Review of "Patriarcha" by Robert Filmer

The closest one on Amazon is here.  Or, the whole thing is here.

Patriacha is Filmer's case – or a general summary of the case – for Divine-right monarchy.  Here are some thoughts from Mr Moldbug:

Really, what Filmer is saying, is: if you want stable government, accept the status quo as the verdict of history. There is no reason at all to inquire as to why the Bourbons are the Kings of France. The rule is arbitrary. Nonetheless, it is to the benefit of all that this arbitrary rule exists, because obedience to the rightful king is a Schelling point of nonviolent agreement. And better yet, there is no way for a political force to steer the outcome of succession – at least, nothing comparable to the role of the educational authorities in a democracy.

In other words, to put it in Patchwork terms, the relationship between realm and patch is no more, and no less, than a property right. A patch is a sovereign property, that is, one whose proprietor has no defender but itself. Nonetheless, in moral terms, we may ask: why does this realm hold that patch? And the answer, as it always is with in any system of strong property rights, will be not "because it deserves to," but "because it does." Note that whatever the theology, Filmer's model of government captures the property-right approach perfectly. . . .

In reality, no sovereign can be subject to law. This is a political perpetual motion machine. Law is not law unless it is judged and enforced. And by whom? For example, if you think a supreme court with judicial review can make government subject to law, you are obviously unfamiliar with the sordid history of American constitutional jurisprudence. All your design has achieved is to make your supreme court sovereign. Indeed if the court had only one justice, a proper title for that justice would be "King." Sorry, kid, you haven't violated the conservation of anything.

I think he's right, in that the major takeaway from Filmer is a rejection of the notion of "separation of powers."  Said concept is reduced to absurdity by Filmer.

Personally, I thought Filmer's discussion of historical failures of democratic government were the most entertaining.  Filmer also shows that Monarchy's are better preservers of the peace and that when Monarchies go to war, far fewer people die.  The weird tendency of democratic wars to become total wars was apparent even in the 1600s.  His thoughts on the true nature of government as an extension of the nature of the family are also quite interesting.  Once one gets past the religious aspects of the argument, Filmer's arguments satisfy the Machiavellians test of dealing with people as they are.

It's also worth pointing out, to today's progressives, that the original justification for democracy was a religious one.  The debate that Filmer is engaged in is not a debate in which one side a guardian of un-religious rationality.

Finally, I should note that reading something of Filmer may be of interest – he seems to have had very good reason to oppose the forces of democracy.