/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16102522]

What are the essential books on Republicanism?

[Anonymous No.16102532]

>>16102522
Anything by Buckley

[Anonymous No.16102750]

>Politics - Aristotle
>Nicomachean Ethics - Aristotle
>De Legibus - Cicero
>De Officiis - Cicero
>De Re Publica - Cicero
>The Prince - Machiavelli
>Discourses on Livy - Machiavelli
>The Spirit of the Laws - Montesquieu
>The Social Contract - Rousseau
>Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen - anon.
>Rights of Man - Paine
>The Federalist Papers
>Outlines of the Philosophy of Right - Hegel (debatable)
>Democracy in America - Tocqueville
>The Human Condition - Arendt
and some contemporary republican political philosophy:
>Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government - Petit
>The Machiavellian moment - Pocock
>Liberty before liberalism - Skinner
>Republicanism - Viroli
>Civic virtues - Dagger
before you comment, no Plato's Republic is not a work on republicanism.

[Anonymous No.16102756]

>>16102532
Your’re a fucking cretin, you know that, right?

[Anonymous No.16102778]

>>16102750
>before you comment, no Plato's Republic is not a work on republicanism.
OP here, I'm not that stupid.

[Anonymous No.16103019]

>>16102778
It wasn't aimed at you specifically. Happy reading.

[Anonymous No.16104194]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.16104802]

>>16102522
Plutarch.

[Anonymous No.16106367]

>>16103019
Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.16106631]

>>16102750
Also add Locke's Two Treatises, The Tenure of Kings and the Magistrates by John Milton, some Jeremy Bentham, & maybe Lysander Spooner's Essay on Trial by Jury.

[Anonymous No.16106859]

>>16102522
>i want to get outvoted by mob of retards instead of being gracefully ruled by god-given king
Any book dealing with cuckoldery I guess

[Anonymous No.16106942]

>>16106631
>Locke
>Bentham
Wouldn't these guys be categorized more as liberal than republican?

[Anonymous No.16106993]

Actual answer, The Machiavellian Moment by Pocock, and Hans Baron's Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance. Balance it out with Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution.

[Anonymous No.16107738]

>>16106942
That's why i didn't add them. But Milton is a good addition.

[Anonymous No.16107908]

>>16102522
Read Milton's Areopagitica

[Anonymous No.16108518]

>>16106859
>By the grace of God, what an angelic visage! And a mind second only to the Godhead! But vile Republicans threw it all away, and for what? The raucous squabbling of the mob? the petty ignorance of the hoi polloi!? UGHH... What could have been!

[Anonymous No.16108591]

>>16106859
I've read all the monarchist literature. I need to read the other side as well.
>>16108518
Dissing Charles II is an instant marking of a pleb

[Anonymous No.16108659]

>>16102750
Why not the anti-federalist papers too?

[Anonymous No.16108686]

>>16106859
>gracefully ruled by god-given king
ha...ha...

[Anonymous No.16108695]

>>16102522
Republicucknism is for faggots, democracy is a fairy tale for adults.

[Anonymous No.16108713]

>Republicucknism is for faggots, democracy is a fairy tale for adults.

[Anonymous No.16108750]

>>16108695
Classical Republicanism as espoused by Cicero and Machiavelli isn't bad.

[Anonymous No.16108808]

>>16108750
They were idealist influenced by Plato, but in actual practice Democracy just like Communism its an utopia. Modern "Democracy" its a staged reallity show, controlled oposition at best.

[Anonymous No.16108816]

>>16108591
>Plebeian! How dare you you mock God's Lieutenant! Can't you see he is the product of intelligent design? A head full of holy water, and not a drop of impure blood runs through his veins (or any blood at all!). Even with a heart the size of a peppercorn, it was large enough to include all his subjects. What could explain such magnanimity but the grace of God? This is divine providence; republicucks will never understand.

[Anonymous No.16108889]

>>16108808
classical republicanism doesn't include democracy at all though. Look at the roman republic or the italian merchant republics
>>16108816
Your comment is amusing but it doesn't change my point.

[Anonymous No.16108899]

>>16108808
Better than one guy rules all and his son rules after him.

Democracy, in its most ideal sense, is the government of the people. Sure in reality it's nothing like that,other powers disguise or undermine the relationship between the people and said power. But different settings, institutions, circumstances and personalities can improve or downgrade that relationship.

[Anonymous No.16109552]

>all these monarcucks who beg to be the property of a king
Nietzsche was right, Christianity really is slave morality.

