/politics/ - News & Politics

>>5397

I'm very much a proponent of hobbes, especially after seeing the honey booboo generation and the way helicpoter parents have destroyed the ability of teachers to teach through "political action".

>“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

>― C.S. Lewis

In other words, the advantage of an autocrat with "divine right to rule" is there is less paranoia about losing power, and his rationality is bounded as opposed to committees of SJW's or corporate leaders.

Monarchy can be useful if done like pre-2003 (2007?) Liechtenstein. You're an owner of property, not of people. A private state so to speak.

Only if it is an enlightened absolute monarchy

>>5397

Maybe if its a monarchy in the style of Prussian Constitutionalism.

But other than that no.

KILL KILL THE QUEEN

STAB HER IN THE FACE

CHOP HER HEAD AND PIKE IT

AND HER BODY FEED TO BEASTS

>>5410

This. A philosopher king is the best kind of leadership you can hope for, the problem, and this has been repeated throughout history, is that the progeny of these monarchs become increasingly degenerate while still wielding absolute power.

>>5431

You're more likely to have mediocre leaders regardless of how leaders are chosen , the question then becomes:

How do we design the government so that leaders are constrained from doing stupid shit.

>>5436

>Prussia

Gone and dead.

Sorry man, but that throbbing boner for a polish-german war, or the slightly more realistic Anschluss of Kaliningrad stands in the way of you getting takebn seriously.

Work with our current demographic situation and the clay we hold for a realistic proposal of modern monarchy.

Also define socialist parties.

The prussian monarchy had socialist elements such as free schooling and basic healthcare.

If endorsing these things would get me banned, id rather live elsewhere as a filthy socialist.

>>5479

Are you shitting me? The Hohenzollerns are still there and political active. We will never experience a return of Prussia without a bloody war over who has to give back whose territory scorching half the West-Slav population, I give you that. Regarding serious monarchism, there are a few groups out there. Sadly the best one among them seems to be offline.

>define socialist parties.

Easiest and broadest way: Every political party that operates on the premises that first resources are plenty or ought to be plenty for the entire people and second conflict is ought to be avoided at all costs no matter how unreasonable they are.

Bad you fucking idiot, Jesus. Ancestral leaders will always go bad at some point. Better to select from the entire population than a very limited family pool.

>>5484

This is probably bait, but I'll bite.

Monarchies are better than republics, simply due to the fact that republics are elected. Elected = shit. This is because majority of the people on any given nation are dung beetles.

>>5490

What if I told you that angel theory is bullshit?

>>5494

>angel theory

I'm assuming you think that I implied that monarchies are infallible or something..

Why monarchy trumps republics:

If a monarch is shit, the nation will be as well.

However, if the monarch is good, the nation will do well as well.

If a republic is good, the nation will continue to rot.

If a republic is shit, the nation will still rot.

Voting is just a pacifier ritual.

>"80% of the people are against my ideals. Better not go against all them..."

>I asked for this

>>5490

One more thing.

In a monarchy, the state is the king's property. What's benefits the state, benefits the king. There's no conflict of interests between the state and the ruler personally.

In a republic, people are elected as state curators, in a way. What benefits them personally, doesn't necessarily benefit the state. They can rip the state off to make themselves a better living. They'll use the mandate they're given to their best to do it, if they're shitty people.

A narcissist king will make sure his country is glorious. A narcissist president will waste his country's budget for his own personal benefits.

>>5433

Tried that in America. The "leaders" have just ignored the restrictions placed on them for 100's of years.

>>5514

It actually worked fairly well until two points in history: The American Civil War, and 1913 with the 17th Amendment/creation of the federal reserve (mostly at the behest of minorities who proceeded to abuse it).

>>5511

/thread right there.

This is the same tragedy of the commons that leads to city centers where nobody owns their homes being shitty ghettos.

>>5397

Depends on the Monarch.

>>5563

Even if they were "worse", there was nobody to which they could shift blame.

