Interesting argument FOR absolute monarchy. As a red blooded American, I naturally recoil from the thought, but he may have a point.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
A case for Monarchy?
- Thread starter FatherRuleMemes
- Start date
I am not opposed to it. God intends to establish one. He will be the King of kings so, it sounds like there will be other kings also that pay tribute to him.
The USA current government has grown hair and teeth in oozing masses in all kinds of hidden places.
I believe that a King would be better overall and easier to remove if the need arose.
Is the reason he wants absolute monarchy is because Lord is one?
That is bad reasoning because Lord is safe in his power and position and therefore dors't have to worry about staying in control.
Horewer, any other government has problem of staying in power and therefore can't in long run resist from social engineering compliant population.
Key reason why such monarch would be better is because he has vested interested into not economically destroying population since it's in his interest to leave something for his children.
Horewer, only way for his edicts to be enforced is by bureaucracy whose members have vested interested in expanding bureaucracy. Therefore, conflict will ensure since monarch allowing too much bureaucracy will kill economy.
Looking at historical lesson in long run bureaucracy had defeated monarchs.
Historically looking, any functional society requires somehow balance of power between different classes which stops power monopolisation which stops abuses.
Another requirement is no bureaucrats inventing rules who in long run cause infantilisation of populace and where every issue is due to not following issued rules.
That is bad reasoning because Lord is safe in his power and position and therefore dors't have to worry about staying in control.
Horewer, any other government has problem of staying in power and therefore can't in long run resist from social engineering compliant population.
Key reason why such monarch would be better is because he has vested interested into not economically destroying population since it's in his interest to leave something for his children.
Horewer, only way for his edicts to be enforced is by bureaucracy whose members have vested interested in expanding bureaucracy. Therefore, conflict will ensure since monarch allowing too much bureaucracy will kill economy.
Looking at historical lesson in long run bureaucracy had defeated monarchs.
Historically looking, any functional society requires somehow balance of power between different classes which stops power monopolisation which stops abuses.
Another requirement is no bureaucrats inventing rules who in long run cause infantilisation of populace and where every issue is due to not following issued rules.
He goes into multiple reasons why he believes that is the correct system. You should give it a listen.
Absolute monarchies enacted policies like prima noctae, the kings and queens seized property at will and either kept it or gave it to others to curry favor, they routinely executed their political opponents and inconvenient wives, and in the end they made a compelling argument to do away with absolute monarchies.
Constitutional monarchies that function with an elected government are in my opinion potentially more stable than a republic but only when the monarch protects the interests of the people over the interests of the government.
The United Kingdom was a constitutional monarchy but Queen Elizabeth and subsequently King Charles III have failed to intervene against government intrusion on the civil rights of their people, they've failed to speak out against the invasion of the UK by literal millions of criminal invaders, they've failed to Defend the Faith when the faith was under assault. Now the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth have devolved into authoritarian states where individual rights are a thing of the past.
Constitutional monarchies that function with an elected government are in my opinion potentially more stable than a republic but only when the monarch protects the interests of the people over the interests of the government.
The United Kingdom was a constitutional monarchy but Queen Elizabeth and subsequently King Charles III have failed to intervene against government intrusion on the civil rights of their people, they've failed to speak out against the invasion of the UK by literal millions of criminal invaders, they've failed to Defend the Faith when the faith was under assault. Now the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth have devolved into authoritarian states where individual rights are a thing of the past.
Look, it's simple. I can take a look.
Horewer, first task of any politic system is to eliminate possibility of any Stalin-like from starving it's own population which absolute monarchy per se doesn't stop.
So either he puts some safeguard in practice or in paper (like Constitution), horewer this isn't anymore absolutism.
Which means guy almost certainly didn't think thought. You can't just find reason for, you must ensure there aren't good reasons against.
Political system can't treated with mental process suitable for choosing vacation.
I’m a big fan of monarchies! If I’m the monarch.
He discusses what those safeguards would be. In his proposed system, there would be a king, but then there are also the lesser magistrates. If the king gets out of control, it is up to the lesser magistrates to reign him in.
