Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Monarchy and Republicanism

There was a brief opinion piece on Reason a few weeks ago that I have been meaning to comment on. I found the article rather odd concerning reasons normal fare, cosmotarian drug/gay/government pieces, as the piece was on the benefits of monarchy.  For many Americans the idea that monarchism would somehow be the best, and perhaps most libertarian, form of government is intrinsically at odds with out world view; or it at least it appears that way. 

Real republicans care about rule of
law not this power to the people nonsense
After all, we colonials south of the 49th parallel rebelled against a tyrannical king who ignored our rights as British subjects and kinsmen to our English brethren. It is a bit of an oversimplification, since George III was actually quite liberal as far as 18th century monarchs go, if he really was as bad as we Americans think him then he would have shared the fate of Charles the I, and parliament was just as responsible for the litany of injustices foisted on our people as any king.  America's colored history with our last king has tainted us in the regards to kingship, in name if not necessarily form, and we need to remember that we are the only Anglosphere nation (If we don't include the Republic of Ireland in the Anglosphere and we arguably could) in the world that isn't part of the commonwealth. Meaning that our head of state is not a member of King or Queen of Great Britain.

Many of the Canadian bloggers that I read are Monarchists. In fact, some are of the opinion that the king or queen should actively partake in daily governance, rather than the ceremonial position they occupy now. As for myself, my official opinion is that it doesn't matter. My primary concern is liberty and good governance, which are synonymous, and though American republicans Canadian and British monarchists could debate the benefits and pitfalls of each system of governance, and which form of government would ultimately best protect our rights, the fact is that we are not to the point where those pitfalls and strengths of those systems of government really matter.  I suspect that for republicans and monarchists alike, if they were to live in the other system at it's most optimal, would be perfectly content to live in the opposing system of governance.

The state and current trajectory of the West makes the debate, admittedly of really only academic interest during good times, a potentially dangerous diversion today.  There isn't a nation in the West today, be it a constitutional monarchy or a republic, that has not seen a significant reversal in regards to the cause of liberty. Neither the crown nor sacred document have, or could have, prevented the cultural crises we face today.  The West has fallen out of love with liberty and that is a tragedy. It will take the combined efforts of liberty minded republicans and monarchists to reverse the disastrous trajectory our culture is taking today. Ultimately, If making America a monarchy, or conversely Great Britain a republic, would somehow reverse the trend then I, and I suspect my monarchists counterparts, could live with it. Either way, either system of governance, which are inherently rooted in tradition and the nature of man, is obviously superior to the modern demagogue democracy we find ourselves in today.

I'd rather have a king in the model of this man:

Than a president in the model of this one:


  1. My personal feeling is the Founders were wrong in assuming people would be able to maintain the Republic. To wit: all people are not created equal, which is now obvious to all but the tone deaf. The Founders put together a document meant for a small, highly educated people. Many people cannot be left to themselves for the common good, freedom is not for all. Look at the Presidents we have elected, exercising our freedom, only a handful were any good while most have done serious damage to the Republic. Republicanism is for intelligent people with strong morals and a view to limited government. Highly moral and intelligent people don't want to run for office anymore leaving only egomaniacs and liars. Freedom only works for a highly developed population which we do not have.

    1. I think the founders were cogniscant of this fact when establishing the republic, which is one of the reasons why the established a republic, not a democracy, that had certain requirements that made a person eligible to participate.

      Ultimately the failure I see in our republic is the same sort of failure that is happening to constitutional monarchies. Those who are in power, those who should know better and act intelligently, and perhaps more importantly morally, are failing.

      In the end it appears that the system of government doesn't really matter. It's our leaders, and as history has shown, eventually the character of our 'betters' will eventually fail. Where that all our leaders Madisons, Jeffersons, Adams and Washingtons it would matter little what sort of government we would have.


Disagreements and countervailing views are welcome, however, comments will be deleted if:

-They have emoticons.
-If it is obvious that you have not read the post.
-Obvious Spam, and it takes me about a quarter second to determine if it is spam since you all write your comments the same way.

About Me

My photo
Seattle resident whose real name is Kevin Daniels. This blog covers the following topics, libertarian philosophy, realpolitik, western culture, history and the pursuit of truth from the perspective of a libertarian traditionalist.