What's the word for protected minorities you can't protect yourself from?

[Donnadogsoth]

You know, you can hit me but I can't hit you back, so you are therefore encouraged to hit me, and you do.  Is there a word for that somewhere?

[adamNJ]

Pussy pass

 

https://vid.me/Pi3b

[mgggb]

You know, you can hit me but I can't hit you back, so you are therefore encouraged to hit me, and you do.  Is there a word for that somewhere?

A king.

[Donnadogsoth]

A king has...a pussy pass which grants...

 

privilege!

[Jsbrads]

Perhaps a tyrant is a better word, but yes a king can be one too

[mgggb]

Perhaps a tyrant is a better word, but yes a king can be one too

Well the best word is cis white males

[Donnadogsoth]

Well the best word is cis white males

 

Cis white males can hit you but you can't hit them back?

[M.2]

A king.

I don't mean to pick a fight, but could you explain why you said King at first? How exactly is a KIng encouraged to hit you while you can't hit back?

I am myself a monarchist, so I wish to hear your arguments.

[mgggb]

Cis white males can hit you but you can't hit them back?

 

Its their privilege to do so.

 

I don't mean to pick a fight, but could you explain why you said King at first? How exactly is a KIng encouraged to hit you while you can't hit back?

I am myself a monarchist, so I wish to hear your arguments.

 

An unironic monarchist? Whew lad, that sure is super edgy of you.

[M.2]

 

An unironic monarchist? Whew lad, that sure is super edgy of you.

 I am going to pretend you didn't mean to insult me.

 

I understood that the cis-white male thing was sarcasm, but I think you were serious when you wrote "king".

 

Yes, there are many monarchists among us in Europe. As you may know, 12 of the 51 Independent states of Europe are still officially at least partially monarchies, and there are still many Royalists left over in Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Malta, Italy, France and Russia.

 

So may I hear your argument?

[Donnadogsoth]

Its their privilege to do so.

 

 

It is?  Where?

[mgggb]

It is?  Where?

 

It's innate privilege 

 

 I am going to pretend you didn't mean to insult me.

 

I understood that the cis-white male thing was sarcasm, but I think you were serious when you wrote "king".

 

Yes, there are many monarchists among us in Europe. As you may know, 12 of the 51 Independent states of Europe are still officially at least partially monarchies, and there are still many Royalists left over in Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Malta, Italy, France and Russia.

 

So may I hear your argument?

 

I don't mean to insult you personally but the belief you subscribe to is silly. Monarchy is a fundamentally corrupt system by concentrating absolute power into a single person. As far as I'm aware there is no monarchy that exists today that isn't limited in power and thus vestigial. For instance, the English have a monarch but she has basically no power and only exists as a figurehead to attract tourists, more or less, so functionally the English are monarchists in name only. When monarchists get actual authority you get crap like this.

[M.2]

 

 

I don't mean to insult you personally but the belief you subscribe to is silly. Monarchy is a fundamentally corrupt system by concentrating absolute power into a single person. As far as I'm aware there is no monarchy that exists today that isn't limited in power and thus vestigial. For instance, the English have a monarch but she has basically no power and only exists as a figurehead to attract tourists, more or less, so functionally the English are monarchists in name only. When monarchists get actual authority you get crap like this.

The link puts forth a pretty lazy argument against monarchism, as it had become quite unacceptable to abuse power so much by the rennaissance era.

That said, the level of power a monarch or government should possess has been an issue debated from the time of the Roman Empire, to the Magna Carta, and until this day. And I will not pretend to know the answer to this question. So I will not argue on theory, but only facts.

 

I believe you have read too much into my words. I never said I wanted an absolute monarch. There are however different levels of power that monarchs of today hold. Absolute monarchs for example are the King of Saudi Arabia, The Pontiff, the King of Brunei... Sovereigns with only veto power are the Queen of the UK, King of Norway... Ceremonial Monarchs can be the Emperor of Japan, Duke of Luxembourg... You can look it up further here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_sovereign_monarchs

 

My argument that pertains to the topic of the thread:

First: Many confuse King with dictator. The King (at least the European one) is given by God, much like the US Constitution. A dictator takes power by force.

