User Tag List

Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Libertarianism works best under monarchy?1600 days old

  1. #1
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist TheMask's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-09-20 @ 21:51
    Join Date
    2015-03-12
    Posts
    1,826
    Gender
    Age
    25
    Race
    Negroid
    Metaethnos
    Black
    Ethnicity
    Black American
    Politics
    SJW Mangina
    Religion
    Agnostic Occultism
    United States African Union(OAS)

    Post Libertarianism works best under monarchy?

    I've been reading monarchist stuff for some time and find it interesting. i found an interesting blog post about why libertarians should be monarchist
    Yes, it is true that libertarian monarchists exists and, in the past, I was surprised at how often I encountered them. In the past, I have touched on how the very monarchical Middle Ages was perhaps the closest the world has ever come to the totally privatized society that many libertarians dream of. What is prompting this second look at the subject is the number of times since then that I have seen libertarians express amazement at the very notion of a libertarian monarchist. Whether libertarianism is your cup of tea or not is besides the point here, there should be nothing all that shocking about the idea of a libertarian being a monarchist. It is a school of thought that is not inherently contradictory to monarchy in the way that communism or socialism is (socialism being communism for slow learners). After all, socialism is about making everyone equal, treating everyone the same and using the power of the state to eliminate any sort of discrimination. Granting that there are monarchies today which are highly socialistic, at its core this is obviously something that is contradictory to the very nature of monarchy which, let us face facts, is based on a certain amount of discrimination, that everyone is not the same and will not be treated exactly the same.

    Libertarians, on the other hand, who support pure capitalism, accept as well that total equality is impossible and not even desirable. They accept that, in a free market, some will do better than others, some will have more, others less, and as a result of competition, ‘the cream will rise to the top’ as they used to say. Some may choose to be dishonest about it or try to cover it up with republican sounding language, but the fact is that it is inherent in any capitalistic system that there will be a natural elite that emerges. That is true for anything, and even the most socialistic, communistic governments that ever failed all still had an elite but they always deny it or try to explain it away as being only temporary. Libertarians accept that some will succeed, some will do better and so there will be inequality in any free society. In fact, I am rather surprised that any libertarian would look disdainfully on monarchy at all. Not every monarchist is a libertarian certainly (many would shudder at the notion) but every libertarian should be a monarchist if they were to take their own ideas to their ultimate, logical conclusion. Given that most libertarians accept and understand the inherent inequality their ideal system would create, that they have no problem with this and even celebrate it as a positive thing, it should be more surprising that any would still express egalitarian sentiments when it comes to the idea of monarchy.

    Based on what I have seen, this usually comes down to the idea that, since libertarians think anyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want, it is absurd to say they do not have the right to choose their head of state. I must confess, that sort of “logic” never made sense to me. I thought libertarianism was about having the right to make decisions for yourself, not for other people. That is what democracy is all about; 51% of the herd making decisions for the other 49%. Voting on the head of state is making a choice that will affect not only you but others as well. At the very least, you are telling two men what they will be doing with the next four years of their life (or however long the term of office may be). I thought libertarianism was about the freedom to make choices that affect you and not making choices that will affect others. In fact, the “logic” of making the top job determined by democracy always seemed to me to go against the core principles of libertarianism. If anything, it seems the exact opposite of what libertarianism should be all about. If one of the core, fundamental principles of libertarianism is that an individual is superior to a collective, I fail to see how there is anything libertarian about letting individuals decide everything and yet when it comes to deciding who should hold the position of head of state still insisting that that decision must be left up to the collective.

    After all, no libertarian worth his salt would say that decisions in a company should be made by the democratic will of the workers at that company. Libertarians would agree that property controlled by an individual will fare better than it would under the control of a collective, therefore it only stands to reason, according to libertarian principles, that a country should be governed by an individual rather than a collective as well. One libertarian who has pointed this out, quite admirably, is the economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his work, “Democracy: The God that Failed”. He has, for some time now, made the case that traditional monarchies were governed far better than democracies because a monarch is, or at least sees himself as, the “owner” of his country and takes care of it as diligently as one would one’s own property whereas the democratically elected politician is only a temporary caretaker of a country and works only to loot as much from it as he can, while he can, before his term in office is over. As Hoppe explains it, monarchy is a private form of government while democracy is a collective form of government and, as a libertarian, he finds monarchy superior for that reason. He also has history and economic patterns to support him, particularly if one looks at the traditional monarchies of the Middle Ages when “government” was miniscule, taxes were intermittent to non-existent, spending was low, war debt was about the only kind of debt there was and even wars themselves were fought in a limited fashion by monarchs who had specific objectives and who did not wish to waste their armies which were expensive to train, equip and maintain.

