[Rugoz]

The Catholic-Libertarian and Monarchist Kuneheldt-Leiden in his work, "Liberty or Equality?" argued that natural hierarchy is a greater preserver of liberty and therefore vastly different than other dictatorships that were designed as a necessary evil in order to guarantee great societal equality via a squashing of individual liberty. Indeed, he would argue that libertarianism can only be preserved through Monarchy. One example he used was that if Louis XIV had prohibited alcohol as the "representative government" had in the United States, he would not have been able to implement it and would have likely been executed immediately.

Sounds like nonsense.

What united liberals of all stripes was their opposition to the monarchy and the catholic church. The rule of law, something libertarians certainly hold dear, is incompatible with the doctrine of divine right.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Rugoz,

That is why the book, and its title, are intentionally provocative. Its supposed to sound counter-intuitive on the face.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

What are your thoughts on anarcho-monarchism?

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Oxymandias,

Hmmm. Never gave it any thought actually, but would likely be opposed as I am a opposed to all anarcho-whatevers. I have no problem with taxation in and of itself, protectioniam, seizing property if necessary, or captial punishment administered by the state. Indeed, as a theonomic thinker of sorts, i have a pretty decent list for what qualifies as capital punishment compared to most schools of legal thought, with the exception of Islamic Sharia which has a similar list to my own.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

That's not what anarcho-monarchism is. Nevermind, there's enough background and concepts that warrent it it's own post so look forward to that later on. I also doubt you would care about it given that it's a Middle Eastern political ideology.

In order to summarize, you know what feudalism is right? You are aware about how restricting and caste-like it was I assume? Well imagine a form of feudalism that is a little bit more flexible and a little bit more voluntary, where taxation would be voluntary and people could slightly easily move up and down the social ladder with these rules being enforced by a ruling authority. That version of feudalism would be Middle Eastern or Arab feudalism.

Now imagine Arab or Middle Eastern feudalism except completely voluntary in taxation, social mobility, and which ruling authority you pledge your allegiance to. That is anarcho-monarchism. There is much, much more to it than that, and there is both philosophical and theological justifications for it, but that's all your getting from me.

[Rugoz]

That is why the book, and its title, are intentionally provocative.

Nonsense is always provocative, doesn't mean it's not nonsense.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Now imagine Arab or Middle Eastern feudalism except completely voluntary in taxation, social mobility, and which ruling authority you pledge your allegiance to. That is anarcho-monarchism. There is much, much more to it than that, and there is both philosophical and theological justifications for it, but that's all your getting from me.

Do you have any resources for further reading? I read a website last night that discussed ideas from Tolkien along those lines and from the Orthodox philosopher Bentley-Hart (who I have read several different works from) who is apparently an advocate of anarcho-monarchism.

Let me know.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Nonsense is always provocative, doesn't mean it's not nonsense.

Okay, so why is the idea that monarchy is a better preserver of liberty than a democracy or totalitarian dictatorship,"nonsense" ?

[Rugoz]

Okay, so why is the idea that monarchy is a better preserver of liberty than a democracy or totalitarian dictatorship,"nonsense" ?

Libertarians are not anarchists. They believe in a number of universal rights that must be enforced by the state. Why should a king with a mandate from God enforce those particular man-made rights on himself and his subjects? Why should he restrict his power that way and allow his subjects to question his power freely? Besides, what empirical evidence is there for monarchies being better preservers of liberty than democracies?

[Victoribus Spolia]

How about a simple comparison of the land-use laws, amount of criminal statutes, regulations of any kind, restrictions on products, restrictions on liberties and basic rights between representative democracies post-enlightenment v. monarchies pre-enlightenment and see which one tallies up the most?

I place my bets on monarchy being freer overall over their spans regarding individuals being generally left alone v. people living in representative democracies, on the whole, over their 250 years of prominent existence in the west.

[Pants-of-dog]

That seems like an absurd comparison.

The reason monarchs had less regulations is because science had not developed enough. In order to create useful regulations that protect consumers, scientific studies need to be done to determine the efficacy of regulations. It has nothing to do with monarchs being inherently freedom loving.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The reason monarchs had less regulations is because science had not developed enough. In order to create useful regulations that protect consumers, scientific studies need to be done to determine the efficacy of regulations. It has nothing to do with monarchs being inherently freedom loving.

Well, I would never say that monarchs are inherently freedom loving, I am just arguing that out of the Monarchy's self-interest such intends to be less intrusive than either representative democracies (which often have mob-mentalities) and totalitarian dictatorships and that this could be bore out historically.

The reason monarchs had less regulations is because science had not developed enough.

