Since he wrote a book on how democracy failed…yet is championing how monarchy has all of these great qualities..would that not imply he is for monarchy?
Personally, I have a lot of respect for the Amish. They’re self-reliant and hardworking and definitely not poor. Even though use of technology is restricted (but not completely forbidden), no one is homeless or hungry - all without the welfare. They also fought against social security and medicare taxes, unlike everyone else. The Amish are far closer to the founders of the US than to the modern Americans.
It doesn’t matter, it’s just one of the symptoms. Even if it doesn’t pass, is there any significant movement against all the government regulation and monopolies that led to the rising costs in the first place? Is majority even aware of them? With the healthcare expenses going up (as they will do with baby boomers retiring), there will be more and more calls for free lunch. If it happened in all other “democratic” countries, there’s a good chance it’s going to happen here as well. It’s already half socialised, in any case.
Obviously he is an anarchist or sympthatic to anarchism if he is a member of the Mises institute. However, my point was to convey what you quoted him as saying. He’d rather have monarchy instead of democracy if the state was still around. Obviously if anarchy is a possbility then I don’t think he would hesitate. Perhaps it is my fault that I did a poor job wording what I was trying to convey.
A lot of people get hung up on this with Hoppe. Hoppe covers a lot of second-best scenarios, like immigration policy under the state, monarchy in lieu of democracy if there is to be a state etc.
Most people do not keep in context that these are second bests, and not his ideal outcome or position.
Sort of like Walter Block’s joke that he is for a state that has only one role. To make everyone read “Man, Economy and State”.
He is for preserving monarchy against further democratization. However, it is not possible to reverse democracy back towards monarchy. History does not work backwards.
First off, I think that Stranger is right when he says that monarchy requires certain conditions to emerge. Hoppe identifies why States were predominantly monarchical in the past:
So a private property order is a necessary precursor to a monarchy. Strictly speaking, I doubt that much would change overnight if we made the president our new King.
I think that what Stranger means here is that by applying economic analysis to politics and governance we will be able to reconstruct history and predict what might happen in the future.
For instance, in D:TGTF, Hoppe refers to monarchies as “privately-owned” governments and democracies as “publicly-owned” governments. Monarchs own the actual country, so wish to maximise both current incomes and the country’s capital value. A democratic government will wish to maximise current incomes at the expense of the country’s future capital value. From this it follows that democratic governments will tax more, inflate more, and get into more debt, etc.
The above is pretty much the main thesis of D:TGTF, sorry for the spoiler. And of course, if I misrepresented Stranger’s points I do apologise.