>>706797https://youtu.be/H4tyvJJzSDkEquestria Girls ain't MLP. And idk if you can play the age card when Celestia's 1005 and Luna's 1000 years old, not to mention that they didn't rule the over Equestria as sovereigns when they were young.
And when they did began rule, they ruled as a diarchy- we know in otl some kings killed their younger brothers for being the sole heir of the throne, but that is not a thing in Equestrian monarchy.
Plus it's funny how a random aristokkkrat Twilight Sparkle becomes the ruler of Equestria after Goddess Princesses who can't/won't reproduce resign.
>>706798>in Equestrian monarchy*For Equestrian royalty (not all royalism need be monarchical).
If there is an Equestrian monarchy, that must mean Celestia is supreme.
Bodin classifies Diarchy as an oligarchical form & non-monarchial.
If this is the case, then Queen Chrysalis carries the stamp of monarchy.
>Plus it's funny how a random aristokkkrat Twilight Sparkle becomes the ruler of Equestria after Goddess Princesses who can't/won't reproduce resign.Not unusual.
Roman Emperors could pick their heirs (not necessarily by blood) & Hobbes classifies a chosen heir as hereditary and within the rights of sovereignty.
>>706788>the entire show is monarchist propaganda disguised as cute horsiesI'm not so sure of this, anon.
Just because there are crowned heads, doesn't necessarily mean it is all for monarchy (esp. if the show is a diarchy and not a monarchy, there is a difference between 2 rulers and 1 ruler, the former diarchy is two rulers like the preferix di means, and mon is one like mono – diarchy and monarchy are not the same).
There can be many crowned heads and no monarchy.
Sometimes I apprehend shows with royalty can nevertheless teach the public mixed constitutionalist ideals which some royal mixed constitutionalist states are okay with.
I think Western democracies are okay with shows with royalty, so long as they are teaching mixed constitutionalism – which is something some royalty and these regimes may have in common.…
Keep in mind – a lot of villains are also themselves monarchs. Like King Sombra and Queen Chrysalis. I'm not sure they are even tyrannical usurpers, but plain foreign enemies at times (which isn't illegitimate, but in Bodin's term a most just war of conquest between enemies).
Personally, I'm more for being an apologist for Queen Chrysalis than King Sombra, because King Sombra is just a generic Lord of the Rings Sauron villain figure – Queen Chrysalis is the natural queen of a hive.
…
Maybe I am an apologist for these villains because I have some modern sensibilities.
The show consistently teaches the importance of love and friendship over fear and force and an arbiter.
…
This scene with Queen Chryalis is a good example of that: her throne has a magical power that keeps all her subjects in awe of her power (which IMHO represents a monopoly on force, all the powers in the Hive are rendered subordinate by this monopoly on love and force) which Chrysalis uses to feed her subjects.
When Chryalis says that
The hunger of changelings can never be satisfied that is a valid point – the hunger and desires of people can never be satisfied, which is another point for the necessity of an arbitrary power, because the ambitions of parties will continually draw the lines and demand this and that, like the nationalist parties of nations will demand borders to this extent and that extent over the other – which the mutual fear of the Sword as an arbitrary power keeps in check people both domestically and internationally.
…
Queen Chrysalis' Hive is really a foil of Starlight Glimmer's Our Town: it is a foreshadowing of what Starlight Glimmer's Town could be, if Glimmer didn't change herself… the teaching of Queen Chryalis' Hive and Glimmer's Our Town is plainly a corporatist and unitary polity, that the show vilifies – which makes me ambivalent if Friendship is Magic is teaching Aristotle's Friendship of Hosts and mixed constitutionalism, but I know that Aristotle teaches the friendship of hosts is kept in line by love of virtue…
…
I'm not totally against the idea that love and wisdom could be the anchors of states or this is juxtaposed to absolute royalty – Xenophon in Cyropaedia definitely teaches the importance of love and kindness for winning people over and maintaining Monarchy.
But I have a hard time, like Hobbes, seeing how eloquence of words and charity will keep people in line at times. The most extreme political groups have much eloquence of words and wisdom, but the only thing that keeps these people from killing each other is not love and kindness and wisdom, but their fear.
It might be a modern sensibility and a bit Machiavellian / Hobbesian, but I cannot see how fear isn't the most singular unifying force out there that can compel the most extreme parties to reside together in peace.
Halo: CE has a scene where Covenant Jackels and Marines are both lying dead because they fought together in their fear of a common enemy (the Flood).