It was much easier to remove a single tyrant than a cabal of hundreds of puppets controlled by a cabal of real tyrants in their ivory towers.

>>5529

>>5563

You two forgot another juicy detail: Western city Republics and Monarchies used to exist side by side. The horror stories about monarchy as such just popped up at the end of its cyclical half life decades after Louis XIV of France introduced the absolutist court system that has been emulated pretty often. The statement that Monarchies never had guaranteed their subjects rights is demonstrably incorrect as you can see on a document called Magna Carta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

The clauses in the original only affected a minority, namely the English Church and high nobility.Yet it was the model for many constitutions and was designed to limit the King's power. The contrary in the same model of government can be found in the French court System mentioned above for example.

America was modeled after European city Republics, the Magna Carta was the model for her constitution.

>>5397

Nothing last forever, if a country right now makes a monarchy it would work better that a democracy but with enoug time the system will rot.

>>5563

>The logical error in your reasoning is that you make monarchs out to be far worse than most of them ever were, historically.

I never made that argument. It's not about what a monarch did, it's about what a monarch can do. Angel theory is angel theory if there is nothing to restrict said angel from easily being replaced with a devil. Monarchies don't solve this fundamental flaw with angel theory and the idea of "one/a dozen true leader(s)!"

>Its best rulers were excellent, outstanding men; its worst rulers were mediocre, but not terrible.

Stable or not, it doesn't justify the power of a monarchy.

>but for Europeans it should be a very logical step.

For Germans it's a logical step. Most of Europe got sick and tired of that shit and deposed them for a reason.

>And for the Russians whose centuries-old tradition was destroyed by the terrors of bolshevism.

You mean the Russians that lived as slaves under a nobility that was primarily Germanic? Are you calling for Germans to be in charge of the lives of Russian people again? I don't like Bolshevism, but there's a reason the Russians hate the Germans, and it's not just because of the world wars.

Alright, lets put it this way since it'll make the most sense...

Under a monarchy, Bob might be a good monarch. Who gives a shit if he's good or bad, this is about ethics and morality.

Anyways, Bob decides he doesn't like what Joe is doing, so he kicks out, kills, etc. Joe. Joe has no or little constitutional protections to stop Bob. Joe goes to the courts? The courts tell Joe to fuck off because Bob is in charge, if they side with Joe, Bob will just depose of said courts because Bob is a ruler, and his officials are not elected because this is not even a Republic, this is a monarchy.

Under a Republic (NOT a democracy, a Republic, in which only those who own property and who pay a tax are allowed to vote), Bob might have the "power" to kick Joe out/kill him/etc. But what happens? Joe's neighbors see what happen, and they realize that they must defend Joe, even if they disagree with what he did, because otherwise the same punitive standards could be applied to them tomorrow.

As I stated originally, a Monarch either has enough power to be a dictator/tyrant because of his/her ability to ignore human rights and/or property rights, or is just an unnecessary burden on the system such as the UK monarchy that currently exists, as well as others around the world.

>>5581

>The statement that Monarchies never had guaranteed their subjects rights is demonstrably incorrect as you can see on a document called Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta was a transition period/stepping stone that ultimately helped peopel realize the superiority of Republics over Monarchies, and reaffirms my statement above about a Monarch either having the power to deny rights, or not having the power and effectively not having power over his domain, reducing him to the same standards as a "hereditary" Senator/President anyways. I happen to particularly like the Magna Carta, but it works to the same ideas that I've stated (plus the monarchy was forced to sign it).

Then again, I hate all government and want to transitionally reduce/remove it via peer-to-peer technology/innovations anyways.

>>5648

Under what basis would you say the monarchy would be better? Because I think the word you're looking for is dictator.

>>5653

>Under what basis would you say the monarchy would be better?

It would be better because it will have the support of the people and address the problems that the democracy didn´t.

>Because I think the word you're looking for is dictator.

