[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / caco / cafechan / doomer / ss / tingles / vp / zoo ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Ya'll need Mises.

File: 9c57cb47ba43482⋯.jpg (77.68 KB, 600x593, 600:593, Folder.jpg)

 No.96745

>Dark Enlightenment

thoughts?

 No.96746

>>96745

A reactionary ideology, so it is only temporary in solution.


 No.96764

>>96746

Communism is also reactionary to monarchy, as is the concept of individualism and liberty. Everything current is a reaction to something that came previously. Imagining that the universe is guiding humans to "progress" towards some goal is an absolute fucking fiction.

If liberty oversteps its bounds and turns to degeneracy, the next reactionary movement will be to bring us back to monarchy, fascism and other such disciplines.


 No.96770

>>96764

>Imagining that the universe is guiding humans to "progress" towards some goal is an absolute fucking fiction.

Wrote the Christian monarchist. So, you just believe what's useful in the moment, then? That's unsurprising.


 No.96778

File: c73dca4e46b060e⋯.png (99.96 KB, 229x230, 229:230, 1523334045827.png)

>>96770

He never said he was Christian.


 No.96783

>>96778

He made it plainly obvious elsewhere, Ms. Rose.


 No.96825

>>96770

A) What does christianity have to do with fuckall.

B) Not a christian, I follow the faith in sunken thule that will rise again. Christianity is just a spinnof, just like judaism is a spinoff of christianity.

>you just believe what's useful in the moment

Call me when you put together a statement supported by logic or evidence.

>>96783

On this board, more than one person wears the crown. There is at least one other.


 No.96880

>>96764

individualism and liberty existed before monarchy


 No.96886

>>96880

And photons existed before thermonuclear bombs, what is your point?


 No.96888

>>96886

the point is the paradox of your statement where the reaction occurs prior to the cause


 No.96927

>>96888

It only seems a paradox if youre retarded. Cycles are fucking normal in our universe, ie the crap you shit out fertilizes the plants you will eventually eat. Liberty can cause degenracy which causes civilization to collapse or change into totalitarianism, which gets too overbearing and through revolt turns into liberty again.


 No.96964

>>96927

>Hurr durr individualism is reactionary to monarchy(not a commie btw)

>What do you mean self-ownership predates servitude?

>It's just cycles, it's already happened some time, i promise.

>Liberty can cause degenracy

I see the only source of degeneracy here - you and i'm sure that it's only your liberty that causes it. Leftist faggot.


 No.96985

a fusion of autism, edge, and politics


 No.97005

>>96964

<liberty can't cause degeneracy

Fucking lol.


 No.97007

File: c195bbd9a44a650⋯.png (116.14 KB, 282x284, 141:142, ride-vendor.png)

>>97005

Natural selection, nigga. Smoke, drink, philander, fap, loaf at your own risk. Nobody but you will pay for the consequences (except second-hand smoke, which is why we now physically remove smokers).


 No.97009

>>97007

People that make shitty decisions don't just turn into responsible individuals and deal with the consequences themselves. No, they whip out guns, and they force you to pay for their new liver.


 No.97010

>>97009

>they whip out guns, and they force you to pay for their new liver.

You can't do that if there's no welfare state, bud.


 No.97012

>>97010

Maybe, but how do you prevent the rise of a welfare state?

The majority of people make wrong decisions and fail to take responsibility for it, if you're living in most free societies, that means you get outvoted and they create a welfare state whether or not you want it to exist. That's literally how Americans lost their freedom, it got voted away. Wasn't a tyrant, wasn't an invasion, just the majority making a single bad decision every 40 years or so.


 No.97013

>>96764

Fascism is a branch of socialism.


 No.97019

>>97013

In the same way that communism is a branch of capitalism.


 No.97020

>>97019

Oh and also capitalism is a branch of feudalism.

;^))


 No.97021

File: b21cfe120627561⋯.jpg (82.41 KB, 736x446, 368:223, hoppe democracy.jpg)

>>97012

By preventing the rise of a state.

>that means you get outvoted

You can't outvote or get outvoted if there's no democracy.

>Wasn't a tyrant, wasn't an invasion, just the majority making a single bad decision every 40 years or so.

I'm well aware of that and I don't disagree. While not everyone on /liberty/ is a monarchist sympathizer I and a couple others definitely are, almost no one here is all that fond of democracy.


