(Last post for this thread): Hobbes / Cities & Kingdoms which are but greater Families >And as small Familyes did then; so now do Cities and Kingdomes which are but greater Families. Plato - Royal Weaver <Note: Though that saying is attributed to PLato, I think in the Statesmen, Plato gives an account on the harmony of government. He says that the art of the statesmen is like the weaver, in its proportionate binding the woof and the warp together. >STRANGER: It was of these bonds I said that there would be no difficulty in creating them, if only both classes originally held the same opinion about the honourable and the good;--indeed, in this single work, the whole process of royal weaving is comprised--never to allow temperate natures to be separated from the brave, but to weave them together, like the warp and the woof, by common sentiments and honours and reputation, and by giving of pledges to one another; and out of them forming one smooth and even web, to entrust to them the offices of State. ... >STRANGER: This then we declare to be the completion of the web of political action, which is created by a direct intertexture of the brave and temperate natures, whenever the royal science has drawn the two minds into communion with one another by unanimity and friendship, and having perfected the noblest and best of all the webs which political life admits, and enfolding therein all other inhabitants of cities, whether slaves or freemen, binds them in one fabric and governs and presides over them, and, in so far as to be happy is vouchsafed to a city, in no particular fails to secure their happiness.

>does this comic confirm Absolute Monarchists & Right Libertarians are One Struggle? I wish, but the Libertarians would inevitably whine "centralization" the more made govt "smaller" by centering it more and more on one person. Just ask what they think about Absolute Monarchy. They'd never concede to ruling the State like an Absolute Monarchy, b/c centralization. In other words, they hold to Aristotle's maxim, that you cannot rule the State or political constitution of freemen & equals like a household under one head. It goes back to Aristotle with them, basically. The right libertartian-to-monarchist pipepline has prolonged the lifespan & appreciation of "constitutional monarchy" & the rebuke of absolute monarchy. Just in a slightly different way people don't think about too often. This isn't really some stunning paradigm shift in political thought, but a reinforcement of the age-old hassle w/ Monarchy. Wake me up when the Right Libertarians reject their Aristotelian principles behind their hang up w/ Absolute Monarchy. Like: 1. The State is a plurality, not a unity 2. Political & Economical do differ (& economic / monarchic rule is not proper for political / constitutional rule). ... Time and time again I've tried to hash things out with /liberty/fags, but with them it always returns square one to Aristotle's conundrum with Absolute Monarchy, basically. They especially hate us absolute monarchists because absolute monarchy committed the original sin of Statism for them and must be banished out of the garden of eden and branded with the mark of cain even for that.

King James VI & I speech >This I must say for Scotland, and I may truly vaunt it; Here I sit and govern it with my Pen, I write and it is done, and by a Clerk of the Councell I govern Scotland now, which others could not do by the sword. And for their averseness in their heart against the Union, it is true indeed, I protest they did never crave this Union of me, nor sought it either in private, or the State by letters, not ever once did any of that Nation press me forward or wish me to accelerate that business. >But on the other part, they offered always to obey me when it should come to them, and all honest men that desire my greatness have been thus minded, for the personal reverence and regard they bear unto my Person, and any of my reasonable and just desires. Negative voice >It has likewise been objected as an other impediment, that in the Parliament of Scotland the King has not a negative voice, but must pass all the Laws agreed on by the Lords and Commons. >Of this I can best resolve you: for I am the eldest Parliament man in Scotland, and have sit in more Parliaments than any of my Predecessors. I can assure you, that the form of Parliament there, is nothing inclined to popularity. >About a twenty days or such a time before the Parliament, Proclamation is made throughout the Kingdom, to deliver in to the King's Clerk of Register (whom you here call the Master of the Rolles) all Bills to be exhibited that Session before a certain day. Then they are brought unto the King, and perused and considered by him, and only such as I allow of are put into the Chancellor's hands to be propounded to the Parliament, and none others: And if any man in Parliament speak of any other matter then is in this form first allowed by me, The Chancellor tells him there is no such Bill allowed by the King. >Besides, when they have passed them for laws, they are presented unto me, and I with my Scepter put into my hand by the Chancellor, must say, I ratify and approve all things done in this present Parliament. And if there be any thing that I dislike, they raze it out before. If this may be called a negative voice, then I have one I am sure in that Parliament.

<God and the King: - by Richard Mocket, printed & compiled by James VI & I's command Philalethes: >Somewhat. I heard this Evening-Prayer from our Pastor in his Catechistical Expositions upon the fifth Commandment, Honor thy Father, and thy Mother: who taught, that under these pious and reverent appellations of Father and Mother are comprised not only our natural Parents, but likewise all higher Powers; and especially such as have Sovereign Authority, as the Kings and Princes of Earth. Theodidactus: <Is this Doctrine so strange unto you, as to make you muse thereat? Philalethes: >God forbid; for I am well assured of the truth thereof, both out of the Word of God, and from the Light of Reason. The Sacred Scriptures do style Kings and Princes the nursing Fathers of the Church, and therefore the nursing Fathers also of the Commonweal: these two Societies having so mutual a dependence, that the welfare of the one is the prosperity of the other. >And the Evidence of Reason teaches, that there is a stronger and higher bond of Duty between Children and the Father of their Country, than the Fathers of private Families. These procure the good only of a few, and not without the assistance and protection of the other, who are the common Foster-fathers of Families, of whole Nations and Kingdoms, that they may live under them an honest and peaceable life.

