/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

In reality I should have also explain why monarchy is fundamentally a better system than democracy. It prevents people with money from ruling because it establishes a hierarchy this may not seem effective at first but considering that the jews will never outrank a king in terms of this hierarchy this leads to the situation where a monarchy is far more stable than a democracy. This explains why when a country makes a shift from a monarchy into democracy it almost always crumbles. A perfect example of this is Germany. Which was a major power under a monarch however when replaced with democracy it went to shit levels of degeneracy very quickly. I don't know the reason why other western nations haven't experienced this though I wouldn't be surprised if this so called democracy will crumble soon. Monarchies also have other things going for them. An example is that they are the figurehead of a country most of the time. A good showcase of this is Britain. Think about it like this Britain would have fallen like Germany did via democracy however the monarchy is keeping this country somewhat stable and I honestly think that is why so many people are putting up with the censorship bullshit here.

>>149620
Thanks anon.

>>149618
>>149619
I agree with you that Democracy was a mistake, but a far better system than monarchy is fascism

>>149628
I'm gonna be doing a lot of reading tonight.

>>149618
>>149619
Well said anon, another big thing monarchies have going is they are privately in control of government, which when publicly controlled because amplehttps for a tragedy of the commons problem as we can see today. Everyone must loot the country as fast as possible or else there will not be anything left to loot. Monarchies can't do this since it'll depreciate the capital value in the long run. Private control also keeps the monarch from making bad conditions in laws because if he does something bad his linage might be removed, while in a democracy the consequences are much more lax for increasing government power since the only penalty is a slap in the wrist by choosing another party that will benefit from the previous parties increase in government strength.

>>149628
Fascism is still public control of the government, which is why monarchy is still the best realistic choice to combat the degeneracy that is democracy.

>>149633
If you could fuse the 2 systems then that would make the best system. Take the best aspects from 2 differentiating systems and then fuse them into a better system.

>>149619
>Think about it like this Britain would have fallen like Germany did via democracy however the monarchy is keeping this country somewhat stable and I honestly think that is why so many people are putting up with the censorship bullshit here
Germany fell because the Kaiser didn't keep Germany stable, he was blamed for the worlds biggest war (at the time), his country Prussia (seemingly) disbanded… so he abdicated, he had no one left to rule, his word meant nothing in a massive web of interactions when the most powerful thing he could do was declare war. The world changed, the king was no longer a warlord, and many monarchs at the time were simply not fit to rule such a complexly dynamic society when they were largely not even a part of it, locked away and oblivious to its struggles (like with the Romanovs)… many intermarried into countries whom they were not loyal to in order to secure power for their forefathers, it was a mess.

Moreover, good monarchs like Queen Victoria relied very heavily on her advisor, she was nothing more than a figurehead, the era of "warrior kings" was over, especially so considering the fact that Prussias most famous man who achieved the unification of Germany, Otto Bismarck, was an elect.
>It prevents people with money from ruling because it establishes a hierarchy this may not seem effective at first but considering that the jews will never outrank a king in terms of this hierarchy
Maybe not formally, but when a jew is richer than the King, he is effectively as powerful. The Rothschilds lent money to the English King during the Napoleonic wars and when the King couldn't pay them back, the King traded debt for favours. Is a jew less powerful than a King if the King can do his bidding (whether that service is bought or not) through monetary conduct?
>this leads to the situation where a monarchy is far more stable than a democracy
Probably, but more stable doesn't always mean preferable.

>>149636
I agree that they can infiltrate monarchies but overall it is much more challenging. You have to hope that the monarch is incompetent and that he has no clue on how to do his job effectively. Then you also have to hope that no one prepares another prince doesn't get the idea to throw a revolution to put in himself as a new monarch. Which makes it much more difficult to control monarchies.

>>149628
Thank you anon! Ive been looking for a ford translation pdf for a while now (not very diligently tbh). Ive had an audio version but I find it very difficult to focus on audio books. I cant wait to read this.

>>149648
God the grammar in this was awful how did I not notice this.

>>149648
Another thing, its not whether the king is controlled (when he absolutely can be, through debt), its whether he knowns what he's doing and whether his interest align with what the people need. What if the Royal family fails at ruling? Do we kill them and revert back to… what? How do you choose a king? Elective monarchy? Just as bad as democracy (what ended up killing the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth infact) if the core function of the society doesn't change, just who rules it and how - Capitalism is still cancerous, Monarchy isn't an ideology. What if the Kings heir doesn't want to rule? What if he's born dumb?

A fascist dictator would be better.

>>149651
It's alright I make mistakes too, /pol/ is a rough draft.

