There is a huge difference between how things should work and how they will though. Without any system of enforcement, I would call it nothing but wishful thinking.
I’m posting another comment because you seem to be genuinely interested in discussion the concepts that you are bringing up in your essay. I haven’t yet fully read it, though I have skimmed and will spend some time giving out a fair read.
I do not think that I’ll have much positive in my critical analysis based mainly upon my philosophical orientation (anarchist) and neurodivergence (AuADHD so, have strong feelings about what I perceive as just/unjust ex. hereditary rule is intrinsically unjust). From a writing style/communication perspective, it does seem, at a high level, to be well-written.
I’ll try to remember to get some time to read through the rest of it on the weekend.
Interesting idea for sure. I’m not sure it would work though. The concept has lots of cultural implications as well. In traditional monarchies the king is usually divinely ordained, chosen by god. A democracy doesn’t get its legitimacy from above, the people are the ultimate sovereign and legitimize the system. New Monarchy also needs some kind of higher philosophical justification.
Political systems often have a short slogan, that emphasizes their values.
The linked concept of New Monarchy doesn’t have a king. It contains asymmetric votes between classes, which is an interesting idea to keep a check on the aristocracy. I don’t think the system is fully viable as a concept, but it makes a good point at the beginning. If we get an elite ruling class anyway in every system, let’s make it more visible and directly accountable.
There is a huge difference between how things should work and how they will though. Without any system of enforcement, I would call it nothing but wishful thinking.
In fairness, democracy was a kind of wishful thinking too, which is why I would propose a new form of monarchy instead: https://arendjr.nl/blog/2025/02/new-monarchy/
I’m posting another comment because you seem to be genuinely interested in discussion the concepts that you are bringing up in your essay. I haven’t yet fully read it, though I have skimmed and will spend some time giving out a fair read.
I do not think that I’ll have much positive in my critical analysis based mainly upon my philosophical orientation (anarchist) and neurodivergence (AuADHD so, have strong feelings about what I perceive as just/unjust ex. hereditary rule is intrinsically unjust). From a writing style/communication perspective, it does seem, at a high level, to be well-written.
I’ll try to remember to get some time to read through the rest of it on the weekend.
Thanks! I’d be happy to hear your thoughts.
Interesting idea for sure. I’m not sure it would work though. The concept has lots of cultural implications as well. In traditional monarchies the king is usually divinely ordained, chosen by god. A democracy doesn’t get its legitimacy from above, the people are the ultimate sovereign and legitimize the system. New Monarchy also needs some kind of higher philosophical justification.
Political systems often have a short slogan, that emphasizes their values.
New Monarchism could use one as well.
No kings. No gods*. No masters.
*“gods” here referring to use of organized religion to coerce others.
Kings are bad
The linked concept of New Monarchy doesn’t have a king. It contains asymmetric votes between classes, which is an interesting idea to keep a check on the aristocracy. I don’t think the system is fully viable as a concept, but it makes a good point at the beginning. If we get an elite ruling class anyway in every system, let’s make it more visible and directly accountable.
:D
From your other responses I can see you’re being sarcastic, but yeah, seems that many won’t read any further after seeing the word monarchy :shrug: