Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Oh hey Scottish royals.

That seems a bit unbelievable, though, that there are folks who still believe in the whole divine right thing.

Excuse me sir do you have time to talk about our lord and saviour anarcho-monarchism

[hector13]

Oh hey Scottish royals.

That seems a bit unbelievable, though, that there are folks who still believe in the whole divine right thing.

Excuse me sir do you have time to talk about our lord and saviour anarcho-monarchism

I have all the time in world. Teach me senpai.

For serious.

Also for serious, ostensibly quite a contradictory philosophy.

[Arcvasti]

Presumably anarcho-monarchism is listening to the monarch as long as they're telling you what you want to hear and ignoring them if they don't.

[hector13]

I read on a libertarian website that it’s basically just the same as anarchist-capitalism, and quoted CS Lewis at one point (paraphrased as people who don’t have a king to look up to will look to the rich or the strong or the famous as ideals) in order to make the CEO appear as something to look up to in a near-perfect society of freedoms and such.

Bearing in mind about 2/3 of the article was spent walking the reader through definitions of monarchy that would fit into this at the end. It was actually quite interesting identifying the hoops they were asking me to jump through, I just really was not expecting “the all important CEO will look after us all” at the end on a fucking anarchist website.

I felt dirty so I stopped looking..

[Reelya]

modelling it on anarcho-capitalism, where the centralized state is abolished any everyone is a capitalist, anarcho-monarchism should have no central state, no single monarchy.

Instead, everyone's free to define they're own little kingdoms and fight over the borders. You are the ruler of as much as you can personally grab.

EDIT: note I started writing this before hector13's reply.

[redwallzyl]

I read on a libertarian website that it’s basically just the same as anarchist-capitalism, and quoted CS Lewis at one point (paraphrased as people who don’t have a king to look up to will look to the rich or the strong or the famous as ideals) in order to make the CEO appear as something to look up to in a near-perfect society of freedoms and such.

Bearing in mind about 2/3 of the article was spent walking the reader through definitions of monarchy that would fit into this at the end. It was actually quite interesting identifying the hoops they were asking me to jump through, I just really was not expecting “the all important CEO will look after us all” at the end on a fucking anarchist website.

I felt dirty so I stopped looking..

You mean there is something even more meme then Anarcho-Capitalism?

[Reelya]

Bearing in mind about 2/3 of the article was spent walking the reader through definitions of monarchy that would fit into this at the end. It was actually quite interesting identifying the hoops they were asking me to jump through, I just really was not expecting “the all important CEO will look after us all” at the end on a fucking anarchist website.

idk, it's perfectly in line with objectivist / libertarian ideas, which are mostly the same crowd as anarch-capitalism.

Through collectivism, lesser men constrain the "great men" like the CEOs from achieving their full greatness. But those constraints include their right to dominate other people. So: it's an "evil" to dominate other people through collective action, but if you are personally dominating other people, then it's "evil" to constrain that. The CEO is a Galt-like figure who cannot be constrained by the rights of others. They are the "natural" and rightful monarchs of anarcho-monarchism.

EDIT: To these people, a guy who personally dominated a harem of sex-slave women is probably looked up to and envied, whereas a sex-slave taking ring is looked down on. (in the first case, it was sheer personal strength and bravery that dominated the wills of the women, in the second, it was collective weakness and too much cowardice to get their own women).

EDIT2: And yep, I didn't even know it, but looked it up, and Ayn Rand believed that

women are ideally “hero worshippers” who should submit themselves, body and soul, to great men.

[George_Chickens]

Did somebody say anarcho capitalism?

As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights. Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)

It's not child slavery, maaaaaan, you're just allowed to sell them freely on markets and allow them to die at any time!

On the other hand, the two other grounds for seizing children from their parents, both coming under the broad rubric of "child neglect," clearly violate parental rights. These are: failure to provide children with the "proper" food, shelter, medical care, or education; and failure to provide children with a "fit environment." It should be clear that both categories, and especially the latter, are vague enough to provide an excuse for the State to seize almost any children

Child abuse? More like CHILD EXCUSE FOR DA GUBBERMINT TO DO BAD THINGS!

[redwallzyl]

There is something very wrong with the phrase "free baby market." Good god these people.

Where is that from?

[Reelya]

These sorts of systems don't deal well with the concept of children. If babies become a commodity to be produced, sold, bought at the discretion of each citizen, at what age do they cease being commodities? And how do you enforce that without laws or a social contract?

Sure, maybe people will stop abusing children, because children become a commodity and abusing them lowers their resale value. But, you could equally "train" the children in certain (unpleasant) ways and have their resale value increase for a specific "market niche". I wouldn't trust the subset of people willing to buy and sell children on the "free market" to have the children's best interests at heart.

[Yoink]

...I have repeatedly failed to understand the Irish Catholic hatred and detestation for the poppy.

I'm no expert, but something something symbol of WW1 something something Easter Rising. Maybe? I dunno.   

[smjjames]

I think I've seen that 'free baby market' thing before, basically it's an extreme form of 'the free market will take care of it' since Libertarians want to maximally unleash the free market on everything combined with 'I should be able to do whatever the hell I like, fuck the law in the dark place!'.

No idea where it's originally from though.

[Reelya]

I think I've seen that 'free baby market' thing before, basically it's an extreme form of 'the free market will take care of it' since Libertarians want to maximally unleash the free market on everything combined with 'I should be able to do whatever the hell I like, fuck the law in the dark place!'.

No idea where it's originally from though.

The quote of George_Chickens about the "free baby market" is from Murray Rothbard. Far from being some fringe nutjob writing on a website, he was one of the pre-eminent scholars of the "Austrian School" of Economics, and was, for example, one of the founders of the Cato Institute among many other political things. That's the thinking from the greatest and brightest in the anarcho-capitalist world of thought.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

[smjjames]

I wonder if a group of people of significant size has ever actually attempted to put the heavy Libertarianism into practice.

[George_Chickens]

It's from 'The Ethics of Liberty', by Rothbard. Chapter 14, to be specific. I'm not sure it's the best example of the ideology or Austrian Economics, as the rationale tends to be, from what I can tell, variants of "actually privatization brings things back to the people by letting them be owned by citizens!" and "deregulation is rational because X Y Z bla bla", not "Hey, I know child abuse is bad, but what if the child consents, though?".