Consider this devil's advocacy. Part of an essay I was working on that wasn't going anywhere.
The Case for Monarchy
1. Large democratic republics will ultimately be governed by a moneyed, self-serving de facto aristocracy.
2. Nations with powerful monarchs are not the problem; for all of the House of Saud's faults it is easier to deal with them than with “Presidents” in the Middle East.
3. A King provides a good standard: if it is unacceptable for a King to do it, it is also unacceptable for a democratically-elected government to do it; equality means people are equally free, not that they have equal opportunity to oppress each other.
4. Separation of powers doesn't make sense. Otto von Hapsburg views the King as the supreme judge, who must have executive power to enforce his decisions, and the power to veto legislation that violates the Constitution or natural law.
5. Monarchy blunts the ambition of the unscrupulous; even the most powerful person in government will be but an employee of the King – and can be fired by him.
6. The King has no "special interest;" his welfare depends on the welfare of the entire nation. He thus provides a balance between the masses and the elite.
7. A royal family is tangible; a flag is but a symbol, “nation,” “fatherland,” and "the people" are abstractions without form; a royal family provides the form. It is better to fight for someone you know than for an ideal.
8. If the nation's debts are the king's debts, overspending is unlikely and the money will be sound.
9.The success, welfare, freedom, and security of the king depends on the success, welfare, freedom, and security of the nation he governs, like a sole proprietor of a business. Employees of the business know their ultimate standard for proper stewardship of the business is how it benefits its sole owner. Politicians will only gain fame and look good if the King looks good, and the King looks good only if the country is governed well.
10. In this age of liberalism, the people will be suspicious of an arbitrarily-chosen King. The King would be reluctant to do too much.
11. The people would not accept a King's request for high taxes. A king, being the "landlord," will more likely raise revenue the sensible way, by taxing land values instead of wages.
12. If there is indeed a royal race of shape-shifting, blood-drinking, reptilian Luciferians descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene running the world through secret societies, it would be healthier to end the secrecy and just make it official.
James Leroy Wilson's one-man magazine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
You're right: it wasn't going anywhere.
ReplyDeleteHard to refute something like this. It's like running to catch up with a sled, already headed down hill, to give it another push. But...
> The Case for Monarchy
>
> 1. Large democratic republics will ultimately be governed by a
> moneyed, self-serving de facto aristocracy.
>
Oh man. Here I go and make an effort and this is the first out of the chute?
A comparison argument suits: "Large democratic republics" can be replaced by any currently standing form of government and not make this statement more or less true. Therefore this statement is meaningless. Whew. Caught the sled.
> 2. Nations with powerful monarchs are not the problem; for all of the
> House of Saud's faults it is easier to deal with them than with
> "Presidents" in the Middle East.
>
Factless, yet tempting. Is it easier to deal with the House of Saud? Wahabbists, terror funding, oil-based eco terrorism... as opposed to.. well, what exactly to Assad do for or to us? Egypt? Their President has led them *out* of the game of statist posturing. Whoops: guess that ruins the absolute truth of the statement.
> 3. A King provides a good standard: if it is unacceptable for a King
> to do it, it is also unacceptable for a democratically-elected
> government to do it; equality means people are equally free, not that
> they have equal opportunity to oppress each other.
>
Wow. A King that is equal to his subjects. That's, erm, new. Actually, Kings aren't standards. They're kings. They do what they want and you obey. Or die. Hence the word, "King".
Damn, you hit an ice patch and beat me down the hill. Equal to the King... ha.
> 4. Separation of powers doesn't make sense. Otto von Hapsburg views
> the King as the supreme judge, who must have executive power to
> enforce his decisions, and the power to veto legislation that violates
> the Constitution or natural law.
>
"Separation of powers doesn't make sense"? Actually it makes a lot of sense. Especially to those who've lived under unified powers. And really, would a King hesitate to violate natural law - or would he simply reinterpret it since he's God's Divine Will On Earth? My man, you've got a quick sled.
> 5. Monarchy blunts the ambition of the unscrupulous; even the most
> powerful person in government will be but an employee of the King –
> and can be fired by him.
>
LOL. See also:
1) Giving guns to the angry blunts their anger.
2) Giving money to the greedy curbs their greed.
3) Giving food to the obese satiates their appetite.
4) Giving drugs to addicts sobers them up.
> 6. The King has no "special interest;" his welfare depends on the
> welfare of the entire nation. He thus provides a balance between the
> masses and the elite.
>
*If* this statement re: human nature were true, you would have no qualms with a representative democracy: for the representative's continued power depends upon the support of his/her district. HOWEVER....
"[The King] provides a balance between the masses and the elite."
Yeah, I would've enjoyed high school much more if I'd skipped history classes, too.
> 7. A royal family is tangible; a flag is but a symbol, "nation,"
> "fatherland," and "the people" are abstractions without form; a royal
> family provides the form. It is better to fight for someone you know
> than for an ideal.
>
Does this actually count as an argument? I guess not if I don't respond to it.
> 8. If the nation's debts are the king's debts, overspending is
> unlikely and the money will be sound.
>
Crikey: what did I get myself into? Clearly you've replaced your saucer sled with an iron toboggan. Actually, the King'll go to war to steal someone else's money. After all, it's better to fight for someone you know than for an ideal.
> 9.The success, welfare, freedom, and security of the king depends on
> the success, welfare, freedom, and security of the nation he governs,
> like a sole proprietor of a business. Employees of the business know
> their ultimate standard for proper stewardship of the business is how
> it benefits its sole owner. Politicians will only gain fame and look
> good if the King looks good, and the King looks good only if the
> country is governed well.
>
Great analogy... well, *if* the business owner can execute you for not coming to work. Other than that, though, really well thought out. The King looks good when everyone around him agrees aloud that he looks good. They'll do so, won't they, bearing in mind Stupid Point (tm) #5
> 10. In this age of liberalism, the people will be suspicious of an
> arbitrarily-chosen King. The King would be reluctant to do too much.
>
Press: Timmy, you've just been given absolute despotic power: what're you going to do now?!!!
King Timmy: Uh, not too much. People are suspicious of me.
*Advisor whispers in ear*
King Timmy: I'm having the suspicous killed then I'm invading DisneyLand!!!
> 11. The people would not accept a King's request for high taxes. A
> king, being the "landlord," will more likely raise revenue the
> sensible way, by taxing land values instead of wages.
>
Yeah... King's have this *thing* about "not accepting". You must've waxed the iron skids.
> 12. If there is indeed a royal race of shape-shifting, blood-drinking,
> reptilian Luciferians descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene running
> the world through secret societies, it would be healthier to end the
> secrecy and just make it official.
>
Well, you've certainly made it offal, at least.
I am flattered that you thought this piece so dangerous as to take the time to refute it.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, this was devil's advocacy.
Actually, these were thoughts on writing a piece about conservatism. I think that conservatism to be coherent, it must be monarchist. But I am not a conservative. The piece is here:
http://partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=2007