<Emperor Peter I / If a man know not how to rule his own Estate, how shall he take care of the State? >"St. Paul has left us a great truth when he wrote: If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (He means the same for the country; if a man cannot rule his own estate, how the country?) <Emperor Peter I / Everyone looks upon the head >Everyone looks upon the head; they study his inclinations and conform themselves to them: all the world owns this. My brother during his reign loved magnificence in dress, and great equipages of horses. The nation were not much inclined that way, but the prince’s delight soon became that of his subjects, for they are inclined to imitate him in liking a thing as well as disliking it. Emp. Peter I uses two royalist maxims: - To rule the State, a Monarch should know to rule his own Estate - The Prince is a Mirror to his People (I like how Emp. Peter I brings up 2 royalist maxims here, but the broader context of these quotes is from his letter to his heir Alexei & his disappointment -- the broad context of his letter is something a monarchist wouldn't be happy about, & frankly I myself disagree w/ what Emp. Peter I ends his letter with, that is, that he would prefer a stranger over his own blood: the virtue of kinship & blood I strongly value over a stranger, even if embracing an unworthy heir means bearing the burden of some imperfections). <King James I / That a King is as one set on a stage >It is a true old saying, That a King is as one set on a stage, whose smallest actions and gestures, all the people gazingly do behold >Be careful then, my Son, so to frame all your indifferent actions and outward behaviour, as they may serve for the furtherance and forth-setting of your inward virtuous disposition >But it is not enough to a good King, by the scepter of good Laws well execute to govern, and by force of arms to protect his people; if he join not therewith his virtuous life in his own person, and in the person of his Court and company; by good example alluring his Subjects to the love of virtue, and hatred of vice. And therefore (my Son) see all people are naturally inclined to follow their Princes example (as I showed you before) let it not be said, that ye command others to keep the contrary course to that, which in your own person ye practice, making so your words and deeds to fight together: but by the contrary, let your own life be a law-book and mirrour to your people; that therein they may read the practice of their own Laws; and therein they may see, by your image, what life they should lead >I remember Christ's saying, My sheep hear my voice, and so I assure myself, my people will most willingly hear the voice of me, their own Shepherd and King. <Jean Bodin on Prince as Mirror to People >For nothing more divine ever was said by a prophet than what was said by Plato, "As are the princes in a state, so will be the citizens." By lasting experience we have found this abundantly true. For examples it is unnecessary to seek farther than Francis I, king of the French. As soon as he began to love literature, from which his ancestors had always turned away, immediately the nobility followed suit. Then the remaining orders studied the good arts with such zeal that never was there a greater number of learned people.

As these quotes explain on the maxim, that a prince is a mirror to his people: It suggests a cult of personality is natural for monarchy. A monarch has a shepherd-like rule over his people simply by the use of his person. A people so desire a person. Like a crowd gathered around a stage performer. This is a quality of personal rule & also tied to the political salience of monarchy. I'd go as far as to say that is the appeal to hereditary rule 🩸: it also preserves the personal rule because a hereditary ruler by blood also has the added charm of inheriting qualities of appearance of the previous ruler & in effect being a mirror to the people by extension.

Louis XIV had cannons bear two mottos: 1st, his personal motto Nec Pluribus Impar (Not unequal to many) -- this motto asserts the pre-eminence of the king, it asserts his majesty, & his capacity with the State itself. 2nd, the motto Ultima Ratio Regum (The last argument for kings) on his cannons. The Prussians (& apparently the Spanish) later adopted this motto. It is even found on WW1 weapons with Wilhelm II. Frederick the Great introduced the motto as Ultima Ratio Regis and also placed the motto on his cannons. <Frederick the Great >Never forget your great guns, which are the most respectable arguments for the rights of kings. I am not sure what source this quote of Frederick II's is from, but lately I'm convinced of it. All the factions, liberal or conservative, along with the Tocquevillists, Hoppeans, and Carlists, -- are against absolute monarchy, and concord with any of them and their factionalism won't work and it is impossible to keep them content. Ultima Ratio Regum -- this must be the final resort for the supremacy of the monarch.

I said before Spanish royalism to me is the weakest link in terms of ultra-royalism. (I mostly say this only b/c of the heavy constitutionalist / regionalist tendencies of contemporary Carlists & among others who spite Absolutism as a relic of the French). However... Caudillismo is where a monarchical conception shines in Hispanic culture for me -- & where Absolutist tendencies are shunned in the Traditionalist circles, still Caudillismo thrives. So I think I admire Caudillismo the most from an absolutist perspective.

To be deep in the history of political thought concerning monarchy is to be an absolutist.

I'm coining a term for my ideology of Monarchy: Monarchia Natio Coloniae / Dynastic Patriotism. Meaning, the cultivation of a people with Monarchy (in a domestic context). (I might have butchered the Latin, but it is the thought that counts). That is my political ideology. When I say colony in Monarchia Natio Coloniae my intent is a cultivation of politics, to make a people & politics a colony of monarchy. Not colony in the context of foreign lands, but the establishment of politics from Monarchy. This way, there is a dynastic patriotism.

There's a type of character who obsesses over - Evola - Guenon - Spengler - Dugin - Mishima - Savitri Devi - Schmitt - De Maistre - Alain de Benoist Not these names in particular, but in conjunction-- Prominently found in the Rightwing circles, esp. 4ch /lit/ and NRx. I have an uncanny aversion to these esoterics & they feel dull, sapped, uninspired, apathetic about absolutism / monarchy (of Monarchia Natio Coloniae / Dynastic Patriotism) & I felt that way since the beginning towards the NRx & Spengleroids & that lot overall. Unpopular opinion: I avoid that group like the plague. They are too chudjak for me. It overall is pretty petty of me I think they have a bad taste, but because it just is, okay?

Grace-chan has recognized Trump is that cameralist & neomercantilistGOD making the far left & right libertarians totally obsessed. Neomerchantilism https://polcompballanarchy.miraheze.org/wiki/Neomercantilism & Cameralism https://polcompball.wikitide.org/wiki/Cameralism

Aristotle on a mixed or foreign racial underclass: >The very best thing of all would be that the husbandmen should be slaves taken from among men who are not all of the same race and not spirited, for if they have no spirit they will be better suited for their work, and there will be no danger of their making a revolution. The next best thing would be that they should be Perioeci of foreign race, and of a like inferior nature; some of them should be the slaves of individuals, and employed in the private estates of men of property, the remainder should be the property of the state and employed on the common land. I will hereafter explain what is the proper treatment of slaves, and why it is expedient that liberty should be always held out to them as the reward of their services. The love of multiculturalism in today's society is a love of cheap labor and making the next neocolonial hydra of global society. The West views China & Mexico & other industrial sectors like Aristotle's natural slaves. The desire to import more foreign peoples is to fulfill the mixture of the political constitution on these terms above. This runs deep even amongst White nationalists themselves (who detest Jews for the same reason, i.e. viewing everyone else as natural slaves) -- & think the menial work is prime and proper for brown hands. The problem is a mentality like this is why multiculturalism is embraced: it completes Aristotle's City. While North Korea might be seen as a bee colony of natural slaves, they have no impetuous to import foreign hands & have a community of pleasures and pains which race nationalists so badly desire.

