Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #1 
Robert Kagan in the Washington Post on the resurgence of authoritarianism vs. liberalism, puts this into the context of the last 250 years.   He includes the hereditary monarchies of the 19th and early 20th centuries on the side of authority.   Authoritarianism ≠ Fascism or Communism.  

I come down for authoritarianism or at least against liberalism.   I think this is why this forum has a deep division in it: we differ on this issue and it will shape into the BIG issue for this generation.

This quote stuck out:

Quote:
"Humans do not yearn only for freedom. They also seek security — not only physical security against attack, but the security that comes from family, tribe, race and culture. Liberalism has no particular answer to these needs."


https://outline.com/KSVwu3



__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 438
Reply with quote  #2 
I also come down on the side of authoritarianism with several caveats. I'm not a fan of an efficient absolutism, but an inefficient authoritarianism is a good thing. Where authority is centralized yet actual power is distributed, that, in my mind, is the best balance of power. The American system, for all its faults, was at least designed with a balance of power being distributed, it just gets quite a few details wrong, mostly the muddied role of the executive branch. 

I personally think that a monarchy that had the power that some absolute monarchs had, but with modern communication and surveillance technologies of today, would be a recipe for disaster. I used to find multicameral systems like the UK to be distasteful, but I think in the modern era of drones and cameras everywhere, it would give a very powerful monarch the ability to be a very effective and brutal dictator, with levels of efficacy that Stalin could only dream of. Though, the UK abolishing the hereditary lords a few years back is grotesque at best. 

As an aside, I think the fact that American politics is so insanely polarized right now also serves in the function of preventing either the executive branch or congress from seizing too much power and bringing down the nations might against thoughtcrime. The left is frankly smart in waging this war over social media through its useful idiots, and I think they will ultimately win that war, because the American right is so spineless. 
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #3 
The reason states engage in the hyper-surveillance state and brutal crackdown is because there isn't sufficient legitimacy.    If there is the latter, then there is relative security and less need to be paranoid.   In the case of hereditary monarchy, any ideology antithetical to its legitimacy should be banned and suppressed.   I don't think republican or leftist ideology should be legal or tolerated.  The goal is to make people non-political.   They should live their lives as loyal subjects, pursuing things that contribute to the civilization and the prosperity of the realm.

The problem with the US is democracy, which allows the Left to gradually win.   It's built into the system.   You have to go back to whether this experiment of the last 250 years was a big mistake.   To be fair, the Brits started it –– Americans were merely aping the Whig precedent.   There is no reason this must continue.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 438
Reply with quote  #4 
I agree that leftism and republicanism ought be banned, but how does one enforce that in this age? The only ways are to suppress all modern communication technology, or to engage in massive and total surveillance.

The former is unsustainable; other nation states that don't do so will reap massive financial benefits, and thus overwhelm and eventually take over by force the states that do. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen. The latter to me is worse still, as I've got quite a bit of Americanist "get off my lawn" in my core. 

To me, the only solution is one where authority is centralized, but power is distributed. I'm not sure exactly how to achieve that. But that's why I'm a programmer and not a political theorist.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.