DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here



If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at with the relevant information.


Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.


If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at with your Paypal email/Bitcoin address/etc as well as your board account name and the situation will be addressed ASAP.


We just upgraded the board software, and now your email address is used to log in. If you're having trouble, please Contact Us.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


luxfelix last won the day on February 18 2016

luxfelix had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

93 Excellent

About luxfelix

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Occupation
    Sound Designer / Composer

Recent Profile Visitors

247 profile views
  1. Ah yes, that's the one. For what it's worth, he managed to gain the approval of the other monarchs, which Napoleon I could never really maintain. You'll have no disagreement from me with regards to how freedom has a cultural prerequisite (i.e. "freedom club"). I can certainly recall examples of people selling their freedoms (for security, short-term gain, etc.) in government systems; however, I would need more information on what you mean when concerning what selling one's freedom would look like in a free market (would it be a free market if they could not renegotiate the terms/reclaim their freedom?). Switching gears a bit here: Imagine you have various monarchs meeting at a party. How would they would interact with one another -- 1) Where the party is in neutral territory? 2) As monarchs attending a party in the court of another monarch's realm? (Of particular interest, does anything happen to their legitimacy, status, and/or behavior?)
  2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I gather, in a monarchy the typical provenance of legitimacy goes: Deity > Pope (or equivalent Ecclesiarch) > Crown (The Realm as corporate entity) > Monarch > HMs Government > Subjects (In some cases the Ecclesiarch is also the Monarch, as in the UK or Japan.) In a republic it would usually go: Deity > Subjects (in their moral capacity) > Constitution (a corporate entity) > Government > Subjects In hypothetical Laissez-faire [insert term here]: Deity and/or Invisible Hand > Subjects/Market Actors (in their moral capacity) > Free Market > Subjects/Market Actors Provided these models hold water, is legitimacy at its greatest when checked/balanced by more institutions, as in the monarchy model, and at its least when those institutions are consolidated into fewer nodes as in the republic model (and as previously discussed)? Likewise, does this mean that a move towards Laissez-faire entails a sacrifice of legitimacy since it has the fewest nodes -- or perhaps legitimacy is not a quantifiable quality (multiplied by the number of nodes) but rather a Boolean yes/no check for parent>child heritable relationships? Regarding your comment on France, does that include Napoleon's marriage to the Habsburgs as another way to gain legitimacy; this, in turn used to legitimize the reign of Napoleon III? Or perhaps a Bonaparte could never become legitimate since they would always be usurpers of the Bourbon's throne? "Canton" is the Swiss term for "State", so in this case their constitution differentiates between the Swiss People and the states comprising the Confederation of Helvetia. If I recall, America was inspired by the Swiss Confederacy when it came to the issue of states' rights (Representatives for the People and Senators for the States in a bicameral Congress), and then after Napoleon gave up trying to centralize authority in Switzerland, the Swiss returned to a Confederacy of Cantons taking inspiration from the Americans in kind (with another modification after the "Spring of Nations" in the mid 1800s). I don't know if the reference to diversity means the Cantons (if written way back when) or ethnicity -- didn't the Swiss ban minarets/refuse to sell out their country/cantons to political correctness?
  3. Welcome! You may also like the works by Black Pigeon Speaks. I am not currently in Japan though I did go to school there in Sasebo. In what ways has your life changed since finding FDR?
  4. Would you agree with the statement that the more opposition a government has the less legitimate they are (and vice versa)?
  5. Trying to push this theory to its limits: If the Papacy can be identified as an Elective Monarchy (or non-dynastic Theocracy), the French have gone through Feudal, Absolute, and Constitutional Monarchy, and the Japanese emperors are said to be descended from the Shinto gods -- and provided that all of these are legitimate -- are there any Republics, Democracies, (etc.), that have (or had/could have) the blessing of a deity to give them legitimacy?
  6. This sounds familiar, did you have a historical reference in mind when writing this?
  7. Ah, I do remember that video -- any recommended reading for San Marino (etc.)? So, then, is your argument that what really matters is legitimacy and that monarchy -- though not only monarchy -- is inherently more legitimate because of its connection to a/the Church (i.e. Christendom has a/the Church itself as an amalgamation of Greco-Roman philosophy and Judeo-Christian morality)? On a hypothetical scale of legitimacy, where would you place the various government types mentioned before (0 being no legitimacy and 10 being self-evident)? Where would the first principles as described on this forum fit on the legitimacy scale?
  8. From reading the writings of America's founding fathers, it is apparent that they too were weary of Democracy. Would they have been better off finding a monarch (elective monarchy?) from the continent, or from among their number (to avoid foreign entanglements), whom would accept the role as head of state? Perhaps following the example of the Dutch, something like the Crowned Republic of the Netherlands? (Some sort of compromise between Thomas Paine and Jacques Bossuet?) Is it that the mob hardly ever prioritizes self-preservation, or that they usually focus short term (or another option?)? Do we know why San Marino is an exception? What is the reference to Abe (Lincoln?) referring to? Why are Switzerland, Chile, Uruguay, and Ireland also exceptions? For the sake of argument, let's say Monarchy is the best stepping stone to achieving the goals of a free domain; what would be a stepping stone to Monarchy?
  9. Are the Sovereign, the Nobility, the Clergy, and the People -- in France known as the various "estates" -- not analogous to the checks and balances between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial "branches" of government? (I would guess not, and not only because of the corruption/re-election complex.) I've heard arguments in support of absolute -- but not arbitrary power -- held by a crown sovereign whom will have both authority (checked by the legitimacy provided by the clergy and reliant upon loyal local nobility) and self-interest in line with what is best for the realm, since they will want their heir to inherit demesne in good condition; in biological terms, a symbiotic vs. a parasitic relationship with the people. Both are hierarchies but, insofar as comparing relative freedom and social mobility, do we have more evidence in support of monarchy than in opposition? I do acknowledge that the institution of the family is inherit to a monarchy, though does this also make it a better stepping stone to a "free domain" of individuals whom respect UPB/NAP/etc.?
  10. What I mean is that, I thought you were outlying various types of governments and then making the case for why one government type is suited for one country while another government fits for another -- all within the umbrella of how monarchy is a viable form of government. The second part could be rephrased as a question for what your argument would mean in the context of this message board; I see your statement in support of monarchy for yourself in Hungary, but at the time I thought you were hinting at something similar to the way some people are better off with religion for it's stabilizing effects, even if they do not question it. Be it for cultural, IQ, geopolitical, or other reasons, why would you prefer monarchy for yourself?
  11. Was this partly a show of force to China and North Korea?
  12. Ah, I missed the mark then. Was your argument for monarchies for other countries?
  13. Curious: Are you familiar with the following blog?
  14. What if everyone were a monarch (or in regency for children)?