And an absolutist teaching is that it is generally necessary that at first states are lordly monarchies rather than Aristotle's elective kings taken for their virtue – since the days of Bodin, absolutists seem to deny that idea of a friendship of hosts (or concord of hosts) where they're united by love of virtue to elect a ruler, but plain and simple conquest – Bodin is not Machiavellian, but I think it's plain and simple to see that in order to achieve a greater degree of unity, deference to an arbiter is sometimes needed…
…
Jean Bodin testifies,
>Yea Reason, and the very light of Nature, leads us to believe very force and violence to have given course and beginning unto Commonwealths. And albeit that there were no reason therefore, it shall be hereafter declared by the undoubted testimonies of the most credible historiographers, that is to say, of Thucydides, Plutarch, Caesar, & also by the laws of Solon, That the first men that bare rule, had no greater honour and virtue, than to kill, massacre and rob men, or to bring them in slavery.Sometimes force is necessary to give people greater unity. Bodin's general teaching, from what I understand, is – monarchies need start as lordly monarchies, but overtime after order is introduced, gradually become royal monarchies and respect with love and care the liberties of subjects again once they achieved unity.
>Now as concerning the lordly Monarchy, it is convenient for us first to entreat thereof, as of that which was first amongst men: for they are deceived which following the opinion of Aristotle, suppose that golden kind of men (more famous for the poets fables, then for that there were any such in deed) to have made first choice of their heroical kings&
>But yet here might some man doubt whether the Lordly Monarchy be not a Tyranny, considering that it seems to be directly against the law of nature, which reserves unto every man his liberty, and the sovereignty over his own goods. Whereunto I answer, that of ancient time it was indeed against the law of nature to make free men slaves, and to possess himself of other men's goods: but if the consent of all nations will, that that which is gotten by just war should be the conquerours own, and that the vanquished should be slaves unto the victorious, as a man cannot well say that a Monarchy so established is tyrannical: seeing also wee read that Jacob the Patriarch, by his testament leaving unto his children certain lands that he had gotten, said that it was his own, for that he had got it by force of arms.>For before the time of Nimrod no man is found to have had power and rule one over an other, all men living in like liberty; he being the first that took upon him the sovereignty, and that caused free borne men to serve: whose name seems to have been given him according unto his quality, for asmuch as Nimrod signifies a terrible lord. &
>So the word of Lord and Servant, of Prince and Subject, before unknown unto the world, were first brought into use. &
>And that more is, the rule that wills that the law of arms should take no place where there be superiours to do justice (which is put in practice against the greatest princes, and imperial cities of Germany, who be proscribed by the empire, for not making restitution of that which belonged to others) shows right well, that where there is no superiour to command, their force is reputed just.…
For Bodin, Lordly Monarchy is not tyrannical Monarchy – if not for Lordly Monarchy, then all civil subject would be unjust and tyrannical, and all wars unjust and tyrannical – without first a lordly power to introduce civil order.
>But yet here might some man doubt whether the Lordly Monarchy be not a Tyranny, considering that it seems to be directly against the law of nature, which reserves unto every man his liberty, and the sovereignty over his own goods. Whereunto I answer, that of ancient time it was indeed against the law of nature to make free men slaves, and to possess himself of other men's goods: but if the consent of all nations will, that that which is gotten by just war should be the conquerours own, and that the vanquished should be slaves unto the victorious, as a man cannot well say that a Monarchy so established is tyrannical: seeing also wee read that Jacob the Patriarch, by his testament leaving unto his children certain lands that he had gotten, said that it was his own, for that he had got it by force of arms.…
>For otherwise, if we will mingle and confound the Lordly Monarchy, with the tyrannical estate, we must confess that there is no difference in wars, betwixt the just enemy and the robber; betwixt a lawful prince and a thief; betwixt wars justly denounced, and uniust and violent force; which the ancient Romans called plain robbery and theft. Absolutists don't believe in that ideal of Aristotle's heroic kings, but do think of the right of conquest legitimizes absolute rulers – absolutists deny that sweet concord of hosts too, seeing the need for greater unity and someone to keep them all in awe.
Jean Bodin on Aristotle & Monarchy
>[Aristotle], who defines a King to be him, who chosen by the people, reigns according to the desire of them his subjects: from whose will (as he in another place says) if he never so little depart, he becomes a TYRANT.
<Which are all things impossible, and no less absurd also, than is that which the same Aristotle says, That they are barbarous people, where their kings come by succession. When as yet his own King and Scholar Alexander the Great, was one of them which descended in right line from the blood of Hercules, and by right succession came to the kingdom of Macedon.
