The End of Liberalism as a political philosophy. - The Monarchists were right. The grand experiment has failed.

[mindlessobserver]

What constitutes working?
How long does a social order need to be existent before it's considered 'working as intended' exactly? Sounds very arbitrary and biased on your part. I know of plenty of monarchies and imperial systems that collapsed. Infact, I would go so far as to say that the VAST majority of social orders that have come into being throughout human history are no longer with us, having collapsed for one reason or another. Is it fair then to say that these social orders failed to stand the test of time? Bare in mind most of them are some flavor of monarchy or empire.

Well I suppose it depends on what you want. If your goal is to build a society of indistinguishable moving parts where you can take a man from Africa, put him on a Plantation in America and have him be capable of picking the same Cane Sugar at the same rate as he did in his home country, then Liberalism is for you.

I say this only mildly tongue in cheek. Liberalism at a fundamental level is about atomizing the individual and making him subordinate to the State alone. The circle is squared with this cognitive dissonance by Liberalism' corollary where the State is a function of the individual people acting in common rather then something that exists separate from them. Which is a pleasant idea in theory, but as I have explained at length now is predicated on the false assumption that all men are equal.

I suppose your question could be seen as "what sort of society do you want" as opposed to "what is the definition of working". I would argue that at a visceral level I really don't like the idea of a society where there is no God, Family or common heritage with my neighbors and I am just one more cog in a planet spanning machine.

Aldous Huxley waaaaay back in the 1930's wrote an excellent book called "Brave New World" in which he meditated on what the world of the future would look like once Liberal Political theory had reached its zenith and was operating according to its doctrines with no deviation. He concluded we would be ruled by a council of experts chosen at birth based around selective genetic engineering, we would no longer be born from women because that is oppressive to them and instead grown in vats, and from cradle to grave we would be cared for by the State. With endless pleasures from free sex to drugs to distract us from our animal revulsion to this state of affairs.

He expounded on this with a lecture at UC Berkley entitled "The Final Revolution". In it, Huxley explains the primary foundation for the idea that "All men are Equal is lie" by explaining that since time immemorial man has been ruled by "better men" who make up the elite of society. These elites have always existed, and always will. Absent any sort of restraint upon them that appeals to authority above them to not be led into temptation will inevitably result into them being tempted to seize the reigns of power in horrific ways.

Animated Version

Raw and Uncut

 

[The best and greatest]

I suppose your question could be seen as "what sort of society do you want" as opposed to "what is the definition of working". I would argue that at a visceral level I really don't like the idea of a society where there is no God, Family or common heritage with my neighbors and I am just one more cog in a planet spanning machine.

I just reject the framing of his commentary.

"Liberal societies are weak and decadent and always seem to collapse but ignore all those too-numerous-to-count monarchs who's heads fell with their kingdoms or empires that destroyed themselves through countless wars over the crown. Because I have a laundry list of excuses for why this isn't representative of anything!"

Yeah okay buddy. Clearly you just have a chip on your shoulder

Aldous Huxley waaaaay back in the 1930's wrote an excellent book called "Brave New World" in which he meditated on what the world of the future would look like once Liberal Political theory had reached its zenith and was operating according to its doctrines with no deviation. He concluded we would be ruled by a council of experts chosen at birth based around selective genetic engineering, we would no longer be born from women because that is oppressive to them and instead grown in vats, and from cradle to grave we would be cared for by the State. With endless pleasures from free sex to drugs to distract us from our animal revulsion to this state of affairs.

