General political philosophy discussion

VictortheMonarch

Victor the Crusader
stripping Royals of power is,in most cases,good thing.Look like Europe ruled by absolute monarchs ended.
And about jews - in Poland they have paradise - and,as a result,our towns were weak and economy sucked.England was better without them.
rather wrong. the royals BUILT England. Without the Normandie Dynasty, England would be a nothingburger.
 

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
rather wrong. the royals BUILT England. Without the Normandie Dynasty, England would be a nothingburger.

I disagree. England would actually be far greater, because without them England wouldn't have had its resources wasted on adventurism in France. Or without them you know harrying the North and setting England back. And the resources wasted on that, were resources not spent on consolidating rule over the isles, which could have happened much earlier in than in our timeline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Neither. Monarchies and Royalty in general are the biggest con jobs that has ever been invented by mankind. All they do is mooch off of their subjects for centuries. They cause more problems than they solve (Points at all the wars started by monarchies). And they do nothing an Elected Head of State with a term limit can't do. They are a mistake the public has made and need to be done away with. And I ain't gonna be convinced otherwise.

Elected politicians also mooch off of their subjects, with difference being that you get a new set of vampires every four - or if you are lucky, eight - years, and that they literally don't care about the future.

As I pointed out: it wasn't monarchs who started World War I. United States, which are a republic, started more wars than most Western countries on a per-year basis. Greatest colonial empire in history was that of Britain, which had effectively neutered its monarch relatively early on.

Elected head of state with a term limit has no incentive to care about his people, his country, or their future, beyond what is strictly necessary to win the next elections. And if that means genociding their own people for the sake of winning elections, then that is what they do.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Point is, yeah, we have the technology necessary to solve our problems but our leadership doesn't want them solved, they want to take advantage of them to beggar everyone but themselves so they can rule forever.



Bless my soul. The right can be such sweet summer children when it comes to understanding how brain dead the current political class are. Do you think the Senators of 5th century Rome, idling away on their Latifundia, meant to bring the Empire down?
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
Elected politicians also mooch off of their subjects, with difference being that you get a new set of vampires every four - or if you are lucky, eight - years, and that they literally don't care about the future.

As I pointed out: it wasn't monarchs who started World War I. United States, which are a republic, started more wars than most Western countries on a per-year basis. Greatest colonial empire in history was that of Britain, which had effectively neutered its monarch relatively early on.

Elected head of state with a term limit has no incentive to care about his people, his country, or their future, beyond what is strictly necessary to win the next elections. And if that means genociding their own people for the sake of winning elections, then that is what they do.
You serious. Have you looked at the past 2,300 years of European History? This is not even counting all the other Eurasian Kingdoms that were also war happy. Let's see the King of England. The Kaiser of Germany, The Austro Hungarian Empire. Yeah all good and honest pure Republics. Nah dogs it was a pissing contest between Royals. And the spark was the assasination of a Royal by a radical Serbian. The US entered the war literally near it' end.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
You serious. Have you looked at the past 2,300 years of European History? This is not even counting all the other Eurasian Kingdoms that were also war happy. Let's see the King of England. The Kaiser of Germany, The Austro Hungarian Empire. Yeah all good and honest pure Republics. Nah dogs it was a pissing contest between Royals. And the spark was the assasination of a Royal by a radical Serbian. The US entered the war literally near it' end.

And again with mythology. None of the royals wanted First World War (that is what I assume you are referring to). Kaiser and Tsar were engaged in attempts to prevent the war until literally the last minute, and Austro-Hungarian Emperor also did what he could to prevent the war. It was their governments that pushed them into the war: Habsburg government wanted to save face and also to exploit the external enemy as a valve for the massive internal pressures that the multiethnic monarchy was being subjected to - pressures that were largely down to creation of governments (Austrian, Hungarian and Habsburg ones) external to the monarch. Austria-Hungary will have had a far less internal reason to start a war had it remained merely a Habsburg Monarchy in a de-facto personal union under the monarch. And while it is true at least that Franz Joseph might have stopped them, presence of a democratic government would have changed nothing. Serbian government had been supporting various anti-Habsburg movements, even if they did not necessarily have anything to do with the assassination itself - so even public opinion was against any discussion with them, and presence of a democratic government (assuming of course it truly was democratic) will not have prevented the war. Situation was literally the same as it was with US invasion of Afghanistan, except US didn't start a world war in doing so (imagine a situation in which Russia decided to defend Afghanistan by attacking the US, EU decided to support US and India decided to support Russia - that is the situation with Serbia). It was German government that had pushed for creation of a massive fleet that started Anglo-German naval race, even though in that specific case at least Kaiser was not blameless either, as he did want the fleet - but the main reason for creation of the navy was not Kaiser's vaingloriousness, but rather the needs and wants of German industrialists and colonialists. French Republic gave Russia what was essentially a carte blanche which helped convince Russia to support Serbia and thus turned the war from a local to a world one by involving Germany and France. And it was British government - not the monarch, but government - that decided to not intervene and attempt to smooth out the situation as it had done several times previously, largely due to irrational fear of German naval ambitions (despite Britain having won the Anglo-German Naval Arms Race by that point).

