Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

Q: CURT ARE YOU A MONARCHIST?
Depends on the meaning of the term.

A king/queen is a chieftain(headman) that may be elected or hereditary. A monarchy is a king/queen under the european common law, christianity, and is hereditary. A Constitutional monarchy explicilty states the powers of all branches of government. With the present british monarchy the optimum power in theory though it’s almost never exercised: the power of veto/ascent over legislation and cabinet, the power to disband the government, the power to call up the military. These are ’emergency’ powers necessary to compensate for the folly and fashion of the people, and the tendency of governments to seek power at public expense.

Under rule of law of the natural law as we have in the united states, and a bit less so in the rest of the anglosphere, we lack a ‘judge of last resort’, to appeal to when the political, legislative and court processes fail us – which they do. HIstorically we could appeal to the manor, to the shire court, to the city court, to the nobility, to the parliament, to the monarchy when we felt an injustice. Who do we have to appeal to now? No one.

We lack anyone with the authority ‘outside the law in the restoration of the law’.

We lack the intergenerational political ‘house’ of the Lords (families with demonstrated investment in the polity), and ‘house’ of the monarchy (demonstrated long term investment in the polity) and this leads to the tragedy of the commons where all politicians act as ‘renters’ rather than ‘owners’ and destroy civilizational capital.

We lack the aesthetic of competitive excellence demonstrated by the monarchies that have made europe a vast open air museum, and without them progress toward favelas.

So the ‘perfect government’ consists of rule of law by the natural law of self determinatino by sovereignty and reciprocity, a constitution of that law stating the sovereignty of the people under the natural law, a parliamentary house for each the classes creating market for the production of commons, including a house of intergeneratinoal families with demonstrated devotion to high culture, and a monarchy as the judge of last resort.

We got most things right.
But we were wrong about aristocracy.
And we were ‘wronger’ in the enlightenment presumption of the virtue and capacity of the common man, and we entirely failed to grasp and account for the seditious nature of the common woman.

Turns out that everything turns to a Tragedy of the Commons without a nobility and monarchy. And turns out that everything turns ugly without them. Because we are all incentivized to maximize consumption now, rather than invest inthe long term returns on aesthetics, beauty, and excellence.

In this sense I favore rule of law by the natural law, by the sovereignty of the people within the natural law, the resulting requirement for concurrency in vote and legislation and commonality in dispute resolution (legal concepts you may not know and if you don’t it’s a tragedy of our system that you don’t), universal equality of defense via court, voting by demonstrated competency, houses of government for the production of commons, each corresponding to the sexes and classes, ensuring the prohibition on authority, and the requirement for concurrent consensus, with a hierarchy of means of personal appeal for injustice from court to monarchy, and a monarchy as the intergenerational defense of the commons, the people, and the state, with the ability to act outside the constitution and law in the restoration of that constitution and law.

That’s perfect government.
IF you are good enough people to have it.
And that’s the reason for education – to make sure you’re good enough and responsible enough to have it, so that the rest of us who are, CAN have it.

I hope this helps.

Curt Doolittle

Reply addressees: @_Itsmrfoxy_