[Anonymous No.16109599]

>>16108899
>But different settings, institutions, circumstances and personalities can improve or downgrade that relationship.
All these organizations and personalities are just the new aristocrats. Except they don't have to live with the standards the actual aristocrats had to deal with.
>>16109552
>all these republicucks who wish to be the subject of mob rule
De Maistre was right, Republicanism really is slave morality

[Anonymous No.16109673]

(((Republicanism)))

[Anonymous No.16110640]

>>16109599
>De Maistre was right
... still waiting on that divine retribution for the republicans who threw off their parasitical monarchs. Because it looks like republicanism has outlasted and outperformed every last monarchy in Europe; God's punishment seems to be a little late. It continues to amaze me that people who speak so disparaging of people's ability to vote in the interest of the public good put so much stock in noblesse oblige, despite the fact that monarchs have only every worked for their own aggrandizement. Where is monarchy now? A system based on tradition with no surviving lineage, backed by an idea that can't even be found in your holy book, abandoned by the church that is meant to legitimize it. The only surviving monarchs are either songbirds in gilded cages who exist only to gawked at by tourists, or towelheads who are so afraid of their "subjects" that they have to bribe them with oil money. Monarchy is a defunct governmental system which has rightly been consigned to the dustbin of history.
Come join me in the land of the free along with the rest of the world once you grow out of your tradcath phase. And don't forget: you are part of the mob.

[Anonymous No.16110777]

>>16110640
>Because it looks like republicanism has outlasted
When a republic becomes as old as the hre or kingdom of france then you can start talking about outlasting anything.
>despite the fact that monarchs have only every worked for their own aggrandizement
Joseph II, Napoleon III, Charles II of England, etc. Read some history.
>speak so disparaging of people's ability to vote in the interest of the public good
Ah yes, voting for mediocrity is perfectly fine. Because at least there won't be a higher chance of some terrible leader right? Man, it sucks that this leader has some great ideas but because the opposition is so spiteful that the veto all of his policies. But hey, they know what's best for the people because they said something convincing in an ad.
>tradcath phase.
Who said I was catholic? He was more than a religious philosopher.
>you are part of the mob.
I would still take the Jacobins over this modern democracy. At least they had a backbone.
>smug anime face
How can I take you seriously?

[Anonymous No.16110835]

>>16110777
>Charles II of england

[Anonymous No.16111387]

>>16110777
Half of those monarchs were either cowed by democracies, were terrible leaders, or de facto figureheads. i mean, Napoleon III? If that's your A list, i don't want to know about you etc. You can run hypotheticals about perfect monarchs and imperfect parliaments all day, but when the chips are down republics come out on top. By every measure—socially, culturally, economically, militarily—people and nations have done better under parliaments than monarchs.
You're the one who started talking about the monarchs ruling by the grace of god and now suddenly you don't want to talk about religion? If not religion, give me another argument for monarchical legitimacy; it clearly isn't moral legitimacy or performance legitimacy so i'd like to hear it.
>How can I take you seriously?
rich coming from the unironic monarchist

[Anonymous No.16111393]

>>16110777
Have you ever heard of San Marino, Venice..?

[Anonymous No.16111666]

>>16110640
based anime poster

[Anonymous No.16112099]

>>16110777
>Read some history.
>says the "monarchist"

[Anonymous No.16112195]

>>16110640
>Come join me in the land of the free along with the rest of the world
Because being free means being ruled by incompetent, power-hungry sociopaths, where the only skill required of them to come into power is their ability to make promises that please the peanut gallery.
I'm far from being a monarchist myself, but you're pretending republicanism is way better than it is in reality.

[Anonymous No.16112253]

viva la segunda republica!!

[Anonymous No.16112348]

>>16109599
>All these organizations and personalities are just the new aristocrats. Except they don't have to live with the standards the actual aristocrats had to deal with.
I've got into local politics before and I can tell you it's more complicated than that.

There are good people trying to do good things everywhere, some of them are competent and actually do good things, some of them are incompetent and think that just because what they think is good that it is feasible or that it is actually good. There are others who are just there for power and to help their own circle friends, they are the majority unfortunately.

Democratic elections are a total mess, if you are willing to make alliances you end up selling yourself out and if you stay true to what you believe you end up alone, with no space, no money, no campaign. Sometimes people think "ok, I'll give them that, at least I can push this good thing to the people" or "at least I'm better than the other guy", sometimes that works, sometimes it's just not worth it.

The real termometer is how aware people are about their own public problems, because if they are, they'll use that as a guide to vote and to demand from the leaders later, which makes the whole thing more transparent and democratic in it's ideal sense, because power will reflect people's needs better. I say better, not perfectly.

Except people are confuse about what is good or not, what is possible or not. And they are not to blame for it, it's something fabricated by those in power to purposely confuse the population and infuse the idea that democracy is not worth it, I don't even mean political leaders, but those with financial power to support them or to press them towards their agenda.

