Monarchy and the micronations
Harold D. Thomas
The article posted in this newsgroup yesterday about monarchy reflects
the usual American bias toward the republican form of government. The
writer needs to think more about comparative government and human
nature.
First, monarchy is much older than the fifteenth century. And it is also
more current. At its best, it can be a stabilizing influence on
countries that would suffer from political chaos. Today's Spain and
Thailand are excellent examples of this. The king can be a powerful
moral influence, as was recently evidenced in Belgium during civil
unrest over that country's justice system. Finally, at its best,
monarchy can work to defend the liberties of the people by separating
the power of the state (resting in the Prime Minister) from the glory --
an advantage the United States does not have and could use right now.
Monarchies are not necessarily hereditary. Eighteenth-century Poland and
the Holy See are examples of elective monarchy, where the King or Pope
are elected by what we might call an electoral college.
If the King of Talossa is sincere in desire not to produce an heir, that
country might well evolve along those lines. I am not closely familiar
with the politics of Porto Claro, but the little I have read on the
subject suggests that its King functions much like that of Belgium or
Spain, with the popularly-elected government dominating.
As a Christian, I am a little hesitant to participate in the politics of
micronations because I am called to live in the "real" world. I suggest,
however, that micronations perform a useful function for "macronations"
-- providing an opportunity to experiment with new and radical forms of
government in a world that appears to be increasingly centralized, with
less and less room for experimentation.
Since Americans love disclaimers, I'll add mine: I claim no citizenship
except that of the United States, but as the King (later President
following a revolution) of Lafayette from 1960 until its cession of
sovereignty to the United States in 1962, I understand the problems of
micronations in an often hostile world. Best wishes to LOSS (or whatever
it is renamed). May its members live long and prosper.
gilb...@ix.netcom.com
Harold D. Thomas wrote:
>
> The article posted in this newsgroup yesterday about monarchy reflects
> the usual American bias toward the republican form of government. The
> writer needs to think more about comparative government and human
> nature.
>
takes the long term view, and you are lucky enough to get a talented
leader, the result can be much nicer than America's fixation on the next
election. However, if the ruler is a fool, or inept, monarchies suck.
I like the idea of having SOME kind of "meritocracy" and the example of
the Pope being elected (but serving for life) isn't too bad. Another
example that comes to mind is Rome with the seven Caesar's. Each ruler
picked his successor from the best Rome had to offer, and ADOPTED the
guy. This gave Rome six or seven good leaders in a row. I think it
fell apart when someone left the empire to their actual son (who wasn't
so good).
Another possibility that beats straight heredity, buts still uses a
"noble" sort of class structure is out of Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond
Age". In that SF book, the world really is a bunch of micronations
(Corporate franchises) and the rulers are the "Equity Lords" (stock
holders). Of course, you get to be an equity lord by doing something
really good for the firm, such as inventing a new product (or
whatever). As long as merit is rewarded more than heredity, I think a
society or micronation has a good chance of thriving.
John
Daniel Aguiar
>Monarchies are not necessarily hereditary. Eighteenth-century Poland and
>the Holy See are examples of elective monarchy, where the King or Pope
>are elected by what we might call an electoral college.
>If the King of Talossa is sincere in desire not to produce an heir, that
>country might well evolve along those lines. I am not closely familiar
>with the politics of Porto Claro, but the little I have read on the
>subject suggests that its King functions much like that of Belgium or
>Spain, with the popularly-elected government dominating.
The Portoclarian Monarchy, stablished in 1900, is a parliamentary
system, democratic and pluripartist, where the Monarch (usually
a King) has effective power in some ways. But, the final decision
in in the hands of the parliament, called Senado, ellected by all
the people (including children).
Power in Porto Claro is well divided. There's currently the King,
who rules beside the Prime Minister; the Prime Minister, who
works as a "first mate", approving the senators' laws and
sanctioning the King's decrees; the Senado, composed by 50
senators, elected yearly by the people, who proposes and votes
law-projects; the Cabinet, named by the Prime Minister, who
assists the Senators in specific problems and manage their
business within their area with his approval; the President of
Senado, who defines priority and has control over the projects
which will be voted and the Governors of the Districts, who
have local power over local business. They're named by the
King to a 3 years office.
NOTE: the Capital (National District) is the only which elects
its administrator, called Mayor.
>As a Christian, I am a little hesitant to participate in the politics of
>micronations because I am called to live in the "real" world. I suggest,
>however, that micronations perform a useful function for "macronations"
>-- providing an opportunity to experiment with new and radical forms of
>government in a world that appears to be increasingly centralized, with
>less and less room for experimentation.
I don't see why you can't join any micronations only because you're
christian. To live in a micronation is not to abandon God's kingdom.
If you want, the Kingdom of Porto Claro is with open doors for you.
(take a look at our page)
>Since Americans love disclaimers, I'll add mine: I claim no citizenship
>except that of the United States, but as the King (later President
>following a revolution) of Lafayette from 1960 until its cession of
>sovereignty to the United States in 1962, I understand the problems of
>micronations in an often hostile world. Best wishes to LOSS (or whatever
>it is renamed). May its members live long and prosper.
Thank you, Dr. Spock :-)
Daniel Aguiar, Portoclarian Chancellor,
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/2912/pcindex.html