Debating Monarchy

[M.2]

A debate over the Monarchial form of government has risen between myself and another member on a different thread, but I thought this topic deserves its own thread. These are arguments for Monarchism.

 

The vast majority of countries these days identify as some form of democracy or republic. There are however still some relics of the past left called monarchies. Even in Europe, 12 of the 51 states have some form of Monarchy.

Current popular forms of government:

1. Democracy: Representative, Direct, Deliberative, Socialism
2. Republic: Crowned, Single Party, Capitalist, Federal, Parliamentary
3. Monarchy: Absolute, Elective, Constitutional, Non-sovereign
4. Communism: Authoritarian
5. Dictatorship: Military, Authoritarian
6. Further reading: http://www.politicalsciencedegree.com/the-five-most-common-political-systems-around-the-world/

It is granted that nations such as the USA (most successful republic in history), Greece (first democracy), Switzerland (best kind of republic), San Marino (doing rebublic since before it was cool), Poland (first constitutional republic) and India (biggest republic ever) are all very proud of their Systems.

There are however countries whose glory days ended along with their monarchs such as France, Russia, Austria, Germany, Turkey, Iran...

And there are those that stripped their monarchs of power, and are now in this weird state balancing between monarchy and democracy: UK, Thailand, Japan, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden...

Further reading: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2128.html

 

The only way to judge which system is best is, of course, to compare them. You can use this site to compare countries by economy, human development, health, wealth... EVEN IN THE PAST: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Government/Government-type

 

​According to the UN Human Development Index (note that I don't find them trustworthy), 11 of the top 20 countries are officially Monarchies. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi

 

There are also arguments for monarchy based on less measurable factors. Empires that had their basis in the Monarch have split into several weak ethnostates, making everyone unhappy. Example: Habsburg Empire.

Support for the reinstation of the Emperor is strictly surpressed in all former Imperial domains, and yet 22% of Austrians proudly claim to be royalists.

The Sovereign is often mistaken for being a dictator, but in truth the Christian Monarch is only the equivalent to the US Constitution, being the safeguard of the moral code of a nation, a symbol of the people, and the representative of the authority of God on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchism

 

​​Extra fact: All Western, except for the Napoleonic and the Orthodox crowns have their origins either in the Crown of the Holy Roman Empire, or the Roman Pontiff himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_royal_crowns

[RichardY]

What is the cost of having a monarchy?

 

Can't say I think monarchy is the best system. Absolute power corrupting, absolutely. Plus the strength of the individual is going to be tested to the greatest extent imaginable, and I don't mean by hardships, but by comfort, seduction and lies. To say nothing of the age, competency, character of the monarch and those looking out for their own interests. 

 

In the past in the UK a regency council was sometimes used, where at least the individuals had decades of previous experience governing and looking after assets. Two ancestors of mine were Lord Chancellors of the UK, the first served for 19 years Philip Yorke, the second for 3 days Charles Yorke.

[luxfelix]

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

[mgggb]

A debate over the Monarchial form of government has risen between myself and another member on a different thread, but I thought this topic deserves its own thread. These are arguments for Monarchism.

 

The vast majority of countries these days identify as some form of democracy or republic. There are however still some relics of the past left called monarchies. Even in Europe, 12 of the 51 states have some form of Monarchy.

Current popular forms of government:

• Democracy: Representative, Direct, Deliberative, Socialism
• Republic: Crowned, Single Party, Capitalist, Federal, Parliamentary
• Monarchy: Absolute, Elective, Constitutional, Non-sovereign
• Communism: Authoritarian
• Dictatorship: Military, Authoritarian
• Further reading: http://www.politicalsciencedegree.com/the-five-most-common-political-systems-around-the-world/

It is granted that nations such as the USA (most successful republic in history), Greece (first democracy), Switzerland (best kind of republic), San Marino (doing rebublic since before it was cool), Poland (first constitutional republic) and India (biggest republic ever) are all very proud of their Systems.

There are however countries whose glory days ended along with their monarchs such as France, Russia, Austria, Germany, Turkey, Iran...

And there are those that stripped their monarchs of power, and are now in this weird state balancing between monarchy and democracy: UK, Thailand, Japan, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden...

Further reading: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2128.html

 

The only way to judge which system is best is, of course, to compare them. You can use this site to compare countries by economy, human development, health, wealth... EVEN IN THE PAST: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Government/Government-type

 

​According to the UN Human Development Index (note that I don't find them trustworthy), 11 of the top 20 countries are officially Monarchies. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi

 

There are also arguments for monarchy based on less measurable factors. Empires that had their basis in the Monarch have split into several weak ethnostates, making everyone unhappy. Example: Habsburg Empire.

Support for the reinstation of the Emperor is strictly surpressed in all former Imperial domains, and yet 22% of Austrians proudly claim to be royalists.

The Sovereign is often mistaken for being a dictator, but in truth the Christian Monarch is only the equivalent to the US Constitution, being the safeguard of the moral code of a nation, a symbol of the people, and the representative of the authority of God on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchism

 

​​Extra fact: All Western, except for the Napoleonic and the Orthodox crowns have their origins either in the Crown of the Holy Roman Empire, or the Roman Pontiff himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_royal_crowns

It seems like most of your arguments for monarchy is based on consequentalism. Is that an accurate assessment?

[M.2]

What is the cost of having a monarchy?

 

Can't say I think monarchy is the best system. Absolute power corrupting, absolutely. Plus the strength of the individual is going to be tested to the greatest extent imaginable, and I don't mean by hardships, but by comfort, seduction and lies. To say nothing of the age, competency, character of the monarch and those looking out for their own interests. 

You are mistaking monarchy for absolute monarchy. I listed the forms of governments up there to show how much variation there can be just within monarchy for instance. The monarch can be elected for merit, like they do in the papacy. Or the monarch can be extremely limited in his power like the Duke of Luxembourg. The seat of the King is ideally a fourth wing of the government that keeps in check the moral developments of the country the same way the US Constitution does.

That said, I will not pretend to know how much power a Sovereign should have ideally. If I knew, I would not have posted this thread.

 

It seems like most of your arguments for monarchy is based on consequentalism. Is that an accurate assessment?

I believe so, yes.

There are many arguments based in psychology, or on sentimentalism, or in human nature, all which I consider equally important, but those would be harder back up with data.

[mgggb]

I believe so, yes.

There are many arguments based in psychology, or on sentimentalism, or in human nature, all which I consider equally important, but those would be harder back up with data.

What do you define as the ideal form of monarchy?

[M.2]

What do you define as the ideal form of monarchy?