Jean Bodin acknowledges a sovereign prince has the capacity to change the customs of a people (& I largely agree here). <Jean Bodin / The Sovereign has power over custom >For which cause Dion Chisostome compares the law to a tyrant, and custom to a king. Moreover the power of the law is much greater than the power of custom: for customs are by laws abolished, but not laws by customs. <Louis XIV's disdain for & roast of so-called "constitutional monarchy": >For there is no doubt that this subjection that makes it necessary for a sovereign to take orders from his people is the worst calamity that can befall a man of our rank. -Louis XIV Quote #1 >It is perverting the order of things to attribute decisions to the subjects and deference to the sovereign, and if I have described to you elsewhere the miserable condition of princes who commit their people and their dignity to the conduct of a prime minister, I have good cause to portray to you here the misery of those who are abandoned to the indiscretion of a popular assembly. -Louis XIV Quote #2 >I fail to see, therefore, my son, for what reason the kings of France, hereditary kings who can boast that there isn't either a better house, nor greater power, nor more absolute authority than theirs anywhere else in the world today, should rank below these elective princes. -Louis XIV Quote #3 >It is the essential fault of this monarchy that the Prince may not levy any extraordinary taxes without the Parliament nor keep the Parliament in session without gradually losing his authority, which is sometimes left shattered, as the example of the previous King [Charles I] had sufficiently demonstrated. -Louis XIV Quote #4 >As to the persons who were to support me in my work, I resolved above all not to have a prime minister, and if you and all your successors take my advice, my son, the name will forever be abolished in France, there being nothing more shameful than to see on the one hand all the functions and on the other the mere title of a king. -Louis XIV Quote #5

>>7671 Is it not the case that "Europe of a Thousand Liechtensteins" means each individual is an Absolute Monarchist over all within the borders of their property? That is to say, one could make whatever rule they choose for those on their property, and if someone chooses not to follow, they can be physically removed without further explanation or justification than the sovereignty of the property owner? I wouldn't personally view that as evidence of Hoppeans advocating for Constitutional Monarchy. Under Hoppeanism, an Absolute Monarchy is as large as people who choose to support it, and should one person come to rule over everything, they would carry that sovereignty by decree of their property. While true ownership over individuals themselves is not possible, functionally or on libertarian principles, individuals are by no means equal under such a system, and the best ruler will gain power proportional to their successful rulership.

>>7897 The problem is this: Right Libertarians abhor a unitary conception of politics -- yes, for vast, economical estates, they prefer an ideology of petty, numerous, countless kings, & if you cross that into the political domain it begins to look more like the Holy Roman Empire & elective monarchy, built on the notion of Aristotle's Politics with a partnership of independent clans. Like I said earlier in this thread, the way Right Libertarian neofeudalists adore the Holy Roman Empire is essentially a fetishism of Aristotle's Politics on a map. Your ideals of politics is no different than say multi-party democracies are to one-party states, or a multiplicity of noble estates to an absolute monarchy. <De Jouvenel / Monarchical vs Senatorial >According to which of these two hypotheses is adopted, the conclusion is reached that the "natural" government is either the monarchical or the senatorial. But from the time that Locke utterly smashed up Filmer's fragile structure, the earliest political authority was considered to be the senate composed of fathers of families, using the word "families" in the widest sense. <Society must, therefore, have presented two degrees of authority, which were quite different in kind. >On the one hand is the head of the family, exercising the most imperious sway over all who were within the family circle. >On the other are the heads of families in council, taking decisions in concert, tied to each other only by consent, submitting only to what has been determined in common, and assembling their retainers, who have outside themselves, neither law nor master, to execute their will. What De Jouvenel is stating here is Aristotle's conception of Politics -- the political state is a plurality, the economic state a unitary structure -- & when De Jouvenel states which were quite different in kind that is another allusion to Aristotle who made political & economical differ in kind. When Right Libertarians honk about decentralization -- it is no more than Aristotle's conception of politics as a plurality & when Right Libertarians appeal to this ideology of many petty kings that also is exactly that same assertion. >Is it not the case that "Europe of a Thousand Liechtensteins" means each individual is an Absolute Monarchist over all within the borders of their property? Yes, but like Aristotle insists it is one thing to rule over an economical estate, another to rule an political state -- the moment a monarch comes to rule over estates it is an issue from the Aristotelian view. >I wouldn't personally view that as evidence of Hoppeans advocating for Constitutional Monarchy. It is a very subtle difference: 1st, they agree with Aristotle that the primacy of monarchy is as an economical estate & not political state, slightly agreeing that political & economical do differ. 2nd, they adhere to a more composite notion of politics, a Europe of many Liechensteins, which stresses a pluralistic conception of politics as opposed to the unitary mode of State Corporatism (which is so hated). If you advocated a unitary view of politics where one monarch gains the pre-eminence over numerous kinglets, they'd readily condemn it for centralization. Invariably they want it is as the Holy Roman Empire or United Arab Emirates or Malaysia on Aristotelian terms, where there are many kings in congregation with one another in the same state.

>>7899 >petty, numerous, countless kings Do you mean within the same regional state, or on a global scale? That is to say, are you advocating for a sort of "New World Order" system where there's only one king over all lands and cultures, or absolute control over the state by the rightful ruler of it's properties? >Aristotle insists it is one thing to rule over an economical estate, another to rule an political state Personally, I don't see much of a difference between politics and economics, other than perhaps economics being the method of practically employing political action, though I must admit that I am not nearly as well-read as you, nor do I have confidence in my interpretation of your writings on the topic. There is such a thing as a psychic profit in the Libertarian conception of economics, and between praxeology and game theory, economics basically boils down to a rational look at logistics and human interaction. Only one private individual can be the rightful owner of a given thing, so there is no such thing as common ownership. If the owner of a thing decides to implement social or economic rules on those within the borders of their property, no matter how expansive that property might be, those within their boarders are faced with the options of either doing as they say, or removing themselves as efficiently as possible from the premises, else they'd be in violation of the owner's property rights. Under Libertarianism, there wouldn't be any congregation of democratic hearings, or republics. The likelihood of a single owner taking control over the entirety of the world is low, but should they succeed in doing so through legitimate means, they would have total ownership over all within their jurisdiction. I personally think that this will result in exactly as much centralization, or decentralization that is optimal for ideal societal functioning, whether that be on the mere scale of cities, or on the global scale will depend on the scalability of the systems which have survived natural selection. I wouldn't imagine arbitrary control over, for instance, how each individual within a system brushes their teeth would be all that effective from a logistical standpoint, and I believe you have pointed out in other threads that "Draconian laws" were rarely enforced, and rarely implemented as harshly as they could have been, so I would imagine you'd agree with me here. Ultimately, the question of how Anarchy would function comes down to a prediction. Non-Anarchists believe it wouldn't work, obviously, while Ancoms believe it would result in communal ownership, Ancaps believe it would result in private ownership, and Anmons presumably believe it would naturally result in a Monarchical system. For me, regardless of outcomes, the market will decide which option is most stable through the process of supply and demand, and will enable the application of scientific principles, and further study, on the effects of various political systems, and the means of achieving them. I just so happen to believe Hoppeanism will prove to be the superior system due to my more rationalistic perspective on things.

