Why I am a monarchist
Undoubtedly, some readers of this blog are curious as to how I came to be a monarchist. I endeavour to satisfy this curiosity.
What was I before? Like many others, I was conservative in my political philosophy and also a believer in representative forms of government. I still am quite conservative, perhaps even more so than many so-called "right-wingers" today.
What changed? I came to question and ultimately reject the cherished beliefs held by so many infatuated with representative government such as equality, equal opportunity and majority rule. Very disturbing to me is the tendency of representative governments to march ceaselessly to socialism, world government and the accompanying elimination of national borders. Very few politicians in these representative governments are alarmed at this; in fact, they are some of the most influential, enthusiastic proponents of such rot. Who in power truly cares about preserving culture, borders and national distinctiveness?
Why do I favour monarchy in particular? I would suppose a monarch would be less likely to surrender his sovereignty, even if only for reasons of self-interest, to some internationalist despots than his representative equivalents. The dynastic nature of monarchy provides some degree of stability and forward-thinking, since a monarch would like to have his name and house live on; a representative is elected only for terms and can build successful campaigns on poorly conceived "quick-fixes." The grandeur and opulence associated with monarchy are also quite appealing. Remember this form of government is thousands of years old and has been proven throughout history to work.
While I could definitely add more, this should be sufficient. Some of the subjects broached in this article will likely be discussed at length in future articles. Once those are written, I will edit this to add the links in appropriate places.
posted by Lord Feverstone | 7:17 PM
4 Comments:
>Just one question my Lord. What do you and all of the crew cuts have against globalism and world government?<
By "crew cuts" do you refer to military men? I have never heard anyone refer to a group of people by that name, if I recall correctly.
>The fact of the matter is that a unified planet would have far superior human and tangible resources than any single nation, no matter how mighty. A world government, whatever its form, is indespensable to maximum progress.<
I cannot disagree with you here, but with the potential of "maximum progress" comes the probability of maximum misery.
With nation-states, there are de facto checks and balances. A government cannot do as it pleases without fearing possible sanctions and retaliations for its actions from other governments.
When there are borders, people can vote with their feet; if one government is mismanaging its nation, people can leave and give their loyalty and tax dollars to another sovereign. The government, therefore, has at least some incentive to not drive off its subjects. Is it possible to vote with one's feet when the whole world is under the jackboot of one government?
You are undoubtedly conscious of how little national officials care about you and your concerns. It seems the higher-up the official, the more inaccessible they are. With world government, this problem would be greatly exacerbated. With a government responsible for billions, you and I would be just another face among the billions. Ideally, local governments should have the most influence over the people, not the ever-multiplying "one-size-fits-all" laws passed at the national level. At the local level, the "face-in-the-crowd" problem is not as acute; people can also vote with their feet even easier when governmental power is more decentralised.
Even if a world government begins benevolently with constitutional limitations, how can anyone guarantee this will always be so? The U.S. Government, for example, certainly pays very little heed to the titular "Law of the Land." You probably know all the examples to which I would refer. The world government would likely stray just as far from its founding principles as the U.S. Government does, and probably in even less time. After all, the temptation of wielding power over the entire world is strong.
Once the world government inevitably becomes corrupt, what remedy is there? The many different peoples living under its jackboot would hardly be well-coordinated, since the "secret police" forces would do their utmost to foster mistrust and then disorganise the resistance. It would be an extremely difficult matter to overthrow a world government.
Perhaps I might use this reply as a basis for another article. I hope you found my reasons to be thought-provoking. Thank you for taking the time to ask me.
I think your analysis of the problem is correct (government that is too centralized and large)...however I think the solution is incorrect (return to a monarchy)...
I mean if those are the few choices we have, I'd rather be under a military dictatorship. At least it's has to eventually be responsive to the soldiers, who would be the sons and daughters of its people...
All right, time for an old saw & quip:
Which do you prefer, to be devoured by a lion or gnawed to pieces by a thousand rats?
Devoured by a lion of course...
But to return to the subject Darth...if you wish to go further into this line of reasoning and do a followup post about it, a good place to start is the world of the ancient greeks. Many people don't realize that these were the earliest forms of democracy and I'm talking about the really archiac greeks like from Homer's works, not the later ones where ordinary citizens obviously did have democratic input by that time.
If you do a close analysis of the Iliad, for instance, you can see that the leaders of the Trojan invasion were mostly warriors who were selected in one form or another by the men they led.
Even Agammenon had to return again and again to his men to get validation for whatever decisions he made. Granted he didn't always listen to them, but you could see that he didn't so lightly disregard their wishes.
It wasn't like a Persian King or kings in other societies where common soldiers wishes were totally ignored unless the soldiers were in complete rebellion.
Even reading the bios of Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great, you can see that BOTH had to be approved by the common soldiers of that period BEFORE they were allowed to assume the title of King...actually Philip's nephew was really in line for the throne when the previous king died but the soldiers of Macedonia refused to accept a child as their leader.
Rightfully knowing that a child would just be a puppet for others. So they chose his Uncle Phillip as King instead...
Alexander had to go through a similar process.
Not an election as we know it today of course...instead the soldiers just lined up or grouped in a town square and raised their shields or swords or some such thing to affirm the decision.
Obviously implication if they didn't affirm you risked being put to the sword on the spot to dispute them...
Probably equivalent to a more muscular version of our Supreme Court today...
LOL...
But I think you can do a much more thoughtful and interesting post if you wanted to using the Iliad as a starting point...after all I did graduate with a major in Amer. History although I could have also had one in Ancient History as well if I wished. I just didn't feel up to the challenge of the language requirements (learning Latin or Greek)...at my age I just decided to stick with the translations.
Post a Comment
<< Home