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.

Statelessness, Persecution, and More on the Origins of Edan

  The very first piece on this blog that was not the final drafts of the constitution was a discussion of the theory and history behind Edan, That article focused on Edan as a stable, personal, just, non-territorial nation. But it left out a portion of the history of the formation of Edan. That portion was a desire to assist stateless people.
  'Refugee' means 'a person outside of their home nation because of persecution, actual or feared'
  'Stateless Person' means either 'a person that has no legal recognition of citizenship with any nation (de jure statelessness)' or 'a person outside of their nation of citizenship who cannot avail themselves of the benefits of their nationality for valid reasons such as a state of war, loss of documentation, etc. (de facto statelessness or undocumented statelessness)'.
  Not all refugees are stateless and not all stateless people are refugees.
  Without citizenship it can be effectively impossible to travel - a stateless person often cannot cross borders, obtain a visa, or (often) apply for asylum. On a day-to-day level they often cannot legally hold a job, gain licences or certifications, get an education, receive health care, etc. Such people commonly cannot register such events and births, marriages, and deaths. In many nations they may be detained at will. In short, by being stateless they both can't live where they are and can't leave where they are.
  The UNHCR estimates that there are about 11 million stateless people in the world (equal to the population of Belgium) and a large number of these stateless people are multi-generational families in places like Palestine and the Balkans where stateless parents give birth to stateless children.
  One of the goals of the Kingdom is to achieve a level of diplomatic and political recognition as a Non-Territorial Nation that Edan can assist stateless people in finding new citizenship either directly,by offering Edanian citizenship, or indirectly by providing them with the minimum level of identity documentation to allow them to seek asylum/citizenship elsewhere.
  King Richard sees this as 'showing love to the foreigner' in a profound way.

  The King is well aware that many Edanians are eager to aid persecuted Christians in Iraq and other parts of the world.
  So is King Richard. When Edan is capable of helping refugees and the stateless persecuted Christians will be a primary goal for assistance. When Edan was founded in 1999 it was in the face of severe persecution of Christians in Sudan, India, and Chechnya (among many other places). It is well documented bythe International Society for Human Rights (based in Germany), Civitas UK, and many other organizations that 80% of all religious persecution is the persecution of Christians. In 2013, before the attacks in Iraq and the Levant, it was estimated that at least 200 million Christians were being persecuted or outright attacked for their faith. This means that if you were to gather all the world's persecuted and oppressed Christians together it would be the 6th largest nation in the world .
  Putanother way, the number of Christians being persecuted in the world right now exceeds the combined populations of the citizens of all religions of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Israel combined.

  So what can Edan do?
  Right now we can pray and educate. We are not yet at the 'critical mass' needed to gain the economic and political wight needed to do more. As much as we have grown, as much as we have already done, we need to be much larger before we can reach the point of political and diplomatic recognition.

  Maybe the most important thing you can do is help Edan grow. Talk to others, use the flyers and handouts we have sent in the past. Pay your taxes. Get Edan to the size where we cannot be ignored. A Media Kit will be issued soon so that you can canvas radio, print, universities, and television stations - King Richard will talk to anyone of good will about Edan.
  In a very real way every person, every household that we add to Edan will one day be another stateless family given a new home and another Christian saved from persecution. We can get there, we will get there.

  St. Michael Archangel, defend us in battle....

The Great Flaw of Anarchism [by Prince Jonathan]

