tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post5343784254195756617..comments2024-03-16T01:00:19.876-05:00Comments on The Mad Monarchist: Mad Analysis: My Problems with the LibertariansMadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-85415580032305786452017-05-01T22:09:51.556-05:002017-05-01T22:09:51.556-05:00Reading this five years later really resonated wit...Reading this five years later really resonated with me. I consider myself to be a libertarian, and before I wholeheartedly disagreed with you, but now I agree with many of the points that you have against libertarians, such as the fact that most tend to focus on stupid social issues like gay marriage and weed instead of economic ones like, say, ending the welfare state, or taking care of the national debt, absolutely boggles my mind. I find myself becoming more and more irritated with the libertarian movement as a whole, as they sit and preach about the city burning, and yet they do nothing to put out the fire. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06065329416451827487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-37280493841653113492014-02-08T01:41:58.677-06:002014-02-08T01:41:58.677-06:00I was responding to your "Yes, I only agree w...I was responding to your "Yes, I only agree with what makes sense" post, not to the article itself. My point is: A libertarian's view of wrong, assuming he's a libertarian for moral reasons, does include that which violates an individual's rights, but it isn't necessarily limited to that. <br /><br />On another note, I found your website about a month or two ago. I'm an American too (Virginian specifiably), and unusually for an American I conceder Elisabeth II to be my queen (you didn't convert me, I was way long before finding your site). Despite that I'm not a monarchist, except perhaps in a lose sense of the term. I do support democracy, despite it's faults, in the Anglosphere (including America), and I'd oppose anything beyond a ceremonial powerless monarchy. The foreign nations on the other hand, can have whatever system of government they want as far as I'm concerned (as long as it's not communist or something). I have no hostility to the remaining absolute monarchies, and IMO it's dangerous for the entire world to be under the same system of government anyway. Even if I did believe that the entire world should be under democracy, I don't see democracy as at all incompatible with a ceremonial monarchy.<br /><br />Despite my (geographically limited) pro-democracy views, I think I understand your point of view (democracy certainly has it's faults), and I defiantly respect it. I'm defiantly a fan, actually I became a fan pretty quickly after finding your site. You're a vary smart guy, and you do some good work, keep it up. You remind me a bit of me, especially with what you said about reading books in Q&A 2. <br /><br />There is one opinion of yours I strongly disagree with, allot more strongly then you're I do with anti-democracy views. Regarding the American Revolution, I'm a diehard Rebel; tough I think I see you're point of view I could never be a Loyalist. I won't really get into why I support the Rebels, it would take at least a paragraph to really explain that. Suffuse to say despite our opposing point of views, I think they're both based in counter-revolutionary ideals; my pro-rebel ideology is probably very different then that of most Americans. I am no fan of the French Revolution. Also, my pro-Rebel ideology has almost nothing to do with any anti-monarchy stance of the Rebels (anti-George II yes, but not anti-monarchy); IMO the Rebels anti-monarchy stance has been grossly exaggerated anyway. I don't conceder you to be a traitor for your Loyalist views; at least no more so then I would conceder Americans with a Unionist view of the Civil War to be traitors.<br /><br />In closing, you're definably made me more friendly to the remaining absolute monarchies, and to a lesser extent monarchy in general; not that I was ever anti-ceremonial monarchy. It would be tragic for the remaining absolute monarchies to be lost, and I probably wouldn't have said that before finding your site. As I said the entire world should not be under a single system of government; you've reminded me of that, and be extension of the importance of self-determination and national sovereignty. Keep up the good work MM.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12141280937817413536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-13748010461795031562014-02-06T15:32:01.839-06:002014-02-06T15:32:01.839-06:00I don't see where I argued contrary to that. R...I don't see where I argued contrary to that. Right and wrong doesn't come in to it because that's all up to the individual. My argument above was with libertarian priorities and inconsistency on the responsibility issue.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-90844934127906784862014-02-06T07:34:35.819-06:002014-02-06T07:34:35.819-06:00MM, I'm a libertarian, and you're understa...MM, I'm a libertarian, and you're understanding of the libertarian definition of definition of right and wrong is incorrect. A libertarian does not (necessarily) believe that whatever the individual wants what is right. A libertarian believes that whatever the individual wants what is ought to be legal, so long as that individual doesn't want to violate the rights of another individual (e.g. murder, theft). <br /><br />A libertarian can oppose laws against X while also regarding X as immoral. Such a libertarian would likely support fighting X, while regarding laws against X as an morally unacceptable means of fighting X. <br /><br />None of this prevents a libertarian from defining right and wrong based on the rulings of a higher power.