Libertarian Monarchy

Yes, it is true that libertarian monarchists exists and, in the past, I was surprised at how often I encountered them. In the past, I have touched on how the very monarchial Middle Ages was perhaps the closest the world has ever come to the totally privatized society that many libertarians dream of. What is prompting this second look at the subject is the number of times since then that I have seen libertarians express amazement at the very notion of a libertarian monarchist. Whether libertarianism is your cup of tea or not is besides the point here, there should be nothing all that shocking about the idea of a libertarian being a monarchist. It is a school of thought that is not inherently contradictory to monarchy in the way that communism or socialism is (socialism being communism for slow learners). After all, socialism is about making everyone equal, treating everyone the same and using the power of the state to eliminate any sort of discrimination. Granting that there are monarchies today which are highly socialistic, at its core this is obviously something that is contradictory to the very nature of monarchy which, let us face facts, is based on a certain amount of discrimination, that everyone is not the same and will not be treated exactly the same.

Libertarians, on the other hand, who support pure capitalism, accept as well that total equality is impossible and not even desirable. They accept that, in a free market, some will do better than others, some will have more, others less, and as a result of competition, ‘the cream will rise to the top’ as they used to say. Some may choose to be dishonest about it or try to cover it up with republican sounding language, but the fact is that it is inherent in any capitalistic system that there will be a natural elite that emerges. That is true for anything, and even the most socialistic, communistic governments that ever failed all still had an elite but they always deny it or try to explain it away as being only temporary. Libertarians accept that some will succeed, some will do better and so there will be inequality in any free society. In fact, I am rather surprised that any libertarian would look disdainfully on monarchy at all. Not every monarchist is a libertarian certainly (many would shudder at the notion) but every libertarian should be a monarchist if they were to take their own ideas to their ultimate, logical conclusion. Given that most libertarians accept and understand the inherent inequality their ideal system would create, that they have no problem with this and even celebrate it as a positive thing, it should be more surprising that any would still express egalitarian sentiments when it comes to the idea of monarchy.

Based on what I have seen, this usually comes down to the idea that, since libertarians think anyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want, it is absurd to say they do not have the right to choose their head of state. I must confess, that sort of “logic” never made sense to me. I thought libertarianism was about having the right to make decisions for yourself, not for other people. That is what democracy is all about; 51% of the herd making decisions for the other 49%. Voting on the head of state is making a choice that will affect not only you but others as well. At the very least, you are telling two men what they will be doing with the next four years of their life (or however long the term of office may be). I thought libertarianism was about the freedom to make choices that affect you and not making choices that will affect others. In fact, the “logic” of making the top job determined by democracy always seemed to me to go against the core principles of libertarianism. If anything, it seems the exact opposite of what libertarianism should be all about. If one of the core, fundamental principles of libertarianism is that an individual is superior to a collective, I fail to see how there is anything libertarian about letting individuals decide everything and yet when it comes to deciding who should hold the position of head of state still insisting that that decision must be left up to the collective.

After all, no libertarian worth his salt would say that decisions in a company should be made by the democratic will of the workers at that company. Libertarians would agree that property controlled by an individual will fare better than it would under the control of a collective, therefore it only stands to reason, according to libertarian principles, that a country should be governed by an individual rather than a collective as well. One libertarian who has pointed this out, quite admirably, is the economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his work, “Democracy: The God that Failed”. He has, for some time now, made the case that traditional monarchies were governed far better than democracies because a monarch is, or at least sees himself as, the “owner” of his country and takes care of it as diligently as one would one’s own property whereas the democratically elected politician is only a temporary caretaker of a country and works only to loot as much from it as he can, while he can, before his term in office is over. As Hoppe explains it, monarchy is a private form of government while democracy is a collective form of government and, as a libertarian, he finds monarchy superior for that reason. He also has history and economic patterns to support him, particularly if one looks at the traditional monarchies of the Middle Ages when “government” was miniscule, taxes were intermittent to non-existent, spending was low, war debt was about the only kind of debt there was and even wars themselves were fought in a limited fashion by monarchs who had specific objectives and who did not wish to waste their armies which were expensive to train, equip and maintain.

Libertarians also heavily emphasize the right to private property and certainly there should be no room for debate that democracy is more detrimental to private property than monarchy. Since the days of ancient Greece it has been known that democracies fail once people discover that they can vote themselves the property of others. The takers drain the producers dry and society collapses as a result and this always happens because, whether it is a direct democracy or a representative democracy, politicians learn just as quickly that the way to attain and hold on to power is to take from the minority and give to the majority. No one ever voted against a politician who promised them more free stuff. On the other hand, while nothing is absolute, a monarch is in an inherently superior position to safeguard private property even if only for his own sake. As King Charles I said in his final statement at his trial, in defending his own rights, he was defending the right of every subject to that which was legitimately his own. If the majority is allowed to take from the minority, what would stop them from taking from the monarch as well? He is, after all, the ultimate minority as there is only one monarch. Nothing, so the monarch would wish to prevent that from ever happening.

In fact, one could argue that a traditional monarchy is the only way a libertarian country could be ruled because every other system involves the rule of a collective of various sizes whereas individual leadership on a national level can only be exercised by a monarch or a dictator. For those inclined to think a dictator might be better, think again. A dictator is driven by political ideology and usually does not pass on his leadership to his own blood. Some have, such as in Syria and North Korea, but they are still tied to deeply flawed political ideologies. Now, if your imaginary dictator is without a political ideology and has a dictatorship that is hereditary, one would be forced to ask exactly how that is different from an old fashioned absolute monarchy. Certainly, it would require some extremely precise splitting of hairs and, in that case, can be consigned to the bin of those things which have no substance to them at all and are only introduced to a conversation to cause difficulties and disputes over terminology.

Today, there is no country that could be considered a libertarian paradise. Many countries are moving or have moved in a more libertarian direction on social issues (legalizing prostitution, drug use, homosexuality, gambling and abortion) but very few have moved consistently in a libertarian direction on the economic front but have, on the contrary, clung to the ideas of mixed economies or socialist economies with central planning, state redistribution of wealth, high taxes and large amounts of regulation. Yet, on the economic front, none can dispute the success of such monarchial micro-states as Monaco and Liechtenstein or autonomous dependencies of monarchies such as the Cayman Islands or the Isle of Man. These countries have very low taxation, very low regulation and all the ensuing economic freedom has made them fabulously wealthy places. They also have a monarch who rules them directly or a representative of a monarch to treat them with benign neglect (and don’t knock it, Hong Kong became the envy of Eternal Asia through benign neglect). In the case of Liechtenstein and (possibly more so) Monaco, being the Sovereign Prince has often been compared with being the owner of a large company. Such companies must be well administered as they are both very prosperous and have populations that certainly do not feel oppressed, who are pleased to be able to keep the fruit of their labors and who overwhelmingly support their monarchies and are not dissatisfied with the amount of power held by their prince.