  Anarchism is, in its most fundamental concepts, entirely correct. The structure and concept of the State, as it is known today, is nothing more than a vast mechanism for tyranny. It takes away freedom, harms the common good, and commits acts of unjustified violence simply by existing; all of which it attempts to justify using elaborate political theories with deeply flawed foundations. Edan is not statist. I am not statist. To be otherwise is to be fooled. All this I believe and admit freely, yet I am still not an Anarchist. Indeed, both I and the Kingdom are very strongly anti-anarchy. And how, you ask, is this possible? Is that not a paradoxical position? Why do we oppose both the State and its absence?
  Because we recognize the great flaw of Anarchism. We see that it has developed from its perfectly rational basic principles into a greater philosophy that is largely false. Anarchists do not just wish to abolish the State, they wish to abolish all political action, all authority, and the entirety of the social sphere except for economics and the family, and some of them even the latter. This is the absolute height of foolishness, and Edan thus rejects Anarchism, as I shall now explain.
  Man is, as a very wise man once observed, a political animal, and this truth cannot be denied. Throughout all the history of all the world, government and political association has developed amongst civilized men. Furthermore, contrary to the common belief of Anarchism, it has largely done so in a non-aggressive way. After the gradual collapse of the Roman Empire, there was no government in France, Italy, Spain, or Western Germany. This meant that the only people with power in those places were the land owners, and the only material order their employment of tenant workers. Over time, these landowners, these counts and dukes, made deals amongst themselves, refined their feudal (that is, contractual) relationship with their tenants, and appointed some of their number as kings. Although violence and coercion were certainly involved in some times and places, the origin of government in Western Europe was accomplished through nothing more than the ownership of property, which I highly doubt any true anarchist will criticize. Similar origins may be found for much of the government of the ancient world, though, again, coercion is not completely absent from history.
  And, once more contrary to the typical beliefs of libertarians and anarchists, Anarchism has also been found throughout history. Far from being the first authentically new political development in three thousand years, absolute individual freedom with no form of government or authority has been seen in many different times and places. We find examples in the Judges period of Israel, Pre-Islamic Arabia, and Pre-Cromwellian Ireland, to name just a few. It is not necessary here to rely solely on those societies incapable of developing government; anarchy has existed in the world through the Age of Exploration. Indeed, considering the nations that evolved in Southern Africa and Polynesia, it could be argued that even the most technologically primitive societies are capable of forming governments, though most of them abstain. What is interesting here is that all examples of anarchy found historically, no matter what their culture, religion, or level of technology, share a few basic traits: continuous, bloody warfare, the normalization of atrocities, and a lack of any meaningful development in technology or art. Every time it as been implemented, anarchy has had a terrifyingly negative impact on the civilizations it affected. Even the most stable and moral examples, such as Pre-Cromwellian Ireland, were plagued by war and violence.
  Now, these facts alone would not be enough to condone statism. The ends do not justify the means; we cannot use tyranny and violence to end tyranny and violence. It is, as the majority of anarchists observe, utterly irrational. However, it is more than possible to form governments and establish the rule of law without recourse to coercion. A state-like order can be created in a completely permissible way, so why should anarchy be permitted to survive? If a truly lawless condition leads to such horrid things, why do we not agree to create law?
  So we see that Anarchism is disproved by history, but it is not even necessary to resort to that approach. Reason can also be used to show its flaws, and to demonstrate that a moral society is neither anarchy nor the State, but rather a proper, feudal government.
  It is natural for people to turn a blind eye to the errors in their own position. That is simple human nature, and it cannot be totally avoided, only fought. Anarchism, however, suffers from a general naïveté in excess even of that. Possible abuses of its systems and flaws in its concept of legality are ignored utterly, or supposedly defeated with the argument that market forces will eventually lead to their destruction. Even the most legitimate concerns are given no thought, as a rule.
  For example, let us say that there is a particular factory that produces car frames, and, in order to cut costs and run more efficiently, they switch from their existing chrome-coating method to one involving a much more volatile compound. The run-off and pollution from this compound quickly spreads off the lot of property that the factory is built upon, and begins to poison the water supply of a neighbouring residential district. The factory owner has harmed the health of many other people, so is he accountable to pay damages and switch back to the older, safer method? How much money should he pay out? How is that determined? Suppose the people in the district hire one security company to force him to pay out a large sum of money to them, but he claims that he owes much less, and hires a rival company to defend himself. Or suppose that he even claims that he isn't responsible at all. What happens next? Who determines which side is right? If the side that is wrong wins, who can step in to fix it?
  As another problem, is airspace property? Can sections of the sky and upper atmosphere be claimed, bought, and sold? It's an interesting question when there is no central law regulating it, but it is not the problem here. The problem is what happens when there is a dispute. If a road-owning company claims that it owns the air above its property up to the limit of the atmosphere, and a air-liner company holds that airspace cannot be owned because it cannot be worked, who wins the dispute over the first company charging tolls on passing planes? Let's say that the air company refuses to pay the demanded tolls, so the road-owners call in a private security company that agrees with their claims to force the matter, and then the air company calls in their own security that agrees with them. If negotiations fail, a shooting war will result. This is something of an extreme example, but it is entirely possible, and does a good job of illustrating this sort of problem. In a state of true anarchy, serious problems arise because of a lack of authority. Does this not mean that, according to the very laws of success and failure that Anarchism itself upholds as its unique practical advantage, authority will inevitably result? Is it not in the common interest of everyone to not just agree on a standard convention for such matters, but also create some way of solving similar difficulties in the future? And since this authority is so intimately linked to defence and enforcement, doesn't it make sense that it, the police, and the military should be a united organization? We find here the genesis of good government, and, indeed, of all government.
   And so we can see that Anarchism is neither foolish nor evil, but the belief that it can survive for more than a few generations without descending into violence and disruption is most certainly the former. Anarchists are correct in observing that the way things are today is critically flawed, but they fail to see the flaws in their own ideas again and again. Ultimately, they are, as a movement, over-idealistic. Even if they do not consciously realize it, their system is completely reliant on the total or almost-total eradication of human stupidity, selfishness, and disputes.
  In Edan, however, we recognize that such a utopian event is impossible. So we reject the State, then reject Anarchism, and finally establish ourselves to be a voluntary government. We seek to create the authority, stability, and public beneficence of a well-run State, while still maintaining the proper morality and rationality at the heart of Anarchism. Though this may be difficult, it is still worth striving after; and it is an ideal that we will not abandon for as long as the Kingdom survives.