Ideal you say - meaning it doesn't necessarily exist? Well again, I am in no way an expert on this, but I hope this reasoning helps:

 

The best existing Monarchy I can think of is the Holy See, which is a Non-hereditary, elective, absolute monarchy. ​The worst I can think of is a ​Constitutional, hereditary, crowned republic, ​which would be Sweden.

 

1. The crown must be from the Roman Pontiff, or the Patriarch of Moscow. Otherwise it has no legitimacy in the eyes of Europeans.

2. There has to be a foundational document that outlines the power of the crown, but not a constitution, more smth like Canon Law.

3. An elective monarchy has always worked best, but I think it rational to elect the son of a supposed "good king". I mean... genes.

4. By tradition there always were 3 branches of gov: the Monarch, the Religion, and a Council, so I see no reason not to have those.

[RichardY]

You are mistaking monarchy for absolute monarchy. I listed the forms of governments up there to show how much variation there can be just within monarchy for instance. The monarch can be elected for merit, like they do in the papacy. Or the monarch can be extremely limited in his power like the Duke of Luxembourg. The seat of the King is ideally a fourth wing of the government that keeps in check the moral developments of the country the same way the US Constitution does.

That said, I will not pretend to know how much power a Sovereign should have ideally. If I knew, I would not have posted this thread.

There is only one ruler (Monarchy). The amount of power the ruler has, is only what people give him or her. In the UK the Monarchy imho stays out of politics the majority of the time. The Monarch isn't subject to any laws. I know a while a go a legal trial on Paul Burrel (Diana's Butler) was stopped(No explanation). I think maybe Marriage custom has changed now with Kate and William. The Marriage Act 1753, I think was to better formally recognise marriage, an Act the Royal family was not subject to.

 

If the monarch acted like an absolute monarch from history in general bad things usually happen. Whether it is the Kaiser dismissing Bismarck, Napoleon invading Russia in part for breaking the blockade against Great Britain, Tsar Nicolas having Ultimate control of the Army, Caesar being assassinated, Caligula going insane, Alexander proclaiming himself as a God etc. They all go crazy in someway or they abdicate. If however a ruler keeps to what they have experience in and expertise, usually things can go OK. I read that the only other Pope to abdicate was a Hermit.

[luxfelix]

Curious: Are you familiar with the following blog?

 

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/

[RichardY]

Curious: Are you familiar with the following blog?

 

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/

Not seen it before, read through some of it now. Thought it was satire at first, but the blogger seems to believe in what he is doing. A lot of it is contradictory and many of the premises are misleading and incorrect.

[M.2]

Curious: Are you familiar with the following blog?

 

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/

I checked out the site as well. You know, it is usually such thinking that causes messes like Iraq, Pakistan, and the entire continent of Africa. I would never say that a particular form of government is right for everyone. Switzerland is quite well off with its democratic confederacy, San Marino is very well off with its democratic republic, Singapore is doing especially well with its own authoritarian dictatorship, and the USA simply has to be a republican meganation of codependent sovereign states. There is no one-size-fits-all form of government.

Nevertheless, it is worthwhile discussing.

[luxfelix]

Ah, I missed the mark then. 

 

Was your argument for monarchies for other countries?

[M.2]

Ah, I missed the mark then. 

 

Was your argument for monarchies for other countries?

Sorry, I am not quite sure how you "missed the mark", nor am I sure what you mean by "other countries".

 

I personally would prefer to be under a monarch, and that is why I am a monarchist. When it comes to specific countries, I am open to discussion.

 

Just to be clear, in case anyone missed it, I am from Mongolia and Hungary. I think Mongolia should have dictator, but Hungary should have a monarch.

[luxfelix]

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?

[M.2]

Ok, got it.

 

Well, see if this makes sense: Some people, when we look at our politicians, representatives, presidents of today we say ...

 

- Who the hell put them in charge? Why are they telling me what to do? What do you mean the "PEOPLE" put them in charge? Who the hell is the PEOPLE? I don't trust the PEOPLE! Aren't the "People" the ones that caused the rise of Communism, the Nazis, the French revolution, etc? - 

 

It is no accident that most democracies in history have failed. If everything is decided by the "people", there are no checks in place.

In a traditional monarchy however, there was the Sovereign, who was approved by the Pope, and the Nobles.

There was the council of Nobles, who were approved by the Sovereign and the People. 

​Then there was the Priesthood, who were approved by the People and the Pope. 

 

Whenever Monarchies become unstable, it is when one of the branches of Government, either the Sovereign, the Nobles, the Priesthood, or the People try to overthrow another.

In contemporary democracies, every branch of government is controlled by the "people". And that makes some of us feel pretty uneasy.

[luxfelix]

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.?

[M.2]

The branches of government in a democracy are pretty... bull, to be honest. Because the persons in those branches are of the exact same cloth... politicians elected by the mob.

 

The question of whether a monarchy is good or bad is not really about how much power the monarch weilds. Rather who they answer to. Being accountable to the "people" is not a good system, because as we know, the priority of the mob is hardly ever self-preservation. It is the sad reality that the mob is not well versed in geopolitics, economics, and philosophy, therefore a horrible arbiter. (San Marino being the exception)

 

As far as "freedom" goes, it is hard to measure that. I mean... it is clear that the USSR was very low on the freedom scale, but quantifying and comparing the level of freedom among similar countries is not so easy. And it is also noteworthy that some highly developed societies do not care much for freedom anyway, such as Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Korea.

It is however pretty clear that as Western countries systematically began stripping their monarchs of power, their freedom level went down. Examples being Sweden, Germany, France, USA (see Abe), UK, Italy, Mexico, Brasil... with exceptions being Switzerland, Chile, Uruguay, Ireland...

 

You make an excellent point bringing up the family structure. I too like to bring up family as an analogy to government. As far as my meagre experience goes, couples who say things like "we are going to be partners and we will be basing decisions on concensus" tend to become the most disfunctional ones, since democracy in marriage cannot work. Whereas conservative christian couples who accept the primacy (not superiority) of the man, tend to have many happy children, they usually stay together until death....and they vote for less government.

 

Monarchism springs from a deep distrust for the mob, for secular power, and for people who call themselves smart. So...yes...I think.

[luxfelix]

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?

[M.2]

Although the US was not a monarchy, the founders very much made efforts to make their state "legitimate", by basing the Constitution on the inherent rights of persons bestowed upon them by God. What I am saying is that it is not impossible to have a good system without a monarch. Some of the best years of Hungary was a time period when we had a crown without a king (1919-1945).

