No.526490
(Pic related: Louis XIV against financial harpies)
<Part 2
>The thing that I was most eager to correct about this general abuse was the use of orders for cash, because these had assuredly contributed more than anything else to the squandering of my money; for in this way one gave freely to whomever one wanted, without shame and without any fear of discovery. To avoid this confusion in the future, I resolved to draw up and to record personally all the orders I would sign, so that no expenditure has since been possible without my knowing the reason.
>I also wanted to recontract my farmed taxes, which had not been brought to their just value, and in order to avoid the frauds that were so common on these occasions – whether through the corruption of the judges who awarded them or through the secret compacts between the bidders – I was present at the bidding personally; and this first effort of mine increased my revenues by three millions, aside from making the value of the contracts payable monthly, which then gave me enough to provide for the most pressing expenses and enabled me to save the State a loss of fifteen millions a year in interest on loans.
>As for the contracts for the direct taxes, I reduced the commission from five sols to only fifteen deniers per livre, a diminution that amounted to such a large sum for the entire kingdom that it permitted me, in my great exhaustion, to lower the taille by four millions.
<I was astonished myself that in such a short time and by such entirely just means I should have been able to procure so much profit for the public. But what might cause still greater astonishment in that those who dealt with me on these terms made almost as great and much more solid a gain than those who had dealt previously, because the respect of my subjects for me then and my care in protecting my servants in all their requests made them find as much facility in their collections than as there had previously been chicanery and obstruction.
>I resolved, a short time later, to reduce from three quarters to two the payments on the salary increases that the officials had acquired at the pittance and that had greatly diminished the value of my farmed taxes. But I have already explained the justice and the facility of this reduction to you now in passing as one of the good effects of the economy that was so necessary to my state.
>But my last decision of that year concerning the finances was the establishment of the Chamber of Justice, in which I had two principal motives: the first, that it was not possible, in the state to which things were reduced, to diminish the ordinary taxes sufficiently and to relieve the poverty of the people promptly enough without making those who had grown wealthy at the expense of the State contribute heavily to its expenses; and the second, that for this chamber to examine the contracts that had been made was the only means to facilitate the settling of my debts. For they had been raised to such prodigious sums that I could not have paid them all without ruining most of my subjects, nor cancel them arbitrarily without running the risk of committing an injustice, aside from not wanting to return to the abuse that had been practiced in the redemption of treasury notes, by which means influential people were paid sooner or later for sums that were not due them while the real creditors would have drawn only a small portion of their due. This is why I believe that I should liquidate exactly what I owed and what was owed to me in order to pay the one and to be paid the other, but because these discussions were delicate and because most of those concerned ha a great deal of influence and a good many relatives in the ordinary courts of justice, I was obliged to form a special one out of the most disinterested men in all the others.
>I have no doubt that from reading all these details you will get the impression that the effort required for all these sorts of things was not very pleasant in itself, and that this great number of ordinances, contracts, declarations, registers, and accounts that it was necessary not merely to see and to sign but to conceive and to resolve, was not too satisfying a matter to a mind capable of other things, and I will grant you this.
<But if you consider the great advantages that I have drawn from it later, the relief that I have granted to my subjects each year, of how many debts I have disengaged the State, how many alienated taxes I have repurchased, with what punctuality I have paid all legitimate burdens, and the number of poor workers I have supported by employing them on my buildings, how many gratuities I have given to people of merit, how I have furthered public works, what aid in men and in money I have furnished my allies, how greatly I have increased the number of my ships, what strongholds I have purchased, with what vigor I have taken possession of my rights when they were challenged, without ever having been reduce to the unfortunate necessity of burening my subjects with any extraordinary tax, you would certainly find then that the labors by which I have reached this position must have appeared very pleasant to me, since they have borne so much fruit for my subjects.
<For indeed, my son, we must consider the good of our subjects far more than our own. They are almost a part of ourselves, since we are the head of a body and they are its members. It is only for their own advantage that we must give them laws, and our power over them must only be used by us in order to work more effectively for their happiness. It is wonderful to deserve from them the name of a father and sovereign, and if one belongs to us by right of birth, the other must be the sweetest object of our ambition. I am well aware that such a wonderful title is not obtained without a great deal of effort, but in praiseworthy undertakings one must not be stopped by the idea of difficulty. Work only dismays weak souls, and when a plan is advantageous and just, it is weakness not to execute it. Laziness in those of our rank is just as opposed to the greatness of courage as timidity, and there is no doubt that a monarch responsible for watching over the public interest deserves more blame in fleeing from a useful burden than in stopping in the face of imminent danger; for indeed, the fear of danger can almost always be tinge by a feeling of prudence, whereas the fear of work can never be considered as anything but an inexcusable weakness.
>Louis XIV's close management of finances
>In working at the reorganization of the finances, I had already acceded, as I have told you, to signing personally all orders issued for the slightest expenses of the State. I found that this was not enough, an I was willing to go to the trouble of marking in my own hand, in a little book that I could always see, on one side, the funds that I was to receive each month, on the other, all the sums paid by my orders during that month.
