tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post5304806542021747388..comments2024-03-16T01:00:19.876-05:00Comments on The Mad Monarchist: A Mad Monarchist Political StatementMadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-12888269747230111772015-03-20T18:56:50.734-05:002015-03-20T18:56:50.734-05:00Any actual libertarian would probably punch you in...Any actual libertarian would probably punch you in the nose for calling what I outlined "libertarian". Would it work in a big country? I don't know, it's never been tried but I don't see what difference more land or people would make to basic math. More needs to go out, but then more would be coming it, just a matter of adding zeros. I also don't see how modern technology would necessitate state intervention. I have internet, electricity, indoor plumbing etc and all without any local council being involved. Just took some private companies and my bank account to make it all happen.<br /><br />As far as bubbles go, thinking that politicians are necessary to protect you from economic problems is exactly what causes most economic problems. I have yet to see a really bad bubble burst that wasn't caused because of state intervention propping up their big business buddies to create the bubble in the first place.<br /><br />German Federation -what's that? Never heard of it. First Reich, German Confederation, North German Confederation? All of the above would be rejected by every social democrat I ever heard of for having private property rights and hereditary monarchs. Now, Bismarck, in the German Empire, did institute arguably the first social welfare state but clearly it won no lasting support from the actual social democrats.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-87079926390707253532015-03-20T14:55:09.838-05:002015-03-20T14:55:09.838-05:00Your Madness, on that topic I'm a little hazy....Your Madness, on that topic I'm a little hazy. Whilst I can see how the libertarian small-government low-tax laissiez-faire system works in small areas of land as you've just listed - a small country doesn't need a large police force, large army, large education system ect.; I'm struggling to understand how it would apply to a country the size of France or Germany. Wouldn't a bigger land area imply bigger spending naturally? Or would the taxes simply be controlled on a city-level and put to use by the city they came from whilst residents took care of their local roads and street lights and things? <br /><br />I can understand why both spending and taxes were low in the Middle Ages through to the 17th Century when there was less advanced technology available and street lighting consisted of a compulsory flaming torch outside your house at night; but in these modern times of the internet, macadamised roads, indoor plumbing, sewers, electricity, telephones and so forth; how would such things be implemented if not by a local council?<br /><br />I suppose on a local level they could be funded by shareholders as the railways were in the 1830s upwards. Ordinary people building and owning a monument as great as the Pyramids of Giza that they could all use functionally was a great achievement. But even the railways turned into a bubble that burst.<br /><br />I'm not sure how such a laissez-faire state with policies like those you and Ignisforte describe, but the size of Germany, France or Sweden could protect its subjects from such financial bubbles and things.<br /><br />Whilst I know from history that the German Federation was an example most similar to the libertarian system as a whole, I'm under the (most likely mistaken) impression that each little state was a socialist democratic system at heart?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01213961089630422298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-40717083517242615702013-08-12T17:11:41.764-05:002013-08-12T17:11:41.764-05:00Silly me, I forgot to include a link to the site I...Silly me, I forgot to include a link to the site I just mentioned! Here it is: https://www.facebook.com/ChristendomRebornAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14148584087910957605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-72832380222012446142013-08-12T17:10:38.958-05:002013-08-12T17:10:38.958-05:00I must say, MM; your views are anything but mad th...I must say, MM; your views are anything but mad though I whole-heartedly enjoy how you take the way the truly "mad" republicans and populists of today call you mad and wear it like armor. If Monarchy is insane, in this man's humble opinion, let madness take me! You have a staunch supported in me and the N.I.R.S., the group I manage and lead. The numbers are small now, but numbers don't matter when you fight under the banner of the Divine.<br /><br />If you could peruse it, I would be most honored. It's a work in progress. Even if you don't like what you see, I implore you to keep a watch on it. I would be most grateful if you would.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14148584087910957605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-73280053603797110722013-05-14T00:03:59.037-05:002013-05-14T00:03:59.037-05:00That's fine, just a link bank is all I require...That's fine, just a link bank is all I require for non-English websites.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-39350114743903881392013-05-13T09:40:29.795-05:002013-05-13T09:40:29.795-05:00Dear Mad Monarchist,
