[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / cafechan / gdp2083 / hypno / leftpol / russian / sg / sonyeon ]

/monarchy/ - Past, Present, and Future

Monarchy news and discussion

Catalog

Winner of the 15th Attention-Hungry Games
/leftyweebpol/ - Anime girls against capitalism!
Name
Email
Subject *
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

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 4 per post.


The King is dead! Long live the King!

File: 1427485651686.png (15.9 KB, 318x323, 318:323, ungern.png)

 No.13[Reply]

Can we get a Monarchist reading list?

I'll start with some:
Dante's De Monarchia
De Maistre's The Generative Principle of Political Constitutions
Filmer's Patriarcha
Kuehnelt-Leddihn's Liberty or Equality
37 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1380

File: c42c3d8c535cab1⋯.pdf (435.92 KB, A Short History of Man — P….pdf)

>>330

It is actually part of a larger book called "A Short History of Man". Definitely recommended reading.




 No.932[Reply]

This is a thread I'll use to be a little less aloof and talk about minor and meta stuff: general feedback, accepting submissions for flags, banners, moderation, and rules, etc.. A court, if you will.

It seems like the board got reset a day somehow for a small time. It appears to have been another board glitch now that they're back.

The flags are still not enabled on the board. I have had a support thread up for about a week now. I'll get a response every few days telling me to alphabetize the flags or something, and then it dies again. I've tried every permutation possible to me under the board options. Still no go.

In fact, the reason that the posts have now re-appeared is because I tried setting the board flags check again and…that appears to have restored the other posts.

In short, like a second lieutenant I have no idea what's going on. So, I'm opening this up here because I'm betting you all will have better help on what to do. Until the funniness is resolved, I'll leave this thread here.

7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at

 No.1362

>>1301

Happy to help.




File: 1425421801505.jpg (39.4 KB, 512x338, 256:169, bloodywhitebaron2.jpg)

 No.1[Reply]

Welcome to /monarchy/, under new management edition.

rules and guidelines:

1. This board is for the discussion of monarchies of the past, present, and future and serves as a discussion board for any interested person regardless of political leaning. Please keep the board's purpose in mind before you post content which might be better on /pol/ or /christian/.

2. This is a safe for work board. NSFW content is heavily discouraged in all cases, and should be spoilered and marked accordingly or else I'll delete it.

3. Bully responsibly.

4. Shitposting is permitted only when it's funny.

*

I've claimed the board and with any luck we can revive it. There's a lot to discuss and the subject matter has potential.

Let me know in this thread if you're interested in volunteering. I don't have an email set up, but when I feel like I need volunteers, I'll open up the applications. Contributing good discussion to the board and being a supporter of monarchy are really the only two criteria I'm looking for.

here's a list of changes I'm making to the board after taking over from the last guy:

1. New sticky, modified rules

2. Board is now SFW.

3. New wave of cross-board advertising.

Not much for me to do until we have some activity here. Start name-dropping /monarchy/ in /pol/ or /christian/ threads to get us some exposure. Discuss Monarchy, make OC, debate.

I'm putting advertisement threads in /pol/ and /christian/, let's see if that nets us some new users.

*

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
Post last edited at


File: 7df50508ffa4e1d⋯.jpeg (95.33 KB, 334x250, 167:125, charlemagne-hero-AB.jpeg)

 No.1236[Reply]

How bad were the Middle Ages in Europe really, /monarchy/? The consensus seems to be that they were pretty brutal, but how much compared to muh peaceful Muslims and muh noble savages is not so clear, or even compared to modern times. Of course, democide numbers were far lower, but so was total population, so that doesn't tell us all that much.

10 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1336

>>1242

No, there was lots of inequality as well, and unlike capitalist inequality it wasn't generative whatsoever of any additional wealth, because the wealth was all in the land.


