No style of government can sustain itself without the fabricated consent of the people.
Fabricated consent is not consent.
Of course it isn’t..hence the fabrication [:P]
And freedom isn’t really freedom, yet people believe they have it regardless. Propaganda tends to be rather magical in that way.
Don’t you know? A 200 year old document is suppose to give us freedom, and woe onto any country that doesn’t have a piece of parchment to stay their brutal governments.
I sure didn’t, Jim. As a loyal citizen, I should know this though, which is why I try to visit my local library watch T.V. everyday to stay alert & informed.
I think there’s more to the ‘equation’ to the nature of government rather than who are the rulers and how much is at stake when they mess up. I think there’s some truth to the idea that a monarch has more to lose than an elected official as s/he not only gets more reward than the elected official by doing well not to mess things up than not. But, equally, to assert that the incentive to do well as a monarch is a universal force on any given potential ruler is a little strange to me for the fact that not everyone wants “bling.” Some want land, some want dogs, some want art, some want women (or men, depending…), and so on. Goals that individuals set can have perverse ends, regardless, and its the goals that matter to whether the structure of one kind of government is more bearable/tolerable to another.
For me, I think all kinds of government are unbearable for the simple fact that they do indeed disort the social discourse. If the many historical examples of government messups regardless of governmental structure doesn’t do it for you, then maybe the hard reality of starvation, inflation, and other maladies should scare anyone away from the very idea of government (monarchy or non). But that’s just me. shrugs
Yes there is: under monarchy, the parasites are in the minority. That’s why, as documented by Hoppe, tax rates under monarchs are lower. The American colonies revolted on an effective 10% tax on income.
A consistent application of democracy leads to a majority of people living at the expense of the minority in exchange for being ruled.
The historical record is replete with monarchies being replaced by democratic government. And the historical record is utterly devoid of democratic government being replaced by libertarianism.
So you think that libertarianism is unachievable?
I already said democratic government will continue until there is nothing left to plunder. Do you need an effing coloring book?
Libertarianism will be realized to the extent possible when anarcho-capitalism emerges from the ruin of democratic government.
I say there’s no reason and the “reason” you provide is just the repetition of an unfounded assertion ? Are you joking ?
Okay. No point in discussing with a fanatical conservative.
Just remember, the french revolution was the outcome of theocracy, oligarchy (natural elites), and the boundless stupidity of monarchy. And the commies did well in russia because communism is just another form of dictatorship/monarchy.
As to invoking Hoppe’s authority…:
So Hoppe seems to be holding two contradictory positions - Which one are you going to parrot as ‘true’ ?
Tone down the nonsense. I simply asked a question.
‘And the historical record is utterly absent in democratic government being replaced by libertarianism.’
You said this:
However, could it not be said that the British empire was in fact a democratic government? It had parliament. Also a king but England still has a royalty
Just out of curiosity: mind elucidating the two contradictory principles in this quote?
Monarchs, such as the English monarch, exert very little coercion, which likewise explains why democratic heads of state require the mobilization of a small army to move one block while monarchs can go about in open carriages.
Democratic government will run the course of places like Somalia and Zimbabwe: the rulers will finally abscond and the remnant citizenry will turn to private entrepeneurs for the services formerly provided on monopoly terms by the failed state. Competition among entrepeneurs for these services will result in the realization of libertarian society, to the extent that is possible in a subjective and fallible world.
Sadly, in places like Somalia and Zimbabwe, the emergence of anarcho-capitalism is thwarted by the interventions of Western democratic governments.
How can I do that ? I never said that the contradictory positions are both in that quote. If I came across as saying that, I apologize.
Now, do I really need to state the obvious and say that Hoppe’s comments on the American and French revolutions (quoted) are in conflict with Hoppe’s latter views on…various things including monarchy ?
I’m sorry to intercede but that is just plain naive.
Juan, how about instead of highjacking and polluting the thread, you actually go and read the book. This dumb forum debating gets you nowhere. There’s no sense in getting all heated over whether a certain theory is “conservative”. Hoppe’s argument is that public government is subject to the tragedy of the commons, while private government at least enables long term economic calculation and planning. Rothbard made this public vs private government point in MES (pp. 956-957). I don’t think this is a controversial topic, this is straightforward praxeological reasoning.
I must have been mistaken then.
Remeber, the english monarchy had almost no power by the time of the American War of Independence, it was parliament that held all the power, esspecially the purse-strings.
Then why wasn’t the list of grievences leveled at parliament instead of the King?
How about you making your own arguments instead of copying and pasting Hoppe’s ?
The theory is conservative propaganda. You don’t want me to state that fact ?
And is wrong. Or rather it’s an irrelevant floating abstraction.
There’s only one line, and notice that “private property” is put in quotes. Sounds like sarcasm to me.