Was he right? I personally think if a divine entity tied directly

File: The_Majestic-12_Logo.jpg (149KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1200x1200px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU

I don't know, from a sword I'd take that it is my duty to protect the land, and ensure her rulers are defending the land and her people.
Had I been given a crown, however, I would be in no doubt.

>>52498253
Hold up, how do we know that any old lake lady is necessarily divine?

What if it was a trickster entity that wanted to see people suffer under a rule of a fool or a tyran? No man is entitled to rule over another - people have the right of self-ownership.

>>52498370
The sword is what you use to prove your worth as the military ruler your kingdom will expect. The >angles didn't elect Harold Godwinson for his faggy little family tree.

File: 1489821962857.png (199KB, 1313x1248px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1313x1248px

>>52498392

This.

>>52498386
Wasn't that a major part of his point?

>>52498392
>people have the right of self-ownership
No they don't, who the fuck told you that they do you gullible twat?

>>52498253
It's Loki in a dress again.

File: 1461241240666.png (15KB, 473x454px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 473x454px

>>52498392
>>52499776
>tfw people naturally form into hierarchies for the purposes of organization and settling disputes
>tfw those who don't tend to get BTFO.

>>52498253
That only holds if people A) are there to witness the fact that you were selected by such a being, B) are able to independently confirm that said being is divine, good, and a fair judge of character and ability

If you just say it happened, then nobody knows if it's something you made up or the chick was a satan or something.

>>52500004
>confirm that said being is divine, good, and a fair judge of character and ability

Even if you could confirm that, it still does not follow that this permits him to tell me what to do.

>>52500062
It does it he is also powerful.

>>52500096
Or likable/confident.

>>52500062
I suppose that depends more on the setting and how objectively good someone can be. In some, I'd argue that getting a thumbs up from a god pretty much means they're the best fit for the job, sort of like how a Paladin can function as judge/jury/executioner. In other settings, gods are less omniscient and things are more grey, so multiple good deities might champion different guy a with different motives to be king.

Either way, if you're a monarchy or a democracy, it's going to be hard to argue against him, either in claiming the throne himself by divine right or just using his obvious goodness and favor with the gods as a campaign platform

>>52498392

>people have the right of self-ownership

"Rights" are leftist bullshit designed to make you think you're free. All you have is what someone stronger has given you, but what you deserve is all that you can keep yourself.

>>52500246
>t. Autist

The original concept for rights was far more rooted in reality, since it wasn't things people give you, its things you have unless people take them from you.

Applied to government the idea was you'd give up some of these rights [like the right to murder, rape, or steal] in exchange for the benefits of civilization.

The realpolitik angle was that, just as a citizen has to obey the law or he'll be punished, the state must respect rights or it will be overthrown.

Of course now that "rights" has expanded to mean not only the above, but supposed duties of the State towards its people, what I said really doesn't apply as much and the idea is mostly a social form floating on foam and stolen money.

>>52500096
>>52500126

Neither of those give him rights over me from a moral or ethical standpoint. If he's powerful, I might obey him out of fear, or if he's likable/confident I might choose to obey him, but neither of those things give him the right to demand my obedience.

>>52500147

While this is true, OP is talking about a guy who rejects the idea of monarchy in the first place. None of this is going to matter one bit to him.

>>52500330
>Moral or ethical standpoint
>Rights

He gains the "Right" to demand your obedience by your inability to stop him.

He can be "wrong" by your philosophy as much as you like to believe, but barring a weapon in your hand to stop him, your morality is just an idea in your head.

>>52500405
Power doesn't always come from the point of a sword. It is much more complex than that.

>>52498392
According to whose authority?

>>52500246
i'm pretty sure you confuse positive freedom (which is a leftist invention) with negative freedom
>>52499776
it is a natural law, an axiom
>>52499890
hierarchies formed from mutual agreement are not a problem, because obviously they benefit all interested sides. hierarchies formed through the use of force are criminal and morally wrong

i advise you all to read some Rothbard

>>52500531
Political power doesn't come from the point of a sword, it comes from the assent of those who serve.

But it is always backed by a sword. Commands without force are just suggestions. There must always be a subtle "Or else" behind even the most agreeable commands, otherwise you have no power.

>>52500564
Your idea is a deeply unnatural, Enlightenment Era piece of trash.

Hierarchies backed by force are not morally wrong. Being a tyrant is morally wrong, but a ruler without force is a bird without wings.

>>52498253
Who was the lady in the lake anyway?
It never says shes a god or anything, her name is literally 'lady' not 'goddess'. the washwoman is also a lady technically.

>>52500564
Force is the only true power.

>>52500564
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times.

IF YA CAN'T DEFEND YER SHIT! YA DIDN'T DESERVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

>>52500611
you are sick, you go to a doctor. the doctor examines you and presents you with his conclusion. he writes you a receipt for a medicine.
will you disobey the doctor? does the doctor have to use force to make sure you obey him?

you don't have any money. you search for a job. a person proposes to hire you. you agree. the person gives you your task to do for the day.
do you disobey your employer? does the employer have to use force to make you obey him?

you have voluntarily agreed to become part of some hierarchy, because it was beneficial to you.

