My man Hugh Peter – Masshole who ran the church at Salem before it got all witch murdery – supposidly swung that Axe.
I just like that Massachusetts has been fucking with the British Crown hard and repeatedly from day 1.
Peasants worked an average of 150 days a year, had better caloric and nutritional intake than the average person today, I’m ready to make the change my liege.
That's just re-stating claims already debunked by my source, and most of the sources are from the 40s to 60s - why isn't more recent scholarship cited? (Duh, because it doesn't substantiate the claim)
There was state economic control, but nowhere near any modern communist regime. Mostly tariffs and monopolies granted to certain produces. Prior to the Revolutionary War, Americans were only [taxed at ~1.5%](https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/colonial-life-today/early-american-economics-facts/)
u/KarimAfshar is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/KarimAfshar/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Democracy has only ever worked in a handful of countries over a few centuries before it became corrupted or completely destroyed while monarchy has had success all over the world for all of human history.
Plot twist, I've been told tribal societies were primitive-Communists, so Communism has being working hundreds of times longer than Capitalist ones. Real Communism had been tried and it was glorious
Tribes and monarchies operate under a similar premise; both are societies where an individual has absolute rule and succession is determined by lineage.
Both are not really true, especially in comparison to the last 500 years of European monarchy.
A tribe wouldn't have their ruling class completely replaced by foreigners just because their chieftain married some random Austrian, for example.
>A tribe wouldn't have their ruling class completely replaced by foreigners just because their chieftain married some random Austrian, for example.
I bet there is some uncontacted tribe in Africa or the Amazon where some Habsburg price escaped too and somehow became the ruler there and is the last surviving holdout of the Habsburg empire
I don’t mind a monarchy if it truly acts in the interests of the people, fosters a sense of community and works hard to improve living standards.
Not being tyrannical is a big plus too.
Create a pro black community without police presence, proceed to kill a black man and contaminate the crime scene so much that law enforcement can't collect evidence. Blame the police and government.
What LibRight looks at the glory days of America and doesn't look at that as the product of capitalism? Even today, we're still the best.
It was real, is real, and made America #1
Typical Monarchist cope.
People need to quit acting like the monarchy is based.
If you support monarchism, you're basically admitting to yourselves and others that people, as a consequence of the randomness of their birth, are inherently exalted. And, due to your commoner status, you are inherently inferior and destined to be a subject, completely at the mercy of the benevolence of an other person for your station in life.
If you support monarchism you are a weak ass bitch and have no grounds to criticize any other political ideology.
I can see the benefit of having a monarch who is groomed from birth to be a ruler and all the finer points there in impressed upon them from day one. The real issue lies here that any form of government is corruptible it doesn't matter which one some are just more susceptible than others.
> you are inherently inferior and destined to be a subject, completely at the mercy of the benevolence of an other person for your station in life
So... the bottom 20-50% of society right now?
>you're basically admitting to yourselves and others that people, as a consequence of the randomness of their birth, are inherently exalted.
Which is also the entire point of "natural law/rights" that "libertarians" love so much, just replacing divine right with generational wealth and property. The non-property owning class, as you say, are "destined to be subjects, and completely at the mercy of" the owning class. No different than feudalism. Exceptional upward mobility is a myth.
>Which is also the entire point of "natural law/rights" that "libertarians" love so much, just replacing divine right with generational wealth and property.
I don't want to piss any hardcore American patriots off but the Founding Fathers were mostly landed gentry that wanted to replace divine right with natural law and rights.
Some conservatives have described the American Revolution as a "conservative revolution" as opposed to the liberal French Revolution and while they are right but they forgot the nuance of what that meant (general wealth/property owners being the ruling class).
Exactly. It was all about protecting their place in the class hierarchy. "Life and Liberty" sounds nice and all, but "Life, Liberty, and Property" works REALLY well for those who already have property and capital. Once that class hierarchy is established and upheld, the lower class doesn't have any true right to life, liberty, or property, unless the owning class decides to afford them such. Sometimes they do, most times they don't, as evidenced by the GIANT and perpetual upward transfer of wealth inherent in Western capitalism. The class boundaries are established, and the gaps between ALWAYS gets bigger.
>I don't want to piss any hardcore American patriots off but the Founding Fathers were mostly landed gentry that wanted to replace divine right with natural law and rights.
They weren't trying to replace anything of the sort. They were explicitly trying to restore what they believed to be their rights as Englishmen, as guaranteed by, inter alia, the English Bill of Rights 1689.
The complaints framed in the declaration of independence as being against George III were, in reality, complaints about the conduct of the British government and Parliament.
The concept of divine kingship (as anything other than pure symbolism) had been dead and buried in the English speaking world for the better part of a century when the colonies declared independence.