I believe that Hoppe was absolutely right about democracy. By having the political authorities of the country as temporary caretakers of the government rather than private owners (as kings and others monarchs tend to view themselves), it dramatically increases the time preference rate of those political figures, since they know they can spend as much as they please and indebt the country as much as they please without it affecting their own estate as it would affect the estate of a monarch and his heirs.

>>149650
No problem.
>>149631
Do oswald proud.

>>149657
Most people can't see this though. Most people think democracy is the best system because it promotes "equality". When in reality it promotes mob rule and destroys the values of what makes nations great in the first place.

>>149655
I agree that having a dictator in charge would be more beneficial to us. It means that the government is kept in check while giving the power to one person. A dictator and monarch are both similar one takes over the government by force while the other takes over via inheritance. Here is my question to you if the dictator dies who would replace him.

>>149664
Another dictator… how he ends up being elected is a better question. Do we leave it to the senate that should know what constitutes a good leader? Do we leave it to the leader to prepare a candidate?

>>149664
Curious, if a dictator takes over the government by force, using his power, what would stop subversives from doing it? Im mainly speaking in this day and age where corporations have so many resources and control over the culture.
In the US I just dont see how it could happen, I really dont see how any solid, uncorrupt form of government can take hold here at this point.

>>149672
Democracy is much more effective because all you need to do is wait until the next person to undo all the evil the last guy has done. While if there was a dictator there would be revolutions almost immediately everyone hates communism

>>149724
I suppose democracy could work, as long as the culture that supports it isnt voting for gibs. But yea, we dont have that anymore. We have a serious problem in this country and only a culture shift back to traditional values of honor, dignity, responsibility, etc will save it.

>>149747
No I was saying democracy is an efficient control method because it gives people the feeling that there is a chance of change when in reality its just the same shit coated in a different colour. Should have elaborated to be honest.

>>149633
>>149655
>>149672
>>149724

You should realize that government by its very nature is flawed, as any source of legal monopoly is bound to look for its own interests. Monarchy is better than democracy only because it loots less, not because it actually provides a good.

A far superior system is a return to a feudal monarchical or aristocratic state, where there is no legal monopoly and where private property owners can approach any of a number of esteemed personages or nobles for legal arbitration. As opposed to absolute monarchy, there is no monopoly of law and so the people, if unsatisfied with the "king," can choose a different noble. Remove the legal requirements to become a "noble" and you have anarcho-capitalism.

democracy < constitutional monarchy < absolute monarchy < feudal aristocracy < anarcho-capitalism

"But who would make the laws?"
Laws are to be discovered, not made. All law is in regards to the rights a man has over his person and property; anything past this is made-up, arbitrary, and invalid.

I have never seen fascists thoroughly describe the process of succession that they desire. Everything hinges on the guarantee that the leader has the interests of the people at heart and is loyal above all; otherwise, all is lost as there are no checks or balances.

Also, whereas monarchies have succession crises every couple of centuries military dictatorships have one practically every time the leader dies. Because anyone can gain power by force, anyone will, and it will be a battle royale for who is left standing. Judging by Latin American countries, this is not favorable for the people.

>>149749
I agree wholeheartedly. Didnt notice you were OP and thought you were shilling.
>>149752
While I think there is merit in the reactionary establishment of fascist dictatorships in the short run. I have to say that Im becoming convinced of the merits of ancap.
However, how to get to the cultural state where ancap is viable is still a bit of a mystery to me.
It seems that the only viable way is to unite and segregate. And while I can see us uniting, I find it hard to believe that many other peoples will self segregate willingly. I would like things to not come to bloodshed, but will there be any other way?

>>149762
Shills are rare around these parts.

>>149752
Well I did see an 8chan thread calling them out as being shills. Basically a giant circlejerk. Never thought of the idea of feudalism. If I remember correctly (((napoleon))) was the one to bring an end to feudalism. Seriously napoleon stinks of jewish control. I can't be the only person who thinks that.

It seems like ancap and feudalism are very similar. The most powerful and charismatic build strongholds and protect the people and land around them in exchange for compensation via resources. In ancap this is voluntary while in feudalism its not?

