Question for Monarchists

Why?

Arbitrary selection of noble families. Ping pong balls in a hat sort of thing. It's going to be the Waltons and the Kennedys and other chosen people anyways.

Then the people murder them and install other families as needed.

>Sounds horrifying.
>So in this world, Walmart will select the mayor of my town.
>This is a horrifying system.
Would you rather live in a state run like California or Apple?

Even if I did, with everything privatized including roads and bridges, travel across the country would become too expensive and dangerous. I'd just join a local peasant insurgent organization and try to reset this dystopia.

>Even if I did, with everything privatized including roads and bridges, travel across the country would become too expensive and dangerous
Why would you need to travel when everything you need is within 20 miles of your home like it was for most of history?

The only way to practically run a Monarchy is small government, and not a bloated bureaucracy like we have now.

I'd like to see most of the government apart from the military and border authorities be removed.

A mayor can be selected by the townsfolk however they please. Taxes can be collected by sheriffs.

Because logic doesn't guide women and idiots.

If Walmart is in control of the government, they would quickly establish a complete monopoly on everything. So instead of everything being within 20 miles of my home, Walmart would be 20 miles from my home and nothing else. All other businesses prevented from existing or destroyed.
Everyone would be extremely poor and desperate with Walmart or Exon or Apple as the only source of income for their respective monopoly zones. A perfect tinderbox for an American French-Revolution.

I think it would balance the long-term incentives and capabilities of landed nobility with the short term reactive capabilities of elected offices. Ideally, you'd set it up so that neither can just flat out cock-block the other by themselves, but that executive power is either weak or strong, depending on whether they're cooperating or not. Easiest example of that would be vetos being easier to overturn if only one of the co-executives uses a veto (so it could really only stop highly divisive bills that barely squeaks through), or harder to overturn if both use a veto (so that something with overwhelming support can still push through).

My overal idea of how this stuff would work is a little vague, but I'm a strong supporter of federalism over unitary government, so I think the states/duchies/principalities/whatever you want to call them would probably have a decent amount of control over their own noble structure, which would be necessary in a company as regionally diverse as america, where some states have tons of wide open land, and some are practically one giant city.

My why was directed to literally everything else about that post.

What about counties and provinces/states? How would they be run?

That sounds comfy. In the long run, I could see the elected officials becoming all powerful and the nobles becoming relegated to rubber stamps of the legislature.

>Why would you need to travel when everything you need is within 20 miles of your home
>everything you need is within 20 miles of your home
>implying that will happen
There's not enough fucking land for that to work unless we basically throw away a significant amount of our technological development.

>In the long run, I could see the elected officials becoming all powerful and the nobles becoming relegated to rubber stamps of the legislature.
What do you think could be done to prevent it without drastically tipping the scales of power?

By a landed nobility the same way they always were. Far preferable to the modern jetsetting elites because they have a connection to the land and the people.

Ok, It gives the head of the household responsibility, they are more likely to co-operate when they decided it themselves.

They won't be voting for a leader. They'll be voting on ideas, like going to space or nuking Israel.

where my neocameralists at ayyyyy

>That sounds comfy.
I appreciate that. The idea originated with me trying to figure out what a monarchist system might look like if it were still very distinctly American, so the monarchy and nobility wind up acting like an additional layer of the checks and balances, laced into both the executive and legislature. I think having local nobility could help bring a stronger emphasis to politics on a more local level, as well.

Sorry for multi-reply I'm a bit disorganized right now.

>They won't be voting for a leader. They'll be voting on ideas
But they wouldn't be, they'd be voting on people who vote on people who vote on people etc. until you're down to the 1000 people who ACTUALLY vote on stuff.

And this is exactly what happened ,as soon as the bourgeoisie managed to get a economical edge they started to take more and more power for themselves, the british parliament is the perfect example of this they destroyed the house of lords

Checked and based. The new money need to be smacked back into their place.

>How should the mayor of a town be selected?

From the nobility?

Attached: dieu et mon droit 2.png (1250x1030, 765.09K)

That I am not sure of.
The problem (from the Nobility's perspective) of elective stuff is that whoever is winning an election naturally has a pretty wide support base in order to win. And more important, in order to win an election, you need to be a good organizer with support networks. A duke doesn't rely on this since he was just born into his position. This is a problem since an elected official will probably have stronger grassroots networks. If they work together, all is well but if an ambitious governor clashes with his landed partner, he can raise hell with his networks. This is sort of what happened to Louis XVI, on a much larger level of course.

The key, I think, to restraining power for any official is to separate him from the selection of his cabinet and bureaucracy. But one can't have the prince doing it for both of them because that's way too much responsibility for just one guy and also, it sets them up as adversaries.

The best way to do it is to try to have a combination of meritocracy like in china and some heritable position but you would need to have a involved monarch to keep the balance
I actually think that the system we had with the constitution of 1866 was actually quite a good one

>From the nobility
From the respectable families of the city/town I guess right?

