True. But you will have nobility whether you like it or not. Might as well leave them out in the open.
But you don't have to simp for them, and talk about how "Just" they are. You don't have to say how good it is they don't have to pay taxes while you do, and that changing this was bad.
Good thing that all these things are, in fact, causally related.
In fact, the French Revolution was precisely what got the ball rolling.
If you are going to act retarded then so will I.
No the thing that got the ball rolling on commies and lgbt was Christianity. It was this faith that did away with old martial values and nobility of the Ancient Pagans, and instead made Europeans forgiving, and meek and accepting of the equal dignity of all. It was proto communism.
I said that MONARCHS were not bad people. Doesn't mean the SYSTEM wasn't bad.
Nicholas II was one of the morally best people ever. But the Russian monarchy was too centralized, and the system forced him to handle things he was simply not capable of handling.
Capisci?
Napoleon was not unambigious good nor were the absolute monarchs unambigious evil. Napoleon was a self-centered egomaniac with a lot of decent ideas and some terrible ones. Most of the absolute monarchs of the time were simply flawed people trying to do their best... but here is the thing: centralization is evil, and absolute monarchy was the beginning of the modernist centralized states.
This is the quote I bolded it.
Also no Nicky II was not morally good. Under real Christianity, and not monarcho cuckoldry the ruler has benefits and the obedience of his people. But that means they have to have a higher standard. Merely not being bad to people personally does not cut it. If you fail as a ruler and cause poverty and famine then you sinned. And God will punish you.
And then you have democracies like United Kingdom, France and Germany which are on the same level as Saudi Arabia is.
You can literally insult the leaders of democracy. The king of Saudi can have people killed on a whim. What you said is mind boggling stupid it makes me think we should deport monarchists to Saudi.
I never said they are "good". What I am saying is that it is impossible to achieve a perfect system, so we may as well try to make it the least damaging it can be.
Basing politics on childish ideals is hardly a good choice, as we are slowly discovering these days.
They were trying their "best" Also if anyone is basing politics on childish ideals it's you who think kingdoms are like Disney princesses. As opposed to stating out as warlords and dictators, then becoming parasitic oligarchs.
Because 1) lottery on a large scale would get subverted by the oligarchs anyway, just as the elections are, and 2) it would be impossible to do anything long-term.
A lottery is much harder to be subverted, as long as multiple different groups check the selection method.
2nd What you said is also applies to regular democracy. The only way to have long term plans and rules if for life time appointments. It's a meaningless criticism.
That happened long before the revolutions of 1848, at least in the Austrian part of the monarchy (1785). In Bosnia however serfdom was de facto abolished only in 1930.
Yes but not all parts, as in Galicia in 1847 they still had serfdom and the peasants were killing the nobles.
That response was related to the first part of your post.
And yes, existence of Austria-Hungary could have prevented the World War 2. First off, there is no way Habsburgs will have allied with a psychopathic little socialist corporal. Without that, and Austria-Hungary intact, there is no Anschluss, nor annexation of Czechoslovakia. Result of this is that even if Hitler does go on to attack Poland (assuming Poland exists in this scenario), he has a much more limited frontline to do it from - allowing the Poles to concentrate their defenses. This means that even with the Soviet attack from the east, Poland may be able to resist for longer, perhaps even long enough for the western Allies to intervene.
Above scenario, I think, is not a risk Hitler may have taken willingly. Of course, Germany being a socialist state with a failing economy may force his hand anyway...
That doesn't stop a European war. Germany could have a big fight with Austria, and others might want that as weaken a future continental power is useful So ww2 is Germany and Austria going at it instead of Germans attacking Poles, and not everyone would jump in to help Austria.
I figured your argumentation for this would be bad, but I must admit, you exceeded my expectations.
Have you realized that by this logic, the entire world should be ruled by a unitarian government with absolute authority?
You do know that God's heavenly Kingdom on Earth after the defeat of the Anti Christ will be a unitarian absolute monarchy right? God isn't going to have checks and balances or separation of powers. You won't have freedom when God wins, evil will be destroyed for good.
We should avoid a one world govt because we can't make perfect like God, and the anti Christ will try it first.
But your arguments are still so dumb here. I guess we should abolish the US because it's too big, in fact the states are too big. Let's get rid of any govt above the city/village level. No army no national/state police. Each city/town does it's own thing. Taking things to your ideals too far is just as dumb.
Your position is utterly and willfully ignorant of the history of human power structures work. Time and again, we see that the more power you invest in an institution, the more corrupt it will become. This is not merely a tendency, over time, this is an iron-clad law of the nature of human institutions.
