Some of these resisted and became the famed Magyar (hungarian) warriors who terrorized Europe from the 9th to the 12 century
But the stranger part is that Muscovy seems imho to be a continuation of the Mongol empire
Posted on 05/08/2011 9:36:55 AM PDT by annalex
A LIBERTARIAN CASE FOR MONARCHY
Clear thought and discussion suffer when all sorts of good things, like liberty, equality, fraternity, rights, majority rule, and general welfare–some in tension with others–are marketed together under the portmanteau label “democracy”. Democracy’s core meaning is a particular method of choosing, replacing, and influencing government officials (Schumpeter 1950/1962). It is not a doctrine of what government should and should not do. Nor is it the same thing as personal freedom or a free society or an egalitarian social ethos. True enough, some classical liberals, like Thomas Paine (1791-1792/1989) and Ludwig von Mises (1919/1983), did scorn hereditary monarchy and did express touching faith that representative democracy would choose excellent leaders and adopt policies truly serving the common interest. Experience has taught us better, as the American Founders already knew when constructing a government of separated and limited powers and of only filtered democracy.
As an exercise, and without claiming that my arguments are decisive, I’ll contend that constitutional monarchy can better preserve people’s freedom and opportunities than democracy as it has turned out in practice.1 My case holds only for countries where maintaining or restoring (or conceivably installing) monarchy is a live option.2 We Americans have sounder hope of reviving respect for the philosophy of our Founders. Our traditions could serve some of the functions of monarchy in other countries.
An unelected absolute ruler could conceivably be a thoroughgoing classical liberal. Although a wise, benevolent, and liberal-minded dictatorship would not be a contradiction in terms, no way is actually available to assure such a regime and its continuity, including frictionless succession.
Some element of democracy is therefore necessary; totally replacing it would be dangerous. Democracy allows people some influence on who their rulers are and what policies they pursue. Elections, if not subverted, can oust bad rulers peacefully. Citizens who care about such things can enjoy a sense of participation in public affairs.
Anyone who believes in limiting government power for the sake of personal freedom should value also having some nondemocratic element of government besides courts respectful of their own narrow authority. While some monarchists are reactionaries or mystics, others (like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Sean Gabb, cited below) do come across as a genuine classical liberals.
Democracy has glaring defects.3 As various paradoxes of voting illustrate, there is no such thing as any coherent “will of the people”. Government itself is more likely to supply the content of any supposed general will (Constant 1814-15/1988, p. 179). Winston Churchill reputedly said: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter” (BrainyQuote and several similar sources on the Internet). The ordinary voter knows that his vote will not be decisive and has little reason to waste time and effort becoming well informed anyway.
This “rational ignorance”, so called in the public-choice literature, leaves corresponding influence to other-than-ordinary voters (Campbell 1999). Politics becomes a squabble among rival special interests. Coalitions form to gain special privileges. Legislators engage in logrolling and enact omnibus spending bills. Politics itself becomes the chief weapon in a Hobbesian war of all against all (Gray 1993, pp. 211-212). The diffusion of costs while benefits are concentrated reinforces apathy among ordinary voters.
Politicians themselves count among the special-interest groups. People who drift into politics tend to have relatively slighter qualifications for other work. They are entrepreneurs pursuing the advantages of office. These are not material advantages alone, for some politicians seek power to do good as they understand it. Gratifying their need to act and to feel important, legislators multiply laws to deal with discovered or contrived problems–and fears. Being able to raise vast sums by taxes and borrowing enhances their sense of power, and moral responsibility wanes (as Benjamin Constant, pp. 194-196, 271-272, already recognized almost two centuries ago).
Democratic politicians have notoriously short time horizons. (Hoppe (2001) blames not just politicians in particular but democracy in general for high time preference–indifference to the long run–which contributes to crime, wasted lives, and a general decline of morality and culture.) Why worry if popular policies will cause crises only when one is no longer running for reelection? Evidence of fiscal irresponsibility in the United States includes chronic budget deficits, the explicit national debt, and the still huger excesses of future liabilities over future revenues on account of Medicare and Social Security. Yet politicians continue offering new plums. Conflict of interest like this far overshadows the petty kinds that nevertheless arouse more outrage.
Responsibility is diffused in democracy not only over time but also among participants. Voters can think that they are only exercising their right to mark their ballots, politicians that they are only responding to the wishes of their constituents. The individual legislator bears only a small share of responsibility fragmented among his colleagues and other government officials.
