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

[Male Idiot]

Save the loli pretty much said what I would have.

I don't think the happy merchant's liberalism will go away any time soon, not until Islam replaces it.

All men created equal is part of the problem. I don't think there is any salvaging for abrahamic religions.

 

[Drinky Crow]

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.

and I don't blame you for thinking that way.

Problem is, though, you'll be that cog regardless if it's a monarch or liberalism. You're nothing to either. The rhetoric and window dressing will change, but your fate will not be. You're not nobility. You're nothing. Your family means nothing to anyone that matters. You're an object to grow crops at best. You don't count as a casualty if a rival lord decides to rampage through and leave you a pile of chili con carnage. What's one more peon, eh? That's not any more comforting to me than being a bugman in a cubicle frankly.

You people need to remember when considering an ethos that your ass will be on the bottom rung. You will not be a king. You will not be a nobleman. You will not be a general. You probably won't even be the poor bloody infantry. You'll be a peon, if not an untouchable.

 

[mindlessobserver]

You're an object to grow crops at best.

That is less a facet of Monarchy and more of a fact that before the industrial revolution all societies were built that way. Liberalism' rise coincided with the Industrial Revolution but I don't necessarily agree that they are an end result of each other.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Save the loli pretty much said what I would have.

I don't think the happy merchant's liberalism will go away any time soon, not until Islam replaces it.

All men created equal is part of the problem. I don't think there is any salvaging for abrahamic religions.

It's definitely the pipeline between liberalism and communism. Which is the subtext of why people entertain monarchy as a valid alternative in the first place; Liberalism needs to seriously reexamine its philosophical premises if it continues to assert to be better than monarchies.

 

[Drinky Crow]

That is less a facet of Monarchy and more of a fact that before the industrial revolution all societies were built that way. Liberalism' rise coincided with the Industrial Revolution but I don't necessarily agree that they are an end result of each other.

That falls under window dressing. You're still a cog. You're still nothing.

 

[mindlessobserver]

That falls under window dressing. You're still a cog. You're still nothing.

You say this as if its somehow an undesirable outcome and not the natural state of affairs. You are a Cog NOW in your enlightened Liberal utopia. You sweat and toil and every year the State takes from your labor to pay for itself and its desires. Just because there is some panacea of consent on your part by voting does not change this. If you were ruled by a King would your state of affairs be functionally different day in and day out? Or would you still work all day, and then at the end of the year have to give up part of your labor in taxes.

Complex societies need Cogs, and we all help run the mechanism that someone else will always be turning. The Liberal Democracies are no different then an Absolute Monarchy in this respect. Its absurd to argue otherwise. If anything though, I think Liberal Democracies are WORSE when it comes to turning people into cogs. Jefferson for all his faults made one good observation. Tyrants out for their own selfish ends will eventually becomes satiated and sit indolently on their throne. Tyrants who are out to do what is "best" for "you" will never be happy, and will oppress without end content in their moral rectitude. The perverse incentives of Liberalism motivates horrific abuses of basic state functions, such as creating pension and welfare systems that are reliant on working the productive labor harder then even the most avaricious Emperor to keep them solvent.

 

[The best and greatest]

That is less a facet of Monarchy and more of a fact that before the industrial revolution all societies were built that way. Liberalism' rise coincided with the Industrial Revolution but I don't necessarily agree that they are an end result of each other.

I don't know how you can say this when the peasantry existed under a system of enslavement in virtually all of Europe throughout the middle ages and beyond.
Can we dismiss this notion that the king's job is to look out for me? His job is to protect the nobility that owned people like property. So if I had an issue with my 'lord' dictating where I could and could not go or live, who I could or couldn't marry, or if I took issue with what he provides relative to what his peasants give him and revolted. It was the task of the king to raise an army and crush the revolters.

The king is not your friend. Please stop looking for a savior in other men. You'll be disappointed every time.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I don't know how you can say this when the peasantry existed under a system of enslavement in virtually all of Europe throughout the middle ages and beyond.
Can we dismiss this notion that the king's job is to look out for me? His job is to protect the nobility that owned people like property. So if I had an issue with my 'lord' dictating where I could and could not go or live, who I could or couldn't marry, or if I took issue with what he provides relative to what his peasants give him and revolted. It was the task of the king to raise an army and crush the revolters.

I'm not arguing for a return to Feudal Monarchy. I said early in the thread I was more interested in the idea of Enlightened Monarchy where there was some adoption of liberal Principles. The idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is a perfectly reasonable and desirable mode of thinking in any Court of Law, whether its the Kings Court or the Peoples Court. Conversely, I want to dispense with much of the drek inherent to Liberalism, to include the article of faith that all men are equal.