Non-Territorial Nations - What is Edan Doing?!

  As explained with admirable efficiency by geographer Matt Rosenberg; 

     "While the terms country, state, and nation are often used interchangeably, there is a difference. A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country. A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State."

  This is a bit more precise than common usage, actually. While we tend to use 'nation-state' as a shorthand this can be incorrect. Take Canada - there are at least two distinct Nations in Canada (one with a Protestant English culture and another with a Catholic French culture) so Canada is a State with multiple Nations within it. Great Britain is very similar - although Great Britain is obviously a state we all know who and what a Scotsman is, correct? Scotland, which has had no territorial control of its own for quite some time (and is thus not a State) is certainly a Nation. So obviously nations can exist without control of the territory they are in. But can a nation exist without any defined territory?

  The Romani certainly think so. They announced a claim of being a Non-Territorial nation over a decade ago, a claim not just accepted by a number of academics, diplomats, and leaders but seen as a potential solution to a range of ethnic and minority issues. It can even be argued, as Elkins, Fischer, and a number of others have, that the Westphalian conceptualization of 'legitimate' States being strictly territorial has made ethnic and minority strife worse since land is a fixed asset - if you wish any sort of autonomy within the Westphalian model you must control and defend territory; all territory is already controlled and the closest to the oppressed group is most likely controlled by that group's oppressors; therefore the pressure towards violence is greatly increased. By rejecting the demand that 'legitimate' States control territory before they can engage in political, diplomatic, etc. activity you can reduce or even eliminate these pressures.

  In his works the scholar Hassner argues that the Westphalian paradigm of the nation-state is obsolete because it cannot account for the tremendous impact of everything from transnational corporations to NGOs to Violent Non-State Actors such as Al-Qaeda. He also points to the ethnic strife of Africa as distinct Nations resort to large-scale violence to control territory rather than seeking non-territorial autonomy. 

