Supports right of inheritance of stewardship of a company instead of turning it over to rule by employees

>supports right of inheritance of stewardship of a company instead of turning it over to rule by employees
>opposes right to inheritance of stewardship of a country

"They tell us that all Kings are bad; that God never made a King; and that all Kings are very expensive. But, that all Kings are bad cannot be true: because God himself is one of them; he calls himself King of Kings; which not only shows us he is a King, but he has other Kings under him: he is never called King of Republics. The Scripture calls Kings, the Lord’s Anointed; but who ever heard of an anointed Republic?"

kings aren't selected on merit

Neither are property owners.

sometimes they are. also companies aren't nations. one isn't born into a company

A country is not the property of its leader

>sometimes they are.
Same with kingship

>also companies aren't nations. one isn't born into a company
So? You could theoretically be born on a large swath of company land with company housing

That's solely because of the revolutions that changed that.

The Mongol Khans were. It was an absolute power position and you could name a successor, but your successor still had to be voted in.

what a disingenuous use of the word 'sometimes'. the basis of ownership in liberal capitalism is merit, and the basis of kingship is hereditary. there are exceptions but for the most part they follow this logic. a comparison of the two is false equivalence

>You could theoretically be born on a large swath of company land with company housing

zzz

>the basis of ownership in liberal capitalism is merit, and the basis of kingship is hereditary.

it's funny that for the last couple of years people stopped talking about the summer influx even though it had been popular before

in any case
>inb4 inconsequential nitpicking that ultimately leaves the main point of the argument unchanged

>being voted in equates to merit

>the basis of ownership in liberal capitalism is merit,
No, it's not. It's based purely on personal right, courts don't consider merit.

courts don't determine stewardship of a company

The highest office of stewardship is ultimately the proprietors.

Oh well If a two thousand year old book makes reference to kingship then clearly its the best form of government.

And Speaking of the bible, remember that part where God tell they Israeli that they dont need an earthy king because they have God, but they ignore him and God gives them kings who proceed to break his laws and eventually rip the nation in half?

Well if everyone were a righteous Christian,then we certainly wouldn't need earthly kings, no.

We would still need kings to coordinate distribution of resources, you dunce

But I suppose they would be called "resource distribution officers" or something equally stupid

Yes, because kings have been such Good Christian leaders. They never used the church for political ends, or ignored its teachings when it was convenient.

No with the twin swords of church and state the monarchs of Europe established laws totally in line with church doctrines.

Court cases were settled fairly by having the two parties fight a duel, emperors confiscated the property of the rich to fund their foreign wars, And Christians settled doctrinal disputes through political maneuvering, riots, and warfare.

Truly we were fools to ever abandon such a moral and upright society!

>We would still need kings to coordinate distribution of resources, you dunce
Kings hardly ever do that, that's more community based

Do you think democracy would have been better then? Do you think it would have been more upright? It would have been worse, it would have multiplied intrigue a thousand-fold. There were many bad kings, and many good kings, but deposing kings has almost always lead to a much harsher dictatorship.

Confiscating property was considered a tremendous no-no unless it was for treason, because it undermined the structure of inheritance the king's own power rested on. I'm sure it happened, but it also tended to lead to repercussions, it's how Richard II lost his throne.

>Well if everyone were a righteous Christian,then we certainly wouldn't need earthly kings, no.

You cannot possibly believe that to be true, and it's literally just like all the Commies on this board who think that crime will magically disappear when their commie utopia is established.

If we were all righteous Christian, then no one would commit crime, would they? You wouldn't need laws.

Its true that stable republics are notoriously hard to establish. But once in place they tend to be far better.

>Do you think democracy would have been better then?

Well not in the early period after the fall of the western empire, when resources were scarce, the only part of Europe with the money and social development necessary would of by the eastern empire.

I'm just highlighting the absurdity of upholding monarchies on Christian grounds.

>If we were all righteous Christian, then no one would commit crime, would they?

They would keep slaves, that's for sure.

Then again, that wouldn't be a crime.

Why do we need any central government at all if resources can always just be distributed without it?

>ts true that stable republics are notoriously hard to establish. But once in place they tend to be far better.
Not really, they just seem that way because most of them were established when technology was providing a much higher standard of living.

>I'm just highlighting the absurdity of upholding monarchies on Christian grounds.
Consider that Saul certainly ceased to be an admirable person, yet David (whom he was trying to kill), still remained loyal, and ended up putting to death the man who killed Saul (even though he did it at Saul's own instigation). Consider Romans 13

>They would keep slaves, that's for sure.
No they wouldn't, they wouldn't even keep wealth if another needed it.

Central government is in charge of making laws for one thing.

And what do those laws regard?

>And what do those laws regard?
Narcotics, murder, gambling, etc.

>No they wouldn't, they wouldn't even keep wealth if another needed it.

Yes they would. Neither the Old Testament, nor Jesus repudiates slavery.

And if they were "righteous Christians" they would follow the Bible.

Why do we make laws against things like drugs and gambling?

Major companies aren't ruled by one man, but several. You have no clue how corporate politics works do you?

Jesus said to renounce all your property if you want to be perfect, I think that would include slaves.

Because they're social diseases that are especially harmful to the poor

i think you're moving further and further away from the own logic of your original point

Correct, they're generally ruled by a ton of share-holders, many only in for the short-term and don't care if the company is ruined so long as the price goes up long enough for them to sell.

A steward in monarchy is an office appointed by the monarch, not the monarch themselves. Here I was using it to mean the monarch and the shareholders, as opposed to those they appoint on their behalf to fulfill certain functions.

What do you mean social diseases? What happens to people who gamble too much or do too many drugs? They...wait for it...have money problems that society as a whole often has to pay for. So I ask again, why do we need any central government at all if resources can always just be distributed without it? The examples you've given have really just been examples of the central government influencing resource distribution.

No, shareholders expect something in return from the board of directors, who actually run the company. The Board decides how and if it's possible to meet their shareholders demands, as one shareholder rarely has a majority in company stock. Companies are run as large oligarchies, with the CEO being the one who reports earnings to shareholders, which is what the Shareholders care about as it ensures them a return on their investment. There's a reason only certain people are allowed to buy and trade stock, so as to most of the time prevent retards with too much money from buying up all the shares of a biotech company and forcing them to make Barbie dolls.

>why do we need laws against something if the people not responsible can just foot the bill?

>There's a reason only certain people are allowed to buy and trade stock
People over 18 years of age you mean?

With a 4-year degree and upon completion of 1 of 3 entry exams, yes, then you can trade stock without a broker

Is this actually even a question? The people not responsible are not responsible, they shouldn't have to foot the bill for your degeneracy.

you were talking about inheritance. stewardship of companies in almost all cases is not inherited.

Most hostile takeovers were accomplished through brokers.

The people ultimately responsible are the ones peddling the poison

Because ownership of a country is a vastly more important and significant affair than ownership over a company. Having ownership of a land people are born into out of no choice of their own and then offering them no say in how it's run is a vastly shittier deal than doing the same with a company they choose to work at.

Your opinions on politics are childish in their simplicity.

Neither, using the term strictly, is stewardship in monarchies. Monarchs make the final decision, but appoint stewards to do most of the things. By "stewardship" in the OP I meant ownership.

So how much land should companies be able to own?

>By "stewardship" in the OP I meant ownership.

and my arguments all depend on this definition. you're not making any counter-argument

Put those goalposts back.

Courts do, ultimately, decide ownership.

which has nothing to do with your argument

Not any change in goalposts at all unless you are excluding land from companies. Does your support for inheritance of companies change where they own a lot of land?

Dunno. Substantially less than all of it, with laws in place to bust up companies that stand a risk of becoming de facto governments.