 No.97023

>>97012

>Wasn't a tyrant, wasn't an invasion

Someone is forgetting the Civil War. In which freedom loving men said "actually, this is gay, we're leaving" and their authoritarian cousins said "NOPE, GREATER GOOD LOL" and destroyed their liberty forever.


 No.97027

>>97023

That war was fought and lost before the first shot was fired. The majority, which lived in huge urban areas in the north, are the majority we're talking about here >>97012 This:

>actually, this is gay, we're leaving

Happened as a response to the degeneracy and the demands of the degenerate which already existed. Proves my point exactly.

>>97021

Ok but that's fictional parallel universe waste of time argument. States have already risen, and once a single state exists, everyone else has to have their own state to compete with it. The key is how to prevent the rise of the welfare state within the system we have now. Make the lack of a welfare state so competitive with welfare states that it leaves them behind in the dust.

You invent that and you win the fucking CROWN my friend.


 No.97032

File: fa1fe05ee77ce55⋯.pdf (1.83 MB, Myth of National Defense, ….pdf)

>>97027

>The key is how to prevent the rise of the welfare state within the system we have now

That's impossible. Not just "difficult," it's quite literally impossible without changing the system so radically that it's no longer "the system we have now." As you so correctly pointed out, the incentives present in a democracy, even one with limited suffrage, make the creation of a welfare state inevitable. This is also true in non-democratic dictatorships, it just take a little bit longer for the inevitable to happen. It's even true, to the smallest, tiniest extent, in monarchy. But in monarchy the inevitable is delayed longest of all, which makes it preferable to every other system besides the natural order of ancap, which is the only one in which the welfare state is not inevitable.

Given that preventing the welfare state is impossible within the present system, and uprooting it is immensely impractical and unlikely, the only viable tactic left if we're limiting ourselves to the here-and-now is to slow its influence down as much as possible. Limiting demographics to low time-preference, culturally compatible natives who will strain the system less than r-selected vermin. Liberalizing every other sector of the economy which in the case of things like healthcare is about as easy as removing the welfare state, but nevertheless to keep the market as functional as possible, and not introducing any new anchors on it besides the fuckhueg one of the welfare state. This has the dual purpose of keeping quality of life as high as possible, minimizing the suffering wrought by democracy, while also giving you breathing room to educate more people on the values of liberty.

>States have already risen, and once a single state exists, everyone else has to have their own state to compete with it

Not at all. The stateless ancapistan would be much more economically productive than its statist neighbors, which not only gives it an economic advantage, it means that all of the businessmen within those states is using ancapistan as the ultimate tax haven and keeping all of their wealth there–no state could invade ancapistan without royally pissing off every captain of industry. If your argument is from purely a military/security standpoint, decentralized ancapistan is actually easier to defend from invasion than a traditional state. With a centralized state, an invader need only capture the capital or head of state to induce the whole country to capitulate, and all of the infrastructure for subjugation is already present, and already state-controlled, saving them a lot of work. In decentralized ancapistan, there's no capital to capture and no president that claims to speak on behalf of the whole region. An invading force would have to kick down every door (most of which have guns waiting behind them) in ancapistan to pacify the whole region, and, having done so, would have to set up from scratch the infrastructure of state-run courts and police in order to begin governing the area. It's not impossible, but it's such a difficult and time-consuming task that most states simply wouldn't bother, especially when you consider the economic implications on top of the military instead of each of those separately. If you like Hoppe (and as a monarchist I have a feeling you'd appreciate him), he has a nice set of essays on this subject, entitled The Myth of National Defense.


 No.97034

File: 64c6223b04683b8⋯.png (1.08 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, RWDS.png)

>>97009

>People that make shitty decisions don't just turn into responsible individuals and deal with the consequences themselves.

That's because the consequences are usually disability or death.

>No, they whip out guns, and they force you to pay for their new liver

Nitpick: anyone that far gone is probably too frail/jaundiced to lift up a gun. Besides, the sort of degeneracy that breeds violence was begotten by state-waged domestic wars. In turn, such violence has already begotten markets for local protection services (gated communities, home security, private guards, etc.).


 No.97039

>>97005

>liberty can't cause degeneracy

Oh, it surely can. If you was deprived of it, i'm sure there would be a lot less degeneracy in the world.

>No, they whip out guns, and they force you to pay for their new liver.

Just like you would, right?

>>97019

Oh, so this monarchy flag faggot is actually a real leftist. Kill yourself, statist scum.

>>97012

>most free societies

>outvoted

I see why you hate liberty so much now. It's your lack of any intellect or rational thought to blame.

