>>145738715

Why would you want the monarchy back?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_elections_in_Poland
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

Because it's better to have one cunt hold all the power instead of many cunts each holding a little.

And what recourse would the people have if the absolute monarchy moved against the free market and private property rights?

Revolution?

Why would the king want that tho? He has an interest to keep his country rich and powerful so that his son inherits something of value.

Have you read history? It has been literally the worst possible outcome every time.

that's pretty good

Their wealth and power is tied to the land and people.

Only if the supreme leader monarch works for our best interests

>Why would the king want that tho?
Ask the overwhelming majority of kings throughout history that question. They're the ones who seized property and placed controls on markets.

Yes and they have shown that they don't care about the people almost every single time. There have been a good monarch or two, but it's so rare that it isn't worth it.

What would you do when politicians decide to erase you as a people?

Still better than the alternative. At least kings and dictators can be lynched.

Rome empire was better since the emperor chose himself his successor, not being bound by a retarded first born son

>great man choosing another great man

Based af

No English king has ever tried to destroy his own people. You're comparing getting punched in the face with getting shot in the face.

>they have shown that they don't care about the people almost every single time.

that is absolutly untrue by all means.

Democratic was have been far worst than monarchical wars. for example.

What about the industrial revolution in Europe? All countries in Europe allowed free market in 19th century. There were no commie or even socialist kings. It was when democracy was introduce that Europe started going socialist.

Richard III?

>absolute monarchy
>anarcho flag

I have my reasons.

> No English king has ever tried to destroy his own people

Yeah, I guess it's because the only ones with the privilege to have education and wrote the historical records were the kind or his men - Imagine if other people could leave records as well. No king is going to write: Yeah, I took their property and I raped his mom too. You are thinking of a romanticised picture, that is made up by the king himself. I seriously hate communism, but monarchy? No, thanks.

Democracy was a mistake.

That didn't stop the vast majority of the Roman emperors from being useless retards. Some of them LITERALLY were retarded

The first step is to advocate and vote. You can't vote in absolute monarchy, thus skipping a possible peaceful solution.

I'm sure you've heard the quote "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Absolute monarchy makes peaceful revolution impossible by the very nature of the system. In a Republic, peaceful revolution is not denied by the nature of the system, but only be despotic figures who use their power within a Republic to reject the nature of a Republic.

How so?

>he privilege to have education and wrote the historical records were the kind or his men

what is patronage?

Oh and how can you build these cathedrals with unskilled, uneducated labourers?

>Some of them LITERALLY were retarded

Happened when they instated generational rule. One of the worst errors from the best Roman Emperor.

First - that is a later period when things started to change to what we have now.
Second - Do you think, that peasants, who happened to be geniuses learn how to Architect on the internet and build the cathedrals?

It's also easier to make one cunt wise as opposed to making a bunch of cunts wise.

You're confusing technological progress for a free market. This is as foolish as calling Stalin's five-year plan or Mao's Great Leap Forward a free market.

Show me an English king that tried to destroy the English on a genetic level. One who imported millions of Arabs or Africans. Again the difference between getting punched and shot.

> When you remove the monarchy, but you realise it was a mistake

>First - that is a later period when things started to change to what we have now.

No it is something that occurred under every form of monarchy, European Dark Age is not the only thing that was going on in that time. Consider the Byzantine for instance or China.

>Second - Do you think, that peasants, who happened to be geniuses learn how to Architect on the internet and build the cathedrals?

what kind of dumbass are you?

And what would prevent a modern absolute monarch from doing the same? Why wouldn't he favor his own bloodline?

Hoppean reasons, I’m assuming

>Show me an English king that tried to destroy the English on a genetic level.
Why would they want to do that? The people are literally the source of their wealth Also, merkel is a socialist cunt - don't confuse her with democratic principles

>what kind of dumbass are you?
I was saying, that the part of the population, that got educated was minute. Idiot.

>implying democracy isn’t a form of socialism
wew lad

>And what would prevent a modern absolute monarch from doing the same? Why wouldn't he favor his own bloodline?

Oh he can favor it, but he has a family which want to preserve the value they could inherit and if some fucktard is about to nuke the land and it's peoples value, they will take care of it as they have in the past and done successfully. No need of revolution of democratic conflict where evrybody is set up against there brothers for in interest of certain brain blown cocks

You need to understand this slave-mentality. These alt-reich types always jap on about jews enslaving us yet they are perectly complacent about handing over their sovereignty as human to a KANG.

They are what Kant called those who did not yet come of age. As they are prepared to surrender their ability to reason, free will and critical inquiry to big brother.

Let them surrender, if they wanna be fucked by a Fuhrer their whole lives, that's their perverted fetish, but only in their own name.


