[Orion]

(07-31-2016 11:28 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

The problem with monarchy are bloodlines and the resulting mess it always causes when it comes to succession. Then of course the idea of "royal" blood and divinity starts to rear its head eventually too. If you're from a line that has absolute power based on descent then at some point you will try your hand at convincing the people you are a god king also. It's the next step in absolute power.

This seems to end up happening more often than not. Even the pragmatic Romans weren't immune to this sort of thing.

In modern times you just have to look at the King of Thailand to see a living breathing example of someone who is pumped up to near god king status. He actually has to downplay his image to prevent over the top fanaticism.

But that would imply that succession problems were THE cause behind succession wars, and not the simple power struggle.

Also, that would also imply that democracy, as a system that has an inherent flaw of holiness spin, does not posses the same mechanism for inciting wars. Why do you think that America invaded half of the world ? Because of democracy !

Reality is, once the succession wars were concluded, and the real interests, that is, territories, were divided, everyone would forget about his succession claim

Quote:

you will try your hand at convincing the people you are a god king also. It's the next step in absolute power.

You are trying to make it sound like the whole God-King concept was some kind of bizarre mania of Kings, and not a well thought spiritual and political idea of hierarchy.

Has anyone read The Protocols by the way ? Besides of what everyone thinks that they are just a tirade, they have many golden quotes. One of them is, i paraphrase "The Goyim had willingly overthrown their despots, and now, they shall live under OUR despotism"

And that's the reality. Form of government is a matter of practicality for every sane person. If i consider myself a nationalist and traditionalist, then for my ideas, democracy is THE worst form of government, because it is designed to subvert and destroy nation and tradition. Quite plain and simple approach. Monarchy is therefore more acceptable, because to much greater extent lessens the possibility of subversive elements taking grip of political power. Which again, depends on the level to which the ruler will be willing to control things, rather than let his country be run by the winds of fortune

(08-01-2016 05:10 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  

A few examples from history:

Kaiser Wilhelm II - Destroyed the Germany empire built by Bismarck by embarking on one of the most destructive wars in history of mankind.

Tsar Nicholas II - Totally pussified ruler who was unable to prevent the rise of communism and the destruction of the Russian empire. He also was a total cuck who let his slut wife cheat on him with Rasputin, which probably was a main reason for his inability to rule properly.

George III - Totally insane. Overtaxed the American colonies so harshly they broke off and created the USA and got into a war with them that decimated the British Army and nearly bankrupted the country.

Honorius - Roman emperor who outlawed trousers and was so lazy and passive (and probably gay) it lead to the sack of Rome in 410

No wonder you agree with him when you share such a simplified approach in which every historical upheaval can be explained in terms of "peculiar" leaders, and not through profound and powerful political motions, in which rulers found themselves in the midst of, as much they have created them

[Leonard D Neubache]

It's interesting that we're on the cusp of either a global gulag state or a societal collapse of unprecedented scale, ushered in under democracy, and there are still people frothing at the mouth about the concept of a monarchy because "some of them ended really badly."

[Phoenix]

(08-01-2016 05:10 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  

I'm going to have to agree with Samseau on this one...having a king is no guarantee of a better run country.

A few examples from history:

A few examples do not make a rule. Especially George III -- if you look up the size of the taxes they revolted over, versus the amount of taxes Americans pay now, you'd have quite a chuckle.

The autocrat leaders like Nick II and the crazy roman emperors are not examples of a balanced, constitutional monarchy. They are examples of the importance of a balanced constitution. "Praetorian guard stabs the Emperor to death if he gets out of hand" isn't what I'd call a balanced constitution. I have made it repeatedly clear that what is needed is a king, but not a king alone. It seems so far that opponents would rather not argue these things from a reasoned and balanced point of view, when instead they can launch into dramatic extremes.

Selectively picking out bad kings is no argument. Put them side by side with all the good and peaceful kings in a list, and put that side by side with the democracies and republics of history and their track records, show me the ratios, and that's an argument.

Alternatively, how else do you propose the European situation is reversed? All I ever hear is grumbling about "globalists" and "the elites" and "how we're all fucked". My proposal, as argued in terms of "the king owns his kingdom so at least he won't shit on it", is a step in the right direction. Samsaeu is great at the dooming and glooming and "none of you are wise like me so why even talk?", but what does he propose? Maybe he gets his Trump -- but like Reagan or Thatcher or Churchill, you get them for a decade and then it's back to the rot.

[Samseau]

The best form of government is the kind of democracy described in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," where voting rights are directly ascribed to individual accomplishment and merit to the state.

Quote:

Interspersed throughout the book are other flashbacks to Rico's History and Moral Philosophy course, which reveal that the rights of a full Citizen (to vote and hold public office) must be earned through voluntary Federal service. Those who do not perform this Service retain the rights of free speech, assembly, etc., but cannot vote or hold public office. This structure arose ad hoc after the collapse of the "20th century Western democracies", brought on by social failures at home (among which appear to be poor handling of juvenile delinquency) and military defeat by the Chinese Hegemony overseas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers#Plot

When America fails, this is the next logical step. I will grant you that when creating a new government, you need a powerful singular ruler like George Washington to set things up, but afterwards you want power to be maintained through a federal system of checks and balances because the threat of a tyrant fucking up the system is so damaging.

Rousseau called men like Washington, "Lawgivers," the original Kings who get the ball rolling, but most governments aren't lucky enough to have great Lawgivers and instead get tyrants. Lycurgus of Sparta, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Napoleon, Ataturk, are some examples of Lawgivers and obviously most of them have not had good results. But when the results are good, they are great.

If you read your Aristotle's Politics, you'll learn there is a difference between Kings and Tyrants, Aristocracies and Oligarchies, Constitutional Democracies and Mob Rule Democracies. Kings are the best form of government, but Tyrants are the worst. So singular rulers are high risk, high reward plays that should be avoided as much as possible because the potential for disaster is much worse than what democracies can do to their people.

But when shit hits the fan, that's when the King is needed again. But you only want to keep a King for a little while, because it only takes one bad King (i.e. a Tyrant) to completely destroy a nation. Thus it is preferable to set up a constitution when the King is in power to be followed after his death rather than deal with issues of succession.

[PUA_Rachacha]

(08-01-2016 08:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The best form of government is the kind of democracy described in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," where voting rights are directly ascribed to individual accomplishment and merit to the state.

[

Didn't you mean to say Starship Troopers?

[Barron]

(08-01-2016 08:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The best form of government is the kind of democracy described in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," where voting rights are directly ascribed to individual accomplishment and merit to the state.

Quote:

Interspersed throughout the book are other flashbacks to Rico's History and Moral Philosophy course, which reveal that the rights of a full Citizen (to vote and hold public office) must be earned through voluntary Federal service. Those who do not perform this Service retain the rights of free speech, assembly, etc., but cannot vote or hold public office.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but after reading that my interpretation is as follows:

If you grant the state absolute power in deciding who can vote on issues of the state (assigning "merit")... Then the state will undoubtedly ensure that whomever it grants this power to (the right to vote) will indeed vote for whatever is in the best interest of the state.

[Samseau]

(08-01-2016 12:19 PM)PUA_Rachacha Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 08:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The best form of government is the kind of democracy described in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," where voting rights are directly ascribed to individual accomplishment and merit to the state.

[

Didn't you mean to say Starship Troopers?

Yes, typo.