The problem, it seems, is that many people, even many libertarians, have it ingrained in their minds that democracy=liberty and thus a libertarian should oppose monarchy and support democracy. In fact, democracy is no guarantee of personal liberty nor is it an effective check on state power. The President of the United States today has more power over the lives of his “fellow citizens” than King Louis XIV of France ever had over his subjects. Democracy is only a method of choice and contrary to what so many seem to think, personal freedom can quite easily be voted away in a democracy. In The Federalist Papers No.25, American “Founding Father” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” This is true and it is exactly why democracy has brought about far greater tyranny than traditional monarchies ever did or ever could. The closest the world ever came to a privatized society was in the monarchial Middle Ages and while it is, in theory, at least possible that a more libertarian society could come about in a monarchy, it is impossible to believe that a democracy could ever be libertarian when everyone is always just one vote away from having it all come crashing down. Again, not every monarchist must be a libertarian (I am not one and am not trying to convert anyone to it) but, given the facts, every libertarian should certainly be a monarchist.

What About Scandinavia?

I probably talk about predominately monarchial Scandinavia less than I think I do (wow, three I’s in the first sentence, how solipsistic of the awesome me). It is not because of any lack of respect for the Scandinavian countries, all but one of which are monarchies (unless you count Iceland) which, I assure you, is not the case. For someone who was enthralled with Viking stories as a boy and who had a very colorful aunt who was fond of telling people, “I’m not a damn Jankee, I’m a Norwegian!” I have always had a soft spot for Norway. The Kingdom of Denmark also holds a special place in my heart, as I think it should with all monarchists, as the oldest monarchy in Europe and for being so comparatively revolution-free. I’m also very fond of Queen Margrethe II, though maybe not for the best reasons. I have long admired Sweden, mostly for the great military leaders it produced in centuries past and even republican Finland earned my respect ever since first learning about the valiant defense they offered against the Red Army in the Winter War. One reason you don’t hear much about Scandinavia is because they tend to all be rather orderly countries. What problems they have tend not to be broadcast around the world, they tend to be neutral and they just don’t rock the boat so to speak.

However, I wanted to take a moment to talk about the monarchies of Scandinavia because there do seem to be some misconceptions about them. Especially in the United States, the Scandinavian countries can be quite divisive. People on the left portray them as being absolutely heaven on earth (ignoring the whole monarchy part) where rich people do not exist, everyone is taken care of, Christianity is dead and everyone embraces multiculturalism thanks to a government program encouraging people to show how un-racist they are by having sex with African immigrants (*and no, that is not a joke, they actually did that). On the other hand, people on the right in America tend to view Scandinavia as resting somewhere around the seventh circle of Hell as a region where people are taxed into state dependency, having all their creativity and ambition purged by an oppressive government and where conformity has created a population of wimps who only take pride in how quickly they are dying out and how efficiently they use the corpses of their loved ones as an environmentally friendly energy source (*and no, that is not a joke, that actually happened). So, who is right? Are the Scandinavian countries a utopia that proves socialism works or simply crowned Marxist republics that must be lying about how happy everyone there is?

The truth is really neither one. The Scandinavian countries are not as wonderful as some people think but nor are they as bad as others seem to think. It is true that they are big believers in wealth redistribution so that there is very little income inequality in the Scandinavian countries. Some think that is good, others think that is bad. Society is not so divided by class in these places but that does go with limits to individual rights because it places limitations on success. It is true that crime is very low in these countries, at least compared to some other parts of the world but it is also true that many crimes go unreported because they are concentrated amongst the immigrant community and the authorities prefer to ignore it for fear of being accused of racism if they arrest someone who is not light complexioned. It is true that the monarchies in these countries are totally or effectively ceremonial, however, it is also true that they are widely popular still and are considered by most to be an integral part of the culture and framework of the country. Their populations are, on the whole, quite conformist in that they do tend to hold the same values and opinions on most things but this is not too different from most of the rest of Europe these days and differing points of view do exist. So, let us take them one at a time:

The Kingdom of Sweden is probably the most often singled out as being a socialist success-story (as if such a thing could exist) and being the most nominal monarchy in the world (I would say at least Andorra has them beat on that front). First of all, it is true that Sweden has a tax rate that is nothing short of punitive and they are very free with the government handouts. However, they are certainly not Cuba or North Korea. Socialism does not work, as has been proven all around the world, but Sweden is not so socialist as some might think. First of all, in the old days before the 1960’s the Kingdom of Sweden was one of the most economically free countries on earth. It had very low taxes, very few but quite common-sense government regulations and it had a booming economy and was a major industrial powerhouse. However, as I have often said, one of the biggest problems with capitalism is that it makes countries rich enough to think they can afford socialism and that is basically what happened in Sweden. They got so rich that people started crying about fairness and income inequality and so they went drastically in the socialist direction and, as a result, economic growth ground to a halt, production plummeted and successful people fled the country. However, because of that, Sweden was almost forced to start moderating and moving back in the opposite direction, at least somewhat so that today, although Sweden has the reputation of being very socialistic and the United States has the reputation of being very capitalistic, the amount of regulation and wealth redistribution in Sweden is not that different from the United States.

Now, like the United States, the level of promises made to the people by the government in terms of entitlements is simply not sustainable because these types of socialistic programs depend on an ever increasing number of young workers to pay the tax burden for the sick, the old and the unemployed and the numbers just don’t exist even with Sweden opening its borders to a huge influx of foreigners. These policies cannot carry on indefinitely, the numbers just don’t add up and that will be a big problem in the future. Sweden has never had a huge population, it is simply a country that cannot support one and the native population is practically stagnant while the immigrant population is growing. It’s still not enough to save the future of the welfare state but it does not take a math genius to see that it will ultimately mean that the Swedish population is simply going to be replaced by an ethnically non-Swedish one in the not-too-distant future. It is also true that it is one of the most irreligious countries in the world. However, it is still an officially Christian country, with the Lutheran church as the official state church of Sweden and, of course, it is still a monarchy. The monarch is officially ceremonial with no role in government at all but he does chair the Council of State, opens parliament, appoints the prime minister and all the usual duties so he is at least still able to inform, be informed and give his advice on government matters. He is not totally inconsequential and the majority of the people support the monarchy.

The Kingdom of Norway, the youngest of the Scandinavian countries in terms of its current monarchy, is also a very heavily taxed and heavily regulated country with little income inequality and a generous welfare state. Though, again, it is really not that different from the supposedly hyper-capitalist United States. All of the Scandinavian countries, in fact, have a lower corporate tax rate than the United States so, in a way, they are friendlier to those “evil” big businessmen and corporations than the United States of “Greed is Good” America. What keeps the Norwegian economy in such seemingly good shape in spite of these socialistic policies is the fact that they have a great deal of mineral wealth and I mean, of course, oil. The Norwegian government makes a ton of money from oil and that money is used to fund social welfare programs and so people are going to tell the survey-takers that they are very happy when they get a big oil check from the government on a regular basis. It also helps that they have a very small population in Norway. Like many Middle Eastern countries, when one has huge oil income (in government hands) and a small population (there are far more people -as in several million more- in New York City alone than in the entire Kingdom of Norway), it is easy to have a high standard of living even when the government is wasting money extravagantly.

