Democracy is Conflict, a short message

    Without any attempt to be outrageous we can confidently state that Democracy is conflict. Whether to Direct Democracy of Athens, the Democracy of Constitutional Monarchies with strong parliaments, or the Representative Democracy that many Americans confusingly insist is  not Democracy, they are all defined by conflict. It is the very nature of the various forms of Democracy.

    Consider contemporary European parliaments.  Elections are 'won or lost'; the losers form an 'opposition'. Globally we see politicians using the terminology of conflict to describe elections, many calling elections a 'war' are warning of destruction and death of their opponents win, regardless of the actual stakes. 

    And after elections are over the conflict is often more intense. The passage of legislation evoke more martial language and can lead to physical violence. Shoes, smoke bombs, and punches have all been thrown between politicians in the legislative chambers of the world with some fights turning into riots between politicians.

     This spills out into the society as a whole.  Democratic nations are rife with political violence ranging from ubiquitous vandalism of opposing views to assassination over minor differences of political outlook. Indeed, contemporary Terrorism is a direct descendant of the violence embraced and used by the Anarcho-Communists attacking Monarchies in 19th century Europe, many of which group used an appeal to Democracy as justification for their violence. 

    It must be understood that the default state of all Democracies is conflict and violence. The periods of calm and peace are the aberrations. 

 [Editorial] 

Voting and Knowledge

Fads, Focus, Leadership, and Why Democracy Fails

  The Kingdom of Edan uses social media to pass along information to others and as alterantive news sources. Today I was reviewing the ongoing battles in Ukraine between the coup leaders in Kyev and various separatist groups in the east; the impact of vaccine costs on the operations of Médecins Sans Frontières as they fight childhood disease; the work of various bishops to provide aid to the many Christians being slaughtered in Iraq; how ISIL forces are selling young girls into slavery to raise funds; the violent clashes between Boko Haram and African forces; etc. I was also reading a concerning report about the rapid decline in British military power in the last 2 decades and the possible impact this could have on global stability.
  In the midst of this I encountered a tweet (and associated picture) that was stunning in its incongruity. In midst of the greatest outbreak of Ebola in history, unemployment and economic downturn threatening to both expand rapidly, Pakistan (a nuclear power) in political chaos, civil wars in Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic (in addition to everything mentioned above) this tweet and pic proclaimed,

  "No seriously people. Net Neutrality is more important than whatever you're doing right now."

   This discussion is not about net neutrality (although the arguments used in favor of it tend to reveal its proponents don't understand how the contemporary internet actually works) but rather about what some people have sarcastically named first world problems; how trivial issues can take on a large emotional value to people who do not face serious issues. There is a slightly older term for this - the fad.
  It is easy to understand how people become so easily distracted by the trivial. To a wealthy American or Australian unmenaced by war or rebellion, far from plague and famine, in a land never threatened with attack in a generation or more the problems of West Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia seem far away and very, very impersonal. On the other hand the idea that it might take 0.5 - 1.5 more seconds to load your email in the morning is direct and personal.
  Note that while I said it is easily to understand I did not say it is defensible.
  As a result you have many people who are spending a great deal of time and energy influencing politics to make sure that their emails loads as quickly as they like even though their concern is based upon erroneous understanding of the topic at hand and their level of engagement is irrational.
 
  This isn't a surprise. After all it is easy to demonstrate that voters are irrational in their voting and tend to attach emotional weight to trivial topics merely because others have already attached emotional weight to the same topic, a phenomenon called 'herding'.
  But this may not be a bad thing, really - as Prince Jonathan pointed out, expecting every single citizen to be knowledgeable and engaged in all aspects of of government, economics, and foreign policy is a form of cruelty. Others have argued that voters are actually acting rationally when they remain ignorant of politics and 'herd' - to sum up their points, it isn't that voters are irrational but rather that remaining ignorant and voting as others do may be the only rational option for the majority of voters!

  Regardless of the underlying causes of voter behavior, the fact remains that the net neutrality issue is a perfect example of why Democracy is doomed to failure.
 Yes, really.
  Remember, the entire argument underpinning net neutrality is based upon a misapprehension of how the internet actually works. Yet as is shown in the links on this age several prominent politicians are proposing laws to enforce the position of the ignorant/irrational activists. Why would they do this?
  It could be that they are also ignorant of how the internet works. But why not consult some of the many experts they must have access to?

  The actual answer is that it is rational for politicians to make bad laws that appeal to ignorant and/or irrational voters.

  Why? Politicians are, in a very real way, just more voters: they do not have the time and energy to be fully conversant with every element of government, economics, etc. and they are not only likely to 'herd', they also face the tremendous pressures of being members of political parties - they are also forced to herd in many areas! Lastly, the tendency of voters to 'herd' means that politicians that appear to agree with a particular group of irrational voters will be seen in a favorable light by those voters - agreeing with ignorance will earn them more future votes; disagreeing might strip them of power.
  The result is a system where ignorant, irrational politicians maintain or increase their influence and power by enacting bad laws to appeal to ignorant, irrational voters. Or, in short, any modern Democracy in action.

  This is why the Edanian system of Feudal Technocratic Distributism is a critical element of governmental conceptualization; leadership in Edan is focused on avoiding decision making based on ignorance, reducing irrationality in leadership as much as possible and making the self-interests of leaders intimately tied to the long-term prosperity of families and the nation, not voting in short cycles. This concept of an integrated life is essential to Edan and foreign to Democracy.

Shopping for Nations - a short entry

[mild edits have been made]
  The king has been approached by various people, both directly and indirectly, in recent weeks asking to discuss the nascent idea of 'neoreaction'. The king has been aware of this small movement for some time and was even a correspondent with one of the founders many years ago.The recent discussions have centered around the idea of a 'free market of governments' where many small governments compete for citizens allowing the free market to decide which is 'best'.
  Edan rejects the vary notion as flawed. First, free market economics are an inherently Liberal idea; free market Capitalism is focused on individual freedom, the lack of loyalty, and rejects the notion that ethics should or even can be involved in economics; if free markets produce a moral or ethical "winner" this is entirely accidental; such a 'market' largely exists now and is not producing very solid results.
  Yes, Democracy is a system which is proven too flawed to continue very long; yes, the Westphalian conceptualization of a nation-state is too flawed to withstand close scrutiny. The king is a supporter of people rejecting what is for what should be.
  But that decision is not an economic one!
  There is a famous American quote,
  "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"
  The first part directly addresses the neoreaction concept - a nation is not a provider of products or services. To view the government of your nation as if it were a roofer or concierge is to view the world solely as a mass of economic transactions. This idea is Modernist, Liberal, and wrong.
  But the second part is wrong - citizens are not servants. Nor are they employees, nor shareholders, nor co-owners. This idea is Liberal, Modernist, and wrong.
  Just as governments are not manufacturers or service providers, citizens are not employees or consumers!
  Families do not exist to support the government, the government exists to support families. And under the concepts core to Edan [solidarity, subsidiarity, and justice] the government is in a real way an extension of the family. There are real bonds of honor, duty, and of caritas between and amongst the citizens, nobles, and king of Edan.
  Honor, duty, loyalty, family, king, country - these things cannot be bought and sold.
  Leaving the faltering secular humanist Democracies of the world is something the king encourages all people to do. But do not choose Edan in hopes that it will give you good financial returns, nor for its low taxes, nor for its longevity and success. Join us because you will be treated with honor, with loyalty, and with  caritas. Join us because our goals are just. Join us because you believe in Edan.