Actually one of my favorites. Haven't read it in a minute. I'd say the point of Brave New World is that it's a world WE as readers would find abhorant, partially because the people within that society are so institutionalized and acclimated to those state of affairs that they don't even recognize their society as sick which is why you have the Jon Savage character who is meant to be the fish-out-of-water stand in for you and me. We'd kill ourselves in that world but its actual denizens would be comfortably numb and would more than prefer their lifestyle; they would insist upon it.
The only ones who this doesn't apply to are society's outcasts who don't fit the mould. Bernard Marx is actually my favorite character for this reason; his ending is an odd one. He's scared for what the future holds for him and yet he doesn't even seem to realize that he's getting exactly what he wanted all along; a place for anybody who's ANYBODY

 

[mindlessobserver]

"Liberal societies are weak and decadent and always seem to collapse but ignore all those too-numerous-to-count monarchs who's heads fell with their kingdoms or empires that destroyed themselves through countless wars over the crown. Because I have a laundry list of excuses for why this isn't representative of anything!"

You frame fallen Kings as a fact of nature and by implication argue a Liberal Democracy cannot lose its crown just like a King could. I reject your framing of this for my own part. The crown is simply a metaphor for the authority of the State. Whether that Crown rests on the head of a man, or put in a museum case as a symbol of the Congress or Parliament that owns it, it remains the crown. A king can lose his throne, and a Congress can be burned and its members taken out into the town square and hung.

I need to point out the flippant tone of your dismissal of "Kings who lose their crowns". This is also a facet of Liberal political philosophy. The idea of the "Eternal State". The State exists outside time and space. The people who run it are simply working for it. Even if they are overthrown in a coup, arrested by their own law enforcement, or voted out of office, the State remains. Always and Eternal. Never losing a crown.

I argue a Liberal Democracy is no more permanent then King Louis XVI was. They've had a string of good luck for the last 5 generations, yes. But it was good luck only. Not some sort of divine rule. But Liberal Democracies are not eternal. They can die, and just as violently, if not more violently, then a man. I lean towards more violently. When a King loses his crown its farewell to the old boss, hello to the new boss.

When a Liberal Democracy loses its crown, and it will make no mistake, the boss is "the people". I shudder to think what happens when "the people" lose their crown. What is really ironic is many members of "the people" will be wielding the axe to lop off "the kings" head. Liberalism has no answer to this truth of human nature and society. because it views itself as perfectly rational. If the people don't like the status quo they can run for office. Or seek redress under the law. They don't have to resort to violence internally, or let a foreign enemy in the gates.

Laughable naivety.

 

[The best and greatest]

You frame fallen Kings as a fact of nature and by implication argue a Liberal Democracy cannot lose its crown just like a King could. I reject your framing of this for my own part. The crown is simply a metaphor for the authority of the State. Whether that Crown rests on the head of a man, or put in a museum case as a symbol of the Congress or Parliament that owns it, it remains the crown. A king can lose his throne, and a Congress can be burned and its members taken out into the town square and hung.

I need to point out the flippant tone of your dismissal of "Kings who lose their crowns". This is also a facet of Liberal political philosophy. The idea of the "Eternal State". The State exists outside time and space. The people who run it are simply working for it. Even if they are overthrown in a coup, arrested by their own law enforcement, or voted out of office, the State remains. Always and Eternal. Never losing a crown.

I argue a Liberal Democracy is no more permanent then King Louis XVI was. They've had a string of good luck for the last 5 generations, yes. But it was good luck only. Not some sort of divine rule.

Im saying that in the grand scheme of human history, there are a lot more deposed kings and pretenders to various thrones than there are deposed presidents. Still, I wouldn't necessarily use this as a reason to say that their forms of government are necessarily flawed in some fundamental irredeemable way (even when it happens that actually is the case)

The bold is interesting because this was the point I was trying to make. Liberalism doesn't fail because of some intrinsic and irreconcilable flaw in it as an ideology anymore than any other political philosophy is flawed. It fails for reasons any government could fail because these are universal challenges that any state apparatus will face regardless of its diet or the values of its founding.

It is not immediately obvious to me that non-liberal/non-pluralistic state apparatuses are intrinsically more stable than liberal ones and that this position demands justifying. That's all I'm saying.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Im saying that in the grand scheme of human history, there are a lot more deposed kings and pretenders to various thrones than there are deposed presidents.

