New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: The Case for Libertarian Monarchism
Source:
71Republic.com
URL Source: https://71republic.com/2018/06/23/libertarian-monarchism-part-one/
Published: Jun 23, 2018
Author: Daniel Szewc
Post Date: 2018-07-01 08:39:42 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 5967
Comments: 31
Contrary to popular opinion, monarchism, rather than a form of democracy, is the best way to protect liberty. To many, the sheer idea of any government form that isn’t reduced to nothingness is incompatible with liberty. Yet, to see the full picture, we must look at it from all angles possible. In the case of government systems, the placement of power is the most important. In democracy, the power of the state is absolute, yet the state is a public entity, run by majority rule. This is precisely presented by the fact that Adolf Hitler came to power democratically. “Democracy is the road to socialism”, as the founder of communism, Karl Marx, once said. What many forget, is that the second power in the Bundestag during the 1930’s was the Communist Party. Thus, totalitarianism in Germany was simply not possible to avoid. In fact, any system that uses democratic measures of picking leaders is bound to fall into an étatiste (Fr. for “statist”, a term corrupted by modern English speaking anarchists) spiral, over a longer period of time. Whenever democratization occurs, in the long run, so does the expansion of the state apparatus. In Europe, on the other hand, monarchism often has lasted over a thousand years. A democratic-like system in the USA is failing already, before it’s 300 year mark. This failing state has not faced threats from its usually peaceful neighbors in 200 years. We can see the fall of the system in the USA, by viewing it’s support for socialists like Bernie Sanders within its youth, as well as populists and career politicians for it’s older generation. Why does this happen? The answer is simple. Whenever elections of any sort occur, conflicts of interest begin to appear. Then, the losing side lobbies to give voting rights to those who support their ideas. The more voters, the more conflicts, and so the snowball effect goes. In the end, people with no meritocratic basis get the right to vote, and strong, monarchism eventually may take over from within or from outside. Some consider the Republican model as the best idea to preserve liberty, yet in all its forms, it assumes an elective body, and/or a constitution, which is insentient as the sovereign. In this case, since ownership of the state cannot be considered a part of the Constitution’s role, it is viewed as a passive manager of the morals (…of policies passed by sentient beings, able to manipulate words and context). All of the above disproves two main forms of government- ones in which the sovereign is a person chosen by the majority, and one in which the sovereign can be edited and interpreted by the irrational mob that holds sovereignty. Clearly, monarchism, to be detailed more in part two, is a more secure system to protect liberty. The Case for Libertarian Monarchism, Part One
| The Case for Libertarian Monarchism, Part Two: Monarchy and Success A monarchy, unlike a democracy, will act in the best interest of a country. Democracy is a failed concept. It is based on the Marxist doctrine of intellectual equality of all people, which is defied by the evolutionary principles of specialization and natural selection. Individuals vary in intelligence and in basic knowledge. In fact, in a recent poll, only 26% of Americans could name the branches of their government. These, mind you, are the people who decide, in a democracy, who the most qualified to manage government affairs. Democracy also implies a collectivist mindset, as well as collective responsibility, which diminishes personal liberty. It is an obvious concept that for personal liberty to be practiced, personal responsibility must be applied too. But, the only way for government to have personal responsibility is via its privatization. In other words, it must become an absolute monarchy. Monarchism is the most efficient system possible. Unlike democratic governments, a monarchy claims its power because it holds the state as private property. Often, this is implied to be God-given. Thus, it establishes property as a God-given right. Moreover, it is impossible for an absolute monarch to support socialism or communism, as both oppose hierarchy, and a monarchy is of course a hierarchy. The biggest enemy of communism, which it would favor a monarch to support, is a free, unregulated market. Furthermore, monarchs will tend to support a free market to gain competitiveness on a global scale. Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein does exactly this. As a result, his economy thrives. A monarch looks for the best, most prosperous system, because ideological lines are not his or her goal. Rather, a monarch’s goal is to bring prosperity to the owned country. In this case, using what past monarchs didn’t have, (Austrian school of economics’ studies and axioms) he or she would determine that a free market is the best option for the economy. For, what a monarch wants, is not to be personally rich, but rich compared to neighboring states. Of course, nothing makes your neighbors poorer than giving the firms that pay taxes to them a better deal. In turn, the neighbors, seeking the same goal, would lower taxes further. This constant prisoner’s dilemma between the monarchs of the world would shrink governments to a fraction of their current sizes. Ultimately, the only key remaining aspects would be diplomacy, a justice system, the military and a police force. Even with these, monarchs would be seeking cost reductions. Even if the free market proves itself inferior, the systems which are most effective will still prevail. For any economic stance, a monarchy will allow for a country to truly prosper. |
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
You have a real knack for finding crackpot "libertarian" articles that no real libertarian has ever heard of before.