On the social front, Norway has a higher birth rate than many European countries, but it still is not good, it just is not quite as bad as others. Statistically, Norwegians are still going extinct but they will probably be around to see other European peoples go extinct first. Like Sweden, they are a predominately irreligious country but, again, also still an officially Christian one with the King of Norway titled as the “High Protector of the Church of Norway” which is, of course, Lutheran. However, before one thinks of blaming social ills in Norway on the King because of this, remember that it is not dissimilar from the situation with the Church of England. The King is not a cleric and many of the Lutheran bishops, like so many others in so many other churches, have at times seemed more interested in being relevant and popular than being doctrinally traditional. About 20% of the population are immigrants but their natural growth rate is much higher than that of the native population so, again, it is not difficult to see what those numbers mean for the future of Norway, long-term. Conformity is high but not total and what seems like a population united in shared liberal values can be misleading. The refusal to give a legitimate voice to dissenting views leads to frustration and then violence such as was seen in the mass-shooting of 2011. Many other festering problems are simply being ignored because it would be “politically incorrect” to address them. However, in Norway the King does play a part in government, not being purely ceremonial but more like Britain for example, and Norway has a much greater “independent” streak than many realize. Norway, for example, is a member of the European Economic Area but did not and has not become a member of the European Union and is not a part of the Eurozone which is very much to their credit. So, problems exist, but compared to others, Norway is in a better position to reject bad policies and get back on the right track.

Finally, we have the Kingdom of Denmark, most venerable of the monarchies of the Old World. Here again, I think many people have many misconceptions about Denmark simply because these countries are often lumped together as being part of a uniform, leftist, socialistic, egalitarian Scandinavia which is an over-simplification. The Kingdom of Denmark, for example, is a member of the European Union but is not a member of the Eurozone and still uses the Danish krone as its official currency. It is a typical tax and spend country but it may surprise a great many people to know that on two of the major indexes for measuring economic freedom, the Kingdom of Denmark was ranked higher than that supposed champion of free market capitalism the United States of America. Who would have guessed that? It certainly is not the reputation Denmark has and yet, it is true; Denmark is basically a more economically free country than America. This is due almost entirely to the level of government regulation of the economy. Compared to America, Denmark has a very low level of government regulations while it does have a punitive tax rate and a very generous welfare state. So, the basic difference is that it is actually easier to go out and make money in Denmark than in the United States but, on the other hand, the government will take more of it away from you to give to your unemployed neighbor. As in the other Scandinavian countries, this government generosity with other people’s money attracts many immigrants and while some of that can be regulated, immigration among EU-member states of course cannot so there is a demographic problem similar to that in Norway and Sweden. What is being paid out or is promised to be paid out, compared to what can possibly be taken in by the state just cannot be sustained long-term in Denmark or any of these other countries as things stand.

As elsewhere, the level of irreligion in Denmark is quite high but it is an officially Christian country, no separation of church and state but with freedom of religion. Like the others, it is very egalitarian but I think many would be surprised by how traditional the Danish monarchy remains. Until the middle of the Twentieth Century it had probably the most old fashioned and strict court protocol of any monarchy in Europe and even today, traditional ceremony and protocol are maintained by the Danish court to a degree probably present nowhere else in Europe. The Queen is enthusiastically supported by the people with a roughly 90% approval rating and she retains considerable authority. She presides at meetings and her views are taken seriously. She can even issue laws on her own in an emergency according to clause 23 of the Danish constitution. Some may be surprised that the Danish monarch has a much more free hand than many of her fellow sovereigns. The Queen writes her own speeches and her public messages are much less regulated by the government than in, for example, Great Britain. She is not mere window-dressing and while she certainly shares the overall values of most of her people, she does not bend to fashionable trends either. When people criticized her smoking habit, she told them to butt out; when activists condemned her for wearing fur, she told them to go climb a tree and when multiculturalism led to violence over Danish cartoons the Queen was the only head of state to single out the culprits by name and say that they had to be confronted even if it meant to, “run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance”. If I haven’t said so lately, I think the Queen of Denmark is awesome.

And that, is the overall situation in the monarchies of Scandinavia. Honestly, they are not all that different from the supposedly so much more capitalistic United States when it comes to taxation and wealth redistribution. In truth, most First World countries have adopted fairly similar models of a mixture of socialism and capitalism with governments simply arguing over the degree to which they allow people to keep what they earn. Sweden used to be very economically free, went far to the left, living off the wealth accumulated in the past and since that well ran dry has been moving ever so slightly more to the right in economic terms. Norway is doing pretty good thanks to few people, lots of oil and telling the EU, “no thanks” and Denmark has low regulations, a rather grand monarchy and recently put out a sign saying “Seek asylum elsewhere”. They all have problems to be sure and the basic economic model used by all three (and so many more) is simply not possible to continue in the long-term. However, they still have the tools to correct and rebuild and the monarchies in these countries provide something important, socially and economically even in the cases where they are reduced to only a ceremonial status and that is a sense of unity and stability. Monarchists say that a lot and republicans tend to dismiss it but anyone who follows the stock markets of the world can tell you that the simple perception of stability by people can make a huge difference. Even communist Chinese state-run CCTV once made this point, asking an expert why Japan, with its rapid turnover of governments, does not scare away investment like many other countries do with similar political instability. The expert replied that a big part of it was His Majesty the Emperor who, even while having no part in politics, provides a sense of stability just by being there. Even symbols can be very important and if you don’t believe me, try burning the Stars & Stripes in middle America or wearing a t-shirt with the Dalai Lama on it in downtown Peking. The Scandinavian countries have their problems and they have their positive aspects and their monarchies are definitely positives.

Shut Down and Debt Ceiling

Recently, the United States government was shut down for a few days, causing worry all around the world and warnings of the most dire consequences and even total economic collapse across America and then across the globe if the government was not re-opened and the debt ceiling raised. Because that is what the stand-off came down to; raising the debt ceiling. The provocation, of course was the “Affordable Care Act” aka “Obamacare” which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives did not want to fund. The Republicans passed a bill funding absolutely everything else, the entire Democrat wish-list that Republicans despise -everything; except for “Obamacare”. Obviously, this was a case of the Republicans being totally unreasonable. Sure, they were planning to give Democrats 99% of what they wanted but, you see, everyone knew that it was that remaining 1% that was most important to the Democrats and President Obama because, well, it was about the only thing they managed to accomplish during those first few years when they had control of the entire government -and even passing that took more than a little bribery. It was an ugly, painful, difficult process but the Democrats got “Obamacare” passed and (thanks to a George W. Bush appointee) approved by the Supreme Court and it did not matter if the Republicans voted to give the Democrats everything they have ever wanted or will ever want until the end of time, if “Obamacare” was not included, they were not going to play ball.

Most Republicans, however, did not think “Obamacare” was a hill worth dying on. With the Democrats controlling the Senate and the Presidency (and probably more importantly the media) they knew that giving the Democrats everything they wanted except “Obamacare” would be seen as the Republicans being totally unreasonable. If it had been down to that issue alone, the Republicans would not have lasted even as long as they did. The debt ceiling, however, is an issue where the Republicans start to look a little more ‘grown up’. The shut-down was really over that and it was only when the Republicans finally agreed to raise the debt ceiling that the government was re-opened and everyone and all the markets around the world breathed a sigh of relief. Yours truly, however, was not among them. The government shut-down was a bit of a joke in the first place anyway. I went to the Post Office while the government was shut down and there was no problem. The military was still funded, social security checks still arrived but non-essential workers were given some time off and, for some unfathomable reason, open air national monuments were closed. I have yet to hear anyone explain how it makes sense to close down a monument that is just sitting over there in the grass. In other words, it was not really a shut-down of the government, it was a very, very limited “partial shut down” which Republicans and Democrats tried to use to make each other look bad.

