Political theory - anarcho monarchy

[Master of kitusne]

I could go into how such a system works, but with experience we first need to talk about the contradiction between anarchy and government.


My opening line tends to stem from the text book definition, in regards to the fact its in association to anarchy, and the fact that there is a inherited head of office that would disqualify it from traditional anarchy would not hear.


My stance on the subject is twofold,

1 is the fact i built up ideas of community and a workers union, to protect the people and there labor.

2, the crown is based on a representative co op of communities and has no power over the community and workers, only a republic of capital and lober, whom both owe priority to the workers contracts, community and lastly the nation and future endeavours.


Lastly i have it separated on the belief of the four keys of power


1 labor,
2 government
3 community
4 capitol.

I believe that a system with no government, that dose not safe guard these keys, in a modern society, will fail, and thus spent a lot of time think of how it would work.

 

[TobyOne]

What does "bolife" mean ?

 

[phoenix2020]

Lastly i have it sepprated on the bolife of the your keys of power

What does this sentence mean?

 

[Master of kitusne]

What does this sentence mean?

Editted

 

[Master of kitusne]

Community

The community is numbered as a bases of around 200 families, individual units and such.
Land is not owned, but family business and homes can be entitled to its caretakers and kin.

The community can dictate there own laws if needed and is a self contained economy of services from entertainment to needs.

The city and state policies is determined from representative of the community's.


A house of lords is built frow there numbers to convey with the crown and republic.


The workers union is there sword to protect there autonomy from capitol and crown, and thus is there milta made, there communities built to war off invasion, from domestic to foreign threats.


Of course such service is optional duties, there primary function is to see to the workers needs. *See more in the union topic coming soon.


The number is based on how many people one can possibly recall, and is driven to strengthen community integrity

 

[Master of kitusne]

(I am presenting this as i came up with it.)


Technically the first bases of the the idea, but avery complicated system that took decades worth of migrains thinking up.

The republic of capitol and labor.

Capitol at the end of day is quality vs how many want it. You have wants and needs.


With modern food production, moreso considering we toss out enuff to feed Africa, is no joke when i say there is no resion why its not rationed out to the public.

I can not trust a system to abuse food to use the people, nor employers to treat us well.
Honestly unions can do little against such machinations.


Worse still is labor is a commodity that can be exploited and often is.

Thoughts like these kept me busy grinding away at.

Watched a history lesson on rome, already disliked republics for a few resions.
But it mentioned romes economics i realized republics work very well for capitol, most businesses in America are basically can like small republics, with the wealth of small nations.
.

 

[Master of kitusne]

The workers union

At the end of the day , the worker bs is something that is used, there a tool of modern economy.

Tools can be used and exploited, the union is separate from the republic, One would work for the union under contract of the republic or any agency's of worth to the worker.

Such contracts dictate how mutrh of you make a month separate from food and housing.

Housing is guaranteed by the union and overlooked by the communities representative; and a lesser extent the crown under vote with the community representatives, in terms of deciding the land amongst the farmers, state, republic and people.

Food is handled by a sector that oversees food and water, handled directly between you your dr and community representative or union rep, as you see fit.

 

[Master of kitusne]

The crown

If we were talking about tarot cards and people types, and how they influenced the world, it is those who want to rule will, even if they must arise to what position of influence.

If treachery or lies will serve, some will work decades to sit just a few years in power, no matter what the ruin to do so.



Last i look anarchist tend to get a few good hundred years out of there society's, and frankly this is why.


I agree with Plato on how one governs a country. I need its rulers to be thinking in the span of hundreds of years, not squabbling aver matters that will only matter iv the next three, barly be felt in a decade of seesaw politics.


Theology and history served me hear. For to rule a country is not a right but a duty to serve ones brothers and sisters, ones family, so that the whole may move as one.


If the country is split on political matters its there job to find the middle ground and make it work.

When nations talk, the crown speaks the pepoles wish's and needs, they dont speak for personal gain, and understand such pursuits that put the crown over the people is a charge worth defenestration.



To such a extent that there office must be on the 24 floor of a tower, his office must support a image of the first of his line, with the codes of honer beset next to it, if one of your blood lines go threw it, then that is the fool to go on to its image.

A likness of the first of there line is to be set to stone, for the desk after, to break the window for the next fool, if there is ever one such.


Before that, the desk item will be of some importance to the first ruler, something that weighs hefty in there mind on duty.


The hold five chairs on the republic, less if its bing built, but then at that point they must hold counsel with the co op reps of the communities.


So mutch more to write,

 

[Master of kitusne]

Workers rights

First is the mantra, labor is mine to give, not to be exploited or something to that effect.


For the worker must understand they are a commodity and there labor are valuable.

If its valuable others vant to take it, so its there job to make sure there contracts reflect there worth.

A worker is untitled to two or three days rest

Once a year at least two months vacation, stackable by one month every years and must vacation after four years of continuous work, and cant be denied there yearly vacation even if they hook it last month.

