Advertisements

OPINION: A Constitutional Monarchy Is Preferable to Constitutional Mob Rule

A constitutional monarchy provides a better system for individual liberties. Here’s how.

Advertisements

By James Sweet | USA

Some may say the United States of America is a constitutional republic. Others will say that the United States of America is a representative democracy. The most accurate way to describe our government is a constitutional state of mob rule. While this is an unpopular opinion, I hold these views with individual liberties in mind. Many would say that the constitution protects us from mob rule, but I beg to differ.

The United States Constituion guarantees us rights in the negative fashion. Negative rights are the way to go as it doesn’t give you the right or ability to act upon another without their consent. What happens, however, when the majority of the people elect congressmen and presidents that don’t have any concern for the Consitution or individual rights? What if the government supports positive rights over negative rights? If the simple majority supports these actions, can they be stopped? Probably not. Now, it is possible that the minority could influence the majority back into the favor of liberty and the constitution, but this is assuming that the leaders haven’t modified the federal government from the way they inherited it after they got elected in an attempt consolidate their power.

Historically, there have been ruthless dictators that took power constitutionally, the most famous example of this being Adolf Hitler. History knows that he got appointed to the office of German Chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg after public pressure increased. This was the constitutional method. We all know what follows. To think that this can’t happen in the United States is blind arrogance. A system with less flaws is a constitutional monarchy.

With a constitutional monarchy, the ruling family/dynasty would need to be one that understands ideas of liberty. A modern-day example of a family like this is the Paul family. This is necessary so the future rulers of their family could pass down the ideas to ensure the continuity of the government and its protection of liberty. They would also be limited by a constitution, to ensure the monarch doesn’t have unlimited powers. Some may ask: “Well, what if the monarch just proclaims power anyways?” The constitution could grant the people right to local defense militias to defend their communities as well as keep the government in check.

The Consitution would consist of negative rights only. It would understand that no one has the right to force action upon another. The government would not have any interference in the economy, and would preferably have only one form of taxation: sales tax. The sales tax adheres to the principle of voluntaryism to a certain extent, as you have the option to limit how much you are being taxed. By having no regulations, minimum wage, etc., the free market could easily handle the issues of pay, hours, and more. Competition would increase as the government would not have powers of monopolies. A noticeable difference between the democratic forms of government versus the monarchical forms of government is that, if a corporation wished for tariffs on trade in a democratic nation, they could achieve it. If the same corporation wished for tariffs in a monarchical nation limited by a Consitution that gives the government no power in the economy, they could not achieve their goal.

The military would consist of private defense militas to defend the country. Crimes would be limited to those that actually involve direct infringement of another’s rights. That means you can smoke weed at your house. Hallelujah. It would be up to the family and community to teach and raise their children.

The constitution would give the citizens a right to usurp the government if the government fails to abide by the consitution. At the same time, it would declare that the citizens have no right to rebel if no oppression or infringement of individual liberties occur. The government would enforce this constitution by police forces under control of local municipalities to ensure civilian oversight. The government would have a relatively small, non-standing army.

There is so much more to this contrast of governments, but I believe those are some main differences. As previously stated, this is not the best kind of government, but it’s definitely superior to democratic systems of government. What will you choose? Constitutional mob rule, or constitutional individual freedoms?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: