Fascinating stuff. I can only find the 1875-following videos, would like to see the period from the late 17-th century onward… oh well.
In the grand scheme of history, the gutting of the aristocracy is merely a stepping stone to global unification. A dukedom (particularly in England) is a territory that was once its own realm, governed by its own sovereign king. After subjugation to a national king, the ruler of that territory is now referred to as “duke” instead of “king”, as it once was.
The King clearly has an interest in stoking anti-aristocratic populism if he can managed to obsolete them by regimenting society (thus easing the burden of governance) and bureaucratizing (thus obsoleting the need for middle-management). In fact, I think this is related to Hoppe’s account of the State - his view is that the State is rooted in an alliance of renters seeking to escape their rents and throwing off the shackles of the land-owners. No doubt. But how could the renters possibly have been more organized than the owners since there are so fewer owners (thus, easing organization)? I think the answer is that the Crown actively undermines its aristocracy to whatever extent it can manage through stoking popular discontent in demand of increased taxation (look at the effects of the death tax on the aristocracy, mentioned in the video). Personally, I don’t accept Hoppe’s theory as an explanation of the origins of the State but I do think it definitely explains the origins of democracy, communism and populism as well as the decline of the aristocracy and the capitalist class.
The aristocracy are not good in that they are wannabe crowns. Nevertheless, they are less bad than the Crown in that they are closer to those they rule. And the more competition between rulers and the easier it is for the ruled to switch between rulers (political unification always makes this harder, not easier), the better it is for the ruled.
Being pro-aristocracy is confused with being pro-privilege - while the aristocracy did indeed enjoy privilege, they were, nevertheless, a check on the power of the Crown. That check has been all but removed in the name of “democracy”. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the interpretation of democracy as the rise of freedom and the decline of privilege is precisely backwards from the case in fact. What people don’t understand is that the royals are as exclusive with respect to the aristocracy as the aristocracy is with respect to commoners. There is very little inter-mixing (it is difficult for an aristocrat to marry up into Royalty). The rise of democracy has exactly coincided with dramatically increased political aggregation (trending toward world government). I think it’s more than coincidence, I think there is a causal connection.
For the same reasons I would like to see State governors empowered and Washington, DC shut down, I think that we need to look at reviving the aristocracy as a way to once again put the Crown in check. Greece once actively sought a foreign monarch. It is a perverse kind of logic but there is a logic to it. We are being exploited by the natural elites of exploitation/parasitism. The problem is more complex than just security and law because human nature is complex and bizarre. Unless you have your own, home-grown ruler, it makes sense to seek a ruler to protect you from the exploitation of other rulers. He has an incentive to preserve the capital value of the assets of the realm and, as someone who is a member of the ruling Elite, he understands the dangers and wiles of external powers.
Fixed political structures make this kind of wheeling and dealing impossible. It “thins” the market in rulers. Fixed political structures remind me of cell-phone contracts. They give you this really great deal on a phone, up-front, but in order to get it, you have to sign this contract that goes on and on for perpetuity.
So, maybe we need to court nobility from regions with a strong cultural heritage of property rights to come over here and rule at the State level. Perhaps they can help us break the fetters of Washington, DC. Yes, they will still be parasites, too, but at least they’re smaller and closer than Washington, DC.
Clayton -
