>Be aristocrats. >Live in a country that is ruled by three groups: The King, the Church, and aristocrats (like us)

>Be aristocrats
>Live in a country that is ruled by three groups: The King, the Church, and aristocrats (like us)
>Decide to create a new country
>No king, kings are obsolete
>Seperate Church and State, so the Church has no political power
>This means us (the aristocrats) have all of the political power

Awfully convenient for the aristocrats, isn't it?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Chud Anon

    Sure, but still a better system than monarchy.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I disagree. If you have a bad monarch you can just kill him and get a new one, because there's only one monarch. Western Civilization is ruled by tens of thousands of billionaires and millionaires (aristocrats) who live all over the Earth. Even if we wanted to do a revolution there would be no practical way to do it because the people who control your country often don't even live in your country. Politicians are usually just corporate agents.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Chud Anon

        Oh yeah dude, just kill a monarch, not like anything bad could come from that

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Archduke's murder didn't start WW1, it was just one of many factors. The whole world was a powder keg.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Chud Anon

            >just shoot monarchs bro, it won't lead to a succession crisis or widespread war

            You are officially dumber than the average Game of Thrones viewer

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Assassinate a state leader
          >There are negative consequences
          I don't get your point. The blowing up of the WTC caused a war. Does that mean that all buildings are le hecken bad and should be banned

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh yeah dude, just kill a monarch, not like anything bad could come from that

            Archduke Franz Ferdinand, as his title implies, was never a monarch nor a state leader, he was an HEIR. Before you start arguing about assassinating monarchs, step 1 is getting your facts straight.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >just kill one
        and the army he pretty much built to protect himself also
        >people who control your country don't live in it
        you do know many monarchs were forgein with a good amount barely even visiting the country they ruled, just look at William who after taking over England barely visited and mostly stayed in Normandy

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >just shoot monarchs bro, it won't lead to a succession crisis or widespread war

          You are officially dumber than the average Game of Thrones viewer

          >and the army he pretty much built to protect himself also
          Tell that to John F. Kennedy. It's even easier to kill someone now because we have guns and bombs.

          >you do know many monarchs were forgein with a good amount barely even visiting the country they ruled, just look at William who after taking over England barely visited and mostly stayed in Normandy

          William the Conquerer was, as the name implies, a foreign invader.

          >just shoot monarchs bro, it won't lead to a succession crisis or widespread war
          It worked for Rome. Some of their Emperors only lasted a few months before they were assassinated.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Chud Anon

            >It worked for Rome. Some of their Emperors only lasted a few months before they were assassinated.

            They were mostly killed by fellow aristocrats who wanted to expand their own aristocratic power. So I don't understand your point when you want to make a thread against aristocratic rule.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Aristocrats fighting each other is a good thing, because it means they aren't working together to oppress their citizens the way modern aristocrats do. When the rich work together the poor lose.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >dude uh aristocrats fighting each other is le good
                except when they fight each other like that its usually at the massive expense of the general population, hell it often caused them to become even more powerful

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >except when they fight each other like that its usually at the massive expense of the general population

                Everything politicians do is at the expense of the general population. They will make us suffer either way.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                who the actual fuck do you think is fighting for those aristocrats? other rich people? holy shit you're retarded

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If people fight for aristocrats at least they know who they are fighting for and are making that decision on their own.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you do know most would likely be conscripted or mercenaries

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In the 21st century? I doubt it. We're too well-armed now.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >tell that to John F Kennedy
            which was only because JFK allowed for looser protection and ever since then it has become much much harder
            >he was a forgein invader
            and their were forgein monarchs who didn't invade, hell King George the third was also the ruler of hanover which he also barely visited, his family itself was also originally forgein
            >it worked for Rome
            and rome allowed just about anybody to be emperor because it still had to pretend to be a republic, most monarchies put restirctions on who can rule which was why most revolts against kings were done by aristocrats

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >ever since then it has become much much harder

              Nonsense. People don't bother assassinating US Presidents anymore because it's obvious they have no power and killing them wouldn't accomplish anything.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                there are multiple assassination attempts on presidents, they just go no were since most of the time they get found out, that and its not like people don't assassinate puppet rulers either

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        t.roman retard
        divine right 4ever

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was enlightened elective monarchy

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Also de-facto aristocrats whose position is solely based on property are better than aristocrats whose power is literally enshrined into law

    • 2 weeks ago
      Chud Anon

      Also, in the original US the state had far less power. There wasn't even an income tax or a military industrial complex to fight wars for profit. That shit came later.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They literally hated what was happening in America because it undermined aristocrats social and political power after the Revolution.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cause if there is anything monarchies were well known for, it was widespread prosperity,