Europe and North America Abandon Democracy

  Not too long ago Ukraine descended into violence. While the overall story is oft-repeated the details seem elusive on most news sources, so please forgive me as we sum up.

...

  Ukraine is insolvent: the nation is so deeply in debt that it needs $17 billion USD (almost 10% of Ukraine's annual GDP) to meets its obligations and continue functioning, and it needs this money relatively quickly. It was hoping to receive $20 Bn USD in loans from the European Union so began negotiating a trade deal with the EU that would include such a loan.
  The European Union declined and offered only about $830 million USD in loans and their trade deal required Ukraine to change many internal laws, some of which had no direct bearing on trade.
  Russian then offered $15 Bn USD in loans with a trade agreement that included reducing energy costs to the Ukraine.
  Up against the wall the president of Ukraine was effectively forced to abandon the possibility of a trade deal with the EU and accept a deal with Russia because only Russia was willing to meet Ukraine's needs. This was announced by the Ukrainian government on November 21st, 2013.

  Protests began almost immediately. Some Ukrainian citizens who wish for closer ties to the EU began to gather in Kyiv to protest the trade deal with Russia. By the 24th estimates on the number of protestors ranged as high as 100,000 (although the actual numbers were probably closer to 20,000) and the protestors began breaking police cordons and physically clashing with police. The police responded with tear gas and batons. The protestors began being encouraged and organized by opposition political leaders. The protests also began allowing neo-Nazi groups to take the elad in violence against police forces.
  This is not hyperbole or Godwin's Law - actual self-described neo-Nazi groups led violent attacks on police where isolated groups of police were attacked and their equipment stolen to arm protestors. These protestors, now with riot gear, then continued the escalation of violence.

  Protestors begin assaulting and seizing government buildings, including city hall of the capitol, while continuing violence against police. The protestors used petrol bombs, improvised weapons, and captured firearms to attack police and used arson and burning barricades to distract and repel police. By the middle of January protestors and police were being killed as well as injured.
 
  At the height of the protests prior to any protestors dying the Ukrainian parliament passed anti-protest laws that sparked greater protests and more violence; the laws were repealed and insttead the government offered to release already-arrested protestors and offer amnesty to other protestors if government buildings were released. This exchange of prisoners for buildings was completed by about the 16th of February. On the 18th the protestors began their assaults on police lines and by the 20th had re-taken all the surrendered buildings and taken others, as well.

  During this same time the opposition leaders, who were still leading the protestors, were negotiating with foreign powers for loans and support for when they has succeeded in seizing control of the government. Aresniy Yatsenyuk met with Angela Merkel in person urgin her to impose sanctions and aid the protestors so help them take over the Ukrainian government.

  The opposition tot he elected government in Kyiv was being reflected in greater Ukraine with the Ukrainian-speaking West seizing most government buildings seized by protestors but the Russian-Speaking eastern and southern fringes marked with pro-government forces aiding police is resisting protestors.

  By February 20th enough members of parliament had fled or defected that the opposition parties gained control of the Ukrainian parliament. The president agrees to early elections, has his powers slashed, and several other changes occur in the next few days. Opposition leader Yulia Tymeshenko is released from prison at the vote of the opposition-controlled parliament. By the 23rd the opposition leader and protest organizer Aresniy Yatsenyuk is made Prime Minister as other opposition leaders are placed in charge of the Ukrainian government.

  As this is occurring protestors in Crimea, which is largely Russian-speaking, are rejecting the new government in Kyiv as illegitimate. The regional parliament in Crimea states that they will vote to decide if they will remain part of Ukraine and armed men seize airfields and government buildings in the Crimea. The brand new government in Kyiv states they will not allow the breakup of Ukraine.

  The new government also beings pleading with Europe and the US for - billions of dollars in loans to prop up the Ukrainian economy.

  The crimean regional parliament asks for help from Russia to aid it in its claims to autonomy. Russia agrees and sends troops too support the new Republic of Crimea.

...
 
  We have been continually surprised at the political developments of the last few years where ostensibly Democratic governments in Europe and North America vocally and materially support the violent overthrow of various governments in the world. This may be most surprising in Ukraine.
  Let us be very clear - what occurred in Ukraine is the violent overthrow of the lawfully-elected government by an armed mob led by the losers of the last election. This was not prompted by mass oppression, nor was it triggered by civil rights violations or the illegal grasp for power - the pretext for this armed insurrection was the government's refusal to sign a trade agreement that would have forced Ukraine to modify its internal laws to be advantageous to European nations without giving Ukraine the loans it needed to remain solvent.

  There are already protests in large cities across Ukraine against this new, mob-seated, government by Ukrainians that reject its legitimacy - if more protests arise led by the new opposition what side shal Europe, the BBC, and similar groups take? Will the violent protestors still have the right to change the government via force?

  The last five years have clearly demonstrated through the words and deeds of European and North American political leaders, pundits, and academics that none of them actually believe that Democracy works. What shall they replace it with?

21st Century Monasteries and Edan

  Various institutions are releasing updated demographics numbers over the next few months and the initial reports are as expected; all of Asia is below replacement fertility, as is all of Europe, all of South America, North Africa, South Africa, and other areas are close. The global fertility rate has been dropping for 50 years and shows no signs of stopping within the next 25, especially since the fertility tempo (average age of the birth of a first child) is also increasing.
  The artificial gender imbalance caused by sex-selective abortion and ubiquitous ultrasounds means that the low fertility rates may be masking a more serious problem - sex ratios so skewed that the next generation will be much smaller than predicted. Areas of rural China have a 14 to 1 ratio of males to females in their young population (under 30 years old) and areas of India have an even higher imbalance, estimated to peak at almost 19 to 1. Overall these two nations alone have no less than 50 million men under the age of 30 who can never have a wife do to an artificial shortage of women.
  The impact has been horrific for women - human trafficking, ubiquitous sexual assault, and physical attacks.
  Meanwhile, the West continues to glorify hypergamy, fornication, and childlessness. Mass media dismisses the family and praises the ill and the dysfunctional. After creating an artificial 'teen culture' mass marketing continues their effort to sexualize all ages. Porn is prevalent to the point that actual art is being pushed out of public consciousness. And self-abuse so common that it is leading to mass impotence in the young.
  The apparent triumph of low, or 'pop'. culture, the dismissal of morals and ethics by those who shout from rooftops for money, the replacement of education with credentialism and the accompanying trend of people delaying marriage and children in pursuit of worthless credentials and the associated high debt will continue to drive down fertility well after demographic implosion begins to destroy the current economic system. After all, a system based upon the assumption of perpetual growth cannot survive contraction!
  And the weaknesses of Democracy are on full display as the various nation-states stagger toward the abyss.
  What can we do about this?
  Everything that matters.
  The core ideals and principles of Edan are focused not just on  the cardinal virtues but also on stability; Edan is meant to endure and thrive in the most difficult of times. How? It is structured like a family which, of course, reflects God's design. Rejecting the horrors of Communism and the dehumanizing effects of Capitalism; standing by the truth and rejecting relativism; maintaining and preserving high culture; reaching out to our neighbors in true charity. These are the things we can and will do.
  Some have called Catholic homeschoolers the monasteries of virtue of the current truly Dark Age. Edan will join them in preserving civic virtue in a world collapsing under the weight of evil.