A benevolent dictator to be exact. The people would love for a decisive lidership that solves their problems.

>>5653

>Then again, I hate all government and want to transitionally reduce/remove it via peer-to-peer technology/innovations anyways.

Embed related.

>>5656

>It would be better because it will have the support of the people and address the problems that the democracy didn´t.

How would this be true? Most people are likely not too keen to revert into a monarchy when they've already been a democratic republic for so long.

>A benevolent dictator to be exact. The people would love for a decisive lidership that solves their problems.

I find this unlikely, and you're playing a dangerous game if you want to install an omnipotent ruler who you're desperately hoping is a benevolent individual. And if he isn't, who will depose him?

>>5650

Filmer's Patriarcha is still a great book and paine sucks cocks.

>>5656

>It would be better because it will have the support of the people

And a republic wouldn't?

>and address the problems that the democracy didn´t.

Such as your personal pet issue? How?

>A benevolent dictator to be exact. The people would love for a decisive lidership that solves their problems.

Sounds like a very dangerous proposal to me.

I think this all comes down to decentralization though. A central authority is able to effectively communicate and "lord over" about 150-250 people without a problem. Any more than that and he has to start delegating power to others to do it for him.

If you want a monarch who's in charge of some 50 square mile area around his castle, then you be my guest, because said monarch is gonna have a hard time enforcing disgusting policies on the masses anyways. What you're calling for is a monarch in charge of millions though.

>>5658

>How would this be true? Most people are likely not too keen to revert into a monarchy when they've already been a democratic republic for so long.

It's true that people avoid change but remember the french revolution, they were used to be in a monarchy but the conditions were bad enough that they fight for a change.

>I find this unlikely, and you're playing a dangerous game if you want to install an omnipotent ruler who you're desperately hoping is a benevolent individual. And if he isn't, who will depose him?

Your right in that regards. Absolute power corrupts absolutely but something that I dislike of the government of my country is that every election the new presitend discards all the programs of the last one and never get anything done, I really wish that there ware a way to continue the programs.

>>5663

>And a republic wouldn't?

Any system at the beginning would help the people with their problems.

>Such as your personal pet issue? How?

Everybody has pet issues, the sjw, pol , you, me. How would the new monarchy would solve the problem? That depends of the nature of the problem.

>Sounds like a very dangerous proposal to me.

Your statement is true.

I really sick of the corrupt system of my country but I shouldn't put all my expectations in one man.

>>5653

And again, you base your central argument on a fallacy -- on the false assumption that somehow, there can only be either unlimited absolutist despotism or the kind of modern constitutionalism under which the monarch is nothing but a worthless mannequin.

The Prussian king's power was limited de jure ever since Friedrich Wilhelm IV dictated the

constitution. He still had the executive power to dissolve parliament at any time, so the democratic institution remained at the monarch's mercy. Had he done so without a very good reason, however, it would've caused a major backlash, possibly to the point of another revolution.

Different institutions, the monarch and a parliament, can balance each other out and serve as the nation's pillars. Not everything needs to be an unhealthy extreme. And of course any kind of political system, no matter how much thought you put into it, has the potential of becoming corrupt. There is no perfect system.

Mind that I do not claim my views represent an infallible and universally correct solution, nor would I expect you to share them, especially if you're from burgerland. But the same applies to your ideas as well.

>>5675

If your country needs a revolution and mass death to fix its problems, there's probably something wrong with your system.

The thing about Republics is there's so much bickering/fighting that shit only gets done when it absolutely needs to get done instead of on a whim. You might be young/impatient and think this is a bad thing, but this is actually a very good thing.

>>5662

Who the fuck is Filmer?

Paine's writings help start you American Revolution.. you can disagree with him all you want but you cannot deny his influence on history.

What did "Patriarcha" inspire besides this post?

>>5530

You forgot Andrew Jackson.

>>5436

Calm down, Hitler.

You are all forgetting that in a democracy, people tend towards peace since the populous usually don't like war, and politicians like getting elected.

