/lit/ - Literature

the qu'ran

>>11895265
Leviathan is not really pro monarchy per se, but it is not anti-monarchy necessarily.

>>11895265
In Defence of Aristocracy
by Peregrine Worsthorne

>>11895265
de maistres books

>>11895265
Unironically the Bible.

Anything by a Whig, like Burke’s stuff

>>11895265
The Bible
The Republic
Don Quixote
Arthurian Cycle
Anything written by the Church Fathers

>>11895444
True

>>11895265
Dante - De Monarchia

>>11895265
but how do you choose the monarch

1 and 2 Samuel

Hoppe makes a libertarian case for monarchy.

>>11895265
Monarchy is inferior to a dictatorship which is inferior to philosopher-king.
We all know children are not zealots. They can not maintain the deal, the drive of the people who built the place.

A philosopher king elected by a cardinalship like the pope, appointed by past philosopher kings, is the best system.

>>11896221
this book thesis is that monarchy > democracy

but the overall conclusion is that both sucks

Democracy is the only system of governance that allows for a continued and increasing pluralism; pluralism being necessary for long term sustained economic growth.

>>11896251
>pluralism being necessary for long term sustained economic growth

can you prove this?

>>11896251
pic related

>>11896251
>pluralism being necessary for long term sustained economic growth
Define economic growth

Simply increasing GDP year after year isn’t sustainable. And this is coming from someone who studies and loves economics.

Please explain to me why people are obsessed with income and GDP growth as it hardly helps anyone else out, who is receiving nothing but inflation gains from said growth

>>11896255
>>11896259
Basically in order for people to innovate, the ruling class cannot have too much power over society. Since ruling classes will actively stifle innovation if they deem it a threat to their rent collection, potential inventors and entrepreneurs are discouraged from doing what they do. There needs to be necessary economic incentives in place for people to be productive. These incentives cannot materialize when property rights and individual liberties are not guaranteed.

>>11896267
and do you really think that in a democracy the people are the actual rulers?

the ruling class just buy the politicians or the intelectual elite to vote for their interests

lmao democracy is a complete joke sorry if you still believe in fairy tales

>>11896251
Idiot

>>11896266
innovation more than GDP growth. Haiti in its day was one of the wealthiest territories in the world. The sugar plantations were immensely profitable. However, due to the reliance on slave labor, the gross domestic product did not translate into real wealth creation, since all of the wealth was extracted by the elites.

>>11896287
Pluralism doesn't have a binary value, it exists on a spectrum of sorts. And Democracy in itself doesn't guarantee anything; it must have corresponding and complementary institutions. Like a bill of rights, term limits, defined powers, etc. To take to modern United States for example, it has become increasingly more pluralist since its inception. There are still more steps to take on that journey. Two important ones stand out: the abolition of re-elections and the centralization of power in the federal government.

>>11896225
>A philosopher king elected by a cardinalship like the pope, appointed by past philosopher kings, is the best system.
So, democracy on a higher level. Just watch how easy it was for the Catholic priests and even the pope to be infiltrated by destructive (((forces))). This will happen any time you have a system which is dependant on the vote of many instead of the iron will of one.

>>11896290
Right but for some reason the barrier between economics and philosophy in your mind exists.

It was the same problem with mathematics and philosophy on here until recently.

Let’s be real: what you’re saying is TECHNICALLY true and demonstrable, but does that make it philosophically right?

>>11896319
>but does that make it philosophically right?
is that question even answerable? Perhaps you could elaborate.

>>11896267
>Since ruling classes will actively stifle innovation if they deem it a threat to their rent collection, potential inventors and entrepreneurs are discouraged from doing what they do
A democracy is the worst kind of ruling class and it destroyed true progress democraticly in the west where ever it got hold. Your property rights and individual lierbties are only garanteed as long as the ruling class doesn't want them for their own gain. But you're out of luck when the democratic leaders will throw you off your land which your ancestors build up for centuries just so it can dig for cole. Same goes for your rights if those democracies get more votes by doing the biding of a loud minority. Democracy is shit and nothing but opium for the people.

>>11896326
I’m targeting the morals behind such a situation. Is it RIGHT for people to sit at a desk all day contributing no productive labor while people in South America or Africa work their fucking asses off so he can have a two dollar cup of coffee. God forbid he paid them all one penny more or he might actually have to worry about not getting the newest flatscreen from Toshiba.

This is why it was immoral for the capitalists to do what they did to the workers in Haiti.

This is why I study economics

>>11896335
If that were true, why did the industrial revolution begin in Britain?
>Democracy is shit and nothing but opium for the people
I think you mean just people are shit. Humans will always try to game whatever system they exist in, that is where reform comes in.

>>11896207
i choose you as my monarch anon

revolt against the modern world

>>11896343
The reason the third world is poor is because of the vicious cycle of extractive politico-economic institutions, not because of international capital Their own ruling elite keeps them poor.
Btw
>people to sit at a desk all day contributing no productive labor
if people pay them for their labor that inherently means they see some value in it. If these people are producing value, they are productive by definition. Maybe you don't think what they do is important, but value is fundamentally subjective.

lord of the rings
they don't even talk about tax policy

>>11896349
>britain
>democracy
>britain a democracy during the eve of the 20th century

>>11896367
We want other people in positions of power like yourself, so you won’t change the status quo at all you fucking retard.

