North America has one unique opportunity, theoretically. That is to have several small countries with the same people and language. Where they can easily move from one nation to another if they feel they are treated badly. So states actually have to compete for people.

Much like "alliances" in an online game, which don't have elections but which have to compete for players, who can easily move to another alliance. Or like Brunei, where the people can just step across the border and live in Malaysia, with the same people, language and religion.

Expand full comment

Thank you for the response! Were your ideal system of government possible, where would you find your monarch?

Expand full comment

I wouldn't rule out some form of monarchy entirely. This very interesting piece:


points to a method by which something very similar to monarchy could be fostered even in the midst of our current democratic society, given a founder with sufficient scope of vision and access to a large but not by any means unrealistic resource base.

Convincing people to give up the franchise and return to a republican system in which the vote is much more restricted is going to be a hard sell. I can't see that happening inside the current order; quite the opposite, it seems determined to dilute it as much as possible, extending it to teenagers and non-citizens. However, the competence crisis is steadily degrading the ability of the central government to enforce order or provide prosperity - all it seems capable of are punitive spasms intended to temporarily preserve the parasitic class's privileges of plunder. Parallel institutions that provide what the central government cannot may be able to displace them, and such systems could easily be set up with stronger executive authority and a much more limited franchise.

Expand full comment

"The United States...even today still carries with it that sort of “frontier, pioneer” ethos. Such a nation is not going to be very amenable to a baroque king or a clique of feudal aristocrats. A nation of Daniel Boones isn’t going to be content under a Louis the Sun King. "

Personally, that is the ethos I would prefer to elucidate and support. More the Jeffersonian view of the sturdy citizen living close to the land in tight community, than this centralizing controlling technocratic leviathan exemplifying the likes of Hamilton. Such a people need no king nor feudal lord or lords.

Expand full comment

Something that could actually occur is a one-party state, where the best in society are invited to join the party. And within the party you have a process for putting people on a higher level, with the highest level choosing the head of state. Incidentally, this is the fascist system. With a parliament representing the different parts, branches and laborers, and different regions and cities of the much-divided Italian peninsula. That is where the statement "all within the state, nothing outside the state" comes from, much maligned and distorted - it meant that the different parties should come together and discuss things peacefully within this system instead of fighting each other.

The party could be restricted even more. After the NSDAP took power, thanks to the Conservatives in parliament voting to give Hitler rule by decree (which had to be requested and approved again annually, and this remained) and then almost all joining the NSDAP, they kept party membership open for a few more weeks. Then they restricted new memberships to only those who were the top in society, like professors and business leaders and officers, and to those who proved themselves in their service to the party and the country.

Though every one-party system will become dominated by the highest level in time. In Italy the parliament would agree to virtually anything the government suggested, and in today's nationalist ("communist") China the parliament voted to lengthen the time for the head of state.

Expand full comment

1 Samuel 8:6-18

6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

Expand full comment
Aug 13, 2022·edited Aug 13, 2022

There are those - mostly nationalists - who say that it's an irrelevant question, you can't have a perfect system. You can only have good or bad people. If you are good and the current government in your time is bad, you should seek to take power. But that you take power and do good now, is no guarantee for tomorrow. That's for tomorrow's people to deal with.

However, a president could not call to his home two young nuns, rape them repeatedly for days together with his guards, and then kill them. With the monastery having no way of demanding justice. That is what a king did in the Middle Ages.

When it comes to (non-democratic) monarchies, the best monarchy would be where the king is checked by the prince-electors.

Let's not make the same mistake as libertarians do: "I don't know how this (e.g. law enforcement) would be done in anarchy, but I'm sure that GOVERNMENT is worse".

There is abuse in democracies. But it doesn't come anywhere near the abuse a monarchy can do.

Note that in all the complaints against government in the U.S., and even attempted uprisings, no one has wanted to install a monarchy instead. Neither in e.g. France, a very rebellious country. (Some will talk about monarchy, but not seriously.)

HOWEVER, the worst thing about elections is that a group will find a way to exploit them. "Vote for us to get the big parliament paychecks, and we'll give you money in return." The workers were the first group the agitators used - the workers started out as illiterate farmers moving to the cities. Then criminals, feminists, deviants, and masses of immigrants. This is the enormous flaw in democracy.

The discussion should really be, what would be in an ideal where we don't have the threat of mass immigration, and what is the ideal where we do have the threat of mass immigration.

I wonder if things had looked different if the Constitution had said you have to be born in the U.S. to vote. Then no one could import voters, they wouldn't help a politician in his lifetime.

Expand full comment

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Monarchies did not function well for the populace historically with very rare exceptions. Why would you have faith in this? Horizontal governing is a solution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wywMhg604W8&t=10s. This short video explains how all or almost all governments are corrupted easily when vertical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oilxI6Dgoy8&t=84s. This seems to be the reality now and for centuries. Horizontal governing would prevent this once and for all. Can you agree?

Expand full comment

I think of anarchy as a desirable outcome. I don't think anarchy has ever been achieved before. Some people think of anarchy as a step toward their communist perfected society, but I think after we achieve anarchy, no more steps will be necessary. Within anarchy, there would be certain sets of folks that choose a very social regimented lifestyle without that lifestyle being imposed by an exterior force. The social problems we face are logistical. How do we get good food and clean water and power to everybody? Who can answer those questions the best? Certainly, decentralization of food production is a necessary and obvious step toward working anarchy, and I think of the Mexican community in CA as a great example of an alternate economy that is working. Their food production is house to house. If Americans want to live they need to embrace Mexican food practices. No large scale farms that require poisons to produce. No refrigeration necessary. A huge diversity of animals and plants for food. That is the way. We also need to learn to speak some Spanish (I need to as well).

Expand full comment

My favorite characteristic of your argument is that it has the same impact (to me, anyway) with or without the religious overtones.

I say that without having any objection at all to the religious overtones.

A well-ordered society is far less fragile than the goat rodeo we presently endure.

Expand full comment

Maybe we won’t get a monarchy but the country is falling apart. Our stupid democracy can’t last that much longer. Chaos will reign whenever the dollar collapses. What’s to stop a Trumpean figure from gaining power and declaring himself First Consul à la Napoleon?

Expand full comment