A Monarchist Party?

[r3volution 3.0]

Plank One: "Democracy is socialism; we favor monarchy because we favor liberty."

Plank Two: "Elections are a joke and we decline to participate; you may self-destruct all by yourself."

[camp_steveo]

I mean, we can always just kill the king if he becomes a tyrant, right?

[r3volution 3.0]

A party for none and all

[heavenlyboy34]

As far as parties go, it's one of the better ones.

[Raginfridus]

There's absolutely no one - no one I know of - capable of burning away the rot of democracy and being our king, short of tomorrow's transhuman captain surmounting tides of machines bent on the annihilation of all biology. Bottom line is, we'll never take a system that makes actual sense, just the one we're familiar with because its comfortable and we're conformists.

[r3volution 3.0]

There's absolutely no one - no one I know of - capable of burning away the rot of democracy and being our king, short of tomorrow's transhuman captain surmounting tides of machines bent on the annihilation of all biology. Bottom line is, we'll never take a system that makes actual sense, just the one we're familiar with because its comfortable and we're conformists.

But Ragin, that's the whole point of monarchy.

It doesn't require a moral man, just a greedy one (and, Caligulae aside, they're all greedy).

[Superfluous Man]

Plank One: "Democracy is socialism; we favor monarchy because we favor liberty."

Plank Two: "Elections are a joke and we decline to participate; you may self-destruct all by yourself."

I like the platform. But where does the monarchy part fit in?

[Influenza]

only if i get to be caesar

[Lamp]

Tamerlane, Aurangzeb, Constantine the Second, Heraclius, Charlemagne and Vladimir the "Great" were all monarchs. That did not stop them making their armies go on desert sun induced rampages in their respective countries. It is the size of the occupied landmass and the number of citizens of that land mass that determine the states strength.

[JamesFischer]

I already suspect Baron is being groomed to be King one day.

[Raginfridus]

But Ragin, that's the whole point of monarchy.

It doesn't require a moral man, just a greedy one (and, Caligulae aside, they're all greedy).Who's going to vote for a king?:D

[r3volution 3.0]

I like the platform. But where does the monarchy part fit in?

Neither a liberal electorate (ha) nor a liberal constitution (mere paper) can be relied upon to sustain liberal governance. Liberal governance will only exist and endure if the ruler's self-interest impels him toward liberal policy, because self-interest is the only reliable human characteristic. Monarchy (or oligarchy) incentivizes the ruler(s) to pursue liberalism (at least in the economic realm) out of pure self-interest, in exactly the same way that private property incentivizes good management, contra the tragedy of the commons which results from communal property (whose political analogue is democracy). One might well call a monarchist party a "private government" party, but I find that term confusing, so I'll call it a monarchist party.


Who's going to vote for a king?:D

The purpose of a monarchist party would be to propagandize and influence but, primarily, to simply exist. If, in the midst of the collapse of the Wiemar republic, with freikorps and bolsheviks shooting one another in the street, there had been a third option, a sane and liberal option, offering stable government, that might have made all the difference.

[milgram]

Liechtenstein is a monarchy with a parliament. Quite an interesting place. The prince has written a book with some help from Hoppe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRd3IMYpqXY

https://picload.org/image/dripgplr/7355700.jpg

[r3volution 3.0]

If there's a parliament there isn't a monarchy.

A democracy with a hereditary executive is still a democracy.

To be quite clear, what I'm advocating is absolute monarchy.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Who's going to vote for a king?:D

IIRC elective monarchy has been a thing in some countries historically (Poland).

[r3volution 3.0]

IIRC elective monarchy has been a thing in some countries historically (Poland).

Indeed, but it didn't work very well (Poland having been divided by Prussia, Austria, and Russia because of total political chaos).

...though the problem wasn't so much that the king was elected, but that he had no power (liberum veto).

