Libertarian Monarchy?

[denison]

I'm thinking about politics in a minarchist/voluntaryist system and how to steamline the whole process.

In this voluntaryist system the small government would be funded entirely by user fees, donations, Non-Profit run businesses.

Would you support a libertarian monarchy, that would have a monarch, appoint officials for goverance of local districts or regions. The only vote the public would have is to dismiss the official if he does a poor job. There would be no term limits. He or she could stay in office as long as their district is satisfied with their performance.

Now the benefits of a "dismissal only" vote would be to save the money and time it takes to campaign and elect officials.

A "no-term limit" system would offer the same benefits Hans Hoppe talk about in Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy......long-term stability vs. short-term spending.




The defining characteristic of private government ownership is that the expropriated resources and the monopoly privilege of future expropriation are individually owned. The appropriated resources are added to the ruler's private estate and treated as if they were a part of it, and the monopoly privilege of future expropriation is attached as a title to this estate and leads to an instant increase in its present value ("capitalization" of monopoly profit).

Most importantly, as private owner of the government estate, the ruler is entitled to pass his possessions onto his personal heir; he may sell, rent, or give away part or all of his privileged estate and privately pocket the receipts from the sale or rental; and he may personally employ or dismiss every administrator and employee of his estate.

In contrast, in a publicly owned government the control over the government apparatus lies in the hands of a trustee, or caretaker. The caretaker may use the apparatus to his personal advantage, but he does not own it. He cannot sell government resources and privately pocket the receipts, nor can he pass government possessions onto his personal heir. He owns the current use of government resources, but not their capital value.

Moreover, while entrance into the position of a private owner of government is restricted by the owner's personal discretion, entrance into the position of a caretaker-ruler is open. Anyone, in principle, can become the government's caretaker.

From these assumptions two central, interrelated predictions can be deduced:

1. A private government owner will tend to have a systematically longer planning horizon, i.e., his degree of time preference will be lower, and accordingly, his degree of economic exploitation will tend to be less than that of a government caretaker; and
2. subject to a higher degree of exploitation, the nongovernmental public will also be comparatively more present oriented under a system of publicly owned government than under a regime of private government ownership.




http://mises.org/daily/4068
http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_1/15_1_1.pdf (monarchy and war)

[Wesley123]

What if the People want to assert their independence? In a republic, we merely vote in new officials. Sure, there are things we could do to make that system better, but it works to the extent it is allowed to work. In a private monarchy, how do we strip the king of power?
To say that monopoly power should be privately owned or even hereditary is totally adverse to the ideal of popular sovereignty.

[Monarchist]

To say that monopoly power should be privately owned or even hereditary is totally adverse to the ideal of popular sovereignty.

That's the point.

[ChaosControl]

I'm in as long as I'm in the royal family.

Go Prince Chaos!

[tremendoustie]

I'm thinking about politics in a minarchist/voluntaryist system and how to steamline the whole process.

In this voluntaryist system the small government would be funded entirely by user fees, donations, Non-Profit run businesses.

Would you support a libertarian monarchy, that would have a monarch, appoint officials for goverance of local districts or regions. The only vote the public would have is to dismiss the official if he does a poor job. There would be no term limits. He or she could stay in office as long as their district is satisfied with their performance.

Would he perpetrate agressive violence against people who've never harmed anyone, in order to extort money from them and force them to live according to his personal preferences?

If so, then no. If not .... doesn't exactly sound like a monarch to me ;)

[Monarchist]

Would he perpetrate agressive violence against people who've never harmed anyone, in order to extort money from them and force them to live according to his personal preferences?

If so, then no. If not .... doesn't exactly sound like a monarch to me ;)

What you described doesn't sound like a monarch to me.

Libertarianism and Medieval Monarchy (http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/09/libertarianism-and-medieval-monarchy.html)

[denison]

Would he perpetrate agressive violence against people who've never harmed anyone, in order to extort money from them and force them to live according to his personal preferences?

If so, then no. If not .... doesn't exactly sound like a monarch to me ;)

there would be no taxes and no annexation of land etc...