>>7900 You would be surprised how many talking points have their origin back to antiquity. >Do you mean within the same regional state, or on a global scale? I do not mean on a global scale (though, yes, plenty of monarchs have claimed to rule the world -- it is called universal monarchy). Aristotle also brought up this problem with a unitary idea of politics: <where does it begin or end? Aristole writes >Since the nature of a state is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family The same theme of 'too much unity' brings atomization is also found in this passage & also, where does it begin or end with the unity? who is the unity? the pope? (if not the pope, which universal monarch? the emperor of japan?) the roman emperor? the king? the noble? a regular family in the city? the individual? I'll concede this is a valid criticism Aristotle gives & perhaps his strongest. However, Bodin states that Sovereignty can consist in a small city-state to the largest empire of the tartars >The concept is not conditioned by the limited size of the region or by its great expanse >So Ragusa or Geneva, whose rule is comprised almost within its walls, ought to be called a state no less than the empire of the Tartars Sovereignty is dynamic in that way. There are people who insist there can only be nation-states or only micro city-states or only empires, a fixed size. >though I must admit that I am not nearly as well-read as you I will briefly go over it with you. Plato states the nature of politics is unitary & corporatist: Plato writes here: <That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity. This is the corporatist view of States: that many one become one man -- this is what Hobbes' Leviathan represents, a view of the state as one person. Notice the position of the Leviathan mirrors the city, making it clear the nature of politics is to be united as one person. ... Aristotle condemns this in Politics: Aristotle Politics >For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens. The decrees of the demos correspond to the edicts of the tyrant; and the demagogue is to the one what the flatterer is to the other. Both have great power; the flatterer with the tyrant, the demagogue with democracies of the kind which we are describing. The demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws, by referring all things to the popular assembly.

So Aristotle condemns both the idea of a corporatist notion of politics (the city as a unity or one person) as much as he condemns absolute monarchy (what Aristotle sees as the economical or unitary view of one household or one party over the city). This corporatist view of politics from Plato -- as opposed to this pluralistic view of politics from Aristotle -- is where for a contemporary example the divide between multi-party democracies and one-party states subsist in & that is very similiar to how the mixed constitutionalists are opposed to absolute monarchy. ... Other key passages you should read. Aristotle writes in Politics >Now there is an erroneous opinion that a statesman, king, householder, and a master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state Aristotle Politics >Let us first speak of master and slave, looking to the needs of practical life and also seeking to attain some better theory of their relation than exists at present. For some are of opinion that the rule of a master is a science, and that the management of a household, and the mastership of slaves, and the political and royal rule, as I was saying at the outset, are all the same. Others affirm that the rule of a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by nature; and being an interference with nature is therefore unjust. <Plato / There won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household & the bulk of a small city >Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him. Plato's idea of politics is unitary: >And that they honor with all their heart those laws which render the State as unified as possible. Aristotle's idea of politics is plurality: >Further, as a means to the end which he ascribes to the State, the scheme, taken literally is impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, "That the greater the unity of the State the better." Is it not obvious that a state at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a State? since the nature of a State is to be plurality.

Then there is Aristotle's view of the State as a partnership of families & clans. Remember this. Whenever people come here talking about the monarch as a chieftain and partner with other clans and inevitably elective monarchy... -this- idea is what they are appealing to & what De Jouvenel was appealing to in his concept of monarchical & senatorial authority. Aristotle / state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life. And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life; >These are necessary preconditions of a state's existence, yet nevertheless, even if all these conditions are present, that does not therefore make a state, but a state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life. At the same time this will not be realized unless the partners do inhabit one and the same locality and practise intermarriage; this indeed is the reason why family relationships have arisen throughout the states, and brotherhoods and clubs for sacrificial rites and social recreations. But such organization is produced by the feeling of friendship, for friendship is the motive of social life; therefore, while the object of a state is the good life, these things are means to that end. And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life; the political fellowship must therefore be deemed to exist for the sake of noble actions, not merely for living in common. Hence those who contribute most to such fellowship have a larger part in the state than those who are their equals or superiors in freedom and birth but not their equals in civic virtue, or than those who surpass them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue. This view is concordant -- but contrast this with what Hobbes writes. >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. >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 Now take into consideration this: Aristotle: >The rule of a household (economical) is a monarchy, for every house is under one head: >whereas constitutional rule (political) is a government of freemen and equals. TL;DR: Aristotle makes monarchical rule inappropriate for political rule; this same attitude is seen today where mixed constitutionalists abhor dictatorships on the pretext that they are monarchical rulers over the state, or in the example of figurehead monarchs where they want a monarch to just be as symbolic as possible: This is precisely because they view Monarchy as inappropriate for political rule to begin with and want zero to none involvement of monarchical rule over the political constitution or city to begin with. ... When you look at the concept of "Europe of a Thousand Liechensteins" or the Holy Roman Empire as it is praised for: imagine Aristotle's City, where there is a plurality of estates forming the political constitution and a partnership of independent clans where the idea of one of these estates ruling over the rest is taboo: it is Aristotle's City on a map, where the stress is on the convention of estates rather than the unitary rule of the political constitution as unto one estate. The many estates together are political, as the houses make the city & the city is plural.