>>97021

>While not everyone on /liberty/ is a monarchist sympathizer

You should separate monarchists and rabid leftists like him who just think that monarchy is some kind of fascism and are shitty little /pol/ boys at their core.

>Happened as a response to the degeneracy and the demands of the degenerate which already existed

You'd be the one who spread degeneracy and whined about gibs the most, worthless scum.

>>97032

This


 No.97040

File: f17daa6cf09870b⋯.jpg (37.45 KB, 608x448, 19:14, catchphrase.jpg)


 No.97042

>>97021

>While not everyone on /liberty/ is a monarchist sympathizer I and a couple others definitely are

Would you be fond of Monarchy if anarcho Capitalism wasn't available? Or are you like Hoppe who believes individual liberty could still be upheld in a monarchist society? Ancap and Monarchy seem like polar opposite ideas


 No.97050

File: 0bc266e6265fa24⋯.png (1.03 MB, 756x480, 63:40, 1518291799491.png)

>>97042

Monarchy isn't ancap, but it's closer to ancap than modern democratic republicanism. Calling them polar opposites would be a mistake. I would say read DtGtF, but I'll give you a taste of Hoppe's arguments.

>Time preference argument

A monarch owns the capital stock of his estate and will pass it down to his heir, so he has an incentive to refrain from looting his subjects as well as to improve/secure his estate. Elected officials are temporary caretakers with no concern for who has power next, so they are incentivized to loot the country as fast as possible (term limits only prolong the issue). Some interesting evidence that Hoppe presents in his book is that no monarch ever taxed more than 8% of his national income before World War I. This would be a godsend in today's world.

>Class consciousness

In a monarchic/aristocratic order, oppressors and parasites are more obvious, so it is more feasible for people to take to the streets and hang the mayor if he raises taxes (recalling again that taxes never broke 8%). Democracy has made them apathetic; after all, *we* are the government, so if we don't like what's happening now, we can just vote it away later, right?

<lol

Neoreactionaries probably wouldn't care for this argument.

>Welfarism/cronyism

Few monarchs in history were ever able to conduct the sort of redistribution that we see today, for the above reason. It also wasn't nearly as easy to petition the monarch to give you free things, since you couldn't offer him anything in return. Today, promising free stuff for the voters means free voters for you, and subsidizing big business is always a good investment if you plan on being a career politician.

>Warfare

As discussed, since monarchs see their estates as property, they are disincentivized from looting them, let alone destruction. Hence, when a monarch engages in wars of expansion, he has less incentive to use destructive power, since he'd be destroying new holdings. Compare this to the American Civil War, where the goal was merely to crush the south; since none of that land would go to Lincoln's (or anyone else's) personal territory, it was perfectly alright for Sherman to destroy towns and burn crops. All wars following the decline of monarchy have also reflected this, as newer, crueler, and stronger weapons have been developed and put to use (the idea of a monarch using a nuke is absolutely unthinkable).


 No.97068

>>97042

I'd see monarchy as the least bad alternative. Monarchy and ancap aren't polar opposites; monarchy is the closest governmental system to ancap because in a monarchy, the monarch's realm is his private property, as opposed to public property that he has temporary control of. >>97050 lays down why the two align pretty well.


 No.97081

>>97032

There are ways and ways, but it's a long road unless you want to use nukes.

For example spreading technology and knowledge that helps people avoid paying taxes. The government can't possibly audit everyone. The IRS has 10,000 agents and it takes about 5 hours to audit a single tax return, that's a maximum cap of 4 million audits per year even with them working non stop on this. In a country of 250 million taxpayers.

>>97039

>massive butthurt


 No.97087

>>97081

>hurr durr ur butthurt

Kill yourself, leftist


 No.97115

>>97039

>If you was

Nigger spotted


 No.97130

>>97050

>A monarch… has an incentive to refrain from looting his subjects

You don't say. Neither does a president. Both treat plebs like cattle to be butchered and fleeced. Right now they import a cheaper but more numerous breed, that's all. Victoria and her cabinet Holodomoring the Irish was proper management of dirty plebs alright.

And don't get me started on Asian despots wrecking the lives and freedoms if like 1/4 world population for the pettiest reasons. A blog called Bloody Shovel went into details how monarchies are in no way better than democracies when both treat tax cattle like tax cattle, and actually much worse as a terrible monarch has waaay more time and power to wreck things than a temporary president.

