Prostitutes

Socialism as I define it is a system that applies extensive taxation or extensive legal interference into lifestyle choices of individuals in order to solve problems perceived as "social issues" that "affect us all".

Now, definitions of monarchy and republic tend to be confusing. A monarchy is a legal system where the law is established by absolutist rule and is not subject to change through popular election (which doesn't mean it's not subject to change whatsoever - besides, the law may secure individual freedom and be limited in nature to only key aspects of human life). Republic is a system of limited popular election - often without universal suffrage and often including unalterable legal standards - mostly regarding economy (property rights, heritage regulations etc).

I think the difference between elitism/autocracy and collectivism is pretty obvious and must not be explained.

I don't know how you perceive freedom, something tells me that your freedom means the right to watch dumb TV series on the couch after returning from your factory producing condoms and sex toys, with half of your salary going for national TV and governmental programs on "sexual tolerance". Independence from state coercion can obviously be maintained in a monarchy or a republic (provided you have the right leader), as opposed to social democracies that perceive an individual as a "part of a collective that he must subject to". Abuses of authoritarian rule obviously do happen, but the cons of democractic systems are overall more threatening to the civilizational development, with its tendency for legal enslavement, indebtedness, cultural decadence and corruption.

EDIT:

I wouldn't really focus on the "freedom" so much anyway. I don't like using this term, it distorts debate. It is true that people will always try to dominate others, that gives a meaning to anyone's life - no matter if they "dominate" them using rifles or money. A noble leader, a king is a one that sets primary example for his subjects. He never really cares about his people as democratic leaders claim to. He cares that the world subjects to his vision of it. But he also cares about maintaining standards of honor derived from his inner sense of justice and ambitions - that is, not using force to establish the order he prefers, because that is "cheating" (taxation is force used indirectly). A noble and wise leader is one that conquers with the strength of his character, for only such impact can be long lasting. In order to ensure that the "game is fair", freedom of choice MUST be maintained. A noble leader thus derives satisfaction from this very struggle for exerting influence upon his subjects. And he does not necessarily have to refer to religion - in the so-called "modern world" he certainly shall not. He shall refer solely to his egoistic rule of domination, and by that gain respect and admiration of the elites, of the creative, the opinion-forming part of the society. The rest doesn't give a fuck anyway, as long as they have their couch and TV and as long as no burglar breaks into their house and no rapist rapes their daughters.

 

What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. You ARE "absolutizing" morality and you say you aren't?

 

I'm only expressing an aesthetic (let us call it that way) preference. There is a huge difference between "I hate it" and "It's wrong". An absolutist says: "Do something wrong and you go to hell anyway." A relativist I am says: "Do it wrong and you'll see hell coming from me."