trashgender-neurotica:

anarcho-tolkienist:

trashgender-neurotica:

anarcho-tolkienist:

trashgender-neurotica:

delcatty-ex:

daggers-drawn:

When no one is in charge.

Except that one guy who is absolutely in charge.

What in the name of god… does anarcho-monarchist mean…

When no one is in charge except there’s like one guy and he’s in charge.

But no one except him.

Nah, it means that you have one guy who has no coercive power but is the universally agreed judge who solves disputes between collectives and is the divinely-agreed-upon source of the moral system, and who also heads up the millitia and works as diplomat.

Still doesn’t make much sense (Obviously),  and while in theory you could argue that it is actually anarchist-ish (Unlike, say, “anarcho”-fascism or “anarcho”-capitalism, which is anti-anarchist) it has the obvious issue that it would collapse as soon as the king decided to not be fair and humble, and instead attempt to accumulate welath and power to themselves. Which is obviously what they’d do. But it’s not an “absolute monarchy” like you seem to be implying.

Oh I was just joking based on the etymology of the words.

But there’s also (like you’ve suggested) not a way in which the king could be prevented from choosing favorites and cultivating them into a state force. Part of the process of anarchist analysis of power structures is in identifying ways in which differences in power and privilege can lead into more tyrannical systems.

Anarcho-monarchism also just seems very spooky. There’s just no reason to have a king except for the sake of traditionalism and it’s clearly just traditionalist syncretism, meant to satisfy two divergent extremes but not actually designed to solve the issue itself.

It’s a fun fantasy for people who think they’re radicals but have also played too much Skyrim.

It’s not so much pure traditionalism (although, obviously, partly that) but rather a suggestion to solve the issue of a) mediation between conflicting individuals without the courts (the king does it: people accept it because they respect the king), and b)How do you defend an Anarchist territory (again, the King assembles the Millitia an leads co-ordination).

Again, obviously nonsense, as far as I’m concerned. But there’s a bit more to it then we think.

Yeah you’re right. While reducing their ideology to a point where it can be easily ridiculed makes us feel better, it doesn’t help us understand our enemies or plot out counter-points.