Objections to monarchy

[Jello Biafra]

Ancaps do not want a private state - they may want some functions of the state (dispute resolution, defense of property, etc.) to be provided for in its absence, but that's fundamentally distinct from a "private" state (I'm not even sure what that would look like or what it even means. A "private" state?).

The state, in the words of Max Weber, is the entity that possesses a monopoly on the (perceived) legitimate use of violence over a given territory. In anarcho-monarchism, the kingdom is the personal private property of the monarch, who sets rules on when violence can and cannot be committed. Ergo, a privatized state.

Left-anarchists want the same, no? These are services that must be provided.

Left-anarchists generally do not support having an entity that has the monopoly on the perceived legitimate use of violence, and therefore do not support the state.

[Distruzio]

Ancaps do not want a private state - they may want some functions of the state (dispute resolution, defense of property, etc.) to be provided for in its absence, but that's fundamentally distinct from a "private" state (I'm not even sure what that would look like or what it even means. A "private" state?).

The state, in the words of Max Weber, is the entity that possesses a monopoly on the (perceived) legitimate use of violence. In anarcho-monarchism, the kingdom is the personal private property of the monarch, who sets rules on when violence can and cannot be committed. Ergo, a privatized state.

No. That is not the way it is in anarcho-monarchism. The monarch is not the monopolist and possesses no monopoly. He possesses the honor or deferment. A final mediator and placeholder of identity. A first among equals.

[Distruzio]

He's not really advocating the abolition of the state.

In which case he should probably admit to being pro state when the state makes things happen the way he would like them to so he can get off his high horse and talk in reality with the rest of us properly imperfect humans.

I have, in the first paragraph, admitted to cynicism of the State and it's proper functions. Anti-state. Not astate. Similar to the difference between an anti-theist and an atheist. An anti-theist sees little value in religion and god(s), but recognizes its existence as dangerous. An atheist denies both.

Even then, however, as time goes on, I am gradually seeing the value of the institution increasing. Gradually.

[Distruzio]

You are an enemy of the state.
*gunshot*

Pleasantly so.

[DesAnges]

My biggest bugbear with monarchy is a simple one - I don't believe that one person is judged to be better than another purely because of their lineage.

To paraphrase Terry Pratchett's Guards, Guards!, "a man can be richer, quicker, smarter, more talented than another man, but he cannot be better than him." That's what monarchy implies.

[Forster Keys]

In which case he should probably admit to being pro state when the state makes things happen the way he would like them to so he can get off his high horse and talk in reality with the rest of us properly imperfect humans.

I have, in the first paragraph, admitted to cynicism of the State and it's proper functions. Anti-state. Not astate. Similar to the difference between an anti-theist and an atheist. An anti-theist sees little value in religion and god(s), but recognizes its existence as dangerous. An atheist denies both.

Even then, however, as time goes on, I am gradually seeing the value of the institution increasing. Gradually.

You haven't forgotten about me have you Distruzio?

[Augarundus]

Ancaps do not want a private state

. In anarcho-monarchism

stop

the democratic peace is fact. it is the central fact of international relations, actually. it is simply true that democracies are more peaceful (especially towards each other - they do get into wars with non-democracies, particularly when the other guy invades) than non-democracies. glancing at his chapter in that book you cite, the claim you quoted seems to be saying something totally different than what you implied. basically, royal's claim is that economic liberalism and integration lead to an increase in economic crises, and economic crises cause a greater increase in war-likelihood for democracies than for autocratic states. but it says nothing about the overall likelihood.

non-democracies are more than twice as warlike as established democracies. during times of economic crisis, non-democracies remain more warlike than democracies, but democracies do catch up a little bit.

