Objections to monarchy

[Tlaceceyaya]

A diplomat not because of a passion for diplomacy, but because of being born into the higher caste.

You speak from ignorance. His family are elevated because of his passion, his honor, and other attributes society values. His caste has nothing to do with. Do you forget that the anarcho-monarchist monarch exists within an anarchist paradigm? There is nothing to institute and perpetuate a caste system. Period.

His passion?
His family is elevated because of his passion? For what? I hardly suspect that everyone wants to be what their parents were. Besides, he wasn't born when the caste system was initiated. His honour? What the fuck does that even mean? He's just been raised to do one thing and one thing alone.
And if there is nothing to institute and perpetuate a caste system, then why is that family in its own higher caste?

[Distruzio]

You speak from ignorance. His family are elevated because of his passion, his honor, and other attributes society values. His caste has nothing to do with. Do you forget that the anarcho-monarchist monarch exists within an anarchist paradigm? There is nothing to institute and perpetuate a caste system. Period.

His passion?
His family is elevated because of his passion? For what? I hardly suspect that everyone wants to be what their parents were. Besides, he wasn't born when the caste system was initiated. His honour? What the fuck does that even mean? He's just been raised to do one thing and one thing alone.
And if there is nothing to institute and perpetuate a caste system, then why is that family in its own higher caste?

What caste? There is no caste.You're making things up.

[Tlaceceyaya]

His passion?
His family is elevated because of his passion? For what? I hardly suspect that everyone wants to be what their parents were. Besides, he wasn't born when the caste system was initiated. His honour? What the fuck does that even mean? He's just been raised to do one thing and one thing alone.
And if there is nothing to institute and perpetuate a caste system, then why is that family in its own higher caste?

What caste? There is no caste.You're making things up.

So anyone can become the monarch? It's not an occupation limited only to a "pure" type of people?

[Distruzio]

What caste? There is no caste.You're making things up.

So anyone can become the monarch? It's not an occupation limited only to a "pure" type of people?

Of course.

[Warda]

What caste? There is no caste.You're making things up.

So anyone can become the monarch? It's not an occupation limited only to a "pure" type of people?

yup. you just have to have support to become one.

[The Emerald Legion]

His passion?
His family is elevated because of his passion? For what? I hardly suspect that everyone wants to be what their parents were. Besides, he wasn't born when the caste system was initiated. His honour? What the fuck does that even mean? He's just been raised to do one thing and one thing alone.
And if there is nothing to institute and perpetuate a caste system, then why is that family in its own higher caste?

What caste? There is no caste.You're making things up.

The caste created by having a hereditary monarch.

[Vazdania]

So anyone can become the monarch? It's not an occupation limited only to a "pure" type of people?

Of course.

This is where you and I differ!

[Tlaceceyaya]

So anyone can become the monarch? It's not an occupation limited only to a "pure" type of people?

Of course.

So either a monarch is not elevated to such a position merely because of idiotic things like his family's "passion" or "honour" or you're lying.

[Distruzio]

What caste? There is no caste.You're making things up.

The caste created by having a hereditary monarch.

And where have I described a hereditary monarch in anarcho-monarchism?

[Blasveck]

Then why call it anarcho-monarchy?

Someone (a monarch) is part of a power hierarchy . The head of the power hierarchy.

No, not power. Governmental structure. Hierarchy isn't anti-anarchy, despite the bleating from left anarchist, when it is freely chosen. For instance, when my fiance defers to me about the movie we will watch, I am being both anarchic and hierarchical. Why? Because she grants me the authority to decide for her without the coercion of the State apparatus to enforce her equality... you know, just in case that deferment drives me mad with power and I threaten her safety.... which is fucking ridiculous.

It is anarcho-monarchy because the name recognizes the truth of anarchy and the truth of appropriate governmental structure within the State.

From Wikipedia:

"Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, some argue that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system."

Anarchy comes in many forms.

Including the rejection of hierarchies.

Figure I'd point that out.

[Distruzio]

Of course.

So either a monarch is not elevated to such a position merely because of idiotic things like his family's "passion" or "honour" or you're lying.

How so? It's not limited to a "caste" of people. It's limited to the recognized and honored individuals. It even exists today.

[The Emerald Legion]

The caste created by having a hereditary monarch.

And where have I described a hereditary monarch in anarcho-monarchism?

Then it isn't a monarchy.

Anarcho-Monarchism... as you've described it... is nothing more than a cult of personality.

[Tlaceceyaya]

So either a monarch is not elevated to such a position merely because of idiotic things like his family's "passion" or "honour" or you're lying.

How so? It's not limited to a "caste" of people. It's limited to the recognized and honored individuals. It even exists today.

Only if you redefine what you're talking about to something entirely different and contradict yourself entirely.

[Distruzio]

And where have I described a hereditary monarch in anarcho-monarchism?