>oppressors and parasites are more obvious

Implying people don't hate 'the pigs', 'the big biz' and 'the Man' right now.

>it is more feasible for people to take to the streets and hang the mayor if he raises taxes

If you do that to a manor overseer, the cavalry will arrive and torture and kill the dirty serfs until they get back to being a tax cattle.

If you do that to a city mayor in the US, you'll have the National Guard tanks and choppers killing and torturing domestic terrorists until they get back to being a tax cattle.

I don't see any essential differences there, do you?

Dzhugashvili wasn't called "the Red Emperor" for no good reason, you know.

>Democracy has made them apathetic

Superior firepower makes people apathetic. One time there was a successful uprising in a gulag in Kazlag area, iirc, starved slaves with sticks and rifles were put down by tanks and artillery. Or that time a certain jewlet Tukhachevsky used WWI gas artillery against literal peasants.

People don't rebel when they believe a rebellion to end in death, so why bother.

>Few monarchs in history were ever able to conduct the sort of redistribution that we see today

<XVIII century Eastern European not_slaves wailing in the distance

> It also wasn't nearly as easy to petition the monarch to give you free things

That is why the barons or the magnates or whoever would topple or blackmail him if he refused them rights and privileges at the expense of 95% of dirty plebs

>Today, promising free stuff for the voters means free voters for you, and subsidizing big business is always a good investment if you plan on being a career politician.

Yesterday, promising free stuff for the gentry meant free troops for you, and subsidizing big families was always a good investment if you planned on being a good king.

>since monarchs see their estates as property, they are disincentivized from looting them

The cattle is pleased to know that it will be butchered in an orderly and planned fashion, not wholesale nor random. Such improvement, many thanks.

>since none of that land would go to Lincoln's (or anyone else's) personal territory, it was perfectly alright for Sherman to destroy towns and burn crops

I guess the rosy knights wouldn't dare trample the dirty plebs' fields nor rob and kill them for giggles. Especially not if they are raiding a neighbour to sabotage his realm, oh noes, Jesus would be so upset. Hundreds on hundreds of raids for loot is fantasy fiction of 1000 years ago too.

>the idea of a monarch using a nuke is absolutely unthinkable

I guess that's the reason the Kim dynasty exchanges a couple million starved plebs for nukes to burn Guam or something. But they are not reeeel monarchs aka hereditary despots, because reasons.

Monarchists to right anarchists are what stalinists are to left anarchists. Literally cucks, or wannaby KBG/Barons at best.


 No.97137

>>97068

>Monarchy and ancap aren't polar opposites

Monarchy: Let's have a state, one in which one man and to a lesser extent his family and some nobles, have power to do anything they like to anyone for any reason, save for being constrained by some political nonsense like a charter or a senate

Ancap: Let's not have a state.

I can see the compatibility, it's so clear in my mind. They aren't in any way opposed, especially not polar opposites like on and off.


 No.97140

>>97137

Absolute soverginity over a patch of land and the serfs on it, generally heritable.


 No.97141

>>97137

>monarchy

<lets have 1 dude able to order me around, maybe he lets his freinds do it by proxy

>ancap

<nobody will order me around

>democracy

<please, step on me, everyone im such a pathetic worm I want you all to step on me and violate and use me however you please!~

monarchy is a lot closer to ancap then democracy is m8


 No.97146

File: a74534c81829a5e⋯.jpg (96.68 KB, 243x483, 81:161, 1510524426927.jpg)

>>97137

>If they're not the same thing they must be polar opposites

>>97130

>Both treat plebs like cattle to be butchered and fleeced

Conceded. The argument is that monarchs tax/appropriate less than elected leaders do. As mentioned, monarchs never took more than 8% of the national income. In 2017, the US gov't got 27.1% of the GDP in tax revenue (compared to OECD average of 34.2%).

Source: https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-united-states.pdf

It's also worth pointing out that Hoppe and other adherents to his reasoning aren't "monarchists" per se, but ancaps who see the ancien regime as preferable to the modern state, though still not the Rothbardia we're looking for.

>Asian despots

Also worth mentioning that Hoppe's book treats Western monarchies only. I'm sure all the Confucian, Buddhist, Hindu, Legalist, etc. kings were right bastards.

>the pigs

/leftypol/ meme

>big biz

>Implying Bezos, Musk, Gates, Jobs, Buffett, et al aren't the public pantheon

>the Man

Most anyone who hates "the Man" today is a red who hates the blue gov't or a blue who hates the red gov't; both of them wholeheartedly believe they can vote their villains out. Uprising scarcely crosses their minds.

