Any good books on monarchism?

de maistre
hobbes

rousseau for a more mediated view

Thomas Paine so you realize how retarded it is

>supporting a system that's been universally refuted
even worse than a tankie desu.

...
:)

The prince - Machiavelli

there is no reason to reading anything of this sort.

even only considering monarchism as a faisable form of government is pure mental retardation.

you should seriously fucking kill yourself

Monarchy is ingrained in us. No matter how many times you try to move away from it, it will return, each time with greater glory.

Monarchies have historically been the most stable states.

>refuting natural and organic government
>refuting nature
wew

You're not fooling anyone.

yup, nothin bad about nature that i can think of. not one thing.

Notice how the fucking plebian liberal doesn't offer any arguments. All he does smear and insult. His mind is defined purely by critique and destruction.

This is the mind of someone who is tyrannized by their animalistic instincts, and are thereby completely divorced from any Divine order. Makes perfect sense why they oppose Monarchy. They hate the Goodness, Beauty and any sort of Qualitative differentiation. They prefer formlessness, and thereby evil.

Shut the fuck up.

People have become so reactionary and edgy here they'll soon start supporting God Emperors and Pharaohs

>lol your beliefs are "edgy" so they must be insincere!

You're projecting.

This
and
also Aquinas' De Regno, Blom 'Monarchism in the Age of Enlightenment', Tikhomerov 'On Monarchist Statehood'; Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn 'The Menace of the Herd'.
The blog for the Kingdom of Edan, if it is still around.

The only good form of monarchy is anarcho-monarchism

>equating ancap to 'the natural order'

MY GOD

>Just got back from visiting relatives in Liechtenstein; there is a strong movement to give the Prince even more power that has broad popular support
>Uncle works in Luxembourg
>We went to Monaco for the weekend
>My father makes money contracting with Saudi Arabia and Oman
>You think monarchy is 'universally refuted'

>even only considering monarchism as a faisable form of government is pure mental retardation
>considering monarchism as a faisable form of government
>a faisable form of government
>faisable form
The citizens of Tonga, Thailand, the UAE, and Qatar have some questions for you, if that's "faisable"

Not OP, but I am unironically a Catholic divine-right-of-kings Monarchist.
You'd obviously be stunned at how large the Monarchist movements are.
Hell, there is a convention in Atlanta in June!

>anarcho-monarchism
What does that even mean?
Something like HRE? Where the monarch is utterly useless?

In that book Hoppe makes an clear, lucid, rational argument about why Monarchy is in all ways superior to republics/democracies, then does a failed 'but anarchy is better because anarchy' walk back that is at best half-hearted.

>Saudi Arabia
>Good example
There is literally only one good thing about Saudi Arabia and that's, that they happen to have shitloads of oil.

>Thailand
Isn't support for the monarchy in Thailand at record lows since the new guy became king?

>Hell, there is a convention in Atlanta in June!
Which is dwarfed in numbers by furry conventions.

It is a broad, inchoate concept of having a king that everyone is tied to by personal loyalty and all lower-level decision making is made up of the most-local, lowest-level person or group possible.
It is more properly called Feudal technocratic Distributism, but almost no one knows that.

So the goal posts are being moved from
>universally refuted
to
>Well, I don't like that one, and that king isn't as popular as his dad
?

and?
There are more furries than Transhumanists, too

they've historically been the only states

I'm not that guy. I'm just pointing out that those are horrible examples of successful monarchies.

Yes and the transhumanist movement is also meme-tier.

DEMOCRATICLLY ELECTED RULERS ARE SUPERIO-

FDR rules.
Debate me, faggots.

t. wealthy individual in small population countries, the European examples of which posses some measure of legislative capacity forming something akin to Constitutionalism, who cites Saudi Arabia and Oman as desirable examples of how a nation should be conducted

Why?
Because you think one is icky and the other one has a king less popular than the previous king?
OK, look at Jordan, another Monarchy - safe, stable, opposes terrorism, etc.
You're also skipping Monaco, Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein - all in the top rankings for European nations in things like individual freedom, privacy, income mobility, education, etc.
There was an article not too many years ago that pointed out that in Europe the more power the monarch had the better off the citizens are. They pointed to Liechtenstein (where my uncles and cousins live) where in 2003 the people overwhelmingly support the Prince having *more* power and things got better.
You might not like Saudi Arabia, but it is a Hell of a lot better off than Egypt, etc. The new king of Thailand is not as popular, but Thailand is better off than its neighbors.