 No.1337

>>1241

It's funny 'cause leftists don't know that there are many who are sick of their modernist claptrap. Their solution to relieve this tension is to double down on their exaggerated claims.


 No.1352

>>1335

Of course, but my point was the idea that 90+ percent of were dead by age 30 is nonsense. Sure more people did die between ages 21-30 than today, but not enough to affect the average lifespan nearly as much as child deaths. As I said, most of the people that made it to age 21 lived to be much older than 30.


 No.1353

>>1352

ok :)


 No.1379




 No.1339[Reply]

Hey /monarchists/, are you also /minarchists/?

How compatible do you think monarchy and minarchy are?

3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1364

>>1357

There's a story of Freidrich the Great having trees planted at one of his palaces which blocked the wind to a windmill of a nearby farm. The farmer took the king to court and won. I also love that at any time a messenger could be sent to the king for complaints and he'd the the action into his own hands. During one of the Silesian wars a town in east Prussia sent a messenger to the king because on of the town council members was being a dick (can't remember exactly what he did) and Freidrich wrote a letter himself telling that conselor to fuck off, and sent the messenger back.


 No.1365

>>1357

I’d agree with all of this. Property rights are a component of natural law which the King is bound to respect (just like all humans are).

Perhaps I made a distinction between natural law and minarchy; to me, minarchy implies that there are certain authorities that are technically, hierarchically below him that he is for some reason expected to obey. This would be like if a regional vassal, a local governor, or town council passed a law or writ that the monarch deemed inappropriate, and the monarch would somehow have no recourse for this.

This would be silly. The local and regional authorities are beholden to the King, not the other way around. The only authorities to which the King is subordinate are God (i.e. the natural law, such as property rights and so forth) and the vested religious authorities (the Pope or Patriarch).


 No.1366


 No.1376

>>1365

Okay, then I misunderstood you. Sorry for the rude reaction image, then.

>>1366

It didn't have a king, or not for several centuries. Later on, the Icelanders accepted the Norwegian king again.


 No.1378

My exposure to modern monarchy comes from libertarian communities that sometimes make the case that a monarchy is preferable because there is a single individual who is ultimately responsible for any state injustice against you, and who can be legally held responsible if the injustice is not corrected - rather than you just falling through the cracks of the system and getting the runaround from whichever department.

Is that mindset common among modern monarchists? If not, what purpose do you consider the monarch serving better than other forms of heads of state? Is a libertarian leaning common, or do modern monarchists tend to advocate for strong and fatherlike rulers?




File: a8080154a863f21⋯.jpg (39.61 KB, 634x380, 317:190, queen.jpg)

 No.670[Reply]

Can women be rightful monarchs?

11 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1368

>>1363

Frederick the Great was great, it’s true, but Maria Theresa was still a good monarch. Heck, she was more effective and ruled more actively than her husband did.


 No.1369

>>1349

This, the reason they can get to power and maintain said power is because tgey were exceptional to begin with. So they managed to succeed when a normal woman would fail


 No.1370

Yes, I believe when people are called to lead their nation something awakens in them wether they are male or female


 No.1375

>>1370

We're talking about people from rich, noble families who had their entire education devoted to learning how to rule properly, at a time when "leading" didn't mean "doing what the plebs want".


 No.1377

File: 45eb2dbd5f4175a⋯.jpeg (263.41 KB, 958x631, 958:631, image.jpeg)

>>1368

I love how she continually cucked her son from doing what he wanted, and once she finally died he was able to go after all his ambitions which fucked Austria over so much.




File: 10fa8dc490461ba⋯.jpg (9.49 KB, 243x208, 243:208, angelic doctor.jpg)

 No.1317[Reply]

I'll start this with a personal recommendation:

>Solved the mind-body-problem before Descartes was even born

>Hylemorphic Dualism is the most impressive word you'll ever say

>Delivers juicy teleological metaphysics and btfo's reddit atheists that didn't even exist back in the day

>Exposed the is-ought-fallacy so bad, Hume would've lived in a dumpster had people realized this

>Five proofs that your pagan völkisch larping is fucking retarded

5 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1341

>>1338

i dont like aristotle anyway


 No.1342

>>1341

Have you read anything by him?


