“The real threat to liberty in our world is the unelected “ permanent government”, the choking bureaucracies and their corporatist collaborators, who spit on individual rights and democracy alike. The tyrants of Europe today are more tyrranical than any absolute monarch ever dared be.”
100% agree. But this does not make monarchy a better idea. A free constitutional republic like the original America is the only moral way. Not a lesser despot. What happens when someone disagrees with a monarch? Must they submit? Nobody should ever need to submit to a person who cannot face election. Period.
Sincerely,
Leaning Right
Duke of Earl and Count of Chocula
The world, nearly all of it, got along with kings for nearly all of history, until very recent times.
Kings were not unused to opposition. It was expected and normal in nearly all times and places that kings tolerated dissent, unless it directly threatened public order or the monarchy. An intelligent king understood very well that he only existed through the aquiesence of the people and the powerful, and that his position was tied directly to his support for his peoples customs, which included everything we consider “natural rights”. This is why kings were constantly busy adjudicating conflicts of complex local rights. Custom made the king, so the king upheld custom.
Its a decent argument that the kings began to fall when “ scientific”, centralized bureaucratic government came in, with people like Louis XIV’s Colbert. The bureacracy eventually grew, displaced local rights, marginalized the aristocrats and made them useless extravagances, and the royal bureaucracy became hated, one of the direct causes of the French Revolution (see Hyppolite Taine). Ironically the bureaucracy, hated Royal institution, survived because it was just as useful to the “democratic” politicians.