The more I think about it, the more anarcho-monarchism makes sense

t. deluded dumbass

>falling for your own propaganda

Although anarchism will never be plausible in any society, I believe anarcho-monarchism is probably the most realistic form that anarchism could take (besides Stirnerist chaos, which is almost always the result of an anarchist society when a state isn't immediately reinstated).
For those who don't know, anarcho-monarchism is an ideology that advocates for a stateless society where people voluntarily follow leaders of their own free will. This makes it extremely similar to anarcho-capitalism and national anarchism. Although both are often questioned pertaining there legitimacy as "anarchism", both are still major branches, with ancaps taking up a large portion of the anarchist community.
When faced with disorder and chaos, most people turn to men of great strength to lead them. Often times this embrace of a leader is entirely voluntary. Thus, it makes far more sense that anarcho-monarchism would exist as opposed to other forms of anarchism, especially fantasies like anarcho-pacifism or "anarcho"-communism. Personally, I don't agree with Anarcho-Monarchism, but I think it makes far more sense than most other forms of anarchy.

that's very stupid. holy shit

Anarchy is a bad word for the state of nature. It must abide by the natural law before anything else, and so we can see that anarchy is just an extension of natural law. In that sense all forms of government exist in a naturally anarchic state already. Those forms of government do not grow distant from the natural state because that state is utterly universal, it would be a relativistic impossibility.

The monarch in it's ideal form should be seen as that which dictates or enforces the laws of nature. As human governance is completely natural, it must therefore abide by those dictates.

>Anarchy is the natural law, but governments are also human nature so therefore having a government is anarchist

>the state of nature
>natural law
>universal
alright Hobbes, where's your data to back up your claims

all things exist in compliance with the natural law, even by that aspect of it beyond human comprehension.

>universal data
you've fallen into a trap, empirically speaking.

Please don't just mix modern and traditional concepts to create edgy shit.
Thanks.

fuck now that i think about it, maybe
but is empiricism even a valid epistemology for this proposed ideology?

Yeah, I guess so. As "valid" as it is now given we overlook the problem of induction.
I don't think it's outlining an ideology so much as clarifying terms anyways.

royalty is derived, in it's definition, from blood
anarchy does not exist in opposition to, or even independently from, blood

EVERY MAN A KING
V
E
R
Y

M
A
N

A

K
I
N
G

>anarchy
>monarchy
pick one and only one dipshit

so the only difference with modern political discourse is that you add "king" before Trump's name?

>I don't agree with Anarcho-Monarchism, but I think it makes far more sense than most other forms of anarchy.
Really high bar you're setting

You're not fooling anyone Mr Tolkien

Of all the things that will never happen this will never happen the most

Anarcho-monarchism:

Political current who wants to restore the right of rule of the king of a kingless system. Most mammoth-mounted resistance bataillons in the Finno-Korean Hyper war were said to follow this current, vying for the establishment of an absolute ruler over a array of autonomous communes which would'nt recognize royal authority.

Aw, you've got me. Have a Silmaril will ya.

No. Anarcho-Monarchism as an idea is essentially that a stateless society is preferable and that if any leaders in a community do exist it should be because people choose to become their subjects. If, however, a state is actually necessary, it's preferable that it'd be an unconstitutional monarchy where there's no abstract conceptions like "the public good" or "public property" but rather only "the king's interest" and "the king's property" so as to remove all illusions about the state serving the people and instead lay it out plainly that the king serves the king's interests.

REMINDER:

Anarchists = red liberals

...

every man a king

>Fastfood freak modernity meets transgressive traditionalist
>Not edgy shit

>Reviewbrah and Evola
>not wholesome

>if any leaders in a community do exist it should be because people choose to become their subjects.
That's representative democracy, lad.
Monarchy is when you are some inbred asshole's subject because his patrilineal great-grandfather crowned himself.

>what is elective monarchy

a system in which other nobles elect the monarch

>Wake up, get out of bed get ready to serve my lord Schlomo II.
>Year is 17 A.G., recently moved to Schlomo II's patch after being promised a bigger bread allotment than I was receiving under Chaim III
>Fuck yeah, this is progress oops I mean restoration. Fuck yeah.
>King's self driving bus takes me to the palace for work
>Bus takes a tunnel underground so we can enter through the servant's entrance in the basement
>On my way in notice a group of new recruits in HR taking IQ tests at a row of terminals
>One of the screens starts flashing red, electronic alarm sounds "130 IQ PLEB DETECTED"
>Drones swarm in and grab the goy, er guy taking the test, drag him away
>Thank Gnon, can you imagine living with such imbeciles
>Get ready to start work
>All real work is done by superior robots
>Humans receive payment by entertaining the king
>Just got a huge promotion from the groveling department
>Put on my crab suit
>Enter the royal throne room. Schlomo II sitting on his throne
>Spend the rest of the day dancing in crab suit for King Schlomo, singing hymns to Gnon