Read up on democracy vs parliamentarianism - I.E. Schmidt's Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. Hitler had a plurality initally and then reformed the government to remove any checks on his power - very undemocratic (that is to say, very distant from enlightenment ideals of government of, by, and for the people using checks and balances) famalam

Also out of the two leaders, one left his country 50% raped by slavs and 100% occupied, the other created the largest superpower in history while simultaneously creating international human rights regimes

>"I didn't understand what you wrote, but I am convinced I R SMRT!
FTFY
> who cites Saudi Arabia and Oman as desirable examples of how a nation should be conducted
Where?
Seriously, who did that and when?
If you mean
then re-read it, pal. I was pointing out that monarchies can't be 'universally refuted' because plenty still exist.
Try to keep up.
And where would YOU rather have been a citizen for the last 25 years - Saudi or Egypt? Jordan or Syria? Swaziland or Zimbabwe? Thailand or Vietnam?
Saying
>"Well, that monarchy isn't *perfect*"
refutes nothing

No. Because Saudi Arabia is an absolute shithole and there's only one good thing about it, the oil. Otherwise it's a terrible place to live on par with North Korea. Possibly even worse if you're a woman.

>and the other one has a king less popular than the previous king?
That's an other of saying not popular at all I suppose.

>OK, look at Jordan, another Monarchy - safe, stable, opposes terrorism, etc.
>You're also skipping Monaco, Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein - all in the top rankings for European nations in things like individual freedom, privacy, income mobility, education, etc.
Yes, and those are good example of contemporary monarchies. You should more of those, and less of shitholes like the above.

>then re-read it, pal. I was pointing out that monarchies can't be 'universally refuted' because plenty still exist.
So do Marxist-Leninist dictatorships. Which was the original comparison.

Mishima for a r t g e t I c s

In other words, you agree that the point I originally made
>Monarchy as a system is not refuted
is correct?
Thanks.
>Saudi Arabia on par with North Korea
I've been to Saudi. It isn't on par with the Norks.

>In other words, you agree that the point I originally made
In other words I wasn't trying to argue against monarchy. I was pointing out those specific points were retarded.
>I've been to Saudi. It isn't on par with the Norks.
I suppose so if you're a rich white dude over for oil related reasons.

>created the largest superpower in history
Yeah thats what happens when your rivals (Europe) get rekt for 2 straight world wars and your the only one with nukes

>international human rights regimes
Is that before or after he enlsaved (conscripted) millions, put thousands in camps and nuked hundreds of thousands of civilians?

>socialist cripple

>socialist cripple
That not just saved America, but paved the way to make it the global superpower.

>saved America
>implying hitler wanted to take over the entire world
>implying the USA has gotten better since it was "saved"

retarded meme

There are plenty of people who still call themselves Marxists, aren't there?
Annd Nazis, even.
Here's the thing - while NatSoc and Communism have *never*, *ever* produced anything other than totalitarian shitholes full of oppression and mass murder most monarchies were anything but.
Can you really point to, oh, Bahrain or Oman or Swaziland (all absolute or near absolute monarchies) and say
>"Yup. Another Cambodia"
?
Or Liechtenstein whose Prince has more personal power than England's George III and say
>"totalitarian shithole with secret police dragging people away, just like Stalin"
?
Of course you can't!
Like I said
I am a Catholic divine-right-of-kings Monarchist.
I can point to the Catholic monarchies that exist *right now* and point out that the more they resemble a traditional monarchy the better of the nation and its people are. The more they resemble a Democracy the worse off the nation and people are.
I would love to see a reply that is something other than
>nuh-uh
>U R teh stoopid
>B-b-but Saudi Arabia is baaaaad!
>once upon a time there was a bad king. I read about it in a romance novel....

>thinking I meant from Hitler
I meant from the crippling poverty and economic failure of the USA post-great depression.

