Green Monarchism

[Hatterleigh]

So in this thread I will be discussing something I recently heard about conservationism as an argument for monarchy of some shape. Basically, it goes like this

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

•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.)

•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

•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.

I'm not saying this is an argument for monarchy, it's really just more of a small thing, although it's just something that I find pretty interesting and wanted to share with you guys. On a sidenote, I find it more threatening to be told you are tresspassing on the king's land and damaging his property compared to "you're not supposed to kill that animal" or something

[The Liberated Territories]

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.

[North German Realm]

So in this thread I will be discussing something I recently heard about conservationism as an argument for monarchy of some shape. Basically, it goes like this

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

•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.)

•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

•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.

I'm not saying this is an argument for monarchy, it's really just more of a small thing, although it's just something that I find pretty interesting and wanted to share with you guys. On a sidenote, I find it more threatening to be told you are tresspassing on the king's land and damaging his property compared to "you're not supposed to kill that animal" or something

The last time a king owned a piece of African land -and everything that is in it- to the size of a country as private property, it wasn't very good. It was, in fact, an atrocity and a diplomatic debacle that was condemned by nearly everyone in Europe.

[Risottia]

So in this thread I will be discussing something I recently heard about conservationism as an argument for monarchy of some shape. Basically, it goes like this

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

Wrong.

[Nakena]

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.

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

The last time a king owned a piece of African land -and everything that is in it- to the size of a country as private property, it wasn't very good. It was, in fact, an atrocity and a diplomatic debacle that was condemned by nearly everyone in Europe.

The only true King of Africa is of course the Negus of Ethiopia. Leopold was not legit.

[The Grims]

Make me King of the world and I will protect the environment.

[North German Realm]

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.

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

The last time a king owned a piece of African land -and everything that is in it- to the size of a country as private property, it wasn't very good. It was, in fact, an atrocity and a diplomatic debacle that was condemned by nearly everyone in Europe.

The only true King of Africa is of course the Negus of Ethiopia. Leopold was not legit.

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

[The neo glactic empire]

Make me King of the world and I will protect the environment.

I declare this guy king of the world and god emperor of humanity

[Salus Maior]

So in this thread I will be discussing something I recently heard about conservationism as an argument for monarchy of some shape. Basically, it goes like this

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

•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.)

•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

•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.

I'm not saying this is an argument for monarchy, it's really just more of a small thing, although it's just something that I find pretty interesting and wanted to share with you guys. On a sidenote, I find it more threatening to be told you are tresspassing on the king's land and damaging his property compared to "you're not supposed to kill that animal" or something

The last time a king owned a piece of African land -and everything that is in it- to the size of a country as private property, it wasn't very good. It was, in fact, an atrocity and a diplomatic debacle that was condemned by nearly everyone in Europe.

>Foreign King.

[Salus Maior]

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.

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

The last time a king owned a piece of African land -and everything that is in it- to the size of a country as private property, it wasn't very good. It was, in fact, an atrocity and a diplomatic debacle that was condemned by nearly everyone in Europe.

The only true King of Africa is of course the Negus of Ethiopia. Leopold was not legit.

What right does the Emperor of Ethiopia have over all of Africa?

[Nakena]

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



The only true King of Africa is of course the Negus of Ethiopia. Leopold was not legit.

What right does the Emperor of Ethiopia have over all of Africa?

Well the strongest potential challanger would be Songhai which is no longer existent however. The Ethiopian Monarchy has the greatest amount of tradition, also they even defeated Italy in 1896 which clearly shows they mean business.

[Gagium]

Glad we've established that the idea of land-ownership..I'd doubt any 'modern' King would use land he'd own as you've described; Rather use it to poach for himself to get a quick profit for whatever kingdom. This isn't feudal society, unfortunately..

[Salus Maior]

What right does the Emperor of Ethiopia have over all of Africa?

Well the strongest potential challanger would be Songhai which is no longer existent however. The Ethiopian Monarchy has the greatest amount of tradition, also they even defeated Italy in 1896 which clearly shows they mean business.

....Again, why does that give either of them rights over the myriads of African peoples who have their own traditions and often their own monarchies? And most of them having no connection to either Ethiopia or Songhai?

[Hammer Britannia]

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

[Pyta]

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.

All land is unjustly acquired

[Nakena]

Well the strongest potential challanger would be Songhai which is no longer existent however. The Ethiopian Monarchy has the greatest amount of tradition, also they even defeated Italy in 1896 which clearly shows they mean business.

....Again, why does that give either of them rights over the myriads of African peoples who have their own traditions and often their own monarchies? And most of them having no connection to either Ethiopia or Songhai?

I have never said that they have a legitimate claim over all of Africa. But they are certainly the ones with the biggest cred in the pool.

[North German Realm]

....Again, why does that give either of them rights over the myriads of African peoples who have their own traditions and often their own monarchies? And most of them having no connection to either Ethiopia or Songhai?

I have never said that they have a legitimate claim over all of Africa. But they are certainly the ones with the biggest cred in the pool.

They don't even have control of their own country though.

[Nakena]

I have never said that they have a legitimate claim over all of Africa. But they are certainly the ones with the biggest cred in the pool.

They don't even have control of their own country though.

Yes because they got toppled by communist rebels. Mengistu was full hardcore stalinist.

[US-SSR]

So in this thread I will be discussing something I recently heard about conservationism as an argument for monarchy of some shape. Basically, it goes like this

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

•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.)

•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

•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.

I'm not saying this is an argument for monarchy, it's really just more of a small thing, although it's just something that I find pretty interesting and wanted to share with you guys. On a sidenote, I find it more threatening to be told you are tresspassing on the king's land and damaging his property compared to "you're not supposed to kill that animal" or something

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

[Aclion]

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

*Laughs in tragedy of the commons*

[The Liberated Territories]

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.

All land is unjustly acquired

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

"Thanks Bill!"

???

[Rojava Free State]

Green monarchism. Now that's an idea

[Hammer Britannia]

Green monarchism. Now that's an idea

Next week on "Shit that makes no sense", Anprim Space Empire

[Thermodolia]

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.

All land is unjustly acquired

False

[Thermodolia]

Green monarchism. Now that's an idea

Next week on "Shit that makes no sense", Anprim Space Empire

I laughed