B0ycey wrote:@SolarCross, I personally consider Monarchs the same as dictators, but if you are calling Stalin a Monarch then you clearly do too. As a supporter for the Royal Family, do you believe in dictatorships then or that it has any place in todays democratic societies? Also, about your point about dressing to impress and that people need such strong leaders in grand garments. Do you think Ghandi and India believe such nonsense?
We already answered this, but I will restate what I said earlier to someone else:
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.
The reason, is because the purpose of a monarchy is to guarantee social hierarchy and tradition while rendering the basic function of government more efficient for the ultimate ends of protecting the people. It has NEVER been in the interests of monarchies to micro-manage or to become too burdensome. This is entirely different with the approach of "dictators of the proletariat" (or even democracies) which must micro-manage in order to get bring the proletariat to the point of true self-governance via a freeing them from their natural disadvantages of being religious and poorly educated, etc.
Likewise, this differs from fascist dictators that act in a restorative manner to cleanse the people of their accumulated decadence or racial impurity/weakness.
In general, even if the powers I outlined as technically being the prerogative of the monarchy were actively pursued, which would satisfy me, this still would not hold a candle to the powers vested in communist or even fascist dictatorships.
Now, don't get me wrong, i'm not a libertarian (and therefore disagree with Kuhnheldt-Leiden on much), for I am very much a pro-intervention as a paleo-colonialist and anti-free trade as a neo-mercantilist, but even this view is still vastly less micro-managing that a planned economy as we saw in ether Stalin's soviet union, Mao's china, or (to a lesser degree) in the states of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.
So I think the comparisons are somewhat misleading, Yes I believe in a strong man, but this is out of a spirit of needing a natural heirarchy and true patriarchy, not to micro-manage all of the tha affairs of every individual in a society out of some process of collective evolution, whether marxist or racialist.
B0ycey wrote:@Victoribus Spolia, there are so many unrealistic variables to your hypothetical scenario, surely you can understand why no one thinks you are serious here. Britain is so divided over Brexit that even an Islamic terrorist event won't change this. It would actually need a declaration of war from Brussels to give the Brexiteers a firm puplic support to leave the EU.
The only thing asked in a hypothetical is for you to play along, but surely we can "imagine" brexit becoming popular and the monarchy gaining sympathy after a mass tragedy whether such events are likely to happen anytime soon is irrelevant. I think blowing up the Queen and Heir in the streets would shock the public conscious in Britain and the world, do not act as if that would be a "mere" terrorist attack.
- By Pants-of-dog
- By FiveofSwords