/kc/ - Krautchan

Highest Serious Discussion Per Post on Endchan

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Drawing x size canvas

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 100.00 MB

Max files: 4

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images

(742.25 KB 1200x1934 china.jpg)
Monarchy Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 15:14:10 [Preview] No. 24725
This is a thread about the discussion of monarchy.

Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 15:39:59 [Preview] No.24726 del
(34.16 KB 700x372 serveimage.jpeg)

Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 16:43:11 [Preview] No.24728 del
You think democracy is a better form of governence?

Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 16:46:26 [Preview] No.24729 del
Democracy and monarchy aren't mutually exclusive. Right, constitutional monarchy?

Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 17:07:43 [Preview] No.24730 del
Honestly this place is just a democracy monarchs have no true power. Honestly the monarchy over here needs to change.

Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 17:10:09 [Preview] No.24731 del
just wait until King Charles takes over and executes his powers that the magna carta allows.

Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 17:20:14 [Preview] No.24732 del
So? Our president doesn't hold true power either.
The opposite of monarchy is republic. They are governmental forms, democracy is a system which can operate under both.
Under the two forms three types of decision making possible: by one (king or dictator), by few (aristocrats/patricians), by many (demos).
And to refer to this: >>24726 , when things go sideways both can become tyranny, oligarchy or ochlocracy.

Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 17:21:23 [Preview] No.24733 del
But seriously this is politics and would have fitted into the politics thread.

Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 18:11:43 [Preview] No.24734 del
I can understand why people would take a liking to ideologies like monarchy in these days of failed democracy, but I personally don't like the idea that one person is fit to rule more than anyone else just because they happened to be born into some richfag family. Saying that, our current system isn't much different as becoming a ruler in any system requires a fuckton of nepotism.

Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 18:18:15 [Preview] No.24736 del
(32.47 KB 198x226 stop.png)
>ideologies like monarchy
It's a governmental form not an ideology.
Autocracy is what's comparable with democracy.

Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 18:30:50 [Preview] No.24738 del
(1.72 MB 199x215 1478818389109.gif)
I'm aware as I was reading your previous posts, just couldn't think of a better word.

Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 18:38:21 [Preview] No.24739 del
>have no true power
ehm what

the british monarchy is extremely powerful

Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 19:42:41 [Preview] No.24753 del
Then fuck us all over by importing endless amounts of muslims?
People see monarchy as superior because when functioning correctly it is superior to democracy in everyway possible. For instance the monarch is like a father and son relationship where the nation is the monarchs house and it's his job to defend it.
I didn't say they had no power I said they have no TRUE power. In that if they try to fully excersize the power then they would simply get ousted.

Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 20:46:23 [Preview] No.24756 del
>People see monarchy as superior because when functioning correctly it is superior to democracy in everyway possible.
That is not true. When democracy functioning correctly it is superior to autocracy in great many ways.
>For instance the monarch is like a father and son relationship where the nation is the monarchs house and it's his job to defend it.
And making one person as an owner of he house it's excludes everyone else of the ownership and those guys who's actual job will be to defend it since the autocrat is only one guy how can he do it alone, also he can't be there everywhere and his jobs will be numerous won't have interest doing their job well. On the other hand in a correctly functioning democracy all those people who will have the job to defend it will also be owners and has interest to do it well.
Autocracy maybe can do some stuff more efficiently, maybe on national level, like foreign relations but due it's centralized nature it is bound to be inefficient on other areas, like things of local level. Or it needs to maintain huge bureaucracy to do things in timely fashion, but again since that is very costly it is also inefficient.
For example. In a correctly functioning democracy in the commune where I live I see that a climbing frame on the playground started to rust. It can further deteriorate, it can cause accident. As a responsible owner of the state who sees a local problem which has an easy and efficient solution, I step up, clear away the rust and paint the patch over.
In a badly functioning democracy - like this one - I would get busted by the cops for damaging state property. In a non-democratic monarchy the sames. In both cases to fix the problem of rusting climbing frame, first the problem need to be registered at the authorities and pass up to a level where someone can decide to do about it. Then an order has to be passed down to people who actually can fix the problem to fix it. The do, then they have to report back for all they done. Oh and the place also have to be checked regularly if there is a problem needs fixing and to catch people who want to damage property. Tons of people and their time and energy needed and a hoard of a smaller dragon just for a small patch of rust.

Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 21:34:29 [Preview] No.24757 del
Obviously monarchy is more complex than the way I described it but overall that is the simple way to do things. Democracy on the other hand will always devolve into those with power/money being at the highest order with nothing to balance them which isn't the case in a monarchy. Why do you think that since humanities inception it has always been monarchy throughout most of history. Democracy will always fail. Want an example? Rome.

Bernd 04/12/2019 (Fri) 05:29:54 [Preview] No.24758 del
>TRUE power
who is the biggest landowner in the world?

Bernd 04/12/2019 (Fri) 05:44:44 [Preview] No.24761 del
Again your first problem is that you mix up concept. And in this case it isn't just cosmetic.
Rome never was a democracy. It was a republic (created due to the failure of the monarchy) with an aristocratic system which turned into oligarchy.
While imperial Rome (and probably even the Etruscan kingship too) has a few examples on monarchy done good, but it has waaay more examples of doing it wrong. Frankly just a handful of rulers can be cited as "good" ruler from... what, a hundred?
And again you mixing up the terms leads you to wrong conclusions. For the most times monarchies weren't autocracies, great many times they were aristocracies. Moreover not every medieval monarchy was absolutism. In fact none at all, it is typical for the modern period, and absolute monarchies became failures in short time.
If you keep up mixing up things I will stop reply because it isn't worth my time. Thank you.

Bernd 04/12/2019 (Fri) 06:21:06 [Preview] No.24762 del
What I was trying to say is that in any democracy or republic the sides with the most money will always have an edge to the point where you don't have any true authority unless you succumb to one of the two sides of the debate. A good example of a monarchy was Sweden. In the past as well a single monarch was shown to be able to completely shift the state of their country around like augustus and philip of macedon. A monarch at their best should unify their country a monarch at their worst you get rome.

Bernd 04/12/2019 (Fri) 10:31:17 [Preview] No.24764 del
Non-Catholic monarchy is the best form of monarchy. Prove me wrong.

Bernd 04/12/2019 (Fri) 10:45:01 [Preview] No.24766 del
anarchism is the way forward. prove me wrong.

Bernd 04/12/2019 (Fri) 20:23:14 [Preview] No.24800 del
You still don't get it. The autocrat of the republic (dictator) still can do the same what the autocrat of the monarchy can do. Maybe if I would draw a table you would understand it. You want to compare two things which is incomparable, you are like the guys who match up capitalism with socialism...
Just because the form is monarchy it can not offer more than a republic (again: a republic isn't a democracy), it only can do what the system offer, for both there is a system available with one person rule (beside the rule of few, and rule of many). To counter your examples I would cite Peisistratos of Athens. Who wasn't a monarch, but was a one person ruler and did basically the same what you would expect.
>What I was trying to say is that in any democracy or republic the sides with the most money will always have an edge to the point where you don't have any true authority unless you succumb to one of the two sides of the debate.
I don't get what you were trying to say. But I want to interject for a moment and highlight the fact that contemporary democracies are in fact ochlocracies. Why? Because for a democracy one needs demos which members share identity, sense of community, and acknowledged common interests. And now we only have bunch of individuals with same passports.

Bernd 04/13/2019 (Sat) 07:08:29 [Preview] No.24806 del
>I don't get what you were trying to say
What I was attempting to say is that the people with the most money will always be uncontested in democracy. Basically if the people with the money promote specific groups then those groups can advertise themselves more than the average lesser group. This is why it is always republican and democrat in the USA. Those are the two groups with the most fiance.

Bernd 04/13/2019 (Sat) 08:35:28 [Preview] No.24807 del
>people with the most money will always be uncontested in democracy.
Not really. In a democracy every member of the demos has the same rights and duties, laws applies to everyone, money or position can't overrule them. Also for a democracy parties aren't needed, not even with indirect representation. And from that it's just a matter of legislation to forbid those with big financial background to buy their way.
For example in Athens in the period of the declining republic people frequently sold their votes but that could have been prevented not just with banning this practice, but finding a way of compensating them (I think in a way they did that, I don't remember clearly anymore), also with the restoration of the faith in their responsibility toward their state.
And what you are talking about is all present. War of Roses rings a bell? Basically the same. Just more bloody.

Also - referring to previous posts - appealing to he fact that democracy turns into shit in itself is fallacious, since every system will eventually turn into shit. This is how things are. And ofc not just with governmental systems but with everything, decay is unavoidable, everything is dying from the moment it became, you, me, the living, inanimate objects and the universe.
So I could pull this card out against everything. But him here >>24726 gave a good link on this. Read it, it might give some enlightenment.