[Lamp]

Liechtenstein is a monarchy with a parliament. Quite an interesting place. The prince has written a book with some help from Hoppe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRd3IMYpqXY

https://picload.org/image/dripgplr/7355700.jpg


Its also has a miniscule amount of territory

[Raginfridus]

IIRC elective monarchy has been a thing in some countries historically (Poland).The US isn't Poland or Liechtenstein. We aren't going to vote for a monarch, we just like our dictators too well. That might change if we ever become undemocratic in our values.

[Lamp]

Saudi is a monarchy it is not exactly paradise for those who live there and couldn't possibly be in a lifetime in its present territorial state. You have a large shia population in the southwest and east represented by a sunni king.

[osan]

Plank One: "Democracy is socialism; we favor monarchy because we favor liberty."

Democracy is not socialism. It is rule by mood according to the mob.

Not even sure why I bother responding to such blatant inaccuracy.

[Raginfridus]

Democracy is not socialism. It is rule by mood according to the mob.

Not even sure why I bother responding to such blatant inaccuracy.You so sexy.

[osan]

You so sexy.


I know.

The crosses I must bear...

[Raginfridus]

I know.

The crosses I must bear...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M

[pcosmar]

As far as parties go, it's one of the better ones.

Nimrod for supreme leader?

Authoritarianism has been done. and is still done.

am not in favor, in this reality.

[r3volution 3.0]

Nimrod for supreme leader?

Authoritarianism has been done. and is still done.

am not in favor, in this reality.

Why do you equate monarchy and authoritarianism?

Does liberty = the right to vote (to oppress your neighbors more than the king would on his own)?

[Raginfridus]

Hogarth's Humors of an Election capture the spirit of democracy through all times:

https://static.hwpi.harvard.edu/files/styles/os_slideshow_3%3A1_980/public/histpol/files/hogart-980.jpg?m=1452818131&itok=Wt9-5zc5

The maimed veteran votes establishment, the mentally retarded vote for his rival. Nothing's changed but the clothes on their backs.

Each state must be free to decide it's government - if it wants to be a State for that matter. Sometimes I wonder why states insist on their sovereignty, when they forgo state's rights in favor of pleasing the Federalis, or neighboring governments, over their citizens, then I remember the 14th Amendment. I think most of the country would be better off administered not at all, or by monarchs or tightly restricted republics.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why do you equate monarchy and authoritarianism?

Does liberty = the right to vote (to oppress your neighbors more than the king would on his own)?
+rep

[heavenlyboy34]

Saudi is a monarchy it is not exactly paradise for those who live there and couldn't possibly be in a lifetime in its present territorial state. You have a large shia population in the southwest and east represented by a sunni king.

Bad example. Saudis are tools of the West, for one. Second, the Saudi royal family is a clusterfuck of factions and clans for complex historical reasons as well as influence of Westerners.

[Lamp]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Shivaji_British_Museum.jpg/800px-Shivaji_British_Museum.jpg

We can have a king but only if I pick the king.

[osan]

Why do you equate monarchy and authoritarianism?



www.youtube.com/watch?v=6031CxMB0WU

[pcosmar]

Does liberty = the right to vote (to oppress your neighbors more than the king would on his own)?

You are confusing democracy with liberty.

[pcosmar]

Bad example. Saudis are tools of the West, for one. Second, the Saudi royal family is a cluster$#@! of factions and clans for complex historical reasons as well as influence of Westerners.

and what Royal family isn't?

Seems a good an example as any.

[r3volution 3.0]

You are confusing democracy with liberty.

To the contrary, I was suggesting that you were doing so.


and what Royal family isn't?

Through history, the average monarchy has been much more liberal (less spending, taxing, regulating, police-stating, etc) than the average democracy. Even today (and there are only a handful of monarchies in the world), they're above average. I posted about this a few months ago at some length, comparing current monarchies and democracies on the basis of the economic freedom index. And this should be not be surprising if you do economic analysis of different forms of government. The theory suggests just what the empirical evidence demonstrates.