<It may be, my son, that among the great number of courtiers who will surround you, some, attached to their pleasures and glorying in their ignorance of their own affairs, will someday portray this care to you as far beneath royalty. They will tell you, perhaps, that the kings our predecessors have never done such a thing and that even their prime ministers would have believed they were lowering themselves if they had not relied for these details on the superintendant and he, in turn, on the treasurer or on some lowly and obscure clerk. But those who speak this way have never considered that in the world, the greatest affairs are hardly ever concluded without the smallest, and that what would be baseness if a prince were acting through mere love of money becomes loftiness and superiority if its ultimate object is the welfare of his subjects, the execution of an infinite number of great plans, his own splendor, and his own magnificence, of which this attention to details is the most secure basis.
>Imagine, my son, what an entirely different thing it is for a king, whose plans must be varied, more extensive, and more hiden than those of any private individual, of such a nature indeed that there is sometimes hardly a single person in the world to whom he can entrust them all in their entirety. There are, however, none of these plans in which the finances do not enter somewhere. This is not saying enough. There are none of these plans that do not entirely and essentially depend on them, for what is great and wonderful when the state of our finances allows it becomes fantastic and ridiculous when it doe snot. Think then, I beg of you, how a king could govern and not be governed if his ignorance of these financial details subjects his best and most noble thoughts to the caprice of the prime minister, or of the superintendant, or of the treasurer, or of that obscure and unknown clerk, whom he would be obliged to consult like so many oracles, so that he could not undertake anything without obtaining their advice and their consent.
>But there are, you will be told, loyal and wise people who, without penetrating into your plans, will not mislead you about these financial details. I wish, my son, that these qualities were as common as they are rare.
No.526492
wtf is this monarchist thread
>>526444 and
>>526482 kind of interesting though, who knows how historically accurate the content is.
No.526494
>>526492The source is Louis XIV's instruction & memoirs for the dauphin, translated by Paul Sinnino.
https://archive.org/details/louisxivkingfran0000paul/page/n5/mode/2up No.526519
Grace & Alunya: Back to The Future
Grace and Alunya use a Time Machine to travel back into Harlem, the 1980s. they team with an African American named John Sideways, they must defeat Porky's current plan of flooding the streets with Crack Cocaine while fighting South African mercenary goons, Ronald Reagan, the CIA, Wall Street bankers, and creepy evangelical pastors
No.527097
>King Lear / Pre-eminence, Majesty
Let it be so; thy truth, then, be thy dower:
For, by the sacred radiance of the sun,
The mysteries of Hecate, and the night;
By all the operation of the orbs
From whom we do exist, and cease to be;
Here I disclaim all my paternal care,
Propinquity and property of blood,
…
I do invest you jointly with my power,
[and] Pre-eminence, and all the large effects
That troop with Majesty. Ourself, by monthly course,
With reservation of an hundred knights,
By you to be sustain'd, shall our abode
Make with you by due turns. Only we still retain
The name, and all the additions to a king;
The sway, revenue, execution of the rest,
Beloved sons, be yours: which to confirm,
This coronet part betwixt you.
…
King Lear & King James VI & I
Shakespeare's King Lear is believed to have been first performed before King James VI & I in 1606; 1606, the same date Richard Knolles' translation of Bodin's Six Books of a Commonwealth was made into English (K. James VI & I owned a copy).
When Shakespeare in King Lear mentions "pre-eminence" and "all the large effects that troop with Majesty" – it is evidence Shakespeare himself was learned on the idea of Sovereignty I expound in royal colony.
We'll talk further on this.
No.527101
Historians will regale you with how Absolutism & Sovereignty or Majesty was unprecedented and formed Modernity with humanism, nationalism, & liberalism, the Peace of Westphalia; how beforehand denominational / Church allegiance came before political ideas & allegiance, etc.
Before Majesty or Sovereignty, there was the name of monarchical pre-eminence; the pre-eminent notion of Monarchy is very old, but was informal and profound.
Majesty or Sovereignty was simply the re-emergence and formalization thereof… of monarchical pre-eminence as an ideal.
It goes back to antiquity; Aristotle also briefly covered the pre-eminent ideals of Monarchy, but later he denied it and said it was more synonymous with the Indian kings with their grandiose claims… so all will acknowledge the notions of monarchical pre-eminence found in absolutism are much older than their formality in the late 1500s.
…
Aristotle went on to say.
>Any would be ridiculous who attempted to make laws for them: they would probably retort what, in the fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares.
>For surely it would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or… require that he should take his turn in being governed–the whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the whole to the part. But if so the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always.
>Such an one may truly be deemed a god among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in capacity; and for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law–they are themselves a law (living law).
Of course, Aristotle after setting the bar this high (& increasing my suspicion of him as a monarchist) said that this was unattainable, and left it not to Greek kings but the Indian kings of the East.
–
>Now, if some men excelled others in the same degree in which gods and heroes are supposed to excel mankind in general (having in the first place a great advantage even in their bodies, and secondly in their minds), so that the superiority of the governors was undisputed and patent to their subjects, it would clearly be better that once for an the one class should rule and the other serve. But since this is unattainable, and kings have no marked superiority over their subjects, such as Scylax affirms to be found among the Indians, it is obviously necessary on many grounds that all the citizens alike should take their turn of governing and being governed
No.527112
I say, Aristotle, Aristotle, Aristotle; frankly, that is the chair Alexis de Tocqueville is really standing upon w/ his appeals to decentralization: Aristotle
There's a reason absolutists like Bodin & Hobbes were a bit course with Aristotle: (we have a love-hate relationship)
>"And I believe that scarce any thing can be more absurdly said… more repugnant to Government, than much of that he hath said in his Politics" says Hobbes
Jean Bodin also remarks against Aristotle's influence:
>"Moreover, from earliest memory the people of America always have retained the royal power. They do not do this because they have been taught, but from custom. They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, nature. Furthermore, when they hear that the rule of optimates exists in some corners of Italy or Germany, they marvel that this can be."
