/lit/ - Literature

>>4265240
But your European Bourgeoisie are largely liberal, and the problems attendant to mass immigration could have been avoided simply by making residency and naturalization procedures much stricter with much shallower annual quotas.

Of course, the real intent of leftists was to create exactly the sort of dysfunction that could have been avoided, the economic arguments for migration are ultimately spurious and secondary.

>tolerance

Europe is much more tolerant than say, East Asia, where there wouldn't be even the slightest discussion about accepting uneducated goatfuckers from the foothills of the Punjab into their midst to begin with.

>>4264229
reminds me of that whole "guru effect" thing MacDonald talks about, when one Jew comes up with some stupid idea that appeals to the novelty-seeking proclivities of liberal whites and the other Jews purposefully build him up to be some kind of infallible guru.

Same thing happened with the Jew Derrida.

If I was Ender, I would have fucked Valentine.

>>994495
Thanks, for proto-sf you could include some of Voltaire's short stories though.

Just finished this. Apart from the rest of the Dune series, what good sci-fi should I read?

>>931336

Yeah, funny how they were ok with the hopelessly corrupt and inept Yeltsin. But as soon as Russia becomes a force to be reckoned with again, Putin becomes a target of all kinds of yellow journalism.

>>931323
>individuals
>plural

No.

Defacto maybe, de jure: no.

>>931313
>Well, Michael Bloomberg bought himself an extra-constitutional third term as mayor of NYC.
>So maybe he has monarchy on his mind, but clearly constitutions mean as little to him as they do to Putin.

So will he or won't he be a monarch, or do you not know, and in doing so, acknowledge that having a lot of wealth and being in a position of political power does not necessarily mean one is a monarch?

I mean seriously, out of all the stupid arguments you made. You made the argument that wealth equates to defacto Kingship? Do you realize how wealthy so many political figures are across the Western World? Even fucking Al Gore is cashing in on his green energy ponzi scheme.

>>931276
>I think with 40 billion in net worth, Putin himself is as little concerned with explaining his power in terms of the Russian Federation's constitution, his titular powers, or ANYTHING, legally speaking, as I am.

So if Michael Bloomberg becomes US president at some point, he will be a monarch too?

Cool logic bro.

>Meanwhile, a monarchy is a form of government in which all political power is absolutely or nominally lodged with an individual or individuals.

Actually no, there's no real clear definition. If you understood political theory you'd know this already of course, but you don't. The broadly accepted definition is that a monarchy is a state ruled by somebody who has supreme authority vested in them. Read some Aristotle and Plato you faggot.

>>931248
lol, what's next in your list of evidence, a quote from buttcrack osambo himself?

>>931216
You've never even read Hazlitt, he was the foremost critic of Keynes in the 1950s and 1960s. Hardly an author only a niche group of people know about.

>>931208
>who is basically a despot with complete control of his country

This is a naked assertion, just like he said. You saying something does not immediately make it an axiom.

Demonstrate how, legally speaking, with reference to the Russian Federation's constitution and Putin's titular powers that he is the equivalent of a Monarch. Go on, do it.

The rest is just you attempting to change the subject.

>>931201
>I haven't heard of the authors he's talking about
>I'll accuse him of living in an echo chamber

For the record. I've read the works of most major leftists, from anarcho syndicalists to frankfurt school gramscian marxists.

>>931172
http://www.revleft.com/

Go back there, your comrades are waiting for you.

>>931151
Because functionally speaking his titular powers are nowhere near that even of a constitutional monarch?

Because functionally speaking he has no dynastic successor?

Because functionally speaking there are term limits on office holding?

Because functionally speaking there are two democratically elected chambers?

Because functionally speaking there are regular elections?

Putin is a manager, inhibited by democratic practice, who acts in a pragmatic way similar to the way the upper ranks of the CCP behave, but without the absolute power.

>>931115
>If Putin is considered as a Constitutional Monarch

But he isn't. We've already been through this. Unless you'd like to regurgitate some of your own democratic leader's fearmongering about Russia in order to supplement your own 'argument'.

>>931103
>Oh come on...at least in a democracy you'll get people who actually want to rule, and if they're too crazy they're gone in 4 years (or less).

