Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Geeks For Monarchy: The Rise of the Neoreactionaries

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the I-wish-to-subscribe-to-your-newsletter dept.

Government 730

Third Position writes "Many of us yearn for a return to one golden age or another. But there's a community of bloggers taking the idea to an extreme: they want to turn the dial way back to the days before the French Revolution. Neoreactionaries believe that while technology and capitalism have advanced humanity over the past couple centuries, democracy has actually done more harm than good. They propose a return to old-fashioned gender roles, social order and monarchy."

cancel ×

730 comments

First sandwich (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45513821)

Get in the kitchen, wench!

Re:First sandwich (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45513867)

Sure, a monarchy works great until you get someone like Kim Jung Il or Kim Jung Un at the top. Then your screwed.

Re:First sandwich (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45513887)

No doubt, I don't want some creepy old geezer looking at all my stuff.

Re:First sandwich (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45513997)

Or a grammar Nazi, such as myself. Then YOU're screwed.

Of course, democracy hasn't managed (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514225)

Of course, democracy hasn't managed to keep someone like Kim Jung Il off the top, either, has it?

Not that I think that they're right on the gender role thing, mind: it's blatantly stupid unless the only work being done is hard manual labour and I'm DAMN sure that the ones pushing for this don't want to actually have to work hard dangerous jobs where, because they aren't physically demanding, women will be available for management roles over them.

You know, they want the RIGHT sort of heirarchy.

Re:First sandwich (5, Insightful)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | about 7 months ago | (#45514317)

If you read TFA, the neoreactionaries are proposing that the monarch at the top of the hierarchy be selected by genetic fitness. The smartest, fittest, and most handsome men (one assumes only men) would rule. So there's no danger of anyone from the Kim Jung family being in charge. We're much more likely to end up with Hitler.

Harry Reid probably supports this. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45513981)

Harry Reid just got rid of the filibuster in the Senate. It was one of the few protections against the tyranny of the majority. Maybe his next step will just be a winner-take-all type setup in the Senate where the minority party is abolished completely. Once this is done, he can just declare Obama King. Sadly, most on the left would cheer for this.

Re:Harry Reid probably supports this. (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514037)

Here, you might enjoy this. [amazon.com]

Re:Harry Reid probably supports this. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514217)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/07/20/obama-ill-be-president-next-8-10-years [newsbusters.org]
Other democrats have said similar things candidly, like how Obama's not going away in 2016, or how Biden will continue to be Vice President. The more extreme members of their party might be seriously considering repealing the 22nd and elections.

Re:Harry Reid probably supports this. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514241)

I sense a republitard.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q71/1459320_610780645646175_494978618_n.jpg

tl;dr : you are an idiot.

That explains Walmart (5, Insightful)

OutSourcingIsTreason (734571) | about 7 months ago | (#45513831)

Bringing back serfdom.

Re:That explains Walmart (0)

alphatel (1450715) | about 7 months ago | (#45513891)

I don't know who owns this neoreactionary.com but the article First Lesbian in Space Dies [neoreactionary.com] was too long-winded and hyper-sensitive for me to read thoroughly.

Re:That explains Walmart (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45513921)

The trouble is that folks who are proponents for things like this are always under the assumption that they or like minded people will end up in charge.

Like the folks who want a Christian Theocracy in the States. They are under the assumption that ALL Christians think the same way they do.

Re:That explains Walmart (5, Interesting)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#45513957)

Like the folks who want a Christian Theocracy in the States. They are under the assumption that ALL Christians think the same way they do.

Relevant recent research FTW [psychologicalscience.org]

Re:That explains Walmart (2)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 7 months ago | (#45514229)

Ah you mean those heretical protestant sects that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will be investigating and thats not counting those sects that think they are christian and are not :-)

Re:That explains Walmart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514319)

sects that think they are christian and are not
 
    All of them?

Re:That explains Walmart (1, Redundant)

somersault (912633) | about 7 months ago | (#45513959)

They definitely "think the same way", but they probably won't have have the same opinions.