Sure, but you are comparing 5,000 years of history with 200. We remember the Louis XVI's who lost their heads. But nobody thinks about I-XV much.

As for the rest of your post, I need to think for a bit.

 

[The best and greatest]

Sure, but you are comparing 5,000 years of history with 200. We remember the Louis XVI's who lost their heads. But nobody thinks about I-XV much.

Not relevant due to the next sentence in my post. I wouldn't argue that there being a LONG history of autocratic and hereditary leadership turning to shit as proof that that form of social organization is somehow intrinsically 'less successful' or 'not working as intended' because the challenges that cause kingdoms and empires to fall are the same challenges liberal democracies succumb to.
So given this is the case, who's to say which way is better? We have 5000 years of mostly failures(in the sense that they eventually ceased to exist) for hereditary rule but we can only give liberal democracy 200? Give it a bit maybe we'll figure it out in the next 4800

 

[mindlessobserver]

It is not immediately obvious to me that non-liberal/non-pluralistic state apparatuses are intrinsically more stable than liberal ones and that this position demands justifying. That's all I'm saying.

Having a thunk I've realized why it seems like I talking past people. I am not arguing for the idea of State stability. I am arguing for the opposite. I am arguing for the management of State failure. I don't care about the survival of the state. I want to manage its failure because beyond the truth that men are not equal there is another truth. All States fail.

Stability is not the goal. At least in the short term. What is desirable is preservation of the State as a concept through the generations. This is not done by law and constitutions. Its done through tradition, religion and family. The big three that you pointed out earlier. The Big three that I also pointed out Liberalism as an operating system seeks to delete. Monarchies can be "unstable" in the sense a King can become corrupt and be overthrown, but this is short term instability. They are long term stable because the concept of State power is invested in the existence of the Crown as an object a Physical man can wield by Right.

Liberal Democracies eschew the idea of a State being deposed and replaced with the idea of the Eternal State. Frozen in time and immune to coup, foreign invasion or corruption. Very arrogant of them, to assume divinity where they possess none. Unlike Monarchies, Liberal Democracies do not have a fail safe mechanism. They have no way to adjust to failure. They can only fight for their existence to the bitter end. In my examples of Monarchy functioning properly, the Spanish and Japanese ones respectively, I was not highlighting Monarchies great success and governing in perpetuity. I was pointing out its ability to address the fundamental failure of the State. In the case of Spain from internal revolt, and in the case of Japan from external invasion.

Monarchy puts the failure and success of the State on the shoulders of a physical man, who can command the burden to be borne or not. And likewise be held responsible for the failure to carry it. In the UK, there are many physical manifestations of the State as a physical institution bound in the person of the monarch that are ritually used. The rod of governance, the crown, so on. All seek to ground the system of the State in PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION. A spiritual synthesis of the divine and the base.

Liberal Democracy does not allow for this. It is eternal and beyond mortality. Its rulers mere civil servants serving in temporary position. If they fail the State should, in theory continue. Indeed, the entire body of International Law drawn up since World War 1 seeks to impose this vision of an inviable and sacred State as the natural order of things. The bloodiest War of the 21st century is right now being fought in Ukraine on this very subject incidentally, where the Liberal Democracies are in unison to defend this international order of the inviable State.

Because under Liberalism the State CANNOT fail. There is no failure condition. No way to manage it. I appreciate monarchism not in how it runs in the short term but how it runs in the long term. How it is able to transcend failure conditions. No Liberal democracy can do this.

 

[The best and greatest]

Having a thunk I've realized why it seems like I talking past people.

The reason you and I are talking past each other is because this conversation is based on a comment I made to someone else's argument, which you and I seem to more or less be in agreement on.

Anyway I am with you up until this point

Monarchy puts the failure and success of the State on the shoulders of a physical man, who can command the burden to be borne or not. And likewise be held responsible for the failure to carry it. In the UK, there are many physical manifestations of the State as a physical institution bound in the person of the monarch that are ritually used. The rod of governance, the crown, so on. All seek to ground the system of the State in PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION. A spiritual synthesis of the divine and the base.

