There is a huge difference between how things should work and how they will though. Without any system of enforcement, I would call it nothing but wishful thinking.
I’m posting another comment because you seem to be genuinely interested in discussion the concepts that you are bringing up in your essay. I haven’t yet fully read it, though I have skimmed and will spend some time giving out a fair read.
I do not think that I’ll have much positive in my critical analysis based mainly upon my philosophical orientation (anarchist) and neurodivergence (AuADHD so, have strong feelings about what I perceive as just/unjust ex. hereditary rule is intrinsically unjust). From a writing style/communication perspective, it does seem, at a high level, to be well-written.
I’ll try to remember to get some time to read through the rest of it on the weekend.
Interesting idea for sure. I’m not sure it would work though. The concept has lots of cultural implications as well. In traditional monarchies the king is usually divinely ordained, chosen by god. A democracy doesn’t get its legitimacy from above, the people are the ultimate sovereign and legitimize the system. New Monarchy also needs some kind of higher philosophical justification.
Political systems often have a short slogan, that emphasizes their values.
The linked concept of New Monarchy doesn’t have a king. It contains asymmetric votes between classes, which is an interesting idea to keep a check on the aristocracy. I don’t think the system is fully viable as a concept, but it makes a good point at the beginning. If we get an elite ruling class anyway in every system, let’s make it more visible and directly accountable.
Your proposal is just an idealistic version of early US. You claim that corruption is fundamentally impossible, but assume that magically “the monarchs aren’t allowed to own property” without regard to enforcement. You claim to have an alternative to democracy but still propose majority voting on replacing rulers and constitutions. You simply assume that monarchs will keep each other in check and not devolve into the conspiring, warmongering tyrants that history is full of.
Power can always be abused to get more power and go against all your original ideals. The only way to definitely prevent corruption is to ensure power is never concentrated in the hands of few.
Your proposal is just an idealistic version of early US.
Thanks, I guess :)
You claim that corruption is fundamentally impossible, but assume that magically “the monarchs aren’t allowed to own property” without regard to enforcement.
I make no such claim, and I don’t make assumptions regarding enforcement either. Constitutional enforcement is discussed in quite some detail.
You claim to have an alternative to democracy but still propose majority voting on replacing rulers and constitutions.
There is majority voting on deposal of rulers, to be specific. Their replacement isn’t voted on by a majority of the population.
Constitutional changes are voted on through majority, but first require a majority of the monarchs to be on board.
Both these limitations are intentionally designed to mitigate manipulation of the population.
You simply assume that monarchs will keep each other in check and not devolve into the conspiring, warmongering tyrants that history is full of.
There is quite some detail about the enforcement mechanisms. The idea is very much not to assume, but to persuade the monarchs to act in a benevolent manner, by enticement through both the carrot (wealth for as long as they rule), but also the stick (deposal if the majority doesn’t vote in favour of their actions, with a threat of assassination if they refuse to be deposed).
Power can always be abused to get more power and go against all your original ideals. The only way to definitely prevent corruption is to ensure power is never concentrated in the hands of few.
Ah. So it wasn’t me that claimed that corruption is fundamentally impossible, it’s you that claim to have the definitive answer.
For what it’s worth, I agree power shouldn’t be concentrated in the few. Which is why I split power across districts, and between citizens and monarchs, and why the group of monarchs for each district cannot be too small either. It’s all there if you could try to be a little less dismissive.
Why wouldn’t the monarchs cooperate with each other to increase their power? Why do you think they’d keep each other in check instead? I think it’s quite plain to see that those with power would rather work together to fuck us, to their own benefit, rather than work with us against each other.
There is a huge difference between how things should work and how they will though. Without any system of enforcement, I would call it nothing but wishful thinking.
In fairness, democracy was a kind of wishful thinking too, which is why I would propose a new form of monarchy instead: https://arendjr.nl/blog/2025/02/new-monarchy/
I’m posting another comment because you seem to be genuinely interested in discussion the concepts that you are bringing up in your essay. I haven’t yet fully read it, though I have skimmed and will spend some time giving out a fair read.
I do not think that I’ll have much positive in my critical analysis based mainly upon my philosophical orientation (anarchist) and neurodivergence (AuADHD so, have strong feelings about what I perceive as just/unjust ex. hereditary rule is intrinsically unjust). From a writing style/communication perspective, it does seem, at a high level, to be well-written.
I’ll try to remember to get some time to read through the rest of it on the weekend.
No kings. No gods*. No masters.
*“gods” here referring to use of organized religion to coerce others.
Interesting idea for sure. I’m not sure it would work though. The concept has lots of cultural implications as well. In traditional monarchies the king is usually divinely ordained, chosen by god. A democracy doesn’t get its legitimacy from above, the people are the ultimate sovereign and legitimize the system. New Monarchy also needs some kind of higher philosophical justification.
Political systems often have a short slogan, that emphasizes their values.
New Monarchism could use one as well.
Kings are bad
The linked concept of New Monarchy doesn’t have a king. It contains asymmetric votes between classes, which is an interesting idea to keep a check on the aristocracy. I don’t think the system is fully viable as a concept, but it makes a good point at the beginning. If we get an elite ruling class anyway in every system, let’s make it more visible and directly accountable.
:D
From your other responses I can see you’re being sarcastic, but yeah, seems that many won’t read any further after seeing the word monarchy :shrug:
Your proposal is just an idealistic version of early US. You claim that corruption is fundamentally impossible, but assume that magically “the monarchs aren’t allowed to own property” without regard to enforcement. You claim to have an alternative to democracy but still propose majority voting on replacing rulers and constitutions. You simply assume that monarchs will keep each other in check and not devolve into the conspiring, warmongering tyrants that history is full of.
Power can always be abused to get more power and go against all your original ideals. The only way to definitely prevent corruption is to ensure power is never concentrated in the hands of few.
Thanks, I guess :)
I make no such claim, and I don’t make assumptions regarding enforcement either. Constitutional enforcement is discussed in quite some detail.
There is majority voting on deposal of rulers, to be specific. Their replacement isn’t voted on by a majority of the population.
Constitutional changes are voted on through majority, but first require a majority of the monarchs to be on board.
Both these limitations are intentionally designed to mitigate manipulation of the population.
There is quite some detail about the enforcement mechanisms. The idea is very much not to assume, but to persuade the monarchs to act in a benevolent manner, by enticement through both the carrot (wealth for as long as they rule), but also the stick (deposal if the majority doesn’t vote in favour of their actions, with a threat of assassination if they refuse to be deposed).
Ah. So it wasn’t me that claimed that corruption is fundamentally impossible, it’s you that claim to have the definitive answer.
For what it’s worth, I agree power shouldn’t be concentrated in the few. Which is why I split power across districts, and between citizens and monarchs, and why the group of monarchs for each district cannot be too small either. It’s all there if you could try to be a little less dismissive.
Why wouldn’t the monarchs cooperate with each other to increase their power? Why do you think they’d keep each other in check instead? I think it’s quite plain to see that those with power would rather work together to fuck us, to their own benefit, rather than work with us against each other.
That fact that you think “idealistic version of early US” is a compliment is very telling.
Pray tell, what does it tell?