Anarcho-Monarchism? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
Well, no. You’re thinking of Anarcho-Communism, but I’ve addressed that already here.
Anarcho-Monarchism would function where the primary ruler of a given territory would own that territory as a dictator and the right to his territory would be passed to his family members as opposed to a small group of people like an oligarchy, a Senate, or a Congress.
Where would anarchy factor into this? Well, no one would be coerced into accepting his rule. It would take place only in segments of whatever decentralized society chose to participate. If he bought 100 acres of land, the tenants of that land would be given a contract to accept his family’s rule as monarchs or leave the community for a neighboring one.
This system would function via private property norms. Someone who bought a bunch of land *could* choose to later sell that land, leave it in the hands of their company, or have a proxy manager run it. In an Monarchist system, I’d imagine most of the property management in that given area would be done by royal stewards or other agents of the crown.
Want to learn more about this idea? I outline it further in my video, which you can view here: