What has that got to do with my comment ???
Isn’t it crystal clear that the same Hoppe who talks so much about monarchy being superior to democracy is openly praising the French revolution ???
I thought that the inconsistency lay in the fact that England was a monarchy when the American colonies suceeded, my errror.
There is no necessary inconsistency; Hoppe is praising the lifting of tyranny, there is nothing in his thought that dictates that monarchy cannot fall into tyranny, he is actually pretty open about the fact that monarchies, like democracies, can fall into tyranny.
Okay. Maybe I was, again, not clear enough .
I don’t think that is all. Hoppe is saying that the American, English and French revolutions were embodiments of libertarian principles. And we know they were revolts against monarchy. But then, modern democratic states were more or less born in those revolutions. The same states we all loathe.
Now, if Hoppe were to consistently criticize the modern state he should also criticize the events that led to the creation of the modern state. The French revolution CAN’T be seen as something good by someone who says that democracy is worse than monarchy - Hoppe’s case.
Yes, but that’s not the point.
No, it’s not. If a monarch was killed, it was, in all likelihood, by a member of the royal family.
Juan, Rothbard is making the exact same point as Hoppe. Here’s the full quote (from MES: Ch 12, G. The Fallacies of “Public” Ownership):
While rulers of government own “public” property, their ownership is not secure in the long run, since they may always be defeated in an election or deposed. Hence government officials will tend to regard themselves as only transitory owners of “public” resources. While a private owner, secure in his property and its capital value, may plan the use of his resource over a long period of time in the future, the government official must exploit “his” property as quickly as he can, since he has no security of tenure. And even the most securely entrenched civil servant must concentrate on present use, because government officials cannot usually sell the capitalized value of their property, as private owners can. In short, except in the case of the “private property” of a hereditary monarch, government officials own the current use of resources, but not their capital value. But if a resource itself cannot be owned, but only its current use, there will rapidly ensue an uneconomic exhaustion of the resource, since it will be to no one’s benefit to conserve it over a period of time, and yet to each owner’s advantage to use it up quickly.
Furthermore, he uses scarequotes throughout the section when referring to government “ownership”. So it’s not sarcasm.
Clearly, this idea is not controversial—it is a basic economic fact.
this is all a distraction from the point that states are bad. further Rothbard is sarcastic about ‘public ownership’, whats not to be sarcastic about?
Nobody cares about your silly libertarian moralizing, this an economics discussion, so leave your political views out of it. This is a good reason that nobody takes Austrians seriously, because self proclaimed Austrian laymen such as yourself can’t have a discussion about economics without proclaiming that the state is bad and assuming the issue to be over.
swap out bad for ‘economically non-optimal’, and my post is saved from being political and ethical and has become economic.
Alright everyone, Giles is back. Vacation is over. All libertarians back on the meat hooks in the freezer. [:P]
What is naive is to say that King cannot exert large scale coercion.
No, he’s not. And Hope’s point is mostly irrelevant, except for conservative propagandists.
Again, no government owns ‘private property’ and a monarchy IS NOT a PRIVATE government. Actually the concept of PRIVATE government is contradictory nonsense.
Rothbard uses scare quotes for “public” property - he already said there’s no such thing - The Fallacies of “Public” Ownership (p. 955) and he uses scare quotes here
indicating that the government official doesn’t really own ‘his’ property. And then he uses scare quotes for the “private property” of a monarch because it is NOT private property.
The point that the oligarchic-monarchical form of ORGANIZED CRIME is fundamentally different from the oligarchic-democratic form of ORGANIZED CRIME is a moot point which only conservative propagandists bother with.
Presumably you’re going to want to prove such a statement, in which case you’re required to eluciadate what it is that makes states bad. In which case, there are clear implications as to what makes certain states, or types of states, particularly bad and others less so.
No, they can’t, most certainly not for prolonged periods of times. What you don’t understand is that if you wish to exert large scale coercion you need the money and the men to do so. Now, monarchs lacked both of those and found them far more difficult to obtain than democratic governments do.
Again nonsense. Do you actually know any history? A king has his caste of knights or warrior class to enforce his powers and a priest/scholar caste to legitimize his actions. What is stopping a king from confiscating the land and wealth of serfs? Essentially nothing. A peasant rebellion can easily be put down because they weld pitchforks while knights weld armor. A king can make land wide edicts without anyone challenging his authority. I’ve started reading up on Hoppe and what I agree with him on is the fact that democracy is more inclusive then monarchy. However, which is more inclusive and less inclusive is irrelevant. All states are immoral whither they are run by masses or castes.
Oh, but never let facts get in the way of a nice floating abstraction which matches conservative prejudices…
now why should this require me to say why states are ‘bad’ Giles ?
I think Giles’ remark was much more modern. It was common for kings to go out in public with no “security detail” in the 19th century. The threat of assassination, historically, came from members of the royal family (who stood to gain most from his death).
Regardless of that threat, the king would seek to increase the capital of the state as the state would remain in his family. That is not true for elected politicians.
Well, as you should know, the way to do that is to completely cease all intervention - that is - wipe out government. Oh wait. That means the monarchy should abolish monarchy…
Monarchy = Warfare (usually limited due to limited funds)
Modern democracy = Warfare + Wellfare (remember, even if countries don’t engage in open wars they still support some kind of a military organization like Nato and have military and police).
The degree of democratic interference in people’s life is unprecendented in the known history. Even the Roman Empire lags behind. Although it could be attributed simply to the lack of means: we tend to forget the role that instant communication and much shorter travel play not only in bringing people together but also in increasing government’s control of our lives.
One note though, you have to remember that monarchy also changed over time, so decentralized unstable medieval holdings are quite different from far more centralized absolutist nation-states of the so-called Englightment era.