Raising the debt ceiling was the main issue and it comes up regularly and most of the time it is raised with little fuss or fanfare -but it *always* gets raised. This time, for example, a few people pointed out that, as a junior senator, President Obama had voted against raising the debt ceiling when George W. Bush was president, saying that it was downright unpatriotic to keep piling on more debt for future generations. I am not sure which is worse, the idea that the President was being a total hypocrite (as Republicans claimed) by doing this or that the President didn’t really mean what he said back then and was just voting against it to annoy President Bush because Obama is a Democrat and Bush is a Republican. Pick your poison; dishonest and hypocritical or childish and petty. The important point here is that the debt ceiling is raised regularly, it always goes up, it never goes down. Am I the only one who wonders why we even bother to have a debt ceiling if that ceiling can just be raised every single time we reach the alleged limit? Is it just completely insane to even consider the possibility of maybe spending less so that we don’t have to keep borrowing more and more money just to stay afloat? I guess it is.

Anyway, as I said, the partial, limited, sort-of “shut down” did not frighten or bother me. What did bother me was the way the President and people all around the world freaked out about it. The President said that it would cause a fiscal catastrophe if the debt ceiling was not raised and others added to that by pointing to fears in markets all over the world and that if things stayed as they were the U.S. economy would plummet and then, since the U.S. has the biggest economy in the world and the U.S. dollar is the reserve currency of the international community, the whole world would go into a deep financial disaster. Is everyone getting this? Is it just me who is extremely freaked out by all these people freaking out? Am I the only one who finds it just the slightest bit alarming that so many experts are saying that the government of one country being shut down for 16 days could economically destroy the entire planet? If a government being partially shut down for a couple of weeks is enough to bring ruin to the economy of everyone in the world, I think we have to stop and ask ourselves if we don’t have a bigger problem than just Republicans being reluctant to raise the debt ceiling. The people of the world are either being lied to on a massive scale or else nearly every major economic power on earth is living so beyond its means that the planet is resting atop a very unstable deck of cards… balanced on a 2-legged table… held up by a one-armed clown… on a unicycle… resting on a golf ball… I think you get the idea.

Even if it were just the United States of America this would be alarming enough. The total national economy should not be brought to the brink of ruin by the government being partially shut down for 16 days. That should not even be possible. However, it should also not be possible that the United States is over $16 trillion in debt and still able to borrow more money. Does anyone really think that amount can ever be paid back? I doubt it, but most countries are deeply in debt these days even if not as much as the United States (though I think Japan is #1) and this is partly why the rest of the world gets worried that the U.S. might not borrow more money. Everyone seems to depend on it these days. Thanks to extremely generous social welfare programs, most First World countries are so deeply in debt their whole method of thinking about economics revolves around juggling the books, printing/stealing money, borrowing money and just trying to keep everyone calm until they can come up with some new way of delaying the inevitable time when the bill collector appears at the door and no one will lend us any more. It is a little like what some people do on the stock market. Have you ever heard politicians complaining about those “evil” speculators on Wall Street? Well, that’s pretty rich considering that almost every major country is practically surviving on the same sort of system. Just like those people who make millions (and billions) betting on money that hasn’t been earned yet for selling goods that retailers haven’t purchased yet because the products haven’t been produced yet, governments have become accustomed to budgeting funds that haven’t been borrowed yet because they passed up the idea of spending only as much as your government can bring in on its own many years ago.

It reminds me of the story of two neighbors in Louisiana who kept buying and selling the same horse back and forth to each other. One day a stranger came by and offered a ridiculously high sum for the horse and the man sold it. His neighbor came rushing over and asked him how he could have done such a thing saying, “Don’t you realize we were both making a damn good living off of that horse?” The sad thing is, that story was meant to be a joke but today, entire governments are displaying that same level of idiocy. Governments are betting the future of whole populations on things like the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, on China being able to loan money to America and Europe in spite of the fact that most of China is still impoverished, that the Communist Party controls what we know and don’t know about the true state of their finances and in spite of the fact that the very growth of the Chinese economy is working against them. It’s all based on political prisoners, oh, I mean “cheap labor” being able to produce massive amounts of exports at rock bottom prices. Yet, the more successful China becomes, even if just limited to the major population centers on the coast, the more the local public expects and labor prices go up which means many businesses are already looking for new, cheaper labor markets to exploit, oh, I mean “develop”. Why pay a Chinese kid a dollar a day to make $200 tennis shoes when a Cambodian kid will do it for less than half that?

Now, I am sure someone is already asking what any of this has to do with monarchy, because a number of people always seem eager to “catch” me talking about something off-topic. Well, in this case, it does not have a great deal to do with monarchy specifically because monarchies and republics are both capable of making bad economic decisions. However, economics have an impact on monarchy because any time the economy gets bad, the monarchy is always one of the first things to come under criticism in spite of the fact that it has proven to be more cost-effective than a republic. When cuts finally have to be made, I would be very afraid that the British public today would sooner do away with the relative pittance the monarchy costs them before they would scrap the massive money-hole that is the NHS. If it comes down to choosing between anything, even the monarchy, and “my free stuff” from the government, people will always choose their “free stuff”. Of course, there are plenty of other ways governments could and should cut down their out-of-control spending habit but we all know they won’t. Europe as a whole decided to become an American protectorate so they could have a social welfare state which even then they couldn’t afford in the long run but that still didn’t stop them from adding on a whole new level of burden by creating the European Union. Forget finding a way out of the hole, Europe hasn’t even stopped digging. And don’t expect any financial sanity from the United States when someone like Senator Harry Reid refuses to even cut federal funding for “Cowboy Poetry Month”. The Democrats refuse to cut anything and the Republicans only seem to favor spending cuts when they are out of power.

I am afraid I cannot be very optimistic about the direction things are going, on the financial front as well as some others. However, again, I am not ideological about these things, it just seems to me that it should be as simple as not spending more than you make, not getting so deeply in debt to another country or countries that your survival depends on them and just looking at the facts about what works and what doesn’t. If we did that we might see that monarchies such as Liechtenstein, Monaco, the Cayman Islands or the Isle of Man where taxes and regulations are extremely low, business is always booming and the government actually takes in more than it spends -again, in spite of having extremely low taxes. Imagine that. I know a lot of people will say that what works in tiny little countries like that could never work on a larger scale but, given their record of success; couldn’t we at least give it a try? Would it be so unthinkable to at least try moving in that general direction? I think it would, but that’s just me and I am … The Mad Monarchist.

Mad Rant: Monarchy Value for Money

In this day and age of republican dominance there is a great deal to annoy the average monarchist. Clichés, all of them negative toward monarchy, seem to have the gift of immortality. At the same time, the drawbacks of republicanism are often commented on and agreed to but never seem to shift public opinion. Every serious historian, for instance, knows that Queen Marie Antoinette never said, “Let them eat cake” and yet it continues to be endlessly repeated over and over again. Everyone with any knowledge of the world around them knows that, with the exception of the little principalities of Monaco and Liechtenstein, European monarchs have virtually no political power at all and yet the word “king” remains synonymous with someone wielding absolute power. A politician who oversteps the limits of his constitutional authority is always said to be behaving like a king or like royalty when, in fact, there are far more republican tyrants all around the world today than there are absolute monarchs, all of whom are confined to the Islamic world save for little Swaziland in Africa. It seems this is a double standard we will never be rid of. Yet, tiresome as it may be, falsehoods must be refuted with facts, as often as they arise, regardless of the circumstances. The world at large could really use a good education when it comes to the idea of monarchy.

