, but it's still a territorial, coercive monopoly on security, with all of the negatives that implies.
"Ancap please, but while I'm here, I'll take monarchism." Is it something like that?
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.6890
>>6882
>That's not just a divine right argument, but the capital-C Church as an institution acts as an important check-and-balance against the monarch.
Right. This is also why the Protestant Reformation was such a severe blow to traditionalism. It allowed heads of state to make church officials report directly to them, and gave precedence for governments to create churches that were inferior to them and forwarded their goals, rather than the church and King being opposing powers.
>"Ancap please, but while I'm here, I'll take monarchism." Is it something like that?
That's the TL;DR, yeah. It should also be emphasized that monarchy is the best environment from which ancap can emerge, and ancap is the system most favorable to the establishment of monarchies, so there's the potential for a natural alliance between these two camps.
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.6891
>>6876
>Who says I'm not longer lolberg?
It's just a notice that most of the lolbergs turn to neofeudalism around here rather than absolutism. I don't blame them because their authors and their principles turn them away from it. It's no coincidence that the neofeudalists on this board also happen to be of the libertarian stamp.
>Right. This is also why the Protestant Reformation was such a severe blow to traditionalism. It allowed heads of state to make church officials report directly to them, and gave precedence for governments to create churches that were inferior to them and forwarded their goals, rather than the church and King being opposing powers.
https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-popes-and-emperors.html
>"In the first place, you can check pretty much any historical source and find that the basic fact is just that; a fact. Starting with St Peter, every Bishop of Rome up to Pope Stephen II in 756 was, officially, a subject of the (later East) Roman Emperor. St Peter and the earliest bishops of Rome were all direct or indirect subjects of the Roman emperors. This was true whether they liked it or not but the fact of the matter is that they never made any objections to this. They were bound by Roman law and obeyed it so long as it did not force them to do anything contrary to Christian doctrine. They were loyal to the Roman emperors and never taught Christian people to be rebellious or called for a revolution to overthrow the Roman emperors. They did, as was written in the Bible, call for everyone to love their community, be good Romans, “fear God and honor the emperor”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_papacy
TL;DR Look into how Dante tackles the Sun and the Moon Theory in De Monarchia. Church and Monarch shouldn't necessarily have to be in opposition to each other.
>>6869
>is that absolutism has an awful tendency to foster instability and "people's revolutions" over time–whether it's the Egyptian Old Kingdom, Bourbon France, or Imperial Russia.
Popular insurrections didn't only happen for the absolutist monarchies. There were peasant revolts and insurgency among other styles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_revolts_in_late-medieval_Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Peasants%27_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts
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.6892
>>6891
>tfw decentralized absolutist
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.6893
Are absolutist government more or less totalitarian than they would be without absolutism?
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.6895
>>6892
Isn't feudalism basically decentralized absolutism?
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.6896
>>6895
>Are absolutist government more or less totalitarian than they would be without absolutism?
I don't know. What do you call totalitarian?
>>6893
>Isn't feudalism basically decentralized absolutism?
It depends, but a lot of people would deeply contest this notion.
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.6897
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.6898
>>6895
I would love to hear the confederate-flag poster on /liberty/ respond to this 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.6899
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.6900
Posted a batch of reading material in the reading list.
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.6901
>>6895
>>6898
>>6899
If you'd like an elaboration on that post: The way I see it, feudalism allows for a great amount of autonomy for the individual vassals. After demonstrating homage and paying the king his demanded taxes, feudal lords are generally free to govern their fief as they see fit, being able to raise troops, levy his own taxes, and even grant a part of his fief to an underling which becomes his vassal. Vassals of a king were also to some extent able to make war against another vassal. Because of this extremely high degree of autonomy, and because according to feudal law the king has a very limited ability to impede on his vassal's autonomy, I think it can be said that each vassal reigns over his fief in much the same way that an absolute king reigns over his realm.
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.6902
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.6903
Absolutism is ultimately the victory of monarchy over aristocracy. This is what is typically the divide in the monarchist community. It has always been the monarch's authority re-asserted over the influence of aristocracy. This began after the death of aristocratic feudal political systems. The thing most underestimate is that it is not only Divine Right, but the political system overall changing social order. As feudal relationships declined with the rise of market economies and other sources of revenue for kings, monarchies no longer had to rely on the vassals. They could hire and raise up members of the lower classes and establish another means of meritocracy.
