NationStates Jolt Archive

Is this even possible? What would you think of it or how would it work?

I don't think it's possible. The principle of Monarchism is contrary to Libertarianism, IMHO.

A monarch that only allows laws relating to harm would surely be a libertarian monarch.

I think its an interesting idea at least and I think I remember a book where Libertarianism takes hold in England and the king adds "Anarch of the Commonwealth" to his titles.

Libertarianism and monarchy are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. In fact, I believe that an extremely liberal monarchy would be a highly effective form of government. Establishing and sustaining such a government may be impossible though.

I don't think it's possible. The principle of Monarchism is contrary to Libertarianism, IMHO.
A constitutional monarchy. The king cannot expand the government to control the lives of others and is responsible for law and order.

Libertarianism and monarchy are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. In fact, I believe that an extremely liberal monarchy would be a highly effective form of government. Establishing and sustaining such a government may be impossible though.
Agreed. I can be reasonably certain I'd do a good job, but I can't take any responsibility for these white devils.

A thought that has crossed my mind is that freedom must be protected from the masses because they often restrict it, but the political aristocracy is often too arrogant to protect liberty becasue they are always worried about their next term.

It would probably be the most sustainable form of minarchist government. A minarchist democracy wouldn't last because people are too easily manipulated into voting more power(read money) to the government and its benefactors. A monarch, maybe brought up and indoctrinated to maintain freedom in the nation, would be much more efficient and effective at maintaining liberty, especially if some sort of check against his authority existed(like having a weak military hold on the country).

Libertarianism and democracy have little to do with each other, as it is hardly a libertarian thing to do to vote to determine what happens with your neighbors property, life, and liberty.

It would probably be the most sustainable form of minarchist government. A minarchist democracy wouldn't last because people are too easily manipulated into voting more power(read money) to the government and its benefactors.
Politicians are only concerned about their limited reign. They must pass whatever legislation that they can to gain votes quickly. I do not mean to sound harsh, but the average person usually doesn't mind restricting the freedom of others. Politicians often do this to gain votes. It's the problem with ensuring freedom.

bump

It would probably be the most sustainable form of minarchist government. A minarchist democracy wouldn't last because people are too easily manipulated into voting more power(read money) to the government and its benefactors. A monarch, maybe brought up and indoctrinated to maintain freedom in the nation, would be much more efficient and effective at maintaining liberty, especially if some sort of check against his authority existed(like having a weak military hold on the country).

It is the checks against a politicians authority that cause them to be ineffectual. The perfect government would be one that is completely benevolent yet have complete authority. You know, like God.

It is the checks against a politicians authority that cause them to be ineffectual. The perfect government would be one that is completely benevolent yet have complete authority. You know, like God.
But alas, that will never happen. I think I lean more towards a Constitutional monarchist libertarian, something similar to the UK or Canada.

A monarchy? I don't like it on principal...

But I suppose it could coexist with libertarianism if it was a constitutional monarchy, with checks against the government's power.

Why do you need checks? Well let me demostrate that by replying to Vittos' suggestions that a "completely benevolent" government with "complete authority" is best.

Regardless of the sovereign's will to use the its authority to usurp the basic rights of the people, it will nevertheless have that power. What you have then isn't an effective government with a free populace, but an oppressive government with a pleasant facade. Although not exercised, the government has the power to revoke the government's libertarian stance and the corollary rights that would thereby be granted to the populace. Essentially, the society as a whole is making the following statement, "Our King is supreme, and owes nothing to his subjects, but by his mercy and compassions he is allowing us to life freely and retain property, though all property is ultimately his."

Any Liberal or even Objectivist who assents to a benevolent monarch is abandoning principles for convenience.

A constitutional monarchy that had checks against it, thre aboslutely must be some lest it turns into Czarist Russia, that protect liberty and the principles of freedom. There would be an elective body to check the monarch and the monarch to check the parliament. The monarch would not be bound by the political will of the moment, but could not do as he or she pleases because s/he hasn't the power.

But alas, that will never happen. I think I lean more towards a Constitutional monarchist libertarian, something similar to the UK or Canada.

Yeah, God couldn't even maintain that sort of government, so how could man?

As for me, I will always support a constitution democracy, it is much easier for a monarch to overstep his constitutional bounds than an elected representative.

A libertarian monarchy is possible in principle. Libertarianism only demands that a certain set of rights is protected; it has nothing to do with how those rights are protected. Indeed, an absolute monarch personally dedicated to such principles would be their most effective protector. Of course, finding a line of such people is the hard part, making it a rather volatile system.

I would say that a pure democracy is second only to a dedicated tyrant in the least likely form of government to be libertarian. The masses tend to want to make everything either compulsory or prohibited.

Well, this depends on what you mean by 'libertarian'. I'm a monarch could theoretically reign over a country that is socially and/or economically libertarian.

I presume you're referring specifically to American Libertarianism.

