Green Monarchism

[Bienenhalde]

All land is unjustly acquired

"Hey Bob I'll trade you $100k for your house!"

"Thanks Bill!"

???

Suppose you have a primitive farming community, and they agree to make one of their shamans and his descendants their sacred king to serve as a medium between the people and the gods and to protect the land from desecration and destruction. Now do you think that is unjust?

[Bienenhalde]

Isn't your Herrn Hoppe a fan of Monarchy? ^^

Eh. Northern Africa had a lot of native "true" monarchs, but that's not what the OP is proposing.

He never suggested the monarch would not be a native African.

[Thermodolia]

For "King" (or Queen...or Non-Binary Sovereign Individual) substitute "People" and you might have something. Green Socialism. Works for me.

Oh god...

[Bienenhalde]

For "King" (or Queen...or Non-Binary Sovereign Individual) substitute "People" and you might have something. Green Socialism. Works for me.

Oh god...

Aren't you a socialist?

[Hammer Britannia]

Oh god...

Aren't you a socialist?

Socialists can hate other types of socialists, ya know. They aren't a hive mind.

[Bienenhalde]

Aren't you a socialist?

Socialists can hate other types of socialists, ya know. They aren't a hive mind.

Well, yeah, I understand that. But I guess I am kind of disturbed at the prospect of anyone thinking environmentalism is bad. Of course, I might criticize some green parties for having bad or misguided policies, but the principle of protecting the environment is something I strongly agree with.

[Thermodolia]

Oh god...

Aren't you a socialist?

Yes but I absolutely hate identity politics and I think green socialism is just anprim with a new name and therefore stupid

[Thermodolia]

Socialists can hate other types of socialists, ya know. They aren't a hive mind.

Well, yeah, I understand that. But I guess I am kind of disturbed at the prospect of anyone thinking environmentalism is bad. Of course, I might criticize some green parties for having bad or misguided policies, but the principle of protecting the environment is something I strongly agree with.

I don’t think Environmentalism is bad at all. That’s definitely not why I said “oh god..”

[Thermodolia]

Yes but I absolutely hate identity politics and I think green socialism is just anprim with a new name and therefore stupid

It's just socialism with Strong Environmentalism.

That’s even dumber. You don’t need to label it something new. What are they fucking Trotskyists?

[Hammer Britannia]

That’s even dumber. You don’t need to label it something new. What are they fucking Trotskyists?

It's to interject Environmentalism as unable to be separated from the party. Binding it so the party cannot forsake it.

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERD

[Thermodolia]

That’s even dumber. You don’t need to label it something new. What are they fucking Trotskyists?

It's to interject Environmentalism as unable to be separated from the party. Binding it so the party cannot forsake it.

There will be no Trotskyist revisionists in my party

[Pyta]

All land is unjustly acquired

"Hey Bob I'll trade you $100k for your house!"

"Thanks Bill!"

???

Where'd bob get the house?

How far back to you have to go before you find someone who murdered the guy that had been living there and took it?

[Pyta]

Where'd bob get the house?

How far back to you have to go before you find someone who murdered the guy that had been living there and took it?

Humanity fighting over resources is like economics 101.

Ever since we outgrew hunting.

right, I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that that exact thing, that the ownership of all land is rooted in violence, gives lie to the idea that there is such thing as "justly acquired" property. What makes the king's claim to land, that his great grandpappy killed someone for it, less legitimate than bob's claim to land, that his great grandpappy killed someone for it.

[Kowani]

Humanity fighting over resources is like economics 101.

Ever since we outgrew hunting.

right, I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that that exact thing, that the ownership of all land is rooted in violence, gives lie to the idea that there is such thing as "justly acquired" property. What makes the king's claim to land, that his great grandpappy killed someone for it, less legitimate than bob's claim to land, that his great grandpappy killed someone for it.

Well, the King has the army now. That tends to help.

[Hatterleigh]

I'm sorry Hat, but there is just a shitton of wrong in this OP

First off: •In feudal and monarchical society, just about all open land was owned by the King

Hell no, most land was owned by feudal lords and dukes up until the Industrial age. But even when that era rolled around, most land was owned by landlords. True absolutism does not exist except in places like Iceland and maybe some smaller countries in Africa

•People who intruded on these lands needed permission from the king or queen, or else they were trespassing on his or her land (It was important for wildlife to flourish under kings lands, in a situation of food scarcity a great hunt would be held.)

Eh, True mostly.

•Kings not only provide immense amounts of wealth to protect these open lands from illegal intruders, but also kings, unlike normal land owners, are generally under some sort of moral obligation to protect their holdings

No, most of the time it was not "moral". Most of the time, it was for the same reason like normal landowners. They wanted money from the locals or had some monetary reason to defend the land (like the fur trade or taxing hunters)

•Currently, conservation efforts in places like Africa are underfunded, and often butt heads with the UN as the UN does not like the act of killing poachers. With something like a monarch, perhaps an enterprising warlord, to own these lands and have a vast amount of wealth to fund security, the effort of protecting these lands from poachers would be much more direct with far less bureaucracy needed.

Ehem, Do you know why the Congo has that odd panhandle? Yeah, a douche-y king wanted a place to hunt elephants. Neo-Imperialism over Africa with direct rule from (city) would not magically make conservation efforts happen in the lands. Certain kings might, sure, but then you will always have that Leopold II (who most of them will probably be) who abuses the land for profit.


tl:dr, OP has a very rosetinted view of Monarchism and is, as such, very wrong

•By open land, I meant land NOT owned by any fiefs.

•Kings may have not always functioned completely morally, but they definitely had much more of an obligation to morality than some modern businessman

•The Congo was not part of belgium and Leopold II was a crazy maniac. Obviously we are talking rulers that actually live in the area. And in modern day game hunting isn't the threat, poaching is. And saying most of them will probably be leopold is stupid.

[Hatterleigh]

Aren't you a socialist?

Yes but I absolutely hate identity politics and I think green socialism is just anprim with a new name and therefore stupid

Anprim is a fact, not an ideology. It can't be disproven. It is literal fact

[The Emerald Legion]

This is basically how property rights work yes.

The difference (and my opposition therefore) is that the King really didn't have a legitimate claim on any of the land as it often was unjustly acquired.

How was the land unjustly aquired?

[Vyzantinis]

Read the title as Greek monarchism.
Clicked on it.
Severely disappointed.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Yes but I absolutely hate identity politics and I think green socialism is just anprim with a new name and therefore stupid

Anprim is a fact, not an ideology. It can't be disproven. It is literal fact

Green monarchism is bad idea in my opinion, but anarcho-primitivism is stupid. You've lost all credibility.