The king is not your friend. Please stop looking for a savior in other men. You'll be disappointed every time.

Neither is the President and your Congressman. This is not really an argument. All human governments are run by humans, who are only reliable in their unreliability.

 

[The best and greatest]

I'm not arguing for a return to Feudal Monarchy. I said early in the thread I was more interested in the idea of Enlightened Monarchy where there was some adoption of liberal Principles while dispensing with much of the drek, to include the article of faith that all men are equal.


Neither is the President and your Congressman. This is not really an argument. All human governments are run by humans, who are only reliable in their unreliability.

I don't think the issue is the principle of 'All men being equal' its the spirit in which modern people interpret those words. The founders themselves certainly did not think that every man was literally physically equivalent, simply that we are all endowed by the virtue of our being with the same principle right to exist, to be our true selves, and to pursue our goals freely.

That modern people (who mostly don't believe in authorial intent to begin with) apply this to the physical world to the point of genuinely believing that there is no difference between men and women isn't a mark against the intent of the founders.

 

[Afinepickle]

Just an FYI - No serfs weren't 'slaves' by any stretch of the imagination and it's fascinating to me how both "muh individual liberty lolberts" and "REEE WHITE MAN BAD champagne socialists" perpetuate this same gross misunderstanding of history albeit for different reasons. I've said before many times that the political radicalization of the world is the death of history and every goddamn time I see dumbass takes like this I become more and more convinced of it.

Medieval serfs lived hard lives but they weren't 'owned' persay, rather the land they worked was and no 99% of the time your local lord didn't give a shit who you married or what you did with your life so long as the harvest was coming in and whatever village you were part of provided their tithe of raw materials so they could feed and pay their armies. Serfs had guaranteed holidays and compared to the modern day had FAR more leisure time than we do and in terms of work put in to reward gained were better paid than modern day people in terms of HARD assets even if not liquid ones but to even measure wealth in terms of liquid assets in a time when nearly all 'common' wealth was measured in hard assets I.E. food, housing etc. is a giant misnomer that everyone intentionally overlooks when trying to make that argument that serfs were poor and dirty and lived in squalor.

Shit only got really bad for the peasantry and your 'working classes' towards the Late Middle Ages/Early Renaissance when Industrialization started ramping up and people started moving into cities from the countrtside because population boom and the need for work. This trend continued into the Industrial Revolution which is when shit got REALLY bad for working class people. Neither of these things were the result of Feudalism or agrarian enomomies, much the opposite in fact.

 

[The best and greatest]

Just an FYI - No serfs weren't 'slaves' by any stretch of the imagination and it's fascinating to me how both "muh individual liberty lolberts" and "REEE WHITE MAN BAD champagne socialists" perpetuate this same gross misunderstanding of history albeit for different reasons. I've said before many times that the political radicalization of the world is the death of history and every goddamn time I see dumbass takes like this I become more and more convinced of it.

Medieval serfs lived hard lives but they weren't 'owned' persay

Barely one paragraph in and you're already backsliding.
Hereditary debts are slavery. That's why America doesn't have them.
Being tied to the land you work and only being able to leave, not even move, just temporarily LEAVE with the permission of your boss is imprisonment, a condition of being a slave.

 

[Drinky Crow]

You say this as if its somehow an undesirable outcome and not the natural state of affairs. You are a Cog NOW in your enlightened Liberal utopia.

Yea. I never denied it. My point is that your utopia offers nothing different in the end.

You sweat and toil and every year the State takes from your labor to pay for itself and its desires. Just because there is some panacea of consent on your part by voting does not change this. If you were ruled by a King would your state of affairs be functionally different day in and day out?

No.

Or would you still work all day, and then at the end of the year have to give up part of your labor in taxes.

Not just that, but if I had a nice prize pig, I'd have to surrender that too. No bacon for me. Oh, and I'm not allowed to hunt either, all of that is the king's too.

Complex societies need Cogs, and we all help run the mechanism that someone else will always be turning. The Liberal Democracies are no different then an Absolute Monarchy in this respect.

Cool, then you understand where I'm coming from by not being impressed by the sales pitch of switching to a king.

Its absurd to argue otherwise. If anything though, I think Liberal Democracies are WORSE when it comes to turning people into cogs.

And you failed to show any of that.

Jefferson for all his faults made one good observation. Tyrants out for their own selfish ends will eventually becomes satiated and sit indolently on their throne. Tyrants who are out to do what is "best" for "you" will never be happy, and will oppress without end content in their moral rectitude.

