[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 6 KB, 162x213, 1420650349236.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5977374 No.5977374[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What's wrong with a libertarian monachy? Democracy has failed,and socialism is insanity. Only reactionaryism and free trade can save us.

>> No.5977380

>>5977374
Because only absolutism can save us now.

>> No.5977388

It only works in theory

>> No.5977391

damn my eyes hurt trying to read this shit i think i need glasses fuck

>> No.5977393

Direct democracy hasn't been tried. Rather the answer is to decentralize most functions into municipal so that direct democracy is more management, and then have municipal citizenship as well as national. State and national governments needs to be drastically toned down.

>> No.5977402

I'm 90% sure that The Cats is making these threads since this Op keeps using the same images. Didn't you get tired of getting banned.

Also, you know that this is material for /pol/, not /lit/, as this is not about literature.

>> No.5977419

>>5977380
I agree
>>5977388
And in practice

>> No.5977420

I think Monarchy would work now. It was working fine when we (the English, not going to speak for other countries) desposed it. Monarchs actually have an incentive to look after their country and people because they'll be ruling it for the next 60 years. Politicians come in for 4 years, fuck up the country and then blame it on their successors so they can get elected again.

Also, Monarchs usually listen to their advisers and experts because they know they don't know everything about the world. Politicians have party quotas and indeology to live up to, regardless of actual evidence.

So yes, I am pro-Monarchy. I think William and Kate would make an excellent King and Queen. Whatever happens, it can't any worse than what we've got now.

>> No.5977536

>>5977420
It's a shame that people of your intellectual level can procreate.

>> No.5977566

>>5977536
>said the democrat
>the person who advocates medicority

>> No.5977573
File: 26 KB, 620x270, jean-paul sartre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5977573

Wow, so it's libertarian to not allow your own people to decide their leaders? Fuck off, OP. Have fun pretending the system overthrown or made powerless in every modern nation is somehow relevant to the 21st century.

>> No.5977581

>>5977573
>libertarian
>cares about the social structure of his government
Fuck off. Only the economic life is important.

>> No.5977595

>>5977581
Typical, the self-proclaimed libertarian thinks 'freedom' is denying the people what they want because it clashes with their own self-interests. Direct democracy is the only path to salvation and every other solution is fucked. Go read some Ayn Rand, you fucking swine.

>> No.5977602

>>5977374
Libertarian monarchy *has* been tried. Democracy has not.

Report, sage, ignore /pol/ threads

>> No.5977608

>>5977420
Yes, but the age old problem with monarchy is what happens when you get an incompetent ruler?

>> No.5977620

>>5977608
That's worse in democracy, Obama would never be king

>> No.5977629

>>5977608
It's the same for democracy. Monarchy is high risk reward system.

>> No.5977628

>>5977608
What happens in a democracy when you get an incompetent ruler? You need to wait until you get to choose another one. The one who chose the incompetent king was chance, but the one who chose the poor leader was the people. Almost the same people you're now expecting to choose a new ruler.

>> No.5977631

>>5977602
How would you call this?

>> No.5977635

>>5977374
>let's give one guy all the power, but limit it to protecting property by force
Yeah, with all the checks and balances normally involved in a monarchy, there is no way this can possibky go wrong.

Also, free trade is impossinle: either you have institutions that enforce property claims, then the trade is unfree in depending on these institutions. Kr you don't have these institutions, which means that trade is free, but so is robbery, which may be cheaper.

>> No.5977640

>>5977628
Do you roll dice to make every life choice, or just the fate of your nation's socioeconomic future?

>> No.5977646

>>5977374
"Democracy has failed."
Sure it has. Why, because you don't like Obamacare?

>> No.5977654
File: 31 KB, 525x412, frat party.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5977654

Reminder that monarchists are completely disconnected with the modern world and can't understand that it would never gain enough support to maintain itself even if it was the 'better' system. Which it's not, as history has shown us.

>> No.5977658

>>5977566
>lol democrazy = stoopid medicoratee
The one advocating mediocrity is you, who thinks rulers should be selected by genetic lottery. I am advocating we choose our leaders based on merit.

How fucking dumb are you?

>> No.5977661

Monarchy and libeturdism? Go mercantilist or go home

>> No.5977666

>>5977654
The French Revolution was the worst thing that ever happened

>> No.5977669
File: 30 KB, 481x579, Charles_II_of_Spain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5977669

>>5977658
Hey now, they've got magic blood!

>> No.5977672

>>5977666
Life sure was wonderful being a shit-eating serf until the Enlightenment fucked everything up

>> No.5977678

>>5977666
>because I disagree with it, then I don't have to pay attention to it

>> No.5977679

>>5977672
It was good for aristocrats

>> No.5977685

>>5977679
We've sure got a lot of them here, these aristocrats of soul or whatever they are. I also like to proclaim that I'm quite the many things, an emperor of the soul, a king of the soul and whatnot. These arbitrary titles that I've claimed sure have an effect on real life they do! A true aristocrat's morals are aristocratic - which really shows in my life and the things I do!