It's funny, because you aren't citing any statistics or qualified experts who agree with democratic peace theory. Few problems with your arguments:

1) Democracies are not more peaceful than monarchies - you need to cite a source for these sorts of assertions.
2) The only statistical correlation between democracy and peace shows that democracies do not go to war with each other. The United States, France, and UK have been to war more frequently than any other states since the end of WWII (Andrew Mack, "A more Secure World?"; Director of the Human Security Report Project at Simon Fraser University and member of the School for International Studies, former Director of the Strategic Planning Office in the Executive Office of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former professor and researcher at Harvard, London School of Economics, UC Berkeley, and Fundan University in Shanghai).
3) Royal does not claim that economic integration leads to crises. Royal claims (correctly) that economic integration leads to the increased spread of existing crises (markets are no longer insulated from one another).
4) What do you mean "the claim you quoted seems to be saying something totally different than what you implied". Royal says, "when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. [...] This tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to a lack of democratic support." That is my argument.
5) You haven't yet made a case for a causal relation between democracy and peace - even if democracies have historically been more peaceful than monarchies, that is correlative, not causal.
6) Hans Hoppe, in "Democracy: The God that Failed", notes that, even if democracies do not go to war (with each other) as frequently as do monarchies, democratic wars are more likely to escalate than those between monarchies, because democratic wars are less frequently fought for control of territory, and more frequently fought for ideological purposes. Ideologically driven wars have nebulous "gains" which, unlike territorial gains, are not easily measured, so democratic states cannot rationally calculate whether or not the cost of a war is worth the benefits - for this reason, conventional deterrence is not stable amongst democratic states, so "total war" is most likely under a democratic order.

democracies are richer than non-democratic states. democracies are the richest societies to ever exist in all of human history, with the only non-democracies ranking anywhere worth mentioning making all of their money selling oil to rich democracies.

outside of greece, there is no real debt problem in the modern west - its all an artifact of either shoddy policy that has been utterly counterproductive to recovery or simply imagined in the delusional minds of Serious People and glenn beck fans.

meanwhile, absolute monarchs routinely liquidated the treasuries and ruined their countries pursuing all sorts of dumb ideas. france and spain and russia spring immediately to mind.

also, hoppe is a worthless hack.

1) Even if democracies are historically wealthier than non-democracies, that is correlative, not causal. White nations are wealthier than predominantly colored nations, yet that doesn't prove whites are inherently more producive.
2) I have still presented a theory as to why the incentive structures of monarchs promote economic responsibility. You have neither indicted this theory nor presented a counter - only noted that democracies are rich today (this is non-responsive).
3) Hans Hoppe is a peer-reviewed college professor, noted philosopher, and student of Jurgen Habermas. Your insults are non-responsive.
4) You're a hack.
5a) I don't know what you're talking about with reference to France, Spain, and Russia. Two of those nations were indebted through world wars (WWI and Seven Years War), and one was hit by hyperinflation+economic illiteracy.
5b) I said monarchs are better suited for long-term economic policy, not that economic crises are impossible under monarchies. There are many hundreds more (and worse) economic depressions in the democratic world than the monarchic one.
6) Lol, okay. You got me - there's no debt problems in the west.

i didn't say they don't occur. i said that democracies offer a way to remove the leadership fucking things up without having to kill 'em (or have the force to do it, and thereby force concessions). we call them 'elections'. non-democracies lack these.

Lincoln won the election of 1861, yet the minority still rebelled.

It is also possible to avoid civil war under monarchs. Physiocrats in mid-18th century France were able to infiltrate French courts and gradually change French economic policy. 19th century Russian czars were assassinated - others were successfully influenced into, say, abolishing serfdom. Monarchs are not unilateral autocrats - they must respond to the influences of a core of advisers, inner governmental officials, etc. There are hundreds of ways of shifting policy focus within a monarchy - the absence of one (the election) arbitrary method means nothing.

remember that time i said that the big problem spots for democracies are during the transition time, before democratic norms have fully set in, and during times of crisis? yeah...

also, hoppe's idea about the cause of economic crises are fucking laughable. as is the idea that somehow democracies are worse than non-democracies when it comes to discrimination, oppression, and expulsion or even extermination of minorities. then again, he is explicitly in favor of discriminating against and expelling minorities he doesn't like. so here he's just being disingenuous.

