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
I recommend, for starters, Morris Bishop. The Middle Ages. ISBN 0-618-05703-X.
I recommend for starters Cuba, right now. That’s how dictatorships, which is all a monarchy is, work in the REAL world.
A dictator, like Napoleon, may claim a monarchic title. That would be a species of self-proclaimed monarchy. That is usually not recongnized by anyone outside of that monarchy, except for some self-serving reason.
Communist leaders never claim a monarchic status. They never assume real owenrship of the nation's resource, for example. They typically say that they are popularly elected and set up sham elections to justify the continuation of their rule. They derive their power, they say, from the people, whereas a monarch ordinarily understands that he is divinely appointed in charge of the country. Power ina monarchy comes form God. Power in any form of democrachy, e.g. of a communist kind, comes demagogically from the people and in fact is raw military power of coercion.
A monarchy is a form of government in which the head of state reigns by some kind of perceived divine sanction. It is usually hereditary and there is usually only one monarch, though there are significant exceptions to these. The monarch often bears the title king or queen. However, emperors/empresses, grand dukes/grand duchesses, and other ranks, are or have been used to designate monarchs. As explained below, the word monarch means 'single ruler', but cultural and historical considerations would appear to exclude presidents and other heads of state. Historically, the notion of monarchy may emerge under different circumstances.
A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator. It has three possible meanings: A Roman dictator was the incumbent of a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily. A government controlled by one person, or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests entirely on the person or group of people, and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. The dictator(s) may also take away much of its peoples' freedom. In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.
May I ask you something? I patiently respond to your posts and substantiate my response with facts and logic. Would you please do the same?
Feudalism was a set of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the ninth and fifteenth centuries, which, broadly defined, was a system for ordering society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour. Although derived from the Latin word feodum (fief),[1] then in use, the term feudalism and the system it describes were not conceived of as a formal political system by the people living in the Medieval Period. In its classic definition, by François-Louis Ganshof (1944),[2] feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs. There is also a broader definition, as described by Marc Bloch (1939), that includes not only warrior nobility but the peasantry bonds of manorialism, sometimes referred to as a "feudal society".The lord held a manor court, governed by public law and local custom.
...
Though not free, villeins were by no means in the same position as slaves: they enjoyed legal rights, subject to local custom, and had recourse to the law, subject to court charges which were an additional source of manorial income.
The American colonies had indeed a valid compaint; in fact my guess is that few monarchists today would take a loyalist position. You should not take their demand for redress of grievances as a prove that in the Middle Ages (the epoque I primarily am oriented toward) there was no concept of such. To the contrary, manorial court was the central governing organ in the local government. See Manor Court
Also note, please, that I substantiate my assertions by reference to material that is neutral in character.
They enjoyed NO legal rights that were not “subject” to “local custom” - local custom being whatever your local Knight Baron or King decided it was.
“feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs”
A Baron owed legal and military obligations to his King - the King owed nothing to the serfs under said Baron.
As I said, and apparently have to repeat -
The idea that “real” separation of powers entails that Baron going to the King (or vice versa) and saying “Your son is out raping peasant women - please put a stop to it!” is delusional.
They didn't care - local custom was that the son of the Aristocracy could do whatever he wanted to the peasant women.
And cutting the guts of a peasant open to warm your hands in his entrails during a cold winter hunt was decidedly frowned upon.
Better get started writing up that hand drawn currency - because other than that I really don't see ANYTHING ELSE OF ANY VALUE coming from you deranged deluded anti-American delusion.
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say ‘what should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
So again I say to you : GO from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms bootlicker.
No dictatorships are when someone has absolute power. just look at the dictionary.
dictatorship:
absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.
monarchy:
supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person.
Let’s dig a little deeper into the origin of the word monarch:
“rule by one person,” late 14c., from O.Fr. monarchie , from L.L. monarchia , from Gk. monarkhia “absolute rule,” lit. “ruling of one,” from monos “alone” (see mono-) + arkhein “to rule” (see archon). Meaning “a state ruled by monarchical government” is from early 15c.
You see how words like “absolute” keep appearing in both? Do you understand why? Because all a monarchy is is a form of dictatorship, a brand, a flavor.
Oh look you went to the divine power dodge, just like all the dictators of history. A monarch’s power doesn’t come from God, it comes from the vagina he sprang from. That’s why I keep calling it venereal transfer of power, it’s all about who screwed who, just like syphilis.
I’ve used plenty of facts and logic in my posts, you just don’t like them so you pretend they don’t exist. The facts are that monarchies are dictatorships, and dictatorships aren’t freedom. Sorry the facts disagree with your illusion, but it’s not my problem. Time for you to catch up to thousands of years of recorded human history that tell us that every single non-symbolic monarchy was a dictatorship that exercised abusive rule of the people.
local custom being whatever your local Knight Baron or King decided it was
That is not what "local custom" means.
the King owed nothing to the serfs under said Baron.
The King had obligation of military protection to the baron, who in turn owed it to his villeins and serfs.
And so on. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
You see how words like “absolute” keep appearing in both? Do you understand why? Because all a monarchy is is a form of dictatorship, a brand, a flavor.
Sorry, that is sloppy logic. "Four legs" appear in the definitin do a donkey and a leopard. But donkeys are not leopards and leopards are not donkeys. The two estended definition I showed you explain the difference. The one about the Monarchy also explains that monarchy, while by definition autarchic, is not always absolute. In fact, at the time of our focus, the Middle Ages, monarchies were not absolute.
