Does it have to be an NRx world? AFAIK most NRxers are arguing for NRx countries, and exit so that people who don’t like it can leave. Without exit, it seems a lot more ‘boot stamping on a human face forever’.
Um, NRx’s aren’t arguing for totalitarian countries.
Hint: Monarchy =/= Totalitarianism.
In fact one of the main neoreactionary arguments for monarchy is that historical absolute monarchies have been less totalitarian, in terms of government intrusion into citizens day-to-day life or control of the economy, then modern “liberal democracies”.
1) If the monarch has a goal of “maximise my countries’ power” then they want lots of trade to boost the economy, which probably implies some sort of (partially) open boarders to allow international trade.
2) If someone hates living in your country, and you don’t allow them to leave, they might try to organise a rebellion.
3) If someone hates your country, they are probably not going to be the most productive citizen.
4) If the monarch dislikes some minority group, then its best to let them leave rather than persecute them, which would be likely to bring UN peacekeepers down on your head.
5) They monarch might want to attract immigration, at least from people who they believe will benefit the country, and its a lot more easy to attract people if they have the option to leave should they change their minds.
6) The monarch might actually care about the well-being of their subjects, or even of humanity in general.
There have been benevolent monarchs. There have also been sadists. In the general case I don’t think monarchy is especially likely to be oppressive, but OTOH there is a single point of failure, which means that if it goes wrong it can go very, very wrong.
Does it have to be an NRx world? AFAIK most NRxers are arguing for NRx countries, and exit so that people who don’t like it can leave. Without exit, it seems a lot more ‘boot stamping on a human face forever’.
Did anyone of them make a good argument for why a totalitarian country should make it easy for their citizens to leave?
Um, NRx’s aren’t arguing for totalitarian countries.
Hint: Monarchy =/= Totalitarianism.
In fact one of the main neoreactionary arguments for monarchy is that historical absolute monarchies have been less totalitarian, in terms of government intrusion into citizens day-to-day life or control of the economy, then modern “liberal democracies”.
Yes, repeatedly -
1) If the monarch has a goal of “maximise my countries’ power” then they want lots of trade to boost the economy, which probably implies some sort of (partially) open boarders to allow international trade.
2) If someone hates living in your country, and you don’t allow them to leave, they might try to organise a rebellion.
3) If someone hates your country, they are probably not going to be the most productive citizen.
4) If the monarch dislikes some minority group, then its best to let them leave rather than persecute them, which would be likely to bring UN peacekeepers down on your head.
5) They monarch might want to attract immigration, at least from people who they believe will benefit the country, and its a lot more easy to attract people if they have the option to leave should they change their minds.
6) The monarch might actually care about the well-being of their subjects, or even of humanity in general.
There have been benevolent monarchs. There have also been sadists. In the general case I don’t think monarchy is especially likely to be oppressive, but OTOH there is a single point of failure, which means that if it goes wrong it can go very, very wrong.
There is something worse than having a single point of failure, that’s having multiple points of failure in “series”, for lack of a better term.
Indeed, although whether this makes a single point of failure attractive depends on whether one is satisficing or maximising.