How Monarchy Is Superior To Democracy

Some facts about Monarchy as a political system in comparison to our current suppression of individual rights in favor of the majority opinion.

History shows us that most Monarchs that behaved badly were promptly removed by revolting citizens.

Because Monarchs are hereditary lifetime "appointments" to rule, if the people become dissatisfied, they are not going to wait 4 years until the next election cycle - since there is no election cycle. They revolt and remove the monarch rather quickly.

In Europe, Monarchs tended to be very restrained with their rule and taxes because the ease of mobility made it a simple matter for subjects to move into another Monarch's kingdom. Unlike the United States and the EU where "states" have been turned into a homogeneous morass of tyranny, where by moving to a different state changes almost nothing.

Hoppe also argues that Monarchs have an incentive to look at public policy over a longer term time horizon. While elected politicians only look as short term results. The longer term time horizon is obviously a better way to conduct policy.

Dr. Hans Hoppe lectures on "Whom Exploits Whom?" at the Oxford Libertarian Society, where he highlights more of the benefits of Monarchy as opposed to majority tyranny.






[edit on 6-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Because Monarchs are hereditary lifetime "appointments" to rule, if the people become dissatisfied, they are not going to wait 4 years until the next election cycle - since there is no election cycle. They revolt and remove the monarch rather quickly.

Wait a minute though. That sounds somewhat like the action of a democracy also.

However, I'll agree that nearly everything beats democracy: that is, mob rule/rule of the majority.

how does it go?, a good dictatorship is better than even a good democracy but even a bad democracy is better than a bad dictatorship.

There is also the problem of civil wars, royal familys and noble families can often be vast leading to massive civil fragmentation with more factions than otherwise possible vying for power.

Cheers for the video

The protocols of Zion hold a similar belief

"the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence of the aristocracy of the GOYIM, that class which was the only defense peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the eternal and genealogical aristocracy of the GOYIM we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class headed by the aristocracy of money. " Protocol no. 1

The real question, I think, is why do we need a monarchy or democracy at all? Both are equally negative, as a king as absolute power and a democracy is ruled by the fickle masses that can be easily manipulated. Common law, such as the constitution and bill of rights, where no man is above the law, seems like the only viable solution.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Hoppe argues revolt against a monarch is a more efficient and quicker action that accomplishes a real change in rule.

Because democracy gives the illusion of having the power to change the interests running the country, people are willing to put up with more tyranny under democracy than under a monarchy.

If you think about it, if you have a corrupt legislative body, such as America and the UK does today, it is far more difficult to get liberty back for a variety of reasons.

reply to post by filosophia

Common law, such as the constitution and bill of rights, where no man is above the law, seems like the only viable solution.

Not exactly had the desired affect intended though eh?

reply to post by Johnze


Yeah, the problem was we established a federal government.

The states should have left well enough alone and stayed sovereign, but they let the camels nose under the tent so to speak.

If the states were sovereign, we could move to a state that has laws and taxes we like. Of course, the tyrants want none of that.

I doubt a monarchy is superior to a democracy or another form of government. You have not studied history to understand how monarch governments have a greater chance of staying power then a president or prime minister. One of the most difficult task of removing a monarch is culture and pride. Like Japan after WW2 the U.S forgave Japan and emperor Hirohito so they wouldn't have to keep fighting Japan because the people still had pride in their emperor. Which today Japan still has one. But he's not as powerful as before.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Duration of rule does not matter.

It is the tyranny of the rule that matters.

When you measure it by how much a government can get away with, we find that monarchs tend to be more reserved, because if they do cross the line, the penalty is typically death by revolting citizens.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If you think about it, if you have a corrupt legislative body, such as America and the UK does today, it is far more difficult to get liberty back for a variety of reasons.

It's extremely difficult to gain back liberty no matter what kind of government is in operation. Also, if the only means so far discussed for gaining back liberty is revolt, this is equally as easy no matter what form of government is in operation. Also, neither US nor UK are democracies.

Originally posted by mnemeth1


In Europe, Monarchs tended to be very restrained with their rule and taxes because the ease of mobility made it a simple matter for subjects to move into another Monarch's kingdom.

You'll have to back that statement up because that flies in the face of just about everything I know about European Monarchs before the 20th century, when democracy as a rule became the norm more than the exception. Looking forward to watching the video though when I get some time. It sounds very interesting.

reply to post by GAOTU789


The monarchs controlled sovereign kingdoms and citizen mobility was unrestrained between them.

Monarchs had to entice and cajole citizens to stick around and pay taxes. If they got too heavy handed, the citizens would move or revolt.

www.vlib.us...
from the lecture of Lynn Harry Nelson, KU professor.

On the origin of post mid-evil monarch power:

One can make some general observations. The new monarchs began to assume almost absolute powers, depending upon their circumstances. What were the bases of their power?

Wherever possible, they gained permanent taxation powers from the representative assemblies, and were thus less dependent upon popular support. They used this income to surround themselves with salaried employees: administrators drawn from the middle classes and standing armies of professional soldiers. Their professional administrators allowed them to keep much better records and financial accounts, and they used their control of information to increase their power still further.