1) So, you are conceding that democracies are unstable during times of crisis (such as economic crisis, a la the Royal evidence)?

2) your arguments are "fucking laughable"
good arg

3) Hans Hoppe is not in favor of that discrimination - he only says the rights of covenant communities to self-segregate noncoercively must be respected.
That's an ad hominem and has nothing to do with this debate, though. You should start addressing my arguments and citing sources for your own.

[Distruzio]

I have, in the first paragraph, admitted to cynicism of the State and it's proper functions. Anti-state. Not astate. Similar to the difference between an anti-theist and an atheist. An anti-theist sees little value in religion and god(s), but recognizes its existence as dangerous. An atheist denies both.

Even then, however, as time goes on, I am gradually seeing the value of the institution increasing. Gradually.

You haven't forgotten about me have you Distruzio?

eh.... did I miss a response to you?

[Vazdania]

You haven't forgotten about me have you Distruzio?

eh.... did I miss a response to you?

HOW COULD YOU FORGET ABOUT POOR FORSTER KEYS!!?!?!

[Forster Keys]

You haven't forgotten about me have you Distruzio?

eh.... did I miss a response to you?

A little bit, but you seemed pretty swamped in, so I'm not too concerned.

[Free Soviets]

the democratic peace is fact. it is the central fact of international relations, actually. it is simply true that democracies are more peaceful (especially towards each other - they do get into wars with non-democracies, particularly when the other guy invades) than non-democracies. glancing at his chapter in that book you cite, the claim you quoted seems to be saying something totally different than what you implied. basically, royal's claim is that economic liberalism and integration lead to an increase in economic crises, and economic crises cause a greater increase in war-likelihood for democracies than for autocratic states. but it says nothing about the overall likelihood.

non-democracies are more than twice as warlike as established democracies. during times of economic crisis, non-democracies remain more warlike than democracies, but democracies do catch up a little bit.

It's funny, because you aren't citing any statistics or qualified experts who agree with democratic peace theory. Few problems with your arguments:

1) Democracies are not more peaceful than monarchies - you need to cite a source for these sorts of assertions.
2) The only statistical correlation between democracy and peace shows that democracies do not go to war with each other.

so you agree that the democratic peace exists. therefore it follows that democracies are more peaceful than non-democracies by sheer force of logic.

if democratic states are less likely to go to war with democratic states than non-democratic states are to go to war with each other, it must be true that democratic states are less warlike than non-democratic states. unless you want to get into questions of who started it when it comes to democracies vs non-democracies...at which point, the democratic peace becomes even more obvious, since almost all of the clear cases involve the non-democracies pulling ridiculous shit like invading poland and the falklands, invading non-democracies that have the support of democracies, or attempting to slaughter large parts of their populations.

democracies will go to war, but they rarely just launch one for no good reason.

on the other hand, when europe was dominated by monarchs they spent the entire time launching random wars at each other. hell, just england and france fought at least once a generation for a thousand years. now, its basically unthinkable that they would.

as a source, see...well, anybody. its just textbook.

The United States, France, and UK have been to war more frequently than any other states since the end of WWII

great powers do more things internationally than non-powers! - stunning footage at 11

3) Royal does not claim that economic integration leads to crises. Royal claims (correctly) that economic integration leads to the increased spread of existing crises (markets are no longer insulated from one another).

Royal: "In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises."

also, even just allowing crises to spread more easily is the same thing as causing there to be more economic crises in any particular country.

4) What do you mean "the claim you quoted seems to be saying something totally different than what you implied". Royal says, "when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. [...] This tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to a lack of democratic support." That is my argument.

suppose you love gumballs but i don't particularly care for them. you will have twenty a week. i will average one...except when i am stressed out. when stressed, i chew 500% more gumballs than normal. but with you, stress doesn't effect your gumball chewing habit at all.

which of us chews more gumballs when stressed?

royal isn't saying that democracies are more warlike than non-democracies. he's saying that there are risks that democracies need to be aware of.