Choosing Illusions

  One of the most chilling concepts in theology is the idea that we choose Hell: the idea is that at the time of judgement everyone is presented with heaven, part of which is a clear, perfect view of reality, including the reality of ourselves. The damned are the ones who decide not to look, who reject reality for lies because reality is too much for them. The damned choose to be damned because, to them, eternal torment is preferable to the truth.
  Perhaps most people participating in modern politics are likewise rejecting reality for illusion.
  I have expressed my views on Communism elsewhere. It seems obvious to me that the various people and groups that still adhere to and promote Communism do so out of improper motives. They are, in the end, rejecting reality.
  Are the members of Democracies that much better at recognizing reality? The slide of Democracy to collapse is so well known and understood that some of America's founders opposed Democracy and, when they were overruled by the democratic process, warned the nation of the danger. The French First Republic was notable for the Reign of Terror, a bloodbath that presaged the horrors of the 20th Century, and for lasting barely over a decade before being transformed into an empire that started the first global war and transformed civilians and such into 'acceptable strategic targets' of war. The French Second Republic lasted only about three and a half years but was still riddled with riots, uprisings, and death and, again, collapsed into a bellicose empire. The French Third Republic fell to invasion and the French Fourth Republic collapsed under its own weight. The French are on their Fifth Republic, so far, and still cling to the idea that the concepts that created the Terror, the Napoleonic Wars, are important to France being a great nation....
  From France to Germany, the USA to the UK the rise of democracy has seen the decline of nations and, much more importantly, decline for the citizens of those nations. I am not discussing increases in material goods, I mean the legal rights and moral health of people. Considering the level or unrest visible in these nations, I do not think greater wealth replaces less freedom and degraded public morals. From the rise of nationalist parties in Europe to movements such as Occupy and the Tea Party in the USA people demonstrate that they know they are losing ground but continue to return to Democracy again and again.
  Why?
  Because, in the end, Democracy is a comforting illusion. The spectacle of 'the electoral process' catches the eye; the platitudes of politicians and pundits engage the ear; the ritual of voting lulls the mind; the continual, meaningless bickering between interchangeable empty suits numbs the spirit. The flashy pomp and weightless rhetoric of 'politics' is so ubiquitous that people become sick of 'hearing about politics' and tune it out without realizing that is the goal - apathy. Yet even those who want to change, want to make an impact stick to the same pattern, use the same formulas, try to 'engage voters' and 'frame the narrative' and 'create a grassroots movement' and on, and on, and on... just like the people they wish to replace for being ineffectual (at best) or corrosive (as usual). They don't realize that they are just slapping a new coat of paint on the same Potemkin village.
  The question that strikes at the core of modern Democracies isn't 'which party should I vote for?' it is 'why is it that, no matter who is in power, things never get better?'
  Sure, this constituency might get that tax increase/break they wanted, and that group might get the program increase/cut they spent sixty million euros lobbying for, but overall things still got worse; the economy is still booming and busting with each boom a little lower at apogee and each bust a little lower at perigee; the overall burden f taxes, fees, fines, and such still creeps up each year, somehow; the burden of laws and regulations makes it harder and harder to get anything really done and done well; but once the 'electoral process' parade begins most people get in line for the ritual of casting a vote.
  The Western culture really hammers us all with the idea that political systems boil down to "Democracy vs. various types of tyranny" and has done so for over a Century. The replacement of centuries-old, stable Monarchies with Democracies was of key importance to Western Democracies after WWI and WWII and we are still reaping the fruits of these changes in the Balkans and the Middle East. But the most stable nations in the Middle East are still monarchies; Lichtenstein is a beacon of success in Europe (and the citizens routinely vote down attempts to introduce more democracy to their nation), and it seems that as the Constitutional Monarchies of Europe degrade the powers of their monarchs their nation's see their own wealth and influence degrade as well. Yet, still, Democracy is idolized.
  Certainly, some few see the issues with Democracy and go too far, rejecting all government as inherently bad, but this is just another form of accepting the illusion that there is either Democracy or nothing worthwhile.
  So, what do we do?
  Start pointing at the 'electoral process' and laughing. Long and loud. Start asking the real questions, such as,
 'But what was the real meaning of the speech? Not the signals, not the opposition to another party - the real, inherent meaning?'
 'When did your life get better because of Democracy?'
  'If your duty conflicts with Democracy, what would win?"
  And be a proud monarchist!

Authentic Social Justice: the Core of Edan

  ">Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority"

Thus begins the catechism's section on Social Justice. What does it really mean? Well, when society allows justice to be done, you have social Justice - obviously. Social justice is part and parcel of both the common man and of leaders.
  Notice what it does not  say, however - it does not say that leaders or the common man must give justice to people or groups. It says that society (meaning the common men and leaders) are to allow people or groups to obtain what is their due. 
  In other words Social Justice is not the giving of things to people by government, it is the conditions of society that allow justice to be gained.

  The Catechism goes on to say,

"Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. "

  More briefly 'human rights are granted by God, not society, and the moral legitimacy of any worldly authority or society is based upon recognizing and supporting these rights'.  Or, 'any society or authority that denies the inherent, God-given rights of Man is not legitimate'.
  So governments, whatever their nature, must support the inherent rights of its people or it will have no legitimacy and and society that flaunts these rights is also illegitimate. This is key because it means that a core contention of Democracy, that legitimacy of society and authority is derived from the will of the people, i.e., the opinions of a majority of voters, is false. If 50.1% of voters support the murder of innocents that does not make the murder of innocents acceptable, it makes the society that supports such voters illegitimate.
  
  Later the catechism states,

"Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity."

Or 'the inherent rights of all men are the same'. The peasant has the same chance of heaven as the cardinal; the stable boy has as much right to justice as the prince.

  It continues,

"On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth. The "talents" are not distributed equally...  ...These differences belong to God's plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular "talents" share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures"

  More shortly, 'equality of inherent rights does not mean equality in all ways; people are tall and short, smart and dumb, skilled speakers and reticent, leaders and followers. These differences are part of God's plan and are good for all involved'. So while the peasant has the same chance of heaven as the cardinal, the cardinal has gifts and authority the peasant does not. Likewise, while the stable boy has the same right to justice as the prince, the prince has duties and obligations the stable boy never will. And this is not just acceptable, it is good.