Monarchy in this view is privy only to its own estate (not ruling the state); it is elective; it's one among equals; the state is a plurality, not a unity; that the bond / law is concordant (& made by their convention) & a friendship of hosts. ... Mixed Constitutionalism is preferable like Aristotle's food argument, b/c an assembly brings more food to the table & many solutions to a problem than one wise man. ... The common good consists in the plurality of estates like the tools listed here for a garden -- So it has the interest of the Common Good over Monarchy, like Aristotle claims for the rule of an assembly & food argument over Monarchy... the same appeal might be seen in the notion of the Free Market and Democracy: how should one monarch know all that happens around the City without their convention and input? ... Seems to be the major appeal to constitutionalism over Monarchy That a King can't govern from his palace & know circumstances like a multitude of people bringing their circumstances & talents to the stage; how'd a king know to govern a polis over people themselves?

The alternative view: But put a singer on the stage or a leader & suddenly they can communicate & have a community of goods (or common good) is enabled in the first place. Which goes to show the common good consists in their unity and not the multitude of estates. ... Each component & tool here (for a community of goods) needs a degree of unity for their community like a standard & grade; so the polis needs a ruler📏 first to measure & bring the City in order for all the estates, so each end of the City corresponds to the other. You can keep stacking bonds or connections as redundantly as possible -- OR you could simplify it. ... That is the case for a sovereignty as the unity, so a monarch has a scepter & orb to measure & weigh justice - a monarch functions as point & compass, starting from a point is drawn the boundaries & definition of all estates, limited, from a simple unity, absolute. ... To the contrary, the answer to this dilemma is a Monarch would know & have the science to rule the polis b/c governing it is like ruling an estate; each profession is like that function found simply in one own's estate. 🏠 This is how a wise Monarch would know & be able to read mankind. ... Each community within the City is to be found in the Estate. Each building of the City almost corresponds like a room in a house. You might have a restaurant in the City 🏙️, but also a kitchen in one's House. 🏠 A father in his estate knows each community. ... There's no common interest of the polis w/o unity or a capacity to communicate. That communication stems from a common bond in unity like a white light passing through a prism. ... Take the Polis or The City to the conceit of the multitude of people (but without unity) they are like the Biblical Tower of Babel. Having no common language & capacity to communicate, their unity is destroyed; the polis or city is destroyed.

Where is this relevant to the politics of Absolute Monarchy? 1. Well, first, if you deny that political & economical have a like science, you deny the monarch's capacity to effectively govern the country and have any knowledge to do so. 2. If you deny they political (city) & economical (house) have a likeness, & go by Aristotle's distinction of monarchy for economical estate & freemen / equals for political constitutional state, then, then that economical estate is inferior to the political state, & monarchical rule is made inappropriate for a political constitution. --Monarchical rulers aren't known for just ruling their own property like sand castles. How should there be any monarchy outside the context of one's own family? you wouldn't be able to extent a monarchy even a city state, let alone an entire nation or empire -- if we really took this view to its full realization. The only monarchy you'd have is precisely that: any family or business, but not over empires, not over nation-states, let alone even cities or small counties. -- This would even undermine even smaller units like local nobles ruling over regions to simply stuff monarchical rule purely into its economical estate & deny a like political capacity. 3. By this accord, it leads to rotational government (where people take their turns in being governed; think of term limits where a statesmen leads for a time, then is swapped out with another) and elective monarchy, because since monarchy is not proper for political rule and if so by the convention of estates, it comes by their election from the estates. 4. Since the Monarchy is considered inferior to the political state (that being, the estates altogether, the convention of their heads) it cannot be anymore than one among equals -- since this would be a lord among lords or a master among masters. That monarchy doesn't have pre-eminence over the others. So it's not like in having any especial quality, they'd allow that monarchy and his particular heirs to rule and have all that. ... This is what I see as the slippery slope of mixed constitutionalism & the gradual descent away from being an established, pre-eminent hereditary monarchy -- if we go with Aristotle's ideas.

Absolute Monarchy is fundamentally built on a unitary view of politics -- that is what our notion of Sovereignty & the corporatist notion for Hobbes' Leviathan. This is fundamentally where Absolute Monarchists & Right Libertarians have issues: Absolute Monarchists are partial to a unitary view of politics, but Right Libertarians prefer a plurality -- & so we will berated for centralization ultimately. <Bodin / The unity of sovereignty >No otherwise than Theseus his ship, which although it were an hundred times changed by putting in of new planks, yet still retained the old name. But as a ship, if the keel (which strongly bears up the prow, the poup, the ribs, and tacklings) be taken away, is no longer a ship, but an ill favoured houp of wood; even so a Commonwealth, without a sovereignty of power, which unites in one body all members and families of the same is no more a Commonwealth, neither can by and means long endure. And not to depart from our similitude; as a ship may be quite broken up, or altogether consumed with fire; so may also the people into diverse places dispersed, or be utterly destroyed, the City or state yet standing whole; for it is neither the walls, neither the persons, that makes the city, but the union of the people under the same sovereignty of government. >Now the sovereign prince is exalted above all his subjects, and exempt out of the rank of them: whose majesty suffers no more division than doth the unity itself, which is not set nor accounted among the numbers, howbeit that they all from it take both their force and power…. being indeed about to become much more happy if they had a sovereign prince, which with his authority and power might (as doth the understanding) reconcile all the parts, and so unite and bind them fast in happiness together. <For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend >Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens

Absolute Monarchists are partial to that view Plato establishes. That political & economical have a like science or knowledge when it comes to governing. <Bodin / A household or family, the true model of a Commonwealth >So that Aristotle following Xenophon, seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses… Wherefore as a family well and wisely ordered, is the true image of a City, and the domestical government, in sort, like unto the sovereignty in a Commonwealth: so also is the manner of the government of a house or family, the true model for the government of a Commonwealth… And whilest every particular member of the body does his duty, we live in good and perfect health; so also where every family is kept in order, the whole city shall be well and peaceably governed. <Filmer / Political & Economic, No Different >Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one, and do not differ specie, but only multitudine et paucitate, as if there were 'no difference betwixt a great house and a little city'. All the argument I find he brings against them is this: 'The community of man and wife differs from the community of master and servant, because they have several ends. The intention of nature, by conjunction of male and female, is generation. But the scope of master and servant is only preservation, so that a wife and a servant are by nature distinguished. Because nature does not work like the cutlers at Delphos, for she makes but one thing for one use.' If we allow this argument to be sound, nothing doth follow but only this, that conjugal and despotical [lordly / master] communities do differ. But it is no consequence that therefore economical and political societies do the like. For, though it prove a family to consist of two distinct communities, yet it follows not that a family and a commonwealth are distinct, because, as well in the commonweal as in the family, both these communities are found. >Suarez proceeds, and tells us that 'in process of time Adam had complete economical power'. I know not what he means by this complete economical power, nor how or in what it doth really and essentially differ from political. If Adam did or might exercise in his family the same jurisdiction which a King doth now in a commonweal, then the kinds of power are not distinct. And though they may receive an accidental difference by the amplitude or extent of the bounds of the one beyond the other, yet since the like difference is also found in political estates, it follows that economical and political power differ no otherwise than a little commonweal differs from a great one. Next, saith Suarez, 'community did not begin at the creation of Adam'. It is true, because he had nobody to communicate with. Yet community did presently follow his creation, and that by his will alone, for it was in his power only, who was lord of all, to appoint what his sons have in proper and what in common. So propriety and community of goods did follow originally from him, and it is the duty of a Father to provide as well for the common good of his children as for their particular. Whereas De Jouvenel criticizes Absolute Monarchy on that basis (in accordance w/ Aristotle). <De Jouvenel / Monarchical vs Senatorial >According to which of these two hypotheses is adopted, the conclusion is reached that the "natural" government is either the monarchical or the senatorial. But from the time that Locke utterly smashed up Filmer's fragile structure, the earliest political authority was considered to be the senate composed of fathers of families, using the word "families" in the widest sense. <Society must, therefore, have presented two degrees of authority, which were quite different in kind. >On the one hand is the head of the family, exercising the most imperious sway over all who were within the family circle. >On the other are the heads of families in council, taking decisions in concert, tied to each other only by consent, submitting only to what has been determined in common, and assembling their retainers, who have outside themselves, neither law nor master, to execute their will.

I'll tell you this, Hoppean anon: Go around Right Libertarian circles & study their thoughts on Absolute Monarchy. Read what Alexis de Tocqueville said about Absolute Monarchy and what Bertrand de Jouvenel had to say. Other Right Libertarian authors like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (who was the proto-Hoppe of his day) said Absolute Monarchy is evil... but take note... Take note of all their points against Absolute Monarchy: Tell me it is not quintessentially Aristotle's rebuff of Absolute Monarchy to its core. To list them: - Centralization! (i.e. politics is not unitary, but plural) - Mangerialism! or, That's Despotism! (i.e. political & economical don't have the same science & fundamentally differ) - Atomization! (i.e. Aristotle to Plato: Too much unity destroys the state taking it from a city to a family and then atomized to an individual). - We want more regionalism on a map in one country! (i.e. an independent partnership of clans and a convention of heads of the estates as a city) - Well, actually, elective monarchy & chieftains of clans (also Aristotle basically). - The laws depended on convention, precedent & custom (the convention of estates / heads being the bond of laws) - Water argument: Monarchy & Corruption or the fragility of centralization / eggs in one basket (Aristotle's water argument: one droplet of water corrupts compared to an ocean) - Food argument (an assembly of hosts might be outwitted individually by the rule of a wise man, but altogether the assembly would bring more food to the table and ideas and be better than the rule of one wise man). ... I don't think you'd come back to me and say it isn't so with a straight face. It is so clearly the case with all the bad stuff they have to say about Absolute Monarchy. I'm just an apologist for absolute monarchy pointing this out. You'd be hardpressed to find this is not overwhelmingly the case. & perhaps you might say, well, I prefer the Aristotelian outlook on Monarchy -- I won't deny you can have a monarchist approach with Aristotle's Politics, but there are a lot of drawbacks there.

TBH anon, while I have open hostility towards Right Libertarians for these reasons, I don't feel like battling w/ Right Libertarians / Hoppeans on the board. Every other e-monarchist space is filled to the brim with constitutional monarchists. Whenever it comes to absolute monarchy there is a full condemnation (& Right Libertarians are usually the ones leading the charge). I understand why Right Libertarians feel that way (Absolute Monarchy is a unitary political ideology to the core) & they resent us for the idea of State Sovereignty / State Corporatism in the modern day. I'll try my best not to heckle the Right Libertarians visiting this board. Just know this board (& esp. my containment threads) -- this is my turf and I'll howler like a dog.

