/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6443507]

> read Hobbes
> now see real benefits in the unifying nature of a monarch

Am I an idiot or is this a more common sort of feel?

[Anonymous No.6443515]

hobbes was arguing for the necessity of monarchy so yes, that's a common kind of feel

[Anonymous No.6443516]

He makes good arguments but so does anyone worth taking seriously.

Hobbesism is better than Lacanianism, but not as good as Hegelianism or Foucaultianism.

[Anonymous No.6443524]

>>6443507
But there are plenty of other things that work just better at unifying nation than monarchs, even in countries where there are monarchs.

[Anonymous No.6443528]

>>6443507
Monarchy itself is a rather stupid idea, though a dictator with qualifications is not always bad.

[Anonymous No.6443529]

You're an idiot

[Anonymous No.6443535]

>>6443529
Ebin

[Anonymous No.6443548]

>>6443528
You certainly might see more actual dynamic change accomplished by dictators than "democracies" of successsive opposing governments who term in term out undo each other's work towards one end or another, relegating all affairs to the stagnant middle ground.

I've been growing sick of the flabby, indecisive and ultimately divided nature of western democracy of late.

Give me a man of principles; I don't very much care what they are providing he has them.

A man who is not and need not be afraid to shout to silence a bickering crowd, and who shuns populist politics like it were the plague.

Pipedreams of course, but that's all I got.

[Anonymous No.6443557]

>>6443548
>I've been growing sick of the flabby, indecisive and ultimately divided nature of western democracy of late.

[Anonymous No.6443561]

>>6443548
pls go fascists

[Anonymous No.6443563]

>>6443548

>Give me a man of principles
>I don't very much care what they are

Anon...

[Anonymous No.6443564]

>>6443557
die in a fire

[Anonymous No.6443566]

Frankly you'd be a pleb if you came to any other conclusion.

>then you'll read Locke, and agree with him too.

[Anonymous No.6443574]

>>6443507
Now read De Maistre

[Anonymous No.6443577]

The Prince my Machiavelli is also an interesting take on governments and what the people in them do to achieve their ends. A read you might look into?

[Anonymous No.6443581]

>>6443548
>Give me a man of principles
That's not what monarchy does.
Monarchy gives you the guy who was lucky enough to be born off the previous guy. Principles are not a prerequite.

[Anonymous No.6443586]

>>6443581
That's why you beat your heirs principled.

And never go Gavelkind.

When all else fails there's always the pillow.

[Anonymous No.6443588]

>>6443574
>>6443574
>>6443574
This.

[Anonymous No.6443600]

>>6443507
the challenge of nation, is to make the monarchy works on a higher level than this cycle which applies to cities.

[Anonymous No.6443608]

>>6443586
I have that engraving on my wall. Good stuff.

[Anonymous No.6443623]

>>6443608
That's the stuff.

[Anonymous No.6443631]

>>6443548
Why are you judging a system that has been around less than 200 years against chosen parts of thousands of years of monarchy? Of course there were kings that worked better, there were also many more that sucked.
There is no real ground for comparison. Thinking you're smart for proposing a change that would never work is just edge

[Anonymous No.6443682]

>>6443631
See, I'm actually responding to a guy who is talking about varieties of dictator other than kings; I favour the highly educated Autocrat myself, but I do understand that a weight of responsibility felt from birth, and a comprehensive education in all things leaderly can either produce a hero, or a fruit bat, the wonderful thing about Autarchies is that they are self-regulating.

Incompetent Autocrats get deposed, and often hanged, and so the system is eventually self-correcting.

Furthermore, democracy as a concept is far older than 200 years.

Start with the Greeks friend.

'Course Greek democracy is not like "our" democracy, to the extent that they're actually quite dissimilar, what with no universal suffrage and that.

But well, we act like our particular current form of government is the final stage in the evolution of the state; the idea that anything could possibly come afterwards is alien to people who only consider the future as far as their likely date of deposition.

Really we're just another point on a continuum to fuck knows where.

Probably somewhere I won't like.

[Anonymous No.6443688]

>>6443682
That's why defending a return to things left behind is like a child angry that his parents had to move away. I'm not doing a judgment value with this, I'm just saying that whatevercomes next will be different and probably will take a few more hundred years.

[Anonymous No.6443746]

>>6443682
>Incompetent Autocrats get deposed, and often hanged, and so the system is eventually self-correcting.
Absolute nonsensical bollocks.
Autocracy isn't stabilizing, it's unstable as fuck.
Get a retard on the throne, get no direct heir because someone got sick at the wrong moment, and you're facing a nationwide crisis. And the "deposition" might not happen at all, or happen after a long and drawn out period of turmoil which leaves the country in ruins.

I don't understand how people can in any way believe in the "stabilizing" force of autocracy when every shred of historical evidence points to the opposite. Democracies are remarkably stable and resilient.

[Anonymous No.6443760]

>>6443746
Democracy is none of those things. It's entirely self-serving and only looks to the next election. At least with monarchy, the ruler is forced to build a dynasty that profits the nation in the extremely long term or end up deposed by someone who is better at playing the game.

[Anonymous No.6443763]

>>6443516
the suffix ism in that sentence purchased little but identifying yourself as cunt

flamed

[Anonymous No.6443804]

>>6443548

[Anonymous No.6443823]

>>6443746
Crisis is such a subjective thing, it's also an opportunity.

