[weikel]

I don't believe anarcho capitalism would work nor am I a fan of the pacifist views( or neoconfederate views) of the Mises institute. But as both an objectivist and a monarchist I like this.

[weikel]

ping

[happygrl]

God's plan was for judges, but he gave them a King because the people thought they knew better and wanted what the surrounding nations had.

The Kings often did what was wicked in God's sight, and led their nation to ruin and the people to exile.

Monarchy is great if the king is a virtuous man; current events give evidence of the potential for disaster if power is invested in one person (see Mugabe).

Monarchy can work if the king believes he is accountable to a higher power (not another institution as in the church which can be corrupt and wicked, but to God).

[sawsalimb]

Interesting article,and thanks for posting it. Am bookmarking this-I'll have to read this in more depth,and do some pondering.

[SAJ]

There is an unfortunate assumption in this otherwise interesting article that the Monarch, as described, is at least marginally intelligent.

History belies this assumption immediately, and rarely more directly than in the assumption of intelligence on the part of most of the assorted Hapsburgs.

[fporretto]

Going entirely on the evidence, old-style absolute monarchies have outperformed representative governments by a large factor, largely by under-tyrannizing their subjects. Unfortunately, we lack two things:

1. Modern monarchies to provide good apples-to-apples comparisons,
2. historians who are sufficiently interested in the subject and are determined to write about it fairly and objectively.

History, they say, is always written by the winners. In our era, the winners have been the "popular" governments: that is, the ones that could seduce their subjects into believing that "they the people" actually ruled themselves. Yet H. L. Mencken himself noted that immediately after the American Revolution, taxes in the United States were higher than ever, and the people were yoked under both severe protective tariffs and the Alien and Sedition Acts -- three injustices that went far beyond the ills for which the colonies had rebelled against George III.

The last time I participated in this debate, a colleague noted that monarchy has an attribute that no other government has: it's inherently tiny. All power flows from the hands of the King, who, as Dr. Hoppe observes, regards the kingdom as his and his family's property. Kings were reluctant to delegate power, or to countenance exertions of power by others (nobles) that might besmirch the king's name. Familial influences and the need to maintain the support of the nobility were usually sufficient to keep a king's misdeeds and self-indulgences down to a tolerable level. The royal family usually took the initiative in deposing a king who exceeded the acceptable bounds, which makes sense, as the family had as much to lose from the king's fall as the king did personally.

It's possible that, without the excesses of a handful of well known monarchs, monarchic autocracy might not have been tarnished as it has been. Imagine the history of monarchy without Frederick II Hohenzollern, Louis XIV, Napoleon I and Kaiser Wilhelm II. Looks a lot better now, doesn't it? But then, the Presidency would look a lot better without Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton, too.

It's a fascinating subject, worthy of a deep and sober exploration. I understand that there's a group called the Constantian Society that promotes the study and advocacy of monarchy, which might have some materials available for distribution. I plan to look into it.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[weikel]

This thread might interest you.

[inquest]

A country can't just "decide" to have a king, at least not very successfully, because no one short of a king has the legitimate power to confer kingship on anyone. A country either has one or it doesn't; and those that do, have one because they've pretty much always had one going back to the days of tribal chiefs and warlords.

The U.S.Constitution provides the best form of government for us. We need to get back to it (minus some irritating amendments), not further away from it.

[mrsmith]

"They number but few compared with the poor whom the government enlists in its support. Thus predation proceeds unhindered, to the government’s own advantage. "

TUESDAY. JUNE 26. IN CONVENTION

"Mr Madison: ...In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we shd. not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce. An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labour under all the hardships of life, & secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in in this Country, but symtoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarters to give notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded agst. on republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded agst.? Among other means by the establishment of a body in the Govt. sufficiently respectable for its wisdom & virtue, to aid on such emergences, the preponderance of justice by throwing its weight into that scale. Such being the objects of the second branch in the proposed Govt. he thought a considerable duration ought to be given to it. He did not conceive that the term of nine years could threaten any real danger; but in pursuing his particular ideas on the subject, he should require that the long term allowed to the 2d. branch should not commence till such a period of life, as would render a perpetual disqualification to be re-elected little inconvenient either in a public or private view. He observed that as it was more than probable we were now digesting a plan which in its operation wd. decide for ever the fate of Republican Govt.

Mr. HAMILTON: He acknowledged himself not to think favorably of Republican Government;..."

Hmmm... the Senate will save us from predation... I feel another case of 17th amendment ague falling upon me.