Can a libertarian be a monarchist?

I get criticized by multiple angles that a libertarian cannot possibly be a monarchist. Monarchism revolves around the principles of absolute rulership. A libertarian cannot be a monarchist since a libertarian believes in the principles of limited government and a monarchy is the most unlimited form of government that can ever be. Actually, the statement is clearly rubbish. Not only can a monarchy be quite limited, but in most cases it is severely limited. Realistically, federalism is the most definitive way to constrain governmental power. Lord Acton states, "federation has been the most efficacious and congenial" of all the checks on democracy. If anything, democracy has the tendency to turn into mob rule more often.

F.A. Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom makes it a point not to create a fetish out of democracy. "Nor must we forget that there has often been more cultural and spiritual freedom under an autocratic rule than under some democracies...The fashionable concentration on democracy as the main value threatened is not without danger. ... The false assurance which many people derive from this belief is an important cause of the general unawareness of the dangers which we face." (110-111) The problem is that the idea of limited government, in modern times, has been taken to mean a severely less-involved government than is typical in the life of the people. It thus, does not mean a government that is limited in authority but rather a government that simply opts not to get involved with every day affairs. That is a grossly misinformed point of view on the idea of limited government. Limited government is limited in authority. A limited government means a government that cannot swoop in and decide what marriage is. A limited government is what King Henry VIII had to deal with in his breakaway with the Church.

Philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe lays out the case for a monarchy even better. For a private government owner, he must rely on the population to increase his wealth. "He will not not exploit. But as government's private owner, it is in his interest to draw parasitically on a growing, increasingly productive and prosperous nongovernment economy" (Democracy: The God That Failed, 47). Further, private property is better respected and valued in a monarchy. "[A]ll government interference with private property rights reduces someone's supply of present goods" (49) but a democratic consensus resigns private property to be delivered into the hands of the government. With a monarch, we know taxation must happen in order to fund the monarch but the majority does not legitimate this as a non-violation of private property as occurs in a democracy.

Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn devastates the faulty associations of monarchy with authoritarianism and democracy with liberty. He pin-points that monarchies are not subject to partisan rule, he is a political and social head, not withdrawn from the people but apart, he is always educated for his profession both morally and spiritually, monarchs tend to be foreign mixed and they are hardly ever ethnically centered, they are interracial, uniting (Liberty or Equality, 150-155). "Since monarchy is 'rule from above' and thus does not have to exercise a horizontal pressure, it is by its nature more liberal than a democracy." (156) There exists a higher regard for freedom of thought in the universities than under a democracy since there exists no common framework of reference, a monarch is less exposed to bribery, far less inclined to lie, since he does not have to sway voters to keep him in power, he has to protect minorities since he himself is one, he can only be responsible to God alone and so he rules with fear, it is his interest to focus on the longterm benefits for his heirs and not himself, a monarch can plan for policies on a grand scale. (157-159). "The rank amateur, elected by the emotional masses, is less and less capable of facing the monumental issues of our day." (160) Having laid out all of this, Kuehnelt-Leddihn poiints out, "[o]nly in the Italian monarchy have we seen the rise of dictatorship on a party basis ... through...1922 until 1943, the Crown and the Party continued in a very uneasy partnership--the Crown actually remaining in a position of inferiority." (162)

I should not get too carried away. I am a monarchist. I believe it is a better form of government than democracy. Look at what has happened in many states which adopt democracy. We have developed into a point where the principles of democracy are so necessarily equated with freedom that if an election does not go the way we want it to go, we hypothesize and assert that the election was "rigged". Seriously? Is that the stupidity our fetish with democracy has led us to? Can we not admit that maybe a simpler explanation is not that an election was "rigged" but rather the emotions of the people was misguided and tends to be misguided on a very frequent basis? Monarchies do not guarantee a perfect system of government. Kuehnelt-Leddihn did not believe this and neither does Hoppe. Kuehnelt-Leddihn argued that since government is a necessary evil, monarchy is the best form of government. Hoppe argues that all government is evil and must be replaced by natural familial order. Of course, Kuehnelt-Leddihn might be more on the same line of thinking as Hoppe as he frequently characterizes monarchy as an organic system of government that reflects the nature of the family.

