/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>1959

I'll go first, since otherwise the OP was too long.

1) Constitutional Monarchy

2) While a king may be a very suitable system to retain nationalism and wealth in a country, a formal document of law is required to protect the citizens from an abusive king and to ensure that justice is applied uniformly regardless of wealth. The Magistratus (judicial branch) is empowered only as a check to the king and to handle criminal cases. The Magistratus elects their own. They may not create new laws and their ability to interpret the law is limited in scope (preventing oh yeah will when they wrote this they p r o b a b l y only meant for hunting and stuff yeah totally that's it). Precedence from previous cases may not affect current or future cases, so each case must be looked at individually with the law. Note that "the law" is defined as those things enumerated in the constitution and the king may make decrees which do not contradict the law. Said decrees may be overturned by future kings, and the Magistratus may not overturn decrees if they do not contradict the law.

3) No classes, local government positions are held by active duty military officers so that they are doubly bound by both common law and military law.

4) Abuse of the lower classes due to wealth disparity is unlikely, as the rights of the people are guaranteed. As the constitution is concrete, the law is very unlikely to be diluted or corrupted over time. Furthermore, as there is still a monarch, the traditions and culture of the country is less susceptible to demoralization and corruption.

5) As the constitution is concrete, some issues may require special action of the king or simply go without a direct resolution. While this may protect the original idea of the country, it is less flexible as a result. Furthermore, while systems are in place, a particularly violent succession can still disturb the country as it can to any monarchy.

-

1 ) All citizens are treated equally under the law and the one committing the crime will be prosecuted justly regardless of wealth.

2 ) Immigration isn't open (except in very specific cases requiring the king's decree PER individual), so all non-tourist foreigners are deported.

3 ) Trains. As it is state sponsored, no extra tax is needed and all revenue directly supports the crown and its train lines.

4 ) Multiple waves. The first being volunteer and the second being conscription, but only if required.

5 ) Open polling centers, talk to citizens, get feedback of what may be the issue. Rule through fear is a great way to be replaced.

6 ) All imported goods (handled through border-towns) are tariffed adequately. If this is insufficient, a 3% sales tax is initiated, though nothing further.

7 ) No problem here, unless they're somehow foreigners. Tourists aren't allowed arms.

8 ) Plan for the future by limiting the birth rate- implementing a limited child policy. If below replacement rate, a volunteer lottery is implemented for those with the resources to raise additional children. As for the immediate problem (for it is temporary) find some form of temporary work they can do, whether it be landscaping, mining, etc.

9 ) If a current heir is declared, they shall take the throne, overseen by the military. If no suitable heir exists, the High Magistrate (of the Judiciary) sits as steward until a suitable claimant can be found. The Magistrate is bound by law to stand down from the throne once his duty is complete.

10) Tourists and foreign merchants may gain admittance to a border town, but to traverse further into the country they must have a citizen sponsor. This is done to prevent illegal immigrants via visa expiry.

11) Deport. How they got in to begin with is a mystery as jews aren't even allowed a tourist visa. Resistance is met with detainment, and a possible execution.

I'm not sure how much of a supporter of l'Ancien Regime I am, as I think it's more of one particular characteristic of it that I appreciate, but I'll try giving it a go in case the other users are dead. Speaking of that one characteristic, I'm not sure how well your questions really capture what I view as the important central point. But I hope it was at least captured in the second question.

>1) Name/Type (Your flag)

Ancien Regime

>2) Description (ideally)

The key component that I appreciate about l'Ancien Regime was that it was the peak expression of the integration of social evolution with political evolution (c.f. attached video). So that, at the time of it's heyday, it was a form in which tradition was encoded in the very form of government, which correspondingly gave a form of government that locked step between political development and social or cultural development in a very organic and rather natural form through the institutional Estate embodied by the Church.

It's this organic development in governmental institutional structures that I feel in so lacking in the current political environment. Instead, many governmental institutions are either dictated by fiat or one central body of men. I defer to Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France for more detail of this view.