I can't help but wonder why you continually romanticize the notion of being completely without say in politics. It honestly makes me think your entire ethos is based around an aesthetic consideration; some sort of idealized conception of some of pre-modern Christian Kingdom like something out of a bloody storybook.

Countries aren't just companies with more land.

My argument is that when it comes to shares or outright total ownership, courts do not factor in merit in determining contested ownership.

I think populist opinion on just about everything is of the crudest, basest sort. This perhaps sounds elitist to you, but you do understand at least how the opinion could be reached?

You're making some demented assumption that arbitrary rules are somehow bad. Every political and philosophical position (literally every single one, I am not exaggerating) will come to a point where it reaches "because I said so" when you play the why game long enough.

No, I don't support inheritance for companies when their ownership of land puts them in a position to become a de-facto government, because I'm not an idiot. I don't support the concept of inheritance blindly; I support it only in so far as it allows people to pass some shit along to their heirs so they have a reason to not just blow their proverbial financial wad when they're on their deathbed.

i never suggested courts factor in merit. the courts feature in your argument as the institution that grants the 'right of inheritance of stewardship of a company/country' but the granting of 'stewardship' i.e. ownership is not determined by inheritance in the case of companies. are you drunk?

Yep, by being selectively misanthropic. Where you lack any sort of faith in your fellow man, but somehow stop short of applying this to your elite and envisioning a delirious fantasy in which the standard created by these strongman will somehow be free of human failings and ensure that a morally superior strongman always takes to the top of the heap. You want a simple answer to the complex problem of society.

>You're making some demented assumption that arbitrary rules are somehow bad. Every political and philosophical position (literally every single one, I am not exaggerating) will come to a point where it reaches "because I said so" when you play the why game long enough.
And monarchy doesn't obfuscate this.

>No, I don't support inheritance for companies when their ownership of land puts them in a position to become a de-facto government, because I'm not an idiot.
Consider that the rise of enclosure gave companies a great deal more control over land which was only just beginning to fall more and more into free management.

It's granted by many different factors, buying one of the most common; merit is never a factor though.

I don't know if monarchs can be considered "morally superior', but I would say populist judgement in most things is very poor. How am I supposed to put stock in it considering that? does the average voter study their decisions with anywhere near the effort that a monarch does?

I don't get what you're saying here.

You're literally conflating property changing hands through voluntary transactions in a market(which had to have happened for anyone to have anything to inherit), and hereditary bullshit peddled by churches and demagogues.

There is a reason this shit died with the American and French Revolutions, and there is a reason it should stay dead.

>merit is never a factor though.

you're not seeing the point. the point is that ownership of companies is only very rarely granted by inheritance

furthermore when it is not granted by inheritance there is not just one other option to turn it over to employees

>(which had to have happened for anyone to have anything to inherit),
What about all the land taken from indigenous peoples? What about enclosure? What about all the fortunes and social capital that ultimately trace back to slave labor?

>you're not seeing the point. the point is that ownership of companies is only very rarely granted by inheritance
So? Unless you are saying inheritance should be barred, and that selling it is somehow morally superior, that really isn't pertinent.

>furthermore when it is not granted by inheritance there is not just one other option to turn it over to employees
And deposing of a monarch doesn't necessarily lead to democracy.

>that really isn't pertinent.

it's the entire basis of your argument, that the two are comparable because ownership is inherited in both when this isn't true.

>And deposing of a monarch doesn't necessarily lead to democracy.

ok?

>What about all the land taken from indigenous peoples? What about enclosure? What about all the fortunes and social capital that ultimately trace back to slave labor?

What about it?

We aren't talking about correcting historical wrongs.

I mean, since we're talking about historical wrongs, when are you going to, as a Christian, apologize for the slave trade, the forced conversion of indigenous peoples, the Crusades, anti-Jewish pogroms, the subjugation of functionally half the human population?

I mean, you brought it up.

>It's a Constantine thread