My answer is: Well, not really! I happen to think everyone can decide what system they want to live under - which is why I am philosophically an anarcho-libertarian. But personally I would love to live in a monarchy! Not a constitutional one of course, but a private property (feudal) one. And I would like to have a say in how this monarchy originates. It wouldn't matter that much who became King, but I would nonetheless prefer it to be someone normal. If someone told me that Alabama was seceding from the USA and Llewellyn H. Rockwell was to be the King of the new state, I would move there tomorrow without the slightest hesitation and seek citizenship immediately (another fact is that, of course, Mr. Lew Rockwell would not be a person who would agree to such an arrangement). But the good thing about monarchy is that it does not require a "good" King to function well. Most liberals and socialists, who I hate with a passion, would make great Kings! This is because most liberals, democrats, and socialists are actually very materialistic and greedy (unlike what their media persona would indicate). Surveys have long shown that conservatives and other free-marketers give many more times in charity per person than the liberal gang. Thus Mr. Gordon Brown, who was an atrocious Prime Minister, might have made quite a good absolute monarch. He robbed the UK consistently during his tenure as PM precisely because he was greedy for power, money, and praise. Now, if he was a monarch, his greed would be the exact thing that would restrain him from robbing the people. Because by robbing the people a monarch robs himself! What an interesting paradox! This is particularly the reason I favour monarchy as a personal choice for me (a Feudal-style monarchy of course). That and the cultural advantage. Who ever heard of an ill-mannered King or an ill-mannered Court?
I have often wondered why I was ever inclined so much to the right - in the direction of Monarchy, Individualism, and Voluntarism. The answer is now clear to me. It was the works of J.R.R. Tolkien that first set me on this path. Reading his Fantasy was really influential on my young mind. The values portrayed therein are fundamental to my understanding of the world. And Professor Tolkien himself wrote: "My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)—or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy."
It seems to me that the parliamentary system tends to diminish the personal accountability of the monarch because, ever since the puritan revolution the objective of government has been to create 'holy' laws that attempt to diminish the power of the judge, thus paving the way to the zero accountability trend as in the case of your Mr Gordon Brown. In that sense you are right. The objective has been the 'holiness' of the laws and not the holiness of the judge/monarch precisely by safeguarding a correct moral standard ie Catholicism. Before as first among the barons/oligarchs and through feudal obligations the English monarch in the days of Henry II for example had at his disposal the Royal Wardrobe, a department for personal fiances, and the exchequer for the finances entrusted to him by the people for their protection and safekeeping, the tragety is that now, there is a pronounced bureaucracy in between that even by itself eliminates the accountability that the monarch has, that's not to mention the parliament that empowers moneylenders and secret societies.
ReplyDelete