Monarchist discussion thread

[Salus Maior]

Some of those were justified since Great Britain was dragged into several wars throughout history.

Britain did outlaw slavery, at the very least in Great Britain itself, while the United States still had slavery. And yes they are the in the Middle East, but only because the United States declared war on terror.

I wouldn't say it's as bad of an oil fetish, Europe in general seems less oil hungry than the United States.

And by dragged, you mean started a lot of them? ;P

True, Brits did outlaw slavery first and good for them, but when we were finally going to get rid of it the British supported the side that was trying to protect and propagate the institution.

They're still involved. And if that's true (which I don't necessarily admit it's true, Europe's just as reliant on oil as we are), that's because we're bigger.

Anyway, this is diverting pretty far from Monarchy. Unless we want to start a discussion on George III.

[Community Values]

The more and more I hear about it, the more I'm starting to like Libertarian Monarchy. I guess I should be here?

[New confederate ramenia]

The more and more I hear about it, the more I'm starting to like Libertarian Monarchy. I guess I should be here?

Stay here fam, let's discuss Hoppe's preference of monarchy.

[The Novakian Empire]

Socialist monarchies are pretty interesting too,although like,none have actually happened.
It's kind of a weird concept.

[NeuPolska]

Anyway, this is diverting pretty far from Monarchy. Unless we want to start a discussion on George III.

We could, but I'd rather talk about Louis XVI

#LouisXVIwasInnocent
#Neverforget

[NeuPolska]

Socialist monarchies are pretty interesting too,although like,none have actually happened.
It's kind of a weird concept.

Monarchies are like chicken.

You can have them fried, baked, boiled, etc, and served with ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, on a bun, in a salad, etc.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Socialist monarchies are pretty interesting too,although like,none have actually happened.
It's kind of a weird concept.

Monarchies are like chicken.
You can have them fried, baked, boiled, etc, and served with ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, on a bun, in a salad, etc.

I like mine served straight, no legislature.

[NeuPolska]

Monarchies are like chicken.
You can have them fried, baked, boiled, etc, and served with ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, on a bun, in a salad, etc.

I like mine served straight, no legislature.

Now see I prefer a bit of seasoning with my chicken. But not to the point that the chicken itself is overpowered. The chicken should be the main part of the dish, not the seasoning. The seasoning is only there to enhance the chicken and make it taste better. Straight can be too plain, but with the right balance of seasoning and choice of condiment it can be wonderful.

[Salus Maior]

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... l_facebook

Sounds good to me

Also, this is a satirical article. But I thought you guys would still get a kick out of it.

[Absolon-7]

What would be the pros and cons of a constitutional elective monarchy?

[The Union of the West]

As the 2016 election draws nearer and nearer, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is starting to sound like a pretty good basis for a system of government.

[Yorkers]

>Makes joke
>Triggers half the thread

And by minding their own business you mean:

Killing Scots,
Killing Irish,
Killing French,
Killing Americans,
Killing Indians,
Killing Africans,
Killing Germans,
Killing Russians,
Killing Chinese,
Killing Japanese,
Killing Aboriginals,
Killing Maoris,
Killing Boers?

(probably forgot some)

Oh, and who got us into the slave trade, eh? ;P And last I checked Britain also was in the Middle East with us.

And a Western Developed Country not having an Oil fetish?

Britain's track record's just as bad as America's if not worse. The only difference is that we're the superpower now ;P

Some of those were justified since Great Britain was dragged into several wars throughout history.

Britain did outlaw slavery, at the very least in Great Britain itself, while the United States still had slavery. And yes they are the in the Middle East, but only because the United States declared war on terror.

I wouldn't say it's as bad of an oil fetish, Europe in general seems less oil hungry than the United States.

You do realize that the oil drilled in Iraq primary went to Europe and Asia, right? The US was just fighting to make sure it was traded in US dollars.

Most American oil is produced here or imported from Canada and Saudi Arabia.

[Old Tyrannia]

Minding its own business instead of developing a fetish for oil and spreading democracy

And by minding their own business you mean:

Killing Scots,

Scots are British. The first person to call themselves "King of Great Britain" was a Scot, born in Scotland, who spoke Scots. True, the British government has been responsible for the deaths of Scots. They've also been responsible for the deaths of Englishmen- so where are they on your list?

Killing Irish,

Fair enough.

Killing French,

I'm fairly sure the French have always given as good as they've got as far as wars with England go; several were started by the French, or at least sparked by French ambitions.

Killing Americans,

Suppressing a rebellion against the lawful government and protecting our sovereign territory against invasion are things the British should be blamed for?

Killing Indians,

Fair, although the empires we replaced in India weren't exactly benign utopias.

Killing Africans,

Also fair.

Killing Germans,

We told them not to invade Belgium, and they still did. We told them not to invade Poland, and what did they do? You can't seriously pin the First and Second World Wars on the UK.

Killing Russians,

Ah, yes, that well known massacre of innocent Russians by the evil Brits... That never happened. When Britain did go to war with Russia it was generally in an effort to curb Russian expansion.

