Earth is no longer inhabitable. You have to leave and move to another planet. You have three inhabitable planets to go to, each run as a Republic, a Democracy, or a Monarchy. Which would you choose. (AnCap is not an option). What is your first choice? Second choice? Last choice? Why?
What the hell is a republic?
Whatever the hell you think it is;). Define it, accept it, reject it.
Okay. I pick a republic where I am supreme dictator.
Here is a generic definition of a republic. It’s a government run by the rule of law as opposed to the rule of the majority.
Okay. How is the law established?
Monarchy. At least I know who must be assassinated.
Assuming the republic stood true to being a republic, they would be “God-Given” inalienable rights. The reason I ask the initial question is to seek opinions on the various forms of government, which would be better, which would be worse. Hoppe suggests that although he does not necessarily support Monarchy, he sees it as a better alternative than a Democracy and Republic. I would conjecture that some Austrians see it the other way around. Curious to see how the folks on this board see it. I thought framing in the doomed earth scenario would be more fun than just saying blatantly,
I tend to agree with Mencken that democracy is the most amusing form of government.
I have mixed feelings about that matter. I think Hoppe brings up some excellent points against democracy but isn’t hard enough on monarchy and perhaps he overlooks certain ways in which monarchy may be more dangerous. Mises seemed to be more in favor of democracy, although he doesn’t always use the term in the political sense, but some of his statements strike me as naive about democracy. And as far as a Republic goes, I’m inclined to suggest that it’s a non-existant “3rd way” that attempts to be a balance between democracy and monarchy without being either of them, and in practise is just a limited or watered down democratic oligarchy. As far as the concept of “the rule of law” goes, a Republic is a fiction because law does not rule all on its own independantly from the creation, interpretation and application of men.
I think that in their actual manifestations, all three systems are coercive oligarchies and the differences are only a matter of degree, with democracy being the most expansive oligarchy and monarchy being the most limited in terms of membership and overall access to the institution. I think that the particular danger of monarchy is that it can be more direct in a bad sense and it seems more sustainable, while the particular danger of democracy is the majoritarianism problem and the inherently indirect nature of political democracy. So-called Republics will have a tendency to devolve into either democracies or dictatorships, or a dictatorship as a consequence of democracy. Overall, I don’t favor any of them as political systems. Of course, I don’t favor any formal political “systems” to begin with.
Monarchy, on the condition that the King’s a stoner who’s high all day, and whose offspring will all suffer from a genetic defect that makes them addiction-prone.
-Jon
There’s no such thing as monarchy - it actually is oligarchy plus a figurehead for propaganda purposes.
Couldn’t the same be said for a Republic and a Democracy?
Yes!
Monarchy, Republic, Democracy. At least the power is situated in one or a few persons and revolution would be easier in monarchy. There’s no such thing as a republic. The majority makes the laws in a republic. Sounds like democracy to me.
There are only two forms of government: democracy or oligarchy. I don’t care what the Birch Society says.
Monarchy is commonly used to refer to what Nock called a “regime of status”, the feudal state, as distinct from the merchant state.
All states are oligarchies.
I was fascinated by Hoppe’s arguments of Monarchy and Democracy. We are generally taught that Monarchy is bad, and Democracy is good, a cultural meme the invades the culture of America.
Could Anarchy be seen as an Oligarchy? Power by those that have the money/capital?
No, it cannot. Anyone is free under anarchism to do business in any way they please. It is only in the present system that there’s a systemic division between capital and labour. Inequalities are, to an extent, natural, and will persist in anarchism. However, without a state, one cannot force others to associate with them. If they do not like the arrangement under a certain firm and believe they could make more organizing under some other model, they (and others) are free to go ahead and try. As no economic system is forced on others under anarchism, there is no oligarchy.
-Jon
True, political democracy is deified in contemporary society.
Actually in a certain sense I consider anarchy to be a form of participatory democracy or market democracy. Everyone, in theory, has the “power” to be a producer and own some kind of “capital”. Everyone, in theory, can be both a “worker” and an “owner” at the same time. It’s not gauranteed to them on a silver platter and it’s certainly not a perfect egalitarian utopia, but it is based on their participation and actions.
How are laws made in AnCap? How are laws supposed to made in a republic? Are not both “systems”, laws are supposed to be self-evident?