If you ask me, peace is pretty fucking great.

>>5685

>Hitler

>wanting to restore the Hohenzollern dynasty

>>5687

>>5436

>Only capable men of supreme intellect, superior genetics and unwavering dedication to the Fatherland should ever be allowed to become politicians.

Sure sounds like Hitler's race policies.

>although I would strictly outlaw all socialist and liberal parties.

Censoring differing beliefs sounds like something a dictator who is scared of opposition would do.

>I believe that the return to monarchism is a historical necessity for Europe; the alternative would be the downfall of western civilization and the colonization of the entire continent by the brown muslim hordes. The root of all the ills which tormented our race during the 20th century

Blaming your suffering on an entire group of people sure sounds like Hitler's policies on Jews.

>>5691

The difference is that the Frankfurt school was just a handful of kikes , and the current invasion is millions of 3rd worlds that don't share or care to respect western values. Not to mention the future effect on the economy.

>>5653

>The Magna Carta was a transition period/stepping stone that ultimately helped peopel realize...

That the King don't have to have the power to be monstrous tyrant. Didn't stop the Glorious Revolution though. The people who liked Republics more already had the choice to move into them ("Stadluft macht frei."). Thaqt King John was forced to negotiate this work of law is partly correct. It was in fact part of the aftermath to Baronical Revolt. The alternatives were frankly more barbaric given that people rioted for less and with more brutal methods.

>>5656

Don't forget the cross for the moment of his failure! :^)

On a serious note, dictator was temporary office of the Roman Republic. I don't think that this shoe fits for a aristocratic system with slow ascension and multiple system besides it.

>>5671

>A retard always makes his way to the throne and fucks things up for everyone, which causes a revolution and leads to a republican form of government

Or a replacement of the Monarch with someone else or some Minister running the show for the monarch or a decline of the nation. What you stated happens far after its half life of 800 years.

>>5685

>Prussia

>Democratic criminal

Pick one.

>>5691

Race policies in a hardcore rightist system? Are you seeing demons or something?

>Censoring differing beliefs sounds like something a dictator who is scared of opposition would do.

Bismarck was a monarchist who didn't fear the left but hated it so much that he stole most of its policies and split the Reichstag into friends of the Empire and enemies of the Empire. The Anti Socialist law was real and failed for other reasons than being "unfair".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Socialist_Laws

>>5715

This tbh.

>>5715

I can see many of your points, the problem with using "genetically superior human beings" to build an aristocracy is that simply because they might have "Superior genes" that doesn't mean they have any higher moral standards than anyone else, or aren't capable of becoming corrupt.

Even so, who decides which people are smart, and sensible? Right-leaning people would say that people who share their views are intellectuals, while leftist would say that leftist are intellectuals. In either case it is easily corruptable and doesn't sounds like a system that would work for a very long time.

>>5715

>>5704

You both speak of immigration as an "invasion", as if there is some sort of collective with a centralized command structure that wishes to invade Europe.

What it is is mass-immigration (understandable. I wouldn't want to live in war torn, fucked up countries either) and a mishandeling of said mass-immigration by the European countries. If we had simply prepared, and worked together the problems could easily have been dissipated and fixed.

But this would need alot of countries to work together. Instead we see Sweden, Germany, Great Britain and a few other countries taking in immigrants while other completely block off their countries.

This is why the current mass-immigration is a cirsis. It didn't need to be a crisis, but it became one due to stupidity and paranoia.

>>5757

>This is why the current mass-immigration is a cirsis. It didn't need to be a crisis, but it became one due to stupidity and paranoia.

>due to stupidity and paranoia

Yeah and stupidity and paranoia here isn't the fear of foreigners, but the fear of being branded a xenophobic racist. Europe is taking in foreigners despite being incapable to handle the masses, because "we're accepting of others, we're better than you haters". And it will be too late when it turns out we're not able to handle them. It happened to Rome when Goths came in 376, it will happen to Europe. But then it will be too late already.

