I will say that this is probably the best and more careful argument I’ve seen Mr. Wright write about his point of view on authority. And some of it seems to be a fair attempt to argue the superiority of a republic over a monarchy – whether it is successful or not this is a perfectly fine and reasonable debate to have.
But I still have some issues with it.
Note: Spacing is going to be weird because I copied much of this from somewhere else and I don’t find it important enough to bother to fix things.
The submission to an elected representative, or winning an election, is not the same as being born in service or born into leadership. One is by birth, hence unrelated to merit; the other is based on the ability to persuade voters to vote for you.
This is quite simply untrue. Let us say I vote for a different representative, or did not vote at all, as a form of protest. I am not thus exempt from submitting to the elected representative, nor was I allowed to pick the government I was born under; I was simply born there.
Mr. Wright seems to think that everyone who disagrees with him is actually a monarchist. I am not a monarchist. Even if I did think monarchy was probably the best form of government – I don’t know this is the case – I still would not have any particular desire to be above or below Mr. Wright.
Another form of the argument is to point out that it is self evident that all men are created equal, and therefore the form of government rests on their consent, or else it is unjust. Where men are equal, the process of changing the form of government can be accomplished peacefully; whereas those who profit from an unequal form rarely if ever surrender power peacefully.
This argument is pertinent only when dealing with brave, free and honest men, who are too proud to bow to any mere mortal as king. The studied policy of the Left for several generations has been to eliminate as far as possible those things which encourage bravery, freedom, and honesty from our lives.
The public school system teaches conformity, non-competition and girlishness to drive out bravery; the popular entertainments preach and the welfare state pays money to encourage selfishness and self-indulgence to drive out freedom; and the news preaches political correctness to drive out honesty.
A people who are craven, slavish, and dishonest not only yearn for superiors to rule them, they require it.
Both of these arguments are conditional, and depend on the habits and the character of the people, to make the correct assessment as to where the greater danger rests.…
Likewise, most nations for most of history consist of a ruling class peopled with the descendants of conquerors. Maintaining their hold over the conquered requires a class division. The abolition of civil rights among the conquered, in order to prevent their arming themselves, speaking of uprising, or gathering in assemblies, is needed to police their discontent and prevent mutiny. Such states, however, do prevent anarchy. The overthrow of such states is not a matter to be undertaken for light or transient reasons.
Hence, even when among a slavish and undisciplined people whose disorders demand a despot’s iron scepter to crush their excesses, the natural rights of one and all are equal, and the legal inequalities are still a moral evil, excused by the necessity of keeping the public order.
So all men are created equal…but not Americans. Americans, you see, are good and noble enough to shun kings. It’s only the inferior folk – one might, in fact, say those who are unequal to us – who need a boot on their throat.
And I guess he is a utilitarian, since he says point blank that moral evil can be “excused” for a greater good. Since he has been very clear this whole time that moral evil is directly related to political authority, I guess he believes the ends justify the means.
…Or he doesn’t mean that. In which case, what exactly is he saying? Is monarchy ever a good idea? Or is it is never a good idea? And if it is a good idea, what on earth would make you think that a country that within a mere 200 years legally sanctioned by the sword the murder of the unborn in numbers that make a mockery of the Holocaust is in any way fit to be kings of themselves?
In the final desperation of a man whose arguments are not being heard, I resort to a simple and clear challenge:
Do those who yearn for inequality wish to be placed in the political order above me, to give me orders from an unearned position of authority; or do they wish to be placed below me, to take orders in an undeserved posture of submission?
Certainly I do not think any man is under me or over me in terms of human dignity. In terms of political authority? I’d imagine we should probably be on the same plane…though if he WERE my king, unlike him, I would indeed tip my cap.
If you’re wondering why I’m saying this here and not there, I did try and discuss it with him, several months ago. He insulted me viciously, cruelly, and repeatedly while I tried to be as polite as possible. He then apologized. I accepted. But I’ve learned that I simply cannot discuss the subject with him, in any case.
I say that if it is the second, claiming to be below me, then as the superior, I here and now order and command silence on this point. As an inferior in political rank, political matters are beyond your ken. Without any showing of merit on my part, or any reason given, I am allowed to silence all further argument: you are by birth born obligated to obey me. So shut up.
I believe one respondent argued that this proposal was unfair, because a highborn man should be highminded enough to listen to wisdom from any source, even from a slave.
My answer is that this is quite the democratic sentiment coming from a monarchist: but the judgment as to when and where to listen rests with he who has the right to speak, and not with he who lacks that right.
A general can debate a private if he wishes, but the private cannot debate a general without his superior’s leave. (And even so, the general is not allowed to hold such a debate if and when it risks detracting from unit discipline, by encouraging familiarity, fraternization, or insolence.)
And finally – what makes him think that our country’s political leaders in any way need to listen to the writings of anybody they consider “beneath” them? Last I checked the President picked a personal council of advisers to carefully filter what advice they did or did not get. How is that different than any king deciding which advice he does or does not hear? Even Alexander the Great respected Diogenes.
A large portion of this is a very well-argued and rational argument for the superiority of republics over monarchies. Okay. I have no problem with that. And then he veers off into stuff that I find completely bizarre.