I understand the argument made by Hoppe in theory, that an owner of the state will be more likely to care for his subjects than a renter of the state. However, I am having trouble buying the theory in practice, considering that the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century were one-party dictatorships, not democracies. While I know that some of these genocidal regimes may have originated out of a democracy, they were not democratic when they commited the mass murder.
Nor were they monarchies. The one-party dictatorships of the 20th century have much more in common with democracies than monarchies, is what Hoppe argues.
Dictators are neither owners nor renters of the state. They are usurpers, which is why they must employ so much violence to maintain their power.
I have a lot of trouble with monarchies, I would not like to feel that I am a subject of a state owned by somebody, it is close to slavery. Why do monarchies still exist nowadays? To me they are anachronic.
Dictatorships at least are supposed to end with the death of the dictator, but monarchies could remain for an undetermined number of future generations.
Under democracy, you’re still a slave. But you’re rented.
For the most part, monarchies dont exist today. What exist are constitutional monarchies which tend to be socialized versions of a democracy…at least in the larger countries that we even care about. I only see 5 absolute monarchs.
That’s really a non-sequitur. The owner of a state can do whatever he pleases with his state and his subjects. Monarchists claim that monarchs will try to maximize so called tax-revenue (but that’s not necessarily true) and that in order to maximize tax-revenue they will mostly leave their subjects alone - which is another laughable non-sequitur.
A common way to increase revenue used by monarchs is war – see Gustave de Molinari.
Since when is Hoppe a monarchist?
Based on what you’re saying, in a monarchy, I’m outright owned “privately”. This is better WHY? Sounds like the difference between chattel slavery and “wage slavery” - chattel slavery is worse by far. I’d rather have my labor be rented then be outright owned by someone else. I have no idea why one would think it would be beneficial to me to be treated as someone’s private property. I’m not interested in being “taken care of” by an owner to begin with, since noone can legitimately own me.
The only real difference is the amount of people doing the ruling, and I fail to see how it follows that because only one man is doing the ruling, they will inherently be more prone to leave me alone. It is a non-sequitor indeed. More exclusivity in this context does not necessarily mean more responsibility or more restraint per se. A ruler is a ruler.
You didn’t understand the response. Under democracy you are still owned by the state as much as under monarchy. However, under democracy, the state rents you to politicians who don’t give a damn how they use you up.
It’s the difference between chattel slavery and gulag slavery. Someone who owns you as part of his chattel at least has an incentive to keep you in good health.
He’s not, but in Democracy, the God that Failed he argues that while no government is the ideal, if we have a government, monarchy is preferable to democracy.
How does that make one a monarchist? Would I be a Leninist if I just thought that it would be better to have Lenin in power than Stalin?
Uh… that’s why the first two words of my setence were ‘He’s not.’ I acknowledged that he’s nota monarchist, then proceeded to try and explain why he might be mistaken for one.
So, in this case, we do not even have a real life example of a monarchy to compare it to other systems of government as stated in the book?
Yes we do, look at how the size of government has increased with the transition from monarchy to democracy.
I love how the left libertarians are so very offended by Hoppe’s theory though.
I understand, and my comment was directed at those who think that is a reason to call him a monarchist.
ah. my mistake then. sorry.
Nice generalization; I think Hoppe’s comment regarding monarchy preferable to democracy is fairly valid (although I would not want either).
The characteristic belief of the left has been of human salvation achieved through politics. What Hoppe is doing that’s new is applying rational economic analysis to political systems, and thus de-mystifying politics in the process. That shatters the left’s pseudo-religious beliefs.