This does not represent any of the major strains of libertarian thought.
As to the article, liberty has never been protected by any monarch as a value in and of itself. To a monarch, liberty is at best a privilege, never a right.
#2. To: Tooconservative (#1) (Edited)
You have a real knack of being confused as to what “reality” actually is. You have a real knack for finding crackpot "libertarian" articles ...
Thank you....thank you bery much. ... that no real libertarian has ever heard of before.
How can you possibly associate “real” as a descriptive term for a “libertarian” when there can be no such “animal” as a “real” libertarian when factually there are 10 different types of libertarians?
#3. To: Gatlin (#0)
"A democratic-like system in the USA is failing already"
We are a representative republic, not a democratic-like system. We elect representatives who do our voting for us.
If our system is failing, it's because our representatives have turned their positions into lifelong careers -- something our Founding Fathers never anticipated. We set term limits on the Presidency, but never followed through with Congress.
#4. To: Gatlin (#0)
This is precisely presented by the fact that Adolf Hitler came to power democratically. “Democracy is the road to socialism”,
It can be. Hey, we almost elected Hillary, and Bernie was a close second.
But we didn't. We elected Trump. Democratically. The farthest thing from a socialist.
#5. To: Tooconservative, Gatlin (#1)
“Democracy is the road to socialism”, as the founder of communism, Karl Marx
We are a Republic not a demonocracy. Even thou it feels like it at times.
You know sometimes these far-out Libertarians need to fight the far left instead of the right of center people. All they ever do is give aid to the commies and force the center right to fight two fronts instead of one.
#6. To: misterwhite (#3)
We are a representative republic, not a democratic-like system. We elect representatives who do our voting for us.If our system is failing, it's because our representatives have turned their positions into lifelong careers -- something our Founding Fathers never anticipated. We set term limits on the Presidency, but never followed through with Congress.
Yep.
#7. To: Gatlin (#0)
“Democracy is the road to socialism”,
England is ruled by a monarch and is much more socialist than the U.S.
#8. To: Justified (#5)
Libertarianism will only work in a society consisting of responsible adults. It completely falls apart if you add children or those who need assistance.
In our society, we have 100 million workers and 200 million who live off them. So what's the Libertaian solution to that?
Legalize marijuana. That's all they got.
#9. To: misterwhite (#8)
Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Marxism. Neither work.
I believe the best place is center right but close enough to libertarian-view to see it but far enough from center to keep us from falling for socialism. So basically half way between Anarchy and political Center.
#10. To: Gatlin (#2) (Edited)
How can you possibly associate “real” as a descriptive term for a “libertarian” when there can be no such “animal” as a “real” libertarian when factually there are 10 different types of libertarians?
They're actually split in about three different camps.
- The remaining Ayn Rand fanatics (Objectivists). They're dying off.
- Elements of the Kochtopus (the Koch brothers-funded "Beltway libertarians" who exist only to forestall the advance of real libertarians). Reason magazine and the Cato Institute are the most prominent examples.
