Monarchy and Capitlism are different concepts but I am not the one who offered a definition of Capitalism so broad that it would include Monarchy. It was my mistake to get distracted by yet another inaccuracy.
Dude, you clearly don’t understand what either concept even mean. Monarchy is a system of government where a single individual serves at the head of the state, usually by birthright and they usually have absolute power over the state. Monarchs are NOT private individuals, because they are the state. The definition of a private individual is someone who does NOT represent the state or any public institution, hence why they are private.
Capitalism formed alongside classical liberalism in Europe as a reaction to the monarchies at the time and the feudalist systems that they were running. The whole idea of capitalism is take economic power out of the hands of the monarchs and their cronies and put them directly into the hands of the people. That’s why capitalism is big on the idea of minimal government intervention and maximum rights to private individuals.
In essence, monarchy is a political system while capitalism is an economic system. They are not comparable, and they do not fall under each others definitions. Capitalism came into existence as a reaction to the economic model at the time, which was feudalism. Capitalism was a part of a bigger movement at the time that revolted against tyrannical monarchies in Europe that also championed liberalism, secularism, and democracy. This is not me babbling nonsense, this reaction is called the age of enlightenment in history.
You say capitalism is an economic system and is not comparable to political systems, but you use political terms like “private individual” to say that a king cannot participate in capitalism.
Monarchy and Capitlism are different concepts but I am not the one who offered a definition of Capitalism so broad that it would include Monarchy. It was my mistake to get distracted by yet another inaccuracy.
Dude, you clearly don’t understand what either concept even mean. Monarchy is a system of government where a single individual serves at the head of the state, usually by birthright and they usually have absolute power over the state. Monarchs are NOT private individuals, because they are the state. The definition of a private individual is someone who does NOT represent the state or any public institution, hence why they are private.
Capitalism formed alongside classical liberalism in Europe as a reaction to the monarchies at the time and the feudalist systems that they were running. The whole idea of capitalism is take economic power out of the hands of the monarchs and their cronies and put them directly into the hands of the people. That’s why capitalism is big on the idea of minimal government intervention and maximum rights to private individuals.
In essence, monarchy is a political system while capitalism is an economic system. They are not comparable, and they do not fall under each others definitions. Capitalism came into existence as a reaction to the economic model at the time, which was feudalism. Capitalism was a part of a bigger movement at the time that revolted against tyrannical monarchies in Europe that also championed liberalism, secularism, and democracy. This is not me babbling nonsense, this reaction is called the age of enlightenment in history.
You say capitalism is an economic system and is not comparable to political systems, but you use political terms like “private individual” to say that a king cannot participate in capitalism.