One of the main benefits of a monarchy is that if he becomes oppressive, it is easier to get rid of one man than an entire entrenched system (like DOGE is running into).
He also argues that Monarchy is inevitable, similar to how patriarchy is inevitable.
If a people chooses this then fine, if not then the monarch will get what he deserves.
Where is it inevitable?
I have watched video 2 weeks ago. Lucky, my memory is good and together with taken notes provides opportunity for better commentary.
First, this guy has read way too much wrong books. His basic problem is wrong metaphor for society. He treats society sort of family of families, so if family has family head, so society must have head of family of families. Since we consider husband absolute ruler of his family, so society needs absolute ruler.
He doesn't get that society can only function precisely because nobody is in charge. Family may require absolutism, however society can't.
Think a little. Every family must produce what it needs for life*. Central planning here may be necessary. What is name of political system where all production and consumption details are decided by central planners? Depending on implementation details and some political factors we are talking about communism, fascism, corporatism, syndicalism. All are marked by decisions done by "high people" and where regular people are "worker bees".
Hello, didn't we already proven theoretically and practically such economic systems don't work?
Also if absolute rules is "father of nation" and responsible for health, finances etc... of people, then who will make decision what is healthy, good income, adequate housing? Well, ruler won't since we will lack expertise, so it will fall to experts. I hope you adore technocracy since we had one during covid times.
To prevent abuse, he claims lesser magistrates will stop it. Yea, only in his mind.
Will these lesser magistrates have independent power base and political power? Since he wants absolute monarchy answer is no. If fact, their power will only exist at pleasure of absolute ruler. Ford and GM not selling enough EVs? Time for new CEOs.
What do you think, what kind of people will prosper in such society? Ones most willing to do whatever it takes to fulfill whatever wisher ruler had. Will such people be honorable, moral worthy of emulation? C'mon, we know better. Notice that every workplace will exist only by practical permission of ruler, so any "won't obey orders" lesser magistrate will be out of job very soon. Only out of job if lucky.
So actually there won't be any blocking by lesser magistrates. Only possible blocking by lesser magistrates os when those magistrates don't depend on ruler.
We can predict one certain conflict in such society. Between king and bureaucracy. Why? Because bureaucrat will always want more budget and regulations which will kill economy and threaten rebellion so ruler will naturally want to somehow limits bureaucrats. What ruler can't do is to eliminate bureaucracy since he can't rule without them.
Regarding practical limits, well, Hitler and Stalin also had practical limits of their power which provides how bad this argument is.
Historical parallels between 17th centuries European absolute monarchies and current times aren't proper. Historical European absolute monarchies weren't absolute as we consider them now. Then monarchs have claimed supremacy in mostly taxation, foreign policy and army. Rest were local issues where many overlapping authorities were fighting for their place under sun.
It was French Revolution which has created modern state able to put it's fingers everywhere and ruled totally from center. It was centralized more after invention of telegraph and telephone. Notice than in 17th century inspectors and tax collection sent by king could be made "to disappear" by locals and it would take week for some official to notice disappearance and raise alarm. Enough time for state not to be able to find any detective trails.
Today however, if inspectors and tax collection have any issues they will call police who have zero authority to make any decision except to beat you. Therefore historical comparisons can't be accurate and are actively misleading. Proper comparisons are Hitler, Stalin and Franco for today's absolute monarchies depending how much they will like to stick their fingers everywhere.
He also claims rulers will be able to make unpopular decisions. What a joke. Only reason someone will be able to be a absolute ruler is if his rule is passively accepted by ruled. Which means any ruler must take into account political mood and vibes of population. So forget unpopular decisions except one or two per year.
He also speak how US founding fathers didn't like majority abuse. Well, Greek philosophers have also noticed that abuse is possible by minority and single person, so founding fathers after reading Greeks have tried to stop all possible abuses (by minority, majority and single person).** For example, US president is like old kings, however to limit his power and abuses, he can't make law and regulations***.
Conclusion: I don't think this guy has think through his positions.
ADDENDUM:
Theologically speaking every missed that Old Testament is anarchist society. Every family had avenger of blood who had legal right to "do justice" and do violence (to be short). So there is, legally looking, decentralization of right of legal violence. Since state by definition has monopoly on legal violence, in Old Testament society there can't be state. So it must be anarchist society.