I didn't say anthing about it being stable, I talked about it being self-correcting, in the same way nature is.

- Idiots die and are replaced.

The crux of your argument however, seems to center on the chance of an idiot getting into power, which is at some point an inevitability with any political system, whether it be the popularity contest or the smackdown.

The difference is however, that whether wise and noble, debauched and stupid or anywhere on the spectrum in between: any autocratic leader has at his disposal a great deal more decisive power than any democratically elected leader, who must consult his peers for permission to wipe his own arse.

There's a reason that the Republican era Romans liked to elect temporary (they hoped) autocrats during crises; Decisive executive decision making has a large effect on the operational effectiveness of any body or organization.

And they quite pragmatically accepted that a possible internal coup would be preferable to getting teabagged by angry Gauls (again).

Sometimess it worked though.

Cincinnatus being the guy they always hold up as an example of the system when it was working well, being that the man was handed the reigns of power twice, and both times politely handed them back when he was done.

[Anonymous No.6443829]

I love monarchy, and I think that it could really work in the liberal, modern world where everyone is watching and judging and knows what you do, severely lessening the risk of the government becoming authoritarian, which I am fully aware is a very huge risk to take. Who would be more qualified to rule a nation than someone who was raised from birth for that specific purpose?

Perhaps a system where a hereditary monarch rules constitutionally alongside an elected prime minister with more or less equal power would make for an ideal government?

pic related, the best leader my country has ever had

[Anonymous No.6443852]

Ya'll niggas need to watch Legend of the Galactic Heroes

[Anonymous No.6443864]

>>6443760
>self-serving
self-serving is what you want for a state

>At least with monarchy, the ruler is forced to build a dynasty that profits the nation in the extremely long term
bollocks bollocks bollocks, nasty little lies
Hoppe-tier insane agenda-driven drivel.
Autocrats have no interest in the country's welfare, they are interested in remaining at its head. Even if the country is poor you can always afford to live in a palace with servants. Look at fucking North Korea for Christ's sake.

For crying out loud, except for the French line who were extremely lucky in having almost always a male adult heir at every succession, the heritage system was a catastrophe for other western monarchies.

>>6443823
>The crux of your argument however, seems to center on the chance of an idiot getting into power
My argument isn't about possibilities, it is about historical evidence of how incredibly awful monarchy is at instilling any sort of stability.

[Anonymous No.6443866]

>>6443760
That's a big assumption considering most monarchs have been the unenlightened variety.

[Anonymous No.6443874]

>>6443852
I think the issue here is that they watched it too much.

[Anonymous No.6443885]

>>6443829
We have the technology that we could genetically screen royalty to ensure good heirs
>>6443864
The monarch simply needs to be placed in a situation by which any attempts to seize power for his own ends causes an uprising from the people. Then it is in his self-interest to do well by his subjects.

[Anonymous No.6443893]

>>6443507
>Am I an idiot or is this a more common sort of feel?
Nah, you've just seen the true essence of modern political degradation. The only thing left of the Hobbesian rulership is the mechanic, without the vitalistic, which can be also democratic if done right. Schmitt and Srauss do a good reading of such a Hobbes.

[Anonymous No.6443896]

>>6443885
>The monarch simply needs to be placed in a situation by which any attempts to seize power for his own ends causes an uprising from the people.
Sure, that's called him having no power at all and being nothing but a figurehead, which you might notice has been the irresistible direction taken by every single constitutional monarchy.

[Anonymous No.6443901]

>>6443885
>We have the technology that we could genetically screen royalty to ensure good heirs
We most certainly don't. If you're under the delusion that we have somehow discovered a gene of righteousness, I have to tell you that this is entirely your imagination.

[Anonymous No.6443912]

>>6443864
Stability is, unfortunately only a catalyst for stagnation.

People don't thrive in stability; they get lazy.

There's a reason that most civilisations have a trajectory that goes Rise - Plateau - Decline, or in the case of the Chinese "repeat as required".

Basically, they get too comfy, then some former bit-player lurking just out of left field for the perfect moment, rocks up on his horse with his unstable strife filled warlike culture and fucks you right up the boy-twat because your leaders were more concerned with playing Sim City when they should have been playing Crusader Kings.

Then your fucking hamlets are all on fire and your the priest is the wrong sort again.

[Anonymous No.6443922]

>>6443912
Yes I'm sure NK and Myanmar are headed straight to a better tomorrow.

I'm also very curious at how you manage to fit your progressive narrative into despotism.

[Anonymous No.6443946]

>>6443922
I don't know what a progressive is.

Progressing towards what?

What is the end in mind?

Without a target, what do we measure our progress against?

The sheer wall of infinity?

There is no progress, only change.

Despotism, Democracy, either can work, either can fail, each has it's particular weaknesses and strengths.

Ultimately I'm quite apolitical, but I don't particularly value social stability, or trust in the judgement of the common man to elect anything approaching the best possible leader.

Not saying I have the answer, because I frankly don't believe there is one.

However, on a very basic level, I can tell you that more masterpieces have been painted by one man with ten years than three blokes with 3.333r years of work apiece.

Why?

Clarity of vision; because one mind knows what the fuck it's doing with itself better than ten.