Replies

The monarchy is bound by the law, which is unchangeable.

I don't understand.

. What law, where did it come from, and what makes it unchangeable?

You say that in a monarchy that everyone knows who is responsible and that the monarch is bound by the law.

What and who holds this monarch accountable if they violate this law?

The only one that I'm familiar with in a small way that operated in such a manner is the Medo-Persian Empire.

In it was no fixed law but law by decree issued on a daily basis from the king, [who had his advisor's], to fit the situation, which then became unchangeable even by the king who issued it.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but as a history buff where governments are concerned I am truly interested.

Do you have any historical examples that made you prefer this type of system?

I find that throughout history all systems fail because they are administered by men and are easily corrupted.

What law, where did it come from, and what makes it unchangeable?

Thanks for the question, I been looking all morning for St. Thomas Aquinas' On Kingship online, if anyone has a link for it please drop me a freepmail. Anyways. What is the law and why is it eternal? The Angelic Doctor answers:

a law is nothing else but a dictate of practical reason emanating from the ruler who governs a perfect community. Now it is evident, granted that the world is ruled by Divine Providence, as was stated in the I, 22, A1,2, that the whole community of the universe is governed by Divine Reason. Wherefore the very Idea of the government of things in God the Ruler of the universe, has the nature of a law. And since the Divine Reason's conception of things is not subject to time but is eternal, according to Prov. 8:23, therefore it is that this kind of law must be called eternal.

Prima Secundæ Partis 91,1

Further man participates in this eternal law thru the light of natural reason - this participation is called the natural law. From that natural law proceeds the human law. The process of applying these laws to human acts is called causitry (see Thomas Fleming's Morality of Everday Life for a full discussion of causitry as it was practiced in the Middle Ages).

In short the law cannot be changed by man because man did not create it

What and who holds this monarch accountable if they violate this law?

The Monarch is accountable for acts under pain of sin. This is why the traditional Catholic monarchies are to be preferred for the Church provided a real and substantial check on the power of the monarch.

This is of course broken in Protestant monarchies particularly where the King assumes the role as the head of the national "church". In such cases, and in addition to the Church in the case of Catholic monarchies, the power of the King is held in check by the aristocracy who thru pure self-interest are committed to restraining the authority of the central government, this check is damaged in absolutist monarchies.

The King is also accountable to his own family. A monarchy is in essence a privately-owned government. The King owns the state, he may sell parts and he may bequeath it to his heirs. The current monarch stands in a long line of individuals who have at the least preserved if not increased the value of their holding and his family expects him to do the same. In the thesis of Hoppe his self-interest will cause him to act conservatively so as not to depreciate the value of his holdings and inciting the public to rebellion thru brutal tyranny would do just that. The fact is most "bad" monarchs were assassinated by members of their own families who had a vested interest in preserving their status and power and bequeathing it to the next generation.

Monarchs generally (there are always exceptions) operate with a low time-preference, meaning they are interested in the long term. This is opposed to the situation in republics where the current office holder cannot increase the value of his "publically-owned" post and acts only as a temporary care-taker. This position as a temporary care-taker increases his time-preference - he needs to exploit his position now or he may never get the opportunity to do so again. This is a reformulation of the "Tragedy of the commons" idea of economics.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but as a history buff where governments are concerned I am truly interested.

You questions seem thoughtful and sincere. My question to you is what history? History is always subjective, it is quite literally written by the winners. One has to dig a little (or alot) to find "the other side of the story" if it any longer exists at all. Some writers to investigate - Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin, Hilaire Belloc, Christopher Dawson and Harry W. Crocker III.

Do you have any historical examples that made you prefer this type of system?

The Holy Roman Empire and related Catholic monarchies of Europe circa 800 AD - 1900 AD.