NationStates

---

Welcome to the MDT! Your thread for anti-democratic and dark enlightenment thought.

Monarchism is separate from left or right-wing thought as variation of such monarchy can differ between cultures and society, so keep talk about such topics in their respectful Discussion Thread. For those who do not agree with monarchism, feel free to ask us any questions or join in on debates; discussion between separate governing thoughts is encouraged. However, for all sides, please remain civil and respectful. Topics which can be discussed here include:

• Monarchism
• Traditionalism
• General governing theory
• History and philosophy as it pertains to the above

The Second Iteration's mascot is the Catholic, King Ferdinand of Aragon, king of Aragon then later co-founder of the Kingdom of Castile and León.

First MDT

I find it interesting how throughout modern history, revolutions in the name of "equality" and "freedom" have only led to less equality and less freedom.

Lmao

*Clears Throat*

Robespierre did nothing wrong

*Runs*

The Portland Territory wrote:I find it interesting how throughout modern history, revolutions in the name of "equality" and "freedom" have only led to less equality and less freedom.

In the case of revolutions against monarchies they've almost always tended to lead to more equality and freedoms.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:I find it interesting how throughout modern history, revolutions in the name of "equality" and "freedom" have only led to less equality and less freedom.

In the case of revolutions against monarchies they've almost always tended to lead to more equality and freedoms.

So these are also the cases for Russia, France, and Brazil?

The Portland Territory wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
In the case of revolutions against monarchies they've almost always tended to lead to more equality and freedoms.

So these are also the cases for Russia, France, and Brazil?

Tbqh the average lad was probably more free under the USSR than the Tsardom, I'd say it eventually became so for France but they had a few, uh, bumps along the way. Idk enough about Brazil to comment.

The Portland Territory wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
In the case of revolutions against monarchies they've almost always tended to lead to more equality and freedoms.

So these are also the cases for Russia, France, and Brazil?

Which all rebelled into dictatorships, not democracies

Also, I'd rather live under the dictatorial USSR (Modernized Russia) than the Tsarist Russia (Purposely slowed modernization)

The Portland Territory wrote:I find it interesting how throughout modern history, revolutions in the name of "equality" and "freedom" have only led to less equality and less freedom.

I find it interesting that you've chosen to kick off your monarchy thread with a post not about monarchies or monarchism, but about revolutions in modern history.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:So these are also the cases for Russia, France, and Brazil?

Tbqh the average lad was probably more free under the USSR than the Tsardom, I'd say it eventually became so for France but they had a few, uh, bumps along the way. Idk enough about Brazil to comment.

I tend to disagree. People had much freedom in the mentioned monarchies. Reasons for revolution Russia was due to a famine, Russian losses in WWI, a few aristocrats exploiting many peasants, and quite bluntly, communist-socialist propaganda

As for France, Louis XVI was a bad ruler in general, at least regarding his own debts and getting into a lot of wars. However I suspect that if it weren't for Enlightenment ideals, they would've just instated a new monarch and dynasty instead as some did in the past

Hammer Britannia wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:So these are also the cases for Russia, France, and Brazil?

Which all rebelled into dictatorships, not democracies

Also, I'd rather live under the dictatorial USSR (Modernized Russia) than the Tsarist Russia (Purposely slowed modernization)

How was the technological advancement in Russia "purposefully slowed"? There simply were too few people who wanted to live beyond their own homestead

The Portland Territory wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:Which all rebelled into dictatorships, not democracies

Also, I'd rather live under the dictatorial USSR (Modernized Russia) than the Tsarist Russia (Purposely slowed modernization)

How was the technological advancement in Russia "purposefully slowed"? There simply were too few people who wanted to live beyond their own homestead

It's not they wanted to live, it's they were forced to live. It wasn't until the peasants started revolting against their overlords that the Russian government ended Serfdom.

And, Just like the end of American Slavery, the now freed serfs had nowhere to go except for the poor cities and the farms they once worked on

The Portland Territory wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Tbqh the average lad was probably more free under the USSR than the Tsardom, I'd say it eventually became so for France but they had a few, uh, bumps along the way. Idk enough about Brazil to comment.