I'm afraid this is probably going to piss you off, because this position is so vague and tenuous so as to not hold well in debate and not really follow what the Ancien Regime might have really been in many others' eyes, but if it makes you feel better, I am willing to concede that "This is not True Ancien Regime," if it so pleases you.

>3) Is this a classed system? What are they and who inhabits these classes? What are the duties of the classes?

Yes. Traditionally speaking political power rested in three classes or estates: the King, the Nobility, and the Church.

>4) Benefits of your supported system

Integration of social norms into political structures, as opposed to vice versa.

>5) Problems with your supported system

Dissociation. Should the institutional structures of the Church not force it to actively change to properly reflect and incorporate the proper social order, then people leave the Church because it is not, then the organically developed system of checks and balances falls apart.

>Then you must optimally resolve the following issues under and according to your supported system: (Note you are not necessarily the king but can describe what the king, magistrate, governor, or constable/policeman would do in such a situation to resolve said issue.

>1)/2) Criminal or Civil Dispute.

A matter of common law.

If the point of law involves a matter of succession, following traditional Salic Law (many times this usually the noble would win if the merchant or commoner did not incorporate his trusts properly).

But otherwise, ideally a trail of common law born from traditional Justinian Law judged by a Seneschal–a member of the aristocracy appointed by the King.

>3)/4)

A matter to be decided by the King and his Court.

>5) (in this scenario) you are king, but currently your reputation is mud. How do you resolve this?

Cardinal Richelieu it up.

>6) The crown needs money, how is it raised?

Taxing the commoners, exchanging favors for money with the aristocracy, selling lands to the clergy, or exhorting tariffs on His Majesty's borders.

>7) Private citizens are carrying arms, and their purpose is ambiguous. What, if anything, is done?

Common law will evolve to contain it if it is an issue.

>8) The number of unemployed poor is rising due to the prevalence of either slave labor or some kind of labor reducing technology. What, if anything, is done to resolve this poverty and starvation?

A matter of the Church.

>9) The king has proven himself an ineffective ruler, what is done about this?

The Church begins to revoke bits of His authority.

>10) Your country is beautiful and many foreign people wish to come and see it as tourists. How is this handled, if at all?

Pilgrimage is an old and permitted activity.

>11) You discover jews in the land, what is done about this?

They would be required to convert. Religious homogeneity is a prerequisite of having an effective Church Estate.

>>1963

Not bad, I could see it working. Forgot to put on my flag earlier but it's whatever.

Anarcho-monarchists, GTF in here and explain yourself.

>>1972

>implying anyone actually unironically believes in a meme idealogy

>>1959

>1) Name/Type (Your flag)

Anarchomonarchism

>2) Description (ideally)

Like anarchocapitalism, but the nation is under the leadership of a monarch. The monarch has no special legal privileges, but is still endowed with royal dignity and trained to rule the people. This rulership will not be based on coercion, and will not be enforcable. The monarch would rely on the goodwill of his subjects and on voluntary relations through contract or property to do such things as coordinate the various private defense agencies in case of a military emergency or interpret the law in very important and controversial cases.

>3) Is this a classed system? What are they and who inhabits these classes? What are the duties of the classes?

Classes, like the monarch, won't have legal privileges, but may have social privileges. They won't be set in stone, then. Instead, they will naturally spring up and pass from existence.

>4) Benefits of your supported system

All the benefits of anarchocapitalism, like increased prosperity, safety from statist tyranny, and a general rule of freedom and justice. The monarch - who would be entirely optional - would bring with him increased unity and stability.

>5) Problems with your supported system

Same as with anarchocapitalism, although I would call them failure modes, not problems. The law of non-aggression might be eroded, either due to deliberate reform on a large scale or a silent change in the prevailing mindset of the people. Very strong defense companies might create a new state (albeit one with very limited power at first), although that's only plausible when the mentality of the people has changed. Or, an outside invader might take over the territory.