The true confusion is when people see themselves reflected in the leaders but for the wrong reasons. Populism, empty mottos, voting on charisma alone or as if politics were a sports competition, as if it was only a matter of putting this guy there and not the other and everything is magically solved. They are inclined to think it's better to have a dictator or a king that agrees with them than to accept a democratic defeat on their side. Except when different people have that thought, tension arises and they end up distancing themselves from real political debates (in which disagreement and questions without obvious answers are expected), protecting themselves within the bunker of their own "team".

[Anonymous No.16113036]

Monarchists are just playing too much rpg and consuming too much medieval media

[Anonymous No.16113936]

>>16110835
Yes
>>16111387
>Half of those monarchs were either cowed by democracies
None of the ones I mentioned were.
>were terrible leaders
All were well liked leaders. There's a reason people consider Restoration England one of its greatest periods and Joseph II was heavily used in german propaganda afterwards. There'a current movement putting into light all the great things Napoleon III did.
>de facto figureheads
Again, none of the examples that I mentioned.
>i mean, Napoleon III? If that's your A list, i don't want to know about you etc
He pushed France into the modern age by improving their economy, industrializing throughout, set the groundwork for modern Paris,etc. He was well received for his special attention to the needs of the poor. It's a shame that his foreign adventures completely ruined his reputation.
>but when the chips are down republics come out on top.
I would be perfectly fine with a classical republic along the lines of the italian merchant republics.
>By every measure—socially, culturally, economically, militarily
Better Culture is subjective. I seem to find more pros in 18th century Vienna and Venice than in modern day London or Munich. It seems that republics became more popular after the industrial revolution. So it makes sense that they become on top militarily and and economically.
>You're the one who started talking about the monarchs ruling by the grace of god
I referenced a hardcore catholic philosopher. I didn't talk about how monarchs ruled by the grace of god.
>give me another argument for monarchical legitimacy; it clearly isn't moral legitimacy or performance legitimacy so i'd like to hear it.
I could say the same thing about democratic legitimacy. All systems have flaws at the end of the day. A strong leader is more preferable to a mediocre one.
>>16111393
>Have you ever heard of San Marino, Venice..?
Fair. Those two slipped my mind. I would be pleased if republics were more them. I wouldn't mind living in a classical republican society.

[Anonymous No.16114246]

>>16112348
>There are good people trying to do good things everywhere, some of them are competent and actually do good things
This is true. But it takes forever for things to actually happen because the opposition wants to block everything out of spite or there's no consensus because they go to their house or senate and they endlessly debate with no solution.
>The real termometer is how aware people are about their own public problems
It's not an issue about how much people are aware of the problems, its what they THINK will solve the problems. In American politics, there's people who think Bernie is the solution to everything. There's people who think Trump can do no wrong. Most of these people are aware of the issues, they just choose not to put any actual effort into looking into them.
>Except people are confuse about what is good or not, what is possible or not.
What people consider good or bad in politics is a subjective thing. This is a world turning increasingly polarized in its views. If they don't know what's possible, that's their fault. They actually need to put in the effort.
>And they are not to blame for it, it's something fabricated by those in power to purposely confuse the population and infuse the idea that democracy is not worth it
Those in power love the idea of democracy because they can manipulate the easily gullible and disenfranchised people into thinking they're going to solve all the problems. And it works.
>Except when different people have that thought, tension arises and they end up distancing themselves from real political debates (in which disagreement and questions without obvious answers are expected), protecting themselves within the bunker of their own "team".
We're in a polarizing time in politics. The whole "let's cross party divides" attitude always fails. Why? You know going in that you're going to disagree on some minor issues. Over time, you realize that these issues are becoming major and you heavily disagree with the opposition. This boils to the polarizing point. Which is what cross-part always brings

[Anonymous No.16115872]

bump

[Anonymous No.16115917]

>>16113036
Nah its because its based on property.

[Anonymous No.16115980]

>>16111387
>people and nations have done better under parliaments than monarchs.
Gonna take a HARD disagree here. You're looking solely at a very specific period of time and assuming that this is the constant for all of history and that things just sort of work a certain way for no reason at all and not by mechanisms.

"Monarchy" referring to the institution of Christian Kingship starts in 768AD when Charlemagne alongside his brother inherits the elected position of Mayor of the Palace, which had become the unification of a number of Roman imperial titles (this is a totally arbitrary point based on its importance). So, the fact that he's inheriting a dually-held hereditary-elected position of employment to the Roman Senate should right off the bat demonstrate that this form of monarchy is pretty unique, like all forms of monarchy. So, I have to ask, when you say "monarchy is obsolete", what exactly are you talking about? What systems are you disagreeing with, and why? The US President is, in many senses, a monarch, and if you explained how the US government functioned to most people born before 1776 they'd universally agree he was a monarch. The Celts, for example, had elected monarchs. The Pope is an elected monarch. The systems descending from Charlemagne still continue to exist to this day (Liechtenstein, for example, where the king has repeatedly been chosen to remain as king via democratic election).

