[SolarCross]

The liberal train of thought has, through the ages, done much to undermine and destroy monarchy; it gave rise to republicanism, democracy and even, through a more tortuous route, socialism, communism and anarchism. The enduring irony for the libertarian who is at the bleeding edge of liberal thought, is that the liberal thinker's aforementioned political progeny have produced societies very much the antithesis of what he holds ideal and that the monarchies of the past and present tend to be very much closer to it. Republics and democracies as well as the more overtly socialistic political economies produce societies very much more prone to arbitrary confiscations, interferences, oppression and other systemic criminality. They are, it must be realised, failed political economies at least by the liberal's own measure. Realising this, finally, the thinker on the bleeding edge of liberal thought thinks there is nothing left to try but anarchist libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism... However there are very very few examples of stable anarchies in the whole of history.. at least none above the most primitive level of technology or larger than a hunter gather sized band with the largest and most sophisticated being the Icelandic Commonwealth (930 - 1262 AD). Even when one looks at the apparent anarchies of small tribes and hunter gatherer bands there is usually on closer inspection an elder or hero who fulfils an executive function, a monarch of sorts. Libertarians are very much impressed with the anarchy of the market and how it produces such a wonderful array goods and services catering as efficiently as possible to every varying demand and budget. Yet how many of the market participants that produce this dazzling array of goods and services are themselves anarchies.. actually none. Large or small they are almost invariably some kind of monarchy... there may be many shareholders but one CEO.

A major problem for a stable anarchy is the problem of competition in violence. When bakers compete the result is more and better buns and cakes, when soldiers compete the result is a bloodbath. For peace there needs to be mutual allegiance for all, or at least most, armed agents within the territorial arena. But allegiance to who or what? and how will the executive will for those armed agents be directed? Anarcho-capitalists posit the NAP, a principle, could be the focus of allegiance.. this is plausible but they have nothing to say as to how that allegiance can be directed for the society.. Executive will requires a living mind, a principle by itself does not suffice. The answer then may be to go full circle back to monarchy!

The final practical libertarian society that is stable, peaceful, productive and conducive to the individual pursuit of happiness may be a free market anarchy under the auspices of a monarchy as guarantor of the peace.

Libertarian Monarchy by the Mad Monarchist
Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy

[mikema63]

Oh dear lord, Neo-feudalism?

You've been reading far to much Hans Hermann Hoppe

[The Immortal Goon]

A king is one step closer to taking libertarianism to its logical conclusion.

The deeds of the Fascists and of other parties corresponding to them were emotional reflex actions evoked by indignation at the deeds of the Bolsheviks and Communists. As soon as the first flush of anger had passed, their policy took a more moderate course and will probably become even more so with the passage of time.

This moderation is the result of the fact that traditional liberal views still continue to have an unconscious influence on the Fascists...

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

Like Friedman, Hayek glimpsed in Pinochet the avatar of true freedom, who would rule as a dictator only for a "transitional period, " only as long as needed to reverse decades of state regulation. "My personal preference, " he told a Chilean interviewer, "leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism." In a letter to the London Times he defended the junta, reporting that he had "not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende." Of course, the thousands executed and tens of thousands tortured by Pinochet’s regime weren’t talking.

Democracy Is Not The Answer

Democracy is the current industry standard political system, but unfortunately it is ill-suited for a libertarian state. It has substantial systemic flaws, which are well-covered elsewhere, and it poses major problems specifically for libertarians:

1) Most people are not by nature libertarians. David Nolan reports that surveys show at most 16% of people have libertarian beliefs. Nolan, the man who founded the Libertarian Party back in 1971, now calls for libertarians to give up on the strategy of electing candidates! Even Ron Paul, who was enormously popular by libertarian standards and ran during a time of enormous backlash against the establishment, never had the slightest chance of winning the nomination. His “strong” showing got him 1.6% of the delegates to the Republican Party’s national convention. There are simply not enough of us to win elections unless we somehow concentrate our efforts.

2) Democracy is rigged against libertarians. Candidates bid for electoral victory partly by selling future political favors to raise funds and votes for their campaigns. Libertarians (and other honest candidates) who will not abuse their office can’t sell favors, thus have fewer resources to campaign with, and so have a huge intrinsic disadvantage in an election.

Libertarians are a minority, and we underperform in elections, so winning electoral victories is a hopeless endeavor.

Emergent Behavior

Consider these three levels of political abstraction:

Policies: Specific sets of laws.
Institutions: An entire country and its legal and political systems.
Ecosystem: All nations and the environment in which they compete and evolve.

