Neo-Monarchy Systems? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Rainbow Crow
#14014167
So what is the deal with the monarchists around here? Are you just the same old thing, or are there some new ideas floating around in that area?

If I were a neo-monarchist, it would be something like, the scientists and judges/lawyers are the royal families. The system would separate them from business interests. If you have a parent/child combination that is within one of the key professions then the crown could be yours and passes on to the child, but if they abdicate then someone else becomes king/queen.

There would also be impeachment proceedings, a bill of rights, etc.

So yeap, what's the idea monarchists? :?:
User avatar
By Daktoria
#14014188
The idea is that any appeal to authority ultimately has to be consolidated to a single person. Higher levels of authority, on the other hand, "serve" lower levels in order to preserve civil stability.

Most modern monarchists support dictatorship, not royalty, but in the case of royalty, prestige inspires purpose into lower levels of activity.

This is a good argument if you're interested: http://mises.org/daily/4068

Good examples of this would be Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, and Frederick Barbarossa.
User avatar
By Eran
#14014214
An important theoretical advantage of monarchy over democracy has to do with the attitude of the rulers towards the long-term interests of the country.

In a monarchy, the country can be viewed as the private property of the monarch and his family. Consequently, the monarch has an interest in the long-term welfare and prosperity of his property.

In a democracy, by contrast, decisions are made by political care-takers. Their personal interest is short-term in nature. They can (and generally do) use their power to advance their personal ends, but they can only benefit while in power, i.e. over the short-term. Democratic politicians rarely think beyond the next election cycle.
#14014218
Eran wrote:An important theoretical advantage of monarchy over democracy has to do with the attitude of the rulers towards the long-term interests of the country.

In a monarchy, the country can be viewed as the private property of the monarch and his family. Consequently, the monarch has an interest in the long-term welfare and prosperity of his property.

In a democracy, by contrast, decisions are made by political care-takers. Their personal interest is short-term in nature. They can (and generally do) use their power to advance their personal ends, but they can only benefit while in power, i.e. over the short-term. Democratic politicians rarely think beyond the next election cycle.


What about a democratic monarchy then? something like the Papacy. On the death of last monarch rather than his eldest son getting the job an election is called to select the new monarch. The winner keeps the job until death or dishonour.
User avatar
By Eran
#14014228
Better than representative democracy, but not as good as monarchy.

The reason is that an old monarch, not being able to bequith his property rights in the state to his children, will be tempted to resort to short-term goals.

Please keep in mind - this is a theoretical argument raised by Hans Hoppe. In practice, neither democratic elected officials nor monarchs act completely rationally. The former are more responsible, and latter less so than the theoretical model based on purely rational action suggests.
User avatar
By Dr House
#14014238
taxizen wrote:What about a democratic monarchy then? something like the Papacy. On the death of last monarch rather than his eldest son getting the job an election is called to select the new monarch. The winner keeps the job until death or dishonour.

Making monarchy hereditary gives monarchs a longer-term perspective, as they not only need to maintain the value of the country throughout their lives, but also leave a country in good state for their descendants. There's also the attendant problems of democracy in general, re the general population being eedjits.

I would favour the King's line of succession (among his own bloodline) being subject to the advice and consent of Parliament, however.
#14014321
People in general may be 'eedjits', including yourself no doubt, but any king is going to be no cleverer, kings are people too. Moreover whatever idiot schemes he comes up with his natural instinct like anyone will be to look after his own interests first. If he wasn't king the consequence of his idiot schemes would only impact himself and his neighbours but as a hereditary dictator his idiocy will affect everyone whether they consented or not.

There are problems with representative democracy because in the presence of wealth disparities the rich invariabley corrupt the politicians to serve the interests of the few not the many.

The solution to problems of democracy must be more not less democracy. Anarchic direct democracy is the way to go.
User avatar
By Dr House
#14014337
taxizen wrote:People in general may be 'eedjits', including yourself no doubt, but any king is going to be no cleverer, kings are people too.

Unlike the average citizen, statesmen of all stripes have advisors who are both more well-informed and more intelligent than the average person. Re-empowering existing monarchies won't necessarily yield smarter rulers than the population average, but enstating monarchies in countries that don't currently have any might -- the prime candidates for monarchical rule would be political dynasties (and in some places corporate dynasties), which are in fact significantly smarter than average.

taxizen wrote:The solution to problems of democracy must be more not less democracy.

That's like saying the solution to an infected wound is exposing yourself to ebola. The structural problems of democracy exist because there is a critical mass of people that simply shouldn't be empowered in the slightest, empowering them more will not solve these.
User avatar
By Eran
#14014352
People in general may be 'eedjits', including yourself no doubt, but any king is going to be no cleverer, kings are people too.

Bang on. A common thread of many of those advocating government is that mere mortals are not wise enough to make their own decisions. Our benign overlords are much wiser and more responsible than we could hope to be (unless, perhaps, we became politicians?).

Under monarchy or aristocracy, this belief is wrong, but not logically inconsistent.

Under democracy, this view is internally contradictory. The very same citizen who cannot be trusted to make basic decisions regarding which goods and services to purchase can now be trusted, through his vote, to identify individuals or groups in whom he can trust to run his life.

Unlike the average citizen, statesmen of all stripes have advisors who are both more well-informed and more intelligent than the average person.