What many countries did in the past, as you also pointed out, was to import a monarch. Examples: Greece, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Sweden, UK... Not because they did not have competent people of their own in their country, but because a monarch has to be "legitimate", meaning a successor to the crown of the Holy Roman Empire, or to some other papal crown.

 

It is extremely hard to get a population "on the same page" so to speak, and a divided nation always fails, which is why Mr.Molyneux emphasises homogenity so much. There have been however glaring examples when a country was united under clear ideology and strong consensus, namely...Freedom. San Marino and Switzerland being the best examples. I have been studying San Marino for a while now, and I highly recommend reading about it. San Marino is a country that simply should not exist by laws of nature, and for 1700 years at that.

 

Mr.Molyneux has made a presentation on Lincoln, and how he changed the US: 

 

Chile, Uruguay and Ireland are countries that got rid of monarchy, but somehow still managed to not go full retard... for now. Why they are exceptions, we can theorise about that. Not sure.

Chile is by the way one of those countries that are anything but homogenious, but are still pretty awesome, with a tiny government.

 

Road to monarchy... well, to be honest, I don't know. There is still so much anti-royalist and anti-clerical propaganda to undo.

[luxfelix]

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 5:10 PM, Mishi2 said:

Although the US was not a monarchy, the founders very much made efforts to make their state "legitimate", by basing the Constitution on the inherent rights of persons bestowed upon them by God. What I am saying is that it is not impossible to have a good system without a monarch. Some of the best years of Hungary was a time period when we had a crown without a king (1919-1945).

What many countries did in the past, as you also pointed out, was to import a monarch. Examples: Greece, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Sweden, UK... Not because they did not have competent people of their own in their country, but because a monarch has to be "legitimate", meaning a successor to the crown of the Holy Roman Empire, or to some other papal crown.

 

It is extremely hard to get a population "on the same page" so to speak, and a divided nation always fails, which is why Mr.Molyneux emphasises homogenity so much. There have been however glaring examples when a country was united under clear ideology and strong consensus, namely...Freedom. San Marino and Switzerland being the best examples. I have been studying San Marino for a while now, and I highly recommend reading about it. San Marino is a country that simply should not exist by laws of nature, and for 1700 years at that.

 

Mr.Molyneux has made a presentation on Lincoln, and how he changed the US: 

 

Chile, Uruguay and Ireland are countries that got rid of monarchy, but somehow still managed to not go full retard... for now. Why they are exceptions, we can theorise about that. Not sure.

Chile is by the way one of those countries that are anything but homogenious, but are still pretty awesome, with a tiny government.

 

Road to monarchy... well, to be honest, I don't know. There is still so much anti-royalist and anti-clerical propaganda to undo.

 

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?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 4/1/2017 at 6:51 AM, Mishi2 said:

A debate over the Monarchial form of government has risen between myself and another member on a different thread, but I thought this topic deserves its own thread. These are arguments for Monarchism.

 

The vast majority of countries these days identify as some form of democracy or republic. There are however still some relics of the past left called monarchies. Even in Europe, 12 of the 51 states have some form of Monarchy.

Current popular forms of government:

1. Democracy: Representative, Direct, Deliberative, Socialism
2. Republic: Crowned, Single Party, Capitalist, Federal, Parliamentary
3. Monarchy: Absolute, Elective, Constitutional, Non-sovereign
4. Communism: Authoritarian
5. Dictatorship: Military, Authoritarian
6. Further reading: http://www.politicalsciencedegree.com/the-five-most-common-political-systems-around-the-world/

It is granted that nations such as the USA (most successful republic in history), Greece (first democracy), Switzerland (best kind of republic), San Marino (doing rebublic since before it was cool), Poland (first constitutional republic) and India (biggest republic ever) are all very proud of their Systems.

There are however countries whose glory days ended along with their monarchs such as France, Russia, Austria, Germany, Turkey, Iran...

And there are those that stripped their monarchs of power, and are now in this weird state balancing between monarchy and democracy: UK, Thailand, Japan, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden...

Further reading: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2128.html

 

The only way to judge which system is best is, of course, to compare them. You can use this site to compare countries by economy, human development, health, wealth... EVEN IN THE PAST: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Government/Government-type

 

According to the UN Human Development Index (note that I don't find them trustworthy), 11 of the top 20 countries are officially Monarchies. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi

 

There are also arguments for monarchy based on less measurable factors. Empires that had their basis in the Monarch have split into several weak ethnostates, making everyone unhappy. Example: Habsburg Empire.

Support for the reinstation of the Emperor is strictly surpressed in all former Imperial domains, and yet 22% of Austrians proudly claim to be royalists.

The Sovereign is often mistaken for being a dictator, but in truth the Christian Monarch is only the equivalent to the US Constitution, being the safeguard of the moral code of a nation, a symbol of the people, and the representative of the authority of God on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchism

 

Extra fact: All Western, except for the Napoleonic and the Orthodox crowns have their origins either in the Crown of the Holy Roman Empire, or the Roman Pontiff himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_royal_crowns

 

Seems like I found a topic that speaks to me...I will have to make multiple replies since this topic has gone on long before I stepped in.

 

Quite frankly I'm ambivalent to the old Republic vs. Autocracy debate in where it can be simplified to "A good autocracy beats a good democracy, and a bad democracy beats a bad autocracy". People have existed in spite of their states, not because of them. However some states were better than others and used their producers' power for better rather than worse. The British Empire used its productivity to build the largest most humanitarian empire in history; the Roman Empire built the best living period (20-190AD give or take) in history until the Industrial Revolution occurred in America; yet it was Republican America that brought about the lion's share of the industrial revolution (which Imperial England had either shortly before, after, or during. I can't recall who first reached the Industrial Revolution but I know we both did around the same time and it was great for everyone). 

History has proven it really isn't the system for selecting bosses that makes the country prosperous or not, but rather the boss's approach to economics and the people's culture. Combine a German work ethic with American creativity and ambition, as well as a Pinochet-style Kaiser who's a big Libertarian minus the fact he's a hereditary ruler (which has proven to be better for safeguarding national unity than the elective kind. The Roman Empire's bad half of its history exemplifies this brutally) and we'd have the second best possible society I could conceive of. The only better one would be AnCap.

However I think a libertarian autocracy is far more likely to happen than AnCap within the next century, therefore I call myself a neo-reactionary...and a Capitalist lover.

 

 

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 4/7/2017 at 8:24 AM, Mishi2 said:

Sorry, I am not quite sure how you "missed the mark", nor am I sure what you mean by "other countries".

 

I personally would prefer to be under a monarch, and that is why I am a monarchist. When it comes to specific countries, I am open to discussion.

