>yfw you realize that its giving power to the people that creates tyrants, while giving power to the nobility ensures better life for everybody involved, including the common man.
Populism gives power to the rabble, who always misuse it.
Yfw you realize that its giving power to the people that creates tyrants...
Chase Myers
Other urls found in this thread:
Dominic Allen
Louis XIV's France says hello. As does Tsarist Russia, the Yuan Dynasty and the Tokugawa Bakufu.
Ethan Hall
>giving power to the nobility ensures better life for everybody involved
user what
Dominic Ross
I think you mean 'the people' you elitist condescending whisky sipper...
Just gulp your whisky like a real man
Brody Murphy
>thinking it's possible to "give power"
Want to know how I know you're not an aristocrat?
Colton Taylor
There is literally nothing wrong with being a good agricultural worker
Asher Watson
I didn't say absolute monarchism was the answer either. That is the same thing, instead of a dictatorship of the commoners, its a strong man who hereditary acts like one.
Aristocracy without Monarchy is the best government.
You are right, I misspoke. I meant those populists usurped the rightful power, while absolutist kings did the same.
Daniel Jackson
>rightful power
IT WAS HER TURN!!!!
Bentley Lee
If their power was "rightful," they wouldn't lose it. Anyone who can exert his will over others and bend them to it can be "aristocratic." The aristocratic legal system fell apart when its major participants lost sight of this fact.
Juan Wood
>absolute monarchy
Louis XIV probably came the closest, but he had to bargain constantly even then. We could devote entire threads to discussing the validity of this label alone. I don't want to, but I think you might be interested in this all the same.
Jordan Sanders
> Aristocracy
Aristocracy always becomes decadent if there is no struggle for power. Do you people learn nothing from history?
Easton Jenkins
You see, this is the best part of democracy, the checks and balances.
To keep the people in check, the lower house of the government would be commoners, and the upper house the aristocrats.
Nathan Williams
This, Veeky Forums is a neoliberal board
Caleb Collins
A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.
Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.
One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.
Anthony Smith
do you have a template for this my man?
Xavier Anderson
Exactly, people don't know what they want until you show it to them. The common people are stupid and need to be controlled, the elite are there for a reason.
Alexander Long
>if only i were in charge, things would be better!
Jeremiah Hernandez
That's basically just the British parlimentary system you've described. A lower House of Commons and an upper House of Lords.
It's a good system, but it's not perfect.
Dominic Ward
>OP thinks he is nobility and not part of the rabble that he so despises
I wish people like OP were forced to live under the conditions they themselves champion as superior. I bet they would not last even a month before they started singing praises of Democracy.
John Bennett
It's just a funny juxtaposition to have a peasent telling nobles to fuck off and move so they can till the dirt under their feet
Xavier Watson
Well, it's not perfect, i think the lords need a little more power, it's the weakest sceond chamber on earth, the ability of parliament to effecxtively ignore any ruling made by the HOL ends up hurting the purpose the Hol serves, preventing populism and blocking policies that would hurt the realm in order to appeal to voters, as determined by leaders in multiple fields.
That being said heriditary lordship can fuck right off
Cooper Moore
You're pretty much spot on. I wouldn't be in favour of a vastly powerful Upper house, but the fact they always have to bow to the Commons is pretty shit.