Re:That explains Walmart (2)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 7 months ago | (#45514193)

And people like Balaji Srinivasan dont realize that in this brave new world people like them are going to be the "deltas" and "epsilons"

no thank you (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45513847)

We kicked out King George a long time ago...we don't want him back.

I'm ALL for it! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45513849)

As long as _I_ am the one who's in power.

hrm (4, Funny)

Aryden (1872756) | about 7 months ago | (#45513863)

I always liked the title Jarl, I think I would be a good Jarl.

Re:hrm (1, Offtopic)

JustOK (667959) | about 7 months ago | (#45513913)

I want to be Kal-el

Re:hrm (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 7 months ago | (#45514041)

I want to be Doctor. Or Captain. Or Captain Doctor. Captain Doctor James T. Who.

Re:hrm (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 7 months ago | (#45514147)

There's no reason monarchy and democracy can't coexist so long as we grant everyone crown status; I'd encourage everyone to make up their own title and royal style as well.

"All hail Her Imperial Majesty the Grand Empress Irene!"

"Morning, God-Lord Fred. Have you seen Matt yet? I'm his herald today."

"Yeah, he was right behind me...ah, there you go."

"All hail High Executor Matt, Master of the Twelve Worlds!"

Re:hrm (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 7 months ago | (#45514191)

We Brits are reasonably OK with our combined monarchy/democracy set-up. At least, it's no worse than any other Western democracy.

Re:hrm (4, Interesting)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 7 months ago | (#45514251)

American here. I have a question for you – I know the Queen is the head of state and theoretically has vast powers. However, she seems to have delegated most of those powers. Beyond a tourist attraction what does she do? I live close enough to Canada, another one of her domains, but I can’t figure out what she does.

Sexually transmitted political power? (5, Insightful)

nickol (208154) | about 7 months ago | (#45513865)

No, thanks.

Re:Sexually transmitted political power? (4, Insightful)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | about 7 months ago | (#45513909)

Yeah. Anyone who thinks leadership should be determined by bloodline doesn't spend enough time with their family.

Re:Sexually transmitted political power? (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 7 months ago | (#45513963)

The posited advantage of an hereditary monarchy is not so much that the new is the son of the old ruler, it's that he is raised from birth to rule adn the responsibilities that this entails. This can be a better idea than having someone with a sufficiently big ego to decide that they ought to be in power. The first problem is that you don't have a good fallback - if the next in line to the throne is a poor choice then ideally you'd have a dozen other candidates to pick from. The second is that monarchies traditionally don't provide a good way of deselecting the ruler. Perhaps the biggest selling point of democracy is that you get to have a revolution and overthrow the government every few years, without anyone having to die.

Re:Sexually transmitted political power? (3, Interesting)

nickol (208154) | about 7 months ago | (#45514043)

Please, put it correct: ... he is raised from birth to rule the country as is was 20 years ago by the people who supposedly knew how to rule it 60 years ago.

Re:Sexually transmitted political power? (4, Informative)

RebelWithoutAClue (578771) | about 7 months ago | (#45514259)

Except that countries didn't change all that much over 60 years, before the industrial revolution. So sons took over their father's work in many fields. Close enough for government work.

Re:Sexually transmitted political power? (2)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | about 7 months ago | (#45514057)

I'd contend that raising someone from birth with the expectation that they've been raised to rule would almost guarantee an enormous ego.

Also, raising someone from birth to perform ANY job may get you someone who's better equipped to do that job. I'd expect it would likely also lead to a rather miserable person.

Re:Sexually transmitted political power? (3, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 7 months ago | (#45514093)

Raising someone from birth to fill a specific job sounds like the plot to a Kurt Russell movie...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120157/ [imdb.com]

I'm waiting for them to remake that as Sysadmin.

Re:Sexually transmitted political power? (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 7 months ago | (#45514063)

In practice, monarchies are hardly the only political systems that (explicitly or as a matter of practice) have a grooming process for future leaders. If anything, they are among the most dysfunctional because, if #1 Son is a total fuckup, you pretty much either have to kill him quietly or put up with it.