>People don't rebel when they believe a rebellion to end in death

If this were indeed the case, a vast majority of historical rebellions would never have happened. They always seem hopeless before they've ended, but idealism, especially patriotism, motivates people to do the darndest things.

<Few X do Y

>Example of X doing Y

>barons or the magnates or whoever would topple or blackmail him

>free stuff for the gentry meant free troops for you

>subsidizing big families was always a good investment

I'll have to concede this and read up more on monarch-aristocrat relations.

>butchered in an orderly and planned fashion, not wholesale or random

You'd prefer a high and rising tax over a consistently low one?

>rosy knights wouldn't dare trample the dirty plebs' fields nor rob and kill them for giggles

>hundreds on hundreds of raids for loot is fantasy fiction

Yeah, believe it or not, people weren't all complete sociopaths before the French Revolution. Berserk isn't a history book.

>Kim dynasty

Again, western monarchies, not eastern monarchies. If you want to criticize the Kims (rightfully so, in any case), find an orientalist.


 No.97176

>>97146

>/leftypol/ meme

Sorry for being two oceans away from the US of A, so the dank memes arrive with a notable lag. English is not my native language, but I hope you got the gist. Such cases are in here in North Eurasia anyway.

>Yeah, believe it or not, people weren't all complete sociopaths before the French Revolution.

I look into the window to see dumb whores of second tier politicians running over kiddies with their imported wheeled monstrosities, guilt free, no repercussions, the state always covering their stupid cunt because daddy doesn't give a shit about plebs. Power+impunity=shitshow.

Would a knight just royally cruise on a peasant's field, especially if its not his own peasant and he & liege are actively at war with the owner? There's a reason folk tales treated knights and aristocracy poorly.

If a man can cause havoc guilt free, he will. Turns out you can do just that in enemy territory. Or your uppity neighbour's, for one.

>If this were indeed the case, a vast majority of historical rebellions would never have happened.

People didn't have the internet then, and absolute majority never ventured outside extremely narrow regions like a couple villages or their city outskirts. So most people had pretty vague idea of state's power or size.

Being overexploited illiterates deadly tired of humiliations helped peasants' revolts too. Still almost all of them ended the same. I can only recall a Bulgarian peasant-king Ivaylo rising to power in such an uprising, successful for once, yet he still spent a whooping 2 years of his reign figthing on three fronts and ended up dead.

You know, the Roman Church invented Pax Christi because the knights made common plebs life unbearable enough it hurted Church taxing that much? When it didn't help, they made up the Crusades idea to at least entice some knight to fuck off somewhere else and stop terrorizing plebs who can't pay their 10% Church tax. This is like a document phase of Europe's societal development, not just some shit I make up as I go.

This happened because stirrups became popular enough in the West in XI century to make mounted strikes feasible, so a mounted knight could charge the dirty plebs with impunity. Before that charging was impossible, so a long enough pointy stick was enough to drive away or kill a marauding hedge knight. Not anymore, so the Western European plebs wailed all the High Middle Ages until the Plague made their overlords reconsider their stance a bit.


 No.97177

>>97146

>You'd prefer a high and rising tax over a consistently low one?

I prefer no tax at all. And I am not convinced with low taxes tales. The aristocracy never paid taxes anyway until the Absolutism Age, and most of population was enserfed, that is effectively enslaved, and paid their "taxes" in forced labour to their overlord. And then the monarch would tax you as much as any modern policy using modern tech.

If you are talking about how American colonists paid like ~8% of revenue in taxes to George III and pay like half their revenue to USA now, rest assured George III would have been pleased to tax the shit out of the colonies, but the colonies being an ocean away close to enemy territory, poor in revenue and costly in maintenance kinda tied his hands. The British on the Isles paid much more taxes than the Americans, because they were so much closer and easier to exploit.

There is NOTHING preventing a monarch from taking the most of other people's money as the tech and plebs allow him, aside from fairy tales. The Red Monarchs had no specifically after-Plague constraints nor pre-modern tech limitations and enslaved-genocided hundreds of millions, any other modern monarch will be no different. And Politburo politics are a carbon copy of any monarch's court happenings.

Putin is effectively a monarch with FSB and FSO knightly retinue and a well known clique of billionaire not_magnates dividing USSR leftovers as their personal fiefs. Take a closer look and think ffs.

