luxfelix

3. I've come across the argument that the Protestant Reformation was the beginning of the end for monarchy. Theologically, it represents the shift to subjective interpretation of the Bible -- where the Bible was arguably not meant to be used in that way -- and where the Church loses power, monarchies derived therefrom begin to lose legitimacy. We then have characters like Oliver Cromwell, Robespierre, and later Bolsheviks that have their own justifications for removing crowned heads. WWI lead, more immediately, to the end of many monarchies as well. Maybe this ties into the idea that malevolent rulers have found it easier to run tax farms within Democratic structures? 5. Well, aside from the inbreeding -- which is another big reason for the failure on monarchies at the turn of the last century -- that is a great example of how to expand non-violently. Are you referring to the act of marriage as the origin point for their legitimacy? Is it a matter of only marrying within nobility?

2. I get where your coming from. I may be taking the metaphor of Elizabeth I being "married to her people" as monarch too literally; that, and trying to find an applicable scale to daily life, such as in Everyday Anarchy. 3. Likewise, I see where you're coming from; however, we've seen a decline in the number and power of monarchies throughout the world. Would this not suggest that they too are vulnerable to human willpower, be it democratic or totalitarian coups? Additionally, this would seem to be the case in both religious and secular societies in opposition to the Will of God. 4. (You'll likely get more value from reading about it from those who've studied it more in depth than me.) As a form of government, I would classify it as a kind of anarcho-monarchy. 5. Using the Habsbugs as a case study, when did they receive legitimacy from God to become monarchs -- was it a matter of destiny, attained through deed, and/or otherwise? (Emphasis on how to replicate and how that fits in with the concept of legitimacy as described here in this thread?)

1. Ah, and lets not forget the Hohenzollerns whom were at one time "kings in Prussia" as opposed to "kings of Prussia" due to political concerns as an elector in the HRE... 2. I'd be interested to pick this one back up later when you're ready. 3. (This could probably be in a thread on its own.) In relation to this thread's topic on monarchy -- and with regard to legitimacy -- where does willpower come into play? 4. I don't know, but I'd imagine you're right. Borrowing from the Founders' view of America, different societal systems/institutions require a certain type of person with beliefs in common that synchronize with that form of society. I have. The connection between Molyneux's book and medieval Iceland in particular is the idea of DROs (Molyneux) and Chiefs (Iceland), where people choose a court(DROs)/chief(Iceland) and their rules to follow. (Or, at least, that's the nugget here.) Tying it back to the thread here, would/could someone choose which monarch to follow and/or become one themselves if they have the willpower and/or legitimacy?

On the clarification, are crowns jurisdictions over realms, or peoples -- "King of France" or "King of the French" -- or both realms and peoples? Does this change with regards to rank and/or personal unions; for example, are ducal crowns less legitimate than kingdom crowns (or baronial, county, imperial, etc.) and/or when crowns merge/split? You hit on a very central theme with family as a form of monarchy. A family is a core relationship between two (and then more with progeny thereafter) followed by concentric circles of extended family members crisscrossing and buttressing one another; the man is traditionally the head of the family largely because of biological relationships between men and women whereby the husband can provide for the family while the wife cares for the children and home. I see the parallel you mention with the approval of the community and god in a ceremony not unlike a coronation where a monarch is wedded to their people/realm(?). By willpower are you referring to one's ability to make decisions for themselves and/or act them out? Two things that I find relevant for this discussion: When talking about anarchy on its own, I'm describing the idea of a blank canvas or a state of nature that individuals then paint with their own preferences; we can have one group of like-minded people forming ancapistan over here, another group installing a commune over there, and others deciding they would rather live as hermits/nomads off in the distance (etc.). Eventually, the strengths/weaknesses and preferences of peoples will be demonstrated beyond the theoretical. The key between all of these flavors would be the ability to choose for oneself which to join (or choose none). This only exists in the free marketplace of ideas within the minds of those people that debate with words (and more than words...) in the world. The closest thing I can think of off the top of my head that resembles anarcho-monarchy is the Icelandic system [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth] ... and even that is a bit of a stretch. (Though I am interested to what you think of it.)