>>52500405
>He gains the "Right" to demand your obedience by your inability to stop him.

No, he gains my obedience, and that's all. It doesn't cease being wrong for him to do so. Even small children can understand that "do what I say or I'll hurt you" is the cry of the bully. It's the very core of injustice.

>>52500796
>Volentary.
>Working a job, in order to get paid, so that you can afford the food, water, and shelter that you need to survive.
>Volentary.

>>52500796
The doctor is not ordering you to do anything, he is advising you in return for your money. In effect, the customer is the one with the power there.

And yes, for the second example... your employer uses the threat of firing you if you don't do your work, which is backed up by security guards to keep you out, which is force.

>>52500796
You live in a city with Anki the Shepherd.
You rape his daughter.
King Enki sends his guards to arrest you.
You come along because being executed is in your best interest.

Wait.

>Although hierarchy and society in general are based in large part on the principle of reciprocity and self-interest, the reality is that in a society where conflicting interests exist, an arbitrating power is a necessity, and to carry out its edicts it must have the use of coercive force so that it can rule in favor of one interest over another.
>The alternative is a society where conflicting interests cannot be peaceably resolved by fiat if negotiations fail, resulting in bloodshed.
>Liberty is better understood through the concept of negative rights applied as a limitation on the powers of the state backed by the threat of invoking the right to revolution, then as the concept that all social relations must be strictly voluntary, which is an unobtainable, undesirable pipe dream.

>>52500856
The employer can simply stop paying you. You won't work for him if he doesn't pay you. Economic power is more efficient than brute force.

>>52500910
Economic power is backed by brute force. That is literally what money is. It even says this note is legal tender for all debts public and private. And this is backed by by the government saying it will enforce the acceptance of that currency in any way it can.

>>52500842
You can grow your own food, get water from the river and build your own house. What's the problem? No one's stopping you. You just won't get that smartphone you like.

>>52500939
>Go build a house on public land
>Get shot for trespassing.

GG no rly.

>>52500903
>although hierarchy and society in general are based in large part on the principle of reciprocity and self-interest, the reality is that in a society where conflicting interests exist, an arbitrating power is a necessity

You were doing fine up to here. But

>and to carry out its edicts it must have the use of coercive force so that it can rule in favor of one interest over another.

Does not follow. For instance, on pirate crews, arbitration was generally done by the quartermaster, not because he had any means to enforce his pronouncements, but because he had been elected to his position by the crew because they all felt he was a fair and honest man.
This is not atypical in history, plenty of societies have gotten by just fine by having disputes settled by respected third parties, with no force involved.

>>52500856
He may not be ordering you, but a hierarchy exists - he advises you and you listen and comply.

>>52500856
If you don't do your work and the employer stops paying you, it's *you* who broke the voluntary contract you signed with your employer. *You* initiated aggression and the employer has a right to defend himself from economic loss and remove you from his property.

>>52500939
And how would you propose getting ahold of the seeds for the crops that would be needed, the tools to tend to the farm and build the house, and the rights to the land you intend to build on so some pissant can't complain to the government about you squatting on some land he just bought?

>>52500966
The idea of someone voluntarily submitting to punishment or agreeing to an arbiter's ruling is definitely possible, but the question is what to do when someone doesn't comply.

What happens when you live in a city with a violent or unreasonable person who simply refuses to play ball?

The answer is the same answer that has been sounded through history. You put your hands on him and violate him. You imprison him or kill him, against his will, because it pleases you, because it is necessary.

A society that runs mostly on voluntary arrangements can work. I would go so far as to say most societies work like that. But the sword MUST exist. You cannot get away from the sword. You can cry about it, you can call it immortal, you can complain to God Himself that its not fair that everyone's will cannot be accommodated, but the reality is that when push comes to shove "Lets agree to" must give way to "Thou shalt" or you're not a ruler, you're a life coach.

>>52500966
wasn't the quartermaster the one who dished out the punishment? Like, he had the power to have you locked in the brig.

>>52500939
What is property tax?

>>52501014
You can find a piece of land that isn't anyone's property and claim it along with all its resources. It's called original appropriation.

>>52500967
He advises and you can choose to comply or not. That is because you, as a paying customer, are above him in the hierarchy.

Just because he is a doctor doesn't mean he is "above" you, he is just as much a tool for his customers to use as a retail worker is.

>>52498253
Legitimate power can only be derived from the consent of the governed!

>>52500997
Yes, and? So what? It's backed by force. Force is what matters. Force is all that matters.

>>52501080
but you only have protection as far as the law allows it. If the law is "no you can't", then what are you going to do?

>>52501080
And when someone else claims that land and they don't give a shit about you claiming that land because they have guns?

>>52501080
Find a parcel of unowned arable land large enough to support a single person and paste the google link here.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Fact is, all the land that can sustain humans is claimed at this point.