This assumes that regulations, environmental or otherwise, are always of a general benevolent and objective design. Libertarians obviously would contend that point, so if I were arguing with a libertarian on whether monarchy or democracy was more compatible with their approach to individual liberty, I would merely point to historical precedent over which system has been more or less intrusive.

How would you suggest such to measured?

I really don't have a dog in this fight per se, I am not a libertarian, but I don't think monarchies tend to be as totalitarian as Stalinism or Fascism either, historically speaking.

[Pants-of-dog]

As long as we agree that there is no logical relationship between monarchies and regulations. It is merely a coincidence of history.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

The only information there is of it online is through a fantastic series of essays and articles written by a professor named Abdal Alim however it's in Arabic and the university's website is inaccessible if you're in the West. Many of these essays and articles detail everything about anarcho-monarchism. It starts from it's justifications (which although are based on Islam, can also be based in Christianity as well) to in-depth descriptions on how an anarcho-monarchist society would be like. It's probably one of the most well-written series of essays out there and I wish that someone would translate them and publish them as a book or something.

One aspect of his works also emphasizes how anarcho-monarchism would provide the morality and structure of monarchy while retaining the freedom and social mobility of anarchy without each of their drawbacks which I think is relevant to your philosophy.

Yes, I am aware of that, and Abdal al Alim referenced Tolkien in his first essay "History of Anarchy and Monarchism" as both a preceding thinker and influence on anarcho-monarchism. I'll try to find some articles for more information.

[Victoribus Spolia]

As long as we agree that there is no logical relationship between monarchies and regulations. It is merely a coincidence of history.

I can't assent to that claim at this time until I do more research.

@Victoribus Spolia

The only information there is of it online is through a fantastic series of essays and articles written by a professor named Abdal Alim however it's in Arabic and the university's website is inaccessible if you're in the West. Many of these essays and articles detail everything about anarcho-monarchism. It starts from it's justifications (which although are based on Islam, can also be based in Christianity as well) to in-depth descriptions on how an anarcho-monarchist society would be like. It's probably one of the most well-written series of essays out there and I wish that someone would translate them and publish them as a book or something.

One aspect of his works also emphasizes how anarcho-monarchism would provide the morality and structure of monarchy while retaining the freedom and social mobility of anarchy without each of their drawbacks which I think is relevant to your philosophy.

Yes, I am aware of that, and Abdal al Alim referenced Tolkien in his first essay "History of Anarchy and Monarchism" as both a preceding thinker and influence on anarcho-monarchism. I'll try to find some articles for more information.

Please do that sounds absolutely fascinating.....perhaps you can translate the article for me? That would be pretty boss.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

But Persian, not Arabic, is my native language and I myself have struggled reading it. I will attempt to translate one article for you (probably not "History of Anarchy and Monarchism" because that's way, way too long) but it will take some time. I did find an English article talking about anarcho-monarchism however so there's that:

http://www.altarandthrone.com/so-whats- ... sm-anyway/

It's not as in-depth as Abdal al Alim's works (he doesn't just go make political arguments similar to those that this article and other western media outlets tend to do but goes into actual logical proofs and historical Illuminationist principles*) but it certainly does go into the basic justifications of anarcho-monarchism and some of it's history.

Unfortunately anarcho-monarchism is a fringe philosophy in the Middle East and not many people are aware of it but maybe you could spread the word in the West?

*Illuminationism is a historical Middle Eastern Abbasid philosophy in the Middle East which still holds influence today

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Oxymandias,

we need to get together bro....we could probably down some serious booze and talk political theory for hours. I am a huge fan of Islamic philosophy (my dirty little secret); especially, the work of Al-Ghazali.

Thanks for the article by the way. I appreciate it.

I will be responding to our planned discussion on colonizing the American Shah tomorrow.

Blessings.

[Pants-of-dog]

I can't assent to that claim at this time until I do more research.

What is the purpose of regulations?

[Victoribus Spolia]

What is the purpose of regulations?

I think that depends on what is being regulated, wouldn't you say?

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

On a more on-topic note, here is some advice for the future British monarchy with regards from Abdal al Alim:

In order for a king to achieve the Ideal he must abandon all worldly desires and affairs including quarrels of his subjects. A king who indulges himself in such affairs and desires is no moral than the modern hedonists that dominate our societies today.

A king is a man who acknowledges his humanity and imperfections, who wishes to improve them. A king, as previously addressed, is an ideal rather than a man but an ideal that is not human can never be a symbol for humanity. A king understands his role in the world as given to him by God and fufills that role humbly and righteously.

EDIT: Excuse me if the translation seems a bit off. As I have stated before, Arabic isn't my native language.