>>7913 Sorry for the late reply, hope I didn't keep you waiting too long. Personally, I have only heard of some of these things from you. While I won't deny that some of them sound familiar, the majority of them seem more likely to be beliefs held by Classical Liberals than Libertarians (There is a surprisingly big difference). I have never heard a Libertarian advocate for some of them, and have even heard Libertarians, especially Hoppeans, explicitly argue against a few of them on occasions. To simplify my response, I'll respond to the points you made at the end. >>7911 >- Centralization! (i.e. politics is not unitary, but plural) I believe it’s worth distinguishing unification as in “everyone working towards the same goals” from “everyone tied to each other at the legs” just as it’s worth distinguishing plurality as in “two people agreeing with each other in a transaction” from “trying to co-op in a game of qwop.” The market creates an organic form of unity through market forces, and the invisible hand of God, and individuals within the market are incentivized to find more efficient structures of natural unification at every level. I’ll talk more about that in the food argument section. The problem that occurs when a single individual can set all the variables in an economy to whatever they want is that the market is a chaotic system. You can predict a pendulum to an incredible degree of accuracy because the complexity doesn’t multiply enough to be visible beyond what might be explained by error, but a double pendulum multiplies that complexity to be plainly visible. A wise leader should unite the economy in a dynamic way when it needs to be dynamic, and a fixed way when it needs to be fixed. Some things might even be better left untouched by people not at the right scale to properly affect it, which is where delegation is helpful. Speaking of which… >- Mangerialism! or, That's Despotism! (i.e. political & economical don't have the same science & fundamentally differ) I have already said I don't view politics and economics as different in type, but I feel I should add that while economics and politics do require the same science, and the same set of skills, politics requires a much more advanced application of them because it’s on a larger scale. Effective delegation and the appraisal of people’s skills are the highest skills in a leader, be they on the market, or in politics, and the science of resources, including human resources, psychic resources, and even the resource of power itself, can all be economized, gamified, and described in terms of human action. That said, too much delegation in a structure that doesn’t make it as efficient as it needs to be will lead to overbearing costs in communication. >- Atomization! I've only ever heard collectivists associate Individualism with atomization. Individualism differs from Collectivism in that the individual, rather than the collective, is the basic societal unit. If the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few, and the individuals are always mere cogs in the societal machine, that’s Collectivism. Else, it’s Individualism. Atomization is anti-unity, which as I've already explained, isn’t what Libertarians typically advocate for. Individuals can form collectives, and can associate or disassociate from them on their own. As for equalization, all that is equal between people is the right to play the game, and be governed by its rules, and some of those rules change for each individual depending on their progression through the game. >- We want more regionalism on a map in one country! >- Well, actually, elective monarchy & chieftains of clans >- The laws depended on convention, precedent & custom I am fairly sure that Hoppeans are against that kind of convention, and rotational/electoral government. In fact, stuff like term limits are perverse incentive structures due to high time preference, which was one of the points Hoppe explicitly made for why Democracy is inferior to Monarchy. While systems of convention can be established through contract, they are not the only means of interaction, nor are they necessarily constrained by conventions such as term limits, elections, or rotation of the leadership position even when they are. Insofar as “one country” means one system of governance, then those within one system will be governed by that system and not another for as long as they fall under that system’s jurisdiction. Within the borders of an individual’s property, that individual is the only person with control, and anyone else is expected to comply with their demands while there, else they’ll be removed. It’s only when trying to extend one’s power beyond their own borders that agreements start being useful, but this is by no means an equal playing field, nor must it follow any particular convention. The person with the most important property has the greatest leverage, and the person desiring their services the most must do as they say if they hope to get it from them. >- Water argument: >- Food argument These are interesting. I agree with the water argument, but I also believe it is the same in reverse. Just as easy as it is for monarchy to be corrupted due to having a single source of power to corrupt, it is also easy to purify it by the same means, meanwhile democracy becomes entirely unaccountable. Though assassination is often mentioned when making this point, the fact of the matter is that most leaders would have to be incredibly foolish, stubborn, and dangerous to justify a violent reaction, especially in a Libertarian system, where murder would still obviously be illegal, and where time preference and the market would naturally disincentive such forms of tyranny, so simply showing them the effects of their actions, and convincing them to stop should be enough if they are reasonable, and aren't determined to die on that hill (perhaps literally). As for the food argument, the assembly is only better than a wise man at bringing food to the table when everyone within the assembly is being guided by the aforementioned invisible hand, and when the wise man is constrained in some way as to not be able to do so. In so far as your point about the singer or leader is valid, that is evidenced in the market by the fact that worker co-ops don't work, the fact that bosses, and the managerial position are necessary to direct the assembly, and the fact that stuff like franchises, and economies of scale are effective business strategies for expanding. The market naturally decides its own capacity, and distributes profits to those who allocate resources, including human resources, in the most efficient way. >>7913 Are you interested in continuing this conversation elsewhere? I certainly don’t want to infringe on you or the board members, but I have enjoyed this conversation so far.

>>7916 >I have never heard a Libertarian advocate for some of them From now on, keep a pen & notebook on your side (or use a notepad app) >The market creates an organic form of unity through market forces. >and individuals within the market are incentivized to find more efficient structures of natural unification at every level. What is your opinion on the idea that men are political animals? & that if they were economic animals (forming in societies where a monarch rules them like a master's estate), then they are natural slaves? Would you say that the formation of political entities is also natural? (*I cover this up >>7708 here) (A right libertarian anon was asking on /pol/: why aren't monarchies seen as a libertarian ideology in the West? --That is why: Aristotle says people who form societies around a monarchy are natural slaves 'unable to govern themselves democratically'.). >I have already said I don't view politics and economics as different in type, but I feel I should add that while economics and politics do require the same science, and the same set of skills, politics requires a much more advanced application of them because it’s on a larger scale I feel Moldbug works on this idea in neocameralism: the idea that States need to be organized more like private corporations. https://polcompball.wikitide.org/wiki/Neocameralism >Neocameralism is the idea that a sovereign state or primary corporation is not organizationally distinct from a secondary or private corporation. Note: While they argue that governments are -not- organized like a private organization & that needs to be redressed (think DOGE: Department of Government Efficiency) -- I'd argue to an extent they already are. >I've only ever heard collectivists associate Individualism with atomization. It is usually the Tocquevillists who do this (& you'd be right they criticize individualism). They like to peddle the point that individualism leads to increased Statism. By Tocquevillist, I mean a follower of Bertrand de Jouvenel & Alexis de Tocqueville. As a monarchist, obviously, I cannot be anti-individualist either (the monarch is an individual) -- I believe monarchies work best as a cult of personality (or the work of one person on the public). >I am fairly sure that Hoppeans are against that kind of convention Here is how it happens. They usually approve of hereditary estates between the petty kings: but if you were to have a lord among lords, then they go by Aristotle's convention and would rather have it elective. My opinion is the case for hereditary monarchy is tied to notions of monarchical pre-eminence: the belief that this person is such a superior (& not only superior, but has the relation of the whole to the part, as Aristotle says; or the entire State itself, like Louis XIV says). Consider that idea (again) in relation to multi-party democracies: it is the same business, rotational government where they consent to have a political party take turns, whereas in one-party states it is a corporatist model where one party has the pre-eminence long-term. It really is about the same idea: because political parties in assemblies today are like estates -- & multi-party democracy represents that Aristotelian ideal of a partnership of clans, one-party States represent that corporatist ideal where the country is united like one household under one head ^Keeping this in mind, I want you to also notice, that these radical political ideologies with one party states usually have a leader figure with a much stronger emphasis on leadership -- i.e., they're more monarchical & Caesarist. That is why I think these unitary political ideologies fit monarchy like a well suited glove, whereas the attitude in Western multi-party democracies is no political party should have the pre-eminence (like Aristotle says, he doesn't approve of 'many-in-one' style corporatism nor an absolute monarchy -- Aristotle doesn't want his City to be formed like a Monarchy, & if a City is they are natural slaves). >Though assassination is often mentioned when making this point, the fact of the matter is that most leaders would have to be incredibly foolish, stubborn, and dangerous to justify a violent reaction, especially in a Libertarian system This topic will irk me the most. (I already expressed my annoyance with people who browsed here in the past & how regicide happy they were & preferred a kind of Oligarchism >>7275 & >>7276 & >>7277 -- I don't have the screenshot posted, but another posted 'monarchs have the guillotine coming for them because they they didn't respect TBH, that's why I don't shill this board heavily: I know what it is like when there are posters here & it is usually the broad coalition of Tradcaths & Right Libertarians who'll come to predominate the board (who both hate Absolutism). --They love their Holy Roman Empire, their Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, their Venice -- elective monarchies & mixed constitutionalism. That coalition swamped the board in the past overwhelmingly: on one hand, rightwing anarchists & the other hand, ultraclericals, who both espoused an an anti-Statism. >but I also believe it is the same in reverse. Just as easy as it is for monarchy to be corrupted due to having a single source of power to corrupt, it is also easy to purify it by the same means Jean Bodin also reserved the water argument: he employed the 'salt' argument, saying that democracies dissolve virtuous princes like salt cast into a lake & inhibited each other from doing better (crab bucket mentality). >As for the food argument Let me peddle you this: Hitler also brought up the food argument 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? Hitler was talking about parliaments over a wise leader figure. Do you suppose that the appeal to the Free Market is not a composite brain? & the appeal to chaotic forces & invisible hand -- a democratic appeal for the people to 'govern themselves' as it were. Absolute Monarchists make no pretense of overriding the law of nature. (Jean Bodin was much more pro-private property than others).