Personally, seeing as how aristocracy is another political force like democracy juxtaposed to monarchy, my monarchist sympathies don't care. I laugh when a monarch abuses the aristocratic classes, and I revel in it. The reason Caligula is so infamous is because the Roman Emperor treated the Roman aristocracy (rule of the few) like total garbage. He brought in a horse senator, his beloved Incitatus; he made the Roman aristocrat's wives work in a brothel; he humiliated them every chance and brought back Emperor Tiberius' treason trials; he rode on chariots and became popular with the masses in his extravagance and bullying of aristocracy; he had them sit with the slaves during Roman gladiator battles; he sought to go to Alexandria and rule like an Egyptian Pharaoh. Caligula was a wonderful tyrant for abusing the aristocracy so hard.
The Middle Ages were not the first period in history with monarchies.There were monarchies prior to the Middle Ages and after the Middle Ages. I get a bit irked when the same expectation for every monarchist to be a medievalist and a feudalist falls upon me. Not all of the nations in the Middle Ages were feudal anyways. The absolutist likes to look at niche examples from that period. Then there are other regimes from the ancient civilizations and the 1600s and the Russian autocracy.
Remember that an aristocracy is not just the landed gentry, nobles, and other high-ranking members. Aristocracy also extends to the rule of the few and bureaucratic administrators representing the People, a small council, and other examples of the rule of the few. This convention of aristocracy, apart from just the nobles, but rather the elite in general.
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.6904
>>6903
>he rode on chariots and became popular with the masses in his extravagance and bullying of aristocracy
Does this not highlight a weakness in absolutism? Catering to the whims of the masses reeks of democracy. The mob, once being catered to, will presume that pandering to be an entitlement, and will clamor to receive it evermore. If abuse of aristocracy implies the lionizing of the people, it will reduce the stability of the realm as the people clamor for democratic concessions. This leads to either a bloody revolution and the swift end of they dynasty, or conceding to the people through creating an elected body, which leads to the end of the dynasty through a thousand cuts.
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.6905
>>6904
>Does this not highlight a weakness in absolutism?
The art of politics is making due with democracy and aristocracy and monarchy. From my perspective, it is a matter of balancing both these influences with monarchy.
Caligula is a good example of excess, but like I said excess is sometimes natural in the abuse of power. All governments will abuse power like this, favoring one influence over the other influence.
When an aristocracy lionizes the People, they do have vindication. However, the gross excess of aristocracy is also limiting the People. Setting distinctions becomes a means to separate themselves and protect themselves from the masses.
I'm just fishing for crocodile tears with these abuses of Caligula. When a monarchy goes into gross excess, you see the certain aspects of a monarchy enflamed – like the sacredness of monarchy becomes abused in the emergence of divinity and god-kings and other degrees of arbitrariness. The problem is all governments abuse power like this and we're witnessing it today. Politics is a tug-o-war and I know these defects of a monarchical government. With monarchy, you are bound to get a little bit of tyranny; as with aristocracy, you are bound to get a bit of oligarchy also.
>This leads to either a bloody revolution and the swift end of they dynasty, or conceding to the people through creating an elected body
When democracy gets excessive, a bit of aristocracy does help. It's not a matter of destroying aristocracy, just subduing it. You have to play both forces like a fiddle; sometimes it is good to use democracy, as much as it involves some bad consequences – because it is another piece in the card deck.
Some are in favor of a mixed government and some favor an absolute. My personal thoughts are that the stability of an absolutist regime relies on this careful work and its discipline in religion as the other anon mentioned. Every form of government has its weaknesses and pitfalls. It's just that we're too familiar with the pitfalls of monarchy, imo.
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.6906
>>6905
>sometimes it is good to use democracy, as much as it involves some bad consequences – because it is another piece in the card deck.
But democracy and aristocracy are not equal (heh). This idea of using a bit of one and then the other hinges on the notion that democracies can occasionally produce useful ideas or useful sentiment. But the fact of the matter is that the mob, particularly the politically motivated mob, will always have a shorter time-horizon than the elite. With a shorter time-horizon, they will consistently make more present-oriented and less stable decisions. Every invocation of democracy, or democratic-appearing policies, by the monarch is therefore akin to him taking a long pull on a cigarette: it may provide some temporary high, but every additional puff causes the body to rot from the inside that much faster. I notice you use Aristotle's definitions, did he not also note that the polity's degradation to democracy is swift and inevitable? The problem with the idea of playing both sides like a fiddle is that oligarchy at its worst is often more manageable than polity at its best.
>My personal thoughts are that the stability of an absolutist regime relies on this careful work and its discipline in religion as the other anon mentioned
Careful work is conditional on a careful king. The crown must be able to survive the occasional fool who wears it in order to endure; if the dynasty will only survive through careful kings it will not survive for long. I do agree that any absolutist regime (or any feudal regime for that matter) must have proper attitudes with regards to religion in order to succeed.
>It's just that we're too familiar with the pitfalls of monarchy, imo.
All too true. And in spite of the pitfalls that I see, I would support an absolutist regime over a democratic 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.6908
>>6906
>Every invocation of democracy, or democratic-appearing policies, by the monarch is therefore akin to him taking a long pull on a cigarette: it may provide some temporary high, but every additional puff causes the body to rot from the inside that much faster.
The problem with democracy is it erodes standards and levels everyone. However, it is okay to break some social barriers and have some basic freedoms. Democratic governments have his benefit, but the most obvious problem is the short-term high – demand for more out of the treasury. Emperor Tiberius, unlike Caligula, was careful with the treasury and became unpopular with his frugality. Not every monarch appeals to democracy to gain power – sometimes the monarch that limits himself or lends to an aristocracy actually gains more power in return.
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.6909
>>6809
Absolutism is a misnomer, or rather, nobody can rule absolutely, there are limits imposed by nature on everything. Unshakable power comes from recognizing those limits. You can't micro a kingdom like it's Age of Empires II, instead you're just looking to have honest and competent brokers, avoiding direct manifestations of sovereign power.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6912
>>6809
My opinion is simple. I want to be the absolute 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.
No.6914
>>6909
>Absolutism is a misnomer, or rather, nobody can rule absolutely, there are limits imposed by nature on everything
Everything has limits, but what is meant by absolute is meant that a king is not to limited like everyone else. Absolutism prioritizes the monarchy as the rule of one, and the sacredness of the institution. We all hear the taglines like "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and "nobody can rule absolutely", but I don't think any absolutists imagined a monarchy without limits. There is throne and altar and the concept of monarchs alone, but people overlook that these monarchs also have privy councils and others. And when religious institutions are mentioned, that is also a form of aristocracy being met with monarchy. It's more about organizing and re-asserting the monarchy at the top and not the bottom of social order.
>You can't micro a kingdom like it's Age of Empires II
That would be arbitrary and what is absolute definitely recognizes autonomy from the individual to corporate bodies. The absolute is not exactly lawlessness.
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.6916
The decline of feudalism brought out the aristocracy of nobles and brought in the aristocracy of lawyers and politicians. That is part of the problem and I don't think it could have been helped. They are a democratic aristocracy.
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.6918
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
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.6919
>>6914
Sorry on reflection it might seem that I barged in with too heavy handed an opinion, but my intent was to say something like what you're saying.
On some level, I think we must admit that the only real check on the power of the state remains nature herself. Even in a supposed democracy with all our imaginary freedoms, we shouldn't suspect that such freedoms will do important stuff like protect freedom of the press. Instead when the going gets tough, its all lip service and they still arrest Julian Assange for the grand crime of going against the state. Really such happenings are a testament to the fact that we already live with absolutism, that absolutism is inevitable and a constant, and that the morality of the ruler(s) is the only thing that fluctuates – right now we're in a bit of a moral descent on that front.
Really absolute monarchy is just simply the less wasteful alternative
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.6920
>>6901
I had something similar in mind, but instead of a country being ruled by one absolute monarch, it's a confederation of many absolute rulers who do whatever they want on their own territories, as long as they respect the NAP (don't invade other territories) and allow their subjects to emigrate. Becoming a ruler in this system is as easy as buying a 1x1 metre plot of land and it becomes your own kingdom for all intents and purposes.
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.6932
>>6896
>I don't know. What do you call totalitarian?
Not being able to view 8chan. Getting thrown in jail for having a knife without the proper loicense. Having to go through three years of bureaucracy to start a lemonade stand. Having to deal with the TSA. Not being able to use cash. Having every telephone call get routed and sifted through Five Eyes. Having a 'social credit score.' Dealing with high inflation and the only available job prospects being with the government or essentially for the government through a handful of megacorps.
…
E.g., civil rights-wise the current state of affairs in the U.K. or China.
Economically, just avoiding being like Venezuela or Cuba would be nice.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.