I view Monarchy and Democracy as private property vs public property.

Aydin brings up a central monarch, but I don't think she talked about barons or other lords

so it could very well be that she's talking about just Monarchy. but even then that doesn't gel with the part in her vision where people exist in small communities of free people.

that's not how that works

There will ceartainly be people who'll be granted titles, but those can be taken away. And frankly the only thing in feudalism I don't like is the freedom of movement.

and with the way the US economy works, primarily with an abnormally mobile workforce, you just couldn't get that sort of system to work without collapsing our whole economic system and starting over from a primarily agriculture-based economy

>Implying if there were to be a new system the old one would stay as it is.

well I don't think they consciously realize the radical change that would have to happen by the way they were talking about it.

I think only the normies believe that it can be achieve without much trouble although it could be as they said "They are becoming further right wing"

They are still new to this.

Although @AydinPaladin I hope you stoped calling it Anarcho-monarchy. I swear to my finger.

The path from normie, to actual thinking human is a long one, frought with peril and dead ends.

Anarcho-Monarchy? fucking what?

also, I didn't even realize she was in this discord. some mod I am

"Anarcho-Monarchy" Lol so just a normal monarchy?

depending on your definition of what a "normal" monarchy is

The best goverment ever.

>Die of plauge
>Executed for 'witchcraft'
>Taxed to living in mud huts

>Not knowing we are taxed more today.

>Die bc an atom bomb.

>Die in the name of "Freedom"

>NSA watching you fap

>Child drag queens

>Wars are becoming more barbaric

because Atom bombs would be so much better in the hands of a monarch, I'm sure.

imagine Wilhelm II with an A-bomb

Bc a monarch looking to get more land would destroy that same land

Not really interested in a debate about it atm, but I am interested in by what measure we are considered taxed more.

Willy sure tried his hardest to destroy a good part of French land he wanted to take

Also, if before anyone tries bringing up prima noctis. That was a bigger myth than smallpox blankets.

and he could have easily nuked London. capital of a nation he did not care for and who's supremacy on the waves threatened his dreams of Weltpolitik

Is it a philosophical war in his mind or an actual territorial war?

a war for the very existence of the Kaiserreich. to Wilhelm, Britain was almost as evil as France

Mate there is your answer.

and he had no interest in occupying the British Isles as far as I know. if he had the ability to crush them and remove them from the war, I do not believe he would have hesitated

When the US got in WWI it became a war of ideology Republic vs Monarchy, when it started as a territorial war.

of course the French and British were quick to reframe the public image along similar lines

I will not say there have never been bad kings such as King Louis X but they are far better than Wodrow Wilson for example.

we can trade good examples and bad as much as we want. one of the problems with American politics is that we've given the chief executive to much power. We've made his office more like that of a king's as time has gone on. the difference between a bad president and a bad king is that there are more people to get in the way of a bad president's decision.

I disagree, given than a King had to beg money for his wars while a president doesn't; a King can be controlled if they are unruly, mad, or bloodthirsty more often than a president than names his delusions as "The will of the people"; Kings are able too do much more good given that it is in his benefit to increase the current wealth and future wealth of his state; A president only thinks of the now.