Frankly governmental forms (monarchy, republic) and systems (autocracy, aristocracy, democracy) aren't matter. They all could work good and efficient. What matters is the selection of those people who make it work. With the appropriate people in the appropriate positions they will work fine. This is why if one wants to create a good working system he needs to create a system for the selection. Letting ambition of the individuals decide is a guarantee of going down the shitter since ambition and talent in just exceptional cases aligns.
Good alternative would be emphasize the education of the people, both mind and moral. If the educaton system produces more talented people it is more likely they will land in important offices. But in the link above this is also mentioned. What I'm saying isn't new, only needs a somewhat deeper knowledge on politics than superficial, or pub politics.

Bernd 04/13/2019 (Sat) 10:16:32 [Preview] No.24809 del
Nowadays when fags talking about democracy all of them fapping to liberal democracy and condemning illiberal democracy. They express liberalism is absolutely essential to it. They aren't entirely wrong in the sense that the members of the demos have to enjoy the same level of freedom (that means no positive discrimination of made up minorities!). But beside that they need to be equal in their rights and obligations, so socialism also important.
But one thing absolutely everyone likes to forget: for a working democracy one needs nationalism as well. The members of the demos needs to know and feel they are part of the same community, they are responsible for it just like for themselves and for the other members of the demos. Their own interests can only be validated through the community's interest. Their country, state, nation is their property just like their personal property, it's like the house metaphor which was written above in the thread somewhere.

Bernd 04/13/2019 (Sat) 12:56:13 [Preview] No.24812 del
>Every member of the demos has the same rights and duties
Not really the rich get priviliges for instance look at the recent case of epstein he basically got a small slap on the wrist but otherwise was allowed to go out without any troubles when in a monarch the man's head would be off his body by now. The rich get priviliges and this allows them to influence the results via bribery. This is much more difficult in a monarchy. While you pointed towards the war of roses being a good example remember the 12 of so civil wars the roman republic had during its latter years. Both systems have their faults but I am of the opinion a monarch is superior to democracy/republics because a single good ruler can completely change the image of a country for instance peter the great.

Bernd 04/13/2019 (Sat) 14:05:50 [Preview] No.24813 del
democracy is pay2win like people on 4chan say

Bernd 04/13/2019 (Sat) 14:36:01 [Preview] No.24814 del
>peter the great.

eh he failed m8
his reforms were at best half-assed never finished and probably not even possible

Bernd 04/13/2019 (Sat) 14:43:36 [Preview] No.24815 del
No. You took an example (Epstein) from an ochlocracy and not democracy.
And again you use monarchy wrong.
>in a monarch the man's head would be off his body by now.
UK is a monarchy. Pls tell me when was the last time when:
1. they executed someone;
2. by beheading.
Now, this was the last time I replied to you because you clearly don't want to learn the differences of the terms, which means you are a troll.

Bernd 04/13/2019 (Sat) 14:49:05 [Preview] No.24816 del
Again I said the monarch in this country has 0 power.

Bernd 04/13/2019 (Sat) 19:17:24 [Preview] No.24821 del
I'm for enlightening despotism&monarchy. Many nations including western ones, needs father like person to this mess. Democracy at Best a cherry on top. Rablle rule=poop

Bernd 04/13/2019 (Sat) 19:36:51 [Preview] No.24822 del
>not advocating for a Khanate

Bernd 04/13/2019 (Sat) 21:22:56 [Preview] No.24824 del
(999.39 KB 1292x486 republican-democrats.png)
>The rich get priviliges and this allows them to influence the results via bribery.

Same works in any political system, including any types of monarchy.

That's just common trait of any society, because human society is hierarchical by design. Even other higher primates are hierarchical.

Bernd 04/13/2019 (Sat) 21:34:35 [Preview] No.24826 del
different fancy words for the same glorious purpose.

Bernd 04/13/2019 (Sat) 22:20:36 [Preview] No.24828 del
In the case of a monarchy it limits their power because the monarch will always be above the rich.

Bernd 04/14/2019 (Sun) 09:04:01 [Preview] No.24837 del
>In the case of a monarchy it limits their power because the monarch will always be above the rich.

If monarch would openly ignore needs of the rich (and powerful, because it is same), he risking to stop being monarch. History proved it multiple times.

