why are ''age of enlightment'' republics dangerous?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzer

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

---

Wiz,
For all your cherry-picked anecdotes about who screwed up & who was supposedly a good guy, or which societies were better or worse off under which regime, I still haven't seen an argument supporting your contention that we SHOULD be under monarchistic rule. Could be is not should be.

---

You haven't made your arguments either. I suppose I could say that the Soviet Republic leaders has killed 50-100 times more people than every Russian "Tsar" put together. The French is in it's 5th republic because the previous one's were so corrupt they begged for their monarchs to rule again. The fact that most "age of enlightenment" republics at the start of their existance usually go sour within 30 years. I don't really know how to argue my point that could be up to your standing. Oh well.

I've got some questions for you guys. Please answer.
1. A good and wise monarch or a corrupt, evil democratically elected leader?
2. Do you truly believe that a consititution guarantees freedoms/rights?
3. If monarchies are so oppressive, why have they stood the test of time for about 6000 years and "Age of enlightenment" republics have only stood for less than 250 years?
4. Why are coup D'etats still more common in a republic than in monarchies?
5. Why don't you guys realise that "Age of Enlightenment" republican governments wield far more power than any Medieval monarch?
6. Did you know that classical republics had "Monarchs?"

---

I don't really need to make an argument because I'm not making the claim. All I have to do is shoot holes in yours. But let's go ahead & check out your questions.

1) Good & wise monarchs are few & far between. Everybody dies. "Good & wise" isn't genetic. I'll take the corrupt elected official because they can be gotten rid of as long as the republic is intact. The worst that can happen is autocracy, & that's what you're advocating in the first place.

2) No. People guarantee their own rights & freedoms. What a constitution does is recognize them in writing so everybody knows what's what. Rights aren't granted, & can't be rescinded. They're either recognized or violated.

3) 6000 years is a bit of a stretch. Maybe you can make the claim that monarchies were scattered around here & there back then, but now you're dipping back into the time when the king was just sitting around waiting for the drought or the flood so he could become the human sacrifice. I'm thinking that the "wise monarch" is just the one who tried to get by with a simple bloodletting & got lucky when the rains came, or stopped. The reality is that we don't know the social structure of the ancients, & most of our "understandings" are merely assumptions based on later European or Eurocentric models that we do know. We tend to project these same models on people all over the world. It's not necessarily true. Human society goes back a lot longer than 6000 years, with no evidence of monarchy. Native American culture was republican throughout north America, with representation chosen by acclimation. Down souththere were empires (Aztec, Mayan, Incan), but I've never seen evidence that rule was passed down from father to son.

4) They aren't. Most coup D'etats overthrow an autocrat, not a republic. But let's assume that you're correct by the numbers. The reason would be that there just aren't very many monarchies left.

5) So? Medieval times are long past & gone. The feudal system sucked & stifled social & economic progress for centuries. Nobody wants to go back to that crap. Well, except you maybe. Wielding power isn't the issue. Under a meritocracy, there are opportunities to climb out of serfdom without committing murder. Those opportunities are non-existent under a feudal caste system.

6) You're going to have to give some more details on that one, like maybe a definition, a time line, etc... You're already all over the place. Narrow it down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzer

Why are ''age of enlightment'' republics dangerous?
I have 3 reasons:

1. They don't reflect the 'natural law.'

2. They claim to be egalitarian but 'republican leaders' are anything but.

3. Look at the history of the ''age of enlightment'' republics. So much more bloody and opressive than the great monarchies of old ( and yet people still believe in the theory)

What do you guys think?

---

Hey Wiz, why don't we just reject both the tyranny of the masses, and the tyranny of the crown?

Maybe you could add up body count for "bloodier" but how exactly did you calculate "oppressive"? The difference in technology and I would say fiat money systems is not a moot point IMO, so I don't think a straight body count proves anything.

I also reject all non-monarchy political/economic systems being lumped together, as if Socialist, Communist, fascist, Capitalist, and Democratic etc. Republics are equally bloody and oppressive.

Im not sure I understand about "republics" being against Natural Law. Have you read any Thoreau, Spooner, Tucker, Rothbard, etc.? Seems to me that political/economic systems that spring from indivualism are compatible with Natural Law.