    Libertarians also heavily emphasize the right to private property and certainly there should be no room for debate that democracy is more detrimental to private property than monarchy. Since the days of ancient Greece it has been known that democracies fail once people discover that they can vote themselves the property of others. The takers drain the producers dry and society collapses as a result and this always happens because, whether it is a direct democracy or a representative democracy, politicians learn just as quickly that the way to attain and hold on to power is to take from the minority and give to the majority. No one ever voted against a politician who promised them more free stuff. On the other hand, while nothing is absolute, a monarch is in an inherently superior position to safeguard private property even if only for his own sake. As King Charles I said in his final statement at his trial, in defending his own rights, he was defending the right of every subject to that which was legitimately his own. If the majority is allowed to take from the minority, what would stop them from taking from the monarch as well? He is, after all, the ultimate minority as there is only one monarch. Nothing, so the monarch would wish to prevent that from ever happening.

    In fact, one could argue that a traditional monarchy is the only way a libertarian country could be ruled because every other system involves the rule of a collective of various sizes whereas individual leadership on a national level can only be exercised by a monarch or a dictator. For those inclined to think a dictator might be better, think again. A dictator is driven by political ideology and usually does not pass on his leadership to his own blood. Some have, such as in Syria and North Korea, but they are still tied to deeply flawed political ideologies. Now, if your imaginary dictator is without a political ideology and has a dictatorship that is hereditary, one would be forced to ask exactly how that is different from an old fashioned absolute monarchy. Certainly, it would require some extremely precise splitting of hairs and, in that case, can be consigned to the bin of those things which have no substance to them at all and are only introduced to a conversation to cause difficulties and disputes over terminology.

    Today, there is no country that could be considered a libertarian paradise. Many countries are moving or have moved in a more libertarian direction on social issues (legalizing prostitution, drug use, homosexuality, gambling and abortion) but very few have moved consistently in a libertarian direction on the economic front but have, on the contrary, clung to the ideas of mixed economies or socialist economies with central planning, state redistribution of wealth, high taxes and large amounts of regulation. Yet, on the economic front, none can dispute the success of such monarchial micro-states as Monaco and Liechtenstein or autonomous dependencies of monarchies such as the Cayman Islands or the Isle of Man. These countries have very low taxation, very low regulation and all the ensuing economic freedom has made them fabulously wealthy places. They also have a monarch who rules them directly or a representative of a monarch to treat them with benign neglect (and don’t knock it, Hong Kong became the envy of Eternal Asia through benign neglect). In the case of Liechtenstein and (possibly more so) Monaco, being the Sovereign Prince has often been compared with being the owner of a large company. Such companies must be well administered as they are both very prosperous and have populations that certainly do not feel oppressed, who are pleased to be able to keep the fruit of their labors and who overwhelmingly support their monarchies and are not dissatisfied with the amount of power held by their prince.

    The problem, it seems, is that many people, even many libertarians, have it ingrained in their minds that democracy=liberty and thus a libertarian should oppose monarchy and support democracy. In fact, democracy is no guarantee of personal liberty nor is it an effective check on state power. The President of the United States today has more power over the lives of his “fellow citizens” than King Louis XIV of France ever had over his subjects. Democracy is only a method of choice and contrary to what so many seem to think, personal freedom can quite easily be voted away in a democracy. In The Federalist Papers No.25, American “Founding Father” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” This is true and it is exactly why democracy has brought about far greater tyranny than traditional monarchies ever did or ever could. The closest the world ever came to a privatized society was in the monarchical Middle Ages and while it is, in theory, at least possible that a more libertarian society could come about in a monarchy, it is impossible to believe that a democracy could ever be libertarian when everyone is always just one vote away from having it all come crashing down. Again, not every monarchist must be a libertarian (I am not one and am not trying to convert anyone to it) but, given the facts, every libertarian should certainly be a monarchist.
    i am to lazy the bold all the importing stuff so read it yourselves
    http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/20...-monarchy.html

    would you mind live under a king/queen? personally i would not even if it was "absolute". here is a nice video about monarchism
    "A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots." - Marcus Garvey

    "The most disrespected woman in America, is the black woman. The most un-protected person in America is the black woman. The most neglected person in America, is the black woman" - Malcolm X

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  3. #2
    Established Member
    Race Realist Lemminkäinen's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-05-25
    Posts
    10,656
    Location
    Helsinki
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    I1-L258
    mtDNA
    H39
    Phenotype
    Appalachid
    Metaethnos
    Finnic-Baltic-Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Finnish
    Politics
    Vandalism in Rome
    Finland European Union

    Default

    That blog text doesn't make sense at all. Probably the writer have never read philosophy or social science, or is simply a dumb person, being not able to understand modern societies.
    Blog: http://terheninenmaa.blogspot.fi/, with essence "Believe me, or I'll nuke you".