That's why Jean Bodin remarks, They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, Nature.
>"What Aristotle said that the king becomes a tyrant when he governs even to a minor degree contrary to the wishes of the people – is not true, for by this system there would be no kings. Moses himself, a most just and wise leader, would be judged the greatest tyrant of all, because he ordered and forbade almost all things contrary to the will of the people. Anyway, it is popular power, not royal, when the state is governed by the king according to the will of the people, since in this case the government depends upon the people. Therefore, when Aristotle upheld this definition, he was forced to confess that there never were any king"
Of course, Aristotle has said a number of good things about Monarchy, like of its fatherly and kindred nature with blood; but his view of Monarchy as incompatible with the State is what we're most combative against.
The State & Laws of Aristotle's City is the convention of the Estates or Houses; it isn't indicative of the Family, but the Families that altogether form the City (as the city / democracy was considered superior to the Family).
Hence why the Nobility favors so much for Aristotle's constitutionalism of freemen & equals. They are heads and masters of their estates, together by their consent and virtue;
That view extends to regionalism, based on the view of the estates / houses and their heads in a city.
Yet where our understanding of politics differs is moreso rather than the assent of these estates, there is a bonding agent and unity called Sovereignty; a unity that transfixes and gives an identity to the entire body, like a soul or cult of personality imposed.
A civil soul that encompasses the entire body-politic, indivisible & simple, breathes life into it and gives them a common language, so that the estates can have any assent to begin with together: a majesty or sovereignty holding it all together than simply the coherence of them.
This is the nature of the general power and how our view of civics fundamentally differs.
Hobbes says
>"The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth."
Hobbes says again
>"The error concerning mixed government has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men."
No.527119
This De Jouvenel wrote scathingly–
>Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone – that of the State. In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the State. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the State, and in denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the State. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is their common bondage to the State. The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: that was their predestined course.
-Bertrand De Jouvenel
<The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet:
Giovanni Gentile
>Both Nationalism & Fascism place the State at the foundation–for both, the State is not a consequence, but a beginning.
>For nationalists, the State is conceived as prior to the individual.
Aristotle:
>Further, the State is by nature clearly prior to the family & individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part.
Giovanni Gentile:
>For Fascism, on the other hand, the State and the individual are one, or better, perhaps, "State" & "individual" are terms that are inseparable in a necessary synthesis.
No.527121
This is my response to the narrative of historians, but also the negative stigma surrounding absolute monarchy from other monarchists in our circles like the neofeud ancap people and other rightwingers.
No.527333
The Royal colony threads should have the Alunya & Grace fanfic threads in their OP.
No.527732
<Alexis de Tocqueville: The mother of modern socialism, – Royal Despotism
>Long before, Louis XIV. had publicly promulgated in his edicts the theory that all the lands in the Kingdom had been in the origin conditionally granted by the State, which was therefore the only real landowner – the actual holders having mere possessory rights, and an imperfect and questionable title. This doctrine sprang out of the feudal system, but it was never openly professed in France till that system was on the point of death; courts of justice never admitted it. It was the mother of modern socialism, which thus, strange to say, seems to have been the offspring of Royal Despotism.
<Admiration of China
>I do not exaggerate when I affirm that every one of them wrote in some place or other an emphatic eulogium on China. One is sure to find at least that in their books; and as China is very imperfectly known even in our day, their statements on its subjects are generally pure nonsense. They wanted all the nations of the world to set up exact copies of that barbarous and imbecile government, which a handful of Europeans master whenever they please. China was for them what England, and afterwards America, became for all Frenchmen. They were filled with emotion and delight at the contemplation of a government wielded by an absolute but unprejudiced Sovereign, who honored the useful arts by plowing once a year with his own hands; of a nation whose only religion was philosophy, whose only aristocracy were men of letters, whose public offices were awarded to the victors at literary tournaments.
>It is generally believed that the destructive theories known by the name of socialism are of modern origin. This is an error. These theories are coeval with the earliest economists. While some of them wanted to use the absolute power they desired to establish to change the forms of society, others proposed to employ it in ruining its fundamental basis.
>Read the Code de la Nature by Morelly; you will find therein, together with the economist doctrines regarding the omnipotence and the boundless rights of the State, several of those political theories which have terrified France of late years, and whose origin we fancy we have seen – community of property, rights of labor, absolute equality, universal uniformity, mechanical regularity of individual movements, tyrannical regulations on all subjects, and the total absorption of the individual into the Body Politic.
No.527737
The doctrine Louis XIV promulgated that Alexis de Tocqueville is referring to was something numerous people have held.
Jean Bodin
>As for the right of coining money, it is of the same nature as law, and only he who has the power to make law can regulate the coinage. That is readily evident from the Greek, Latin, and French terms, for the word nummus [in Latin] is from the Greek word nomos, and [the French] loi (law) is at the root of aloi (alloy), the first letter of which is dropped by those who speak precisely. Indeed, after law itself, there is nothing of greater consequence than the title, value, and measure of coins, as we have shown in a separate treatise, and in every well-ordered state, it is the sovereign prince alone who has this power.
