What's not to Love about Monarchy?

What is the best aspect of Monarchy? What is its single best feature? This is a very easy question. The best part of any Monarchist order is its respect for private property rights. In a Monarchy the King tends to enforce private property rights while in a Democracy or Republic it is the public property rights that are strengthened over time. Private property rights are (as I have maintained all along) the only rights man has. The right to life or the right of free speech are actually Private Property Rights (i.e. a man owns his own body, no one else having the right to do so). A Monarchy is, strictly speaking, either absolute or feudal. I support the latter, but the former is still highly superior to the world order we have today. Why? Same answer: Because Kings tended to explain their power through private property rights and it was exceedingly difficult for them to abuse the population. Any undermining of his subjects' property rights would erode the Monarch's claim to his own! In an absolute Monarchy the King was the owner of the entire landmass (much like in today's system) and the people were his tenants. In essence he was a landlord and they were renting his land. This meant many things. It meant, for instance, that the King could rarely legislate without the consent of the people. A landlord today has no right to unilaterally change the contract with the man who rents his house, so it was with even the (so-called) absolute Kings. Today, of course, we have legislative tyranny. The government does not wait for our permission to abuse our rights, it simply does so. Most of what democratic states do would have cost an absolute Monarch his head. Just think of the taxation situation. Even the most efficient absolute Monarch, the last Kaiser of the German Empire Friedrich Wilhelm von Preußen (known as Wilhelm II), was only able to collect taxes amounting to just over 10% of GDP in times of war. Meanwhile today's democracy collects nearly 50% or over 50% of GDP all the time! This is theft pure and simple (because supposedly we have private property... but just try refusing the taxman). The King was not payed taxes as we have today, he was paid small fees. Most of the population did not pay at all.

To know that the above is true we don't need to look far. Just find the origins of liberty and property as we think of them today. Probably the best definition of property comes from that immense work of beauty, the Commentaries on the Laws of England, by Sir William Blackstone. Blackstone (who is widely cited by many from Herbert Spencer to the US Supreme Court) is the founder of rights are we know them today. As he wrote: "...the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe." That is our most important right. The only one we really need. This is why all socialists (whether the hardcore communist variety or the parasitic democrats) are our enemies everywhere and anywhere because they are the enemies of civilization and humanity itself.

Monarchy and Crisis

In my last post I referenced His Highness Louis XV, the King of France and Navarre. Most opponents of my Monarchist views love to talk about the House of Bourbon and how it brought about the horrible conditions in France. They say this is absolutely proof of the terror and destruction Monarchies can unleash upon their own people. What they don't realize is that I also love to talk about those poor Capetians who ruled France. Why? Because their history shows us what happens when a Monarch brings about unfavorable conditions for the populace living on his private property. It proves that very important thesis, that "a bad Monarchy will inevitably bring about its own destruction". This, of course, applies to any system of government based on arbitrary rule, democracy included. So why would I advocate Monarchy over democracy? The answer is very simple! In a Monarchy when the King is a bad one, he is usually swiftly eliminated. He is killed either by unhappy plebeians, unhappy nobles, or unhappy members of his own dynasty. I would say that offers any ruler a strong incentive to act as he/she is supposed to act. In all the years of my studies of history I have never found any mention of a financial crisis under a normal system of law (a Monarchy, feudal system, or an anarchy). Meanwhile the last few hundred years (filled with dictatorships, "constitutional monarchies", and democracies) have been marred by countless financial debacles and problems of a grand scale previously unknown to mankind. A King would have been held accountable for any such problems. Therefore he knew better than to interfere with the basic rights of his subjects. Most medieval Kings, who are now portrayed as primitives of all sorts, had specialized (usually Jewish) financial advisers who overlooked all economic matters and kept the King's attention elsewhere. This was especially true in the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.
And what about our "great" democracy? No personal responsibility of rulers. No incentive to act morally or honorably. Nothing preventing crisis after crisis after crisis all in a gigantic cesspool of corruption...
I therefore call upon all those people who are "practical". At least for the pragmatic reason of preventing crises, please endorse Monarchy! For once you democrats, be human!

"Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day." Il Duce himself said this once. And if anyone doubts that in single-ruler states the leader is always held accountable for his actions, I encourage people to read about his fate...

Supporting Useless "Monarchs"

Lately in the UK people have been getting more and more angry at the Windsor posse. Now, being a Monarchist I have come under some heavy fire on this issue. After all considering the tax hikes, benefit cuts, and now the ever so loud university tuition increases in the UK, being part of the royal family is starting to look like a sweet deal. A bunch of pampered celebs are getting supported directly by taxpayer money! I mean at least the bankers have to cheat and steal for their money - the Windsors do literally nothing! How can anyone support such intolerable actions? Well, I certainly don't. I have stated many times before that even though I have great respect for the Queen and her family because of their rich tradition and heritage, they are pretty much parasites in my mind. Everyone knows that they no longer are Monarchs in anything but name. PM's and MP's are the real rulers of the United "Kingdom" and the citizens are its real owners. And I say, in a fully capitalist and Darwinist way, useless parts must be subjected to the forces of nature so that they are eliminated. If the Monarchs were real Monarchs I would fully support their rights. If the Monarchs were respectable and didn't cause people offence I would support their usefulness. But when they have neither, what is there to support? Taxpayers should no longer have the obligation of paying their royal family's salary. I'm sure the Monarchy could support itself from voluntary donations. That would at the very least diffuse its image as a parasitic phenomenon.

Heinlein wrote that "A monarch's neck should always have a noose around it. It keeps him upright." Again a fiction author seems to know more about the real world than all the intellectuals of this planet...