 

Just to be clear, in case anyone missed it, I am from Mongolia and Hungary. I think Mongolia should have dictator, but Hungary should have a monarch.

WELL NOW! A bit off topic but how does one be both a Magyar and a Mongolian? Very distant countries although I can't say I disagree with your preferences as Mongolians appear to have done best with a Khan wile the Hungarians under a Free Market oriented King or Kaiser.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 4/11/2017 at 5:10 PM, Mishi2 said:

Although the US was not a monarchy, the founders very much made efforts to make their state "legitimate", by basing the Constitution on the inherent rights of persons bestowed upon them by God. What I am saying is that it is not impossible to have a good system without a monarch. Some of the best years of Hungary was a time period when we had a crown without a king (1919-1945).

What many countries did in the past, as you also pointed out, was to import a monarch. Examples: Greece, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Sweden, UK... Not because they did not have competent people of their own in their country, but because a monarch has to be "legitimate", meaning a successor to the crown of the Holy Roman Empire, or to some other papal crown.

 

It is extremely hard to get a population "on the same page" so to speak, and a divided nation always fails, which is why Mr.Molyneux emphasises homogenity so much. There have been however glaring examples when a country was united under clear ideology and strong consensus, namely...Freedom. San Marino and Switzerland being the best examples. I have been studying San Marino for a while now, and I highly recommend reading about it. San Marino is a country that simply should not exist by laws of nature, and for 1700 years at that.

 

Mr.Molyneux has made a presentation on Lincoln, and how he changed the US: 

 

Chile, Uruguay and Ireland are countries that got rid of monarchy, but somehow still managed to not go full retard... for now. Why they are exceptions, we can theorise about that. Not sure.

Chile is by the way one of those countries that are anything but homogenious, but are still pretty awesome, with a tiny government.

 

Road to monarchy... well, to be honest, I don't know. There is still so much anti-royalist and anti-clerical propaganda to undo.

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 4/18/2017 at 0:22 AM, luxfelix said:

 

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?

 

Since I find this topic interesting I'll butt in here...heheheh...

 

Legitimacy to me is a state of mind. After a(n often violent) while, all governments become totally legitimate within their geographic areas. 

However if I had the scepter of autocracy as Kaiser of America and therefore the deciding voice on which governments live and die...

...I'd probably base it on the old Habsburg, Papal, and general Christian model where every state with a king or emperor with a Habsburg, Papal, or general Christian background is on the table. However I'd also include those related to my own family as legitimate (since I'd want my family to reign supreme) and also declare legitimate any usurper that actually functions as a good or at least stable ruler. Like Assad would be "legitimate" but Kim Jong Un "illegitimate". 

If I wasn't a nobleman or ruler in this hypothetical, I wouldn't care about legitimacy but rather if they were Free Market isolationists. The Tokugawa Shogunate being a decent example of a decent dictatorship and the Pinochet administration a better one. 

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎04‎. ‎18‎. at 6:22 AM, luxfelix said:

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?

- San Marino. I wish I could point you in a direction to seek info, but I don't really have a go-to source on this. I started looking into the country in the CIA World Factbook and Wikipedia. I have a certain fascination for these tiny, rich, catholic, freedom-loving countries such as San Marino, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Luxembourg, Monaco, Malta, but San Marino is especially interesting since it has kept its national sovereignty employing extremely witty political maneuvering for 1700 years... Like they did against Napoleon, the Pope and during WW2.

I respond to the legitimacy question below...

4 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

WELL NOW! A bit off topic but how does one be both a Magyar and a Mongolian? Very distant countries although I can't say I disagree with your preferences as Mongolians appear to have done best with a Khan wile the Hungarians under a Free Market oriented King or Kaiser.

I mentioned my background to give a sense of where I am speaking from. My father is mongolian, my mother is hungarian, and I have lived many years in both countries. Although Mongols are something like the 6th on the World IQ list, a liberaly democracy is not a system that works (same with Korea, Japan, China, Singapore, Taiwan). There are a ton of reasons for this. One being that cult of personality is very important to us. We despise our dumb elected officials, who in the end are not accountable for their mistakes anyway. We much prefer to see a visible strong-man whom we are free to love and free to hate. The Americans were wise to know this at the end of WW2, which was why they let the Japanese keep their Emperor.

Note: For a brief time, Mongolia used to the only country in history to have a communist dictatorship and a king simultaneously.

4 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Since I find this topic interesting I'll butt in here...heheheh...

Legitimacy to me is a state of mind. After a(n often violent) while, all governments become totally legitimate within their geographic areas. 

However if I had the scepter of autocracy as Kaiser of America and therefore the deciding voice on which governments live and die...

...I'd probably base it on the old Habsburg, Papal, and general Christian model where every state with a king or emperor with a Habsburg, Papal, or general Christian background is on the table.

Legitimacy is anything but a state of mind. It is not for you, nor me to decide. The gods are the arbiters of legitimacy. For something that used to be so self-evident since the beginning of civilisation until a hundred years ago, it is pretty funny that we even question that today. Who gave us the 10 Commandments? God! Where do our rights from the US constitution come from? God! Who gave us the Tenno? The gods! Who gave us the Crown? The Pope! Who gave us the Pope? God! Who gave us the Khagan? The Sky (god)! Who is the Pharaoh? A god!

There used to be a certain level of humility in humans a while ago, as we all knew that there are some things that maybe the masses should not decide. You can argue that "god" was invented by big bad dictators who wanted the masses to conform, but quite frankly I am much more comfortable with that lie than the one that says that it is the "people" who rule the nation.

In my own humble 20 years old opinion, the closer a government stands to the Church the better. Despite all its sinners, the Roman Catholic church is the only structure on the planet that has actually got its ship together... for 2000 years at that. I cannot trust Islam, as they have no Sultan anymore. I cannot take protestants seriously due to their factional infighting. And I cannot take libertarianism, objectivism, communism seriously either, since all these ideologies were invented by some guy named Joe. I mean... who the heck is Joe?! ...Well exactly! I want my king to get his crown from the Pope, not Joe.

All that said, I quote my wise brother: Europeans dethroned their King and abandoned God, hence they don't deserve a legitimate Monarch. At least the Americans kept God.

[luxfelix]

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

- San Marino. I wish I could point you in a direction to seek info, but I don't really have a go-to source on this. I started looking into the country in the CIA World Factbook and Wikipedia. I have a certain fascination for these tiny, rich, catholic, freedom-loving countries such as San Marino, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Luxembourg, Monaco, Malta, but San Marino is especially interesting since it has kept its national sovereignty employing extremely witty political maneuvering for 1700 years... Like they did against Napoleon, the Pope and during WW2.

