So, again, thieves own what they steal ? (There’s nothing normative about my question. I’m not saying whether stealing is right or wrong.)
Besides, what good is ‘under control’ in the case of monarchy ? It seems that you’re referring to humans (subjects…) as ‘goods’ ?
As far as economics is concerned, ownership consists solely in exclusive control over a resource. Its laws concerning private ownership do not change if a good is stolen, no.
Tax receipts and the monarch’s own personal estates.
-Jon
I don’t see how that answers my question.
So, you just keep saying that monarchs ‘own’ what they’ve stolen from their subjects ? What is ‘efficient’ about this criminal activity carried on by monarchs ? Why are monarchs any different than a bunch of thieves and murderers ?
Are you discussing how good thieves, sorry, monarchs and natural elites, are at ‘ruling’ their subjects ? Why are these criminals any different than democratic criminals ?
In which case your question isn’t relevant. You’re asking us if a theif owns what they steal, the answer is no, however, in regards to economics the answer doesn’t matter.
As for the rest of what you said you’re just repeating the same straw men over and over again, it’s not very convincing.
So, monarchs don’t own ‘their’ tax receipts ? You acknowledge that ?
That’s just a general, and false claim of yours.
How is a strawman supposed to be convincing ? The fact is, there’s no strawman. I’m saying that monarchy is no different than democracy, or any other form of government - all governments are oligarchies.
It’s interesting though that people who claim to be making ‘value-free’ economical analysis are actually trying to smuggle their conservative bias into the picture…
I’ll reiterate: as far as economics goes, all that matters is exclusive control over the resource for it to be considered privately owned. Is it justly owned? No. But that is extraneous to economic analysis.
Statism is systematic expropriation (and this reflects on how it affects time preferences.) It is not random. A comparison between monarchy and democracy is between to systems of expropriation, i.e. which causes the least damage. It is a question of economics/political theory. I could not care less what moral connotations you want to inject into the discussion. It is purely praxeological.
I’m not repeating arguments over and over for your sake. Read Hoppe’s book if you want to know.
-Jon
Fine. And there’s NO a-priori economic reason for monarchy to cause less damage than democracy. There’s no economic ‘law’ that sets the tax rate of monarchy at a lower level than the tax rate for democracy. A monarchy can tax its subjects at 10% while a democracy taxes them at 50%…or vice-versa.
There’s NO economic law that forces monarchies to be more sympathetic, or less sympathetic, to the property rights of their subjects than democracies are.
So, it now turns out that not only economics is value free, but political theory is too ? We’re discussing a political system but morality is not to be considered at all ? What a joke.
You are wrong. A stolen resource ‘controlled’ by a thief has not the same status as resources controlled by a legitimate owner, because the owner of a stolen resource(thief) is always risking retaliation, retribution and restitution.
I’m not even bothering with this. I’ve addressed this nonsense before. You do not understand the character of economic laws.
Type it in caps, underline it, italicize it, do what you want. It does not bolster the validity of the negation.
Yes, your posts are a joke. Neither political science nor political philosophy are ethical. They are wertfrei.
-Jon
No, I am right. It is private property as far as the laws of economics go. A private property owner constantly is at risk of being robbed. So what? In the case where the expropriation is seen as a matter of right, this argument is even more futile. Please don’t waste my time with your ignorance of praxeology.
-Jon
There’s no ‘praxeological’, ‘scientific’ law that makes monarchy superior to any other form of government. The fact that the little Hoppe cult thinks otherwise doesn’t change reality.
If you wish to believe that. Your weak grasp of praxeology suggests otherwise.
-Jon
Wrongly.
Maybe you don’t. Praxeology deals with necessary relations, not with tendencies or likely (or not) outcomes such as “monarchy tends to be better than democracy”.
A claim such as “man acts” is necessarily true. On the other hand, “monarchy is better than democracy” is not a necessarily true claim.
Correctly.
It is an extrapolation of the dictum that a private owner (by the definition I gave) is more economically efficient in the use of his holdings than one who is a mere caretaker. If it is not a necessarily true claim it is only because the former is not one either, and that is only because profit maximization is not an axiom in a way that “man acts” is. It is nonetheless part and parcel of praxeological theorems.
-Jon