Folk activism treats policies and institutions as the result of specific human intent. But policies are in large part an emergent behavior of institutions, and institutions are an emergent behavior of the global political ecosystem.

I'll continue to support the people, thank you very much.

[mikema63]

We could also declare the state a corporation, the citizens would be share holders.

It could be like Athenian democracy, with indentured slaves and everything!

[SolarCross]

I'll continue to support the people, thank you very much.

As do I. Have you not considered that practically all of the historical communist regimes were themselves autocracies, defacto monarchies, worse in that they do not usually concern themselves only with keeping the peace and allowing people to do as they will otherwise but instead do a lot of bungling interfering? Castro, Stalin, Lenin, Tito, Mao...

[anticlimacus]

A major problem for a stable anarchy is the problem of competition in violence. When bakers compete the result is more and better buns and cakes, when soldiers compete the result is a bloodbath. For peace there needs to be mutual allegiance for all, or at least most, armed agents within the territorial arena. But allegiance to who or what? and how will the executive will for those armed agents be directed? Anarcho-capitalists posit the NAP, a principle, could be the focus of allegiance.. this is plausible but they have nothing to say as to how that allegiance can be directed for the society.. Executive will requires a living mind, a principle by itself does not suffice. The answer then may be to go full circle back to monarchy!

The final practical libertarian society that is stable, peaceful, productive and conducive to the individual pursuit of happiness may be a free market anarchy under the auspices of a monarchy as guarantor of the peace.

This is exactly the problem and solution of those with property: How do we protect our property and wealth over and against those exploited by it? With a legal institution backed by state force!

It has been mentioned many times in relation to anarcho-capitalism that capitalism simply does not function without a state authority to squelch rebellion and protect the capitalists class. We also would have to know that no real capitalist would favor the "anarchy of the market". They would only favor it when it benefits them. Otherwise, they would do what they currently do now to try and control the market to their own purposes and their own gain--this too would be for the sake of "peace."

As TIG basically said, Taxizen is just coming to the conclusion what the critics of right-wing libertarians have known all along: they are asking for nothing but either privatized tyrannies or state backed ones.

[SolarCross]

This is exactly the problem and solution of those with property: How do we protect our property and wealth over and against those exploited by it? With a legal institution backed by state force!

It has been mentioned many times in relation to anarcho-capitalism that capitalism simply does not function without a state authority to squelch rebellion and protect the capitalists class. We also would have to know that no real capitalist would favor the "anarchy of the market". They would only favor it when it benefits them. Otherwise, they would do what they currently do now to try and control the market to their own purposes and their own gain--this too would be for the sake of "peace."

As TIG basically said, Taxizen is just coming to the conclusion what the critics of right-wing libertarians have known all along: they are asking for nothing but either privatized tyrannies or state backed ones.

lol at lefties. You are trying to turn this thread into another mind-numbing exercise of babbling absurdities.

No one wants to be a communist. Monarchies are popular. Go away.

Polls on British Monarchy

[Eran]

When bakers compete the result is more and better buns and cakes, when soldiers compete the result is a bloodbath.

I expected better from you.

The relevant question is the nature of the competition. Between bakers, the competition is for the pockets of consumers. Bakers offer loaves of bread to consumers. They compete by offering cheaper and better loaves of bread.
Between soldiers in an ancap, the competition will also be for the pockets of consumers. Soldiers offer protection and defence for consumers. They compete by offering cheaper and better protection and defence.

Large or small they are almost invariably some kind of monarchy... there may be many shareholders but one CEO.

Why would you think of that as monarchy-like, rather than republic-like? After all, the US only has one President! A privately-owned corporation may be viewed as akin to a monarchy. The more common model (amongst large corporations) is that of publicly-traded one. In such case, the corporation operates much more like a democracy (one share one vote).

There is nothing wrong with having leaders in an ancap. The Catholic Church has a single leader and is the single largest organisation on the planet. Yet it doesn't use force to coerce its believers (not any more, anyway). However, once you start looking at the monarch as "guarantor of peace" you have given up your game.

[SolarCross]

I expected better from you.

The relevant question is the nature of the competition. Between bakers, the competition is for the pockets of consumers. Bakers offer loaves of bread to consumers. They compete by offering cheaper and better loaves of bread.
Between soldiers in an ancap, the competition will also be for the pockets of consumers. Soldiers offer protection and defence for consumers. They compete by offering cheaper and better protection and defence.

You are comparing a real world situation (bakers competition) with an imaginary theoretical situation (an-cap defence competition). When one looks at real world soldiery vs real world bakers we can see there is a crucial difference in the nature of their respective business and what freely competing in the practice of their trade practically means.

