Absolutism Thread

The individual possesses no rights of their own, and only exist to serve the state. Morality is as defined by the law.

>Morality is as defined by Allah.
Fixed.

Religion is but a way to control the masses. Religious doctrine that directly undermines the will of the government should be suppressed.

Which is why Sharia government is best government.

What about the individuals who manipulate the law to their own benefit and to the detriment of everyone else?

Actions within the law that don't affect or interfere the will of the state are irrelevant, regardless of the affect it has on the common man. Actions that are detrimental shall be adapted to by changing the law. Since the state decides what is and isn't right, it can determine what is fair for the average person.

Wouldn't it have been easier just to type "What about the senate?"

If morality is defined by the law and the individual possesses no rights of there own, then the individual cannot make the law.

If the individual cannot make the law, then the law must already exist or no law exists.

If the law already exists and the state was made by man, then the law does not concern the state.

If the law does not concern the state, then the individual cannot only exist to serve the state unless the state was not made by man.

...

When the state is governed by any person or monarch, his will and judgement become the guiding principle of the government. Since this individual possesses absolute power over the state and its appendages, they become the living embodiment of the state, ceasing to be but an individual, but becoming a greater entity. Their will becomes the will of the state, which people then serve. Leaders come and go, and their wills too come to change, but it is always the will of the state. This will is then enforced through the law, which is a creation of state through its living embodiment.

Is that you, Hillary?

>No private property
>Atheism
That's communism nigger.

I'm reading Leviathan now. He hasn't gotten to politics yet, but it's fun to read philosophy written in Early Modern English.

>only exist to serve the state.
Is that what Hobbes thought? I thought he figured humans are better off serving the state, but I don't think he'd word it like that.

you really sound like a leftist atheist rping as a absolutist

He likely wouldn't, I am merely using his image since he is symbolic of the absolutist philosophy of the enlightenment.
Liberalism holds that the government should subvert its own interest and economic benefit to support those who provide nothing back to the state. It is fundamentally flawed in its approach, and is the inverse of any functioning society.

Feminists agree. They can't wait to get their pussies cut off, lashed, beaten, raped, covered from head to tow, and just generally demoralized on a daily basis by a vicious patriarchy. Wow, who wouldn't want Sharia!

Yeah, your fascist government's will. Free market capitalism or death. Literally.

A senate?

In my absolutism?

Explain how the law is equivalent to absolute moral truth for me senpai. If the law states that I may, nay, MUST fuck your wife while you watch jacking off in the corner, is that moral? Or does the state have to limit itself to a greater moral code?

RESTORE THE STUARTS

A free market does not benefit the state, as individuals will subvert the will of the government for their own financial profit and economic power. The most beneficial economic system for the state can be stated as mercantilism.
The ultimate point of the existence of the individual is to serve the state, and as such, "morality" as a term shall be therefore defined by what the state dictates the individual should do with their lives. If for whatever reason the government decided it was in its best interest for you to fuck one's wife while they watched, so would it be deemed right and fair. The state need only limit itself to what benefits it and its goals, nothing more.

>A free market does not benefit the state, as individuals will subvert the will of the government for their own financial profit and economic power. The most beneficial economic system for the state can be stated as mercantilism.


>england
>use navy to achieve economic dominance via colonialism
>it was free trade guys open your markets we promise

So any authoritarian state the individual subsumes himself into is "right and fair"? Even horrific Communist dictatorships where millions starve to death?
Also, you genuinely believe a literal cuck-state would be moral as long as muh government said so? You genuinely need Jesus, user.

Yes. As long society continues to function and the state's power is unquestioned, it is not its concern who lives or dies. Death and suffering are realities of life, and should not deter the any monarch or government's agenda.

What makes the monarch or dictator an individual above individuals? How do you objectively argue for the supremacy of the state over the average citizen, we the people, so to speak? Is the state not comprised of it's individual members?

But laws are muatually benificial rules. Individuals have rights agreed with their soverign. Absolutism isnt about enslaving their subjects its about putting supreme authority into a single body. With the expectation that the authority is used to benefit the state which in turns benefit the people which ultimately profits the sovereign.

The state as an entity possesses much greater power than any individual within it, or even the sum of all its subjects. It exists with more longevity and purpose than any individual. The state may rule over a collection of different people over the term of its existence, but it continues to persist after each of them perish. The state's will will always continue to exist so long as it retains power, no matter how many generations it controls. As it continues to exist, the state develops a form of immortality, and becomes a deity in its own right. meanwhile the good of the people ebbs and sways with each generation, and often conflicts between different groups in society. It is impossible to serve the wills of every person in society, but it is possible to serve the will of the state itself. A monarch or dictator exists as the embodiment of the state, and since the state is an entity that exceeds any normal man, and since his will becomes the will of the state, his will is almost that of a god, making him a lord above his mortal flock.

You yourself acknowledge the state is finite, and therefore, not immortal. Nations and empires, no matter how great, rise and fall. States are founded and controlled by men. Man creates state. Therefore, would the man not be the deity to the state? Would the state not exist to serve the man?