This is a very well written ...Dear Mad Monarchist,<br /><br />This is a very well written and reasonable article which I appreciate the most. I am a contributor of a hungarian monarchist portal, "Regnum!" and if you don't mind, I would like to translate your article to the hungarian language and publish it in our website. <br /><br />We have some increasing popularity in recent times, and the readers wants us to expose our concrete political conception. We pretty much share your views and principles of the nature of the ideal monarchy. Unfortunately this type of monarchy is almost impossible to restore in our times but it could serve as an ideal to achieve. I think your blog contains the best monarchist articles which I have ever red, so if it would not trouble you I would like to ask permission for possible further translations.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825914500046073697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-33887937536925998032012-11-21T17:09:04.222-06:002012-11-21T17:09:04.222-06:00I misspoke, i don't want a nobility with the d... I misspoke, i don't want a nobility with the de facto power, or a nobility with 50% of power, in fact i am an absolutist , it should be like a train, king, nobles, and commoners, each with rights and obligations. With "ruling class", I meant the group from which comes most of the bureaucrats, although I am not opposed to a commoner being a minister if he is good at that.<br /><br />A nobleman should only be expelled from the group in special circumstances, it is suposed that they he worthy unless he proves otherwise with his actions. I am against the existence a "litmus test" to be confirmed in the nobility, if you are a son of nobles you are noble.<br />Argentinian Monarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03107723966145524623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-22510832694983406262012-11-21T15:54:42.051-06:002012-11-21T15:54:42.051-06:00I'm all for a traditional aristocracy (all cou...I'm all for a traditional aristocracy (all countries have them, whether they admit it or not) but I would not want them to be "a real ruling class". If the monarch is to share power with them it should only be if their contribution to the state justifies it. I don't care about giving them more power or priveleges, they would have a great deal more of both if the socialists would just stop punishing them in their desire to enforce "equality" on everyone. I would also have a problem with the "unworthy" being expelled. A monarch, as the fount of honors, can, of course, strip someone of their title if they do something terrible but I don't think there should be any litmus test for them. Once a hereditary title is given it becomes the property of the owner and passed on to their heir regardless of whether or not anyone else thinks he is worthy.<br /><br />The knights, I agree other than they being held superior to the nobility. My only real problem with the existing knighthoods of today are that they are given to unworthy people from rock stars to comedians (even republicans).MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-54237430115542014622012-11-21T15:04:24.768-06:002012-11-21T15:04:24.768-06:00MM: What you think of the idea that the aristocrac... MM: What you think of the idea that the aristocracy, more than just a remarkable club, is a real ruling class that shows the best of society and its values, you have certain rights (to be determined), to offset the burden of being the rulers of society (with great power comes great responsibility).<br /><br /> Also within the nobility should have another category,superior of course, the knights, with its own hierarchy and extra privileges, should be a social and military elite that embodies the same values of medieval chivalry, these gentlemen would have two options or be military men or knights castle, and the military would stimulate even more privileges to that group. To become a knight should show that they have at least half plus one of the knightly virtues and should demonstrate, when ordered knights would have to take an oath similar to the medieval knights.<br /><br /> Anyone worthy of being a noble could nobility, and anyone unworthy of being a noble would be expelled, the nobility would be hededitary and all the childrens of a noble would be from the group, no matter if they have a landed title (which would give no rights to such land), but being a knight wouldn't be hederitary.<br /><br /> Just an Idea that i wanted to comment.<br /><br /> Hi from Argentina.<br /><br />Argentinian Monarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03107723966145524623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-20262314266992483432012-08-18T13:12:46.733-05:002012-08-18T13:12:46.733-05:00That's for readers I know personally, who I do...That's for readers I know personally, who I don't have to worry about being offended or outraged by anything I say.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-94093539112382902012-07-07T21:54:48.775-05:002012-07-07T21:54:48.775-05:00Some thoughts regarding the operation of foreign p...Some thoughts regarding the operation of foreign policy:<br />Having lived overseas I have seen personally the merit in what you are saying in regards to imperialism. Part of the present problem is the belief that each people is entitled to their own state and that no foreigner, especially white, should have any say in the affairs of areas outside their own homelands. Part of the reason for this is certainly mistaken American foreign policy which has since Wilson pushed the idea of the nation-state in all corners of the world. To back this up, the UN give every state its own seat regardless of size giving tiny nations hugely disproportionate power which is usually exploited by various blocks at the UN thereby strengthening positions that are often quite damaging. As is well known the states with their finances together foot the bill. I too detest the word “globalism”. All too well it is known how African states have fared since independence. They have hardly fit the concept of the nation-state and yet the imperial powers were pushed towards granting them independence by oftentimes external pressure. Many things could have been done much better if there had not been the 1960s independence bonanza. At least if aid had not been dished out as though it were obligatory the dependency syndrome would not be such a problem. As you said a monarch operating a constant foreign policy holds much advantage to the republican system of foreign policy.Peter of Carolinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12331475019309810452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-18515001690912810592012-07-07T00:35:17.642-05:002012-07-07T00:35:17.642-05:00It does seem to be working quite well in Monaco, L...It does seem to be working quite well in Monaco, Liechtenstein, the Cayman Islands and the few other areas where it has actually been tried.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-50544765875601002852012-07-07T00:09:44.593-05:002012-07-07T00:09:44.593-05:00Honoring and protecting property is the beginning ...Honoring and protecting property is the beginning of liberty. Life and liberty stream from property. If one's property is dishonored, then his life and liberty are dishonored. Life, liberty, and property are entwined, thus they cannot be separated. If one is disconnected from the three, then the whole will fall. If both the monarch and the subjects respect the above principle, then the kingdom as a whole will thrive. The subjects will become wealthy, prosperous, and charitable; likewise, the monarch becomes wealthy, prosperous, and charitable. If history teaches us anything, then heavy taxation and vast government hinder progress, prosperity, happiness, and charity. Liberals of all flavors detest property, thus they will grab or oppress it anyway they can, especially in the course of taxation. Low taxation, minimum regulations, and protection of property will make any civilization thrive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-45488511666115340012012-07-05T18:04:43.485-05:002012-07-05T18:04:43.485-05:00Respecting private property is not the same thing ...Respecting private property is not the same thing as taking a laissez-faire attitude toward everything. As I said, I think the government must restrict things that are clearly and demonstrably harmful. I just don't worry as much about medicine that doesn't work or food that is unsafe as I do think the market will ensure that such peddlars go out of business and that the government doesn't do a terribly good job at regulating them anyway. The types of restrictions I think of is more in the area of companies that trade with enemy nations, sell weapons to terrorists or undercut their own countrymen -that sort of cut-throat capitalism. On education, I suppose I might care more if not for the fact that government education, in my experience, is worse than usleless in many cases. I would "encourage" all people to go to Church and let the Churches fund and manage their own educational institutions. A talented poor child who is eager to learn could also look for a patron amongst the aristocracy to fund his education at a private school in return for working for him a set amount of time afterwards. As long as the education is effective and not teaching treason and self-hatred I really don't care who runs it.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-70473988193951273632012-07-05T12:44:01.541-05:002012-07-05T12:44:01.541-05:00Here's another predicament that I ran into. I ...Here's another predicament that I ran into. I really like the laissez-faire approach that you mention. But I can also see where government involvement is rather necessary. Limited regulations on certain things is important when market forces most likely aren't strong enough to control it (we don't want cheap, ineffective medicine, unsanitary food, etc). Also, public education, especially for the nation's poor, is important. I'm still struggling for myself on to what extent I would want government in my ideal society. Do you have any opinions on the matter?Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09628303888538311728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-86754833267933551272012-07-04T00:17:55.672-05:002012-07-04T00:17:55.672-05:00You will have to ask someone smarter than me for t...You will have to ask someone smarter than me for the answer to that one. It varies from place to place of course but in Great Britain for example, the reality there seems to be that if a law is not invoked or if powers are not used they become void after a certain point. The Queen, for example, technically has the right to veto bills but since no monarch since Queen Anne has actually used that right it is considered to no longer exist for all intents and purposes. In most cases though it is a matter of practical reality. Monarchs may legally have the power to do X, Y or Z but they know that if they did there would be an immediate backlash with cries of tyranny and the monarchy would promptly be abolished. Most exist in a sort of stalemate. <br /><br />As such, it is not that monarchs ever gave up all their powers. Their powers were weakened and removed slowly over time or, where their powers remain, they are prevented from using them by the threat of the monarchy being abolished forever. Republics are widespread but the republican mindset is even moreso -unfortunately.