    H39 - Thracia 1650 BC, Hungary 5000 BC
    I1 - Transdanubia 5000 BC

    Three simple facts about Finns:
    1. Baltic Finnic languages (including Finnish) never came from the Volga basin along with ancestors of present-day Finns.
    2. Finnish I1 (around 30% of all Finns) has Germanic roots from the late Bronze Age or the early Iron Age.
    3. As to the Finnish prehistory we have no evidences about any Iron Age (or later) east-to-west migration, but many unquestionable evidences about west-to-east migrations.

    Väinämöinen - R1a
    Lemminkäinen - I1
    Joukahainen - N

  4. #3
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Windischer's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-07-27 @ 11:50
    Join Date
    2014-01-12
    Posts
    506
    Location
    Kaschau
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Human
    Ethnicity
    None, cosmopolitan
    Phenotype
    Alcoholic
    Politics
    Liberal
    Religion
    None, atheist
    NATO European Union Czechoslovakia Slovakia European Union NATO

    Default

    Libertarianism doesn't "work", it's a utopia.
    BTW the difference between a parliamentary and absolute monarchy is quite vast, like between a democratic republic and a dictatorship.
    Last edited by Windischer; 2015-05-07 at 10:35.

  5. #4
    Established Member
    Turboslavic Caveman Pioterus's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-07-30 @ 07:14
    Join Date
    2010-12-21
    Posts
    2,511
    Location
    Lasy Pomorza
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b2a1a1 (A2423+)
    mtDNA
    U3a1a(1)
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Politics
    laissez faire
    Religion
    Metalhead
    Poland Lithuania Grand Duchy

    Default

    Janusz Korwin-Mikke

    Janusz Korwin-Mikke's economic views are radically liberal, in the classical sense of the word; in the U.S. his views would be best described as libertarian conservative.[citation needed] He frequently refers to such figures as Frédéric Bastiat, Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher. Korwin-Mikke is a self-declared monarchist and thinks that democracy is the "stupidest form of government ever conceived"[10] where "two bums from under the beer booth, have twice more to say than the university professor".[11] He claims that "This leads to stupidity, defraudation and corruption" and "this is how the Athenian democracy ended".[11]
    EDIT: He runs for president of Poland, elections will be held this weekend.

    Here's the Presidential runners debate, in polish

    http://wyboryprezydenckie.tvp.pl/198...zydenckie-2015



    Last edited by Pioterus; 2015-05-07 at 10:50.
    and the IEEE Milestone for breaking the Enigma Code goes to... Polish Cipher Bureau 1932-39

    “We know each other,” he agreed. “They say that you follow in my steps.”
    “I go my own way. But you, you had never, until just now, looked behind you. You turned back today for the first time.”
    Geralt remained silent. Tired, he had nothing to say. “How... How will it happen?” he asked her at last, coldly and without emotion. “I will take you by the hand,” she replied, looking him straight in the eye. “I will take you by the hand and lead you across the meadow, through a cold and wet fog.” “And after? What is there beyond the fog?” “Nothing,” she replied, smiling. “After that, there is nothing.”
    ― Andrzej Sapkowski
    Świat się zmienia, słońce zachodzi, a wódka się kończy [The world is changing, sun is setting and we're running out of Vodka.]
    ― Andrzej Sapkowski

  6. #5
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Windischer's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-07-27 @ 11:50
    Join Date
    2014-01-12
    Posts
    506
    Location
    Kaschau
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Human
    Ethnicity
    None, cosmopolitan
    Phenotype
    Alcoholic
    Politics
    Liberal
    Religion
    None, atheist
    NATO European Union Czechoslovakia Slovakia European Union NATO

    Default

    liberal =/= libertarian

  7. #6
    Established Member
    Turboslavic Caveman Pioterus's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-07-30 @ 07:14
    Join Date
    2010-12-21
    Posts
    2,511
    Location
    Lasy Pomorza
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b2a1a1 (A2423+)
    mtDNA
    U3a1a(1)
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Politics
    laissez faire
    Religion
    Metalhead
    Poland Lithuania Grand Duchy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Windischer View Post
    liberal =/= libertarian
    He is definitely not going full steam libertarian, fex - the polish forrests privatisation should be allowed only at a point, when there is a class of filthy rich polish people who can afford buying them in huge chunks etc...