In republican Rome you had the "Cursus Honorum [wikipedia.org] ", an atypically formalized variant; but the general pattern shows up even in places where it is much more loosely mandated: Sometimes it starts with the right school (France's Grandes écoles, or the Ivies in the US), sometimes a certain flavor or military service is involved, sometimes it's a matter of working your way up through a series of local and state offices (state governorships, some judicial or criminal justice positions, maybe some time in state or national congress), or of carrying water and doing errands long enough for a given political party(in and out of office) to get the nod as a serious candidate.

Especially when you count the circle of handlers and technocrats who inevitably stand just behind even the most buffoonish, populist, 'man of the people', it would be absurdly false to deny that there is some fairly serious ruler-polishing going on. Not all of it for the best; but they aren't just picking them off the street...

Re:Sexually transmitted political power? (3)

cusco (717999) | about 7 months ago | (#45514195)

That's so much a problem with monarchy as with primogeniture. The Inca chose a ruler from among the sons of the prior Inca, but rarely was it the first son. The Spanish barbarians considered most of the Inca rulers through history as "usurpers" because of this. This worked quite well until the Empire got large enough that the military leaders at the north end of the Tahuantinsuyo chose Atahualpa while the civil leaders in Cusco chose Huascar. Even then it might have worked (Atahualpa's forces captured and killed Huascar), but the plagues brought by the Europeans cut collapsed the population.

Re:Sexually transmitted political power? (2)

umafuckit (2980809) | about 7 months ago | (#45514115)

The second is that monarchies traditionally don't provide a good way of deselecting the ruler. Perhaps the biggest selling point of democracy is that you get to have a revolution and overthrow the government every few years, without anyone having to die.

And this is working really well right now in the US, isn't it (not that the UK is doing all that much better)? The two main parties are basically identical and keep themselves in power by arguing about petty points that keep the electorate rooting for their side in the manner of football supporters. Simultaneously, the difference between the two sides is exaggerated by name-calling: e.g. the far right party calling the leader of right party a communist.

So it doesn't matter who you vote for, because they're all the same. Unless you have money you have no real pull, as a result the country is being run for the mega-corps not the people. It's time for a revolution, but the people are too busy on twitter to do anything about it.

Re:Sexually transmitted political power? (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 7 months ago | (#45514183)

The posited advantage of an hereditary monarchy is not so much that the new is the son of the old ruler, it's that he is raised from birth to rule adn the responsibilities that this entails. This can be a better idea than having someone with a sufficiently big ego to decide that they ought to be in power. The first problem is that you don't have a good fallback - if the next in line to the throne is a poor choice then ideally you'd have a dozen other candidates to pick from. The second is that monarchies traditionally don't provide a good way of deselecting the ruler. Perhaps the biggest selling point of democracy is that you get to have a revolution and overthrow the government every few years, without anyone having to die.

We haven't abandoned that concept. That's what political dynasties are about. And in some ways, they're an improvement, since at least you get choices rather than having whichever person in a single family got dibs.

Speaking of monarchy, I laugh at the Tea Party's claim that this country was founded on Conservative Principles. Back then, a true Conservative (Tory) knew that only (Christian) God could ensure good governance and His divinely-appointed King was the only one who could do it properly.

But then again, the original Tea Party wasn't about dodging taxes, either. Just about who got a say in assessing and spending them.

Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514303)

Anyone who thinks leadership should be determined by bloodline

When you say "leadership", you mean "coercive authority". Now you have a sentence which actually conveys the literal reality of the situation, rather than the marketing campaign.

Re:Sexually transmitted political power? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45513935)

Of course not. No Slashdotter could ever get any power if you'd need to have sex for that.

Regressive (0)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about 7 months ago | (#45513877)

Not all change is progress. But some of it is.

Re:Regressive (3, Interesting)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 7 months ago | (#45514021)

Actually, a monarchy can be a good thing if the monarch is not a dictator. For example, in the Netherlands, the king has little power but is "the face" of the country. This separation of power and representation is wonderful. Electing a king by birth is a bit preposterous, but it prevents the first power-hungry megalomaniac to be our first man. I know a monarchy is ancient and not of this age, but the mere thought of an alternative like Kohl, Bush or Mitterant makes me glad that we have one.