Second: History. ​Most countries in Europe have their glory days behind them. And they lost their glory since they got their Monarchs deposed or rendered useless. Germany under the Kaiser, Austria and Hungary under the Habsburgs, France under the Bourbons, Russia under the Romanovs, Belgium under II.Leopold, Spain under the house of Castille, UK before the Queen became a clown. This is something not up for dispute... Every country in Europe that stripped their sovereigns has been worse off since.

Third: ​Note that nobody said that a Monarchy is the perfect System, as there is none. I mean, even the US Constitution needed a few ammendments. But since some of us lost our kings in Europe, there is nothing for our dumb ethno-nationstates to stand on. Our governments can very well be considered illegitimate, since nobody knows what their values are, or who they are as persons for that matter.

Fourth: About minorities in an Empire. ​Since the French revolution, every country that sacked their Kings was automatically fractured into tiny powerless ethnostates. Before that, there was relatively little strife between peoples, since the King was expected not to  take sides. The Habsurg Emperor, for example, learned every minority language in the Empire, and made great efforts to ease the tension between ethnicities. (See CP Franz-Ferdinand). And guess who were the saboteurs? Thats right... the elected polticians who always wanted to divide the empire along ethnic lines. (sound familiar?)

 

The era of kings was not without flaws, but was definitely better than what we have today. At least there would be no protected minorities in Europe.

Acceptable perspective?

 

 

Hey, Donnadogsoth! I believe the term you are looking for is: Democratic Majority

[mgggb]

I never said I wanted an absolute monarch. 

 

 

Why not? If the monarch is put into power by the divine will of the almighty God as you claim then why would you want to limit their power?

 

 

First: Many confuse King with dictator. The King (at least the European one) is given by God, much like the US Constitution. A dictator takes power by force.

 

 

There is no such thing as a god. Even if there were, that is entirely self serving. How do you know if the king was chosen by God? The church tells you. Why does the church tell you that? Because they are allowed to be the official religion by the state. Further, every dynastic monarchy that I'm aware of came to power by taking it by force.

 

Second: History. ​Most countries in Europe have their glory days behind them. And they lost their glory since they got their Monarchs deposed or rendered useless. Germany under the Kaiser, Austria and Hungary under the Habsburgs, France under the Bourbons, Russia under the Romanovs, Belgium under II.Leopold, Spain under the house of Castille, UK before the Queen became a clown. This is something not up for dispute... Every country in Europe that stripped their sovereigns has been worse off since.

 

 

Government is inherently immoral because it relies on the initiation of force. If by glory days you mean their colonial empires then you're absolutely wrong. The white mans burden is nonsense, if third worlders want to stop living in mud huts, playing in their own feces, its up to them to develop a society thats worth living in. 

 

As for every country in Europe being worse off, in terms of human development that is patently false. There is literally no better time period to be living in than the present if not only for the advent of heating and air conditioning. People used to just starve to death and those who didn't were generally suffering from malnutrition, now the biggest problem of our poor is obesity, at least in the first world.

 

The era of kings was not without flaws, but was definitely better than what we have today. At least there would be no protected minorities in Europe.

 

Are you larping?

The link puts forth a pretty lazy argument against monarchism, as it had become quite unacceptable to abuse power so much by the rennaissance era.

 

 

No its not a lazy argument. If you advocate a system that has the potential to allow such abuse to occur then its probably a pretty shitty system.

[Donnadogsoth]

It's innate privilege 

 

Can you give me an example of where a cis white male can hit someone and can't be hit back?  Cops don't count, they are an authority, not a race.

[Blake Carrington]

Why not? If the monarch is put into power by the divine will of the almighty God as you claim then why would you want to limit their power?

 

 

 

There is no such thing as a god. Even if there were, that is entirely self serving. How do you know if the king was chosen by God? The church tells you. Why does the church tell you that? Because they are allowed to be the official religion by the state. Further, every dynastic monarchy that I'm aware of came to power by taking it by force.

 

 

Government is inherently immoral because it relies on the initiation of force. If by glory days you mean their colonial empires then you're absolutely wrong. The white mans burden is nonsense, if third worlders want to stop living in mud huts, playing in their own feces, its up to them to develop a society thats worth living in. 

 

As for every country in Europe being worse off, in terms of human development that is patently false. There is literally no better time period to be living in than the present if not only for the advent of heating and air conditioning. People used to just starve to death and those who didn't were generally suffering from malnutrition, now the biggest problem of our poor is obesity, at least in the first world.

 

 

Are you larping?

 

No its not a lazy argument. If you advocate a system that has the potential to allow such abuse to occur then its probably a pretty shitty system.

Monarchy is far from perfect, but still better than democracy in every concievable way. A monarch has reason to look past his own pleasures as it's his bloodline that will suffer for his mistakes, even if consequences come long after his death. Democratically elected politicians usually don't have such concerns. Even government works better when it's private instead of public.

 

And from an anarchist perspective, monarchy is better because it's easier to topple the state when it's focused in a single individual. All you would need to do is wait for an ancap king to come by, or force a king to give up the monopoly on protection services in some way.

 

As for starvation, let's not forget that it was a whole lot more common even in developed countries before the green revolution. And bad economic policies are in no way exclusive to monarchies.

[M.2]

Monarchy is far from perfect, but still better than democracy in every concievable way. A monarch has reason to look past his own pleasures as it's his bloodline that will suffer for his mistakes, even if consequences come long after his death. Democratically elected politicians usually don't have such concerns. Even government works better when it's private instead of public.

 

And from an anarchist perspective, monarchy is better because it's easier to topple the state when it's focused in a single individual. All you would need to do is wait for an ancap king to come by, or force a king to give up the monopoly on protection services in some way.

 

As for starvation, let's not forget that it was a whole lot more common even in developed countries before the green revolution. And bad economic policies are in no way exclusive to monarchies.

 I believe we may have unjustly hijacked this thread from Donnadogsoth. But I would love to continue the discussion, as mgggb brings up some fair points. What do you think? Should I open a brand new thread regarding Monarchy, or would one of you fine gents do so?

[Blake Carrington]

 I believe we may have unjustly hijacked this thread from Donnadogsoth. But I would love to continue the discussion, as mgggb brings up some fair points. What do you think? Should I open a brand new thread regarding Monarchy, or would one of you fine gents do so?

Being as you're the one who first mentioned it, the honor is yours.

[mgggb]

Can you give me an example of where a cis white male can hit someone and can't be hit back?  Cops don't count, they are an authority, not a race.

Literally every one that walks and breathes. 

 

 I believe we may have unjustly hijacked this thread from Donnadogsoth. But I would love to continue the discussion, as mgggb brings up some fair points. What do you think? Should I open a brand new thread regarding Monarchy, or would one of you fine gents do so?

 

I'm game

[Donnadogsoth]

Literally every one that walks and breathes. 

 

Oh, I get it, April Fools!

[Crazyi]

https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#_locale_id=en;&chart-type=bubbles

 

So this is some really fun data to play around with, and its a fantastic body of work done. My point in linking it shows that once countries move to a democratic system, with free trade and western values, their income and average lifespan skyrocket up the chart. From my knowledge, none of those countries that skyrocket up the charts have some totalitarian form of government. People must be free for a society to prosper. Going to a monarchy in any form, I would argue, is a step backwards for mankind. It took us thousands of years to come up with the model that is the United States. Sadly the only reason I think things are starting to get goofy here is because we are ignoring the ground work laid by our brilliant founding fathers. 

 

While I would agree agree democratic systems have been largely corrupted across much of the world, I don't think it would be better with a king in charge. At least lots of people have to mess up to make bad choices for a country now. Maybe you think consolidation of power is the only way to save Europe now, and I could get on board with that idea maybe. I really cannot agree with Monarchy in any form is a great idea for society as a whole in 99% of situations. 

 

Kings are only chosen by God? The "Divine right of kings" want even written about until the 1500s, and wasn't openly practiced until the 1600s. I mean we are getting close to modern democracy being formed at this point when divine right actually became an openly discussed and practiced idea.