No form of government is perfect but libertarianism is not about the picking and choosing of a form of government. It is about the limitation of a government. It is about putting a check on the balance of power that a government holds. Is it more easy to put a check on a democratically elected government or is it more easy to put a check on an unelected single-ruling family? I would argue the latter. That is why I see no inconsistency with being a monarchist and a libertarian at the same time. Kuehnelt-Leddihn wouldn't have either.

Why I endorse Jo Jorgensen for President

For starters, let me say, I'm not anti-Trump and I'm not Never-Trump either. I have always had libertarian-conservative political views. I have sided with conservatives regularly. Republicans I side with regularly too. But I am not a Republican. I have never been a Republican. I supported Obama when he first ran in 2008. I didn't vote in 2012 even though that was the first Presidential election I was able to vote in. I voted Trump in 2016. That's not because I haven't been consistent in my political views. I have been quite consistent. The policies that both Trump and Obama ran on were anti-establishment, anti-war, and focused on a clean sweep of U.S. foreign policy that has been disastrous.

I have criticized Obama numerous times over the last four years and even prior. Why? Not because I am a racist at all. As previously mentioned, I supported him in 2008. Way over McCain. I don't see things in terms of skin color as most people do nowadays. I don't think Obama's being black makes him better at being a President nor do I think a white man does a better job. Bush was in many respects worse than Obama. Both Obama and Bush turned out to be bad presidents. I didn't vote against Hillary Clinton because I am some sort of evil and malignant sexist who thinks women should be barred from power. I have worked for many women in my life. Some were worse than others. Some should not have been in power. There are some men that are like that too. But we have had many queens and empresses throughout history that have shown competence and command over their countries. And I am now endorsing Jo Jorgensen for President in 2020.

I am endorsing Jo Jorgensen for President in 2020 not because I have abandoned a conservative vision but because I embrace fully a conservative vision. Libertarians are often criticized for their libertinism. Regretfully, the Libertarian Party has turned into quite the libertine party. But the solutions sought by conservatives have been gradually shifting toward the government enforcement of political policies. The government enforcement of marriage as a sacred manner between man and woman. The government enforcement against abortion. The government enforcement that religious and conservative opinions should be respected. Etc.

There is a problem. The more the government is inflated, the easier it is for a Democrat to wickedly alter the laws and use them against conservatives the moment the party control is flipped. And that is the problem with democracy and the lack of a permanent leadership. The only thing permanent in a democracy soon becomes the government itself. The only thing leftover becomes the government. Laws become more difficult to nullify. Executive orders get flipped and flopped as party powers change and as party politics shift. The conservative utopia vanishes with the government in power.

If you look at abortion, look first at Louisiana. They haven't outlawed it but they defund the industry. They have drained the industry of so much money that abortion is effectively non-existent in the state of Louisiana. If you want to end abortion, start drawing funds away from it. If you want to defend the sanctity of marriage, put the power back into the hands of the Church. Marriage privatization freaks out the LGBTQ crowd even more than such things as DOMA. Because they know if the Church won't sanctify their marriage, they cannot receive any form of benefits. The government has gotten us into useless wars, the government has expanded the corporate sphere by putting big bucks into its chosen winners such as Planned Parenthood, Walmart, Target, and Amazon. The government has ruined marriage by nullifying its sanctity. It's not up to the government to define such sacraments. The government has intruded upon the Church, crawled into bed with the mega-corporations, and has blissfully handed out money for welfare purposes ensuring that people stay dependent on it.

