Neo-Monarchy: A Blueprint for Liberty

As the modern West is slowly and grindingly beginning an Imperial Transition from Republic, now is a good time to concern ourselves with how best to build a Monarchy

This is a follow-up to my previous work “A Reasoned Case for Monarchy.” How can one make a monarchy to maximize individual liberty and success? This is a broad-strokes paintbrush proposal. Food for thought as they would say.

For this experiment, we resume that Western Powers see an advantage in returning to a radically traditionalist method of governance: A monarch and nobility. Let’s place it in the United States and see if a King can govern as well as bureaucratic managerialists.

Many have discussed Chivalry and Heroism and a reversion to those ideas. Ideas culturally inherent in monarchic systems of governance; they’re built in.

Individuals like

Chivalry Guild

and

Bronze Age Pervert

have expressed a desire for alternative governance. The following is more of a technical document on how to apply and construct an idealized political system capable of governing wisely in the wake of High Technology: the Modern Monarchy.

From Republic to Kings

We begin with a structure for a Monarchy and where to place it. In this future-fiction, the United States converts from republic to an Empire over a century or so. Executive power is concentrated, legislative power is delegated, and a large swath of executive functions run via AI systems. The states then each form kingdoms with Monarchs. California breaks into 4 or 5 monarchies.

The kings began initially as powerful regional political and corporate families. Over time territory was ceded to these families from the state government and after numerous legal, and a few physical skirmishes the Empire recognized them. Thus the first round of Kings appeared almost as by divine mandate from the AI-driven overlords.

We live in the Kingdom of Nebraska where everything went right. Constitutions were written personal freedoms preserved and farmers built a massive agricultural base to support a nobility. What does the Kingdom look like? How is power regulated? What happens when there’s a succession crisis? How does a dictatorial kingdom operate in the 22nd century?

---

The Kingdom

In the partial breakdown of centralized leadership and communication, it becomes politically preferred to grant autonomy to regional warlords. Scale matters. No kingdom can be too big. In total, it’s best to keep a kingdom below 5 million people. Most central states in the United States function within that population number.

Restriction in migration, revocation of birthright citizenship, and demographic collapse have resulted in dramatically different average populations. The Kingdom of Nebraska has a population of 1.8 Million people, similar to that of the Kingdom of Idaho. California has been broken into 5 separate dysfunctional kingdoms with populations in the range of 2 to 6 million people each.

The nobility of Nebraska consist of 1 Earl, 2 Dukes, 93 Counts, and a myriad of smaller Barons and Baronets. Each member of the nobility has a particular place in the hierarchy; positions attained through direct lineage. A few times a year, the higher nobility (Counts and Dukes and Earls) are invited to a banquet with the King.

Dukes and Earls hold large regional power over multiple counties. Counts command individual counties. Baron’s command incorporated cities within counties and Baronets command the boroughs of large cities. A strong hierarchy is present from the King to the citizens of each small town. At the top of course reigns the American Emperor whose position can be… fluid. Rumor is it may simply be an AI system named

Charlemagne

.

Constitutional Monarchy

Historically, Monarchies have done an incredible job navigating the trials and tribulations of the 20th and 21st centuries. Monarchies were more effective than democracies in long-term-planning, and far superior to oligarchies masquerading as democracies. Beneath the Empire, each Kingdom of the Holy American Empire is given broad autonomy in policy and law-making.

The Kingdom of Nebraska was established with a constitution. The constitution provides a list of Duties as well as a list of Rights; dependent on social class.

• The King has duties as king

• The nobility has duties as nobles

• The citizenry have rights as citizens

The King is the law-giver of the land beholden only to the power that grants him the throne and Constitution: God and the Emperor. The king may make decrees to his nobility but not to the citizens without support from the House of Commons and House of Lords.