 No.1367


 No.1371

>>1317

Are you talking about aquinas?


 No.1374

>>1371

Yes, him.




File: e3c9d5bc683eb80⋯.jpg (4.07 MB, 3328x2288, 16:11, 00God,_suspended_in_the_cl….jpg)

 No.1116[Reply]

Sorry for the simple topic but I wanted to ask,

Is your monarchy religious or secular? Or would you prefer a different approach, like the monarch deciding it?

17 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1355

File: 63236a348a0a55e⋯.png (11.64 KB, 578x566, 289:283, 1510893845285.png)

>>1354

Imagine being this retarded


 No.1356

File: 765c5f393d79140⋯.png (68.88 KB, 210x339, 70:113, 765c5f393d79140cc184067b60….png)

>>1354

I came here from /liberty/. Your argument is unironically invalid.


 No.1359

>>1116

I don't really care too much about a monarch's religion, provided that it is a religion that fits to his people. Personally, I'm a pagan. I don't want a state implemented religion even if it's mine, because the average Christian believes in more european things than semitic.


 No.1372

>>1356

Fuck me, how many people are actually part anarchist here?


 No.1373

>>1372

Me and Poland, I'm not aware of anyone else.




File: 79d6661199a7ca7⋯.png (203.7 KB, 328x364, 82:91, when u federal as fuck.PNG)

 No.457[Reply]

Yo, in your ideal monarchy, who would you want as king?

Me? I'd pick this guy.

18 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1305

>>1298

>king

>elected democratically

kys


 No.1308

>>1305

What?

I was quoting National Democrats' ideas, maybe i should've used

<fagposting

instead.

I hate democracy.


 No.1310

>>538

>the right monarchist response is that the people are to accept the king's right regardless of whether he is a just ruler or a tyrant

So long as the king accepts other people's rights regardless of his fee-feels and pedigree and pomp.

Like, you know, the right of property. Or right to live.

Absolute monarchs are usurpers who had the guillotine coming for them. Same as a commoner couldn't commit treason against the king because he never saw the king, much less agreed to a contract with him. Now if the aristocracy rented king's lands and forsake their obligation in pay for rent, that's another question entirely.

But picking a random dude with/out a pedigree and giving him some privileges because reasons, with no property to back it up, is backwards thinking.


 No.1348

Nigel Farage would be a great King of England


 No.1350

>>1348

Not a chance. He would fail to unite all of Western German Europe under Saxon rule on principle of it being a union of sorts.




File: 1435690268361.jpg (49.51 KB, 577x423, 577:423, Lorrain.seaport.jpg)

 No.236[Reply]

What does /monarchy/ think of mercantilism as an economic policy?

25 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1322

>>1319

I agree with all the arguments you make about ethnonationalism, but you (and your fellow anarchists) simply leave out the one glaring, unavoidable fact of true reactionary monarchy; that by its very nature, it was an authoritarian ideology. It vested power in a state based on a natural hierarchy, and in fact vested the power of that state into the hands of a single individual. Other individuals held power only as much as that sovereign did. This is not only just but also reasonable; it maximizes state efficiency, minimizes populism, and is congruent with the will of God. It is natural for societies to form governments, as evidenced by the fact that every non-Negronic society has done so.

That doesn't mean that smaller, more intimate and familiar local governments and leaders can't exist, it simply means that they exist and exercise authority so far as they are allowed to by their superior. An ethnically homogeneous state is a republican idea for sure, but the existence of a state certainly isn't.