Regarding "king verses (don't multiply wealth etc.. and similar)" I do consider them applying to Jesus. Lord didn't intend to give kings to Hebrews. They only got it at their own demand.
By the way, notice how mainstream marriage theologists excuse polygyny. At least they notice, although they prefer it never exist. Well, political theologists don't even bother to notice anarchy in Old Testament. So marriage theologists are less blind.
* Usual method is indirect production. You produce something, sell that something for money, then use money to buy what you need.
**Founding fathers weren't fond of factions. Well, if one faction takes power, it's ruling minority
***In practice, Congress has delegated too much of it's power to president, also executive orders should never become source of regulations.
First, this guy has read way too much wrong books. His basic problem is wrong metaphor for society. He treats society sort of family of families, so if family has family head, so society must have head of family of families. Since we consider husband absolute ruler of his family, so society needs absolute ruler.
He doesn't get that society can only function precisely because nobody is in charge. Family may require absolutism, however society can't.
Think a little. Every family must produce what it needs for life*. Central planning here may be necessary. What is name of political system where all production and consumption details are decided by central planners? Depending on implementation details and some political factors we are talking about communism, fascism, corporatism, syndicalism. All are marked by decisions done by "high people" and where regular people are "worker bees".
Hello, didn't we already proven theoretically and practically such economic systems don't work?
Also if absolute rules is "father of nation" and responsible for health, finances etc... of people, then who will make decision what is healthy, good income, adequate housing? Well, ruler won't since we will lack expertise, so it will fall to experts. I hope you adore technocracy since we had one during covid times.
To prevent abuse, he claims lesser magistrates will stop it. Yea, only in his mind.
Will these lesser magistrates have independent power base and political power? Since he wants absolute monarchy answer is no. If fact, their power will only exist at pleasure of absolute ruler. Ford and GM not selling enough EVs? Time for new CEOs.
What do you think, what kind of people will prosper in such society? Ones most willing to do whatever it takes to fulfill whatever wisher ruler had. Will such people be honorable, moral worthy of emulation? C'mon, we know better. Notice that every workplace will exist only by practical permission of ruler, so any "won't obey orders" lesser magistrate will be out of job very soon. Only out of job if lucky.
So actually there won't be any blocking by lesser magistrates. Only possible blocking by lesser magistrates os when those magistrates don't depend on ruler.
We can predict one certain conflict in such society. Between king and bureaucracy. Why? Because bureaucrat will always want more budget and regulations which will kill economy and threaten rebellion so ruler will naturally want to somehow limits bureaucrats. What ruler can't do is to eliminate bureaucracy since he can't rule without them.
Regarding practical limits, well, Hitler and Stalin also had practical limits of their power which provides how bad this argument is.
Historical parallels between 17th centuries European absolute monarchies and current times aren't proper. Historical European absolute monarchies weren't absolute as we consider them now. Then monarchs have claimed supremacy in mostly taxation, foreign policy and army. Rest were local issues where many overlapping authorities were fighting for their place under sun.
It was French Revolution which has created modern state able to put it's fingers everywhere and ruled totally from center. It was centralized more after invention of telegraph and telephone. Notice than in 17th century inspectors and tax collection sent by king could be made "to disappear" by locals and it would take week for some official to notice disappearance and raise alarm. Enough time for state not to be able to find any detective trails.
Today however, if inspectors and tax collection have any issues they will call police who have zero authority to make any decision except to beat you. Therefore historical comparisons can't be accurate and are actively misleading. Proper comparisons are Hitler, Stalin and Franco for today's absolute monarchies depending how much they will like to stick their fingers everywhere.
He also claims rulers will be able to make unpopular decisions. What a joke. Only reason someone will be able to be a absolute ruler is if his rule is passively accepted by ruled. Which means any ruler must take into account political mood and vibes of population. So forget unpopular decisions except one or two per year.