The nobility have enumerated duties which include: maintaining a private militia. Ensuring and enshrining the rights of the citizens. Remaining fiscally stable. Adhering to the will of the King and providing a fighting force should the king decide to mobilize a military. The nobility must speak out against the king in the House of Lords should bad ideas be proposed. It is also the duty of the nobility to provide comfort for the King and his military as needed. Etc.

The citizens of the kingdom have enumerated rights which include: the right to free expression. The right to bear arms. The right to refuse housing and comfort to the military of the King and the Nobility. The citizens have the right to freedom of association and the right to trial by jury or combat. The citizens have protection against unreasonable search or seizure. The citizens have a right to refuse excessive fines or unusual punishments. Importantly, the citizens have a right to seek redress of grievance from their Lord by seeking court with a Lord higher in the hierarchy. The citizens also have enshrined quite highly: freedom of movement between estates within the Kingdom.

Please consider a paid subscription. I am sharing these ideas for free because they’re important. At the same time, for the cost of a cup of coffee per month, you can help make these publication sustainable so I can work on novel ideas full time.

Nobles have duties as executors of the law on their lands. Citizens have rights as enumerated within the constitution to seek redress from their Lords, or the Kingdom. More importantly, citizens are not bound to the land in a legal sense. A noble may make poor governance choices, but in doing so, he may not prevent his citizens leaving for greener pastures.

Within the kingdom, there is no pretense of equality under the law. The nobility are the law of their territories, while the King’s law is the law of the land. Simultaneously, the nobility are not shielded from the wrath of the king. Citizens are shielded from unreasonable search and seizure, the nobility less so. Holding the nobility to a higher standard than citizens incentivizes wise governance. It also means that the King does not need to place every citizen under micro-surveillance.

The citizens are not a threat to the King or his family, they’re not in the line of succession. The citizens are a problem for the nobility to manage. A noble who cannot manage his citizens may well find his head on the executioner’s block. The nobles are then a problem for the King to manage. In this way, each level of the hierarchy needs to manage only those directly below it. Counts manage rural farmers, Barons manage uppity urban populations. The ability to delegate leadership is powerful as the single massive bureaucratic apparatus of the 21st century can be safely discarded.

Seeking justice, a citizen may seek redress from above, or leave the estate. It is better to know that the local Baron has it out for you than to continue receiving meaningless replies from distant faceless call centers due to the mismanagement of a faceless city bureaucrat. Additionally, the nobility tend to hold their citizens to account in person: building code, business licenses, and electrical maintenance become a matter of pride.

One does not need the permission of a massive state bureaucracy to build a small business any more, but the Baron or Count may be knocking on your door asking for a very thorough explanation regarding why there’s a downed power line. Enforcement becomes personal rather than procedural.

Representative Monarchy

What keeps a monarchy stable is surety in succession. The King knows that one of his children will be the next King. The Count knows that one of his children will be the next count. This means that the children may be trained, from birth, to be good leaders. They don’t need to be lawyers or doctors or engineers or entrepreneurs. There was so much poor leadership in the 20th and 21st centuries because their leadership classes were mostly trained to be businessmen or legal scholars instead of leaders.

Rather in a representative monarchy, it’s understood that one of the children of the King will be selected next. Which one?

• When the king dies or retires, a snap election is held among the general population. The election is held within 14 days, and the population votes for which child of the King takes on the title. No fewer than 3 candidates may be presented for election.

  • If 3 children in the direct lineage are unavailable, the High Council and retiring King may select additional candidates from the King’s extended family or the children of the Dukes or Earl.

The children of the King are thus judged not over an election season, they’re judged on their past behavior. The children of the King are judged based on their behavior as kids and young adults. They’re judged based on honesty, heroism, leadership, and ability to communicate with the population of the Kingdom over decades. They’re judged based on their skill as statesmen, and they’re judged based not on how they will perform over the next 4 years, but over the next 40. It will be rare for a citizen to experience more than 2 kingly elections in their lifespan.

• When a Noble dies or retires, a snap election is held among the local population, the citizens of the Barony, the County, or the Dukedom. The election is held within 14 days and the population of citizens votes for which child of the noble shall take on the title. No fewer than 3 candidates may be presented.

  • If 3 children in the direct lineage are unavailable, the High Council and retiring noble may select additional candidates from extended family or other children of the nobility.

Similar to the death of the King, the nobility adhere to the same rules. In each case, the children are presented on their merit. The qualification in the public eye is based on a lifetime of honorable behavior rather than how nice a PR firm can make someone look through a 3 month or year-long election cycle.

Losing the Noble Title

Those children of the nobility who are not elected lose the title entirely. They become citizens. They retain access to their social connections among the elite so they’ll not be immediately plunged into poverty. Many are likely to re-marry into noble families. Those who don’t are likely to be supported as entrepreneurs with the familial support of the local lord. Simultaneously, lands are not divided among favored children. The total number of nobles remains static over time unless new neighboring lands are conquered from other Kingdoms.

Social Side-Effects: The Rise of Dueling Cultures

A side-effect of the controlled competition between the children of noble lords will be the creation of a strong honor culture. That is, if they’re seen as weak or incompetent by the general population they will be unable to take their father’s seat. If insulted, threatened, or shown to be weak the child of a Noble, or the Prince, must respond. Duels, Formalized Combat Tournaments, and Sabre Rattling will be common behaviors. Already in the early 21st century, these behaviors became common among social media influencers for the same reasons.

The result will be a leadership class that understands combat. Rather than becoming weighted by legal minutia, the noble class will do what democratic presidents didn’t do: lead by example.

The Kings’ Law and Wealth not “Public Spending”

The king cannot embezzle public funds. The inability of the King to engage in that type of corruption is a huge selling point for Monarchy; the reason bothered a lot of democratically-minded people: there are no public funds. The wealth of the kingdom is the wealth of the King and his future children. The result is a political environment where the financial state of the kingdom is ultimately the direct and individual responsibility of the King. For good or ill, he is the man to blame.

In the same way, the Law is the King’s law. The King will decree and enforce laws through the nobility. Whether wealth is placed in vanity projects or infrastructure depends on the decisions of the King and his ability to act with the support of the nobility. Were it the King’s responsibility to build the infrastructure of an entire nation from scratch, this could be a significant fiscal limitation. It’s difficult to justify doing so when one can already afford a decent quality of life for one’s own family. Like many other 22nd-century Kingdoms though, the Kingdom of Nebraska is not starting from nothing, it’s starting already sat atop some of the most advanced (if aged) infrastructure in human history. The Missouri River, the US interstate highway system, and the mass-transit rail lines that cross the state have become the responsibility of the King and his nobles.

Like other kingdoms in the 21st century; Oman, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, etc., the King was already provided with infrastructure. To better his finances, the King is incentivized to aid the populace to produce more wealth. Taxing the populace is a trade-off as over-taxed citizens may leave the Kingdom while under-taxing the citizenry may lead to budget shortfalls. The King’s responsibility is to maintain that balancing act and prevent his nobles from violating individual liberties too egregiously lest the citizenry in general elect to leave.

The King does not need to command the state through a massive bloated bureaucracy. The king commands the state through his vassal nobles and their regents. Thus, the collected wealth can be expended on infrastructure instead of bureaucratic bloat. One doesn’t need a state agency if the responsibility for excellence falls on the head of a specific Count or Baron. If the Baron of Omaha clogs up the Missouri, then it is the King and the Royal Military that are coming to deal with him personally. If the Count of Madison allows the rail line to fall into disrepair, that is not a messy bureaucratic failing, it is a personal affront to the King and his commands.

Money has of course be wasted on vanity projects. It always is, just look at the United Arab Emirates in the 21st century. That’s when there’s money to waste. The King considers not only his financial position but also how the nobility and the citizenry will look at him in retrospect. For the King’s son to rule unopposed, the King must rule well. For the King’s grandson to rule without revolt or coercion, the kingdom must remain stable and financially profitable. The resulting balance of powers and fiscal interests, oddly, align the interests of the King with the interests of the citizenry.

The King’s estate collects taxes from the estates of the Dukes and Earls. The Dukes and Earls collect taxes from the Counts. The Counts collect taxes from their own citizens and the estates of the Barons, and the Barons collect taxes from their citizens and Baronets. The baronets collect taxes from their citizens. If a Duke falls short of their taxation requirements, that’s a problem for the King to deal with. If a Baron falls short, that’s a problem for his Count.

By improving the livelihood of the citizenry, the quantity of taxes that can be raised increases. Allowing infrastructure to fall into disrepair or discouraging citizens from forming economically active businesses results in a reduction in the tax base. The interests of the King and the nobility all roughly then align with the interests of the citizenry. At the same time, the King and nobility are positioned in opposition to each other. Each noble attempts to draw more tax from the level below and provide less tax to the level above. The resultant political in-fighting and intrigue becomes a topic for legends and stories but doesn’t dramatically affect the life of the individual citizens. Each level wants more productive citizens in one way or another.

Sure there will be some bad nobles, but as long as free-movement is permitted, a bad Baron, Count, or Earl will quickly find themselves falling behind in the hierarchy and economic arms race. By ensuring free movement (as enumerated in the constitution), the King preserves the hierarchy by allowing bad nobles to fail when their citizens leave.

The High Council

The High Council serves as a judicial branch. Primarily they are be a group of 4 (which includes the previous, retired, king) who act in an advisory role. The High Council acts to settle disputes between the King and the nobility and between citizens and the King’s Law.

The High Council may declare actions unconstitutional. The King also has a seat on the High Council in judicial proceedings, making for a total of 5. Rarely will the king ever vote against himself, but the High Council can outvote him. The High Council and Church cooperatively manage coronations, locate heirs to thrones should the a noble family fail to produce one, and engage in other critical judicial proceedings.

The advisory role of the High Council is its primary purpose. Positions on the High Council will be proposed by the King and confirmed in the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The individuals will not be permitted to hold royal titles and entertain the office at the same time. As such many will either be retired nobles or citizens who have expressed dramatic wisdom and shrewdness in life.

The Legal Role or the Nobility

To command his kingdom, the King commands the nobility. Each noble is given broad discretion in creating, enforcing, and enacting laws provided they do not oppose the King’s law and do not breach the duties or rights of the constitution.

Nobles are subject to more restrictions and legal oversight than the citizens. Partially this is because only the nobility are in the line of succession for the throne, and thus only the nobility pose a direct threat to the King. It is also the nobility that must manage their local economies and it is the nobility who are at fault when something goes wrong. The nobles are not citizens and are not treated equally under the law.

While the citizens have enshrined in the constitution the freedom of movement to travel as they see fit, the nobility do not. Nobles are legally bound to their estates. To leave the estate is to abandon one’s noble title not only oneself but future generations. Once the title has been granted, the individual must spend no less than 8 months of the year residing on their estate. Title abandonment is a real risk and is enforced.

All too often in the 21st century, the wealthy and powerful retired to gated neighborhoods far away from problems created. In the Kingdom of Nebraska, that’s not an option. If a noble elects to poison his land with a mine or render it barren through poor farming practices, that becomes a problem for not only him but for all of his children thereafter. Nobles must consider their estates in a multi-generational sense. A bad Count can make an entire county barren and destitute as citizens leave for greener pastures. A bad Duke may do so much ecological damage that his region of the kingdom becomes unlivable. Unlike a democratic nation, the nobles cannot simply make a mess, steal funds, and retire to the other side of the world. If they cede their title, they cede their assets and wealth as well.

