Why I am a Monarchist

Posted by Geoff Beck on June 16, 2005, 01:30 PM | #

Hans Herman Hoppe discusses that subject in these lectures:

From Monarchy to Democracy
1:27
http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/hoppe/8.mp3

WWI as the End of Civilization
40:00
http://mises.org/mp3/War/War8a.mp3

Posted by JW Holliday on June 16, 2005, 02:17 PM | #

It is not surprising to me that I, once more, disagree with John Ray (a libertarian monarchist...?) about something, but to me, a monarchy is just as stupid a form of government as democracy.

One downfall of Rome was when Marcus Aurelius put his son on top, rather than the best man for the job.  Royal families tend to generate (eg, Romans, Bush Sr. and Chimpoleon, and Charlie dumbo-ears, Louis 16 vs 14, etc).  The fact that one’s father was “king” does not imply that one is “up to the job.”

What can a monarch do that a republican leader cannot?  Empirically speaking, has the British monarchy been serving a useful purpose at any point in the last several centuries?

Yes, indeed, I am sure that the current British monarchy would oppose a fascist coup.  Too bad that they do not also oppose the “browning” of the UK, and the genocidal destruction of native British genetic interests.  No, for that, they are not only silent - they actually support diversity.

What I’d prefer is a modified version of the Roman Republic and the Greek city states, - a republican system coupled with very limited democracy.

What we need as well is Salter’s “ethnic
constitution”, “ethnic culture”, and the “biosocial contract.”

Speaking of which - the fact that royal families tend to be ethnically different from their subjects is another point of annoyance to me, and possible conflict of genetic and class interest.

Posted by Steve Edwards on June 16, 2005, 02:58 PM | #

There is literally no form of government that can withstand the vices of mankind in the long run, anyhow - republic, democracy or monarchy.

Posted by Geoff Beck on June 16, 2005, 03:14 PM | #

I disagree with Holliday and Edwards. The history of Monarcy, especially in the United States, has been written by Democratic Progressives. Contemporary man, again, especially in the US, only sees the nonsense coming out of England as his only yardstick to judge Monarchy.

Again, I refer to Hoppe, the lectures, above, are very informative as is his book ”Democracy the God that Failed”.

I doubt we can return to a true Feudel Monarchy, and Hoppe isn’t suggesting that, but Monarchy needs to be understood, and is rarely understood in these times.

Posted by Geoff Beck on June 16, 2005, 03:28 PM | #

> Aurelius

BTW Aurelius was not a Monarch, but a Caesar or Dictator. There is a difference. A Monarch is restricted by other nobles of his own rank, and he is also restricted in by tradition from interfering in the established rights of others. Furthermore a Monarch uses his own assets to conduct war, or borrows money to conduct war. 

Most Feudal Monarchs were elected by peers of nobles and could be removed by those same nobles. (This was the origin of Parliaments).  Most nobles were not under the control of the Monarch, they were independent.

A dictator or Caesar (like Bush or Aurelius) uses the public troth to conduct his wild schemes. A dictator is the supreme ruler, no class is above him.

Of course history has counter examples and has experienced hybrid regimes.

Posted by John Ray on June 16, 2005, 11:32 PM | #

“What I’d prefer is a modified version of the Roman Republic and the Greek city states, - a republican system coupled with very limited democracy”

Ah yes!  Good old Fascism!

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on June 17, 2005, 12:42 AM | #

A monarchy is on the whole useful; certainly it was in Spain.  However, it needs to be a monarchy with the courage of its convictions, a George III not a feeble William IV or George V.

More important than a monarchy, and an essential bulwark against Fascism or Socialism is a hereditary House of Lords, the only deliberative body known to man that can be relied upon to take a long term view of the national interests.  Topics such as immigration, capital punishment and the environment, prey to the trahison des clerques from intellectual and empty short-termism from elected politicians, can be safely left to such a body.

Fortunately, when Britain comes to her senses and restores such a body, the records will be available.  Given the present half-life of peerages, we would still be able to reconstitute the hereditary House of Lords using only existing legitimate peers in AD5000 if we needed to. In practice, I bet we have it back with full veto right by 2150.

Posted by John Ray on June 17, 2005, 07:48 AM | #

The existing H of L still does a pretty good job

Contrary to expectation, it is far from being Tony’s house—vide hunting

Posted by JW Holliday on June 17, 2005, 01:06 PM | #

John Ray: Ah yes!  Good old Fascism!