I'm just playing with the concept and seeing how far it can go......

This is just a though experiment for me.

[tremendoustie]

there would be no taxes and no annexation of land etc...


I'm just playing with the concept and seeing how far it can go......

This is just a though experiment for me.

What would the monarch do? Why do you feel one is necessary?

[Monarchist]

What would the monarch do? Why do you feel one is necessary?

A legal system based on restitution and mediation, as was the tradition in much of Europe for hundreds of years, and contracting for defense of sovereignty.

[denison]

What if the People want to assert their independence?

All districts can have a right to secession. I believe the Canadian constitution has a provision that allows for territories to secede with majority vote.

[RedStripe]

Hoppe is terrible. Ugh. Democracy: The God that Failed was such a good title yet so full of authoritarian bullshit I cannot believe this dude calls himself a libertarian.

Libertarian Monarchy is the bastard child of the Heritage Foundation and Cato.

[tremendoustie]

A legal system based on restitution and mediation, as was the tradition in much of Europe for hundreds of years, and contracting for defense of sovereignty.

If I don't think the monarch is doing a good job of protecting me, or I have moral objections to his actions, and I withdraw my support, will he come attack me?

Are people allowed to compete with the monarch in the relms of mediation/arbitration/courts?

[denison]

What would the monarch do? Why do you feel one is necessary?

he could take care of national defense. his military would be fully private and not cost the public a dime. he could even use the hayekian private money system to finance his endeavors.

i.e.

http://mises.org/daily/1854

a monarch could also act as the final arbiter in settling disputes. he could appoint officials for lawmaking purposes(see OP).

[kkassam]

I must disagree. Democracy the God The Failed is one of the clearest pictures of pure private property anarchy.

Here's a pretty good argument (http://anomalyuk.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-ecclestone-should-have-said.html) for monarchy as a system over democracy.

[denison]

A legal system based on restitution and mediation, as was the tradition in much of Europe for hundreds of years, and contracting for defense of sovereignty.

^^^^This

[Wesley123]

All districts can have a right to secession. I believe the Canadian constitution has a provision that allows for territories to secede with majority vote.
Fine. I'll secede and set up a constitutional republic.

The People own the government. I thought that was a prerequisite for freedom? If the masses cannot choose who has power, the powerful will merely oppress the masses. Or have we forgotten that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

[tremendoustie]

he could take care of national defense. his military would be fully private and not cost the public a dime. he could even use the hayekian private money system to finance his endeavors.

i.e.

http://mises.org/daily/1854 (http://mises.org/daily/1854)

a monarch could also act as the final arbiter in settling disputes. he could appoint officials for lawmaking purposes(see OP).

How is he going to provide defense without costing the public a dime? What is going to be the source of income for the monarch?

What does "lawmaking" imply?

[tremendoustie]

the monopoly privilege of future expropriation are individually owned


Monopoly privledge of future expropriation eh? Expropriation from what or whom?

[Monarchist]

If I don't think the monarch is doing a good job of protecting me, or I have moral objections to his actions, and I withdraw my support, will he come attack me?

Are people allowed to compete with the monarch in the relms of mediation/arbitration/courts?

Medieval society was highly decentralized, with local communities handling their own affairs vis a vis courts, roads, markets, etc. The monarch was ever only a means of appeal for large land owners. Defense was handled by small, private armies of the lords for whom one could contract for defense, usually by agreeing to work his land.

[Wesley123]

Medieval society was highly decentralized, with local communities handling their own affairs vis a vis courts, roads, markets, etc. The monarch was ever only a means of appeal for large land owners. Defense was handled by small, private armies of the lords for whom one could contract for defense, usually by agreeing to work his land.

And let's not forget the fact that the masses were landed serfs with no rights.

[Promontorium]

I have written a revolutionary complete constitution. Entirely voluntary in every aspect, strong constitution forbidding the federal government to all but the most basic protections of individual rights. It affords voluntary citizenship and statehood. Voluntary participation, voluntary donations.