To be a good ruler is to gain the trust of those ruled and preserve what you’ve built for posterity. Nobles are governed by enumerated duties to the King. The Nobles are tasked with ruling wisely, and if one of them truly strays beyond the confines of righteous behavior, it is the responsibility of the King to ensure that the Count or Duke or Baron is replaced.

Long-term estate planning fundamentally changed leadership. Leaders are bound to their territory and must do the best they can with what they have. Thus, nobles compete in terms of sustainability, industry, farming and development. An impetus for sustainability completely devoid in nations operated by 4-year election cycles.

The House of Lords and House of Commons

The nobility share a formal “House of Lords” which acts as a senatorial legislative body. Capable of organizing and proposing legislation that the king may nullify or enact by decree.

The citizenry also selects representatives. First, a Sheriff who governs in collaboration with the local Count or Baron as a civilian-enforcement apparatus. The citizens also elect a representative tribune to the House of Commons once every six years. The elected tribunes have privileges similar to those of the House of Lords. The tribunes may organize and propose legislation that the King.

Importantly, there is no parliamentary prime minister. The King is the tie-breaking vote in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The King must bear ultimate responsibility for the actions of both bodies should he enact their legislation.

Against the King, both the House of Commons and the House of Lords may veto a royal decree… requiring a 70% majority vote. This effectively provides the nobility and the citizenry (through representatives) the ability to legally engage the King in forced negotiation. 70% majority is a lot, but both the House of Lords and the House of Commons hold a powerful veto should the King make unconscionably bad decisions.

International Business in the Holy American Empire

One might think it difficult to ship international goods across a sprawling mess of counties, duchies and kingdoms. There are bizarre taxes and arbitrary tariffs between ports of entry and final points of sale. International banking institutions find it difficult to work with individual Barons or Kings who change their mind on a whim leaving the Bank with little recourse outside of the Emperor himself.

An intelligent economist will argue that this is too complex a system for a grand society of vast international trade.

Yes.

That was kind of the point.

A kingdom, particularly one with vast dictatorial power, is more difficult to do business with. Indeed, international corporations and interest groups now need entire departments dedicated to negotiations. The train is going through the territory of a Lord who is at war with his neighbor? Negotiate for safe passage of trade goods and pay someone off where it needs to happen.

The result is a higher degree of friction in trade. This does not prevent vast international trade, but it does slow trade and make it more expensive. Items like cellphones and graphics cards are still traded, but through local distributors with local political deals. Things more easily manufactured like plastic junk, food and vehicles, are produced more locally. Especially with the benefits of additive manufacturing, it became preferred to produce goods locally if possible.

After an initial economic contraction due to resource shortages and shattered trade lanes, the kingdoms soon saw a massive economic boom. Those kings who governed well supported the growth of local industries, factories and farms. The Count with a factory that presses metal and makes engine blocks suddenly found himself wealthy and respected. Others followed suit creating local industries scaled appropriately for regional consumption. Petroleum pipelines still crisscross the American Empire. People still use cell phones made in Taiwan or Japan. But going to the local market to purchase a cup or a plate or clothing or food sees almost exclusively local goods.

Cottage industries sprang up across the kingdoms bringing back skilled tradesmen in a way not seen since the 19th century: seamstresses, carpenters, tanners, smiths, cobblers, and of course 3D-production specialists all appearing within a generation to fill the gap. Skilled trade employment now makes up a significant portion of various economies. Simply by adding friction to the cost-minimization of international bureaucratic companies, local industry and cottage industry returned to thriving growth. With economies secured, Counts and Barons saw no need for the massive international trade model, instead, they become protectionist of their industries… in turn, adding even more friction to cheap international goods.

For a citizen of the Kingdom, it’s normal for them to schedule a meeting with their local cobbler for a custom shoe fitting by digital appointment.