For the sake of your argument, I'll accept that there are nations with monarchies and freer economies than many democracies only claiming free markets. Succession is legitimate because the monarchs -- themselves having legitimacy through a deity/deities -- has made the decision and/or passes on their legitimacy through their genes? I'm curious as to what legitimacy and monarchy means in a community where everyone (able-bodied/of-age/etc.) is a monarch; would this essentially be a different flavor of anarchy?

Sure, I'd say so, largely due to the de jure restrictions on government interference in the market... de facto, though admittedly, that case is hard to make. I'm open to counter-arguments. To clarify, would it then be possible -- so long as they are under the will of God/gods -- to have every able-bodied adult become a monarch and/or a regent for a minor/absentee (maintaining their realm in trust until they come of age/return/etc.)?

Though I think I see your point with your example, I don't consider the Middle-East to be a good example of a free market. How many legitimate monarchs can there be?

Can we track this on a matter of scale; for example, if you damage a neuron > you damage the brain > which damages the mind > which damages the family > which damages the community > which damages the nation > which damages humanity > which damages life?

Ah yes, that's the one. For what it's worth, he managed to gain the approval of the other monarchs, which Napoleon I could never really maintain. You'll have no disagreement from me with regards to how freedom has a cultural prerequisite (i.e. "freedom club"). I can certainly recall examples of people selling their freedoms (for security, short-term gain, etc.) in government systems; however, I would need more information on what you mean when concerning what selling one's freedom would look like in a free market (would it be a free market if they could not renegotiate the terms/reclaim their freedom?). Switching gears a bit here: Imagine you have various monarchs meeting at a party. How would they would interact with one another -- 1) Where the party is in neutral territory? 2) As monarchs attending a party in the court of another monarch's realm? (Of particular interest, does anything happen to their legitimacy, status, and/or behavior?)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I gather, in a monarchy the typical provenance of legitimacy goes: Deity > Pope (or equivalent Ecclesiarch) > Crown (The Realm as corporate entity) > Monarch > HMs Government > Subjects (In some cases the Ecclesiarch is also the Monarch, as in the UK or Japan.) In a republic it would usually go: Deity > Subjects (in their moral capacity) > Constitution (a corporate entity) > Government > Subjects In hypothetical Laissez-faire [insert term here]: Deity and/or Invisible Hand > Subjects/Market Actors (in their moral capacity) > Free Market > Subjects/Market Actors Provided these models hold water, is legitimacy at its greatest when checked/balanced by more institutions, as in the monarchy model, and at its least when those institutions are consolidated into fewer nodes as in the republic model (and as previously discussed)? Likewise, does this mean that a move towards Laissez-faire entails a sacrifice of legitimacy since it has the fewest nodes -- or perhaps legitimacy is not a quantifiable quality (multiplied by the number of nodes) but rather a Boolean yes/no check for parent>child heritable relationships? Regarding your comment on France, does that include Napoleon's marriage to the Habsburgs as another way to gain legitimacy; this, in turn used to legitimize the reign of Napoleon III? Or perhaps a Bonaparte could never become legitimate since they would always be usurpers of the Bourbon's throne? "Canton" is the Swiss term for "State", so in this case their constitution differentiates between the Swiss People and the states comprising the Confederation of Helvetia. If I recall, America was inspired by the Swiss Confederacy when it came to the issue of states' rights (Representatives for the People and Senators for the States in a bicameral Congress), and then after Napoleon gave up trying to centralize authority in Switzerland, the Swiss returned to a Confederacy of Cantons taking inspiration from the Americans in kind (with another modification after the "Spring of Nations" in the mid 1800s). I don't know if the reference to diversity means the Cantons (if written way back when) or ethnicity -- didn't the Swiss ban minarets/refuse to sell out their country/cantons to political correctness?

Welcome! You may also like the works by Black Pigeon Speaks. I am not currently in Japan though I did go to school there in Sasebo. In what ways has your life changed since finding FDR?

