Monarchy Thread

I'm not really a particularly avid supporter of monarchy, but the last thread about it had some really intriguing discussions on it, so I thought I'd start up another thread. I hope you enjoy.

Other urls found in this thread:

unqualified-reservations.blogspot.pt/2008/11/patchwork-positive-vision-part-1.html?m=1
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Anglo-Saxon (not to be confused with post Norman British) monarchy is the ultimate redpill

How so?

I'm more of a Hoppean libertarian (micro-nations run by competing insurance companies, natural elites or voluntarily-organized property owners) but absolute monarchy would be my second best option. Have a bump friend.

Have you read Moldbug's Patchwork?

No I have not. Why?

He is one of those Neo-Reaction/Dark Enlightenment tech guys who wish to return to old societal configurations such as monarchy, traditional gender roles, decentralized governments, etc.

He writes in Patchwork that we need to adopt neo-cameralism and start looking at governments as just another company in the free market, subject to competition from multiple actors and operating in terms of efficiency and quality, not democracy or pandering.

unqualified-reservations.blogspot.pt/2008/11/patchwork-positive-vision-part-1.html?m=1

"A joint-stock realm simply cannot have anything comparable to a weak monarch of the classical era. Realms will certainly recruit their executives from the same talent pool large companies now draw from. How many Fortune 500 CEOs today are regularly bullied and led by coalitions of their nominal subordinates, as (for just one example) the French monarchy so often was? Zero is probably too easy an answer, but at least an approximation.

Note, however, that we are not considering anything like the watered-down "constitutional" (ie, again, ceremonial) monarchies of the democratic period. If the joint-stock realm is like a monarchy, it is like a true, "absolute" or (most pejoratively) "divine-right monarchy."

With all due respect, dear reader, the probability that you have a sound understanding of the case for divine-right monarchy is approximately the probability that a large white goat will fall out of my ass. This means you need to read the great English exponent of absolute government, Sir Robert Filmer, and his masterpiece Patriarcha."

I think you'll like it.

I'll have to take a look, then. Thanks for the rec.

Monarchies are fucking stupid

Dynasties too

>Inb4 democracy fag

I'm not a big fan of democracy but if were gonna go the authoritarian route, an oligarchy free of corruption would be better because an oligarchy would run on logic and care rather than blind faith that dynasties and monarchies show

If you kneel to a mortal, you are a fucking cuck

Imagine if the king went to your house and demanded to have sex with your wife

Knowing you faggots, you'd all say yes

Pathetic

Why would an oligarchy run on logic and care? I'm not attacking you, but can you explain your reasoning?

>Imagine if the king went to your house and demanded to have sex with your wife
Kings are bound by the same private law as their subjects with the exception of being the only people to whom their subjects may turn in for protection services. A king that expropriated more property than he needed would be seen as illegitimate and his over reaches of power suspicious.

Considering how most monarchies have been overthrown, they don't seem to be the most stable government form.

And yet the democratic period has been the age of ubiquitous warfare, civilian genocide and terror.

Read Michael Howard's "War in European History," it has lots of great insights as to how the popularization of democracy since 1918 altered confrontations and made wars much more savage and cruel.

literally not a single argument presented

kill self

this is the most peaceful time in human history you dumb faggot

>saxons
Ishygddt

>this is the most peaceful time in human history

>2017
>Not being a Monarchy

ISHYGDDT

Uhm no sweetie it isn't.

Also, check 'em

I just learned that the queen of England owns absolutely every single inch of land in britain and its territories and that nobody actually owns a piece of land other than her and the crown..


Does that go ditto for Canada as well since their PM has to swear to her majesty the queen of England to be a good boy and do a swell job?


Fuck the kings and queens. We don't need them

gnom gnom

But there are more government types than monarchy and democracy.

A non corrupt oligarchy would generally put the country before the ego

A country based on respect is good

A country based on worship is submission and foolishness

So basically a timocracy?