Personally I don't know exactly what the best system of government is, but I do know the following: people who are armed and trained resist poz much better than the unarmed. I firmly believe that the following ''must'' be instated to ensure a healthy and stable society:
1. Every adult male upon reaching age 18 must be put into boot camp regardless of whether or not they are joining the army. Any male physically unfit but capable of being made fit (AKA fatasses and limp wrists) will be forcibly interned at a reconditioning facility until they are fixed of their limitations, then placed in boot camp.
2. Any male who is either incapable of entering boot camp, or is discharged early from boot camp due to behavior has a mark on their permanent record that they must report to every bank, employer, and organization they are a part of, effectively the same as reporting whether the person is a convicted felon on a job application form. Failure to go through militia training is a scarlet letter you will ''never'' get to live down.
3. Boot camp for civilians and for the army/marines/navy/air force is the same program. Same weapons, same information learned. For specializations such as artillery and other training, the militia guys will be divided proportionally based on aptitude to ensure they receive the same specialized training as the actual armed forces.
4. Upon leaving training, the militiaman will be handed the same standard weapons, armor, and gear that a soldier of their specialization would be granted. This means if they trained as a light machine gunner, they get an LMG. If they trained to use a rocket launcher or mortar they get one of those weapons. Whatever they trained with, assuming it is small enough to afford departing with, they get one to keep.
5. Every 5 years the militiaman will be required to go through an examination ensuring his physical fitness, training, and capability with the weapons he was issued. He must pass these exams or be forced back into training until he passes them. The last of these exams will be at the age of 40. After this point the militiaman will only be required to maintain accuracy training, which will be required until the age of 60.

Feel free to adapt this concept to whatever political system you think is the best. I guarantee that if adopted, poz, cuckoldry, feminism and good-goy behavior will be much harder to inflict on your population.

>>149791
sorry for being a newfag, the stuff in '''' is supposed to be italicized. I'm not sure how it's done here.

>>149791
This is a good idea. Id fail at these requirements, but Im working on it. If it was something that was required of me when I was younger I would be much better off now.

>>149791
>people who are armed and trained resist poz much better than the unarmed
Explain the US then?

>>149776
Individuals are tied to land a serfs in feudalism and it relies heavily on land and labor as a means of capital. I don't think its compatible in the modern world. Cities, trade, and the fact that being a serf sucks all put pretty big dents in feudalistic economies. I would never want to go back to feudalism. Ancap might be different but feudalism was more a reaction to how shit things got in the dark ages.

>>149791
I don't think service by requirement makes people better citizens. Most people with conscription I talk to say they hated it. Instead of creating good citizens you are just going to make people hate the government.

I think it is far more advisable to incentivize service. Say only those who serve get to run for office. Perhaps those who served get to vote for certain offices others can't. It depends on the government type. That way those who serve feel like the contributed to something they earned. After their service they will treasure the political responsibilities/freedoms they are given as a reward.

I feel like a lot of you national socialist/fascist fellas think its just some kind of magic wand that can wave away corruption. Its extremely hard for an individual to run a government so they always create a power structure around themselves. The corruption in fascism comes in the form of whatever the single political party is ruling the country.

Hitler had tons of shitters crawling around seeking his favor. The Nazis had serious corruption and nepotism issues that hamstrung their war effort. The people with the money and the power will always try to climb the party ladder and turn the ear of the leader without the interests of the nation at heart.

I'm not an expert on the political organization of Nazi Germany, but I do know about the conduct of the war. People like Franz Halder(Chief of Staff of the Oberkommando des Heeres)subverted orders from Hitler. Hitler wanted the focus of Barbarossa to be the Caucuses and the Ukraine. People like Halder disagreed with this. Hence the focus on Leningrad and Moscow. Unlike, Hitler, who understood the economic limits of Germany during the war, generals like Halder sought victories in the field. Halder dismissed the importance of Ukrainian grain and Russian oil. Hitler was so fed up with the performance of Barbarossa that in late 1941 he fired his chief of staff and assumed direct command of the Wehrmacht. After the war, people like Halder, Guderian, and Manstien were quick to blame every defeat during the war on Hitler. Only if (((Hitler))) had listened to them they would of won! Pretty easy to shit talk the dead man who used to be your Führer! These Generals were quick to try and subvert directives from Hitler regarding the conduct of the war, but when the Allies started pinning war crimes on them the were "only following orders". Ironic coming from the same men who Hitler furiously had to cajole and sack in order to get them to follow his strategic orders. Only recently are any historians coming to Hitler's defense on military choices because most of those Generals wrote the post war history.

>>149831
No system is perfect, we romanticize Nazi Germany in the same way that the Roman Republic has been romanticized for the last thousand years. It's good to have an ideal but it's also wise to remember that ideals are rarely ever lived up to in reality. For the most part civilization is a never-ending Sisyphean struggle against natural human imperfection.

For thousands of years we have been looking for the political system that best looks after people. And we end up cycling between them all and back again. This implies the problem is not with the systems but with the people attracted to those systems/power.

