Anarcho-Monarchism?

What do you think?

Attached: Anarcho-Monarchism-4.png (870x500, 27K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

What do you think about Anarcho-Authoritarianism?

are you retarded?

What do you think about Anarcho-Autism?

Attached: illust_66383117_20180329_054124.jpg (3039x4500, 2.42M)

Anything that is Anarcho-"something" makes my head hurt.

Attached: 23526456.png (583x583, 1016K)

So bloody polite, as always

i mean i guess the warlord could be seen as a king of sorts

this exists?

so warlords?

Purtroppo si

Be sure to steer clear of Anarcho-Judaism

Attached: illust_64641375_20170912_182007.jpg (1000x1414, 734K)

wtf is that

anarcho-dickhead

Attached: 1522167499015.gif (300x375, 1.63M)

Isnt that what we have now? But they call it Democracy.

Attached: 364645734.jpg (607x1080, 99K)

It's like ancap, but everybody is a king?

Attached: 1499307328331.png (1000x649, 65K)

it's a bit like libertarianism from what I've understood. I just don't get it.

>2018
>not being anarcho-anti-anarchist
And you call yourself redpilled?

It makes no sense, like anarcho-fascism or female penis

Attached: hellsing_girly_schrodinger_by_notahoe16-d8l92nw.jpg (625x745, 238K)

Unfortunately, it will inevitably devolve into Anarcho-Capitalism as the serfs learn to code.

autistic bullshit
Anarcho Monarchism is like;
ruler of chaos
peace of islam
freedom is slavery
war is peace
lies are truth
ignorance is a bliss

monarcho-capitalsm is better

Anarcho-me tooism

>Free market
>Strong military and border control
>No democratic system to be used to empower minority groups

Oh Yaeh!

Attached: 736817_king_2_11_1jewelry-added2.jpg (2448x1584, 1.29M)

Soo, this?

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1920x1080, 245K)

Liechtenstein

I'm more of an Anarcho - Totalitarian, free market communist tbqh

Strong military creates the possibility of a coup, the best system for long term stability and prosperity is monarch + strong navy + weak army. Of course this option is only available to the island nation master race

The navy can coup you when they get on land too. They are still men with guns.

The point of any military force is to deal with outside forces, but to avoid abuse of power the population must be free to own weapon and the power of the state must be extremely restricted.

Fake and gay

Does nobody knows what Anarch actually means?
The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), "not, without" and ἀρχή (arkhi), "ruler, leader, authority." Thus, the term refers to a person or society "without rulers" or "without leaders".

Attached: 1522117247354.jpg (609x721, 64K)

>Anarcho-Monarchism

isn't that a contradiction of terms?

Anarcho-Monarchism can happen, if people who accept anarchism are willing to voluntarly elect the king.

What part of without ruler, leader or authority are you not getting?

Literally Monty Python tier

So... what do you guys think of anarcho-anarchy?

Attached: anarcho-anarchy.png (360x355, 94K)

Why do people need to put "anarcho" in front of everything?

Does it somehow make something cool with the kids?

Strong military/Navy

Also, strong -trained/supplied citizen militia

= Unbeatable

Too much centralized authoritarian power.

>Does it somehow make something cool with the kids?

yes.

Duh.

You know the whole "Teenage rebellious" phase, right?

Well, what if that were... weaponized?

Kings rule by right. They dont need your permission.

That it is "voluntary"; that you have a say in the matter, means that you dont have a king. Making the term Anarcho-Monarchism a contradiction and therefore useless and stupid.

>Kings rule by right. They dont need your permission.

By right of force, you mean.

>My political opinoins lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood,meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)-or to"unconstitutional" Monarchy... Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horse; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers.
-JRR Tolkien, letter dated 29 November 1943

Cant wait for the days when "rebellious" looks like something out of leave it to beaver.

Cant wait for the days when "rebellious" looks like something out of leave it to beaver.