I respond to the legitimacy question below...

I mentioned my background to give a sense of where I am speaking from. My father is mongolian, my mother is hungarian, and I have lived many years in both countries. Although Mongols are something like the 6th on the World IQ list, a liberaly democracy is not a system that works (same with Korea, Japan, China, Singapore, Taiwan). There are a ton of reasons for this. One being that cult of personality is very important to us. We despise our dumb elected officials, who in the end are not accountable for their mistakes anyway. We much prefer to see a visible strong-man whom we are free to love and free to hate. The Americans were wise to know this at the end of WW2, which was why they let the Japanese keep their Emperor.

Note: For a brief time, Mongolia used to the only country in history to have a communist dictatorship and a king simultaneously.

Legitimacy is anything but a state of mind. It is not for you, nor me to decide. The gods are the arbiters of legitimacy. For something that used to be so self-evident since the beginning of civilisation until a hundred years ago, it is pretty funny that we even question that today. Who gave us the 10 Commandments? God! Where do our rights from the US constitution come from? God! Who gave us the Tenno? The gods! Who gave us the Crown? The Pope! Who gave us the Pope? God! Who gave us the Khagan? The Sky (god)! Who is the Pharaoh? A god!

There used to be a certain level of humility in humans a while ago, as we all knew that there are some things that maybe the masses should not decide. You can argue that "god" was invented by big bad dictators who wanted the masses to conform, but quite frankly I am much more comfortable with that lie than the one that says that it is the "people" who rule the nation.

In my own humble 20 years old opinion, the closer a government stands to the Church the better. Despite all its sinners, the Roman Catholic church is the only structure on the planet that has actually got its ship together... for 2000 years at that. I cannot trust Islam, as they have no Sultan anymore. I cannot take protestants seriously due to their factional infighting. And I cannot take libertarianism, objectivism, communism seriously either, since all these ideologies were invented by some guy named Joe. I mean... who the heck is Joe?! ...Well exactly! I want my king to get his crown from the Pope, not Joe.

All that said, I quote my wise brother: Europeans dethroned their King and abandoned God, hence they don't deserve a legitimate Monarch. At least the Americans kept God.

 

 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?

[luxfelix]

8 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

 

Since I find this topic interesting I'll butt in here...heheheh...

 

Legitimacy to me is a state of mind. After a(n often violent) while, all governments become totally legitimate within their geographic areas. 

However if I had the scepter of autocracy as Kaiser of America and therefore the deciding voice on which governments live and die...

...I'd probably base it on the old Habsburg, Papal, and general Christian model where every state with a king or emperor with a Habsburg, Papal, or general Christian background is on the table. However I'd also include those related to my own family as legitimate (since I'd want my family to reign supreme) and also declare legitimate any usurper that actually functions as a good or at least stable ruler. Like Assad would be "legitimate" but Kim Jong Un "illegitimate". 

If I wasn't a nobleman or ruler in this hypothetical, I wouldn't care about legitimacy but rather if they were Free Market isolationists. The Tokugawa Shogunate being a decent example of a decent dictatorship and the Pinochet administration a better one. 

 

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

[Siegfried von Walheim]

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I mentioned my background to give a sense of where I am speaking from. My father is mongolian, my mother is hungarian, and I have lived many years in both countries. Although Mongols are something like the 6th on the World IQ list, a liberaly democracy is not a system that works (same with Korea, Japan, China, Singapore, Taiwan). There are a ton of reasons for this. One being that cult of personality is very important to us. We despise our dumb elected officials, who in the end are not accountable for their mistakes anyway. We much prefer to see a visible strong-man whom we are free to love and free to hate. The Americans were wise to know this at the end of WW2, which was why they let the Japanese keep their Emperor.

I'd argue we Whites aren't great with democracy either. The only big country to have a decent republic was America, and once we became totally democratic we became totally moved by the will of the mob. I think AnCap is the way mainly because it is the best way I know of for the smart and able to acquire and maintain the highest positions of authority and necessity without the intervention of nepotists and looters. However since I think AnCap is only possible once the population of a given area are willing to fight for it, Capitalist/Libertarian Monarchism seems the most efficient. The very idea behind Statism is that decisions ought to be made by a small group of people and their ideas enforced by an army. Since fewer men tend to be wiser than many men, the fewer the leaders and the fewer the obstacles the better. Or at least, so the theory would go...

Since I'm of the opinion even a well-meaning Oriental Despotism would result in disaster, a laissez-faire monarchism would be the next best thing to AnCap.

 

 

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Note: For a brief time, Mongolia used to the only country in history to have a communist dictatorship and a king simultaneously.

Now that is interesting...Although Italy could be argued similarly, if you'd consider Fascism to be fundamentally the same as Communism. Which, given both have centrally planned economies I think it wouldn't be a stretch. 

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Legitimacy is anything but a state of mind. It is not for you, nor me to decide. The gods are the arbiters of legitimacy. For something that used to be so self-evident since the beginning of civilisation until a hundred years ago, it is pretty funny that we even question that today. Who gave us the 10 Commandments? God! Where do our rights from the US constitution come from? God! Who gave us the Tenno? The gods! Who gave us the Crown? The Pope! Who gave us the Pope? God! Who gave us the Khagan? The Sky (god)! Who is the Pharaoh? A god!

There used to be a certain level of humility in humans a while ago, as we all knew that there are some things that maybe the masses should not decide. You can argue that "god" was invented by big bad dictators who wanted the masses to conform, but quite frankly I am much more comfortable with that lie than the one that says that it is the "people" who rule the nation.

In my own humble 20 years old opinion, the closer a government stands to the Church the better. Despite all its sinners, the Roman Catholic church is the only structure on the planet that has actually got its ship together... for 2000 years at that. I cannot trust Islam, as they have no Sultan anymore. I cannot take protestants seriously due to their factional infighting. And I cannot take libertarianism, objectivism, communism seriously either, since all these ideologies were invented by some guy named Joe. I mean... who the heck is Joe?! ...Well exactly! I want my king to get his crown from the Pope, not Joe.

All that said, I quote my wise brother: Europeans dethroned their King and abandoned God, hence they don't deserve a legitimate Monarch. At least the Americans kept God.

I call myself a Roman Catholic because for the most part my religion was the best religion. I don't believe in God, but I do believe in some of the major points that my Church was built on (like spread by the word not the sword; no sex before marriage; stable families; etc.) and that my race would be best served with Christianity than any other religion or "non-religion". Most people just aren't able to live like Christians without believing in the myths, and therefore I'd rather propagate a myth that inspires goodness from those who'd otherwise by hedonistic or evil. People who are naturally good however (like Stefan) wouldn't need God since they're naturally good.