Jefferson was wrong. Tyrants NEVER are satiated. People drunk on power don't tell the bartender to cut them off. And if the drunk in question has the very mandate of GOD, who's going to tell him he's had enough? You're nothing. He's the hand of God. He can do what he wants and you can't do dick about it.

Just like now.

The perverse incentives of Liberalism motivates horrific abuses of basic state functions, such as creating pension and welfare systems that are reliant on working the productive labor harder then even the most avaricious Emperor to keep them solvent.

And the Emperor will improve upon that HOW? How will he change my lot, do tell? How will he make my peon ass valued more in the eyes of society and the law in any meaningful way? What's he going to do for me?

 

[Afinepickle]

Barely one paragraph in and you're already backsliding.
Hereditary debts are slavery. That's why America doesn't have them.

That's complete nonsense, working land that is owned isn't 'debt slavery' and outside of Russia which was always a shitshow serfs could more or less go wherever the fuck they wanted; if you can move about freely you aren't a slave. Slavery was shit like what the Moors were doing at the time or even later on what the Ottomans did thier Janissaries; when you are quite literallty owned by either the state or an individual.

By your logic people who rent their property and don't own it are slaves.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Just an FYI - No serfs weren't 'slaves' by any stretch of the imagination

They weren't even counted as casualties in war. Forgive me for my skepticism.

I'll grant, "slaves" is not the right term. But they're still nothing.

Medieval serfs lived hard lives but they weren't 'owned' persay

Oh, so what did happen if they told their lord "Take this job and shove it.," perchance? You think a king or lord is going to abide open defiance? No, he's going to send people down there or go himself and make that mouthy peasant take the lightless walk, or just a good public whipping if he's feeling kind.

, rather the land they worked was and no 99% of the time your local lord didn't give a shit who you married or what you did with your life so long as the harvest was coming in and whatever village you were part of provided their tithe of raw materials so they could feed and pay their armies.

That is until the lords decided it wasn't enough and they want more.

Serfs had guaranteed holidays and compared to the modern day had FAR more leisure time than we do and in terms of work put in to reward gained were better paid than modern day people in terms of HARD assets even if not liquid ones but to even measure wealth in terms of liquid assets in a time when nearly all 'common' wealth was measured in hard assets I.E. food, housing etc. is a giant misnomer that everyone intentionally overlooks when trying to make that argument that serfs were poor and dirty and lived in squalor.

Well then, sonny, would YOU live in a serf common house? I know I wouldn't.

As for serf's not being poor, do tell, how many castles, gilded furniture, jewels, and most importantly armed men that will kill on command did most serfs have?

Shit only got really bad for the peasantry and your 'working classes' towards the Late Middle Ages/Early Renaissance when Industrialization started ramping up and people started moving into cities from the countrtside because population boom and the need for work. This trend continued into the Industrial Revolution which is when shit got REALLY bad for working class people. Neither of these things were the result of Feudalism or agrarian enomomies, much the opposite in fact.

So we went from "Grow these crops or I'll cut your head off" to "Get in those mills and make my shit or I'll condemn you to a slow death if not kill you myself." Lose/Lose. We still have work to do.

 

[The best and greatest]

That's complete nonsense, working land that is owned isn't 'debt slavery' and outside of Russia which was always a shitshow serfs could more or less go wherever the fuck they wanted; if you can move about freely you aren't a slave. Slavery was shit like what the Moors were doing at the time or even later on what the Ottomans did thier Janissaries; when you are quite literallty owned by either the state or an individual.

By your logic people who rent their property and don't own it are slaves.

People who rent are entering into a direct transaction with each other.
So if me and my neighbor barter are we slaves to each other? is interdependency intrinsically slavery to you?
The man chooses to rent because he must(and btw can leave the arrangement anytime he wants for any reason). The slave doesn't have a choice, he does it because his master makes him do it. That he would do it on his own, for his own benefit without needing to be told is actually beside the point entirely.

 

[Drinky Crow]

I want to dispense with much of the drek inherent to Liberalism, to include the article of faith that all men are equal.

And this is supposed to grant...MORE benefits to average scum like you and me? Because your sorry ass isnt' going to be worth even a fraction of the nobles or even the nobles waterheaded kid.

 

[mindlessobserver]

And the Emperor will improve upon that HOW? How will he change my lot, do tell? How will he make my peon ass valued more in the eyes of society and the law in any meaningful way? What's he going to do for me?

Absolutely nothing. You are not important. What matters is how the State is structured and whether its long term stable. A well ordered and stable State is its own benefit to which you can live your life. That you are beneath the notice of the King is, if anything, a good thing.

And this is supposed to grant...MORE benefits to average scum like you and me? Because your sorry ass isnt' going to be worth even a fraction of the nobles or even the nobles waterheaded kid.