>> No.5977687

Maybe because libertarianism and monarchism can't and shouldn't mix?
Maybe because the problem with modern representative parliamentary democracy is that it alienates people form their leaders.
We need to finally break from the middle ages and throw away the last remnant of it, that is parliament and instead start moving to more inclusive direct democracy. We really do have technology now.
Especially when JS Mill thought that technology of 19th century was good enough to achive it. While back then, there were still few obvious bottlenecks, we are now truly beyond any actual limitations.
The future is democratic.

>> No.5977689

>>5977640
Everything has an element of chance because we can't predict the future. I much rather trust the royal dick and womb to breed a good leader and the entire court to raise one than I trust the masses to choose a good leader.

>> No.5977691

>>5977631
Plutocracy.

Yes, it appears not to work, but it's working perfectly for the plutocrats. Don't be such a dupe.

>> No.5977698

>>5977672
more like life was wonderful being a shit-eating serf until the powers of industrialization gave us incredibly high living standards

>> No.5977705

>>5977685
You'd like them more if the French hadn't killed them all. You only feel bad for serfs because you're a Marxist collectivist revolutionary pig.

>> No.5977706

>>5977698
Which destroyed the social basis of absolute monarchy.

>> No.5977707

>>5977691
I have to agree with this. What we have now can only be described as plutocracy, or at its best meritocratical aristocracy. But that merit mostly isn't really earned, but mostly presented as such through political campaign.

>> No.5977712

>>5977658
But who determines what merit is? Let's say your system was in place when Mises or Hayek were alive and in some country or another they were placed in power based on their supposed merit as economists. They might refuse to recognize other economists as meritorious because they disagree with their theories (as many acclaimed economists do) and place some shitty people in power because they support their ideas.

>> No.5977715

>>5977705
Silence, peasant! You're talking to the Imperial Majesty!

So, which LARP group do you frequent? Do you use a stick horse?
I'm thinking of making a buffer sword to go along with my styrofoam imperial regalia

>> No.5977724

>>5977715
Nice argument against rule by the best

>> No.5977727

It seems to work in Liechtenstein

>> No.5977732

>>5977658
>I am advocating we choose our leaders based on merit.
You need merit to detect merit. Unless everyone just happens to be the fucking overman democratic choices are a retarded idea, because the average merit level of any nation is terribly low.

>> No.5977735

>>5977629
And with repeat trials, no matter how many great monarchs you get, time guarantees you will get a poor one. And all it takes is one poor ruler to ruin a system.

>> No.5977736
File: 85 KB, 295x453, a confederacy of dunces.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5977736

>>5977724
Nice argument for it. That you made. Somewhere.
Magic blood makes you better!

>> No.5977748

>>5977735
>And all it takes is one poor ruler to ruin a system.
It requires authority to make the system good in the first place. An anarchist society will never make any worthwhile system.

>> No.5977750

>>5977727
>Liechtenstein
>Libertarian
lol no

>>5977732
Let me direct you towards Thomas Jefferson, who strongly believed in democratic meritocracy, especially his various letters on his ideas on wards and his proposition for school reform. With properly educated and informed public, meritocracy is possible. And don't underestimate the public, especially, because like it or not you are part of it.

>> No.5977751

>>5977732
>what is the wisdom of the crowd

They've done studies that have shown the average guesses of a group of people can accurately guess the number of jellybeans in a jar.

>> No.5977752

>>5977566
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_%28ancient_Athens%29

Western civilization is literally a meme of this state, from the Romans through the Renaissance to the Enlightenment.

>> No.5977760

>>5977751
And when the time comes for the king to guess jellybeans he will give the people it's voice.

>> No.5977763

>>5977752
So who was better reformer of Athenian democracy:
Solon or Cleisthenes?

>> No.5977766

>>5977763
Pericles.

>> No.5977831

>>5977735
And then there's the question about family. George Bush the younger wanted to avenge the assassination attempt on his father. And that turned out well...

>> No.5977832

>>5977760
Bullshit

>> No.5977846

>>5977760
So... if we just presume them to be omniscient, perfectly good and flawless the system will work fine.

>> No.5977897

>>5977846
My point was that nation-building is not fucking jellybean counting, you imbecile.

>> No.5977904

>>5977897
Yes, yes, arbitrary presumptions really cut it when it's political systems we're talking about.

>> No.5977907

>>5977707
so it isn't meritocratic

>> No.5977926

>>5977608
Depends on the kind of monarchy. If we're talking about absolute monarchy then your country probably falls. If you're talking about a monarchy where the king is merely the first among the lords and can be disposed of and replaced by his family members or the other nobility then anything can happen.

>> No.5977950

>>5977897
>nation-building
What nation do you want to build? Most western nations has already gone through this phase. Most recently in 1848.

>>5977907
Most of the times it isn't. But sometimes someone with actual merit get elected.

>> No.5977951

>>5977926
>but an incompetent ruler could ruin everything!
>no don't be silly, there'll be a permanent state of civil war instead

>> No.5977954

>>5977374
Since Kings and Queens have worked out so well for us in the past.

>Pro Tip: We are living in the best of all possible worlds