Sunday, December 20, 2009

Mad Rant: Government Is Not the Answer

One of the things that often annoys me in dealing with republicans is the repeated raising of the question of what exactly monarchy can practically do to serve the public or how monarchies can work better than republics or what practical things they can provide that republics cannot. There are, of course, arguments that can be made for monarchy on all of those scores but I get extremely frustrated at the repetition of that line of questioning. Why you ask? Because, when emphasized so much, it seems to me to be a symptom of the disease of revolutionary republicanism that has gripped the world and I get extremely frustrated when monarchists continually try to battle republicans on the enemy’s terms and using republican standards of judging success or failure. To some extent this cannot be avoided but I think monarchists should struggle against it and not surrender the terms of the debate to the revolutionaries.

Despite what can be said for monarchy in this regard it can also be a hard subject to deal with, particularly now, because most monarchies have been reduced to the status of glorified window dressing. On paper the monarchy may be the foundation of the governments in many countries but they have reduced their royals to the point of resembling the lilies of the field who toil not neither do they spin. Given that, it can be difficult at times to list in a practical way what monarchies can provide that republics cannot when most monarchies are effectively republics in all but name already. The problem with this, in even ‘going there’ is that it accepts the model of the revolutionaries who made a sort of god or a secular religion out of government and politics.

Like anyone else, I of course have my own opinions about what political, economic and governmental systems work the best, though never losing my abhorrence for all politics in general and looking back most nostalgically on the era when there was no government as we would know it today but simply a sovereign, his lords and his people who each handle their own affairs within their own sphere of society. It was only with the emergence of mass politics, roughly emerging at the time of the French Revolution if one must take aim at a certain event, when government began to be looked to as the source of the answers to all problems in life and when people started to be fed the lie that if we could just come up with this or that sort of government or adapt this or that political ideology everything would work perfectly and the world would be a utopian paradise.

Retch! It is a lie of course and the most absurd lie which may be why it is so readily believed. In the old days the only institution which would come close to matching this would be religion and even then, in virtually all religions, that paradise was something that could never be achieved in this life with our human foibles and physical limitations. Mass politics emerged as a means for the revolutionary elite to overthrow monarchs and seize power for themselves and the idea of the government as the answer to all life’s problems emerged as a way to allow these revolutionary elites to continually increase the scope and reach of government and thus vastly enlarge their own power continuously as time goes on and we see that very clearly today.

Monarchy, of course, can be of great practical benefit; if it could not it would not have been the dominant form of government for the vast majority of human history, because it takes into account all aspects of humanity; the need for spiritual nourishment, the need for pageantry, the centrality of family as well as seeing to the nuts and bolts of ordering society. However, at times I would like to shout at skeptics that monarchy is not based on trying to give everyone exactly what they want and providing absolutely everything for every single person but rather is based, in my view at least, on the principle of legitimate authority; regardless of how it works because it is legitimate.

If society is well ordered and based on the proper principles true freedom and prosperity will flow naturally. Revolutionaries associate monarchy with oppression to divert from the fact that it is oppression that they themselves truly stand for. They use socialism to keep people in the slavery of perpetual existence without any advancement. They preach freedom while delivering only licentiousness and expanding the scope of government to control every aspect of human life from how much money you make, to what you eat, what you drink, how you travel, how to think correctly, what is passed on through propaganda -er, education, even trying to heal the sick and control the weather. Even Louis XIV at the height of his glory never imagined having such far reaching powers over his people nor would he have cared to have it. I maintain that monarchy is a superior form of government, that in general republicanism is disastrous but government is also not finally the point -it is not the be all and end all of human existence and no government or political system or administrative formula is the answer to all human suffering. I am tired of that line of questioning, I am tired of that mentality and I am … The Mad Monarchist.


  1. Dont be too hard on them. The reason Republicans think as such is condiitoning. They simply cannot understand anythign other than Govermenbtal regulation of life, and assume Monarhcy does it twn times worse. Ignoranc eof history and governign Philosophies leads ot this. They just thik the way thinks are now are hwo they have always been.

  2. Both monarchy and republic when misguided can wreck havoc upon the state. But what I am interesting is the philosophical truth behind both systems.
    Under a monarchy, the position of the monarch is weighted more on the obligation side while in republic on the right side. That’s why every monarchs are taught that the crown and throne are duties that they will be accounted for; add up religion and you get a monarch who feels that he or she is responsible directly to god himself. Even absolute monarchs like Louis XIV still believed that he will be judged by God for his actions during his reign. “The mandate of heaven” is viewed as a duty given by God to the monarch and dynasty.
    A president in other hand gets his power either through general election or being elected by parliament. Both ways are very political in nature. The mandate of the people will always be viewed as mere right to govern.
    This reason explains why when faced by misconducts or wrongful acts, either voluntary or not a monarch is usually more humble than a president.
    In a book titled “democracy, the god that failed” the author emphasized on the reality that a monarch will always act as the owner of the land while a president will always be a mere tenant. It is the owner that felt obligated to the land (state), not the tenant.
    Under a dysfunctional monarchy you simply replace the monarch or dynasty; then the errors are fixed, but in republic no matter how great the president is; that basic fundamental flaws will always be there waiting the right moment to resurface.
    For contemplating:

    Sheep and Shepherd
    Before the herd he is a master
    Before the master he is a servant
    Sheep and shepherd
    Young masters and a servant


    A Question for Mankind
    Bearers of rights stand vainly
    Guarding the treasures given by God
    Bearers of duties stand humbly
    Guarding the treasures entrusted by God
    Rights and duties
    God’s fading reflection and enduring image

  3. To Zarove; that's where the brainwashing comes in and why the revolutionaries have always sought to push for state-run public education and then to dominate education to shape future minds to think the "right" way.

    To Ignatius; I've had such an exchange before. Which is better, a monarch who feels he answers only to God or a President who answers to no one? If they answer to anyone it is their own elitist circle of cronies and if anyone thinks they answer to the public they are fooling themselves. You can see that in the number of times people are told to vote on something and then to vote again and again until they give the answer the political elites are looking for.

  4. Really excellent and important points here. I like to say that monarchism, properly understood, is not an ideology but rather simply a refusal to accept the anti-monarchist ideologies that have become dominant since the 18th century.

  5. Thanks. The difference in mentality talked about here was summed up rather succinctly in the BBC series "Fall of Eagles" in which Czar Nicholas II is advised that if he would address the Duma he could win back the delegates confidence to which the Czar replied, more or less, that it was rather they who should be trying to win back his confidence and I think that illustrates, rather starkly, the difference in thinking; putting faith in a government, an administration rather than accepting the familial bonds of monarchy.

  6. Mentality is of coruse the issue, and always has been. Republicanism appeals to a sence of selfish indulgence. You get to pick, opr at leats help pick, the leader. You viote for who you personally want in power. As a practice, you vote for whoever gives you the most goodies. Pretty soon, your whims become rights and yoy demand as rights your personal desires, all while demanding to be taken are of by your Government. It is entirely based upon selfishness. Monarchy is base don duty to an otside interest and obligation to society. Thats one reason I support it. One can disagree and still be loyal, but how are we to be loyal in a system that asks us to pick the leader if our guy didnt win?

    People have by and lare lost the sens eof duty and obligation, and become nothing but entitlement minded goons.

  7. Perhaps someone will correct me -but I think it was perhaps Prince Bismarck who said that universal suffrage was the government of a house by its nursery. It may not always be the case, but it soon becomes that, especially when socialism starts to creep in and the state is seen as nothing more than the sugar-daddy-in-chief.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...