>>52500564
>hierarchies formed from mutual agreement are not a problem, because obviously they benefit all interested sides

only if you think people are rational, which is demonstrably false

>>52501120
Disregard this. I'm like a child who walks into a room

>>52501029
The idea is: if a person violates the non-aggression principle against someone, he loses any rights (stemming from NAP) he could have. He could be killed without breaking the law. If that person did not violate the NAP - for example he's obnoxious and rude but never attacked anyone, then other people can ostracize him - they can refuse to trade with him, refuse him access to their private properties, etc. This will either change his mind, or make him move away on his own.

>>52501150
No, it's a valid point.

This kid is claiming that mutual consent is all that matters, not force.

I would love to see how he defends his claim on his unowned land without using force.

>>52501154
Except the NAP is just an idea in your head. I don't believe in it. Most people don't believe in it. So this question can be viewed in two ways.

The first is the purely philosophical, where I say you can't run a society on the NAP period, because like all moralities its open to interpretation. You need a force-wielding arbiter, otherwise you'd just have random honor-killings where Ancaps claim that their enemies violated the NAP, or violated it first [giving them right to retribution, which is effectively what you're advocating in practice].

And secondly the simple pragmatic point that even THEN your ideas only have as much merit as you're willing to defend. You can be "right" as long as you want, so long as you are dead and I rule the earth.

If you want your ideas to survive you must be willing to use force to ensure their survival and enforcement.

>>52501091
You can choose to comply, but it will not benefit you. But you are right, you have a choice.
In every mutually agreed hierarchy you have a choice to leave at any time and lose benefits stemming form that hierarchy. Just like in employer-employee example: you can leave your job and no once can stop you, you just won't get paid.

>>52501050

Not when you came to him to settle a dispute.

>>52501239
so... what happens when you and I have a dispute, see the quartermaster, he says you're right, and I still don't agree?

File: Look at this guy.gif (2MB, 400x206px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x206px

>>52501166
>This kid

Arguments for Adults!

>>52501230
>Just like in employer-employee example: you can leave your job and no once can stop you, you just won't get paid.

Yeah, but you can incur responsibilities that make "don't get paid" an unacceptable outcome, rendering the choice moot in practice. This is why unions need to be a thing - any employer with more than a handful of employees has far less to lose from one of them leaving than does the leaving employee.

>>52501221
>Most people don't believe in it
Just try an experiment - go to a place where law enforcement is virtually nonexistent. I don't know, Somalia? Then start beating up people on the street. Count how much time it will take until people organize to fuck your shit up.
This is why NAP is a natural law: virtually everyone wants to live in peace, wants to be left alone. If you don't let them, they will eventually organize and kick your ass.

>>52501262

Well the two of you can fight it out if you really must.

>>52501285
beating you up with no force tho

>>52501280
That is not true, there are countless people that live off their land and are self-sufficient. There were millions of them in history. Hell, there are books teaching self-sufficiency. You can survive without ever having a job. You take a job voluntarily to get better stuff more efficiently. That's it.

>>52501301
so, if he doesn't actually wield any power/force to stop that from happening, why is it even a position?

>>52501313
You initiated aggression - you lost any rights to be protected from it.

>>52501332
you missed reading
>>52501166
>>52501147
>>52501120
>>52501118

>>52501285
No, people defend THEIR people because in absence of a legal authority, society consists in family, friends, and neighbors.

If I kill someone in Somalia, the people who like the person I killed might come after me true.

But its also the case that its just as likely that people will group together for protection and abuse others for their subsistence.

In absence of the State the rule of nature isn't "Lets all be friends" its society reduced to small related social-groupings.

The ingroup/outgroup stops being citizens vs criminals or citizens vs foreigners, it becomes my small group vs your small group. If my small group wants your shit, it may take it. If you would prevent me, then stop me.

People organize just as likely to provide for themselves or their own, as they do to protect themselves and their own. There is a reason your own fucking example is a bloody wasteland.

>>52501361
exactly! peace is maintained through threat of force! He gets it!

>>52501386
His idea is that force will only be used to answer force, and it will be done so spontaneously through the community without any authorities, officials, or interpreters.

He's effectively advocating for tribal Arab society. What an idiot.

>>52501332
It depends on when and where you live. It's simply not practical to do that in, say, modern America - you simply can't compete with, say, an industrialized farm, except by selling your produce as luxury goods to the upper class. And, by the definition of luxury goods, you can only have a relatively small proportion of the population surviving that way - and if you weren't born into a family that already owned enough land to do some farming, good fucking luck. If you don't own land by default, you're going to need to get a job to earn the money to buy some, if nothing else.

>>52501340

Because most human beings don't WANT to fight over everything, and would like to have a reasonable third party who can help them settle disputes fairly without the risk associated with violent resolution? Duh?

>>52501285

Somalia actually has its own law; just not a formalized Western-styled one. They went back to rule by tribal elders after they got sick of being robbed by various foreign-styled governments.
Calling Somalia an anarchy is for snotty liberals (in the classical sense) who don't consider their government to be a "real" government, many of whom want to impose another "proper" one on them in order to get the national robbery train going again.