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12141280937817413536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-3401038892845701062012-11-16T00:09:54.691-06:002012-11-16T00:09:54.691-06:00You're a monarchist because you believe in com...You're a monarchist because you believe in commercial regulation ... okay, never heard of that before but, whatever floats your boat. When did I say an agrarian society was collectivist? And an "agrarian society" is not an economic system. Pol Pot's Cambodia was an agrarian society but I don't think you'd advocate something like that. However, listening to your list of wants and desires I can certainly agree that you are not being rational and I doubt anyone will ever accuse you of that.<br /><br />I tend to agree with Bishop Jacques Bossuet that one of the characterists of a tyrant rather than an absolute monarch is respect for private property and that all people are not slaves. It seems you do not agree.<br /><br />Return to a simpler way of life? How is that to be accomplished? Again, it sounds like Democratic Kampuchea (a case I am *very* familiar with) when soldiers emptied out all the cities and forced everyone to work in the rice fields. How do you keep people locked into this 'simpler life'? You would have to set limits on wages at least, otherwise someone might earn enough money to but themselves some technology to make their life easier and stop living the simple life.<br /><br />I'd ask more questions but I don't think it would do any good. By all means, prove your ideas well founded. I wish you the best of luck in this and will not expect to hear from you further as you give up your computer and internet access as you adopt a simpler way of life.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-15792200759984595202012-11-15T22:49:06.297-06:002012-11-15T22:49:06.297-06:00Of course I believe in a higher power telling peop...Of course I believe in a higher power telling people that they cannot buy or sell beyond a designated area. That's why I'm a monarchist! I believe in authority. And I'm not talking about some made up economic system, but of economic systems well proven by history. I want an agrarian society, and that doesn't mean collectivism at all. That's the economic system of all the great civilizations of the past. A new kind of feudalism, if you like. Like I mentioned, Guillaume Faye proposes a economy ot "two speeds" in wich the vast majority of population return to a simpler way of life, and only a small elite have access to high technology.<br /><br />And restricting trade is not going against private property, is simply regulating trade. Private property doesn't mean you can have whatever you want. For example, I have the impression that you are against the legalization of drugs. And I don't think any of us would like to see nuclear weapons in the hands of common individuals, right? Proposing "absolute rights" for the individuals is simply absurd.<br /><br />And as much absurd as marxism is, is still a rationalistic doctrine, you like it or not. Every one of its elements is based in rationalistic analysis. Yo should read: "Rationalism in politics" by Michael Oakeshot, to see a great exposition of this topic.Miguel Angelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17042706928596416622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-21741758366252635242012-11-15T20:34:41.485-06:002012-11-15T20:34:41.485-06:00Marxism is as irrational as ideologies come -for t...Marxism is as irrational as ideologies come -for the love of God, the whole endgame is that "history stops"! You can't get more irrational than that. If you know of something other than collective vs private ownership, let's hear it because I don't see how there could be anything else. Either you own what is yours or you don't. It doesn't mean you have to make a religion out of an economic system to say that one works better than another. If economies need to be "smaller, and regional, and self-sufficient" that's fine, but that would conflict with private property.<br /><br />How do you keep an economy "local" except by some higher power telling people that they cannot buy or sell beyond a designated area. Self-sufficiency is a great idea (we could always use more of that) but, again, it conflicts with an economy being local. You are going to need things beyond what you can produce in your immediate area. And if you tell me that I cannot sell my oil or natural gas to someone far away willing to pay more because my local area needs to be self-sufficient, you are going against private property.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-60843434393596329252012-11-15T09:11:02.520-06:002012-11-15T09:11:02.520-06:00Marxism, as a philosophy, is completely rationalis...Marxism, as a philosophy, is completely rationalistic, materialistic and "scientific". Andt that's why it is so wrong, and why is contrary to human nature. Because LIFE has many elements that transcends reason. Human beings are not simple robots and human comunnities are much more than mere economic machines. Something that marxism and all the other political doctrines of the "enlightment" (including liberalism) fail to understand. They have destroyed entire cultures (and the planet), in the name of artificial utopias made by "reason". So I have no respect for rationalim at all.