Thomas Hobbes
>And the Right of Distribution of Them – The Distribution of the Materials of this Nourishment, is the constitution of Mine, and Thine, and His, that is to say, in one word Propriety; and belongs in all kinds of Commonwealth to the Sovereign power…. And this they well knew of old, who called that Nomos, (that is to say, Distribution,) which we call Law; and defined Justice, by distributing to every man his own.
>All Estates of Land Proceed Originally – From the Arbitrary Distribution of the Sovereign – In this Distribution, the First Law, is for Division of the Land itself: wherein the Sovereign assigns to every man a portion, according as he, and not according to any Subject, or any number of them, shall judge agreeable to Equity, and the Common Good. The Children of Israel, were a Commonwealth in the Wilderness, but wanted the commodities of the Earth, till they were masters of the Land of Promise, which afterward was divided amongst them, not by their own discretion, but by the discretion of Eleazar the Priest, and Joshua their General: Who when there were twelve Tribes, making them thirteen by subdivision of the Tribe of Joseph; made nevertheless but twelve portions of the Land… And though a People coming into possession of a land by war, do not always exterminate the ancient Inhabitants, (as did the Jews) but leave to many, or most, or all of them their Estates; yet it is manifest they hold them afterwards, as of the Victors distribution; as of the people of England held all theirs of William the Conquerour.
Dante Alighieri
>And I urge you not only to rise up to meet him, but to stand in reverent awe before his presence, ye who drink of his streams, and sail upon his seas; ye who tread the sands of the shores and the summits of the mountains that are his; ye who enjoy all public rights and possess all private property by the bond of his law, and no otherwise. Be ye not like the ignorant, deceiving your own selves, after the manner of them that dream, and say in their hearts, We have no Lord.
King James VI & I
>It is evident by the rolles of our Chancellery (which contain our eldest and fundamental Laws) that the King is Dominus omnium bonorum [Lord of all goods], and Dominus directus totius Dominii [Direct lord of the whole dominion (that is, property)], the whole subjects being but his vassals, and from him holding all their lands as their overlord.
From An Appeal to Caesar
wherein gold & silver is proved to be the King Majesty's royal commodity
by Thomas Violet
>The Gold and Silver of the Nation, either Foreign coin, or Ingot, or the current Coin of the Kingdom, is the Soul of the Militia, and so all wise men know it, that those that command the Gold and Silver of the Kingdom, either Coin, or Bullion, to have it free at their disposal, to be Judges of the conveniency and inconveniency, or to hinder, or to give leave to transport Gold and Silver at their pleasure, is the great Wheel of the State, a most Royal Prerogative inherent in Your Majesty, Your Heirs and Successors, (and none other whomsoever, but by Your Majesty's License, and cannot be parted with to any Persons, but by Your Majesty most especial Grant;) your Majesty, and your Privy Councel being by the Law the only proper Judges
Alexander Hamilton
>"Were there any room to doubt, that the sole right of the territories in America was vested in the crown, a convincing argument might be drawn from the principle of English tenure… By means of the feudal system, the King became, and still continues to be, in a legal sense, the original proprietor, or lord paramount, of all the lands in England.*—Agreeable to this rule, he must have been the original proprietor of all the lands in America, and was, therefore, authorized to dispose of them in what manner he thought proper."
Jean Bodin continued
<Of course each man was ruler of his family and had the right of life and death not only over the slaves but also over his wives and children, as Caesar himself testified. Justinian, in addition to many others, erred in alleging, in the chapter on a father's power, that no people had so much power over their sons as the Romans had, for it is evident from Aristotle and the Mosaic Law that the custom is also common to the Persians and the Hebrews. The ancients understood that such was the love of the parents toward their sons that even if they wished very much to abuse their power, they could not. Moreover, nothing was a more potent cause of virtue and reverence in children toward their parents than this patriarchal power.
<Therefore, when they say that they are masters of the laws and of all things, they resemble those kings whom Aristotle calls lords, who, like fathers of families, protect the state as if it were their own property. It is not contrary to nature or to the law of nations that the prince should be master of all things and of laws in the state, only he must duly defend the empire with his arms and his child with his blood, since the father of a family by the law of nations is owner not only of the goods won by him but also of those won by his servants, as well as of his servants
<Even more base is the fact that Jason when interpreting in the presence of King Louis XII a chapter of law well explained by Azo, affirmed recklessly that all things are the property of the prince. This interpretation violates not only the customs and laws of this kingdom but also all the edicts and advices of all the emperors and jurisconsults. All civil actions would be impossible if no one were owner of anything. "To the Kings," said Seneca, "power over all things belongs; to individual citizens, property." And a little later he added, "While under the best king the king holds all within his authority, at the same time the individual men hold possessions as private property." All things in the state belong to Caesar by right of authority, but property is acquired by inheritance
Bodin / The Kings of Persia, lords of the earth & waters
>And therefore the kings of Persia denouncing war, demanded the earth & waters to show that they were absolute Lords of all that was in the land & sea contained. Xenophon in Cyropedia writes, that it is a good & commendable thing among the Medes, that the prince should be lord & owner of all things.
Egyptian Loyalist Teaching
>He is the sun in whose leadership people live
>Whoever is under his light will be great in wealth
>He gives sustenance to his followers
>He feeds the man who sticks to his path
>the man he favors will be the lord of offerings
>the man he rejects will be a pauper
>He is Khuum for every body
No.527740
Hobbes goes further than others.
