Minarchists Should be Monarchists

I'd like to stir the pot here, and bring forward the much popular idea of Monarchism. Even though technically I'm not a monarchist because I'm not a minarchist, but if I did supported statism, monarchy would best maintain a true libertarian society. I mean let’s face, democracy has been an utter failure like socialism, and always leads to more government control. People are simply too stupid to be trusted with the mob rule of democracy, look what happened to prop 19, need I go further? Democracy in a nutshell is 51% of the people telling the 49% of the people how they should live their lives.
Before anyone brings up tyrannical kings and feudalism, I should point out that a constitutional monarchy like the Westminster System is different from an absolute monarchy where there is no constitution or parliament to keep the monarch in check. And just because monarchism took place mostly in feudal times does not mean it could not work in a free market society. For those American constitutionalists out there, I truly believe that your constitution would be still relevant today with a monarch whose sole blood duty as the head of state is to uphold the constitution.
A libertarian society would be best protected with a monarch kept in check by a constitution and a parliament. While the parliament and democracy would be kept in check by the monarch and the constitution.

Yeah the problem is the people in power help each other out. What the difference between a president and a king in this situation?

Dude there's a really good video about this...

Why, if you believe that coercion is bad, would you want to force your minarchy on everyone? The majority of people need to want the minarchy for it to work, can you imagine the rage liberals would go into if we tried to take every last entitlement, benefit, and gov. job from them? They would flip shit and we would have a violent revolution.

I think the change needs to happen on a societal level, and then changes in government can be made. I'll go get the video, the guy talks about a similar concept at the end...

[ame][/ame]

http://forum.grassci...lation-law.html

Edited by Stewba, 02 March 2011 - 02:50 PM.

As I already stated, I am not a minarchist/monarchist, I was merely arguing that since we live under statism, monarchy would be the best solution. The difference between the monarch and the president is that the monarch does not make the law, only enforces it. Remember, I'm talking about a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one.
Also a democratically elected leader does not have any incentive to really preserve liberty. Since they're only in power for about four years, they have an incentive to plunder as much from the state and their power with the limited time that they have. But under a constitutional monarch, since the government is his personal possession, he has an incentive to act in good judgement. Rather than plundering the nations resources, he would manage it carefully, since he expects to pass his title onto his heirs. The freer the country is the richer the country is which means the value of the monarch’s income and estate would be higher as well, incentivizing him to act in good judgement.

I see what you're saying. All I'm saying is that Monarchy wouldn't be a good tool to bring about minarchy, because the people would get hella pissed. (Look at Wisconsin)

I think minarchy/anarchy should be brought about through democratic means, to avoid that kind of conflict which I think is bad for us all in a lot of different ways.

As I already stated, I am not a minarchist/monarchist, I was merely arguing that since we live under statism, monarchy would be the best solution. The difference between the monarch and the president is that the monarch does not make the law, only enforces it. Remember, I'm talking about a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one.
Also a democratically elected leader does not have any incentive to really preserve liberty. Since they're only in power for about four years, they have an incentive to plunder as much from the state and their power with the limited time that they have. But under a constitutional monarch, since the government is his personal possession, he has an incentive to act in good judgement. Rather than plundering the nations resources, he would manage it carefully, since he expects to pass his title onto his heirs. The freer the country is the richer the country is which means the value of the monarch’s income and estate would be higher as well, incentivizing him to act in good judgement.

Presidents don't make laws just enforce the law, so says the consitution. No system will work "right" if the people in the system are corrupt

Presidents don't make laws just enforce the law, so says the consitution. No system will work "right" if the people in the system are corrupt

Yea, but in a republic, you don't have a hereditary head of state to keep the president/prime minister in check and vice versa.