|Ed, at the end of your blog post, you wrote: |
You meant minarchy, not monarchy. It is true that a monarchy could be a minarchy. England is an example of that. The Crown is limited in its powers. Parliament hires the monarch. That is different other other constitutional monarchies where the king (duke, etc.) convenes the assembly as advisory group of nobles. In the case of Poland, for instance, the nobles chose one of their own by election to be king. I believe, also, that is why the king of Prussia was called "The Elector of Brandenburg": he was a member of an imperial council.
Note: Notice how it is that the primary virtue of the administration of monarchy is restraint (e.g., "refraining from ...").
If your OATS is followed, the details of the constitution are less important. It is truly a matter of culture. That is why our constitution works (worked) to keep government small, whereas most other places on Earth with great charters just fell into different forms of strongman-strongarm rule.
Pakistan is another interesting place. They have a long history of complex culture as different peoples came in and stayed, from the Greeks, to Moghuls, to British and everything inbetween. They have Muslim fundmantalist extemists, obvioulsy. But unlike Saudi Arabia, they actually have elections and truly do elect women to high office. It is a matter of culture, not constitution.
One brief note, also, see the canonic works of Ayn Rand to be clear that objective law is not necessarily Objectivist law. Rand pointed out that Rome brought the world objective law, even though many laws were unjust.
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/14, 9:04am)