It should be realised there are 2 kinds of competition, benign and malign. A baker is a specialist in a benign activity if he needs to compete he will do so in a benign way because he does not know how to do it in a malign way, he will try to offer better buns and cakes. A soldier is a specialist in a malign activity, murder and vandalism, where he competes against other soldiers it practically can't mean anything else but literally slaying the competition by ever more efficient means. All thoughout history companies of soldiers have competed for "customers" but what proportion of that custom was peacefully acquired? Its practically a big fat zero percent.

Large or small they are almost invariably some kind of monarchy... there may be many shareholders but one CEO.

Why would you think of that as monarchy-like, rather than republic-like? After all, the US only has one President! A privately-owned corporation may be viewed as akin to a monarchy. The more common model (amongst large corporations) is that of publicly-traded one. In such case, the corporation operates much more like a democracy (one share one vote).

By monarchy-like in that context I mean in the sense of not anarchy-like. Republics with their disposable presidents are more monarchy-like than they are anarchy-like.

There is nothing wrong with having leaders in an ancap. The Catholic Church has a single leader and is the single largest organisation on the planet. Yet it doesn't use force to coerce its believers (not any more, anyway). However, once you start looking at the monarch as "guarantor of peace" you have given up your game.

Who says a libertarian monarchy would use force to coerce its "subjects"? By guarantor of peace I mean the Monarch will aim to preside over the largest alliance of arms in the society for the purpose of coordinating a deterrent ability against aggressive and hostile military both foreign and domestic. In what sense does that violate the NAP?

[Eran]

You are comparing a real world situation (bakers competition) with an imaginary theoretical situation (an-cap defence competition). When one looks at real world soldiery vs real world bakers we can see there is a crucial difference in the nature of their respective business and what freely competing in the practice of their trade practically means.

When discussing an-cap defence, we naturally talk about a hypothetical situation. However, we can easily compare to competition in the private security business. Private security is a large and diverse industry. It is both highly competitive and entirely peaceful.

All thoughout history companies of soldiers have competed for "customers" but what proportion of that custom was peacefully acquired? Its practically a big fat zero percent.

Not so. Mercenaries have generally competed with each other to be hired as soldiers, and events of fighting amongst them as part of their competition are rare. Their record is no worse than that of soldiers loyal to the king.

By monarchy-like in that context I mean in the sense of not anarchy-like. Republics with their disposable presidents are more monarchy-like than they are anarchy-like.

Well, the term "monarchy" evokes very different reaction from "republic", even if the latter is understood to be headed by a president. Monarchy involves two related attributes not found in either public corporations or republics - the monarch owns the country, and succession is genetic.

Who says a libertarian monarchy would use force to coerce its "subjects"? By guarantor of peace I mean the Monarch will aim to preside over the largest alliance of arms in the society for the purpose of coordinating a deterrent ability against aggressive and hostile military both foreign and domestic. In what sense does that violate the NAP?

Would other armies be allowed to be formed to also provide deterrence against aggressive and hostile military forces both foreign and domestic?

If the answer is "yes", your monarch is just one amongst (potentially) many leaders of military forces. He may be viewed as a monarch by his followers, but in no way is he a head of state.
If the answer is "no" then the NAP is violated when equally-peaceful forces are forcibly prohibited from engaging in the same defensive activities as those of the king's army.

[The Immortal Goon]

lol at lefties. You are trying to turn this thread into another mind-numbing exercise of babbling absurdities.

In fairness, this thread already succeeded at being a mind-numbing exercise of babbling absurdities by the time the second word of the title was completed.

[SolarCross]

Would other armies be allowed to be formed to also provide deterrence against aggressive and hostile military forces both foreign and domestic?

If the answer is "yes", your monarch is just one amongst (potentially) many leaders of military forces. He may be viewed as a monarch by his followers, but in no way is he a head of state.
If the answer is "no" then the NAP is violated when equally-peaceful forces are forcibly prohibited from engaging in the same defensive activities as those of the king's army.

Yes, independence of funding, organisation and leadership is permissible, quite as it was in the hey days of monarchy actually, however allegiance is required. Meaning there must be an understanding that the independent organisations of arms will not fight the monarchy or the people and will cooperate in the defence of the realm. For the peace and security of the people this is necessary, it has always been so and always will because the nature of the military business is fundamentally destructive. If the independent organisation of arms will not make this allegiance it necessarily must be viewed as a hostile military by the monarchic arms and its allies. Can you understand this? In that case it will be exactly the aggressive and hostile military that the benign defence forces exist to fight.