If the government is the problem, the solution cannot be more of it. Take the government out of education. Take it out of the Church. Take it out of foreign countries we don't belong in. Take the government out. This is the most important thing. Trump has done many objectively good things and should be commended for them. But we need to drain the power of the government for good. He has fed the beast. He has fed the spending power of the government. He has fueled the machine. I endorse Jo Jorgensen for President.
#JoJo2020 #JoJorgensen2020

Jonathan Safran Foer is the real oppressive one...

In the NY Times, Jonathan Safran Foer has written an opinion piece about how we must stop eating animals. That it is a duty. That it shows we actually "care" about the poor and racial justice. Of course, this opinion is dumb. It is deadly. It is even dangerous and it is being consumed as absolutely factual by many. This is an opinion. Like armpits, we all have them and they all stink.

Every time I see people talking about "synthetic meats", I wonder about the health risks of GMOs. Even the vegan "substitute meats" he talks about in his article often times contain walloping amounts of sodium that realistically nullify any protein supplement. I am not saying that one cannot have a healthy vegan diet but that does not consist of eating nothing but tofu. The Church indeed abstains from meat quite regularly throughout its calendar year. Not to say that meat is bad but to reinforce the fact that meat is good.

Actually, the position that Foer takes is also heretical to church teaching. Genesis 9:3 decrees "[e]very moving thing that lives shall be food for you" and St. Paul warns "that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, ... and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth" (1 Tim. 4:1-3). The ideology that giving up the eating of animals is some sort of racial justice or act of charity is clearly nullified and rejected by established church teaching. Since those who dwell in the church, dwell in truth, it cannot be said that the church is neglecting charity or justice by refusing to give up the consumption of animals.

Even more concerning is that like most people I have asked about health concerns, Foer seems to have a lack of knowledge of people's overall health options. If someone has allergies to a severe degree or must count their carbohydrates wisely, an entirely plant-based diet is not a viable option for them. My godmother is one person who cannot have a high intake of carbohydrates. There are certain plants that she can consume. She will bake with coconut flour. She can have olives since they have a high fat content. But for the most part, the only foods she is capable of consuming without severe detriment to her own health are meats and cheeses. Jonathan Safran Foer would rather witness her deterioration and possible death and claim that it is an act of care for the poor and racial justice not to let her suffer. This is why my reaction to his article is quite personal since the first time I ever really noticed divine love before was when she looked at me the week before I was received into the church.

Is it really racial justice to let people whose health conditions require them to receive a greater intake of fats and proteins die? Is that what caring for the poor looks like too? The modern left is really messed up. Foer's article shows just how far the modern leftists are willing to go to not only kill off as many people as they can but also mask it as an act of charity and justice. They know the left-hand path leads to their eternal damnation. They want more people damned with them. By masking evil as charity and justice, they lead others away from the right-hand path. But it is Foer who is the immoral one. A deceiver and a con-artist.

Couldn't get into the parish

Story from February 1, 2020

Certainly an exorcism?

Saturday afternoon, I was experiencing deep despondency. I had napped and then done nothing all afternoon. I even texted a friend of mine that I didn't want to come to Vespers that evening. I was giving up on Church all together, in fact. He texted me back offering me a ride. So I was able to put on a business shirt and slacks and then he came by and picked me up.

We arrived a little bit late that day. Normally, when I go, I get there about an hour before Vespers start. I live about 45 minutes away from the parish and I have strong anxiety issues so I always leave my house much earlier. I'm paranoid about traffic. We were only 10 minutes late though. He went through the doors of the parish into the narthex and then into the parish hall. He was making the Agape meal that night. I went up to the parish door, opened it, and then something held me back from entering into the parish.

One of the deacons was inside the narthex holding his smallest child. My godmother was also in the narthex with her two smallest children. The deacon came out and greeted me. He extended his hand toward me. Offered me to come inside. I couldn't get in. "It's a little warmer inside, how about you come in?" he said to me. It was also raining. I still couldn't get into the parish. He told me he'd go find someone else to stay there with me since he was still holding his littlest in his arms.