Travel to Saudi a lot, do you? Care to compare it to Egypt the last time you were there? Oman? Yemen?

>Implying massive government spending improves an economy

Even worse

Something no monarchist has ever efficiently explained to me is in what way is it better than a democratic republic.
Because if it's constitutional monarchy it's pretty much the same as the democratic republic. And absolute monarchy has so many historic instances of abuse, that anyone who's not completely retarded can see that it's a bad idea.

Only somewhat good reason I saw was, that it assures a non-partisan head of state. But even that can be achieved in the republic. Just look at George Washington, or Germany for that mater, where I think that president has to relinquish his party membership before becoming president (I think Italy has something similar).

>The more they resemble a Democracy the worse off the nation and people are.
Then how come Saudi Arabia is shit whilst Israel is the greatest country in the middle-east?

Because monarchies are historically well known as polities that are very rational with spending their budgets.
OH WAIT...

Yes, and you're also a rich white man going there because your dad works in the oil business.

It does.
Keynes was 200% right.
FDR proved it once and for all.

>changing the subject

we havent been talking about monarchism for several posts

But anyway monarchies manage budgets better because monarchs dont leave after 4 years so they have an incentive to keep the country in good condition

Also most voters are retards who want free shit, hence the massive debt and unfunded liabilities of almost all democracies

gas yourself

>gas yourself
It's not my fault you're too contrarian to embrace the objectively greatest president of all time.

My dad is in civil engineering
I am in IT going on my own.
Anything else you want to guess about?

>Guess
You literally said this earlier

>>My father makes money contracting with Saudi Arabia and Oman

>we havent been talking about monarchism for several posts
Sorry that I'm trying to stay on OP's subject, at least tangentially.
Why did even devolve into FDR talk anyway?

Also Madison was arguably the best president, fight me on that.

Its not my fault you fell for the post-WW2 propaganda machine

Is that what brainwashed liberal ideologues are calling real history now?

try making a coherent post

>I have no comeback
Better luck next time, kid.

this thread

Here are a few
1) As Hoppe pointed out, Monarchy is essentially 'the government as personal property of the sovereign' while republics of all stripes are 'common ownership of the government'. Democracy leads to the Tragedy of the Commons for the entire state government and, thus, the entire state. The sovereign, conversely, has all the positive incentives of private ownership.
2) Permanent responsibility and long term planning. A MO or congressman is going to be in power for as little as a few months, probably no more than a few years. They can make no long-term plans and many (if not most) end up in a cycle where their main role is keeping their role and generating personal wealth of some sort. If a senator or MP helps pass a bad law that causes a collapse in 10 years, so what? She'll be gone and who will blame one of 100 MPs?
A sovereign and his nobles, however, are in the opposite situation. Not only are they personally responsible, their own wealth and power are tied to the success of the nation.
3) Democracy is inherently irrational. From Arrow's Theorem to the Sorites paradox to the findings of the Myth of the Rational Voter it has been proven for generations that it is impossible to actually "vote rationally". In voting populations this means voters use 'emotional bandwagoning' to make the macro-decisions required for voting. After all, NO ONE can have the required levels of expertise in economics, diplomacy, history, etc. to truly decide the best candidate, even if the candidates weren't doing their utmost to hide their flaws! So the idea that a democracy picks a decent candidate is incoherent
4) Because of #2 and #3 the best course of action for a politician in a Democracy is to enact irrational laws that appeal to emotional bandwagoning; i.e., to get re-elected the best course is to pass bad laws.
There's more - read the books listed early

Yeah
But not in oil, you dense motherfucker.
And you said
>you're also a rich white man going there because your dad works in the oil business.
No, I go there because *I* have my own job in *IT* and I have my own work, you dense motherfucker.

And this hurts my argument how?

Points like this kind of miss the point of democracy. It isn't a question of good governing, it's a question of legitimacy.

In a democracy people choose who rule them (this is a bit naive but there is still some form of consent).

Who decides who the monarch is? What legitimacy does the monarch have?

