Libertarian Monarchist?
Libertarianism is the political theory which states that the individual is the owner of his life, and that he should be allowed to seek his best interest in so far as they do not interfere with the rights of others. Underpinning this are property rights and rules governing acceptable behaviour, which distinguish the Libertarian (or more specifically the consequentialist Libertarian) from the anarchist. Libertarians accept that man must to a limited degree, be governed. The question is therefore how.
Democracy is clearly the best system yet devised, but it is prone to the illiberal baying of the mob. Checks and balances must be put in place to counteract the tendency to majoritarian tyranny. That is why there is often a revising chamber in bimarcal systems whose members have longer terms or even life tenure. In addition, many countries have constitutional courts, which check that law is compatible with the constitution.
There is no reason why the hereditary principle needs to lead to poor governance - indeed it could be argued that as people outside the democratic process, like Lords (appointed or hereditary) Kings and Queens are ideally placed to oversee lawmaking in a dispassionate way. Currently the Queen has no real political power and that is as it should be, however she retains the ability to refuse assent. I.e. she has power of veto. It is an unused nuclear option but there, should a demagogue ever gain the keys to number 10, she could refuse assent to an enabling law. Then again, she might not, but she'd do a better job than politicians, who have rarely voted for less power!
This is not rosy-eyed wishful thinking. Countries in Europe which still have Kings and Queens tend to be the ones with the longest liberal traditions of good governance: the UK, The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. They have old institutions precisely because they have not had revolutions. In many less stable countries, Spain for example, Monarchs have been a positive influence. King Juan Carlos intervened to introduce democracy. In times of crisis, Kings have provided better rallying points for Governments in exile than more controversial political figures - compare King Haakon VII (an elected monarch) and De Gaulle
Monarchy is an abuse of a number of libertarian principles - Clearly the Queen cannot be said to be the owner of her life, nor can her Children, especially the Prince of Wales. The Royal Family is a victim of the system of Monarchy, not its beneficiary but there is no reason to suppose that the people of the country suffer in any way for not being able to choose their symbolic head of state.
Then there is the personality of the current incumbent of the position. A better and more selfless example of service to the country cannot be found. I would rather have her as a guarantor of my rights, overseeing and guiding the lawmaking process than than an unaccountable and changeable document, or heaven forbid, the EU, which will inevitably be deeply flawed.
I am also a conservative, for the same reason I am a libertarian. I believe the state to be in most instances incompetent, therefore constitutional inaction is usually preferable. Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Monarch does a good job as figurehead and without many of the disadvantages of more partisan political figures - especially in her ceremonial roles as head of the Armed forces and fount of honour. Any replacement of the Institution of monarchy would require a written constitution, which in the current political climate would resemble not so much the admirable document which underpins the USA, as a leftist wish-list of positive rights, which would render any future libertarian government totally impotent.
I am a Libertarian. I am a Monarchist. Are these two beliefs compatible? No, in theory, but Yes in practice. Constitutional Monarchy - better than all alternatives.
11 immoderate opinions:
"Libertarians accept that man must to a limited degree, be governed"
I beg to differ! There is quite a spectrum of Libertarian thought, with people who would be perfectly happy in the conventional party system at one end, and r/a/v/i/n/g/ n/u/t/c/a/s/e/s/ anarcho-capitalists (like me) at the other.
Funnily enough, the arguments you use in much of this article could have come straight from this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe
http://www.hanshoppe.com/
- who pretty much falls into the latter category.
If you enjoy science fiction, you might also sympathise with one of the characters in Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
To be a pendant, if one accepts that man must be to a limited degree, governed, that is a minarchist position (which is roughly where I am), and as Simon has said, there are anarcho-capitalists who believe that this isn't necessary /desirable.
So, perhaps the answer is, that it is possbile to me a monarchist minarchist ~ although I would dread trying to pronounce that at a party after a few bottles of vino!
Well she has given Royal Assent to the European Communities Act, the Single European Act and the Mastricht Act.
It could be argued that in doing this without direct consultation of the people she was breaking her Coronation Oath, whereby she promised not to yield power over the British to any foreign princes, governments or parliaments.
She definitely would be in breach of it if she gave assent to an Act enabling the Amending Treaty/Constitution.
I'd like to think that she provided a safeguard against losing our democracy and sovereignty but her record gives no grounds for confidence.
