THE SCIENCE OF THE NEED FOR THE MONARCHY
People who make statements against the monarchy are indoctrinated into a mythology of the french enlightenment, french socialists, and jewish communists, and those infected by the disease all three created. Even Americans are indoctrinated into anti-monarchy just as they are into the claims of the victorian poor. These are political myths that persist like all myths.
EXPLANATION
1. Monarchy differs from Kingdom in that
(a) monarchy is approved by and legitimized by the church, and church by adherence to natural law.
(b) Christian Monarchies are bound by, and limited by, common natural law – which is why the French tried to invent divine authority to subvert the limitations on our ancient Germanic traditions.
2. The British Common Law and its informal constitutions do not empower the Monarchy to make legislation – that is delegated to parliament. Unfortunately, the parliament is sovereign because there is no written constitution to defend against parliament’s folly as in the USA.
Instead, ‘The Monarchy is above the law in the restoration of the rule of law’. In other words, in the modern rule of law by the natural law, parliamentary monarchy, the monarch is the judge of last resort, able to issue judgements (commands) – that compensate for the many problems of participatory government that have cause the failure of all democratic attempts in all of history.
In other words, the British Monarchy establishes limits that prohibit the parliament, the people, a religion, an ideology, a faction, or any other group, from the usurpation of the natural law, the common law, the concurrent legislation and the government under that natural, common, concurrent law of consent and agreement between classes and regions.
3. The reason for the ultimate legitimacy of the natural, common, concurrent law, and the modern rule of law state invented by the English, and the ‘perfect government’ within it, is that it’s SCIENTIFIC GOVERMENT – in that the natural, common, concurrent law of self-determination by self-determined means, by reciprocal insurance of individual sovereignty in demonstrated interests, limiting all of us to reciprocity in display word and deed, limiting us to markets of voluntary cooperation, in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war, and limiting us to voluntary markets for commons in the legislatures, and limiting us to markets for the resolution of disputes in the hierarchy of courts, forcing sexes, classes, and regions, to agree BEFORE legislation can be enacted by the parliament, or new applications of law discovered by the courts.
There is no possible better means of government for a sovereign, free, people.
4. The Monarchy is a necessity because the monarchy has intertemporal (long-term) interests and effectively stewards the inheritance of the culture across generations, centuries, and millennia.
And given that the English, despite their small population, not only invented the modern state, and all the benefits of modernity that have made our greatest problems obesity, self-absorption, hedonism, and overpopulation, and the continuous attempt for less developed peoples to mature into nation-states, instead of suffer under empires.
If you do not understand what I have written here, it’s understandable since the entirety of the left’s pre-and-postwar campaign has existed to undermine both Darwin and the core of Western civilization: the production of institutions of cultural production that maximize individual responsibility in order to produce maximization of commons, that produce discounts indirectly for all, in income, consumption, innovation, adaptation, and evolution, and the expansion of choices for all – and the resulting high trust common to our people and alien to inconceivable for all others but the Japanese and Koreans.
The problem? Many people are not capable of or willing to engage in that responsibility. Why? Because we must invest in it as heavily as the Germans to preserve it. Instead of the pretense of endless growth, in lieu of that discipline.
Can we recreate the free, serf, and slave classes so that the responsible, the semi-responsible, and the irresponsible only bear responsibilities they are fit for and willing to bear? Sure. We call that adulthood, teenage, and children. But there is no reason that we cannot have freedom (self-directed labor, self-directed assets), serfdom (allocated labor, subsidized assets), and servitude (directed labor, and provided assets).
Because if you look at the evidence, that’s what people seem to want. And forcing the unfit into the market where they struggle with competency is unhelpful.
But, to do that, we would have to make that decision, and that’s a very difficult one with many consequences that would play out over time. So think about it: would you endure the opportunity to enter into serfdom or servitude if it meant you lost political participation but gained certainty of food, shelter, and medical care as long as you fulfilled the assigned duties?
We are vastly unequal, and the more we know, the more evident it is that our abilities, whether physical, intuitions, personality, or intelligence, differ greatly, no matter how much we try to educate and train. The best we can do is sort ourselves into a Pareto Optimum distribution of competency without exceeding anyone’s competency in that distribution.
There is no ‘right’ answer here. There is only an understanding of the causes and consequences of the choices we make.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Reply addressees: @georgediandra2 @BladeoftheS