How can I apply the history of monarchy to my ideal of Anarcho-Monarchism?
No idea.
Regarding Tolkien, have you read The Silmarillion?
No, last bit of fiction I read at all was probably The Hobbit. My girlfriend has multiple copies of his books, it's just the time to sit down and read them.
The legitimacy of political means ultimately relies on the support of the populace. Therefore the existence of a liberal state is the result of a certain spirit of liberalism throughout society, rather than the cause of such liberalism. Any founding constitution (by which I do not mean a piece of paper) will necessarily change according to the whims of those who are believed to hold legitimate power. The details of such a founding constitution are thus largely irrelevant when compared to the significance of the ideas held by those who control the ongoing makeup of the state (which as I noted is ultimately the wider populace).
Ok, well the worst that could happen is that I learn some new, historical things about Monarchy, a concept I am already fond of. I'll have to keep track of the ideas I study from history and connect them with Anarcho-Capitalism. (As far as my personal utopian vision of it). I'll have to contact you if I learn anything really intriguing or have any questions about our mutual interest of monarchy.
Speaking of historical monarchs, are you fond of King Alfred? He seems like a pretty great King to me, fending off the Vikings from England and whatnot.
Cool. =)
Therefore the existence of a liberal state is the result of a certain spirit of liberalism throughout society, rather than the cause of such liberalism.
I might go so far as to say this is what makes capitalism, capitalism - not ust the liberal order (or any otherorder for that matter). It is a view which endures due to a clearer way to manipulate the world to one's advantage. I think this is what Max Weber was getting at when he noted why someone in Florence may have had "capitalism" but why it wasn't quite what was revolutionized and self actualized a few centuries later.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Well, I don't blame the Danes attacking monastaries, but I don't have anyone I'm fond of except Arminius (who wasn't a king).
I don't blame the Danes attacking monastaries
Why so?
I don't have anyone I'm fond of except Arminius (who wasn't a king).
Interesting, are you partial to Germanic monarchy and culture, as I am to the English?
Why not?
Germanic and Celtic pre-Christian culture and religion - essentially NW Europe. I'm using Germanic as a blanket term, the English falls under this.
Because the Vikings were the aggressors, in that scenario, and aggression is immoral?
Ah, I see.
I don't blame the Heathens attacking the Christian monastaries for the Christian intrusion of NW Europe is what I'm getting at. They were able to kick the Romans out, but I suppose it's harder to kick an ideology out.
What's so bad about Christianity? (No, I'm not Christian - I'm agnostic).
Something that would further derail this thread even more.
This thread is a duplicate anyway of an earlier thread; I wouldn't feel at all ashamed to "derail" it. =)
I'm OK with Christianity though. So long as its adherents are Non-Aggressive (and they have not always been).