[pcosmar]

To the contrary, I was suggesting that you were doing so.



Through history, the average monarchy has been much more liberal (less spending, taxing, regulating, police-stating, etc) than the average democracy. Even today (and there are only a handful of monarchies in the world), they're above average. I posted about this a few months ago at some length, comparing current monarchies and democracies on the basis of the economic freedom index. And this should be not be surprising if you do economic analysis of different forms of government. The theory suggests just what the empirical evidence demonstrates.

So one Authoritarian government spends less that some other Authoritarian government,, and you think it is superior to limited government with little authority.
I don't think so,, and I question your priorities.

[r3volution 3.0]

So one Authoritarian government spends less that some other Authoritarian government,, and you think it is superior to limited government with little authority.
I don't think so,, and I question your priorities.

Define the word "authoritarian."

[pcosmar]

Define the word "authoritarian."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/authoritarian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism


Authoritarianism, principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action.

The opposite of Liberty.

and "you're Welcome."

[r3volution 3.0]

Authoritarianism, principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action

And why do you think that's more applicable to monarchy than democracy?


So one Authoritarian government spends less that some other Authoritarian government

A government which spends and taxes less is better than a government which spends and taxes more, yes.


limited government with little authority

What's that? A government with a Constitution, which is ignored?

[pcosmar]

What's that? A government with a Constitution, which is ignored?

It would be nice if it were not ignored.

Government (a nebulous thing) should have no money to spend.. so your only point, is moot.

[r3volution 3.0]

It would be nice if it were not ignored.

But they are, and inevitably so.


Government (a nebulous thing) should have no money to spend.. so your only point, is moot.

If a government has no money to spend, it doesn't exist.

So, are you advocating anarcho-capitalism?

BTW, I'm still not sure why you think monarchy is more "authoritarian" than other forms of government, if that's your claim.

[The Gold Standard]

A monarchy is better than a democracy in that when people realize they are being screwed, you just kill the king. In other words, the only way it is better, or even different, is the ease of which it can be abolished.

[r3volution 3.0]

A monarchy is better than a democracy in that when people realize they are being screwed, you just kill the king. In other words, the only way it is better, or even different, is the ease of which it can be abolished.

There's a difference in incentives, as I explained.

Suppose there are two farms, A and B.

A is owned and managed by Bob.

B is owned by no one, and managed by Steve, who draws a fixed salary.

Which farm is likely to be more profitable, and why?

[PierzStyx]

There's a difference in incentives, as I explained.

Suppose there are two farms, A and B.

A is owned and managed by Bob.

B is owned by no one, and managed by Steve, who draws a fixed salary.

Which farm is likely to be more profitable, and why?

You forgot Farm C.

C is a collection of farms really, but Fred claims the right to control all of them and demands that you swear to obey his every command for the privilege of working his fields. And if you complain too loudly he'll have his overseer, Carl, come out and kill you.


Democracy is better than monarchy. Indeed, the problem with democracy is that it more and more degrades into monarchy, with a centralized state that claims ownership of all land and the ability to kill whomsoever violates its edicts.

[r3volution 3.0]

@PierzStyx (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=33507)

Would you answer my question re Farms A and B?

As owner, Bob's income equals the profits of the farm, and so he has an incentive to maximize its profits; whereas Steve the manager has no such incentive, since his income remains the same regardless of the profitability of the farm. Isn't that true?

[r3volution 3.0]

Interesting video of Queen Elizabeth II discussing the welfare-state with Reagan in 1991


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLIJTth4jQg

"Well, you see, all of the democracies are bankrupt now...[because of welfare spending]."

[PierzStyx]

@PierzStyx (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=33507)

Would you answer my question re Farms A and B?

As owner, Bob's income equals the profits of the farm, and so he has an incentive to maximize its profits; whereas Steve the manager has no such incentive, since his income remains the same regardless of the profitability of the farm. Isn't that true?

