Tfw to smart to be not be a libertarian monarchist

You're right. Op was malnourished as a child.

You can be liberal and still believe that some are better than others, it just differs on who you think is better.

Ok, but that's not a political system, that's a mentality.

>absolute monarchist
It's shit.

Cuck

I know, I think OP's a retard too I was just stating that for the record

Why did you call him a cuck for believing in Absolute Monarchy? Is the king going to come down to his lowly abode and fuck his wife in front of him?

Genuinely curious.

>tfw politics will become irrelevant in your lifetime

He just doesn't know what the word means. Ignore him.

When are Ragnar and Ecbert just going to get it out of the way and take turns fucking each other in the ass? It's pretty clear they're both in love with themselves and they are pretty much the same person just with slightly different features.

>How can one be both a liberal and a monarchist?

look at pretty much every successful absolute ruler in history

they tried to create meritocratic systems and guarantee the rights of citizens to undermine annoying nobles. bourgeois can be more easily shunted out of political power than aristocracy. see pretty much every habsburg including/after maria theresa

> en.shindanmaker.com/688939
Post your results smart people of Veeky Forums

Da'fuck is African Asianism?
Those are the worst two continents in my opinion.

>tfw to smart to not follow modern feminism

> African Asianism
Can't believe it's real

what is this

Inheritance isn't necessary. If you truly believe that some men are destined to rule, you would pass the throne to the most qualified candidate. The sovereign should be free to appoint the most qualified person as their heir, rather than just their relatives.

>falling for the "intelligence" meme

That breaks it for me. A monarchy that doesn't show family values, such as taking up the family mantle, is not a monarchy, but a republic with life terms.
Inherited thrones are a staple, and could really help set an example of what family life should be.

>but a republic with life terms
Even if all the power is in the head of state?

Except for the judicial branches.

Yes. Everyone would be jockeying and paying for campaigns in order to sway the monarch's favor. The accident of birth is absolutely important in a Monarchy.

You can be a liberal monarchist. Liberals are just against interference in personal life.

Not if the metric for the designation of the monarch had nothing to do with money. So not money or nobility in this case: I believe it would still be a monarchy.

And besides, democracy is the one that encourages clandestine dealings and fighting using exorbitant, sometimes illicit, sums of money. Monarchies and aristocracies are very prone to not encourage that behavior at all.

>tfw to smart to not be accelerationist neocameralist who knows personal freedom increases technocapital efficiency but the only right is right to exit

And for rule of law, which kind of negates the possibility of an monarch since the principle of equality under law is going ot be broken.

What the fuck do a libertarian monarchist even do. Glorified police chief?

> How can one be both a liberal and a monarchist? Constitutional monarchism?

Same things a normal monarch would do but they would recognize libertarian principles as the most efficient way o govern.

>right to exit
I wish you would have exercised your only right in this thread.

Yeah, that's not necessarily creating a 'liberal monarchy', but it could.

Libertarian monarchy, on the other hand, is idiotic.

>tfw to smart to not follow dynastic radicalism

I want you to read what you said, then what I said again, because what you said made no sense. Even by idealistic standards, its unfeasible. That system of designation IS going to be corrupted, and therefore fail in the same why democracy has.
That's the thing, there has never been a system without money. People will be paid by other people to try to sound appealing to the monarch.

Basically.
I just want to be left alone and not be "regulated" or see people take away my stuff "for my own [or the greater] good".
You'd think being left qlone on my property would be a trivial thing to want but apparently that's a radical-extremist view.