The Lives of Citizens

Citizens have freedom of movement, and other rights enumerated in the constitution and upheld by the King. It’s in the interest of the nobility to provide useful infrastructure to the citizens to expand the tax base. The citizens are also encouraged to be dominant in local industries and promote cottage businesses. This is partially due to economic necessity and partially because expanded taxation bases provide the nobility with a greater income.

Citizens can ‘own’ land in the sense that American citizens owned land in the 20th century. That is: they’re renting it from the government for a flat tax. Only in this case, the tax rate is determined by the local nobility and rates vary wildly from county to county.

If a citizen is overtaxed, specifically harassed by their liege lord, or prevented from doing business, the citizen can pick up and leave. A more friendly county may be available that’ll welcome a new entrepreneur. Liege lords both live in the community and are not bound by popular elections. Thus, the nobles are free to make decisions that are unpopular but necessary. The citizens either put up with it or leave.

The result is a sort of free-market governance. Citizens may elect to live in places amenable to their personal ethics and economic interests. It also means that nobles are careful about walking the line between over-taxing and under-taxing; between over-regulation and under-regulation. It is be far easier to start a business beneath a good noble. Dozens of licenses and city ordinances aren’t hindrances anymore, but the liege lord does have ultimate authority to put his foot down if a business behaves unethically. Especially true if a business provides poor service or harms the general citizenry. Effectively managerialism was removed and replaced with responsibility. If a restaurant makes citizens sick or an insurance company refuses to pay out, the people responsible may find themselves in a dungeon. Not the company policy, but the actual people directly responsible for the bad actions.

No more nebulous “that’s against policy” statements. Company policy is a lot less important than personal responsibility for doing unethical things. Especially in doing them beneath the nose of a nobility tired of their shit. While the Sheriff is the primary executive for enforcing public orders and decrees, the nobility took on a combined legislative and judicial role.

Citizens are outside the monarchic hierarchy. That is, they cannot become lords or kings (outside marriage or conquest) and are thus not a threat to the monarchy. The monarch therefore does not leverage state surveillance against the citizenry. Some of the nobles may specifically surveil “problem-citizens” but the resources required for doing so are non-trivial. Instead, those resources are used by the King to keep the nobility in line. This may be bribes, direct surveillance, threats or coercion. The nobles are not citizens and do not have the same rights. Citizens are treated as free men, while nobles are held to a higher standard.

Skirmishes on the Periphery: War and Resources

It’s self-evident that Counts and Barons and Dukes with near-dictatorial power over their estates come into direct conflict. Minor rebellions, kidnappings between noble houses, threats and even skirmishing between hostile territories occur.

It is the King who ultimately maintains order within the Kingdom. If a minor conflict between two lords gets out of hand, it is the King and his Royal Military that arrive to quell the disturbance and make a final judgment. While the king cannot be everywhere at once, the threat of the King’s Justice falling on the head of a noble helps keep things in line. Even then though, there is the risk of minor hostilities: trade disputes, territorial disputes, and even small shootouts between fire teams on the border.

Much like the induced economic friction of a monarchy, the limited application of violence is a feature and not a bug. The 21st and 20th centuries were characterized by a karen-ocracy. A rule by the most emotionally weak of the population. This was possible only because of a coddled population. A monarchy will not coddle the citizenry with nice words by hiding violence behind some national totem in a far off hemisphere.

A cause of the failures of liberalism was a lack of exposure to violence. Violence was common throughout human history, but liberalism developed to minimize exposure to violence. To the point of claiming “violence is never the answer” a point objectively untrue. The result was a population unable to live within the human condition; creating a state of perpetual cultural retreat and cultural relativism.

By inducing controlled conflicts between estates (and between Kingdoms) it alters the culture of the citizens and the nobility. With violence and death becoming a real risk, it encourages traditionalism and respect for life. It again renders life meaningful. Those who have been to war understand that a few angry words on the internet are not a lethal threat. The progressives of the early 21st century were so risk-averse and terrorized that they could not cope with dissenting opinions at all. Instead cowering on websites like Blue Sky. That level of weakness and cowardice has now been washed away in blood.

