Stranger: Juan: A public monopoly is owned by politicians, just as ´private´ monopolies are. That is, once again, grave economic error
Juan: A public monopoly is owned by politicians, just as ´private´ monopolies are.
Monarchy is private ownership of the state, and in that sense is preferable to public ownership of the state, but that doesn't mean it is just, since only one man is allowed this right and not all men.
However, public ownership of the state does not correct this injustice, it simply compounds its mistakes.
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."
Stranger: Brainpolice:Do you think that monarchy is justified because it's allegedly "private"? If you view monarchies as truly being "private property", and assuming the obvious that you think that private property is legitimate, then you're basically legitimizing the state so long as it's not democratic. The state is henceforth legitimate - as arising from "private property". This hands a huge bone to the collectivist anarchists who claim that private property inevitably gives rise to the state and argue that market anarchism is essentially the same thing as monarchy. It pretty much concedes the argument to them. Monarchy is private ownership of the state, and in that sense is preferable to public ownership of the state, but that doesn't mean it is just, since only one man is allowed this right and not all men. However, public ownership of the state does not correct this injustice, it simply compounds its mistakes.
Brainpolice:Do you think that monarchy is justified because it's allegedly "private"? If you view monarchies as truly being "private property", and assuming the obvious that you think that private property is legitimate, then you're basically legitimizing the state so long as it's not democratic. The state is henceforth legitimate - as arising from "private property". This hands a huge bone to the collectivist anarchists who claim that private property inevitably gives rise to the state and argue that market anarchism is essentially the same thing as monarchy. It pretty much concedes the argument to them.
Your usage of these terms confuse me. To me, "private" refers to anything that is not the state. "Private" refers to non-state property. The state cannot be truly "private". Monarchy is not a case of "private" defense or arbitration or law. The mere fact that the state holds a monopoly on it means that it isn't "private", even in a monarchy. So I don't understand how you can consider monarchy in this way.
Furthermore, as Juan points out, you say that it isn't just since only one man is allowed this right and you simultaneously say that public ownership is not the solution, yet the logical result of what you're saying would imply that it is just for everyone to have this right - which would seem to imply "public" ownership. I'm left in a state of confusion about what you think and advocate.
Juan:You just keep on denying the most fundamental facts of reality. It is politicians who control the state and who grant what you call 'private' monopolies.
They do that without regard to the capital value of the state, because they do not own it, they merely control it and their control is institutionally limited by elections.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Juan:So, it follows that all individuals 'should' own the state.
Owning the state means having the right to disown it, to exchange it for something else, thus receiving the capital value of the property in exchange. Democracy forbids that. It is not ownership, but communism of the state.
Stranger: Juan:You just keep on denying the most fundamental facts of reality. It is politicians who control the state and who grant what you call 'private' monopolies. They do that without regard to the capital value of the state, because they do not own it, they merely control it and their control is institutionally limited by elections.
And a monarch somehow magically doesn't run into the calculation problem themselves?
I would say that their control is institutionally enabled by elections.
Brainpolice: Your usage of these terms confuse me. To me, "private" refers to anything that is not the state. "Private" refers to non-state property. The state cannot be truly "private". Monarchy is not a case of "private" defense or arbitration or law. The mere fact that the state holds a monopoly on it means that it isn't "private", even in a monarchy. So I don't understand how you can consider monarchy in this way.
Private property quite clearly means individual ownership, the "private" part implying that no one else but the owner can have a say in the use of the property. A monarch does not have to justify himself to anyone in the management of the state, can disown the state to his chosen heir, and has a constitutional right to his monarchy. That makes it private property.
Brainpolice:Furthermore, as Juan points out, you say that it isn't just since only one man is allowed this right and you simultaneously say that public ownership is not the solution, yet the logical result of what you're saying would imply that it is just for everyone to have this right - which would seem to imply "public" ownership. I'm left in a state of confusion about what you think and advocate.
Evidently, the solution, and this would be clear if you had read any of Hoppe's arguments, is to abolish the monopoly and let anyone own privately a security provider, instead of only one man or family having the right to own one and no other. The democratic solution is to forbid anyone from owning the state but instead having a rotating control by elected politicians, who will, as the incentives of the system compel them to, squander the capital of the state.
The monarch's alleged "rights" and "ownership" is a legal construct and privilege. Private property is not a legal construct or privilege, it is the natural product of labor. The monarch's "ownership" is not the natural product of their labor. It is based on plunder.
I think the problem is that your definition of "private property" is entirely removed from any theory of justice is property aquisition; it's purely utilitarian nonsense. "Private property" is not mere "individual ownership", it has to be justified on the basis of voluntaryism.
