24 Comments

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
author

Honestly, given the history/culture going in, any monarch we (or a smaller successor state) might have would probably be elective and drawn from among the ranks of those who fought in the presumably successful civil war, if one occurred. This is not without precedent, since many of the Germanic tribes basically had elective monarchies on the same basis.

Expand full comment

That makes sense. Have you read Duchesne's 'Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age'? His theory is that it is precisely this political culture (Indo-European warrior class selecting one of their own as King, to whom they are minimally servile) which drove European supremacy.

Expand full comment
author

I haven't read it, but that thesis definitely makes sense. Gonna check Z-lib to see if they have that book by Duchesne!

Expand full comment

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

https://mythpilot.substack.com/p/how-to-found-a-great-house

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

I've noticed that calls for monarchy have intensified over the past decade or so, as either a restoration or in some funky new form. It's an interesting thought experiment, but one that misses the forest for the trees, in my opinion.

I think the reason kings are staging a comeback has to do with the condition we find ourselves in. When chaos and complexity reign, people yearn for order and simplicity in equal amounts. The monarch represents the apotheosis of both; an ultimate authority who can carve order from chaos, like Marduk with his sword. Thus the cycle begins anew, as his sucessfully ordered house slowly yields to the rot of ambition and debauchery.

I have a different idea. I think it isn't so much the problem of a government's form as it is the unrestrained proliferation of rules. Whether this rule-making mania emanates from a single person or from a caucus, elected or appointed, the result is the same: a constantly mutating game larded with ever more byzantine and narrowly exploitable rules. The genius of the Ten Commandments as a codex (as opposed to something like the hadiths, or the Code of Hammurabi) lies in its simplicity. It is basically a set of meta-rules, stripped of specific punishments or mitigation. They will neither expand nor contract, and cover the entire litany of crimes born in the human heart.

How about this as a proposal: erase all laws, regulations and regulatory bodies and abolish the legislative branch. Replace them with a simple, unalterable codex that is comprehensible to all, to be rigorously interpreted by the judiciary and enforced by the executive. The trial lawyer profession need not be abolished, but will soon wither on the vine as litigants can easily represent themselves in civil matters, having been trained more or less from birth in both the letter of the law and the moral reasoning behind it.

The final law in this new streamlined codex will be something along the lines of "Thou shall not game the system." Individuals found to have deliberately misinterpreted the law or mishandled its execution will no longer be deemed protected by it, amounting to a de facto form of exile.

Expand full comment

I've had similar thoughts. Another alternative, which keeps the possibility for alteration in light of new circumstances open, is to have a constitutional clause that the number of laws shall not exceed some very small number; or better yet, put a maximum word count on the total length of the body of law. Thus, if they want to pass a new law, something else must be removed, and the total amount of law is conserved over time.

Expand full comment

Something like a maxlength attrib for the whole of law? Intriguing, but I'm skeptical. It will be enough of a chore to keep the judiciary from legislating from the bench, I think.

The point of my exercise was that all in a nation would know and accept that its laws are eternal and unchanging. No wiggle room, no hope for modification or repeal. In that sense they would reflect the laws of Nature and of Nature's God. This would produce a strong selective pressure towards efficiency and clarity in the language. I don't think lack of imagination is a factor, since our project isn't to build an ever-evolving utopia, but rather a basic engine to prevent civilization from eating itself for the umpteenth time. If we can't define such rules in a legible format of fifteen or fewer universally applicable laws, it is possible humans weren't meant to live by laws of any kind, and may as well throw in our lot with the anarchists and gangsters (if we can even tell them apart).

However, since we are creatives, it would behoove us to at least try to conceive of a future law that could not be inferred from the old reliables (no lying, stealing, killing, raping, etc.). For example, would the operation of a mind control device be considered a form of theft? Or would it require it's own particular rule? Maybe a fun game, at least.

Expand full comment

I basically agree that the law should be short, succinct, and universal. That's why I suggest a max length stipulation - although the same thing could be achieved by adding 'what follows is not to be modified or added to'. The danger though is that lack of flexibility could become a lability, for instance if new technological capabilities introduce problems that just aren't covered, while rendering something that is a covered a moot point. Then you're likely to have 'commentaries' being added on which aren't TECHNICALLY law but will be treated as such, and which will develop all the byzantine complexity that we're trying to avoid in the first place.

Expand full comment

To try to head off these potential problems, I think the development of a proper everlasting codex should be tightly focused on the definitions for consent and harm, drawing boundaries around each concept in clear and precise language, excluding all forms that do not meet the narrow and rigorous standard of the encoded law.

This will undoubtedly result in the cases of murky consent, and the infliction of certain harms that we will find disagreeable at best. That will particularly be the case in less than honorable business practices... at least early on in the experiment. But the pressure to incentivize virtue (e.g. "caveat emptor") by offering relatively sparse legal remedies is something I see as a feature rather than a bug. The project is not the development of a "justice" system (if justice exists, it's not to be found in an earthly courtroom). This is merely a mechanism for preserving sociable order.

Expand full comment

If I had spent my life accumulating money, I would absolutely consider the path of that link. But then if I had spent my life accumulating money, would that make me such a prick I could not conceive of such a plan without micromanaging it like a tyrant?

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

Well said. The very worst part of our current situation. We move further and further away from a Jeffersonian ideal. We have communists creating fascists. Very German. Very 1920s. Let’s see if America can withstand. And create a rebirth of Freedom. If not, I fear what was the last great hope of the world is finished.

Expand full comment

Yes, the us went wrong in 1861. No matter how wrong slavery, the solution to kill and plunder the secessionist states marked the end of the Union. It's not a union when you cant leave. Somehow we have to get back to each state having the right to separate and then decide freely how and whether to associate with other states. If a citizen doesn't like life in state x, move to one you like better. People are already doing that now.

Expand full comment

I suspect long term it is likely that the US will break up into five distinct republics with more or less free movement between, with each ordered differently with different emphasis. I think long term the one with the best prospects is the great lakes region. But then I am biased as I live in Minnesota.

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

"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. "

I would hope we're beyond wishing for a totalitarian system. Wasnt the 20th century enough blood?

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