I agree that one thing that made America great was its faith in God and adherence to the better parts of our religion. A Return to Christ, the abolition of republicanism, and the freeing of the markets would make us a truly great superpower.

 

 

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

7 minutes ago, luxfelix said:

 

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

Depends. If it's external, no. If it's internal, only if the army happens to be rebelling as well. I don't believe in "legitimacy" in governments because all governments are glorified mafias. It just so happens some mafias are better than others. 

[M.2]

7 hours ago, luxfelix said:

 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?

I am thuroughly enjoying this discussion, as you are making me do some serious homework. I hope to hear your full opinion on the topic.

Yes, the best examples of democracy invoke the Authority of God in their constitutions. USA, Switzerland, San Marino. In fact, the guarantour of  San Marinese sovereignty were the Papal States. And here is an excerpt from the Swiss Constitution:

"In the name of Almighty God! The Swiss People and the Cantons, mindful of their responsibility towards creation, resolved to renew their alliance so as to strengthen liberty, democracy, independence and peace in a spirit of solidarity and openness towards the world, determined to live together with mutual consideration and respect for their diversity, conscious of their common achievements and their responsibility towards future generations, and in the knowledge that only those who use their freedom remain free, and that the strength of a people is measured by the well-being of its weakest members, adopt the following Constitution1: "

Noteworthy that some post-comminust coutries like Poland and Hungary reincluded the Name of God in their constitutions.

About France: France is a mess, and it has been so since the revolution. Napoleon may have been a murderer, but he was a very smart one, as he made great efforts to obtain legitimacy from the Pope. (locking up popes may not have been the best way to go about it) Although he failed to get the blessing of the Pope, he knew very well that his crown would not last long, were not backed up by the Church.

6 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I'd argue we Whites aren't great with democracy either. The only big country to have a decent republic was America, and once we became totally democratic we became totally moved by the will of the mob. I think AnCap is the way mainly because it is the best way I know of for the smart and able to acquire and maintain the highest positions of authority and necessity without the intervention of nepotists and looters. However since I think AnCap is only possible once the population of a given area are willing to fight for it, Capitalist/Libertarian Monarchism seems the most efficient. The very idea behind Statism is that decisions ought to be made by a small group of people and their ideas enforced by an army. Since fewer men tend to be wiser than many men, the fewer the leaders and the fewer the obstacles the better. Or at least, so the theory would go...

Since I'm of the opinion even a well-meaning Oriental Despotism would result in disaster, a laissez-faire monarchism would be the next best thing to AnCap.

I agree that one thing that made America great was its faith in God and adherence to the better parts of our religion. A Return to Christ, the abolition of republicanism, and the freeing of the markets would make us a truly great superpower.

As I mentioned above, there are indeed very agreeable democracies in the West. There are of course big differences between, and perhaps we could discuss those in another thread. I don't like talking about AnCap because it hasn't really been tried yet. Maybe I am wrong, but I think we should not go too deep into theoretics.

Would you say that your ideal form of government would be an elective, constitutional monarchy?
What are the branches of government? 
What role does religion play?
Could you also clarify how you imagine the army would function is said state?
Which existing country is the closest to your ideal? I saw you mentioned Pinochet a lot. I love Chile myself.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

6 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

"In the name of Almighty God! The Swiss People and the Cantons, mindful of their responsibility towards creation, resolved to renew their alliance so as to strengthen liberty, democracy, independence and peace in a spirit of solidarity and openness towards the world, determined to live together with mutual consideration and respect for their diversity, conscious of their common achievements and their responsibility towards future generations, and in the knowledge that only those who use their freedom remain free, and that the strength of a people is measured by the well-being of its weakest members, adopt the following Constitution1: "

Who are the "Cantons"? I don't assume the Cantonese of the Chinese city by the same name. Some of the text screams of modern Leftism (respect for diversity!) and that makes me wonder how legitimate a constitution it really is...I mean, any legal document can invoke the name of God--that doesn't make them legitimate either morally (which I think should be based on whether or not it works) or pragmatically (i.e. whether it can be sustained by words or the sword).

6 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Noteworthy that some post-comminust coutries like Poland and Hungary reincluded the Name of God in their constitutions.

The Leftists were trying to stamp our Christianity as hard as they could. In spite of that Eastern Europe remains Eastern Catholic.

 

6 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

About France: France is a mess, and it has been so since the revolution. Napoleon may have been a murderer, but he was a very smart one, as he made great efforts to obtain legitimacy from the Pope. (locking up popes may not have been the best way to go about it) Although he failed to get the blessing of the Pope, he knew very well that his crown would not last long, were not backed up by the Church.

...I wouldn't call Napoleon a mere murderer. He was a visionary attempting to reunite the Franks and failed. If he had succeeded...well, I doubt history would have changed much. Just substitute Germany for France.

 

6 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

As I mentioned above, there are indeed very agreeable democracies in the West. There are of course big differences between, and perhaps we could discuss those in another thread. I don't like talking about AnCap because it hasn't really been tried yet. Maybe I am wrong, but I think we should not go too deep into theoretics.

It's not really theoretical. Several major time periods saw AnCap-like societies. Namely; the Imperial Free Cities of the Holy Roman Empire; the Free City of Sakai (Japan); The "Wild" West;  and to some degree the original 13 Colonies. 

The closer a city or nation was towards libertarianism the better they've always done compared to their more Leftist rivals. There is a reason why young America managed to eclipse old England in less than a hundred years after all.

 

 

6 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Would you say that your ideal form of government would be an elective, constitutional monarchy?

What are the branches of government? 

My ideal form of government (besides totally Stefanist UPB-based AnCapistanism) would be a hereditary one in  which I am the "Kaiser of the Holy American Empire by the Grace of God and Man; Autocrat of All Americans; King of Pennsylvania and Virginia; etc..." with a devolution administration in favor of local administration based on size of territory. The Imperial Government would be comprised of only three organs; the Imperial Military in which the Generalissimo is named by the Kaiser at the start of a war; the Imperial Government in which a Prime Minister who heads the official administration and is chosen by the Kaiser; and the Imperial Judiciary which is made of a number of Justices chosen by the Kaiser and whose saw purpose is to know of the land as dictated by His Imperial Supremacy the Kaiser. 

