Replies

Ah, I see.

Then let me iterate on my favorite subject. Any kind of trade is predicated on a firm concept of property. “This here - mine, that over there - yours; want to swap?” However, in a republic, the country itself is not a property in the same clear, crisp sense. People elect, journalists calumniate, politicians hustle, — no one is really the Owner. That is what corrodes the national interest.

I a monarchy, the king is the owner. Not of the people, not of the property of others, — that is a popular caricature of monarchy, — he is the owner of the national infrastructure: the mint, the posts, the courthouses, the army. That very thing that in a democracy belongs to everyone in rhetoric and to the churn of the governing elite in reality, — who, in a churn of elections are not owners but renters, — now has an owner. Like every owner the king plans to improve, increase and protect for eons, because his children will inherit it, and then grandchildren. So for example, the national shame of generational, deliberately undertaken fiscal debt that we have and no one seems to be in charge, — that is impossible in a monarchy, at least not if the king can help it.

So anecdotally, a closed culture may get transformed by trade that would open it. It should not be confused with loss of national identity: the Japanese now are the most self-contained, clear-identity people in the civilized world. There is nothing in trade, old-fashioned or on the Internet that is philosophically incompatible with monarchy. We only think so because we associate monarchy with the long gone past, when we should associate it with the future.