Libertarian Monarchy or Oligarchy

[juliusaugustus]

In my view a Monarchy or an oligarchy would be the best system for a libertarian or capitalist society. In my view capitalism can't sustain in a democratic or republican society not because it doesn't produce good results but because the presence of a such a government would provide incentives for people to steal from one another. Government tends to grow under a democratic of republican form of government if one simply looks at history. Monarchies definitely aren't perfect but rather than the leader being temporary occupiers of power they hold power for the rest of their life and thus effectively own their system of government. Ownership provides incentives for a well run system. Why? If you own something you care about something and a short term leader generally only cares about immediate gain from the system because they don't own the system nor does their leadership last long. just my thoughts.

 

[WarNoMore]

I'd rather give anarchy a shot. I'm not bowing to any king. I don't need a leader. The sooner people take responsibility for themselves and stop bowing to leaders the better off we'll be.

 

[Philhelm]

King Philip I, the Magnanimous, His Royal Majesty of the Holy Minarchy of Libertania, Count of Paulsburg, Margrave of Hayekstinople, the First of His Name, by Royal Decree does command the following:

1. Thou shall not harm the life of another.
2. Thou shall not harm the liberty of another.
3. Thou shall not harm the property of another.
4. No other laws shall be passed.
5. Snow is forbidden. [I wouldn't be a good king without at least a touch of madness.]

 

[green73]

Have you been reading Hoppe?

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Have you been reading Hoppe?

Hobbes would work here too.

 

[acptulsa]

Yeah, 'cause this corporate oligarchy we're suffering through now is working out so terribly well for us...

 

[idiom]

New Zealand is functioning quite well at the moment, despite basically being a single house unitary democracy.

I am pretty sure the ability to keep a libertarian society functioning is 70%+ dependent on the culture.

I think the undoing of the American system has lain in America's overly patriotic/partisan culture. A tendency to treat everything as a team sport accelerated the decent into power struggles.

 

[Sub-Zer0]

I'm really not sure how you could have a libertarian oligarchy. I supposed we could have one guy who is born into nobility and only has very limited state powers. However there has to be a counter balance to his power. I really see how think you can have a libertarian centralized state, to be honest.

 

[paulbot24]

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot

Oh and Merry Christmas RPFers.

 

[juliusaugustus]

The problem with a libertarian democracy is that is simply can't sustain itself. Even if a free market creates prosperity people will still be envious. Great amounts of social freedom generally lead people to want to use government as a way solving problems. The general societal ills are what causes free markets to do in themselves in a republic or democracy. Even if people are prosperous income gaps will make people envious and it will make the though of wealth redistribution tempting and people till take advantage of this. As for our for current oligarchy it is only an oligarchy indirectly and not a functioning one similar to Venice. Though maybe the problem can be fixed through a much harder process of educating people and convincing people that they can run their own lives.

 

[paulbot24]

Though maybe the problem can be fixed through a much harder process of educating people and convincing people that they can run their own lives.

Agreed. This and the concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY should not scare people for Christ's sake or we will never escape a world where things are either not allowed from the start or swiped out of our hands while we hear "Give me that, you'll just end up hurting yourself!"

 

[Neil Desmond]

Who would get to be monarch? You? Me? Why should I or anyone else bow and worship someone who mooches off of my labor and let them make all the rules (which they probably either won't follow or won't have to follow themselves)? What if this person decides to be a tyrant? What if this person decides that they don't like you and tosses you in the dungeon to rot away for the rest of your life? What if someone is made king, and he decrees that no woman may have sex until he has had sex with her first & any woman who violates this will be hanged? I could go on and on and on.

The church crowns monarchs & I believe in freedom of religion, which means freedom from religion and the monarchs it crowns. I'd much rather live here in the United States, where there is freedom of speech and religion, the granting of any kind of title of nobility by the state is forbidden, and where the state is run by public servants who are elected by and who represent the people. I'm just as much opposed to an oligarchy as I am opposed to a monarchy.