Re:Regressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514067)

Actually, a monarchy can be a good thing if the monarch is not a dictator. For example, in the Netherlands, the king has little power but is "the face" of the country. This separation of power and representation is wonderful. Electing a king by birth is a bit preposterous, but it prevents the first power-hungry megalomaniac to be our first man. I know a monarchy is ancient and not of this age, but the mere thought of an alternative like Kohl, Bush or Mitterant makes me glad that we have one.

The problem is that for every one example of a benevolent and prudent monarch you can raise, history is happy to proffer about 999 that were brutal egomaniacs.

Re:Regressive (4, Insightful)

Optimal Cynic (2886377) | about 7 months ago | (#45514169)

Which is why you don't give them any actual power.

This could work (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45513897)

I'm all for it, as long as I get to be the King.

Miracle Whip on Wonderbread (5, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | about 7 months ago | (#45513915)

I bet that women and minorities are underrepresented in this movement to turn the calendar back.

Monarchy and Nuclear Weaponry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45513919)

Yeah, let's go for that mix.

"Sir, you insulted my daughter..."

Re:Monarchy and Nuclear Weaponry (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#45514003)

Alexander Kazantsev wrote a book about that. The relevant part of the story took place somewhere between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. ;-)

Even better than Lincoln with a sword: (2)

Hartree (191324) | about 7 months ago | (#45514049)

You challenged, thus I have choice of weapons.

I choose 5 megaton thermonuclear weapons at 10 paces.

Ah, so you've decided your honor is satisfied? Thought so.

Not too surprising (4, Funny)

Scareduck (177470) | about 7 months ago | (#45513927)

Contemporary political thought seems to be about electing the right king.

Re:Not too surprising (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514267)

From a realistic standpoint, given the choice between a benign monarchy and an oppressive democracy, I'd take the monarchy in a heartbeat. When it comes to freedom, what matters is the end result -- period. If the end result of monarchy is that I am more free than I would be under democracy, then bring it on.

Sure, as long as the monarch is a computer. (1, Flamebait)

roman_mir (125474) | about 7 months ago | (#45513929)

As long as the monarch is a computer and not a person, that is programmed to run a small number of tasks, that are similar to the ones that are given to the government as powers in the original USA Constitution (but take away any type of patent and copyright protections, running the post office, any roads for it, specifically disallow for any form of income related taxes and any form of wealth redistribution, prohibit the monarch from coming up with any type of business related regulations, prohibit the monarch from money manipulation, money should be market based) then it will make perfect sense.

Democracy is garbage, it degenerates into the 'bread and circuses' self destructive behaviour, where the mob votes for more armed robbery committed by the government on behalf of the mob, which is what destroys the individual freedoms and the economy. Complete Anarchy is usually replaced with some type of autocracy or a feudal system, where the results will vary based on the whims of a feudal. Constitutional monarchy, where the rules are set up to provide a very consistent rule of law and where the rules cannot change on the whim of the monarch (thus a computer program that is set up once and protected from any changes) and where the rules are set to provide as much individual freedoms and as little collectivism as possible and where the monarch holds the overriding military power (robots with sharks and lasers?) to protect the system from being manipulated by any outside force makes most sense.

momkind our spiritual centerpeace passive passion (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45513931)

our spiritual & physical link with creation itself

if we fail to do what our moms said we'll end up biting our own necks? mumfords

excess agression is the result of abuse always

Winter is Coming (4, Funny)

invid (163714) | about 7 months ago | (#45513933)

I blame Game of Thrones. Although you'd think Joffrey would be example enough to discourage monarchy.

Cue the countercultural feminazi resistance regime (1, Funny)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 7 months ago | (#45513939)

...in 3, 2, 1...

Re:Cue the countercultural feminazi resistance reg (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514091)

Cue them? This "movement" is a product of them, so that there is a nice new label to throw around every time someone says anything bad about absolute democracy and perfectly "PC" society.

Democracy: more harm than good (0, Flamebait)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 7 months ago | (#45513945)

>> democracy has actually done more harm than good

Was this posted from the white house? :)

Re:Democracy: more harm than good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514111)

More likely posted from the park just north of the White House.