Wrong. The average citizen has access to advisers of all stripes who are equally well-informed and/or intelligent. Those advisers sell their services through a range of means, from advice web-sites to Consumer Reports. In the absence of government regulation, much more room would open for a great range of such advice services.
By mikema63
#14014462
Monarchy is a terrible idea, not only does the monarch become a central planner which is doomed to fail, but the people themselves become little more than his property. Freedom can never flourish where a single person owns everything in either reality or in effect, representative democracy with all its flaws is a step up.
User avatar
By J Oswald
#14014498
taxizen wrote:The solution to problems of democracy must be more not less democracy.


That's an ignorant campaign-trail platitude. If your pluralistic system is failing because people are too ill-informed/don't care enough to become informed, then giving people more opportunities to vote on a wider series of issues will just mean more bad outcomes with greater influence.

Monarchy is an effective form of government provided that the country has a clearly-defined constitution with a balance between royal powers and popular rule.
User avatar
By Dr House
#14014504
Eran wrote:Wrong. The average citizen has access to advisers of all stripes who are equally well-informed and/or intelligent. Those advisers sell their services through a range of means, from advice web-sites to Consumer Reports. In the absence of government regulation, much more room would open for a great range of such advice services.

Libertarians can get so annoying.

Yes, the average person has access to advisory services, but political advisors are expensive and the average person has need for them -- normal people are apolitical and have no reason to give a flying fuck. Statesmen are required to give a fuck.

mikema63 wrote:Monarchy is a terrible idea, not only does the monarch become a central planner which is doomed to fail, but the people themselves become little more than his property. Freedom can never flourish where a single person owns everything in either reality or in effect, representative democracy with all its flaws is a step up.

Anarcho-capitalism would, in practice, end up being a pseudo-monarchical system. :smokin:
By mikema63
#14014524
Everyone would be king of themselves I suppose but I fail to see how they would be kings of anyone else.
#14014530
mikema63 wrote:Monarchy is a terrible idea, not only does the monarch become a central planner which is doomed to fail, but the people themselves become little more than his property. Freedom can never flourish where a single person owns everything in either reality or in effect, representative democracy with all its flaws is a step up.


I agree 100%. Monopolies are bad. Monarchy is monopoly on steroids.
User avatar
By Dr House
#14014619
mikema63 wrote:Everyone would be king of themselves I suppose but I fail to see how they would be kings of anyone else.

Simple. The rule of law belongs to whomever has the most guns -- which would be whomever has the most money. You end up with the land divvied up into fiefdoms (states in all but name, if even sans that) and autonomous communities.
By mikema63
#14014680
Yes because no body would resist a hostile takeover of their community, you realize the point of competing protection agencies is so that one cannot takeover because they would be prevented by the others?

Or in the case of left-anarchists the different peoples militias.
#14014724
Ultimately any rule of law is the rule of the gun. Monarchy, republic, or anarchy, it is all ultimately rule of the gun (or sword in ye olde times). Monarchy is worst kind of 'rule of the gun' because it is 100% monopolism and 100% centralism. A republic is an improvement because it is 50% monopolism and 50% centralism. Anarchy is best because it is 0% monopolism and 0% centralism.
User avatar
By Eran
#14015022
mike wrote:Monarchy is a terrible idea, not only does the monarch become a central planner

He doesn't have to, though, does he? If you were a monarch, wouldn't you choose, based on your understanding of economics, to adopt a highly laissez - faire attitude?

Dr House wrote:Yes, the average person has access to advisory services, but political advisors are expensive and the average person has need for them -- normal people are apolitical and have no reason to give a flying fuck. Statesmen are required to give a fuck.

What issues are you talking about? I was thinking about issues like product and professional licensing, regulations, tax levels, infrastructure investments, tariffs, crime prevention, education, health, etc.

Those are all issues that have a non-political impact on every person's life. The average person, while having very little interest in politics, has a keen interest in political issues when they impact their own lives.

By making these issues political, we are taking them out of the hands of the people who care, and putting them in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats who only need to pretend to care.

You can't have it both ways. Either, in a democracy, politicians are accountable to the citizens (in which case citizens must be assumed to care about all aspects of political decision-making, including choice of quality experts), or else politicians are unaccountable. In the latter case, why should we assume those politicians are acting for the public good, rather than their own interests?

Dr House wrote:Simple. The rule of law belongs to whomever has the most guns

taxizen wrote:Ultimately any rule of law is the rule of the gun.

This is patently false. Does the rule of law belong to the head of the army? Doesn't he have "the most guns"?

No. Rule of law "belongs" (whatever that means exactly) to those consider authoritative and legitimate in the public eye. In a democracy, that's the elected government. In a monarchy, that is the "legitimate heir". In a market anarchy, that is a series of respectable arbitration firms known for their respect for property rights.
#14015045
I said 'ultimately' by which I mean the rules might be made by the king or parliment or arbitration firm but no one would follow those rules unless somewhere in the background there weren't guys with guns to enforce compliance.

I pay my taxes because if I didn't the goons would show up and physically deprive me of my posssessions and put me in a cage.
User avatar
By Eran
#14015047
Fair enough.

I'd rather point out that under any system of government (even in a group of Chimps!), the rulers are those who enjoy legitimacy, not those with physical power. Guns follow legitimacy.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]