>Again, western monarchies

Only in the short time frame between the Plague and the Age of Absolutism due to circumstances outside of politics (the Plague, the nascent firearms, the foreign yet powerful and militant Church somewhat protecting its tax cattle for over-exploitation). Little to no difference earlier. The Roman Empire was a shitshow of same proportions to any Persian or Chinese shenanigans.

And they you have the absolute shitfest of the Reformation with like half of Germany genocided because Rome needed money for whore fests, as if the genocidal Albigensian Crusade - literal genocide of heretics i.e. church tax evaders in Southern France - wasn't telling enough.

Please don't be a rosy American enamoured with an image of a God ordained saintly King. It never worked that way in Europe, no more than your American Dream works now.

Because the Middle Ages had enough republics alright, who behaved the same. If you don't trust me, trust the Greeks, for already ~2300 years ago people knew monarchies, as any other form or rule, turn to shit fast because of people. Google on the Political Cycle, same old shit repeats itself over and over again.

This is the reason were are here anarchist, no? Or at least lolbertarians. If any form of rule turns to exploitative shit, maybe not having any rule is best.


 No.97234

>>97177

by read monarchs you mean stalin and lenin and mao?

is Аляксандр Рыгоравіч Лукашэнка a monarch as well?

>Because the Middle Ages had enough republics alright, who behaved the same.

they had different laws

>Google on the Political Cycle, same old shit repeats itself over and over again.

so you agree with historicism as defined by Karl Popper?


 No.97235

>>97141

>>97146

Polar opposite necessarily applies to "off" and "on". A total power state is necessarily opposite no state at all, you fucking faggots. You might love the idea of a king or you might begrudgingly accept that kings are better than republics or democracies but either way you are wrong when you assert it's not opposite to freedom. They are anti-freedom as any other state model, perhaps more-so because they give the powers-that-be the DIVINE RIGHT to do whatever they want to you.

To reiterate: A total state, unlimited state power, is necessarily antithetical to zero state, no state power. They exist infinitely far from one another. You're thinking in horseshoes or something.


 No.97239

>>97176

>they made up the Crusades idea to at least entice some knight to fuck off

Nice fedora you've got there.

>not just some shit I make up as I go.

Only because someone else has made it up already.

>>97177

>There is NOTHING preventing a monarch from taking the most of other people's money as the tech and plebs allow him, aside from fairy tales.

Correct. And the way the monarch makes the most of other people's money is by taxing them less. For he understands that if he takes less now, there will be more for him to tax later, as the economy and wealth grew quicker with a less restrictive tax scheme. Republican states have no such incentives because republican rulers are never in office long enough to capitalize on such incentives, and so they blunder as much as they can in the short term at the expense of the long term, because by the tiem long term comes around somebody else is in office. Expecting low taxes from a monarch is not a "fairy tale," it requires nothing more noble than self-interest on the monarch's part.

>The Red Monarchs

>Putin is effectively a monarch

Putin is an elected official, which, regardless of the amount of power he holds, means his long-term incentives are going to be fundamentally different from that of a monarch. If you simply assign the term "monarch" to any and every autocrat you don't really understand what a monarch is.

>The Roman Empire was a shitshow

And the Roman Empire wasn't a monarchy now, was it?

>This is the reason were are here anarchist, no?

You realize being anarchist doesn't mean you're required to screech "GOVERNMENT GET OUT REEEE" on endless repeat, right? You don't need to be a statist to realize that some states are less bad than others.

>>97235

>To reiterate: A total state, unlimited state power, is necessarily antithetical to zero state, no state power.

Correct. And monarchies are not totalitarian states but authoritarian ones, which means they don't fit that definition.


 No.97249

>>97234

>is Аляксандр Рыгоравіч Лукашэнка a monarch as well?

There is a reason locals call his son Nikolai "Nicholas the Third Not_Romanov". His daddy is an absolute monarch in all but name. All the funnier the little bastard shares looks and character with that little blond tyrannical manlet from the Game of Whores, forgot his name. Geoffry? The one little shit that used his absolute monarch power to torture plebs for lulz.

>they had different laws

Ayyy tell that to Medici, who transitioned from republican patricians to feudal grand dukes just fine. Or that Venetian dude Pietro Orseolo who got to rule his own Hungary for some.

>so you agree with historicism as defined by Karl Popper?

I didn't read Popper nor care to. Exblain your question if you want answers.

>>97239

>Nice fedora you've got there.

This is not an argument.