Liberal Democracy does not allow for this.

I don't agree. If there is some importance in having the abstract authority of the state represented in a physical wordly object (A relic if you will) then there's no reason it has to be a crown or a scepter, a founding charter works just as well.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Not relevant due to the next sentence in my post. I wouldn't argue that there being a LONG history of autocratic and hereditary leadership turning to shit as proof that that form of social organization is somehow intrinsically 'less successful' or 'not working as intended' because the challenges that cause kingdoms and empires to fall are the same challenges liberal democracies succumb to.
So given this is the case, who's to say which way is better? We have 5000 years of mostly failures(in the sense that they eventually ceased to exist) for hereditary rule but we can only give liberal democracy 200? Give it a bit maybe we'll figure it out in the next 4800

But the concept of the King didn't get "debunked" until the 20th century when Liberal Democracies won WWI. When an old king got removed by coup, they just got replaced by another king that also claimed divine right. When the Roman Republic switched to the Empire, the concept of the Republic died and no one attempted a similar project until 1776. Liberal Democracies are also something I only ever see in European civilizations. Asians don't inherently create them and if they do, it was imposed upon them by a Colonial power. Arab nations certainly do not have Liberal Democratic governments, and Africans eschew anything that isn't a tribe entirely. Latinos famously have Banana Republics.

 

[mindlessobserver]

The reason you and I are talking past each other is because this conversation is based on a comment I made to someone else's argument, which you and I seem to more or less be in agreement on.

Anyway I am with you up until this point

I don't agree. If there is some importance in having the abstract authority of the state represented in a physical wordly object (A relic if you will) then there's no reason it has to be a crown or a scepter, a founding charter works just as well.
View attachment 6142227

Yes, but the constitution is not a Relic wielded by a living man. It is a relic that is supposed to stand on its own as a symbol of the ephemeral and eternal state. When people talk about the Constitution, its always in the first person. As if the Constitution itself is going to jump on a horse and smack the tyrants acting against will down.

Its not working out well, is it. I know this may be a hot take, but a piece of paper is not going to grab a sword and make its treasonous subjects kneel.

 

[The best and greatest]

But the concept of the King didn't get "debunked" until the 20th century when Liberal Democracies won WWI. When an old king got removed by coup, they just got replaced by another king that also claimed divine right. When the Roman Republic switched to the Empire, the concept of the Republic died and no one attempted a similar project until 1776. Liberal Democracies are also something I only ever see in European civilizations. Asians don't inherently create them and if they do, it was imposed upon them by a Colonial power. Arab nations certainly do not have Liberal Democratic governments, and Africans eschew anything that isn't a tribe entirely. Latinos famously have Banana Republics.

Just a point I want to make. The Roman Republic, was by no stretch a liberal democracy as we understand the term today. Liberal democracy is entirely a modern phenomenon.

Yes, but the constitution is not a Relic wielded by a living man. It is a relic that is supposed to stand on its own as a symbol of the ephemeral and eternal state. When people talk about the constitution, its always in the first person. As if the Constitution itself is going to jump on a horse and smack the tyrants acting against will down.

Its not working out well, is it.

Incorrect, the constitution belongs to all of us in collective ownership, it belongs to "The people" and is the physical manifestation of the will of "The People" to live free and pursue happiness.

Sure its just paper, but a crown is just metal, it doesn't defend its own legitimacy anymore than the constitution does.

 

[Caddo Cobgang]

>The End of Liberalism as a political philosophy
God I wish, im not really a Monarchist (though in reality I could care less about how a Head of State is chosen), more of a Culturally Right-Wing Socialist (if thats what youd want to call it), Liberalism though I can agree its a disease that has only led to increasing rates of poverty,a rise in Anti-White sentiment,LGBT Propaganda,etc.