  So Non-Territorial Nations are an existing fact, long predating modern concepts of nation-states; Non-Territorial Nations as well as Non-State Actors, NGO's, Transnational Corporations, etc. are all recognized as a major factor in world events; so Edan's status as a (so far) non-territorial sovereign nation is neither shocking nor even very remarkable. Considering that the most notable, recognizable Non-Territorial Nation is the Catholic Church (does anyone really believe Vatican City is truly in compliance with the various ideas of Westphalian territorial control?) and that the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is another key example of a Non-Territorial Nation with various forms of diplomatic recognition Edan's status as a Catholic Non-Territorial Nation is likewise unremarkable. Between the Roma, the Church, the SMOM, and dozens of other groups the idea of a sovereign non-territorial Catholic group is just not that shocking - except for a few things.

  Which we will get to.

  But why start with a non-territorial monarchy? Why not start Edan as an NGO, or a lobbying firm, or a credit union, or a charity? After all, the king is very clear that Edan needs all those things. Why not pick up the 'low-hanging fruit' and start as an incorporated not-for-profit charity and work your way up from there?

  There are many very good, very worthy NGO's in the world already. There are very good Catholic credit unions, charities, and lobbying firms. But there are two things you aren't going to find that readily.

  This goes back to the goals of Edan; our goals are not to build a better bank, nor to be an efficient charity; Edan was not founded to lobby the US for more aid to Mali nor to provide emergency relief after earthquakes. While all of those activities are a legitimate and even noble way to spend your energy, they are not what Edan is for.

  Edan exists to be truly just for both its own citizens and as an example to others of what a just nation is.

  One of the things that does distinguish Edan from the Church and from the SMOM is that it is new. Edan is not an anomaly from history, as some argue about the SMOM. It is not a unique situation as some argue about the Church. Edan is living proof that the desire of people to be free, to gather together, and to determine their own destiny can be met; it demonstrates that the Westphalian model and the violence it spawns are both failed artifacts of the Enlightenment; it shows the fatal flaws of Democracy and how to remove them; it exposes the false sichotomy in current economic thought with clear alternatives.

  Edan is also not a religious power but rather a secular power. The Church and the SMOM are often dismissed as being 'religious' as if this reduced their diplomatic or cultural relevance. Edan is a Nation, pure and simple, and cannot be dismissed similarly.

  And Edan is not based upon ethnic or racial criteria. One is born a Romani or, perhaps, marries into a Romani family; people who are not born Navajo cannot become Navajo. Edan is not organized like this; while it has its own culture and identity, these are not based upon genetic heritage, making Edan universal, not racial.

  We are, yes, building a better country both for ourselves and for others to see that it can be done. 