[Expand Post]

>Are you interested in continuing this conversation elsewhere? On another board like /pol/ or another thread? I'd say take it to this general >>6355 What is your opinion on Gulf Monarchies & Brunei? Where the rulers are so rich they just buy the loyalty of the people with low taxes and are generous with their wealth (they pay for healthcare, education, no income tax, because they're just so rich); these monarchies might be called Despotism (from a constitutionalist standpoint) because they rule the country like a wealthy estate. --The only way mixed constitutionalists justify it in a positive view is patrimonialist ideology, that states monarchies are properly just large economic estates and nothing political and that -these- monarchies are just that... it is a subtle difference from the absolutist contention that political & economical are alike -- but technically these are still seen as despotisms because these monarchies are just big wealthy families. Watch the Brunei video here: >>7505

>>7505 I'm going to be busy for a while. But the question I really want your opinion on is your thoughts on rich monarchies like the Gulf Monarchies & Brunei? (They are so rich -- they can afford to provide & buy the loyalty of people under them with low taxes AND generous gifts for healthcare & education). Another criticism I worry about Libertarianism is inadvertently with a belief in the Free Market, it would decrease the subjects' belief in their own monarchy: because people generally believe in the system that provides for them & those whom they think are wise. A unitary view of Sovereignty provides this: it re-assures that everything in the country, along with the propriety of the subjects, is safeguarded and conducted from the sovereignty, which provides the divisions of their estates & land and establishes a common currency for them to use: the ruler provides, & because the ruler provides like a good shepherd or a father -- they believe in him & think monarchy is an ideal system. Now I'm not advocating for generous social welfare states (though tbh I don't think it hurts if you can get away with it). I'm just stating the Monarch has to be seen as a provider: I'd be more than happy with a society predominated on notions of private property, so long as people acknowledged that the propriety of subjects in general was tied to the monarchy and derived from it: that the monarch gracefully portioned out the land, dividing it accordingly to justice -- the subjects to not only use for their particular benefit, but for the goods to channel back in areas they have in common (and a market is a commonplace to distribute goods, imho). I have pointed out that people speak of The Economy -- The Common Good -- The Commonwealth -- this was a key factor in indicating that political & economical were seen akin, there was the private sector, but also the Economy is another version of that and was synonymous with what the State was called -- because another word for it was Commonwealth. They were words synonymous with politics. In the bigger picture, what you see with economics is indeed collateral with political governance and the way politics is formed. As Jean Bodin says, a city is not built without houses -- and the term economy (economic being derived from the term household management) simply referred to the houses in general (as Aristotle identifies as the political body -- our nuance is that this community of goods and the estates in general is derived from sovereignty, which is the unitary bond of all estates by which people can communicate and have a community of goods). The term Economy is synonymous with the City (Politics) because in that sense it is the estates in general (& keep in mind, our view of the estates in general is unitary and derived from that groundwork). I'm pointing this out so you can see how a unitary view of Sovereignty is compatible with a wide arrange of private property ownership and the autonomy of citizens. It is from the Monarch that the rights are gradually established for all estates and peace between them, this is an important view so people genuinely believe in their Monarchy: if they don't believe the Monarch is a provider and has established the foundation for their way of life, they won't believe. I talk about this over here >>7325 This is another concern I have w/ Right Libertarians -- is they'll be far too contented to think as Aristotle that they 'govern themselves' & that the store shelves and everything working through the economy has no mastermind or co-ordinator who set the foundation for this prosperity. Joseph de Maistre >Everyone knows the famous line, <The first king was a fortunate soldier >This is perhaps one of the falsest claims that has ever been made. Quite the opposite could be said, that <The first soldier was paid by a king That is also why Monarchical Rulers place their face on their currency: so subjects are grateful (Xenophon says that gratitude and obedience are the wheel of states) -- the subjects must know that their rulers are providers and gave them a means by which they can have subsistence and established the confluence of goods. 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 a lord of offerings >the man he rejects will be a pauper >He is Khuum for every body

Absolute monarchists uphold this doctrine. Again, our view is unitary. Not because we're socialists (Jean Bodin & Thomas Hobbes don't go as far as Plato's idea to have all things common to establish a community of pleasaures & pains -- although I do think a cult of personality suffices to establish that adored community of pleasures & pains which is sought after by race nationalists in having everyone be on race -- so that people generally feel and share their emotions -- as does the others). I will post a series of quotes expounding upon this doctrine. Bertrand de Jouvenel berates sovereignty as a right over rights -- but rather it is a unitary view of the same thing, that the rights are portioned out and justly divided like white light passing through a prism. I don't think the intention of absolute monarchists with the doctrine of 'Lord of All Goods' is the mother of all socialism like Alexis de Tocqueville calls it, but that the Monarch was the original proprietor & the original father of families, by which all the estates of a City gradually moved out of (as sons moving out of their father's estate, because the father's estate was full, came to have their own rooms in that same estate, but houses as in a city -- in that view, that is how monarchical rule came to be understood by the extent over the city and justifies monarchical rule in politics as the father of families). I talk about this here: >>7210

This doctrine is expounded here >>6663 and >>6664 and >>7250 and >>7252 and >>7253 and >>7394 If people don't believe their king provides & their king is wise, that will be a problem. Notice in North Korea, they thank their Leader for this harvest. The Ottomans called their Sultan 'The Father who Feeds us' Christians thank the Lord for their meals & daily bread.