<br /><br />And the fact that you support private property (and I do, completely) doesn't mean you have to support capitalism. I opose free market beacuse I opose globalization. You cannot preserve national identity and cultural values, in the context of the modern global economy. Economy needs to be smaller, and regional, and self-sufficient.Miguel Angelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17042706928596416622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-35675213864415595482012-11-14T20:55:09.797-06:002012-11-14T20:55:09.797-06:00I have to say, one thing that has surprised me abo...I have to say, one thing that has surprised me about this post dedicated to my criticisms of libertarianism is the number of people "disagreeing" with me as though I had just written an article praising it. Wasn't expecting that....MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-14369441064142399122012-11-14T20:53:31.888-06:002012-11-14T20:53:31.888-06:00But I do have rational arguments against abortion ...But I do have rational arguments against abortion and gay "marriage". The declining birth rate is proof positive that these things lead to the death of peoples. As for Marxism, there is nothing rational about it at all, it is based on idealism which is the opposite of rationality. It goes against human nature. Go to any daycare center and watch the babies; the first words they learn are "no" and "mine". Capitalism is certainly far from perfect but I will give it credit for at least being based on the facts of human nature; the desire of all people to keep what they earn.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-13125870112665324522012-11-14T18:52:24.209-06:002012-11-14T18:52:24.209-06:00Libertarianism is not compatible with monarchism o...Libertarianism is not compatible with monarchism or with traditionalism at all. Libertarianism is nothing more than the extremation of liberalism as exposed by stuart mill. I opose individualism and rationalism. Becasue the "pure" individual don't exist. Every person and every nation is defined by culture and culture is not "rational" but organic. You opose abortion or gay marriage, not because you have "rational" arguments against it, but because they are contrary to the values of your culture. Period. Rationalism in politics is the basis of marxism and all forms of leftism.<br /><br />One of the problems we have in america (north and south) is we don't have real right wing thinking. We are the descendents of traitors and we see old school liberalim (the first leftism) as "conservative. But liberalism is nothing more than a more diluted form of the same poison as marxism.<br /><br />And the economic doctrine of the libertarians have no future either. I support private property,and I'm against the nanny state, but that's it. Beyond that I opose capitalism, because is a burgueosie system who puts greed as the cardinal value of society, and is ecologically unsustainable. I am a supporter of aristocracy, and of a new form of feudalism.<br /><br />I think one of the most valuable economic proposition I have seen in the last years is the "Archeofuturism" of Guillaume Faye. One of the thinkers of the french new right. He proposes an echonomy of two speeds.<br /><br />So, i disagree with you in this one, Mad Monarchist. Libertarians are quasi-anarchist who are sworn enemys of tradition, and I don't support them at all.Miguel Angelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17042706928596416622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-13185521505412887092012-11-14T17:16:27.465-06:002012-11-14T17:16:27.465-06:00Oh. My. Please tell me you're just pretending ...Oh. My. Please tell me you're just pretending to be this stupid. Your first paragraph -utterly and demonstrably false. All legislation is about enforcing views on people who disagree. And, in a republic based on "popular sovereignty" you DO have to participate in everything that is legal because the government that authorizes it does so in YOUR name. And we also have things called anti-discrimination laws which FORCE the views of one group on all people whether they like it or not. Because of these laws, things like gay "marriage" laws absolutely impact others because if you don't believe in gay "marriage" and refuse to recognize it, you can be sued for discrimination. <br /><br />As to the second paragraph in this parade of ignorance, you need to look up what a theocracy is. You might also just try to exercise your puny little brain in contemplating the difference between enforcing a view of right and wrong based on religion as opposed to any other reason. You are right though, "we" don't live in a theocracy and never have -yet, SHOCKINGLY things like divorce, contraception, abortion, sodomy or going to a bar on Sunday were once ALL illegal. Hmmm... isn't that odd? Our laws were based on Biblical definitions of right and wrong, which you say is a theocracy, and you're really smart, but we don't live in a theocracy. Gee, that's a tough one, it's almost like you don't know what the word means.