Hoppe's monarchy>democracy becomes problematic when you include the fascist/communist dictators of the 20th century. Yeah, they did emerge from democracy but you cannot say Germany was democractic after Hitler rose to power. My guess is that he takes a historical viewpoint in his conception of monarchy. Monarchy to him is the rule of a natural elite that has been acknowledged by the people to become a territorial monopolist of force whereas 'democratic monarchs'(Hitler, Stalin) come to power because of the intellecual and moral degeneration through the use of propaganda in a system of democracy. I'd like to get your thoughts on this.
To say that monarchy > democracy is to express a subjective valuation. I would separate that from the rest of his analysis because it is besides the point he is making whenever he mention this.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel Muffinburg: To say that monarchy > democracy is to express a subjective valuation. I would separate that from the rest of his analysis because it is besides the point he is making whenever he mention this.
Hoppe's claim regarding monarchy does not rest on subjective valuation at all, at least not if you define subjective valuation as preference. His claim is based on the caretaker vs. owner issue.
In a democracy caretakers are appointed to manage the resources. These caretakers are appointed for a comparatively short time. To maximize the profit out of this situation a caretaker is inclined to exploit his realm of cartaking without any thought about whether the object could yield more wealth in the longer run. Simply because, as Keynes used to say: " In the long run we are all dead". In a democracy this sentence would have to be rephrased to : "In the next election I might loose my privileges". Hoppes argument is, I think quite right, that this is a recipe for ruthless exploitation inherent in democracy.
On the other hand, in monarchy there is an owner of the realm. The king. He does not have the problem of the caretaker, i.e. get what you can while you are in power. He is in power and no election can change that. Therefor he does not have the obstacle the caretaker has and can act with the long run in mind. Maybe he will only cut as much of the forrests as can be replaced naturall so his heirs can enjo the benefit of reaping profits from that wood too, while he still has enough wood for his own purpose. The caretaker or leasee will always tend to cut as much as he can during the time he has the power to do so.
From that prespective, all things equal, a monarchy tends to be more careful in using resources than a democracy.
I can not see a subjective valuation in that argument.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
Hoppe defines monarchy in such a way that even most monarchies are not monarchies. I think the precise definition is a monopoly on force which is owned by the monarch. So impersonal states are not monarchies in this sense even if they have a hereditary head of state.
nhaag: In a democracy caretakers are appointed to manage the resources. These caretakers are appointed for a comparatively short time. To maximize the profit out of this situation a caretaker is inclined to exploit his realm of cartaking without any thought about whether the object could yield more wealth in the longer run. Simply because, as Keynes used to say: " In the long run we are all dead". In a democracy this sentence would have to be rephrased to : "In the next election I might loose my privileges". Hoppes argument is, I think quite right, that this is a recipe for ruthless exploitation inherent in democracy.
Was an important cause of Khmelnytsky Uprising. Magnates had turned absentees and had been striking relatively short-term lease deals with arendators to manage the estates in their stead. You had the same thing in the Ottoman Empire, but there everything was being rented out by the emperor directly. So I would say even in a monarchy there is no guaratee that the monarch will not turn over his property to caretakers. In fact he seems to have an incentive to do so. The Turkish Sultan was much more powerful figure internally than his western counterparts because he did not need to suffer an aristocratic class with hereditary holdings, only short term tax farmers. Later on similarly European monarchs rose in stature internally because they could clip the wings of nobility using more and more bureaucrats - another manager class.
Marko:Hoppe defines monarchy in such a way that even most monarchies are not monarchies. I think the precise definition is a monopoly on force which is owned by the monarch. So impersonal states are not monarchies in this sense even if they have a hereditary head of state.
This is exactly how I understand what Hoppe means by monarchy.
Marko:So I would say even in a monarchy there is no guaratee that the monarch will not turn over his property to caretakers. In fact he seems to have an incentive to do so. The Turkish Sultan was much more powerful figure internally than his western counterparts because he did not need to suffer an aristocratic class with hereditary holdings, only short term tax farmers.
No, there is in fact no guarantee that people choose means that do not contribute achieving their goals, or that their goals are short term and destructive. At least though, a Hoppean monarch has one more option to act as compared to the caretaker. He can, if he chooses, take a long term approach, which the caretaker can not without hurting himself.
Kenneth: Hoppe's monarchy>democracy becomes problematic when you include the fascist/communist dictators of the 20th century. Yeah, they did emerge from democracy but you cannot say Germany was democractic after Hitler rose to power. My guess is that he takes a historical viewpoint in his conception of monarchy. Monarchy to him is the rule of a natural elite that has been acknowledged by the people to become a territorial monopolist of force whereas 'democratic monarchs'(Hitler, Stalin) come to power because of the intellecual and moral degeneration through the use of propaganda in a system of democracy. I'd like to get your thoughts on this.
There's no such thing as a democratic monarch. A leader is "democratic" from his ability to mobilize large groups of common people towards his exercise of power. Hitler had that, Mao and Kim have that, but it would be absurd to claim that the Habsburgs or Hohenzollern had that.
You become a monarch by inheritance, and you own a kingdom by law. On the other hand, you become a democrat by usurpation, and rule a state by pure force. (Hitler had to be constantly alert to other Nazi leaders attempting to overthrow him. A monarch never has that problem.) That makes all the difference as to how you will act.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power