How has studying history and philosophy altered your political views?

I studied too much and now I believe in too much stuff. Every ideology exists because it makes some sense. This has the negative effect of making me a perpetual bystander because I'm rooting for everyone and against everyone.

/thread.

and personally, all its done is made me lose even more faith in humanity. we're making the same mistakes over and over again, ignoring voices from the past while expecting different results "this time" around. when you present new information, you're a knowitall. when you remind others of information they already know, you're an arrogant millennial. not only are we purposefully ignoring history, we're shitting all over those who try to remind us of what happened last time we did X. ad infinitum.

>Every ideology exists because it makes some sense. This has the negative effect of making me a perpetual bystander because I'm rooting for everyone and against everyone

holy fuck this

I've given up on trying to change anything and decided to focus on improving myself.

I believe this is what's known as "riding the tiger".

It made me value democracy and liberty much more and made realise the dangers of tyrants.

>democracy
>not tyranny

It destroyed them completely and I have become apathetic.

It's all context anyway so nobody in the political spectrum is absolutely right.

Idk my dude, I think it's about what youre attempting to accomplish. "A Conflict of Visions" by Thomas Sowell touches on this well. What kind of politics you favor says more about your values than it does your intelligence. (Unless youre an ancap or similar dumb garbage, sorry.)

After studying history as well as economics, philosophy, and politics I've become more of a conservative.

>my specific needs and wants aren't meant, therefore it's tyranny

heh

>majority decides that X, therefore X should be the law
This is tyranny.

Democracy is a good starting point, people give it a lot of shit because of the tyranny of the mob, and while that's an extremely valid criticism it doesn't acknowledge the central principle behind democracy which is in itself a good thing. The people, not a leader/select few are in most cases better at making decisions for themselves than some central planners.

Congratulations, you just described democracy.

I went from libertarian to socialist to conservative.

Therefore democracy is tyranny.

so every government ever is tyranny? Great logic.

Not the guy you're replying to but states by definition are tyrannical, some more than others. When you sacrifice power you gain freedom but lose efficiency.

Efficiency isn't always a good thing, in honesty. For instance, the efficiency of Nazi policy to be passed through. Decisions made by the people are the only legitimate laws in society.

>every form of government is codifying majority opinion into legislation
Democracy gave us Robespierre and Hitler, plus it's extremely inefficient so hardly a good system.

Are you implying the Ancien Regime was efficient? It was the most bloated piece of crap in world history.

>Democracy gave us Robespierre and Hitler

Robespierre can hardly be called elected when only a small group of landowning men were given voting right and only 11% of them turned out to vote.

Hitler was also appointed in his position, never held majority and then became a tyrant, completely scrapping and semblance of democracy in society. It's funny that when tyrants do bad things it's "somehow" democracy's fault and when absolutists do something good it's because "the system works!"

Yeah. That's exactly what's happening.

Democracy is basically a coalition of the extremely wealthy and the unwashed masses. Their needs get met and their concerns are answered, mine are not.

What's the problem here?

>only a small group of landowning men were given voting right
>IT'S NOT A REAL DEMOCRACY IF ONLY RICH MEN CAN VOTE
>IT'S NOT A REAL DEMOCRACY IF ONLY MALES CAN VOTE
Okay, I'm gonna say it's not a democracy when children can't vote. Democracy has never been tried.

As Locke says, a ruler is only legitimate if he has the consent of the governed. I really think you don't have a leg to stand on.

>As Locke says, a ruler is only legitimate if he has the consent of the governed
Why?

Also, define "legitimate".

>Locke

Well you have to prove firstly why one man should hold any special power over another without being chosen with consent on the governed.

Legitimacy is the ability to defend the reasons as to why you are a ruler. For what reasons are you the head of state? Why should your populace back you? If you fail to meet the needs and desires of your populace then you lose legitimacy.

>an example of modern day argumentative techniques

Brilliant stuff!

Made me realize that heavily authoritarian governments can work under some specific leaders, but it all goes to shit once they are gone and some idiot follows them up.

Not that user, but what would you replace democracy with?

Monarchy.

Yet the prove time and time again to be horridly flawed systems.

>Well you have to prove firstly why one man should hold any special power over another without being chosen with consent on the governed.
Because he has the force of arms to do it. This is true even of liberal rulers, the only reason they have power is because they have sufficient force to defend it. And as a matter of fact this is why popular support even matters.

