Is a constitutional monarchy better than a constitutional republic?

[nodeal]

Saw this on Facebook the other day, I thought the person might have had a point.

Basically he was saying a government in which one ruler is bound by a constitution is better than a government in which a large group of rulers are bound by a constitution. This is because politicians are dirty scheming liars, and are much harder to deal with in large numbers. A constitution and the philosophies behind it are much more easily poisoned and tainted when it is applied to many politicians. In contrast, in a constitutional monarchy, you only have one dirty scheming liar to deal with, and it is much easier to apply the chains of the constitution to a single ruler.

Would a constitution work better if it was meant to restrict a single ruler vs a whole body of sleazy lying politicians?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes. Also, monarchs have a vested interest in protecting people and property rationally since such a person has severe liability.

 

[Ronin Truth]

I'm really NOT looking for anybody to tell me what to do, and how to live.

Thanks anyway.

 

[William Tell]

Who will the monarch be?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Who will the monarch be?

King Bubba, the Rapist.

 

[acptulsa]

You're asking me if I think having only one Head Psycho in Charge--so we can no longer play one off against the other--is a good idea?

Wasn't for the Russians while Stalin was alive, as I recall...

 

[nodeal]

I'm really NOT looking for anybody to tell me what to do, and how to live.

Thanks anyway.

Me neither. But would we be better off with one ruler being held to our constitution rather than an entire body of rulers?

 

[nodeal]

Who will the monarch be?

i suppose he/she would be elected similarly to how the president is elected.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Me neither. But would we be better off with one ruler being held to our constitution rather than an entire body of rulers?

Not interested in comparative advantage compromise either.

"Any compromise between good and evil only works to detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."

 

[willwash]

Who will the monarch be?

This guy. He'll chop your head off to the tune of Greensleeves.

 

[nodeal]

Not interested in comparative advantage compromise either.

"Any compromise between good and evil only works to detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."

on that we do agree brother. Just from a philosophical standpoint, I wanted to see what fellow freedom-lovers thought about one compared to the other

 

[William Tell]

i suppose he/she would be elected similarly to how the president is elected.

I'm not as concerned about procedure at this point, as I am about who it will be.

 

[euphemia]

No. The law is superior to the leader(s). The law is supposed to be objective. Unfortunately law makers are not performing their function. They are giving out favors to their friends in order to keep their power. If the citizens could get past the cash cow that is the legislature and see that it is bad, then they would vote for people who would make fair laws and ensure that the other two branches of government do what they are supposed to do.

The way it is now, all three branches of government are in collusion to defraud the people, and it's working.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Me neither. But would we be better off with one ruler being held to our constitution rather than an entire body of rulers?

The monarch would be protected by whom?

Said agents of the monarch would be tied down by what? The people, ostensibly, but let's be realistic on how well that would work out. That is to say, that so long as the people are relatively comfortable they'd tolerate oppression of anyone short of, though often, themselves.

Establishing a dictator, which is what a monarch is, is not the way to freedom no matter how peachy the leader in question speaks. It is a road to totalitarianism.

The answer to the failure of democracy is not to further concentrate the power. After all, it is hardly a debatable point that power corrupts even the most well intended (and most kings, regardless of the rhetoric needed to quell insurrection, are not well intended).

The answer to the question proposed would not be whether or not a monarch is preferable to a democracy or even supposed republic but whether or not people are born with certain rights that cannot be justly superseded by any ruling authority. The answer to that is, no. I don't care if it's one person ruling another or 300 million ruling over a single person.

No. Hell no. No.

I find it amazing that people have justified a king, or offered excuses as to how it would be beneficiary to what we have now as if said 'benevolent' ruler would remain in power forever. The people are hardly aware of what occurs around them. They simply go through the motions. A king, especially an absolute one (as would result by a king being supposedly restrained by some sort of piece of paper), certainly would not be a gain of any sort upon society. In fact, it would impede progress towards freedom and result in some of the most draconian and authoritarian practices ever devised.

 

[Occam's Banana]

For those who are truly interested in this issue, here's something relevant: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ppe-From-Aristocracy-to-Monarchy-to-Democracy

New monograph available from the Mises Institute: http://mises.org/library/aristocracy-monarchy-democracy

From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy: A Tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay

In this tour de force essay, Hans-Hermann Hoppe turns the standard account of historical governmental progress on its head. While the state is an evil in all its forms, monarchy is, in many ways, far less pernicious than democracy. Hoppe shows the evolution of government away from aristocracy, through monarchy, and toward the corruption and irresponsibility of democracy to have been identical with the growth of the leviathan state. There is hope for liberty, as Hoppe explains, but it lies not in reversing these steps, but rather through secession and decentralization. This pocket-sized, eye-opening monograph is ideal for sharing with friends. It can revolutionize the way a reader sees society and the state.

PDF: http://mises.org/sites/default/files/From%20Aristocracy%20to%20Monarchy%20to%20Democracy_Hoppe_Text%202014.pdf
EPUB: http://mises.org/sites/default/files/FromAristocracytoMonarchytoDemocracy.epub
PAPER: http://store.mises.org/Paperback-P10960.aspx

 

[Influenza]

Ron Paul for constitutional monarch 2016

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The monarch would be protected by whom?

Said agents of the monarch would be tied down by what? The people, ostensibly, but let's be realistic on how well that would work out. That is to say, that so long as the people are relatively comfortable they'd tolerate oppression of anyone short of, though often, themselves.

Establishing a dictator, which is what a monarch is, is not the way to freedom no matter how peachy the leader in question speaks. It is a road to totalitarianism.

The answer to the failure of democracy is not to further concentrate the power. After all, it is hardly a debatable point that power corrupts even the most well intended (and most kings, regardless of the rhetoric needed to quell insurrection, are not well intended).

The answer to the question proposed would not be whether or not a monarch is preferable to a democracy or even supposed republic but whether or not people are born with certain rights that cannot be justly superseded by any ruling authority. The answer to that is, no. I don't care if it's one person ruling another or 300 million ruling over a single person.

No. Hell no. No.

I find it amazing that people have justified a king, or offered excuses as to how it would be beneficiary to what we have now as if said 'benevolent' ruler would remain in power forever. The people are hardly aware of what occurs around them. They simply go through the motions. A king, especially an absolute one (as would result by a king being supposedly restrained by some sort of piece of paper), certainly would not be a gain of any sort upon society. In fact, it would impede progress towards freedom and result in some of the most draconian and authoritarian practices ever devised.

Certainly. The point of the hereditary monarch v. democracy/republic is a lesser-of-2-evils debate. Monarchy is far more friendly to liberty and humanity generally. BUT, liberty is preferable to all the above.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[HVACTech]

the query assumes the people are stupid and ignorant...

damn, I was thinking cui bono...
not chemtrails and flouride.
where did I go wrong?

 

[TheTexan]

I guess that would be fine, as long as we still have the right to vote.