a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government ... in the case of an absolute monarchy ... BY THE FUCKING MONARCH since the the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch .
So what is your point. The power is held by the STATE and NOT by individuals and their economic prowess ( capitalism )
All monarchies are socialist ... some try to hide it behind a blackmailed parliament controlled through the secret services .
Monarchy is the ultimate expression of private ownership. There is no state, public coffer, or possibility of communal ownership.
Again I'll refer you to Hans-Herman Hoppe. He is currently the all-star of the Mises Institute, which is the intellectual hub of Austrian economics and libertarianism. You may not realize it, but you're spouting a heavily distorted version of Rothbardian rhetoric from the 70s. Murray Rothbard was the best disciple of Ludwig von Mises and started the libertarian party in the US, abandoning it in 1984 after the Kochtopus co-opted libertarianism into Regeanism by way of the Hayekian Chicago School run by Milton Friedman.
The problem with classical libertarianism, of the early Rothbardian strain, is that it only serves deluezian territorialization to further empower the internationalist regime. Institutions of power are an inescapable fact of any civilization. By assisting socialists with the dismantling of traditional institutions, a vacuum is left where the socialists can construct their own power center with inverted values that are foundationally anti-human.
Rothbards paleolibertarian work in the 90s is far superior, but mostly ignored because it actually presents a threat to the regime.
The limitations of monarchy is what TrueElephant was talking about:
There's your problem. You conceive of any governing authority as having the power of a modern liberal state. An absolute fuedal monarch is far more limited in his power than a democratic state. Mass conscription isn't possible without a democratic political formula to justify itself as the will of the masses, as demonstrated well by the contrast of Napoleon and the coalition. The machinations of a king and his court does not touch the peasant, who can manage his piece of land as he pleases without applying for permits. Furthermore, it is in the interest of the Rex to uplift his people towards a better condition.
The power is held by the STATE and NOT by individuals and their economic prowess ( capitalism )
OWNERSHIP is separate from power. You can argue it's upstream from it, really, since an owner has rights over his own property. Even in an absolute monarchy, the monarch doesn't own the entirety of the means of production, which is what the definition of socialism requires.
But go ahead, flail and cry about socialist absolute monarchs.
socialism [ soh-shuh-liz-uhm ]
noun
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government ... in the case of an absolute monarchy ... BY THE FUCKING MONARCH since the the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch .
So what is your point. The power is held by the STATE and NOT by individuals and their economic prowess ( capitalism )
All monarchies are socialist ... some try to hide it behind a blackmailed parliament controlled through the secret services .
Monarchy is the ultimate expression of private ownership. There is no state, public coffer, or possibility of communal ownership.
Again I'll refer you to Hans-Herman Hoppe. He is currently the all-star of the Mises Institute, which is the intellectual hub of Austrian economics and libertarianism. You may not realize it, but you're spouting a heavily distorted version of Rothbardian rhetoric from the 70s. Murray Rothbard was the best disciple of Ludwig von Mises and started the libertarian party in the US, abandoning it in 1984 after the Kochtopus co-opted libertarianism into Regeanism by way of the Hayekian Chicago School run by Milton Friedman.
The problem with classical libertarianism, of the early Rothbardian strain, is that it only serves deluezian territorialization to further empower the internationalist regime. Institutions of power are an inescapable fact of any civilization. By assisting socialists with the dismantling of traditional institutions, a vacuum is left where the socialists can construct their own power center with inverted values that are foundationally anti-human.
Rothbards paleolibertarian work in the 90s is far superior, but mostly ignored because it actually presents a threat to the regime.
The limitations of monarchy is what TrueElephant was talking about:
OWNERSHIP is separate from power. You can argue it's upstream from it, really, since an owner has rights over his own property. Even in an absolute monarchy, the monarch doesn't own the entirety of the means of production, which is what the definition of socialism requires.
But go ahead, flail and cry about socialist absolute monarchs.
Also: NAME ONE.