Democracy and liberty coexist in tension. Nowadays the United States government restricts political speech. The professed purpose of campaign-finance reform is to limit the power of interest groups and of money in politics, but increased influence of the mass media and increased security of incumbent politicians are likelier results. A broader kind of tension is that popular majorities can lend an air of legitimacy to highly illiberal measures. “Bv the sheer weight of numbers and by its ubiquity the rule of 99 per cent is more ‘hermetic’ and more oppressive than the rule of 1 per cent” (Kuehnelt-Leddihn 1952, p. 88). When majority rule is thought good in its own right and the fiction prevails that “we”ordinary citizens are the government, an elected legislature and executive can get away with impositions that monarchs of the past would scarcely have ventured. Louis XIV of France, autocrat though he was, would hardly have dared prohibit alcoholic beverages, conscript soldiers, and levy an income tax (Kuehnelt-Leddihn, pp. 280-281)–or, we might add, wage war on drugs. Not only constitutional limitations on a king’s powers but also his4 not having an electoral mandate is a restraint.
At its worst, the democratic dogma can abet totalitarianism. History records totalitarian democracies or democratically supported dictatorships. Countries oppressed by communist regimes included words like “democratic” or “popular” in their official names. Totalitarian parties have portrayed their leaders as personifying the common man and the whole nation. German National Socialism, as Kuehnelt-Leddihn reminds us, was neither a conservative nor a reactionary movement but a synthesis of revolutionary ideas tracing to before 1789 (pp. 131, 246-247, 268). He suggests that antimonarchical sentiments in the background of the French Revolution, the Spanish republic of 1931, and Germany’s Weimar Republic paved the way for Robespierre and Napoleon, for Negrin and Franco, and for Hitler (p. 90). Winston Churchill reportedly judged that had the Kaiser remained German Head of State, Hitler could not have gained power, or at least not have kept it (International Monarchist League). “[M]onarchists, conservatives, clerics and other ‘reactionaries’ were always in bad grace with the Nazis” (Kuehnelt-Leddihn, p. 248).
A nonelected part of government contributes to the separation of powers. By retaining certain constitutional powers or denying them to others, it can be a safeguard against abuses.5 This is perhaps the main modern justification of hereditary monarchy: to put some restraint on politicians rather than let them pursue their own special interests complacent in the thought that their winning elections demonstrates popular approval. When former president Theodore Roosevelt visited Emperor Franz Joseph in 1910 and asked him what he thought the role of monarchy was in the twentieth century, the emperor reportedly replied: “To protect my peoples from their governments” (quoted in both Thesen and Purcell 2003). Similarly, Lord Bernard Weatherill, former speaker of the House of Commons, said that the British monarchy exists not to exercise power but to keep other people from having the power; it is a great protection for our democracy (interview with Brian Lamb on C-Span, 26 November 1999).
The history of England shows progressive limitation of royal power in favor of parliament; but, in my view, a welcome trend went too far. Almost all power, limited only by traditions fortunately continuing as an unwritten constitution, came to be concentrated not only in parliament but even in the leader of the parliamentary majority. Democratization went rather too far, in my opinion, in the Continental monarchies also.
A monarch, not dependent on being elected and reelected, embodies continuity, as does the dynasty and the biological process. “Constitutional monarchy offers us ... that neutral power so indispensable for all regular liberty. In a free country the king is a being apart, superior to differences of opinion, having no other interest than the maintenance of order and liberty. He can never return to the common condition, and is consequently inaccessible to all the passions that such a condition generates, and to all those that the perspective of finding oneself once again within it, necessarily creates in those agents who are invested with temporary power.” It is a master stroke to create a neutral power that can terminate some political danger by constitutional means (Constant, pp. 186-187). In a settled monarchy–but no regime whatever can be guaranteed perpetual existence–the king need not worry about clinging to power. In a republic, “The very head of the state, having no title to his office save that which lies in the popular will, is forced to haggle and bargain like the lowliest office-seeker” (Mencken 1926, p. 181).
Dynastic continuity parallels the rule of law. The king symbolizes a state of affairs in which profound political change, though eventually possible, cannot occur without ample time for considering it. The king stands in contrast with legislators and bureaucrats, who are inclined to think, by the very nature of their jobs, that diligent performance means multiplying laws and regulations. Continuity in the constitutional and legal regime provides a stable framework favorable to personal and business planning and investment and to innovation in science, technology, enterprise, and culture. Continuity is neither rigidity nor conservatism.