That said, there are things you can learn about alternative societal organization from Somalia, especially if you look past Mogadishu. (Which looks like an armed camp out of Mad Max because it's had to repel multiple foreign invasions over the years)

>>52501402

>muh mudslimes

There are other examples throughout history.

>>52498392
>in b4 lengthy post about the differences between pedophilia and ehebophilia

>>52501413
You're advocating rule by the violent mob. A law without a law-giver, law-interpreter, or law-enforcer, which serves as nothing more then a license for people to assault each other on the grounds that their enemies did so first.

Any Ancap society that makes enough compromises to function ceases being an Ancap society and becomes a libertarian society.

It starts with "No force, everything is voluntary!" then it becomes "Okay except for dicks who violate the NAP, retaliative force is okay!" and before you know it you have institutions dedicated to interpreting NAP case law and professional law enforcers and a pseudo-state running your society.

>>52501466
>on the grounds that their enemies did so first.

Well, did they?

>all that theoretical musing presented as if it were well-researched and documented fact

>>52501518
>Well, did they?
What's your socially accepted standard of proof? Can't have juries or judges or anything like that without rule of law, and you can't have rule of law without a state.

>>52501518
Please name me five functional Ancap societies from history. To quality they must

1. Have no governing authority.
2. Have no law enforcement officials.
3. Be relatively successful [a tribe in Africa that never discovered math or a town in Iceland that no one has ever heard of does not count.

I'll wait. Until then your political philosophy is Commie-tier dysfunction.

>>52501221
it's only my word against yours in the most basic settings. people will naturally tend toward having legal protection, hopefully provate and voluntary, that will help them solve any such disputes.
for example if i claim that you broke into my home and attacked me, you may present your location information that you've voluntarily shared with your protection agency that shows you were in your house the entire time. if i then claim that this data is fake, the protection agency can hire a 3rd party expert that will prove the logs were not tampered with.

the main thing is for the protection system to be privatized, then it will fall under laws governing free market and any competition will ensure the protection agency has the best interest of their clients in mind, not the interest of any government and that no monopolies will survive in the long term.

>>52501565
>Be relatively successful [a tribe in Africa that never discovered math or a town in Iceland that no one has ever heard of does not count.
Why shouldn't they. If they didn't fucking implode themselves and the people are happy who gives a fuck if they won't be putting men on the moon or advancing calculus.

>>52501576
Except that just moves the problem one step removed.

If you have private law enforcement agencies, what happens when the agencies cannot reach an agreement. The answer is always two things.

1. There is an established authority to judge between them [in which case you have a pseudo-state, as I described above as the inevitable outcome of an Ancap society seeking to become functional by adopting state-like traits in private institutions]

Or they don't, and they fight for their clients. The notion of privatizing law runs counter to the entire concept of law.

>>52501629
I have no response to this other then to call you a nigger, so I'm going to call you a nigger.

Nigger.

There.

>>52501466
well, "ackchyually", ancap society is libertarian society (just taken to logical extreme). ancaps inherit all the libertarian moral framework.
most ancaps would welcome a change from current state to minarchism, they just wouldn't want to stop there.

>>52501637
if two private agencies have a dispute between themselves, they hire a third party arbiter. this recursion either ends somewehere, or becomes like a world war...

>>52501678
Except the libertarian society is functional and the ancap one isn't.

Libertarians keep the basic framework of proven, functional large-scale societies in place, and can point to several large-scale pseudo-libertarian societies in the past that show their ideas can work in practice.

Ancaps have nothing but conjecture that flies in the face of experience and contradicts everything we know about social relations.
>>52501718
So you're basically admitting your ideal society is one disagreement away from feuding warlords?

Fantastic.

>>52498253
Honestly, it might be a sign you're supposed to become a champion of the land. Might be a sign that you are destined to become a mighty warrior and defeat an unspeakable evil.

Or maybe the lake lady was giving out swords that day.

The motivations of the divine are inherently unknowable. What is important is what you take it to mean and how you act based on that. Arthur used it to leverage himself into a position whereby he could unite the Britons so they may defend themselves.

>>52501738
no, where am i admitting that? my post was an exaggeration. the way to resolve a convoluted legal dispute is to find an impartial third party arbiter.
unless you have a scenario so exaggerated that literally entire world is involved, you will always find such an arbiter.
what's more, the private protection agencies will have an economical incentive to solve as many matters as possible non-violently. doing other wise will lose them clients. would you like to be a client of someone that escalates a conflict instead of resolving it, costing them (and you) money? any private organization will likely prefer not to lose money.

>>52501629
Because Great Britain comes kicking down the door with their math and guns and enslaves your people, that's why.

File: 1408922199915.png (1MB, 800x1523px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x1523px

>>52498253
Kneel before the King, Peasant.

>>52501882
Why seek a neutral third party to arbitrate when I can just buy a bunch of guns and take your shit? I'll cut the third party in for half so he doesn't intervene, since he is neutral and has no stake in the conflict otherwise.

>>52501882
Your entire political theory rests on the notion that everyone is going to act completely reasonably and somehow always come to an agreement no matter what the nature of the dispute.

The mere existence of emotion or stubbornness completely overthrows your whole political system.

