3 votes

I'm writing a novel: How do you peacefully transform a monarchy into a minarchy?

I'm writing a novel. In the background is a King who, after encountering libertarian literature (in the vein of Ron Paul!), decides that he wants to dissolve the monarchy and establish a system more favourable to liberty--a minarchy. He wants to do this within the next 10 years without inciting an uprising.

The King knows that he can't change everything overnight. He encounters resistance from statists and collectivists who wish to overthrow the King and install his very own son, the Crown Prince, as Monarch or Dictator or "Führer". On the other hand, he has his own share of supporters, including working- and middle-class citizens, and powerful but liberty-minded ministers and advisors.

He also intends to trial the minarchy in selected parts of each royal state. At some point during the 10 years (probably at the 7-year mark), my novel's protagonist is called to protect these trialed places from sabotage.

How will he transform the monarchy into a minarchy?

Ask me anything you want about this imaginary world of mine.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The law is required reading

Deuteronomy 17:18And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD[YHUH] his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

Later, king Solomon delivers a key insight to that law book with the non-aggression principle.

"Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee.
Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm." Proverbs 3:29-30

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

It really depends

on what laws already exist. For instance in the dark ages in europe the king owned all the land, a move toward liberty would be to allow people to own their land without fear of loosing it, like the king would give land to someone but the next king could take away the land and give it to someone he liked better.
You should also read one of cromwells biographies heres a free one http://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Cromwell-John-Drinkwater-ebook/...
I think cromwell tried to make england more free but the people were not ready and it took another hundred and so years before america came about. It cant just be the king getting insight it must be the people too.

Sounds interesting!

I'm a writer as well. I write mostly dystopian fiction.

Happy writing!

“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
― Albert Camus

Dystopian fiction, huh?

Are you one of Obama's speechwriters?

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Reminds me of King Mosiah

The Book of Mormon tells about a king who did that (or, at least something very much like it). https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29?lang=eng

Background: Mosiah's father was a righteous king who didn't tax the people, but taught right from wrong, had basic laws (thieves, murderers, adulterers, liars punished, but people free to believe as they saw fit, etc), and Mosiah followed in his father's footsteps. So the people were prepared with some degree of freedom and their basic rights protected already. They were living an near minarchy already, even with a king. In the chapter I have posted here, Mosiah explains to the people what happens when evil kings gain power, and proposes an alternative form of government: judges established by the people.

Form a liberty-loving standpoint, I find the entire Book of Mosiah fascinating. It can give you some ideas for your story, at least.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

most writers

are cautious about talking about the novel they are working on, and usually will only discuss it once completed. the idea is that it will take away some of the steam. but, everybody is different. good luck with it. look forward to seeing the book once it's published (the hardest part).

Just for fun

Consider Hans Herman Hoppe's argument that Monarchy would preserve individual liberty better than a democracy.

In brief, a monarch who regards his country as his personal property in perpetuity will do his best to ensure its long-term prosperity -- unlike politicians in a democracy who pander to the grab-whatever-you-can-get mentality of idiot voters.

Quoth Hoppe:

“[T]o preserve or even enhance the value of his personal property, he [the king] would systematically restrain himself in his taxing policies, for the lower the degree of taxation, the more productive the subject population will be, and the more productive the population, the higher the value of the ruler’s parasitic monopoly of expropriation will be"

In a democracy, on the other hand:

"A democratic ruler can use the government apparatus to his personal advantage, but he does not own it . . . [h]e owns the current use of government resources, but not their capital value. In distinct contrast to a king, a president will want to maximize not total government wealth (capital values and current income), but current income (regardless and at the expense of capital values)”

It's a fun argument, and might be the foundation for a fun novel (imagine a king who actually thought that way) . . . but it's flawed. People who want to be kings aren't after money. They're after power. They aren't "stewards." They're psychopaths who want to be in control of others; they don't see individual freedom as a key to prosperity. They see it as a challenge and a threat to their control.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Nice find

I'm impressed by Hoppe's argument (discussed by David Gordon).

To correct you, my novel King does not WANT to be king: he wants to be a free man living in liberty. He'd inherited the throne with reluctance, and he has a suspicion that his own heir may not be a suitable ruler for the throne. He also does not want to transition to a democracy ("tyranny of the majority", plus Hoppe's argument).

This is why I chose the word "minarchy" rather than "democracy". However, I'm trying to figure out what a minarchy looks like, and how to get there from a monarchy.

I believe in the freedom to be what we choose to be.

What a minarchy looks like

The best portrayal of a minarchy I've ever seen -- and I read a LOT -- has to be Beth Cody's Looking Backward: 2162-2012 A View from a Future Libertarian Republic It's a novel with a lot of political dialogue, very well written, despite the characters being more archetypical than realistic. Read it on Kindle for 99 cents.

Two other novels on nation-building that might interest you are Robert Lukens' The Place To Stand (an anarchist billionaire buys himself half of Madagascar) and Thomas Perry's Island (a con man builds his own country . . . and lots of interesting things happen; not extremely libertarian, but thought-provoking and a LOT of fun.)

And for some pertinent thoughts on what a moral, freedom-minded person would do in a position of power, NOBODY does it better than Larken Rose, in The Iron Web.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...