>pic related, these cunts, if they ever gain power, need to have the fash motherfucking bashed out of them, ASAP

It is in Europe and Canada
The center is to the left - We don't have real democracy

So why haven't you voted to stop the Mexican invasion? Why haven't you peacefully revolted? Hell, you're all armed to the teeth to stop Government tyranny. Why haven't you violently revolted? The fact is that modern western democracy is, across the board committing a crime the likes of which has not been seen before in history and it's doing so for money. It's failed in such spectacular fashion that any system of government would be superior. If only for the fact that they can be changed whereas the genetic dissolution of a people cannot.

> I know right
They complain about tyranny and censorship and communism, but they are perfectly fine if they do it. Hypocrisy is over 9000 - also, they imagine, that they will be in power in this new Reich, when chances are they are going to be freezing on the battlefield, swearing at the fuhrer

>What does /pol think of absolute monarchy coupled with free market?
Terrible because you may get a bad king or queen.
No government without the ability to change effective power is good.

>Why would they want to do that? The people are literally the source of their wealth
This was literally my point.

It's basic Democracy: The God that Failed arguments. Lolbertarians read their first book since middle school and think they've got it all figured out. It's true that in a monarchy you had relatively more economic freedom and lower taxes.

Also democracy is definitely socialism. The outcome of an election is always going to be as good as the majority of a nation. That's why an aristocratic republic is the final redpill.

You can reason with a king. Try to reason with the average voter.

I meant, that they will not want to kill their subjects , that doesn't mean, that they would look towards assuring their subjects opportunity, happiness and comfort.

If the people of a nation wish to be destroyed, they will be destroyed regardless of the system of government.

No response. These fuckers think living in a democracy is somehow more liberating than the alternative. The truly redpilled know why certain historical thinkers thought democracy was a meme.

So a opportunity, happiness and comfort should be secured by the government? Good to know that you're a socialist.

> Lolbertarians read their first book since middle school and think they've got it all figured out
I don't think I have it all figured out, retard, I just think it's better, than some idiot in power who rules only because his father shagged his cousin, doing whatever he wants, while I have to count rats in the mud. (Boris 3 was a good ruler, but he is an exception as an example)

Monarchy is retarded. I want something more along the lines of an emperor that selects his heirs.

>You can reason with a king.
Lets say your king is a male feminist. Think he is going to be reasoned with?

>I was saying, that the part of the population, that got educated was minute. Idiot.

Your sentence does not imply this in the least take some English classes.

These people getting educated were not very populous because what they were taught is extremely expensive to teach and practice. But that is better then what Europe had in the past where these skills were reserved to people of status as opposed to people of merit.

Lords would send people to hire those the people though were the most intelligent and deserved more. People the monarchy protected to protect the value of there land and people.

Further more, education is expensive, you need the resources to be able to do it. it requires people in a situation where everything is scarse to stop certain people from working to learn something which we have no insurance will work or be useful.

Awful.

Fuck ultra capitalism.

>What does /pol think of absolute monarchy coupled with free market?
How about we try a constitutional feudal patriarchal theocratic plutocracy.

> Good to know that you're a socialist.
Not assured, given the opportunity to have.

If you had any idea what's being discussed in this thread you'd know how retarded you are. Libertarians are the ones advocating for an absolute monarchy.

Monarchism is a lot like Fascism, in my mind, in that it was unique in the various nations which theorised its existence or used its core tenants. Monarchism more so in the fact it's, of course much older, but also one of the most natural forms of authority in the world. The fact that tribes are naturally structured monarchically and what not.

My belief in monarchism is exclusive to Britain, so definitely not an absolute monarchy which Britain or England never was, with all unique aspects of the monarchy considered.

But we haven't had a monarchy since 1690.

The same could be said about the tyranny of a bad king. The difference is the survival of the people which is, ultimately the only thing that matters since everything else is temporary.

> Libertarians
You are thinking of leftists. Read some Thomas Paine, then come back

>Not assured, given the opportunity to have.
>more government spending on education
>if the market is at a low point the government should intervene and create jobs artificially
>how can you have an opportunity when you're sick? free healthcare too!
As I said, good to know that you're a socialist.
I literally quoted you the title of the book in which Hans Hoppe advocates for an absolute monarchy as a final solution to socialism. He's an Austrian economist.

This guy is the most redpilled european politician ever!

The thing about him is that sometimes he don't know when to shut up.

He have a great knowledge and everytime he say something considered by media super racist or super sexist. He will give you a huge list of scientific documents that proves his point of view.

** He is probably the only politician who didnt change any of his beliefs in his life. For the last 50 years he keeps talking exacly the same things over and over again.

It is the best system tried, and because it is natural. The reason that free markets work is the same as to why in small businesses heirarchies of skill and competence emerge, why 'the invisible hand' seems to move needs of public use to those in free market, because this all is not the invisible hand but something greater. When water trickles over a flat plain it begins to pool and erode the areas of sloping grade, and over time the erosion makes rivers, canyons, waterfalls, and around these forests and animals emerge. The way natural hierarchies or monarchies form over time is like that of how the free market fills needs and adapts and improves things, both are functions of a greater purpose, they are like water, it is a force of nature. Just as we see ants form a similar hill each time they make a colony humans, left to natural incentives, usually make a monarchical free economy. It is when we try to circumvent our own nature that we make errors. We replace monarchies with democracies and so replace a intelligent, wise and knowledgeable ruler with a myriad of short sighted fools. We make restrictions and taxation on the market and grind it to a halt over time, thinking we can power a government with the private economy while draining it dry. The reality is that the invisible hand is just natural selection as applied to entire groups of people, it is the natural mode. The reason democracy, socialism, even republics (they work temporarily) don't work short run or long run is because they are unnatural. IT's the same reason we feel reviled at the sight of a drag queen, it's like seeing a demon spawned before our eyes, it's not natural.

