Implementing Monarchy Today

When I speak with patriotic Republicans who genuinely believe America is a free country, I list and compare the freedoms we now lack but our Founders enjoyed. After going through the transformations we suffered over the last two centuries, it is clear we oppose both the Founders and liberty, and further, what we call liberty a medieval might well view as slavery. But my interlocutors will often fall back on “we’re not as bad as most countries today,” which to them justifies their acceptance of and compliance with the current system. Sometimes it seems the only thing worth saving in America, according to its defendants, is it could be worse. This is true, as each day seems to prove, but we Americans should have, and we really need, a brighter, more radical vision. This article will focus on how things would look if we implemented my ideal political system today.

Having spent a great deal of time defending and describing the feudal kingships of the Middle Ages, one might think it is my ideal political system, but it is not. It is my favored historical system but not my ideal. I certainly would not desire a return to some of the tribal customs maintained then even after the Christian conversion. But one thing I love about those systems is they were organic; they derived from certain circumstances arising in the period. They were built up from the bottom, not forced down from the top. They were great systems for their time, situation, and need, but today we are in vastly different ones, and thus, in need of a new system as well. However, my ideals do look more similar to the kingships of the Middle Ages.

One of the central tenets of my ideal governance is consent. I would not wish to force anyone into a system they disagreed with. Thus, from the start, it would run into the problem of the vast majority of Americans immediately seceding from my system. However, to consider my ideas more robustly, we will assume they have been established and accepted across the nation.

In my system, self-governance is vital; the government is made to benefit man, not man to benefit the government. So, if a group of people wished to secede and become autonomous at any future time, they would be unhindered in doing so. All the land, and the law, is the peoples; they own it, with the government as its steward – its protector and enforcer for those people. The law and government only exist to serve the people. Many modern social ills and examples of mistreatment of people are due to the lack of self-governance. Would minorities impose harsh laws of discrimination on themselves? No majority or governmental power could oppress them if they were allowed to split off independently to govern themselves; thus, secession is always legal in my system. Further the only way to achieve self-governance within a country of diverse opinions is via decentralization, to which we will now turn.

The first step in implementing my system would be to abolish the state and all current centralized authority. Each county or each town would become completely autonomous. And if a section of a town wishes to form a new village, they are free to do so. People can seek self-governance no matter how small the minority; no majority can dictate to or steal their right to self-governance. Even a single family can create an area with their laws and customs to live by if they wish to be isolated.

This would result in thousands of diverse governmental systems people could choose from and move to. It would enable everyone to have the government of their choosing. In one town, we could have a libertarian society, the next might be communist, but neither could outvote or impose their ways on the other. They would have no authority over a smaller minority group. One area might be purely democratic where the majority decides all matters, and may have elections and politics. The next area could be monarchist, devoid of all political strife and action. Some towns might be progressive and have written laws, allowing their law to evolve or change over time. Others might be conservative with unwritten customs lived out and never changing no matter what a future majority within this section or its rulers desire, ensuring a constant law/liberty for the people within. They would not need to worry about elections, rulers, and so on since nothing could alter their customs.

In this system, the totalitarian community is just as free to live as they desire as a libertarian society. Everyone has perfect equality to control their own destiny. Between the realms, there would be no need for strife, hatred, anger, discord, etc., since each section is powerless to impose its ways on another. A society built upon the Democratic Party would never have to fear Donald Trump. A Republican society would be free of another Joe Biden. No one would have to get angry with or outspend the other over politics. No one would have to donate money, spend time fighting, arguing, or slavishly discrediting opponents; and everyone would get self-governance. One section wanting legal abortion would never have to worry about Christians taking away their “rights,” while a Christian village can follow God’s commands and outlaw the procedure.

It would be comparable to each brand of every political party winning each election. You could join a “Republican area,” a “Democratic area,” a “conservative” area, a “liberal” area, and so forth. There would be thousands of areas to choose from. We would have Catholic Republican areas, Catholic Democrat and libertarian areas, Mormon areas, Baptists, secular, Methodist, and on and on. Some towns might allow immigration; another might allow visitors, traders, and temporary workers; the next might outlaw all entry by outsiders. Libertarians who never have a chance at election success could have multiple areas with their own policies. Libertarians differ on subjects like drugs, abortion, and police yet under this system they could have multiple areas with various policies on these issues. Diversity would be embraced and protected under the law.

One objection might be, for example, as a libertarian-minded individual in Vermont, it might be a challenge to find a like-minded village. But do I need to stay in the state? If millions of people can cross the world to enter America illegally, legal movement within the country can be accomplished relatively easily. Thousands of libertarians associated with the free state project are already moving to New Hampshire, though they’re receiving far fewer benefits than my idea would offer. Further, the options becoming available as we created these new areas would be much better for a libertarian than the current situation. There are a few Republican counties within my very liberal state and one might even be described as conservative. Further, as one town or county formed its own polity, like-minded people would gravitate to it. Around 3,700 people in Vermont voted libertarian last presidential election. There could easily be a libertarian town in Vermont!

