In Europe, absolute monarchies are few and far between at this point in history. But it is interesting to look at some of the few remaining absolute monarchies like Swaziland for example.:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/05/africa/swaziland.php?page=1
Which “god”? Who has deified it, precisely (please don’t try say Hoppe, for his analysis is comparative and strictly applicable to feudal monarchies)? Monarchy, in all forms and shapes, is a bete noire, and has been for centuries. By contrast, call something democratic and it is tantamount to complimenting it (Hoppe’s inspiration for the title was a book reviewing communism called The God that failed IIRC, as communism at the time was also popular in academia.) Hence why it is apposite to refer to democracy as a god - it is a deified concept in modern academia. Monarchy is not. A more apposite title would therefore be “The Death of the great Satan”, as that more accurately captures modern reactions to the concept - perhaps not as much as capitalism is hated though.
-Jon
Who has deified it? The Swazis themselves. From the article: “But most Swazis see things entirely otherwise. As a local saying goes, “A king is a mouth that does not lie.””
and
““Others in authority abuse their power, not the king,” explained Ncoyi Mkhonta, the acting chief of the village Mahlangatsha.”
It seems pretty much analogous to me how people in western democracies view their leaders, hence I found the heading strange, as if this is a unique failing of monarchies. The only difference being, in the case of democracy, it is hailed as somehow being virtuous in academia, and any slight against it is an invitation for ostracism.
-Jon
It’s gone from vox rex/regina, vox dei to vox populi, vox dei. But only in the sense of “democracy” being deified.
That article doesn’t even try to make the argument that Swazis are worse off from having a king. At worse it accuses the king of being rich.
Looking at the way things went in Zimbabwe and are going in South Africa, Hoppe’s theory most likely still holds.
Hey, at least democratic kleptocracies are for, of and by the people!
-Jon
I am not trying to argue that they would be any better off if they had a “democracy”. I am merely pointing out that having a monarchy has not made them uniquely better off.
I have never met anyone who said “The President of the United States is a mouth that does not lie” No, Nixon pretty much killed that idea (if it even existed before that.)
Better off compared to what?
No, but democracy is regarded as the “institutionalisation of freedom” (a rather funny claim as it the tyranny of the majority), a title nobody would give to a monarchy because people know exactly what it is: a parasite.
“Of course, being king is not without its own difficulties. In 2001, faced with the relentlessness of the AIDS pandemic, Mswati invoked an ancient chastity rite, asking Swazi maidens to refrain from sex for five years. He then violated his own rule by selecting a 17-year-old as his ninth wife. To show the extent of his regret, he paid the customary fine of one cow.”
Why should the president matter? It’s “we the people” who rule after all. He’s just an elected puppet.
-Jon
Compared to South Africa for instance, which it borders. And 11 other African countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP_per_capita
Many in European or European-influenced cultrures may believe that, but it would seem these people do not.
So there are 40 African countries worse off than Swaziland, including democratic flagships like Senegal, Kenya and Ivory Coast. Case closed.
Remember that South Africa was an aristocratic republic, along with Rhodesia, for many years.
Do not forget the back and forth influence buying by the United States and the USSR during the cold war. Many of the “democratic” countries are only nominally so. Again, it is not my point to defend “democracy” here. It is merely my point that monarchy is not the be-all-end-all of political systems. I would prefer no government exist at all there.
Who claimed it is? Anarcho-capitalism is superior to either system.
-Jon
No, it is only better, economically, than democracy. That is the point Hoppe makes and that you seem to be having a problem with.