I believe that a constitutional
monarchy is the best structure
available in which to establish and
run a small, new, libertarian
nation. The value behind a monarchy
is that there is more to the
government than a sheet of paper. In
the United States, the
founders outlined their ideal nation
and principles in the
declaration of independence and the
constitution. However,
the United States has strayed quite
far from what was originally
intended. As you may know, the founders
were aiming to construct a
very minimalist federal government to
tie together each of the
states. They also outlined the few things
this government would
have the power to do, with all else
reserved to the states and the
people. As it stands now, the US Federal
Government has grown
huge, doing all sorts of things it has
no place doing; making laws
and levying taxes which I doubt the
founders of this country
would have approved of. Problems have
arisen because the premise
behind our government is only a piece
of paper, open to the wills
of men.
Under the constitutional
monarchy system in Freedonia, the
country has a much more solid basis.
As Prince of this nation, it
is my sworn, solemn duty to ensure the
liberty of the citizenry
against exterior and interior forces.
The nation is ensured by a
person at the top, rather than a piece
of paper;
a piece of paper straining to maintain
its integrity against
people who try to extort loopholes and
make interpretations for
their own ends.
The monarchy structure
is also ideal for the troubles we will
face trying to set up a new nation.
In its infancy, I feel it is
vital for the nation to have strong,
clear leadership in order to
avoid imploding before we get off the
ground. It is important to
point out that this monarchy is nothing
like the monarchies of
old. This monarchy is about preserving
what Freedonia is and
stands for. It's about protecting the
people and ensuring
Freedonia's success. It's not about
ridiculous concepts like
"royal-blood", "birthright", and other
nonsense typically
associated with a monarchy system.
My goal is to create
a place of true liberty and freedom for
the people of this world. I can see
how some people may have
reservations about a system where so
much is put into the hands of
one person. But I believe, perhaps narcissistically,
that only I
can ensure that Freedonia becomes such
a place.
------
Questions have continued to come in on this subject. Further elaboration follows.
-----
Questions concerning our Constitutional Monarchy system are
among the most oft asked. I addressed
a question on this topic a
short time ago, which is available in
the FAQ section of our site.
However, I will attempt to partially
answer your qustion here.
Elected officials certainly have their good points. They are
supposedly beholdent to the people,
and their electability is meant
to ensure that they do not go against
the will of the people.
However, elected officials also have
their negatives. Elected
officials are, by the vary nature of
their electability, open to
being compromised. Elected politicians
are always seeking to hold
their elected office and as such they
all too often are ruled by
the need for funds and votes. These
needs open them up to lobbyists
and special interests. Elected officials
are also exposed to
compromising their positions for the
sake of future elections and
pandering to an often ill-informed electorate.
In addition, the
theory behind acountability is not as
sound as many may think.
People lead quite busy lives between
their jobs and family, and can
not keep tabs on the day to day activities
of their
representatives. People are also not
necessarily apt to remember
all pertinent information when the next
election occurs in 2 years
or more.
It is evident that the current structure of elected officials
in the U.S. has not effectively protected
our liberties and
maintained adherence to the ideas and
beliefs of the founders. It
is interesting to note that the current
trend of beuracracy,
socialism and unjust taxation began
shortly after the passage of
the 17th amendment; when federal representatives
became directly
elected by the people instead of their
respective state
legislatures. Elected officials do,
however, offer necessary
representation of the people and that
is why an elected parliament
is part of our constitutional system.
A monarchial system also has its good
points and bad points. A
monarch is free of the compromising
aspects of acquiring and
maintaining political power and office.
He is above owing anything
to anyone and is free from undue bias.
In my particular position, I
am free to uphold my solemn duty to
preserve the liberties of the
citizenry against external and internal
forces. I am also free to
use my pulpit position to speak frankly
to the citizenry without
deception and ambiguity. There are justified
concerns with absolute
monarchy, which is why the parliament
does have veto power. The
Freedonian constitution also calls for
a Grand Council to further
ensure the liberties of the populace.
The goal of any good government is the
preservation of liberty and
absence of tyranny. John Locke sheds
light on this topic in chapter
XVIII of his "Second Treatise on Government":
"Of Tyranny
As usurpation is the exercise of power
which another hath a
right to, so tyranny is the exercise
of power beyond right, which
nobody can have a right to; and this
is making use of the power any
one has in his hands, not for the good
of those who are under it,
but for his own private, separate advantage.
When the governor,
however entitled, makes not the law,
but his will, the rule, and his
commands and actions are not directed
to the preservation of the
properties of his people, but the satisfaction
of his own ambition,
revenge, covetousness, or any other
irregular passion.
If one can doubt this to be truth or reason because it comes
from the obscure hand of a subject,
I hope the authority of a king
will make it pass with him. King James,
in his speech to the
Parliament, 16O3, tells them thus: "I
will ever prefer the weal of the
public and of the whole commonwealth,
in making of good laws and
constitutions, to any particular and
private ends of mine, thinking
ever the wealth and weal of the commonwealth
to be my greatest weal
and worldly felicity- a point wherein
a lawful king doth directly
differ from a tyrant; for I do acknowledge
that the special and
greatest point of difference that is
between a rightful king and an
usurping tyrant is this- that whereas
the proud and ambitious tyrant
doth think his kingdom and people are
only ordained for satisfaction
of his desires and unreasonable appetites,
the righteous and just king
doth, by the contrary, acknowledge himself
to be ordained for the
procuring of the wealth and property
of his people." And again, in his
speech to the Parliament, 1609, he hath
these words: "The king
binds himself, by a double oath, to
the observation of the fundamental
laws of his kingdom- tacitly, as by
being a king, and so bound to
protect, as well the people as the laws
of his kingdom; and
expressly by his oath at his coronation;
so as every just king, in a
settled kingdom, is bound to observe
that paction made to his
people, by his laws, in framing his
government agreeable thereunto,
according to that paction which God
made with Noah after the
deluge:
'Hereafter, seed-time, and harvest,
and cold, and heat, and summer,
and winter, and day, and night, shall
not cease while the earth
remaineth.' And therefore a king, governing
in a settled kingdom,
leaves to be a king, and degenerates
into a tyrant, as soon as he
leaves off to rule according to his
laws." And a little after:
"Therefore, all kings that are not tyrants,
or perjured, will be
glad to bound themselves within the
limits of their laws, and they
that persuade them the contrary are
vipers, pests, both against
them and the commonwealth." Thus, that
learned king, who well
understood the notions of things, makes
the difference betwixt a
king and a tyrant to consist only in
this: that one makes the laws
the bounds of his power and the good
of the public the end of his
government; the other makes all give
way to his own will and
appetite.
It is a mistake to think this fault is proper only to
monarchies. Other forms of government
are liable to it as well as
that; for wherever the power that is
put in any hands for the
government of the people and the preservation
of their properties
is applied to other ends, and made use
of to impoverish, harass, or
subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular
commands of those that
have it, there it presently becomes
tyranny, whether those that
thus use it are one or many. Thus we
read of the thirty tyrants at
Athens, as well as one at Syracuse;
and the intolerable dominion of
the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better."
The
important point that Locke makes is that tyranny is not
something inherent in a monarchial system,
nor are representative
governments incapable of tyranny. I
do believe that the U.S.
government has indeed become tyrannical
and abusive of our
liberties and property. I do feel that
Freedonia's system of
constitutional monarchy, along with
my position as Prince, is
conducive to the creation and preservation
of our free state.
------