Objections to monarchy

[The Parkus Empire]

Somalia.

That isn't a bad idea actually...

It really isn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8_F4Yk2-cA

[Wintersun]

Why should you be able to, exactly?

Because the will theory of contract says that I shouldn't be forced to enter a contract if I do not agree with it.

So the land you have now is not your land as it was taken from the natives by a contract they never agreed to?

[Vazdania]

That isn't a bad idea actually...

You'll come running straight back, I'm sure of it.

If Somalia was somewhere north of the 48th Parallel you'd probably not want to bet money....but alas it is in Africa...and is hot....and I hate the heat.

[The Nuclear Fist]

*already lives nearly off the grid and is still forced to pay large amounts of taxes*

You posted that from the internet. You're tapped into a power grid, you've likely got some form of money gathered either from a job or from family.

You're right smack dab in the middle of the fucking grid. Go live in the woods somewhere to get off the grid.

[Blasveck]

I mean if you don't like the social contract and the terms within said contract, you can freely move and absolve yourself of said contract.

I didn't mean to sound hostile.

Meh, internet makes it hard to tell tone. I generally associate swear words with something of a demand as being generally hostile, but I understand some people are just blunt.

Anyway, if it were so easy! I like the fact that I can move to a neighborhood that suits me, yet unfortunately the government doesn't work the same way. One cannot simply move to Somalia if he wants freedom, no, freedom is intertwined with wealth and capitalism (something that Somalia's lacking). Neither can I live from birth to death without being violated by the government, whether that be through taxation, coercion, or conscription. Plus, while many private businesses don't force any morals (nevermind Scientology) down your throat, the Government does so relentlessly. Is this in any shape or form justified? Cannot we make our own morals with respect to the Golden Rule? Can't we live as traders do, exchanging services for the mutual benefit for us both?

Corporations have acted similar to governments at times.

To cite a small example, during the Gilded Age, corporations would often hire private military organizations, essentially, and force their worked to adhere to the rules of the company, and often live in company towns.

This idea that Governments do bad while corporations do not is ludicrous.

[Vazdania]

Because the will theory of contract says that I shouldn't be forced to enter a contract if I do not agree with it.

So the land you have now is not your land as it was taken from the natives by a contract they never agreed to?

ooooooooooooooooooooooooo very good point.

[The Parkus Empire]

You don't have the right to force the rest of us to live in your anarcho-capitalist wonderland. If you don't want to use government services, go live of the grid. You're free to.

*already lives nearly off the grid and is still forced to pay large amounts of taxes*

You still have the government ensuring that I and my homies don't come and rob your house with machine guns. You still have the government protecting the bank you keep your money in with law, and insuring it as well.

[Regnum Dominae]

Somalia.

That isn't a bad idea actually...

After a few days there you won't support ancapism anymore.

[Wintersun]

You don't have the right to force the rest of us to live in your anarcho-capitalist wonderland. If you don't want to use government services, go live of the grid. You're free to.

*already lives nearly off the grid and is still forced to pay large amounts of taxes*

Taxes were the lowest they've ever been. By large amount you mean you're upset that you have to pay to use roads and such that those who actually earned your money built.

[The Parkus Empire]

*already lives nearly off the grid and is still forced to pay large amounts of taxes*

You posted that from the internet. You're tapped into a power grid, you've likely got some form of money gathered either from a job or from family.

You're right smack dab in the middle of the fucking grid. Go live in the woods somewhere to get off the grid.

Unabomber vibe.

[Vazdania]

*already lives nearly off the grid and is still forced to pay large amounts of taxes*

You posted that from the internet. You're tapped into a power grid, you've likely got some form of money gathered either from a job or from family.

You're right smack dab in the middle of the fucking grid. Go live in the woods somewhere to get off the grid.

*already lives in the woods*

[Regnum Dominae]

You posted that from the internet. You're tapped into a power grid, you've likely got some form of money gathered either from a job or from family.

You're right smack dab in the middle of the fucking grid. Go live in the woods somewhere to get off the grid.

*already lives in the woods*

With an Internet connection.

[Williamson]

Well this seems like it got off topic

[The Nuclear Fist]

*already lives in the woods*

Apparently not if you're using fucking internet. Go deep into the wilderness, cut off from all civilization. You're in America, so you're going to want to go either to the nearest patch of desert or deep into the woods. Here is a list of places you could move to.

[Vazdania]

*already lives in the woods*

With an Internet connection.

Yes, I willfully entered into a contract with a corporation that allows me to use the internet.

[Minarchist States]

Indeed. But I think government is justified on the fact that it can provide minimum services instead of being the device of the masses to assert their will. The idea that we "consent" to our citizenship (upon birth!) is completely absurd, and if government intervention is required for the first few years of life then it should not require me paying it back.

Neither I believe is electing a whole bunch of "representatives" (yeah right) to rule the nation in an oligarchy like power structure, I'd rather have highly regulated direct democracy, or as this thread suggests, perhaps a monarch that exists to only be a figurehead with meager power.

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

-Ayn Rand

Well put. I can't see why people cannot argue on the basis of pragmatism rather than trying to use some tortured idea of implicit consent in order to justify government. (Not just for minarchism, but for all of the varieties of statism.) It makes more sense to argue for a form of government based upon what one sees as desirable, as opposed to being a representation of the 'consent of the governed' when most often a substantial part of the population will dissent but nevertheless be made to obey.

