Here's an article I wrote: Monarchy vs. Democracy and The Decline of Civilization
The article is mainly based on Hoppe's monarchy-democracy analysis, and his argument that democracy promotes rising time preferences and the destruction of society.
With all due respect, your article is crap. Crap like that is the main reason that the libertarian movement is ignored by the masses.
Firstly, I would like to point out that your article contradicts itself. You state that:
"The existence of government weakens the process of capital accumulation. Under democratic rule, this weakening effect is considerably enhanced. Unless it is stopped, democracy will eventually raise time preferences to the point of capital consumption, and a self-reinforcing process of decivilization will be set in motion"
You also say:
"Despite incredible advances in knowledge and technology over the past few decades, living standards have actually declined"
How can "incredible advances in knowledge and technology" be reconciled with "the point of capital consumption"?
Your second (and far more visible) blunder is your glaringly inaccurate comparison between monarchy and democracy. Such as:
“Now, year in and year out the American government expropriates more than 40 percent of the incomes of private producers, making even the economic burden imposed on slaves and serfs seem moderate in comparison.” No, it doesn't, when you consider that modern capitalism makes the private producer far more productive than slaves and serfs of the dark ages. Seriously, are we better off than them or not????
"Monarchy: Limited wars for settling territorial disputes. Battles fought by hired mercenaries with minimal bloodshed. Civilian life was unaffected by wars." Civilian life unaffected by wars??
"Monarchy: Kings were considered judges, not legislators. Law was considered fixed and immutable (and the king’s own property rights rested on its validity). Legislation was unheard of." Obviously, you know nothing about history. Every heard of the Hammorabi code? Every king in history has been (or tried to be) a legislator; that's kind of the point.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
ama gi:"Monarchy: Limited wars for settling territorial disputes. Battles fought by hired mercenaries with minimal bloodshed. Civilian life was unaffected by wars." Civilian life unaffected by wars??
I think he means compared to the "total war" that democracy of recent centuries has brought us.
ama gi, I take it you are a mini-statist—that would go a long way in explaining your displeasure with my article. In my defense, I should first point out that my arguments are directly taken from Hoppe's book (Democracy—The God That Failed). I wanted to keep the article fairly short, so I didn't go into great length on any point. Hoppe's book is a much more thorough and convincing exposition of these arguments.
Capital consumption and technological advance can co-exist. Inventors still create new products even if the state is intervening like crazy. My whole point is that we haven't seen any significant improvement in living standards from the computer and information revolutions. The state is "soaking" up all the wealth.
Next, in the Hoppe quote where he compares the burden of serfs to modern workers, he is not saying that they were better off than us. He's just pointing out that the modern democratic state takes a much larger percentage than monarchies could ever dream of.
Seriously, civilians were completely undisturbed by monarchical wars. People would often go and watch the battles. Hoppe elaborates quite a bit on this interesting fact in the book.
On legislation, again see Hoppe's book where he extensively defends this point.
From Toban's article:
Were not the Crusades an example of "total wars fought for ideological goals"? And the Crusades were fought by monarchies rather than democracies, were they not?
Again, I think Toban needs to learn some history before he spouts off with dogma like this.
Fluery:I think he means compared to the "total war" that democracy of recent centuries has brought us.
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."
In any science of human action, you will almost always find exceptions to a rule. As for war, you could also name the Thirty Years' War. Not all monarchic wars were small in scale and without collateral damage.However, Toban and Hoppe are talking about general tendencies, not exceptions. It may have a dogmatic vibe here and there, but they are still on to something.
In any science of human action, you will almost always find exceptions to a rule.
was the USSR stalin's own little fief for a while? and germany hitlers (post-the democracy)?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Juan:In any science of human action, you will almost always find exceptions to a rule. LOL. Hoppe's views on monarchy are not science but propaganda.
I find it interesting that Hoppe is embellished quite a bit by those who oppose him. While he certainly injects a considerable amount of opinion, I hardly see how half of his views on monarchy are controversial, especially since radical libertarians have been opposing democracy well before Hoppe's D:TGTF. Then again, I've heard mostly lectures from him, so I can't speak for his books just yet. Any sensible person who reads Hoppe, or anyone else for that matter, would realize when to ignore speculation, such as that war was somehow less severe with monarchies versus democracies. It certainly was different, just as how war was different at the time of WWII versus today with the prospect of full nuclear war, but not "better".
"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
Of course, these are not absolute political laws, but only tendencies. All Hoppe is saying is that the incentive structure is much healthier for a private owner. Surely the wars of the 20th century are without parallel in terms of destructiveness.