>how should regular government function?
a senate of the capital should elect the king after the death of the previous king just as the romans did
>mayorships
can be held by the aristocratic families comprising the senate in patronage relationships. Civic association should be by belonging to a certain line or tribe. Each tribe has twenty five senators, four tribes are created, each Father-citizen belongs to one of the four tribes. Each lower-citizen belongs to no tribe and holds no political power.
>Taxes
by levy and by the king's force through the senators
>feudal lords?
No need for feudal lords because currently our revenue is based on profit. The senate and king should produce a lot of capital from war profiteering, conquest, and the management of important fixed capital for export

So it's a better system than today and they'd all be men among men, not pussies born on 3rd base thinking they hit a home run.

Secret societies would be outlawed too.

The entire point of having the nobility is acting as a check on the power of the mercantile psuedo-aristocracy.

What if they have to work together to select the cabinet and bureaucrats?

>senate of the capital should elect the king after the death of the previous king just as the romans did
But how are you going to stop that from either being dominated by a single family like in HRE or having the senate take away all the power of the monarch like they done in Poland?

What ties them to the land and people?
In historic feudalism, the landed nobility often lived far away from their holdings.

I'm open to monarchist ideas. I just wonder how they could be implemented in practice. Obviously, everyone wants to be a lord or a baron, but I'd be okay with being a peasant so long as the system was livable. Especially if I got to wear interesting clothes and there were strong social institutions.

>the system we had with the constitution of 1866 was actually quite a good one
I'll have to do my research, RomAnon

First king will be more or less. second one is worse. third is complete idiot so it is time for great revolution again. it is awesome. when all this shit happen people can do what they normally should do

Fuck does that have to do with the layers and layers of separation between the household and the people making actual decisions?

I too am fascinated by the concept of a true monarchy. it seems like it has a few positive attributes

Attached: 17098598_10211941624446364_2366087304343413752_n.jpg (720x717, 39.47K)

Gay, elections are cancer.

I wouldn't have to regulate shit.

That's the King's job.

Attached: 1544118725827.png (249x249, 84.95K)

it is much better than democracy when all stupid all the time and no place for great revolution

>Revolution should just be a normal part of the political process
No

you don't and that's the point. you imprint republicanism through the existence of the senate but you imprint the want for a kingly government through the monarch. the monarchy will inevitably become a tyranny and be overthrown by the senate which actually has no need to respect the king since it elects the king while the king has all the reason to love the senate that elected him. this will give birth to an aristocratic (stable) republic

>Civic association should be by belonging to a certain line or tribe
How would this be implemented IRL?
I live in a town and rural area with 2,000 people. None of them are related to me. This is pretty much the way it is with everyone.

>The senate and king should produce a lot of capital from war profiteering, conquest, and the management of important fixed capital for export
War profiteering? Conquest?
That doesn't sound like a stable society. Nor would it be profitable for the nobility. What are we supposed to be conquering anyway? Oil fields?

That would be ideal. I would foresee trouble since the elected official would probably know more grassroots officials.

So there should be absolutely no elections of any sort in your monarchy?
Even absolutist kingdoms like France had elective assemblies for nobles.

Busy king

Problem is my town is run by old Italian mafia, and some of the familes are not good.

They they they can buy everyone out. THey want to bring in trash from NYC as tenants.

Though with this economic crash, they may have rethink their realestate schemes.

The rest of our town is Slavs and some Scottish.

Attached: giuseppe pepe.png (500x500, 155.78K)

^They think they can buy everyone out. They want to bring in trash from NYC as tenants.

So monarchy is a means to aristocratic republicanism.
Careful. That's what the French tried in 1789 . It didn't go quite how they imagined it would...

It's a refinement of people.

It promotes traditional family, biologically ordained authority, self sufficiency, isolationism.

The "layers of separation" are nothing compared to the current political class.

Shut up Moldbug, you've defiled the word reactionary with your capitalist bullshit.

For a soft transition and in the goal of a stable and prosperous society founded on trust and virtue, there shouldnt be any radical or dramatic changes imposed.

but naturally as a king it is important to free thekingdom from any poisonous or gangrenous systems built by the old regime. Surely monetary affairs are to be discussed and a new currency of a physical type with intrinsec value must be established. the current state of affair and the profressive enslavement of our people in just incompatible with the notion of virtue.

but more importantly, after adressing the most pressing issues must be the moral edification of the nation. the nobility must be of excellent moral quality. from benevolence to ambition passing by honesty and humility. it is important to encourage stories, myth and folklore that reflect the best dispositions of the natural character of our eloved nation.

i can adress other topica if my advices and reflexions are needed.

Attached: myhouseisatthedispositionofthenation.png (671x836, 264.77K)

Being a monarchy doesn’t mean you revert to feudalism. It just means the king has final say. You would still have all the other bodies of government to do what they do but if they defy the king they’d be out, likely.
If you look at a place like Iran their supreme ayatollah is the real person in charge but they still have a president, people still vote.