(note- this is where the nuttier protesters gather, some of the have permanent spots there.)

Monarchist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45513947)

I'm a monarchist and even I think these people are crazy, they remind me of the flat earthers...

As if democracy wasn't bad enough (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#45513949)

If you think we got corrupt, selfish, self absorbed and self centered cretins for rulers, ponder how much bigger cretins you get if you give them the feeling that they're entitled to it.

Re:As if democracy wasn't bad enough (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 7 months ago | (#45514089)

Exactly. Democracy isn't perfect and our politicians often feel more beholden to the corporations that line their political campaigns than to the people they're supposed to represent, but in the end they do answer to the people to some degree. It might not be enough, but it's something.

Imagine if we appointed all current politicians as "noblemen" and named our next president as king. (Use the next president to deflate any "I love Obama so I'm in favor of it" or "I hate Obama so I oppose it" views. This is about the concept, not the men/women.) We'll ignore the huge Constitutional crisis and the fact that this would likely result in a huge conflict if not outright civil war. Suddenly, these noblemen and the king wouldn't need to consult the people or answer to them at all. Do the people not like your higher taxes? Too bad. They can pay it or maybe the military will be used to collect the taxes.

Monarchy might work in a few places thanks to kind monarchs, but that's the exception, not the rule.

Re:As if democracy wasn't bad enough (1)

alexo (9335) | about 7 months ago | (#45514219)

Democracy isn't perfect

But it's better than what we have now.

Re:As if democracy wasn't bad enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514313)

Actually, at this time it matters little what form of government you have. Those wielding the true power are not elected anyway. They also are not at Washington D.C. (except to do lobbying work). They are more often found at Wall Street.

Re:As if democracy wasn't bad enough (3, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 7 months ago | (#45514171)

If you think we got corrupt, selfish, self absorbed and self centered cretins for rulers, ponder how much bigger cretins you get if you give them the feeling that they're entitled to it.

The Kennedy family?

Re:As if democracy wasn't bad enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514207)

if you give them the feeling that they're entitled to it.

I think what we rather need at the moment is precisely to take that feeling away from them.

Re:As if democracy wasn't bad enough (1)

moschner (3003611) | about 7 months ago | (#45514273)

If you think we got corrupt, selfish, self absorbed and self centered cretins for rulers, ponder how much bigger cretins you get if you give them the feeling that they're entitled to it.

In the US, our politicians and various political leaders already believe they are entitled to lead. Being elected by "the people" only bolsters their sense of entitlement.

Elites (4, Insightful)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 7 months ago | (#45513955)

Any system is great as long as you are one of the elites, living off the backs of the slaves. In theory that shouldn't be possible in a democracy, which is why the elites in the US keep us as far from a democracy as possible.

Buy these morons a history book (5, Insightful)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | about 7 months ago | (#45513969)

Please! Someone buy these idiots a history book. This is such a perfect example of people who think they're smart but they actually know jack shit about anything except pushing bits. The funny thing is, after the first arbitrary detention and execution of a dissident for "lesse majesty" or "treason against the crown" they'd all be up in arms and in jail. I really hope they're not all really this stupid and this is all just a way to get a reaction.

Re:Buy these morons a history book (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514201)

A neoreaction, please.

Two highly relevant Churchill quotes (5, Informative)

Nutria (679911) | about 7 months ago | (#45513979)

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

But "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Re:Two highly relevant Churchill quotes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514149)

The obvious solution thus becomes:
Try something new

We don't live in outer space (5, Insightful)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 7 months ago | (#45513983)

“If residents don’t like their government, they can and should move,” he writes. “The design is all ‘exit,’ no ‘voice.’”

Any business can tell you the value of switching costs. Once you reel them in, it is expensive to move. So, even though another city-state might be better, people will still not move since the cost of moving, even assuming the State doesn't actively interfere with exit taxes or similar measures, would prevent most from moving. This is why retail chains all want you to sign up for their cursed club cards, to try to create switching costs that will keep you around even though they suck. Plus, we don't live in Bruce Sterling's cladist space utopia, there are limited options for moving in space while stuck on Earth's surface, even ignoring the costs. Why don't all those North Koreans just move? Perhaps these fellows have answers to these criticisms, I haven't spent all day reading their FAQ or anything.