(An update: Consequentialist Libertarian)-as opposed to anarcho capitalists loons.
Johnse18 - We aren't in tyranny. Don't start equating the EU to Hitler just yet!
Oh and thanks for the link to Hoppe. Very interesting.
Simon Jester is technically right that libertarianism does cover a broad spectrum of thought ranging from mainstream minarchists to full on anarchists.
However, personally I use libertarian to refer to one of two schools of thought:
1) Government's job should be to maximise human liberty (consequential libertarianism)
2) Any initiation of force, even by the state, is immoral (objectivist libertarianism)
I happen to believe the latter.
I have reread my comment above and still cannot find the bit where I was supposed to have equated the EU to Hitler ...
My point was (and is) that the EU is a supranational (as opposed to intergovernmental) structure which aspires to be, and has to a large extent succeded, in being a higher political authority than individual nation states.
With successive treaties and the amending treaty/constitution it cements and extends its power and authority.
Insofar as the Queen assents to this process she is in breach of her coronation oath.
Excellent post. Clearly leaves room for a debate: is the liberty to be maximized the negative sort (e.g. not interfered with) or the more interventionist left wing sort that tries at all turns to level the playing field? I don't like the latter version - seems to penalize people for having diligent parents, for example.
I think libertarianism as an ideal rightly maintains a pressure to audit every government action against possible infringements of liberty, and is right to maintain its scepticism about the ability of central governments to determine what is fair. But I think it and conservatism has historically overstated the degree to which the country's institutions are right and fair at the time just left alone, rather than reflecting the outcome of a victory of a particular set of interests. I suspect the Tories became converts to free markets in the 1970's not because of a passion for liberty, but because that particular freedom suited their class. And a state unreformed by a century's worth of leftish reforms would have felt pretty unfree to a significant portion of the underclass. So I remain unconvinced that conservatism sits quite naturally with libertarianism without serious caveats.
Good Post Jackart:
I found this passage particularly thought provoking......
“There is no reason why the hereditary principle needs
to lead to poor governance - indeed it could be argued that as people outside the democratic process, like Lords (appointed or hereditary) Kings and Queens are ideally placed to oversee lawmaking in a dispassionate way.”
There is a strong sentiment here in the U.S. That while our system works pretty well, it surely suffers from the fact that our politicians believe that their primary job is to be re-elected. Doing what will develop a reliable constituency is not always best
for the country or even for the constituent.
While we have no hereditary seats in government, it might well serve us if we did have. Our Senate is more deliberate than our House of Representatives, but still must campaign every six years. Many of us here are pushing for term limits as a possible way of focusing the motivations of our lawmakers.
Simon,
I've cross posted this to LibUK, with your Hoppe Point. THanks!
Matthew MTT,
But America has a hereditory aristocracy - they just submit to periodic elections and call themselves senators...
M
成人電影,情色,本土自拍, 情色聊天室, 寄情築園小遊戲, AV女優,成人電影,情色,本土自拍, A片下載, 日本A片, 麗的色遊戲, 色色網, ,嘟嘟情人色網, 色情網站, 成人網站, 正妹牆, 正妹百人斬, aio,伊莉, 伊莉討論區, 成人遊戲, 成人影城,
ut聊天室, 免費A片, AV女優, 美女視訊, 情色交友, 免費AV, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 色情影片 成人影片, 成人網站, A片,H漫, 18成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 美女交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, A片, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, UT聊天室, 尋夢園聊天室, 男同志聊天室, UT男同志聊天室, 聊天室尋夢園, 080聊天室, 080苗栗人聊天室, 6K聊天室, 女同志聊天室, 小高聊天室, 情色論壇, 色情網站, 成人網站, 成人論壇, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, 成人聊天室, 成人小說, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 日本A片, 愛情公寓, 情色, 舊情人, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 情色交友, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 色情遊戲, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 色情a片, 一夜情, 辣妹視訊, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊, 視訊美女, 美女視訊, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室, 視訊交友90739, 成人影片, 成人交友, 本土自拍, 免費A片下載, 性愛,
成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人電影, 成人, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊美女, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, a片下載, aV, av片, A漫, av dvd, av成人網, 聊天室, 成人論壇, 本土自拍, 自拍, A片,成人電影,情色,本土自拍,
Post a Comment