I wonder if instead we should psychologically analyse the people who are seeking positions of power and reject those that are over some threshold of psychopathy etc.

The basic nature of life is to exploit the environment including other life. But civilisation is supposed to be creating a sanctuary from this natural law. Criminal elements will always exist and will always seek to gain power as additional cover for their selfish exploitation of society. There needs to be a firewall against them entering positions of power.

Another aspect is friendship. In ordinary society, helping your friends is considered a good, but when a politician helps a politician friend is that corruption? We clan together into groups for mutual help, so do politicians.

>>149842
This.

With hopefully some sort of meta-evoluionary natural selection eventually.

What if a perfectly running society is too energy/time consumptive and the most efficient society is one that stays mostly viable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

>>149843
Your honestly right. Most civilizations collapse due to the corruption of politicians who erode it from the inside. This happened to rome and now it is currently happening to the west. I wonder if we get through this what the next system could even be.

>>149848
I highly doubt a perfect system exists. In the US founding fathers recognised corruption as inevitable and saw revolution as inevitable. Democracy is supposed to be, in my view, a bloodless revolution.

(The current democracies are perverted for many reasons but a strong one is control of the media narrative. I'd consider banning political ads completely.)

But what if we go more micro than those "revolutions". How about very short terms in power positions, say 5 years. And make those positions chosen by lottery from ordinary law abiding/mentally stable citizens. No chance to pre-corrupt them, no permanent advantage to that person in power for a short time. They can call upon educated advisers. And any affects they cause affects them as ordinary citizens later.

>>149847
Energy scarcity means shit for a sufficiently technologically advanced civilization unless we are talking heat death of the universe era.

Energy is all around us we just don't have the means to exploit it yet. Even without a medium-small star providing us free energy for the next few billion years we still have enough geothermal that is practically infinite for the foreseeable timespan and near future human population size.

After we will be able to build Dyson swarms we will have enough energy to sustain every human, even if you had one on every square meter on every solid and liquid surface on the solar system.

The trickiest parts in this process are the current situation of transition from natural reserves to renewable energy and in the future the scarcity of raw materials, but once we have enough energy and advanced enough technology artificial transmutation of elements will make even this a none issue.

>>149831
Kudos for not falling to the usually spouted pinko trap of "hurrr durrrr Hitler was a magalomaniac moron that would not take advice from experienced military officers". Uncle Adie was among the few Germans that could prioritize his autistic compulsions in an effective manner while most of his generals ran extensive biometric measurments on a leaf while being completely oblivious of the forest's existence.

>>149849
I get the idea. Its just coming up with a new system doesn't work if said system is majorly flawed in its conception. We know thanks to the power of foresight that switching to democracy is what is causing the decline of the west. Democracy promotes the idea that everyone is equal when in reality the thoughts of a genius are have more weight than the thought of a retard.

The founding fathers themselves were mixed on Democracy.
They didn't want it to lead down a certain road.
(Which I think it ended up doing)
https://youtu.be/xgpi6vDC-tI
Here's a comedy sketch on it.

>>149862
I wasn't referring to energy quite like you are but in a much broader sense which is why I included "/time", perhaps 'effort' was a better word. The maintenance of a system can't consume so much effort that it becomes unable to support itself.

With the 80/20 rule you can have a society 80% functional with 20% of effort dedicated to that. To get that remaining perfect functionality is very expensive, perhaps unaffordable.

If you actually want a fascist perfect society, end privacy and secrecy ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

I see society as a permanent balancing act. All extremes fail.
society/individuality
logic/emotions
capitalism/generocity
freedom/rule of law
etc.

Balance takes the cutting edge off everything.

>>149865
I disagree with the premise that Democracy is flawed. Is a knife flawed when you use it for murder, rather dinner? We shouldn't blame the tool when it is the operators of the tool that decide how to use it.

I understand tho, that we are looking for a system that somehow magically stops humans from being human. Humans are predators, this why we have eyes on the front of our head, rather than the side like prey.

I suspect that societies are like life forms, they all succumb to corruption and ill health and die (entropy), and get replaced by the young and new, which will get old and die also.

Nature itself has not found a solution to making something permanent and it has being trying longer than us. Natures solution has been death and birth.

>>149791
There are better ways to go about bettering people.
Military training will only make people hate the government if it is forced upon them.
We just need better school systems and to keep forcing people to go to school.

>>149867
>I disagree with the premise that Democracy is flawed.
Since it was invented by muh ancestors, that used to be almost always right. it can't be THAT bad, but giving voting rights to either foreigners, hobos, niggers or women is inherently going to end up in tragedy.

ITT: The only Boomers alive in 2018