Daily Anarchist Forum
May 24, 2019, 04:34:53 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Anarcho-Monarchism: Your thoughts and theories  (Read 17998 times)
rahvin
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2012, 08:50:37 AM »

I'd like to start out by saying that the (A) symbol with the top hat and bow tie on the website that BlackandGr9y posted is absolutely adorable.


Where can this be found?
Logged
Anonymous Infowarrior
Full Member
***
Posts: 129


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2012, 10:20:01 AM »

In 20 years, when ancaps are allowed into the anarchist community, anarcho monarchists will become the new ancaps.
Logged
Distruzio
Anarcho-Monarchist
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 62


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2012, 03:05:31 PM »

Anarchy simply means "no rulers". A monarch is a ruler or he/she is not a monarch. Hence "Anarcho-monarchism" is a contradiction in terms.



It really isn't. I'll quote myself from my intro thread:
Quote
anarcho-monarchism is the idealism of a sovereign individual. It does not necessarily identify one by his economic perspective, as the common man does not identify himself as an economic perspective. A man is who he is b/c of his culture, his personal sociological beliefs, and his economic perspective, but not just his economic perspective.

The purpose, I think, of the hyphenated anarchist descriptor is to identify the individual within the greater anarchist ideal - in that way, I am a monarchist, a voluntary monarchist. I do not subscribe to the morally repugnant belief that all, or even some, men have an equal share of political authority over myself or my property over myself. Property rights are the only axiomatic expression of existence - all other rights extend from them, and they are individually exclusive. If I believe, and I do, that I own myself -that I am sovereign, then no other may own me or hold any sway over me or my person. Therefore, since I premise my entire ethical perspective on axiomatic property rights, democracy is morally repugnant to me.

I adhere first and foremost to liberty - that most sacred of principles - which is most clear expressed and ensured by the existence of property rights.

I am a libertarian anarchist who draws a distinction between equality in political freedoms and liberty in political freedoms. From my perspective, political equality is as total a dictatorial form of gov't under an autocrat as it is under a democrat. Political liberty, however, is never more sweet than under a monarch - of course, ideally that monarch would be the individual himself but, where property over the self was denied in a certain extent, and a State demanded, a monarch suffices. Those who favor libertyshould admit the truth that they cannot favor a single form of political organization at the expense of others; they should not be pledged to any single constitution or form of gov't. The desire to see the maximum amount of liberty for oneself and fellow citizens within reason - regardless of character of gov't - is the mark of libertarianism and the antithesis of totalitarianism

For me, I see political equality as synonymous with political uniformity of opinion - a totality.
Logged

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

- H.L. Mencken
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 29, 2012, 06:54:19 PM »

Rothbardian is, or was.  Check out some of his posts.

http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,957.0.html
Logged

Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2012, 12:31:30 AM »

Rothbardian is, or was.  Check out some of his posts.

http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,957.0.html
"Is," my political positions don't change, except perhaps becoming more ardently traditionalist, aristocratic, and right-wing, haha. Grin (Which, of course, are more "personal positions" than "political").

But thanks for referencing my posts! Wink
Logged

macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 424


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 17, 2012, 03:22:57 PM »

Anarchy simply means "no rulers". A monarch is a ruler or he/she is not a monarch. Hence "Anarcho-monarchism" is a contradiction in terms.



It really isn't. I'll quote myself from my intro thread:
Quote
anarcho-monarchism is the idealism of a sovereign individual. It does not necessarily identify one by his economic perspective, as the common man does not identify himself as an economic perspective. A man is who he is b/c of his culture, his personal sociological beliefs, and his economic perspective, but not just his economic perspective.

The purpose, I think, of the hyphenated anarchist descriptor is to identify the individual within the greater anarchist ideal - in that way, I am a monarchist, a voluntary monarchist. I do not subscribe to the morally repugnant belief that all, or even some, men have an equal share of political authority over myself or my property over myself. Property rights are the only axiomatic expression of existence - all other rights extend from them, and they are individually exclusive. If I believe, and I do, that I own myself -that I am sovereign, then no other may own me or hold any sway over me or my person. Therefore, since I premise my entire ethical perspective on axiomatic property rights, democracy is morally repugnant to me.

I adhere first and foremost to liberty - that most sacred of principles - which is most clear expressed and ensured by the existence of property rights.

I am a libertarian anarchist who draws a distinction between equality in political freedoms and liberty in political freedoms. From my perspective, political equality is as total a dictatorial form of gov't under an autocrat as it is under a democrat. Political liberty, however, is never more sweet than under a monarch - of course, ideally that monarch would be the individual himself but, where property over the self was denied in a certain extent, and a State demanded, a monarch suffices. Those who favor libertyshould admit the truth that they cannot favor a single form of political organization at the expense of others; they should not be pledged to any single constitution or form of gov't. The desire to see the maximum amount of liberty for oneself and fellow citizens within reason - regardless of character of gov't - is the mark of libertarianism and the antithesis of totalitarianism

For me, I see political equality as synonymous with political uniformity of opinion - a totality.

I don't want a king or queen!

 Tongue
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
Coltan L.
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 18, 2012, 11:34:57 AM »

I really like the quote "No gods or kings, only men." I usually use the "kings" part to refer to presidents or other autocrats, it rarely gets to be used so literally. So I would have a half fear of this.

But you're right I'd even go to say that *most* societies were anarcho monarchist for a long time. It all came down to one individual wielding a lot of social influence while being unwilling/unable to tread on the "rights" of his people.

Ultimately, I don't like people deferring judgement to other human beings. I think after you absorb anarchism, the next step is a very internal process.  *Why* were we so fucked up we let tin pot dictators rule us for thousands of years. There are no magic laws. The only difference between someone wielding a lot of social authority and someone wielding legal authority is that the second person codified his influence. The most influential person in your life should be your teacher, mentor etc. And unless they're committed to pushing paradigm-stuffed envelopes as you are you will surpass them shortly. I fail to see why they or anyone else should deserve some special social role.

I don't understand the need or even the want of a politically powerless but influential person in any kind of faux cultural leadership role. Such positions aren't harmless, especially because people think they are.  Read Elsworth Tooey in the Fountainhead.

Ron Paul is a great man. However, unless he's a secret Ancap (I suspect he is) I don't have much to learn from him, even at this stage in my life. At least stuff that pushes envelopes. He's incredibly well-read but I don't need him to learn that stuff.

I do understand what you're getting at more or less but only because I recently read some Ian Banks books.  There's a Culture of Anarchists who have a "government". Stay with me here, it works and its basically what you're describing. I'm convinced it only works because said Ambassador/King/Regent is a bunch of supercomputer robots. Read Player of Games or Surface Detail, its the most mature look at a functioning Anarchy that I've ever seen.
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 04, 2012, 09:18:09 PM »

I do not need a leader.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
lordtlaloc
Newbie
*
Posts: 26


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 04, 2012, 10:35:55 PM »

Unless his name is Aragorn I'm out.  Also im having trouble grapsing what the King would do. I've heard some vague things like "give advice" and "symbolize" (from other sites, started looking into it when i found out Tolkien might be one) and idk why a King is needed for that.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!