Even in absolutist monarchy there are close circle of monarch who do different jobs (advising, management, diplomatic, shady things etc) for him, and then receive reward. Of course some stray person from this group may be punished if he does something very wrong and has no support from others, but it would be wrong to say that monarch has absolute power and no one can influence him.

In classic feudal monarchy it is even more noticeable, because monarch often isn't even biggest buy in terms of power, but mostly a guy who is ok for everyone who has power. He needs balancing between his vassals, who may use their power and money to get what they want.

So, in the end, it doesn't matter, there always some people who are rich and powerful in any political system. Maybe with idealistic approach it works differently, but where you can find ideal thing in real world?

Bernd 04/14/2019 (Sun) 10:15:32 [Preview] No.24838 del
I never said their wasn't rich and powerful people in a monarchy I said that the monarch somewhat restricts their power. I know that isn't always the case but a monarch who does his job correctly can make them less influential.

Bernd 04/14/2019 (Sun) 12:37:36 [Preview] No.24839 del

Same can be said about presidential republic with democratic elections for example. Government has power and controls the law, and most laws in any country prohibit money influencing and put people's interests forward.

But it rarely works as intended. Do you think that this will work in monarchy? Only big difference is that monarch isn't replaced so often (and we may see - president may sit in place for long time too).

Actually, it is more complex question than only monarchy vs some elective system. It is very dependent on economical and societal structure. I guess elective democracy in medieval times must be much different than that democracy in modern times. Same with monarchy. Technically many countries are monarchies nowadays, even if they officially are democracies (look at Central Asia), but it doesn't work in way that it worked 1000 years ago. Just because society is different, everything became faster (from infromation flow to migration), regions stopped being self-sustainable, markets changed much.

I think it is not political system shapes society, but society shapes system into form that fits. Of course exceptions exist, but in historical time ranges they aren't noticeable.

Bernd 04/14/2019 (Sun) 21:50:33 [Preview] No.24850 del
its sad that the best dies in assasinations, im thinking specifically on alexander 2

Bernd 04/14/2019 (Sun) 23:51:25 [Preview] No.24852 del
or banished and humiliated like poor old Pedro II

Bernd 04/15/2019 (Mon) 01:16:35 [Preview] No.24853 del

I did not know about him. fascinating man.

"The reign of Pedro II thus came to an unusual end—he was overthrown while highly regarded by the people and at the pinnacle of his popularity, and some of his accomplishments were soon brought to naught as Brazil slipped into a long period of weak governments, dictatorships, and constitutional and economic crises"


looks like a bernd to me

Bernd 04/15/2019 (Mon) 12:23:10 [Preview] No.24857 del
(32.30 KB 600x683 assburger.jpg)
Wait a second...

Bernd 04/15/2019 (Mon) 20:55:54 [Preview] No.24875 del
>its sad that the best dies in assasinations, im thinking specifically on alexander 2

Second half of 19th century and first years of 20th were horrific for Russian aristocracy and government, for example, 3500 government-related people died in terror acts in 1905 (less in other years, but still much). Overall it was peaceful belle epoque time though, but people often underestimate scale of terror (not only Jewish or commie, there were plenty of different revolutionary groups, even radical conservatives, but most of terrorists were different kinds of socialists, as always).

For example, three ministers of internal affairs (i.e. police) were killed in ten years, last one was famous Stolypin.

Soviet historiography said that they brought this on themselves and maybe partially it is true, but situation in Russian Empire wasn't that bad to justify this completely though.

This is offtop, sorry.

Bernd 04/15/2019 (Mon) 21:54:38 [Preview] No.24879 del
He was 100% Berndish. Shy and reclusive, bookworm with assburgerish knowledge on every topic, could speak 13 languages other than his mother tongue, excitedly followed scientific advancements and exchanged letters with prominent figures of his age.

Bernd 10/10/2019 (Thu) 21:27:16 [Preview] No.29805 del

Bernd 11/27/2019 (Wed) 04:11:38 [Preview] No.32659 del
what has changed in the british governement since Victoria.
has the monarch's power been decreased or stagnated?

Bernd 11/27/2019 (Wed) 04:14:39 [Preview] No.32660 del
as am i. i think enlightened despotism/monarchism is highly underrated

Bernd 11/27/2019 (Wed) 06:43:35 [Preview] No.32661 del
I assume it's stagnated with little fluctuation, depending on the person and the political situation.
Thanks for the bump, the map thread too, this post reminded me that movie, The King's Speech - I should rewatch. It's about George VI's struggle to give an acceptable speech during WWII, Hitler was too damn good at that.

