Is this just me, or does it seem that Rothbard and Hoppe’s opinions toward term limits were contradictory? Rothbard (http://lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard123.html) defends term limits on the basis that doing so would prevent the expansion of government by allowing the incumbent to merely replace current officials rather than creating new positions to enrich his cronies. On the other hand, Hoppe argues in DTGTL that the state is least offensive to liberty when it is run by a private ruler. Using this logic, one would think that a democratic system without term limits would be preferable to a democratic system with term limits. Even though this is a conflict over the lesser of two evils, which viewpoint has more value, or do you think that they not mutually exclusive
Hoppe seems to be the most sensible to me. So sure, a democratic governme twith no term limit (“Consul for life”), or even with longer temrs would already be an advancement. Dictatorship ala Putin even better (Russia would still be in its 1990 ‘glory’ had it switched to full democracy), with fully accepted dynastic rule being the best.
Do not forget, the Fed and the Bank of England are ‘privately owned’ and neither the US nor the UK have ever gone though hyperinflation, while many other developed countries have *Germany and Austria come to mind). This works in practice, is not just some hidden monarchical fantasy of Hoppe’s.