If I were to create my own realm within this rearranged America, it would look very similar to J.R.R. Tolkien’s Shire. We would rid ourselves of bureaucrats, politicians, lawyers, and legislation. A local lord would pass down the crown hereditarily. The lord must be someone who does not seek the position and so would essentially be “forced” into it, and honored for serving the people. He could never have been involved with politics, and never have held a place of power such as a boss, preferably having been a servant. Ideally, he would be someone who donates to nonprofits, and volunteers, or coaches a local sports team. The lord/king must also have numerous offspring to ensure a healthy and continued line. Ideally, he would be placed in power similarly to how Saint Martin became the bishop of Tours.^[1] The position would not be premeditated, sought after, or desired but a duty or service performed by someone sacrificing for his people.

Regarding its laws, my realm would be a form of libertarian Christendom. The laws governing everyone, including the lord of the realm, would be set in stone, like the Ten Commandments. Man – neither present nor future king or majority – could alter them. Like Christ,^[2] I would not force other areas to be like ours. Further, diversity would reign, and the families or local authorities would handle almost everything; one property might govern itself vastly differently from the next.

The laws would be very anarcho-monarchist since the moral culture would primarily govern people rather than laws. The vast majority of Christian governance would come from the families, not the government. People would not steal because they would respect others, putting others above themselves. They would not abort their children because they would view them as made in God’s image. They would rarely need lawyers or laws because people would honor their word; instead of months of paperwork and thousands of dollars, a handshake would settle private transactions. Those severely violating the customs could face expulsion or the death penalty.

It would not be a libertarian retreat for someone who does not want their society regulated by the basic tenets of Christianity. Thieves, rapists, and murderers would find this realm more oppressive than a democracy. We would outlaw abortion. No public support (thereby showing acceptance) of it would be allowed. This does not mean everyone must be Christian; or non-Christians would not be welcome, it just means society, laws, customs, and public displays would be Christian. Muslims would lack the same status and freedom because they would not have the same influence on society and laws as Christians. Thus, we also need areas where they can do the same as Christians in my realm, attain self-governance and have a realm guided by the Koran and Hadiths.

My disagreement with libertarians and, in part, the American Founders is their elevation of liberty above God. The founders allowed man’s natural sinful impulses to rule while dismissing the idea of a purposeful Christian nation. They undermined the foundation for liberty by not placing the King of Kings on the nation’s throne, thus ensuring eventual secular tyranny. I do not think everyone should have the liberty to do as they please. There is genuinely right and wrong; a realm should be based on this rather than personal beliefs and opinions. As the Apostle Paul said in Romans 3:4, “let God be true and every man a liar.”

No men, corporations, or businesses could become so powerful as to manipulate or control others. Preferably no one would be working for another as an hourly slave-wager (besides apprentices who could use other means of payment.) It would be a distributist society where the land and resources are initially distributed evenly to each member. Foresters might prefer the wooded land and utilize those resources; fishermen want access to a lake or river, farmers to open grazing land, and so on. None could consume another’s property, land, or resources, and no one could “buy out” another. They would all be responsible for their lands and developing their own plots of land and could not attain more; if the land is abandoned, a new owner (or a descendant of another plot of land perhaps) who wishes to join the realm applies for it, or perhaps, it could be shared land so long as every individual approved of its new purpose.

Everyone would have the resources available to provide for themselves and live completely self-sufficient, not needing welfare or money from working for another. This does not exclude hiring tradespeople, bartering, and so forth, or some form of a money economy (no paper money or at least all money must be backed by something like gold), but generally everyone can provide for themselves. Being completely self-sufficient is available to all.

A natural aristocracy would develop and some would become “better off” due to hard work, intelligence differences, chance etc., but it would be more of a cultural and religious aristocracy. In my society, there would be no government-controlled welfare; people would be free to work less and enjoy leisure, scrape by for a living, or work hard and garner more material things. But no coercive measures would force one to pay for another and cause division or dependence. If someone does fall into poverty or near starvation, they receive no help from the government. However, churches, families, and neighbors can judge the situation and help if they choose to do so. The hope is that charity would blossom, good deeds would proliferate, and love and a sense of community would flourish as people willingly helped their neighbor. Instead of anger, love would be cultivated. With people now freed from regulations and taxation, their money will not be filtered through the greedy hands of bureaucrats, politicians, and corporations. Thus, they could better afford charity for one another.