>>5759

This I agree on. The most frustrating thing for me is that we should be capable of taking in the refugees. The problems lies in the fact that many countries are not willing to cooperate, and therefor it falls on the shoulders of a few countries who are incapable of doing it on their own.

>>5715

>concentrating all power in the hands of the fittest rather than giving a voice to stupid people

By dispossessing ashkenazis, who, on average, have 15 IQ points on your average german?

Yeah, that sounds like "power in the hands of the fittest", and "denying a voice to the stupid"... not.

>>5769

where did he mention dispossessing ashkenazis?

Deppends on the monarch.

A smart dictator will always be superior to a democracy.

>>5436

Without the breakup of the holy alliance, the German Empire never would have existed. Prussia defeating Austria was absolutely neccesary for the formation of a united Germany. This is because Austria would always oppose unification because the Gro

>>5436

Without the breakup of the Holy Alliance, the German Empire never would have existed. Prussia defeating Austria was absolutely neccesary for the formation of a united Germany. This is because Austria would always oppose unification because the Großdeutsche Lösung would mean that Austria looses the non-German Habsburg lands and the Kleindeutsche Lösung would mean that Austria looses it's sphere of influence in Germany to Prussia.

If you're referring to the Three Emperors League, as the League had the same alliance partners as the Holy Alliance, that alliance was doomed to fail. Russian and Austrian relations severely cooled down after the Crimean war and Russia and Austria now had conflicting interests in the balkans.

>>5653

With the specific case of the UK monarchy, they generate more in revenue than they cost to maintain, so economically they aren't an unnecessary burden. In fact they make the UK government billions.

I stated this a long time ago and in another thread on another board but basically the fundamental goal of all modern governments is to either emulate a certain period of the Roman Republic or a certain period of the Roman Empire. This doesn't include things like tribes or "micro-states." If there is to be a functioning monarchy and not just a revenue generator the system needs to ensure dynasties do not have control over the country.

A great example of why not to do this would be the fact that many of English monarchs were violently disposed of. The English throne has had many different families hold control over it. It goes to show that chaos sometimes is a ladder. Different families will ensure that civil wars do not occur with the same frequency as they do in many monarch based governments.

>>5650

>the idea of a hereditary ruler is as absurd as the idea of a hereditary mathematician

Besides the fact that IQ is hereditary, monarchies do not inherit just a role- they inherit ownership and responsibility. It is very much different...

>>5837

Republic confirmed for plebian, is my take on that video.

>>5897

>Implying IQ = Smarts

IQ is simply one way of measuring intelligence, and a very poor one at that.

>>5917

IQ is the single most useful aspect in math. Diligence, accuracy and motivation are important as well, sure.

>>5397

Spain here.

The only difference between a hereditary ruler and a Republic is that in a Monrchy the next King will be assured the best educators possible, so if he/she is a good Kng/Queen, you have a REALLY good State head for decades. If he/she is corrupt/easily manipulated/incompetent, then you have a terrible state head for decades.

Republic ensure that the state heads change every few years; but for the system to work efficently the people must choose a competent candidate, but even if they don't, you'll only suffer him/her for a few years,

For the tl:dr

Monarchy: The good is good for a long time; the bad is bad for a long time.

Republic: The good and the bad are short.

>>5931

But in a republic, you can always boot the incompetent, so you can create an endless string of good leaders.

Republic wins.

>>5934

>republic has endless string of good leaders

Where has this happened?

>>5934

>>5931

Problem is the 4th political power; the media. Thanks to them, you can only vote for bad candidates, since they are the only visible ones. You aren't going to vote for someone who isn't going in, are you goy?

>>5936

Ehhhh...

It's possible! Theoretically.

>>5937

That has to do with another problem that repulics bring. The elected leader not only has to be competent, but also popular and charismathic enough to be selected.

A leader can be one and not the other, and very rarely both.