I'd love to be an enlightened despot. Two things I miss tho, enlightenment and despotism.

Bernd 11/27/2019 (Wed) 13:51:26 [Preview] No.32664 del
Why does nobody talk about Biblical monarchy?
>follow all the commandments
>constitutional monarchy with the Torah as constitution but the monarch holds absolute power within its guidelines, not within that of the parliament
Deuteronomy 17:15

Bernd 11/27/2019 (Wed) 16:56:31 [Preview] No.32665 del
It's kind of a theocracy.
>Deuteronomy 17
''"The King

14 When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,” 15 be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel."''

Bernd 11/27/2019 (Wed) 17:11:04 [Preview] No.32666 del
I don't want to derail, but how does capitalism create all that innovation yet still needs massively socialistic patent laws or else nobody would do any innovation?

Discuss this in the context of monarchy.

Bernd 11/27/2019 (Wed) 17:26:46 [Preview] No.32667 del
https://youtube.com/watch?v=OsIihrcqJYA [Embed]
Context: he is the king of laughs.

Bernd 11/29/2019 (Fri) 12:56:40 [Preview] No.32700 del
>tag monarchy and patent law
>the machine puts out Joerg
I'll take it.

One little thing is though that he's specifically talking about "the little guy" when what I had in mind is the macro stuff. If you think about it that's what the need for a monarch spurs from in the first place. The way I see it the freedom to practice law is more the result of liberal democracy than capitalism.

Bernd 11/29/2019 (Fri) 13:07:10 [Preview] No.32701 del
This does bring to mind that all lower levels of society are pretty much always capitalistic, with varying leanings to full-blown ancap, so it's a moot topic to talk about. For instance, isn't the collapsed soviet state the perfect ancap utopia where "state intervention" is literally too ineffectual to outcompete the free market? You'll buy protection from the first robber baron who comes asking, be it govt or anyone else capable.

Robber barons however forbid other robber barons from operating on their turf. The state and the corporation do not, so you pay your alms to both.

Bernd 11/29/2019 (Fri) 17:01:16 [Preview] No.32704 del
I don't think capitalism creates innovation but need. However on the level of physiological needs a certain amount of abundance is necessary, since "hungry stomach don't think", if satisfying those basic needs consume all your time, you won't come up with much new things, but not just time what they take away, but when those needs unsatisfied they have the tendency to occupy the mind and the thoughts will revolve around them all the time. Even in sir-Y-wall see-choo-a-shun one can only come up with new methods of getting food and water and whatever if those needs are covered at that time.
While there were extremely important inventions by the "cavemen" which caused the downfall of humanity the first really innovative era come with the revolution of agriculture, when large portion of the people of Mesopotamia didn't have anything better to do all day just picking their nose and sitting on their thumbs since they could produce more than enough food and their work on the fields wasn't needed. But there were other pressures, other needs to satisfy; and this abundance made it possible that some of these needs come into existence.
So capitalism itself doesn't create the innovation but made possible for people to have more than subsistence.

Aren't patent laws there to provide a certain monopoly but an advantage at the minimum for those who hold patents? That goes against socialistic ideas, no?

But let's take a step back.
So the premise is that:
>capitalism create all that innovation
But you yourself don't seem to agree with this notion. So you want us to argue on the behalf of this idea you put forward, which ourselves might not agree with? Or where this idea comes from?

Bernd 11/29/2019 (Fri) 17:50:12 [Preview] No.32707 del
>So the premise is that:
>capitalism create all that innovation
Well, I mainly wanted to highlight the common argument that capitalism is behind all progress and the following contradiction that patents (really my shorthand for IP laws in general) don't seem to be part of the mechanism that capitalism is given credit for. I don't mean to pin this on capitalism per se, but call it anything, the same contradiction exists. It's also very much already is pinned on capitalism.

My ongoing beef with modernity = capitalism = copyright is that it seems to be only a fascimile designed to prevent the progress it deems to cause, like a doctor poisoning his patients. Patent lawyers seem to be the free market solution to solve the limited amount of monarchs arbitrating the solutions that are instead produced by courts and lawyers. It's the invisible hand stopping manufacture when copyright issues would grant exclusivity to a patent holder, producing not surplus wealth but lack of it, or a monopoly for the patent holder to reign as king of his field on the basis of "inventing" it.