The state is not "private property"! It's stolen property.
Evidently, the solution, and this would be clear if you had read any of Hoppe's arguments, is to abolish the monopoly and let anyone own privately a security provider, instead of only one man or family having the right to own one and no other.
I have a suspicion that what Hoppe really suggests (or the implications of it at least) is merely to have a wider variety of smaller monarchies - each of which still hold a monopoly within their respective territories. Some of his statements would almost seem to imply that he's blatantly pro-monarchy.
The democratic solution is to forbid anyone from owning the state but instead having a rotating control by elected politicians, who will, as the incentives of the system compel them to, squander the capital of the state.
I fail to see how a rotating control by privileged family members or aristocracy members is very different. And democracy doesn't forbid "ownership" of the state, it merely expands the amount of people who own it. It's still an oligarchy. This has already been addressed.
Furthermore, it seems to me that if we go by your definitions then democracy has an advantage over monarchy - it is less sustainable, while monarchies can more easily be perpetuated. If one's purpose is to end the institution, democracy is therefore preferable.
I'm curious: Do you think it would be an improvement if George Bush had the presidency for life?
According to your signature "Minarchism failed because it is socialism". So, a system that is supposed to protect individual rights, and can even be voluntary funded is 'socialism', BUT monarchy is not ?
Stranger: Evidently, the solution, and this would be clear if you had read any of Hoppe's arguments, is to abolish the monopoly and let anyone own privately a security provider, instead of only one man or family having the right to own one and no other.
No, Hoppe advocates a multiplicity of arrangements - his own preferred one being anarcho-capitalism, not monarchy. Presumably he'd go even further with the form he prefers being covenantal. He definitely prefers a feudal form of monarchy over democracy though as one state compared to another. He considers it an impossibility to justify anything but market anarchism anyway.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Brainpolice: The monarch's alleged "rights" and "ownership" is a legal construct and privilege. Private property is not a legal construct or privilege, it is the natural product of labor. The monarch's "ownership" is not the natural product of their labor. It is based on plunder. I think the problem is that your definition of "private property" is entirely removed from any theory of justice is property aquisition; it's purely utilitarian nonsense. "Private property" is not mere "individual ownership", it has to be justified on the basis of voluntaryism. The state is not "private property"! It's stolen property.
Private property is neither a construct, a privilege, or a natural phenomenon. It is just the quality of one's control of scarce resources. For property to be private, it must be exclusively controlled in perpetuity by an individual. Monarchy meets this criterion.
As for what secures private property, which is a legal construct, that occurs when a property is recognized as private by law. This can follow from homesteading, and it can also be the result of something like the enclosures acts. The outcome of this is that possession of scarce goods becomes exclusive control in perpetuity in the former case, or that exclusion of exclusive control by anyone is abolished in the latter case.
The bottom line is that you are correct in saying that the definition of private property has no relationship to justice. The justice of private property is a completely unrelated matter.
Brainpolice: I have a suspicion that what Hoppe really suggests (or the implications of it at least) is merely to have a wider variety of smaller monarchies - each of which still hold a monopoly within their respective territories. Some of his statements would almost seem to imply that he's blatantly pro-monarchy.
Your suspicious are unfounded, in bad faith and highly offensive to a man who may be the greatest austrian economist alive. I suggest you withdraw them.
Brainpolice: I fail to see how a rotating control by privileged family members or aristocracy members is very different. And democracy doesn't forbid "ownership" of the state, it merely expands the amount of people who own it. It's still an oligarchy. This has already been addressed.
None of these examples are exclusive control by an individual in perpetuity, and therefore none of them compare to monarchy.
Brainpolice:I'm curious: Do you think it would be an improvement if George Bush had the presidency for life?
It would be if he had the presidency for perpetuity, not simply life. Then he would no longer have to appeal to anyone but himself in his management of the state, and would employ rational economic calculation with the vast resources at his disposal.
Stranger: Brainpolice:I'm curious: Do you think it would be an improvement if George Bush had the presidency for life? It would be if he had the presidency for perpetuity, not simply life. Then he would no longer have to appeal to anyone but himself in his management of the state, and would employ rational economic calculation with the vast resources at his disposal.
You've really lost me here. I thought rational economic calculation was impossible because of the size of the bureacracy within government, and all of the non-voluntary restrictions on the market within which the government participates, and because they have monopolies in the services they provide. How does a supreme ruler overcome this? He must still delegate tasks, for there is no other way to manage such an economy. Besides that, as Hayek has argued, the government can never have all of the required local and dispersed information that market entrepreneurs have.