As for the question of free trade, as I already said, the monarch is an extension of the state, and vice versa. It is within the best interests of both the monarchy and the people he governs for him to restrict the majority of wealth to within the kingdom's borders and within the hands of his own subjects. Free trade essentially prioritizes individual wealth (the wealth, that is, of a few individuals with the ability to trade internationally) at the expense of both the monarch's state and the majority of the monarch's subjects, which are the only two types of wealth the monarch would or should care about preserving and maximizing.


 No.1323

>>1321

>Why does free trade lead to homogenization and "McDonaldization" of everything with Walmarts pushing out local businesses?

Because people - especially poor people - value these services more than local businesses. But I take it you're the exception, and don't ever go to the mall?

Also, because the costs of having your own business are too high, there's too much regulation in place, and you need licenses for everything. That is probably not the main reason, but it plays a role.

>inb4 not real free market (^:

Real fucking funny, Hannah. Anticipating an argument does not defeat it.

>What's stopping (((certain groups))) from amassing incredible power through capital earned in the free market and then conspiring against everyone

What's stopping them from (((doing))) it (((now)))?

<See how annoying that is? You fucking child ;-D

You assume that entrepreneurs and capitalists will stop conspiring once we give the political rulers the proper tools to join in on the fun. You're also assuming that there's a monopolization tendency on the market (why?) but not in a system of economic interventionism (why not?).

>funding McEducation to keep people retarded and docile?

For one, this has never happened before. States have frequently done that after compulsory education was invented. Do you expose compulsory education, too? Or is indoctrination only bad when it's privatized?

I've noted that you had nothing to say on the much longer second part of my argument. Picking the parts that are supposedly easy to refute, aren't we?


 No.1329

>>1322

>I agree with all the arguments you make about ethnonationalism, but you (and your fellow anarchists) simply leave out the one glaring, unavoidable fact of true reactionary monarchy; that by its very nature, it was an authoritarian ideology. It vested power in a state based on a natural hierarchy, and in fact vested the power of that state into the hands of a single individual. Other individuals held power only as much as that sovereign did. This is not only just but also reasonable; it maximizes state efficiency, minimizes populism, and is congruent with the will of God.

That was only the absolutist conception of the state, which Philip the Fair and some others took from the Romans. Even after it became predominant, it was seen as self-evident that the power of the king was not truly unlimited. Sure, the entire sovereignty was vested in him, whereas before, it was distributed among all members of society, but the conception of rights wasn't positivistic and the king was supposed to exercise his rule according to justice and the divine laws. So even from a legalistic perspective, absolute monarchy was far more liberal than the status quo is. And in practice, the absolute monarchies were still more liberal than most of their republican or democratic counterparts, and largely remained so even after they got infected by the ideas of the French Revolution.

I don't see what's supposed to be authoritarian about monarchy, then. Unless we see the right to vote and to get elected as exercises of freedoom, which they aren't.

>It is natural for societies to form governments, as evidenced by the fact that every non-Negronic society has done so.

Every society had hierarchies, a law, but not . Pennsylvania under the Quakers had no government had all, and what Iceland and Ireland had at around the 10th Century hardly qualifies for a government. I've heard somewhere that Israel was also very anarchic. Every element of the government was missing somewhere, in some place. Hierarchy and leadership make no government, neither does a law make the government, and these are the only two elements of a society that I can see whiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.1330

>>1323

>>funding McEducation to keep people retarded and docile?

>For one, this has never happened before.

Bill gates IS NOT taking any effort or investment in common core as well as video games.

>What's stopping them from (((doing))) it (((now)))?

great misuse of echoes. Good thing you accept that Jews are naturally more intelligent, and coherent as a society therefore it's only natural for them to succeed in free market environment!

i don't assume they will be stopped from conspiring, but the conspiracies will be easier to defeat.


 No.1331

File: dad492e3387be11⋯.pdf (704.55 KB, Murray Rothbard - Educatio….pdf)

>>1330

>Bill gates IS NOT taking any effort or investment in common core

Which actually reinforces what I said. This works only because we have a public schooling system. Without it, he'd have to influence enterprises that are run on a profit basis, or on the principle of charity. Neither would readily adopt common core, because it's evident that this system is crap except to professional teachers.