 

[The best and greatest]

>The End of Liberalism as a political philosophy
God I wish, im not really a Monarchist (though in reality I could care less about how a Head of State is chosen), more of a Culturally Right-Wing Socialist (if thats what youd want to call it), Liberalism though I can agree its a disease that has only led to increasing rates of poverty,a rise in Anti-White sentiment,LGBT Propaganda,etc.

Would you swap to monarchism if it meant the end of free and private enterprise?

 

[mindlessobserver]

But the concept of the King didn't get "debunked" until the 20th century when Liberal Democracies won WWI. When an old king got removed by coup, they just got replaced by another king that also claimed divine right. When the Roman Republic switched to the Empire, the concept of the Republic died and no one attempted a similar project until 1776. Liberal Democracies are also something I only ever see in European civilizations. Asians don't inherently create them and if they do, it was imposed upon them by a Colonial power. Arab nations certainly do not have Liberal Democratic governments, and Africans eschew anything that isn't a tribe entirely. Latinos famously have Banana Republics.

Funnily enough, the Asians did the best meditation of Monarchism in the current era when the Japs did an Anime where a young girl from CURRENT YEAR is Isekaid to another world where she is the destined Monarch of a nation according to the will of God. Far from being a power fantasy the show runs the girl through the ringer and really dives into the flaws of Monarchy as a political system and what happens to the common man when it fails.

The writers definitely treated the whole exercise like a Russian novel where two ideologies are forced to battle it out, where ironically, the CURRENT YEAR girl Yoko is the avatar of Liberalism, hating how she got ripped from her comfy world and forced to bear an unbearable burden on behalf of people she could give less of a shit about. But God and Heaven are uncaring and demand that the responsibility and burdens given be carried on pain of eternal punishment. The entire arc of the story is Yoko's ascension from a selfish and entitled individual into a Queen.

10/10 would recommend. The anime is called "the 12 Kingdoms". There is zero chance in hell a similar story could be made in the West in the current year.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Just a point I want to make. The Roman Republic, was by no stretch a liberal democracy as we understand the term today. Liberal democracy is entirely a modern phenomenon.


Incorrect, the constitution belongs to all of us in collective ownership, it belongs to "The people" and is the physical manifestation of the will of "The People" to live free and pursue happiness.

Sure its just paper, but a crown is just metal, it doesn't defend its own legitimacy anymore than the constitution does.

We still have the same problems they do, mostly due to gross, fatuous senators. Why? Because the Founding Fathers were Romanboos and designed their society like the Roman Republic they so loved, hoping that we wouldn't run into the same problems the Republic did.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

You write this off as if it's an afterthought, but it is in fact the entire point. All monarchies become beaurocratic, yes. Society is complex, yes. Can a king run the entire show? No.

But neither can a fascist dictator, an elected President, or Google AI itself.

The strength of Monarchy is in its ability to transcend the human system. It doesn't have to pretend to be anything other than what it is. God almighties right hand on earth. Capable of taking extraordinary action when it is required.

I'm not arguing for some God King to run everything by decree. That can never work. I am arguing for the petty squabbles of politics, economics and culture to squabble in subordination to a power above them.

That's the thing. It doesn't transcend any human system. For all but the most obscure dynasties, we know their origins and how they got their throne. The cuckold king of England Charles III descends from a random 11th century lay bureaucrat for the Catholic Church in northern Germany named Egilmar von Oldenburg who owned some land managed to get named a count. What makes Charles III any better to rule England than putting some Norf FC lad as king? Why not just draw just draw sticks and see who gets to be king for a day/year/arbitrary period?

It isn't like monarchy as an institution is unique either. Nazi Germany theoretically had to be loyal to the ideals of the NSDAP (so Hitler's successor couldn't just do as he pleased), modern China has to be loyal to the ideals of the CCP so Chairman Xi can't do as he pleases, etc. It's no different in a monarchy--if you didn't like the king and had the power to resist, you could deny him tax revenue, banish his ministers, prevent him from doing any sort of extraordinary action, invite some other guy to be king, etc.