I always thought voting for gridlock between the congress/senate and the president was best, and now you're telling us making a supreme dictator out of Bush for all eternity is a better idea?
Private property is neither a construct, a privilege, or a natural phenomenon. It is just the quality of one's control of scarce resources.
Private property is a natural product of voluntary labor and exchange. Once it is obtained, it is up to the individual whether or not to be exclusive or inclusive with it. They could theoretically be extremely inclusive with it. Hence, the definition of private property merely by its exclusive nature doesn't make much sense to me.
For property to be private, it must be exclusively controlled in perpetuity by an individual. Monarchy meets this criterion.
Does it really make sense to support literally anything that is "exclusively controlled in perpetuity by an individual"? Especially when we may face an intergenerational problem in which the original owners are long since dead but their ancestors or some aristocracy that makes no productive use of it legally claims "ownership" over it while other people actually actively make use of and labor upon it?
All that you're really doing is pushing for less and less people to claim "exclusive control" over the property in question. Non-monarchal systems nonetheless still have "exclusive control" but with more people legally entitled to it. The exclusive nature of it is still there.
The problem is that your dry and utilitarian defense of "private property" opens it up to a whole bunch of charges of authoritarianism and injustice, some of which are entirely correct criticisms due to the fact that your analysis is blind to justice. Your analysis or approach effectively legitimizes unjustice. You appear to defend "private property" as it (allegedly) is (which involves some degree of injustice) rather than based on what it should be or on the basis of a theory of justice. This conservative approach leaves private propertarianism open to all of the socialist criticisms and essentially concedes to them.
I'm sorry, but some of his statements are too absurd for me not to expect that he's a closet monarchist. He almost seems to romanticize it.
It would be if he had the presidency for perpetuity, not simply life.
This statement doesn't make any sense to me. How can dead people own things in perpetuity?
Then he would no longer have to appeal to anyone but himself in his management of the state
So you think that removing liability and responsibility is good? Unilateral decision-making is good? Good lord!
and would employ rational economic calculation with the vast resources at his disposal.
How so? The calculation problem applies to the king as much as it would to any other individual within an organization. And those vast resources would be stolen resources. We're still talking about states here, remember?
Basically, what you're trying to tell me is that dictatorship is preferable to democracy. When the fact of the matter is that democracies give rise to dictatorship anyways. Democracy is merely a process by which oligarchy and dictatorship is enabled. There is nothing genuinely "public" about it in any strong or absolute sense.
Fred Furash: You've really lost me here. I thought rational economic calculation was impossible because of the size of the bureacracy within government, and all of the non-voluntary restrictions on the market within which the government participates, and because they have monopolies in the services they provide. How does a supreme ruler overcome this? He must still delegate tasks, for there is no other way to manage such an economy. Besides that, as Hayek has argued, the government can never have all of the required local and dispersed information that market entrepreneurs have.
I didn't say Bush should impose a socialist economy. I said that he would now calculate the cost to himself of the acts of government. For example, the price imposed for security would be substantially lowered as that would increase the net value of his presidency. If the market offered lower-cost alternatives to his bureaucracies, King Bush would contract out this work and shut down the bureaucracies, thus realizing large economies that would increase the value of his office even more.
Fred Furash:I always thought voting for gridlock between the congress/senate and the president was best, and now you're telling us making a supreme dictator out of Bush for all eternity is a better idea?
I didn't say that Bush should have any legislative powers.
Where? He contrasts feudal monarchy as superior to democratic government and offers a number of considerations in favour of this. He in fact argues for anarcho-capitalism on the basis that monarchy cannot be morally justified, is economically deficient and even if less likely to fall prone to certain abuses than democracy, is itself in the end a mere second-best. Essentially, is one more reckless with property they own than with property they merely have custody over? Austrians argue in every case that the former will tend to be better than the latter.
Brainpolice:Does it really make sense to support literally anything that is "exclusively controlled in perpetuity by an individual"?
Support is irrelevant to this discussion. You're the only one who keeps bringing it up over and over and over and over and over and over again as if anyone but you is interested in what other people support.
Brainpolice: I'm sorry, but some of his statements are too absurd for me not to expect that he's a closet monarchist. He almost seems to romanticize it.
I don't care what your opinion of Hoppe is. You are a worm and he is a hero of Austrian economics.
Brainpolice: So you think that removing liability and responsibility is good? Unilateral decision-making is good? Good lord!
No, exclusivity is good. Exclusivity as in I don't need to get anyone else's opinion on what to do with my property.
Brainpolice:Basically, what you're trying to tell me is that dictatorship is preferable to democracy. When the fact of the matter is that democracies give rise to dictatorship anyways.