The similarities between John and those good old-fashioned, hard-left fascists are somewhat striking.  First, a disregard for facts, whether these be the genetic constitutions of different population groups or the validity of genetic interests or, indeed, the political facts on the ground in India.  Second, the use of typical liberal perjoratives (eg, “fascism") in place of argument.

Please, John, make an argument as to why a drooling monarch, in power because of who his father was, is superior to a consul, in power because of ability and merit.

Posted by Geoff Beck on June 17, 2005, 01:28 PM | #

> make an argument as to why a drooling monarch, in power because of who his father was, is superior to a consul, in power because of ability and merit.

Oh, I thought you were talking about George Bush for a minute. I’ll match Louis IX against any of our elected looters anyday.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on June 17, 2005, 02:52 PM | #

A monarch is better because it provides continuity and gives simple folk someone to look up to, who’s not dependent on bloody politics. The US loses badly by its head of government half the time being a crook, or responsible for policies one violently loathes.

Monarchs only occasionally drool; the potentially drooling ones get weeded out by gentleman’s agreement, qv. Edward VIII.

France’s last decent ruler of any kind was Charles X.  Vive le Roi!

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on June 17, 2005, 02:54 PM | #

Sorry, above I meant “head of state”.  In all democracies, the head of government is generally, with a few exceptions both a crook and responsible for loathsome policies.

Posted by ben tillman on June 17, 2005, 10:25 PM | #

There is literally no form of government that can withstand the vices of mankind in the long run, anyhow - republic, democracy or monarchy.

True.  All we can do is try to structure things to decay as slowly as possible.  Monarchy, properly constituted, can probably approach our ideal.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 18, 2005, 12:00 AM | #

As time goes by I find myself more and more in sympathy with John Ray, Martin Hutchinson, Ben Tillman, and the other monarchists here.  In addition to all the other reasons cited in the entry and comments, Martin’s about the creeps who claw their way to the top of the heap in republics often being crooks is true of course—they’ve yet to make their bundle and will stop at nothing until they do.  Of course in a monarchy the royal court includes a lot of the same type of creepy crook attempting to claw their way up and finish on Easy Street—but at least the royals themselves, and much of the surrounding aristocracy, the Lords and so on, aren’t of this type, thanks to the fact that some ancestor of theirs already did the dirty work, so they no longer must, and can now exert an influence of a better sort on national affairs:  while the climbers in republics are after plunder the hereditary aristos in monarchies are after protecting and nurturing what they view as their property—the nation.  When I lived in Europe a Vietnamese woman-friend used to quote a proverb from her country on the subject of whom you generally want running your government:  «Mieux le tigre qui a déjà mangé que celui qui a toujours faim»—“Better off with the tiger that’s already eaten than one that’s still hungry.” I think I’ll second Martin here, with a hearty «Vive le roi!»

Posted by J.K. Baltzersen on June 18, 2005, 06:56 PM | #

In addition to Hoppe von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and de Jouvenel are highly relevant. For the House of Lords see, e.g., my article on Churchill and democracy. For those interested in the emergence of democracy in Norway I also have an article on this subject. Vive le Roi!

Posted by Guessedworker on June 18, 2005, 08:25 PM | #

JKB,

Thank yopu for the links.  Most interesting.  Peter de Mendelsohn’s picture of Churchill the radical will warm Martin’s heart!

As a general rule, it seems to me fair to conclude that the wider and more level the franchise the greater the power to democratic politicians.  Universal suffrage cuts all links to constitutional interests save to politicians themselves, and places an absolute premium on the manipulation of public opinion.

Posted by jonjayray on June 19, 2005, 04:04 AM | #

“The similarities between John and those good old-fashioned, hard-left fascists are somewhat striking.  First, a disregard for facts, whether these be the genetic constitutions of different population groups or the validity of genetic interests”

Are you talking about the same guy who said this:

“Yet I am at the same time as pleased as Punch about my English, Scottish and Irish ancestry and am also proud of the country that my forebears have created here in Australia”

Posted by JW Holliday on June 19, 2005, 01:11 PM | #

John,

Yes I am.  The two sets of comments have nothing to do with one another.  One can be proud of one’s ancestry and then, for reasons of deluded constitutional patriotism, do nothing to defend one’s ultimate interests.  Plus, a “disregard for facts” doesn’t mean that you can’t sometimes get things right - after all, “a stopped clock tells the time twice a day”!

Smile, John.

Posted by jonjayray on June 20, 2005, 10:28 AM | #

“do nothing to defend one’s ultimate interests”

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that I have a different view of what is in my own ultimate best interests