The heir to the throne typically has many years of preparation and is not dazzled by personal advancement when he finally inherits the office. Before and while holding office he accumulates a fund of experience both different from and greater than what politicians, who come and go, can ordinarily acquire. Even when the king comes to the throne as a youth or, at the other extreme, as an old man with only a few active years remaining, he has the counsel of experienced family members and advisors. If the king is very young (Louis XV, Alfonso XIII) or insane (the elderly George III, Otto of Bavaria), a close relative serves as regent.6 The regent will have had some of the opportunities to perform ceremonial functions and to accumulate experience that an heir or reigning monarch has.
Some arguments occasionally employed for monarchy are questionable. If the monarch or his heir may marry only a member of a princely family (as Kuehnelt-Leddihn seems to recommend), chances are that he or she will marry a foreigner, providing international connections and a cosmopolitan way of thinking. Another dubious argument (also used by Kuehnelt-Leddihn) is that the monarch will have the blessing of and perhaps be the head of the state religion. Some arguments are downright absurd, for example: “Monarchy fosters art and culture. Austria was culturally much richer around 1780 than today! Just think of Mozart!” (Thesen).
But neither all arguments for nor all objections to monarchy are fallacious. The same is true of democracy. In the choice of political institutions, as in many decisions of life, all one can do is weigh the pros and cons of the options and choose what seems best or least bad on balance.
Some objections to monarchy apply to democracy also or otherwise invite comments that, while not actual refutations, do strengthen the case in its favor. Monarchy is charged with being government-from-above (Kuehnelt-Leddihn, p. 276). But all governments, even popularly elected ones, except perhaps small direct democracies like ancient Athens, are rule by a minority. (Robert Michels and others recognized an “iron law of oligarchy”; Jenkin 1968, p. 282.) Although democracy allows the people some influence over the government, they do not and cannot actually run it. Constitutional monarchy combines some strengths of democracy and authoritarian monarchy while partially neutralizing the defects of those polar options.
Another objection condemns monarchy as a divisive symbol of inequality; it bars “an ideal society in which everyone will be equal in status, and in which everyone will have the right, if not the ability, to rise to the highest position” (Gabb 2002, who replies that attempts to create such a society have usually ended in attacks on the wealthy and even the well-off). Michael Prowse (2001), calling for periodic referendums on whether to keep the British monarchy, invokes what he considers the core idea of democracy: all persons equally deserve respect and consideration, and no one deserves to dominate others. The royal family and the aristocracy, with their titles, demeanor, and self-perpetuation, violate this democratic spirit. In a republican Britain, every child might aspire to every public position, even head of state.
So arguing, Prowse stretches the meaning of democracy from a particular method of choosing and influencing rulers to include an egalitarian social ethos. But monarchy need not obstruct easy relations among persons of different occupations and backgrounds; a suspicious egalitarianism is likelier to do that. In no society can all persons have the same status. A more realistic goal is that everyone have a chance to achieve distinction in some narrow niche important to him. Even in a republic, most people by far cannot realistically aspire to the highest position. No one need feel humbled or ashamed at not ascending to an office that simply was not available. A hereditary monarch can be like “the Alps”(Thesen), something just “there”. Perhaps it is the king’s good luck, perhaps his bad luck, to have inherited the privileges but also the limitations of his office; but any question of unfairness pales in comparison with advantages for the country.
Prowse complains of divisiveness. But what about an election? It produces losers as well as winners, disappointed voters as well as happy ones. A king, however, cannot symbolize defeat to supporters of other candidates, for there were none. “A monarch mounting the throne of his ancestors follows a path on which he has not embarked of his own will.” Unlike a usurper, he need not justify his elevation (Constant, p. 88). He has no further political opportunities or ambitions except to do his job well and maintain the good name of his dynasty. Standing neutral above party politics, he has a better chance than an elected leader of becoming the personified symbol of his country, a focus of patriotism and even of affection.
The monarch and his family can assume ceremonial functions that elected rulers would otherwise perform as time permitted. Separating ceremonial functions from campaigning and policymaking siphons off glamor or adulation that would otherwise accrue to politicians and especially to demagogues. The occasional Hitler does arouse popular enthusiasm, and his opponents must prudently keep a low profile. A monarch, whose power is preservative rather than active (Constant, pp. 191-192), is safer for people’s freedom.
