Political Theory

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

Minarchist — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:26:43 GMT

The monarch = the state

Most monarchs would have disagreed with this characterization of their office. Monarchy =/= royal absolutism. When Louis XIV declared "l'etat c'est moi" (I am the State) that was revolutionary. The commonest type of historical monarchy existed within a mixed regime, alongside oligarchical and democratic elements. Moreover, the State, consisting of all of these elements, was not unlimited in scope. Constitutionalism did not create the concept of limited government, but only formalized it. Prior to written constitutions, rulers were often understood to be bound by the common/natural law.

And insofar as libertarians can support any kind of State, it makes perfect sense to me that they should favor some kind of mixed regime, which might include a monarchical element since, all else being equal, a non-democratic regime is likely to be more conservative in expanding its powers than a democratic regime.

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

Autolykos — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:38:02 GMT

gotlucky:
I make a distinction between rulers and leaders - rules are aggressive and leaders are not. They both define relationships between people; rulers have subjects, and leaders have followers. Subjects follow what the ruler says because the ruler threatens them either implicitly or explicitly with violence if they do not do what he says. Followers follow what the leader says out of respect for the leader.

Fair enough. I wasn't sure if you were making that distinction.

gotlucky:
Of course, there is nothing that necessary limits a person to one category, and not everyone will necessarily even be in either category. Some people might move between categories, like you suggest. There might a person who begins as a leader but becomes a ruler.

Yeah, I think many all too many rulers started out as leaders. I think it's connected to how easily people lapse into thinking they own things just because they currently possess them.

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

gotlucky — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:35:25 GMT

Autolykos:

You forgot the really bad leaders - the ones who attract people through deception and then aggressively coerce them against leaving.

I make a distinction between rulers and leaders - rules are aggressive and leaders are not. They both define relationships between people; rulers have subjects, and leaders have followers. Subjects follow what the ruler says because the ruler threatens them either implicitly or explicitly with violence if they do not do what he says. Followers follow what the leader says out of respect for the leader.

Of course, there is nothing that necessary limits a person to one category, and not everyone will necessarily even be in either category. Some people might move between categories, like you suggest. There might a person who begins as a leader but becomes a ruler.

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

Bert — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:16:29 GMT

(I). Sure, a president doesn't necessarily have to lead a state as per Rothbardian definition. But that's not what I believe in.

(II). I know the world doesn't revolve around Rothbard. And? I never claimed it did, nor do my beliefs revolve solely around him.

Uh-huh. Can you explain something without mentioning/falling back on Rothbard? Because it seems your beliefs do revolve solely around him.

(III). No, it's not the exact same State; it's a different definition entirely.

Define state, monarchism, and monarch, without mentioning Rothbard.

(IV). Empirical data is uneccesary in political theory/economics, and all these theories should be a priori. Politics is necessarily a value judgement and needs no "proof," just theory. The proof is the theory.

You admit that your perfect monarch is just a theory that doesn't need proof, and to a further extent fantasy.

Also "past kings" have nothing to do with this, since they had an apparatus of theft. The king in my theory would not. If he did, it would not be my theory, and, ipso facto, your complaint is irrelevant and moot.

History means nothing, start with a clean slate, we'll make up new definitions and interpretations of these systems so we can romanticize them in a better light. The president in my fantasy isn't corrupt, therefore he never is and according to my mind I'm correct, and everyone else who has an objection based on factual evidence is wrong, because I said so.

(V). What's so bad about being a utopian? Any political theory has value judgements and any political beliefs constitute an individual's "utopianism." Pragmatically, it is true that AnCap/AnMon could not be achieved, but idealistically, they are the goal. Simply because a theory cannot be achieved doesn't render it useless.

What are the serious end goals of changing our current political system to a monarchist one? How would that be achieved?

(VI). There is no "we." "We" do not exist. Also, "we" need a counterrevolution to restore a righteous, non-taxing, libertarian monarchy. Screw what "we" move "towards"; it (big government) can go to hell. "The collective" isn't in the right.

Uh, okay?

(VII). What's wrong with Rothbardian jargon/theory, and what's with the implicit statement that Plato is somehow superior?

All you know and all you rely on is Rothbard. I never said Plato was superiour, but you're talking about monarchism and kings as if you know all about it. Ironically, Rothbard detested Plato, and Plato is what you need to read.

(IX). Stop being a nihilistic libertine, and commit to principles and ideology. Who cares what others think about your (or my) ideas, which you seem to value so highly as a collectivist.

My emotional response is "LOL WUT?" Nihilistic libertine who cannot commit to principles and ideology and that cares what others think about my ideas that I value as a collectivist? You are so off the mark I don't even know what to think. I guess I struck a nerve with you, and if I did so be it. "Nihilistic libertine" is a good one.

How's this, I don't give a damn what you or someone else thinks of my "ideology," and better yet it's far from collectivist and far from being a nihilistic libertine. Nothing of my post is suggestive of either, but you don't see welcoming to criticism or that someone's questioning the holy Rothbard.

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

Autolykos — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:54:25 GMT

RothbardsDisciple:
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).

What definitions of "authority" and "power" are you using?

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

Autolykos — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:53:21 GMT

Aristippus:
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.

That's all the better for her, I'd say. Staying in the shadows means (all other things being equal) that people are less likely to attack you, because they're less likely to realize that you're really running the show.

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

Autolykos — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:48:33 GMT

Clayton:
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.

This. At least in a technical, legal sense, the British monarch owns all of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, and all the other Commonwealth countries. The land is literally all hers in terms of ownership, according to the laws of the UK, the Commonwealth, and probably also international law. The ownership that others are said to have is a deception. Elizabeth II refers to Parliament as "My Government" because that's exactly what it is - it's the institution for governing (i.e. managing) her property. It's effectively a corporation where she's the single shareholder.