6) Hans Hoppe, in "Democracy: The God that Failed", notes that, even if democracies do not go to war (with each other) as frequently as do monarchies, democratic wars are more likely to escalate than those between monarchies, because democratic wars are less frequently fought for control of territory, and more frequently fought for ideological purposes. Ideologically driven wars have nebulous "gains" which, unlike territorial gains, are not easily measured, so democratic states cannot rationally calculate whether or not the cost of a war is worth the benefits - for this reason, conventional deterrence is not stable amongst democratic states, so "total war" is most likely under a democratic order.

and yet here we are, with europe significantly more stable than it has been since the romans owned it all. but who are we gonna believe, hoppe or our lying eyes?

democracies are richer than non-democratic states. democracies are the richest societies to ever exist in all of human history, with the only non-democracies ranking anywhere worth mentioning making all of their money selling oil to rich democracies.

outside of greece, there is no real debt problem in the modern west - its all an artifact of either shoddy policy that has been utterly counterproductive to recovery or simply imagined in the delusional minds of Serious People and glenn beck fans.

meanwhile, absolute monarchs routinely liquidated the treasuries and ruined their countries pursuing all sorts of dumb ideas. france and spain and russia spring immediately to mind.

1) Even if democracies are historically wealthier than non-democracies, that is correlative, not causal. White nations are wealthier than predominantly colored nations, yet that doesn't prove whites are inherently more producive.
2) I have still presented a theory as to why the incentive structures of monarchs promote economic responsibility. You have neither indicted this theory nor presented a counter - only noted that democracies are rich today (this is non-responsive).

historically, currently, inherently. the reason why strong monarchs promote economic irresponsibility is because power rests in the hands of one idiot who isn't accountable to anyone and who gets to use as much tax money as he can grab to pay for his personal protection from any angry peasants. the prestige games monarchs play are different from the ones played by democracies.

hell, even during the height of european monarchy, it was the oligarchic-but-at-least-vaguely-more-democratic republics that dominated economically.

5a) I don't know what you're talking about with reference to France, Spain, and Russia. Two of those nations were indebted through world wars (WWI and Seven Years War), and one was hit by hyperinflation+economic illiteracy.

they spent more times than just those completely broke. all them wars and palaces get expensive.

i didn't say they don't occur. i said that democracies offer a way to remove the leadership fucking things up without having to kill 'em (or have the force to do it, and thereby force concessions). we call them 'elections'. non-democracies lack these.

Lincoln won the election of 1861, yet the minority still rebelled.

It is also possible to avoid civil war under monarchs. Physiocrats in mid-18th century France were able to infiltrate French courts and gradually change French economic policy. 19th century Russian czars were assassinated - others were successfully influenced into, say, abolishing serfdom. Monarchs are not unilateral autocrats - they must respond to the influences of a core of advisers, inner governmental officials, etc. There are hundreds of ways of shifting policy focus within a monarchy - the absence of one (the election) arbitrary method means nothing.

so the alternatives besides war you offer are either hope some particular monarch happens to change their mind or kill the fucker and hope somebody better comes next. the first is irrelevant, as it doesn't do anything to prevent shitty kings from being shitty. the second is just civil war writ small.

yeah, elections seem just a little bit superior.

remember that time i said that the big problem spots for democracies are during the transition time, before democratic norms have fully set in, and during times of crisis? yeah...

1) So, you are conceding that democracies are unstable during times of crisis (such as economic crisis, a la the Royal evidence)?

well, relatively unstable. mainly, new democracies have a significant problem with their militaries not liking democracy and so launching coups. and during crises, even more established ones sometimes (though rarely) fall prey to other authoritarian parasites.

in both cases, they run the risk of resuming the inherent badness of non-democracy if such things aren't successfully resisted. but better to be better with a risk of falling back to bad, than to just stick with the bad in the first place.