Today, one of my biggest aggravations is the constant association of royalty with idleness, luxury and extravagance. Both sides of the political spectrum like to make use of accusations of “royal” behavior to condemn their opponents. In the past, the overreach of President George W. Bush in the United States, along with the fact that he is the first son of a President to become President himself since John Quincy Adams, led many Democrats to dub him “King George” -and they didn’t mean it as a compliment. Not to be outdone, when First Lady Michelle Obama took lavish vacations the Republicans compared her to Queen Marie Antoinette and when Obama holds lavish parties, goes golfing with celebrities or has his annual Christmas in Hawaii at taxpayer expense, his political enemies complain about Obama presiding over an “imperial presidency”. Do any of these people have any idea what they are talking about? No, of course they don’t. The odd misstatement here or there could be attributed to simply being unable to pass up a damaging analogy but at this point it really does begin to look like sheer ignorance. It is that ignorance combined with a gross misconception about monarchy that leads to this ridiculous analogies and that can be illustrated with a few examples and monarchists should point these out.

First, to be fair, we can certainly understand why the images of opulence exist in the popular imagination. One of the things most monarchists love about monarchy is the pomp and splendor that (traditionally anyway) goes along with the institution. Royals live in palaces, ride in gilded carriages attended by liveried footmen and wear magnificent jewels. It certainly looks pretty lavish, doesn’t it? Even the famously bicycling royals of The Netherlands don an ermine robe when it comes to swearing-in day. However, the fact remains that those magnificent jewels and robes are very old family heirlooms, bought and paid for many years ago (in some cases centuries ago) and their continued use costs the taxpayer nothing. In Great Britain, the Queen is known for being exceptionally frugal, using the same car until it practically falls apart. In fact, in a recent year, the travel expenses for the entire British Royal Family was considerably less than the travel expenses for President Obama and his small crew. The Queen would never dream of spending so much as the American president nor would any British government allow such a thing for ‘mere’ royals. Yet, when the average republican thinks of royalty, they think of big expenses for taxpayers. They do not think of the Prince of Liechtenstein whose subjects pay him nothing at all. In fact, he gives from his own private funds to help the government run smoothly.

The comparisons of Michelle Obama to Queen Marie Antoinette over lavish vacations seems particularly ridiculous considering that the ill-fated French Queen never went on even a single foreign vacation in her life. Bundled off to France as a very young lady she never left the country again and, indeed, seldom ventured far beyond the confines of Paris and Versailles. Royal travel has traditionally been extremely limited. In Britain, no monarch from King Charles II to King George IV ever even made it over the border to Scotland. Yet, when people think of Marie Antoinette, they think lavishness and frivolity, they do not think of a woman who gave large amounts to charity, who broke down social barriers at court and who invited poor children to eat with her own royal offspring at Versailles. When it comes to royal children for that matter, it may surprise some to know how much more luxuriously the children of a President of the United States live compared to royal or even imperial offspring.

All of those who talk of Obama having an “imperial presidency” should consider two of the great, old empires of Europe. The Romanov Archduchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia, for example, had to sleep on camp beds and take cold baths. Their educational schedule was positively Spartan with dawn till dark studies and exercises. The White House may not be the Winter Palace but you can be sure the Obama daughters are taking hot baths at night. Similarly, when one thinks of an Emperor one doesn’t usually think of someone like Emperor Francis Joseph who slept on an army cot and wore clothes until they were worn out -and then patched them and wore them some more! One of his contemporaries, German Emperor Wilhelm I, was also notoriously frugal. He was known to sit down at a small table with his grandson (future Wilhelm II) for a glass of wine. After their glasses were poured, the emperor would mark the level of the wine with a pencil on the side of the bottle to make sure no one was pinching any when he wasn’t looking. In Russia, Emperor Alexander III preferred the simple meals of his servants to the delicacies of the banquets thrown by the upper class and his idea of recreation was a simple walk in the Russian wilderness with some sausage and a piece of bread for his lunch. These imperial leaders were hardly men of lavish, wasteful luxury and indulgence.

Of course, not every monarch was known for being frugal. Neither has such a trait always been considered positive. Indeed, even as far back as the Roman Empire, certain Caesars were criticized for being miserly. However, these examples should be pointed out, and there were plenty of others (such as King George VI putting the palace and Royal Family on the ration system in World War II). Even today, the spending habits of some monarchs are no doubt troublesome. The King of Swaziland, for instance, does himself no favors in that regard. However, the fact remains that monarchy remains a much better value for money than the average republic even if not every one is like the Emperor of Japan, growing his own rice. Monarchs, especially today, are much more thrifty than politicians if for no other reason than that they are scrutinized to such a vastly greater extent than any elected official. There is also the fact that much of what people see as the lavish and glamorous side of royalty comes at the private expense of the royals and not from the public trough which is, again, something rarely seen in a republic. Furthermore, most of the expense comparisons between monarchies and republics do not even usually take into consideration the immense costs of elections and election campaigns, held with great frequency even if they never seem to actually change anything.

It is a struggle to change such entrenched popular misconceptions and, naturally, the republican crowd will never allow for a fair and honest exchange if they possibly help it, but the effort should be made. It pains me to think of someone like Emperor Franz Joseph being thought of as extravagant simply for being of imperial status. Plenty of monarchs were quite thrifty and plenty of royals and royal children lived far less pampered lives than many of their republican opposites. However, even for those monarchs who were rather lavish, such as King Louis XIV of France, I would take that lavishness any day over the republican politicians in power today. At least the lavishness of someone like Louis XIV served a higher purpose (whether he intended it to or not is irrelevant) to raise the status of his country, the glory of his country and make it a land to be marveled at from people all over the world and for generations to come. Given how many people still go to visit Versailles, filled with awe and wonder at the magnificence, I would say it was worth every penny.

But, of course, I would; I am … The Mad Monarchist

Money and Monarchies

The first U.S. presidential debate of this election season is now behind us and, by all accounts, President Obama got spanked. The topic of the evening was domestic issues, predominately jobs and the economy. Most, however, seemed to be paying more attention to style than substance. Respondents said that Romney seemed more “presidential” than the President himself, that he projected more strength and sounded like he knew what he was talking about whereas even Democrats bemoaned that Obama seemed weak, defensive and rather unhappy to even have to be having the debate and responding to questions and accusations. Does this mean that the American people learned nothing about the dangers of choosing a national leader based on style rather than substance? Perhaps, but perhaps not. We shall have to wait and see if there is any change in the polls in favor of Romney as a result of this first debate performance. Why am I even talking about this? What did any of it have to do with monarchy? Well, Mitt Romney made one reference to a monarchy that is currently in a great deal of trouble; the Kingdom of Spain, but the fact is that many monarchies, along with many republics, are facing similar economic problems as those talked about between the two contenders to be America’s next president.