Moving beyond my preferred realm and at the head of this national system (my realm is just one tiny village or county) is a hereditary king, one born to the position, not one who would seek it. He received no extra power or money for any action he took, and the nobility could give no favors to any section of the country. He only rules within his own realm, which is the standard size of the thousands of mini kingdoms across the nation. He might be a true monarch within his realm or not, depending on the people’s desires, but his only real job at the national level would be to ensure one realm does not invade another and to protect/help fight off invasion. But even here, he would not be in command of all the armies across the country but only of his own little realm. The king would have his autonomous realm from which he derived his funds and soldiers. The king’s only policy with foreign nations would be to ensure free trade (though individual realms could impose tariffs within their spheres). No taxation across the nation would ever be imposed or could be; the king’s realm must be self-sufficient by taxation within his realm.

We would remove or sell all our military bases, foreign territory, military personnel, foreign aid etc., and bring them back home. We would avoid war at all costs and seek friendship with other nations. We would not go to war unless invaded on our own territory. We would not subjugate any nation we did go to war with, even after victory. At best, we would seek compensation for losses and put another foreign nation/ally in charge or, more desirable, the nation itself back in command. While we would desire to be friendly with all nations, we would avoid alliances forcing us into another war. At all costs, we would attempt to live peacefully.

Some realms within the country might have conscription, but nationally there would be none. It would be the king’s duty to muster men in his realm and lead them into war. He calls on the realms (as do the local lords, presidents, governors etc. of the other realms) for help. But it is up to each autonomous area to decide if they will send help. If they do not deem the invasion a threat or think the war unjust, they are under no obligation to help. It may be if we come under invasion, 50% of the realms conscript and send all the aid they can, 25% ignore the call for aid, and 25% send only willing volunteers and donations.

What about civil wars? If one autonomous area cannot subjugate another by voting, what is to prevent them from doing so by military invasion? This is where the only aspect of domestic centralization occurs. In my “national” system, the king’s realm and every autonomous area would have a force (if they chose), and the leaders of each realm would take an oath upon coming to their position never to invade another territory and to help defend other realms from invasion – if it was not contrary to their own local laws and ideals. So if one area invaded another, it would be the oath-bound duty of every one of the perhaps tens of thousands of realms to send help and fight off the invader. Further, the hope is due to the removal of politics; each section would have no reason to hate another and would also see strength in unity. By fighting for another realm, they are really protecting themselves because they are defending their right to be self-governed; if they were invaded, they would also want help. Hopefully, the blessing of attaining actual self-governance would be a motivator to comply. I imagine extensive volunteers coming forth, a few small but well-trained armies able to assist. Even if only 10% of realms responded, any attempted invader would be drastically outnumbered. It does not make expansion an enticing option.

To begin with, each realm would have agreed not to invade or impose on another, with a chance of losing their self-governance for a repeat offense. The care of their realm would go to the people they attempted to invade, perhaps permanently. But this “new” realm would be autonomous from the realm being invaded, to avoid building up power blocs.

One odd objection to restitution monarchy I have come across is some believe plagues and diseases would return as if they are connected to monarchy. Democracies and republics in the Middle Ages or ancient world did not magically invent modern technology and medicines, and modern monarchies do not outlaw hospitals and ensure poor sanitation practices. Further, the Black Death came in the later Middle Ages as we adopted Roman, republican and parliamentary systems. In America, under my system, (I would assume) most realms would be republics or democracies, so fear no plagues!!! Just as I do not desire to implement everything about medieval society, neither do I wish to remove everything about modern society; we can keep the good about both and trash the rest.

My thinking might seem outdated, but I am, in fact, far more progressive than progressives are. They seek only to change the existing structure into the old 19th-century tired white man’s ideas of socialism and communism. They slowly implement their plan over time. They are reactionary, as they want to bring America back in time to a more tame version of the totalitarian states of the previous century. I am revolutionary in seeking to “evolve” and “progress” past the hate- and division-causing politics. I wish to abolish the great evil of our time, the beast primarily arising from the Renaissance to the French Revolution. I want to abolish man’s idea he is above other men and God’s law—something we have struggled with since Genesis 3. I want to move us to a future devoid of our current evils and political structures. I am the opposite of a conservative; I wish to conserve nothing of what is evil; our entire system has become corrupt. I want to abolish democracy and legislative governments as the abolitionists in America were “progressive” in abolishing the evil of their day, slavery. Could my scenario possibly be implemented today? One thing we know by now is modern states do not relinquish power. They seek only to increase it. The only way my idea could happen would be to get a town or county to secede and begin their own realm. I do not pretend to think this could happen without the government unleashing its hammer on any serfs attempting to escape its hold – but just as almost everyone knows it would be taken as a dangerous, severely punishable offense, it also serves well to reveal the depths of our servitude to our modern governments; and it is all the more reason to try.

---

^[1] (Campbell 2021, 16)

^[2] Matthew 10:14