I can't but see how the Popes didn't give to shit about Muslims ruling half the Christian world for many centuries, yet when there appeared an overabundance of unkillable burly guys on horses robbing plebs for lulz and thus interfering with church taxing the Church suddenly rediscovered Grave Concerns about the Holy Lands. Smells fishy.

>For he understands that if he takes less now, there will be more for him to tax later

This is like a homo economicus thinking slapped onto a guy with a fancy hat. Except the guy is homo sapience, and they more often than not are illogical and retarded as fuck. Also historically well documented to rob and enslave the shit out of each other for as long the documents existed. The Epic of Gilgamesh literally starts with a monarch raping and robbing his own subjects unopposed out of boredom. Starts.

The. First. Written. Epic. In history. Is about a monarch who rapes and kills for cheap lulz so much the gods decide to create a killer beast just to end the fucker already. Read a book for fucks sake.

You have perfect examples of kings like Sebastian of Portugal living in fairy tales up until they pointlessly wreck their kingdoms' armies fuck knows where and die there. Richard the Fuck England I'm Sailing Away on a Rape Spree should be more known to you, perhaps.

That's not taking kings like Ivan the Terrible absolutely wrecking their countries or all the murderous shitfest that was the 30 Years War.

>Putin is an elected official

You know better from overthere alright. He had one elections in his life, his first and last. Soviet 'elections' were slave training in doublethink excercises, modern elections here are more of a popularity poll. Each and every is framed from the beginning, Putin is not loosing any election nor is going anywhere but the grave.

>you don't really understand what a monarch is

Is that a whiff of Not Real Socialism? Were kings of Poland and Sweden not real monarchs because they were elected? Were the Holy Roman Emperors not monarchs? Because majority of them got elected alright. For life. Just like Soviet genseks were.

>And the Roman Empire wasn't a monarchy now, was it?

It was, that's the point! Did the monarchists forget the fabulous misadventures of Caligula, Nero, Diocletian and other bros?

>You realize being anarchist doesn't mean you're required to screech "GOVERNMENT GET OUT REEEE" on endless repeat, right?

Wrong, it does. Being an anarchist means you are against any political rule. An-Arche, Not-Rule. Anyone else claiming to be an anarchist yet thinking otherwise is a phony.

>You don't need to be a statist to realize that some states are less bad than others

Precisely why "anarcho"-monarchists are either delusional or are wannaby barons.

Having a temporary rule of a frequently changed official with constrained power is bad alright, the guy steals shit via taxs. So having an absolute tyrant with life term rule is somehow better… because why? Having absolute power for life with modern tech means he won't use it to absolutely oppress the shit out of his tax cattle?

I give you my prediction, dude, straight outte the Oracle of Delphi. The first not_king of Murrica will be the first to gulag you by tens of millions. In like 4 years tops, not 70.


 No.97252

>>97249

>Wrong, it does.

>Discussing ideas is useless, we must all just REEEEEE forever

I suppose I should thank you for being so up-front about your autism, it means there's no residual guilt when I stop paying attention to you.


 No.97257

File: bf1b9a6ddc92d4e⋯.jpg (65.46 KB, 632x421, 632:421, caligula.jpg)

>>97249

>Did the monarchists forget the fabulous misadventures of Caligula, Nero, Diocletian and other bros?

Every monarchist should be proud of it. Caligula appointing his horse as senator, a profound political statement. I will take what you people call tyrants over your heroes any day.


 No.97278

>>97249

>Ayyy tell that to Medici, who transitioned from republican patricians to feudal grand dukes just fine. Or that Venetian dude Pietro Orseolo who got to rule his own Hungary for some.

it does not deny that there was huge diversity and partitioning of europe, so republics did not behave the same


 No.97359

>>97087

>he's calling what he thinks is a religious person a "leftist"

Do you know what "leftist" means? Protip: as an atheitst - you are one.


 No.97374

File: 4b44d5de0f1f905⋯.jpg (5.66 KB, 255x94, 255:94, 3ce59b046f8aab380911ef9247….jpg)

>>97359

>what he thinks is a religious person

I only see another statist that uses his fetishes as an excuse to impose his authoritarian nature on others. Therefore, you're leftist.

>Protip: as an atheitst - you are one.

<Individualsim is leftist, trust me.

You're glowing.


 No.97389

>>97374

>anyone not an atheist is anti-individualist

Wew lad.


 No.97391

>>97389

That's not what i said.


 No.97396

>>97391

>Protip: as an atheitst - you are one.