Also Individualism leads away from Statism, not towards it. The progression would be something like this: Individualism-> Pure Democracy->Representative Republic->Minarchism->Anarchy. Maybe even skip the pure democracy, but you get the point (I hope).

Collectivism leads the other way towards a large state and authoritarianism and/or socialism.

You may be right that individualism might weaken the bonds of family/tribalism, but there is no reason that if you take individualism to its logical conclusion of anarchy that the family/tribe/community still wouldn't be an important force in society. Anarchy, well at least free-market anarchy, favors peaceful interaction and co-operation between peoples. Maybe your idea of individualism is every man for himself, running around in the woods trying to scape by, but that is not the case. Well you said it leads to statism, so maybe you stopped at the first stage of individualism, but that is not the logical conclusion. There is such a thing as Socialist Anarchy, maybe thats what you are talking about, although it always seemed like an oxymoron to me, and it certainly has less proponents than market anarchy. And besides Socialist Anarchy is still stateless, so that doesn't lead to Statism either.

Actually there are a lot of forms (and sub forms) of government and there is no reason that any form cannot morph into any other form given enough time or a revolution, coup, etc. That being said, I think you are arguing a lost cause as I don't see Monarchy making up much lost ground.

I would say our own country started more as Minarchy/Libertarian and has been heading towards some collectivist form ever since.

god i hate having insomnia :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PapaGrande

I also reject all non-monarchy political/economic systems being lumped together, as if Socialist, Communist, fascist, Capitalist, and Democratic etc. Republics are equally bloody and oppressive.

Im not sure I understand about "republics" being against Natural Law. Have you read any Thoreau, Spooner, Tucker, Rothbard, etc.? Seems to me that political/economic systems that spring from indivualism are compatible with Natural Law.

Also Individualism leads away from Statism, not towards it. The progression would be something like this: Individualism-> Pure Democracy->Representative Republic->Minarchism->Anarchy. Maybe even skip the pure democracy, but you get the point (I hope).

Collectivism leads the other way towards a large state and authoritarianism and/or socialism.

---

I have to disagree. We're always collective. We're social critters & without the collective, we don't even survive as a species let alone progress to where we are today.

I'm not talking about Marxism. Marx was a crackpot like most philosophers, economists, & other would be claire voyants that insist on overanalyzing the past. For some silly reason, we seem to insist on defining all of our terminology by someone's book, or worse, by somebody else's misinterpretation of that book. It really doesn't work that way.

As far as I'm concerned, you're either a socialist or a hermit. Whatever you want to call it & regardless of how detailed you want to get, it all comes down to pooling our resources to accomplish things we can't do on our own. Even capitalism (a fairly recent social phenominon) is nothing but privatized socialism with a narrowed purpose & scope. We've never been non-collective & neither has anyone else. The purpose of our republic is to:

Quote:

---

establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

---

That's the natural order. Justice just means that nobody gets to be a total asshole with impunity (something lost in a monarchy). Domestic Tranquility is just everybody getting along without a bunch of hassle. The common defense is everybody standing up to protect the collective. We promote the general Welfare by providing infrastructure, easing suffering, & generally making life a little better for everybody. All this is promoted by the mindset of individual Liberty because that's what makes us appreciate the rest of it & eases the tension of our survival instinct. It's all about making things easier & better for our Posterity because, well, because propagation is the other instinct. We're social critters.

I see no conflict between collectivism & individualism. Anarchy isn't the absense of rules. Just the absense of rulers. Common sense & the golden rule become the king. What else do you need? Everything else is just arbitrary nonsense foist upon the collective by those who seek ablolute power. Who needs them? I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself thankyouverymuch.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

---

I don't really need to make an argument because I'm not making the claim. All I have to do is shoot holes in yours. But let's go ahead & check out your questions.

---

Doesn't matter. You can still provide you can still make a claim and an argument for your theories. Oh you're afraid that I might blow up your theories, right!

