Tolkien's Ideal of Monarchy

[Navarro]

Which is why there is really only ever either monarchy or plutocratic oligarchy with aristocracy and democracy as speed bumps along the way to one or the other.

Either there is someone who doesn't need the merchant's money to purchase the authoritas and gravitas to back and legitimate his potentia, or there isn't.

So ... Mad-Maxian raider warlords are the epitome of governmental structure and everything else is just various steps in a process of degeneration? Because anything above that point, you need money to make the functions of government and the military work.

 

[Aldarion]

Which is why there is really only ever either monarchy or plutocratic oligarchy with aristocracy and democracy as speed bumps along the way to one or the other.

Either there is someone who doesn't need the merchant's money to purchase the authoritas and gravitas to back and legitimate his potentia, or there isn't.

That is true. But it is also true that humans are not only evil but stupid as well. If you have one person - or even (or perhaps especially) a group of people holding near-absolute power, you will either have them killing millions through evil, or through stupidity. But the ultimate outcome is always the same.

 

[Navarro]

But it is also true that humans are not only evil but stupid as well. If you have one person - or even (or perhaps especially) a group of people holding near-absolute power, you will either have them killing millions through evil, or through stupidity. But the ultimate outcome is always the same.

It's worse than that - giving people unlimited power makes them more stupid and evil than they would have otherwise been. When all the consequences of your mistakes happen to other people ...

 

[DocSolarisReich]

That is true. But it is also true that humans are not only evil but stupid as well. If you have one person - or even (or perhaps especially) a group of people holding near-absolute power, you will either have them killing millions through evil, or through stupidity. But the ultimate outcome is always the same.

Human life is tragic and fallen, this is why we are reactionaries; building utopia just means piling bodies for a lie instead of for the truth; because life requires killing.

“In the whole vast dome of living nature there reigns an open violence. A kind of prescriptive fury which arms all the creatures to their common doom: as soon as you leave the inanimate kingdom you find the decree of violent death inscribed on the very frontiers of life. You feel it already in the vegetable kingdom: from the great catalpa to the humblest herb, how many plants die and how many are killed; but, from the moment you enter the animal kingdom, this law is suddenly in the most dreadful evidence. A Power, a violence, at once hidden and palpable. . . has in each species appointed a certain number of animals to devour the others. . . And who [in this general carnage] exterminates him who will exterminate all others? Himself. It is man who is charged with the slaughter of man. . . The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until evil is extinct, until the death of death.” ~Joseph de Maistre

 

[Navarro]

Human life is tragic and fallen, this is why we are reactionaries; building utopia just means piling bodies for a lie instead of for the truth; because life requires killing.

“In the whole vast dome of living nature there reigns an open violence. A kind of prescriptive fury which arms all the creatures to their common doom: as soon as you leave the inanimate kingdom you find the decree of violent death inscribed on the very frontiers of life. You feel it already in the vegetable kingdom: from the great catalpa to the humblest herb, how many plants die and how many are killed; but, from the moment you enter the animal kingdom, this law is suddenly in the most dreadful evidence. A Power, a violence, at once hidden and palpable. . . has in each species appointed a certain number of animals to devour the others. . . And who [in this general carnage] exterminates him who will exterminate all others? Himself. It is man who is charged with the slaughter of man. . . The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until evil is extinct, until the death of death.” ~Joseph de Maistre

So Mad-Max social Darwinist warlordism is the ideal form of government according to you. Thanks for clarifying!

 

[Lord Sovereign]

When it comes to larger and more powerful states, the best you will get is something akin to the Roman Principate and Britain's Parliamentary Monarchy in the early 18th century. Both of those, whilst powerful, did have constitutional limits and had to make nice with the lower houses of government.

So Mad-Max social Darwinist warlordism is the ideal form of government according to you. Thanks for clarifying!

It's ideal for a proto-empire with an organised military to stomp into the ground, but not much else. The Celts were a far more sophisticated culture than anything from Mad Max, and they didn't stand a damn chance against the Romans.

 

[Navarro]

When it comes to larger and more powerful states, the best you will get is something akin to the Roman Principate and Britain's Parliamentary Monarchy in the early 18th century. Both of those, whilst powerful, did have constitutional limits and had to make nice with the lower houses of government.

The Principate is quite an interesting case. You see, the Empire's fatal flaw was that there was no system of succession to the Emperorship, so each incoming Emperor lacked legitimacy. In that sense Augustus didn't end the late Republic's problems so much as temporarily put a lid on them.