>as well as video games.

Video games are education now?

>great misuse of echoes.

Oh no. I misused a meme. You must be devastated.

>Good thing you accept that Jews are naturally more intelligent, and coherent as a society therefore it's only natural for them to succeed in free market environment!

Where did I say that?

>i don't assume they will be stopped from conspiring, but the conspiracies will be easier to defeat.

And you don't consider that a state active in the economy and in education is what allows most of these conspiracies in the first place?




YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

 No.1088[Reply]

he says a bit on anarchomonarchism

3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1268

>>1256

property =/= state


 No.1288

File: 8ffaab571498b83⋯.jpg (327.21 KB, 550x699, 550:699, arthur-schopenhauer-grange….jpg)

>>1089

>>1095

>>1268

Read his book, "Democracy, the God that Failed." He deals with the superiority of monarchy in the first chapters.

Even if you're not an ancap (I'm neither), you can still find his comparison of monarchy and democracy to be quite insightful.

Now let me add another less known monarchist to the list.


 No.1297

>>1288

i know theses written in this book


 No.1302

>>1288

>Schopenhauer was a Monarchist

Wait, wh–

https://www.quirkality.com/index.php/the-stories/29-schopenhauer-opera-glasses-and-the-rabble

>Immediately I opened the door to these worthy friends. 20 stout Bohemians in blue pants rushed in to shoot at the sovereign canaille from my window. Soon, however, they thought better of it and went to a neighboring house. From the first floor the officer reconnoitered the crowd behind the barricade. Immediately, I sent him my big, double opera glasses…

My god, this guy was the living embodiment of the helicopter meme a hundred years before helicopters were a thing.

Someone post some Schopenhauer pro-monarchist texts in the literature sticky.


 No.1328

>>1256

what the fuck lol it's literally the opposite




YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

 No.1076[Reply]

Where does /monarchy/ stand on the whole Catalonia secession crisis? Do you stand with the thoughts of King Felipe VI, or of Prince Hans Adams II?

18 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1303

Phillip V the Bourbon was an illegitimate king of Aragon. Not to mention he "abolished" the kingdom that didn't acknowledge him by using his Pappa's military might.

Same with the Basques. Both kingdoms of Aragon and Navarra are illegitimately occupied. The legitimate king of Aragon was Charles the Hapsburg, therefore the Hapsburg-Lorraine house are the righteous rulers of Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic isles.

It's trickier with the Basques though.


 No.1304

>>1299

>treason

they did not pledge allegiance to this poland shithole in the first place


 No.1324

>>1304

Neither did the Catalans.


 No.1326


 No.1327

>>1303

I'm curious, how do you figure Philip V was illegitimate? King Charles II named Philip as his successor, and Philip V tested and proved his claim in warfare. How exactly does that imply illegitimacy to you? Who would possibly have filled the vacancy, one of the Habsburgs Austrians? What would have given them the right to take the throne from the heir named by the King himself?




File: 2d9c972e10acaa1⋯.png (31.86 KB, 600x600, 1:1, anarcho_monarchism_by_myli….png)

 No.460[Reply]

I've always wondered if there is more common ground between the advocates of traditional monarchy and anarchists than most people think.

It feels to me like often anarchists are reacting against is the same as what monarchists who admire something more medieval or early modern feel has gone wrong since the collapse of monarchist attitudes.

37 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1246

File: 1b87ddd3cbc4e3c⋯.jpg (54.64 KB, 960x470, 96:47, 96719744312cd65ae79d451d36….jpg)

>>477

>>467

>>480

>>525

>>539

You're all appealing to Anarcho-Capitalism, which is admittedly a right-wing sect of anarchy. Ancaps believe in things incompatible with other forms of anarchy, like hierarchy in institutions outside of the state; heck, even one look at >>>/anarcho/ will show you that ancaps are generally opposed by the rest of the anarchist movement.