Killing Chinese,

Again, fair enough. The Opium Wars were inexcusable.

Killing Japanese,

This is possibly the most ridiculous one on this list. Britain has never gone to war with Japan of its own volition, even when given a potential casus belli in the form of the sinking of the Kow-shing at the Battle of Pungdo. Japan was Britain's first official ally following the end of the period of "Splendid Isolation," and Britain the first Western power to formally ally itself with Japan; the only war between the two nations was the Pacific theatre of the Second World War, which was started by Japan launching a wholly unprovoked attack on British possessions in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

Killing Aboriginals,

Fair.

Killing Maoris,

Fair.

Killing Boers?

Fair, though the Boers weren't exactly saints themselves.

Oh, and who got us into the slave trade, eh? ;P And last I checked Britain also was in the Middle East with us.

We also abolished slavery earlier, with much less bloodshed, and put pressure on other nations to stop it at the same time. Indeed, despite it being arguably in Britain's self-interest to support the Confederates during America's Civil War, the British did not do so precisely because the Confederacy was pro-slavery at a time when public opinion in the UK was overwhelmingly anti-slavery.

[Salus Maior]

*snip*

Fair enough for the most part. Although I could also say that a lot of Native American tribes weren't saints either, but that doesn't excuse the full extent of horrid treatment.

As for the Scots, I guess this was totally jusified?

As for the War in 1812, you don't think the British impressment of American sailors had anything to do with it? That it was all American expansionism?

Yes, it's great that Britain dissolved slavery when they did. But that wasn't what I was saying, I was saying we had slavery because the Brits started us on that track. And we probably would have been able to abolish slavery sooner if it weren't for the bloody Southerners -_- .

As for the American Revolution, for the record we largely wanted to remain British subjects, and we had a very reasonable demand of the British government which was that we wanted a representative in parliament. We didn't even mind being taxed, its the fact that we had no say in the legislation, and this is reflected by the Colonies' last ditch effort to prevent war in the Olive Branch Petition, which your King refused to read at all, deciding to write it off as a revolt. We tried to avoid war.

[Old Tyrannia]

*snip*

Fair enough for the most part. Although I could also say that a lot of Native American tribes weren't saints either, but that doesn't excuse the full extent of horrid treatment.

As for the Scots, I guess this was totally jusified?

I never said that they were in any way justified, and frankly being of Scottish stock myself I find the accusation offensive. However your post seemed to imply that Scots are not, themselves, British, which is something of a sore point with me. The highlanders were as British as the lairds responsible for the clearances- and they were largely Scottish, too. It was hardly a case of the British "not minding their own business," which is what you were originally complaining about.

As for the War in 1812, you don't think the British impressment of American sailors had nothing to do with it?

What, the largely accidental impressment of American sailors that the British Government already agreed to take actions to stop before America invaded Canada? Spare me your 19th century propaganda lines. The real motivation for the American invasion was purely expansionist.

Yes, it's great that Britain dissolved slavery when they did. But that wasn't what I was saying, I was saying we had slavery because the Brits started us on that track. And we probably would have been able to abolish slavery sooner if it weren't for the bloody Southerners -_- .

I know what you were saying. Britain was not the country that introduced slavery to North America, however- that would be the Spanish. And singling out the British for criticism when the African slave trade was something the entire European and Arab worlds were involved in is hardly fair.

[Salus Maior]

Fair enough for the most part. Although I could also say that a lot of Native American tribes weren't saints either, but that doesn't excuse the full extent of horrid treatment.

As for the Scots, I guess this was totally jusified?

I never said that they were in any way justified, and frankly being of Scottish stock myself I find the accusation offensive. However your post seemed to imply that Scots are not, themselves, British, which is something of a sore point with me. The highlanders were as British as the lairds responsible for the clearances- and they were largely Scottish, too. It was hardly a case of the British "not minding their own business," which is what you were originally complaining about. .

I'm of Scottish stock too. And I can't help but feel that if the Highlander Scots were truly seen as British as say, anyone else in the Isles, the government would have stepped in to stop it.

It wouldn't be the last time Gaelic speakers would be persecuted in the U.K.

[Sanctissima]

Fair enough for the most part. Although I could also say that a lot of Native American tribes weren't saints either, but that doesn't excuse the full extent of horrid treatment.

As for the Scots, I guess this was totally jusified?

I never said that they were in any way justified, and frankly being of Scottish stock myself I find the accusation offensive. However your post seemed to imply that Scots are not, themselves, British, which is something of a sore point with me. The highlanders were as British as the lairds responsible for the clearances- and they were largely Scottish, too. It was hardly a case of the British "not minding their own business," which is what you were originally complaining about.

As for the War in 1812, you don't think the British impressment of American sailors had nothing to do with it?

What, the largely accidental impressment of American sailors that the British Government already agreed to take actions to stop before America invaded Canada? Spare me your 19th century propaganda lines. The real motivation for the American invasion was purely expansionist.

Yes, it's great that Britain dissolved slavery when they did. But that wasn't what I was saying, I was saying we had slavery because the Brits started us on that track. And we probably would have been able to abolish slavery sooner if it weren't for the bloody Southerners -_- .