>Permanent responsibility and long term planning
That really worked well in history. If monarchies would be so good at long term planning and permanent responsibility, things like Magna Carta Libertatum, English revolution and French revolution wouldn't happen.

Also the tragedy of the commons only started when people tried to impose private property on it, before that they worked. And comparing second rate land, that neither king nor nobility wanted.

And obviously this:
Locke has completely destroyed the Filmer's Patriacrhia argument, so divine rule isn't even a valid answer. So you're only serious option under monarchy is, constitutional monarchy, which suffers all the problems that democratic republics face, just that the head of state is hereditary title.

>English revolution

You mean the regicide that was engineered by Puritan elites and was reversed within a generation? Or the Glorious Revolution, that replaced one monarch with another?

You
>You're only going because your father is a dentist!
Me
>My dad is a pilot, and I go because I sell petunias
You
>Same difference!

>And comparing second rate land, that neither king nor nobility wanted.
Oh shit, apparently I forgot to finish my thought.
And comparing second rate land, that neither king nor nobility wanted to entire state is just stupid. State doesn't work like that.

And sure I'll give you the problem of a rational voter, but that can be fixed with more direct democracy, with democracy built on consensus. The biggest problem of current democracy is, that people are just used to pick a or b (well there could be more choices, but the result is the same). The way you fix this is by integrating people in day to day governance on the lowest level.

Obviously the first one. But even the glorious revolution kind of destroys any reason for both absolute monarchy and monarchic divine right to rule. Glorious revolution was the people as the true and only real sovereign freely choosing to give up their sovereignty to a monarch of their choosing. It's basically elections for life and then becoming hereditary.

Dude you're using tu quoque while defending Hitler.

You know whats nice? When you get to leave the camp after the war, and when legal action later in your life compensates you for your illegal internment. You know when you cant do that? When you've been starved and cremated.

Also your comparison of conscription to enslavement is pretty laughable for several reasons. It's been considered a component of free citizenship since literally the classical period of Greek states.

I don't really think I need to go into detail comparing the treatment of Allied occupied zones and German/Japanese/Soviet occupied zones. Do you know why the Germans themselves disliked allied occupation initially? Food shortages. Do you know why those food shortages came about? The Germans were systematically creating famine in the occupied French, Belgian, Dutch, and Danish territories in order to prioritize German citizens. The Nazis were literally a metastasizing tumor choking the life out of Europe until the allies put them out of their misery, and Hitler was directly responsible for the collapse of eastern Europe into Soviet satellites.

And your argument for why we should toss out US economic development and political prominence is some fucking quip about 'muh nukes first' and 'europe rekt for 2 world wars' is equally stupid. You know what would have prevented that? If Europe didn't give themselves over to bellicose warmongers, if the French didn't push the treaty of Versailles so hard, if the Germans didn't launch a war of aggression to reclaim prominence, and if - are you ready for this one - if there was a system of functional collective security, then there wouldn't have been a fucking world war.

NATO and the UN in combination with the structural influence of the bipolar cold war are the main engines which ensured a peaceful and prosperous Europe in the latter half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st.

And of course I have to say inb4 muh arabs, because whenever someone wants to make a point about an entire continent, there's always that one guy who goes 'muh shitskins'.

You might just be shitposting, in which case I've got to say 'excellent bait', but even if you are there are people who unironically hold the position that Hitler was just misunderstood compared to those big baddies like Roosevelt and Truman.

>the first one obviously

The wars occurred due to aberrant circumstances. There is no system of government that can absolutely guarantee against civil war. You're right about the glorious revolution though. The Stuarts really fucked it all up.

It is the same difference though.

If you're a rich white dude going to Saudi Arabia it doesn't make a difference if it's for oil or because you're the king's personal rentboy. The point is that if you're a wealthy foreigner over for purely professional reasons your view of Saudi Arabia is obviously going to be positively glowing.

>>You're only going because your father is a dentist!
>this reading comprehension
I love how you're so buttblasted at the implication that you're going because of your dad that you completely forgot about the argument at hand.

>while defending Hitler.
Stopped reading there, i did no such thing,

Nice projection

Adolf, Stalin, FDR and Churchill were all shit

But civil wars, especially civil war that happened in England, happened because of perceived tyranny of the king. In modern western democracies civil wars hasn't happen in a while. Why? Because you can always elect another person, few years from now and prevent tyranny.