Why Monarchism?

People ask me sometimes: Aren't you an extreme libertarian? How is anarchism compatible with this whole monarchist mumbo-jumbo? Aren't you being hypocritical?
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."

Feudalism - A Good System?

Today Feudalism is a system mainly associated with the Middle-Ages, primitivism, and serfdom. It is true that in some cases of looking at feudal society serfdom appears to be present, but it is not this aspect that distinguishes feudalism from other political systems (After all serfs also existed in highly centralized Tsarist Russia and to some extent in Communist regimes, where agricultural workers were not permitted to relocate themselves to other areas.) An important aspect of the Feudal system was rather its decentralized character. The concept of lords, vassals, and their contractual voluntary relationships makes Feudalism unique. A Feudal-based Monarchy is something I would advocate (whereas I would certainly NOT advocate any sort of totalitarian rule through absolute Monarchy). True enough, feudal lords often expanded their realm by conquest, but it was not commonly the case. A landlord would usually swear fealty to a more powerful lord or a King because the latter offered him a high degree of security and protection. The King (or lord), in turn, offered the vassal protection of liberties and property for some sort of earlier agreed fee (perhaps a tax, tribute, or a form of military service). Thus the vassal's rights were fully protected - he could at any moment break the contract and join another lord or become independent. No taxes were superimposed on the vassals - they had to be agreed to by the people being taxed. These are hugely important rights which none of us have today (in a supposedly "free" democratic system). Apart from those advantages (protecting regionalism and individualism), Feudalism also allowed many voluntary bonds to be created and many non-governmental institutions to prosper. One of these great institutions was the Catholic Church and its Monastic system - to which our society owes a tremendous debt (I highly recommend the book How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.).
I think it is imperative that we all rethink our stance on Feudalism - which was a more natural and less corrupt system than we live under today.

Democracy - Slavery for the Feeble-minded

My job as a Monarchist and true believer in Liberty is clear - I must in equal proportion advance the notion of the greatness of Monarchy and bash Democracy, the system entirely responsible for most of the Western World's problems. One way of showing what a oxymoron of a term "liberal democracy" is, is looking at the question of slavery and forced servitude in society. In a liberal society the ultimate goal is freedom of the individual. This is best defined by Herbert Spencer (as his greatest creation, the Law of Equal Liberty) "each has freedom to do all that he wills provided that he infringes not the equal freedom of any other.". This is farily straight forward for most people. And because it is just such a plainly simple concept to grasp, I am baffled by the fact that so many people associate liberty with democracy. To best describe the way democracy is contrary to liberty is discussing forms of "people-ownership" in society, which comes in three varieties:
1. Nobody owns anybody else. This means each mature adult individual owns himself (or herself) and himself alone. He has no right to anybody else's life, liberty, or property (i.e. complete self-ownership).
2. Some people (or one person) own(s) some other people. This means that some individuals have the right to somebody else's life, liberty, or property. This could be for a variety of reasons, if an ethnic group is considered inferior for instance.
3. Everybody owns everybody else. In such a society every person has a say on what other people do (I am using a gross simplification here).
Plainly from these descriptions anyone can see that Monarchy can exist as either number 1 (which I fully support as true Monarchy - The Rule of Law) or number 2 (Absolute Monarchies). Another alternative for option 1 is anarcho-capitalism or natural order. Number 2 also contains a broad number of other systems and institutions such as some types of dictatorships, aristocratic rule (oligarchy for instance), or classic slavery (where the slave-owner has a full title to the slave as his property). Democracy, however, fits soundly into option 3. The people elect leaders who then rule them in a totalitarian fashion (for the duration of their term in office democratic leaders fit into option 2). Socialism and communism - two systems which don't acknowledge private property and self-ownership - are also everybody-owns-everybody societies.
Now, since we have established that liberty is self-ownership and democracy is contrary to self-ownership, we must conclude that there is no such thing as a liberal democracy. Democracy is a system which dresses mob-rule up in a fancy way and portrays it as something "superior" and "just to all". In relality democracy is has nothing to do with justice. In a democracy justice is a completely relative term which could mean something today and the opposite tomorrow. For example - alcohol prohibition. How is it possible that something that is considered normal today was outlawed? Or if it is not normal, why is it legal today? Either way you look at it, democracy is bad (either it forbids things which aren't evil, or permists things which are evil).

What Edward II of England would have done with the likes of Paul Krugman

I know all conservatives and libertarians have been thinking of a good way to get rid of all the "great liberal economists" that litter today's world. Among these I can name Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke (and their Wall Street and Fed cronies) in the United States, Gordon Brown and his buddies (especially "our Darling" Alistair) in the UK, and Donald Tusk's main man Jan Krzysztof Bielecki in Poland. There are of course thousands more of them scattered across the neo-liberal (i.e. socialist) world of today. A quick and simple answer comes from history (learn from experience!). Edward II Plantagenet of England (ruled 1307-1327) enacted a brilliant law. He simply outlawed all fortunetelling and mystic gypsy-like rituals under penalty of death. This would arguably be a great measure, as it would eliminate all these so-called specialists (who in reality understand little economics and rely largely on mysticism in the form of writing down lots of numbers). Just because you can add and divide doesn't make you any less of a seer in my opinion! This position would of course also have a side-effect of eliminating all weathermen, but they are only fractionally more accurate than the economists of today so the loss wouldn't be insufferable. And the thought of Mr.Krugman having to find a honest job (just like a seer who fished for the future in bird entrails in 14th Century England) gives me a rather warm feeling.
All hail King Edward! Despite being a bit of a sissy bisexual, he knew how to get a job done properly!