My godmother was the second person to come out to me. She told me she'd been praying for me all week. She told me she prayed for me that morning too. She asked if she could give me a hug. She did. I let her. I walked toward the icon of St. Elias on the wall of the wheel-chair ramp. She then also invited me into the parish. I still could not get in. There was something preventing me from getting in.

That was when the deaconess, the wife of the previously aforementioned deacon, walked out. She stood there outside. Quiet. She seemed to not be doing anything. That was when I started walking away from the parish all together. I went out across the parking lot to the edge of the property line. I looked back for the deaconess. She had moved back into the narthex. I wondered if she would care if I walked out of sight. But that was when another force drew me back toward the parish.

I walked back across the parking lot, unbuttoned my shirt and arrived back at the door. The deaconess flung open the door. "Welcome Lord Jesus!" she said to me.

"You must have me confused with someone else," I replied when it registered that she had said this to me. I couldn't have looked that great with my undershirt showing through the "v" shape the collar of my polo was now leaving and the rain-dampened clothes.

She started praying at that point. She had been doing that the entire time. "Lord Jesus, may your servant be given the ability to see you in the flesh if he needs to..." and finally ended her prayers with "Be gone Satan!"

At the end of these prayers, I collapsed onto the floor of the narthex. I had finally made into the parish which I had been prevented from getting into. She had lifted what was oppressing me, the thing that was preventing me from getting into the parish. With my hands and knees on the floor, she said "Get up and walk!" and she and my friend helped lift me to my feet and brought me into the nave. This was certainly not quite like the healing of the paralytic, eventually I had to be sat down on a chair in the narthex. But soon afterwards, I was walking about. Just barely, and faintly, but nothing was preventing me from getting into the parish. I was even able to go to reconciliation after Vespers.

I have no doubt that whatever it was I witnessed and experienced that night, the hand of God was moving. I have no doubt that what I witnessed from the doors of the parish was the Gospel and the Kingdom of God on Earth. My friend spoke of the prayers of the deaconess that he would have done anything she told him to do after that. The deaconess and I were talking about what happened in the parish hall during the Agape meal. She was making certain that I was drinking water. I recalled the following scriptures:

"Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” (Matt. 25:34-40)

My journey to the church...

That lady the other day was mentioning how perhaps reflecting on how I came into the church would help to restore my faith. The problem is that my journey to the church has been a spiritual struggle in and of itself. When I look at it, there are moments of pain, trials of seeing the brutal hypocrisy right in my face, lies that I've received and had been told, and a lot of legalistic rubbish I've had to deal with.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic forced us out of our parish, the protodeacon had been giving a series of weekly lectures on Lent and how it was used as a preparation for catechumens to be brought into the church through baptism. We have a catechumanate at our parish. There are many places that have a catechumenate. The problem is, I was set up with a faulty situation at a Ukrainian Catholic parish for a while. The catechist who was appointed for me didn't teach me very well. He didn't know what to teach me, he didn't know what I needed to learn, he didn't know what I needed to be taught. I came to the church knowing what it was about already. I had been an Anglo-Catholic prior. I had learned from Ruthenian Catholics. I had become a strong ally with Traditionalist Catholics. So the catechist that was appointed to me was rather poor.

And then the priest was rather stubborn about my conversion process. In fact, had I not submitted to the Melkites, I probably wouldn't be a Catholic right now. Every time the catechist had wondered why I was not received into the church yet, the priest came up with some sort of legalistic excuse for why I could not be received. One day, he even declared the he had decided I could convert. That should have been the tip-off that this priest was not interested.

It took me a while to actualize what was going on. When Crazy Church Lady started declaring me to be her godson, I first shrugged my shoulders and said to myself, I guess that's the case. I didn't even realize my relationship with her was a spiritual one. The catechist at the Ukrainian parish wasn't my catechist indeed. She had assumed that role without my even realizing it. She assumed that role the first time we conversed. That was a conversation about my entire religious upbringing as a non-denominational in a mega-church with loud music blasting constantly and always hating the loud music. It was overwhelming for me. All the way through to my attending the Anglican mission back in Arizona when I first encountered God as the man handed me the 1928 BCP.

