Can a monarchy be formed in a fully atheist society?
>>415252
Yeah. Look up Stalin.
No because the monarch always derives his right to rule from a God.
The Egyption pharoes could trace their lineage to the Gods. The Persian Kings also had divine blood. The Roman Emperors were also divine. The Protestant kings were chosen to rule by God. The Catholics kings received their authority from the Pope who was himself God on earth.
However you can have dictatorship, which does not need divine justification. Dicatorships are basically secular monarchy. Heil Hitler.
>>415257
not all despotism is monarchy.
>>415270
Monarchy as in "rule by one".
>>415266
I an atheist dictator later in his life declare himself as emperor and his son as heir he would not need to tell his authority derives from god, although his son legitimacy could be put in question
>>415266
>from the Pope who was himself God on earth
>>415291
exactly the legitimacy of the heir is because of the will of the Gods or because the son himself also has divine blood.
The way the Orthodox Byztnians handled it was pretty neat. According to them God fixes fate so the correct person is always on the throne. If a king rules for 5 years and get asssinated and his assasin takes his place than that's exactly what God wanted. The king must have done something to piss off God and the assassin must be a devote man. If the assassin failed it's because God wasn't with him.
The only exception is the king had to be Orthodox.
>>415252
>>415266
>mfw
>>415338
also for obvious reasons Kings got assassinated a lot! The upside is no one ever questioned the legitimacy of a ruler.
But monarchy is evil.
It doesn't matter what excuse is used to justify authoritarian power so long and you obtain that power. Claim divine right, class struggle or whatever so long as the plebs obey.
>>415252
Yes and no. You make the king your God
yeah why not?
>>416464
Gotta agree with North Korea being the best example of an "atheist monarchy." It's kept in the family for 3 generations with ridiculous legends about their supposed divinity.
>>416464
divine double chin
>>415355
It's like this guys never heard of the social contract.
In the 1500's Francisco Suarez was already saying that the royal authority came from their subjects and not from god, and was even protected by Charles V
>>415257
Not true, they worshipped blue jeans
>all power comes from the people
>the people have decided to empower this specific bloodline to rule in their name, no matter what happens.
There, I've solved your divine mandate problem. Unless you want to argue that a monarchy empowered in such a manner is actually a dictatorship in disguise, which in the end is just arguing semantics.
>>419259
Basically how Palpatine came to power
>>419267
Palpatine also has a bit of a divine mandate if you believe the will of the Force thing.
>>419259
>the people have decided to empower this specific bloodline to rule in their name, no matter what happens.
this leads to one big problem; what if the people deem the bloodline illegitimate? in other words, a king ruling in the name of the people has to at least give the appearance that everything he does is in the interests of the people. but that is a hard sell when the people are miserable from war, famine, taxation etc. Then again, our living conditions are good enough nowadays that things might never be bad enough to cause revolution
>>419259
>the bloodline kills all the people
AYY LMAO
>>419297
Perhaps "no matter what" was an exaggeration. In that case, the ruling line will clearly have lost legitimacy to rule, the same way a monarch drawing from a divine mandate could be said to have lost the blessing of heaven or God due to his wickedness. In the end, both systems are incredibly similar, the ruling sovereign has absolutely authority to guide the country as it best sees fit as empowered by God/The People, until they lose control or screw up royally, at which point, surprise, turns out they're not quite empowered anymore and thus need a replacement.
Basically taking the chinese historiography theories of "Mandate of Heaven", secularizing it, and turning it into a proper political institution.
>>415266
>the Pope who was himself God on earth.
No he wasn't, isn't and will never be. That's blasphemous and no Catholic EVER thinks the Pope is God.
>>419317
He supposedly has a direct line to God and speaks on God's behalf, so enjoy your idol worship, heretic.
North Korea.
You can't have a fully atheist society because atheism doesn't drive on crowd control.
No government could be formed in a society of atheists because atheists are spiritual sociopaths, just mindless, soulless biological machines under the direct control of Satan. A truly atheist society would look like something out of Crossed or de Sade. I say this as a former atheist.
>>419736
This tbqh lads.
>>415379
so is atheism
>>415252
Yes.
Possibly through by force mostly. Which is pretty much what Steppe Nomad kings are. Those cunts rarely bothered with religious justification. Only one I know of is Genghiz Khan and his MUH MISSION FROM TENGRI bullshit.
>>419736
You started using no true scotsman fallacies when you abandoned atheism?
>>415257
>You remember the Tzar? Well, I'm like the Tsar...
>You'd have done better being a priest
lol mama Stalin she so saucy
>tfw captcha is about pizza
>>415338
This reminds me of Mandate of Heaven that Chinese dynasties had.
>>415252
Theoretically an athiest monarch is possible but to implement such would be rediculous and ultimatley unrealistic
>>415266
Not all monarchies are based on divine right, The dynasties that resolved from different tyrants of Syracuse serves as an example.
It's also fully possible to base the right to rule on some other type of supernatural/religious reason, such as destiny or some non-divine powers will.
Monarchy in a secular state is called a dictatorship.
>>419243
>they worshipped blue jeans
u wot m8?
De facto monarchy is just despotism. Monarchy has to be entrenched in law to actually be a monarchy.
>>415252
There's never been anything close to a "fully atheist society," so we'll never know.
