Libertarian Monarchy or Oligarchy

[Neil Desmond]

Anarchy is the purest form of Libertarianism, and that literally would be heaven on earth. However, this is completely dependent on the morality of people as a whole. That's the one fundamental issue, with a Libertarian society. If the people lose sight of what matters, or becomes an immoral people, it cannot exist. The only way a true libertarian society will ever be achieved and sustainable, is through moral and intellectual enlightenment. Just as the founder's did, when they experienced their age of enlightenment. The goal, should be to locate the issues of the founder's, and resolve them.

I disagree that anarchy is a form of libertarianism. Libertarianism to me is where there's equilibrium between the people collectively in the form of the state and the people as individuals. The state (or any system of government) does not exist under the concept of anarchy. I don't believe property rights can exist with anarchy, and anarchy is to me an inherently unstable system.

 

[gwax23]

I disagree that anarchy is a form of libertarianism. Libertarianism to me is where there's equilibrium between the people collectively in the form of the state and the people as individuals. The state (or any system of government) does not exist under the concept of anarchy. I don't believe property rights can exist with anarchy, and anarchy is to me an inherently unstable system.

This

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

I disagree that anarchy is a form of libertarianism. Libertarianism to me is where there's equilibrium between the people collectively in the form of the state and the people as individuals. The state (or any system of government) does not exist under the concept of anarchy. I don't believe property rights can exist with anarchy, and anarchy is to me an inherently unstable system.

You don't need a state, in order to substantiate private property rights. Anarchy isn't an unstable system. It's only as unstable as the people. Anarchy is a system where the people have to will it, or it doesn't work. So, there's no room in an Anarchist society for immoral people. They pose a grave danger to the system.

 

[MRK]

We live in a state of anarchy. Most people willingly respect the wishes of the entity that calls itself the government, though.

 

[juliusaugustus]

Here is why I prefer an Oligarchy or Monarchy to a republic or democracy
1. the leaders are in charge longer and are have much more incentive to think long term than do leaders in an elected government.
2. Their rule because of the fact that they were not seen as legitimate, because they are not seen as legitimate they govern less and tax less.
3. Like I mentioned before the King owns his systems and owns everything and a such has incentives to take care of it. A temporary leader has less incentive to take care of it.
4. The desire to have more wealth to tax makes a King more likely to maintain a capitalist system then under democratic rule.
5. Their descendants care about the capital stock of an area and as such keep a close eye on the current king.
6. The king has an incentive to leave behind something worthwhile for his descendants.
7. A elected official because he will be out of office soon has a much incentive to game the system because he will be out of office soon and wants personal financial gain.
8. costs aren't internalized due to the long life of the king.
9. The potential for uprisings and rebellions cause the king the greatly limit his power.
10. The State is known for what it is which in this case is the monarch. Which makes the monarch more accountable
11. A constitution is pointless under a republic because the only thing to enforce it is the government itself.
12. Even tyrannical monarchies come to realize that letting people be free keeps them from wanting to overthrow you and this eventually forces the state to downgrade its powers. This situation can seen with the oligarchies in China or Singapore where the states are greatly rolling back powers vs the US, Hong Kong, Europe with elected systems where it is greatly increasing power. Just my thoughts.
Monarchies and oligarchies are far from perfect but if statelessness isn't option then a monarchy is ideal.

 

[beaven]

The best form of government would be no central government but a loose legal/court system where judges make judgments based on natural law. It seems the Jews before Saul had such a government or at least something similar. Limited monarchy with rights restricted by religion is the second best system. Absence of government leads to tyrannical government. Better to have a small, weak, limited government.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

You don't need a state, in order to substantiate private property rights. Anarchy isn't an unstable system. It's only as unstable as the people. Anarchy is a system where the people have to will it, or it doesn't work. So, there's no room in an Anarchist society for immoral people. They pose a grave danger to the system.

They're going to be there regardless. They're just dealt with differently.

 

[bolil]

You don't need a state, in order to substantiate private property rights. Anarchy isn't an unstable system. It's only as unstable as the people. Anarchy is a system where the people have to will it, or it doesn't work. So, there's no room in an Anarchist society for immoral people. They pose a grave danger to the system.

That is some Robespierre shit.