Your contract and community dictate your highest capitol worth for capitol wants. But can save up to hire tiers for more expensive items.

Such details need to ironed out between the communities, union, and republic, with the crown acting as a unbiased party, with the country as a whole as there concern to meditate for.

One can join the milita as a volunteer, from there you can pick as ' emergency responder and disaster relief work or as standard minta member, city guard work and such as the communities deem necessary to public safety.




Next update will review miscellaneous entities with in the system of importance other things that could be abused,

 

[Master of kitusne]

How would such a system work in america?


First we give Voice to the south, give them there blasted restitution. Honestly if i wanted to take there policy the last 100 years personally, then I would be missing the point of doing all this. I'll give them all the rope they need co hang themselves, but jesus is redemption.,,,,,, about the only reason i will bring god into anything is with the south. >_>


Then every city that is at least 75% black, can go to groups, NAGGA and any black owned gang in appropriate groups. Most likely build a republic between the two.


Then we got the lgbtq, same deal, but they get sanctuary buildings in every state of the new federation, so they can escape if need be.....
ATF, DEA, and any agency that is built to infringe on the 9th will be dismantled, and there funds to the building of the new systems.

 

[Questerr]

I could go into how such a system works, but with experience we first need to talk about the contradiction between anarchy and government.


My opening line tends to stem from the text book definition, in regards to the fact its in association to anarchy, and the fact that there is a inherited head of office that would disqualify it from traditional anarchy would not hear.


My stance on the subject is twofold,

1 is the fact i built up ideas of community and a workers union, to protect the people and there labor.

2, the crown is based on a representative co op of communities and has no power over the community and workers, only a republic of capital and lober, whom both owe priority to the workers contracts, community and lastly the nation and future endeavours.


Lastly i have it separated on the belief of the four keys of power


1 labor,
2 government
3 community
4 capitol.

I believe that a system with no government, that dose not safe guard these keys, in a modern society, will fail, and thus spent a lot of time think of how it would work.

You can’t have a monarchy without an aristocracy and you can’t have anarchism with an aristocracy.

 

[Master of kitusne]

You can’t have a monarchy without an aristocracy and you can’t have anarchism with an aristocracy.

Aristocracy can easly be replaced with a representative console.

Sorry ideas are not made of rock, and even if it were, streams can wear away a mountain to a canyon,

 

[Questerr]

Aristocracy can easly be replaced with a representative console.

Sorry ideas are not made of rock, and even if it were, streams can wear away a mountain to a canyon,

Then it isn’t an aristocracy and thus is not a monarchy.

 

[Master of kitusne]

Then it isn’t an aristocracy and thus is not a monarchy.

Sorry ideas change, cry me a river.

 

[Questerr]

Sorry ideas change, cry me a river.

Except aristocracies exist today. We aren’t talking about an extinct concept you are redefining.

All you are going to do is confuse the shit out of people or make it look like you have no clue what you are talking about.

If you are making up new definitions, just use new words.

 

[Master of kitusne]

Except aristocracies exist today. We aren’t talking about an extinct concept you are redefining.

All you are going to do is confuse the shit out of people or make it look like you have no clue what you are talking about.

If you are making up new definitions, just use new words.

Tolken wrote a letter, while knowledge of that letter was absent from when i dreamt up the idea.

All that matters for a monarchy is the crown, crap even ancient Hindu didn't use aristocratic system, it was managed by monks, and was one of the great old kingdoms that lasted centuries.

 

[Questerr]

Tolken wrote a letter, while knowledge of that letter was absent from when i dreamt up the idea.

All that matters for a monarchy is the crown, crap even ancient Hindu didn't use aristocratic system, it was managed by monks, and was one of the great old kingdoms that lasted centuries.

Source that ancient India had no aristocracy?

The Holy Roman Emperor was also “managed by monks”, but the monarchy still had an aristocracy.

 

[Master of kitusne]

Source that ancient India had no aristocracy?

The Holy Roman Emperor was also “managed by monks”, but the monarchy still had an aristocracy.

The holy romen empire was built out of necessity, and as a government had a lot of issues, yet it lasted ten countries.

Priest-king: Significance and symbolism

Discover the significance of the Priest-king from the Indus Valley civilization, symbolizing leadership and spiritual authority in ancient history.

www.wisdomlib.org

 

[Questerr]

The holy romen empire was built out of necessity, and as a government had a lot of issues, yet it lasted ten countries.

Priest-king: Significance and symbolism

Discover the significance of the Priest-king from the Indus Valley civilization, symbolizing leadership and spiritual authority in ancient history.

www.wisdomlib.org

Which has nothing to do with the point. Monarchies can’t exist without an aristocracy.

And anarchism can’t exist with an aristocracy. “Anarcho-monarchism” is as stupid as “Anarcho-capitalism”.

 

[Master of kitusne]

Which has nothing to do with the point. Monarchies can’t exist without an aristocracy.

And anarchism can’t exist with an aristocracy. “Anarcho-monarchism” is as stupid as “Anarcho-capitalism”.

I mean if your inflexible to new ideas and concepts.

Why do we need a bunch of Rich ****s in powdered wigs?

Why cant we have a system were a pool of representative's meet in council with the servant king?


Shit honestly what stopping a community from nobelizing there representative's family line, and he puts himself to service for the community?


At this point there just titles, not a hierarchy, there a duty to serve, not a position of absolutes.

I see a title that puts forth a function, and honestly a aristocracy could be a great game of anarchy.

Nobel's only in name, with a system more like a republic, or senet seats.

You see the hierarchy that has been attached to a title, I see that binding out outdated, so i tore it out, and stitched it together into something more functional.

15 years and i finally see the argument,

Titles are not the source of a hierarchy, its how you build the system. How you teach its pepole to react and function with in.
If no one is above you' and you use a title to denote a duty, is that a harachy?


If so, a representative in anarchy community would also bea harachy, a position of power, very minor, and perhaps easly taken away, but still his voice will carry his community's needs,

Or there voice, like a parrot, but not the wants. A hustle like that if played right could give one a nice power trip before his community finds out and lynches him, or perhaps he is realy good and they never find out till he dies?



TLDR; a title is not a harachy.

 

[Questerr]

I mean if your inflexible to new ideas and concepts.

Why do we need a bunch of Rich ****s in powdered wigs?

Why cant we have a system were a pool of representative's meet in council with the servant king?


Shit honestly what stopping a community from nobelizing there representative's family line, and he puts himself to service for the community?


At this point there just titles, not a hierarchy, there a duty to serve, not a position of absolutes.

I see a title that puts forth a function, and honestly a aristocracy could be a great game of anarchy.

Nobel's only in name, with a system more like a republic, or senet seats.

You see the hierarchy that has been attached to a title, I see that binding out outdated, so i tore it out, and stitched it together into something more functional.

15 years and i finally see the argument,

Titles are not the source of a hierarchy, its how you build the system. How you teach its pepole to react and function with in.
If no one is above you' and you use a title to denote a duty, is that a harachy?


If so, a representative in anarchy community would also bea harachy, a position of power, very minor, and perhaps easly taken away, but still his voice will carry his community's needs,

Or there voice, like a parrot, but not the wants. A hustle like that if played right could give one a nice power trip before his community finds out and lynches him, or perhaps he is realy good and they never find out till he dies?



TLDR; a title is not a harachy.

Because they wouldn’t be a king. The idea of Anarchists “nobleizing” people is antithetical to anarchism.

You are basically trying to reinvent something that already exists with incredibly stupid terminology. Look up “council communism”.

 

[Master of kitusne]

Constitutional Monarchs in Parliamentary Democracies

A constitutional monarch in a parliamentary democracy is a hereditary symbolic head of state (who may be an emperor, king or queen, prince or duke) who mainly performs a representative and civic role but does not exercise executive or policymaking power.

www.idea.int

Whait there is a primer for constitution building?!?

Additional reading.

 

[Master of kitusne]

Because they wouldn’t be a king. The idea of Anarchists “nobleizing” people is antithetical to anarchism.

You are basically trying to reinvent something that already exists with incredibly stupid terminology. Look up “council communism”.

Egh communism, china is the pinnacle of what that can give you, a ugly success story thats a poison to liberty.

Sorry not inventing new terms, shit i thought i made up anarcho monarchy, gave my self a headache for a decade on it, then found out tolken beat me to it decades ago.

Though his letter was more idealist and wishful, vs any actual political theory into how it may function.

 

[Questerr]

Egh communism, china is the pinnacle of what that can give you, a ugly success story thats a poison to liberty.

Sorry not inventing new terms, shit i thought i made up anarcho monarchy, gave my self a headache for a decade on it, then found out tolken beat me to it decades ago.

Though is letter was wore idealist and wishful, vs any actual political theory into how it may function.

If you think China is communist or anything even remotely like it, then you are way to ignorant about political science and economics to have any opinion worthy of consideration.

Again “anarcho-monarchism” is as stupid as “anarcho-capitalism”. It makes no ****ing sense to put those words together unless you are entirely changing the definitions to the point that neither term fits. It’s like you are saying “hey guys, I invented a new shape: THE SQUARE CIRCLE!”

 

[Master of kitusne]

If you think China is communist or anything even remotely like it, then you are way to ignorant about political science and economics to have any opinion worthy of consideration.

Again “anarcho-monarchism” is as stupid as “anarcho-capitalism”. It makes no ****ing sense to put those words together unless you are entirely changing the definitions to the point that neither term fits. It’s like you are saying “hey guys, I invented a new shape: THE SQUARE CIRCLE!”

Sorry political theory and science is beyond someone stuck in absolute's. Is see its pointless debating, you just vant to ague for the sake of it.


Never understood someone that would go to such a forum as a debate forum, and be so closed minded.

Specially when dealing with subject matters such as this.like this is litterly political theory, and you have no intention of entertaining anything i have to say, so pointless.