I did answer your question. But I'll be clearer.

Farm A is an anarchist.

Farm B is socialism as you noted the land is owned by no one.

Farm C is a monarchy.

[r3volution 3.0]

I did answer your question. But I'll be clearer.

Farm A is an anarchist.

Farm B is socialism as you noted the land is owned by no one.

Farm C is a monarchy.

You're not answering the question Pierz and you know you're not.

Either my characterization of the incentives of owner-Bob as compared to those of manager-Steve is correct or it is not.

Which is it?

[pcosmar]

But they are, and inevitably so.



If a government has no money to spend, it doesn't exist.



Wrong . If a government has no money to spend it can't spend.

It can still represent the people..and have NO Authority. If the people retain that authority themselves.

[pcosmar]

Either my characterization of the incentives of owner-Bob as compared to those of manager-Steve is correct or it is not.

Which is it?

Good Question

It sounds like you are arguing the FOR ownership of Human beings.

and the Farming of them.

So,, what is your point ?

[r3volution 3.0]

Good Question

It sounds like you are arguing the FOR ownership of Human beings.

and the Farming of them.

So,, what is your point ?

My point is that a monarch has the incentives of an owner, while elected officials have the incentives of salaried managers.

That is, a monarch has an incentive to maximize state profits, while elected officials do not.

Now, what is state profit? The state's revenues minus its costs.

What are state revenues? Taxes.

How do you maximize tax revenues? In the short term, you can raise tax rates. In the long run, you need to grow the tax base.

How do you grow the tax base? Liberal economic policy.

Hence, a monarch's self-interest motivates him to implement liberal policy; elected officials have no such motivation.

[Weston White]

Democracy is not socialism. It is rule by mood according to the mob.

Socialism, however, derives from Democracy.

[osan]

Socialism, however, derives from Democracy.

I don't readily see how. Could you present the chain of devolution?

[Weston White]

I don't readily see how. Could you present the chain of devolution?

Heh, empirical history.

[PierzStyx]

You're not answering the question Pierz and you know you're not.

Either my characterization of the incentives of owner-Bob as compared to those of manager-Steve is correct or it is not.

Which is it?

Your assumptions.

Indeed, it seems clearer and clearer that there is no difference between Socialism and Monarchy.

Farms B and C are really the same farm- centrally managed socialized land controlled by an authoritarian power who enacts its will "for the good of the people" who are held in check by overwhelming threats of violence- knights, KGB agents, it is all the same- and mass propaganda. In the mean time those in power drain the resources of said land for the good of themselves and the politically connected elite, leaving just enough that the serfs can continue to propagate and provide a continual productive class for the leeches in power to feed from.

[PierzStyx]

Heh, empirical history.

There is no such thing as empirical history.

But if you believe there is then it shouldn't be hard for you to actually present said evidence.

[r3volution 3.0]

Heh, empirical history.

Indeed

As for the theory, it's just the inverse of the argument for monarchy.

The fact that liberal economic policy would grow the tax base and therefore increase state profits is of no interest to the elected politician, because he does not share in state profits; he's a mere salaried manager, whose salary is the same whether there's 10% economic growth thanks to laissez faire or -10% growth thanks to a massive welfare state. His primary motive is instead (re)election, which which means placating various lobbies. What do those lobbies want? They want as many benefits for themselves as possible, regardless of the cost to society at large.

[pcosmar]

My point is that a monarch has the incentives of an owner, while elected officials have the incentives of salaried managers.

That is, a monarch has an incentive to maximize state profits, while elected officials do not.

Now, what is state profit? The state's revenues minus its costs.

What are state revenues? Taxes.

How do you maximize tax revenues? In the short term, you can raise tax rates. In the long run, you need to grow the tax base.

How do you grow the tax base? Liberal economic policy.

Hence, a monarch's self-interest motivates him to implement liberal policy; elected officials have no such motivation.

