In that case neither does a “shallow” analysis of the buisness cycle or a “shallow” analysis of the calculation under socialism. As I said, best forget economics.
That simply does not follow. From the fact that utilitarian economics does not supercede libertarian normative ethics, it does not follow that economics is discarded. It just isn’t enough by itself and is prone to misuse when justice in terms of ownership is not taken into account. Comparative economic analysis between state systems doesn’t make a case for no state system and is irrelevant to the fundamental matter of principle in question.
Strawman, I never said that, all I asked is why you seem to find some areas of utilitarian ecomonics fit to be discarded and not others…
None of them are discarded. It’s just that they are misleading or prone to be misused when libertarian normative ethics isn’t taken into account. It’s just a shallow cost-benefit comparative analysis between two wrongs.
So you admit Hoppe’s argument is valuable?
How are these theories prone to be misused, I don’t see many monarchists on these fourms.
Don’t be so quick to say that. I swear I saw the King of Samoa posting in the Health care thread this morning.
See, here’s where you’ve went wrong. Now you have changed the question from, “Which is less oppressive, democracy or monarchy?” to “Which should we support, democracy or monarchy?” None of the anarchists here, Hoppe included, think that monarchy or democracy are legitimate. That’s given. But that’s NOT the topic at hand. I’m sure you have, as us anarchists generally do, plenty of very good reasons why neither is legitimate. Yet, that is all irrelevant to the discussion being had.
That’s the impression I’m getting, yes.
As for the allegedly utilitarian argument that monarchy is superior to democracy, it’s flawed. The argument is built around the concept of ‘private’ government, which in turn presupposes the concept of property. But it turns out that monarchs don’t really own land - they’ve not homestead it, they’ve just usurped it. Furthermore monarchs don’t own their subjects, because humans can’t be owned…well, at least libertarians believe so.
Which is actually completely irrevelant to economics.
I don’t think so. By the way, do you believe that thieves own what they steal ?
Monarchs don’t own ‘their’ land and have no right to rule anybody, so their governments, thank god, can’t last. Monarchy is fatally flawed even from an ‘utilitarian’ point of view.
Why would it be relevant?
Notice I said economics.
Who has said otherwise?
Well, the thing is, the economic/utilitarian defense of monarchy is nonsensical. Of course, I realize that monarchists don’t care and would claim that objections to their pet theory are irrelevant…
I said that economics presupposes private property – you just glossed over it.
No I didn’t, I just said it’s not relevant as to how it’s been acquired, why the strawman?
There are no monarchists here as far as I’m aware, you can stop with the ad homs.
I had Burger King for lunch, does that count?
Let me try again : property acquired by thieves or monarchs is NOT private property. The fact that monarchs DON’T own their realms and DON’T
own their ‘subjects’ IS relevant to an economic analysis of monarchy.
No it doesn’t. The laws of economics apply whether you’re talking about the USSR, Hong Kong, or some hippie commune in Vermont. The only thing economics presupposes is human action. I think there’s a book by that name somewhere around here …
No because burger king is crap.
So if I steal your watch the laws of economics suddenly stop working in reards to it? Monarch do own their “property” they just don’t have a legitimate claim to it.
No, praxeology only presupposes a given good is under the exclusive control of an economic agent for it to be treated as private property for purposes of analysis. There are no normative implications involved.
-Jon
Dictators is political power concentrated not a crown. Kings have no need to worry, so much about being overtrown, as dictators do. All politicians, including dictators will be there for a limited time. However, a monarch does not need to steal or anything, he is the king and he will be able to transfer power to his sons without no problem.
An abyss exists between a king and a dictator.