Essentially.

So, if kings rule by right of force, they REQUIRE permission to rule.

otherwise, there will be fierce opposition contesting their rule, and if overthrown, their "Right" of rule goes out with them.

How about
Anarcho-brush your teeth and floss
Anarcho-do your homework
Anarcho-eat your vegetables
Anarcho-say please and thank you
Anarcho-read a book a week

Of course, but name how many times an admiral's managed a coup. Armies have domestic power because they're used against both foreigners and citizens. Navies are inherently extra-territorial

No, I mean like... harnessing the tendency of teenage rebellion, into an actual social engineering or military force.

Like, maybe that's why they want the voting age lowered.... because they have determined that their propaganda is most effective on the population at the age of 14-16 or something like that?

Isn't that just feudalism?

Yes, but some level of domestic power is good in order to keep unlawful citizens in line.

Perferebel that would be done by local police force, but sometimes it gets out of hand or comies take over the contry and the only hope is the army, as it happend in Cuba and Spain before.

oh a fellow anarcho-Petersonist

underrated my goy.

Attached: merchant.jpg (220x220, 19K)

>12 year old anime girl
Kys

Can be. But not required.

>REQUIRE permission to rule.

To the extent that anyone within their kingdom were able to oppose them, sure.

However, the type of king who would draw draw such opposition from his own people, would necessarily stack his army with sycophants and psychopaths and make them very comfortable. Rendering any possible opposition unable to resist and thus securing his right of force.

Be careful about centralizing authority. It NEVER works out.

>Rendering any possible opposition unable to resist and thus securing his right of force.

unless the farmers lay siege to his garrisons, right?

a starving soldier isn't much of a soldier.

I get that.

Just making a joke, guy.

In all seriousness though OP

This is probably the direction that electronic democracy will push us towards. When people start voting at the city, county, state, and federal levels online and in real time, we will be able to oust leaders so fast, that we can feasably give our leaders almost unlimited "Kingly" power, because we can trust them not to fuck up or we will just replace them with somebody else.

Its an interesting idea. If anybody has any links to reading material I'm interested.

Monarcho-Syndicalism when?

>unless the farmers lay siege to his garrisons, right?

What kind of king -of the evil variety, allows the peasants to have weapons?

Were they somehow able to lay siege- What kind of king super evil, stores all of his necessary resources in places that could be attacked by peasants?

What kind of evil king of evil doesnt have secret backup stores and supplies enough to withstand a siege by an actual army? Let alone ...farmers?

Your Super evil king of bad aint very good at kinging.

>What kind of king -of the evil variety, allows the peasants to have weapons?

improvised tools... pitchforks, big sticks, stones, hammers, etc....

You'd be amazed by how many things you can turn into an improvised weapon in a pinch.

And with the peasants, what they lack in weapons, armor, and training, they make up with desperation, and sheer numbers....

Also, logistics, since they have total control of all food production.

I think Anarcho-Totalitarianism sounds better.

I Hope that's a joke. Do you know the meaning of single terms anarchism and monarchism? Anarchism is 100 times better than any monarchism, also it already failed in Italy, thanksfully. Let us get rid of banksters and popes before we fall again for a crown meme family like savoias.

Everybody gets a crown, then everyone rules over everyone equally.

Attached: 13-hamilton-three-kings.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.2x.jpg (1200x600, 224K)

Peasant revolutions in Europe got completely btfo every single time they occurred.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

Attached: anarcho autism.png (419x418, 22K)

Yeah sure french (((peasants)))

French Rev. was started and organised by liberal aristocrats, they just didn't realise the plebs were too stupid to not behead their allies. It's the whole reason the idea of constitutional monarchy took hold in the rest of Europe, all the liberal aristocrats across the rest of Europe that were cheering it on from the sidelines from the start suddenly decided they'd discovered a fondness for monarchy

>improvised tools... pitchforks, big sticks, stones, hammers, etc....

