(FB 1548697940 Timestamp)

–“WHAT ABOUT NEPOTISM IN THE MONARCHY?”–

The evidence is that families guard their status jealously and that fratricide and patricide are the most common origins of regicide.

Secondly, a monarchy has only to defend the very longest term interest and its income from the overall performance of the polity.

Monarchies have exceptional records for almost all of human history with the fragility not one of nepotism (since a monarchy has management teams selected from across the realm, many of whom are the best shareholders), but monarchies fail because agrarian production was the only means of competition and therefore territorial expansion the only means of competition. And territorial expansion only achievable by the high risk and high cost of european warfare and consequent ransom.

The monarchies simply DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO when the landed and military aristocracy was replaced by the commercial aristocracy, and after the french revolution, the church aristocracy replaced by the state bureaucracy.

We know what to do: Increase participation to shift, then decrease participation once shifted. Increase participation by expanding the franchise for each additional class, or decrease the franchise for each additional class once the change has been implemented. During that era guns were far more effective at forcing political change than archers. So the state could no longer use professional warriors to deny the franchise.

The only solution is to retain the franchise for those who have demonstrated interests in the preservation of rule of law and the discretion of the monarchy, the republic, or the democracy in the determination of the production of commons.

THere no longer a force on earth that can occupy territory against men with small arms (battle rifles) and rpg’s (close proximity man-portable artillery). It cannot be done. Ergo the transition is complete and we have restored the symmetry of power between men.

WE need only choose to impose our will on those who would deprive us of rule of law, and the reciprocity that rule of law both depends upon and enforces.

It is very hard to read Hoppe, Michels, and Burnham (or machiavelli for that matter) and not understand this.