Contrarians against contrarians (1, Insightful)

greg_barton (5551) | about 7 months ago | (#45513985)

This is just another teenage rebellion movement like Libertarianism. "Don't trust the old people. They're just trying to oppress you!" Yes, Libertarians, you are now the old guys who can't be trusted. :) As such you and your philosophies must be rebelled against much like you tore at the chains of your oppressor parents in the two party system.

Re:Contrarians against contrarians (1)

roccomaglio (520780) | about 7 months ago | (#45514155)

This is just another teenage rebellion movement like Libertarianism. "Don't trust the old people. They're just trying to oppress you!" Yes, Libertarians, you are now the old guys who can't be trusted. :) As such you and your philosophies must be rebelled against much like you tore at the chains of your oppressor parents in the two party system.

Yes, the baby boomers are now all over thirty, but they would probably be considered liberals not libertarians. The movement that spoke of don't trust anyone over thirty was the hippies. The phrase is credited to Jack Weinberg.

Re: Contrarians against contrarians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514223)

So you failed to identify any problem with the ideas?

Re: Contrarians against contrarians (1)

greg_barton (5551) | about 7 months ago | (#45514309)

I usually don't respond to ACs, but in this case it's too easy. Read the article for that. Also, who gets to choose the monarch? You?

Too many medieval reenactments (5, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 7 months ago | (#45513989)

Apparently somebody's been going to too many medieval reenactments, and spicing them up with some conspiracy theorist meetings. Monarchies were nasty places to live for the majority of people. I like the part about nations being very small and people free to move between them to find one they like. Sure, and communism would have worked great if the people in charge were just nicer! Why would a king not try to conquer more territory, and allow his subjects to take off and leave whenever they want?

"Neoreactionaries believe 'The Cathedral,' is a meta-institution that consists largely of Harvard and other Ivy League schools, The New York Times and various civil servants" Don't let the pentaverate get you! "I hated the Colonel, with his wee beady eyes!"

Re: Too many medieval reenactments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514189)

"Monarchies were nasty places to live" - perhaps because the world was not awash in factories, cheap goods, antibiotics, and technology?

"I like the part about nations being very small and people free to move between them" - are others "free" to move to USA?

Re:Too many medieval reenactments (2)

prentiz (565940) | about 7 months ago | (#45514257)

It's worth noting that, whatever the criticism of absolute monarchies, constitutional monarchies are a very popular and reasonable way to organise a country, with (according to Wikipedia) over 40 countries, including Japan, the UK and Sweden, all choosing this approach. Nothing nasty particularly about that, particularly when, as in the UK, the monarchy enjoys strong popular support. Of course, there's a world of difference between that and the despotic Ancient Greek City State model that these folks seem to favour...

Neoreactionaries? (3, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 7 months ago | (#45514019)

Around here, we don't dignify them with such latinate terms, we just call them assholes.

Again, the hipsters follow me. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514029)

I wore a pocket watch before it was hip. Same with hiking boots. So many things I've done before hipsters ruined the scene. Now they want to take Monarchy from me? I've long touted the benefits that a strong authority can have in directing a country's production, but now that hipsters like it, I'm not so sure any more.

Re:Again, the hipsters follow me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514253)

Quick tell us what else you like so we know what to defend against in the coming decades!

I'm willing to bet you were a huge World War fan, eh? Because China's trying to start one.

Democracy: The God that Failed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514039)

The subject of this post is a book by professor Hoppe arguing that democracy is the primary cause of the decivilization sweeping our world, and that monarchy is a better system. However he describes something called "the natural order" as the best system. Basically, democracy tends toward more and more socialistic policies. Monarchs will care for their lands while elected politicians are like renters who trash the place before they get evicted.

Re: Democracy: The God that Failed (1)

Rational (1990) | about 7 months ago | (#45514293)

"Basically, democracy tends toward more and more socialistic policies. " One of its many advantages, yes.

