I am a libertarian with a strong bent towards subsidiarity, I support individuals’ freedom to engage in economic, personal, and social activities with minimal intrusion by a central government.
I am also a constitutional monarchist, and a supporter of the anglosphere. I support the Queen and am in favour of expanding the monarchy’s power so the monarchy has real control over the executive branch of government. As a supporter of both the anglosphere and the monarchy, I am in favour of the increased union of the English nations (the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and NZ) until all Englishmen are confederated under the British Monarch.
Now, monarchism and libertarianism are often not grouped together; libertarianism is about self-determination, while monarchism is about inherited rule, seemingly contradictory impulses.
How do I reconcile them?
Libertarianism* is based on the notion of private property right; you own yourself (or, for the religiously inclined, God, not man, owns you) as private property and and you are able to own external goods.
Most libertarians acknowledge the need for a state to ensure property rights, enforce agreements, and prevent/punish aggression.** Most use social contract theory, whereby individuals contract away some of their freedoms for protection, but that leaves the control of the limited libertarian government as common property, even if that common property is run through the “self-determiniation” of democracy.
That’s where the monarch is brought in. In a libertarian monarchy, the realm is the private property of the monarch.
The monarch would have no power over the private property of any individuals, but would own the state apparatus (ie. the executive branch), “public” lands, and other “public” property as the private property of the monarch and the monarch’s house.
The benefit of this is that the monarch would have an incentive in running the state and public property efficiently and effectively, as it would be her own property to be passed down to her children.
The monarchy would also be able to take the long view of the realm’s affairs, rather than the short-term view the electoral system forces on prime ministers and presidents.
The parliament would still create laws and the monarch would have to abide by the constitution (whether codified or uncodified), acting as a check on the monarch’s power.
If the parliament and/or monarch became too corrupt or power became too centralized, the free citizenry would have the muzzles and blood to rectify the situation.
That’s the political system I would create if given my druthers.
* We will focus on right-wing libertarians, ignoring libertarian socialists, ie. anarchists, who are whole different breed.
** Anarcho-capitalists and objectivists would disagree.