Bernd 11/29/2019 (Fri) 18:07:53 [Preview] No.32708 del
>That goes against socialistic ideas, no?
Perhaps it might, but then you would run out of time correcting people who claim to be liberal or capitalistic despite on the inverse supporting the same broadly held socialistic ideas. I can't imagine an IP being itself a means of production, but I'll keep an eye on that Coca-Cola recipe appearing as a patent.

Bernd 11/30/2019 (Sat) 11:34:31 [Preview] No.32722 del
Well it is in every way a theocracy, as I stated. Not like any other monarchy however.

Bernd 12/02/2019 (Mon) 20:20:42 [Preview] No.32765 del
And it's elective...
>Let us set a king over us
...and autistic:
>he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law [...] and he is to read it all the days of his life
Anyway it's interesting how they try to egalitize the king. But it feels kinda naive insurance that this way (by not gathering riches) the king will seek his power not in wealth, but in God (actually in the scripture).

Bernd 12/03/2019 (Tue) 17:37:13 [Preview] No.32791 del
>implying elective monarchy isn't the only good form of government

Bernd 12/03/2019 (Tue) 18:12:45 [Preview] No.32792 del
Didn't try to imply such thing.
Tho elective monarchy can pretty much secure a good civil war with two large opposing parties fighting over whose puppet should be installed onto the throne.
In fact Israel itself fell apart into two states, Israel and Judea, calling Hittites, Babylonians, Egyptians against each other, like two good brothers should...

Bernd 12/04/2019 (Wed) 02:13:29 [Preview] No.32799 del
We have to analyse the actual civil war though.
>Tho elective monarchy can pretty much secure a good civil war with two large opposing parties fighting over whose puppet should be installed onto the throne.
That's more or less because of Solomon being a corrupt king and the northern tribes thus rebelling against his progeny, not because of the monarchy itself.
Thus they chose to split and then became more or less a vassal for the Egyptians and the Assyrians/Babylonians.

Bernd 12/04/2019 (Wed) 06:49:57 [Preview] No.32803 del
But since the monarchy was elective it pretty much went against the Law to inherit the throne. So there was a basis the question of his legitimacy below all other pretense.

Bernd 12/04/2019 (Wed) 13:31:52 [Preview] No.32809 del
The house of the king itself was still kept in place, which is why Solomon ruled after David. So while it was an elective monarchy, it still had a hereditary component to him.
>That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
>he, and his children

Bernd 12/04/2019 (Wed) 15:22:10 [Preview] No.32814 del
The idea of Absolute Monarchy is stupid, thinking that one man deserves to rule a country because his parents did and his granparents also did and so on and so on is a backwards idea.
Not saying that Democracy is perfect but at least you can choose that one who rules you
the problem is that they can only rule for a limited time so this makes them think more short-term.

Imo, the best option is communalism, we humans are social animals and we are made to be born in a comunity, and what better way than to make it our goberment form.

Bernd 12/04/2019 (Wed) 16:03:37 [Preview] No.32815 del
>The idea of Absolute Monarchy is stupid, thinking that one man deserves to rule a country because his parents did and his granparents also did and so on and so on is a backwards idea.
That's what elective monarchy answers.

Bernd 12/04/2019 (Wed) 16:24:20 [Preview] No.32816 del
bruh isn't that just democracy but with a life long president? anyways, this also has his problems, for example I might vote for this candidate now, but then I grow up and change my political opinions or maybe I don't like what he does when he's elected.

Bernd 12/04/2019 (Wed) 18:07:20 [Preview] No.32820 del
No. Even tho it's possible to have a constitutional elective monarchy with democratic governmental form (rule of many/rule of people), elective monarchies tend to be autarchies (rule of one) or oligarchies (rule of few).

Bernd 12/04/2019 (Wed) 18:15:11 [Preview] No.32821 del
Little more explanation:
In democracy with a monarch the monarch doesn't rule but the people do.
In an elective (autocratic) monarchy those who elect the monarch don't rule but the monarch do. But if the people or a subset of the people has the power to choose the monarch, it will mean the monarch doesn't have too much power, so it'll most likely be an oligarchy, except if the election is purely ceremonial (good example for this is the Kingdom of Hungary during all her existence, or the HRE of the Habsburgs, which technically still was an elective state, but the Habsburgs inherited the throne in their family).

