Anyone have any good reading material suggestions for Monarchism? I'm very traditional and find myself drawn to Monarchy as an embodiment of the nation. Specifically I'm interested in the psychological causes that influence us to desire monarch like the Israelites of old. I enjoy psychology but am something of an amateur. Recommendations on books that address political psychology especially as it applies to Monarchy would be of great interest to me. Thanks if you're able to bump or provide resources. I'll write in later posts as to why I find this system of Government to be ideal.
In general I'd also like to read philosophical works articulating the advantages and morality of the Monarchy. I understand John Locke wrote a book in response to such a treatise, not fully disagreeing but disagreeing with absolute Monarchy. If it interests anyone I read a fairly good article in the NYT about the virtues of constitutional monarchy. It's a mild defense and supports powerless monarchs as heads of state but it addresses some psychological ideas on our love for monarchs and argues in favor of them over political idols. archive.is/ADc9m
As to why I believe Monarchy to be at least an attractive alternative to democracy. To put it simply, people are stupid. Since people are stupid, allowing them to decide who will rule their nation is a stupid idea. In the past there were regulations to limit this vote to qualified contributing members of society (men, white, over 25, land owners), now any fool can decide who should rule the country or world. In fact even an 18 year old teenager who our Government has deemed to immature to decide on whether to drink or smoke (in some states) is somehow able to decide who should have the most important job in the world. It's ludicrous. In the age of the internet and television, democracy is nothing more than a marketing campaign competition in which candidates lie and make promises in order to secure votes from special interest groups, all the while not paying heed to the bigger picture which is the success of the nation. Alternatively a Monarch is raised from birth to govern, learns the ways of their people, can think big picture, is not beholden to special interests and doesn't have to worry about money or a raise in their stature. Granted an evil monarch might rise up but if that is the case then overthrowing them can and should be done as was done in England when the King was overthrown and replaced with a new King. There's much more but as one can see there are some advantages of Monarchy over Democracy and Democracies deficiencies and beginning to wear thin on me.
Hudson Martin
I suggest you stop daydreaming you're a king instead and actually do something with your bum life, you fucking dork.
Justin Phillips
MONRACHY = MODERN = FEUDAL = CHRISTIAN
As a pagan, monarchy would be ideal only if said monarch himself would be the god of the christians, Jesus.
Otherwise, imperial is best. Praise the gods.
Austin Russell
monarchy**
Ayden Perry
>let's not be ruled by the 1 percent, let's be ruled by 1 person retarded
Owen Robinson
"Democracy the God that Failed" by Hans Hermann Hoppe. It's more of a take-down of democracy, but he constantly talks about how monarchy is much better than democracy.
Matthew Morgan
? I'm a king? I'm talking about specifically supporting house windsor, to whom I have no relation. I don't care about the desire to be a king - that's obvious, I'm interested in the desire to have a king which is far more interesting and speaks to the character of human beings. But enjoy calling people dorks on the internet, I'm certain that is effective.
Parker Gutierrez
...
Gabriel Stewart
By definition if there are to be rulers they will be the so called 1% i.e. the superior members of a society. This is an issue for you and no one else.
Nathaniel Rogers
The divine right of kings dictates that the monarchs are demigods representatives of the Lord on earth.
Grayson Fisher
This is fairly ridiculous.
Angel Perry
It doesn't have to be that way. You're just falling to their propaganda.
Oliver Reed
By definition there is always a 1% and they are always the richest people in the country. This isn't propaganda it's elementary mathematics.
Chase Wilson
...
Aiden King
...
Lucas Price
Interesting though not terribly related to my request. These are sort of philosophies greatest hits. Nothing on monarchy unfortunately.
Andrew James
>I understand John Locke wrote a book in response to such a treatise, not fully disagreeing but disagreeing with absolute Monarchy.
Locke's first of his two Treatises of Government is a refutation of Robert Filmer's Patriarcha and is more a refutation of the notion that society depends of the divine right of kings than absolutism, a good book that advocates the constitutional position of a monarch as absolute and limited by convention (as in the modern United Kingdom) is Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.
Jaxson Anderson
you talked too fast the second one's right side has a lot of good books on monarchy and related. it's how i got into monarchism
Colton Walker
patriarcha seems to be related, thanks for the tips.
Ian Watson
yes i see that now, thanks for the advice.
Nathaniel Martin
>As was done in England when the King was overthrown and replaced with a new King.
This has literally only ever happened once, and the glorious revolution was not a good example, James the Second and Seventh wasn't a terrible King, he was just a papist and was slowly emancipating Catholics in the British Isles, which happens anyway 140 years later.
As for Charles the first, he wasn't a terrible King, rather a series of Political blunders led to his overthrow and the size of the new model army forced us into military rule for a decade.
Josiah Martin
But the 1% can have about equal amount of power as the rest, ie. not be able to make decisions without popular support.
Jason Edwards
>There's much more but as one can see there are some advantages of Monarchy over Democracy
Monarchism isn't contrary to democracy, and Monarchal absolutism is retarded, often Monarchs are bitterly detachted from reality and you're throwing the dice as to when you get a benevolent or shitty ruler.
Cameron Barnes
also anything with a pink dot here is probably good reading. monarchy in the end is just a combination of imperialism and aristocracy, but not exclusive to either.
Nicholas Green
Reading one book will no get your insight, you shouldn't read books that reinforce your view but the opposite.
Handing political power to a single family would tie in the fate of the entire nation to the fate of that single family. The Habsburgs practiced incestuous marriage to maintain their power and it resulted into the production of incompetent monarchs which led to its dissolution. Hence in order for a country not to suffer under the hands of terrible monarchs, a country must control the breeding practices of the royal family or reduce the political power of the royal family.
Countries with the longest lasting monarchies did the latter and the royal families of those countries only serves as decoration and rubber stamps of those countries and it's governments. In countries where monarchs have absolute control, the state of livelihoods in those countries are not desirable especially if one is a minority. For example, Saudi Arabia.
Overthrowing a monarch is not a peaceful process and many innocent lives are lost. In contrast impeaching a President, or voting him out of power, or using the 25th Ammendment, is bloodless and peaceful.
Mason Adams
What's the USA monarchy game plan? Who are the historic thinkers?
Kevin Jenkins
The UK system works well in practice but you've got to live through at least a thousand years of tyranny before it evolves into this form and that wasn't guaranteed. On paper its nothing you'd want but I wouldn't swap the Queen for a President and the Lords for a Senate now. There are a lot of advantages, practical, moral and psychological in separating out politics from certain roles and limiting the executive to being a 'First of equals' in a parliamentary system with genuine cabinet government.
The British people, generally speaking, are quite attracted to the relative dis empowerment this creates in politicians. They can make decisions but they always need votes and will always have to answer for their actions. The PM has power but can't wrap themselves up in the flag. So, parliament can go to war but the Queen is the head of the armed forces for example.
But the thing to note is that these advantages are themselves based on an unplanned evolving separation of powers. If I were starting a new country I'd go with the American model.
Its not so much that monarchs are good as President aren't such a great idea IMHO.
Joshua Gonzalez
The Queen really isn't just decoration and a rubber stamp alone. The point really is that certain things are invested in her which she then doesn't really use and are kept out of the hands of politicians. Its a bit weird, and also counter-intuitive that democracy is enhanced though the presence of unelected people and as I say, not what you'd design but very comfy in practice.
Hunter Garcia
>defending democracy
Logan Rivera
>Reading one book will no get your insight, you shouldn't read books that reinforce your view but the opposite.
It's called syntopical reading. Read at least three books on a subject. From different viewpoints if you can.
