Should we bring back absolute monarchies?

Should we bring back absolute monarchies?

The French Revolution was an event in which urban intellectuals, jealous of the Aristocracy used the masses to grasp control. They govern society with theory instead of principle, substitute quantity for quality. Just as the military need well trained leadership, so does society. Irreligious, Rational, Materialistic men sterilize everything by analyzing it; including themselves. Children are considered in terms of "pros" and "cons". Art, architecture, clothing, furniture, music lose their form, becoming ever changing popular fads.

Lacking discipline to reform themselves, intellectual "world improvers" constantly propose theories on how to govern society. All forms of social distinction, good manners, honor, authority, rank are ceaselessly attacked and deconstructed. This process will continue until the idea exhausts itself-- Nihilism and Chaos.

Destiny has put us in this era of decay. We can face our fate with courage, or be cowardly optimists.

Every culture has gone through its own form of Nihilism and Skepsis, where skeptics question everything. How long then, does a Culture survive? After a certain number of generations, each culture transforms into civilization. What was formerly alive, becomes rigid and cold. Expansiveness of mind and spirit is replaced with a lust for expansion in the MATERIAL world. Life guided by ideals is replaced by life guided by politics and economics. The power of these ideas becomes strong, so much that it leads to Imperialism. A sign of transformation: is a Socrates, Buddha, Lao Tsu, Rousseau. They enunciate ultimate, but Earthly ideals with practical and terminal ideas. The materialistic ideas of mass and number begin to dominate the culture, governments try to appeal to the most, plebeian catchwords are used "equality" "the common good" "the working man".

Attached: 1200px-Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg (1200x1705, 582K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/bsYp9q3QNaQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_enlightened_despots
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Attached: 1487539180182.jpg (1124x1238, 349K)

democracy is also the easiest target in the world for bitter malcontents who wouldn't last five seconds in an actual repressive dictatorship

I, I will be king
And you, you will be queen
Though nothing will drive them away
We can be heroes, just for one day
We can be us, just for one day
youtu.be/bsYp9q3QNaQ

>Should we bring back absolute monarchies?
no

Only cucks support absolute monarchies.

who?

Attached: IMG_20190425_164426.jpg (313x344, 51K)

nothing is more oppressive than our spiritually bankrupt globalist world where people are little more than cattle

the value of a human life is literally decided by how much value you can produce.

Your post is too long. I can do a better job.

Should we bring back absolute monarchies?

Yes.

>where people are little more than cattle
As if serfs weren't just human cattle for aristocrats

the value of a human life is literally decided by what under absolute monarchies?

False. Under the system you describe, human life has no value.

Divine providence.

Cattle with an identifiable owner is better off than a feral herd left out for the wolves.

t. Bossuet

As opposed to a local feudalist traditionalist world where people are LITERALLY less than cattle, and the only value is what the landowning nobility says you are worth?

>Divine providence.
So God's will? And who gets to say what is the God's will? The Churchmen?

>identifiable owner
But your owner is easily identifiable under captitalism. It's your employer on the lower level and the state on the upper level

Who owns the state?

honestly l want to be a nobility(the Noble of the Sword ofc)

Not the point. Learn to argue

you know there exists such a thing as benevolent dictators yeah?

in fact Id be willing to say most kings were very interested in the well being of their subjects.

better than a nation ruled by oligarchs where profit the highest virtue like america

It is the point. The state is property, not a person. If the state owns its subjects, but nobody can be clearly identified as owning the state, then nobody can be clearly identified as owning the subjects.

americans are literally not guaranteed any vacation time or even a lunch break

medieval serfs literally had a third of the year free for celebrations and feasts

american workers work far more than peasants did

>in fact Id be willing to say most kings were very interested in the well being of their subjects.
like, for example ?

>The state is property,
The state is the collection of indviduals who make and implement laws.

medieval serfs also were constantly conscripted and used in wars they had nothing to do with

I'm not strongly arguing for feudalism, but the idea that life today is much better because "we have more stuff" is ridiculous. Especially because we have more stuff due to aristocrats and monarchies who started scientific revolutions (Newton, for example) and technological revolutions (before French revolution).

Monarchy isn't incompatible with technology and science.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_enlightened_despots

Attached: 1453768072566.jpg (735x559, 72K)

The conflation of serfdom with chattel slavery, as well as the view that serfdom or slavery meant a life of torture and misery, are pernicious lies, but they are not immediately relevant to the matter of which form of government is justifiable.

I don't agree, but let's entertain that notion. Which one of them owns which subjects?

>medieval serfs literally had a third of the year free for celebrations and feasts
>american workers work far more than peasants did
well they had no freedom of mobilization, got obliged to pay tons of various taxes like tallage, tribute, and even formariage and so on. they were subject to consular jurisdiction and had no freedom of occupation...

The tax burden in Western countries is higher now than it has been at pretty much any time in history.

>The tax burden in Western countries is higher now than it has been at pretty much any time in history.
for peal?
l challenged your point that "MOST of kings" were benevolent.

blessed thread

Attached: 1401393960246.jpg (869x486, 204K)

>Which one of them
Dumb question. I just said it's a collection. Who exactly is part of it doesn't matter, politicians, judges and cops are replaced and new all the time, but they serve the same purpose: making laws and enforcing them. You could even replace the individuals with robots

>Should we bring back absolute monarchies?
No

>Should we bring back monarchies?
Yes.

most kings were benevolent, or at least not malicious

why in the world would a king deliberately harm his subjects?

id trust a king to look out for my best interest much more than I would a billion dollar multinational corporation

Attached: 1401421029514.jpg (1600x1400, 325K)

If it is a dumb question then why are you dancing around it instead of giving a proper answer?

This point does matter, because being clearly identifiable as owning something means that a person is responsible and liable for that thing and its disposition. That is, when something goes wrong, it is known who is to blame, who must pay, who must have things fixed - which as a policy also means that this person has an enhanced incentive to prevent things from going wrong.

Corporations as an institution, for instance, shift ownership away from clearly identifiable natural persons, and are attractive for the reason that business operations can be undertaken without the same level of exposure to risk as if doing exactly the same thing as a natural person.

The state as you describe it works much like a corporation in which the veil can be pierced only even more rarely, and so irresponsibility is the rule.

>anarchy
>less responsible
Nah. Total anarchy makes you the most responsible, for every single one of your actions must be completly thought out well if you want to live and you don't get to call the cops or the state to solve your issues.

Also
>anarchy
>rule by (...)
brainlet post

Attached: 1402257356223.jpg (869x673, 258K)

>what, yes i am a cuck and i want to be a property of someone else

do you want the equivalent in America to our Emperor?

Attached: original (4).gif (500x281, 177K)

What else is new on r/politics?

You are just expanding on my previous response. Yes, the state doesn't have a defined set of individuals who can be categorized as owners. That is why I said yours was a dumb question: there isn't a direct natural relationship between those who are governed and those who are not. Despite this I challenge that having aristocrats and royals were more responsible regarding their actions towards their subjects than our current polticians: who would they respond to? God?*

*I know this would be an actual argument for conservatives

thats quite rich coming from someone who lives in a literal oligarchy


would you rather be ruled by putin or catherine the great?

It's not a "dumb question". It's a rhetorical question, the answer to which I already know, used to direct your attention to an important fact. Now that you have stopped playing silly games and acknowledged that fact, you should recognise that my analogy about cattle, and owners versus wolves, very much does apply here.

God is one answer, but self-interest is another. A man who owns a herd will harm himself by neglecting or abusing it.