The conflicts between estates are small-scale, localized, and ongoing. Ending up in the middle of such a conflict will be rare, but the conflicts themselves are common. There are one or two active combat zones in Nebraska at any given time. These combat zones habituate the citizenry to violence. These combat zones create soldiers and stories. These minor engagements create heroes in a way that over-socialized democracies never could.

The Bad Count

In the event of a bad count or baron, first, the citizenry may simply up and leave. If the noble prevents the citizenry from leaving, that becomes a problem for the King and the High Council. Neighboring nobles who would benefit from a brain-drain in a rivals territory are also incentivized to get involved. The King grants titles to the nobility and the King may taketh away. The King has the ability to seize the title of an uppity noble and place a new individual into the seat.

The Bad King

In the event of a bad King, the whole Kingdom is at risk. Fortunately, the House of Commons and the House of Lords will both find the situation intolerable. Both will be able to execute veto’s against the King causing legislative gridlock. With the veto in place, the King will be unable to seize the titles of nobility or enact decree’s. The King may either shape up at that point or specifically begin going after the nobility opposing him.

If the latter, the nobility (who have a duty of maintaining standing militias) will be incentivized to begin a full scale revolt. The goal is not to prevent bloodshed so much as isolate the bloodshed. The nobility revolting against the King will take the form of a small coup in the capital rather than a wide-spread civil war across the entire Kingdom. Minimizing the scale of violence for a handover of power from the King to the High Council (who can find a new King) will be preferable to a system that encourages stagnation.

Succession Crisis

Succession crises should be few and far between. If the King has no direct heirs, the High Council will select from the King’s extended family or select the children of the upper nobility. An election will then be called, and held among the general population just as would happen for a regular King.

Retirement

It is important that retirement be a surprise for both the King/noble and his resultant successors. Thus, there are limits to political campaigning due to limited information. As it was by the hand of God that the King was placed as King, so the hand of Fate determines the time of his exit.

At the age of 65, on the day of his coronation, a ceremony is held. This coincides with a meeting of the House of Lords, the House of Commons, and other favored individuals. The King is given two dice each with twenty sides. One roll of the dice determines if he shall rule for another year, or if he shall retire. The king rolls both dice. The results are tallied: if the sum of the dice and the King’s current age are less than 100, the King does not retire and rules for another year until he rolls the dice again. If the dice and the King’s age sum to a number 100 or greater, then the King retires. Simple as that.

The State Sponsored Church

A state sponsored church, while it was not required for the Kingdom of Nebraska helps greatly in maintaining social order. The Church is a body respected, but independent of the Monarchy. The Church acts as a social glue, and while attendance is not mandatory, and adherence is not mandatory, only one theology is officially sponsored by the Crown. That sponsorship allows the church to build up a social presence independent of local nobles and relatively independent of the crown.

On the day of coronation it is a church elder who coronates the King, and on the day of retirement, it is a church elder who hands the King the dice of Fate. The church serves a critical function in social cohesion even as the individual nobles and lords might war over petty grievances.

Liberty in a Monarchy: Responsibility vs Managerial Ass-covering

The above is a rough broad-strokes concept, but it begs the question: is democracy really a better state of governance? Democracy is slow, corrupt, and short-sighted. A monarchy may afford greater personal liberty. Greater autonomy. Importantly, greater responsibility. The ability to know you’re being targeted as a citizen, and the ability to leave for somewhere else is important. In the 21st century, “our-democracy” prevents free movement. It’s possible to travel between states, but nearly all state laws are identical. It’s possible to travel between nations but doing so is strongly limited.

The proposition of the above system can be summarized thus: it is possible to create a monarchy that is not only equivalent to “democracy” in capacity to protect individual liberties… but it’s possible to create a monarchy that’s far, far better.