[titus oates]

Those of you who advocate an hereditary monarchy with absolute powers, could you please tell me why this form of government is preferential? It seems a pretty marginal opininion, so I would be fascinated to hear why you beliefs are such.

[mikema63]

I think smertios is the only monarchist on PoFo, hes a liberal not a fascist so you wont find him in this subforum.

I don't think anyone wants an absolute monarchy.

[J Oswald]

To echo Mike, I cannot think of any active users who support the concept of an absolute monarchy. You'll find people who support constitutional monarchies (some of our British users and Smertios come to mind), but that's about it.

[titus oates]

I'm british myself, and oppose our constitutional monarchy. Just out of interest, how would leaders be chosen in a fascist system?

[Andrea_Chenier]

I'm british myself, and oppose our constitutional monarchy. Just out of interest, how would leaders be chosen in a fascist system?

Fascism is not very fond of monarchy in the first place. It is a complex mixture of all sorts of reactionary and modernist elements. There are probably few fascists today who are politically on the same line as the fellow fascist. Some will advocate the nationalist revolution, others will mostly emphasize tradition, some organizations are more collectivist with martial mentality and then others are more about spirituality. Absolute monarchy will most probably appeal to fans of ancient societies. The monarch there would be authorized by divine rule/esoteric values. However, this kind of fascism is not that likely to be performed politically in our modern world, it's more of a pipe dream for radical traditionalists. Fascism today could only work as a grotesque union of reactionary mindset and hypermodernism, comparable to WW2 Japan. This kind of fascism is destined to brutally exterminate lots of innocent lives, if it is to keep its head above water.

[Figlio di Moros]

Absolute monarchy will most probably appeal to fans of ancient societies. The monarch there would be authorized by divine rule/esoteric values. However, this kind of fascism is not that likely to be performed politically in our modern world, it's more of a pipe dream for radical traditionalists.

I'm not sure of anyone who promotes absolute monarchy, though you've nailed my sympathies for such institutions pretty well (esoteric values moreso than "divine rule"). However, it's worth noting that perennial virtues express themselves differently in different cultures, so that the concept of a monarch and aristocracy would be expressed very differently and even under different titles in different civilizations.

For one, a monarch need not be hereditary; elective monarchies have existed throughout history in various forms, from the direct election of the King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to the appointment of the Holy Roman Emperor by the peers (for lack of the proper term). While we like to imagine things black-and-white, there is little difference between a President-for-Life and an elected Monarch, and merely a gradient in length of service and official powers seperating the "absolute monarch" from any chief executive today.

Of course, the idea of any absolute ruler is a misnomer; leadership relies on the delegation of responsibilities. This is one of the mechanisms of the Iron Law of Oligarchy, albeit less discussed than the need for organization and leadership. Any society, whatever it's official creed, will have some form of oligarchy; our modern one is plutarchic, guided by the principle of profit. A proper ruling class would be one guided by the good of the nation, which naturally merits self-sacrifice and service to the nation. I'd like to refer to this as timocracy, but the term also doubles for plutocracy for historic reasons.

Where the concept of a hereditary leadership comes in is in the mundane observance of genetic predisposition of intelligence and personality. We've had this debate many times, so I'd rather not have it renewed here, but the qualities which make a good leadership class will be generally genetic. This isn't to say social mobility should be prohibited or we'd be able to perfectly engineer a good leadership class, and there has been some social mobility throughout history, but merely that the children of intelligent and strong leaders, especially when raised so, will more likely be strong leaders themselves.

Taking these prospects together- the need for wise leadership, the need for service-oriented leadership, and the propensity for these qualities to be primarily hereditary- and you see the possibility of a traditional aristocracy to unfold. The role of the monarch in this is "Chief Aristocrat", and while his children will likely have strong potential, especially if he marries well, he needs not be hereditary himself. However, he does require a good system around him; Peyton Manning, as hard as he tried, couldn't carry the Colts on his own. Neither can the wisest cheif authority carry a nation on his own. Better a mediocre quarterback with a great line than a great quarterback with a mediocre line.

[Rei Murasame]

hereditary monarchy with absolute powers

You'd have to define what you mean by 'absolute powers', I think. This thread seems to have taken off without first having that definition laid down.

And as the others have said, I don't think anyone actually supports absolute monarchy.

[Locke II]

You don't have an idiot that was elected by people that felt a need to vote but don't follow politics. or people that vote the way their family votes

[titus oates]

I suppose my definition of an "absolute" monarchy would be one that lacks any sort of democratic element, and one which decisions ultimately rest with the monarch. A system that emulates medieval Europe, or some modern Arabic nations.

[fuser]

Well, there is only one argument really i.e. "I will support it if I be that monarch".

[Figlio di Moros]

I suppose my definition of an "absolute" monarchy would be one that lacks any sort of democratic element, and one which decisions ultimately rest with the monarch. A system that emulates medieval Europe, or some modern Arabic nations.

Well, therein lies the problem; medieval Europe didn't lack any and all forms of democratic organization. Parliament, Estates, etc. appeared in the high middle ages, iirc, and even Parliament was based on previous assemblies of the heptarchy, which they shared w/ the Norse, Germans, and Slavs.

[titus oates]

What about the pre-Magna Carta english monarchy? Political roles may of been endowed upon certain individuals within the aristocracy or nobility, but ultimatly decisions where upon the consent of the king, and such individuals could be removed or appointed only by the king.

[michael3]

You'd have to define what you mean by 'absolute powers', I think. This thread seems to have taken off without first having that definition laid down.

And as the others have said, I don't think anyone actually supports absolute monarchy.

I'm tending back to it myself, it was once my position for a good 12 years or so.

Absolute Monarchist political philosophers like Joseph de Maistre, Charles Maurras, and Juan Donoso y Cortes still provide great insights for me to this day.

One idiot in power for a time is better than an endemic idiocy of modern liberal-democratic/capitalist societies. One good man can do quite a bit as Ruler, while in a properly organized heirarchical society an Idiot at the top is often suprisingly restrained, like Nero under the influence of Seneca and Tigilinus.

[Travesty]

They had amazing uniforms in those times.

In all honesty there are a few absolute monarchies today. Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Kuwait, North Korea, Cuba, Turkmenistan, Syria and others. They are all hereditary with almost absolute power in the hands of a single person.

Or are you talking about Absolute Monarchy in the Louis XIV kind of monarchy? With Divine Right, a landed nobility, a court, a peasantry, duels, and musketeers?

[Figlio di Moros]

What about the pre-Magna Carta english monarchy? Political roles may of been endowed upon certain individuals within the aristocracy or nobility, but ultimatly decisions where upon the consent of the king, and such individuals could be removed or appointed only by the king.

The Magna Carta was forced on the Monarchy to prevent it from continuing to side w/ serfs and villiens against the rights of the Aristocracy- in otherwords, limiting the power of the commoners to advise the king.