- Rothbardian libertarians, the only real libertarians worthy of the name, at least as far as having political discourse and advancing the libertarian cause. Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul were the last big names in this group. Lew Rockwell runs the Von Mises Institute and website. The vast majority of real libertarians are in this camp. This group represents the entire school of Austrian economics and other libertarian principles like the Non-Aggression Principle.
#11. To: misterwhite (#8)
Legalize marijuana. That's all they got.
That might be enough.
Demon Weed is taking over the country. Deal with it.
#12. To: Justified (#9)
Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Marxism. Neither work.
Neither work because both require religious moral principles excluded from all decisions. Individuals may retain their own personal moral convictions, but they are not allowed to impose their morality on others -- even if the majority feels the same way.
Take away religion, God, prayer, and laws against immoral behavior and you have the perfect Libertarian/Marxist state.
#13. To: Tooconservative (#10) (Edited)
So large "L" Libertarians have gone the way of the dodo bird? The Libertarian platform is no more? Or has their platform been reduced to merely a list of suggestions to pick and choose from?
Leaving just a bunch of small "l" libertarians running around squeaking, "I'm a libertarian ... except for the following things you don't like about libertarians ..."?
#14. To: Tooconservative (#11)
Demon Weed is taking over the country. Deal with it.
I am. But I don't see any good reason to legalize yet another recreational drug.
Furthermore, how can anyone favor the legalization of marijuana but not other club drugs like GHB (Date-rape drug), Rohypnol®, ketamine, MDMA (Ecstasy), Methamphetamine, and LSD (Acid)? Or nitrous, mescaline (peyote), psilocybin mushrooms (shrooms), ayahuasca, and khat?
You can't. They're all in the "soft drugs" category and you can't be for one and not the others without being a hypocrite. And they're all less harmful than alcohol, your gold standard for legalization.
It's not just Demon Weed, amigo. It's the opening of Panora's Box o' Drugs.
#15. To: misterwhite (#13)
So large "L" Libertarians have gone the way of the dodo bird? The Libertarian platform is no more? Or has their platorm been reduced to merely a list of suggestions to pick and choose from?
The Libertarian party is a compromise between the various factions. It's one reason why they make so little headway.
In practice, the Rothbardians go for running as libertarian Republicans, not as actual Libertarian candidates. People like Amash and Massie and Rand Paul.
#16. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative (#3)
I can find all sorts of definitions for republic, democracy, true democracy, representative remocracy and democratic republic on the Internet....but NOWHERE can I find a definition for “representative republic.” Can either of you find a definition for me and provide a link. Oh, there will be delays between my responses because I have numerous caretaker duties to perform throughout the day. Please bear with me. Thank you. We are a representative republic, not a democratic-like system. We elect representatives who do our voting for us.
You and TC are both so much smarter on political matters and have far greater computer savvy than I, I humbly admit and submit to both, so perhaps you two will please help me.
#17. To: Tooconservative (#15)
The Libertarian party is a compromise between the various factions.
All political parties are a compromise between the various factions. There are pro-choice Republicans and pro-gun Democrats. But they don't call themselves small "r" republicans and small "d" democrats.
I'll give you the same latitude with Libertarians and concede that not all are in lockstep. But what bothers me is that NONE are in lockstep. Every Libertarian is a libertarian. Every libertarian is a "Libertarian except for ..."
That's what irks me.
#18. To: Tooconservative, (#10) (Edited)
How can you possibly associate “real” as a descriptive term for a “libertarian” when there can be no such “animal” as a “real” libertarian when factually there are 10 different types of libertarians?I thank you for your kind response, but you did not answer my question and just “muddied the water” even further. Since there are “ten different types” of libertarians “split in about three different” camps....how can there possibly be such an “animal” as a “real” libertarian? I don’t understand ... Do you people ever give any consideration to such a thing as “uniting?” |
#19. To: Gatlin (#16)
....but NOWHERE can I find a definition for “representative republic.”
Well, a representative republic is a republic. I only use the term for clarification -- to differentiate it from a federal republic.