Economics are now dominating almost all national discussions and it is worth contrasting the most high-profile republic and the most high-profile monarchy in the world today; the United States and the United Kingdom. In a new book by Robert Gray called “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” it is detailed how vastly more expensive the American First Family is when compared to the British Royal Family. Last year the maintenance of President Obama and his family cost U.S. taxpayers some $1.4 billion, which is about twenty times more the $57.8 million that Her Majesty the Queen and the Royal Family cost British taxpayers. It should also be mentioned that the monarchy is an even greater value considering that the Queen is also the Sovereign of Canada, Jamaica, Belize, Australia, New Zealand and numerous other countries absolutely free of charge. It amazes me that republicans dare even raise the issue of cost considering that, in almost every instance, monarchies are far greater value for money than republics. Furthermore, while dishonest politicians like to use the cost of royalty as a tool of distraction, there is not a monarchy in the world that is in financial trouble because of the cost of the monarchy.

True, as mentioned in the debate last night, the Kingdom of Spain is in dire financial trouble. However, no one, absolutely no one, can even pretend to claim that the Spanish debt crisis is due to the money that goes to the Spanish monarchy. The amount spent on the Spanish Royal Family is positively Lilliputian compared to what the government spent or spends on bureaucracy, welfare, medical care, pensions, wasteful government projects (like the “green” energy boondoggle) the trade imbalance and so on. I would argue that the Spanish economy also became too dependent on money funneled into the country by the EU and when that began to dry up as more countries entered the EU and put their hand out and as the trough simply began to run out, businesses in Spain panicked. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, one need look no farther for the biggest drain (by far) on the public purse than the National Health Service which, not surprisingly, is the one area absolutely no one wants to touch. When looking at government spending in the United Kingdom, more than half (59%) is taken up by welfare, the NHS and education. The amount spent on the monarchy is so small it doesn’t even appear on most charts. Complaining about this would be like using your credit card to buy a 747 jet liner and then telling people that it was the cost of the peanuts that put you in debt.

Here’s another good comparison to make. In one year the British taxpayers spent $57.8 million on the monarchy. Also in one year, American taxpayers spent $304.5 million on economic aid alone to Kazakhstan (the least among the top 25 recipients of U.S. foreign aid). British and Commonwealth taxpayers are also spared the cost of presidential elections every four years. U.S. taxpayers also have to cover part of the multi-million cost of the Democrat and Republican Party conventions every four years which, nowadays, serve absolutely no real practical purpose at all anymore but which are, effectively, a four-day long infomercial on the candidate of that particular party. Think about that when you think of Sandra Fluke standing before a stadium full of people on live television broadcast to millions around the world complaining about women being silenced or when you think of Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair. If you’re an American taxpayer -you helped pay for that.

The bottom line is that monarchies are a bargain compared to republics. The only reason this is not well known to people is partly because of the success of royals in doing more with less. Royal displays of pomp and ceremony are generally much more rare than republican displays, but they do them so much better. People are mesmerized by the site of horse-drawn carriages, jewels, crowns and ermine robes and just assume that this all must cost a great deal of money. In fact, it doesn’t because these coaches, jewels and crowns are all very, very old and in many cases were bought and paid for centuries ago. When you see the Queen enrobed and crowned at the state opening of Parliament, you think splendor and majesty, which is true, you don’t think that there stands a woman wearing hand-me-downs but that is also true. Monarchies should be thankful that they are what they are and avoid the huge economic waste of having a president. Republics which are concerned about economic issues could do worse than start with restoring their monarchy.

Taking Economic Advice from Monaco

Can the rest of the world learn anything from the famously prosperous Principality of Monaco? I tend to think so, and not just because I am admittedly partial to the Grimaldi fiefdom. A case can be made for the low-taxation, pro-investment policies of the Monegasque, and these are reviewed in Taking Economic Advice from Monaco over at my sister-blog Mad for Monaco. Read and reflect if you please.

The Top-Heavy Italian Republic

The financial woes of the Italian Republic are now, thanks to the E.U. and global finance, a matter of international concern. It is a crisis that has been a long time in coming and definitely puts the lie to those who claim that monarchy is financially burdensome while a republic is some sort of bargain. Surely, in economic terms, there is no greater example than modern Italy of what a poor return on public money a republic can be. That the monarchy was inordinately expensive is an argument only the foolish or truly ignorant could ever accept. Why is that? Because, one could certainly point to the grandeur of the royal residences, the glittering pomp and ceremony and the splendor of royal progresses to make the ignorant believe that the monarchy must have been a huge drain on the public purse. However, most of this came from the private accounts of the House of Savoy from money raised by their own properties and not from the public trough. Even then, in times of economic hardship, the King of Italy drastically renounced his income, cut back expenses and handed over valuable and extensive properties to the state. Has any of his republican successors done likewise? Certainly not and quite the contrary in fact. What has been done is to replace the monarchy with one of the most expensive and top-heavy republics in the world.


How many people, in or outside of Italy, are truly aware of this? How many of those who have loaned money to the safekeeping of the free-spending republican politicians are aware of this? How many are aware that the Italian Chamber of Deputies actually has far more members than the House of Representatives in the United States (which, for those unfamiliar with geography) is very many times larger than the Italian Republic? Not only is the government bigger, which means that there are more politicians to pay, but they are paid quite a few times more than their American counterparts as well (and rest assured that American Congressmen are in no danger of going hungry). In fact, Italian politicians are amongst the most highly paid and lavishly compensated in the entire world! So, what do Italians today have to administer their country? A republican government that is bigger than most, more expensive than most and more ineffctive than most as well. Bigger is not better and for as much as they cost the Italian taxpayer the government has clearly not provided value for money. Further, despite the promises of democratic republicans, they are by no means more accountable. When the people vote to cut the pay of their politicians, their votes are ignored and, of course, presiding over it all now is Prime Minister Mario Monti, an EU financial bureaucrat who was never elected to any office in Italy ever!

In addition, the tax-and-spend policies of the republican government have been digging Italy into a deep financial pit for decades. It was under the socialist prime minister (no surprise there) Bettino Craxi that the Italian national debt rose to be greater than the entire gross national product of the country -and that was in the 1980's! Things have hardly improved since as the current state of affairs clearly demonstrates. Recently, the European Union mandated that Italy would have to give help in the bail-out of Spanish banks and loan money to Spain at 3% interest. However, due to the fact that Italy herself is quite broke, Italy will have to borrow money to give that loan at 7% interest! What sort of economic and mathematical idiot thought up that "brilliant" plan? With leaders like that, is it any wonder that Italy finds herself on the brink of economic ruin? Probably not, considering that even the largely ceremonial office of President is currently held by a former member of the Communist Party, an ideology not known for creating economic prosperity around the world to say the least.


Italy would be better off to rid themselves of the lot of these overpaid, under-performing members of the political class, restore the lire, restore the monarchy, trash the tangle of regulations that strangle growth and incentive, leave the EU and pursue again a policy of "sacred self-interest" in which only those policies are pursued which will be to the benefit of the Italian nation. As things stand now, the people are disenchanted with their government, over taxed, over regulated and rapidly growing frustrated and divided. No country or government is ever without fault and certainly the Kingdom of Italy was not free from error. However, the Kingdom of Italy was brought down by intrigue and betrayal at the end of a world war while the Italian Republic is being brought to its knees simply by corruption, idiotic policies and carelessness, all of which amount to "business as usual" in the realm of the republicans.

Monarchial Economic Success

These are hard times for economies all over the world (I detest the phrase “global economy” though I suppose it exists) and people, especially in places like Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, are looking for solutions. Some of the actions being taken, I think, are good. Any cut backs in government spending (austerity measures) should only be common sense at this point considering how massively in debt, well almost everyone in the world, is right now. However, on the whole, it seems to me that most of what these countries are doing makes no sense to me at all. Germany loaning more money to Greece? Further economic centralization in the European Union? Wasn’t this exactly what these countries had been doing before that got everyone into this terrible mess? Seems that way to me. However, what I really have a problem with, what really scares me, is the increasing number of people around the world who are now saying that the People’s Republic of China (the most murderous regime in human history in case anyone has forgotten) is the example that others should follow. After all, they’re doing great right?

First of all -no. They are not doing great, at least not anywhere near as great as most people think. In the first place, what economic progress there has been in China has been very limited in scope. The big urban centers on the coast are thriving but most of the rural areas in the interior are just as poor as they ever have been. Secondly, what economic progress there has been in these limited areas are (not surprisingly for a socialist country trying to allow limited capitalism) sustainable because they are basically tearing down certain areas to expand in other areas (which I don’t really have time to go into more at the moment). Finally, when you hear all of these reports with all the great numbers coming out of China, you should keep in mind that these reports telling you how great the state-run economy of China is … all come from the state of course. They have a vested interest in making things look as rosy as possible and we also know for a fact that they’ve been manipulating their currency, juggling the books and doing all sorts of tricks to make people think they are this big, economic powerhouse. Which, of course, is not to say that they are not, they are obviously a huge economy, however, everything is not nearly as good as many people outside of China seem to think.

If people wanted to look for some real examples of economic success they would do better to look to countries with a monarch. Here again, people on the left at least, tend to focus on and “play up” the very socialistic economies in kingdoms like Sweden or Belgium and so on. Many pointed to the Kingdom of Spain and the huge government investment in “green jobs” until that was proven to be a huge, embarrassing failure. However, a number of small but very successful monarchies have been overlooked in all of this. At least by some people. The proponents of state-controlled economies have not overlooked them as they have been very busy in recent years trying to bully them into getting on board the big-government run economic train. However, it does say something that when the American (and very republican) Heritage Foundation ranked the top ten countries in the world in terms of economic freedom, half of them were monarchies (3-Australia, 5-New Zealand, 7-Canada, 8-Denmark, 10-United Kingdom) and the top one on the list was the former Crown Colony of Hong Kong which has maintained the economy it had as a monarchy before being officially handed over to Red China.

The trouble is that in most countries maintaining a “free economy” is a constant struggle. When they hit a rough patch there are usually immediate calls for government intervention and yet when things are going well it makes people think the good times will last forever and they go on huge spending sprees. I’ve always said that one of the problems with capitalism is that it makes countries so rich that they think they can afford socialism. However, it seems clear from the numbers that the most prosperous countries are those in which taxes are low, regulations are few and people are able to keep more (or even most -imagine that) of what they earn. It makes me wonder at least why more people do not follow their example. Two places with a great deal of economic freedom, where investment is high and the environment is pro-business (and unemployment virtually unheard of) are the British Overseas Territory of the Cayman Islands and the Crown Dependency of the Isle of Man. Why wouldn’t the British at home want to emulate the success of these areas?

The Isle of Man is an interesting case. It is not part of the United Kingdom, nor a member of the European Union but the British Crown is directly responsible for its “good government”. It has no capital gains tax, wealth tax, stamp duty or inheritance tax and a top income tax rate of only 20% and there is a tax cap. Their government has made mistakes too of course but there is no one in poverty on the Isle of Man, unemployment is practically unheard of and even without all those taxes other places consider absolutely essential (you might want to sit down for this) the government still takes in more in revenue than it spends! Over on the Cayman Islands they have the highest number of registered businesses in the world. They enjoy the highest standard of living of any people in the Caribbean and yet they have no income tax, capital gains tax or corporation tax. Their small, unobtrusive royal government pays for itself mostly through service fees and import duties. Again, there is no one living below the poverty line, unemployment is miniscule as the lack of regulations allows for new businesses to be opening constantly and they too still manage to take in more revenue than they spend and unlike most other island countries they receive no foreign aid.

Some picky people might be inclined to point out that the areas mentioned are non-sovereign states without a resident monarch. In that case, we can see much the same success on the continent in places such as the Principality of Liechtenstein. In Liechtenstein (which is in a customs union with Switzerland) taxes are extremely low, regulation is very minimal and it is one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Almost during the reign of HSH Prince Hans-Adam II alone the little valley of Liechtenstein has gone from a country of subsistence farmers to a highly developed and modern economy with a very business-friendly environment that has attracted investors from around the world. The government takes in slightly more than it spends, unemployment is miniscule (crime virtually unheard of) and poverty is nonexistent. Banking has been a major industry in Liechtenstein because of the strict policy of respecting the privacy of customers but in recent years that has been changing, thanks mostly to threats from the European Union and other international bodies. Nonetheless, it remains one of the most free economies in the world and one of the most prosperous, a free market success story that has even caused many libertarians to marvel at this Catholic monarchy with a very powerful prince.

And, speaking of successful monarchies which retain a powerful monarch at the head of small governments, we have the Principality of Monaco. The Monegasque enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world and Monaco is famous for having no income tax, extremely low business taxes and few interfering regulations. What has been the result of these policies? Monaco has the highest GDP per capita in the world, the lowest poverty rate in the world (as in “none”), no unemployment at all, the world’s highest life expectancy and more millionaires and billionaires per capita than any other country on earth. Living standards in Monaco are twice as high as comparable neighboring cities in the French Republic. Like Liechtenstein, Monaco has come under increased bullying in recent years but has, so far, been very spirited in defending their independence to do things their own way. Monaco is also a great example for refuting those who say that the arts and culture suffer where big-government spending is not around to fund these areas. The Grimaldis have long been great patrons of the visual arts and, since the days of Princess Alice particularly, also patrons of classical music, the ballet and opera. By economic policies that attract the very wealthy, Monaco has an overabundance of people with the means to support charitable and cultural activities on their own. When your people have the highest per capita income in the world, they have plenty of money to spend on causes that they think are important.

However, as we have touched on, monarchies such as Liechtenstein, Monaco, Andorra, the Cayman Islands and so on have all been attacked as “tax havens” with all sorts of unsavory business and/or banking practices being heavily implied about them. Relatively few people seem to notice how much envy probably has to do with this as such accusations are invariably made by countries which are bigger, more powerful but far, far less successful. In the case of Monaco it is a very old story with their status as a “tax haven” being used to criticize the principality just as the gaming industry once was when that was viewed as terribly distasteful and when Monaco was first given its famous description as “a sunny place for shady people”. Yet, instead of attacking these monarchial micro-states, other countries should instead be looking to their example. If they are upset that so many wealthy people and so many businesses are moving to Liechtenstein or Monaco they should perhaps try adopting some of the same policies to lure them back.

Here though is where we see the importance of the monarchy. It is not the only thing that matters of course, but it certainly is a major, major factor in the success of these countries. Why? Because in places like Liechtenstein and Monaco where the Sovereign Prince still has final say on what goes on, these countries can adopt economic policies that are stable because they are not subject to so much political meddling brought about by democratic changes in office-holders in republics (or even more limited monarchies). Starting in 1984, for example, Her Majesty’s Dominion of New Zealand turned its lackluster economy completely around by slashing regulations that were strangling existing businesses and making it almost impossible to start new businesses. In record time the economy surged back to life, the standard of living soared, the “brain drain” became the “brain gain” and unemployment plummeted. However, over the years new politicians were elected who tried to tweak this and change that and so there were some pretty rough bumps in the road though New Zealand still remains an overall success story and one of the most prosperous and economically vibrant countries in the world. Australia has, to a lesser extent, experienced the same back-and-forth as different political leaders have pursued very different policies concerning the economy.