Prowse is irritated rather than impressed by the pomp and opulence surrounding the Queen. Clinging to outmoded forms and ascribing importance to unimportant things reeks of “collective bad faith” and “corrosive hypocrisy”. Yet a monarchy need not rest on pretense. On the contrary, my case for monarchy is a utilitarian one, not appealing to divine right or any such fiction. Not all ritual is to be scorned. Even republics have Fourth of July parades and their counterparts. Ceremonial trappings that may have become functionless or comical can evolve or be reformed. Not all monarchies, as Prowse recognizes, share with the British the particular trappings that irritate him.
A case, admittedly inconclusive, can be made for titles of nobility (especially for close royal relatives) and for an upper house of parliament of limited powers whose members, or some of them, hold their seats by inheritance or royal appointment (e.g., Constant, pp. 198-200). “The glory of a legitimate monarch is enhanced by the glory of those around him. ... He has no competition to fear. ... But where the monarch sees supporters, the usurper sees enemies.” (Constant, p. 91; on the precarious position of a nonhereditary autocrat, compare Tullock 1987). As long as the nobles are not exempt from the laws, they can serve as a kind of framework of the monarchy. They can be a further element of diversity in the social structure. They can provide an alternative to sheer wealth or notoriety as a source of distinction and so dilute the fawning over celebrities characteristic of modern democracies. Ordinary persons need no more feel humiliated by not being born into the nobility than by not being born heir to the throne. On balance, though, I am ambivalent about a nobility.
Michael Prowse’s complaint about the pretended importance of unimportant things suggests a further reason why the monarch’s role should go beyond the purely symbolic and ceremonial. The king should not be required (as the Queen of England is required at the opening of parliament) merely to read words written by the cabinet. At least he should have the three rights that Walter Bagehot identified in the British monarchy: “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. And a king of great sense and sagacity would want no others. He would find that his having no others would enable him to use these with singular effect” (Bagehot (1867/1872/1966, p. 111).
When Bagehot wrote, the Prime Minister was bound to keep the Queen well informed about the passing politics of the nation. “She has by rigid usage a right to complain if she does not know of every great act of her Ministry, not only before it is done, but while there is yet time to consider it – while it is still possible that it may not be done.”
A sagacious king could warn his prime minister with possibly great effect. “He might not always turn his course, but he would always trouble his mind.” During a long reign he would acquire experience that few of his ministers could match. He could remind the prime minister of bad results some years earlier of a policy like one currently proposed. “The king would indeed have the advantage which a permanent under-secretary has over his superior the Parliamentary secretary – that of having shared in the proceedings of the previous Parliamentary secretaries. ... A pompous man easily sweeps away the suggestions of those beneath him. But though a minister may so deal with his subordinate, he cannot so deal with his king” (Bagehot, pp. 111-112). A prime minister would be disciplined, in short, by having to explain the objective (not merely the political) merits of his policies to a neutral authority.
The three rights that Bagehot listed should be interpreted broadly, in my view, or extended. Constant (p. 301) recommends the right to grant pardons as a final protection of the innocent. The king should also have power: to make some appointments, especially of his own staff, not subject to veto by politicians; to consult with politicians of all parties to resolve an impasse over who might obtain the support or acquiescence of a parliamentary majority; and to dismiss and temporarily replace the cabinet or prime minister in extreme cases. (I assume a parliamentary system, which usually does accompany modern monarchy; but the executive could be elected separately from the legislators and even subject to recall by special election.) Even dissolving parliament and calling new elections in an exceptional case is no insult to the rights of the people. “On the contrary, when elections are free, it is an appeal made to their rights in favor of their interests” (Constant, p.197). The king should try to rally national support in a constitutional crisis (as when King Juan Carlos intervened to foil an attempted military coup in 1981).