So now answer the question. Why is a ruler only legitimate if he has the consent of the governed?

>If you fail to meet the needs and desires of your populace then you lose legitimacy.
But "Because I will kill you if you don't obey me and you are powerless to resist" is a perfectly self-explanatory reason as to why you're a ruler.

Why is popular support necessary to this reasoning? And the more obvious question is why does "legitimacy" even matter?

Monarchies are the only system proven to work, actually, since like 3000 BC. Democratic republics have been mainstream only for two centuries and often with pretty disastrous results.

You know who else was on the borderline of deciding to be a monarchy? Hitler! And you don't want to be Hitler, do you!?

Hitler was one of the biggest opponents of a monarchy in all of 20th century.

Anarchic, agrarian, hyper-religious society like medieval Ireland.

Lots of tiny little micro-kingdoms mediated by the church.

ok, then you shouldn't have a problem with the people overthrowing them when they are no longer pleased with their ruling.

Very self defeating logic you have there my friend. Governments can be brought down by the people at any time if they will it so and if they believe that they are no longer aptly representing their interests.

>proven to work

Who exactly do these monarchies benefit? Small sections of society? Monarchy is such a great system it has to be forced upon the people through large armies.

I know. I was joking.

But, you may find this interesting, a page from Nazi-Sozi by Goebbels.

>Monarchy is such a great system it has to be forced upon the people through large armies.

Not that guy

But FYI there are many historical exceptions to this rule you just made up

>Monarchy is such a great system it has to be forced upon the people through large armies.
The same with republics.

>ok, then you shouldn't have a problem with the people overthrowing them when they are no longer pleased with their ruling.
I don't. My whole point is that force of arms dictates everything whether you like it or not, not that a specific mode of government is the best.

>Governments can be brought down by the people at any time if they will it so and if they believe that they are no longer aptly representing their interests.
Not true. The people more often than not are happy enough to let themselves starve to death in the millions before trying to revolt because people are fucking stupid and the majority of them never even dare to dream that maybe they could control their own life.

It's when influential middle-class interests vital to the running of the state get stiffed that revolutions start happening because the middle-class will then mobilize the working class who can't mobilize themselves. Or alternatively they could be agitated and organized by a foreign power.

But in any case successful popular uprisings are a total myth.

name a few. hard mode: they have to be absolutist monarchies.

Yes but they represent a large portion of society and their will; not one man's.

my nigga

> My whole point is that force of arms dictates everything whether

No, I agree, I'm very much a realist.

> middle-class interests

Still part of the people. They're not a group to be ignored, nor dismissed as some small minority which causes problems. You will find that most revolutions begin with a king oversteps his boundaries in terms of property rights and taxes.

>2 million Jews
nigga needs to learn to count

>Yes but they represent a large portion of society and their will
So what? That doesn't give them legitimacy. Popular =/= good.

Let's say you're a father or 3 children, the children want to stuff their faces with sweets all day but you don't want to allow them because it would make them fat. In a monarchy, you can excercise your authority, in a democracy they just outvote you 3 to 1 and become hambeasts.

>No, I agree, I'm very much a realist.
Then don't harp on so much about "legitimacy".

>Still part of the people
So they are. But the point stands, you can shit on the working class with impunity, it's only wealthier educated segments of society you actually need the support of.

Thus why universal suffrage was a retarded idea from all perspectives.

Not once did I say popularity=good. Not once. Like all forms of government, democracy can cause poor outcomes; that's the nature of it. But to protect my own interests and property, I'd much rather a government in which I can vote enact change through participation and accountability than arbitrary rulings from one man.

I don't think you actually know what legitimacy means, but whatever. It is linked to arms and uprisings, but it's easier to find a government of your peers more legitimate and fairer than an inbred, out of touch family.

I think JG was talking about only the Jews in Germany at the time when they published this, in 1931, if I recall.

What do you think about the Monarch/Republic question?

Monarchs are very seldom arbitrary, they are raised not to be.

And yet when they are, it's disastrous.

Do you actually prefer Cromwell to Charles I.?

Why would I prefer one tyrant over another?

>I don't think you actually know what legitimacy means,
You got an opportunity to define your terms earlier and I'd like to think we're still operating on that understanding.

>Legitimacy is the ability to defend the reasons as to why you are a ruler. For what reasons are you the head of state? Why should your populace back you? If you fail to meet the needs and desires of your populace then you lose legitimacy.