There would be local military leaders with noble titles (e.g. Count of New York City, Archduke of New York State) whose purpose is essentially to enforce Imperial Law and have a list ready for the draft should it be needed. Beyond a revision of the Ten Commandments to something like "No stealing; no murdering; no damaging; keep your word; praise the Kaiser" there would be no laws to speak of. The simpler the legal system the better. 

 

6 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

What role does religion play?

I would separate America from the Holy See and declare it an independent American Patriarchate with jurisdiction from Greenland to Argentina-Chile. I would personally select my favorite bishop as the first Pope (I am using Eastern styles for administrative purposes but it is essentially a Roman clone based in Philadelphia) and let the new Holy See run itself but with extreme favoritism towards Myself and My Imperial Government. Also I'd make sure they spoke positive of libertarian ideals. Perhaps eventually they could convince the population they don't need a government...

 

6 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

 

Could you also clarify how you imagine the army would function is said state?

The military and state would be inseparable.  There would be no bureaucrats save ones with military titles. It would be impossible to hold a rank in my administration without either hereditary privilege (muh daddy was Count brah!) or service in the Military(Fur das Vaterlanden!). The intention is to cut out as much government as possible while still being able to enforce the laws I consider just and efficient. A rather simple design wherein villages are ruled by Barons; cities are ruled by Counts; states by Dukes, Archdukes, or Kings based on population size and arbitrarily determined importance on my part, and every noble rank translates to military authority in a simple chain of command ranging from the Kaiser Himself to the lowest draftee.

 

 

6 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

 

Which existing country is the closest to your ideal? I saw you mentioned Pinochet a lot. I love Chile myself.

Chile is losing its way, and yet it is the closest towards what I'd want in a country. If I could combine traditional German and Japanese conservatism, English work ethic, and American ingenuity I'd have the perfect people and  Chile is the closest I know of. Perhaps Russia would be closer but...they have typical mixed market problems that Chile doesn't.

Also note: I mentioned that my ideal state would have me in charge (or effectively so) because if I am not the head of the mafia I really don't care what the mafia looks like. Substitute myself for someone else (who isn't Stefan Molyneux) in this hypothetical and I'd add "expect it to go sour in 3 generations" at the bottom of it.

P.S. I find it funny the name "Molyneux" is considered a typo on His own forums... 

 

 

 

 

[luxfelix]

14 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I am thuroughly enjoying this discussion, as you are making me do some serious homework. I hope to hear your full opinion on the topic.

Yes, the best examples of democracy invoke the Authority of God in their constitutions. USA, Switzerland, San Marino. In fact, the guarantour of  San Marinese sovereignty were the Papal States. And here is an excerpt from the Swiss Constitution:

"In the name of Almighty God! The Swiss People and the Cantons, mindful of their responsibility towards creation, resolved to renew their alliance so as to strengthen liberty, democracy, independence and peace in a spirit of solidarity and openness towards the world, determined to live together with mutual consideration and respect for their diversity, conscious of their common achievements and their responsibility towards future generations, and in the knowledge that only those who use their freedom remain free, and that the strength of a people is measured by the well-being of its weakest members, adopt the following Constitution1: "

Noteworthy that some post-comminust coutries like Poland and Hungary reincluded the Name of God in their constitutions.

About France: France is a mess, and it has been so since the revolution. Napoleon may have been a murderer, but he was a very smart one, as he made great efforts to obtain legitimacy from the Pope. (locking up popes may not have been the best way to go about it) Although he failed to get the blessing of the Pope, he knew very well that his crown would not last long, were not backed up by the Church.

 

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?

 

8 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Who are the "Cantons"? I don't assume the Cantonese of the Chinese city by the same name. Some of the text screams of modern Leftism (respect for diversity!) and that makes me wonder how legitimate a constitution it really is...I mean, any legal document can invoke the name of God--that doesn't make them legitimate either morally (which I think should be based on whether or not it works) or pragmatically (i.e. whether it can be sustained by words or the sword).

 

"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?

[M.2]

14 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Who are the "Cantons"? I don't assume the Cantonese of the Chinese city by the same name. Some of the text screams of modern Leftism (respect for diversity!) and that makes me wonder how legitimate a constitution it really is...I mean, any legal document can invoke the name of God--that doesn't make them legitimate either morally (which I think should be based on whether or not it works) or pragmatically (i.e. whether it can be sustained by words or the sword).

The Leftists were trying to stamp our Christianity as hard as they could. In spite of that Eastern Europe remains Eastern Catholic.

My ideal form of government (besides totally Stefanist UPB-based AnCapistanism) would be a hereditary one in  which I am the "Kaiser of the Holy American Empire by the Grace of God and Man; Autocrat of All Americans; King of Pennsylvania and Virginia; etc..." with a devolution administration in favor of local administration based on size of territory. The Imperial Government would be comprised of only three organs; the Imperial Military in which the Generalissimo is named by the Kaiser at the start of a war; the Imperial Government in which a Prime Minister who heads the official administration and is chosen by the Kaiser; and the Imperial Judiciary which is made of a number of Justices chosen by the Kaiser and whose saw purpose is to know of the land as dictated by His Imperial Supremacy the Kaiser. There would be local military leaders with noble titles (e.g. Count of New York City, Archduke of New York State) whose purpose is essentially to enforce Imperial Law and have a list ready for the draft should it be needed. Beyond a revision of the Ten Commandments to something like "No stealing; no murdering; no damaging; keep your word; praise the Kaiser" there would be no laws to speak of. The simpler the legal system the better. I would separate America from the Holy See and declare it an independent American Patriarchate with jurisdiction from Greenland to Argentina-Chile. I would personally select my favorite bishop as the first Pope (I am using Eastern styles for administrative purposes but it is essentially a Roman clone based in Philadelphia) and let the new Holy See run itself but with extreme favoritism towards Myself and My Imperial Government. Also I'd make sure they spoke positive of libertarian ideals. Perhaps eventually they could convince the population they don't need a government... The military and state would be inseparable.  There would be no bureaucrats save ones with military titles. It would be impossible to hold a rank in my administration without either hereditary privilege (muh daddy was Count brah!) or service in the Military(Fur das Vaterlanden!). The intention is to cut out as much government as possible while still being able to enforce the laws I consider just and efficient. A rather simple design wherein villages are ruled by Barons; cities are ruled by Counts; states by Dukes, Archdukes, or Kings based on population size and arbitrarily determined importance on my part, and every noble rank translates to military authority in a simple chain of command ranging from the Kaiser Himself to the lowest draftee. Chile is losing its way, and yet it is the closest towards what I'd want in a country. If I could combine traditional German and Japanese conservatism, English work ethic, and American ingenuity I'd have the perfect people and  Chile is the closest I know of. Perhaps Russia would be closer but...they have typical mixed market problems that Chile doesn't.

