Yes, and Red China is a republic that went off the deep end, not a monarchy.
. . .Oooooh. I get it now.
Mild powerlevel, but I used to be a Zionist. The way Blob accuses his enemies of anti-Semitism for the crime of disagreeing with him really reminds me of how Zionists act, right down to cherrypicking Jewish groups that agree with him and ignoring any Jewish opponents or comparing them to kapos.
You're still a Zionist, just now you've replaced "Zion" with "Monarchy."
Not really. Again, monarchies had many checks and balances on their system that isn't due to primitive technology-it was more due to the system being reliant on oaths and personal honor. The truth is, republican governments, with their national armies and bureaucracies that have long since predated things like cell phones, internet, and airplanes, were far more powerful and had a greater potential for tyranny than even the worst of the monarchs did.
Heck, just look at the Roman Republic. As a kingdom, the worst they had was Tarquin the Proud, who bossed people around and raped some Vestal Virgin, but under the Republic, they had senators and aristocrats who drove poor farmers out of business by replacing them with slave labor taken from wars. Which explains why the plebians supported a dictator for life/Emperor replacing the Senate as the locus of Roman power.
In the same vein, monarchical armies numbered in the tens of thousands, whereas America during the Civil War, not even 100 years old, was able to field a massive army of 600,000 troops, while their president suspended Habeas Corpus and threw people in jail without a trial. When Charles I tried to do that in the English Civil War back in Great Britain, he got his head chopped off. Lincoln got away with it in the USA despite the fact that most of the military elite and most of the fighting men of the country fought against him, while many immigrants AND citizens didn't approve of his war and saw him as a tyrant, even in the North. All because the republic he served had a bureaucratized system that oppressed anyone who disagreed and had no problems drafting them to die fighting in the South. Both Lincoln and Charles I faced against foes who had good commanders and fighting men, yet Lincoln won and Charles I lost his head.
. . .You just argued that with a straight face.
Ok let's see here... Britain during the English Civil war. That would be 1642. So population of it was... Estimates of 4-5 mil. Let's go with the 5 milion of 1650.
What was the US total population in 1860?
Oh right. 31 million.
Yes, it's amazing how, when you have 6 times the total population,
you can field 6 times the army.
But yeah, I'm sure all those romans, chinese, and japanese emperors honored habeas corpus - which originated as a concept in the 12th century in England...
And yes, in the American Civil War, neither side had airplanes, cell phones, or the internet. At most, they had telegrams that could easily be cut by the enemy, as well as rail lines and trains that can also be raided by cavalry.
TL;DR - you're assuming monarchies weren't capable of great tyranny because they had limits to their system based on them not having the proper technology. I now refer you to the Aztec Empire which was radically different from other monarchies and which reserved the right to sacrifice anyone to the gods at any given time. Monarchs could easily have been more tyrannical than the modern republics of today if they wanted to, and many ancient monarchies before the rise of Roman/Western Civilization WERE that tyrannical. Western monarchs couldn't be as tyrannical as say, Civil War America because there were legal checks and balances that prevented monarchs from having too much power, and even in absolute monarchies like Spain, the monarch still has to act in the interests of his people, especially when his troops come from the local populace instead of foreign borders.
No, YOU asserted that. These were your words:
Sure, monarchies have invaded other countries for taxation, slavery, and exploitation, and in the case of some, they've even eradicated entire tribes now and then, (like Spain with the Aztecs/Incas) but that can hardly get close the crimes done at the hands of so-called democracies, such as slavery, (which existed in America up to 1860) eradication of entire tribes, (which kept on going up until the 20th century) and forced sterilization (which continued up until the end of WW2).
You even mentioned the Aztecs right there.
WHO HAD SLAVERY! So pick your damn lane, which is it?
A)
monarchies . . . can hardly get close the crimes done at the hands of so-called democracies
OR
B)
Monarchs could easily have been more tyrannical than the modern republics of today if they wanted to, and many ancient monarchies before the rise of Roman/Western Civilization WERE that tyrannical.
And don't be pulling this Bob-level "talk out of both sides of your mouth shit on me.
Worshipping the invisible hand leads to the same result that worshipping Satan does, with the exception that Satan had a rationale for doing evil while the invisible hand is an unthinking process.
The problem is with so many debates is that any objection to fool-hardy interference is dismissed as "worship." To make a metaphor it would be like if a dude said, "I want to introduce this new species of grass in this environment." "I'm not sure that's a good idea. There could be a lot of unforeseen consequences." "What, you worship nature or something? Get with the science!"
(years later, we're dealing with Johnson grass...)
Because they removed God from their lives, and they need something to replace Him. Communists replace Him with their ideas of a "superior future", while capitalists replace Him with the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market", with many capitalists thinking that it can regulate itself.
Judging by all the woke corporations that have monopolized tech and entertainment while working alongside the power of the state and censoring anyone they despise, the latter has proven to be completely false.
One of the main reasons I'm a distributist is because an unregulated free market inevitably turns into an oligarchy, and oligarchic rule is equally as bad as communist rule; in fact, it's worse, since commies at least pretend to have principles.
"unregulated"
This isn't even an argument of "oh true free market capitalism has never been tried." This is a straight up argument of
you've had what you wanted for half a century now! Kind of like the communists who keep getting all their policies implemented on the west coast
only to have inequality increase, eventually maybe it's time to take a moment and go "wait a minute, maybe our idea isn't working."