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-71852972308706762952012-07-02T21:38:42.145-05:002012-07-02T21:38:42.145-05:00I have no prejudice against success if that's ...I have no prejudice against success if that's what you're asking. I'm all for a hereditary nobility but, of course, the first to hold a particular title almost always earned that title through some great work. I would prefer to see more people raised to the nobility because of their achievements than by cronyism as is the case all too often in Britain today with the ridiculous "life peers".MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-25883002588697244782012-07-02T18:58:09.928-05:002012-07-02T18:58:09.928-05:00A very interesting read. You managed to more or le...A very interesting read. You managed to more or less sum up my own views of society in a much more concise, powerful, and engaging manner than I could do.<br /><br />What are your opinions on socioeconomic mobility? Naturally you are against moving out of one's absolute position, but I assume the independence of this system allows people to make of their lives what they will while encouraging charity on the part of all. I agree that the nobility and the monarch ought to be hereditary positions, but others are free within their respective domains, given fair practices.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09628303888538311728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-4696548955841405122012-07-02T13:35:14.416-05:002012-07-02T13:35:14.416-05:00Mad Monarchist, Please make a reddit account so yo...Mad Monarchist, Please make a reddit account so you join my monarchy forum at www.reddit.com/r/monarchism We would love to have you there. But beware, reddit has a large atheist communo-republican majority so ignore theother forums that aren't monarchist or christian.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14564857917753619185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-30934920244861509682012-07-02T09:50:39.704-05:002012-07-02T09:50:39.704-05:00The smallest and fairest government I can think of...The smallest and fairest government I can think of is the following (influenced by the Creed of Freedom).<br /><br />That every subject has the right of life, of liberty, and of property, which shall not be taken away from him by any other subject, nor by any number, group, majority, or collective of other subjects; therefore, each subject exists by his own right for his own sake, not for the sake of the group, majority, or collective. Therefore, the monarch shall not sacrifice the life, liberty, and property of any subject for the alleged rights of any group, majority, or collective of subjects.<br /><br />That the monarch shall protect each subject from another subject and from the covetousness, emotion, and irrationality of any group, majority, or collective of subjects.<br /><br />That the proper role of the monarch is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive; and absolute, not arbitrary. The monarch shall protect, not provide; for if the monarch is granted the power to provide, then he must also be able to take and that always leads to plunder and loss of liberty. If the monarch is powerful enough to give everything, then he also will be powerful enough to take everything. Therefore, one of the proper functions of the monarch is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of his subjects.<br /><br />That every subject shall be equal under the law; likewise, neither any subject nor any class shall be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause, thus to favor one subject or one class over another subject or class is not equality under the law. Therefore, the monarch shall neither approve nor enforce any law that does not apply to all his subjects equally.<br /><br />That all desirable political, social, and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary and mutual action among the subjects than by coercion of law; that common tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and benevolence than by coercion of law; and that those subjects in need are better served by charitable trusts and organizations than by coercion of law. Therefore, the monarch shall neither approve nor enforce coercion for any purpose, except to protect life, liberty, and property of his subjects.<br /><br />I would be most gracious to live under a monarchy as above. The entire kingdom benefits, i.e., the subjects will be laborious, prosperous, and charitable; likewise, the monarch will be protecting, prosperous, and charitable. Unfortunately, the above example monarchy would not become known because our world is so entrenched in liberalism, socialism, and communism. Everyone wants to rob the life, liberty, and property of Peter to pay for Paul and for themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-15359119890680710912012-07-02T07:00:54.441-05:002012-07-02T07:00:54.441-05:00One of your best rants yet M.M.
Monarchy is the i...One of your best rants yet M.M.<br /><br />Monarchy is the ideal small government, you don't have 36789 bureaus breathing down your neck to "do and contribute whats right for society."<br /><br />Instead you have an Absolute representative of the people, the monarch, charged with the well being of his/hers Nation, People and Culture. <br /><br />With the Monarch ruling the nation justly everyone has more Liberty. To me that is the key word "liberty", the liberty to live our your life without the government forcing you to hand over your well earned livelihood to the undeserving so the welfare state can continue to churn out more "equal" servants of the people I.E. Bureaucrats.<br /><br />So be for Liberty, Not Equality. Free yourself from the burdens of Democratic Kelptocracy.<br /><br />Be a Monarchist!Kc Lionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466253913797380767noreply@blogger.com