Has libertarian monarchy ever existed? Is it a meme, or viable?

>I mean Libertarian Monarchism as an ideology. I hear it mentioned a lot
Libertarian has many meanings.
Anyway, Liechtenstein is basically what Veeky Forums Ancap monarchists want.
Also, you can't be libertarian if you are against capitalism.

social constructs are actually restrictive??
Is that why niggers are fucking retarded?

Where?
>Is it a meme, or viable?
Part 2 of the extremely complex two question post.

>>Slavery
>Banned in Medieval Europe user
Actually now, Slavery was pretty common in medieval Europe. Like the Slave market of Verdun was famous.
You might want to check you facts before humiliating yourself again.

>lords and kings levying huge tolls on traveling merchants is freedom
>conniving controlling guilds who stifle competition is freedom
>being denied rights because your parents weren't nobles is freedom
>serfdom isn't comparable to slavery

>Being able to have protectionism as willed by craftsman
Guess where else the heads of guilds sat?

The City Council. Alongside urban nobles, bishops, and burgomeisters.

In short: they're government.

>Is a strictly hierarchical and absolutist society form libertarian?
We OP, quality question!

>Slavery was pretty common in medieval Europe.
Retard. Muzies and Vikings don't count. Among Europeans it was severely limited.

As German rulers of Saxon dynasties took over the enslavement (and slave trade) of Slavs in the 10th century, Jewish merchants bought slaves at the Elbe, sending caravans into the valley of the Rhine. Many of these slaves were taken to Verdun, which had close trade relations with Spain. Many would be castrated and sold as eunuchs as well

>Guess what, a diverse class of people had say in how society was done
wow, you sure showed me.

>Retard
You might want to check out the slave markets of Verdun or Prague, or why slavery is named after the Slavs.
As said, read up, stop humiliating yourself.

OP is a retarded left-libertarian.

Autism speaks.

See . Jews are separate from European Christendom. Your statement
>Slavery was very common
Is false for the medieval, EUROPEAN world.

This guy gets it, like Verdun was famous for its castration works, they made the best singers of the time. Raiding slavic lands for slaves was a business at the time.

>slavery is named after the Slavs.
That's a meme. But to answer your meme statement, because moors, mongols, turkics and Jews enslaved them?

Aren't you arguing for libertarianism in the first place?

A Medieval Commune isnt libertarian at all.

>says Sanon rulers
>JEWS JEWS JEWS
You sure you got the mental capability for this thread?

How many slavs were enslaved by Saxons versus non Europeans, hmmm?

The word Slave and Slavery in the Germanic languages are taken from the Slavs, the heathen people that got raided and enslaved on a daily basis during the early and high medieval.

>a diverse class of people
No. The local socioeconomic elites, who used the long dick of the state to fuck things up to their own benefit.

Literally hundreds of thousands of Slavs where enslaved during the medieval.
The only restriction back then was not to sell Christian slaves to non Christian lands. Everything else was fair.
Seriously, do yourself and us a favour, read a book or at least the wiki article, because you are claiming bullshit all the time.

citation needed

for which part?

academia.edu/1764468/Dirhams_for_slaves._Investigating_the_Slavic_slave_trade_in_the_tenth_century

nice non-working pdf

Are you literally too dumb to click on a link and scroll down? I wonder how you managed to turn your computer on...

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, sort of. PLC was extremely libertarian for aristocratic class, which had its "golden liberty" granted. The kings of this state often bought nobility's loyalty by granting them many social and political privilleges. For example
>king had a duty to pay ransom for noblemen captured by the enemy during a war
>king needed nobility's approval to mint new currency, introduce new laws, set new taxes, run foreign policy and raise an army ("Nihil novi" - "Nothing new" without nobility's approval)
>Noblemen had a right to revolt if king brakes slightest of the laws
>King was chosen with an election
>Liberum Veto - every nobleman had a right to cancel proceedings of sejm (general council), if he found the resolutions adopted on it displeasing.
Ultimately all these rights for nobles proved unfavourable for the state. The country passed hardly any reform for a long time, because there always was a smartass to veto any new sejm resolution. The nobility showed much more interest about own wealth than in the matters of the state, thus they were often bribed by foreign agents to veto a reform, refuse king to make a move, or vote for a specific candidate during an election.

I had a libertarian history teacher who was always blaming textbooks for feeding children wrong opinions about golden liberty and saying how it was great and did nothing wrong. Funny thing, if I had been older I would have asked him if he had voted for Korwin.

He would probably represent Warsawian history school of thought, which claims that Commonwealth had fallen only because of foreign rise to power. Tbqh Krakow school, which blames fall of PLC on inner politcal problems, makes more sense.
pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakowska_szkoła_historyczna

Libertarian society subject to the intervention of an immortal AI-augmented philosopher-king is the best option, bar none. Even that isn't an indefinitely stable form of government, though, because nothing is.

>Are you literally too dumb to click on a link and scroll down? I wonder how you managed to turn your computer on...