>>618

This guy knows what he's saying. Good for you if you succeed in convincing an ancap about Monarchism, but a left-leaning anarchist is an entirely different game.


 No.1248

>>1246

>You're all appealing to Anarcho-Capitalism

You say this like it's a bad thing.


 No.1249

>>1248

No I don't. I say that like it is a narrow way of appealing to all anarchists. I say that like if you need different tactics to appeal to different sects of anarchism.


 No.1267

File: d7b412d31f3312f⋯.mp4 (6.03 MB, 320x240, 4:3, monarchy.mp4)

Monarchy vs Anarchy in the nutshell.


 No.1325

>>618

>This thread is incredibly disappointing but I should not be surprised, people here doesn't seem to know what anarchism even is.

I'm also disappointed but for different reasons. >>545 is literally the only post I've seen in this thread that actually explains the similarities between anarchy and monarchy. >>467 is a neat resource but they didn't explain anything themselves. Otherwise, every post before yours has been explaining how Monarchists can subvert anarchist language/movements to further their goals, or their respective histories. We've diverted far beyond the thread's initial topic anyway though, so it isn't like it even matters anymore.




File: 114b69d6181f5ff⋯.gif (1.14 MB, 680x849, 680:849, you can't slow down the tr….gif)

 No.1263[Reply]

>Trump

>Kekistan

>CUCK CUCK CUCK

How the fuck could this shit become representative of conservativism, /monarchy/? More importantly, how do we undo the damage?

 No.1265

>>1263

Because conservatism hasn't existed for decades if not over a century.

if you consider the individual to be the smallest unit of a civilization, and not the family, you're still a liberal.

Not to mention, even conservatists think that women not only go to school at the same age as boys, but also study the same things

age 18-25 is the most fertile period for a woman, good thing she can ride the cock carousel in college without any peer pressure or outside judgement, with additional "rape" laws in place too


 No.1266

>>1265

not only should*


 No.1318

>>1265

>if you consider the individual to be the smallest unit of a civilization, and not the family, you're still a liberal.

It makes sense to see the individual as the smallest unit, as long as you keep in mind that the individual is embedded in some community. Most individualist philosophers would agree with that. Most, not all. Ayn Rand wasn't a fan of family values and she had a great influence.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn called himself a personalist to discern his own position (and that of other scholastic philosophers) from such an atomistic individualism. I don't think that term is necessary, but if it was, I'd adopt it.

>Not to mention, even conservatists think that women not only go to school at the same age as boys, but also study the same things

Compulsory education in general is a retarded idea. If schooling wasn't forced on everyone, then the children with less talent could learn a good trade early on and keep out of political affairs, and the highly talented children, whatever gender they are, could study in a less poisonous, mediocre environment. Then we'd have fewer female "intellectuals" but the few we would have would be genuine and not just fulfilling a quota.

And it's not like people couldn't afford private education nowadays. We've made cars a minor investment and plasma TV's are already outdated, it's only goods delivered by the public sector that poor people could somehow never afford.

>age 18-25 is the most fertile period for a woman, good thing she can ride the cock carousel in college without any peer pressure or outside judgement, with additional "rape" laws in place too

That is why I stayed away from the parties. Honestly, fuck college- and university-culture. It's degeneracy through and through.


 No.1320

>>1318

Individual doesn't exhibit all the traits of a civilization on a micro scale, however family does.