The King doesn't need to run everything. That is what his ministers are for. But if the need arises where the King must step in, he CAN. Best two examples in modern history would be Hirohito ordering the Japanese Government to surrender to the Americans, and the King of Spain ordering the central government to accept the demands of the protest movements in the 1980s.

Fascism doesn't do this, because the fascist state is a closed circle. It is subordinates unto itself, and even the leader serves the state. A fascist leader is as much a slave to the State as a Fascist citizen.

Unlike a King. A King IS the State.

In neither Spain nor Japan could the monarch be anything more than just a voice (for instance, a clique of officers tried to stop Hirohito by force and arrest his ministers for trying to surrender). There's fundamentally little difference between their role there and a ceremonial president like in many European countries. You can't even say that monarchy has a special aura, since there are plenty of people to whom a monarch holds no special aura while a European president active in various NGOs and bureaucracies seems like the expert who is "above politics" we should listen to.

Liberal Democracies eschew the idea of a State being deposed and replaced with the idea of the Eternal State. Frozen in time and immune to coup, foreign invasion or corruption. Very arrogant of them, to assume divinity where they possess none. Unlike Monarchies, Liberal Democracies do not have a fail safe mechanism. They have no way to adjust to failure. They can only fight for their existence to the bitter end. In my examples of Monarchy functioning properly, the Spanish and Japanese ones respectively, I was not highlighting Monarchies great success and governing in perpetuity. I was pointing out its ability to address the fundamental failure of the State. In the case of Spain from internal revolt, and in the case of Japan from external invasion.

In a liberal democracy, presumably the final failsafe would be the court system, which is why we're seeing it play out so much. In an illiberal state like fascism or communism, it would be the party.

But the concept of the King didn't get "debunked" until the 20th century when Liberal Democracies won WWI. When an old king got removed by coup, they just got replaced by another king that also claimed divine right. When the Roman Republic switched to the Empire, the concept of the Republic died and no one attempted a similar project until 1776. Liberal Democracies are also something I only ever see in European civilizations. Asians don't inherently create them and if they do, it was imposed upon them by a Colonial power. Arab nations certainly do not have Liberal Democratic governments, and Africans eschew anything that isn't a tribe entirely. Latinos famously have Banana Republics.

Republics were absolutely huge in the middle ages. Some of the most successful states like Venice were thoroughly republican. If anything, Italy got too republican in the Middle Ages so that random people could elect whoever they felt like and they'd appoint random popular generals or politicians who'd often try and set their family up as dictators. The Pope also helped fuck over an attempt to make a new Roman Republic. Hell, the Roman Empire wasn't even a monarchy until Diocletian's era--the Senate which was still hugely influential even if they couldn't get up to the same shit they did in previous centuries.

There were also a few in India, like they call Buddha a prince but his country (Shakya) was a republic with many princes. China was also supposedly a republic before the Xia dynasty was founded, but even if it's a myth, was influential enough that one king of Yan in the Warring States era tried to make his country into a republic and really only failed because of bad luck (the explanation "the heavens decreed it didn't fit the times" is a post hoc argument that the CCP loves) . Mercury-huffing Qin Shi Huang burned all the texts that discussed republicanism as a philosophy.

Monarchies in Europe died because the kings had less and less power ever since the French Revolution and people decided there was no point and just removed them entirely.

 

[mindlessobserver]

In neither Spain nor Japan could the monarch be anything more than just a voice (for instance, a clique of officers tried to stop Hirohito by force and arrest his ministers for trying to surrender). There's fundamentally little difference between their role there and a ceremonial president like in many European countries. You can't even say that monarchy has a special aura, since there are plenty of people to whom a monarch holds no special aura while a European president active in various NGOs and bureaucracies seems like the expert who is "above politics" we should listen to.