A monarch’s power doesn’t come from God
Firs,t all good things come from God. I don't know what your religion is, so I don't want to make theological points to someone possible not prepared to listen to them, but the fact remains that a king is always crowned in a public (whel, if possible, public; Frederick II cerowned himself in the abandoned Jerusalem Cathedral) religious ceremony which seeks divine sanction to his rule. You may or may not believe in the power of prayer, but understand that the concept of obedience to the will of God and to the rules of the religion that imformed the monarchy is essential to it.
I keep calling it venereal transfer of power
That intentionally childish tone makes it difficult to converse. The word you are seeking for is "hereditary".
thousands of years of recorded human history that tell us that every single non-symbolic monarchy was a dictatorship
It was always a form of autarchy. Excepting usurpers like Napoleon, it was never a dictatorship. Words mean things. Learn words, and you will prevail in arguments more often.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I didn’t shorten anything. I gave you the dictionary definitions of the word. A monarchy IS absolute sovereignty, and subsequently is autarchy. There are no differences.
There’s nothing sloppy about it. You’re lying to yourself pretending that monarchies aren’t dictatorships, I’m putting forth the truth. All monarchies are dictatorships, period, end of sentence, saying otherwise is denying historical truth.
Good things might come from God but dictatorships aren’t good things. Just because somebody crowned himself in a cathedral doesn’t mean God approved. And it doesn’t mean that anything Frederick II did was in obedience to the will of God. Here you’re piling assumptions upon faith none of which have any relationship to the historical facts of dictators calling themselves kings blessed by God. Out here in reality we don’t know if God likes a particular leader or if that particular leader is following God’s will. All we know is whether or not they’re a dictator. And if they’re a monarch they’re a dictator, again period end of sentence plain historical fact.
It’s not childish, it’s the truth. Again let’s look at the dictionary, venereal:
arising from, connected with, or transmitted through sexual intercourse, as an infection.
And how does a monarchy continue? That’s right, by the right person having sex and begetting the next generation of dictator. Which means it is venereal transfer of power.
Autarchies are dictatorships. Let’s spread out to the thesaurus this time:
Synonyms: autocracy, despotism, dictatorship, monocracy, totalitarianism, tyrannical rule, tyranny
Not a lot of freedom in that list. You’re right about one thing, words do mean things. And the words you’re using mean dictatorship. I know the words very well, if there’s somebody here that needs to do some learning it’s the guy that thinks monarchies make freedom.
Please substantiate your theory given the difference between the two that I outlined in 263.
The “differences” you outlined in 263 are a fiction, they don’t exist, there’s nothing actually there. Everything you list about monarchy is just window dressing, titles and the assumption of divine sanction. You don’t bother to get into how a monarch rules, monarchs rule via a dictatorship, they are the absolute power. Heck you even accidentally admit it in 263 you just didn’t bother to notice. Here’s a key sentence from monarchy:
the word monarch means ‘single ruler’
And from dictatorship:
A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator
Kings are dictators. Period. You even said so, though you’ll never admit it.
As a matter of the historic record - Monarchy starts out as a Military Dictatorship.
It doesn’t become a “Monarchy” until someone inherits dictatorial power from his Military Dictator Father.
“Military Dictatorship: Friend of Liberty”
LOL!!!!
Exactly. I think where he falls apart is he believes “divine blessing” most monarchs like to wrap around themselves, and we all know God would never stick us with an evil form of government, so therefore monarchies must be good. Which makes sense IF the king isn’t lying about being chosen by God, but that’s a big if, meanwhile the king still has absolute control just like every other tinpot dictator.
Absolute monarchs have absolute power, and medieval monarchs have divided power, and so are constitutional monarchs, and neither is dictator for the simple reason that the monarchs acquired power legally.
All monarchs are dictators. Stop lying to yourself. If they rule their rule is absolute and therefore they are dictators. The only reason monarchs got their power “legally” is because the first of the line made the laws, he still seized power the same way every other dictator in history has.
there are facts that you willfully ignore. All kings are dictators, saying anything else is living in a fantasy land. You’re not lying from malice but you are lying, most heinously to yourself. Medieval monarchs only divided their power because the technology of the time wouldn’t allow for direct absolute rule over their territory, but every step of he line had absolute power over those below it. Constitutional monarchs are figureheads and mean nothing. Real monarchs that really rule are dictators. that’s the simple truth. This is over until you can open your eyes.
The laws of succession preceded most monarchs, and a more powerful militarily nobleman still was an usurper if he attempted to seize the throne. In contrast to that, a dictator by definition seizes power in violation of the existing law of succession. So, monarchs are legitimate rulers and dictators are not.
Again, having four legs does not make a donkey a leopard nor vice versa.
Mind you, I do not automatically dislike all dictators. For example, General Kornilov (in 1917) was serving a higher purpose when he struck out against the Provisional Government (but, unfortunately failed); so was general Pinochet in Chile seizing power from Alliende. Right wing dictatorships tend to be at times the best solution for the country. But the attraction of monarchy is precisely in that it is legitimate, predictable and durable power of ownership of the national infrastructure, as opposed to the rented pseudo-ownership that occurs in a republic.
Sorry but you’re just plain wrong. The law of succession can ONLY exist IF you have a monarch. Saying it preceded them is just plain lying. The first of any chain of monarchs was ALWAYS a userper of some sort, that how you get power. That’s why your distinction between monarchs and dictator is quite simply a lie. They are the same thing. Stop lying. It’s pathetic.
Al monarchs are dictators, all people that are pro-monarchy are dictator apologists, all people that think monarchies help freedom are deluded liars. Good bye.
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.