Maybe you haven't fully explained yourself. But as it seems to me this is not realistic at all, it's an exaltation of popular support to something not unlike the divine right of the kings.

> but it's easier to find a government of your peers more legitimate and fairer than an inbred, out of touch family.
Why? I don't like being ruled by the plebeian horde and it represents me and what I want about as accurately as if Britain was an absolute monarchy.

Cromwell was a republican, I thought you're advocating republican rule this entire time.

I've found that i've grown a immense fondness of Enlightened strong leaders and have found that National Identity is extremely important.
I wish there was a political system that made sure that only the strongest leaders could be put into their positions.

While I would hesitate to agree with a Nazi, the obvious answer is that a good monarchy is better than a bad republic, and vice versa. Each has its drawbacks and, gun to my head, I'd probably say monarchy as bureaucratic nonsense is the BANE of modern existence. Best system would be a free market oriented system if it could have been implemented before the industrial revolution though.

>charles i
>tyrant

???

The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea calls themselves a democratic state. Doesn't makes them so at all.

Cromwell wasn't popularly elected, nor did he act with any checks or balances. He was basically another tyrant like Charles.

That's pretty much what all contemporary republics were like.

It's all fun and games until your king is an unironic retard.

>he uses tyranny and unelected government as synonyms
This is some top bait

Under a literal retard king Spain still functioned very well.

>Enacts oppressive tax system without consulting parliament
>Raises Ship Money levy outside of a time of war
>Attempts to impose Anglicanism on Scotland despite popular opposition to it

Come on now. Don't be silly.

>it is because I say it is!

Prove it.

No, I don't. I just don't think you have good reading comprehension.

This guy knows what's up.
Center-Left (following the crowd)
Hardline NatSoc with Christo-Pagan underpinnings. The Warrior class is the Noble class, and when all Men are Nobility, victory is inevitable.

>hardline NatSoc
Rohmism then?

>free market oriented system
So Libertarian?

I literally have panic attacks about fascists because of Cato, the only way out I see is via a benevolent singleton established by a superintelligence.

>Spain under Charles II
>functioning very well

Started off as a liberal.
Went to American Nationalist.

To add to this I have found the belief that societies should be structured and disciplined.

If it could have taken root before the rapid technological progress of the past 250 years. Libertarianism is not really compatible with modern life as there is need for government regulation in the economy. How much oversight is the ultimate question.

>Prove it.
Well in the early modern period popular democracies simply did not exist. Republics were either totally ruled by the ultra-rich or semi-democratic monarchies like England or the Dutch Republic where the rich and lower-nobility got some representation but no one else did.

There weren't any popular elections, parliament was the only thing in Europe to have anything resembling checks and balances. And even then the English civil war was a victory of parliamentary rule over monarchism, making Cromwell the lesser tyrant by these parameters.

Democracy and republic are not the same thing.

It destroyed them.
Also made me more understanding of monarchies.

>Before Veeky Forums
Market socialist
>After Veeky Forums
Anarcho-monarchist.

From:
Protectionism
State capitalism
Secularism
Full Citizenship
Pro Military

To:
Free Trade
State capitalism
Moralism
Residency
Jingoism

>Libertarianism is not really compatible with modern life as there is need for government regulation in the economy.
I was talking about American Libertarianism.

Made me more apolitical.

>State capitalism
wew lad

Not exactly sure what you mean by that. Enlighten me.

You're right.

You want that planned economy.

>Residency vs Full Citizenship

Unless you extend full citizenship to the residents, this will never work in the modern world.

If someone mentions liquor I'm gonna fucking strangle him.

>It is another my donut steel king will better than the plebeian scum of republics thread

>Democracy gave us Robespierre
>implying it was democracy not Republicanism that gave us Robespierre
>implying he did anything wrong

BEER
E
E
R

its made me realize how much popular memes and ideology reshape our perception of history.
t. some mashup of liberal and conservative opinions (not ancap/libertarian though)

This is the problem with these threads.

I find the philosopher king caricature to be one that makes more sense for long term planning but the human condition is by default incompatible with this.

It's basically, free market, rights to do anything that doesn't violate the NAP, but has a government to take care of protecting the country, enforcing laws, police, fire fighters, etc. It's basically, here in America, limited government as possible, but enough to keep the country running.