Monarchist Discussion Thread II: The Crown will Rise Again!

[Camelone]

Yes after generations of injustice just like you accused monarchies of perpetuating injustices for generations.

It was still less of an issue than the couple thousands of years worth of injustice of various monarchs and emperors across Eurasia. :^)

And what specific injustices are you talking about? It is hard to address them if you throw out a word without backing it up with examples.

[Salus Maior]

What a magnificent argument. Do you actually have an argument or are you trolling us?

Uh

Uhhh

I have this French guillotine, if that counts toward anything.

Regardless Monarchy's pretty dangerous and spooky, so we shouldn't have it. No hierarchies is the best system hands-down.

lol, hierarchy is something inherent in humanity. There's literally no way to prevent or avoid it.

[Torrocca]

It was still less of an issue than the couple thousands of years worth of injustice of various monarchs and emperors across Eurasia. :^)

And what specific injustices are you talking about? It is hard to address them if you throw out a word without backing it up with examples.

Hmm, let's see... how about all the slavery, serfdom, wars, pogroms, massacres, crusades/jihads, the general repression of common people, the greed of the upper classes, and on and on and on in societies run by emperors and monarchies?

Almost like the whims of one person being forced on thousands or even millions is a horrifically shitty thing.

[Provincial America]

Another question

For a country that was not originally founded as or by a monarchy, how in the event that the country adopts monarchism is a claim to the throne approved without devolving into political infighting.

[Salus Maior]

I'm not an Absolutist if that's what you're getting at.

Although I am more authoritarian than you, which isn't hard really considering you're a libertarian.

What I'm getting at, is that "because muh stability" isn't an argument.

I'm not speaking in a general sense, I'm speaking in terms of successions, heritage is easier and less prone to complications or corruptions that can happen in a electoral system.

[Torrocca]

Uh

Uhhh

I have this French guillotine, if that counts toward anything.

Regardless Monarchy's pretty dangerous and spooky, so we shouldn't have it. No hierarchies is the best system hands-down.

lol, hierarchy is something inherent in humanity. There's literally no way to prevent or avoid it.

You can most certainly prevent the shittier forms of hierarchy, like upper/lower classes and shit like that. Natural hierarchies, like family units or teacher/student relationships are the ones that are naturally unavoidable. :^)

[Salus Maior]

And what specific injustices are you talking about? It is hard to address them if you throw out a word without backing it up with examples.

Hmm, let's see... how about all the slavery, serfdom, wars, pogroms, massacres, crusades/jihads, the general repression of common people, the greed of the upper classes, and on and on and on in societies run by emperors and monarchies?

Almost like the whims of one person being forced on thousands or even millions is a horrifically shitty thing.

You mean those things that also happen and did happen in democracies and republics?

What was that civil war in America about again?

[Kubra]

It was still less of an issue than the couple thousands of years worth of injustice of various monarchs and emperors across Eurasia. :^)

And what specific injustices are you talking about? It is hard to address them if you throw out a word without backing it up with examples.

Caligula, Nero, Tiberius, Charles II, Ferdinand I, Tsar Godunov, it's easier to simply name names than policy.
I mean, we can certainly simply name names of pretty bad elected heads of state and/or government, though for the most part we'll find their terms to be a bit shorter than lifetime.

[Salus Maior]

lol, hierarchy is something inherent in humanity. There's literally no way to prevent or avoid it.

You can most certainly prevent the shittier forms of hierarchy, like upper/lower classes and shit like that. Natural hierarchies, like family units or teacher/student relationships are the ones that are naturally unavoidable. :^)

Political hierarchies are natural. Hell, monarchy is just about the most natural form of governmental hierarchy their is, it's existed among all cultures and all of history just about everywhere at one point or another.

And no, you can't prevent governmental hierarchies from forming.

[Torrocca]

You can most certainly prevent the shittier forms of hierarchy, like upper/lower classes and shit like that. Natural hierarchies, like family units or teacher/student relationships are the ones that are naturally unavoidable. :^)

Political hierarchies are natural. Hell, monarchy is just about the most natural form of governmental hierarchy their is, it's existed among all cultures and all of history just about everywhere at one point or another.

Just because it existed doesn't mean it's natural. Just because any schmuck that's able to use force of arms to claim divine right and dictatorship can form a monarchy doesn't mean they're a natural hierarchy.

And no, you can't prevent governmental hierarchies from forming.

