/monarchy/ - Monarchy

Past, Present, and Future

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8000


Max file size: 32.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

The backup domain is located at 8chan.se. .cc is a third fallback. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit.

WebSockets Enabled! Threads should update live as posts are made. Please report any issues on >>>/site/1518

8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

(334.46 KB 1258x2048 EjfTJ9TU8AUa4IE.jpeg)
Constitutional Libertarian Monarchy Peasant 10/21/2020 (Wed) 00:27:59 No. 2166
What do you think of the concept of Constitutional Libertarian Monarchy? The King would be responsible for enforcing the NAP based libertarian constitution. Imagine, for example, if the British Empire had fully compromised with George Washington and adopted a libertarian constitution in order to keep the American colonies within the Empire. This is one historical way I think a Constitutional Libertarian Monarchy could have arisen nya~
>NAP Meme
>lolbergism >constitutions liberals like you must be burned alive
Not OP, but I admit, I'm kind of surprised at the level of antagonism against libertarianism in this thread. Weren't we on good terms back during the hoppe-sama era? What happened?
(352.34 KB 540x593 EmKCLhjXgAAm4sZ.png)
>>2219 >Weren't we on good terms back during the hoppe-sama era? /monarchy/ has bottled anger on all sides.
The seminal work on the idea of constitutional monarchy is A Short History of Man by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Constitutional monarchy is another step in the decline from natural order to modern democracy. Let's trace the decline down to that point then: >Natural Order Government comes from natural elites. In medieval Europe, private courts, nobles, and indeed kings were sought by freemen for either protection or conflict-resolution. Since none of these were monopolistic, they rather closely resembled a private law society (the libertarian utopia), moreso than any other civilization in history. >Absolute monarchy Soon the kings secularized and consolidated power, either destroying or subjugating the institutions that stood in their way (the clergy, nobility, towns, etc.). Law and defense came to be produced monopolistically, which is what libertarians stand against by definition. Yet the degeneration is incomplete: the king is still the permanent, allodial owner of his realm (hence the time-preference argument you probably know by heart at this point), not to mention his monopoly is *informal*, so his authority can still be challenged and competed against. This institution may be more predatory than before, but what followed was much worse. >Constitutional Monarchy The constitution served to formalize and codify the king's monopoly. The fact that his authority was made the letter of the law, rather than the tenuous circumstance of competition as before, made it possible for him to tax and legislate much more. The decline from here should be well-known to anyone, libertarian or not, who visits this board. As to your suggestion in particular, it demonstrates a lack of understanding what constitutions are: namely, expressions of the ruling class' will. Hence, the absolute monarchs drafted absolutist constitutions to better secure their power and loot their subjects. For there to be a libertarian constitution, monarchic or not, there must be a libertarian elite, which does not currently exist and probably won't for the foreseeable future. It really is a long-shot to count on the circulation of elites for your political projects, so I would consider your idea a dead end.
>I'm kind of surprised at the level of antagonism against libertarianism in this thread liberalism is gay. that's all.
(175.90 KB 500x500 Grace pic transparent.png)
>>2244 >starts your historiography by praising a different form of government, the Middle Ages, as if that was the beginning of time (like usual for neofeuds). >paints a framework antagonistic to royal monarchy; depicts royal MONarchy as the start of a decline, both absolute and constitutional >complains about how MONarchy is a kind of MONOpoly >sides with the church to promote the free market, diverts that energy against monarchs for muh secularization/centralization (the tradcath x ancap alliance) And libertarians wonder why some people on a /MONarchy/ don't like them. If libertarians complain about how royal monarchy is monopoly, and by principle oppose monarchical order in favor of anarchistic free market neofeudalism (+clericalism), I want nothing to do with them. I am sure these feelings are mutual. >>2179 NRx are pretty much crypto-libertarians, at this point, many of whom once ex-libertarians. They only like to reject libertarianism to seem better... >>2219 Libertarians predominate and own this board. There are at least 6 libertarian anons on /monarchy/. The /liberty/ crossposters have /monarchy/ as a side project. I've known everyone on this board long enough.
>>2247 To add onto that, there is only a small number of times that the phrase "less bad compared to democracy" is flattering... but indicating that monarchy is still bad nonetheless plucks a feather or two.
>>2247 >>sides with the church to promote the free market >free market >Church i don't get it
(237.33 KB 413x594 Death-of-Henry4.jpg)
(2.64 MB 2307x1237 Jacques_Clément.jpg)
(47.84 KB 530x404 GunpowderPlot.jpg)
>>2249 They converge b/c religious private schools & welfare w/o statism, plus the Catholic church is appealed to as another means to limit muh secular government from the libertarian motive. Whereas the tradcath prioritizes theocracy over royalism (SUBMIT TO ROME) + only views papal monarchy and royal oligarchy (meaning, royals & emperors as not monarchs in their own right, but as nobles before the papal monarchy as a universal monarchy). The anti-royalist tradcaths, in particular, are very clingy to the regicide doctrines and like to converge with the Protestant anti-royalists (parliamentarians and the sort) in bashing those monarchists in return... mostly because of resentment to Prussia and Henry VIII, but even prior to this through the Investiture Controversy and Roman Empire.
>>2247 What's wrong with feudalism peasant, since it's the way things are going.

Quick Reply

no cookies?