And because each incoming Emperor lacked inherent legitimacy, he needed to bribe the Legions with an awful lot of money so they didn't revolt, starting as early as Nero (and occasionally this wasn't enough and they did revolt). Not to mention the civil wars this caused between competing claimants (because again - no formalised succession and hence no legitimacy. Anybody can be Emperor with a big enough army at his back).

This led to progressive debasement and hyperinflation of the currency which began the whole downward spiral of the Empire. So in that sense, Roman history shows the inherent limitations of politics based on pure force. You can get power at gun-point or sword-point ... but that alone won't bring you legitimacy. And without legitimacy, your position as head honcho lacks any sort of security.

It's ideal for a proto-empire with an organised military to stomp into the ground, but not much else. The Celts were a far more sophisticated culture than anything from Mad Max, and they didn't stand a damn chance against the Romans.

But ya see, Robert E. Howard wrote some fun adventure stories so barbs must always inevitably win in the end ....

 

[Lord Sovereign]

But ya see, Robert E. Howard wrote some fun adventure stories so barbs must always inevitably win in the end ....

Conan the Barbarian is awesome but the idea that civilised society is weak is just preposterous. I know I bring them up a lot, but the Romans were hardly weak. A culture that advocates falling on your sword to atone for defeat, where "basic training" is the First Centurion beating you with his stick whilst he laughs, is not for the faint of heart.

Hell, the Spartans were hardly effete pansies, were they?

 

[Navarro]

Conan the Barbarian is awesome but the idea that civilised society is weak is just preposterous. I know I bring them up a lot, but the Romans were hardly weak. A culture that advocates falling on your sword to atone for defeat, where "basic training" is the First Centurion beating you with his stick whilst he laughs, is not for the faint of heart.

Most of the time when civilised societies fight barbs, the barbs lose hard (this extends into the modern era). We just remember the barbarians who won because they stand out so much, and not the countless chieftains and warlords who failed before them. BTW, added some stuff about Rome to my earlier post.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Most of the time when civilised societies fight barbs, the barbs lose hard (this extends into the modern era). We just remember the barbarians who won because they stand out so much, and not the countless chieftains and warlords who failed before them.

And the ones who won didn't tend to win for long. Arminius was helpless to stop Germanicus going on his drive by through Germany.

BTW, added some stuff about Rome to my earlier post.

You're dead on with your assessment. Ironically adopting a more hereditary system (whilst empowering the senate) might have helped a little here, at least in terms of succession crises. Then again, if Augustus had tried that then the Roman public may have run around screaming "King, he wants to be King! Get rid of him!!!"

 

[Navarro]

You're dead on with your assessment. Ironically adopting a more hereditary system (whilst empowering the senate) might have helped a little here, at least in terms of succession crises. Then again, if Augustus had tried that then the Roman public may have run around screaming "King, he wants to be King! Get rid of him!!!"

Problem was that in the West you had a Republican system and well-established tradition as you've noted but in the East it was a mix of republics and monarchies. For instance, Augustus controlled Egypt (and its strategically-important grain supply) because he was Pharaoh of Egypt as one of his many titles.

So he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. A settlement on succession Augustus made for the West would have cost him the East and vice versa. The only options I can see to mollify both sides are to either immediately split the Empire into republican West and monarchical East immediately, or invent the US election system 1776 years or so early.

Which might not be possible with the technology at hand over such a large area, so splitting the Empire it is.

 

[Navarro]

And the ones who won didn't tend to win for long. Arminius was helpless to stop Germanicus going on his drive by through Germany.

Yep. People remember Teutoburger Wald because it was pretty much the only time barbs won a battle against Romans in that period, they don't remember Germanicus less than a decade later because it was just more Romans whupping barbs left right and centre.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

they don't remember Germanicus less than a decade later because it was just more Romans whupping barbs left right and centre.

Filthy fucking germs got taught their place on the pecking order. Germanicus would have asserted total chad dominance over them (indeed, it's a tragedy he didn't become Emperor) if Tiberius wasn't such a pansy.

 

[Navarro]

It's ideal for a proto-empire with an organised military to stomp into the ground, but not much else. The Celts were a far more sophisticated culture than anything from Mad Max, and they didn't stand a damn chance against the Romans.