You can with democracy. :^)

Hmm, let's see... how about all the slavery, serfdom, wars, pogroms, massacres, crusades/jihads, the general repression of common people, the greed of the upper classes, and on and on and on in societies run by emperors and monarchies?

Almost like the whims of one person being forced on thousands or even millions is a horrifically shitty thing.

You mean those things that also happen and did happen in democracies and republics?

They didn't happen nearly to the extent that they've happened in monarchies, empires, or other authoritarian regimes.

[Camelone]

And what specific injustices are you talking about? It is hard to address them if you throw out a word without backing it up with examples.

Hmm, let's see... how about all the slavery, serfdom, wars, pogroms, massacres, crusades/jihads, the general repression of common people, the greed of the upper classes, and on and on and on in societies run by emperors and monarchies?

Almost like the whims of one person being forced on thousands or even millions is a horrifically shitty thing.

Slavery, was outlawed around the same time during the Enlightenment by monarchies and republics alike.
Serfdom, went away due to the Black Death in Western Europe due to basic economics and the advent of gunpowder took away the martial advantage of the landed aristocracy.
Wars... seriously wars? That is literally every form of government.
Pogroms, seeing as a lot of that was done by Cossacks the Russians just let it happen.
Massacres... French Revolution, almost any revolution, Communists, Fascists, American settlers, Native Americans, literally almost any government.
Crusades/Jihads, done and called by religious authorities not really any specific type of government.
Repression, it is not like most monarchies were deposed by elected parliaments or something silly like that if they weren't overthrown by colonialists.
Greed of the upper class... have you looked around the greed is definitely still there and all around us.

I think monarchy in your head is a symbol for something and not very historical.

[Kubra]

What I'm getting at, is that "because muh stability" isn't an argument.

I'm not speaking in a general sense, I'm speaking in terms of successions, heritage is easier and less prone to complications or corruptions that can happen in a electoral system.

Easier? When your throne is beset by multiple claimant's with byzantine lineage charts and unwritten codes, it's pretty difficult to discern succession. I mean, we still have wars over election, but at least we can be *mostly* sure conflict has public interest, folks want things one way or the other or some other, instead of "I wanna be king, this heir sux" or "this family has way too many thrones and it's really gonna fuck with us".

[Camelone]

And what specific injustices are you talking about? It is hard to address them if you throw out a word without backing it up with examples.

Caligula, Nero, Tiberius, Charles II, Ferdinand I, Tsar Godunov, it's easier to simply name names than policy.
I mean, we can certainly simply name names of pretty bad elected heads of state and/or government, though for the most part we'll find their terms to be a bit shorter than lifetime.

I agree with all two I find for Emperor Tiberius, King Charles II the Martyr, and Tsar Boris Godunov to be examples of decent rulers.

[Torrocca]

Hmm, let's see... how about all the slavery, serfdom, wars, pogroms, massacres, crusades/jihads, the general repression of common people, the greed of the upper classes, and on and on and on in societies run by emperors and monarchies?

Almost like the whims of one person being forced on thousands or even millions is a horrifically shitty thing.

Slavery, was outlawed around the same time during the Enlightenment by monarchies and republics alike.

If you're focusing on a Eurocentric POV, sure. :^)

Serfdom, went away due to the Black Death in Western Europe due to basic economics and the advent of gunpowder took away the martial advantage of the landed aristocracy.

Hmm, almost like it was the will of the people that made things better rather than any monarchist system.

Wars... seriously wars? That is literally every form of government.

Wars are less frequent with democracies than with monarchies.

Pogroms, seeing as a lot of that was done by Cossacks the Russians just let it happen.

That's only one form of a pogrom. :^)

Massacres... French Revolution, almost any revolution, Communists, Fascists, American settlers, Native Americans, literally almost any government.

Massacres had/have a tendency to be more frequent under authoritarian systems. :^)

Crusades/Jihads, done and called by religious authorities not really any specific type of government.

Religious authorities that derived their power from governments that supported them. :^)

Repression, it is not like most monarchies were deposed by elected parliaments or something silly like that if they weren't overthrown by colonialists.

I take you to my second point here. :^)

Greed of the upper class... have you looked around the greed is definitely still there and all around us.

Doesn't change the fact that it also existed under monarchies, arguably on a worse scale than under today. :^)

[Salus Maior]

1.Just because it existed doesn't mean it's natural. Just because any schmuck that's able to use force of arms to claim divine right and dictatorship can form a monarchy doesn't mean they're a natural hierarchy.

