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?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Whatever the hell you think it is;). Define it, accept it, reject it.
Okay. I pick a republic where I am supreme dictator.
Stranger:What the hell is a republic?
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.
ViennaSausage: Stranger:What the hell is a republic? 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.
Stranger:Okay. How is the law established?
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.
ViennaSausage: Stranger:Okay. How is the law established? 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 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
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: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?
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.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
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.
Peace
Brainpolice:I have mixed feelings about that matter.
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.
Brainpolice: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.
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.
ViennaSausage: Brainpolice:I have mixed feelings about that matter. 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. Brainpolice: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. Could Anarchy be seen as an Oligarchy? Power by those that have the money/capital?
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.
Andrew:There's no such thing as a republic. The majority makes the laws in a republic.
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?
Either the Chicago "sell the law" model or a Rothbardian libertarian legal code. All those who do not sign to the constitution, need not follow the laws. That dosen't mean justice won't be extracted in violation of those laws. The basis would be the NAP
In a real Republic, everything would be based on laws written by somebody or group (oligarchy). To change the laws would be to revise the entire constitution or abolish the republic. I like to say that a republic is the rule of DEAD men. Republics should be static as far as laws are concerned. Things can't be based on self evidence when you have a court that "interprets" what those self evident laws are. That's why they are "self" evident, they vary from each person's view. They are not "collectively evident".
ViennaSausage: Assuming the republic stood true to being a republic, they would be "God-Given" inalienable rights.
Assuming the republic stood true to being a republic, they would be "God-Given" inalienable rights.
God-given rights don't provide rulings, human judges do, and you haven't specified who those judges would be.
Stranger:God-given rights don't provide rulings, human judges do, and you haven't specified who those judges would be.
Good question. Does there have to be a judge?
How many people are on each planet, and what are the available resources?
banned: How many people are on each planet, and what are the available resources?
What about Robots? I don't think we should leave anyone out here...
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
banned:How many people are on each planet, and what are the available resources?
Ceteris paribus.
ViennaSausage: Good question. Does there have to be a judge?
Please look up the definition of government.
Stranger:Please look up the definition of government.
Hoppe: "A compulsory territorial monopolist of protection and jurisdiction equipped with the power to tax without unanimous consent."
Adler: "Government, with the authority to make laws, to adjudicate disputes, and to issue administrative decisions, and with a monopoly of authorized force where it fails to persuade, is an indispensable means, proximately, to the peace of communal life."
I always find Hoppe hilarious. He can say things with a straight face, which are absurd, yet truthful.
In the HBO movie, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are having a discussion about the newly founded US. Adams suggests that they must do what they can to save the Republic, Jefferson rhetorically asks, do we really have a Republic.