He also speak how US founding fathers didn't like majority abuse. Well, Greek philosophers have also noticed that abuse is possible by minority and single person, so founding fathers after reading Greeks have tried to stop all possible abuses (by minority, majority and single person).** For example, US president is like old kings, however to limit his power and abuses, he can't make law and regulations***.
Conclusion: I don't think this guy has think through his positions.
ADDENDUM:
Theologically speaking every missed that Old Testament is anarchist society. Every family had avenger of blood who had legal right to "do justice" and do violence (to be short). So there is, legally looking, decentralization of right of legal violence. Since state by definition has monopoly on legal violence, in Old Testament society there can't be state. So it must be anarchist society.
Regarding "king verses (don't multiply wealth etc.. and similar)" I do consider them applying to Jesus. Lord didn't intend to give kings to Hebrews. They only got it at their own demand.
By the way, notice how mainstream marriage theologists excuse polygyny. At least they notice, although they prefer it never exist. Well, political theologists don't even bother to notice anarchy in Old Testament. So marriage theologists are less blind.
* Usual method is indirect production. You produce something, sell that something for money, then use money to buy what you need.
**Founding fathers weren't fond of factions. Well, if one faction takes power, it's ruling minority
***In practice, Congress has delegated too much of it's power to president, also executive orders should never become source of regulations.
It appears to me that Congress has delegated too much of it's power to BurroCats! I dislike that breed of cats!
ahhhh but the bible does not say no king but Jesus....
New Jerusalem is described here..
Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
and here Jesus is being described...
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
So his return does not remove all kings. He will have other kings here on earth welcomed into the city bringing their glory to it.
Jesus though.... He is the King of kings....
It was a reference to a Revolutionary war cry, not a biblical one.
In reference to your verses, I’m not a hyper literalist when it comes to prophecy. There are lots of references to beasts and flying objects that I don’t think are literal. They could be, but I think the writers and prophets are describing future events in a language or set of words available to them. Sort of like “horseless carriage” was used to describe cars.
If there are only kings bowing down to the King of kings, then we’re far from those events. The world being littered with earthly kings is nowhere in sight.
I have never heard of that being a Revolutionary war cry. Our forefathers were fighting not against having a king but against taxation without representation.
What was the colonial battle cry?
The battle cry so to speak of the colonists was the famous phrase "no taxation without representation." The colonists believed that they were being unjustly taxed by Britain and therefore had reason to revolt to overturn this injustice and others they felt were being imposed on them at the hands of Britain
They went to war for justice, but not for freedom from the king. When the king refused to grant them justice and decided instead to double down on them, they changed the purpose of the war from no taxation without representation to declaring independence and forging our own way.
I read a biography on Washington and it clearly stated that he was informed that the focus of the war had changed from taxation relief to independence.
As far as the earth being littered with kings, that is coming.... There are many kings today, already.
Monarchies were the most common form of government until the 20th century, when republics replaced many monarchies, notably at the end of World War I. As of 2024, forty-three sovereign nations in the world have a monarch, including fifteen Commonwealth realms that share King Charles III as their head of state.
So, we have not been far from Monarchies for very long and have never abandoned them altogether. They will become the dominate form of government soon again.
BurroCats are corporately an evil way to govern people and our western style of government has led to the demise we are in now. We are LESS free than we should be!
A king btw, does not have to be a central planner. He can encourage capitalism and free thought. There is no conflict there...
Monarchies are not defined as being central planners. Within Monarchies there is still individually owned land and businesses. There are judges and lawyers to argue on your behalf.
I know that a king can become hated but, I already hate the heavy irons I am under here in the USA. If our fore fathers could see the taxation, both direct and via inflation of our fiat currency, they would disown us as cowards for not taking up a rebellion already!
What you’re describing seems to be the British monarchy post their civil war. In many ways, the three branches of our own government were modeled much on that democratic monarchy. You just insert a president instead of king, and limit his term (overly simplified, I know).
Scripture does not promote monarchy either, as some mistakenly promote. God warned against establishing a monarchy.
Monarchies are the only form of government that we see God establish... Outside of that, people just do what is right in their own eyes...
God established monarchies as his preferred mode of government? I’m not near my bible and can’t do a search at the moment. What verses are those?
I’ll gladly stand corrected.