Thomas Hobbes
>Which is so evident, that even Cicero, (a passionate defender of Liberty,) in a public pleading, attributes all Propriety to the Law Civil, "Let the Civil Law," says he, "be once abandoned, or but negligently guarded, (not to say oppressed,) and there is nothing, that any man can be sure to receive from his Ancestor, or leave to his Children." And again; "Take away the Civil Law, and no man knows what is his own, and what another man's."
Propriety Of A Subject Excludes Not The Dominion Of The Soveraign, But Onely Of Another Subject
>From whence we may collect, that the Propriety which a subject hath in his lands, consisteth in a right to exclude all other subjects from the use of them; and not to exclude their Soveraign, be it an Assembly, or a Monarch. For seeing the Soveraign, that is to say, the Common-wealth (whose Person he representeth,) is understood to do nothing but in order to the common Peace and Security, this Distribution of lands, is to be understood as done in order to the same
Hobbes talks about this in another treatise (kinda like that meme where proletariat are asking a capitalist where did he get that property from?)
>The seventh Doctrine opposite to Government, is this, That each subject hath an absolute Dominion over the goods he is in possession of. That is to say, such a propriety as excludes not only the right of all the rest of his fellow−subjects to the same goods, but also of the Magistrate himself. Which is not true; for they who have a Lord over them, have themselves no Lordship, as hath been proved, Chap. 8. Artic. 5. Now the Magistrate is Lord of all his Subjects, by the constitution of Government. Before the yoke of Civill Society was undertaken, no man had any Proper Right; all things were common to all men. Tell me therefore, how gottest thou this propriety but from the Magistrate? How got the Magistrates it, but that every man transferred his Right on him? And thou therefore hast also given up thy Right to him; thy Dominion therefore, and Propriety, is just so much as he will, and shall last so long as he pleases; even as in a Family, each Son hath such proper goods, and so long lasting, as seeme good to the Father. But the greatest part of men who professe Civill Prudence, reason otherwise; we are equall (say they) by nature; there is no reason why any man should by better Right take my goods from me, than I his from him; we know that mony sometimes is needfull for the defence and maintenance of the publique; but let them, who require it, shew us the present necessity, and they shall willingly receive it. They who talk thus, know not, that what they would have, is already done from the beginning in the very constitution of Government, and therefore speaking as in a dissolute multitude, and yet not fashioned Government, they destroy the frame.
Hobbes is more notorious than others, but Bodin wouldn't really approve of what Hobbes is saying and was more staunch about private property rights as opposed to Hobbes.
No.527789
>>523625What shall we do on this especial day? idk anons.
I feel out of touch, but I'm sure something will happen.
No.527860
>>527755>chernobyl dogRelevance?
No.527869
>>520143>>520141Where did you find this? Saved
No.527871
>>527869푸옹 Phuong DPRK Daily
No.528523
>>528517I love her so much
No.529364
>>498016Neocamerialism isn't so far from the mark.
https://pcbwiki.net/wiki/Neocameralism–
https://pcbwiki.net/wiki/Cameralism
>Neocamerialism is a form of government proposed by the Neoreactionary writer Mencius Moldbug, largely inspired by the economic system of Cameralism as in place under the Prussian King, Frederick the Great.
>Neocameralism is the idea that a sovereign state or primary corporation is not organizationally distinct from a secondary or private corporation. Thus we can achieve good management, and thus libertarian government, by converting governments to the same management design that works well in today’s private sector.
>Neocameralism is a Monarchical system as enforced by the framework of the corporate joint-stock model that can be seen in the most companies in the western countries. In short, it believes a large joint-stock corporation should be chosen as rulers of a country, and the corporation's (large) shareholders should choose a "Monarch-CEO". It is close to the doctrine we espouse here:
>>498016But I wouldn't say it is entirely on the mark: because as political is no different from economical, so also the economical – or as Hobbes says, that the family is a little city. So the political State as we have it now is already to an extent like that corporation or the estate in its nature to begin with, but neocamerialism kinda talks as through it weren't – maybe they could bring it closer to their ideal.
No.529402
>>529388
She should have an outfit based on The Emperor's New Clothes.
No.529520
>>529436That dress picture is extremely cute. I like the skirt and I like the pants too. Why did you delete the other sketches, it was adorable to see her in one picture with shirt tucked in and on the next not.
No.529536
What does Grace-chan do when Iranian diplomats accuse her of stealing their monero coins to buy lunch money?
No.529701
Where does the Monarch have knowledge to govern the State?
There is Aristotle's food argument that discredits the idea of a wise man or philosopher king to rule the State. Stating that albeit one wise man could outwit particular members of an assembly, the assembly altogether brings more food to the table. So the City needs democracy for all the estates to bring food to civil policy.
This is the reason why Monarchists like Bodin & Hobbes & Filmer side with Plato, that there is no difference between the economical estate and political estate: if you know how to govern yourself and your own household, then you're well on your way to knowing how to govern all the estates altogether.
This is better to justify Monarchy.
Hitler writes in Mein Kampf in his criticism of parliamentarianism:
>Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?
Jean Bodin wrote related to this topic:
>But Plato had another argument for an Aristocratical estate, saying, That it was very hard to find any one man so wise and virtuous, as was requisite for the government of an an estate, and by that means a Monarchy were not sure. But this argument is captious, and may be used against himself: for if it be hard to find any one prince so wise as he desires, how shall they find out so great a number as is needful in a Seigneurie?