I understand, that when it comes to who actually sits in an office, whether it's a president, or a king, it may seem arbitrary. But even with an extensively detailed constitution, the very nature of holding a position affords some interpretation. Because of that, I believe the top positions should be elected positions. The best I can imagine to balance that potential tyranny of the majority is with a constitution that disables the option for tyranny, and with a people who have multiple forms of recourse, as individuals, court or just leaving. As masses, bigger court, voting, leaving, armed opposition (not saying an individual couldn't be armed opposition, I just know he'd lose).

[denison]

Are people allowed to compete with the monarch in the relms of mediation/arbitration/courts?

The private sector will take care of most arbitration, but the monarch's courts can be considered high courts where disputes are settled for good. Like the court of appeals.

[Modern_Matthew]

I do a lot of thinking about obtaining and retaining a libertarian society.

Allowing too much freedom for people to still condone and support candidates or monarchs that condone coercion against others may destroy the new society.

So, where do we draw the line? How do we silence and keep out of power those who want to return to statism without compromising our own principles? Can an exception be made? I still have no idea.

[RedStripe]

Yea, you appeal the high court's decision by killing the king and claiming the throne. It's a great system.

[RedStripe]

I do a lot of thinking about obtaining and retaining a libertarian society.

Allowing too much freedom for people to still condone and support candidates or monarchs that condone coercion against others may destroy the new society.

So, where do we draw the line? How do we silence and keep out of power those who want to return to statism without compromising our own principles? Can an exception be made? I still have no idea.

The problem is that you think a libertarian society has to be designed or implemented through the power structures of modern society which are, themselves, the source of oppression.

Our goal should not be to write the laws. Our goal should be to make the laws irrelevant.

[denison]

I do a lot of thinking about obtaining and retaining a libertarian society.

Allowing too much freedom for people to still condone and support candidates or monarchs that condone coercion against others may destroy the new society.

So, where do we draw the line? How do we silence and keep out of power those who want to return to statism without compromising our own principles? Can an exception be made? I still have no idea.

In some ways I think a monarch could best preserve peoples right/liberties better than any elected official can.

The longer they stay in power, through generations, the more incentive they have to do right by the people for fear of being deposed/dethroned.

In a culture like this legacy and tradition would play a big part in keeping people and the system in check.

[denison]

Yea, you appeal the high court's decision by killing the king and claiming the throne. It's a great system.

don't get your panties in a bunch. it's a discussion.

your comment wasn't rational and added nothing to the discussion. try again.

[RedStripe]

In some ways I think a monarch could best preserve peoples right/liberties better than any elected official can.

A monarch is incapable of preserving the people's liberties by definition because he/she is a MONARCH.

Hint: if you are ruled by a monarch YOU ARE NOT FREE.



The longer they stay in power, through generations, the more incentive they have to do right by the people for fear of being deposed/dethroned.

Not really. History of full of examples which show that the longer a family remains in power the more corrupt, decadent, and irresponsible it becomes.

Your fundamental error is in assuming that modern "public" government is really all that different from the nominally "private" monarchy you advocate. There is no real difference, in fact, between a public and private government. Our current government is run by an increasingly corrupt, decadent, and irresponsible class of oligarchs not unlike any system of monarchy.

[denison]

A monarch is incapable of preserving the people's liberties by definition because he/she is a MONARCH.

Hint: if you are ruled by a monarch YOU ARE NOT FREE.



First of all, in the libertarian monarchical system I'm talking about the monarch would not "rule" over you and you would not be "under" their authority. The role of the monarch would be to provide for national defense, be a final arbiter in disputes, and appoint officials for districts and regions. mkay?


I don't have an argument for your second point right now. I'm pondering.....:D

[awake]

First of all, in the libertarian monarchical system I'm talking about the monarch would not "rule" over you and you would not be "under" their authority. The role of the monarch would be to provide for national defense, be a final arbiter in disputes, and appoint officials for districts and regions. mkay?