Would you agree with the statement that the more opposition a government has the less legitimate they are (and vice versa)?

Trying to push this theory to its limits: If the Papacy can be identified as an Elective Monarchy (or non-dynastic Theocracy), the French have gone through Feudal, Absolute, and Constitutional Monarchy, and the Japanese emperors are said to be descended from the Shinto gods -- and provided that all of these are legitimate -- are there any Republics, Democracies, (etc.), that have (or had/could have) the blessing of a deity to give them legitimacy?

This sounds familiar, did you have a historical reference in mind when writing this?

Ah, I do remember that video -- any recommended reading for San Marino (etc.)? So, then, is your argument that what really matters is legitimacy and that monarchy -- though not only monarchy -- is inherently more legitimate because of its connection to a/the Church (i.e. Christendom has a/the Church itself as an amalgamation of Greco-Roman philosophy and Judeo-Christian morality)? On a hypothetical scale of legitimacy, where would you place the various government types mentioned before (0 being no legitimacy and 10 being self-evident)? Where would the first principles as described on this forum fit on the legitimacy scale?

From reading the writings of America's founding fathers, it is apparent that they too were weary of Democracy. Would they have been better off finding a monarch (elective monarchy?) from the continent, or from among their number (to avoid foreign entanglements), whom would accept the role as head of state? Perhaps following the example of the Dutch, something like the Crowned Republic of the Netherlands? (Some sort of compromise between Thomas Paine and Jacques Bossuet?) Is it that the mob hardly ever prioritizes self-preservation, or that they usually focus short term (or another option?)? Do we know why San Marino is an exception? What is the reference to Abe (Lincoln?) referring to? Why are Switzerland, Chile, Uruguay, and Ireland also exceptions? For the sake of argument, let's say Monarchy is the best stepping stone to achieving the goals of a free domain; what would be a stepping stone to Monarchy?

Are the Sovereign, the Nobility, the Clergy, and the People -- in France known as the various "estates" -- not analogous to the checks and balances between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial "branches" of government? (I would guess not, and not only because of the corruption/re-election complex.) I've heard arguments in support of absolute -- but not arbitrary power -- held by a crown sovereign whom will have both authority (checked by the legitimacy provided by the clergy and reliant upon loyal local nobility) and self-interest in line with what is best for the realm, since they will want their heir to inherit demesne in good condition; in biological terms, a symbiotic vs. a parasitic relationship with the people. Both are hierarchies but, insofar as comparing relative freedom and social mobility, do we have more evidence in support of monarchy than in opposition? I do acknowledge that the institution of the family is inherit to a monarchy, though does this also make it a better stepping stone to a "free domain" of individuals whom respect UPB/NAP/etc.?

What I mean is that, I thought you were outlying various types of governments and then making the case for why one government type is suited for one country while another government fits for another -- all within the umbrella of how monarchy is a viable form of government. The second part could be rephrased as a question for what your argument would mean in the context of this message board; I see your statement in support of monarchy for yourself in Hungary, but at the time I thought you were hinting at something similar to the way some people are better off with religion for it's stabilizing effects, even if they do not question it. Be it for cultural, IQ, geopolitical, or other reasons, why would you prefer monarchy for yourself?

Was this partly a show of force to China and North Korea?

Ah, I missed the mark then. Was your argument for monarchies for other countries?

Curious: Are you familiar with the following blog? http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/

What if everyone were a monarch (or in regency for children)?

Disarm with comedy/kindness?

^In this context of this discussion, "breaking the wheel" would be a stand-in for Freedom. I am curious as to why you suppose monarchy will come back though...

In reference to the bombing, that applies to conventional technology of the time prior to the atomic bomb; otherwise, accuracy is only a concern if they wanted to avoid civilian casualties. With regards to the show of force to the USSR, by not using the bomb directly on them, the Allies would have a stronger adversary for the coming Cold War (where prolonging war is the goal to maintain control); likewise, it is documented in the book, "The Creature of Jekyll Island", that the USSR was funded by moneyed interests from the Allied nations.