No. If pitchforks and stones were all that was needed for taking on an army...there would be no need for an army.

Do not underestimate a disciplined soldier who has trained and honed his skill over a lifetime.

>since they have total control of all food production.

What makes you think they have that?

Again, any king bad, isnt going to go from zero to tyrant. It would be a slow build up, in anticipation for possible rebellion, hence the need for stacking his army with obedient and violent men. Any king who takes that step is necessarily going to have at least a seasons a seasons worth of food and supplies to sustain his army in an emergency.

Also, he may very well take the same approach with his farmers: offer them a little more comfort than the other peasants, so as to keep their loyalty.

Were the farmers to rebel, it wouldnt last long.

Apologies for the poor writing, it's late

>No. If pitchforks and stones were all that was needed for taking on an army...there would be no need for an army.
>Do not underestimate a disciplined soldier who has trained and honed his skill over a lifetime.

Don't underestimate a numerical 50:1 advantage.

>What makes you think they have that?

Because they actually grow the food, and the king has to send soldiers to collect it, if the peasants don't SEND the food to them.

Great for ambushes, don't you think?

>allows
One of the best weapons of the farmer is doing nothing. After that, it's fire on his own crops. That'll very quickly fuck over their liege.

Except for all those ones in England when the aristos were overextending their power.

>Lefty-rightism, what do you think?

Most people weren't willling to become starving and destitute because authority is evil reee
Barons starting shit because they wanted more power doesn't constitute a peasant revolt

Anarcho-Fascism is the way to go

>50:1 advantage.

Sure. So King killer, ensures that his army is and peasant population is roughly 10:1.

That plus no weapons, armor, training and experience = king cant be beat

>Because they actually grow the food,


Remember that part where I said:

"he may very well take the same approach with his farmers: offer them a little more comfort than the other peasants, so as to keep their loyalty."

If King asshole can stack his military, why not his farmers? Or at least enough of his farmers to guarantee his supplies, or at least enough of his supplies?

All I am saying is that if a guy is competent enough to take control, he is competent enough to know -how- to take control.

Best thing ever!

Attached: a6160f5592f42553af22ca73d71d750a9e0609ee_00.jpg (512x382, 41K)

>Most people weren't willling to become starving and destitute because authority is evil reee
They specifically did, because they were getting screwed either way. A big example is after the Russian Revolution, where the farmers burned a lot of their crops and shot their livestock rather than contribute to the Reds in Moscow.
I'm guessing they squirreled a bit away, but that isn't the sexy part of the story.
>Barons starting shit because they wanted more power doesn't constitute a peasant revolt
It does when the peasants rebel against them.
Remember, peasants had a lot of rights in certain periods, and they didn't like them being breached. Plus, rival barons liked to take advantage. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts

shut
the
fuck
up

You're getting into the territory of diminishing returns. Like, at this juncture, the dude is going to have to be a cartoon villain for the sake of it, just to screw over a very small percentage of the people.

>anarchy
>form of government
>he thinks these will work together

Attached: 1507644429608.png (408x406, 33K)

Hey...remember when I stated:

>What kind of evil king of evil doesnt have secret backup stores and supplies enough to withstand a siege by an actual army? Let alone ...farmers?
>secret backup stores and supplies enough to withstand a siege by an actual army?
>secret backup stores and supplies enough

Do nothing -do something... it doesnt matter. The King would have supplies to outlast them. There is a reason the peasants retreat to the castle when the kingdom is under siege.

So what this list tells me is that there were two successful peasant revolts in European history and both of them were supported by Kings

>diminishing returns.

A little.

30:1 isnt unreasonable.

However, it wouldnt even need to be that low. Peasants existed for a reason and its not because they had a choice in the matter. When youre tired at the end of the day, having plowed and reaped till your hands bleed, a pitch fork, even 50 pitchforks is no match for the cavalry, let alone the army and all their toys.