And then you get another efficiently bad person in office. Because democracy is simply a method of selecting for efficiently bad people to rule. That's exactly what mob rule boils down to.

>In a monarchy you could be stuck with them for the better part of a century, doing irreparable damage.

I agree this may be a flaw. But consider this:

1) The Imperial Household, i.e. his family, dynastic relatives etc do not have an interest in letting him fuck up the country and therefore fuck up their dynastic power and future chances, this is the reason so many monarchical assassinations have come from the monarch's own family. At the very least, like with George, they'll sideline him or ostracize him from the apparatus of power.

2) Remember that when you do have a genuinely bad monarch, it's usually the upper, elite class that suffer the most. Not really the ordinary people, as the Monarch simply wouldn't have as much to be corrupt with.

>>931095
>F.D. Graham
>Libertarian

lol

>never heard of Henry Hazlitt

Well if -you've- never heard of him then he's obviously not worth reading!

Right... let's get back to reading our Chomsky!

>>931077
And what happens when the democratically elected leader is an insane douch... oh wait. He already is and always is anyway, because democracy is simply the method of selecting for efficiently bad people over and over again.

>>931079
>considered as a constitutional monarchy with Putin as de-facto tsar

lmao. Stop reading the Washington Post.

>>931050
Er, have you even read the planks of the Communist Manifesto? They did believe in universal suffrage and democracy.

>Anybody who knows anything about Marx remembers that he claims the state will wither away.

Yes, Hegelian mysticism as I said. That's in the long run though, Marx and Engels still believed democracy was a route to this path.

>mysical anarchism, of the sort that 99 percent of libertarians I've encountered also profess to believe in.

Yeah, we should all believe in an economic system that thinks economic growth could be achieved if everyone would only destroy everyone else's windows.... He stole that from Bastiat by the way, who used it to rebut the point anyway.

Actually, he stole quite a lot of ideas from classical authors without any proper referencing.

"I am unable to find in it a single doctrine that is both true and original. What is original in the book is not true; and what is true is not original."

- Henry Hazlitt.

>>931040
This isn't an argument, it's just saying that because the status quo is what it is, there is no reason or cause to offer comparative analyses of governmental systems from an economic perspective, which is absurd.

>>931046
>What would make the monarch's interests aligned with those of the country he is governing?

Already been explained. A monarch simply has more incentive to protect the capital stock of his own nation than a democratic caretaker does. Both engage in wholesale exploitation, but the monarch's exploitation is with regards to the capital stock, and as such, the long term economic health of the nation. Whereas the democratic caretaker simply exploits as much as possible in the short time allotted to him. Kind of like why Government forestries are less well managed than privately owned forestries for example.

There's also a clearer distinction between rulers and ruled in a monarchy, which makes disenfranchising policies all the harder to pursue as people are naturally more suspicious of a King's aims, whereas democracy has an emotional aura around it that breeds demagoguery, because it allows for open entry into Government.

>>931038
>democracy is destined to last until the end of time because, er.... false equivocation fallacy #37 and non causa pro causa fallacy #102. Also, highly charged emotional rhetoric placeholder text and something about not caring for the poor

>>930998
> It is now perfectly clear I have been discoursing with a madman.

Of course you think like this. Statists only find this controversial only because they have elevated democracy to some divine status where criticizing it is beyond the pale. This is because they are entirely ignorant of history and are dominated by emotion.

As for Maistre. Bash him all you want, as I wouldn't want absolutism in a monarchy to begin with. So you're just strawmanning, as your kind always does when they've run out of arguments.

For the record, the democrats Marx and Engles called for the extermination of the entire Slavic race, the expropriation of all property, and agitated one of the most egregious riots in all of human history (1848), who knows how many were brutally murdered in the streets.

>>930947
>Whereas Proudhon's slogan was more influential than people who made hair-splitting arguments like yours.

You want me to be more directly utilitarian about it? Fine.

I happen to like property rights since they are easy to understand, seem like common sense (as far back as law has exited, they have existed also: see the Brehon Laws of Ancient Ireland for example), and yield the best results overall. Also, an ancient relative of mine once stole Thugg's food and got clubbed in the head, that branch of the family died out.