Feudalism never really left - the fiefdoms just got bigger.

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

Autolykos — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:43:00 GMT

gotlucky:
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.

You forgot the really bad leaders - the ones who attract people through deception and then aggressively coerce them against leaving.

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

Autolykos — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:40:32 GMT

Clayton:
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.

I don't know what you mean by "the general sense". I personally have no desire for someone to tell me what to do all the time. Maybe that's not what you mean though.

Leadership isn't really a thing one possesses. It's a matter of what others think. Another way to put it is that a leader can't "exist" without followers. When people stop following someone, it can be very troubling for him - especially if he's very used to people following him. He may have come to regard his leadership as an entitlement. If so, then if people stop following him, he may see it as them literally taking something from him that he believes he literally owns. Hence he would think they're literally obligated to follow him, thus justifying any coercion he uses against them to that end.

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

Autolykos — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:30:07 GMT

Aristippus:
The medieval Irish seemed to have understood it. So too modern Australians.

My understanding is that the medieval Irish kings were military commanders - the Irish túatha were (tribal) states in that sense. There was also at least one chief priest for the native Irish religion.

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

RothbardsDisciple — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:46:15 GMT

Also "past kings" have nothing to do with this, since they had an apparatus of theft. The king in my theory would not. If he did, it would not be my theory, and, ipso facto, your complaint is irrelevant and moot.

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

RothbardsDisciple — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:21:33 GMT

(I). Sure, a president doesn't necessarily have to lead a state as per Rothbardian definition. But that's not what I believe in.

(II). I know the world doesn't revolve around Rothbard. And? I never claimed it did, nor do my beliefs revolve solely around him.

(III). No, it's not the exact same State; it's a different definition entirely.

(IV). Empirical data is uneccesary in political theory/economics, and all these theories should be a priori. Politics is necessarily a value judgement and needs no "proof," just theory. The proof is the theory.

(V). What's so bad about being a utopian? Any political theory has value judgements and any political beliefs constitute an individual's "utopianism." Pragmatically, it is true that AnCap/AnMon could not be achieved, but idealistically, they are the goal. Simply because a theory cannot be achieved doesn't render it useless.

(VI). There is no "we." "We" do not exist. Also, "we" need a counterrevolution to restore a righteous, non-taxing, libertarian monarchy. Screw what "we" move "towards"; it (big government) can go to hell. "The collective" isn't in the right.

(VII). What's wrong with Rothbardian jargon/theory, and what's with the implicit statement that Plato is somehow superior?

(IX). Stop being a nihilistic libertine, and commit to principles and ideology. Who cares what others think about your (or my) ideas, which you seem to value so highly as a collectivist.

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

Bert — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:13:52 GMT

"The monarch = the state."

Just because the monarch has been the head of the State, neither implies that he always will be the head of the State, nor that this is intrinisically his role. (Unless we are definining "State" traditionally: see below).

Just because the president is the head of the State, neither implies that he always will be the head of the State, nor that this is intrinisically his role. That make sense?

Also, from the OED: "In early use, a sole and absolute ruler of a state. In modern use, a sovereign bearing the title of king, queen, emperor, or empress, or the equivalent of one of these. (Ordinarily, a more or less rhetorical substitute for the specific designation of the person referred to.)"

For one thing, the modern use says nothing about the monarch being ruler of a State. (Not that this really matters for my point).

Again, as I previously stated, it's symbolic, archetypal, fitting into some tripartite heirarchy, that in reality is just that, a symbol, and may be devoid of actual substance in modern context, but if that's the case we don't need a real monarch sitting in a "seat of power," simply just an idea you can hold in your head.

Finally, in traditional terms, the idea of a "State" did not match the Rothbardian definition. "When 19th-century writers referred to "the State," they did not necessarily mean what anarchocapitalists mean. They may have meant something more fundamental, such as the principles according to which people implicitly regulate their mutual affairs, which principles they more or less accurately express in a legal code."

It might be a surprise to you that the world doesn't revolve around Rothbard. Grasp that for a second.

So the King would lead an actually legitimate -- not corrupt -- State, in the traditional sense. "Absolute ruler of a state," in no way implies that a King must lead a group that steals from the people and has an aggressive monopoly on initiatory force.

So the King IS the head of the State in an Anarcho-Monarchist world, just not the State you were thinking of.

No, it's the exact State, you are just trying to avoid your fictional projection of your "perfect state" being anything but, the thing is you are trying to strawman the argument that your State wouldn't be like other States, that it would be perfect, that it wouldn't be corrupt - you have no proof. This is all theory. If past kings were so glorious we wouldn't have found ourselves moving away from them. Stop trying to romantice the past and just accept it for what it is.

As I've told you before, read Plato's Republic, and drop the Rothbardian jargon.

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

gotlucky — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:52:23 GMT

Tolkien was somewhat anti-state.

Re: Anarcho Monarchism?

John Ess — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:43:08 GMT

The website of the OP is funny to me. Because it just seems to be the opinions of the website owner, rather than an actual intellectual point or movement. It seems to be just a fantasy. In my opinion, it is as stupid as thinking a politician is going to come to save you.

"a throwback to the Tory Anarchism of Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Evelyn Waugh."

There was never any such thing as Tory Anarchism, and none of these people were anarchists.

"This blog advocates a 'Gentlemanly' form of Anarchism"

Haha. Every word of this sentence is hilarious.

"All of my political beliefs stem from my religious beliefs and cannot be severed from them."

Then no need to argue. Jesus says anarcho-monarchism is right, as we all know. In exactly those words. And since everything in the Bible is true, it must also be true. Well, I'm convinced.