So I'll restate my test. Start listing historical precedents, or go back to the kid's table with the Reds who also think their ridiculous philosophy can work in the real world.

>>52500287

>t. Projecting autist

>>52501958
no, my entire theory rests on the notion that people are egoistic and will always try doing what's best for them. any mutual agreement means that both sides benefit.

>>52502057
But I could benefit more by screwing over this guy instead of coming to an agreement! Ah ha!

Said half the world leaders ever.

>>52502057
Whether you are RIGHT or not that both sides will benefit, the question is whether the people living in your system will actually behave that way.

Saying "My system is perfect, as long as everyone acts perfectly moral per my definition" is the same as saying "My system is dog shit"

>>52502057
>any mutual agreement means that both sides benefit.
what are you smoking

>>52500564
Remember kids, there's no government like NO GOVERNMENT!

Hoist that black flag.

>>52502139
I mean, he is TECHNICALLY correct.

You can just refuse to agree until you benefit.

The problem comes when you reach an impasse. If one side says "I think you will benefit by not being shot, and I will benefit by getting all your stuff." then that doesn't fit the definition of a mutually beneficial agreement for any sane person.

Basically he is relying on magic fairy space magic to make everyone reasonable and eliminate greed.

>>52502075
but this guy could benefit more if he screw me over! if i screw him over, he might get butt mad and never deal with me again! but wait! if i give him a teeny little bit more, i still get a profit and he'll be less likely to screw me over!
(repeat until both sides agree)
>>52502099
people already behave that way *today* - it's called capitalism and it obviously works.

>>52502196
black and gold flag!

>>52499391
So because he said so it's divine? Since he is King his word is law. That logic sounds circular enough to be divine.

>>52498253
Dennis the Peasant is literally a joke about how retarded middle-class Commies are, so no, he wasn't right.

File: 1352929010535.png (608KB, 947x720px) Image search: [Google]

608KB, 947x720px

>>52500287
>Applied to government the idea was you'd give up some of these rights [like the right to murder, rape, or steal]

What kind of shithole government is this?

File: CCJuiZzXIAEIz0v.jpg (66KB, 600x596px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 600x596px

>>52500828

But do "justice" and "rights" exist outside of human perception? Certainly these things don't exist in other species.

>>52498253
Arthur couldn't compell him to obey even with his supposed divine right or through force, so yes Dennis was right.

>>52502686
He's a king, not a magician. He can't magically make someone obey.

>>52502719
Yes but he couldn't even use the force everyone in this thread is talking about. He was literally manhandling him and Dennis still wouldn't shut up. If you can't rule your people you're not a rulers.

File: 1404535882397.jpg (841KB, 2712x2709px) Image search: [Google]

841KB, 2712x2709px

>>52502686
Arthur (Female) would have made Dennis obey.

File: 6cb.jpg (43KB, 680x613px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 680x613px

>>52500939
>he thinks civilization tolerates people who don't participate

>>52502765
He could've had him executed, but wouldn't because it's Monty Fucking Python.

>>52503218
If memory serves, the peasant was executed horribly.
Most Monty Python sketches are.

>>52502057
People. Are. Not. Rational.

That is the biggest problem with libertarian and ancap theory. Also, any nation without a strong, centralised body to defend its interests will be overrun by a nation with one. See the Ukranian Free State when it was conquered by the Soviets, for precedent.

>>52498680

Well, from a point of view that's correct. But were talking the kind of points of view only Obi-Wan Kenobi could say with a straight face here.

Then again, when is history not like that?

>>52502812

If it was Saber Lily era Arturia, she probably would have spluttered a bit at the Watery Bint part, and then Sir Kay would have confused the issue taken the peasants side. Lancelot or Gawain would have then run the peasant through, which would have earned some sarcastic looks from Sir Kay towards Merlin and Merlin would as usual, as always, now and forever, give no fucks.

File: monty_python_does_FSN.jpg (482KB, 1511x2904px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 1511x2904px

>>52503464
I now have an excuse to post this.

>>52502057
No, people will do what's best for them in the short term according to the information that they both have available and choose to believe. This is why governmental and economic models that sound flawless on paper crash and burn in the wild, they imagine people to be far more competent, rational, and informed than they actually are.

>>52503531

I've always had the strong suspicion that if Prism Illya hadn't done so well we'd have gotten the comedic adventures of Saber Lilly, Kay, Lancelot and Merlin as they roam the land uniting the country.

In the same way any other party of PC's roam the land "uniting the country".

File: why can the peasentry afford computers.jpg (26KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x462px

>>52502057
>people are egoistic and will always try doing what's best for them

>implying that everyone is a rational actor
>implying that more than a relatively small part of the population is a rational actor
>implying that rational actors are rational all the time

You deserve to be eaten by Gauls.

>>52500246
>>52501958
>>52502099

The law of human nature leads us to believe that fairness, justice and equity are the linchpins of effective society.

>>52503791

No the person you replied to but I'd like to chime in. I think you've confused the method for the motive. Rationality is a method of problem solving and not a reason in itself to do anything. I disagree with what >>52502057 is saying as well. I think just say "people are out for only themselves" is way to simplistic and doesn't jive with my real world experience.

