/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

You get a leader who cares about governing instead of appeasing the masses.

Make an argument for anything but monarchy.

>>928

It's not merely about monarchy in a vacuum, it's about the ancien regimé and its ideas more generally. Other things equal, (hereditary) monarchy already confers benefits over democracy, like a lifelong training of the future king for his job, and the lack of incentives for the leader to bribe his people with plunder every election cycle. We don't want all other things to be equal, however; you'll find that to be true even if there's hardly a modern monarchist consensus on anything. Monarchy in the broadest sense as leadership by a single person can be almost as harmful as the worst governments we know, but the best conceivable governments cannot be democratic.

If you ask me, if you took the legal conceptions and the spirituality of the early middle ages and added a free market and the non-aggression principle, you'd have the best possible political and economic system. Not possible as in that it could be realistically implemented given our history, but theoretically possible, in that the coincidence of the necessary ideologies and systems is conceivable in a world following our laws. This is not a utopian idea. If everyone was perfectly virtuous, we probably wouldn't need any leaders at all. An earthly Church would be unnecessary if no sheep would ever be astray; a king would be unnecessary if everyone already knew the best course of action in worldly matters. Any talk of criminal justice and penal laws would be unnecessary if there were no criminals.

>>936

>Right now my life is comfortable

In spite of having a democratic, modern government, not because of it.

>I have benefits

You mean economic benefits? If you had none, and no one else had them either, you and everyone else would be richer. Redistributionist policies decrease total wealth and hinder the accumulation of more wealth.

>and I get to choose who will lead in accordance to my needs.

You don't, unless the majority agrees with you. The minority can never rule in a democracy unless it becomes a majority, and some minorities can neither become so nor can they realistically influence the majority. If you're a member of a linguistic or religious minority and everyone else decides to kill you, then any talk of you being in charge because you can vote for your life is obviously misguided. You may perhaps petition the majority to stop, but then you have hundreds of thousands of malefactors to dissuade, whereas in a monarchy, it would be just one malefactor. The Tutsi or the Jew who commits suicide because everyone else voted to kill him is obviously not in charge. By the same vane, every other minority cannot be said to be in charge just because it lives under a democracy.

>Admit it, the only reason you want monarchy is that you could LARP a little harder, you couldn't justify or present it as preferable to any other system.

This is the worst thing you can say at this stage of the debate. If you want to gloat, do it after you've won a debate. If you do it before, you will only impress people that already agree with you. No one who doesn't agree with you will be impressed, and some who do agree with you will see you as an asshole and give a little more consideration to the other side. If you want to convert anyone, gloating will also just hinder your cause. The opposition will put up its defenses and care more about "winning the debate" than actually discovering the truth.

>>944

>And how will it not be in spite of a monarchy?

More advice, read further before you do a line-by-line. I answered that below.

>The only redistribution there is in a monarchy is to the ruling family, their friends/allies and the court officials. No thank you, I rather have it redistributed into my pocket in convenient form.

You know that democracies always had far higher taxes than monarchies, right? A democratic party can bribe its way to success by promising ever higher welfare benefits, and because its term is limited, it has no incentive not to do so. Look up the full argument in Democracy - The God that failed, this was the short version.

Also, it's uninteresting to talk to egoists. If your point is that all that matters to you is your short-term interest, then you can just as well be upfront and ask one of us to pay you in return for your support.

>Fact of the matter is that there are functional and dysfunctional democracies as there are monarchies, it just so happens that democracies are preferable to monarchies because there is a balance of power.

Didn't I just stress the importance of a division of worldly, economic and religious authority, and an abandonment of the modern concept of sovereignty? That's what division of power looks like. There used to be a time when a king had to ask his subjects for permission before he took an action, because if he didn't, they would just bail out on him. That's where the first parliaments came from (or at least what plebs call the first parliaments).

>And before you declare that all democracies are a failure at that in the long run, how am I then supposed to rely of a better handling of power when it is wielded by one individual?

It isn't. I stressed decentralization, too, and non-aggression. An anarchomonarchist king would hold authority, but no power except what is voluntarily granted to him.