So you cry because nothing is perfect? Yes the world is fallen and things will be used for evil sometimes. Using your dumb logic we should stop all science, all creation, can't use fire either. People WILL use it for evil. Central governments are more efficient. Yes evil will sometimes take over, but good also does. Anyone who doesen't know this does not know history but only propaganda for their "muh small gubmit!"
The righteousness that God desires is not created by the laws of human nations. It is created by a decision to pursue Christ over worldly things, such as worldly power.
The role of human government is to curb the worst excesses of sinful man, not to make men virtuous. Every time that a government tries to do so, we get disaster, and as some have said, the closest thing to hell on earth we'll likely ever see.
No.
You have a fantasy that somehow you can establish a 'Christian' despotism, and use it for good.
You cannot.
If you establish a despotism, it will fall into the hands of evil, evil men, as such things have all throughout history.
Here all you do is grandstand your non Christian ideas. Enlightenment ideals are a product of only a few hundred years early Christians did not share your political beliefs. Many of the people who made the ideals you like are not Christian and opposed Christianity they were either Deists, or masons who had anti Christ attitudes(whether satanic or not) or were even atheists like Thomas Paine.
The mandate of Christ is to 'go and make disciples of all the nations,' not to 'go and take control of all the nations.'
If you want to Christianize a nation, you do it one willing convert at a time. There is no other way than hearts changing voluntarily.
It isn't hard to see that your impulse to authoritarianism is born out of an ignorant conception that if you held great power and authority, you could make things better, but it's just a different version of the 'real communism has never been tried' nonsense. The same kind of arrogance as all those college-indoctrinated socialist fools who think that they are virtuous enough, they are clever enough, that they could bring about the revolution.
No, they can't, and no, you can't. I'll give you that what you're trying for would be a lot less destructive than what the socialists are trying for, but in the end, it'd just be a stepping stone to increasing levels of tyranny.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about and know nothing of history. Yes Christians went bottom up SOMETIMES! But they also went top down sometimes, they literally converted a King and the King used force to baptize his people. Violating your small government freedom principles and the freedom of religion of his people. Christianity sees it as a tool bottom up, or top down does not matter.
Biblical teachings, especially including the 'red letters' where God is speaking directly, have never endorsed powerful, centralized government, and in fact warned the Israelites of all the grief having a king would bring them, and that was in a nation tiny compared to ours.
God's words to Israel as a nation through the prophets were always about repenting of sins, returning to justice and mercy, not to change their government to something more authoritarian. Always from the bottom up, not the top down.
Similarly, the New Testament does not remotely advocate for use of government as a tool for advancing the gospel.
Your thought that Christianity is somehow in favor of centralization and powerful human governmental authority is nothing but your own fancies.
You need to read your Bible more and enlightenment philosophy and modern conservacuck propaganda less.
First off the Bible frequently glazes kings and says that they have great power, and said that the people should obey them. Note these were eastern kings unlike in the lands of the Greeks kings of the east were tyrants and had MORE power over their subjects. Cyrus for instance is heavily praised. God does not care for small government or big government only for what that government does. Again for eastern kings the provinces and satraps had to obey the king or they would be removed. They could not just go their own way.
As for the warning about kings yes what of it. God warns the Jews what will happen if they have a king the king will take power and wealth from them. Also Israel BEFORE the kings was not this small government paradise you think it was with respect for individual rights. Judges ruled ALL of Israel if a city was sinning or one of the tribes was sinning they would not "accept their rights to practice their religion" no they'd go and force them to stop even killing them if they broke God's law. God's law was given and enforced on all of Israel. The tribes could run themselves yes, but they did not have "rights" to change the law or whatever.
Also you really know nothing about the Bible if you think prophets never told the people to change the government. Frequently the Kings were criticized for their actions NOT JUST PERSONAL EVIL ACTIONS! But their administrative policies. For instance the prophets of God have condemned Kings that were religiously tolerant, that was Solomon's big sin allowing idol worship. Yes God is in favor of using top down authority to remove evil.
So how about you engage with a hypo instead of running away or spouting enlightenment propaganda? You are a King of Israel at this time, and the prophet comes to you and condemns your actions and says God will punish you for your tolerance of evil. You have allowed the people of each of the cities to rule themselves and be free besides a few large rules(I'm guessing libertarian or small c conservative principles aka no harming others so human sacrafice is banned) so some cities have turned to idol worship or worship of Ashera or Ishtar. What do you do when God's prophet tells you the way you rule the land is sinful and you should abolish the worship of the pagans and syncritic types who want to worship God and other gods or engage in temple prostitution or other rites? Remember there is no human sacrafice in this hypo so no easy way for you to get out of it.