I had come there after a fallout with an overly ambitious Ruthenian Greek Catholic priest. He was more anti-Protestant than Catholic. I had also ended up in an area of the blogosphere run by a sincerely devout Anglo-Catholic lady at the time. She is no longer devout, I fear. But her influence led me to consider High Anglicanism. It was at this Anglican mission that I first encountered God. I inquired a bit, asked their archdeacon some questions, then I would meet their rector. I had always been told Christianity was an encounter with God. I never met someone who had actually believed it. I was getting exhausted with the hypocrisy and all the catechetical classes but their rector asked me one day why I wasn't receiving the Eucharist. I told him I hadn't been baptized. That was it. The next thing he wanted to do was baptize me. The Ruthenians would have done it but the fallout with the priest was still strong. I maintained relations with their deacon who I consider still to be my spiritual director. The anti-Protestant mentality was very steeped at that parish though but the deacon there knew a lot better and was leading that pastor away from the anti-Protestant mentality he had developed from his own fundamentalist upbringing.

Coming into the Catholic Church, for me, was a matter of ups, downs, and turn-offs. So much information it seems that people and catechists wanted to torture you with. "Isn't it just Christianity?" is something I found myself asking a lot. I feel that there's an Eastern rite mentality that because there's so much steeped into American and Western European society about Western rite Christianity that the Eastern rites are somehow some sort of highly advanced mystical form of Christianity. But then why do they insist that their version of Christianity is an encounter with God any way? And it's not like I didn't have past experience. I've read much Orthodox literature. Much Catholic mysticism. I've read enough to know that it's a highly advanced special Christianity. It's just Christianity, not much different than the Tridentine faith. A purer form of liturgical worship though as the East is known to resist change much stronger than the West.

It was blatant hypocrisy. Dump the information on me but insist that the religion is an encounter with God. Where exactly was the encounter? I was starving for that encounter. Waiting for that encounter to come. And all I got nailed with was more information. This isn't an encounter. I was ready to leave. If it wasn't for Crazy Church Lady giving me her entire family, I would have left entirely. The thing I needed to learn still was God is Love. But when you've never seen love displayed, it's hard to learn that. My "catechist" never could get that because he was steeped into the intellectual side of things. But my catechist, Crazy Church Lady, not only knew that but knew how to teach me it. Not with words either because they get in the way. And the Archimandrite, upon hearing my story from the deacon, wanted to receive me into the church immediately. But Crazy Church Lady and her husband had just gone to pick up their oldest from work. So I told him to wait on this for them. My chrismation wasn't a very public event. I can't even remember everyone present. I know one of the deacons was there, I remember seeing another subdeacon, I can't remember who else.

And yet for some reason, the Ukrainian priest refused to commune me. Even though my Melkite parish let me go there for divine liturgy, the Ukrainian priest had revealed himself as becoming quite stubborn with my conversion. I haven't gone back there yet. I was going to this summer but the COVID-19 pandemic might mean it will have to wait for the idiotic lockdowns to be lifted. I had successfully made a complaint about the Ukrainian priest who has been made aware that as a Melkite, I can attend his parish, participate in the liturgy at his parish, and receive sacraments at his parish. But since the Melkite parish is my home parish now, I think I'll stay there for a while.

And so my journey to the faith has seen egregious hypocrisy. I have been withheld from practicing a religion I believe and I have been shackled down by legalistic chains. I have also witnessed good men in the church who broke down these legalistic chains. Because I've witnessed both sides, it is difficult for me to conclude whether reflecting on my journey to the church is helpful or would simply lead to more temptations. I'll leave it to more temptations. But that also means that I have an incredible task ahead. I must forgive those who have harmed me. Those who have barred me and prohibited me. I can do that.