As for the past 2300 years of European history? Of course monarchies will have started the most wars - monarchies were by far the most common type of government back then. But it was Republic that were unusually sword-happy, not monarchies. It was Venetian Republic that broke basically all laws of war and religion in using Crusaders to conquer Zadar and Constantinople. It was Italian maritime republics that were allying with Arabs during Muslim Arab attempts to conquer Europe, and at one point helped them besiege Rome itself. Athenian Republic and Sparta - which was an oligarchy, so also a de facto republic - started the largest internal war Greek world had seen to date. Roman Republic was far more expansion-happy than the Empire (for various reasons), and comparing it to Kingdom is basically a no-starter.

Fact is, monarchies are blamed for wars because people are incapable of understanding complex causes of literally every war, and so find it easy to blame the wars on monarch's personal flaws.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
And again with mythology. None of the royals wanted First World War (that is what I assume you are referring to). Kaiser and Tsar were engaged in attempts to prevent the war until literally the last minute, and Austro-Hungarian Emperor also did what he could to prevent the war. It was their governments that pushed them into the war: Habsburg government wanted to save face and also to exploit the external enemy as a valve for the massive internal pressures that the multiethnic monarchy was being subjected to - pressures that were largely down to creation of governments (Austrian, Hungarian and Habsburg ones) external to the monarch. Austria-Hungary will have had a far less internal reason to start a war had it remained merely a Habsburg Monarchy in a de-facto personal union under the monarch. And while it is true at least that Franz Joseph might have stopped them, presence of a democratic government would have changed nothing. Serbian government had been supporting various anti-Habsburg movements, even if they did not necessarily have anything to do with the assassination itself - so even public opinion was against any discussion with them, and presence of a democratic government (assuming of course it truly was democratic) will not have prevented the war. Situation was literally the same as it was with US invasion of Afghanistan, except US didn't start a world war in doing so (imagine a situation in which Russia decided to defend Afghanistan by attacking the US, EU decided to support US and India decided to support Russia - that is the situation with Serbia). It was German government that had pushed for creation of a massive fleet that started Anglo-German naval race, even though in that specific case at least Kaiser was not blameless either, as he did want the fleet - but the main reason for creation of the navy was not Kaiser's vaingloriousness, but rather the needs and wants of German industrialists and colonialists. French Republic gave Russia what was essentially a carte blanche which helped convince Russia to support Serbia and thus turned the war from a local to a world one by involving Germany and France. And it was British government - not the monarch, but government - that decided to not intervene and attempt to smooth out the situation as it had done several times previously, largely due to irrational fear of German naval ambitions (despite Britain having won the Anglo-German Naval Arms Race by that point).

As for the past 2300 years of European history? Of course monarchies will have started the most wars - monarchies were by far the most common type of government back then. But it was Republic that were unusually sword-happy, not monarchies. It was Venetian Republic that broke basically all laws of war and religion in using Crusaders to conquer Zadar and Constantinople. It was Italian maritime republics that were allying with Arabs during Muslim Arab attempts to conquer Europe, and at one point helped them besiege Rome itself. Athenian Republic and Sparta - which was an oligarchy, so also a de facto republic - started the largest internal war Greek world had seen to date. Roman Republic was far more expansion-happy than the Empire (for various reasons), and comparing it to Kingdom is basically a no-starter.