>Points like this kind of miss the point of democracy
I think it actually addresses the question that was actually asked. Remember that? It was
>Something no monarchist has ever efficiently explained to me is in what way is it better than a democratic republic.
You are now talking about an entirely different topic.
>It isn't a question of good governing, it's a question of legitimacy.
now you are drifting into something else, the source of legitimacy of authority. If you want to talk about 'consent of the governed' being the source of legitimacy for democracies, you're going to get embarrassed rather badly.
And did you really just imply that you'd rather have a terrible elected ruler than a great hereditary ruler?
>Also the tragedy of the commons only started when people tried to impose private property on it, before that they worked.
You need to expand your reading a bit, friend.
>Who decides who the monarch is? What legitimacy does the monarch have?
The people, just in a different way than voting.
His legitimacy? From people obeying him.
>If monarchies would be so good at long term planning and permanent responsibility, things like Magna Carta Libertatum, English revolution and French revolution wouldn't happen.
Unlike the American Civil War and the various Panics, and unlike the 5 French Republics, etc.
The Capetians ruled France for a Millennia and the nation flourished and grew wealthy.
No French Republic has survived 2 full generations.
>Locke has completely destroyed the Filmer's Patriacrhia argument
Says who?
You?
Locke failed in his arguments, friend

Let me put it to you this way.

How did FDR make the average normal American's life worse?

Yeah, that really worked out well for America and Germany.

>implying civil war is bad
>implying the reason there is no civil war in the USA isnt because of a domesticated population and extreme centralization/surveillance state

>And did you really just imply that you'd rather have a terrible elected ruler than a great hereditary ruler?

Yes. What do you do once that one ruler has died? How does a monarchy compensate for the fact than in hereditary rule you are inevitably going to end up with a bad ruler at some point?

Can't you just be a communitarian and satisfy all your anti-liberal yearnings?

Sending them to die in a useless war? wow that was easy

I would add fucking up the economy but you wouldnt understand that

Here's my point
I don't think Saudi Arabia is autopia, I just know it is better than NoKo, Yemen, Oman, etc.
Like I said.
Me saying
>Saudi is better than Egypt
!=
>Oh! I wish EVERYWHERE was like Saud!
And the original point was,

wait for it

That Saudi is a legitimate, stable monarchy in the contemporary world.
Which is true.
You just keep pretending my race, income, and dad change that

How does the incentive of private property lead to good rule?

People handle their private stuff badly all the time, and the monarch will have a monopoly so where is his competition? He has no incentive when he already has a monopoly of everything.

>artificially depressed wages
>artificially inflated prices
>confiscation of gold and property
>loss of local autonomy
>Massive regulation of businesses
>artificial shortages
top of my head

>useless war
>The war that made America the global superpower
>The war in which America was attacked first
Yes, America should have totally just rolled over and let the Japs bomb as they please.

>fucking up the economy
>Following his rule America enjoyed its most prosperous period in history and under FDR it came out of the most economically disasterous period in its history.
hmmmmm

>Locke failed in his arguments, friend
How. If Divine right stems from being direct descendant of Adam, and Adam is the first man, it means we're all directly descendant from Adam. So Filmer is completely useless argument.

>Unlike the American Civil War and the various Panics, and unlike the 5 French Republics, etc.
Most of French republics were intermittent with restorations of either kingdom or empire, or some other external influence. And US civil war was already predicted by the Founding Fathers and had to do with slaves and their rights.

And you know why most of modern monarchies don't have any civil wars? Because most of them are constitutional and either de facto or even de jure admit that the real sovereignty lies in the people, and that the monarch is only their legal representative, that they've chosen to give a hereditary title to.

>I just know it is better than NoKo
And this is what I'm saying, it isn't.

>You just keep pretending my race, income, and dad change that
No, the fact it's a shithole changes that.
That came up because you thought saying "I've been to Saudi Arabia" is a good argument against this. When given your reasons for being there that experience would be about as objective as Dennis Rodman's opinion of North Korea.