[Pants-of-dog]

And what stops the king from taking his army and using it to steal your gold and land?

[mikema63]

Freedom!

[SolarCross]

And what stops the king from taking his army and using it to steal your gold and land?

Good question.

A libertarian monarch is limited by a constitutional and conventional requirement to abide by the NAP. While it might be physically feasible depending on how much of the armed forces are directly employed by the monarch doing so means drastically undermining his legitimacy.
Libertarian Monarchist Manifesto

It is not so wildly dissimilar for traditional monarchies. What you are describing is tax actually. Traditional monarchies are and were light and irregular taxers, at least compared with any republic or democracy. The reason for this is that monarchs rather than being the all powerful political forces that they are presented as being in fairy tales are the ultimate minority, there is only one after all and you can't get much smaller a minority than one individual. A single individual has to be very careful who he offends or injures and where he does so he must be exceedingly careful that it is seen to be a just and worthy deed and that it is widely supported by others.

[Eran]

Yes, independence of funding, organisation and leadership is permissible, quite as it was in the hey days of monarchy actually, however allegiance is required. Meaning there must be an understanding that the independent organisations of arms will not fight the monarchy or the people and will cooperate in the defence of the realm. For the peace and security of the people this is necessary, it has always been so and always will because the nature of the military business is fundamentally destructive. If the independent organisation of arms will not make this allegiance it necessarily must be viewed as a hostile military by the monarchic arms and its allies. Can you understand this? In that case it will be exactly the aggressive and hostile military that the benign defence forces exist to fight.

I understand and accept that any independent organizations must be bound by the same allegiance to the NAP and to the emergent system of peaceful dispute resolution. It is more difficult to justify as consistent with the NAP the forceful prohibition of armed organisations which, while cooperating with the system of peaceful dispute resolution in both deed and word, refuse to express allegiance to either the person or institution of the monarchy.

And what stops the king from taking his army and using it to steal your gold and land?

Precisely the same thing that stops the President of the US from taking his armed forces and using them to steal your gold and land. Correction - to steal even more of your gold and land...

... namely the constitution of the society.

[SolarCross]

I understand and accept that any independent organizations must be bound by the same allegiance to the NAP and to the emergent system of peaceful dispute resolution. It is more difficult to justify as consistent with the NAP the forceful prohibition of armed organisations which, while cooperating with the system of peaceful dispute resolution in both deed and word, refuse to express allegiance to either the person or institution of the monarchy.

If they are indeed are cooperating in a system of peaceful dispute resolution then by default they are demonstrating allegiance to the monarchy and to the people. It is preferable they make that clear by word to reduce apprehension and suspicion but if they are doing so by deed then that is enough.

[Eran]

You have semantically identified "system of peaceful dispute resolution" with "the monarchy and the people". Again, this identification may make sense in certain contexts, but not in others.

[Pants-of-dog]

Good question.

A libertarian monarch is limited by a constitutional and conventional requirement to abide by the NAP.

You are now describing a constitutional monarchy. Way to go. You have now reinvented the country you already live in.

It is not so wildly dissimilar for traditional monarchies. What you are describing is tax actually. Traditional monarchies are and were light and irregular taxers, at least compared with any republic or democracy. The reason for this is that monarchs rather than being the all powerful political forces that they are presented as being in fairy tales are the ultimate minority, there is only one after all and you can't get much smaller a minority than one individual. A single individual has to be very careful who he offends or injures and where he does so he must be exceedingly careful that it is seen to be a just and worthy deed and that it is widely supported by others.

Are you aware of the history of banking in England?

The first "banks" that existed were goldsmiths, who would basically hold gold for their clients and then exchange said gold for promissory notes written by those clients. The goldsmiths kept their gold in the Royal Mint (in the Tower of London) until His Majesty Charles I came along and simply seized it all, so they started keeping it in their own private vaults after that.

Would you call that light taxation?

[anticlimacus]

Precisely the same thing that stops the President of the US from taking his armed forces and using them to steal your gold and land. Correction - to steal even more of your gold and land...

The US has one of the largest incarceration systems in the world and is continuously involved in other countries militarily, always with a pretense of security, defense, and "freedom" (but typically for the sake of natural resources, expanding markets for American corporations, and geopolitical domination). The English colonial empire, which also had a large penal system, did the same thing in the 19th century, with slightly different justifications of cultural superiority, expanding civilization, but as well as security and defense. Could not the same thing happen under the pretense of NAP?