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

---

1) Good & wise monarchs are few & far between. Everybody dies. "Good & wise" isn't genetic. I'll take the corrupt elected official because they can be gotten rid of as long as the republic is intact. The worst that can happen is autocracy, & that's what you're advocating in the first place.

---

This only proves you know sweet JS about history or modern regimes. Not every monarchy in the past or present is/was autocratic. Learn some history ( A good place to start would be Somalia. )

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

---

2) No. People guarantee their own rights & freedoms. What a constitution does is recognize them in writing so everybody knows what's what. Rights aren't granted, & can't be rescinded. They're either recognized or violated.

---

Yet so many people forget this.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

---

3) 6000 years is a bit of a stretch. Maybe you can make the claim that monarchies were scattered around here & there back then, but now you're dipping back into the time when the king was just sitting around waiting for the drought or the flood so he could become the human sacrifice. I'm thinking that the "wise monarch" is just the one who tried to get by with a simple bloodletting & got lucky when the rains came, or stopped. The reality is that we don't know the social structure of the ancients, & most of our "understandings" are merely assumptions based on later European or Eurocentric models that we do know. We tend to project these same models on people all over the world. It's not necessarily true. Human society goes back a lot longer than 6000 years, with no evidence of monarchy. Native American culture was republican throughout north America, with representation chosen by acclimation. Down souththere were empires (Aztec, Mayan, Incan), but I've never seen evidence that rule was passed down from father to son.

---

Where to begin with this answer?
- Most monarchs commanded their armed forces. So bang goes the "human sacrifice" theory.
- Our understanding of ancient cultures and civilisation comes from observation of many things including tribal cultures around the world and guess what, the social structure in most of those cultures around the world were relatively the same. Hierachal and monarchal ( from monarch to son.) There were very few exceptions. With this it is assumed by most scientists that "monarchy" evolved from simple tribal chieftaincies and family inheritance. Not from religious needs. Bang goes the "human sacrifice" again.
- True enough human societies have existed way before 6000 years. Still have "age of enlightenment" republics lasted as long as "monarchy." No!
- Most North Native American tribes and cultures were not republican at all. Some allowed for the elders to chose their chiefs, but that doesn't make it republican.
- The Aztec, Mayan, Incan etc was passed down father to son, but there were councils to decied which son would inherit the title.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

---

4) They aren't. Most coup D'etats overthrow an autocrat, not a republic. But let's assume that you're correct by the numbers. The reason would be that there just aren't very many monarchies left.

---

An autocrat can be monarch or republican leader. As for the last part I'll give you that part. Again look at 20th century history.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

---

5) So? Medieval times are long past & gone. The feudal system sucked & stifled social & economic progress for centuries. Nobody wants to go back to that crap. Well, except you maybe. Wielding power isn't the issue. Under a meritocracy, there are opportunities to climb out of serfdom without committing murder. Those opportunities are non-existent under a feudal caste system.

---

My God!! you know JS about the medieval times but I can't blame you really. Most people don't. Try looking up on these website for more info
http://romanchristendom.blogspot.com/
http://distributism.blogspot.com/
http://distributist.blogspot.com/
http://www.distributistleague.blogspot.com/

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

---

6) You're going to have to give some more details on that one, like maybe a definition, a time line, etc... You're already all over the place. Narrow it down.

---

If you'd done some research you would know some classical republics of the past and present but I forgot you don't research the past. Try researching the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

PapaGrande Wrote:

Quote:

---

Hey Wiz, why don't we just reject both the tyranny of the masses, and the tyranny of the crown?

---

Of course, I reject both but I also reject the propoganda that all monarchies are tyrannical and everything "the people" does and say is the moral way to go.

PapaGrande Wrote:

Quote:

---

Maybe you could add up body count for "bloodier" but how exactly did you calculate "oppressive"? The difference in technology and I would say fiat money systems is not a moot point IMO, so I don't think a straight body count proves anything.

---

Of course I'm not saying only body count equals oppression. However the use and level of technology does. The truth of the matter is that ancient regimes could only dream of the technological marvels we have today. To say what you have just said, is to compare Ivan the terrible's Russia with Stalin's Russia. Do you honestly think that Stalin could have oppressed and killed so many people with medieval technology.