I know those guys (4, Insightful)

vikingpower (768921) | about 7 months ago | (#45514059)

... for having frequented them in France. The French Neo-Reactionaries are, quite often, staunch arch-catholics and rather vehement racists, who often glorify one form or another of fascism. They are a rancid bunch, IMHO.

Re:I know those guys (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514125)

That explains why this article was submitted by someone with the loathsome name of Third Position [wikipedia.org] .

Is that the question? (1)

jamesl (106902) | about 7 months ago | (#45514069)

... democracy has actually done more harm than good.

But has it done more harm than the alternative -- and what might that be?

But there's a community of bloggers ...

That's funny. Like a herd of turtles.

Salvador Dali for sovereign! (1)

Hartree (191324) | about 7 months ago | (#45514079)

I vote for the anarcho-monarchist.

(He's just as safely dead as Generalissimo Francisco Franco.)

And then... (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about 7 months ago | (#45514083)

I was born in a monarchy. Although it was one of the symbolic ones, in Europe, when I became a republican later on in life ( disclaimer: no, european republicans are in no way related to their US namesakes, and quite often are rather leftist or left-leaning ), I remarked how opposed to true social progress monarchists can be. Beware !

RTFA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514103)

... especially the Exit part. I'm surprised, it does make sense.

Sure ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514113)

I'm all for a monarchy, but only on the condition that there's a well-defined, guaranteed way to get rid of the king if he turns out to be bad. Something where people can tell their opinion, and if a majority wants to get rid of the king, the king is out of power. Well, thinking further, we don't want to have a time without king, so maybe at the very same time, we should also decide who replaces that king. I think the best thing would be if there were regular events where we decide which king we want to have, say every four years. We could call it an election.

But wait, what if the king does something very bad in between, something which maybe cannot be undone at the next election, or even takes away our right to get a new king whenever we want? Well, we can state that the king also is bound by the law, and make laws against all the bad things he could do that we can think of. But then, the king is the lawmaker, so if he wanted it, he'd certainly be able to just change that law as well. So to keep the king from subverting the laws, maybe it should not be the king who makes the laws, but someone else. Best, make it many people, so that a collusion with the king is less likely. Those people would then gather together and together decide about laws. And let's vote for those people as well.

Oh wait, I just described democracy! Just that we call the person in power "president" instead of "king".

Not saying they are right. . . . (2)

Salgak1 (20136) | about 7 months ago | (#45514141)

. . . .but the default tendency of human goverments DOES seem to be the Empire, no matter what name you call it.

And even sadder, the usual life of a Republic is around 200 years. Which explains much of Modern America, which seems to be in transition to both a Police State AND an Empire. After all, we now seem to have both a de-facto permanent underclass and a self-sustaining de-facto aristocracy. . .

Not totally wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514143)

Enlightened despotism does work as long as the ruler is an idealist who want the best for their subjects.

It generally only works in small coherent clans, and the biological imperative tend to lead to hereditary rule where usually the second generation is a spoiled fuckup.

i asked father mopery why i was so angry (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514163)

now now he chided we all must give & take whatever we want from time to time what's yours is ours we now know

As a matter of fact, the founders of the US... (4, Insightful)

3seas (184403) | about 7 months ago | (#45514173)

... were against democracy.... that is why they established a Republic.

For a better understanding of different government systems - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0 [youtube.com]

Another science fiction prediction come true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514221)

David Brin has been talking about this for years, see any talk by him or this book "Existence".

You know... (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 7 months ago | (#45514269)

Some geeks REALLY need to get out and get laid...

The Rise of the Neoreactionaries (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#45514277)

The rise of European nationalism....

It's the economy, stupid

We've been through this before.

Off with their heads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514279)

Just sayin'

This is nazism. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514281)

They are ethno nationalists, against multi culturalism, against human rights and against equal rights for women. They are anti-democratic.

I fail to see how this is any different from nazism.

Another idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45514301)

Instead of everyone who breaths being able to vote only let people who opt-in vote. To opt-in would require some form of service to the government be it civil services, administrative, military, etc. Freedom would still exist for all but political decisions would be limited. That might curb masses of people voting for candidates who simply promise the world and deliver little. Just because the idea is from Starship Troopers doesn't negate its efficacy.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...