Bernd 12/05/2019 (Thu) 17:21:15 [Preview] No.32861 del
be serious man

Bernd 12/05/2019 (Thu) 17:21:42 [Preview] No.32862 del
Come on man

Bernd 12/05/2019 (Thu) 17:25:35 [Preview] No.32863 del
Then fuck us all over by importing endless amounts of muslims?
shouldn't get so corny on Pakistan

Bernd 12/16/2019 (Mon) 14:56:58 [Preview] No.33142 del
It still sounds like a stupid idea, besides, there isn't any relevant movement that supports a elective monarchy therefore thinking that it can materialize anytime soon is unrealistic

Bernd 06/30/2020 (Tue) 00:06:40 [Preview] No.38162 del
Why should there be a goverment?

Bernd 06/30/2020 (Tue) 07:21:51 [Preview] No.38168 del
Because authority is strength; in-case any outside infiltration comes, it'd be easy to take them down. Having no government or a "small government" has always resulted in the usual suspects buying everything out or taking it by military force.
Do you really believe that no authority is good? Public school intentionally teaches an aversion to authority via reverse psychology.

Bernd 06/30/2020 (Tue) 08:46:00 [Preview] No.38170 del
I never equated goverment and authority

Bernd 06/30/2020 (Tue) 09:10:06 [Preview] No.38171 del
"Authority" beneath that of a government is a weak authority, which I have also criticised. Doing so is an enlightenment-castration tactic at worst, and jewish nomadism at "best".

Bernd 06/30/2020 (Tue) 09:13:17 [Preview] No.38172 del
With that put aside...
Do you really believe that governments cannot be good?

Bernd 06/30/2020 (Tue) 15:30:22 [Preview] No.38179 del
>"Authority" beneath that of a government is a weak authority
Not necessarily. A patriarch's authority over his family members can be strong, most visibly when he can even enforce it with force. In turn, a government may have extreme authority on other things, but not interfere in the patriarch's sphere and on his power over his family members, which he exercises on his own.

Bernd 06/30/2020 (Tue) 15:35:52 [Preview] No.38180 del
I'm talking about authority applied to a massive amount of people, not just a family.

Bernd 06/30/2020 (Tue) 19:39:52 [Preview] No.38186 del
Government as a ministerial cabinet, or the activity of governing?

Bernd 06/30/2020 (Tue) 19:40:26 [Preview] No.38187 del
Meant to him: >>38170

Bernd 06/30/2020 (Tue) 20:40:33 [Preview] No.38199 del
Can you give your definition of goverment?

Bernd 06/30/2020 (Tue) 20:42:11 [Preview] No.38200 del
Well, both.

Bernd 06/30/2020 (Tue) 21:07:19 [Preview] No.38204 del
A group or organisation that governs a sovereign state.
I don't oppose governments, I just oppose bad governments. Some governments can be good, as long as they're traditional, not under foreign control (includes any jewish involvement), not under the influence of a banking oligarchy, and serve the people, instead of leading up to some beehive society where the people serve the ruling families.

Bernd 06/30/2020 (Tue) 23:46:38 [Preview] No.38205 del
>I just oppose bad governments
Which is entirely subjective. What you may see as a bad goverment, others see it as something good.

Goverment is about governance. Govern. Govern people. Governor.

I dont have the inclination to be anyones subject. Does that mean im a "libertarian"? No. I don't have to buy into the dialectic.


“As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose – that it may violate property instead of protecting it – then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.”

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

-From The Law (1850), by Frédéric Bastiat

Bernd 07/01/2020 (Wed) 01:58:32 [Preview] No.38206 del
That's still better than no governance at all in which case everybody is the plunderer(until a gang of plunderers create a new government).

Bernd 07/01/2020 (Wed) 05:18:04 [Preview] No.38209 del
That's the darwinistic idea of evolution you promote there. Instead of working together in co-operation.

Bernd 07/01/2020 (Wed) 05:24:17 [Preview] No.38210 del
Yes, because people don't all work together. It shouldn't be so surprising but people don't like to do things they don't want to do or feel the need to do particularly if there is nothing stopping them from not doing it and if by doing it it would cost them time, resources or money. That and the system falls apart if even one person decides not to play the game.

Bernd 07/01/2020 (Wed) 08:36:24 [Preview] No.38213 del
>Which is entirely subjective. What you may see as a bad goverment, others see it as something good.
That's effectively an extension of moral relativism.

Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply