No.683
why do you support 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.684
I know the question was regarding legitimacy in this other thread, but the answer is more or less the same: >>644
FWIW, I am also somewhat fond of the late anarcho-monarchist blog: https://web.archive.org/web/20160309030626/http://anarcho-monarchism.com/about
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.686
cuz
This child is getting wildly out of wing
Ooooooh, I just can't wait to be king!
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.690
>>683
>why do you support monarchy?
Because it worked for so long.
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.691
>>690
>inb4 "DO YOU SUPPORT SLAVERY?!?!!!?!!"
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.694
>>683
Ancap here, from Europe. I'm considering anarchomonarchism, though. As I see it, in a heterogenous society, a monarch can settle disputes and act as a neutral arbiter when different traditions and cultures clash. He occupies the top position as far as worldly power is concerned and thus prevents anyone else from claiming that spot. He can also set a moral and spiritual example for his people. Basically, he counteracts the ideas of nationalism and adds a static element to what could otherwise be an incredibly dynamic society.
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.697
>>690
maybe it could have been better without 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.701
>>683
>that vid
Holy shit lmao
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.729
>>683
Same as with many here, I'm a hard ancap at heart who doesn't think it can work in practice. I could write a book on it, but in short I think that monarchies are far better guarantors of individual liberties (i.e. result in less infringement of them) than other forms of government are. I also have a strong aesthetic appreciation of them, and if one decides to judge a system by its enemies, there's no system I'd rather support than 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.732
Because to not support the monarchy is borderline treason in my country (England)
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.738
>>729
> if one decides to judge a system by its enemies, there's no system I'd rather support than monarchism.
This is a defense of monarchism I'm surprised nobody has brought up yet. Make it (((enemies))) instead of just enemies and you might yet convince /pol/.
Also, it should be mentioned that there was an older thread that had an accumulation of a few monarchist arguments that might do well to be mentioned in this thread as well:
>>416
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.740
>>738
I'm sure that pol can detect the cohencidences there for themselves. The Russian revolution in itself is nearly enough to get me warming up my oven.
Might start on making a catalogue of the significantly distinct arguments, the archetypes (I think), that I've seen made for monarchism. Just as a community resource. If I manage it I'll append a list of common rebuttals and so on 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.746
>>732
we should not obey bad laws
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.747
>>746
It isn't a law and it isn't bad. 10/10 otherwise.
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.759
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.771
>>759
I interpreted that as him saying, "My point was that it is incredibly culturally important in England, and that that is not necessarily a bad thing. Otherwise, your logic and statement that we should not obey bad laws is a good sentiment."
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.773
>>732
appeal to tradition fallacy
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.774
>>773
You know, I don't get that "fallacy." Sometimes there is some really important knowledge distilled in the form of tradition because it's been able to withstand the long test of time, and I don't think that that's something that can be lightly called a 'fallacy' and immediately thrown out the window. In other words, 'fallacy fallacy.'
[spoiler]Besides, if you want to play the 'fallacy' game, then the only solid ground you're going to have is, perhaps, some areas of mathematics, and some fancy 'truths' that are really just tautologies. Otherwise, for any claim you make, I can just repeat "Correlation doesn't apply causation" or "Hume's Guillotuine" or "No True Scotsman" to disprove pretty much anything you could ever possibly say in the realm of politics.
Unless, of course, you believe in that UPB/Hoppean nonsense.[/spoiler]
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.782
>>774
I don't understand why people must label every non sequitur a fallacy. Sometimes, it isn't even a non sequitur. Appeals to tradition, authority or popularity are fallacious when they are intended as conclusive proof, but not when you treat their objectives merely as indicators that a certain claim is correct or wrong. That so many Founding Fathers were against democracy doesn't prove conclusively that democracy is a bad form of government, but it does vitiate the case that it's a good one. Same with pointing out that all communist regimes caused great suffering. It would be possible for communists to defeat this, in theory, but it puts them on the defense in a debate.
>Besides, if you want to play the 'fallacy' game, then the only solid ground you're going to have is, perhaps, some areas of mathematics, and some fancy 'truths' that are really just tautologies. Otherwise, for any claim you make, I can just repeat "Correlation doesn't apply causation" or "Hume's Guillotuine" or "No True Scotsman" to disprove pretty much anything you could ever possibly say in the realm of politics.
That something is a tautology does not mean it doesn't apply to reality. Praxeology is tautological, but it can still be used to explain events and even make limited predictions, given the right data. That human beings act is tautological, it implies a time preference, and the very fact that time preferences are real explains the phenomenon of interest, for example.
>Unless, of course, you believe in that UPB/Hoppean nonsense.
Hoppes argumentative proofs are not bad per se, he just overstretches them. He argues very well for self-ownership, but when it comes to the non-aggression principle, he loses it. I don't think talking to someone is an implicit acknowledgement that he shouldn't be aggressed against. If it was, I don't see how you wouldn't forfeit your right of self defense whenever you told a robber to stand back down.
UPB, on the other hand, is simply trash and belongs in the trash.
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.788
>>782
What's the difference between UPB and Hoppean ethical theory?
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.797
>>788
Hoppes ethical theory is the real deal, UPB is a bad ripoff. Hoppe took the argumentation ethics of Habermas and ran with them. Argumentation ethics is based on the idea that the very act of communication carries certain implications. For example, whenever you speak, you implicitly assert your self-ownership. You cannot at the same time will your body to speak and deny your capacity or your right to use your body so as to speak. That would be contradictory.
UPB was Molyneux' attempt to invent the wheel anew. He takes the premise that every act of communication carries implications, sees a "universal preference" for logic and truth as one such implication, and while that is false (why must this preference be universal?), it's at least an interesting thought. But then he completely loses it and it all goes downhill. For example, here's what he says on murder:
>I also cannot logically argue that it is wrong for some people to murder, but right for other people to murder. Since all human beings share common physical properties and requirements, proposing one rule for one person and the opposite for another is invalid — it is like proposing a physics theory that says that some rocks fall down, while other rocks fall up. Not only is it illogical, it contradicts an observed fact of reality, which is that human beings as a species share common characteristics, and so cannot be subjected to opposing rules.
This is all over the place and it introduces some new elements in his ethical theory that he doesn't acknowledge. It's plain bad philosophizing. But what he says on rape is even worse:
>If "rape" is a moral good, then "not raping" must be a moral evil — thus it is impossible for two men in the same room to both be moral at the same time, since only one of them can be a rapist at any given moment — and he can only be a rapist if the other man becomes his victim.
I think this speaks for itself.
The entire book is like that. It's no fun looking for the one bad argument that brings it all down, because it's consistently bad. Here's an article on it, if you want to read it: https://mises.org/library/molyneux-problem
The book itself is short and can be read in a day, but I cannot recommend it, except maybe the chapter on rape and his fictional dialogue with a strawman who doesn't support UPB, because they are hilarious. You don't even have to know what's in it because there was almost zero reception of it in the libertarian world, so it wouldn't help you understand or debate anarchocapitalists if you wanted to.
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.798
>>746
What? I don't see how what you said is relevant to my post. Re-phrase it please.
>>773
?? whats the fallacy? I just said I would be committing treason to not support my Queen.
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.799
>>798
treason relates to laws doesnt 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.1030
>>774
what is hoppean nonsense?
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.1032
>>1030
Given the context, I believe he's referring to argumentation ethics.
Incidentally, that response is a good response to what I assume is your post in >>1025 .
Also, why are you being a commoner?
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.1051
>>1032
testing my 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.