<Individualsim is leftist, trust me.

That seems to be what you're implying.


 No.97400

>>97396

Look you dumb fucker, that illiterate idiot up there - the one who advocates nothing less than serfdom - said

>as an atheitst - you are one

Which is to say, he said it is necessarily true that Atheists are leftists. Then the man you've replied to merely restated it for the purposes of disagreement. Now you've claimed that he's saying something else. You're claiming he's saying

>anyone not an atheist is anti-individualist

Which isn't what he said. He said that poster was an authoritarian.

However, I'll go ahead and say it. If you believe in the God of the Bible you are for sure an authoritarian cuckold. You believe, for sure - no doubts about it, God knows better than you what you should do and maybe a bunch of other authorities do too. You believe, for sure, that it is wrong to think for yourself. It was so wrong people got kicked out of paradise for it. It is wrong to do anything that is on a big list of "bad things to do" penned either by the highest authority Himself, or people working on his behalf and with his will inside them. It necessarily follows that if you believe in a supreme authority of heaven that you are some degree of authoritarian. Perhaps a very, very weak degree, perhaps a very strong one. But it is necessary that you respect AT LEAST one authority above all things. It is necessary that you allow for your liberties and freedoms to be trampled upon by that authority. It is necessary that you submit to it.


 No.97401

>>97400

Just assume anyone with a CSA flag has a double digit IQ


 No.97402

File: 1ce0c99f27e59fb⋯.gif (1.71 MB, 500x500, 1:1, imblying.gif)

>>97400

The implication, as I saw it, was thus:

>as an atheist - you are one [a leftist]

Pretty self-explanatory. The guy then replied to that with:

<individualism is leftist, trust me

The first poster equated atheism with leftism. The second guy, by >implying that the first guy said "individualism is leftist" is >implying that he equates atheism with individualism. And the implication of that is that theism is non-individualist.

>you believe…

>you believe…

>all of these implications

>It necessarily follows that if you believe in a supreme authority of heaven that you are some degree of authoritarian.

>all top-down structure, voluntary or otherwise, is wrong, REEEEEEEEEEE

You're a half-step away from calling corporations systems of oppression because they involve a hierarchy.


 No.97403

File: 5e2e3f5d5898896⋯.jpg (13.21 KB, 255x186, 85:62, 0c7c02873f681c7ed80d8edb8a….jpg)

>>97402

>The second guy, by >implying that the first guy said "individualism is leftist" is >implying that he equates atheism with individualism.

>implying implications

You seem to be pained by the topic so i'll clarify - atheism, just like religiousness, doesn't necessary equate with individualism, though i'd say that theism has a lot more potential for authoritarianism in it, even though it's off topic and was not in that implication. Go spam fedoras or something, don't just reee for no reason other than your paranoia.


 No.97416

File: df545cd4f9f3e2d⋯.jpg (40.47 KB, 480x640, 3:4, df545cd4f9f3e2d78a0238fd54….jpg)

>>97402

The guy is a retard anyway because he doesn't understand where the concept of natural rights comes from, you'd have no rights if not for a supreme authority. Nigga doesnt even know what words mean


 No.97437

>>97416

>you'd have no rights if not for a supreme authority

RIGHTS ARE NOT GRANTED BY ANY AUTHORITY.

RIGHTS ARE TAKEN BY PERSONAL EFFORT.

MONARCHISTS ARE SERFS.

JUDEO-CHRISTIANS ARE CUCKS.

Am I getting heard over here? I really accentuated that the Sun is bright, the sky is blue and RIGHTS EXISTS INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY IMAGINARY SKY-DADDIES, much less random inbreds with fancy hats that claim to own other peoples as slaves because an imaginary sky-daddy nobody ever saw granted it to him personally.


 No.97444

>>97437

>give up your wealth or go to hell

Christianity is proto-socialism. People only believe in it because they're afraid of things like death and bad luck.


 No.97486

>>96927

>Cycles are fucking normal in our universe

Not only is this not completely true (due to entropy) it does not determine causation.


 No.97492

>>97437

>Am I getting heard over here?

I'm not sure. Maybe you should use caps lock and boldface next time, I'm sure then people will start to take you seriously.


 No.97526

>>97492

CHRISTCUCKS ARE SHIT AND ANTITHETICAL TO FREEDOM

There you go.


 No.97754

>>97444

how fearing death can make someone socialist?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / caco / cafechan / doomer / ss / tingles / vp / zoo ]