>>52503795

What a load of bullshit.

>>52503974
Agreed. People are both self-centred and altruistic, depending on the circumstances and their mood at the time. You can also do altruistic things for selfish reasons just as often as you can do terrible things for selfless reasons. The road to Hell, and all that.

>>52504016
Come at me Brah.
>>52504057
I agree with you, but only in the bassets sense that you are describing the outcome rather then the motive. You are dangerously close to a truism, which is to say, you are close to writing something meaningless.

>>52503531
That always bugged me a little.

Artoria is clearly a woman. Literally nobody in FSN or Zero even stops to seriously consider that she might be a man, or even that she is supposed to appear as a man. But apparently there was an entire country of people who were convinced that she was actually a dude and nobody seems to have ever figured it out on their own. It's as if Arthurian Britain was populated by the absolute most gullible people in history.

>>52504263
Not everyone is going to see the king, or get close enough to have any suspicions. And those that do can be silenced or swayed. Only those in Camelot would be in any close contact enough to maybe tell something's off.

>>52504282
When the king is 1,5 meters tall, speaks with a higher pitch than a castrato singer, and typically wears a frilly dress--then I think it's fine to say that anyone who didn't second guess her gender must have been suffering some sort of crippling affliction which prevented them from recognizing the obvious.

File: He%20sat%20on%20this%20throne%20-%20which%20is%20made%20of%20skulls.jpg (243KB, 500x770px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 500x770px

>>52500564
>. hierarchies formed through the use of force are criminal and morally wrong
Yeah sure in a cosmic sense. In a practical sense, all hierarchies are either formed or maintained through the use of force and have to be, otherwise there would be the constant threat of usurpation by any pretender to the top of the hierarchy who would escalate to force.

If the POTUS didn't have the weight of the US military, civil police forces, and an order of succession behind the role, citizen assassins from the opposite party would kill every single president ever elected. This is what happened in some of the worst periods of the later Western Roman empire - constant assassination and civil war between rulers of rival factions and families.

An agency of legitimized violence and force loyal to the general well being or process and separated from the top of a hierarchy is necessary to maintain some level of order in hierarchical organizations. Always.

And if you're saying "violence isn't necessary - look at contracts" then you are not accounting for the fact that law is only a mandate because has violence underwriting it.

>>52502674

Just because they don't exist outside of human perception doesn't mean they aren't a good idea.

To contrast, saying we should do something just because "that's what animals do" is a really fucking stupid idea.

>>52505981
To be fair violence isn't the root of all power so much as the weight men give violence as power over them. A society or caste of men willing to die at any moment isn't going to submit to mere violence alone: you have to appeal to other kinds of authority to rule over them. That's why spiritual authorities end up sitting above warriors in so many ancient societies, and a good reason for the whole divine rights to back monarchical rulership.

>>52506205

Yep. Tp put it another way: you cannot infer what is right from what is natural. The two have no relation to each other. Things can be both perfectly natural and morally wrong at the same time.

>>52498253
life's a piece of shit when you look at it!

>>52503254
>>52503218
No he wasn't executed, and who would have executed him? The local constabulary? They're an autonimous collective that doesn't recognize Arthur's authority. Whether the mandate comes from the masses or from divine proclamation a ruler without the aquiescence of the people is powerless. All rulers need for the people to buy into the heirarchy that puts them at the top as ruler. So no matter which way you slice it, Dennis is correct whether democratic or not, whether consciously chosen or simply ingrained in their minds as the way of things it's the people that decide their ruler.

>>52500577
The 'or else' doesn't have to come from the person issuing the command.

>>52503339
Also has massive problems with natural disasters.

>>52500531
>Power doesn't always come from the point of a sword
Wrong.

>>52501029
>What happens when you live in a city with a violent or unreasonable person who simply refuses to play ball?
Or what about someone who disagrees with the law that's being enforced on them? And that could just be as minor as disagreeing with the severity of the punishment even if they agree with the overall principle. These things are decided by democratically elected governments individual lawbreakers can't be given the power of veto over them that's just ridiculous.

>>52506247
>A society or caste of men willing to die at any moment
They either aren't willing to die at any moment, or they aren't going to be around very long. You might as well talk about the platonic ideal of a citizen while you're at it.

>>52501230
>You can choose to comply, but it will not benefit you.
You sure about that? Malpractice does exist and some treatments are very controversial, that's why doctors have to receive informed consent because the patient shouldn't have to just give unlimited trust to them.

>>52499776
If you don't have the right of self-ownership then you can't complain if you suddenly get bashed over the head and wake up in a tub of ice in an abandoned garage with both your kidneys missing.

The right of self-ownership is what all other rights derive from. If it doesn't exist then it's perfectly permissible for me to rip your eye out and eat it, because after all it doesn't belong to you.

>>52501332
>That is not true, there are countless people that live off their land and are self-sufficient.
>their land
>their land
>their land

How many people do you know who own land, be honest. Do you own land? And no paying rent/having a mortgage isn't really the same as owning land. Also where will they get the money to buy this land if they've never worked a job, inheritance?