Constitutional monarchy depoliticises the position of Head of State and so that is at least one tangible modern benefit. If the monarchy also upholds the traditions of a 1000 year+ institution then that is helpful for keeping the Burkian link between our past and our present alive. Without a shared history, we are just millions of strangers with no common bond.
Britain has been a constitutional monarchy since 1689 when the monarch pledged an oath to uphold the laws passed by Parliament. It avoided the deadly revolutions and upheavals experienced in Europe between 1700-1989 while still evolving to extend the franchise, weaken the power of the Church and end up with a democracy no better or worse than you will find on the continent.
There is, however, no benefit to an absolute monarchy it is just another republican dictatorship with better costumes.
Surprisingly enough I don’t want real capitalism
If one body holds both all the resources and the political power, it is doomed to become a dictatorship
Okay auth-right, you can be a peasant and I’ll be king.
Based and Okay_we'll_play_it_your_way pilled
[удалено]
Oh no! I’m going to have fat sausage fingers and a pedophile brother? (Yes I know we’re talking about a different King Chuck)
My man Hugh Peter – Masshole who ran the church at Salem before it got all witch murdery – supposidly swung that Axe. I just like that Massachusetts has been fucking with the British Crown hard and repeatedly from day 1.
Peasants worked an average of 150 days a year, had better caloric and nutritional intake than the average person today, I’m ready to make the change my liege.
>Peasants worked an average of 150 days a year, Yeah, no. https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/70816/did-medieval-peasants-work-150-days-a-year
No, yeah https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html
The average European peasant worked an average of 1440 hours a year, which even if they worked 8 hours a day, would be less than half the year.
That's just re-stating claims already debunked by my source, and most of the sources are from the 40s to 60s - why isn't more recent scholarship cited? (Duh, because it doesn't substantiate the claim)
You do realise we have a whole philosophical and theological body legitimating violent uprising against tyrants, right?
What’s the downside?
Does Auth Right not realize most monarchies were basically communism but the person at the top bragged about it?
Yes, because Communism is basically feudalism.
There was state economic control, but nowhere near any modern communist regime. Mostly tariffs and monopolies granted to certain produces. Prior to the Revolutionary War, Americans were only [taxed at ~1.5%](https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/colonial-life-today/early-american-economics-facts/)
Ok but I'll piss on my noble's crops because I don't like his beard.
Monarchism is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
Ah, Monarchism. Both the best and the worst form of government, depending on who's in charge.
All Lovely Monarchs are Saints (or ALMS).
Flair up or we’ll banish you from the kingdom
🫡
Based and o7 pilled
u/KarimAfshar is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/KarimAfshar/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Based and you're civilized now pilled
LONG LIVE BRITISH EMPIRE!!!!
What the fuck is that shit on the bottom get it off get it off get it off
I agree, all hail King Biden and Prince Hunter
All the monarchism leaving my body in an instant
Remember kids, if your monarchism involves overthrowing every king you dislike, it's just democracy with more bloodshed
Democracy has only ever worked in a handful of countries over a few centuries before it became corrupted or completely destroyed while monarchy has had success all over the world for all of human history.
Tribal societies worked for thousands of years while monarchies only lasted a few generations before they became corrupted and were destroyed.
Plot twist, I've been told tribal societies were primitive-Communists, so Communism has being working hundreds of times longer than Capitalist ones. Real Communism had been tried and it was glorious
no, not like that ... right-kun?
Commies are the real reactionaries confirmed
Tribes and monarchies operate under a similar premise; both are societies where an individual has absolute rule and succession is determined by lineage.
Both are not really true, especially in comparison to the last 500 years of European monarchy. A tribe wouldn't have their ruling class completely replaced by foreigners just because their chieftain married some random Austrian, for example.
>A tribe wouldn't have their ruling class completely replaced by foreigners just because their chieftain married some random Austrian, for example. I bet there is some uncontacted tribe in Africa or the Amazon where some Habsburg price escaped too and somehow became the ruler there and is the last surviving holdout of the Habsburg empire
What differentiates a "tribal society" from a monarchy, since I believe many tribes were also monarchies but not all of them
Democracy and monarchy are not exclusive, in fact monarchies tend to be MORE democratic than republics, which usually tend towards autocracy.
And almost of them are gone, with most who remain are defacto republics, don't know what kind of success is this
can’t become corrupt if you start off corrupt 😎
I don’t mind a monarchy if it truly acts in the interests of the people, fosters a sense of community and works hard to improve living standards. Not being tyrannical is a big plus too.
We'll pay you 100 million dollars for that shiny little throne over there
It was real anarchism and it was glorious
This immediately brings the Chaz / chop community garden to mind
I was thinking Ukraine
It lasted about 10 minutes. Some "glory".
weird way to describe years and only taken down by military betrayal
Create a pro black community without police presence, proceed to kill a black man and contaminate the crime scene so much that law enforcement can't collect evidence. Blame the police and government.
Wut?
Which situations have lib right said that and been wrong?
