Do I advocate turning the United States into a single monarchy? No; as I described in an earlier post, I’d rather see it break up into five or six parts, and for some or all of these parts to transition to monarchy.
Do I think that monarchy could be taken seriously again as a form of government in the near future? I absolutely do. Neoreactionary arguments in favor of monarchy have already struck a chord among the libertarian and conservative right, and the chatter—and web traffic—is quickly growing every day. People realize that the current system isn’t working.
Only five percent of Americans think that the American system of government works well enough to need no changes, and 51% think it needs either “significant or total change”. Based on my understanding of history, populist movements towards “total change” tend to end in Communism or Fascism, and I’d much rather it end in monarchy. This may mean importing a prince from elsewhere to rule over a part of the United States. It sounds crazy to the democratic American mind, but this system of government was perfectly normal for over 100 million Europeans just a century ago. The Republic is the ephemeral phenomena, not monarchy. We can break apart the United States and have a monarchy tomorrow if enough people want it. A few articulate people arguing in its favor from a position of sincerity can have a tremendous impact.We can have a King today if we want one.
In May I posted: Have you heard of Aga Khan?
Forbes describes the Aga Khan as one of the world's ten richest royals with an estimated net worth of $800 million USD (2010). Additionally he is unique among the richest royals as he does not preside over a geographic territory. He owns hundreds of racehorses, valuable stud farms, an exclusive yacht club on Sardinia, a private island in the Bahamas, two Bombardier jets, a 12-seat helicopter, a £100 million high speed yacht named after his prize racehorse, and several estates around the world, including an estate called Aiglemont in the town of Gouvieux, France, north of Paris. His philanthropic institutions, funded by his followers, spend more than $600 million per year – primarily in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. In 2007, after an interview with the Aga Khan, G. Pascal Zachary, of the The New York Times, wrote, "Part of the Aga Khan's personal wealth [used by him and his family], which his advisers say exceeds $1 billion [USD], comes from a dizzyingly complex system of tithes that some of the world's 15 million Ismaili Muslims pay him each year [one of which is called dasond, which is at least 12.5% of each Nizari Ismaili's gross annual income] – an amount that he will not disclose but which may reach hundreds of millions of dollars annually."A king is not needed today. But there are lots of organizations that take on quasi-governmental roles, particularly in the modern age when government has taken over so much of society.
Recently Anissimov also posted:
1) Group of ~100 wealthy, well-connected people to be founders of a new country, like the Constitutional Congress.One of the ways to damage the Cathedral is through non-action （无为）. Instead of fighting the Cathedral, do nothing either for or against it. A parent who homeschools is practicing non-action with respect to the public school system. A saver who keeps savings in precious metals is practicing non-action with respect to the Cathedral's monetary system. There is a form of organization called a Health care sharing ministry. New organizations are not allowed since 1999, but the concept is useful.
2) Group of 10,000+ people who actually want to form a new country or will at least go along with it happily. Ideally more like twenty million.
Different strategies are needed to establish each group. Group 1 needs detailed arguments, practical plans, deep ideological agreement, and a huge stack of papers that set out the basic legal and administrative order of the country. High IQ, well-educated territory. Not for mass consumption. A list of officials for the new country would also need to be drawn up.
Group 2 needs enthusiasm and friendship more than anything intellectual. Personal, social solidarity. A general vague idea of the point behind the country. Detailed legal or administrative arguments will not be needed. The less theoretical detail they need to know, the better. Their role is not to participate in the government, but just live their lives in a new society that functions relatively normally.
To people who are not comfortable being exposed to Group 1 content, the theoretical discussions may look like a “literary circle jerk” that is “ideological LARPing”. This is fine. The philosophy behind the legal and administrative content may need to look fantasy-based, or frivolous, because a deep and broad worldview is needed to produce the inspiration to come up with these details.
Group 2 will need to see action. They won’t be interested, or capable of closely understanding, the mess of details and worldview which generates Group 1 content. Superficial elements and slogans are fine; ideally the face of a charismatic leader who is yet to be found. This group is not about theory, it is about practice. They will not understand the point of Group 1 activity very well, and will be impatient about it.
Group 1 theorists will need to remain separate from Group 2 enthusiasts in order to do theory. For Group 1, I am not necessarily referring to actually wealthy or well-connected people, just those who can do theory and eventually hand it over to such people in complete form. The separation is needed otherwise the Group 1 theorists will get too distracted. Hence the deliberate obscurantism of many reactionary writers.
Since it will probably take at least a few years, and more like ten, for Group 1 to finish its work, Group 2 types will have to be patient for that long. Can Group 2 grow in the absence of Group 1′s completed theory? Perhaps, but I’m not sure. The final necessary form of Group 2 may depend on details spelled out carefully by Group 1. Or perhaps it won’t make a difference.
Group 2 will consist more of people who come and go, use aliases, can’t pin down exactly what they believe, are reluctant to make ideological or social commitments, etc. Group 1 will consist more of people who are totally sucked in, whose names are publicly known, whose reputations are closely connected to the reaction, who do writing, and so on.
It is not the job of Group 1 to figure out what Group 2 needs. That is the system in place today, if you like it you can keep it. Group 2 should be thinking about what a post-Cathedral society looks like and what it can do today to build it. It may mean running into oppression by the Cathedral, but carving out a space is a positive step in the right direction. It is inaction by action, akin to moving abroad and building a new business.
The area I'd really love to be able to do something with is healthcare. It is screaming for a fix and it is not a complicated one in the sense that the market already knows how to do this; Arnold Kling laid out a system in Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care. The Surgery Center of Oklahoma already built a working healthcare delivery system. Insurance companies know how to price insurance if they're allowed to do it according to all the information available and only offer real insurance, not prepaid medical services. The issue is connecting the insurance system to the delivery system without having USG destroy it in the process. The health care sharing ministry appear able to do that, but new groups are not allowed.
In conclusion, group 1 does need time, but group 1 may never complete the job or may even cease to exist. Group 2 can get to work in the meantime, and the more work group 2 accomplishes, the more likely group 1 will stick together and complete their task because group 2 will create the demand for it.