The anglosaxons had strong traditions that valued freedom even more fiercely than america's founding fathers. For them having a king was never an issue because if that king broke away from traditional freedoms and started acting like a tyrant they would very quickly take up arms. It was common for there to be a small rebellion every 20 or so years.

It is a fact of life that all governments will eventually over step their boundaries and grow like a cancer unless checked by force. The more often it is checked the less painful the process.

With the people being quick to take up arms not only did government respect the people more but there was less blood shed than you would find in a pent up civil war.

Why can't this work in a republic or democracy? Because these forms of government are entrenched hydras whereas a king is a single mark that can easily be replaced.

How is anglosaxon monarchy different from other monarchies? It is largely based in tradition. The anglosaxon monarchs acknowledged that they derived their power from the people and historically did not wear crowns but tradional anglosaxon helmet as a symbol of protection. Other monarchs base their power on divine right.

So what happened to the brits? The Norman invasion which lead to suppression of the old ways and mass slaughter of anglosaxon towns

The BBC documentary "The Monarchs" explains it best.

Good if the Monarch knows what they are doing and is open to counsel and has loyal subjects.

Bad if you have a clueless idiot who enjoys pleasure and disloyal subjects.

I think the ideal Monarchy would be a Constitutional Parliamentary Monarchy with the Monarch being proactive in legislating and acting as a point of redress.

But who are we kidding? There is an old saying that wealth only lasts for three generations. The first establishes the tools, the second earns the wealth and the third forgets everything and pisses it.

Historically the people would take up arms and the nobility would jump on such an opportunity to replace the tyrant king

Interesting. I myself am directly descended from the Norman invaders, so if what you say is true, then my family has contributed to the decline of this Anglo-Saxon tradition. However, I am not fully convinced that this system is completely stable, as from what you've said, "It was common for there to be a small rebellion every 20 or so years." Why would this be preferable?

Although this may sound strange and counter intuitive; the fact that monarchies are easy to overthrow is exactly why they are generally more stable and last longer than republics.

A mature king (regardless his character) knows how very easy it is to be overthrown and therefore treads lightly or strikes swiftly when needed.

And when a king truly needs to be disposed of, a relative or noble taking his place can quickly get the ball rolling again.

In contrast republics historically fester with corruption and injustice until a very costly civil war and in some cases the death of the country as a whole.

Ah. This answers my question then. However, too much instability can be a bad thing as well. How would you counteract against this?

>a non corrupt oligarchy

So one run by straight traps, peaceful muslims, charitable Jews, sober Russians and clean Indians?

Also see "iron rule of oligarchy"
All forms of government eventually have issues with an oligarchy which almost always go hand in hand with corruption.

Oligarchy can hardly corrupt a king. It's more of a potential influence from the king's ministers than a corrupt one.

Historically there has always been 3 branches for checks and balances. But it wasn't executive, judicial and legislative it was Crown, Nobility and People. Each side kept the other from getting too crazy.

And while the rebellions were far more common it wouldn't be correct to think of them in the same way you would think of the civil war. In most cases these rebellions were like the Bundy Ranch stand off with the Feds and at worst like Shay's Rebellion unless a noble got involved.

While it may appear unstable at first glance when you take into consideration the respect it forms between these 3 powers and the overall bloodshed it prevents in the long run it is far more stable. It is like the difference between a flowing volcano and Yellowstone

A monarchy is the best defense against the iron rule of oligarchy. While still susceptible to it it has better odds of wiping the slate clean.

The king can easily call upon the people who by such a time have likely already developed issues with the oligarchy and wipe them out.

In contrast look at Trump and what some are calling the shadow government.

This just doesn't happen in monarchies.

The king doesn't have to call upon the people to "wipe" out any oligarch. He makes the oligarch and can remove them alone. Otherise nobles don't have all that great of an influence on a king to bother him to the point he'd want them killed.

Nicolas Fouquet was imprisoned for life by Louis XIV after he felt humiliated by him for having a better estate than the king himself, he was his superintendent of finance.