Fact is, monarchies are blamed for wars because people are incapable of understanding complex causes of literally every war, and so find it easy to blame the wars on monarch's personal flaws.
The head guy is a Monarch when a war starts. Then it is the Monarchs fault point blank and end of discussion. You are either the head guy or not. And if you are not then your position should not exist.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
The head guy is a Monarch when a war starts. Then it is the Monarchs fault point blank and end of discussion. You are either the head guy or not. And if you are not then your position should not exist.

That is literally cartoon-level binary logic.

Monarch may be the head guy, but even absolute monarchs never had absolute authority. Interests and power groups exist in any and every society, which means that no monarch, or even a dictator, has absolute authority in reality. And traditional monarchs, even absolute monarchs or pre-WWI monarchs, had far more limitations on their power than your average dictator does.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
That is literally cartoon-level binary logic.

Monarch may be the head guy, but even absolute monarchs never had absolute authority. Interests and power groups exist in any and every society, which means that no monarch, or even a dictator, has absolute authority in reality. And traditional monarchs, even absolute monarchs or pre-WWI monarchs, had far more limitations on their power than your average dictator does.
So what you are saying the position is useless. So get rid of the Royalty since they are clearly not needed. If a Parliment and a Prime Minister can do the bulk of the job. Thank you very much for proving the uselessness of Royals.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
So what you are saying the position is useless. So get rid of the Royalty since they are clearly not needed. If a Parliment and a Prime Minister can do the bulk of the job. Thank you very much for proving the uselessness of Royals.
He's saying, as he has before, classic Royalty is usually only one power point, balanced by others in older civ's.

Multiple poles means that they have to consider each other before they do anything stupid.


I'm not sure it's true, haven't done the reserch, but if so, it's not a bad idea at all.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
He's saying, as he has before, classic Royalty is usually only one power point, balanced by others in older civ's.

Multiple poles means that they have to consider each other before they do anything stupid.


I'm not sure it's true, haven't done the reserch, but if so, it's not a bad idea at all.
Points at World History. It has been proven over 4,000 years to be a very bad idea.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
So what you are saying the position is useless. So get rid of the Royalty since they are clearly not needed. If a Parliment and a Prime Minister can do the bulk of the job. Thank you very much for proving the uselessness of Royals.

I am not saying that position is useless, I am saying that political structures of any society are far more complex than people tend to assume, and that monarchy especially cannot be reduced to "just monarch" in a way that you seem to prefer.

I mean, if monarch is useless because of what I had described, then democratic government's parliament and government and courts are also useless, parliamentary monarchy is useless by default, in fact, every government is useless according to your standards so why do we have it?

Points at World History. It has been proven over 4,000 years to be a very bad idea.

Just like democracy, then. Especially since for majority of history monarchies actually outperformed republican / democratic style governments in most aspects.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
I am not saying that position is useless, I am saying that political structures of any society are far more complex than people tend to assume, and that monarchy especially cannot be reduced to "just monarch" in a way that you seem to prefer.

I mean, if monarch is useless because of what I had described, then democratic government's parliament and government and courts are also useless, parliamentary monarchy is useless by default, in fact, every government is useless according to your standards so why do we have it?



Just like democracy, then. Especially since for majority of history monarchies actually outperformed republican / democratic style governments in most aspects.
Our rapid technological advances have only happened because of Republics. Not Monarchies. They had 4,000 years and they best they could do was Horse and wagon. Giving a Republic just 68 years and Man walked on the moon. The proof is in the pudding. Republics are better advancement of our species. Monarchs only want the Status quo that benefits only other Royals.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Our rapid technological advances have only happened because of Republics. Not Monarchies. They had 4,000 years and they best they could do was Horse and wagon. Giving a Republic just 68 years and Man walked on the moon. The proof is in the pudding. Republics are better advancement of our species. Monarchs only want the Status quo that benefits only other Royals.

Nonsense.

German Empire was the technological leader of Europe in late 19th century. Britain and Germany were about equal in industrialization, and both were far ahead of the republican France.
Russia began to modernize under the Tsars. Then the World War I came, and caused a revolution - first a democratic one and then the Communist one, which set back its development some decades.
During medieval times, republics were no more advanced than monarchies. They were richer on average, but that was the cause of them being the republics, not the consequence - basically, a strong trading class led to establishment of oligarchic republic.