On how "national" monarchs differed from the mid-evil monarchs

What was important was that these national monarchs were laying the foundations of the modern state. Although the kings up to this time might have seemed powerful, their powers were actually quite limited. They generally ruled only after swearing to obey the customs of the land, and there was always a nobility and clergy ready to oppose their policies if they appeared to be taking more power than was traditional. Most of the wealth of their countries was in the hands of nobles and the Church, and their power to tax these properties was limited. Transportation and communication was difficult, and the kings could not expect to be able to control their subjects if those subjects did not want to be controlled. If the kings tried to instituted new or heavier taxes, they found that they could not find officials able to gather the revenues that they demanded. In short, they depended a great deal upon the good will of their subjects.

This was not true of the new states. Independent jurisdictions were swept away, and no one was exempt from the power of the central government. Competent administrators, backed with a professional royal army, were able to impose the royal will even against the wishes of the mass of the population. Perhaps most important, though, was the fact that people were beginning to think of themselves in terms of their nation. Up to this point, people had gained their identities from their religion, their profession, and their social status, and felt greater kinship with "foreigners" of the same class, than fellow countrymen of a different class. This was ending, and the common ideals of western Europeans were becoming less important than the well-being of their own particular country.

Obviously I'm referring to kingdoms of monarchs of the mid-evil flavor.

National monarchs can be considered dictators for all intents and purposes.



[edit on 6-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Of course, my point with all of this is to highlight the good that comes from small independent states.

Small states adjoining one another (like mid-evil kingdoms) create a natural check on power.

When people can move a mere 100 miles to seek haven from tyrannical government, the government itself has to act responsibly.

This is why states, for the most part, are not nearly as in bad a shape as the criminal federal government.

You can't run away from the federal government.

If a state gets too crazy with its laws, regulations, and taxes - the people will move to another state that isn't so criminal.




[edit on 6-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Monarchy/dictatorship is more efficient government, but better? Not so sure.
The Monarch is only human, but the people pay for his/her faults no matter how "faulty" or insane.
People overthrow their oppressors when the last straw has been placed upon the camel's back and the back breaks, no matter what form of government is in place.

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."
Frederick Douglass

But by "revolt" you mean war, right?

The bad thing about monarchy is that it:
A. Puts too much power in one person's hands
B. Isn't stable. I.e. say the king dies and he has no successor? Civil war happens.
and finally
C. It wouldn't work because people don't want to see that much violence every 20 or 40 years in their own country.

reply to post by Mr Headshot


Monarchs typically had less power than our federal legislator does today.

Today, government has control over every aspect of our lives, right down to how many gallons of water a toilet must contain.

Monarchs could never have gotten away with that much tyranny.

The people would have revolted or moved.

This entire planet is a monarchy ruled by the almighty dollar.

The rest is an illusion as a dead bolt claims safety next to a window.

I strongly recommend reading "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Very detailed economic analysis in regards to Monarchy vs Democracy vs Natural Order. Here is a link to a summary:

Democracy: The God That Failed

Both have their failings, but generally a Monarchy is indeed better at sustaining falling Time-Preference rates. Turns out free entry into politics is a very bad thing and leads to corruption and lack of care for the capital stock, which pretty much matches my experience.

reply to post by austra


excellent find.

I want to point out to the other readers that Hoppe is NOT recommending we implement a system of monarchy haha.

He is simply pointing out that Monarchy, of the mid-evil flavor, has some definite advantages as far as governments go.

Hoppe does not believe in imposed government.

Nor do I.


[edit on 6-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

As an American who has actually lived under a monarchy I feel that I can comment.

I don't mean a charade like the UK either.

Morocco is definitely a monarchy. Though it has a legislature, Sadis the 6th is definitely the king. He is educated
and modern in his thinking, taking responsibility for his country. He is quite an improvement over his father,
who displayed all the excesses of a Medieval Monarch.

It is difficult to tell whether the country is better off for it. Compared to nearby similar countries such as Algeria
and Tunis, it has been fairly stable. It is hard to say having a king has helped, but neither can much harm be detected.

Morocco has problems with corruption in the Civil Service. I am not sure anyone can easily fix it. The king certainly
isn't powerful enough to clean it up. The basic cause is one has to pay a bribe for a job, ruling out the conscientious.
An example; my language tutor was educated and honest(certainly minority characteristics). He refused to even
apply with the government, though he was underemployed and could have used the work.

One of the strangest things I did was visit a village on one of the king's personal farms. This vast farm surrounding
it seemed to be essentially a Medieval Structure. Workers worked up to 12 hours a day for $80 per month. People
had small plots for gardens and their own animals. Older people didn't seem in danger of eviction. It certainly wasn't
worse than Corporate farms in the developing world.

I don't think you can generalize about the subject. I believe it can't be said that Monarchies are source of greater
problems than other forms of Government. Good kings are certainly better than bad presidents.
Though tyrannies are usually pretty bad sometimes they ruthlessly dealing the results of bad democracy.

The Moroccan view is nicely illustrated by an large inscription on a mountainside near Fez. It is made of white rocks.
It says

Allah
El Melech
El Watan

God
King
Country