2.You can with democracy. :^)

3.They didn't happen nearly to the extent that they've happened in monarchies, empires, or other authoritarian regimes.

1. If it occurs nearly everywhere there's certainly enough of a precedent to see it as a natural form of government (even if primitive in some forms, like tribal chieftains).

2. I've got news for you pal, it doesn't. Mostly because a democratic government is a form of hierarchy. In fact, it breeds a class of people dedicated to the political sphere (because naturally, your everyday Joe with a family and job can't dedicate his time and money to studying all the nations issues and how the government works, so this breeds a specific people dedicated to those things, mostly a higher wealthier class).

3. The last western countries to abolish slavery were colonial nations that were largely democratic. I.E the U.S and Brazil. And even then you have no hard information to really back that kind of claim.

[Salus Maior]

Slavery, was outlawed around the same time during the Enlightenment by monarchies and republics alike.

If you're focusing on a Eurocentric POV, sure. :^)

Serfdom, went away due to the Black Death in Western Europe due to basic economics and the advent of gunpowder took away the martial advantage of the landed aristocracy.

Hmm, almost like it was the will of the people that made things better rather than any monarchist system.

Wars... seriously wars? That is literally every form of government.

Wars are less frequent with democracies than with monarchies.

Pogroms, seeing as a lot of that was done by Cossacks the Russians just let it happen.

That's only one form of a pogrom. :^)

Massacres... French Revolution, almost any revolution, Communists, Fascists, American settlers, Native Americans, literally almost any government.

Massacres had/have a tendency to be more frequent under authoritarian systems. :^)

Crusades/Jihads, done and called by religious authorities not really any specific type of government.

Religious authorities that derived their power from governments that supported them. :^)

Repression, it is not like most monarchies were deposed by elected parliaments or something silly like that if they weren't overthrown by colonialists.

I take you to my second point here. :^)

Greed of the upper class... have you looked around the greed is definitely still there and all around us.

Doesn't change the fact that it also existed under monarchies, arguably on a worse scale than under today. :^)

If you're going to keep claiming that everything was worse under monarchies, for being monarchies in an of itself (and not for things like, existing before the Industrial Revolution), I'm going to start asking for some citations or sources.

Because literally anyone can say "no it was worse under the government i dont like".

[Kubra]

Caligula, Nero, Tiberius, Charles II, Ferdinand I, Tsar Godunov, it's easier to simply name names than policy.
I mean, we can certainly simply name names of pretty bad elected heads of state and/or government, though for the most part we'll find their terms to be a bit shorter than lifetime.

I agree with all two I find for Emperor Tiberius, King Charles II the Martyr, and Tsar Boris Godunov to be examples of decent rulers.

>liking Tiberius
Oh yes, quite competent militarily, got a good bit of plunder out of it, but as any economist will tell you: plunder ain't sound economics. If you gotta choose 1 quality, effete administrators>swarthy warlords most of the time.

I mean of Spain, not England. Charles II of England was pretty dumb too tho, dude was basically asking to be deposed. Not sound governance.

>Godunov
What, the guy who cemented serfdom in Russia? You've got funny taste in autocrats. I bet you think Frederick I merely decent, or extraordinary simply for his military campaigns.

[Torrocca]

If you're going to keep claiming that everything was worse under monarchies, for being monarchies in an of itself (and not for things like, existing before the Industrial Revolution), I'm going to start asking for some citations or sources.

Because literally anyone can say "no it was worse under the government i dont like".

Just saying, there's a reason 99% of the world has done away with monarchies of nearly every form. :^)

1.Just because it existed doesn't mean it's natural. Just because any schmuck that's able to use force of arms to claim divine right and dictatorship can form a monarchy doesn't mean they're a natural hierarchy.

2.You can with democracy. :^)

3.They didn't happen nearly to the extent that they've happened in monarchies, empires, or other authoritarian regimes.

1. If it occurs nearly everywhere there's certainly enough of a precedent to see it as a natural form of government (even if primitive in some forms, like tribal chieftains).

Just because it occurs in places doesn't equate to it being a natural system. Correlation =/= causation.