A constitutional monarchy that had checks against it, thre aboslutely must be some lest it turns into Czarist Russia, that protect liberty and the principles of freedom. There would be an elective body to check the monarch and the monarch to check the parliament. The monarch would not be bound by the political will of the moment, but could not do as he or she pleases because s/he hasn't the power.

Well that sounds good. But let's go one step further. You know what's better than a monarch limited in action? A monarch limited by time to execute action. Why? Well because the monarch's power, simply by his ability to remain a monarch for is life, is so much greater than that of a body who changes constantly. A politically able monarch could bide his time, build popularity with the people, wait for an election in the legislature to swing his way, and then set up any policy he wanted. A monarch who had limited time, however, would have to pick and choose his policies. He would also be forced to enforce whatever the legislature set into law. After all, his successor might enforce the new policies anyway, and being difficult could get him out of office faster.

So then, we want monarchs that are constantly rising and falling. But what's the best way to do that? Royal family civil war? That's messy. But wait a minute, if we already have the institutions in place to elect a legislature why not just have the people elect their king? Afterall, what's the sense in having one family's views held in such regard that they must have a powerful actor always in place within the government.

So then we have a monarch who is replaced on a regular basis and is elected by the people, and who checks and is checked against the legislature and... :eek: wait a minute...

Nikitas,

As I said in the prior post, I don't agree with a monarchy because I don't trust it represent the rights of the people.

However, I am a liberal in that I would like to see all of society's regulation come from the people, with society's maintenance coming from the government. For a government to not cross the line between maintenance and regulation, it would likely have to be completely benevolent. The most efficient government for societal maintenance would be a government with no checks to its authority. I only eliminate political rights because they would be unnecessary as social policy would be in the hands of the people directly.

So my espousing of a completely benevolent monarch is meant to further my principles as a liberal.

However, I am a liberal in that I would like to see all of society's regulation come from the people, with society's maintenance coming from the government. For a government to not cross the line between maintenance and regulation, it would likely have to be completely benevolent. The most efficient government for societal maintenance would be a government with no checks to its authority. I only eliminate political rights because they would be unnecessary as social policy would be in the hands of the people directly.

OK, with that distinction between maintaining society and regulating society then a monarch with complete authority to maintain society but benevolent so as not to attempt to regulate society makes more sense.

However, I still have a couple of problems with such a system.

First, benevolence isn't neary enough of a guarantee for me to allow a monarch. The monarch would have to have clear, legal, limits placed on his ability to use power to regulate as opposed to maintain regulations.

Second, you can't entirely seperate regulation from maintenance because you will need to regulate the maintenance. Therefore, yet another check is necessary on the monarch's ability to maintain society, the check that the people decide what is an appropriate way to enforce the laws.

Now, if you agree with the statements I just made then there is no real need for further discussion because we are of the same mind and the only problem is the phrase 'complete authority' which we each understood in a different way.

-snip -
I am aware of that, but I look at the UK and Canada and see less corruption in the government than in the US, although the the governments of the UK and Canada do not nake decisions with which I agree (most of the time), I apply that with liberalism and I see that it could work.

It reminds me of this joke I heard about the fictional ideology of anarcho-monarchism, which had the slogan "For kings, against kingdoms".

Yes it's possible. I mean it's like the Libertarian Police State form of gov here on NS. As long as the dictator/monarch is a Libertarian and acts like it, it's certainly possible to implement.

Course it would suck. A lot. But it's possible.

It reminds me of this joke I heard about the fictional ideology of anarcho-monarchism, which had the slogan "For kings, against kingdoms".
Wasn't that an invention of Salvador Dali?

OK, with that distinction between maintaining society and regulating society then a monarch with complete authority to maintain society but benevolent so as not to attempt to regulate society makes more sense.

However, I still have a couple of problems with such a system.

First, benevolence isn't neary enough of a guarantee for me to allow a monarch. The monarch would have to have clear, legal, limits placed on his ability to use power to regulate as opposed to maintain regulations.

Second, you can't entirely seperate regulation from maintenance because you will need to regulate the maintenance. Therefore, yet another check is necessary on the monarch's ability to maintain society, the check that the people decide what is an appropriate way to enforce the laws.

Now, if you agree with the statements I just made then there is no real need for further discussion because we are of the same mind and the only problem is the phrase 'complete authority' which we each understood in a different way.

Yes, I think we are agreed. In a perfect world, the government would have no authority over the people whatsoever, so when I say a monarch with complete authority, I mean complete authority over the administration of government.

And you are correct that benevolence is not quite exclusive enough, as most socialists are benevolent, but still wish to regulate society.

But alas, that will never happen. I think I lean more towards a Constitutional monarchist libertarian, something similar to the UK or Canada.

The British monarchy is useless. Period. And about as liberal as...a...a very unliberal person in a cynical mood.