I don't have an argument for your second point right now. I'm pondering.....:D

There is one huge contradiction in your idea, liberty can never survive under a monopoly of security and defense. The monopoly of security and defense has no way of deciding how much security is the correct amount and tends to overproduce it. Eventually the guns get turned on the "protected" when the there is a disagreement on the price to be paid to the monopolist. The U.S. Empire is an outstanding example of overproduction of security and defense due to a monopoly granted to incompetence.

Why appoint a monopolist in anything?

[denison]

There is one huge contradiction in your idea, liberty can never survive under a monopoly of security and defense. The monopoly of security and defense has no way of deciding how much security is the correct amount and tends to overproduce it. Eventually the guns get turned on the "protected" when the there is a disagreement on the price to be paid to the monopolist.

Why appoint a monopolist in anything?

why assume it's a monopoly? the monarch's job would be to provide national defense to the public for free. other firms and business could compete or offer alternative routes of security for a price.

and the nature of the monarchy would be largely symbolic for those countries who want to preserve monarchy traditions and practice libertarian ethics.

[denison]

I'm in as long as I'm in the royal family.

Go Prince Chaos!

totally missed your post.

Here's your scepter and crown:

http://www.tiaratown.com/ms3.jpg

[awake]

why assume it's monopoly? the monarch's job would be to provide national defense to the public for free. other firms and business could compete or offer alternative routes of security for a price.

and the nature of the monarchy would be largely symbolic for those countries who want to preserve monarchy tradtions and practice libertarian ethics.

Fine.. I misunderstood the context in which you use the word monarch. If all participants are free to contract and non contract then you can call the provider anything you want.

I would use a different term, as it is quite confusing.

It's kind of like saying let's have a dictator provide security services, and then stipulating that the contract clearly states that you would not have to listen to his orders if you did not want to.

[Stary Hickory]

Dude if we had a Monarch who was pro-liberty and fulfilled the proper role of government...yeah. But honestly I don't see that happening.

[tremendoustie]

I do a lot of thinking about obtaining and retaining a libertarian society.

Allowing too much freedom for people to still condone and support candidates or monarchs that condone coercion against others may destroy the new society.

So, where do we draw the line? How do we silence and keep out of power those who want to return to statism without compromising our own principles? Can an exception be made? I still have no idea.

We simply organize ourselves so as to effectively defend ourselves from aggressors -- whether common criminals, or wannabe statists (not that there really would be a difference).

[tremendoustie]

Hey, if someone wants to provide defense to the entire region for free, more power to 'em. I think the proper term might be "munificent sugar daddy" rather than monarch though ;)

[BuddyRey]

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...so long as I'm the dictator."

---George W. Bush

[denison]

Dude if we had a Monarch who was pro-liberty and fulfilled the proper role of government...yeah. But honestly I don't see that happening.

Me neither, but it's worth discussing...

[awake]

If the base of your idea is completely voluntary, then yes, you could experience what it is like to live under monarchical protection. But, once the novelty wore off, you could leave.

[denison]

Hey, if someone wants to provide defense to the entire region for free, more power to 'em. I think the proper term might be "munificent sugar daddy" rather than monarch though ;)

I'm diggin' that!


http://planetill.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/pimp-c.jpg

[denison]

If the base of your idea is completely voluntary, then yes, you could experience what it is like to live under monarchical protection. But, once the novelty wore off, you could leave.

only after a few crusade reenactments.

[denison]

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...so long as I'm the dictator."

---George W. Bush

Oh Bush...
http://www.guzer.com/pictures/bush_pimp.jpg

[erowe1]

Monarchy is an improvement over democracy.

I'd take the offer.

[denison]

Monarchy is an improvement over democracy.

I'd take the offer.

http://www.esquire.com/media/cm/esquire/images/high-five-0808-lg-76258126.jpg

PS someone posted this earlier and it's a really good read:

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/09/libertarianism-and-medieval-monarchy.html

[awake]

Monarchy is an improvement over democracy.

I'd take the offer.

It's a lesser of two evils choice.. you know the drill.

[un.privileged]

How is it a rule by a minority any better than a rule by a majority? Please enlighten me how minoritarianism is better than majoritarianism?