2. I've got news for you pal, it doesn't. Mostly because a democratic government is a form of hierarchy. In fact, it breeds a class of people dedicated to the political sphere (because naturally, your everyday Joe with a family and job can't dedicate his time and money to studying all the nations issues and how the government works, so this breeds a specific people dedicated to those things, mostly a higher wealthier class).

Republicanism =/= Democracy, friendo.

3. The last western countries to abolish slavery were colonial nations that were largely democratic. I.E the U.S and Brazil. And even then you have no hard information to really back that kind of claim.

That doesn't mean slavery was nearly as extensive under democratic systems as it ever was under authoritarian ones. :^)

[Camelone]

Slavery, was outlawed around the same time during the Enlightenment by monarchies and republics alike.

1. If you're focusing on a Eurocentric POV, sure. :^)

Serfdom, went away due to the Black Death in Western Europe due to basic economics and the advent of gunpowder took away the martial advantage of the landed aristocracy.

2. Hmm, almost like it was the will of the people that made things better rather than any monarchist system.

Wars... seriously wars? That is literally every form of government.

3. Wars are less frequent with democracies than with monarchies.

Pogroms, seeing as a lot of that was done by Cossacks the Russians just let it happen.

4. That's only one form of a pogrom. :^)

Massacres... French Revolution, almost any revolution, Communists, Fascists, American settlers, Native Americans, literally almost any government.

5. Massacres had/have a tendency to be more frequent under authoritarian systems. :^)

Crusades/Jihads, done and called by religious authorities not really any specific type of government.

6. Religious authorities that derived their power from governments that supported them. :^)

Repression, it is not like most monarchies were deposed by elected parliaments or something silly like that if they weren't overthrown by colonialists.

7. I take you to my second point here. :^)

Greed of the upper class... have you looked around the greed is definitely still there and all around us.

8. Doesn't change the fact that it also existed under monarchies, arguably on a worse scale than under today. :^)

1. Yes because modern civilization and pretty much the world was shaped by European steel and ideals because of military might.
2. Something that has existed for a long time, people tend not to mess with their subjects if they have stuff to lose so better just collect your taxes instead of abusing the people.
3. Is that due to the system or is it due to the time of a lot democracies coming to power we had nukes and could destroy each other easier?
4. Okay.
5. I would argue civil wars
6. And that included republics, ie the merchant republics of Italy were giant supporters of the Crusades, oh look republics can do Crusades to.
7. Except a lot of those countries fell into dictatorships, whether republican or communist. It is almost as if the people don't have a will except for don't mess with us.
8. Going to need some stats for that one.

[Torrocca]

1. If you're focusing on a Eurocentric POV, sure. :^)



2. Hmm, almost like it was the will of the people that made things better rather than any monarchist system.



3. Wars are less frequent with democracies than with monarchies.



4. That's only one form of a pogrom. :^)



5. Massacres had/have a tendency to be more frequent under authoritarian systems. :^)



6. Religious authorities that derived their power from governments that supported them. :^)



7. I take you to my second point here. :^)



8. Doesn't change the fact that it also existed under monarchies, arguably on a worse scale than under today. :^)

1. Yes because modern civilization and pretty much the world was shaped by European steel and ideals because of military might.

>Arguing favorably for imperialism

eww

2. Something that has existed for a long time, people tend not to mess with their subjects if they have stuff to lose so better just collect your taxes instead of abusing the people.

Or better yet, no subjects and no masters. The people have spoken well enough across the world on this matter, which is why there's so few monarchies today. :^)

3. Is that due to the system or is it due to the time of a lot democracies coming to power we had nukes and could destroy each other easier?

The system. Believe it or not, when the people have a say and know what's a stake, there tends to be more diplomacy and fewer megalomaniacs ordering legions of people to their deaths.

5. I would argue civil wars

Civil wars =/= massacres.

6. And that included republics, ie the merchant republics of Italy were giant supporters of the Crusades, oh look republics can do Crusades to.

You mean the quasi-feudalistic, oligarchic states of Italy that were essentially no better than actual monarchies?

7. Except a lot of those countries fell into dictatorships, whether republican or communist. It is almost as if the people don't have a will except for don't mess with us.

Nah. The people have plenty of will to be free. :^)

8. Going to need some stats for that one.

>Needing stats to confirm the vast majority of wealth went to kings and emperors in feudal systems

wew laddie

[Torrocca]

Just saying, there's a reason 99% of the world has done away with monarchies of nearly every form. :^)



Just because it occurs in places doesn't equate to it being a natural system. Correlation =/= causation.