Admittedly, I think rights and morality are a subjective matter, so I cannot (for instance) say that the government has no right to take away property. But from my point of view, it is more desirable and more consistent for people not to trespass on their person or belongings unless they are willing to be treated in the same way.

Utility above ideology, I say. The government should, at best, only exist to enforce private property. This is the most desirable form, but unfortunately millions of neoconservatives do not see the same way. Whether through superstition or some shit, neocons think it's America's/Britain's duty to agitate a whole bunch of people in the name of "democracy" (which we debunked as being flawed.) On the other hand we have liberals who are all on board with the "social contract" and use it to justify the involuntary intervention they do. Lose/lose.

You are right, morality is subject. What is not (as) subjective is reason, and reason tells us that no person can initiate force against other without punishment. The consistency is paramount.

---------------------
Edit: We have gotten too off topic! Who was the most permissive of all kings? Permissive as, letting the free market do it's stuff and letting their subjects do as they want.

[Condunum]

The implied action was resuscitation.

Ah.
Well, IDK. In 10000 years the language(s) will most likely be radically different.

Yeah and I can probably learn it after a few painful cybernetic upgrade surgeries that are made for humans more evolved than I.

[Vazdania]

Well put. I can't see why people cannot argue on the basis of pragmatism rather than trying to use some tortured idea of implicit consent in order to justify government. (Not just for minarchism, but for all of the varieties of statism.) It makes more sense to argue for a form of government based upon what one sees as desirable, as opposed to being a representation of the 'consent of the governed' when most often a substantial part of the population will dissent but nevertheless be made to obey.

Admittedly, I think rights and morality are a subjective matter, so I cannot (for instance) say that the government has no right to take away property. But from my point of view, it is more desirable and more consistent for people not to trespass on their person or belongings unless they are willing to be treated in the same way.

Utility above ideology, I say. The government should, at best, only exist to enforce private property. This is the most desirable form, but unfortunately millions of neoconservatives do not see the same way. Whether through superstition or some shit, neocons think it's America's/Britain's duty to agitate a whole bunch of people in the name of "democracy" (which we debunked as being flawed.) On the other hand we have liberals who are all on board with the "social contract" and use it to justify the involuntary intervention they do. Lose/lose.

You are right, morality is subject. What is not (as) subjective is reason, and reason tells us that no person can initiate force against other without punishment. The consistency is paramount.

---------------------
Edit: We have gotten too off topic! Who was the most permissive of all kings? Permissive as, letting the free market do it's stuff and letting their subjects do as they want.

King George the 3rd!

[Meryuma]

The problem with monarchy is that it's arbitrary as hell. Both the nobles and the commoners are locked into a position they never asked for by forces beyond their control. I guess you could have an elected monarchy, but that's just an autocratic democracy. Really the only thing monarchy has going for it is the mythical/aesthetic appeal.

Name a functioning absolute libertarian monarchy- hell, a functioning absolute monarchy- that has preferable living standards to Western democracies and I'll listen.

Until then, I'm fine with my copy of La Marseillaise, capacity to elect who rules me, and principles of equality.

How about 12: the Principality of Andorra, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Principality of Monaco, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the State of the Vatican City.

Although Andorra and Vatican City are both elective monarchies.

And note that I never stated that I was defending either libertarian or absolutist monarchy - only objections to monarchy.

Those are all democracies.

With a rather large amount of war involved, because people don't generally acknowledge that they're shit at being king and leave.

So, you know, violent transfer of power is always good.

Really? In the example that I provided I don't think there was any blood shed. Actually, I know full well about the disease and such in the 1700's, I was referencing the fact that it was great for other reasons, a golden time for philosophy and monarchism.

A lot of that philosophy was rallying against the monarchy.

again, how can you free yourself of an all consuming 'social contract?'

Why should you be able to, exactly?

Because a contract by definition is explicitly agreed to. I generally find Vazdania's viewpoints frustrating but it is true that the idea of the "social contract" is bogus and pushes the concept of a contract to its breaking point.

[The Parkus Empire]

Because a contract by definition is explicitly agreed to. I generally find Vazdania's viewpoints frustrating but it is true that the idea of the "social contract" is bogus and pushes the concept of a contract to its breaking point.

Not really, unless you see being part of society as without any inherent obligations whatsoever.

[Vazdania]

Because a contract by definition is explicitly agreed to. I generally find Vazdania's viewpoints frustrating but it is true that the idea of the "social contract" is bogus and pushes the concept of a contract to its breaking point.

Not really, unless you see being part of society as without any inherent obligations whatsoever.

It doesn't.

One should be able to exist without societal obligations.

[The Nuclear Fist]

One should be able to exist without societal obligations.

As long as one does not exist in a society, one can.

[Vazdania]

Anyways...King George the 3rd is my favorite.
I don't see how anyone could object to Monarchy.
Tea is good.
Distributionism and all that.
God Save the Queen.
Tally Hoe!

[Genivaria]

A ruler raised to power is far better then one born to it.
One has to earn it, the other merely inherits it.

[Genivaria]

Not really, unless you see being part of society as without any inherent obligations whatsoever.

It doesn't.

One should be able to exist without societal obligations.

Not so long as you live in society no.