Lord Feverstone's Commentary

Musings of a Christian monarchist on life, government, society, theology, etc.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

The Role of National Government

In my opinion, the primary roles of the national government are defence and regulation of trade. Our "delightful" modern governments operate under a much broader, ever-increasing mandate. In order to support these bureaucracy-heavy leviathans, the citizenry is taxed a significant percentage of income varying from nation to nation. I find this unsatisfactory.

One may ask how I can hold this viewpoint when I am a monarchist. Just because the style of monarchy I favour is absolute does not preclude me from believing in a strong but limited government. How one can implement such a government is not an easy question to answer.

How, then, will the scope of the monarchy be limited? Should one consider crafting a constitution to ensure this? No. In today's postmodern society, any interpretation is considered to be valid; the author's intent is only considered to be just one of many. Consider just how worthless the U.S. Constitution is. Does anyone really believe the U.S. government operates within its framework? How can anyone have confidence the constitution crafted will be obeyed as intended? How can anyone be sure it will be considered more than a piece of paper? The answer is one cannot be sure. The government regardless of form has to restrain itself. Democracy, a modern idol, has certainly proved to be insatiable in its appetite for more influence over the lives of its citizens. Ironically, the call for more government is as strong as ever on the street.

Why would a monarch restrain himself from exercising broad powers? He could be interested in ensuring his reign and that of his dynasty lasts long. In my experience, people seem more willing and eager to rally against a specific person rather than a body of people, hence they are more likely to hold a monarch accountable through revolution than they would a parliament, senate, etc. He could also find the less he chooses to meddle, the less work there is for him. Of course, the monarch can delegate such meddling to underlings, but why would he care to? The democracies seem to have the agenda of saving the world and therefore ensure they maintain a large influence over their society. I cannot imagine a monarch would be as enthusiastic for establishing gargantuan welfare entitlement programs, national health care, etc. than his counterparts in democracies.

I do not think the monarch should be the sole governing authority. I think there should be a noble hierarchy which aids the monarch in the administration of the country from the local to the national level.


Blogger no2fembots said...

I wrote years ago that I believe the human race will only survive if we let go of the concept of democracy, as currently practiced. Rather, we require benevolent dictatorship. Why? Look at the Chinese. More so-called democracy for them has resulted in an insatiable appetite for resources! Now, what if all the countries in the world were democratized? Every flipping human being on the planet looking to play the pursuit of happiness game - and consume, consume, consume! No, the future may be rather bleak and we'd need a form of government that can make the decisions democratically elected gov'ts can not. Like limiting family size, or limiting any so-called right of the individual for the survival of the masses. And let us never forget that, generally, the masses are asses and NEED a firm and guiding hand to lead them, just like children, really! And no, I am not being flippant. I truly think absolute power wielded by a monarch, emperor or what have you is the future face of government.

8:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home