PapaGrande Wrote:

Quote:

---

I also reject all non-monarchy political/economic systems being lumped together, as if Socialist, Communist, fascist, Capitalist, and Democratic etc. Republics are equally bloody and oppressive.

---

Fair enough, I agree to a certain extent. By republics I mean the "age of enlightenment" theory that there should be no monarchs whatsoever.

PapaGrande Wrote:

Quote:

---

Im not sure I understand about "republics" being against Natural Law. Have you read any Thoreau, Spooner, Tucker, Rothbard, etc.? Seems to me that political/economic systems that spring from indivualism are compatible with Natural Law.

---

Yes i have read some of their works. They are some of the most vile things I have ever read. The problem with individualism is it puts to much emphasis on natural law. Go on to this website for more info and read John Medaille comments.
http://distributism.blogspot.com/200...-to-steal.html

PapaGrande Wrote:

Quote:

---

Also Individualism leads away from Statism, not towards it. The progression would be something like this: Individualism-> Pure Democracy->Representative Republic->Minarchism->Anarchy. Maybe even skip the pure democracy, but you get the point (I hope).

---

I get your point but go on to this website for more info and read John Medaille comments.
http://distributism.blogspot.com/200...-to-steal.html

PapaGrande Wrote:

Quote:

---

Collectivism leads the other way towards a large state and authoritarianism and/or socialism.

---

Yes, but this can be misleading. As technology advances, so too the state increases it's influence and power because the state can access the technology and use it. Examples: CCTV cameras, modern warfare weaponry, standing armies etc.

PapaGrande Wrote:

Quote:

---

You may be right that individualism might weaken the bonds of family/tribalism, but there is no reason that if you take individualism to its logical conclusion of anarchy that the family/tribe/community still wouldn't be an important force in society. Anarchy, well at least free-market anarchy, favors peaceful interaction and co-operation between peoples. Maybe your idea of individualism is every man for himself, running around in the woods trying to scape by, but that is not the case. Well you said it leads to statism, so maybe you stopped at the first stage of individualism, but that is not the logical conclusion. There is such a thing as Socialist Anarchy, maybe thats what you are talking about, although it always seemed like an oxymoron to me, and it certainly has less proponents than market anarchy. And besides Socialist Anarchy is still stateless, so that doesn't lead to Statism either.

---

Any form of anarchy is foolishness and utopian. None of which has ever existed in the past or can ever happpen. Be it anarcho-capitalism (right-wing libertarianism) or anacho-socialism (left-wing libertarianism or what communism was meant to be alledgedly.) The things I advocate at least have some historical reference and are not or ever will be utopian.
Go on to this website for more info and read John Medaille comments.
http://distributism.blogspot.com/200...-to-steal.html

PapaGrande Wrote:

Quote:

---

Actually there are a lot of forms (and sub forms) of government and there is no reason that any form cannot morph into any other form given enough time or a revolution, coup, etc. That being said, I think you are arguing a lost cause as I don't see Monarchy making up much lost ground.

---

True about the first part. The second part will be difficult because of the enlightenment propoganda which exists today but monarchists around the world are growing slowly and surely.

PapaGrande Wrote:

Quote:

---

I would say our own country started more as Minarchy/Libertarian and has been heading towards some collectivist form ever since.

---

No, America started out from revolting against it's rightful king to be lead by a bunch of freemason, slave owning, uber-capitalist scum!

PapaGrande Wrote:

Quote:

---

god i hate having insomnia

---

I feel sorry for you. I've had insomnia. It feels like your mind is melting. Have you been to see a doctor?
Thanks for your input "PapaGrande"

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

---

PapaGrande wrote:
I also reject all non-monarchy political/economic systems being lumped together, as if Socialist, Communist, fascist, Capitalist, and Democratic etc. Republics are equally bloody and oppressive.

Im not sure I understand about "republics" being against Natural Law. Have you read any Thoreau, Spooner, Tucker, Rothbard, etc.? Seems to me that political/economic systems that spring from indivualism are compatible with Natural Law.

Also Individualism leads away from Statism, not towards it. The progression would be something like this: Individualism-> Pure Democracy->Representative Republic->Minarchism->Anarchy. Maybe even skip the pure democracy, but you get the point (I hope).