I'm going to leave that quoted.

Just so everyone can see how truly twisted this line of thinking is.

It is what will put Lucifer on the throne.

[PierzStyx]

I'm going to leave that quoted.

Just so everyone can see how truly twisted this line of thinking is.

It is what will put Lucifer on the throne.

Indeed. There is a reason Hayek called his work about the destructive results of socialism, "The Road to Serfdom." Socialism is Monarchy and Monarchy is Socialism.

[r3volution 3.0]

@PierzStyx (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=33507) You're not going to answer my question?


I'm going to leave that quoted.

Just so everyone can see how truly twisted this line of thinking is.

It is what will put Lucifer on the throne.

:rolleyes:

For your convenience, I've simplified the argument and broken it down into its component parts.

Tell me exactly which of the parts is wrong and why.


1. A monarch has an incentive to maximize tax revenue, because that is synonymous with his own income.

2. Maximizing tax revenue in the long run requires growing the tax base (contra just raising tax rates).

3. Liberal economic policy is the best way to grow the tax base

[pcosmar]

For your convenience, I've simplified the argument and broken it down into its component parts.

Tell me exactly which of the parts is wrong and why.

Who decides who the selfish bastard is?

By what authority does he Steal taxes?

and lastly,, He increases his theft by brute force as has been done since Nimrod.

:(

[r3volution 3.0]

Tell me exactly which of the parts is wrong and why.

1. A monarch has an incentive to maximize tax revenue, because that is synonymous with his own income.

2. Maximizing tax revenue in the long run requires growing the tax base (contra just raising tax rates).

3. Liberal economic policy is the best way to grow the tax base

Who decides who the selfish bastard is?

By what authority does he Steal taxes?

and lastly,, He increases his theft by brute force as has been done since Nimrod.

:(

Once again, please tell me what specifically is wrong with the three-part argument I posted.

I'm not going to respond to your questions until do you me the courtesy of addressing what I said.

[osan]

Heh, empirical history.

That is a reference, not a presentation.

[osan]

Once again, please tell me what specifically is wrong with the three-part argument I posted.

I'm not going to respond to your questions until do you me the courtesy of addressing what I said.

His questions carry the response.

Have you no analytic subtlety?

[pcosmar]

Once again, please tell me what specifically is wrong with the three-part argument I posted.


Your entire premise is wrong.

A Monarch is nothing but a tyrant who steals and enslaves.
It is a Horrible form of Government and has always been historically.

The American experiment of limited govt, was a new and novel approach,
It has never seen a century of implementation and can not be evaluated in a historical manner.

Monarchy has a proven history of failure,

[pcosmar]

My point is that a monarch has the incentives of an owner,

How does this tyrant become the owner?

How do you OWN human being?

The only Owner of Humans is the Creator of Humans.

any other claim of authority is usurpation.

[r3volution 3.0]

Your entire premise is wrong.

A Monarch is nothing but a tyrant who steals and enslaves.
It is a Horrible form of Government and has always been historically.

The American experiment of limited govt, was a new and novel approach,
It has never seen a century of implementation and can not be evaluated in a historical manner.

Monarchy has a proven history of failure,

Ah..

As I said, this isn't for everybody.

[r3volution 3.0]

https://www.historyhit.com/wp-content/uploads/bfi_thumb/Louis_guillotine-6f3j2e6xnk7fgussgqey1f1w9n7euxza9viflibg4ox.jpg

Someone mentioned Lucifer on the throne; there it is.

...the more graphic and realistic images were burned by the "freedom fighters."

[Origanalist]

Lol, this thread got a 4 star rating? I guess I'll vote after all.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRP5cKhWsAAf-A-?format=jpg&name=small

[r3volution 3.0]

I ought to have extended the polls to more days.

[r3volution 3.0]

This is the funeral of Otto von Habsburg.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfSju3dPZ5c

[PierzStyx]

@PierzStyx (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=33507) You're not going to answer my question?