>>5939

Spain here.

Don't forget about the problems with media appropiation. In spain there's even a law against freedom of media.

>>5940

Wait, really? There's a law against freedom of media? What does it say?

>>5397

shit tier

next worst to democracy and bureaucracy because at least its easier to replace

>>5511

> What's benefits the state, benefits the king

What benefits the state does not necessarily benefit the people at large, though. In fact, the case tends to be the opposite. You eventually run into the same problems with a monarchy and a republic; the leader(s) become detached from the people and use their power to serve their own interests, ignoring those who they are supposed to protect.

>They can rip the state off to make themselves a better living

Just as a monarch (the state) can rip off the people to live in vain splendor.

>A narcissist king will make sure his country is glorious.

A narcissist king will lock himself up in Versailles, blow the country's treasury on an extravagant lifestyle, ship off his subjects to die for some hillbillies an ocean away then tax the living shit out of them for the privilege, and finally get a well-deserved trip to the guillotine. A narcissist king will indeed make himself glorious; he'll build a sprawling, resplendent palace of the bones of his nation and cast a glimmering throne of their melted down riches.

>>5397

If a country needs a family of inbred assholes living large via taxpayer money to serve as their national symbol and international ambassadors, you may as well follow china's example and get yourself giant pandas

I think the biggest downside is that an individual feels as though they have less stake in the country (as opposed to a republic/democracy) and are thus more inclined to overthrow or have anti-ruler sentiment.

>>13511

>A narcissist king will lock himself up in Versailles, blow the country's treasury on an extravagant lifestyle, ship off his subjects to die for some hillbillies an ocean away then tax the living shit out of them for the privilege, and finally get a well-deserved trip to the guillotine.

Things that never happened. Narcissists instead plot all the time.

>>5397

Democracy is inherety less effective than democracy because unintelligent people play a role in government.

>>13664

*Less effective than monarchy

>>13658

>Things that never happened

I sincerely hope you're just pretending to be this stupid to discredit elective government or some bullshit like that. Contrary to what you've apparently deluded yourself into thinking, Louis XVI was, in fact, a real person and the French Revolution was not some kind of revisionist hoax.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Louis+XVI+of+France&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

You also don't seem to have a very good understanding of what narcissism is. Narcissism is characterized by an extreme desire for admiration and approval coupled with extreme selfishness and lack of empathy. Neither of these are desirable traits for anyone in a position of power. They are a recipe for disaster; the narcissist in power will both abuse his authority to establish a persona of glory and be easily swayed by those around him in seeking their approval, all with no regard whatsoever for the duties his position entails. The more power the narcissist has, the more damage he will cause.

>>13664

Unintelligent people play just as much a role in a monarchy as they do in a democracy, if not more. Even under de jure absolutism, the monarch cannot control everything de facto. He has to delegate authority to bureaucrats who then delegate their authority to more bureaucrats, and so on. This should sound familiar; it's exactly what happens in a republic. The only difference is that it's kicked into overdrive in a monarchy, because the lack of a large elected body means that there are a few more layers of appointments that have to be made, which inevitably are based on favoritism and corruption rather than merit. There has never been a shortage of idiots and incompetents in positions of power in any variant of monarchism. Even the monarch himself is not immune to being an ignorant fuckwit; see above.

>>13704

>coupled with extreme selfishness and lack of empathy.

Louis XVI had too much empathy.

>>13704

>>13796

"The first part of Louis' reign was marked by attempts to reform France in accordance with Enlightenment ideals. These included efforts to abolish serfdom, remove the taille, and increase tolerance toward non-Catholics. "

Case in point. Good thing the nobility understood something.

>>5769

>giving power to out-of-touch hyper bankers whom ride the moral rollercoaster because of "muh exodus" that happened to their ancestors

>instead of giving it to a crippled manlet hippie fedora bigot whom is shit at micromanaging, but stayed in power because sexually-frustrated german women are into uniforms and parades