>common history

centuries of being on a map as a single nation <=> grandparents, parents and children

>common language

self explanatory

>Common land

Territory of a nation <=> a household

I usually classify ethnic group under land because the two overlap however the family also exhibits that to a larger scale, instead of ethnic group you have a blood relation




File: abe52f39bed5797⋯.jpeg (94.68 KB, 1024x576, 16:9, rawls.jpeg)

 No.1150[Reply]

I hereby declare that John Rawls is the culmination and the pinnacle of everything that's bad in modern political philosophy:

>Creates a huge, incredibly complex system of ethics without ever backing up his central premise

>Blatant apologist for social democracy, even went back and declared time-preference to be irrational (lol wut) to accomodate the environmentalists

>Created a bastard child of utilitarianism and egalitarianism and thought it was a good idea

>Couldn't cut to the damn chase

>Incompetent in economics

>Somehow redefined justice as fairness and got away with it

11 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1286

>>1283

>>1285

>In the kingdom of God on earth, God finds it very easy to make sure NASCAR drivers are paid less than truck drivers. No one can disobey God. He assigns us to our roles, he directs our every movement. If God tells you to turn left at the next light, you don't hang a right.

>The question is: what relevance does this have for the actual problem of government? The answer is: none. As Madison put it, if men were angels, we would need no government at all. In Rawls' kingdom, we are not angels, but we are governed by angels. The great engineering problem of designing a system in which fallible humans can govern each other and get along simply does not exist in Rawls' philosophy.

>Of course Rawls does not actually say this. He just encourages it. By setting up an ideal of righteousness that only divine rule can achieve, Rawls supplies the perfect distraction to help his readers forget that in reality, men are governed only by men, and history knows only two kinds of government: those based on law, and those based on violence.

>For example, in the NASCAR-teamster example, what sort of law would ensure a Rawlsian result? Do we have wage and price controls, Nixon style? The odor of medieval Christianity is unmistakable. You can almost taste the sumptuary laws.

The atheist and statist faggotry aside, he is pointing at the right direction here. The kind of philosophy Rawls came up with is the equivalent of a kid drawing his perfect magical castle. It doesn't inform us at all how we should deal with the world we actually live in. We don't know what individual conduct is moral or immoral, at all.

And from the comment section:

>I think Rawls' importance is over-rated. It is really mostly libertarians who talk about him, and then only because of Nozick's critique of him (and Nozick doesn't even seem to be that popular among libertarians).

He's right on all counts. Yes, Rawls is overrated, in fact he'll probably be forgotten in aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.1292

>>1286

I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like you're severely underestimating the importance of academia and the impact it has had on plunging us into on the mess we're in. The primary reason Westerners are so hostile to personal sovereignty today and so open to collectivist ideas is their education and its life-long, prole-friendly extension, the media. Rawls is a symptom rather than the cause of the rot, but it is worth noting that the people who end up "punching Nazis" (and to whom a monarchist is just a Nazi in a funny hat) are taught explicitly rawlsian morality at their universities.


 No.1293

>>1292

Didn't want to make this impression. Of course, academia is very important, but not necessarily as it presents itself. Rawls is mostly important for being there, I think. Through him, social democrats and so-called liberals can claim that their theories are rational. The actual content of his theories, on the other hand, is relatively unimportant.

Nozick, likewise, is important for being there. He wrote some good critiques of mainstream political philosophy but by and large, he's non-threatening and cozy. It's like controlled opposition, except it arose naturally. Nozick, like Milton Friedman, is incapable of dealing a serious blow to the prevailing political climate because he never pulled their values out from under them.

The people who really had an impact, who are the cause and not the symptom, are others. The Frankfurt School, for example, and before them the Fabians. Rawls codified the moral code and the worldview that others before him came up with.


 No.1294

>>1292

>rawlsian morality

what do you mean by that?


 No.1300

>>1293

>Rawls codified the moral code and the worldview that others before him came up with.

Right. Moldbug summarized his role rather pithily with something like (not an exact quote)

>Rawls wrote a book in the 1970s to excuse a coup that happened in the 1930s.

The coup was, of course, the New Deal.




Delete Post [ ]
[]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / cafechan / gdp2083 / hypno / leftpol / russian / sg / sonyeon ]