Collectivism leads the other way towards a large state and authoritarianism and/or socialism

hippifried wrote
I have to disagree. We're always collective. We're social critters & without the collective, we don't even survive as a species let alone progress to where we are today.

---

True enough, humans are a social animal. However what is "the collective."

hippifried wrote

Quote:

---

I'm not talking about Marxism. Marx was a crackpot like most philosophers, economists, & other would be claire voyants that insist on overanalyzing the past.

---

True enough, but he was right about some of the things he said about capitalism. Those who don't know the past will only repeat the mistake of the past in the future.

hippifried wrote

Quote:

---

As far as I'm concerned, you're either a socialist or a hermit. Whatever you want to call it & regardless of how detailed you want to get, it all comes down to pooling our resources to accomplish things we can't do on our own. Even capitalism (a fairly recent social phenominon) is nothing but privatized socialism with a narrowed purpose & scope.

---

I'm a monarchist and distributist. I reject most of these false ideologies that the age of enlightenment has brought upon us: Communism, Capitalism, Libertarianism, Feminism etc.

hippifried wrote

Quote:

---

Quote:
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

That's the natural order. Justice just means that nobody gets to be a total asshole with impunity (something lost in a monarchy). Domestic Tranquility is just everybody getting along without a bunch of hassle. The common defense is everybody standing up to protect the collective. We promote the general Welfare by providing infrastructure, easing suffering, & generally making life a little better for everybody. All this is promoted by the mindset of individual Liberty because that's what makes us appreciate the rest of it & eases the tension of our survival instinct. It's all about making things easier & better for our Posterity because, well, because propagation is the other instinct. We're social critters.

---

This can happen in a "Monarchy" as well. Oh right I forgot you don't learn from history dont you.

hippifried wrote

Quote:

---

I see no conflict between collectivism & individualism. Anarchy isn't the absense of rules. Just the absense of rulers. Common sense & the golden rule become the king. What else do you need? Everything else is just arbitrary nonsense foist upon the collective by those who seek ablolute power. Who needs them? I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself thankyouverymuch.

---

Yet again, history proves you wrong!!! It is nothing more than Left-wing Libertarian utopian propoganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzer

You can still provide you can still make a claim and an argument for your theories. Oh you're afraid that I might blow up your theories, right!

---

I just did, & no you're not right.

Quote:

---

Not every monarchy in the past or present is/was autocratic.

---

Huh??? Where? A monarchy is rule by a single head of state who's power is inherited through bloodline. It's autocracy by definition. The only monarchies left in the world are in the middle east, Brunei, maybe the Zulus, & a couple of one town principalities still clinging to the past in Europe. Everybody else is either living under some other form of autocracy or a republic, with the only exceptions being those stuck in the chaos of war. So who are you talking about?

Quote:

---

- Most monarchs commanded their armed forces. So bang goes the "human sacrifice" theory.

---

Now you're trying to muddy the timeline. Armies are a tool for or a reaction to conquest. Conquest can be directly attributed to the mindset that stems from the invention of monarchy. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Quote:

---

- Our understanding of ancient cultures and civilisation comes from observation of many things including tribal cultures around the world and guess what, the social structure in most of those cultures around the world were relatively the same. Hierachal and monarchal ( from monarch to son.) There were very few exceptions. With this it is assumed by most scientists that "monarchy" evolved from simple tribal chieftaincies and family inheritance. Not from religious needs. Bang goes the "human sacrifice" again.

---

Our understanding? Your's maybe & you're wrong again. I assume you're talking about primitive cultures. Nationalism is just tribalism with a bigger population. Heirarchal yes, but the reality is that most of them are & have been meritocracies, & that dates back to before the discovery of paternity. People will voluntarily defer to those they feel are more qualified, but a monarchy isn't based on qualification.

You're also projecting modern ideas of private property ownership on the ancients. There's no evidence that any such concepts existed prior to their inseption as a justification for the theft of resources & bondage of people.

