Of course i doubt this will get alot of attention but anarcho monarchism?
To me it sounds like right wing minarchism:
Is there any other kind?
He’s a authority apologist. Rejecting the “authority” of the State, yet bowing to, and defending the “authority” of “God”. Even though he supports monarchy over democracy, ultimately believing anarcho-capitalism to be ideal, that doesn’t justify the oxymoronic coining of the title Anarcho-Monarchist. For example some Leftists, as hard as some may find this to believe, think that morally anarchism is best but still cling to some Statist ideas because they find them necessary. You don’t see them going around and creating the label Anarcho-Statism though.
PS: I do like the little gentleman-Anarchy sign in his blog’s banner. I’ve always considered Anarcho-Capitalism and Market Anarchism as “civilized Anarchists”, unlike the Anarcho-Communist who likes to go around destroying stuff either with Molotov cocktails or bad philosphy.
Anarchism means no archon.
Monarchism means one archon.
It’s like saying anarcho-oligarchy.
If you want monarchy, just be a monarchist. If you want to be an anarchist, be that.
I don’t think the term ‘anarcho-monarchism’ is necessarily an oxymoron. If the word ‘monarch’ is used figuratively, as a figurehead who does not in fact possess arche, then it can make sense. Thus it could possibly refer to an anarchistic community that has a ceremonial ‘king’ as a major feature (e.g. in the promotion - but not enforcement - of norms, or as a symbol of solidarity), in the same way that Athens, for example, retained the office of basileus despite the fact that the latter was completely powerless compared to the basileis of old.
I’m an anarmonarchochist.
Thats outstanding!
Hopefully my sarcasm transmits through the internet.
Nope! Send it again.
I don’t understand why people would want a so-called monarch if they have no power. Anything which isn’t enforceable is practically useless.
It seems to me that that isn’t what anarcho-monarchists want, though. And they understand what I said above. They want a return to feudalism where there are ‘natural elites’ called monarchs who control or work with land-owning Lords, and these people have serfs which are the majority of people. Or slaves who enter into ‘voluntary slavery contracts’. Minorities of people own all of the land which is then rented to inferior majorities. Probably with a king who is the best one of these guys.
The monarchs and lords then have absolute power to control their property, and governance comes from their will over this property, and thus over the people who rent the property controlled by the lords and monarchy. This then allows superior people to rule based on property rights. There is then no input or democracy from the serfs, but a long-term rule that is supposedly superior to democracy. However with the upside that there were net less laws during medieval times, and less instability, and thus medieval feudalism is better than democracy. And so it is right and the best thing ever.
The medieval Irish seemed to have understood it. So too modern Australians.
Don’t the English still technically have a monarch? and the Netherlands?
Yeah. I mentioned the Australians since in 1999 they had the opportunity to abolish the monarchy yet, by popular vote, decided to keep it. Since then its popularity seems to have increased further.
Also, their monarchy is even more powerless than that of the UK or the Netherlands, seeing as it is based many miles away and visits very rarely.
How about anarcho-patriarchy? In fact, I think this is perhaps the best possible description of a true natural order and is nearly what the Amish, Gypsies and some other highly durable sub-cultures adopt.
Clearly, people want and need “leaders” in the general sense. The problems arise when the “leaders” usurp coercive powers. I don’t think the label “monarch” can be meaningfully applied to any individual without coercive powers.
Clayton -
It might be a symbol of national prestige that they are not willing to give up.
Absolutely. There is nothing wrong with leaders, and in fact they can be very great people. The problem with this modern nation state democracy is that the people everyone “elects” are not leaders. They are rulers. And of course the sheople of the world still use the word leader to describe a ruler.
Need leaders?
To lead us from what? From whom? To where?
Apparently people just need leaders for the hell of it.
Have you ever worked or collaborated with others? If you are surrounded by idiots it can be a very frustrating experience. But sometimes you get to work with someone who has a vision of how things fit together, and you find yourself enjoying working with him. Of course, sometimes you are that person. There is nothing wrong with working with or for someone who knows what he is doing and leads.
Just think of it in terms of bosses. Would you rather work for a good boss or a bad boss?
Well put, gotlucky. I heard it first in church, and then when I was preparing to go into the military (of course you guys can already guess they dont say this in the actual military much) “the leader is servant to the follower.” and when I got to a leadership position I experienced it firsthand, because I was always doing things for other people, and not always the kind of things that you can delegate. I seemed to be collecting, processing, and distributing various types of information, information that no one underneath me could collect, process, or distribute. I’m sorry if this post is kind of vague, I just dont feel like typing examples of me doing stupid military things that most of you wouldnt enjoy reading either.
All of the countries in the “Commonwealth” have Elizabeth as their official monarch, but she doesn’t do jack. It’s just idol worshipping.
Canada does it too, and now that the Meiji Restoration has been burned, so does Japan. I think under the Japanese constitution they symbolize Akihito as “the unity and symbol of the people.” It doesn’t help either that he’s the highest priest in Shinto.