I tried to run away...

I tried to run away from God. I tried to call it quits with my faith. Very recently. I reached rock bottom. I didn't know what to do. The situation with COVID-19 has become difficult to handle. It feels as if I've been shut out of my church. My home. It doesn't help that my family does not believe either. It's always great to see extended family but when your aunt comes to visit and she has a Buddha sticker slapped onto her laptop computer that lies around in the living room, well, yeah.

And so I tried to turn back to demons. It felt as if people had given up on me. But they didn't. I asked Crazy Church Lady to pray extra for me last week because I knew I was falling. I had hurled obscenities at different men at the parish. Some, I was able to be more rational with. One who I found is also struggling with the same things I am going through right now. I talked with his ex-girlfriend's sister for a little while too. She was able to strongly talk me away from it. She is canonically Latin rite, her husband is Melkite. So she told me how Eucharistic adoration helps her. I have been to one Eucharistic adoration service. Ironically, it was at an Orthodox parish. I believe the parish was using the rite of St. Tikhon's. The only Orthodox parish I've attended services at happens to have been a Western rite Orthodox parish. The talk with the former was even more productive because what I found is that he is having similar struggles. He asked me to pray for him. He's a dear friend of mine. I still have the holy water he gave me from over a year ago.

After talking with them, I realized what a mistake it was I had been making. Despite blaspheming God in this madness and trying to run toward demons instead, somehow I did not forget to pray. I knew what I was going through was a lot of mental baggage. I had to wrest it off somehow but I am simply powerless on my own. I've been trying to get a psychologist but the intake process coupled with the lockdowns means that this is going to take a lot longer than these things normally would. At my wit's end, I was considering the possibility that I might need an exorcism.

Well I knew at that point what my spiritual director would say (well, I consider the Ruthenian deacon I met years ago my spiritual director, any who). He would say, "You don't need an exorcism. Exorcism is only a sacramental. You need a sacrament because a sacrament would fill you with the Holy Spirit and no demons can dwell when they are exposed to the Holy Spirit." I felt as if I had fallen away from the Church entirely on Sunday evening. But I knew what I had to do to reunite myself to the body. It was simple. I honestly was prepared for a "not at this time" response when I asked for it. But I sent an e-mail to my priest to schedule a confession appointment and I also requested a sick anointing. He got back to me later that night and I responded on my break at work that noon would be the best time.

I woke up, drove to the parish at noon, and he greeted me when I got to the parking lot. He's done this previously but I've been very hesitant since as a retail employee, I don't know if I'm more exposed or not. Since I'm overnight, I'm not as exposed as I was as a cashier. But he invited me into the parish. And he strongly insisted this time arguing that it would help. He knew what I was going through. He had asked if I had been taking my medications too.

As he went to the sacristy to get his epatrichelion, I slowly walked into the nave to where the icon made without hands was. It wasn't there! I began to cry. I asked him where the icon was. He went back into the sacristy and brought it out. As I looked at it, I became calm in spirit. I confessed everything that I had done since my last confession which was less than a week before. My emotional and spiritual collapse. How I tried to run from God, how I turned to demons and hurled obscenities at many different people, how I blasphemed and nearly apostasized. At that point, instead of the normal absolution, he read from a prayer book he was holding. He read the prayers from the rite of the anointing of the sick. And then, from out of no where, I felt the touch of a brush on my forehead, and on my cheeks, and on my hands. I had had my eyes closed while he held the book over my head so I didn't even realized what had happened.

He asked me if I knew the story of the icon made without hands. And he told me the story of how King Abgar V corresponded with Jesus and asked to be healed of his leprosy. He asked for a visit but Jesus delayed and said that after his ascension his entire kingdom would be healed. The image came with one of the letters. Thaddeus of Edessa then came into the city and healed the king through the words of Jesus. I said to him, "There is a reason I wanted to see that icon."