  The Catechism then warns us that,

">There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women...."

  In this the Catechism is speaking of when societies and leaders have or implement systems that impose sinful inequalities upon people. It continues with,

"...Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions."

  Remember how beginning of this piece we pointed out that,

"t says that society (meaning the common men and leaders) are to allow people or groups to obtain what is their due."

  This portion tells us that when society actively prevents people or groups from obtaining what is their due it is sinful.

  The Catechism concludes its section on Social Justice with,

" Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this."

  Or, 'love of neighbor and charity among and between people is the solution to social injustice'.

  So the central ideas of Social Justice are quite clear; be just and allow others to obtain justice; love your neighbor and be charitable.

  But are their guidelines for rulers and leaders as to the nuts and bolts of implementing this?

  The Catechism focuses heavily on Solidarity. Solidarity has two meanings; the earning of a livelihood through work and the friendship and social charity between all people in a society. At its heart Solidarity is the rejection of class as a dividing force between people. The poor are to show solidarity with everyone, not just the poor. The rich are to show solidarity with everyone, not just the rich. Emploers, workers, farmers, artisans, men, women, etc. - all are part of society. By rejecting class as a dividing factor it is also inherently a rejection of individualism as a defining element of humanity. While we are all individuals and have individual needs, etc. no one is ever alone and just as society is an outgrowth of the family no one in a society is capable of being truly apart from that society just as no man can ever not have a mother.
  Solidarity is also much more spiritual and emotional rather than material. The goal of Solidarity isn't wealth, the goal is justice. Granted, justice often leads to increased wealth....
  Yet Solidarity is not collectivist! As we read above, justice is about the individual person; individuals have God-given natural rights, not societies or governments. In the end Solidarity is an explicit rejection of such Liberal concepts such as Communism and Libertarianism - both collectivism and material individualism are rejected as false and, thus, unjust.

  Another key element of a just society is Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is the principle that,

""a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good." 

  Or as the OED states,

"The principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate, local level."

   More simply, 'as local and personal as possible'. There are many reasons for thus ranging from simple efficiency (how can a distant administrator have a clearer idea?) and moral (rights are individual, not collective, so avoid the collective). Again, this is a direct rejection of collectivism and individualism; the collective is to be avoided as much as possible, but there are times when the collective is the only answer.

  The next core element is Private Property. The Catechism tells us that,

"In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. the appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men."

  Or, 'men have a right to private property'. Indeed, private property is an element of dignity and freedom and part of Solidarity. But the Catechism also warns us,

"The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. the universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
  In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself. The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor. "

  Another reminder that we are part of a family and that we owe all good to God and, thus, we owe solidarity to our neighbors. Note as well that yet again there is an explicit rejection of collectivism ('the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise') and individualism (' legitimate goods he... ... owns not... exclusive to himself but common to others...'). Indeed, we are morally obligated to make our property fruitful because fruitfulness helps others. If we are 'middlemen' then we must be as efficient as possible so that we do not waste what could be used charitably. The Catechism later states,

"Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good"

Tied with the obligation to respect the right to private property this means that governments have the right to regulate, say, workplace safety, waste disposal and pollution, etc. to ensure the common good. So while private property is a right, it is not an absolute right. Indeed,

"Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.
The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; tax evasion; forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste. Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation."

  Note how this states that waste, excessive expense, and willfully damaging your own property is immoral.  Also, the inescapable conclusion is that to be moral we must reject not just collectivism and individualism but also Communism/Socialism and laissez-faire Capitalism. Communism rejects the idea of private property, denying people freedom, security, and the option for their own justice. Socialism rejects subsidiarity and demands central planning, dehumanizing the person. Laissez-faire Capitalism rejects Solidarity and focuses on profits instead of people. The inherent collectivism of Communism and Socialism (which rejects individual rights and justice) is matched by the inherent individualism of Capitalism (which rejects legitimate authority and the common good. Thus, Edan embraces Distributism, which is no more than the consolidation of Catholic social justice.

  

  Here are the core ideas of Edan:

1) All citizens have a right to private property, a right to just compensation for their goods and services, and a right to enter into contracts, including employment contracts, of their own free will

2) Ownership of private property and work are both inherently good for the individual and for society. 'Work' includes physical, artistic, intellectual, and spiritual work.

3) The government has the authority to regulate private property and business for the common good.

4) Decisions should be made as far 'down' the hierarchy of authority as possible.

5) Co-operatives and guilds are preferred to unions and corporations. 

6) Government is for leadership, not charity.

The Truly Lost

  I had an interesting encounter yesterday, one that was illuminating while failing to be enjoyable. The Kingdom is not as active on social media as we are told we 'should' be, but from time to time I will spend some energy on twitter. Yesterday I made a rather tangental reply to the tweet of a young Catholic lady. It turned out that each of us had been unclear (I blame the terse format) and off we went.
  But others, followers of the young lady, were incensed by my statement. Three young men in general, one of them in particular, were very openly angry about my statement. Despite my attempts to point out that they had made the same error as the young lady I was replying to, thus their emotions were based on a misapprehension, they grew more and more angry. Slurs, curses, and vile invective of all sorts spewed forth as this young man worked himself into a lather.
  He accused me of wishing to grind others (particularly children!) under the boot heel of tyranny; that I am a power-mad dictator in waiting, eager to oppress and enslave the entire world in my mad thirst for conquest. In between curses he also threw in such epithets as 'tyrant' and 'big government stooge' but the slur he obviously felt was the most powerful and dirtiest thing he could call me was 'statist'.
  By now you are probably making assumptions about the topic in discussion. Was he furious at me for being a Monarchist? No. Was it that I am a king? No. Was it my rejection of Democracy? No. Was it the structure or nature of Edan? No.Was it about Edan being officially Catholic? No. Was it the most common topic of outrage from outsiders, that women do not get the vote in Edan? No.
  This young man was full of rage because he mistakenly thought I advocate for a requirement that children have a permit for lemonade stands.
  Yes, his fury was about food safety permits for children. I had mistakenly thought the young lady was speaking about professional (adult) vendors and she mistakenly thought I was discussing children in their own family's yards. Regardless of my attempts to tell these young men my actual topic, they refused to believe it. I believe they wished to revel in their righteous anger.
  Early on I almost terminated the conversation, but I persisted. Why? I was curious as to how angry they would become and hoped that their emotional state would reveal why they were so angry. And I believe that these young men did teach me something, something important.
  These young men feel powerless. And this is no illusion, they largely are powerless. They were all Americans, White, male, and under the age of 26. While I read online many people calling this combination one of 'privilege', I disagree. They have no real economic power, no political influence, they have no 'leaders' who are not corporate-controlled entertainers, and there is no special-interest lobby working for them. They face barriers in many ways - poor education, expensive education, limited job prospects, a legal system that favors others, and being told they are privileged, as well. Western society has been busily redefining their role for so long and in so many conflicting ways they have no clear concept of what they should be doing or why and certainly no higher calling, which often leads to a lack of higher aspirations. Secular, unchurched, or 'post-Christian Protestant' they have no underlying moral framework, religious community, or spiritual support to call upon. In short, these young men are truly lost.
  These young men are not stupid; they felt powerless, examined their lives and concluded that they are powerless. And they are correct - in any democratic system people without wealth or pull are powerless. They then tried to determine the primary reason that they are powerless and concluded that it is because of their government. This is also largely correct; the governmental system is the primary reason they are disenfranchised. But this is actually the start of the problem at hand - once they determined that the primary reason that they are powerless is the government, they stopped asking more questions. The next logical step should be to ask 'why is the particular form of government I live in making me powerless?'. That is the step that leads people in search of alternates to the system in which they live. Instead, these young men (as well as the majority of Anarchists, Libertarians, etc.) didn't ask the next question, instead reaching a conclusion. Their investigation went something like this;