<br /><br />The bottom line for me is that any society that cannot agree on the difference between right and wrong and good and evil is a society that will not survive for long. But if you think the world can be saved by more butt sex and abortions, you and your fellow geniuses are certainly well on your way.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-60734240468009727782012-11-14T13:53:27.562-06:002012-11-14T13:53:27.562-06:00"I, on the other hand, define right and wrong..."I, on the other hand, define right and wrong based on the rulings of a higher power."<br /><br />And you're completely free to do that. What you're not free to do is create or reinforce legislation based on your arbitrary higher power to impose the word of your higher power on others who don't agree. Making laws that give people the freedom to do something which does not negatively impact the lives of their fellow citizens is not impeding on the rights of those who disagree in the same way the opposite is true. Because something is legal doesn't mean you have to agree with or partake in it.<br /><br />To say "My Bible says this is wrong so the law should say nobody can do it" is selfish and what's known as a theocracy. We don't live in a theocracy. If you'd like to live in a theocracy you're welcome to find any one of the many middle eastern countries which legislate in such a manner after converting to Islam.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16275355421248049741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-62696485128369367992012-11-13T22:30:52.055-06:002012-11-13T22:30:52.055-06:00Very true. They advocate the superiority of the pr...Very true. They advocate the superiority of the private individual over the collective in everything -except for the government itself. A rather glaring contradiction that I doubt most American libertarians even thing about.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-1342965083239482702012-11-13T19:53:49.419-06:002012-11-13T19:53:49.419-06:00Mad Monarchist, I agree with you entirely. Liberta...Mad Monarchist, I agree with you entirely. Libertarians fear the State (they are right to do so) and uphold the private citizen; however, most Libertarians in this country ignore the only form of government that is actually compatible with this view. A Monarch is essentially a private citizen, and is the ultimate expression of person-hood in a nation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18077743812328150595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-7899031634093788502012-11-13T15:08:23.209-06:002012-11-13T15:08:23.209-06:00I would agree with most of that. As I've writt...I would agree with most of that. As I've written about before, if your simple definition of libertarianism is keeping everything in private hands and using contracts rather than state regulations then the Catholic Middle Ages were about as libertarian as anyone has ever been.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-22867224927585482702012-11-13T14:29:11.454-06:002012-11-13T14:29:11.454-06:00The reasons I don't support the Libertarian Pa...The reasons I don't support the Libertarian Party are among those you have outlined above.<br /><br />I'm also in the minority of a minority camp of being TradCath, AustrianEcon, and Monarchist -- essentially the territory staked out by the late Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Small "l" libertarianism just strikes me as the sane and sensible result of applying subsidiarity to civil society.<br />Flambeauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00133131881423202010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-57187578637311097882012-11-13T00:17:11.509-06:002012-11-13T00:17:11.509-06:00You do, and I do know of others, but most are not ...You do, and I do know of others, but most are not in the United States and they certainly don't make up the bulk of support for the Libertarian Party or any of the other organizations I have mentioned. Where most of these would part company with you, I think, is in the words you used - "...for the good of the nation/culture..." -they don't believe in such a thing. I do, but I do agree with them on not micro-managing the lives of ordinary people, sound money and sound fiscal policies, respect for private property, disdain for the mob and the idea that one should not punish success or reward failure.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-12382675792010750092012-11-13T00:13:46.406-06:002012-11-13T00:13:46.406-06:00I don't know why you're so hung up on my g...I don't know why you're so hung up on my giving "credence" to the libertarians -especially in an article listing my problems with them. If I list all the areas in which I do agree with them you'll certainly be put off that I'm giving them "credence" yet again. I don't know how that is exactly. I simply say, 'here is where I agree with them' and 'here is where I disagree with them'. No more, no less. In fact, I've said countless times on this blog that I don't go in for any political "ism" at all. I don't believe any human system will ever create a paradise on earth.<br /><br />And if what I am doing here is "useless" that's my own business and you shouldn't waste your time with it. If I am, it's my time to waste and not your's.