The monarch can aggravate or mitigate all of these. Which it is would depend on a number of factors which are hard to name in advance. For example, he might coordinate a stronger defense against an invader, or he might have such a central role that an attacker could bring the nation to its knees by focusing on him.

>>1959

>>1977

Continued:

>2) A travelling trader having a dispute with a citizen, the trader is a foreigner. The nature of the dispute is ambiguous to you at the current time.

The same law applies as with everybody else, although concessions might be made if the traveller was genuinely ignorant of the customs that apply.

>3) The population is growing large, and a majority commute to their place of work. A system of transportation may be funded (or not).

Let the free market decide. If the verdict is against them, that means the resources necessary to fund the transport are better used elsewhere.

>4) The country is under threat from a foreign power or invader and the standing army is either insufficient or non-existent.

Everyone would own at least seventeen guns, and the country would be highly decentralized, even under a monarch. There would be a very strong resistance against the invaders. I don't think it would come to that. Even without a king to coordinate the defense - there would be other means to do that, too - the fact that the economy would be very strong would make things hard for the enemy. If portable laser guns were developed, you could bet that Ancapistan would have them before everyone else.

>5) (in this scenario) you are king, but currently your reputation is mud. How do you resolve this?

Depends on why my reputation is so bad. Is it because my ancestor fucked up? Show myself to be different from him. Did I fuck up? Atone for it and hope the public is forgiving. There's no patent receipt.

>6) The crown needs money, how is it raised?

Ask nicely :^) Or start a business. That's what many kings used to do. Taxation, as we know it, was not very viable until somewhat recently.

>7) Private citizens are carrying arms, and their purpose is ambiguous. What, if anything, is done?

If their purpose stops being ambiguous, like when they start handing out pamphlets calling for a workers revolution, preliminary defense would be justified. Other citizens will defend themselves from this just well even without the king, probably with the help of a defense company. The king, however, will be in a good position to arbitrate matters with the armed groups, and - if need be - declare them to be enemies of the law.

>8) The number of unemployed poor is rising due to the prevalence of either slave labor or some kind of labor reducing technology. What, if anything, is done to resolve this poverty and starvation?

Charity, taking the poverty as a given. Doesn't sound like much,

Slave labor would be prohibited. Labor reducing technologies aren't really a thing. Machines make labor more productive, they don't reduce it. A machine that increases productivity tenfold will not have any effect on unemployment if demand increases likewise.

>9) The king has proven himself an ineffective ruler, what is done about this?

He is ignored, will probably only be taken out for ceremonial purposes and to entertain the press.

>10) Your country is beautiful and many foreign people wish to come and see it as tourists. How is this handled, if at all?

Property rights. Tourists will only come to genuinely unowned land or to the land of people willing to take them in.

>11) You discover jews in the land, what is done about this?

Nothing, if they don't subvert anything. If they do, it depends on what this subversion looks like. If they're solely engaging in academic discourse, that most likely won't be a problem. If they agitate the masses and incite crimes, remove them. "Kill rich people" still means "kill rich people" if it's the crystal clear message of a 1500 page treatise on political theory.

>>1972

>>1973

Lel, sorry guys.

>>1979

I believe I only apologized for the semantics, so I won't do that again. Is there anything substantial about my position you want to criticize?

>>1980

>only

I meant "already". I really shouldn't stay awake that long.

>>1973

Plenty of people think just monarchism alone is a meme, there are so few monarchists in the world anymore.

>>1994

You are correct. However, it will return naturally. Once the ever increasing debt hits its inevitable wall and crushes the economy, people will choose a strong leader. From that point onwards, a steady creep towards aristocracy and monarchy will happen.

>>2032

I have my doubts. Sure, they will want a strong leader, but in our current ideological climate, that will mean an ochlocratic dictator. You cannot press the substance of democracy into the form of a monarchy.

>>2036

Anacyclosis theory ftw.

>>1972

>>1973

>Who is Tolkien

>>1977

What is that symbol?