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Peasants in medieval Europe had lower taxes, more freedoms and worked fewer hours than modern citizens of Western Civilization.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >lower taxes
          depends
          >more freedoms
          nope
          > worked fewer hours
          Unless you work in mines or an oil rig, definitely not.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Chud Anon

            He’s an idiot, he meant they worked fewer days which was true because of all the mandated religious holidays and they took the whole winter “off”

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >more freedoms
            They didn't have to deal with mass surveillance, drones, or the government poisoning their water with fluoride.
            > worked fewer hours
            https://www.lovemoney.com/galleries/84600/how-many-hours-did-people-really-work-across-human-history

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >They didn't have to deal with mass surveillance, drones, or the government poisoning their water with fluoride.
              That doesn't mean less freedoms
              >https://www.lovemoney.com/galleries/84600/how-many-hours-did-people-really-work-across-human-history
              Cite an actual source.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Just because you don't like a source doesn't mean it's invalid, but nonetheless here is a better one.

                https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Just because you don't like a source doesn't mean it's invalid,
                An online article without any references isn't a source at all.
                >https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html
                Your source shows that they could have had more, significantly or about a week or two less. The casual worker time is about the same as modern casual workers. The calculations depend on what historian said what, some said they did more and some said they did less. It's inconsistent.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Your source shows that they could have had more, significantly or about a week or two less.

                The average American works 260 days a year. Medieval peasants worked somewhere between 150-170 hours a year, depending on the source. That's a pretty big difference.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                150-170 days a year, not hours, sorry.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're not looking at the hours a day. Which is the actual part that matters. Oil rig and mine workers also work for only about 150 days a year but they also work for 12-15 hour days. Even your source includes the hours.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Many people, including myself and my parents, work 12 hrs a day, 5 days a week.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >work 12 hrs a day, 5 days a week.
                Unless you agree to these hours, they would be well, well above full time work hours and probably illegal (and actually illegal, in my country)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They aren't illegal in America.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                what a paradise you guys live in

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > had lower taxes
          They also had very little cash, and they often lived at subsistence levels of poverty. You can't get juice from a turnip.
          > more freedoms
          They needed to ask their landlord permission to move or even get married. Yes we have to deal with all sorts of little annoying regulations, but they were legally attached to an estate, and their lifestyle was dictated to them.
          Hours they worked is actually a highly debated figure because there are not many clear records. Granted agricultural cycles have a lot of downtime, but days off work as normally recorded refer to days they didn't have to work their lords land. Chores for them were hard manual labor: washing clothing by hand, caring for animals, tending their own fields, and making things by hand.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They also had very little cash, and they often lived at subsistence levels of poverty.

            They same is true in America, AND we have more taxes, AND we work more.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How do you even define "work", especially for medieval peasants?

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Awfully convenient for the aristocrats, isn't it?
    Actually very inconvenient, as now they have to be elected instead of ordained by God

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >be elected
      It doesn't matter if the Republican aristocrat wins or the Democrat aristocrat. Either way the aristocrats stay in power. Political parties are just a tool to keep people divided and cause infighting.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "The aristocrats" change depending on how the election goes. The guy that didn't get to be president isn't still the president even if he owns a horse.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So when Trump lost in 2020 he was stripped of his wealth and influence?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Chud Anon

            >Trump """""""""""""""""lost""""""""""""""""" in 2020

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Dilate.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He was stripped of the bulk of his political influence, yes. He stopped being the president. If you want to argue
            >but he still has money so he can buy off politicians and stuff
            Then you're basically complaining that he does things to affect the political landscape even though he doesn't have to do that just because he's wealthy. If you're poor, you can go out in the town square and stand on your soapbox and get people to vote for your cause and it wouldn't mean we live in a peasantocracy

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >>"The aristocrats" change depending on how the election goes.
          they dont change. 99% of all the bureaucratic caste doesnt change when a new president is elected. And the very few bureaucrats who live go into commerce, typically the entertainment industry, before coming back into high bureaucratic position a few years later. In republics, bureaucrats and merchants are the same people.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How did they separate church and stare. The church was still part of most states after independence. The constitution separates them because it was barely supposed to be a state.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How can you be an aristocrat when you're an equal citizen of everyone else? Being rich and into high culture doesn't make someone an aristocrat.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We don't have aristocrats, at least not titled ones. Most of the Framers were somewhat well-off, but they were lawyers, farmers, tradesmen, etc, and they lived in rowhouses or manors. They weren't born into fantastic wealth living in castles like European aristocrats.

Your email address will not be published.