See, that is not how I saw what happened in the case of Spain and Japan. You see the failure of their States as the failure of the Monarchy, where instead what I see is this. The Ministers and Officials failed their King and led the nation to ruin, and so at the moment of the disaster the King stood up and suspended all law and practice. From his throne, the King demanded the government obey his will. The will of a man who sat upon the throne. A man who stood above all other men and even the law itself.

The military coup on the Imperial palace in Japan did fail. The Imperial Guards defended the Emperor against the Army and repelled them from the palace grounds. They then went in force with their ceremonial swords drawn no less, to deliver the Emperors order of surrender to the radio stations. This story has later been accused of being post war apocrypha to pad the reputation of the Japanese monarchy. But its such a great story, and it doesn't even matter if its true or not. Its true enough, and because it is true enough it made Japans surrender to the United States possible. The Japanese Army stood down, there was no mass slaughter of Americans and Japanese on the home Islands, the Monarchy of Japan was preserved and the new Government that replaced the old could derive its legitimacy from the unbroken authority of the Emperor. Insuring that Japan did not descend into chaos.

Sure its just paper, but a crown is just metal, it doesn't defend its own legitimacy anymore than the constitution does.

Wrong. A Piece of Paper cannot give an order to the Army to obey. But a Man can. The Constitution is nothing more then paper. Anyone can read it, but it cannot order people to obey it. A King on the other hand CAN command the Army. He CAN command his ministers. They could still disobey of course. And sometimes they do. But there are hard consequences for doing so. If the ATF defies the Constitution, there "may" be a lawsuit. That "may" end up in favor of the aggrieved party after 10 years of litigation. But not likely.

If the ATF defies the King, the head of the ATF will be lucky to escape with his head on his shoulders. Its an entirely different order of authority. The Constitution cannot order the Federal Marshalls out to defend its dictates. A King CAN. There are tradeoffs here obviously. Because a bad king can absolutely remove heads. But a bad king be dealt with.

5 second rule. Who is the head of the ATF. He just ordered the death of a man in a no knock raid. Whats his name. Do not look it up on any social media, or search engine. Whats his name, solely from memory. You have 5 seconds from reading this sentence.

If you could not think of the name of the head of the ATF in 5 seconds, you must enter bonus round. You have 5 seconds to name the King of England.








I'm right aren't I. You have no fucking clue who the head of the ATF is. But you knew the King of England was Charles immediately. And Charles isn't even your King!

 

[Caddo Cobgang]

Would you swap to monarchism if it meant the end of free and private enterprise?

im not entirely opposed to private enterprise, moreso it being completely and utterly underegulated like it is now

 

[Tablet County]

If you could not think of the name of the head of the ATF in 5 seconds, you must enter bonus round. You have 5 seconds to name the King of England.

I don't know either of them because the head of the ATF isn't as public a figure and I'm not british. Fuck off.

 

[The best and greatest]

im not entirely opposed to private enterprise, moreso it being completely and utterly underegulated like it is now

I ask because on some level free market economics are poisonous to a monarchy. Eventually, free enterprise begets a class of merchants and business men who will grow to view your monarch with contempt, which is why a monarch would need to clamp down on them and pick winners, which is how you get things like royal charters and monopolies which then have free rein to exploit the nation because there aren't any competitors.

Wrong. A Piece of Paper cannot give an order to the Army to obey. But a Man can. The Constitution is nothing more then paper. Anyone can read it, but it cannot order people to obey it. A King on the other hand CAN command the Army. He CAN command his ministers. They could still disobey of course. And sometimes they do. But there are hard consequences for doing so. If the ATF defies the Constitution, there "may" be a lawsuit. That "may" end up in favor of the aggrieved party after 10 years of litigation. But not likely.

But "The King" and "The Crown" are not the same entity. The Crown is entirely incapable of defending itself because its an abstract concept (a corporation) represented through an inanimate object. Or am I supposed to believe that a crown of gold will, all on its own, mount a horse and ride down rebelling nobles? The king's authority comes from his crown in the same way that a president's authority comes from the constitution. There's no difference here. Gold is no more capable of investing power in an individual than paper is.