If I was a monarchist (rather than a neocameralist) I'd bite.
-
-
Is monarchy somehow not related to property, then?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's a massively defective tacit theory of property, practically refuted in 1688 and 1776.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Sort of being the devils advocate here but doesn’t that put you on the same side as the progressives?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm on the side of Old Whigs, but they haven't been considered "progressives" for quite a while.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
@DanielJHannan calls himself an old Whig but he doesn’t seem all that different to progressives to me.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mcsam_1 @Outsideness and
a lot of the confusion in this area comes from the fact that both recent progressives and recent monarchists conflate feudalism and absolutism.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @mcsam_1 and
patchwork neocameralism is effectively modern feudalism, but has nothing to do with absolutism, and it's probably even more fiercely opposed to absolutism than its pre-modern version
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @mcsam_1 and
Except feudalism is the definitive loyalty system, where NeoCam is trustless government.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Feudalism's deep obsession with loyalty was a monkey delusion, not something inherent to feudalism. If your retainer betrays you, then fire them. It's not that hard.
-
-
Replying to @Alrenous @cyborg_nomade and
Not a solution. When your retainer betrays you, he may fire you.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.