I don't know why you keep drawing up these red herrings of oligarchies and aristocracies and dictatorship when the subject is monarchy and has nothing to do with anyone of these political systems. I can only conclude that you are an incurable troll.
Your insistance on continueing such conversations in a manner that is entirely blind to the question of legitimacy and justice astounds me.
Personal attacks, eh? Sorry for critisizing your hero! I guess libertarians aren't allowed to.
Exclusivity is not good as an absolute. A thief can have exclusive control over what they stole. The state is not the legitimate property of the people who exclusively control it. By being "exclusive" in this case, the actual original and just owners are screwed. That's the heart of the problem here. The people excluded are the original and rightful owners of the capital value of the property in question.
I don't see how I'm a troll for merely disagreeing with your legitimizing of monarchy and your vulgar libertarian tendencies.
Brainpolice: Your insistance on continueing such conversations in a manner that is entirely blind to the question of legitimacy and justice astounds me.
That is how economics is done. You don't like it, get out.
Brainpolice:I don't see how I'm a troll for merely disagreeing with your legitimizing of monarchy and your vulgar libertarian tendencies.
You are being a troll because what you claim about me and Hoppe is a fabrication of your imagination.
This isn't a purely economic question. And Rothbard pointed out the problem of sticking to a purely utiliarian value-free analysis in The Ethics of Liberty. It alone is not enough to make the case for anything and functions as a legitimizing device. I believe you're falling into that trap of using market economics in this way. Trying to legitimize economic conditions or institutions with a methodology that is entirely blind to justice or any question of ethics whatsoever is dangerous and sickening.
Putting foreward my honest opinion of what I percieve of closet monarchists such as you and Hoppe is not trolling.
Stranger: I didn't say Bush should impose a socialist economy. I said that he would now calculate the cost to himself of the acts of government. For example, the price imposed for security would be substantially lowered as that would increase the net value of his presidency. If the market offered lower-cost alternatives to his bureaucracies, King Bush would contract out this work and shut down the bureaucracies, thus realizing large economies that would increase the value of his office even more.
So the only improvement I see is that Bush may have more of a motivation to not run enormous deficits, and instead make lots of profits. This does not mean that he will manage the economy better, merely that taxes are likely to rise, while spending will fall. In other words, the proportion of what people pay in taxes, relative to what they get out of them, will decrease. Thieving then, will be on the rise, and the only one to benefit will be Bush himself, not the people of his kingdom.
Secondly, contracting out the work may offer cost-improvements, but in no way solves the inherent calculation problem, since it is still Bush who decides how to allocate these resources.
Fascinating. Now, why don't you demonstrate that the plunder was on par with what occurs in democracies, that in democracies it indeed is still viewed as plunder and that democratic haegemons are less rapacious than their monarchical counterparts. Because otherwise you're not really doing much to counter the thesis - you're just reinforcing it.
Fred, why would taxes rise if that diminishes overall revenue? Higher taxes stunt productivity, and hence potential receipts. Democratic rulers are inclined to tax as much as they can when in power, because they certainly won't get the chance to later.
BP. I do not recall Rothbard railing against value-free analysis insofar as pure economics is concerned - and if I am wrong, I am to that extent going to part ways with him and side with Mises.
Jon Irenicus: Fred, why would taxes rise if that diminishes overall revenue? Higher taxes stunt productivity, and hence potential receipts. Democratic rulers are inclined to tax as much as they can when in power, because they certainly won't get the chance to later.
I understand the argument about caretakers exploiting as much as possible. However, I seriously doubt the economic understanding of people like Bush. Nor are his advisers going to do anything except try to manipulate him. It requires some basic understanding of economics to realise that higher taxes may at a certain point in time actually reduce revenues. Moreover, I'm not sure what this point is, and it is entirely possible that there are still more taxable revenues to be stolen.
Also, didn't monarchies historically maintain unprofitable colonies and run into massive debts with unnecessary wars? If anything, supreme monarchs are likely to be even more militaristic and expansive, and would thus happily incur deficits in order to conquer and control more and more territory and people. Trying to equate a militaristic and expansive monarch (many were, and Bush plays the role quite well) with an entrepreneur seems a tad naive.
Btw, you didn't address my concerns regarding the calculation problem not being resolved by outsourcing contracts to private firms.
P.S. Who is that in your avatar? That doesn't look like Jon from Baldur's gate to me.