And for Aristotle's water argument Bodin talks about salt (virtuous men) tossed and dissolved in water.
>for as well in all Aristocratical and Popular estates, as in all corporations and colleges, the greatest part does still over-rule the sounder and the better: and the more men there be, the less effects are there of virtue and wisdom (even as a little salt cast into a great lake, loses his force:) so as the good men shall be always vanquished in number by the vicious and ambitious: and for one tyrant there shall be a hundred which will cross the resolution of the lesser but of the sounder part
Hitler in Mein Kampf also describes his own disillusionment with parliamentary democracy. Many other people have been raised with a profound belief in the wisdom of statesmen: they are the experts:
>Yet all these, and many others, were defects which could not be attributed to the parliamentary system as such, but rather to the Austrian State in particular. I still believed that if the German majority could be restored in the representative body there would be no occasion to oppose such a system as long as the old Austrian State continued to exist.
>But I soon became enraged by the hideous spectacle that met my eyes. Several hundred representatives were there to discuss a problem of great economical importance and each representative had the right to have his say.
>That experience of a day was enough to supply me with food for thought during several weeks afterwards.
>The intellectual level of the debate was quite low. Some times the debaters did not make themselves intelligible at all. Several of those present did not speak German but only their Slav vernaculars or dialects. Thus I had the opportunity of hearing with my own ears what I had been hitherto acquainted with only through reading the newspapers. A turbulent mass of people, all gesticulating and bawling against one another, with a pathetic old man shaking his bell and making frantic efforts to call the House to a sense of its dignity by friendly appeals, exhortations, and grave warnings.
>I could not refrain from laughing.
>Then I began to reflect seriously on the whole thing. I went to the Parliament whenever I had any time to spare and watched the spectacle silently but attentively. I listened to the debates, as far as they could be understood, and I studied the more or less intelligent features of those 'elect' representatives of the various nationalities which composed that motley State. Gradually I formed my own ideas about what I saw.
>A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform or completely destroy my former convictions as to the character of this parliamentary institution. I no longer opposed merely the perverted form which the principle of parliamentary representation had assumed in Austria. No. It had become impossible for me to accept the system in itself. Up to that time I had believed that the disastrous deficiencies of the Austrian Parliament were due to the lack of a German majority, but now I recognized that the institution itself was wrong in its very essence and form.
>A number of problems presented themselves before my mind. I studied more closely the democratic principle of 'decision by the majority vote', and I scrutinized no less carefully the intellectual and moral worth of the gentlemen who, as the chosen representatives of the nation, were entrusted with the task of making this institution function.
Hitler continues to make some critical complaints about parliamentarianism:
>The aspect of the situation that first made the most striking impression on me and gave me grounds for serious reflection was the manifest lack of any individual responsibility in the representative body.
>The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after having brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the responsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved? Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of a definite person?
>Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders of a parliamentary government for any kind of action which originated in the wishes of the whole multitude of deputies and was carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it his business to entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their generous consent?
>Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman's ability to conceive great political measures and carry them through into practice?
>Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered.
>Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before that concept was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through its success?
>In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass?
>What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration?
>Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the measures which he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the nation? Should he retire or remain in power?
>In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty?
>Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour?
>Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber?
>And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to 'play politics', seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for their deeds?
>Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership?
>Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence?
>But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, the creative brain of the individual is indispensable?
Hitler continues.
>The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristrocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature; but, of course, we must remember that in this decadent era of ours the aristocratic principle need not be thought of as incorporated in the upper ten thousand.
>The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly.
>The narrower the mental outlook and the more meagre the amount of knowledge in a political jobber, the more accurate is his estimate of his own political stock, and thus he will be all the more inclined to appreciate a system which does not demand creative genius or even high-class talent; but rather that crafty kind of sagacity which makes an efficient town clerk. Indeed, he values this kind of small craftiness more than the political genius of a Pericles. Such a mediocrity does not even have to worry about responsibility for what he does. From the beginning he knows that whatever be the results of his 'statesmanship' his end is already prescribed by the stars; he will one day have to clear out and make room for another who is of similar mental calibre. For it is another sign of our decadent times that the number of eminent statesmen grows according as the calibre of individual personality dwindles. That calibre will become smaller and smaller the more the individual politician has to depend upon parliamentary majorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for a bevy of footling cacklers; and they in their turn, being the representatives of the majority–which means the dunder headed multitude–hate nothing so much as a superior brain.
>This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent, namely the cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be made they always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the backs of what they call the majority.
>One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude
>The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will feel the call to place their immortal energies at the disposal of the nation. They are so much on the tip-toe of expectation that they find it hard to wait their turn. They stand in a long queue, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of them and calculating the hours until they may eventually come forward. They watch every change that takes place in the personnel of the office towards which their hopes are directed, and they are grateful for every scandal which removes one of the aspirants waiting ahead of them in the queue. If somebody sticks too long to his office stool they consider this as almost a breach of a sacred understanding based on their mutual solidarity. They grow furious and give no peace until that inconsiderate person is finally driven out and forced to hand over his cosy berth for public disposal. After that he will have little chance of getting another opportunity. Usually those placemen who have been forced to give up their posts push themselves again into the waiting queue unless they are hounded away by the protestations of the other aspirants.
>The whole spectacle of parliamentary life became more and more desolate the more one penetrated into its intimate structure and studied the persons and principles of the system in a spirit of ruthless objectivity. Indeed, it is very necessary to be strictly objective in the study of the institution whose sponsors talk of 'objectivity' in every other sentence as the only fair basis of examination and judgment. If one studied these gentlemen and the laws of their strenuous existence the results were surprising.
>There is no other principle which turns out to be quite so ill-conceived as the parliamentary principle, if we examine it objectively.
>It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well informed deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of nonentities who are dependent on others for their views and who can be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy, according to the evil meaning it has today, can be put into effect. And by this method alone it is possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the real control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never be brought to account for his actions. For under such circumstances none of the decisions taken, no matter how disastrous they may turn out for the nation as a whole, can be laid at the door of the individual whom everybody knows to be the evil genius responsible for the whole affair. All responsibility is shifted to the shoulders of the Party as a whole.
No.529702
Thomas Hobbes in De Cive:
>But perhaps for this very reason some will say, That a Popular State is much to be preferr'd before a Monarchicall; because that, where all men have a hand in publique businesses, there all have an opportunity to shew their wisedome, knowledge, and eloquence, in deliberating matters of the greatest difficulty and moment; which by reason of that desire of praise which is bred in humane nature, is to them who excell in such like faculties, and seeme to themselves to exceed others, the most delightfull of all things.
>Besides, there are many reasons why deliberations are lesse successefull in great Assemblies, than in lesser Councells; whereof one is, that to advise rightly of all things conducing to the preservation of a Commonwealth, we must not only understand matters at home, but Forraign Affaires too: at Home, by what goods the Country is nourished, and defended, and whence they are fetched; what places are fit to make Garrisons of; by what means Souldiers are best to be raised, and maintained; what manner of affections the Subjects bear toward their Prince, or Governours of their Country, and many the like: Abroad, what the power of each neighbouring Country is, and wherein it consists; what advantage, or disadvantage we may receive from them; what their dispositions are both to us−ward, and how affected to each other among themselves, and what Counsell daily passeth among them. Now, because very few in a great Assembly of men understand these things, being for the most part unskilfull (that I say not incapable) of them, what can that same number of advisers with their impertinent Opinions contribute to good Counsells, other than meer letts and impediments?
>Another reason why a great Assembly is not so fit for consultation is, because every one who delivers his opinion holds it necessary to make a long continued Speech, and to gain the more esteem from his Auditours, he polishes, and adornes it with the best, and smoothest language. Now the nature of Eloquence is to make Good and Evill, Profitable and Unprofitable, Honest and Dishonest, appear to be more or lesse than indeed they are, and to make that seem just, which is unjust, according as it shall best suit with his end that speaketh. For this is to perswade; and though they reason, yet take they not their rise from true Principles, but from vulgar received opinions, which, for the most part, are erroneous; neither endeavour they so much to fit their speech to the nature of the things they speak of, as to the Passions of their mindes to whom they speak; whence it happens that opinions are delivered not by right reason, but by a certain violence of mind. Nor is this fault in the Man, but in the nature it selfe of Eloquence, whose end (as all the Masters of Rhetorick teach us) is not truth (except by chance) but victory, and whose property is not to inform, but to allure.
>The third reason why men advise lesse successfully in a great convent is, because that thence arise Factions in a commonweal, and out of Factions, Seditions, and Civill War; for when equall Oratours doe combat with contrary Opinions, and Speeches, the conquered hates the Conquerour, and all those that were of his side, as holding his Counsell, and wisedome in scorne: and studyes all meanes to make the advise of his adversaries prejudiciall to the State, for thus he hopes to see the glory taken from him, and restored unto himself. Farthermore, where the Votes are not so unequall, but that the conquered have hopes by the accession of some few of their own opinion at another sitting to make the stronger Party, the chief heads do call the rest together; they advise apart how they may abrogate the former judgment given; they appoint to be the first and earliest at the next convent; they determine what, and in what order each man shall speak, that the same businesse may again be brought to agitation, that so what was confirmed before by the number of their then present adversaries, the same may now in some measure become of no effect to them, being negligently absent. And this same kind of industry and diligence which they use to make a people, is commonly called a faction. But when a faction is inferiour in votes, and superiour, or not much inferiour in power, than what they cannot obtain by craft, and language, they attempt by force of armes, and so it comes to a civill warre. But some will say, these things doe not necessarily, nor often happen; he may as well say, that the chief Parties are not necessarily desirous of vain glory, and that the greatest of them seldom disagree in great matters.
>We cannot on better condition be subject to any, than one whose interest depends upon our safety, and welfare; and this then comes to passe when we are the inheritance of the Ruler; for every man of his own accord endeavours the preservation of his inheritance. But the Lands, and Monies of the Subjects are not only the Princes Treasure, but their bodies, and active minds.
Thomas Hobbes - Introduction of Leviathan: Nosce Teipsum, Read Thy Self
<Concerning the first, there is a saying much usurped of late, That Wisedome is acquired, not by reading of Books, but of Men.