I tend to disagree. People had much freedom in the mentioned monarchies. Reasons for revolution Russia was due to a famine, Russian losses in WWI, a few aristocrats exploiting many peasants, and quite bluntly, communist-socialist propaganda

As for France, Louis XVI was a bad ruler in general, at least regarding his own debts and getting into a lot of wars. However I suspect that if it weren't for Enlightenment ideals, they would've just instated a new monarch and dynasty instead as some did in the past

An exceedingly common problem with your system it seems, and people most certainly did not have "much freedoms" in the mentioned monarchies. Whatever your gripes might be with representative democracy it is still inherently more free than an absolute monarchy.

The Portland Territory wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:Which all rebelled into dictatorships, not democracies

Also, I'd rather live under the dictatorial USSR (Modernized Russia) than the Tsarist Russia (Purposely slowed modernization)

How was the technological advancement in Russia "purposefully slowed"? There simply were too few people who wanted to live beyond their own homestead

It probably helps that they legally couldn't legally live anywhere else for most of the Empires existence.

What is freedom?

Blanco-Campeon wrote:What is freedom?

The legal ability not to get shot for jaywalking

Hammer Britannia wrote:

Blanco-Campeon wrote:What is freedom?

The legal ability not to get shot for jaywalking

not sure i understand you

*sees constitutionals being an option*

*laughs in absolutist*

Blanco-Campeon wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:The legal ability not to get shot for jaywalking

not sure i understand you

Imagine, if you will, someone is walking down the street and comes towards a police officer. He decides to go into a dark shady alley and hire a baker who bakes the heresy known as Pineapple on Pizza. Rather than being executed on sight, the police officer does nothing as the man has the legal ability (Freedom) to hire someone, cook, and eat pineapple pizza

Monarchism is a dying ideology. Most of the remaining monarchies are small countries. The number of absolute monarchies left in the world is tiny. To survive, ideologies need to evolve and change, but Monarchism seems loath to do that. Give it another 100 years, Monarchism will be thrown on to the garbage heap of history, like Feudalism et al.

Hammer Britannia wrote:

Blanco-Campeon wrote:not sure i understand you

Imagine, if you will, someone is walking down the street and comes towards a police officer. He decides to go into a dark shady alley and hire a baker who bakes the heresy known as Pineapple on Pizza. Rather than being executed on sight, the police officer does nothing as the man has the legal ability (Freedom) to hire someone, cook, and eat pineapple pizza

so you subscribe to the liberal conception of freedom as freedom from coercion?

The New California Republic wrote:Monarchism is a dying ideology. Most of the remaining monarchies are small countries. The number of absolute monarchies left in the world is tiny. To survive, ideologies need to evolve and change, but Monarchism seems loath to do that. Give it another 100 years, Monarchism will be thrown on to the garbage heap of history, like Feudalism et al.

Monarchism must not be allowed to go down that path, for we humans must never forget our past traditions that made us who we are today. Through the process of republicanism we have forgotten who we are in favour of allowing random joes to make decisions.

The New California Republic wrote:Monarchism is a dying ideology. Most of the remaining monarchies are small countries. The number of absolute monarchies left in the world is tiny. To survive, ideologies need to evolve and change, but Monarchism seems loath to do that. Give it another 100 years, Monarchism will be thrown on to the garbage heap of history, like Feudalism et al.

The only countries with an Absolute Monarch that I can think off Brunei, Swaziland, and Saudi Arabia.

What do they have in common? They're all shitholes

Engleberg wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Monarchism is a dying ideology. Most of the remaining monarchies are small countries. The number of absolute monarchies left in the world is tiny. To survive, ideologies need to evolve and change, but Monarchism seems loath to do that. Give it another 100 years, Monarchism will be thrown on to the garbage heap of history, like Feudalism et al.

Monarchism must not be allowed to go down that path, for we humans must never forget our past traditions that made us who we are today. Through the process of republicanism we have forgotten who we are in favour of allowing random joes to make decisions.

>Implying monarchs aren't random joes who happen to have royal blood

Dictators are more qualified to rule nowadays.

Engleberg wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Monarchism is a dying ideology. Most of the remaining monarchies are small countries. The number of absolute monarchies left in the world is tiny. To survive, ideologies need to evolve and change, but Monarchism seems loath to do that. Give it another 100 years, Monarchism will be thrown on to the garbage heap of history, like Feudalism et al.

Monarchism must not be allowed to go down that path, for we humans must never forget our past traditions that made us who we are today. Through the process of republicanism we have forgotten who we are in favour of allowing random joes to make decisions.

Past traditions?

You mean beating each other with sticks in the name of caveman chief?

Or the first proto-civilizations, in theory, being a generic non-political dictatorship?