>>52500842
It's almost impossible to starve in a first-world country unless someone forcibly prevents you from taking advantage of welfare and charity programs. Working is entirely optional, it's only purpose is to maintain a heightened standard of living which is not necessary for survival.

>>52499776
>believing in made up concepts
Well spooked my friend.

>>52501718
>the system works so long as we have a group of people who are capable of being fair and independent when judging on other peoples disputes who everyone collectively agrees to place their trust in
Why does this sound familiar?

>>52501945
>has no stake in the conflict otherwise.
Incorrect. Everyone has a stake in preventing you from using unilateral force to solve disagreements, because it might be them you disagree with next.

>>52501958
I'd love them to explain how this society would cope with the dispute over abortion. It's hard to claim there's an objective, clear, easily provable definition for unprovoked violence against a person when there isn't even a universally agreed upon definition for what a human is in the first place.

>you're violating the NAP by murdering those infants, what did they ever do to you?
>you're violating the NAP by murdering those doctors, they never harmed anybody they just performed a routine medical procedure
How would a neutral third party help with this dispute? The facts aren't what's in dispute, just their interpretation.

>>52503339
How is that a problem with libertarian theory? Governments are made up of the same irrational people as the general population, while we obviously need one there's nothing wrong with pointing out it should be as small as possible to cut down on potential abuses due to the irrationality of the people in it. Seems to be a more rational approach then placing faith in the people in government to be significantly more rational then the general population.

>>52506247
>To be fair violence isn't the root of all power so much as the weight men give violence as power over them.

>so yeah this guy could cut my head off and murder my whole family but whatevs, I'm not phased

You're a moron.

>>52509173
That's basically how monarchies work. The king can easily kill a small group or individual, but doesn't because he's weaker than the whole.

>>52501340
Because groups that settle every disagreement by fighting it out tend to fracture and break in short order. Because someone who does what they want, in a group, against other members of that group, and refuses to ever have anything but what they want happen, even when everyone else thinks they're in the wrong, tends to wind up being kicked out of the group, often in a bad situation.

Even pirates know enough to realize that not settling everything with violence is the best, most profitable way of doing things, for themselves and for the group. The ones who couldn't tended to be kicked off the ship, onto some empty island somewhere if they were lucky.

Anyone living in a society with other people has to accept sometimes not coming out on top, because nobody gets everything they want all the time, even those in the highest levels can't do so ALL the time (or their society tends to overthrow them, generally in a messy function). By electing someone (formally or otherwise) to settle disputes, choosing someone the majority agrees is the most fair and impartial to do so, they serve their own interests for the future that when they have a problem, it'll be handled fairly for them at least as often as it isn't, which is better than fights to the death or just being treated by shit by those stronger than them all the time.

>>52509356
>The king can easily kill a small group or individual, but doesn't because he's weaker than the whole.
>but doesn't
>doesn't

Have you never read any medieval history whatsoever?

>>52508545
What about the power of love?

>>52498386
Indo-Aryan, so European Medieval cultures were warfaring cultures, the sword was seen as a more important sign than the crown, which came after, after copying the Roman Style

>>52498253
It depends on whether you consider divinity to be inherent to the supernatural and discernible from malevolent design by a mere mortal such as yourself or whether you in fact consider the supernatural as a whole to be so beyond the ken of a mortal being of its nature super to your own nature that you are left with no choice but to disavow any supernatural agency regardless of its claims, however impressive or persuasive to your own ego they may be.

Whereas the supernatural might bestow kingship upon you by divine right and may in fact be correct to do so as even the nadir of your reign might be preferable as the least-worst outcome possible of all possible outcomes, from a personal standpoint you can't turn around and say "I told you so" to the ineffable when it all turns tits up, whereas with an electorate you can wheedle and cajole them into giving you the power to attempt to enact your goals which may or may not be co-incidental to the things you promised your majority, then gerrymander, obfuscate and mislead in order to retain your seat for as long as possible, without the inconvenience of a higher power ineffably deciding that actually you were not The One and this bright young turk leading the mob against you is in fact The One, which is more or less an inescapable fate since it relies upon you, a mere mortal, being able to see off not only your electors but your patron, who is super as aforementioned, to your own nature sufficient to lift up any individual to the highest of all possible ranks in the land.

>>52500704
She (technically they since there's more than one) were fae but could be killed as easily as anyone, Sir Balin lopped her head off and also said she was the most evil woman to ever live

He was not wrong.

Depends if the entity is tied to the land only, or to the land and its people.

Because if she's just tied to the land then he is not king over the people, at best he's the king of the people tied to the land.

>>52509173
Jap civvies in Okinawa during World War 2. The Chinese also have a tradition of mass suicide over simple feelings shit.

>>52498253
The thing about supernatural phenomena, especially in a world without cameras, is that you kind of have to take someone's word for it that they've seen one. There are also multiple types of supernatural beings, some of which are mischievous or malevolent. It'd be quite in-character for a demon or a fey to mess with the head of an ambitious young man by making him think he's chosen to be the one true king.