Remember that a hundred years ago, the terms that the leftists use today used to mean something wholly different. Much like the term "liberal". Luxfelix has covered the Swiss question very thuroughly.

Please do not mix up Catholic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Greek Catholic and all the rest. Eastern Europe is mostly Roman Catholic and Orthodox.

It seems to me that you would have fared very well in the Prussian empire. Or even more so in the Teutonic Order States. I would say that the Order lost its way when it turned into the Prussian Kingdom. They departed from the Church, they ran a military government, and they centralised everything. They invented conscription, public schools, state hospitals and all the rest that we all hate. Or am I misreading something?

3 hours ago, luxfelix said:

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?

There used to be an agreement in the olden days between European Monarchs and the Pope that they all have veto power over each other. Meaning that a Pope could only be picked with the full approval of all the Kings and vice versa. This gave an ease of mind to the subjects of the Monarchs, knowing that their ruler was in essence approved by God.

About the models, I don't know. There are a million ways to set up a system, as I have made it clear at the very top of the thread. But what a good system does ideally, is to make sure that the Will of God prevails. Or in the case of a republic, the Will of the People.

The reason why I don't feel comfortable with a Lassaiz faire state, is that, if I understand the theory correctly, we put too much faith in a "thing" that is supposedly self-correcting. Now that may work, please point me to good examples, but we must acknowledge that it will not work in all cultures. People have a weird tendency to sell their freedoms on the free market, paradoxically making the market not free. 

A country, and a people is governmed by willpower. A man with a strong will can play any system, as we have just witnessed with Donald Trump. And the will of the "People" will be as unreliable as ever, no matter how free the market is. But please correct me if I am missing something. I love to learn and I live to learn.

About Napoleon, yes, with joining the House of Habsburgs, his descendants would have been legitimate royal blood. However, the Pope still could have denied his son the crown of France.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

10 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

 

Please do not mix up Catholic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Greek Catholic and all the rest. Eastern Europe is mostly Roman Catholic and Orthodox.

I will mix terms as I please when creating a hypothetical sect. After all hypothetically either I or some other disgruntled mensch with an inflated sense of ego would have to do it to avoid the inevitable condemnation of the Puck of Rum. 

 

 

10 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

It seems to me that you would have fared very well in the Prussian empire. Or even more so in the Teutonic Order States. I would say that the Order lost its way when it turned into the Prussian Kingdom. They departed from the Church, they ran a military government, and they centralised everything. They invented conscription, public schools, state hospitals and all the rest that we all hate. Or am I misreading something?

As much as I like the fancy terms of the Prussian --Kingdom-- (you can't call everything an Empire just because it got bigger than two feet, y'know) as well as their styles, I am really only interested in copying them on a superficial level as well as their military system. Centralization of power, for a government, makes sense given the theory that a handful of people know better than a  mob. However  beyond the army and law I would push for a completely laissez faire system since I am a free marketer after all.

And again, I just prefer this over other types of governments . Otherwise I'm in favor of the abolition of statism and the formation of ethnostates. 

 

 

10 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

There used to be an agreement in the olden days between European Monarchs and the Pope that they all have veto power over each other. Meaning that a Pope could only be picked with the full approval of all the Kings and vice versa. This gave an ease of mind to the subjects of the Monarchs, knowing that their ruler was in essence approved by God.

From what I know, that pattern only existed within the Holy Roman Empire and neighboring Roman Catholic countries. Protestant and Eastern Catholic countries were not subject to the dual-supremacy of the Supreme Pontiff and Kaiser.

 

10 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

The reason why I don't feel comfortable with a Lassaiz faire state, is that, if I understand the theory correctly, we put too much faith in a "thing" that is supposedly self-correcting. Now that may work, please point me to good examples, but we must acknowledge that it will not work in all cultures. People have a weird tendency to sell their freedoms on the free market, paradoxically making the market not free. 

Examples of a largely laissez faire government: America (1789-1880, especially the Northern half); England (~1840-~1920); the Golden Horde (~1100-1400). The Dutch Kingdom (~1600-1940)

All examples are of nations and governments that did very little beyond the military and law and left the people to do their thing, and benefited greatly in the process.

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

A country, and a people is governmed by willpower. A man with a strong will can play any system, as we have just witnessed with Donald Trump. And the will of the "People" will be as unreliable as ever, no matter how free the market is. But please correct me if I am missing something. I love to learn and I live to learn.

The free market is the ability to buy and sell things with respect to ownership. Who do you think would own the most land and control the most resources? Why, guys like Donald Trump who have proven that in a free-ish market. 

Free Markets embody natural selection. The smartest and most frugal rise to the top while the wasteful and useless fade into obscurity. Eventually only smart people will exist and not a drop of blood would be needed to make that revolution, once it has been established of course. 

 

10 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

About Napoleon, yes, with joining the House of Habsburgs, his descendants would have been legitimate royal blood. However, the Pope still could have denied his son the crown of France.

Emperor Napoleon's "lack of legitimacy" didn't stop his great-nephew from becoming Napoleon III largely through the will of the French populace (with the backing of the army of course).

 

[luxfelix]

On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 1:00 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Emperor Napoleon's "lack of legitimacy" didn't stop his great-nephew from becoming Napoleon III largely through the will of the French populace (with the backing of the army of course).

 

 

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.

 

On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 3:34 AM, Mishi2 said:

There used to be an agreement in the olden days between European Monarchs and the Pope that they all have veto power over each other. Meaning that a Pope could only be picked with the full approval of all the Kings and vice versa. This gave an ease of mind to the subjects of the Monarchs, knowing that their ruler was in essence approved by God.

About the models, I don't know. There are a million ways to set up a system, as I have made it clear at the very top of the thread. But what a good system does ideally, is to make sure that the Will of God prevails. Or in the case of a republic, the Will of the People.

The reason why I don't feel comfortable with a Lassaiz faire state, is that, if I understand the theory correctly, we put too much faith in a "thing" that is supposedly self-correcting. Now that may work, please point me to good examples, but we must acknowledge that it will not work in all cultures. People have a weird tendency to sell their freedoms on the free market, paradoxically making the market not free. 

A country, and a people is governmed by willpower. A man with a strong will can play any system, as we have just witnessed with Donald Trump. And the will of the "People" will be as unreliable as ever, no matter how free the market is. But please correct me if I am missing something. I love to learn and I live to learn.

About Napoleon, yes, with joining the House of Habsburgs, his descendants would have been legitimate royal blood. However, the Pope still could have denied his son the crown of France.

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?)