What if the hereditary monarch is a child or is incompetent? Then, as already mentioned, a regency is available. What if the royal family, like some of the Windsors, flaunts unedifying personal behavior? Both dangers are just as real in a modern republic. Politicians have a systematic tendency to be incompetent or worse.7 For a democratic politician, understanding economics is a handicap.8 He either must take unpopular (because misunderstood) stands on issues or else speak and act dishonestly. The economically ignorant politician has the advantage of being able to take vote-catching stands with a more nearly clear conscience. Particularly in these days of television and of fascination with celebrities, the personal characteristics necessary to win elections are quite different from those of a public-spirited statesman. History does record great statesmen in less democratized parliamentary regimes of the past. Nowadays a Gresham’s Law operates: “the inferior human currency drives the better one out of circulation” (Kuehnelt-Leddihn, pp.115, 120). Ideal democratic government simply is not an available option. Our best hope is to limit the activities of government, a purpose to which monarchy can contribute.
Although some contemporary politicians are honorable and economically literate, even simple honesty can worsens one’s electoral chances. H. L. Mencken wrote acidly and with characteristic exaggeration: “No educated man, stating plainly the elementary notions that every educated man holds about the matters that principally concern government, could be elected to office in a democratic state, save perhaps by a miracle. ... it has become a psychic impossibility for a gentleman to hold office under the Federal Union, save by a combination of miracles that must tax the resourcefulness even of God. ... the man of native integrity is either barred from the public service altogether, or subjected to almost irresistible temptations after he gets in” (Mencken 1926, pp. 103, 106, 110). Under monarchy, the courtier need not “abase himself before swine”, “pretend that he is a worse man than he really is.” His sovereign has a certain respect for honor. “The courtier’s sovereign ... is apt to be a man of honour himself” (Mencken, p. 118, mentioning that the King of Prussia refused the German imperial crown offered him in 1849 by a mere popular parliament rather than by his fellow sovereign princes).
Mencken conceded that democracy has its charms: “The fraud of democracy ... is more amusing than any other–more amusing even, and by miles, than the fraud of religion. ... [The farce] greatly delights me. I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing” (pp. 209, 211). Conclusion
One argument against institutions with a venerable history is a mindless slogan betraying temporal provincialism, as if newer necessarily meant better: “Don’t turn back the clock.” Sounder advice is not to overthrow what exists because of abstract notions of what might seem logically or ideologically neater. In the vernacular, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” It is progress to learn from experience, including experience with inadequately filtered democracy. Where a monarchical element in government works well enough, the burden of proof lies against the republicans (cf. Gabb). Kuehnelt-Leddihn, writing in 1952 (p. 104), noted that “the royal, non-democratic alloy” has supported the relative success of several representative governments in Europe. Only a few nontotalitarian republics there and overseas have exhibited a record of stability, notably Switzerland, Finland, and the United States.9
Constitutional monarchy cannot solve all problems of government; nothing can. But it can help. Besides lesser arguments, two main ones recommend it. First, its very existence is a reminder that democracy is not the sort of thing of which more is necessarily better; it can help promote balanced thinking. Second, by contributing continuity, diluting democracy while supporting a healthy element of it, and furthering the separation of government powers, monarchy can help protect personal liberty.
"Monarchy: Friend of Liberty", Liberty 18, January 2004, pp. 37-42
Some of these resisted and became the famed Magyar (hungarian) warriors who terrorized Europe from the 9th to the 12 century
But the stranger part is that Muscovy seems imho to be a continuation of the Mongol empire
The author seems to agree with you:
My case holds only for countries where maintaining or restoring (or conceivably installing) monarchy is a live option.2 We Americans have sounder hope of reviving respect for the philosophy of our Founders. Our traditions could serve some of the functions of monarchy in other countries.
However, it would be smart to ask ourselves, how come "reviving respect for the philosophy of our Fathers" is not happening, but rapid movement away from it definitely is happening. I think America should lose its allergy to a monarchy; it is very likely the best option in case of a constitutional crisis.
This phrase describes monarchy much beter than what we have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4 (yes, I hate Wiki too)
Häyhä was born in the municipality of Rautjärvi near the present-day border of Finland and Russia, and started his military service in 1925. Before entering combat, Häyhä was a farmer and a hunter. At age of 17 he joined the Finnish militia suojeluskunta and succeeded with his sniping skills in shooting sports in the Viipuri province. His farmhouse was reportedly full of trophies for marksmanship.
The unofficial Finnish front line figure from the battlefield of Kollaa places the number of Häyhä's sniper kills at over 800.
—
When your enemies (Russians) call you “the white death” you have their attention.
With every social order there is a proper way of addressing people. Monarchy is no exception. You are right, indeed, that since most monarchies lasted many centuries, they have a certain crusty old fashioned ways. Similar ceremonial rules exist in most religions, the Masonic Lodge, and I assure you the protocol at the White House is not limited to "Mr. President". That is a minor detail, and not a lack of freedom.
