Tag: monarch

The Case for Libertarian Monarchism, Part Two: Monarchy and Success

By Daniel Szewc | Poland

Democracy is a failed concept. It is based on the Marxist doctrine of intellectual equality of all people, which is defied by the evolutionary principles of specialization and natural selection. Individuals vary in intelligence and in basic knowledge. In fact, in a recent poll, only 26% of Americans could name the branches of their government. These, mind you, are the people who decide, in a democracy, who the most qualified to manage government affairs.

Democracy also implies a collectivist mindset, as well as collective responsibility, which diminishes personal liberty. It is an obvious concept that for personal liberty to be practiced, personal responsibility must be applied too. But, the only way for government to have personal responsibility is via its privatization. In other words, it must become an absolute monarchy.

Monarchism is the most efficient system possible. Unlike democratic governments, a monarchy claims its power because it holds the state as private property. Often, this is implied to be God-given. Thus, it establishes property as a God-given right. Moreover, it is impossible for an absolute monarch to support socialism or communism, as both oppose hierarchy, and a monarchy is of course a hierarchy. The biggest enemy of communism, which it would favor a monarch to support, is a free, unregulated market.

Furthermore, monarchs will tend to support a free market to gain competitiveness on a global scale. Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein does exactly this. As a result, his economy thrives. A monarch looks for the best, most prosperous system, because ideological lines are not his or her goal. Rather, a monarch’s goal is to bring prosperity to the owned country.

In this case, using what past monarchs didn’t have, (Austrian school of economics’ studies and axioms) he or she would determine that a free market is the best option for the economy. For, what a monarch wants, is not to be personally rich, but rich compared to neighboring states. Of course, nothing makes your neighbors poorer than giving the firms that pay taxes to them a better deal. In turn, the neighbors, seeking the same goal, would lower taxes further.

This constant prisoner’s dilemma between the monarchs of the world would shrink governments to a fraction of their current sizes. Ultimately, the only key remaining aspects would be diplomacy, a justice system, the military and a police force. Even with these, monarchs would be seeking cost reductions. Even if the free market proves itself inferior, the systems which are most effective will still prevail. For any economic stance, a monarchy will allow for a country to truly prosper.


Featured Image Source.


The Case for Libertarian Monarchism, Part One

By Daniel Szewc | Poland

To many, the sheer idea of any government form that isn’t reduced to nothingness is incompatible with liberty. Yet, to see the full picture, we must look at it from all angles possible. In the case of government systems, the placement of power is the most important. In democracy, the power of the state is absolute, yet the state is a public entity, run by majority rule.

This is precisely presented by the fact that Adolf Hitler came to power democratically. “Democracy is the road to socialism”, as the founder of communism, Karl Marx, once said. What many forget, is that the second power in the Bundestag during the 1930’s was the Communist Party. Thus, totalitarianism in Germany was simply not possible to avoid.

In fact, any system that uses democratic measures of picking leaders is bound to fall into an étatiste (Fr. for “statist”, a term corrupted by modern English speaking anarchists) spiral, over a longer period of time. Whenever democratization occurs, in the long run, so does the expansion of the state apparatus. In Europe, on the other hand, monarchism often has lasted over a thousand years.

A democratic-like system in the USA is failing already, before it’s 300 year mark. This failing state has not faced threats from its usually peaceful neighbors in 200 years. We can see the fall of the system in the USA, by viewing it’s support for socialists like Bernie Sanders within its youth, as well as populists and career politicians for it’s older generation.
Why does this happen? The answer is simple. Whenever elections of any sort occur, conflicts of interest begin to appear. Then, the losing side lobbies to give voting rights to those who support their ideas. The more voters, the more conflicts, and so the snowball effect goes. In the end, people with no meritocratic basis get the right to vote, and strong, monarchism eventually may take over from within or from outside.

Some consider the Republican model as the best idea to preserve liberty, yet in all its forms, it assumes an elective body, and/or a constitution, which is insentient as the sovereign. In this case, since ownership of the state cannot be considered a part of the Constitution’s role, it is viewed as a passive manager of the morals (…of policies passed by sentient beings, able to manipulate words and context).

All of the above disproves two main forms of government- ones in which the sovereign is a person chosen by the majority, and one in which the sovereign can be edited and interpreted by the irrational mob that holds sovereignty. Clearly, monarchism, to be detailed more in part two, is a more secure system to protect liberty.


Featured Image Source.