You can easily be a libertarian against capitalism. As long as you don’t interfere with anyone’s practice of capitalism you can hate it and rail against it all you want.

Most monarchies were somewhat libertarian.

Not as a matter of ideological choice, but simply because the state was incredibly weak in pre-industrial societies so the king could do fuck-all to interfere in the lives of normies.

That's not libertarian at all, and this is coming from someone who thinks the ideology is retarded.

Monarchies never move in the direction of libertarianism. The end goal is that the entire country is owned by one person.

>anyone’s practice of capitalism

Like when they pay politicians to implement their policies regardless of what the electorate wants?

Can't have capitalism without state support, dude.

>Has libertarian monarchy ever existed? Is it a meme, or viable?
>Congo
>Free
>State
Literally a place where one guy owns the entire country as his personal property, without any pesky liberals shoving "human rights abuse" in the boss's faces
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State

The "meme" is pretending that it would be anything but a shitshow of human rights abuses.

literally why does he wear the mask

Hide a scar he's subconscious about. also to psychologically not be "frail" like a mere man.

That's the case in french

>article only talks about 9th and 10th century
you forgot the other 600 years of the medieval period. also that article is hardly conclusive and mentions multiple times that it is asserting things and lacks much archaeological evidence. in fact the entire crux of his argument is based on the presence of silver coins, with literature and fort building to bolster. it really isn't very convincing. in fact, I'd say it's a good theory but hardly evidence to the widespread of slavery in the medieval period, especially considering it focuses on eastern europe only.

I was always taught that slavery fell out of use in the medieval period. Surely you can provide better evidence to contradict that.

Being labeled a slave is surely more restraining than being a slave who can't break free yet thinks he is free.

>maybe completely paralyzing our government would leave us vulnerable to our neighbouring countries
>what are they gonna do, annex us?
Conversation between Poles annexed

post evidence claiming it did. That's why we are here, and you baiting pieces of shit keep refuting evidence shown.

>I was always taught that slavery fell out of use in the medieval period. Surely you can provide better evidence to contradict that.
Look mate, it is not my problem that you are to dumb to read up on a subject. Evidence was provided and a simple google search will hook you up with dozens of articles, papers and books. So yeah, go spoon feed yourself.

you were spoonfed a source that disproves you and then you're getting triggered at the guy and calling him a brainlet

buddy im sure you're a /pol/ user

Reminder that you were fined or jailed for speaking to nobles without asking permission first.

>a council made up entirely rich old white men who all know each other is diverse

Why do people think a free city has anything to do with monarchy?

>guilds only existed or held power in Free Cities

>old monarchies were libertarian because the crown was weak and couldn't enforce shit
>monarchy was the only one with legal power

Nobles and churches had enormous power and guild had strangleholds on professions by law. There was very little you could actually do that wasn't restricted by laws.

Guilds only held real political power in free cities and cities with imperial immediacy.
If you are looking for a Ancap wonderland, look at the Hanse.

>uses """White"""" to describe people
Warning sign of a Pseud

Diverse in social class, economic status and ethnic makeup. Yes, that is Diverse.

Government-imposed regulations controlling the price and size/grain content of bread doesn't seem very libertarian to me desu.

The freedom for workers to ban together and protect their craft is a freedom in itself. Whats so hard for neolib shits to understand about this?

>diverse in economic status, ethnicity, religion, and caste
>B-B-B-B-B-BUT M-UH-UH-H SOCIOECONOMIIC ELITE
just shut up

What does that have to do with Government-implemented price controls and regulation?

A guild isn't the government? It's not the government taking away "MUIH FREEDUMBS" but a group of craftsman banded together to regulate their trade for the benefit of the community.

>craftsman banded together to regulate their trade for the benefit of the community.

Not how that works dude.

>The freedom for workers to ban together and protect their craft is a freedom in itself.
The city council does. Even dictates to who you can sell your shit to.

Though Guild Masters are part of the city council as representatives.

Yes it is """dude."""
>every guild is part of a city memery
Didn't we already go over this?

>guilds only existed or held power in Free Cities
thats actually correct.

>>Freedom to do things has anything to do with social class
>t.brainlet
Go on and explain to me how there's no connection between certain jobs and certain social classes. If you're forced by law to work as a cleaner at McDonalds you'll never be part of the upper middle class for obvious reason by your own means.

>thats actually correct.

>Jobs have anything to do with personal freedom
Brainlet
>If you're forced by law to work as a cleaner at McDonalds
A stupid Strawman not worth addressing.

Well, post examples of powerfull guilds in non free cities then.
>protip, you can't

Wait, are you the same dumbfuck as Like when you get called on your bullshit you simply post another Wojak?

>powerful guilds
It isn't relevant if the guild is powerful or not. Nice attempt of moving the goalpost though.
Are you the same dumbfuck who hasn't been correct the entire thread?

You really need to go back to /pol/, like nobody here takes you for full.

Have you said anything of value the entire thread? Link it if so.