>Whereas indeed nothing can be devised more dangerous unto the State of a Commonwealth, than to commit the election of Kings unto the suffrages of the people; as shall in due place be hereafter declared. Although Aristotle be in that also deceived, where he says, That there be three sorts of Kings; & yet having in his discourse reckoned up four, in casting up the account he finds out a fifth.
>The first he calls Voluntary Kings, as reigning by the will and good liking of the people, such as were the Kings come by the will and good liking of the people, such as were the Kings of Heroic times, whom he supposes to have been Captains, Judges, and Priests.
>As for the first sort of Kings, we find, that they indeed executed the offices of Judges, Captains, and Priests, yet none of them are found to have ruled at the will and pleasure of the people, neither to have received their authority from the people, before Pitacus King of Corinth, and Timondas King of Nigropont: but to the contrary, Plutarch writes, That the first princes had no other honor before their eyes, then to force men, and to keep them in subjection as slaves; whereof the Holy Scripture also certifies us of the first Lordly Monarchy Nimrod; leaving the sovereignty to their children, in right of succession; as says Thucydides. Which has also been well confirmed by the succession of a great number of Kings of the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Indians, Egyptians, Hebrews, Lacedemonians, Macedonians, Sicyonians, Epirots, Athenians: and their lines failing, the people in part proceeded to make choice of their Kings by way of election, some others invaded the State by force, other some maintained themselves in Aristocratic and popular seigneury; as witnesses Herodotus, Thucydides, Josephus, Berosus, Plutarch, Xenophon, and other most ancient historiographers of the Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins, sufficient to convince the opinion of Aristotle of untruth in those things that he has writ concerning Kings.
Jean Bodin on Aristotle & Monarchy Continued
>For even Aristotle himself is of opinion, That Monarchs should be created by election, calling the people barbarous, which have their Kings by right of succession. And for which cause he deemed the Carthaginians more happy than the Lacedemonians, for that these had their Kings by succession from the fathers to the the sons in the stock and line of Hercules, whereas the others still had them by election and choice. But so he might call the Assyrians barbarous, the Medes, the Persians, the Egyptians, the people of Asia, the Parthians, the Armenians, the Indians, the Africans, the Turks, the Tartars, the Arabians, the Muscovites, the Celts, the Englishmen, the Scots, the Frenchmen, the Spaniards, the Peruvians, the Numidians the Ethiopians; and an infinite number of other people, who still have, and always before had, their Kings by right of succession. Yea and we find in Greece (the country of Aristotle himself) that the Athenians, the Lacedemonians, Sicyonians, the Corinthians, the Thebans, the Epirots, the Macedonians, had more than by the space of six hundred years, had their Kings by right of lawful succession, before that ambition had blinded them to change their Monarchies into Democracies and Aristocracies. Which had likewise taken place in Italy also, whereas the Hetruscians and Latins for many worlds of years had their Kings still descending from the fathers to the sons.
<Now if so many people and nations were all barbarous, where then should humanity and civility have place? It should be only in Poland, in Denmark, and in Sweden; for that almost these people alone have their Kings by election: and yet of them none, but such as were themselves also royally descended.
>Cicero says, humanity and courtesy to have taken beginning in the lesser Asia, and from thence to have been divided unto all the other parts of the world: and yet for all that the people of Asia had no other kings, but by succession from the father to the son, or some other the nearest of kin.
>And of all the ancient kings of Greece, we find none but Timondas, who was chosen King of Corinth, and Pittacus of Nigropont. And at such time as the royal name and line sailed, oftentimes the strongest or the mightest carried it away as it chanced after the death of Alexander the Great, who was in right line descended from Hercules, and the Kings of Macedon, who had continued above five hundred years: whose lieutenants afterwards made themselves Kings, Antipater of Macedon, Antigonus of Asia the less, Nicanor of the upper Asia, Lysimachus of Thracia: So that there is not one to be found among them, which was made King by election. So that even Greece itself (the nurse of learning & knowledge) should by this reason, in the judgement of Aristotle, be deemed barbarous. Howbeit that the word Barbarous, was in ancient time no word of disgrace, but attributed unto them which spoke a strange language and not the natural language of the country. For so the Hebrews called also the ancient Egyptians, then of all nations the most courteous and learned, Barbarous–
There is an underlying ideological war here between hereditary and elective monarchists: hereditary monarchists have other ideas than the elective monarchists who for the latter part believe in something like the Holy Roman Empire (which represents Aristotle's ideal of a concord of hosts who come by convention to institute laws layer by layer for their convention as heads of estates) – versus the former part the more unifying and pre-eminent hereditary monarch, that has a cult of personalty (or work of some personhood upon the people) where by might and impression of that personality on the people, causes him to be a unifying force.