---

3) Hans Hoppe is a peer-reviewed college professor, noted philosopher, and student of Jurgen Habermas. Your insults are non-responsive.

also, hoppe's idea about the cause of economic crises are fucking laughable. as is the idea that somehow democracies are worse than non-democracies when it comes to discrimination, oppression, and expulsion or even extermination of minorities. then again, he is explicitly in favor of discriminating against and expelling minorities he doesn't like. so here he's just being disingenuous.

3) Hans Hoppe is not in favor of that discrimination - he only says the rights of covenant communities to self-segregate noncoercively must be respected.

hoppe is noted by no one other than a small group of libertarians and their internet opponents. he certainly is a non-entity among philosophers. being a prof doesn't make one's ideas automatically non-stupid. just look at the lunacy casey mulligan writes.

and despite what hoppe's fanboys say, he really does explicitly write that he favors active discrimination - and even forcible removal - of groups he doesn't like from society. it was even quoted in that link you removed from my post. looked like this:

As soon as mature members of society habitually express acceptance or even advocate egalitarian sentiments, whether in the form of democracy (majority rule) or of communism, it becomes essential that other members, and in particular the natural social elites, be prepared to act decisively and, in the case of continued nonconformity, exclude and ultimately expel these members from society...

There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal [living in a conservative libertarian society]. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

It should be obvious then that and why libertarians must be moral and cultural conservatives of the most uncompromising kind. The current state of moral degeneration, social disintegration and cultural rot is precisely the result of too much-and above all erroneous and misconceived-tolerance. Rather than having all habitual democrats, communists, and alternative lifestylists quickly isolated, excluded and expelled from civilization in accordance with the principles of the covenant, they were tolerated by society...

- democracy: the god that failed, p. 218

[Minarchist States]

The state, in the words of Max Weber, is the entity that possesses a monopoly on the (perceived) legitimate use of violence. In anarcho-monarchism, the kingdom is the personal private property of the monarch, who sets rules on when violence can and cannot be committed. Ergo, a privatized state.

No. That is not the way it is in anarcho-monarchism. The monarch is not the monopolist and possesses no monopoly. He possesses the honor or deferment. A final mediator and placeholder of identity. A first among equals.

So he's a diplomat

[Distruzio]

No. That is not the way it is in anarcho-monarchism. The monarch is not the monopolist and possesses no monopoly. He possesses the honor or deferment. A final mediator and placeholder of identity. A first among equals.

So he's a diplomat

Indeed. A diplomat held in such high regard that he is treated as the expressive identity of the society that honors him.

[Tlaceceyaya]

So he's a diplomat

Indeed. A diplomat held in such high regard that he is treated as the expressive identity of the society that honors him.

A diplomat not because of a passion for diplomacy, but because of being born into the higher caste.

[Seperates]

Because an aristocratic culture has never truely defined the popular and historical culture, and is therefore not the living, breathing, heart of a nation. And divine right is bullshit.

[Distruzio]

Indeed. A diplomat held in such high regard that he is treated as the expressive identity of the society that honors him.

A diplomat not because of a passion for diplomacy, but because of being born into the higher caste.

You speak from ignorance. His family are elevated because of his passion, his honor, and other attributes society values. His caste has nothing to do with. Do you forget that the anarcho-monarchist monarch exists within an anarchist paradigm? There is nothing to institute and perpetuate a caste system. Period.

[Blasveck]

The state, in the words of Max Weber, is the entity that possesses a monopoly on the (perceived) legitimate use of violence. In anarcho-monarchism, the kingdom is the personal private property of the monarch, who sets rules on when violence can and cannot be committed. Ergo, a privatized state.

No. That is not the way it is in anarcho-monarchism. The monarch is not the monopolist and possesses no monopoly. He possesses the honor or deferment. A final mediator and placeholder of identity. A first among equals.

So if the monarch has no power, what is the point of having one in an anarchist "system" per-se.

[Distruzio]

No. That is not the way it is in anarcho-monarchism. The monarch is not the monopolist and possesses no monopoly. He possesses the honor or deferment. A final mediator and placeholder of identity. A first among equals.