:rolleyes:

For your convenience, I've simplified the argument and broken it down into its component parts.

Tell me exactly which of the parts is wrong and why.

I've answered your question. The problem is that your assertion is a socialist fantasy. Give one person total power, collectivize the ownership of all property under their rule, and the end result will be starvation, oppression, and slavery. Just ask anyone who lived under Uncle Joe or any of his successors.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Stalin_Potsdam_1945_%28cropped%29.jpg/220px-Stalin_Potsdam_1945_%28cropped%29.jpg

[pcosmar]

This is the funeral of Otto von Habsburg.



I've seen a lot of funerals,, and even participated in some.

What is your point? or are you just a fanboy?

[r3volution 3.0]

I've seen a lot of funerals,, and even participated in some.

What is your point? or are you just a fanboy?

I thought it was interesting (esp. the overwhelming celebration).

Austrians still have some sense..

..for a dynasty that ceased to exist a century ago.


I've answered your question.

No, you haven't.

[Origanalist]

Why is this ridiculous shit in grass roots? Does RPF's now consider a monarchy relative to the liberty movement? I realize things have changed somewhat but when did a monarchy become something to be desired here?

[acptulsa]

https://www.historyhit.com/wp-content/uploads/bfi_thumb/Louis_guillotine-6f3j2e6xnk7fgussgqey1f1w9n7euxza9viflibg4ox.jpg

Someone mentioned Lucifer on the throne; there it is.

...the more graphic and realistic images were burned by the "freedom fighters."

How smugly you sit in judgment of people who knew far more than you do. It's long past time for you to go do some homework. Here's your assignment:

Go read one of the works of Marquis de Sade.

Go read a second work of Marquis de Sade.

Go read a third work by Marquis de Sade.

Come back and tell us how the French Revolution was an irrational act.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.historyhit.com/wp-content/uploads/bfi_thumb/Louis_guillotine-6f3j2e6xnk7fgussgqey1f1w9n7euxza9viflibg4ox.jpg

Someone mentioned Lucifer on the throne; there it is.

...the more graphic and realistic images were burned by the "freedom fighters."


How smugly you sit in judgment of people who knew far more than you do. It's long past time for you to go do some homework. Here's your assignment:

Go read one of the works of Marquis de Sade.

Go read a second work of Marquis de Sade.

Go read a third work by Marquis de Sade.

Come back and tell us how the French Revolution was an irrational act.

Neither side was any good.

[r3volution 3.0]

Neither side was any good.

No, the side which encouraged the development of civilization was/is better than the side which put heads on sticks.

...fairly straightforward.


How smugly you sit in judgment of people who knew far more than you do. It's long past time for you to go do some homework. Here's your assignment:

Go read one of the works of Marquis de Sade.

Go read a second work of Marquis de Sade.

Go read a third work by Marquis de Sade.

Come back and tell us how the French Revolution was an irrational act.

The Marquis de Sade was an illiterate lunatic barbarian who represented the opposite of civilization.

I'm not sure if you're kidding, but I certainly hope so.

[r3volution 3.0]

From @acptulsa (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=12430):


The 'illiterate lunatic barbarian' was on the side that 'encouraged the development of civilization' and you damned well know it.

Sade was a revolutionary communist, militant atheist, and moral degenerate ("Sadist") of epic proportions.

He sided with the Jacobins et al in their quest to destroy all property, religion, family, etc - civilization.

His modern day equivalent would be a "Black Bloc" member who also directs hardcore porn.

[lilymc]

Why is this ridiculous $#@! in grass roots? Does RPF's now consider a monarchy relative to the liberty movement? I realize things have changed somewhat but when did a monarchy become something to be desired here?

My thoughts exactly.

But I do think this topic leads to some interesting discussions. And there is one thing about monarchy that hasn't really been talked about here, so I might start a new thread on it.