>gutter crown
Into the trash it goes. Kings don't get their legitimacy from the People, they get it from God.

>Sure. So King killer, ensures that his army is and peasant population is roughly 10:1.

good luck with THOSE logistics.... the peasants would revolt a LOT sooner than that.

10:1 isn't really feasible.

>offer them a little more comfort than the other peasants, so as to keep their loyalty.

He can't offer them what he doesn't have, and he has to take before he can give....

You can't bribe everyone, user. You'd run out of money to pay your troops.

>If King asshole can stack his military, why not his farmers?

Because he can't afford the bribes, there's just too many of them.

>All I am saying is that if a guy is competent enough to take control, he is competent enough to know -how- to take control.

Up to a point, yes... until the benefits of having a powerful leader in charge no longer outweigh the burden he places on his people....

Then, they revolt.

All governments are parasitic in nature, and if they try to consume the host, they get removed, one way or another.

Is that the thing where one guy subjugates everyone else and there's no government to stop him?

I think we call that the end-result of normal anarchism once you get past the delusions of all the anarchists that everyone would just get along and respect eachother's rights and property.

...or is the idea that the monarch has no authority but everyone acts like he does, so you have an entire nation of play-pretend?

Oxymoron. Anarcho-Capitalist Traditionalism makes more sense.

>The King would have supplies to outlast them
Then why does he need the plebs at all? They could just fuck off elsewhere.
> There is a reason the peasants retreat to the castle when the kingdom is under siege.
Some of them. And only for a short while, like a few months because of how many mouths there are to feed.

But most achieved some aims, like getting the barons off their back. A successful rebellion might otherwise mean overthrow.

>Peasants existed for a reason and its not because they had a choice in the matter.
They did, actually. Feudalism presented quite a few choices. The starving a filthy peasant in western Europe is as much a myth as the dark ages.
>When youre tired at the end of the day, having plowed and reaped till your hands bleed
Like that. They would work during certain seasons and sell their crop to their liege, then for the off seasons they'd largely chill and do other things. And there were tonnes of holidays mandated.
>let alone the army
Who do you think made up the army? Standing armies were almost unheard of post-Western Rome.

If we were to take that example into modern times, you'd have most of the army desert rather than shoot their own friends and family, and the media would destroy the instigators.

>but everybody is a king?

Attached: slideshow_883053_HueyLong.jpg (332x450, 44K)

Communist capitalism?

That's Nazism

It's the one good system. The king is King of the Nation, so traditions are preserved and so is traditional authority, yet there is no state.

Liechtenstein was gonna be anarcho-monarchist but the population didn't want to

They don't need to elect him, he can be a traditional king whose leadership and authority (and maybe funding) is voluntarily accepted by people

Naizis are socialist not captalist.

To be a nationalist does not make you a capitalist.

gay

>Then why does he need the plebs at all.

Supplies arent meant to last forever, nor do they replenish themselves...

>And only for a short while

Which is my entire point. Do you understand the argument being had here? I am not saying the farmers arent necessary, nor that they wouldnt or couldnt revolt. Only that any such actions would be outlasted by the king.

If there is no food for the king, there is no food for the kingdom, including the rebelling farmers.

So now they are out manned and hungry, long before the kings food reserves run out.

Youre reaching.

> tonnes of holidays mandated.

Wow, that sure is nice. Such a benevolent ruler, completely the opposite of the type of hypothetical king I have been describing.

Really, do you understand the argument that was being had before you injected yourself into it?

>Who do you think made up the army?

No. Knighthood and lordship were titles. Warriors have always been born into/taken from noble families.

>Standing armies were almost unheard of post-Western Rome.

Horseshit.

>If we were to take that example into modern times

Not talking about modern times.

Not talking about historical record.

Only talking hypothetically.

Understand the context of a pre-existing conversation before you jump into it.