I have no intention of resolving it since it's still a problem regardless. All socialized law and order faces the calculation problem. The main contention is that feudal monarchy as contrasted with democracy tends to be a) characterized by a higher sense of class distinction between exploited-exploitee, which dissipates in democracies and to a lesser extent republics and b) that to the extent that one owns the capitalized value of the kingdom, they will be more discriminating in the policies they adopt. Absolute monarchies to a degree subverted a) as the Monarch sided with the "people" as opposed to the allegedly rapacious nobles (who acted alongside the church as a check on their power in the past), which contributed to blurring the class distinction.
Now, it is true an idiot such as Bush could still wreak much havoc as a monarch, but in the first place even under absolute monarchies, to my recollection, the King had to finance his own endeavours (and in fact this is what contributed heavily to the French monarchy's dissolution), but I'm not sure I see how that's significantly worse (if it even is) than idiot upon idiot compounding bad policy upon bad policy as happens under democracies except in rare circumstances. Feudal monarchs enjoyed nowhere near the power either an absolute monarch or a president enjoy, and that is the thrust of Hoppe's argument. The irony is that even absolute monarchies pale by comparison to modern-day social democracies in the ruin they leave behind them, so why the latter are automatically viewed as progressive is beyond me. There is no inhibition in a democracy to be as reckless as one pleases, or at least very few indeed.
And no, it's just an avatar I happen to like.
The fact that Bush may or not may not be an idiot is irrelevant. The same idiot has worse incentives as elected president than he does as monarch so far as the consumer is concerned. He may still make mistakes, anyone human will, but he will not gain from them. Democracy rewards the mistakes. Monarchy punishes them. Hence, monarchy is preferable to democracy.
Fred Furash: Btw, you didn't address my concerns regarding the calculation problem not being resolved by outsourcing contracts to private firms.
The calculation problem is resolved if an outside market can quote prices for the production of a good. If private firms can offer Bush better prices than his own bureaucracies cost him to produce whatever it is he needs to run the government, then he will choose them over his bureaucracies and thus realize economies. The bureaucrats will have to get real jobs and more goods will be produced by the economy.
Brainpolice: Putting foreward my honest opinion of what I percieve of closet monarchists such as you and Hoppe is not trolling.
You can call talk radio if you want to express your opinion. No one is interested in your opinions here.
No wonder that so many people don't get Hoppe's argumentation ethics when they don't even understand what it means to engage in an argument.
Indeed.
Stranger:He may still make mistakes, anyone human will, but he will not gain from them. Democracy rewards the mistakes. Monarchy punishes them. Hence, monarchy is preferable to democracy.
QFT
The critical difference is time preference. Bush's opportunity to profit from graft, corruption, etc., is guaranteed to end in January--so he needs to get while the getting's good. Ideally, he should suck the country 100% dry on exactly the day he leaves office, taking with him the entire nation's wealth. He can't, by a long shot, but he's doing the best he can--just as Clinton did before him, etc.
As a monarch, he would have an incentive to preserve his personal capital by keeping the nation productive in 2009, 2010 and onward, for him to continue preying upon. The strategy that makes sense under term limits is, to a monarch, killing the golden goose.
--Len
Juan:That's just an hypothesis. Too bad that historical facts prove it wrong. It is not true that monarchy was superior to democracy.
Check your facts. Hoppe documents quite a few of them. For example, "democracies" charge tax rates of which a king would be terrified to charge half, knowing that there would be assassins behind every tree just waiting for him.
What "historical facts"? It's incredible how fast you are to reject praxeological insights as "hypothesis" when they don't suit your ideological inclinations. Positivism when we feel like it, and at all other times praxeology, hm? Relative to democracies, monarchies involve far less expropriation, as a theoretical point and as a matter of fact.
Jon: What "historical facts"? It's incredible how fast you are to reject praxeological insights as "hypothesis" when they don't suit your ideological inclinations.
Len: The critical difference is time preference. Bush's opportunity to profit from graft, corruption, etc., is guaranteed to end in January
Juan: Jon: What "historical facts"? It's incredible how fast you are to reject praxeological insights as "hypothesis" when they don't suit your ideological inclinations. Are you bothering to read this thread at all ? Sorry for thinking that Ralph Raico's knowledge of history is superior to Stranger's and yours. Please take a look at post Wed, Jun 4 2008 4:04 AM - THANKS.
History is meaningless without the theory to interpret it. That something happened in monarchy does not imply that it happened because of monarchy.
Juan: Len: The critical difference is time preference. Bush's opportunity to profit from graft, corruption, etc., is guaranteed to end in January But government is composed of tens of millions of people who will not be going home in January, so your argument is baseless. As it has been pointed out governments are always oligarchies.
Too bad their longer time-preference didn't prevent Bush from murdering about a million Iraqis, now, isn't it?