Also, I would rather appeal to one individual with a specialized education than a mob of teachers and lawyers. Parliaments aren't councils of the best and brightest in their field, you know?

>Hog wash. The king didn't have to bribe his subjects as long as he bribed his officers, when the army didn't stand at his side the people would riot and demand, whichever it could be. That was the case for the Roman empire from its very inception, I have no reason to doubt that was anywhere not the case later on in Europe.

The Roman Empire was absolutist. In fact, medieval kings even got the very idea of absolutism from them.

Also, what medieval monarchies exactly used brute oppression? They didn't even have the financial means to do that. They couldn't endlessly print money, and at least one reason why is because the king wouldn't be too happy about starting a hyperinflation if his children had to inherit this mess. Now, of course, there was oppression, but like I said, not nearly as bad as what we're used to nowadays. I'm aware there are more nuances, but I don't feel like writing them down. That would take long and I don't feel it's necessary.

>And before you declare that all democracies are a failure at that in the long run, how am I then supposed to rely of a better handling of power when it is wielded by one individual? Really fires the ol' neurons.

>This is not a utopian idea

>continues by listing utopian ideas

Having a spiritual authority, criminal laws, and political leadership is utopian?

>All these smug pepe faces. OP is eating popcorn.

I don't even want to read this thread.

>>949

>Also democracies always had (and still do) a higher living standard than monarchies. I think I'll take an extra tax hit for a better life.

Before the French Revolution, France was perhaps the richest country in the world. Afterwards, it took several decades for the foreign exports to reach the extent that they had shortly before the Revolution. The Russian Revolution mirrored that.

Whether a country is prosperous or not depends first and foremost on how free the market is and how long it's been that way. Like I said, a monarch has more of an incentive to leave the market alone than a democratic government. We have a priori reasons, therefore, to believe that a country with a monarch will be more prosperous than a democratic one.

>Then why would we need a king if we have parliaments?

I said nothing about emulating this specific institution. If there is a need for it, it will come about; if not, then not.

Historically, the parliament was dispensable, the king wasn't. The parliament (more like a general assembly) was only called in by the king to reassure himself that if he gave an order, it would be followed. Theoretically, he could've done away with it completely, but that would've been extremely unwise to do.

>Our current division of authority is much more reliable then giving absolute power to a single person.

Read above. I specifically ruled out absolutism, I even proposed that a king should not have any coercive power at all, and even then, he would only be a worldly leader, not a religious or economic one.

>If we can't rely on a group of people to run things properly and justly, we shouldn't rely on a one at all.

And why? What makes you so sure that a group of people is always more competent than a single person?

>If your only check and balance is making sure the subjects don't bail on the king then again all he needs is to make sure the army doesn't bail.

Good thing that the military was decentralized in these times, and it would be even more decentralized in an anarchomonarchist system.

Part 2:

>>949

>>955

>Except the emperor was still under pressure of the plebs. Even in the early days of the Empire you can read on stories on how such and such emperor had to release a prisoner or return someone out of exile due to the pressure of the masses. In fact, some emperors were so beloved by the people that their successors had to pay lip service to them and don their image. Now what kind of a ruler who supposedly doesn't need the approval of his people would do that, huh? That is not to say there wasn't violent repression involved, in fact in the early empire that was the status quo, but even then emperors were pressured into doing various things depending on the scale of the demand, and this trend only grew with time as the plebs became more politically conscious.

There is no contradiction between this and my claim that the roman emperors were absolutistic. A powerful ruler of a centralized realm will see more p

>Right now I can make caricatures of the head of state, say anything I want and work anywhere I want. I can afford myself a good life without being dependent on a feudal lord or tied to a land. So yes I'm sure you were more free when you could be executed for being a heretic and were subjugated to the will of the king and the church. #borninthewronggeneration

The abolition of serfdom, religious toleration, free enterprise, freedom of speech and so on are achievements of monarchic countries. The abolition of slavery was more of a joint effort. Democracy inherited a trend towards greater personal freedom, amplified it in some respects and made huge leaps backwards in others. Total war, for example, is a democratic "achievement". So is conscription, so are tax rates of fifty percent. Even if we only look at the historical record and do little interpreting, then it doesn't look as good for democracy as you claim. Even the freedoms that you take for granted have been repeatedly violated by democratic governments in the past. Just look at how pacifists were treated by the US government during war times.