None, however, have had such long-term success as the former British Crown Colony of Hong Kong. Today it is officially a part of the People’s Republic of China but, seeing how successful Hong Kong was, the Red Chinese were smart enough not to mess with a good thing and kill their golden goose by imposing their own policies on Hong Kong which has, instead, been left to carry on as it had been before (at least in the economic sphere) the handover. What was the secret to the success enjoyed by Hong Kong? The short answer is the long-standing policy (going back to the British colonial period) of “positive non-interventionism” which is a fancy way of saying that government was kept to a minimum and people were allowed to pursue success as they saw fit and reap the rewards of their own decisions. The record of Hong Kong has been one of unqualified success and it remains one of the most wealthy and prosperous places on earth. Milton Friedman once called Hong Kong the greatest capitalist experiment in the world. Obviously, anyone who doesn’t like capitalism will not be impressed by that but the numbers do not lie. Hong Kong has been a major success and it is because the Red Chinese have not interfered with the successful system they inherited from the days when Hong Kong was under the British monarchy.

That is my bottom-line at least. When it comes to arguing over what economic system is best, I tend to take a very practical approach. Look around, see what works, what doesn’t and do more of what works. There are those though, I know, who do not like laissez-faire capitalism no matter what their record looks like and there will also be those capitalists who would find impurities in all the examples I have talked about here. However, my only purpose in bringing these success stories to your attention is to show that, at a time when the world is still trembling over the economic crisis, there are other examples we could all be looking to rather than the People’s Republic of China. Big-government, tax-and-spend democratic socialism is not the only game in town and, it seems to me at least, is what brought Europe to the mess she currently finds herself in and, when it comes to America, to varying extents both liberal and conservative parties have followed this same model and today we are seeing the results. I think it at least worth considering that we take a more serious look at these micro-monarchies with small governments and big economies as perhaps being on to something.

Mad Rant: State of the Union

Last night the United States was ‘treated’ to another dose of republican pageantry with the annual State of the Union address by the President to both houses of Congress. As I’ve probably mentioned before, traditions like this reveal the extent to which the United States borrowed from the British monarchy. The address is simply an American version of the “throne speech” given by the British monarch at the opening of each new parliament. In fact, in the past, some presidents chose not to deliver the speech in person because they considered it ‘too monarchial’. There is also the fact (never shown on television and rarely mentioned in the media) that the President must formally request permission from the Speaker of the House to address Congress because the President is not allowed on the House floor without such permission. There is absolutely no reason for this rule, it is simply carried-over from the tradition of England dating back to the time when King Charles I tried to have several members of the House of Commons arrested, after which time the monarch has been barred from the Commons and must send someone to request that the members attend the monarch in the House of Lords.

The speech the President gave this year was, to my cynical eye, rather predictable and uninteresting. I learned nothing watching it that I did not already know from the expectations put out ahead of time. There was lots of comparisons to other countries (all unfavorable) which was unusual and there were the expected calls for bi-partisanship and the need to cut spending, but also “invest” in the future; the need for greater economic growth but also the need to raise taxes on those dastardly rich folks. The truth, of course, is that none of the talk on the economy will accomplish anything even if it is entirely put into effect. I cannot say I have much faith in either party accomplishing that. The Democrats will tax the “rich” until there is not a job or major industry left in the country, everyone is on welfare and we go bankrupt. The Republicans talk a good game about the need to cut spending but when pressed on exactly what they would cut they can come up with nothing. They won’t risk reelection by touching huge money holes like Medicare or social security because a lot of those ‘Tea Party’ folks are counting on those government programs. Nope, instead they will revert to the Bush tactic of cutting taxes here and there but still spending like crazy and ignoring the big problems resulting in economic disaster.

Now, I am no economist and I tend to look with disgust and bewilderment at all the talk from both sides about free trade and globalization (what a horrific word). Personally, I have not seen what is so great about free trade and pretty much anything with the word “global” in it scares the hell out of me. On the economic front I tend to agree with the Libertarian journalist John Stossel (now on the Fox Business Channel) who said prior to the State of the Union Address that spending freezes will never be enough and he suggested cutting entire departments like the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. Both sound good to me. He also raised the point of the cost of maintaining some 60,000 U.S. troops in Germany and 10,000 U.S. troops in Great Britain. Unless someone tells me what vital interest these forces serve I would say cut those as well. Now, even though I’m no economics expert, I do know simple math and can see that our multi-trillion dollar debt will never be alleviated without taking on entitlements, which is the one thing no politician (even Republicans) really want to do -in any country. Observe what a stink was raised when “Call Me Dave” Cameron mentioned the slightest reform to the massive, bloated beast known as the National Health Service in Great Britain.

I also know that there will never be real economic recovery so long as so much of our economy is held hostage by the massive benefits of the unions. Businesses are going out of business and entire states are going bankrupt because of this. What is the solution? Well, here is where I make everyone freak out. The best idea I can come up with is putting a system in place by which owners and workers are forced to come to an agreement about industry guidelines that both sides can live with and that will be sustainable. Now, I realize that Glenn Beck scared everyone about the short-lived “Blue Eagle Program” and the National Recovery Administration set up by FDR and I realize that many people on the left are going to cry “corporatism” which, they will invariably say, is the same thing as fascism. That seems like quite a leap to make to me. Is having labor and owners working together instead of each trying to exploit the other really so terrible as to warrant the accusation of fascism? If you are that paranoid you perhaps should not watch the State of the Union Address at all or you just might notice those two big fasces on the wall on either side of the podium.

The way things are now, and it seems anyone can take a look around and see this, the unions are only looking out for themselves (leaders more than members I would argue but I will confess to having a bias towards unions ever since the Russian Revolution). They don’t care if they drive their companies out of business because the federal government will bail them out and then taxpayers are on the hook to continue paying them. On the other hand, owners (not unnaturally) are in business to make money, not to provide their workers with heaven on earth. They will always want to pay as little as possible and if union demands and government regulations become too great they have no moral qualms about moving to Red China where they can profit from the virtual slave labor of the Chinese Communist Party. Unions are pulling our economy down and owners are shipping it all overseas. Jesus said the poor will be with us always. I think the same could be said about the rich. They have to work together to stop the ruin both sides are bringing down on everyone.

Anyone who has read this blog for long knows that I despise government, politicians and ideologies in general. I am not married to any “ism” save perhaps for ‘monarchism’ which covers as wide a variety of specific situations and systems as possible. When it comes to issues like this I try to look for what will work with my only guidelines being that private property and the right of people to what they produce are not infringed upon. If that makes me unreasonable I can only be astounded by what passes for “reasonable” these days. Certainly, looking at things as they stand now, I cannot see how anyone can argue that we are doing fine or are headed in the right direction. Those who do, I suspect, are purposely trying to ruin us to further their own revolutionary agenda of international communism, atheism and globalization. That, I will always be against and that is why I remain … The Mad Monarchist.