So, basically, anarcho-monarchism sees the anti-democratic tradition of monarchism and seeks to repurpose it towards individualism, correctly identifying liberal democracy as the biggest obstacle to any stateless society. The idea is basically that a monarch could serve as a foil to the state, rather than a figurehead. The special status of the monarch could be based mainly upon invocations of ancient volkish nonsense like divine right, kinship, blood and soil, hereditary succession, and so on. However, instead of sharing power with (or being controlled by) the state, the monarch's central purpose is to serve as a sort of dark messiah that strikes it down wherever it emerges. In doing so the monarch ensures that both the freedom of the people, whilst also eliminating a threat to their special sort of 'rule.'
I've been looking into the subject more, and this forum seems like one of the few places to be trying to push such a model. We've wanted freedoms as our SC ideals for a long time, but we've seen that someone has to be at "the top" or there is no forum for said freedoms to reign in the first place.
“To fight for freedom qua freedom is to fight for other people to be able to impose their vision of freedom onto you. To fight for freedom is simply to fight for the dominance of an unspecified party, and as such if you fight for freedom you fight for subjugation. However, there is still the slight hope that you will be the one doing the subjugating.”
It's basically having someone doing the minimum amount to maintain things while otherwise leaving people to their own devices. By having someone at the top who holds onto largely libertarian ideas, something more resembling anarchy can be done for that one's "sacrifice". It's like tending to a garden instead of directly ruling.
Basically, their power is not lorded over others, but instead used to stop whatever rule is imposing less freedoms from any party attempting to seize more direct forms of control. It's a responsibility within an ideal that can fall apart as quickly as the one enacting said ideal saying "Fuck it", making it fragile.
It's a "Monarch" that does not lord it's power any further than to stop others from lording it for the sake of the people themselves (stopping mods, blind peer pressure, and spammers alike). It's a head honcho that is simply there to make sure everyone stays level, and as long as that job feels more janitorial in this case that serves to level it down to "the people's" range.
It shouldn't be glamorous, it shouldn't be about control, that defeats the entire purpose. It's just about benevolently attempting to maintain an environment where people can be free to do as they please juuuuust far enough to not be ridding of others freedoms in the process. The only ones being subjugated are the subjectors themselves, which means even the ones enacting it ought to be self-flagellating or infighting to some degree to make sure no one becomes too powerful.
The room for said Anarchy to fight back as a single force behind said ideal is also a large part of keeping said "Monarchs" in check.