Yes, I do.
According to your source: the only way to prevent a democracy from committing suicide is to limit the vote to faithful Catholics
That is nonsense. Faithful Protestants especially have a good way of preserving liberty, and as you often point out, outvote Catholics in terms of their conservatism. I would welcome a limited franchise based on socio-economic status, for example, to people who also pay taxes, own property, or even passed certain good-citizen certification. I would consider removing the franchise from those whose religion is a cult of destruction, such as Satanists, Wiccan or Atheists. But that is as far as I would go. If, further, it so emerges that in the coming North American monarchy political rights of Protestants are elevated at the expense of Catholic or Orthodox Christian, I would consider it natural even if unfortunate.
The right to vote is just not a fundamental right. I favor a system where less is dependent on who gets to vote, and more, on who manages the common sphere. I would generally favor a system where that common sphere manager gets to do his work thinking in long term - - down the generations to come. Such a system exists, it is monarchy. Limited franchise, and dominance of one religion over other religions are elements of it, but they don't define it. In America we'd be lucky to get Christianity broadly speaking to dominate. It is, by the way, not somethign a king can simply legislate ina vacuum, the popular culture should be mature enough for the national evangelization to be successful.
Matter of fact, we are all annointed to serve God, by God. Ever been baptized?
righteous slavery
No one is advocating that. Monarchy is what abolished slavery.
anti-American drivel
Why are you insulting me? Nothing that I said was anti-American. If you find it drivel, argue; familiarity with the subject you are arguing about should help.
...everyone has come to expect nothing but...
...No one reads...
...the truth not only for those who oppose...but for those who may agree...
...this has occurred over the years...
...all your posts...
...not read by any...
...by those who disagree and those who agree...
And that's when I stopped bothering to read your posts.
Most nations of the time had secret police, and still do. We have a Secret Service as well. Few nations were, like Russia, a union of many diverse ethnicities, with diverse religions, living compactly on their land and governed locally. That was similar to the British commonwealth of Nations and employed similar methods; in fact the Russians of the period would pride themselves fro not having constant rebellions and brutal suppressions of them, like the British.
Much of the unfreedom that existed in Russia was out of the concern for the Russian peasant, uneducated and prone to idleness and booze. The Tsar would often resist, for example, buying out the peasants' farms because if they were to get money, they would drink till the money is gone. Still, let us remember that the Russian serfs were freed before the American slaves were, and it took no civil war to free them.
You argument is like any against the feudalism: they lived in dirt, had no dentistry and wore silly hats. Yes, -- they lived a long time ago.
Your delusion is as anti-American as those who would advocate that we follow Communism or Sharia law.
“Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppressive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people.” George Washington
Monarchy and an aristocracy is, to our AMERICAN founder, synonymous with a despotic and oppressive form of government - and only suited to rule a degenerate people without virtue.
You sir, lack the virtue that would make a man free; and instead would treat Americans like the degraded degenerates only fit to be ruled by their betters. That may be an apt assessment of your own proclivities - and I know not what course others may take; but for myself...
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry
No thanks. I don't even like the Fedgov or the States owning as much of our Infrastructure as they do now. Add in all the other problems associated with centralized power structures and this is still utter lunacy.
I'll make a deal with you - you find something written by Rao where he repents of his earlier statements, and openly praises and defends the "Presbyterian Rebellion", constitutional republics in general, and the United States of America in particular - and we'll talk. I don't think we need Rao in order to debate the question of whether monarchist sedition against the Constitution of the United States is somehow "pro-American".
"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it"
Alex Murphy, do not post anything from Rao - his material is not allowed on Free Republic because of his anti-American rhetoric.
That’s your opinion, but the real history of emperors and kings shows otherwise. Once someone is bent on utilizing public office to enlarge their coffers, power, and self esteem that’s the path they stay on for life. History is replete with bad kings who didn’t give a rip about the people, and has very few examples of your opinion actually existing outside of your head.
He could be. Many kings were. But note that (1) a king is brought up as one, which mitigates the risk; (2) he can yield to a more capable and service oriented relative, or even a regency, without jeopardizing his own status; (3) the last thing an asshole king ("bastard" in reference to a king is a double-entendre) would want is to annoy his subjects. Typically, kings without civic merits simply enjoyed their private lives and did not cause much trouble.
Forgive me, but I find your statements above to be rose-colored and more than a little naive. I am no great student of the histories of kings and empires, but I think I know enough to get around.
In that general sense, my take on the subject is that good kings are rather few and far between... as precious as the gold of Ophir. Bad kings are more often found, and utter destruction is in their wake. Indifferent kings' reigns, while probably the most numerous, are a sallow lot, leaving their kingdoms languishing and gasping for air... governed by the same sort of nameless appointed bureaucrats as we see in socialism. Government grows in apathy's petri dish. The elite class want automation so that they do not need to be bothered with the stinking masses - They have glorious, privileged, ordained lives to lead. And it has always been thus. There is no magic in the stations of kings and lords.
In fact, I find the thought of a superior elite class, raised up from their youth to rule justly and with the care of their people in their hearts, to be an entirely laughable proposition. Hilarious. Knee-pounding, tears-in-the-eyes, belly-shaking guffaw worthy.
I am hard pressed to find a "golden age" anywhere, in any time, wherein the common man was left alone to prosper (and I do not mean mammon). He has always given up his sons to the king he serves, that he would scatter their blood on foreign soil. He has always given up his daughters to the rape and pillage of the king next door to his own. He has given up his property to finance the above, and what is left, he must give up to the charlatan and the crook, who exist in stark evidence against the supposed law and justice that he pays the elite to provide by way of their extortion.
In contrast, a democratic system programs the politicians to be of low character: he cannot admit when his opponent is correct because then he should lose his office; he does not have a luxury of a long term view; he is a salesman and government is his product. No wonder we have deficits as far as the eye can see.
I see no difference in character between the elite class and the trailer trash, with the exception of the haughty, pompous nature that invades men of means. There are people of bad character in every stripe of every society, and every man puts his pants on one leg at a time.
In fact, I would submit that there are more of the good-hearted among the goodman and the freeman than there ever was in the elite. It is those who work by the sweat of their own brow that are most naturally raised up to respect their neighbor and his house, because their worth is drawn and measured in the work of his own hands - He knows, by the ache in his own back what his neighbor is going through.
As to democracy, I think it suffers the same ills as monarchy, with the exception that the process is completed with more speed - We measure our "reigns" by the decade, not the generation. And in that there is sure to be more volatility, but that works both ways. A bad presidency can do horrible damage. But he will soon be gone. A good presidency can haul us out of terrible depression in a matter of seasons. A congress can be full of politicians for years, but on the turn of a single election, it can be filled with statesmen.
Both degenerate. Both decay. But only one has the hope of recourse and recovery, no matter how helpless it seems. Democracies rise and fall. But in that hopeful dash is the only time that man has been able to prosper, because he is free of those who would MAKE him do.
We must remember that YHWH had to be pressed into the position of providing Israel a king. He said He is their Father. He provides and governs. What need then of a king? In that story is great wisdom, and is the genesis of YHWH's action to provide a king once and for all. One who would rule with a rod of iron (justice), and one who would lead the world in peace. Funny how that brings us right back to His original position.
It is YHWH who is the author of liberty. Where His justice is done, there is liberty indeed. That requires only ONE king, and he ain't here yet. In the course of that absence, where His word has spread, there has been liberty, fractured thought it is... And for the most part, His Word has gone out from the democratic nations. That should tell you something.
I’m not saying that it was their fault. I’m simply saying that Nicholas would not hand more power over ot the Duma. But hwat makes it worse, is that George V destroyed his own family to preserve his precious ‘image,’ even interfering in the British government.
well, he was British royalty — they do that! He even changed his surname from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor
Sadly, the RM's won't allow it-We all could have gained some genuine truth and understanding of the Natural Law verses pagan enlightenment ideas
I wish you peace in your search for truth.
I don't know enough to say how the British Monarchy evolved, but as a general proposition indeed monarchies evolve. Not always for the better. Ditto republics. That is what civilizations, speaking more broadly, do: mature, get old, die, new spirit takes over. I think (Jacque Barzun agrees), the last 500 years in the West was an era that is now over, and we are going to start toward what we neglected to do in the Middle Ages: create a society more just, more free, more spiritual, less mechanical. We took a detour on our historical path and now the detour is over.
Good for them. I did not mean to denigrate making an honest living, only the typical crass way career politicians provide for themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.