/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

No human being has any inherent right to claim superiority over others, so the idea is laughable. Best you can do is allow the head of a revolution to appoint himself dictator. for life, then pass his title to his son.

>>502

In the case of the United States and Latin American countries, they were essentially aristocracies for a long time. All the founding Fathers of the United States were of particularly noble European stock and they believed less in the creation of a populist state as they did in the idea of an Athenian Aristocracy. Likewise, many of the Latin American leaders after the independence of these regions from Spain and Portugal were Spanish/Portugese or mixed nobility. Some of the black slaves that were brought too were back in Africa what you might have called nobility as well, and usually these individuals due to their greater learning and character compared to the large number of slaves were often ones who managed to advance up the ladder of the slave class.

On top of that, if you count the Native American chieftains, there were literally hundreds if not thousands of "micro-monarchies" in the form of the various tribes which were usually ruled by hereditary chiefs or elected chiefs from among the esteemed elders of the various tribes.

Thomas Jefferson also felt that the key to a functioning republic was the creation of and reservation of the privilege of voting to a "natural aristoi" of land owners (like himself, Washington and many others) over the merchant and artisan classes of the urban area who had little to no property.

>>502

The only modern model I see towards restoration is Liechtenstein's 2003 referendum: at the same time as giving the democrats less power, give the church more independence. The ancien regime lasted a long time for a reason, so there must be some wisdom in holding the Church as a central part of any restoration process.

It just occurred to me that Hans-Adam II wrote a book that might be useful in this regard. I don't know yet, I have not read it yet. (the review seems intriguing http://www.mises.ch/de/aulaartikel.php?id=42 and it seems the Prince's point lies more in allowing further self-determination)

>>502

>How deal with nations that have never been monarchies like USA or many Latin American ones?

Dynasties are forged by heroes

>>550

I don't think America has heroes as much as idols

>>502

>How deal with nations that have never been monarchies like USA or many Latin American ones?

I don't know about Latin America, but the US LOVES dynasties. The Kennedys have been in the public eye for decades while they were still alive, and we just finished an election that could have potentially landed us with a second Clinton or a third Bush. Instating a monarchy in America would be ezpz.

>>555

All human beings I think have a natural kind of monarchist impulse of sorts so that even in societies that reject monarchy, these impulses are still redirected towards others. America's obsession with celebrities and political families like the Kennedies is possibly one example.

>>555

By this argument, perhaps the U.S. is at the very least already an aristocracy.

>>561

Well, it always was intended to be. All the Founding Fathers, with the exception of Thomas Paine, rejected democracy and advocated the country being run by the colonial elites. It was only over time that the American republic degenerated into something that is a bit more populist like it is today.

>>567

No. The monarchy in my opinion should be separate from the bourgeois business class of which the Bushes and Clintons are more a part of, it should come from the established nobility who stands above the bourgeoisie and proletariat masses because only a class that owes its position to privilege can arbitrate disputes between these two factions. The trouble is in the United States, there is no aristocracy proper. What aristocracy there was was eventually absorbed into the bourgeois class as American industry expanded OR it was destroyed in the case of many native American chieftains. Unless of course you can establish a link between a certain individual and an aristocratic family of some repute and justify a claim to supreme authority, American can never have a monarchy without the complete destruction of the current system which prevents a monarchy from naturally forming. Europe can make the shift back to monarchy because much of the old aristocracy and even many of the princely families ar still there and is still a fairly independent class unto themselves, so can the middle east and many parts of east asia where "tradition" is still preserved to some extent, but the Americas would probably need a whole nother revolution in order to create a new culture favorable to monarchism.

>>568

>the established nobility who stands above the bourgeoisie and proletariat masses because only a class that owes its position to privilege can arbitrate disputes between these two factions

This is the best explanation of the difference between plutocracy and aristocracy that I've ever heard.

>>577

Thanks. Many people assume the aristocrats' position comes from wealth and so they are lumped up with the bourgeois, but the truth is that the nobles constituted an independent hierarchy unto themselves, with rich and poor nobles divided further between one another based on titles and lineage. Many nobles could in fact be poorer or as poor as many of the peasants under their rule. The rich nobles were usually those who owned a lot of land and who had many talented servants who had sworn loyalty to them living on that land and offered them tribute. And rather than tribute being a payment for any particular service as is the case in normative capitalism, the tributary system and the complimentary system of patronage on the part of the aristocrats was more comparable to a system of alms which the noble is entitled to based on his standing by birth or character, which places him above the normal competitive market mechanisms.