So if the monarch has no power, what is the point of having one in an anarchist "system" per-se.

Mediation... among other qualities.

[Blasveck]

So if the monarch has no power, what is the point of having one in an anarchist "system" per-se.

Mediation... among other qualities.

Mediator of what?

Legal disputes?
"Cultural" disputes?

What exactly does the monarch mediate?

[Distruzio]

Mediation... among other qualities.

Mediator of what?

Legal disputes?
"Cultural" disputes?

What exactly does the monarch mediate?

Whatever he is required to do. The man/woman honored as an anarcho-monarch would have to continue to merit that honor if they valued their elevated position. That would require mediating legal, cultural, marital, and other disputes. They would have to travel the realm constantly in order to assure society of their relevance.

[Seperates]

A diplomat not because of a passion for diplomacy, but because of being born into the higher caste.

You speak from ignorance. His family are elevated because of his passion, his honor, and other attributes society values. His caste has nothing to do with. Do you forget that the anarcho-monarchist monarch exists within an anarchist paradigm? There is nothing to institute and perpetuate a caste system. Period.

Then you are speaking out of ignorance. There is a single rule of thumb that you are forgetting when it comes to gaining power. Power perpetuates itself. It always has, and always does, and always will. If there are no established institutes to maintain power... I'll bet my left nut that they will make one.

And if a family is elevated to nobility simply because of traits that s/he supposedly possesses (though it is likely to be who s/he knows) then there are thousands of families who just as equally deserve that spot, and with no arbitrating body to decide between them, there will be no monarch... only thousands of family rivals, taking us into another tribal era.

[Vazdania]

Mediator of what?

Legal disputes?
"Cultural" disputes?

What exactly does the monarch mediate?

Whatever he is required to do. The man/woman honored as an anarcho-monarch would have to continue to merit that honor if they valued their elevated position. That would require mediating legal, cultural, marital, and other disputes. They would have to travel the realm constantly in order to assure society of their relevance.

That sounds like an awful lot of work....if that were me, you'd be sure that there were loads of Vice Roys

[Seperates]

Mediator of what?

Legal disputes?
"Cultural" disputes?

What exactly does the monarch mediate?

Whatever he is required to do. The man/woman honored as an anarcho-monarch would have to continue to merit that honor if they valued their elevated position. That would require mediating legal, cultural, marital, and other disputes. They would have to travel the realm constantly in order to assure society of their relevance.

Really? And what is stopping them from simply dominating out of fear?
And no one person can define the culture of a country.

[Blasveck]

Mediator of what?

Legal disputes?
"Cultural" disputes?

What exactly does the monarch mediate?

Whatever he is required to do. The man/woman honored as an anarcho-monarch would have to continue to merit that honor if they valued their elevated position. That would require mediating legal, cultural, marital, and other disputes. They would have to travel the realm constantly in order to assure society of their relevance.

Then why call it anarcho-monarchy?

Someone (a monarch) is part of a power hierarchy . The head of the power hierarchy.

[Distruzio]

Whatever he is required to do. The man/woman honored as an anarcho-monarch would have to continue to merit that honor if they valued their elevated position. That would require mediating legal, cultural, marital, and other disputes. They would have to travel the realm constantly in order to assure society of their relevance.

Then why call it anarcho-monarchy?

Someone (a monarch) is part of a power hierarchy . The head of the power hierarchy.

No, not power. Governmental structure. Hierarchy isn't anti-anarchy, despite the bleating from left anarchist, when it is freely chosen. For instance, when my fiance defers to me about the movie we will watch, I am being both anarchic and hierarchical. Why? Because she grants me the authority to decide for her without the coercion of the State apparatus to enforce her equality... you know, just in case that deferment drives me mad with power and I threaten her safety.... which is fucking ridiculous.

It is anarcho-monarchy because the name recognizes the truth of anarchy and the truth of appropriate governmental structure within the State.