>>52498392
>when you finally form your ancap utopia then a richer country just buys the NAP and you live in an even more oppressive shithole

File: 1468619946818.jpg (93KB, 600x798px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 600x798px

>>52498253
A player in my game was made Emperor recently thanks to fucking around with soul powers and crowns. Though part of this was an intentional action in defiance of the whole "Become King at the end of the big story" and he was like no, I need divine right to solve this shit, NOW.

>>52504263

Merlin was very good at his job.

File: mfw.gif (5MB, 532x354px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 532x354px

>>52519145
>buys the NAP

WTF? What do you think the NAP is?

>>52506205
>Just because they don't exist outside of human perception doesn't mean they aren't a good idea.

I never said they weren't a good idea, I'm just saying that they exist only because we believe they do.

>>52498370
Governments, ESPECIALLY medieval monarchies function on the assumption that the liege will protect his subjects from danger, so a sword is a completely apt crowning symbol.

File: Varys.jpg (55KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1280x720px

>>52508545
If it's swordsmen who rule, why do we pretend that kings have the power?

>>52519531
>ideas can't be bought
Boy are you naive

>>52520633

Sometimes a king can be a swordsman.

>>52501101
They will consent after I decimate them.

>>52520633
More convenient for the swordsmen, I guess.

>sometimes a king can be a swordsman

See: Dynasty Founding for Dummies

>>52503411
No it was a well established tradition of the people involved to select a great warrior as "war chief" because in peace time there wasn't a lot of need for a king. Each tribe had an elder who did most of the day to day stuff. The sword was a proper symbol of leadership at the time.

The Christians are largely to blame for shifting away from this, the final nail in the coffin being the Normans.

>>52498253
>open thread
>see where discussion went
>"I expected nothing, yet I'm still disappointed".jpg

In all seriousness, legitimacy of a king is decided by the backing of the people, because that's the only thing that keeps him in power over said people. If people decide they don't want ot obey their ruler, the ruler can do literally nothing about it, because any army he has is also a part of said people.
I mean, unless the divine entity gave him enough power to enslave all the people, but at that point we are talking about tyranny, not monarchy.

Yeah but his dad was the king, so sword or not, by blood the throne is his.

>>52521978
European and Chinese monarchs yeah (especially since China had the whole divine mandate policy of "hey if the Emperor got deposed, clearly the gods didn't want him to be Emperor anymore"), but there are some monarchs in history that weren't deposed because doing so was unthinkable to the people (see: Japan)

>>52522452
Japan is pretty much the fuckboy of the history, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh5LY4Mz15o

>>52522634

I really dislike that video, purely because it's literally the same joke over and over. It's not like he's saying anything inaccurate, but boy is it annoying.

>>52522656
Eh, it's funny. I mean, it's not really intended as humor - it's just pretty much the style of his entire channel, so I dunno what you expected.

>>52498253
The Sword in the Stone, which is the sword that proves Arthur is the rightful king of England by the grace of God and has divine mandate, is not the same sword as Excalibur, which was given to Arthur by the Lady of the Lake.

>>52522746
Which begs the question - where did Caliburn go once Arthur got the Excalibur?

>>52522780
Caliburn and Excalibur are the same sword.

>>52522942
Fuck, I meant the Sword in the Stone. Had a brainfart there for a moment.

>>52502488
Actually in arthurian legend, the lady of the lake is cited by merlin to live within the lake. And both arthur and gallahad both witness the Lady of the lake. She walks on the water, and can rise and sink at will. She is a magical craftsman as well since the sword and the scabbard are both incredibly magical. (one never loses its edge, or breaks, cuts though anything. Scabbard never lets its wearer be hurt.) It is safe to assume she is some version of the supernatural, and possibly divine. She shares many traits with greek water nymphs.

But regardless of her resume, some watery tart chucking scimitars at people is NOT a stable form of government.

>>52498349
These are dumb and so is the uploader.

File: 1408758699657.jpg (50KB, 500x357px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x357px

>>52500246
>"Rights" are leftist bullshit

>he wants to rule the world
Why?

Sounds like a lot of work.

>>52522780
>>52522942

Didn't he break Caliburn by being a dumbass, so the lady of the lake gave him Excalibur?

>>52523024
It is tho. The lady of the lake is the just-so story to get the first king's rule rolling; which all forms of government need.

A monarch is incentivized to treat his kingdom as a long-term investment. Democratic politicians are incentivized to maximize short-term payoffs for their voters, lobbyists, and themselves.

This is historically verifiable - despite the three-generation rule, monarchies tend to be more stable than democracies, not less.

File: e0ae8015291113cfe94d1c785da076aa.jpg (142KB, 564x1901px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 564x1901px

>>52523532
Whatever the fuck first sword he pulled from the anvil and got declared king (Mallory calls it Excalibur and it shines like 30 torches and blinds his enemies) broke fighting King Pellinore. Then Merlin said it was no big deal and brought him to 'the lake' to get Excalibur, which Merlin then said was pretty useless compared to the scabbard.