"I feel powerless. Am I truly powerless?"
  They examine their lives and determine they are, in fact, powerless.
  "I am powerless. What is the primary reason I am powerless?"
  They examine their world and determine the government is the primary reason they are powerless.
  "The government is the primary reason I am Powerless."
  "Therefore, all governments are Bad."

  Yes, I am aware that there is a fair amount of political thought about such topics as Anarchy, Anarcho-Capitalism, Libertarianism, etc. I am focusing on the majority of people who adopt these positions and why they do so. After all, a lot of the young people who do ask 'what is it about my government that makes me feel powerless?' end up becoming Communists, National Socialists, etc. because they assume anything else is better than what they have. I will need to write about that in the future.
  Once these young adults reach their conclusion, that all government is bad, then it is a short trip to the belief that any regulation is bad simply because a government must exist to enforce it. Before too long this can lead to the conclusion that any form of authority is bad and that Anarchy is the only solution.
  Again, how can you blame these young adults? They have never been taught about true alternatives to the world they live in, they have often never been trained to question. They instinctively know something is wrong and are doing their level best to identify and correct the problem. They have never been taught about morals and ethics and in the absence of knowledge of actual morality they struggle to build a framework so that they can identify Good and Evil. Since the only certainty they have been able to build for themselves is Government = Bad their natural passion for goodness and justice is funneled into opposition to government.
  Thus, belief that someone wants kids to get a permit for lemonade drives them to righteous fury. In the absence of a real knowledge of good and evil; in a society that fails to guide them to their place in the world; in a culture that mocks concepts of honor, duty, and courtesy; and in a milieu that praises license as liberty it is almost all they have.
  My question for you is - how do we reach these people? How do we break through to them and show them a larger world? How do we teach them true morality and save them?

An Essay from HRM Jennifer on Voting and Society

One of the seemingly shocking things about the Edanian constitution is the lack of women's suffrage. King Richard is fond of noting that it was actually his Queen who initially insisted that women should not have the right to vote in Edan. This statement is often met with disbelief, but in this, my first essay as Queen, I am pleased to confirm King Richard's remarks.

As I address some of the reasons behind my exhortations and the decisions of our King as he developed the constitution, please remember that we are speaking only of Edan. I make no assertions or assumptions about women's suffrage in America or anywhere else in our current world. Many things unique to the culture we hope to build in Edan make the lack of women's voting sensible and just in our micronation, but we do not speak for situations and cultures outside of our own.

Let me make clear that in our micronation, the limits placed upon the Edanian vote in no way impede women's dignity, human rights, or freedoms. As Edanians, and Catholics, we believe in the inherent dignity of all human beings, male and female, from conception to natural death. But the modern assumption that being equal means being the same is a fallacy that we Edanians must recognize as the evil it is.

First of all, let us remember that Edan is a constitutional monarchy. We are governed by a King who is not elected, and our local rulers are appointed by our King, not by vote. We do have an elected Senate, but the duties of these elected officials are to guarantee that the common people will always have a voice, even in the event of a tyrant or a calcified aristocracy. In fact, much of the Edanian constitution is devoted to limiting the power of elected officials while maintaining some general public forum to protect our future from being diminished or destroyed by one mad or corrupt King. So we must remember in this discussion of suffrage that an Edanian vote is not central to our governance, unlike the modern capitalistic or socialist democracies we are accustomed to.

But history has shown us that in all democracies, eventually a vote becomes something that can be bought. Bought by wealth or bought by charisma or even bought by something more nefarious, it is still subject to coercion, whether conscious or not. When every citizen has the right to vote, suddenly an entire society and culture can be bought (and made bankrupt). Or, even more frighteningly, as we see in the bipartisan America, a vote becomes "us vs. them" and true debate and progress are stifled.  We believe that if we allow the voice of women in Edan to remain pure and unsullied by political infighting and the lures of coercion, Edan will have an unparalleled asset. Culturally, we will promote the ideal of a strong woman's voice, and women will be encouraged to enter into political debate and even run for office (note that in Edan, while women cannot vote, there is no restriction on women holding elected office). Knowing that we will have a chorus of individuals whose vote cannot be bought means that the ideas they put forth will have more merit, more weight, and will provide a needed balance to the necessary political wrangling that comes from the voting process.

In addition, we believe that it is important that the voting class knows that their vote isn't just a vote for themselves, but also a vote for their wives, daughters, mothers, and grandmothers. Even the seemingly-unfair limitation on single women will be balanced by the actions of responsible single men.  In this way, a vote will not be simply a one to one trade, my vote for whatever will be given to me. A vote will become more precious and more meaningful and more forward-thinking, rather than a selfish choice based upon immediate desires. Thus, the voter will be less susceptible to the political pressures and frustrations that unfortunately prevail in the world of universal suffrage.

But why is it that women do not have the right to vote, rather than men? Because it is natural that women be the voice of reason in society, as a women's inherent nature recognizes relationship more fully. Whether mothers in fact or not, a woman's physiology and psychology are ordered toward motherhood. This allows women to see differently than a man. As Blessed John Paul II said in MULIERIS DIGNITATEM, "Motherhood involves a special communion with the mystery of life, as it develops in the woman's womb. The mother is filled with wonder at this mystery of life, and "understands" with unique intuition what is happening inside her. In the light of the "beginning", the mother accepts and loves as a person the child she is carrying in her womb. This unique contact with the new human being developing within her gives rise to an attitude towards human beings - not only towards her own child, but every human being - which profoundly marks the woman's personality. It is commonly thought that women are more capable than men of paying attention to another person, and that motherhood develops this predisposition even more." By ensuring that the voices of women cannot be purchased or influenced by those seeking her vote, Edan will be blessed with a class of women who not only have the natural attendance to relationship that allows them to more clearly see the impact of society's choices, but also can speak freely about what they see as right and just because they are not susceptible to voting pressures. In contrast, the masculine hormones and physical strength indicate that men are physiologically and psychologically more suited to the direct wielding of authority and dealing with harsh politics. By working within our God-given natures, society will benefit from the best that men and women have to offer.