The title of this thread made no mention of capitalism, yet in the body of the OP the subject changes to one about capitalism, or the two are being mixed up with each other. Capitalism has nothing to do with libertarianism. The USSR had state capitalism and look at how libertarianism fared under that system. Here in the United States, we live under a de facto oligarchy consisting of crony capitalists; we don't have much in the realm of libertarianism here either, with that in place. I don't really care if capitalism can be sustained; I'm interested in how a society of pure libertarianism can be spawned and sustained, and capitalism seems to be acting like a roadblock.

 

[truelies]

In my view a Monarchy or an oligarchy would be the best system for a libertarian or capitalist society. In my view capitalism can't sustain in a democratic or republican society not because it doesn't produce good results but because the presence of a such a government would provide incentives for people to steal from one another. Government tends to grow under a democratic of republican form of government if one simply looks at history. Monarchies definitely aren't perfect but rather than the leader being temporary occupiers of power they hold power for the rest of their life and thus effectively own their system of government. Ownership provides incentives for a well run system. Why? If you own something you care about something and a short term leader generally only cares about immediate gain from the system because they don't own the system nor does their leadership last long. just my thoughts.

Friend you are aware that EVERY Royal Family out there originally got its position by force and theft and keeps its position the same way? Yes?

OTOH, a Republic which carefully restricted the Franchise to an electorate with significant Income/Weath/Property while banning the concept of a Corporate Person might be fairly stable. Perhaps a Constitutional Clause along the lines- " ONLY an ACTION which harms the Persons or Property of particular and identifiable person(s) shall be recognised as Crime or subject to Regulation in any way by the State under this Constitution.

As to the meaning of 'significant Income/Weath/Property ' lets try this-

Income- minimum personal income of $50,000/yr minimum exclusive of earnings from a State salary or pension for a continuous period of at least the five previous years.

Wealth- minimum $250,000 in unencumbered financial assets.

Property- minimum $100,000 in unencumbered real property assets.

Dollars measured in 2012 values and a personal Vote for each of the above criteria met. Ponder a bit how different the electorate would have looked a few weeks back under such a regime. I expect Ron Paul would have won the Presidency in a walk.


BTW- ONLY electors would be subject to direct taxation by the State or its subdivisions. Most revenue would come from a modest Poll Tax- say $2500 per 2yr election cycle per voter, excise taxes on non-essentials, lease/rental fees for use of public land and facilities and subscription fees for State services.

 

[Conza88]

In my view a Monarchy or an oligarchy would be the best system for a libertarian or capitalist society. In my view capitalism can't sustain in a democratic or republican society not because it doesn't produce good results but because the presence of a such a government would provide incentives for people to steal from one another. Government tends to grow under a democratic of republican form of government if one simply looks at history. Monarchies definitely aren't perfect but rather than the leader being temporary occupiers of power they hold power for the rest of their life and thus effectively own their system of government. Ownership provides incentives for a well run system. Why? If you own something you care about something and a short term leader generally only cares about immediate gain from the system because they don't own the system nor does their leadership last long. just my thoughts.

Is there any reason why you bailed on this thread, and started this one instead?

 

[pochy1776]

King Philip I, the Magnanimous, His Royal Majesty of the Holy Minarchy of Libertania, Count of Paulsburg, Margrave of Hayekstinople, the First of His Name, by Royal Decree does command the following:

1. Thou shall not harm the life of another.
2. Thou shall not harm the liberty of another.
3. Thou shall not harm the property of another.
4. No other laws shall be passed.
5. Snow is forbidden. [I wouldn't be a good king without at least a touch of madness.]

\
Where is your country located, i want to live there now.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Is there any reason why you bailed on this thread, and started this one instead?

Probably had something to do with that other thread.

 

[Philhelm]

\
Where is your country located, i want to live there now.

In my head, but I have a lot of voices in there so it's a bit crowded.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Neither, thank you very much.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

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.

 

[idiom]

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.

It already exists, but the people simply to not have the morality to renounce force yet.