I know what you were saying. Britain was not the country that introduced slavery to North America, however- that would be the Spanish. And singling out the British for criticism when the African slave trade was something the entire European and Arab worlds were involved in is hardly fair.

In terms of the War of 1812, sure, Madison and the other warhawks in Congress at the time desperately wanted a war, and with Britain preoccupied with Napoleon they were eager to find whatever excuse they could to invade Canada. That being said, the impressment wasn't accidental by any means. The entire reasoning behind it was that according to English law, Brits weren't allowed to change their citizenship or switch allegiance to another country, so it evidently wasn't accidental when said people were found and promptly impressed into the British Navy. American sailors weren't being impressed by accident, they were being impressed because the British government refused to acknowledge them as being American. Sure, they eventually agreed to stop doing that, but by the time the message arrived in Washington, the invasion had already begun, and it was a bit too late to call things off by that point.

[Old Tyrannia]

I never said that they were in any way justified, and frankly being of Scottish stock myself I find the accusation offensive. However your post seemed to imply that Scots are not, themselves, British, which is something of a sore point with me. The highlanders were as British as the lairds responsible for the clearances- and they were largely Scottish, too. It was hardly a case of the British "not minding their own business," which is what you were originally complaining about. .

I'm of Scottish stock too. And I can't help but feel that if the Highlander Scots were truly seen as British as say, anyone else in the Isles, the government would have stepped in to stop it.

Fortunately your feelings count for nothing as far as reality is concerned.

As for the American Revolution, for the record we largely wanted to remain British subjects, and we had a very reasonable demand of the British government which was that we wanted a representative in parliament.

Then why did the rebels continue the war even when all of their demands were met? And that's hardly a reasonable demand considering the difficulties involved in having an American representative in Parliament with the Americas being so far away at a time when intercontinental travel was still slow, especially when the colonists were already subjected to a far less severe tax regime than people in the homeland.

We didn't even mind being taxed, its the fact that we had no say in the legislation, and this is reflected by the Colonies' last ditch effort to prevent war in the Olive Branch Petition, which your King refused to read at all, deciding to write it off as a revolt. We tried to avoid war.

You talk as if you were there.

You're right that many Americans didn't mind being taxed; in fact, there was considerable anger over the revocation of taxes on tea, because it undercut the local smuggling trade.

[Salus Maior]

Then why did the rebels continue the war even when all of their demands were met? And that's hardly a reasonable demand considering the difficulties involved in having an American representative in Parliament with the Americas being so far away at a time when intercontinental travel was still slow, especially when the colonists were already subjected to a far less severe tax regime than people in the homeland.

We didn't even mind being taxed, its the fact that we had no say in the legislation, and this is reflected by the Colonies' last ditch effort to prevent war in the Olive Branch Petition, which your King refused to read at all, deciding to write it off as a revolt. We tried to avoid war.

You talk as if you were there.

You're right that many Americans didn't mind being taxed; in fact, there was considerable anger over the revocation of taxes on tea, because it undercut the local smuggling trade.

Because the war was already underway at that point, it wasn't just going to stop.

My point is that, we tried to stop this, and your government had none of it until it was too late. Can you really blame the Americans for that?

If the British can force legislation on the colonials despite being an ocean away, while the Americans are unable to have a say in it, I suppose that's another reason for American independence.

[Unitaristic Regions]

So why would anyone want a monarch with power? (Honest question)

[Lekya (Ancient)]

So why would anyone want a monarch with power? (Honest question)

Why would anyone want a President with power? A Prime Minister? Chancellor? What's the difference?

[Unitaristic Regions]

So why would anyone want a monarch with power? (Honest question)

Why would anyone want a President with power? A Prime Minister? Chancellor? What's the difference?

That the president has popular mandate given by a population consciously voting for a particular political platform, and is supposed to rise based on merit, not birth.

Srsly

[Lekya (Ancient)]

Why would anyone want a President with power? A Prime Minister? Chancellor? What's the difference?

That the president has popular mandate given by a population consciously voting for a particular political platform, and is supposed to rise based on merit, not birth.

Srsly

But do they truly? And, follow up, do Monarchs not rise or fall based on merit?

[Unitaristic Regions]

That the president has popular mandate given by a population consciously voting for a particular political platform, and is supposed to rise based on merit, not birth.

Srsly

But do they truly? And, follow up, do Monarchs not rise or fall based on merit?

Well, I would say no to the first question, but that's because I'm a communist.

Secondly, I would rather vote away an idiot than have to rise up in armed revolt every time my ruler turns out to be an idiot.

[Lekya (Ancient)]

But do they truly? And, follow up, do Monarchs not rise or fall based on merit?

Well, I would say no to the first question, but that's because I'm a communist.

Secondly, I would rather vote away an idiot than have to rise up in armed revolt every time my ruler turns out to be an idiot.

Ah, a communist. I see. So I take it you accept at least the basics of Marx's dialectical materialism as it relates to the history of sociopolitical systems?