As I have shown, the thought behind the lack of women's suffrage in Edan is not one of restriction upon, or lack of respect for women. Quite the opposite, it is the elevation of the feminine voice to one that is truly meaningful, and can contribute to all of our society, rather than be reduced to simply another button to be pushed in the voting booth.  

Aristocracy and Society, part 2

As discussed in part I, equality of people means that all people are equal in their basic human rights; no more. In other areas people vary, often widely, in areas of physical and mental ability. This results, naturally and justly, into hierarchies among men in any group, institution or society.
When this tendency toward hierarchy is understood for what it is, the natural response of all people to differences in ability, it is no more or less than part of culture and society. In several cultures this has even been part of an attempt to create a meritocracy where there were incentives for certain abilities and checks on others, or on inabilities,with the goal of quantifying and controlling hierarchies in society for the greater good of all. The traditional Chinese civil service, for example, was based upon a series of formal exams so that the intelligent and well-educated would be promoted to positions of influence and even power.
Most of these attempts at a meritocracy fail over time, however, or reveal some very interesting facts about human nature. For example, the Chinese civil service became a bed of corruption were posts were bought and sold. The armies of Napoleon were based upon meritocracy – promotion and leadership were based upon proven ability to fight, to lead and a demonstrated grasp of tactics and strategy. Napoleon's goal was to have leaders selected based upon merit and proven success. In the end, however, all of his meritocratically-chosen marshals were defeated by the Duke of Wellington, a man who had literally purchased most of his promotions.
As much as Western democracies may speak of all people being equal they are, in the end, all attempts at meritocracies. What are political campaigns but attempts to demonstrate that a particular candidate is better-suited to lead than all others? Many democracies have accepted, if unwritten, 'minimum standards' for political leaders as far as where they were educated, careers before entering politics, hobbies, etc. This forms an unacknowledged aristocracy within democracies, an aristocracy of education and background, of outlook and hobbies.
While the level of ability between a formal and informal aristocracy may be similar, these unacknowledged aristocracies are inferior to recognized aristocracies for three reasons; training, accountability, and responsibility. In a formal aristocratic class, members are aware from a very early age that they are expected to be not just privileged but also responsible, responsible to society as a whole to lead politically, socially and morally. This responsibility is accompanied by accountability; all levels of society know what is expected of the aristocracy, so failure to live up to cultural expectations strikes directly at the very elite status of the aristocrat. Indeed, it can be argued that the decline of aristocratic elites in Europe was tied to a chronic failure to be moral and ethical exemplars as well as a failure to lead politically. Naturally, the combination of responsibility and accountability leads to a lifetime of training for the role of being a leader and an example.
In contrast, the informal aristocracies of the modern democracies haven't these same expectations and there for lack the lifetime of preparation for leadership.
As mentioned before, no system is perfect, and aristocracies are prone to decline and corruption in the absence of a strong moral code. Of course, we have seen that democracies are more prone to this same decline and seem to have a tendency to reject the sorts of moral codes that would prevent this decline and/or lead to periodic renewal of aristocratic virtues.
But this is, we believe, why micronations tend to adopt aristocracies; an acknowledgement of not just Man's need for hierarchy, but an understanding that a formal leadership class is more likely to provide and maintain a strong ethical structure for society as a whole as well as give more stable long-term leadership than other systems. But such groups must be aware that the inescapable consequences of being an aristocrat are increased responsibilities and accountability.

The Enemy of my Enemy is Just a Stranger

Edan is dedicated to certain principles and opposed to certain concepts and activities, like any nation or movement. We stand for legitimate justice, responsible freedom, family, faith, and the tenets of Catholic Social Justice as described by the Church itself. We oppose moral relativity, secularism, the disruption of the family, corporatism, Socialism, Libertarianism, usury, and Anarchy. We are dedicated to using faith, reason and example to demonstrate to the world that Distributist practices lead to a more stable, more just, more sustainable society.

It is for these reasons that the King of Edan opposes the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Yes, there are superficial points of agreement between Distributism and the Occupy Wall Street protesters' complaints and goals (when they have made them); OWS appears to oppose usury and does oppose the debt-based system currently used in modern financial markets; OWS members complain about consumerism and the commoditization of certain elements of life; OWS wants to end the level of influence wealth can achieve in the political process; OWS wants to transform the current laissez-faire/Corporate/Crony Capitalism into something more just. On these and some other points OWS seems to agree with Edanian concepts and policy.

But these are only in the realm of complaints. The OWS movement seems to motivated by Socialist and Anarchist goals; Kalle Lasn of Adbusters, the motive force that began OWS, admitted that the reason that the OWS is happening now is that President Obama has not been Socialist enough to satisfy the young voters that won him the election. Many of the local protests, particularly in Los Angeles and Portland are openly controlled by Communist organizations who use pressure tactics and outright violence to control the camps and dialogue. Other camps are controlled by Anarchists and/or well-armed 'security forces' that, again, use fear and violence to control the protests and the speakers.

The '99% Declaration' document does hold many things that are obviously meritorious; the end of cash lobbying, elimination of the concept of corporations as people, etc. But it also demands such things are increased federal involvement in jobs and business (replacing corporations with bureaucracies), the rather utopian desire to end all wars, and (inexplicably for a document that is supposed to be about economics) a demand that gay “marriage” be made available.

Behind the scenes the OWS movement is having many internal problems that the King finds problematic; violence and sexual assault are common and the assaulted are pressured to remain silent; millions of dollars have been donated frequently from groups that are contrary to Catholic, Distributist, and Edanian ethics, and that money has been placed into the very banks they are protesting and are controlled by a small group of protesters. Violence and threats against outsiders is commonplace, as is vandalism and general lawlessness.

Some within the Distributists groups have embraced the OWS protests as an inherently good thing, seemingly under the concept of 'the enemy of our enemy is our friend'. In reality, though, the enemy of my enemy is just a stranger. The Socialist/Anarchist/Direct Democracy members of OWS that clamor for more government involvement in wages, employment, immigration, medicine, and family law are not allies to Distributism nor are they friendly to the morals and ethics that undergird Distributism.

Monarchy and Democracy

[From the King and the Crown Prince]
There may be some wondering amongst the readers, critics, and potential citizens of Edan, why are we a monarchy? From what I have seen elsewhere there seem to be two primary chains of thought. 1: "Don't you know that democracies are better and more modern?", and 2: "Don't the people have more freedom and liberty in a democracy?". I shall approach each argument with what knowledge and common sense dictate to be true but that the modern world seems to have forgotten or ignored.