See the above.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Absolutely nothing. You are not important.

Then tell me why, even in a thought experiment, I should even entertain this shit when it will change NOTHING for my lot?

What matters is how the State is structured and whether its long term stable.

Let the bluebloods do it then. I got enough problems in life being part of the scum to wrack my brain further on how I can make life better for people who already consider me beneath even their notice. We're both getting pounded in the ass, but you want to grouse poetic on how to improve the life of the person cornholing you. I don't.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Then tell me why, even in a thought experiment, I should even entertain this shit when it will change NOTHING for my lot?

Well for one thing the Government won't actually be pretending anymore. For another a Monarchy does not necessarily preclude more local forms of Democracy. This was in fact quite common, even in China which had the most beaurocratic and overweening Monarchy of them all. The issue with Liberalism is that it assumes a totality of the State whereas Monarchy does not. In a Liberal Democracy, it is implied that YOU are the State. This is of course not true, but all law, practice and society is organized around this lie. Which is why the State can quite happily justify its overreaching as simply exercising YOUR will. Whether or not you personally agree or not is immaterial. This is not the case in a Monarchy, where the actions of the State ultimately are responsible to the King, a physical person, and not some amorphous blob of "people", who may or may not even exist. Like the 2020 US Election for example.

Let the bluebloods do it then. I got enough problems in life being part of the scum to wrack my brain further on how I can make life better for people who already consider me beneath even their notice. We're both getting pounded in the ass, but you want to grouse poetic on how to improve the life of the person cornholing you. I don't.

You aren't reading then. I am arguing for making "the blue bloods" MORE responsible, not less. Under Liberal Democracy their actions are justified under the authority given to them freely by "the people". This is why Nancy Pelosi and Biden can rage about threats to "Our Democracy". They do mean it literally. Its their democracy. It justifies their authority, and if people don't agree with it well their legitimacy is undermined. So people had better agree with it. Made to agree with it even. Under Monarchy their actions are their own they answer for them personally with no other authority save that which is held. And if they overreach and lose control, well, as has been pointed out. Many Kings have lost their crowns. And their heads.

 

[Afinepickle]

They weren't even counted as casualties in war.

And? I fail to see how that's relavent especially given the time period we're talking about.

Oh, so what did happen if they told their lord "Take this job and shove it.," perchance?

Okay yeah theoretically that's not going to go well for you but what reason would you have to do that in the first place? It seems like a completely moot point to me. If for example this were the modern day and there were a whole slew of fields and jobs you could concievably do then yeah okay you'd have a point but this is the fucking middle ages. It's either working the land, military service or an education through the church and as far as skilled labor went that was controlled by the guilds which were an entire separate entity from the landowners and it was largely up to them if you got an apprenciteship or whatever. But yeah I guess for sake of argument if you wanted to say "fuck you and your job I want to literally starve to death!" You didn't have that option available to you so I guess you got me there.

That is until the lords decided it wasn't enough and they want more.

Lol, everyone always brings this up as some kind of inevitability and yeah okay maybe you got unlucky and have a really shortsighted lord who's trying to get blood from a stone but that did not work out well for them when they tried it. Lords needed their serfs healthy, well fed and preferably happy so they would be productive. It didn't pay to squeeze your land beyond what it could produce nor your serfs which were a valuable resource for your property. Doesn't mean some lords didn't try it but it was far from a universal practice. Now as for when your land was more productive for a season and your lord strategically upped the taxes, yeah that shit happened but I don't see how it's any different from how modern governments and corporate entities do the exact same shit to their own workers and cogs. People are greedy sacks of shit, were then and are now and will try to take advantage of you when they can; what's your point?

Well then, sonny, would YOU live in a serf common house? I know I wouldn't.

In the modern day? Absolutely not of course but this is a time period when it was normal for people to live in big community houses, heck, road Inns didn't even have private rooms. Even the nobility had less privacy than we have today. Now as for the quality of the living arrangements? Again typical for the time, you had a bed and a roof over your head which was what most folks had including freemen. What you're complaining about had nothing to do with the political or economic realities and everything to do with what was the cultural norm at the time and the limit of technology following the collapse of the supply chains that kept the Roman Empire and then the Carolingian Empire afloat

So we went from "Grow these crops or I'll cut your head off" to "Get in those mills and make my shit or I'll condemn you to a slow death if not kill you myself." Lose/Lose. We still have work to do.

Lol no, not in the slightest. Living conditions worsened, pay worseneed, disease worsened, sanitation worsened etc. etc. etc. the transition from agrarian to city life during the Renaissance period and well into the later ages was an absolute nightmare for the lower classes. They were unironically better off as serfs.