Freeman Stephen wrote:If given the opportunity, the monarch, like any other creature would act in their own interests.
That's certainly the concern which the Magna Carta attempted to address by converting the system from absolute Monarchy with a completely free and unrestrained monarch to Constitutional Monarchy where the monarch is enslaved by contract to the people to be legally required to serve the people's interests instead of their own. With enslavement starting at the top it's no wonder enslavement has trickled down the entire system with ever greater amounts of contracts and contractual obligations being produced which have been legally binding the behaviour of an ever larger fraction of the population.
This raises the question, is it necessary in modern times to have such a draconian set of contracts legally chaining everyone up in modern times? I'm reminded of a speech by Daniel Hannan where he points out that the root argument for the European Union sounds ridiculous when said out loud; specifically that if Germany is not restrained by being in the EU it might have another go at invading Poland.
It also raises the question, what are the best interests of a human being holding the fictional title of Monarch in modern times? Certainly these people not only have more wealth than they can possibly know what to do with, but also there is no pressure at all on them to accumulate more of it, (actually they give a lot away to charity) because their position in society is already secure and not subject to market forces like inflation which drives all the other wealthy people to continuously try and gather more wealth whilst the wealth they have withers continuously as if they were trying to build their house on a patch of quicksand. This is why they are called "highness" because they are literally held up in a position which is above the financial game the rest of us have to play unless we want to live like monks or transients.
If it's not fair that one family gets to have a secure footing in the world while everyone else has to mill around constantly working to shore up their holdings, is it any more fair that no family should have such a position? Surely the removal of that position would result in the financial banking elite becoming the only group in the world whose position is secure, and of course making sure that we all continue to use their fiat funny money system is absolutely in their best interests, and unlike the royals there is no Constitutional restraints on them to legally bind them into behaving any differently.
There is a working model to study of a stable multi-cultural society based on absolute monarchy: the United Arab Emirates.
Just 40 years ago the region was a primitive desert backwater with no infrastructure, and now it's home to people from over 200 nationalities who are living and working together in harmony under the rule of the Al Nahyan family who are nearly universally loved by the people because their rule has brought about a society where the constant increase in wealth is almost tangible in the air.
The Al Nahyans hold a position now which is basically the same as the Monarchs of England held prior to the Magna Carta, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, is an Absolute Monarch, and as such there is no legal contract in place between him and the people of the U.A.E requiring that he serve them as their servant/legal slave. He is completely free to do as he pleases and act in his own best interests, and it appears his best interests are in making sure that the society he is head of continues to prosper in order that his position remains secure.
During the Arab Spring many countries in the Middle East region saw massive civil unrest, but not the U.A.E. There was no riots, not marches, nothing. No one gave a damn about rebelling quite simply because the people of the U.A.E have nothing to rebel about. In fact a large part of the reason the Middle eastern countries rebelled was due to the fact that they can see how well the U.A.E is doing in comparison to themselves and they want their own countries to throw off the repressive regimes which are strangling their progress so they can emulate the U.A.E a country which many fundamentalists in the region consider to be very unholy as they have embraced a very western style concept of freedom and multiculturalism.
In the U.A.E there is no council tax, no income tax, no V.A.T, no parliament, no political parties. There is no electoral roll that you have to be on, and the post office primarily works on P.O boxes rather than direct door-to-door deliveries. There is a small 3% sales tax on certain luxury items such as alcohol.
Given these facts, it could be argued we here in the UK have made a huge mistake in binding our Monarch into slavery out of fear of that the monarch may behave badly when its clear a monarch who is free from such repression is by nature and physics alone compelled to behave in a manner which is in the best interests of the people who support their position as the Al Nahyans are doubtlessly fully aware. In the dark ages it was done to ensure stability because constant uprisings and rebellions caused by monarchs behaving badly were costly in terms of human lives and livelihood and so a solution was sought which would allow the monarch to be restrained by law.
Freeman Stephen wrote:It is my view that having leaders is important since it is easy to determine the outcome of a confrontation between a well ordered group and a group that is in disarray.
Sure ask any captain of a ship about the importance of maintain discipline on board the vessel and he will tell you all about how a ship with no guidance will surely find its way onto the rocks, or if in a combat situation would be lost with all hands even if fighting a ship much smaller than itself.
If you have seen the 1950's film, Captain Horatio Hornblower (one of my favourites as a kid), you will recall the defeat of the Natividad under the command of Don Julian by the Lydia under the command of Captain Hornblower. It's a fictional tale, but it's quite reasonable that a much smaller ship commanded well by an experienced captain and a loyal crew could defeat a larger opponent ship being commanded by an inexperienced lunatic and a group of monkeys.
Freeman Stephen wrote:I do acknowledge that the interests of the current leaders are in conflict with the interests of the people and what would be ideal would be leaders whose personal goals were in harmony with those of the people.
Indeed, and if we had people like the Al Nayhan's running things, 10 years from now we could have ultramodern cities with skyscrapers being built in this country. We have the technology, we have the manpower we have the resources to build the future but we are stuck expending all our energy making sure that nothing ever changes, it's ridiculous. Since the Al Nayhan's are no different to any other people, and are mere human beings holding fictional title positions in their society, it could be argued that just about anyone will do in that position as long as they are not insane or have extreme religious views. It's probably also true that the reason we needed Magna Carta in the past was because in those primitive dark times it was not possible to determine scientifically if a monarch was sane and fit to govern.
Freeman Stephen wrote:Its pure speculation based on marketing of personality cult proportions to consider the interests of one of the crowned heads of europe would be harmonic to the goals of the people of ordinary indoctrination who should call them sir out of respect for the brutality of their superiors forebears.
Indeed it smacks of primitive mediaevalism, no one should have to defer on a personal basis to another, but when it comes to making decisions about the running of a society a chain of command is necessary if anything it to be achieved.