The first is an interesting and unique dilemma brought about due to two rather recent strains of thought. American Exceptionalism is founded upon the conceit that America is inherently better than any other nation before or after; that from its very inception America has surpassed all other countries in every way. Therefore, since America is Democratic (as that word is used in modern Western settings) democracy is better. The Enlightenment concepts of the French Revolution are little different. Reading the writers of and defenders of Enlightenment thought reveals that, in the end, the modern support of democracy flows like this,

“Why does the Enlightenment embrace democracy”
“Because democracy is a better form of government that any other form”
“And how do we know democracy is the best form of government?”
“Because it is embraced by the Enlightenment”

Of course, the thinking of the Enlightenment is full of tautologies, but this may be the most egregious.

Common sense, history and current events tell us that democracy is not the panacea it is claimed to be. A light sampling of these pro-democracy arguments include "A king will just become a despot.", "Democracies are closer to the people", or "Kings aren't as good at ruling as democracy". Each of these are easily shown to be no more than sloganeering. A king may be a tyrant, and the reign of terror may last as long as he lives, but a king may also be just, wise, and great. In a democracy, there is always another corrupt politician, and the power of every individual is lowered as far as possible (in the modern system). So while there may be tyrants in the progression of a kingdom, there will always be corruption in a democracy, and while you may have a great king create a golden age, a golden age cannot be created by one good politician. The transition of various modern nations from Monarchies to Democracies has not resulted in reinvigorated nations that are more ambitious, more resolute, and more decisive. Instead Western Democracies are sinking into indecision, bureaucratic paralysis, and cultural ennui. Human nature, the Free Rider Problem, the Tragedy of the Commons; all tell us that the nature of democracies and temporary power will result in corruption, sloth, and indecision. Monarchies, on the other hand, avoid the majority of these problems because power rests in people who may not melt into a faceless crowd.

And is a near-endless parade of professional and semi-professional politicians and their bureaucratic assistants 'closer to the people'? When was the last time you or any normal person you know spoke with a president? Or a senator? Or a governor? Or a mayor? A monarchy and aristocracy can obviously be detached, but democracies can be more so. Conversely, an aristocracy and be directly connected to the people because of its very nature, as can a democracy. Clearly, democracy and monarchy face at least very similar challenges in this area.

The last argument brought up as a sample is one that I find interesting. How is a democratic government better at governing than a monarchical one? It may be true that a pure, absolute, direct monarchy could be very bad at governing, but when we refer to "Monarchy" we mean 'constitutional monarchy with an attendant aristocracy'. At the micro level, local aristocrats are better than mayors and such because they are 'in office' for life and depend upon good governance for their position, wealth, and standing. They are in power their whole lives, allowing them to carry out long plans, and continue to adapt when they go wrong. They know the people as well as an elected official might, and must face that their future generations will inherit any issues they leave behind. At the macro level, dukes, counts, and other nobles are much better than governors at the state/province level, for similar reasons. Unless they are removed from office with the permission and approval of the church, they will occupy their position for their entire life, no matter what politics says or does. They can carry out cohesive long-term plans, goals, and reforms with no threat of being removed from office by corruption or temporary backlash, and they don't need to bend over backwards to bring about politically motivated changes. And because the position is hereditary, they have been raised for it, trained from birth to take over for their father, a tremendous advantage in every way.

In opposition stand temporarily elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats. Even if they do well, they rarely remain in office for more than 10 years, they must set political goals and listen to parties, and can't risk the slightest uproar in any group, and may never have had any experience with powerful positions before their election. Most of all, the advantages of a monarchy are expressed in the monarch himself. The greatest advantage possible within any system of government is to have a supreme executive who is not a politician, who does not have to deal with elections, parties, or agendas unless he wants to, or thinks he needs to. A king is free to lead, something that any executive elected official is most certainly not. Combined with the heredity of the position, it is certain that monarchies are superior in stability and adaptability.

And now onto the second, arguably more important question. Aren't democracies, as has been repeated so many times, a step forward in freedom and basic rights? After all, they say, a government ruled by the people is going to be much better for the people than a government ruled by a hereditary position. But there are a few things that should be remembered in this discussion. Democracy is not a governance by the People, it is a governance by the Majority, whoever they may be. What if the majority is, for example, the communist party? Or maybe some sort of National Socialist party? In a monarchy a sway of decadence may do slightly more damage than in a democracy, but it will be unaffected by any mass immorality that may come about from a cult of personality or a seductive ideal. And how are democracies a step forward? Democracy is an old idea, from longer in the past than the birth of Christ, so why is it that all these revolutions of "Human Rights" didn't happen until now? And if monarchy is 'stultifying' or 'repressive' why is it that the great Enlightenment thinkers that oppose monarchy all flourished and wrote during the era of the monarchy while their modern counterparts, licing in democracies, do no more than echo the past? And why is it that, according to these people, monarchies limited freedom? The answer to all three of these questions is simple; democracies are weak. What happens if fools are the majority? Or evil people? What about the influence of wealth upon elections? In a monarchy, the government may become discouraged as it tries to help the people, or in a worst case scenario gets fed up and withdraws. But in a democracy the government changes to match these unfortunate trends. Thus in the modern world, despite the immorality and the slow death of civilization, the unborn are not considered to be alive, homosexual marriage is considered a right, something for nothing is considered moral, and marriage is considered to be temporary. Not just by corrupted or mistaken citizens, but by the governments themselves.

Now there is another side to this coin - democracy does have it's uses and advantages. The common man really does need a voice, lest he be exploited. The ability to give everyone an undeniable say in his rule makes a tremendous difference in the treatment of those in the lower walks of life. But a pure democracy will always go wrong, they always have. So while Edan is a monarchy, the legislature is elected, from both the nobles and the people. And now we come to another dark side of this discussion, if democracy has proven inferior in all these things, isn't monarchy better? If you agree with any of the statements above, must a monarchy be supported? Edan is not a monarchy because we don't like democracy, but because we know that monarchies are better.

Nation-States, the UN, and the Illicit War in Libya

We have watched the various rebellions in the Middle East with the sadness that comes from having predicted the events years ago and realizing that these revolts are in response to the natural desire for a proper, personal government based upon joint moral obligations and that successful rebellions may, in the long term, be worse than the status quo because the rebels only know what they don't want.

But our greatest sadness is reserved for what is happening in Libya, which shows the inherent contradictions of Western democracies as well as the decline of their military power.

Others have spent a great deal of energy discussing the military weaknesses of the European powers exposed by this debacle, so we will focus on the seemingly-ignored contradictions blatantly displayed by the Western democracies.

The only true legal definition of a nation-state is from the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States in 1933. This convention defines a nation-state as follows;

“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

The Convention goes on to explain in Article 3 that;

“The state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.”

In other words, a nation-state can defend itself from invasion ('independence') and rebellion ('integrity') as well as define its own government, etc.

Article 8 is very straightforward, although often ignored;

“No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”

So the Montevideo Convention is very clear; a nation-state has the right to suppress rebellion and other nation-states are forbidden to invade one another or to aid the internal rebellion of another state.

