The more I think about it, the more anarcho-monarchism makes sense

The more I think about it, the more anarcho-monarchism makes sense.

quick rundown on what is anarcho monarchism¿

That makes no fucking sense

a retarded oxymoron

...

>ITT: retards that haven't read Hoppe
I hate nu-Sup Forums.

>what is anarcho monarchism
retarded, that's what

Correct

Anarcho monarchalism is a free market system in which government is as small as possible and capitalism runs free. The limited tasks of government: military, international diplomacy, limited public services are administered by an unelected monarch who represents and preserves the culture morally, ethnically and culturally.

A political ideology in which the monarch is counterposed against state bureaucracy, a representative for the people against the state. A dark messiah.

Thats fucking comic book tier. Although it does make sense now that I think about it.Although it would be hard to pull off considering you need to have actual super powers.

Those nigger dicks really did a number on your mental capacity

>Anarcho
>government

Essentially, the idea is that a stateless society is preferable, but that in a stateless society people will sometimes look to great leaders and that's fine as long as it's completely voluntary.

In theory, anarcho-monarchism is very similar to anarcho-capitalism, wherein you'd own the land you live and work on, and you entering into an agreement with your neighbor that you'll both help defend the each other's property from intruders does not mean that either one of you now owns part of the other's property (unless that's part of the agreement). Swearing fealty to your neighbor would be slightly different in that as long as he remains your king, and as long as you accept his authority, he does actually have a say in how you manage his property. If, however, you for any reason decide that he's not a suitable king (maybe he gives out a whole bunch of weirdass decrees, or maybe he just takes massive poops in your front lawn) you would just be able to say that you resign your fealty; he's no longer your king, you don't pay him taxes, and he and his other subjects no longer help you defend your property.

The king dude in TWD is a great example.

loool

>"In his selfishness, every man his own king"
Theres a certain poetry about it.

So basically, the second the king dies and his retarded nephew takes over, all society crumbles and hundreds if not thousands die of poverty or starvation?

that's the basis of all anarcho societies

Assuming people wouldn't be able to handle things on their own or simply choose another, more capable, king? Yes, I suppose.

So it's basically just monarchism, except the king isn't allowed to do shit (implying he won't) when his subjects revolt or secede.

It could be argued that there's no great difference between anarcho-capitalism and a feudal society. Some anarcho-monarchists have even said that if a state is truly necessary, it's better that it'd be an unconstitutional monarchy so as to get rid of all illusions that the government serves some form of "public good." Instead of "the government has decided" we'd say "king Walter and his gang has decided," and instead of saying "community property" we'd say "the king's property." There would be no mistaking who the laws actually serve and who actually benefits from the decrees.

Professor Tolkien raised similar sentiments in one of his letters:
>"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to ‘King George’s council, Winston and his gang’, it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy."

That's more like it senpai, I'm leaning between national socialism and enlightened absolute monarchism myself

It makes as much sense as individualist communism

> you would just be able to say that you resign your fealty; he's no longer your king, you don't pay him taxes, and he and his other subjects no longer help you defend your property.

So what happens if the "king" gets pissed, has his retainers break in at night and kill you and your family and give your property to one of his friends?

Honestly, I prefer Anarcho-Patriarchism.
Your fathers and mothers are your leaders, its natural, literally the first political system you are a part of when you're born. And your family is obliged to only your family. No outside state, or any state in which an unrelated person lords over your family.
Louis de Bonald is a great resource for learning about the family as a political engine