Railway-maps-of-Europe-1850-1890-and-1890-1930.ppm


So all and all, you have it inverted. Technological advance is the cause, not the consequence, of development of republics.

Also, technological development is exponential. Our rapid technological advances are a consequence of old technological advances, not of the political system. Whether we have had republics for the entirety of history or monarchies for the entirety of history, nothing will have changed.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Our rapid technological advances have only happened because of Republics. Not Monarchies. They had 4,000 years and they best they could do was Horse and wagon. Giving a Republic just 68 years and Man walked on the moon. The proof is in the pudding. Republics are better advancement of our species. Monarchs only want the Status quo that benefits only other Royals.

The Industrial Revolution was literally born in the United Kingdom.

The German Empire had a literal avalanche of nobel prizes in practically everything.

You aren't sending your best, Republican. And I don't even think that model of government is bad in of itself.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
Nonsense.

German Empire was the technological leader of Europe in late 19th century. Britain and Germany were about equal in industrialization, and both were far ahead of the republican France.
Russia began to modernize under the Tsars. Then the World War I came, and caused a revolution - first a democratic one and then the Communist one, which set back its development some decades.
During medieval times, republics were no more advanced than monarchies. They were richer on average, but that was the cause of them being the republics, not the consequence - basically, a strong trading class led to establishment of oligarchic republic.

Railway-maps-of-Europe-1850-1890-and-1890-1930.ppm


So all and all, you have it inverted. Technological advance is the cause, not the consequence, of development of republics.

Also, technological development is exponential. Our rapid technological advances are a consequence of old technological advances, not of the political system. Whether we have had republics for the entirety of history or monarchies for the entirety of history, nothing will have changed.
The Industrial Revolution was literally born in the United Kingdom.

The German Empire had a literal avalanche of nobel prizes in practically everything.

You aren't sending your best, Republican. And I don't even think that model of government is bad in of itself.
We would have had a Starbase around Alpha Centauri by now if Monarchies did not fubar all attempts for advancement in the Middle Ages. If you weren't Royal in that time period your ideas were ignored.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
We would have had a Starbase around Alpha Centauri by now if Monarchies did not fubar all attempts for advancement in the Middle Ages. If you weren't Royal in that time period your ideas were ignored.

They fubared nothing. Society in general and Europe in particular advanced about as quickly as it could. In fact, medieval European monarchies advanced far more quickly in both technological and social terms than Roman Republic did - in large part because feudalism removed most of the slave-based workforce and thus forced advancement.

As for "If you weren't Royal in that time period your ideas were ignored", that is bullshit. Or rather, it was true to an extent - but it had nothing to do with monarchies and everything to do with printing press not having been invented yet. Without print, ideas simply couldn't spread quickly.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
They fubared nothing. Society in general and Europe in particular advanced about as quickly as it could. In fact, medieval European monarchies advanced far more quickly in both technological and social terms than Roman Republic did - in large part because feudalism removed most of the slave-based workforce and thus forced advancement.

As for "If you weren't Royal in that time period your ideas were ignored", that is bullshit. Or rather, it was true to an extent - but it had nothing to do with monarchies and everything to do with printing press not having been invented yet. Without print, ideas simply couldn't spread quickly.
Bullshit. In China, India and the Arab World they were way in advance of Europe at the time and were using Knowledge that was lost to Europe as a whole. The fact that Middle Age Europe had to learn about Gunpowder via an invasion is telling. When comparing them to other Eurasian powers.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
in large part because feudalism removed most of the slave-based workforce and thus forced advancement.
...What the fuck do you think peasants were? The class system of Feudalism arose specifically from expanding forced labor to higher skilled jobs so that the instability of the last days of the Western Roman Empire wouldn't topple it as quickly by forcing families to stick to their professions so required labor pools would not convulse to pieces.

The hands-off policy trend was simple necessity of not being able to micromanage, as well demonstrated by the Absolute Monarchs cropping up damned near instantly when management methodology advanced enough to actually have a centralized state. Russia was the only remotely major exception of Europe itself, and we all know where that went in the 1910s.

Feudalism is a fundamentally nepotistic and elitist system. The entire premise of it is enforcing social stratification by bloodlines. Innovation came from the people dealing with trade, not the people gathering taxes. The governmental system merely handled common defense, it did nothing to actively promote advancement.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top