Now, the Montevideo Convention is largely about the Western Hemisphere, so it might not apply to Europe... except that the UN Charter repeats the key points of the Montevideo Convention and add to them. For example, Article 2, paragraph 4 states;

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Article 51 goes on to say;

“"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self- defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”

And last, the Nuremberg Trials established the notion of a 'Crime against Peace', or 'the unlawful initiation of force to permanently deprive a nation-state of territory, political independence, and/or sovereignty'. This concept is repeated in the UN Charter in various places, as well as other treaties.

Or, in brief, any nation has the right to defend itself from both external invasions and internal rebellions. Also, no nation that is a signatory of the Montevideo Convention or the UN Charter can use force against another member without a Security Council resolution. Of course, a Security Council resolution cannot deny a member the right to defend itself against invasion or rebellion (as per the charter).

And yet a handful of members of the UN are attacking Libya, a fellow UN member, in blatant violation of the UN Charter. While the Security Council authorized the use of military force against Libya under the pretext of 'protecting the human rights of Libyans' the actions themselves are in direct support of an armed rebellion aimed at overthrowing the Libyan government, including direct attempts to kills the current head of the Libyan government. Of special interest (and irony) is the fact that Libya was chair of the UN Human Rights Cimmission from 2003 until 2006 and was re-selected to be on the Commission less than a year before some UN members began bombing them.

Edan is no friend to the current government of Libya and does not support them directly or indirectly. Indeed, in the opinion of HRM Richard the fact that Libya is a member of the UN is an indictment of the UN itself. But the fact remains: Libya is a member of the UN and thus is entitled to the equal protection of the law. Indeed, in a modern, secular state that eschews a monarch, a faith, or any overt moral code, the only source of justice can be the laws as they are written. When a secular democracy ignores its own laws and treaties to do what expedient it is abandoning its only ethical compass, an act that is even more dangerous when it is popular with the voters because it reinforces that in a democracy you can do whatever you like so long as enough voters like it.

Democracy vs. Monarchy from a Different Viewpoint

Lew Rockwell is an Anarcho-Capitalist. Dr. Hans-Herman Hoppe is an Austrian School economist. Both are hard line advocates of the most extreme forms of laissez-faire Capitalism and Libertarianism.

However, in an interview from 2008 Hoppe advocates Monarchy over Democracy and makes a number of points concerning the negative effects of Democracies over the past few centuries. A podcast of the interview can be found here, a transcript here.

Dr. Hoppe covers this topic more fully in his book Democracy: The God that Failed, which can be purchased here.

An article from the Distributist Review...

On the loss of access to leaders and power in democracy can be found here. It is related to this and this.

Democracy, Monarchy, Management, and Leadership

One common question that we face is ‘why do you support monarchy?’ in one of its various forms. After all, in the current world some variation of representative democracy seems to be the only way to govern. The fall of the Soviet Union led to an assumption that corporate capitalist democracy, socialist democracy, or some other flavor of representative democracy is the path the world is on.

Of course, the last 10 years have shown the faults of this assumption. From the balkanization of former Soviet territories into new nations to the repeated economic shocks which the most mature democracies of the West have only made worse the evidence shows that representative democracy will, to paraphrase John Adams, always destroy itself.

But why is that? From Greece to dozens of modern examples democracy fails. Some argue that Pareto was correct in arguing that democracy is a façade; others that Friedman was correct when he argued that voters are irrational in their voting choices; others argue that the ephemeral nature of a government that changes every few years makes it too unstable to survive; and, perhaps, Machiavelli was correct when he argued that, in the end, democracy breaks down when people realize they can vote themselves anything – and do.

When we speak of the failure of democracies we often hear the counter-argument that ‘monarchies were no better! There were many examples of terrible kings’. This is true. But it always makes us wonder – why do advocates of democracy excuse bad presidents and prime ministers while praising democracy but hold monarchy doomed by bad kings? Either a badly chosen person dooms the entire system, or it does not.

However, this does point out that both of these failures, the collapse of democracy and the danger of a bad king, both spring from the dichotomy that separates democracy from monarchy. This dichotomy has always existed but in the modern world it seems almost invisible. Indeed, some argue it doesn’t exist. In general this dichotomy is skills versus character. Or, as we call it, management versus leadership.

Management is a set of skills; planning your time; prioritizing tasks; communicating with and among subordinates, peers, and superiors; the documentation of procedures; etc. In the modern world many people, especially people who teach management skills. Include leadership as a skill. We posit that this concept, that leadership Is a skill on par with prioritizing tasks and that leadership can be learned in the classroom by anyone willing to do the homework, is one of the root causes of the recent economic difficulties. Time after time in the dot com burst and in the current recession there were stories of a major company, investment firm, venture capital group, Fortune 100 company, etc. where the people at the top had made catastrophic decisions which lead to the firm being in great peril. And time and again we learned that the response of these managers was to evade responsibility, hide the risks, and do their utmost to continue to gain great wealth for themselves at the expense of investors, shareholders, employees, even their own families.

Most, if not almost all, of these top business managers were, we are told, our ‘best and brightest’; graduates of Ivy League schools with MBAs from the top universities. Of course, ‘MBA’ stands for ‘Master of Business Administration’ and means that, as we stated, all of these managers responsible for costing millions of people trillions of dollars due to their own terrible management were trained that leadership is a skill that you can write down in your planner.

If leadership isn’t a skill, though, what is it? Leadership is the combination of traits and behaviors that cause you to be effective in giving purpose, direction, and motivation to others. The core traits of a leader are justice, courage, prudence, and temperance. These are called the Cardinal Virtues because you cannot have any unless you have all. To the best of our knowledge the only academic institutions that still strive to instill these virtues are the various military academies of the world, and they have varying degrees of emphasis on them (and, of course, varied results). The examples of business managers show the woeful lack of these traits in the financial world of corporate capitalism. Indeed, if anything the various crises of the last few decades show that the men and women from the ‘best’ schools are trained to embrace corruption, cowardice, foolishness, and gluttony.

History shows us that over time democracies slowly reject leadership in favor of management. Leaders come and go as elections pass by, meaning that it is difficult to judge the character of potential leaders – only skills can be assessed. Eventually the people elevate skills above character in the public sphere. Over time this elevation of skills over character becomes common in private life, as well. This erosion of admiration of virtuous character eventually leads to moral decline in society and leaders until Pareto, Friedman, and Machiavelli are shown to be correct.
This also explains the strength and weakness of monarchy. Monarchs and nobles are raised from birth to be leaders – if all goes well. The great monarchs and nobles of the past (as opposed to, perhaps, the great conquerors) displayed excellent character while the examples that discredit monarchies in the eyes of its foes were as flawed in character as any politician in a democracy.
At the same time the reliance of a kingdom upon the good character of its leaders encourages the elevation of those virtues throughout the citizenry. This is especially true when it is possible for a citizen to be elevated to the nobility by virtue and for a noble to lose their position through turpitude. When leadership is based upon and dependent upon moral, upright character then morality and virtues are esteemed and rewarded while immorality and baseness are despised and rejected. The reason that morality is rejected and baseness embraced in the modern West is because, inevitably, democracy rejects virtue and good character.