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 1

[from HRH Jonathan]
The Modern Western World demands a form of total equality of everyone exposed to it's touch, an idea that has become ubiquitous. Popular entertainment, education, and such all decry sexism and racism as evil while otherwise denying the possibility of objective morality. Discrimination is painted as one of the greatest of crimes.
However, there are problems with this attitude on the subject. Some forms of discrimination, such as attacks on certain religions or regions, are ignored or even celebrated (can you imagine the stereotypes of American Southerners being as broadly condemned as stereotypes or, say, American Blacks?). Another problem is far more insidious; the belief that any form of stratified social structure or other limitations based on personal status are discrimination.
This is an argument against aristocracies about as old as the French Revolution. There is a pervading vision of the Middle Ages as a time of oppression, with very wealthy and very haughty nobles lording their status over the poor serfs, women being held as completely useless for everything except childbirth, and paranoid kings declaring war on anyone who doesn't share their exact beliefs, a "Dark Age'. Continuing this popular myth, it is also thought that the revolution of democracy reversed this cruel situation of tyranny. All men were finally treated justly, women were finally not just property, governments became inherently enlightened. Of course, this popular myth is just that - myth. Historians don't use the term 'Dark Ages', bad kings were the exception, some of the richest and most powerful people of the Middle Ages were women, etc. But the myth lives on, stronger than reality in the common wisdom.
There are 2 very similar myths commonly held that are perpetuated by, and in turn empower, the concept of feminism. First is the idea that somehow before about 1965 or so women were not allowed to get an education or work outside the home but were kept in a type of slavery in the kitchen. The other is that that any differences between the sexes other than those necessary to reproduction are strictly non-physical social constructs.
Actually, women were receiving excellent educations at college for centuries before the coining of the term 'feminist'; from the Seven Sisters in America to the various women's colleges in Europe women did, yes, have opportunities for advancement in academia and the professional world. As far as work outside the home, women have always done so - throughout urban life the goal of women was being lucky and successful enough to only work in the home. To illustrate this point, the only woman to win the American Medal of Honor was an Army Doctor - in the American Civil War.
There are, or course, irrefutably obvious differences between the sexes beyond the obvious. Differences in musculature, vision, digestion, even neurochemistry. To admit than men are naturally stronger than women no more makes one superior to the other than does the admission that women have better balance than men. But to deny these realities makes it much easier to deny other things, such as the fact that boys and girls are ready to learn certain topics at different ages so holding both to the same academic standards at young ages is an error. With the dozens of differences in physical and mental form and ability, is it truly oppressive and wrong that there are social and political differences?
The claim is that men have discriminated against women throughout history, because in traditional societies men occupy higher positions in the business, politics, warfare, and religion, while women were focused into caring for families misses the point. The division of labor that makes the family the core of society and civilization leads naturally to such divisions at the larger level, as well. While men may dominate politics, women dominate societal norms, an area that arguably has much more actual influence on say-to-day life.
And we must at all times remember the great rule: There are exceptions to every rule when it comes to people. St. Claire, Elizabeth II, and Boudicca all show that in staunchly patriarchal societies women, too, have political and military leadership roles to fill. Thus it is a gender role, not a gender rule. And this gender dynamic has always been in place for a very good reason: There are exceptions to every rule, but in terms of a majority it is still a rule. Though people such as Saint Joan of Arc or Fa Mulan exist, and are perhaps more common then some think, they are still a rarity, and it is the same on the other side of the equation.
But the disruption of traditional structures was not limited to gender norms, there was also a breakdown of class distinctions. The aristocracies were annihilated, and royal houses were deposed, all in the name of progress. But the idea that history is indomitable march towards the future is yet another myth, and the destruction of the hated class system in the name of 'progress' was a dire mistake by the revolutionaries who, in the end, were merely murderers.
Class distinctions have always existed in nearly every Culture above the hunter-gatherer stage. Certainly those which were morally and politically stable had them, and often we find that the sharpness of the distinction is proportional to the stability imparted. Compare Athens to Imperial China for instance, or the Zulu tribes to pre-revolutionary England. Now it is true that stability is not a substitute for morality, but with stability any morality that is in place is unlikely to go away. The codes of Chivalry and Bushido only grew during the rule of aristocratic monarchy in their respective lands, and then vanished with said systems taking with them the codes that channeled the power and strength of the ruling classes toward weal rather than egoism.
The modern thought on traditional class distinctions is a rather universal; "They're evil!". I still do not truly know why. The Enlightenment was a rebellion of the middle and upper-middle classes and it spread a great deal of propoganda, perhaps this is the reason. In any case it is doubtless that the democratic revolutions around the late 1700s and early 1800s considered the nobility and any real political class distinction to be their enemies even as they placed land-owning, gender, and race-based limitations on voting. This caused a great deal of the prejudice we see today. But it is important to remember that it is impossible to break human nature, if there is not a stratified society by design, there will eventually be a stratified society by opportunity. If by Culture and Government there is an existing aristocratic class with distinct duties, goals, and privileges, and limitations then those with the ambition to rise, whether it be good or bad, will have a channel for this ambition. Whereas if there is no existing position to aspire to, then those who would rise high must make their positions, and this is usually very bad. And in the absence of a societal framework many of the duties and limitations will be weak or non-existant, leaving only the power. Giving someone who would become a noble or a general freedom to tailor a position to their own ends is a ticket to disaster, for if this ambition is born of a hunger for power then the ambitious will be free to indulge. Even those with good intentions are likely to stumble when given absolute freedom in this regard, who could resist righting one more wrong?
While there were certainly tyrants in the 'old days' were robber barons any different, other than there being fewer societal checks on their abuses? Today there are corrupt politicians and corporate plutocrats in startling numbers, all able to avoid the ostracism of their peers for we have done away with the Peerage. Mean-spirited nobles have been replaced with graft-ridden senators (no change except that a Senator has no concerns for the lands his heirs will inherit), dark hearted merchant lords have been replaced by all-controlling CEOs (no change at all). And at the same time great nobles have been replaced by voters, and charitable guildsmen have been replaced by unions constantly falling prey to corruption. As much as free-markets and democracies have done to increase profits, they have done more to decrease duty and honor by seeing them as valueless in 'the market'.
All these things are together in my arguments because they are all a different extension of the same principal, segregation. No, not the legal segregation of an oppressed group from its overlords, but the natural separation of the elements of society, even if only leaders from others. While a harsh segregation with no room to change or be an exception is flawed and doomed to failure, I have no doubt that a flexible one is an important part of any stable society. It may seem stifling and wrong when read and spoken of here, but segregation has existed throughout history, and whenever it is taken away darkness follows. There are too many dangers in blurring the lines, and not enough rewards. True equality can only be found in Anarchy, and Anarchy is only destructive, never constructive.
Many problems exploding in this era we are in can be attributed to a breakdown of barriers in society: homosexuality seen as 'no different than' normal behavior; near-plutocracy, rabid entitlement, and other such issues. And so I conclude that civilization needs and aristocracy, and soon.