Now, to this:

>If everyone was perfectly virtuous, we probably wouldn't need any leaders at all. An earthly Church would be unnecessary if no sheep would ever be astray; a king would be unnecessary if everyone already knew the best course of action in worldly matters. Any talk of criminal justice and penal laws would be unnecessary if there were no criminals.

I get you now. But you misinterpreted this passage. This was meant to illustrate why my proposals are not utopian. If they were utopian, if I didn't take account of such facts as human fallibility and if I assumed that the system could only work if humans were far better than they are and could ever be expected to be, then I would've removed an earthly Church, criminal justice, and political leadership from my list of things that a "perfect" social order needs. Here's the key phrase:

>If everyone was perfectly virtuous

Everyone is not perfectly virtuous and can never be, and that's why what I outlined above is not my real program.

>>949

>Also democracies always had (and still do) a higher living standard than monarchies. I think I'll take an extra tax hit for a better life.

That's all technology, not democracy. Democracy didn't give you vaccines and penicillin.

>>949

>Also democracies always had (and still do) a higher living standard than monarchies. I think I'll take an extra tax hit for a better life.

That's all technology, not democracy. Democracy didn't give you vaccines and penicillin.

>>968

>Tfw fools still get all their education from highschool history books

>Tfw this much bluepilledness

You know what, read some political history and philosophy, then come back. Right now, all you got is the standard-narrative of history on your side.

>>976

>Who are de Tocqueville, Lord Acton, J. F. C. Fuller and von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Damn commoners…

>>982

>It seems a lot like you're grasping at straws to validate your world view and you can't name a single historian, except outdated ones, who's worth his salt.

So now it's not just "actual historians", it's historians who are not "outdated" (it's old, so it sucks, yeah). Do Matthew White, Rudolph Rummel, David Graeber and Jack Weatherford meet your high standards? Just to name a few. Took them in, thought their narratives weren't as convincing as that of von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, even when their data was good (still gotta figure out were the one million people went that Tzarist Russia supposedly killed, or why Rummel didn't include Churchill among his megamurderers).

>Biased hack whose works amount to pieces of hot opinion.

So you've read him, and you could totally refute him if you wanted to, but you're not gonna do it because that would be too easy and below your dignity :^)

>>987

>Absolutely not, I wouldn't waste my time with a biased hack who writes specifically to promote his own agenda and then showcase it as "history".

So you don't read him because you don't like his conclusions, and so you don't care how you arrived at them? You know, I regularly "waste my time" reading complete trash, both to know what it's about and because I give everything a chance to convince me. Anarchism, authoritarianism, collectivism, monarchism, democracy, socialism… I believe it's called "being openminded". Which is the opposite of what Marxists are. Have you talked to them? Generally, they haven't read anything that would really challenge them. Same as you, really.

>And furthermore, what about that "a priory" one of your friends talked about that prove - as Hoppe says - so to speak, that monarchy is better than democracy. Yet right now monarchies and monarchies-except-in-name (i.e. the Assad dynasty, the Kim dynasty) are shitholes that infringe on freedomss, as monarchies have in the past. Oddly no one wants to address that, but of course, it's the world that is wrong. Your belief being empirically wrong? Impossible!

Yes, when it's a priori proven, then it cannot be empirically wrong. That your a priori theories don't check out empirically is a strong indicator that they're wrong, but nothing more. In Hoppes case, they still check out pretty well if we modify them at a few points, but as you don't even know his exact argument, it would be wasted effort to do that now. Personally, I like von Kuehnelt-Leddihn more. If you had read him, you'd understand perfectly well why Kim is a child of the French Revolution.

