Of course i doubt this will get alot of attention but anarcho monarchism?
To me it sounds like right wing minarchism:
http://anarcho-monarchism.com/about/
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Kelvin Silva: To me it sounds like right wing minarchism:
Is there any other kind?
He's a authority apologist. Rejecting the "authority" of the State, yet bowing to, and defending the "authority" of "God". Even though he supports monarchy over democracy, ultimately believing anarcho-capitalism to be ideal, that doesn't justify the oxymoronic coining of the title Anarcho-Monarchist. For example some Leftists, as hard as some may find this to believe, think that morally anarchism is best but still cling to some Statist ideas because they find them necessary. You don't see them going around and creating the label Anarcho-Statism though.
PS: I do like the little gentleman-Anarchy sign in his blog's banner. I've always considered Anarcho-Capitalism and Market Anarchism as "civilized Anarchists", unlike the Anarcho-Communist who likes to go around destroying stuff either with Molotov cocktails or bad philosphy.
Anarchism means no archon.
Monarchism means one archon.
It's like saying anarcho-oligarchy.
If you want monarchy, just be a monarchist. If you want to be an anarchist, be that.
I don't think the term 'anarcho-monarchism' is necessarily an oxymoron. If the word 'monarch' is used figuratively, as a figurehead who does not in fact possess arche, then it can make sense. Thus it could possibly refer to an anarchistic community that has a ceremonial 'king' as a major feature (e.g. in the promotion - but not enforcement - of norms, or as a symbol of solidarity), in the same way that Athens, for example, retained the office of basileus despite the fact that the latter was completely powerless compared to the basileis of old.
I'm an anarmonarchochist.
Hopefully my sarcasm transmits through the internet.
I don't understand why people would want a so-called monarch if they have no power. Anything which isn't enforceable is practically useless.
It seems to me that that isn't what anarcho-monarchists want, though. And they understand what I said above. They want a return to feudalism where there are 'natural elites' called monarchs who control or work with land-owning Lords, and these people have serfs which are the majority of people. Or slaves who enter into 'voluntary slavery contracts'. Minorities of people own all of the land which is then rented to inferior majorities. Probably with a king who is the best one of these guys.
The monarchs and lords then have absolute power to control their property, and governance comes from their will over this property, and thus over the people who rent the property controlled by the lords and monarchy. This then allows superior people to rule based on property rights. There is then no input or democracy from the serfs, but a long-term rule that is supposedly superior to democracy. However with the upside that there were net less laws during medieval times, and less instability, and thus medieval feudalism is better than democracy. And so it is right and the best thing ever.
I don't understand why people would want a so-called monarch if they have no power.
The medieval Irish seemed to have understood it. So too modern Australians.
Don't the English still technically have a monarch? and the Netherlands?
Yeah. I mentioned the Australians since in 1999 they had the opportunity to abolish the monarchy yet, by popular vote, decided to keep it. Since then its popularity seems to have increased further.
Also, their monarchy is even more powerless than that of the UK or the Netherlands, seeing as it is based many miles away and visits very rarely.
How about anarcho-patriarchy? In fact, I think this is perhaps the best possible description of a true natural order and is nearly what the Amish, Gypsies and some other highly durable sub-cultures adopt.
Clearly, people want and need "leaders" in the general sense. The problems arise when the "leaders" usurp coercive powers. I don't think the label "monarch" can be meaningfully applied to any individual without coercive powers.
Clayton -
It might be a symbol of national prestige that they are not willing to give up.
Clayton: Clearly, people want and need "leaders" in the general sense. The problems arise when the "leaders" usurp coercive powers.
Clearly, people want and need "leaders" in the general sense. The problems arise when the "leaders" usurp coercive powers.
Absolutely. There is nothing wrong with leaders, and in fact they can be very great people. The problem with this modern nation state democracy is that the people everyone "elects" are not leaders. They are rulers. And of course the sheople of the world still use the word leader to describe a ruler.
Need leaders?
To lead us from what? From whom? To where?
Apparently people just need leaders for the hell of it.
Have you ever worked or collaborated with others? If you are surrounded by idiots it can be a very frustrating experience. But sometimes you get to work with someone who has a vision of how things fit together, and you find yourself enjoying working with him. Of course, sometimes you are that person. There is nothing wrong with working with or for someone who knows what he is doing and leads.
Just think of it in terms of bosses. Would you rather work for a good boss or a bad boss?
All of the countries in the "Commonwealth" have Elizabeth as their official monarch, but she doesn't do jack. It's just idol worshipping.
Canada does it too, and now that the Meiji Restoration has been burned, so does Japan. I think under the Japanese constitution they symbolize Akihito as "the unity and symbol of the people." It doesn't help either that he's the highest priest in Shinto.
Yeah well even Elizabeth does more than Akihito. I've only ever heard of Akihito visiting Canada...and that's about it. Otherwise the Japanese Imperial Family just kind of...sits there.
@ Gotlucky.
Yes of course, in a group project there needs to be a leader- To lead us to a finished project.
But as in a king or a president, they lead us to nothing, what do they lead us to? Probably just stupid useless wars that they drag us into. Other than that not really use for a leader as in the government. Just steal money.