The Difference Between culture and a Culture, and Why the Latter is Necessary.

[From HRM Richard and HRH Jonathan]
How do countries form, and more importantly, how do they last? What is it that separated the early Romans who conquered the known world from the late Romans who collapsed into decadence? What separates the nations in America and Europe, who once had the drive to forge empires in less than a century, from their current forms which are spiraling into self destruction through demographic collapse? We are certainly not the only ones asking these questions, they are being asked by people the world over, most desperately seeking to repair their countries.
We know the answer. The answer is the reason that the constitution of Edan is secondary to its creation and existence, the answer is the reason that America was once so strong despite its constitution, the answer is the reason Europe is dying. The answer?
Culture, with a capital.
By 'Culture' we mean the shared attitudes, goals, practices, and values that characterize and define a group.
Culture is the shared experience, outlook, and traditions that grows into civilization. That implacable force that creates patriots and heroes. The USA would not be more than a Balkanized backwater if it wasn't for the paradoxical mix of arrogant destiny and humble hope her people shared in the past. The other Western nations likewise had a complex self-image that defined them as a people and helped them, caused them to survive great trials.
So, where did this Culture go, to be replaced with countless lesser ideas, all of which discount what had made various Peoples great? Culture has degraded to relativism and egoism; the rejection of standards and the embrace of the self over the group. Devotion to something higher than oneself is seen as improper, impossible, and even evil, while the elevation of personal desire over the good of the whole is seen as proper and good. Those who espouse these ideas have told us for generations that relativism and egoism will lead to a better world with happier people. Instead we have a violent, factional world full of people so without hope they do not have enough children to replace themselves.
Culture is what truly defines a People, what truly drives them; Civilization is nothing more than Cultures 'grown up'. And these various Civilizations/Cultures each have an identity founded upon language, tradition, attitude, and religion that separates Peoples and countries from each other. Other than matters of ethnicity, what is it that really separates Japan from China? England from France? Russia from Poland? Their difference of Culture, that is the true difference, and without it there would be a sort of numbing sameness of egoistic relativism, a loss of uniqueness that would make us all a bit poorer.
In the modern world we have are facing a horrible loss of Cultures, and at an unimaginable scale. There is nothing to take pride in other than oneself. In the realm of egoistic relativism no history, no shared experience, no tradition can justify patriotism, or pride, or even true hope. In the eyes of the wider world this devotion to greater things is evil and 'progress' is defined as stripping away more and more of the true Culture that make civilization possible. Communism and Socialism view Culture as an enemy that prevents 'progress'; Libertarianism and Feminism with their extreme focus on egoism view Culture as unjust control. Modern Democracies, so very new, reject much of the Cultures that came before because they see them (correctly) as being irrevocably part and parcel with religion and royalty. This rejection of the Cultures that built civilization has been happening in the West for almost 300 years and worldwide for almost 100.
We are finally starting to see the dark toll this is taking on civilization.
Without these binding forces of Culture to bring people together and drive them forward, what is there in life? Why is there any reason to care about a future that you and your (egoistic, relativistic) beliefs will have no part of? Religion? Religion is a part of a Culture that has been attacked with particular brutality. Family? What is your family without Cultural definitions? Indeed, why have a family when you expect them to share none of your values other than relativism and egoism? Your country? What is the point of governments and nations without a Culture for them to base themselves on, other than control?
Duty, Honor, Justice, Charity; these are the first casualties of relativism and egoism because without these things Cultures fail and are forgotten. Whether destroying these virtues was the goal or merely a side effect of misguided attempts to forge a Utopia we may never know. What we do know is that in the name of equality justice has been destroyed;in the name of individualism duty, honor and charity are rejected; in the name of reason truth has been abandoned; in the name of liberty freedom has been rendered useless.
We of Edan embrace these virtues as the means to embrace civilization and reject barbarism, as the true method, the only proven way, to make the world a better place.