Not to mention the insanity of "since killing and war are impossible to get rid of, we should have as much as possible and think of the bellum omnium contra omnes as a good thing". Which is flatly delusional. And Tolkien has something to say to that:

“War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

(Faramir was basically Tolkien's self-insert).

Conan the Barbarian is awesome but the idea that civilised society is weak is just preposterous. I know I bring them up a lot, but the Romans were hardly weak.

Also, the "King Conan" stories are about Conan's rule over Aquilonia being subject to constant conspiracies and rebellions because while force brought him power, it failed to give him any kind of legitimacy. So "Doc" hasn't actually paid attention to Howard, who was far more astute in such matters.

 

[Aldarion]

When it comes to larger and more powerful states, the best you will get is something akin to the Roman Principate and Britain's Parliamentary Monarchy in the early 18th century. Both of those, whilst powerful, did have constitutional limits and had to make nice with the lower houses of government.



It's ideal for a proto-empire with an organised military to stomp into the ground, but not much else. The Celts were a far more sophisticated culture than anything from Mad Max, and they didn't stand a damn chance against the Romans.

Actually, the best is the Roman Republic: it was highly politically localized (colonia and municipia had more rights than "sovereign" states in the European Union), but had unified foreign policy, and thus combined the best of both worlds: freedom, adaptiveness and internal resillience of political localization / subsidiarity; and power and external resillience of a unified state. Holy Roman Empire (or, rather, Eastern Francia) was also very similar, though how well the system worked varied by the century...

 

[Navarro]

Actually, the best is the Roman Republic: it was highly politically localized (colonia and municipia had more rights than "sovereign" states in the European Union), but had unified foreign policy, and thus combined the best of both worlds: freedom, adaptiveness and internal resillience of political localization / subsidiarity; and power and external resillience of a unified state. Holy Roman Empire (or, rather, Eastern Francia) was also very similar, though how well the system worked varied by the century...

It had a critical flaw in its constitution though - a General was just a Senator on campaign, no distinction between civilian and military spheres of authority. Which was acceptable until they had the bright idea of raising armies against their rivals in the Senate ...

The HRE was just a mess created by idiotic succession laws (GAVELKIND HO) which was much like any medieval European kingdom up until the point where it failed to do what every other one of them did and cohere together in the late medieval era.

 

[Aaron Fox]

The statistics in the sources I've provided used the Fortune 500 as its standard, thus figures like the 10-12% average exit rate from those specific sources are based on those specific businesses.

The US Government's definition of small business per the CDC and SBA are as follows:

• Is organized for profit
• Has a place of business in the United States (U.S.)
• Operates primarily within the U.S. or makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment
  of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor
• Is independently owned and operated
• Is not dominant in its field on a national basis
• May be a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, or any other legal form

Sure would be nice if you sourced that. I've already mentioned how big businesses often use things like Eminent Domain to have the government seize small businesses. Castle Coalition is a good source for just how much abuse of Eminent Domain goes on to support large developers at the cost of small businesses. They also get the lion's share of government subsidies.

As far as taxes the average small business (Per the SBA) pays 19-20%. Meanwhile of Fortune 500 companies, 379 of them paid an average of 11%, and 91 paid nothing at all, with 18 multi-billion dollar companies getting more in tax rebates than they paid for some steep subsidies.

Hmm, that's odd because one of the more regular definitions that I've seen is that 'big business' is simply more than 1k personnel or rather significant physical assets... but mostly the 1k personnel.

 

[Aldarion]

The HRE was just a mess created by idiotic succession laws (GAVELKIND HO) which was much like any medieval European kingdom up until the point where it failed to do what every other one of them did and cohere together in the late medieval era.

With HRE I might agree, but East Francia was a very, very different beast, since it was created before the process of feudalization happened in the earnest.

Stem duchy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Herzogtum – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

 

[Navarro]

You're dead on with your assessment.

It gets better/worse than I noted at first. Not only did Roman Emperors so lack legitimacy that they had to bribe the army not to revolt, they frequently had to bribe their own bodyguards not to murder them. Which goes to show the ultimate conclusion of basing all political power on brute force.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Human life is tragic and fallen, this is why we are reactionaries; building utopia just means piling bodies for a lie instead of for the truth; because life requires killing.

you know everyone says that until they are the chosen to be killed then they go "Wait I take it back!" by then it's too late as thier brain and skull matter spill into the ground.