Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

What if Rand Paul becomes a monarch?

rated by 0 users
This post has 22 Replies | 5 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 814
Points 16,290
No2statism Posted: Tue, Nov 20 2012 8:38 AM

I was thinking he would make a good monarch as far as Monarchs go... he'd end the wars at least.  It would be unfortunate that the States' would lose any sovereignty they had, but Rand wouldn't be a monarch forever.

I'm thinking we should be prepared in case we get a monarchy.

Obama has nationalized all the land, and that sets the stage for a monarch doesn't it?

People are also sick of change and a monarchy would keep the majority pacified in the short term especially if all the resources were nationalized.

What do you think about Rand Paul becoming a monarch?  Do you prefer a royal Paul to a President Gary Johnson?  I do.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 814
Points 16,290

He would make a cute and comical monarch though, because his father took a french fry from him (he's fat and short), and he says things like education is a luxury not a right and "the Koch brothers should be arrested" he's an aristocrat unlike his father.

He's never give up power either because he doesn't have as long of a face as his father does and he doesn't have high right hand 2d:4d like his father does. 

I wouldn't want him to eat me alive though.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Tue, Nov 20 2012 10:26 AM

There is no possibility of monarchy in our lifetimes if the United States avoids total collapse. Democracy to highly prized and explicit power too highly despised.

This thread looked a lot more entertaining when I thought it said "what would Ayn Rand do if she were a monarch"

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 907
Points 14,795

This thread looked a lot more entertaining when I thought it said "what would Ayn Rand do if she were a monarch"

...or if she called her son Paul.

Jokes aside - would a monarch of the United States be technically an emperor?

The Voluntaryist Reader - read, comment, post your own.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

"Jokes aside - would a monarch of the United States be technically an emperor?"

Absolutely, with all of those official territories in there like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and then that's not even to mention all of the countries that are..."influenced"...by the States.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 391
Points 6,975

I'm skeptical about us having an Emperor. It would imply the states were all Kingdoms, but I can't seriously consider something as small as Maryland or Delaware Kingdoms. Principalities or Duchies at best.

If we were to have an Emperor we would to reorganize the territories. Texas, New York, California, Florida, and a few others would be Kingdoms. Minnetsota, Georgia and other mid-sized regions would be duchies. The smaller and less populated territories would be principalities.

What would Alaska be? It's not heavily populated so its certainly not a Kingdom. A Grand Duchy? Hawaii likewise isn't too terribly large, but I suppose it would be a Kingdom for the sake of recognizing the former Hawaiin Kingdom.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 907
Points 14,795

I guess Alaska would be covered by a phrase "all Northern territories". Conveniently, this can be used to refer to Canada, too ;)

The Voluntaryist Reader - read, comment, post your own.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Tue, Nov 20 2012 5:33 PM

 

This is a very bizarre post.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 432
Points 6,740
Groucho replied on Tue, Nov 20 2012 5:45 PM

Thank god I'm not the only one who thinks so.

An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. -H.L. Mencken
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Tue, Nov 20 2012 8:25 PM

"Thank god I'm not the only one who thinks so."

Each sentence is like traveling further and further away from anything like a coherent reality.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 4
Points 50

Maybe I'm being too harsh, or I'm taking this too seriously but I feel this is appropriate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

I'm having quite a hard time envisioning Rand Paul in a King's robes...same with Governor Rick Scott of Florida dressed like a Prince...

Now Obama...that's a different story.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

National Acrobat:

 

 

 

That's about as good as it gets.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 814
Points 16,290

Well, what if a constitutional monarchy is pragmatic and is the only way towards reducing the State?

I have a few reasons why I think Rand will be a monarch:

a friend on Facebook said she feared a Paul dynasty;

Rand quotes Lincoln and Madison;

he's a Constitutional Converative (rather than a Constitutional Jeffersonian small 'r' republican) so he must be more of a nationalist than the one who quotes Jefferson, Thomas Woods, and Rothbard.

Rand is a Conservative, he loves trying to mix liberty with order, he hates equality for the reasons I said.

He's going to want too much pot...  who can't imagine Rand Paul toking a bong?  His eyes are always red, he's short (weed stunts growth), he's fat (weed causes people to crave sweets) plus he got someone to smoke pot and worship the aqua buddha statue in his private college days. If he becomes monarch, then he could smoke weed without worrying about breaking the law.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 7:08 AM

to sum up:

1)  A friend said so.

2) Rand wants to smoke weed.

Good argument.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 814
Points 16,290

Well, if America is to be preserved then Rand Paul may have to be monarch.  I hope the agents of the U.S. govt aren't watching this thread.

Put my reasons together better than John Ess did if you want your mind intrigued for the future.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 539
Points 11,275

I agree with No2Statism. American will definitely become a Monarchy.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 103
Points 2,100
MadMiser replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 9:26 AM

A Windsor monarchy! Surely you Americans didn't think you could escape the majesty of the British crown forever, did you?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 391
Points 6,975

 

On a sidenote, which royal families have at one time controlled the present day USA? 

Off the top of my head I can think of the southwest has been controlled by the Bourbons and Hapsburg respectively via New Spain/Mexico, Florida, and Puerto Rico. The Romanov in Alaska and other portions of the northwest. The House of Hanover that owned the original colonies. And the Hawaiin royal house in Hawaii.

We should invite one of the Romanovs to be our Emperor!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,288
Points 22,350

You forgot the House of Stuart.  Also, the House of Tudor claimed parts of the USA.

So you should install the current Duke of Bavaria as King.

The Voluntaryist Reader: http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/ Libertarian forums that actually work: http://voluntaryism.freeforums.org/index.php
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 151
Points 2,705

This thread reminded me of what one of my history professors told us in 2004. The poor guy was like 90 years old and sometimes we weren't sure if he was all there, but my god, in hindsight, some of what he told us was spot on. He said how the U.S. is less like a republic and now more like a constitutional monarchy. Back then, with everyone railing against Bush and the "imperial presidency," I didn't quite get it. But when Obama showed up and people seemed willing to give up every freedom they had for his royal highness, I got the point. During the 2008 Obama campaign, I even told a friend, "It's almost as if Americans want a fucking KING again." He replied, "Well, yes. We NEED that!" /palm to the face

The prof. also said, relatively early on in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, that the age of the temporary "citizen-soldier" is ending and a new age of professional soldiers and mercenaries is beginning, because wars will go on and on longer than a citizen-soldier could handle. Enter the private security companies, like the knights of old!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 6:24 PM
 
 

fountainhead:

This thread reminded me of what one of my history professors told us in 2004. The poor guy was like 90 years old and sometimes we weren't sure if he was all there, but my god, in hindsight, some of what he told us was spot on. He said how the U.S. is less like a republic and now more like a constitutional monarchy. Back then, with everyone railing against Bush and the "imperial presidency," I didn't quite get it. But when Obama showed up and people seemed willing to give up every freedom they had for his royal highness, I got the point. During the 2008 Obama campaign, I even told a friend, "It's almost as if Americans want a fucking KING again." He replied, "Well, yes. We NEED that!" /palm to the face

That's brilliant, that's exactly what's occurring. As the constitutional protections and limits erode, now almost entirely gone, that's what we'll be left with. And that will lead to the destabilization of the republic long-term.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (23 items) | RSS