Egalitarian or Leaderless?

A recent study from the Stanford University purports to show something that it may not, in fact, show. This study, which was actually a computer simulation, was an attempt to discover why the modern world is composed overwhelmingly by 'stratified' societies rather than by 'egalitarian' societies.
The inherent biases of the researchers are prominently on display ranging from the blunt statement that any social structure that is not 'egalitarian' is selfish and wrong to the further statement by the lead researcher that,

"Inequalities in socioeconomic status are increasing sharply around the world. Understanding the causes and consequences of inequality and how to reduce it is one of the central challenges of our time."

While the King and his government abhor poverty, is 'reducing inequalities in socioeconomic status' truly "one of the central challenges of our time"? In the face of global economic instability, breakdowns in diplomatic relations, the continuance of Communist and Islamic terrorism, the growth in political power of criminal cartels, the surge in piracy, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian violence, the attempts to undermine key elements of societal stability, and the impending demographic crunch I think there are many more pressing concerns to face first.
Getting back to the study, we find within the introduction that there is an unproven assumption that hunter-gatherer societies were inherently egalitarian with no social structure at all. Of course, anthropological research of historical and existing hunter-gatherer societies find that most do, indeed, have some level of social structure. Interestingly, hunter-gatherer societies were (and are) incredibly violent with between 15% and 50% of all deaths being caused by murder or tribal warfare. There is some speculation that the less social structure there is, the more violent such societies were and are. While the editors of the Wikipedia entry on hunter-gatherers try to soften this picture of constant violence by arguing that the battles were prompted by 'grudges' rather than by a 'desire for resources' this just indicates that emotion ruled the killers.
The study ran a number of simulations with a number of variables to compare their models of egalitarian and stratified societies and they admit they were surprised by the results. If you dig through the numbers you find that egalitarian societies were much more stable than stratified societies - assuming, however, that there were no changes in the harvest or food yield year-to-year, women had a very narrow range of fertility, the only changes in population were natural birth and natural death (i.e., no violence at all, nor any accidents), etc. In other words, in Utopia egalitarian societies are more stable than stratified ones. By a rather narrow margin.
Interestingly enough, the model showed that stratified societies handled emergencies and crises much better, were stable over a much wider range of environmental and social factors, and did much better in any conditions approaching those of reality. An interesting takeway was that stratified societies received solid benefits from storing food while egalitarian societies didn't.