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-36332766377665672962012-11-12T22:17:31.509-06:002012-11-12T22:17:31.509-06:00When I say nazism and communism have things that &...When I say nazism and communism have things that "makes sense", I mean that anyone can find something in an ideology they are in agreement with. Someone can point out Fascism's appeal to order. Does that mean they would bow down to Il Duce or agree to their economic policies?<br /><br />From what I can tell, you only like the libertarian position of private property and the fruits of labor. That's about it.<br /><br />Let's be clear. Libertarianism is a vague term and many leftists lay claim to it as well. There are also a host of political ideologies that share your views fully both economically and socially. So for you, needing or giving credence to libertarianism for virtually anything is useless.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01353545006617415935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-22266985908045219572012-11-12T21:38:28.823-06:002012-11-12T21:38:28.823-06:00I guess I am in the minority of being a Libertaria...I guess I am in the minority of being a Libertarian=Monarchist, see that a Monarchy leaves it's citizens be, treats them like adults instead of constant pandering and has policies for the good of the country.<br /><br />If letting 20 Million illegal voters into this country (while shifting the demographic leftward) than the Politicians are all for it. That is what I do not understand about some Libertarians, its THE LAW that should be enforced for the good of nation/culture, but isn't due to political correctness or worse political opportunism.<br /><br />We Libertarians and Monarchists have more in common than we do with Republicans, hell Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe helped turn me into the Monarchist I am today and he comes form the Libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute.<br /><br />So we Libertarian Monarchists do exist! Kc Lionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466253913797380767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-16485082919977873972012-11-12T20:24:13.855-06:002012-11-12T20:24:13.855-06:00Nothing about communism makes sense whatever and a...Nothing about communism makes sense whatever and as for nazism, it's meaningless, it has no depth to it at all. I agree with libertarians on some economic issues (possibly even most) and the fact is that they are the only ones in the political competition at this point that are making those points.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-61538667769601604192012-11-12T19:05:26.725-06:002012-11-12T19:05:26.725-06:00But if you're not going to agree with them on ...But if you're not going to agree with them on even economic matters, why give them thought or credence? <br /><br />I mean nazism and communism have things that "makes sense".Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01353545006617415935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-77327821922949871722012-11-12T17:09:21.044-06:002012-11-12T17:09:21.044-06:00@MadMonarchist. That's exactly right. I think ...@MadMonarchist. That's exactly right. I think certain elements of the Libertarian movement and the Tea Party are outright anarchsits, given their views about nation states. It's as if they've read way too many Chuck Palahniuk novels or something. They remind me of the Spanish Anarchists in Catalonia during the Civil War. Except they were far left. I have a general disdain for anarchy, maybe because my nation Albania tasted its bitter experience in 1997. They believe in a nation of ones. One's own property should be a sovereign state. I like the saying "A man's house is his Castle." But that shouldn't allow folks to do whatever they like and disavow the nation they are living in. We all have obligations to the state and vice versa. At least it works in theory. That's why I'm quite weary of the Tea Party. They are diehard Republicans, and I'm not talking about the GOP. And total de-regulation of the market was never a part of tradionalist conservative societies, namely Monarchies. Maybe because for quite a while they practiced Mercantilism but even when they adopted Capitalism, it was not 100% de-regulations for the market. I think the sovereign rulers used their power to steer their nations economies' towards the direction they saw as beneficial to their citizens. This exercise of power was used sparsely but there never was a Tea Party like economy of anarchist de-regulation. That's why I feel there should be a non-private social safety net for citizens. Those citizens that want to invest in private social safety net enterprises should have the liberty to do as well. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-40232389087899662062012-11-12T14:44:24.935-06:002012-11-12T14:44:24.935-06:00Other than the issues above, I would agree with bo...Other than the issues above, I would agree with both of them (though as I said, I believe Napolitano is pro-life) on probably the majority of their government and economy positions. However, while I salute their counrage and honesty in pointing out certain uncomfortable truths, this very quality would preclude them from ever being elected president. You cannot call men like Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt "tyrants" and be elected president in the United States. It just won't happen. The fact that they are perfectly correct makes no difference; the mob doesn't want to be confused with the facts.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com