>But there is another saying not of late understood, by which they might learn truly to read one another, if they would take the pains; and that is, Nosce Teipsum, Read Thy Self: which was not meant, as it is now used, to countenance, either the barbarous state of men in power, towards their inferiors; or to encourage men of low degree, to a sawcie behaviour towards their betters;
>But to teach us, that for the similitude of the thoughts, and Passions of one man, to the thoughts, and Passions of another, whosoever looketh into himselfe, and considereth what he doth, when he does Think, Opine, Reason, Hope, Feare, &c, and upon what grounds; he shall thereby read and know, what are the thoughts, and Passions of all other men, upon the like occasions. I say the similitude of Passions, which are the same in all men, Desire, Feare, Hope, &c; not the similitude or The Objects of the Passions, which are the things Desired, Feared, Hoped, &c
>He that is to govern a whole Nation, must read in himselfe, not this, or that particular man; but Man-kind; which though it be hard to do, harder than to learn any Language, or Science.
That is how Monarchy is justified like vid related to govern the whole State & not only his own private estate (like Aristotle & constitutionalists want) – to be like Tsar Paul I overlooking the City.
No.529703
Like I was saying earlier, look at all the rooms of any estate, then you'll easily know all the buildings of any city.
Household / Economic:
A room like a library for the master's children to be educated with teachers
A kitchen for the cooks to provide food
A room for laundry
A room for books.
The City / Political:
It has schools / universities for people to be educated
It has a restaurant for people to eat and be served by food workers.
It has laundromats for people to clean their clothes
It has libraries for their public books.
Public services where the people can be masters with public servants
Even if we concede Aristotle's talking point that we'll want more food for the table, it can still be reconciled under monarchy in any assembly.
This quote from Robert Filmer is actually from Jean Bodin: who also praised the wisdom of council. The power of Monarchy still has the power of unified command to make precise work of the council without dissolving into factions and mitigating the effect of all that food compiled together. Like Hobbes says (in his empiricist fashion) that the head is to council and the senses with all parts of the realm responding to it like nerves in the boy, and the sovereign like the soul to command. The sovereign will have the final will and determination to deliberate and is the final authority, weaving it altogether.
I disagree with Bodin and Hobbes a little bit in putting too much wisdom in the councils. Xenophon in Cyropaedia explains that being thought wise gains obedience. The problem is not that we don't trust the authority of particular men (/leftypol/ is proof of that; so many leftists identify with the names of proper men like Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, etc) – people believe the authority and wisdom of statesmen and other men "the experts", but they're taught to doubt the wisdom of kings. A monarchist should seek to restore trust in the throne as a source of wisdom, make the monarch respected like a teacher. That along with procuring a belief for them to gain sustenance and protection will restore people's trust and obedience.
No.529736
I believe Monarchy can persist into the modern world.
Some might say, that the institutions backing royalty, like the Church, have lost confidence in their wisdom.
Yet even if we have monarchy without Christian crowns, and return to this Caesarism, re-introduced in the Fascist and DPRK Leader principle, or in secularized dictatorships as one-man rule and hereditary dynasties, Monarchy can persist the monarchical form of one person in States well into Modernity with these political ideologies and totalitarianism instead of theocracy. Even if people believe in the Dr. Fauci and the Science now. Yet there are still traditionalist regimes with monarchy well into the current year as well and other examples of modern regimes.
And I'm not saying the age-old Victorian ideal of constitutional monarchy, but the pre-eminent ideals of Monarchy – may persist into Modernity.
>what about feudalism and landholding elite – isn't Monarchy tied to this?
I wouldn't say so, because while the doctrine of the lord of all goods and distribution of lands was associated with feudalism, and replaced with industrialism, the sovereign power also accounts for the distribution of money which is responsible for the transfer of commodities and capital. It is true that monarchies with great power also tend to be those with great wealth (like Saudi Arabia or Thailand or the little monarchies). Those with wealth have power to provide and gain obedience of people and retaining monarchical power. Although Hobbes says the public shouldn't be dieted in a monarchy to only his own assets and estates, but tax and rely on the distribution of funds from the entire land and people, a monarchy having a lot of wealth helps and can even be done without being a staple lordly monarchy, but even with public institutions and assemblies in other royal monarchies. The palace economies do persist into the modern day.
>what about socialism?
In socialism, isn't masterly power usurped rather than abolished? In North Korea, for example, they say the people are masters. –Masters, still. The ordering of the State under democratic centralism still resembles that relationship of sovereign power in the State – the bourgeois corporate State is hijacked and replaced with a proletarian kind, retaining the functions of the previous State in many ways, retaining the State / Republic, which can account for numerous forms of State and methods of governance. Places like primitives like the Native American empires Inca or North Korea, they tend to be called military democracies. –So all the maxims mentioned above about political and economical are no different apply even to socialism (maybe more appropriately because Plato also wanted to abolish private property).
>even hereditary monarchy?
Yes, because when States fall into monarchical form, they'll want to preserve it. It ultimately comes to a question of trust: do you trust a stranger or someone who takes after yourself with the keys of State? A son (or daughter???) have better incentives to preserve the State of their ancestors than strangers do, who tend to be rivals and want to undo the effects of his predecessors government time and time again – the loyal son generally wants to preserve the heritage of his ancestors and will be held in the image of his progenitor and the founder of their State.
Only Monarchy will transform the State from a community of strangers into a community of kindred people; they will know true loyalty, the familial kind, not only for the Monarchy, but also amongst each other.
No.529952
>>529520>Why did you delete the other sketches?To avoid going back and changing my mind.
I regret having so many sketches to end up at square one>>529536Grace is into crypto-currencies?
>lunch moneyDoes Grace also take the bus to get around?
No.530054
if you were to convert all of /siberia/ to monarchism, this board would still be better and more leftist than leftypol.
Unique IPs: 8