Then it isn't a monarchy.

Anarcho-Monarchism... as you've described it... is nothing more than a cult of personality.

Correct on both parts... in a way. Anarcho-monarchism doesn't describe the monarch of an anarchy. It describes the ideal social existence for a human being- either anarchy or monarchy. From there, it expands.

This is why I changed my identifier to libertarian monarchism.Instead of asking questions folks just tilt at windmills.

[Distruzio]

How so? It's not limited to a "caste" of people. It's limited to the recognized and honored individuals. It even exists today.

Only if you redefine what you're talking about to something entirely different and contradict yourself entirely.

I didn't contradict myself at all.

[Distruzio]

No, not power. Governmental structure. Hierarchy isn't anti-anarchy, despite the bleating from left anarchist, when it is freely chosen. For instance, when my fiance defers to me about the movie we will watch, I am being both anarchic and hierarchical. Why? Because she grants me the authority to decide for her without the coercion of the State apparatus to enforce her equality... you know, just in case that deferment drives me mad with power and I threaten her safety.... which is fucking ridiculous.

It is anarcho-monarchy because the name recognizes the truth of anarchy and the truth of appropriate governmental structure within the State.

From Wikipedia:

"Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, some argue that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system."

Anarchy comes in many forms.

Including the rejection of hierarchies.

Figure I'd point that out.

Of course. I just like pissing in their wheaties my continually asserting the, to me, obvious nature of human interaction.

[Blasveck]

From Wikipedia:

"Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, some argue that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system."

Anarchy comes in many forms.

Including the rejection of hierarchies.

Figure I'd point that out.

Of course. I just like pissing in their wheaties my continually asserting the, to me, obvious nature of human interaction.

And that would be?
I just want to know you thoughts about human interaction.

[Vazdania]

So either a monarch is not elevated to such a position merely because of idiotic things like his family's "passion" or "honour" or you're lying.

How so? It's not limited to a "caste" of people. It's limited to the recognized and honored individuals. It even exists today.

I can hardly say that I agree with such a system... but that's just me. I believe a Monarchy should be hereditary.

[Seperates]

Then why call it anarcho-monarchy?

Someone (a monarch) is part of a power hierarchy . The head of the power hierarchy.

No, not power. Governmental structure. Hierarchy isn't anti-anarchy, despite the bleating from left anarchist, when it is freely chosen. For instance, when my fiance defers to me about the movie we will watch, I am being both anarchic and hierarchical. Why? Because she grants me the authority to decide for her without the coercion of the State apparatus to enforce her equality... you know, just in case that deferment drives me mad with power and I threaten her safety.... which is fucking ridiculous.

It is anarcho-monarchy because the name recognizes the truth of anarchy and the truth of appropriate governmental structure within the State.

What happens when you and her cannot agree on what movie to watch?

[Distruzio]

No, not power. Governmental structure. Hierarchy isn't anti-anarchy, despite the bleating from left anarchist, when it is freely chosen. For instance, when my fiance defers to me about the movie we will watch, I am being both anarchic and hierarchical. Why? Because she grants me the authority to decide for her without the coercion of the State apparatus to enforce her equality... you know, just in case that deferment drives me mad with power and I threaten her safety.... which is fucking ridiculous.

It is anarcho-monarchy because the name recognizes the truth of anarchy and the truth of appropriate governmental structure within the State.

What happens when you and her cannot agree on what movie to watch?

Pfft... we kill each other in the face.

[Vazdania]

No, not power. Governmental structure. Hierarchy isn't anti-anarchy, despite the bleating from left anarchist, when it is freely chosen. For instance, when my fiance defers to me about the movie we will watch, I am being both anarchic and hierarchical. Why? Because she grants me the authority to decide for her without the coercion of the State apparatus to enforce her equality... you know, just in case that deferment drives me mad with power and I threaten her safety.... which is fucking ridiculous.

It is anarcho-monarchy because the name recognizes the truth of anarchy and the truth of appropriate governmental structure within the State.

What happens when you and her cannot agree on what movie to watch?

Rock. Paper. Scissors. best 2 out of 3.

[Distruzio]

Of course. I just like pissing in their wheaties my continually asserting the, to me, obvious nature of human interaction.

And that would be?
I just want to know you thoughts about human interaction.

They tend to be mutually beneficial rather than adversarial.

[Blasveck]

And that would be?
I just want to know you thoughts about human interaction.

They tend to be mutually beneficial rather than adversarial.

Absolutely.

Most anarchists I know assert the same thing.

[Zimbabwe-Rhodesie]

If it is a democratic and constitutional monarchy like the UK its just fine.

[Distruzio]

They tend to be mutually beneficial rather than adversarial.

Absolutely.

Most anarchists I know assert the same thing.

Then I've no issues with them. The ones I've met... save a relative few on this site, have asserted the opposite.