There's always been shamen because ignorance begets superstition. Healers & spiritualists have always commanded a certain reverence via their willingness to attempt an explanation for mysterious events. Sacrifice followed the transition from hunter/gatherer to farmer/pastor. Animal & human sacrifice are the common denominator in all cultures that evolved into monarchies without being conquered into it. The sacrifice doesn't always work & that can create a backlash against the shaman who convinced everybody it would. If he cuts a deal with the chosen one to gain power, they can both live for another day. Royalty have always been considered a divinity of sorts. That's how they got away with it for so long. Education of the masses ends the superstition.

Quote:

---

- True enough human societies have existed way before 6000 years. Still have "age of enlightenment" republics lasted as long as "monarchy." No!

---

That still remains to be seen. Monarchies don't seem to be holding up all that well these days & republics are still forming & evolving.

Quote:

---

- Most North Native American tribes and cultures were not republican at all. Some allowed for the elders to chose their chiefs, but that doesn't make it republican.

---

Wrong again. They were just patriarchal when it came to dealings between tribes & nations. They were actually very well organized into nations of tribes & leagues of nations. The idea of "chiefs" is a projection. Different leaders would emerge depending what the situation called for. Major decisions were made by council consisting of everybody who'd been through the rights of passage. No kings anywhere north of Mexico.

Quote:

---

- The Aztec, Mayan, Incan etc was passed down father to son, but there were councils to decied which son would inherit the title.

---

Where's the evidence of that? Pretty big assumption. Based on what? Lame attempts to read & analyze the pictoglyphs? The Aztecs, Maya, & Inca are still there with their cultures & lore still intact. Has anybody ever bothered to ask them about their history? I doubt it. Lore is only accepted as Eurocentric history, & only when in fits the agenda.

Quote:

---

An autocrat can be monarch or republican leader.

---

Wrong again. All monarchs are autocrats but not all autocrats are monarchs. Republicans (this is not a reference to party affiliation) are not autocrats because they answer to their constituency. Autocrats don't answer to anyone except the usurper or insurgent that ends their reign or death itself. This is not a difficult concept & doesn't change through misuse of terminology.

Quote:

---

My God!! you know JS about the medieval times but I can't blame you really. Most people don't. Try looking up on these website for more info

---

Oh give me a break on trying to glorify medieval times. Nearly a thousand years of oppression, repression, & constant warfare. The number of people killed in the hundred years of the Inquisition equaled the total population of Europe at any given time during the event. Can you say crusades? This is what you're advocating? Over your dead body, & your little king too.

Quote:

---

If you'd done some research you would know some classical republics of the past and present but I forgot you don't research the past. Try researching the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

---

I'm not a student. I only research when something piques my interest or is a direct benefit to me. I'm here for fun, not to research your claims for you. That said: If memory serves, the PLC was a sham monarchy with no power at all. It was a show to keep the slaves (serfs) in line & the barons in power. So what?

Quote:

---

True enough, humans are a social animal. However what is "the collective."

---

The collective is everyone living in close proximity.

On Marx: Everybody makes a good point now & then. He was still a crackpot.

Quote:

---

I'm a monarchist and distributist. I reject most of these false ideologies that the age of enlightenment has brought upon us: Communism, Capitalism, Libertarianism, Feminism etc.

---

Isms are just isms & ists are just followers of isms. The concensus today is that monarchy is just an unnecessary burden. The fact that social, economic, & technilogical progress has increased by leaps & bounds since the hereditary "distributists" have been shunted aside probably means that that concensus won't be changing any time soon.

Quote:

---

Yet again, history proves you wrong!!! It is nothing more than Left-wing Libertarian utopian propoganda.

---

& your tripe is what? Sorry, but I still haven't seen any evidence that monarchy has ever been of benefit to anyone but aristocracy. The human race as a whole is living better today than they ever have while monarchies & other tin pot would be rulers are falling by the wayside. In another few generations, there won't be a monarch left on the planet. Mark it on your calendar. Blueblood headed for extinction.

Age of enlightenment?

Are ya'll talkin' about the 60's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chefmike

Age of enlightenment?

Are ya'll talkin' about the 60's?

---

Nah. That was the age of aquariums. You've heard of getting "loaded to the gills"?