/lit/ - Literature

>>16747269
the dull thud of the guillotine blade, 21 january 1793, heralded not only the death of poor louis, but the death of monarchy as a legitimate form of government. an edifice built on metaphysical superiority, endowed by divine right, dressed in pomp and ceremony, and guarded by deliberate acts of destitution and violence, was irreversibly shattered when god's minister, dragged muddy and screaming, stripped of his finery and his power, onto the bloody scaffolding, was dispatched as a mere petty criminal. he was born a prince, crowned a king, but died a man like any other, following a long line of unexceptional low-lives and dissidents before him. the revolution may have already stripped him of his crown, his imprisonment of his dignity, the march of progress of his governmental foundations, but it was the slow rolling of his severed head across the etched and worn boards that finally burst the illusion of any innate superiority or divine right. like lightening in the night, the sword and scepter were broken, and faded just as fast, leaving only the low thunder of its death knell to echo through time. robespierre was born and died a man like any other, but the revolution he helped realize lived beyond him, and spread across europe and indeed the world. the fire he lit is still burning, while the coals or monarchy only flicker with life in the backwater shitholes of south-east asia and the middle east, or elsewhere kings and queens sit with clipped wings in their gilded cages, reduced to a pretty bauble for the amusement of the people. it's only modern adherents argue on the prudential benefits of the crown, but in doing so lose the true foundation of monarchical legitimacy. a tradition without lineage, speaking with the voice that killed it, monarchy is a modern impossibility; and no amount of larping on the internet will bring it back.

>>16118608
Every citizen of Aristotle's ideal republic participated in government. Slaves were considered property and women didn't have the franchise. The focus on virtue and civil participation is what marks it as the major originator of republican political thought. Aristotle's tripartite categorisation of government were distinguished between the ideal and degenerate based on whether they served the common interest or individual interest, not on the form itself. So to say that Aristotle thought democracy was degenerate is tautological and has no bearing to contemporary democracies or democratic systems. He did list a form of ideal popular rule By Aristotle's definition, almost all contemporary and historic democratic governments would not be democracies.
Montesquieu lived under an absolute monarch and continually praised Post-Glorious revolution England: a republic in all but name in which the monarch was subservient to the parliament, with a full bill or rights. He essentially advocated for the dissolution of monarchical power through the separation of powers and the sovereignty of law. He links successful republics with a love of virtue, which is again a core republican idea. Whatever lip service he payed to monarchy isn't terribly relevant.
Outlines of the philosophy of Right is fine up until the last section. Try actually reading it instead of Popper. The point is liberty and freedom nested in mutual recognition, duty, and property, with an emphasis on the role of civil society and the family as political units.
The prince is simply to pad out Machiavelli, while the discourses are his core republican work.
find me a single /pol/ infographic that lists any contemporary political philosophy.