Hoppe quotes Michael Howard (War in European Civilization, pp. 75-76):
Once the state ceased to be regarded as 'property' of dynastic princes, and became instead the instrument of powerful forces dedicated to such abstract concepts as Liberty, or Nationality, or Revolution, which enabled large numbers of the population to see in that state the embodiment of some absolute Good for which no price was too high, no sacrifice too great to pay; then the "temperate and indecisive contests" of the rococo age appeared as absurd anarchronisms.
All Hoppe is saying is that the incentive structure is much healthier for a private owner.
And after the revolution came The Great Terror. W00t!
Juan:Here's another 'exception' for your conservative biased non-rule.
Praxeology is the science of human action. If the human acting as king happens to be a psycopathic, war-mongering misanthrope with an extremely high time preference, the restraining effects of monarchic governance may not moderate him either. Fortunately, that is not the point. The point is that ceteris paribus, rulers will be more inclined to exploit their subjects in a democratic system than in a monarchic one due to the unique qualities of these systems.If you are convinced otherwise, make your case. I hope you do not dislike this theory just because it seems "conservative" to you.
Knight:And after the revolution came The Great Terror. W00t!
Juan: Also, I should point out that the french monarchy ruled its serfs aided by the catholic church (theocracy) and the oligarchy. So again the idea that the french government was something owned by a single guy doesn't match reality.
And who sided with the serfs in overthrowing the ancien regime? The parish priests apart of the first estate did side with the third estate in bringing about a constitional monarchy.
The French monarchy was anything but a theocracy. If anything, it was the aristocracy that controlled the clergy, not the other way around.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Sphairon:Fortunately, that is not the point. The point is that ceteris paribus, rulers will be more inclined to exploit their subjects in a democratic system than in a monarchic one due to the unique qualities of these systems.
If you are convinced otherwise, make your case.
I hope you do not dislike this theory just because it seems "conservative" to you.
The French monarchy was anything but a theocracy.
If anything, it was the aristocracy that controlled the clergy,
Juan: Is that meant as an objection to what I said ?
Juan:Well, maybe some did, whereas the top commanders of the church were friendly to the king and the rest of the establishment ?
Those top commanders of the church being thrusted there by aristocracy for their own goals; therefore, my assertion that the aristocracy controlled the clergy, esspecially the episcopates
Juan:Also the church does have a commie wing no ? Maybe some of the parish priests were not real fans of private property after all ?
We are speaking of the 1780s here, not the present era.
Juan:The French monarchy was anything but a theocracy. It was partly a theocracy.
The upper clergy was packed by the aristocracy to support the ends of the aristocracy, and it wielded very little power in France as well. Although the clergy were the first estate, they still held very little power after Louis XIV.
Juan:If anything, it was the aristocracy that controlled the clergy, Uh oh. Or maybe the oligarchy and the clergy were mostly the same group of people.
And I explained why that was prior.
Byzantine: Also, the Dark Ages weren't. There was a great deal of scholarship, literature, visual and performing arts, and trade, free of the brutal hegemony of the Roman Empire.
Also, the Dark Ages weren't. There was a great deal of scholarship, literature, visual and performing arts, and trade, free of the brutal hegemony of the Roman Empire.
Still, people appeared to be somewhat conservative back then. That's smelly.
Byzantine:Bonaparte was a dictator, not a monarch.
aren't monarch's just a kind of dictator?
byzantine:Bonaparte was a dictator, not a monarch.
Juan:the lord has spoken
As found in the Web 1.0 Testament; Book of Wiki, Chapter 1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchyvs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchyvs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DictatorshipHardly a new objection, considering every monarch is not a de-facto dictator, just how every democracy is not really a democracy. I'm sure the Queen of England is currently ruling Britian with an iron fist & sending dissenters to the gulags while Parliament is scrambling to defend the rights of it's citizens from her overwhelming armies.Er...
Hardly new objection, considering every monarch is not a de-facto dictator. I'm sure the Queen of England is currently ruling Britian with an iron fist & sending dissenters to the gulags
As I've said before, replacing monarchy with democracy is replacing a government you can overthrow with a government you can't overthrow.
Juan:Hardly new objection, considering every monarch is not a de-facto dictator. I'm sure the Queen of England is currently ruling Britian with an iron fist & sending dissenters to the gulags I'm not sure what point you're trying to make ? At any rate, I'm sure that all the property the queen of england has is stolen property - Or do you think she and the other royal parasites made their money by, say, running Intel ?
Byzantine:replacing monarchy with democracy is replacing a government you can overthrow with a government you can't overthrow.
Beautiful. This must be made into a proverb.
Nitroadict:My point was that, technically, the Queen of England is a monarch, yet holds no real power (a ceremonial figurehead),
It would be interesting to read up on an long-term maintained studies of property ownership to determine that, methinks.
That is true so far as it goes. But monarchy is self-limiting, in that the parasitic nature of government (a tiny minority of the populace) is clear.
Democratic states can never be overthrown, backed as they are by the will of the majority.