Scott Alexander asks: Are traditional monarchies more free?

Yes! They do tend to be. However, since the definition of “free” is rather subjective, it is easy to contrive an argument where they are not.

Say that I have 100 points to distribute to define “freedom”. I decide to put all 100 points into a column that says, “I want no rulers above me”. Bam, monarchy just became the most un-free thing ever!

But, say that I define freedom by putting points into things like “freedom from horizontal political pressure,” “freedom to walk around safely in the inner city at night,” “freedom to have the people spend most of the GDP instead of the government,” “freedom from federal currency manipulation,” and so on. Then, monarchy looks a lot more free than democracy.

In a monarchy, there is no free speech as far as criticizing the institution of monarchy itself. However, there is quite a bit of free speech otherwise. Arguably more than we have in a democracy. Criticizing policies is OK, just not the legitimacy of the throne. If the political system is stable and effective, there would be no need to criticize the system itself.

Will there be some people who could never suffer to live under a monarchy? Yes! Monarchy is not for everyone. It’s only for people who care enough about cooperation to go with a governmental strategy that works. For those who prefer the chaos of Democracy, that may be the system that is best for them.

Monarchy allows freedom of association, democracy does not. For those who consider that an important freedom, monarchy is highly preferable.