>Almost at the end of shift, master of entertainment comes in and tells King its time for the final entertainment
>Dis gon be good
>130 IQ pleb from earlier is brought out by drones set before king
>Master of Entertainment: "Sire this man is guilty of poisoning our world with his low IQ DNA"
>King: "Accused, have you anything to say in your defense"
>The Accused: "Sire, I may be dumb but I have always been loyal. In the year 15 B.G. I started an NRx twitter feed with Moldbug quotes and reactionary cat memes"
>The whole throne room is silent waiting for the kings reply
>Crab dancers, grovelers, the royal family, hangers on, royal joke duck, all silent
>King: "Ha! No man of 130 IQ could truly comprehend the sacred NRx texts. You are a mere entryist. Feed him to Gnon!"
>A cheer goes up, the whole room starts chanting: "Gnon Gnon Gnon Gnon"
>A screen lights up on the opposite side of the room with a cold indifferent visage
>A fiery pit opens before the screen
>The king's drones drag the screaming pleb into the pit and he dies an awful death
>The visage drones: "This pleases Gnon. Now more crab dancing."
>Fuck. Gotta work overtime
>Shift finally ends and robo-bus takes me back to my techno-hovel
>Eat my bread allotment while watching The Radish Report
>What a great time to be alive

No, because in a democracy you can't choose to not be a subject of anyone. Anarchy-Monarchism would be closer to a feudal system where you can swear alligience to a lord or simply refuse.

>simply refuse.
right, because Mafia dons leave you alone when you "simply refuse" to pay one protection money

That's just tribalism.

>Having an autocratic ruler in an anarchic society.
wew lad

kek

A monarch that abuses his power in such a way would quickly find himself without subjects and on the wrong side of a defensive alliance.

>anarcho-monarchism
Excuse me? This isn't a setup for some kind of retarded monty python joke, is it?

It's an oxymoron

that still makes no sense. the point of anarchism is essentially to abolish the social contract between people and governing bodies. anarcho-monarchism would merely just be a choose-you-own adventure version of the idea of social contracts- you submit your support to a leader in exchange for their political organization (and whatever benefits that may entail), giving away some certain freedom for special privileges from the state, most often security and welfare. anarchism again making no sense.

Unless they are all working in cahoots with each other to keep the profits flowing and the fighting to a minimum, and that would mean smashing your windows in order to set a precedent for anyone else who might have a problem paying for their protection money

>giving away some certain freedom for special privileges from the state, most often security and welfare. anarchism again making no sense.
It's literally the "just don't call it government, bro" approach to government.

Replacing public institutions with private ones doesn't make the essential functions of government go away, it just shifts them to institutions which are less accountable

They were an anarcho-syndicalist collective tho

>anarcho-anything

>good

stop wasting your youth on silly meme ideologies people

Government is quite possibly the least accountable institution as people can't simply stop paying taxes for services they don't approve of or entirely if they believe it to be corrupt or poorly managed all throughout.

vocaroo.com/i/s05wifIDTN96

But that's the point: just because you stopped calling it "government" isn't going to make it magically more accountable, you're just rationalizing a conspiratorial oligarchy over one which is measured by public input

man is that your voice?

yes

speak slower and clearer

Yeah that worked great

anarchism literally means "no chief", monarchism is literally having a hereditary chief. Anarcho-monarchism is literally an oxymoron

No, because in a tribal society any land you live or work on would reasonably belong the tribe and not you. Anarcho-Monarchy is similar to Anarcho-Capitalism in that the land you live and work on is considered your property. You coming to an understanding with you neighbor that you'll help each other defend the other's property doesn't mean that you now own his property, nor does it mean that he has any ownership over yours. Much the same, just because you decide that your neighbor is a very apt leader and decide to call him king doesn't mean that he can suddenly do whatever he wants to your property as you can always resign your fealty to him if he starts taking massive dumps in your front lawn, for example.

Sounds like neoreaction for retards.

By default, anarcho-monarchism already exists just after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, particularly in Roman Britain where self-organization was a willful thing instead of a coercive one.

Do you know something about "anarcocarlismo"? In spain there are a political movement who wants the return of the legitimate king of Spain, Carlos Javier de Borbón-Parma. Anda they also are anarchists.