Posted on 05/08/2011 9:36:55 AM PDT by annalex
This is a socio-political article that does not mention Christainity at all.
You need to also add how the factionalism was a key component
Also, the same tragedy occured with the overthrowing of the Shah of Iran
I blame the autocratic rulers for causing an extreme reaction.
This is like what happened to Charles I, Louis XVI (ok, it was actually a reaction to Louis XIV) and Nicholas II (ok, a reaction to his father, g-father etc. etc.)
Well said. As I see it, there are 2 kinds of constitutional monarchs today:
It is interesting to note that the latter two invited kings (as did the former after the failure of the Interrugnum)
If someone was to become a constitutional monarch in the US, who would it be?
It can't be white or black or latino as the other "races" would object
It can't be a particular religion or others would object
The ideal "constitutional monarch" would be someone of a race and religion unknown in the US or with negligent demographics -- say a Khoisan bushman
But what would be the use of this?
All in all, the idea of a monarchy in the US today is logically a no-go.
Well said. As I see it, there are 2 kinds of constitutional monarchs today:
It is interesting to note that the latter two invited kings (as did the former after the failure of the Interrugnum)
If someone was to become a constitutional monarch in the US, who would it be?
It can't be white or black or latino as the other "races" would object
It can't be a particular religion or others would object
The ideal "constitutional monarch" would be someone of a race and religion unknown in the US or with negligent demographics -- say a Khoisan bushman
But what would be the use of this?
All in all, the idea of a monarchy in the US today is logically a no-go.
We're probably getting close to being forced into that situation. We're being pinched between the leftist collectivists and Romanists trying to reestablish a pharisaical authoritarian structure. The only difference between the two is which idol they try to force you to bow to.
The war against liberty is never ending. Men will always try to subjugate his fellow man to a false religion. Whether it's the Left's false utopia or Rome's pipe dream of a Papal dicatorship both falsely believe they can bring heaven to earth.
The participants in the American Revolution understood all this.
“No King but Jesus” was a common statement then. Works for me now.
No King, No Dictator, No Lying Commie Bastards.
Enough is Enough.
You know, I came to nmonarchism not from any Catholic perspective but from an anarcho-libertarian perspective. I asked myself: — if purely voluntary market relations in the economic sphere demonstrate economic freedom, then wouldn’t it be possible to have political life carried out in a market environment and thus have political freedom? And then I discovered that feudalism, — excluding perhaps the serfs — was such market system, where a vassal chose his suzerain just for himself. He did not vote for one thereby imposing that suzerain also on others, he simply, in effect, hired his suzerain like you and I might hire a lawyer or an insurance company. And the potential vassals compete on that market for my loyalty. I realized that, like it or not, this system embodies political freedom. so I got attracted to feudalism before I realized that the monarch plays an indispensible role in this, as well as the Church.
I learned of H.H.Hoppe before I knew who Belloc was.
I disagree that all problems persist. Some, like you mention cronyism, indeed tend to persist. But the predatory attitude that a politician has toward his own country will go away. What king will put his country in hock as deep as our presidents do, in times of no military threat of invasion. Who would let people without any cultural attachment to the blood and soul of the country come in to support the national pension plan? Who would let the domestic industry be shipped off to China? The sheer idiocy of the political decisions, precisely in industrial democracies, are without precedent. That is a direct consequence of the fact that the mental horizon of a politician is about 4 years, and a monarch works for his great grandchildren.
I agree that the spirit of the day is not good. It is a theoretical conversation. My hope is to get people thinking that maybe not all the propaganda their country stamps into their head is for their good; maybe this visceral hatred of monarchy is the left wing, who dominate the education, busy smearing their biggest enemy: the nationalists, the religious, the monarchists.
Yes, and that is a factor which -- whether you like it or not in itself -- leads to people of low character to rise to the top. Observe that the first thing out the window with anyone trying to get elected is honesty.
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.
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.
In my opinion, if by a magic wand today -- or any other day -- the present office holders in this country are told that their office is forever, -- they don't have to run for office any more, they don't have to find a cushy private sector job to retire, they don't have to ask anyone for money -- all of a sudden the worst public servants will become models of civic virtue because they will work for something his children will inherit. The common good will prosper, the debt will be a thing of the past, each government official will work to do more with less, just like a business owner in the private sector.
So, yeah, kings are forever but so are presidents. I'd rather have kings.
I usually like Chesterton, but I don’t like this flippant quote. The rub is that the aristocracy is educated specifically for public service, whereas the voter naturally has his private educational goals.
If 51% can tell the 49% what to do, that 49% are not free. In fact, the 51% are not free either, because in 4 years the tables turn.
About knee-bending, the pomp and circumstance of modern elected government would put Louis XIV to shame. Or are you in principle against treating people with respect?
The argument is not against pure democracy; it is against the system where the outcomes are subject to elections.
I would rather have the Republic our Founding Father envisioned and that my ancestors fought and died to establish.
I would rather have the Republic our Founding Father envisioned and that my ancestors fought and died to establish.
Of course. Normally, the monarch is independently wealthy; he does not have to raise money, write vacuous books, give million-dollar speeches, cozy up to anyone with money and influence to provide for retirement.
OK, I am not going to argue details here. I personally like the franchize limited to taxpayers, but indeed not necessarily home owners. but the majoe limit of the electoral franchise should come from the monarchy, and exercised sparingly.
No man has a natural right to rule other men other than via the consent of the governed for a limited time in a limited capacity as part of a limited government of enumerated powers.
We do little as far as pomp and circumstance and call our leader “Mr. President” not “Your Highness” “Your Worship” “Your Eminence” “Your boot-licking servant would hope you would condescend to notice his boot licking.”
Not sure why the double post, but will issue correction here
Father should be Fathers.
Last I checked, the last monarchy of any sigificant size to shed all vestiges of slavery was the Imperial Russia in 1861, peacefully. I can name a republic where slavery was still the law of the land, then.
Monarchy has nothing to do with dictatorship.
Hereditary autocracy is another word for monarchy, and is indeed a good thing.
A king is annointed to serve by God indeed. That's bad?
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.