I'm starting to be unironically seduced by Monarchy, lit/.

>>9629497
Democracy: The God That Failed
Anatomy of the State
2 essential books to start with.

>>9629497
Start with the Greeks

>>9629497
nero is laughing at you from the grave anon

>>9629497
what do you find appealing about it?

>>9629517
>seduced by Monarchy
>recommend books by libertarians
thanks /lit/

>>9629497
The only form of government fit to large empire-like nations (like Brazil) is despotism. Monarchy is for casuals.

>>9629497

Locke, Two Treatises on Govt

File: fug dis.gif (2MB, 400x286px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x286px

>read the history of imperial Rome
>a string of good emperors make some gains
>one bad emperor squanders it all
>repeat

>>9629582
if thats all you get out of it, then youre not reading deeply enough

the impact of individual emperors tends to be overstated. the empire grew under caligula and domitian, who were supposedly some of the worse, and it felt enormous strain under marcus aurelius, who was supposedly the best

in fact, most emperors didnt even have 'policies' the way modern leaders do now. they were just responding from crisis to crisis, doing their best to survive

>>9629563
It's almost like people that take literature seriously want to understand varying viewpoints about an issue rather than just actively confirming their own bias. Idiot. Fuck off back to /pol/

>>9629582
If anything, the Imperial period is a testament to the problems with dynastic succession. The most competent Dynasty in the whole period were the Flavians. After them, the "Five good emperors" were all chosen all based on merit rather than family ties.

>>9629594
The shortlist is
1. Augustus
2. Trajan
3. Constantine

Marcus Aurelius gets too much credit for being the supposed "philosopher king" that everyone swoons over.

>>9629582
Caligula was based. He BTFO of corrupt senators

>>9629561
Well, it's just that I'm dellused by this political crisis in my country and I don't see any sign of hope in the near future. In this dead-end scenary nostalgic visions of a unreal past start to get more and more appealing.

>>9629678
*disillusioned

>>9629678
populist sentiment is natural when a country is falling apart. just realize that politics is a contextual game and shit changes.

>>9629678
I share this same feeling bro. But the nowadays royal family are just a bunch of wealthy people who are just reviving monarchism for the sake of personal gain. There's no nationalist discourse in their claim.

>>9629497

You're seduced by a form of government in which you pledge loyalty to a liege lord and he technically doesn't really have to give a shit about you and will outclass you your entire life, and you have no hope of any social mobility, so you wont remotely be able to gain as much power or influence as him?

Sounds lame.

>>9629884
Why should op hope to have the power of a king? That is not his place in the world. Why would you want social mobility?

>>9629892

>why would you want social mobility?

ideally you shouldn't even need it, but a monarchy is based around it, its inherent to a monarchy... except for op. Lets be honest, you would have an extremely small chance of being born into a family with any ties to a royal line. Monarchies suck for most people.

>>9629904
You didn't answer my question.

>>9629904
Why I can only have a good life if I born in the royal family?

File: autisticscreeching.jpg (97KB, 615x615px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 615x615px

>>9629497
Democracy: The God That Failed is a good book, though it's written by an Anarcho-Capitalist.

Other good books to check out though:
Patriarcha by Robert Filmer. This dude gets hard into theology, but the actual philosophical and political argument is pretty simple. Basically, power is arbitrary.
Also Hobbes of course, he's to the left of Filmer in his approach, but I think in general he makes a decent case for monarchy.
Letters from a Russian Statesman is also interesting, maybe check out de Maistre too, though he's pretty critical of Louis XVI.

If you're looking for other things more modern, go check out Moldbug's writings. It's not hereditary monarchy but rather a corporate form of monarchy, but he makes a pretty neat case for it.

Other than that, I would check out things Lecky's critiques of democracy and maybe Anti-Machiavel by Frederick the Great.

>>9630042
Good image

>>9629859
>But the nowadays royal family are just a bunch of wealthy people who are just reviving monarchism for the sake of personal gain.

It's always been like that. Monarchs and aristocrats are just glorified warlords.

>>9629563
Libertarians make the best arguments for Anarcho-Monarchism.

File: o-JRR-TOLKIEN-facebook.jpg (314KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 2000x1000px

>>9630083
The Catholics' arguments are stronger. But they're also not nearly as secular.

Anarcho-Monarchism sounded retarded at first glance but then I realized how great it would be to have power and the maintenance of society completely invested in one dynastic clan and basically live innacommune but pay tribute to that clan and have no other obligation to society outside of that. It's crazy that literal autocracy is less despotic than modern representational capitalism.

>>9630162
>Anarcho-x
>Has a state entity
Absolutely retarded.

File: image.png (1MB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1536x2048px

monarchy in the twenty first century

bio engineer gods among men, and give them reigns to rule us?

>>9630233
That could be a good man. Be careful with messing with the brain, though. One of the most important aspects of a good ruler is having keen, prudent, and careful sense of judgement.

>>9630242

by virtue of being immortal, and unbiased by bloodline or heritage. a being of pure reason and fairness, their brain would be better naturally

>>9630233
Where is it from?

>>9629548
>greeks
>monarchy

>>9630083
it's called feudalism

>>9630151
Which Catholics are we referring to?

>>9629497
Plato's Republic

>>9630805
Well, pic related. Tolkien's position essentially boils down to religion-fueled anarcho-monarchism, and it's what you see in LOTR.

Makes sense, privately run companies are always better than than publicly run companies. Private governments > public governments as well.

>>9629884
>so you wont remotely be able to gain as much power or influence as him?

This is the biggest spook ever. I don't give a shit about having the power and influence of a king or a world leader. I just want to live a safe, comfy, fulfilling life. I hate when socialists say everyone should be equal in terms of power or influence; the important thing is that the average person lives better, even if they aren't on equal terms with leaders.

I'd rather talk you in
Read
>Dr. Johnson
>Thomas Carlyle
>Le maistre

>>9629678
Become a monarchist Catholic, this is the only way to defeat the modernists. If you look through history you can see that Catholicism is the spirit of Europe (Regardless if you believe in Jesus or not) and that all modern, relativist degeneracy is thanks to the Protestant Reformation, who implicitly championed relativist, individualistic thinking with "Bible alone."

How exactly do you decide who's monarch?

Take the US for example. How exactly would it be feasible to transition to a monarchy?

>>9630083
>Anarcho-Monarchism
Thanks for the kek

>>9631689
What's the problem?

>>9630870
sounds like stalinist ussr

>>9631012
>degeneracy is thanks to the Protestant Reformation
fuck off, papist scum, the catholic church has always been degenerate and its members the least pious people in the known world