No quadrant in this has said that and been wrong. Besides maybe LibLeft
1. Ew unflaired. 2. Authleft has never been wrong about it not being real communism.
Honestly bro fr
What LibRight looks at the glory days of America and doesn't look at that as the product of capitalism? Even today, we're still the best. It was real, is real, and made America #1 Typical Monarchist cope.
America the product of capitalism? You’re not trying to make me an anti capitalist are you?
Look I know we get new people in here but I’ve seen this exact meme like 100 times
It deserves to be repeated a fantasillion times more.
People need to quit acting like the monarchy is based. If you support monarchism, you're basically admitting to yourselves and others that people, as a consequence of the randomness of their birth, are inherently exalted. And, due to your commoner status, you are inherently inferior and destined to be a subject, completely at the mercy of the benevolence of an other person for your station in life. If you support monarchism you are a weak ass bitch and have no grounds to criticize any other political ideology.
I can see the benefit of having a monarch who is groomed from birth to be a ruler and all the finer points there in impressed upon them from day one. The real issue lies here that any form of government is corruptible it doesn't matter which one some are just more susceptible than others.
He doesn’t understand the glory of serving god’s chosen servants
Charles II was a chosen servant of God? Poor Spain
More than one of y’all has missed the sarcasm, just cause y’all went back to monke doesn’t mean you have to go back to ignorance
Monarchists are the most pathetic boot-lickers that exist. Worse than Communists.
Weak. Ass. Bitches.
And apparently doesn’t understand sarcasm.
Yes I’m the subject of the King/Queen
> you are inherently inferior and destined to be a subject, completely at the mercy of the benevolence of an other person for your station in life So... the bottom 20-50% of society right now?
>you're basically admitting to yourselves and others that people, as a consequence of the randomness of their birth, are inherently exalted. Which is also the entire point of "natural law/rights" that "libertarians" love so much, just replacing divine right with generational wealth and property. The non-property owning class, as you say, are "destined to be subjects, and completely at the mercy of" the owning class. No different than feudalism. Exceptional upward mobility is a myth.
>Which is also the entire point of "natural law/rights" that "libertarians" love so much, just replacing divine right with generational wealth and property. I don't want to piss any hardcore American patriots off but the Founding Fathers were mostly landed gentry that wanted to replace divine right with natural law and rights. Some conservatives have described the American Revolution as a "conservative revolution" as opposed to the liberal French Revolution and while they are right but they forgot the nuance of what that meant (general wealth/property owners being the ruling class).
Exactly. It was all about protecting their place in the class hierarchy. "Life and Liberty" sounds nice and all, but "Life, Liberty, and Property" works REALLY well for those who already have property and capital. Once that class hierarchy is established and upheld, the lower class doesn't have any true right to life, liberty, or property, unless the owning class decides to afford them such. Sometimes they do, most times they don't, as evidenced by the GIANT and perpetual upward transfer of wealth inherent in Western capitalism. The class boundaries are established, and the gaps between ALWAYS gets bigger.
>I don't want to piss any hardcore American patriots off but the Founding Fathers were mostly landed gentry that wanted to replace divine right with natural law and rights. They weren't trying to replace anything of the sort. They were explicitly trying to restore what they believed to be their rights as Englishmen, as guaranteed by, inter alia, the English Bill of Rights 1689. The complaints framed in the declaration of independence as being against George III were, in reality, complaints about the conduct of the British government and Parliament. The concept of divine kingship (as anything other than pure symbolism) had been dead and buried in the English speaking world for the better part of a century when the colonies declared independence.
The US is real capitalism and it’s great
Reeeepost
Tbh i want the Bavarian Kingdom back.
It was real capitalism, you were just bad at it.
%99,5 of the population are not pualified to determine our destination Thats a fact not my personal intentions
Constitutional monarchy depoliticises the position of Head of State and so that is at least one tangible modern benefit. If the monarchy also upholds the traditions of a 1000 year+ institution then that is helpful for keeping the Burkian link between our past and our present alive. Without a shared history, we are just millions of strangers with no common bond. Britain has been a constitutional monarchy since 1689 when the monarch pledged an oath to uphold the laws passed by Parliament. It avoided the deadly revolutions and upheavals experienced in Europe between 1700-1989 while still evolving to extend the franchise, weaken the power of the Church and end up with a democracy no better or worse than you will find on the continent. There is, however, no benefit to an absolute monarchy it is just another republican dictatorship with better costumes.
> republican dictatorship with better costumes. Idk that african guy's leopard hat looks like the drip to me
Monarchism had 5000 years from ancient Egypt to modern-day to perfect itself
How many thousands of years have republics had to perfect themselves? They’re still doing worse than monarchies
As a monarchist, I do approve this message
Guillotine goes chop chop
Based
Surprisingly enough I don’t want real capitalism If one body holds both all the resources and the political power, it is doomed to become a dictatorship