Parliaments too are, in almost every country, the wise men and advisors of the king who manage his estates. The fact that they've murdered their boss and squander his estates for their own ends doesn't change that. So, when you say "people are better under parliaments" I have to ask you what you're actually meaning to say there.

Which brings us to a point, in that if Republics (which, mind you, aren't somehow antithetical to monarchy, as Republics are today and historically have been almost universally run by hereditary oligarchical families, and when one of those families is the sole one in charge, you get... a monarchy) are so great, what are they so great at?
>well they killed the king and stole his stuff!
So? How does that reify this imaginary dichotomy you're creating? People have been killing kings for as long as their have been people. And then they made new kings. Where do you think Christian Kingship came from?
>why, a republic
And before that they were?
>...

[Anonymous No.16116006]

Donald Crump - MIGA

[Anonymous No.16116727]

Any more recommendations?

[Anonymous No.16116815]

>>16102522
Anything Marxist since Marxists and Republicans and Libertarians are all the same satanic scum who undermine the divine hierarchal nature of man.

[Anonymous No.16118103]

>>16102522

[Anonymous No.16118608]

>>16102750
>Aristotle - Categorised democracy as a degeneration of politics and his "republic" was more akin to a senate controlled by an oligarchical group
>The Prince?
>Montesquieu - Said that the best government would be a constitutional monarchy based on honor-bound groups and power struggles, partially shared Aristotle's thought
>Hegel - Prussian propaganda

I mean, I know that this is just that pol infographic but when you read those recs you can easily see that they aren't really that favourable to republicanism.
Also:
>Thomas, "gets incarcerated and nearly decapitated by the enlightened french Government because of not being revolutionary enough", Paine

[Anonymous No.16118831]

>>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.

[Anonymous No.16118884]

I know this is more so about republics than democracies but I will never get how so many people worldwide can hold the opinion that the average person, the public, is simply dumb, easily mislead and wholly mediocre, while also holding the opinion that these people should in theory be the ones to decide on anything that matters, much less what is essentially the leadership of mankind.

[Anonymous No.16119373]

>>16115980
Monarchy is a system of government where a single individual or family is sovereign. Under monarchy, people without titles are subjects with no formal rights or participation in government. People are tantamount to property for the noble class. Typically all property is owned by noble class which is worked by the subjects. The matters of government are considered the private affairs of the nobility.
Republicanism is a system of government which generally (but not always) has a form of representative government (of varying franchise), where freemen are citizens who hold rights and duties. Generally there was some sort of constitution or table of laws which applied to all citizens. The matters of government are considered a public affair. There is typically some kind of private property outside of the noble class.
The comparison between the President of the United States and an Monarch is pure sophistry; The president doesn't hold sovereign power, is elected from the citizenry, is subject to sanction and reelection, and has a term limit. Elective monarchies were rare, almost never had term limits, and were always elected by and from aristocratic families. The parliaments under Monarchy weren't elected but selected, could be dissolved at any time, and held no legislative power. The Parliament of a republic is (generally) elected and sovereign, possessing legislative power.
On one hand you have a form of government represents the people and constrains arbitrary power, on the other a form of government which draws every possible distinction between the ruling class and their subjects. That has clear and marked implications for the rights and welfare of individuals within those polities, from public education, spending, and personal + property rights. These in turn have economic and military implications. A representative system, as the name suggests, ensures the interest of the political community is represented. In monarchy, the monarch gaining and maintaining power from within and without is the only represented interest. It is defunct because it is inimical to modern economic and social arrangements. Every monarch that survived into the industrial age shed power like a winter coat and were only kept afloat by tard-wranglers who held the reigns of the state. The second those disappeared they imploded and were removed.
All this is ignoring the plethora of moral reasons for representative government and against the arbitrary power of a monarch.

[Anonymous No.16120659]

>>16119373
You are comparing the worst of monarchy in practice with the best of republicanism in theory. It's safe to say that most of the public would disagree with the idea that republicanism ensures that the political community is represented. The U.S. Congress has a something like a 30% approval rating, for example. Industrialization has left republicanism as a oligarchy of industrial/financial leaders who can buy out politicians at will and have reduced psychologically manipulating the populace to a science (Bernays, Arthur Finkelstein, etc.). This is has been something both communists and fascists have complained about for the past 100 years. Republicanism needs a mechanism to resist simply being bought out. Otherwise, you are left with your president and parliament being a musical chairs of political dynasties who are owned by financial dynasties, in a system where you have neither representation nor the efficiency of autocracy. Most people just want a fair and stable life, they are willing to sacrifice abstract concepts like freedom and representation if it means having a decent monarch for 20 years, for example. All I ask is that you value republicanism with how it works in practice, i'm not the anon you responded to and i'm not a monarchist.