    Yet he wants to legalize all drugs while being himself conservative catholic (while fathering some of his children out of wedlock he he, one quite recently, he's 70 yo now!)
    Last edited by Pioterus; 2015-05-07 at 11:18.
    and the IEEE Milestone for breaking the Enigma Code goes to... Polish Cipher Bureau 1932-39

    “We know each other,” he agreed. “They say that you follow in my steps.”
    “I go my own way. But you, you had never, until just now, looked behind you. You turned back today for the first time.”
    Geralt remained silent. Tired, he had nothing to say. “How... How will it happen?” he asked her at last, coldly and without emotion. “I will take you by the hand,” she replied, looking him straight in the eye. “I will take you by the hand and lead you across the meadow, through a cold and wet fog.” “And after? What is there beyond the fog?” “Nothing,” she replied, smiling. “After that, there is nothing.”
    ― Andrzej Sapkowski
    Świat się zmienia, słońce zachodzi, a wódka się kończy [The world is changing, sun is setting and we're running out of Vodka.]
    ― Andrzej Sapkowski

  8. #7
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Windischer's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-07-27 @ 11:50
    Join Date
    2014-01-12
    Posts
    506
    Location
    Kaschau
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Human
    Ethnicity
    None, cosmopolitan
    Phenotype
    Alcoholic
    Politics
    Liberal
    Religion
    None, atheist
    NATO European Union Czechoslovakia Slovakia European Union NATO

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pioterus View Post
    He is definitely not going full steam libertarian, fex - the polish forrests privatisation should be allowed only at a point, when there is a class of filthy rich polish people who can afford buying them in huge chunks etc...

    Yet he wants to legalize all drugs while being himself conservative catholic (while fathering some of his children out of wedlock he he, one quite recently, he's 70 yo now!)
    But this thread is about libertarianism.

  9. #8
    Established Member
    Dubious Honour of 2nd-most Posts alfieb's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-07-06
    Posts
    10,295
    Location
    War-torn New York City
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Mediterrone
    Ethnicity
    Northwestern Sicilian
    Phenotype
    Altanto-Med+CM/Berid
    Italy Sicily-II United States Argentina

    Default

    There are many strands of libertarianism.

    Full-blown right-libertarianism is incompatible with monarchy. Oligarchy, yes. Monarchy, no. It's called minarchism after all, which despite the similar name has little in common with monarchism. Minimal state. Minimal governance.

  10. #9
    Wiki Editor
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2012-08-01
    Posts
    1,189
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    E--V13 (dad's)
    mtDNA
    H
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Celto-Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celtic Southron
    Politics
    Orbán-esque

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pioterus View Post
    Yet he wants to legalize all drugs while being himself conservative catholic
    Hence the running joke that libertarians are basically just conservatives who like to smoke pot and watch porn.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Blodeuwedd For This Useful Post:

    NixYO (2015-05-09), Pioterus (2015-05-10)

  12. #10
    Established Member
    Master procrastinator JaM's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-30
    Posts
    4,843
    Location
    East Doggerland
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Doggerlandic
    Ethnicity
    South Norse
    Phenotype
    Kostenkioid
    Politics
    Relativism
    Religion
    None
    Denmark Viking Finland Spain Castile

    Default

    The idea that there can be anything resembling libertarianism in an absolute monarchy is laughable. There's no fucking FREEDOM in an absolute monarchy at all, and freedom does not just mean financial freedom. In any case, the absolute monarchies pretty much invented state taxes, which they inherited from the church.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JaM For This Useful Post:

    Pioterus (2015-05-10), Windischer (2015-05-09)

Similar Threads

  1. Liberalism and Libertarianism, what's the difference?
    By EliasAlucard in forum Libertarianism & Capitalism
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2017-11-19, 09:05
  2. Monarchy, Democracy and the Decline of Civilization
    By Hue-man in forum Historical Ideologies
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 2017-11-08, 22:30
  3. how evolution works
    By Kwestos in forum Evolution
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 2017-08-10, 13:30
  4. Libertarianism, Corporatism, and Capitalism
    By Unome in forum Libertarianism & Capitalism
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2013-01-20, 06:59
  5. Oligarchy, Monarchy and the First States
    By Hue-man in forum History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-02-25, 19:49

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<