To my Compatriots and Brothers,
It is my concern, upon looking at the prevailing attitudes within the monarchist community, that we have become too friendly towards the ideas of libertarians. Whilst this cordial attitude is most common amongst the democratic constitutionalists, I nevertheless find it equally important to warn the semi-constitutionalists and absolutists as it is to attempt to correct the tendencies of the constitutionalists. What we face is a growing ease within us towards the ideas of unfettered capitalism and the Libertarians as a whole.
Now, it is imperative that I define how I use “unfettered capitalism.” As I use it, it is a form of capitalism, largely informed by, but moreso a radical extension of, Austrian economics, wherein the market is to be left entirely to its own volitions in the belief that the removal of government interference in all forms will ultimately lead to the prosperity of society and the elimination of bad practices through competition alone. This form of capitalism is close enough to libertarian ideology, and especially libertarian policy, to warrant the conflation of the both into the term “Libertarian Economics.” Dispute me on these terms if you will, but that is how I shall use them from hereon in. It is important to note the effect unfettered capitalism has on a society: moral decay.
Now, many of you may be asking, why is this? What on God’s Earth are you talking about? It is, in reality, a fairly natural evolution of the free market. What is the goal of a business? To deliver a profit. Businesses are not inherently moral, nor do they act so particularly often. And so, I set up another proposition: what the market desires is what is delivered. Its common extension, that if something is banned, it will simply go underground, is a regular argument from libertarians and leftists for the legalisation of various moral vices. Following this extension, if the market desires a certain service or good, then the market will provide. Thereby, if the market wishes to improve its profit margin, it will attempt to broaden its market, ie. The populace. The best way to do this is to encourage these vices to the populace. The populace, not in the slightest concerned with the long-term, will accept this encroachment of moral vices as simply another thing to “enjoy” in life, despite whatever consequences its use will have. And with that, the morals of a society shift to correspond with what the market desires. Over time, this leads to a steady rejection of moral frameworks, most notably religion, within the populace, who now see these moral frameworks as oppressive and simply “robbing them of their fun.” This accelerates moral decay, encourages moral subjectivism and the slow erosion of a society’s values. And to those who simply refer to the previously stated argument, just because the market desires something does not make it desirable. One would not legalise the most horrible of crimes simply because “someone was going to do it anyway.” It is a morally bankrupt position and one which cares not for society, but simple hedonistic pursuit.
How then, is it stable or sensible in any way for a socially conservative and politically authoritarian
system to ally with an ideology which is liberal in all forms: socially, economically and politically? Now, I
will admit, I am effectively calling for ideological purity, despite normally being opposed to such; the
purity spiral is perilous indeed. But this is not a normal political alliance. It is inherently threatening to any
order we seek to establish. Therefore, if we seek to establish ourselves as our own movement, it is
necessary to distance ourselves from the very people who seek to destroy movements such as ours in the
long term.
Following this, I have, across many conversations, seen the infestation of libertarianism into the
monarchist zeitgeist. Many of us used to be libertarians, so this is not particularly surprising, but it is
nonetheless dangerous and would undermine any system we seek to put into place. As such, it is my belief
that our approach to economics be refocused into a different model, my view being of a mixed distributist/mild-Austrian approach, rather than our tendency to barrel straight into Libertarian
Economics. Providing the traditional backbone of society with extra power only serves to further our goals
in the long-term, and the natural metropolitan focus of libertarianism would only take power away from us
in the long term, and removing such influences will only be harder the longer we wait. Better to strike early
in a movement’s rebirth than to let our chaos fester. A general ideological orthodoxy is needed to sustain
any movement, and it would be best for monarchism to not let libertarianism to take root in it.
But now, some of you may argue for an alliance with these libertarians, considering our common
hatred of Marxism, but this alliance could be at most a temporary one. Yes, it would be apt in the short
term to make this alliance in the short-term, and I’d even argue for such a short-term solution. But know,
all of you, that these libertarians are not our brothers-in-arms but the very same beast that has dethroned
monarchs since the dawn of their ideology. An alliance with them would be as long-term as that of the
Allies and the Commintern, one of mutual distaste for a third-party. But once that third-party has been
made irrelevant, expect them to turn on us. If it is to be our day some time from now, then it is imperative
that the malevolent ideology among us be denied the vanguard and any forefront support.
Sincerely,
The Albionic Monarchist.
No comments:
Post a Comment