The United States is a republic and a federal republic. A republic because we have representatives and a federal republic because we have states.
If I'm referring to a representative form of government (versus a true democracy) I use the term representative republic. Yes, it's redundant.
#20. To: misterwhite (#14)
It's not just Demon Weed, amigo. It's the opening of Pandora's Box o' Drugs.
It sounds like you want to return to Prohibition on alcohol. I think you know that has zero chance of happening.
Furthermore, how can anyone favor the legalization of marijuana but not other club drugs like GHB (Date-rape drug), Rohypnol®, ketamine, MDMA (Ecstasy), Methamphetamine, and LSD (Acid)? Or nitrous, mescaline (peyote), psilocybin mushrooms (shrooms), ayahuasca, and khat?
Well, normally I'd oppose all those but you've talked me into it.
#21. To: Gatlin, misterwhite, tpaine (#16)
I can find all sorts of definitions for republic, democracy, true democracy, representative remocracy and democratic republic on the Internet....but NOWHERE can I find a definition for “representative republic.”
America is a representative democracy organized as a federated republic. Calling it a "representative republic" is just shorthand.
America carries through on this, all the way down to the electoral college in which we vote for slates of electors who will then cast their vote for prez and veep.
The Founders had something of a horror for any exercise of direct democracy. They would not like, for instance, the modern ballot initiatives and state constitutional amendments.
America was designed to be an indirect democracy with a mostly unimportant federal government.
#22. To: misterwhite (#17)
That's what irks me.
It irks them too.
Unfortunately, because of the Non-Aggression Principle, we can't just shoot those perverse souls who refuse to agree with us.
#23. To: Tooconservative (#21)
Interesting sidebar: During the time I was searching the Web for “representative republic” at various links, my full screen was captured with a message alleged to be from “Microsoft” stating that my computer had a virus and showing a phone number I was to call immediately to speak with a MS technician. I knew instantly that the scammers were at it again with a new approach.The only way I could clear the screen and continue my search was to restart my computer....that worked. Unfortunately, across the country today, some to many folks are being duped into making someone rich. I hate scams. Have you heard about this one?
#24. To: misterwhite (#19) (Edited)
I yield back the remainder of my time to you and TC. Thanks for your response.
#25. To: Gatlin (#23)
I hate scams. Have you heard about this one?
There's always a few of these circulating. A good reason to keep your security patches up to date. And regular backups of your important data.
#26. To: Tooconservative (#20)
It sounds like you want to return to Prohibition on alcohol. I think you know that has zero chance of happening.
I DO know that has a zero chance of happening. Frankly, I'm surprised it happened to begin with.
But that's because 55% of Americans drink alcohol versus 6% who smoke marijuana. That's because alcohol is part of our history and our culture, and marijuana is not.
Legal marijuana would add to the problems and the misery. Why would anyone vote to do that? For tax revenue?
"Well, normally I'd oppose all those but you've talked me into it."
That didn't take much.
#27. To: Tooconservative (#21)
They would not like, for instance, the modern ballot initiatives and state constitutional amendments.
Especially if those initiatives concerned criminal law.
It's one thing to vote on a referendum for a new city swimming pool. Quite different to vote to legalize a recreational drug statewide.
#28. To: Tooconservative (#22)
because of the Non-Aggression Principle, we can't just shoot those perverse souls who refuse to agree with us.
If I read the Libertarian platorm correctly, that about the only behavior that's not allowed.
#29. To: Gatlin (#23)
During the time I was searching the Web for “representative republic” at various links, my full screen was captured with a message alleged to be from “Microsoft” stating that my computer had a virus and showing a phone number I was to call immediately to speak with a MS technician.
Yeah. I got the same message. I wasn't searching for "representative republic" though.
#30. To: misterwhite (#28)
If I read the Libertarian platorm correctly, that about the only behavior that's not allowed.
Yep, that's pretty much the whole enchilada.
#31. To: Gatlin (#0)
You need a roadmap.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]