> As I said, good to know that you're a socialist.
Read about Greece and Rome. I really don't want to argue with someone who is so confused about terms and words in general.

How can there be a free market when the ruler is Absolute, that means his whim is law meaning that at any point he may intervene on the market or use national resources to influence it

>literally the worst outcome
>almost every single time
Reading your posts make me cringe like I do when reading liberal tweets

> Reading your posts make me cringe like I do when reading liberal tweets

> Has a flag of a system that failed in about 20 years so hard, that it assured it's future disappearance. ( Talking about Nat Soc, not fascism)

>What does /pol think of absolute monarchy coupled with free market?

Sounds like something that would get butchered diplomatically, industrially and militarily by a big government totalitarian state.
A business with state protection will murder a free market business, so unless you convince everyone to do this, it will be a short experiment.

>unironic supporters of absolute monarchy
It's to believe such retarded and gullible people actually exist. A fucking Somali is probably more intelligent

I think we should have an absolute democracy coupled with socialism, so literally the opposite of a free market imposed by dictatorship.

>hurr durr haha he got a nazi flag, he fuckdd
It's a meme flag that was relevant to the meme response I made on another thread, stupid.

>Read about Greece and Rome
I have. Say something specific. You've used no terms and words and all you've done is thrown things like "Thomas Paine" and "Read about Greece and Rome" like an autist. I was explaining to you how monarchism is something proposed by libertarians. We're not talking about mediocre enlightenment cucks. We've got all the evidence in the world that democracy eventually devolves into a welfare state.

It's really not rocket science.

I'm an autist? You are saying, that anyone who is against absolute monarchy is a socialist? Do you even hear your self>?

But it litturally will not! It's been laturally proven!!

t. This faggot who you guys keep responding too

Wait, are you arguing AGAINST monarchism?

Rome is probably the wrong example for that. I mean, the collapse of the Roman Republic and its symptoms were cured by the overhaul of the Senate as the main legislative body into absolute monarchism.

> Faggot
Can't use big people's words so he uses Sup Forumss pathetic ways of cursing to try dismantle an argument

I meant during the republic ... ahhhhhh

You throw in some Hitler tier removing of commies, faggots, Jews, and in the case of America non whites, sure I can get behind it.

I'm not even trying, because you are too stupid to debate.

t. Something you would literally say

This is a pretty controversial topic so I won't get in on the semantics of the Roman Republic vs under the Imperial era, but monarchism was seen as a solution to the shortcomings and complete failure of the Republic. So regardless of whether you feel the Republic was more successful or the Empire, the Empire was seen as a solution to Republicanism.

I've already said this but Monarchism is unique in every country its practiced in, especially in countries where it evolved over centuries. To use the English monarchy in reference to the old French monarchy, or the Spanish monarchy is wrong, but for an example of Republicanism failing in more modern terms...

Oliver Cromwell. England was the first country in Europe to experiment with Roman Republicanism since the collapse of the Roman Republic its self and it failed spectacularly until the monarchy was restored.

>You are saying, that anyone who is against absolute monarchy is a socialist?
kek nice straw man, but I was talking about what you actually said. You implied that "opportunity, happiness and comfort" should be provided by the government
>"that doesn't mean that they would look towards assuring their subjects opportunity, happiness and comfort."
A small government's job would be to provide security (police, military), a judicial system to settle disputes and secure property rights. Not to provide opportunity. All the things you listed don't put a ceiling on how much government intervention is too much.

>You need to understand this slave-mentality. These alt-reich types always jap on about jews enslaving us yet they are perectly complacent about handing over their sovereignty as human to a KANG.
Don't try telling this to any of them

You could argue that Poland was first actually. Not a republic exactly but pretty close. We went form a growing empire to being partitioned 200 years later. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_elections_in_Poland

implying that's not what happens now, in the us, through taxes in the very least

There were hundreds of Republics between Rome and England that existed, but England under Cromwell actually emulated Roman Republicanism which is what I meant. Poland probably practiced Republicanism before us, but with the Senate (parliament) as the main legislative body, with two people on the executive branch of government with alternating roles and using balanced constitutionalism (something that existed under the monarchy too) to balance powers between the various branches of government. Essentially it was a LARP attempt by anti-monarchists in Early Modern England to recreate the terms of the Roman Republic.

>absolute monarchy coupled with free market
This is oxymoronic. Private property is impossible in an absolute monarchy.