I personally think that a libertarian monarchy would not be possible, if one truly believes in the doctrine of libertarianism. Allow me to explain. Central to the libertarian school of thought is the general mistrust of the government to solve societies problems. Now, a democracy (I will refer to the American democratic-republic govt system just as an example) contains inherent protections against most corruption, such as a separation of powers (especially a separate judiciary), and an ability for govt officials to be yanked out of office by a mandate from the people. However, all of these failsafes will disappear under a monarchy or oligarchical system of government because the power is held in only a few hands. For a libertarian, who distrusts government and believes power corrupts, a person who has absolute or near absolute power would corrupt absolutely. So while the monarch COULD theoretically give a wide variety of freedoms to people, it would still be his/her decision only, and that fact alone is authoritarian and would deprive the people the ability to make decisions. So, I don't think it's possible.

Is this even possible? What would you think of it or how would it work?
No. Some of the established monarchies, like those of Europe, may work with liberatarianism because the monarchs are so benign, and are really like giant celebrities. But new monarchs would be an invitation to centralizing power, something that, say, the Queen of England doesn't do.

I think a lot of you are missing the issue. You're debating benevolent monarchs and constitutional monarchical democracies and the compatibility of libertarianism and monarchy. That's fine, but I think the real libertarian objection would have something to do with the existence of a separate legal designation for an individual based on heredity. No self-respecting libertarian would support a monarch, however constitutionally limited, who inherits his or her position and legal power. Also, monarchs, having that separate legal designation from 'commoners' that I discussed earlier, possess titles from birth. (Sometimes titles mean land, but for the purpose of my argument, let's ignore that.) Titles sort of suggest that some people are intrinsically better than others.

No. Some of the established monarchies, like those of Europe, may work with liberatarianism because the monarchs are so benign, and are really like giant celebrities. But new monarchs would be an invitation to centralizing power, something that, say, the Queen of England doesn't do.
Your probably right there. It would have to be a tradition. In the US democratic-republicanism is a tradition.

Also, I was talking a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute, the figure head could be elected such as the one in Malaysia.

It's possible to have a monarch who allows the people to do practically whatever they want (libertarian), yes.

Your probably right there. It would have to be a tradition. In the US democratic-republicanism is a tradition.

Also, I was talking a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute, the figure head could be elected such as the one in Malaysia.
Constitutional or not, monarchs are people who elevate themselves over society, and can choose others to elevate. Yet in a liberatarian system, all humans must be equal under the law. It doesn't work if one person can remain more powerful than you.
Though I do concede that you bring up a point with Malaysia. I would just wonder, though, what perks he has, and what titles of nobility, if any, can he grant. Then it couldn't work.

Constitutional or not, monarchs are people who elevate themselves over society, and can choose others to elevate. Yet in a liberatarian system, all humans must be equal under the law. It doesn't work if one person can remain more powerful than you.
Though I do concede that you bring up a point with Malaysia. I would just wonder, though, what perks he has, and what titles of nobility, if any, can he grant. Then it couldn't work.
I see your point. The government that I had in mind would not allow the monarch to appoint titles of nobility, he would represent the nation's history and such and would be elected for life. There would be a parliament that would have limited powers. I am trying to think of a way to protect freedom from being restricted, but finding the best workable system for such is difficult.

It's possible to have a monarch who allows the people to do practically whatever they want (libertarian), yes.

There have to be safeguards to protect liberty in government. There's no check on a benevolent dictator other than his or her own desire to protect liberty. That's not enough for any libertarian. See, it's not that libertarians place more importance on the form of government than what the government does. It's just that libertarians recognize that the smaller and more limited the government, the greater the chance the government won't infringe on liberty. Or, if it tries, its small size won't allow for any serious violation of natural rights. Also, a smaller government is easier to overturn. The right to revolution is a big issue for libertarians.

So, again, libertarianism is about the creation of a government designed to protect natural rights, but practically speaking, libertarians see constitutional democracies (or republics) as the best bet. Constitutional monarchies aren't libertarian because of the issue I raised earlier about a separate legal designation based soley on heredity which entitles the holder to certain privileges and power not accessible to the rest of society. There's no way that's libertarian.

I see your point. The government that I had in mind would not allow the monarch to appoint titles of nobility, he would represent the nation's history and such and would be elected for life. There would be a parliament that would have limited powers. I am trying to think of a way to protect freedom from being restricted, but finding the best workable system for such is difficult.
That's fine, though that's more of a figurehead than a monarch. In any case, I think it would work best in a traditional society that has a rich and long history.

That's fine, though that's more of a figurehead than a monarch. In any case, I think it would work best in a traditional society that has a rich and long history.
If it did allow for powers, s/he would be elected for life, but the office would not be heriditary.

If it did allow for powers, s/he would be elected for life, but the office would not be heriditary.

Wouldn't that basically defeat the purpose of the monarchy?

If it did allow for powers, s/he would be elected for life, but the office would not be heriditary.

Then I fail to see how that'd be a monarchy at all other than receiving the title "king" or "queen."

Then I fail to see how that'd be a monarchy at all other than receiving the title "king" or "queen."
You're right, er. Now I feel foolish. What would you suggest?