Otherwise the Japanese Imperial Family just kind of...sits there.
Kelvin Silva: @ Gotlucky. Yes of course, in a group project there needs to be a leader- To lead us to a finished project. But as in a king or a president, they lead us to nothing, what do they lead us to? Probably just stupid useless wars that they drag us into. Other than that not really use for a leader as in the government. Just steal money.
gotlucky: Clayton: Clearly, people want and need "leaders" in the general sense. The problems arise when the "leaders" usurp coercive powers. Absolutely. There is nothing wrong with leaders, and in fact they can be very great people. The problem with this modern nation state democracy is that the people everyone "elects" are not leaders. They are rulers. And of course the sheople of the world still use the word leader to describe a ruler.
Malachi: "the leader is servant to the follower."
"the leader is servant to the follower."
Yeah, this is one of the great parts about leaders. Good leaders attract people. Bad leaders lose people. I don't mean this in terms of morality, just in how good they are at leading.
Well the Japanese Imperial Family has a VERY long history of holding little to no power, only taking their imperial status from the fact that they are "divine" or whatever in Shinto, and that the Emperor himself is supposedly a direct descendent of Amaterasu (goddess of the Universe).
Other than that, for thousands of years the ruling power was vested in the Shogun, and now, the Prime Minister. The Imperial Family held power from the 1800s to the 1940s, but that's about it.
I think you guys don't fully understand the power of the British monarchy. While it is true that the Queen herself rarely visits, it's also the case that she rarely leaves the shores of England for any reason. The reason is simple: she's a target with many, many enemies. She knows she's secure in her home territory but moving outside of that area is risky. Note that sitting Presidents also rarely travel outside of the US compared to, say, their cabinet members.
The royal family as a whole, however, is extremely active and very mobile. When you factor in their relatives in the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, as well as the upper crust of British nobility (e.g. Sir Evelyn de Rothschild and his family, the various Dukes and their families, etc.), you realize that it is an extremely active and all-encompassing network.
The Queen refers to Parliament as "My Government". People think that the Queen is part of the English government. She is no more part of the English government than she is part of Buckingham Palace. She owns the English government. It is her property (Crown property, that is). She owns fully 16 other Commonwealth Realms. And it is beyond belief that the British Crown has simply washed its hands of its innumerable former Commonwealth Realms. British involvement in India, for example, is doubtless extensive.
But that's beside the point. John Ess stated that he didn't understand why people would want a so-called monarch if they have no power. The question, therefore, was primarily about perception. Whatever political power the Queen has in Australia (which, regardless of possible power in the UK and elsewhere, seems very little), she is perceived by most (all?) as having none. Thus it's an example of a people having strong support for a powerless monarch, which I think can be explained as the attachment to the monarchy as the symbol of the nation, and especially of traditional civilization.
I agree, but for the exact reason that the monarchy is preserved for cultural/nationalistic reasons is why the monarch can have so much influence. If the Queen wants something done in parliment, we can feel sure that it will get done, her constitutional power notwithstanding. It really is too bad that the English revolutionaries never won the Civil War (long-term).
Sounds like an ideological clusterf**k.
If you're going to defend libertarianism, defend libertarianism. If you're going to defend monarchism, defend monarchism. But a monarchical system is about one single man, a king, owning everything by divine right. It is not libertarian.
"I repudiate the filth propagated by racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-nazis, 9/11 Truthers, conspiracy theorists, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, private militia movements, pacifists, and other cranks."
I lol'd.
We are having a discussion to see if we can unclusterunfuckit.
We can take this to a further level and have a private "celebrity/figurehead" agency to be paid to provide housing and food to chosen celebrities by an ancap community.
And then from each community, these celebrities will fight a privatized war to see who is the best.
And therefore one prevailing celebrity/monarch will be chosen as the ultimate figurehead.
But of course al paid for voluntarily.
So its kinda like paying to see who wins in a foot ball game or something?
The problem with that system is how the heck it can possibly remain completely voluntary.
Mercenaries fight for the celebrity king/queen. people must pay voluntarily to fund the king./queen.
if king/queen starts killing the populace, profits will drop and cannot fund mercenaries anymore.
Plus what kind of mercenary would kill his fellow citizens?
I'm a legit Anarcho-Monarchist. Ask me anything? It's totally consistent with private property rights, so I don't see what is the issue. It's merely to believe in a king with Authority but no Power. (Which would contradict righteous kingship anyway because state power is objectively evil).
So you believe in a ruler but you do not believe in a ruler? Seems legit.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
The monarch if anything is symbolic, and maybe unconsciously people strive for a "leader" or a "point" in some tripartite or natural heirarchy, and in a true sense of what Malachi posted, having a leader serve them, not the other way around. If you're going to go with the Hoppean view on monarchism that it's better than democracy, sure, but we don't have monarchists raging an ideological war against democracy or government, because it's not fashionable, simply out of date and we've moved on.
Striving to have a monarch in this day and age (and in this country) is ludicrous, I'm sure the American socialist and Nazi parties have more serious supporters. Then again it probably takes a theoretical crank to actually get a party to bring back a monarch, try having that go over easily on 4th of July.