>>955

>Before the French Revolution, France was perhaps the richest country in the world. Afterwards, it took several decades for the foreign exports to reach the extent that they had shortly before the Revolution. The Russian Revolution mirrored that.

I like to add that the word saboteur comes from France, where the lower classes destroyed means of production as it made them unnecessary.

>>2295

A consequence of the free market pushed by (((freemasons))). Beforehand the lower class was either bound to a liege or protected by the intricate guild system.

>>2296

>>(((freemasons)))

Please don't do that. It just sounds plebeian, no offense.

>Beforehand the lower class was either bound to a liege or protected by the intricate guild system.

And without medical care, and at the danger of starving during natural disasters, and without any of the amenities that we take for granted these days. All this despite the fact that population numbers were far lower than they are now, meaning there were fewer people to share the national wealth with (Malthus was on to something).

>>2297

>Please don't do that. It just sounds plebeian, no offense.

The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

>And without medical care, and at the danger of starving during natural disasters, and without any of the amenities that we take for granted these days

This more closely describes the situation of the 19th century lower classes, created by liberalism, than medieval peasants and craftsmen.

>>2296

>protection from free market

XD damn commie

>>936

>I get to choose who will lead

>being this naive

You don't choose shit. Your leaders are chosen for you by lobby and interest groups who manipulate the masses through the media to vote for one candidate or another. More often than not, they don't even need to do that, as they make sure all of the candidates offered are their puppets – they might have some differing things in their program, such as whether to have a bajillion genders or just two and similar shit, but all that is just acting for the masses to think their "choice" has some manner of meaning. The actually important things, such as the size of the military budget, big tenders, etc. are pre-determined and will occur regardless of which party is in power. At most, you might achieve getting the candidate of one interest group over another's, if there happens to be a conflict between them, but in the end, your "elected leaders" are not working for your benefit and couldn't give less of a shit about the country. They care about pleasing their masters who got them into office in the first place, and their masters usually only care about sucking out as much taxpayer money from state coffers as possible. All the while none of them have any accountability for any of this whatsoever. Democracy is a government system with a near infinite amount of potential scapegoats to push the blame on. If your king used all the nation's funds to build himself a massive palace, you could be angry at him, but while the exact same thing happens in democracy, who will you be angry at? The politician? His masters will laugh and place another puppet in his stead, and your ire will be placated, since you are too dim to realise any of this.

>>928

>What benefit is there for me?

You damn jew.

>>2309

cuck detected

>>944

>what if the king is a tyrant?

Saying "what if" is speculation. The worst tyrants cannot compare with the bloodshed wrought from the hands of revolutionary republicans. There is tyranny and there is the most arbitrary forms of government from the republican camp.

>what if the king is a psychopath

Regents exist in the monarchy to take the place of monarchs who cannot take the responsibility. If a monarch is crazy, so be it. There is only so much damage a monarch can bring. It doesn't compare to the crazy behavior of a mob, or an all-controlling totalitarian regime that must seep into the everyday facet of ordinary life.

>how am I supposed to rely on the power of an individual

There is only so much you can hope for with power. Meritocracy is typically a falsehood, perpetrated with those who think the best governments come from a democracy. Democracy is farthest from meritocracy because it is more about popularity than skill. There is no such thing as a government based on skill anyways.

Power only means so much in this world. A monarch doesn't run a command economy, and it always comes down to an executive seat of government.

>>2304

To quote a brilliant champion for democracy:

>In democracy, it's important to arrange options for the populace so that every time democracy is the winner.

Joseph Stalin

For any believer in a democracy, here's a hypothetical

Countries A and B both have nuclear weapons capable of completely annihilating of one another.

50% of the population + 1 (one) man from Country A believe that launching a nuclear first strike against against neutral at the time Country B which is 100% capable of retaliation is the correct path to take;

Should the launch commence?

If not, why is the will of the majority not being respected, why are there aspects the majority isn't allowed to decide?

if yes >>>/suicide/

>>2337

people who believe in meritocracy meme forget, or aren't aware that someone who's highly successful might not be morally good.