In the end this was, once again, a computer model founded upon the assumptions and biases of the researchers. But even within those parameters it shows that there are reasons that social structures exist; to add stability and to reduce violence. There is another reason,as well - leadership. Leaders do, indeed, place the welfare of their people over their own. They maintain a vision and a plan that stretches beyond the current crisis to prepare society for the next emergency, too.
We must also remember that acknowledging the utility and even the justice of social classes does not mean that nobles are 'better' than others, or that the poor are poor because they 'deserve to be poor'; all men and women are equal in their basic rights and all are capable of Heaven. Indeed, a noblle has more duties and responsibilities and will answer to God for failing to meet them! The goal of all Edanians, especially the leaders of the Kingdom, is to build a nation where a living wage and self-sufficiency are the beginnings of society, where charity is the the rule, and where the widow and orphan are cared for, the hungry are fed, and the naked are clothed.
What we as Edanians can learn from this is that the leaders of society, the Nobles and the King, must always adhere to the Knightly Virtues - prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, charity, diligence, patience, chastity, and humility.

The Madness of the Modern World (by HRH Jonathan)

 I have been looking about me and begun to realize how truly insane the world around us has become without us realizing it. From basic, obvious things like the death of chivalry or the imposition of the nation-state paradigm, to subtle, horrible things such as the denial of truth itself or the total detachment of those in government from both the common man and reality. And I have thought of how it may have started, with small things, it could not have come in a shock. A slippery slope beginning with just one weak king, Henry VIII. Arguably this was the turning point, the colonization of the new world did not help, the city-states of Italy did not help, the encroaching muslims certainly did not help. But it was this one weak king who made it what it is. All the madness we see around us comes from one man rejecting the Church. He drove out the Catholic Church and started a spiral, the land of the monks and priests was turned over to nobles and capitalists who exploited it and the people in it and around it for as much money as possible, and over time this led to the modern world. A world where there are such things as corporate layoffs, where people are fired so that the company can make more money, or homosexual "rights" being widely accepted. A world where people are classified as "pro-war" and "anti-war" when a sane man can be neither (they may speak of a specific war, but the point stands). A world where people believe that animals are as important as humans, or even believe that there is no such thing as truth.
              Simply think about that, think about the number of people who would say "there is no such thing as truth" and take the time to fully realize the ridiculousness of the statement. Better yet, remember what Pontius Pilate said about truth. And think about how easily it can be traced to one man rejecting God. How one man can accidentally destroy our culture, our religion, our sanity, our countries, and worst of all our Culture. [Dad note the capitol C] As you are reading this take a moment to realize that the world has gone mad and we have not even noticed. Because it is a slippery slope, or more accurately a series of slippery slopes, from rejecting religion to believing that all is subjective. And along the way you bring all that is good, holy, truthful, or traditional crashing down, to put it differently you destroy your Culture. And without a capitol-C Culture, civilization is merely another of man's endeavors.

Nation-States and War

    Across the world, in dictatorships and police states, people are gathering to protest tyrannical government. They mostly started peacefully, but it has become violent. At the same time, across the world, terrorist attacks against Europe and America are being planned and put in motion. The dictators and tyrants respond to protest with military force, the West responds to terrorism with law enforcement and inadequate security measures. War is almost always thought of as a contest between nations, presidents and kings pitting their forces against each other. This is not always the case, there are other kinds of war, uncommon as they may be. And this is where the weaknesses of the nation-state become apparent. The nation-state is incapable of fighting anything other than another nation-state. Guerilla warfare is not new, America used it in the past, Iraqis use it now. Yet when ideologically dedicated terrorists without national ties use it, the West is helpless, unable to bring their power to bear outside the paradigm.                            

     A traditional country however, has no such issue. A country that is properly designed and properly carried out can defend itself from any threat. When the leadership and law enforcement are part of a tightly-knit community they become aware of unusual activity quickly. When a paradigm is flexible it can respond better to other paradigms. Strong culture and esprit de corps unite people together against threats. Edan could weather any threat, or fight in any form of war against any enemy.

-HRH Jonathan