>>709978>>709978yes but like at least they aren't starving of love all the time though. they do look worse though
>chrysalis is just like kim jong un>implying pony kingdom = USso the changeling kingdom became a satellite state of the pony kingdom, keks
Look, I am divided on
#Team Love and
#Team Fear and which is more useful in being a ruler;
In my own personal experience, I know that #TeamLove can work leagues to render people more willing to side with you or accept you – honey is better than venom – these tactics I confess I used on leftypol.org, having your affection with love rather than fear.
…
#TeamFear has good points too, I am wholly convinced by Hobbes' narrative for an arbitrary power, that #TeamFear is the great anti-hero that saves us all from ourselves, like Godzilla.
…
Xenophon's Cyropaedia is for the most part on #TeamLove and precedes Christ's teaching to love your enemies.
Xenophon's Cyropaedia says,
>The way to win them is not by violence but by loving-kindness.&
>Man, he believed, was the noblest of the animals and the most grateful: praise, Pheraulas saw, will reap counter-praise, kindness will stir kindness in return, and goodwill goodwill; those whom men know to love them they cannot hate…
Though I will read this article on Love and Fear in Xenophon Cyropaedia:
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/klio-2023-0005/html?lang=enSo it says
>It is obvious that among this congeries of nations few, if any, could have spoken the same language as himself, or understood one another, but none the less Cyrus was able so to penetrate that vast extent of country by the sheer terror of his personality that the inhabitants were prostrate before him: …
So these is an important element of love and fear when it comes to ruling.
Speaking for myself, I am usually cast between modern sensibilities and traditionalist / classical & antiquated sensibilities.
I find myself nodding in agreement with Hobbes for areas he finds classical sensibilities unprofitable (whether it be the Greeks or Romans like Aristotle, Plato, Xenophon, Cicero, etc). –So I sometimes lean towards the modern.
The main reason why I cite Plato in my threads is when talking to Rightwingers – rightwingers usually want a history or precedent before anything is valid, on account of how old a given thing is (which for my main audience usually means medieval or older). So for monarchists who doubt the history of hereditary monarchy (& think it is an innovation), I'll cite Xenophon's Cyropaedia where Cyrus says he'll take the older son.
My agreement with the need of an arbiter or maybe the utility of fear – that is a very modern sensibility, but like I said I can see why fear might be a unifying factor (even if that opinion is unorthodox).
I'm sort of a cherrypicker between these traditionalist / classical & antiquated versus modern sensibilities. For the record, there are times where I don't like and disagree with Plato's teachings or even Bodin's. & I'm somewhat guilty of using their authority, if need be But it isn't always an endorsement when I quote names, just a cherry I plucked.
I don't consider myself married to a particular school of thought (even if I prefer some over others), but I definitely have priorities with the political persuasion / bias. That will probably annoy some people, of course.
I definitely diverge with the conservative/traditionalist sentiment with the classics: where once some legislators institute a law, it is to be considered unchangeable and the law of God, permanently and static. And the sentiment that not even legislators create a law (when even if they are discovering them or not, some people are clearly instituting them and I can't pretend that is not what is happening – even if they measure it with some knowledge, science, or discovery).
That is re-affirmed with Plato (who championed this) – although this is also acknowledged with the laws of nature, but not human laws (which Bodin says can be changed by a sovereign power).
I've seen the appeal to the former sentiment (esp. in succession laws), but I also cannot help but see Hobbes' sentiment as well.
>And therefore this is another Errour of Aristotles Politiques, that in a wel ordered Common-wealth, not Men should govern, but the Laws. What man, that has his naturall Senses, though he can neither write nor read, does not find himself governed by them he fears, and beleeves can kill or hurt him when he obeyeth not? or that believes the Law can hurt him; that is, Words, and Paper, without the Hands, and Swords of men?
(For Aristotle's part is also what Plato says, ultimately with an appeal to theocracy and the rule of God, not man, through laws – for the most part is said for the laws of God and Nature in absolutist rhetoric, but human laws are subject to change and legislation of a sovereign power).
>>709964For the record, a lot of what is said at times also applies to Plato, likewise about friendship & equality. (I'm pretty sure that is his teaching too).
Tbh, a good handful of things modern writers like Bodin or Hobbes bicker about Aristotle is sometimes shared by Plato.