Republicanism =/= Democracy, friendo.



That doesn't mean slavery was nearly as extensive under democratic systems as it ever was under authoritarian ones. :^)

Stop with the snark, that's unnecessary, and frankly it makes you look like a edgy joke, regardless of if your beliefs are right or not.

My snark's forever eternal for dead jokes, like monarchism. :^)

[Salus Maior]

If you're going to keep claiming that everything was worse under monarchies, for being monarchies in an of itself (and not for things like, existing before the Industrial Revolution), I'm going to start asking for some citations or sources.

Because literally anyone can say "no it was worse under the government i dont like".

Just saying, there's a reason 99% of the world has done away with monarchies of nearly every form. :^)

1. If it occurs nearly everywhere there's certainly enough of a precedent to see it as a natural form of government (even if primitive in some forms, like tribal chieftains).

Just because it occurs in places doesn't equate to it being a natural system. Correlation =/= causation.

2. I've got news for you pal, it doesn't. Mostly because a democratic government is a form of hierarchy. In fact, it breeds a class of people dedicated to the political sphere (because naturally, your everyday Joe with a family and job can't dedicate his time and money to studying all the nations issues and how the government works, so this breeds a specific people dedicated to those things, mostly a higher wealthier class).

2.Republicanism =/= Democracy, friendo.

3. The last western countries to abolish slavery were colonial nations that were largely democratic. I.E the U.S and Brazil. And even then you have no hard information to really back that kind of claim.

3.That doesn't mean slavery was nearly as extensive under democratic systems as it ever was under authoritarian ones. :^)

1. And that's because the Entente destroyed the major players after the Great War, and started pushing for European countries (and others) to be shifted from monarchy. That does not mean that monarchy was not a functional and effective form of government.

2. Oh, you mean like Athens? Who had about 80,000 slaves in their population? About 3 or 4 slaves per household? And also attempted to ethnically cleanse the island of Chalkis for the sake of Athenian landowners? That democracy?

3. Citation needed, broseph :^) I want hard information, academic sources that suggest that say, the monarchies of Europe (like France, Prussia/Germany, Austria, Britain) had more slaves than more democratic societies like the pre-abolition U.S or South America.

[Camelone]

I agree with all two I find for Emperor Tiberius, King Charles II the Martyr, and Tsar Boris Godunov to be examples of decent rulers.

>liking Tiberius
Oh yes, quite competent militarily, got a good bit of plunder out of it, but as any economist will tell you: plunder ain't sound economics. If you gotta choose 1 quality, effete administrators>swarthy warlords most of the time.

I mean of Spain, not England. Charles II of England was pretty dumb too tho, dude was basically asking to be deposed. Not sound governance.

>Godunov
What, the guy who cemented serfdom in Russia? You've got funny taste in autocrats. I bet you think Frederick I merely decent, or extraordinary simply for his military campaigns.

Tiberius left the Imperial treasury with a lot of money in it, he consolidated and made the Empire stronger, kept out of frontier disputes, and made sure to strengthen his empire. He would have gone down as a good emperor if it wasn't for Sanjenus. Are we talking about the same Tiberius who died in 37 AD I believe?

Did Charles the Second of Spain even rule? I thought he was to mentally deficient to rule so it was just his administration.

We talking about the same Tsar here? He was the guy who tried to Westernize Russia with social and intellectual reform before the Time of Troubles?

Frederick the 1st of Prussia?

[Salus Maior]

Stop with the snark, that's unnecessary, and frankly it makes you look like a edgy joke, regardless of if your beliefs are right or not.

My snark's forever eternal for dead jokes, like monarchism. :^)

And mine's for impractical pipe dreams, like Anarchism :^)

[Salus Maior]

I'm not speaking in a general sense, I'm speaking in terms of successions, heritage is easier and less prone to complications or corruptions that can happen in a electoral system.

Easier? When your throne is beset by multiple claimant's with byzantine lineage charts and unwritten codes, it's pretty difficult to discern succession. I mean, we still have wars over election, but at least we can be *mostly* sure conflict has public interest, folks want things one way or the other or some other, instead of "I wanna be king, this heir sux" or "this family has way too many thrones and it's really gonna fuck with us".

I'm speaking of something more akin to British Monarchy in terms of succession. Nobody should attempt to be like the Byzantines in anything, except aesthetics. They had damn good aesthetics.