Translate

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Ten objections to monarchy and responses


Here, via Chateau Heartiste (Roissy).

My two favorites:

7) Traditional societies harm outsiders by being exclusionary and not letting them play too.

Comment: Too bad. The point of a traditional society is to serve the people who are a part of it. If foreigners want to have a good society, they can make their own. It is not possible to make functional societies for everyone on Earth overnight. It’s better for 50 million people to live in a flourishing society and the rest of the planet to be stuck with democracy than it is for everyone to be stuck with it. If people had good societies themselves, they wouldn’t be so hung up on trying to raid the societies of others. The reason they complain about exclusion is because their societies are broken and they want to escape them. This is all the more reason to build the border walls taller and thicker.

10) Wealth is unequally distributed and it’s unfair.

Comment: It is unfair. The primary reason why it’s unfair is that the current rich are hoarding their wealth offshore rather than putting it to work for the populace, as they are traditionally supposed to. The role of a monarch is to use force and intimidation to ensure that the nobility does what it rightfully should — run projects that constructively generate wealth for the country and its inhabitants. The traditional wealth of the nobility is in land, not the accumulation of trinkets such as cars. Nobles that abdicate their responsibilities and focus only on themselves will be punished by the State. Over time, feelings of realistic mutual expectation will develop, and the nobility will understand what is expected of them. It’s quite simple, and worked perfectly well for many hundreds of years. The problem today is that the wealthy consider themselves atomized, cosmopolitan individuals with no allegiance to any state or the other classes. The solution is not to grab their capital and tear it apart into a million pieces so it can be handed to peasants who will squander it (how many times does this have to fail horribly until people get it?), but to cultivate a nobility that understands its responsibilities to the nation. Since the present-day rich are mostly conceited and selfish, they will have to be whipped into shape by a strong monarch. It’s only a matter of time until this happens, since the alternatives — state redistribution or lower class rebellion — don’t work in the long term and lead to economic collapse.

Of course, getting to there from here is another matter entirely, as I've observed previously.

3 comments:

SFG said...

I wonder if you guys (present company excepted, as you've stated we can't get there from here) are just nostalgic for pre-60s society--order, hierarchy, authority--and want to go back even further. I mean, it *was* better, but who's to say a monarch is any different from a dictator? What if you get a silly monarch with 'progressive' ideas? The aristocracy will rein him in? What if they get them too? What's to say they won't just throw all the money in their own pockets the way our elite does now? The common people are stupid, but the elite are corrupt--Machiavelli said as much--and I wonder if the lack of mass murder by the Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns had more to do with their lack of access to things like machine guns and gas chambers than anything else.

I'm not a believer in democracy as a good system, but I don't think you could have a good monarchy in this day and age.

Responses welcome. ;)

The Anti-Gnostic said...

The big cultural shift I find really nauseating is we have gone from a meritocracy of achievement to a meritocracy of suffering.

Someone from a good family, good looking, works hard, keeps their nose clean and goes on to accomplish great things is just coasting on privilege. That they are the end product of a familial line which saved and passed down capital, married well and practiced rigorously good parenting is of no consequence. "They had it handed to them!" You have to be a single mom, sexually deviant, disabled, handicapped, dark skinned, etc.

SFG said...

That's actually a really good point. I mean, in the old days these were handicaps to be overcome, and it was honorable when you did that, but now the handicaps are celebrated in and of themselves. I think Americans, in trying to get rid of the old system where noble birth determined way too much, went too far in the other direction and made it a presumed handicap.

Of course, even now we have some elements of aristocracy, like legacy admissions at Harvard.