The One Reason I am a Monarchist

Put simply, I don't believe in the Rousseauesque idea that people are naturally good. In fact I believe in original sin. Rousseau makes a mistake in my view when he declares that people are naturally good. It doesn't follow that because, by and large, people seem to want to do good that they are being genuine, nor does it follow that their good intentions make for good results. Now I'm Canadian, so monarchism is not actually a controversial opinion; constitutional monarchy is our bog-standard political system. But I have an addition to make in this regard, because even in Canada, we learn in grade 10 history about the "great liberal achievements" of the American and French revolutions, as if that's really what the British parliamentary system draws on, God forbid in fact. But my earlier point about how I oppose Rousseau has special relevance here. You see, because I don't believe people are naturally good, I consider that I have reason to believe that the signatories of the Declaration of Independence in America, and the men who signed the Tennis Court Oath in France had some kind of reason for doing so other than an altruistic love of their fellow man.

Of course, we know in the case of America, the founding fathers' particular angle was all about taxes. Taxes which specifically inconvenienced the founding fathers, whose trade was largely sugar, cotton and coffee, all of course collected by slaves. Incidentally in Britain by the 1770's there was already a large and growing abolitionist cohort in parliament, and in the closing decade of the century the British Navy was blockading the African slave trade. It is certainly interesting given these factors, that the colonists decided that having a king, even a king largely constrained by parliament, was just morally unacceptable. It's almost like the founding fathers created the United States just to enforce their economic best interests, and applied a thin coat of liberal shellac. I suppose everything worked out though in the end, when those dirty Christian Republicans decided to actually implement liberalism in 1860. Then of course the same Democrats who had thought better of states' rights 80 years earlier decided to dredge it up again. Funny how that works, almost like the bourgeoisie that was responsible for the revolution think they own the place.

Now what about France and the Tennis Court Oath? Well, the political realities were slightly different, Louis XVI was an absolute monarch while the 3rd estate, those that signed the oath, were a combination of rich freeholders and nobility. Many were early industrialists and had large estates, but technically an absolute king has no restrictions on what he can take by force, or how he can tax. But the nobility especially had an axe to grind with the house of Bourbon, past kings, Louis IVX especially, had neutered them politically by forcing them to stay at his court often, under his watchful eye. Any of the nobles who could seem like great reformers by condescending to the population might be able to make off with a good bit of political leverage at least. And they nearly succeeded too, the king was virtually a prisoner in his palace, unfortunately they rather mismanaged the situation. The more unruly fanatical side of the National Assembly (who no doubt resented the nobles) took over, killed the king, and then started persecuting the nobles. A rather pathetic end to a misconceived power grab.

So when it comes to revolutions, even liberal ones, everyone is already a traitor to them from the very beginning. Really they don't improve anyone's life much unless you happen to be 'in' with the plotters, and they aren't designed to. Communists are just the ones who haven't gotten the memo on this point yet, for them I have the following reply from the bourgeoisie: