• Ludovico Lalli
    12
    The State and the Nation are the private properties of the monarch. Without the presence of citizens, the monarch would not be in a position to have economic activities and economic growth. More precisely, the monarch would not be in a position to enrich himself without the presence of laborers.
    Because of the degree of necessariness of the citizens, the monarch must not impose any form of taxation. It is the monarch who must pay a salary to the citizens because of their economic value and productive value.
  • DasGegenmittel
    33
    Your position turns classical monarchy into a proto-socialist employer-state—with the twist that it is still autocratic in form.

    The idea that the state and the nation are the private property of the monarch, and that he therefore owes a salary to his citizens, reduces political rule to a purely economic relationship. In this model, citizens appear primarily as productive assets, whose value derives from their usefulness to the monarch. But rulership cannot be understood through economics alone—it rests on power, legitimacy, law, and social order.

    As it’s said in Game of Thrones: “Power is power.” Rule is not legitimized by economic utility, but by actual power—and the ability to preserve it wisely. A monarch does not rule because he pays, but because he maintains power and secures loyalty. The first rule of any ruler, therefore, is to preserve power—for historically, every monarch is only one bad harvest away from being beheaded.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.