I guarantee you I know more about economics than you, yet here you are defending the economic system more than me. Makes no fucking sense

>>11896251
Imagine being this neoliberal

>>11896409
I believe that’s right, yes. The Whigs lost a long time ago

>>11896409
>what is parliament
don't troll anon

>>11896411
What exactly do see me as defending?
It doesn't matter who is in power. It only matters what the nature of the power is. Institutions > individuals. Power is an inherently corrupting force, and people will use it to exploit others if they are given the opportunity.

>>11896441
But you don’t see people sitting in desks or just working unproductive jobs in America in general as being in power over the workers of crops in South America or Africa indirectly? Why not?

Keep in mind this is coming from someone who works at a desk job himself

>>11896450
No, I don't. Political power is the use of force. If there is no coercion, there is no oppression. Third world countries are lucky to have people in the first world consuming their agricultural products. The fact that the labors are exploited and paid less is due to local factors, like corruption, labor supply, and lack of political agency (pluralism).

>>11896470
>we were born oppressing people so it doesn’t count
You make me sick

>>11896498
>>we were born oppressing people so it doesn’t count
>You make me sick
Remain calm.

>>11896507
> he thinks he has won the argument because he is calm
Pro tip: it makes you a pussy.

I am not okay with who I am. You being okay with yourself oppressing others is wrong

>>11896517
Okay then nigger, why don't you make a refutation and explain exactly how I am oppressing third worlders?

>>11896531
By indoctrinating them into a system from which they will only benefit if others are indoctrinated into theirs.

What kind of economics have you been reading? This is basic stuff.

>>11896543
>indoctrination
what do you trying to convey with this term?

>>11896552
*are

>>11896552
>>11896557
That the whole system is a little fucked up. Not entirely mind you, just enough to the point where the whole thing seems like a Ponzi scheme. It wouldn’t have to be this way if real wages had risen in the last half century or so, but they haven’t

>>11896578
Of course. 2008 is a stellar example: politicians backing bailouts and quantitative easing for bankers.
I don't think the system is perfect. It just needs work, namely: increasing the rights of man.

>>11896597
Okay fine but you have to admit it puts us as the slaveowners of the South Americans and Africans who are growing the crops we eat and get paid less than minimum wage

>>11896632
No, it puts us as the benefactors of such 'slavery', not as direct owners. There is a difference. And the fact that we benefit from their exploitation is not the reason that they are exploited in the first place. The moral responsibility falls on the the elites of said nations; they are the ones who benefit the most, and they are the ones who perpetuate such conditions. As individuals, we do have a choice to consume 'fair-trade' or othersuch goods. However, even if we cut off all economic ties with these nations, their conditions would not improve. More likely they would deteriorate further, as in the case of North Korea.

>>11896426
How's that Brexit going which Britain democratically voted on? Remind me when they voted on getting exchanged for the third world.

The people never really rule in a "democracy".

>>11896221
The first 3 chapters make the case that monarchy is superior to democracy. But, he does not advocate for monarchy overall. He is just trying to demonstrate why private ownership of something leads to better outcomes than public ownership.

i'm starting to think democracy might not be the best. pretty much every advantage of democracy seems to have been wiped away. look at what we have now: "democracy" now means the desire to join massive global organizations. wanting to secede and have control over your nation is now considered populism and not democratic. democracy, once a system to decentralize government, has now become the ultimate centralizer. not to mention, male conscription is virtually universal in all democracies, debts have become sky high, we have extensive welfare states that subsidize bad decisions and broken families.

i'm not even convinced that democracy means "more freedom". If in the UK, the Crown took back power, would Brits really be less free than they are now? I doubt it.

>>11896352
give me contact details

>>11896785
To me the biggest failing of democracy is the short term horizon for all of it's leaders. An example of this is social security which everybody know is unsustainable and needs to be seriously reworked if not scrapped but nobody is willing to do anything about because it would be political suicide. Whoever is leading has every incentive to do whatever they can to hold off the eventual collapse even when they know the bandaids will lead to worse outcomes.

A monarch is encouraged to think in the long term for the same reason people buy houses and renovate them and keep them nice. They have property and what to pass them off to their heirs.

>>11896885
I would want to abolish social security. I already put some of my savings into a 401K every paycheck, so why the fuck should I have to pay even more for a system that I probably won't get to use anyway?

I feel like monarchs might be better at understanding stuff like this.

>>11895265
de Maistre, Pobedonostsev, Carlyle, are a few of my favourite reactionaries

>>11896666
See
>>11896498
Satan

>>11896251
Implying long term sustained economic growth is a good thing at this point.

>>11897041
whatever mega bitch. you don't even have an argument. just a lousy appeal to ethos. fuck off

>>11896885
that problem is easily fixed: abolition of reelection campaigns. Politicians are incentivized to not make controversial decisions due to the need to keep popularity.

>>11895265
Liberty or Equality by Kuehnelt-Leddihn

>>11899030
Get behind thee, Satan

>>11895265

>>11896196
>Don Quixote
what

>>11899055

>>11899082
not directly

>>11896221
Seconding this.

>>11896207
They are chosen by god

The advantages of monarchy (specifically absolutism) should not be defined by material parameters. Doing so misses the entire point of monarchy.

>>11899250
this is a classic image, I had completely forgotten about it but i love it. thank you anon.

>>11900169
whatever faggot.

>>11895265
Why support Monarchism with it's inherently flawed concepts of power transfer, when you can choose the political system of The One?

>>11896207
every man a king

>>11900066
This

>>11900066
>Henry VIII
>chosen by god
>god hates the church
based