Message from @Endeavour
Discord ID: 676067295608438813
And that was largely due to the complacency and weakness of the sitting monarch, rather than a systemic failure
IMO
I think that the system can exist for long periods when things are going good or ok but when hardship hits people tend to blame the system instead of the actual causes.
The parliament and House of Lords were fine because Britain was doing well.
But when they stopped doing as well the kings powers were taken.
it's almost as if the system of government is secondary to a strong culture and society
<:blobwoke:473997738904780840>
Eh
Both reinforce eachother
As far as I can tell any sort of federal assembly is a bad idea in the longterm
If you have a parliament, the one thing it can agree on always is empowering parliament. Even one moment of monarchical weakness and you end up with a figurehead
And once parliament is in charge I think we can observe in history there's always been a drive to expand the franchise
If anything have regional parliament or better yet make large cities republican enclaves
I like large cities being mini republics, buy I'd also like to point out the necessity of Parliaments, of which all medieval monarchs had a form, for feudal tax collection. You're gonna have to find another way for people to consent to tax and your government.
They consent by not moving
Parliaments did exist in Britain and France exactly for the purpose of being able to vetos taxations and so they did
And it was a mess
I'd go so far as to say that if the French monarchy didn't have a parliament at all that the French revolution wouldn't have happened
Yo <@578804170342137867> why was Apollo banned?
He says he's sorry and won't post anything like whatever it was again
Nesselblatt, I'm talking feudal Parliaments, not early modern ones. The French Assembly was of course a disaster, but i think its important to reflect on monarchy before this period, and how they worked. Powerful monarchs expanded the roles of their Parliaments so they could expand their tax collection, and weak monarch minimised the role of their Parliaments so they could secure their hold on the throne. If you have a noble title, if you represent a wealthy city, you should negotiate with the ruler as to the taxes you give to said ruler.
Of course the monarch should be powerful in and of themselves, but absolutism is a modernist occurrence, and it was that centralisation of power which led to the revolution. Power should be dispersed throughout the estates, and not just legally like some liberal separation of powers BS, but by the actual reality of power held, and they will hold eachother in check, and in the aim of furthering their own interests (the clergy, nobility, bourgeois and commoners) they will progress the general interest of the civilisation.
I was referring to feudal parliaments like the one in Britain or France
In practice the nobility and monarch negotiating to raise taxes for the sake of the country just didn't happen
Parliament wasn't used except as a way for them to avoid taxes
The way you keep the monarch from excessively taxing the populace is by having the state be decentralized to some degree with other ppl with tangible power to collectively oppose royalty if there are genuine excesses
It's easy to veto taxes if you're a comfy landed noble who will never face consequences for obstruction
It's hard to on your own to oppose a king over some petty tax you'd like to avoid, easier to do when the entire class is pissed off about genuine excessive taxation
What you do with parliaments that vetoes taxation is first of all nothing since parliament would rarely be called into sessions to begin with the monarch finding creative ways to tax without calling it taxation (for example forced loans) until eventually some sort of crisis gives a parliament leverage over the monarch which they can use to enhance their own powers etc.
@Endeavour do you have a folder filled with boomer memes on your phone/computer for whenever you see a boomer statement
I have a q-boomer friend that understands the race realism but buys believes in the "demkkkract plantation"
I don't know how he can combine both of race realism and and boomer views on race but he managed to do it
Like he told me he thought candace owens was based
just thought of him when you put that up
@EYEFORKNOWLEDGE156 Ask him if he really thinks that he'll be able to convince black people to accept less welfare paid for by white people or affirmative action since they can't complete in a free market due to lower average IQ. The other thing to point out is that they get status by being on the left. It gives them power over white people which is really appealing to them.
@Endeavour I'll ask him the next time I see him but I don't see him too often when he told me that I thought he was joking at first because I had already shown him my power level he picked up his race realist views because he grew up in a white working class neighborhood that was being absorbed into the ghetto he has a lot of crazy stories from those times.
It was basically a situation where most of the whites would view you as a friend because you were white and most blacks viewed you as an enemy because you were white. He also has to be one of the strangest person I have ever met.
sorry it took me a minute
this pandering to minorities is just hilarious
its only possible in a democracy
PULL YOURSELF UP BY THE BOOT STRAPS