No style of government can sustain itself without the fabricated consent of the people.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
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:Fabricated consent is not consent.
Of course it isn't..hence the fabrication
And freedom isn't really freedom, yet people believe they have it regardless. Propaganda tends to be rather magical in that way.
"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
Nitroadict:And freedom isn't really freedom, yet people believe they have it regardless. Propaganda tends to be rather magical in that way.
Don't you know? A 200 year old document is suppose to give us freedom, and woe onto any country that doesn't have a piece of parchment to stay their brutal governments.
Anarchist Cain: Nitroadict:And freedom isn't really freedom, yet people believe they have it regardless. Propaganda tends to be rather magical in that way. Don't you know? A 200 year old document is suppose to give us freedom, and woe onto any country that doesn't have a piece of parchment to stay their brutal governments.
I sure didn't, Jim. As a loyal citizen, I should know this though, which is why I try to visit my local library watch T.V. everyday to stay alert & informed.
I think there's more to the 'equation' to the nature of government rather than who are the rulers and how much is at stake when they mess up. I think there's some truth to the idea that a monarch has more to lose than an elected official as s/he not only gets more reward than the elected official by doing well not to mess things up than not. But, equally, to assert that the incentive to do well as a monarch is a universal force on any given potential ruler is a little strange to me for the fact that not everyone wants "bling." Some want land, some want dogs, some want art, some want women (or men, depending...), and so on. Goals that individuals set can have perverse ends, regardless, and its the goals that matter to whether the structure of one kind of government is more bearable/tolerable to another.
For me, I think all kinds of government are unbearable for the simple fact that they do indeed disort the social discourse. If the many historical examples of government messups regardless of governmental structure doesn't do it for you, then maybe the hard reality of starvation, inflation, and other maladies should scare anyone away from the very idea of government (monarchy or non). But that's just me. *shrugs*
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Byzantine:The historical record is replete with monarchies being replaced by democratic government. And the historical record is utterly absent in democratic government being replaced by libertarianism.
So you think that libertarianism is unachievable?
Byzantine: Juan: There's no reason for monarchies to be small governments. That's just an ad hoc assumption of yours. Yes there is: under monarchy, the parasites are in the minority
Juan: There's no reason for monarchies to be small governments. That's just an ad hoc assumption of yours.
....The old way of thinking in terms of feudal bonds gradually gave way to the idea of a contractual society. Finally, as outward expressions of this changed state of affairs in public opinion, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England, the American Revolution of 1776, and the French Revolution of 1789 came along; and nothing was the same after these revolutions had occurred. They proved, once and for all, that the old order was not invincible, and they sparked new hope for further progress on the road toward freedom and prosperity.
Byzantine:I already said democratic government will continue until there is nothing left to plunder. Do you need an effing coloring book?
Tone down the nonsense. I simply asked a question.
Byzantine:Libertarianism will be realized to the extent possible when anarcho-capitalism emerges from the ruin of democratic government.
'And the historical record is utterly absent in democratic government being replaced by libertarianism.'
You said this:
However, could it not be said that the British empire was in fact a democratic government? It had parliament. Also a king but England still has a royalty
Juan: As to invoking Hoppe's authority...: ....The old way of thinking in terms of feudal bonds gradually gave way to the idea of a contractual society. Finally, as outward expressions of this changed state of affairs in public opinion, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England, the American Revolution of 1776, and the French Revolution of 1789 came along; and nothing was the same after these revolutions had occurred. They proved, once and for all, that the old order was not invincible, and they sparked new hope for further progress on the road toward freedom and prosperity. So Hoppe seems to be holding two contradictory positions - Which one are you going to parrot as 'true' ?
As to invoking Hoppe's authority...:
Just out of curiosity: mind elucidating the two contradictory principles in this quote?
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:Just out of curiosity: mind elucidating the two contradictory principles in this quote?
Byzantine:Monarchs, such as the English monarch, exert very little coercion, which likewise explains why democratic heads of state require the mobilization of a small army to move one block while monarchs can go about in open carriages.
I'm sorry to intercede but that is just plain naive.
Juan, how about instead of highjacking and polluting the thread, you actually go and read the book. This dumb forum debating gets you nowhere. There's no sense in getting all heated over whether a certain theory is "conservative". Hoppe's argument is that public government is subject to the tragedy of the commons, while private government at least enables long term economic calculation and planning. Rothbard made this public vs private government point in MES (pp. 956-957). I don't think this is a controversial topic, this is straightforward praxeological reasoning.
Juan: laminustacitus:Just out of curiosity: mind elucidating the two contradictory principles in this quote? How can I do that ? I never said that the contradictory positions are both in that quote. If I came across as saying that, I apologize.
I must have been mistaken then.
Juan:Now, do I really need to state the obvious and say that Hoppe's comments on the American and French revolutions (quoted) are in conflict with Hoppe's latter views on...various things including monarchy ?
Remeber, the english monarchy had almost no power by the time of the American War of Independence, it was parliament that held all the power, esspecially the purse-strings.
laminustacitus:Remeber, the english monarchy had almost no power by the time of the American War of Independence, it was parliament that held all the power, esspecially the purse-strings.
Then why wasn't the list of grievences leveled at parliament instead of the King?
toban:Juan, how about instead of highjacking and polluting the thread, you actually go and read the book.
There's no sense in getting all heated over whether a certain theory is "conservative".
Hoppe's argument is that public government is subject to the tragedy of the commons, while private government at least enables long term economic calculation and planning.
Rothbard made this public vs private government point in MES (pp. 956-957).
Rothbard:In short, except in the case of the “private property” of a hereditary monarch, government officials own the current use of resources, but not their capital value.
lam:Remeber, the english monarchy had almost no power by the time of the American War of Independence, it was parliament that held all the power, esspecially the purse-strings.
Juan: lam:Remeber, the english monarchy had almost no power by the time of the American War of Independence, it was parliament that held all the power, esspecially the purse-strings. What has that got to do with my comment ???
I thought that the inconsistency lay in the fact that England was a monarchy when the American colonies suceeded, my errror.
Juan:Isn't it crystal clear that the same Hoppe who talks so much about monarchy being superior to democracy is openly praising the French revolution ???
There is no necessary inconsistency; Hoppe is praising the lifting of tyranny, there is nothing in his thought that dictates that monarchy cannot fall into tyranny, he is actually pretty open about the fact that monarchies, like democracies, can fall into tyranny.
lam:I thought that the inconsistency lay in the fact that England was a monarchy when the American colonies suceeded, my errror.
There is no necessary inconsistency; Hoppe is praising the lifting of tyranny,
there is nothing in his thought that dictates that monarchy cannot fall into tyranny, he is actually pretty open about the fact that monarchies, like democracies, can fall into tyranny.
Anarchist Cain: Byzantine:Monarchs, such as the English monarch, exert very little coercion, which likewise explains why democratic heads of state require the mobilization of a small army to move one block while monarchs can go about in open carriages. I'm sorry to intercede but that is just plain naive.
No, it's not. If a monarch was killed, it was, in all likelihood, by a member of the royal family.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Juan, Rothbard is making the exact same point as Hoppe. Here's the full quote (from MES: Ch 12, G. The Fallacies of "Public" Ownership):
While rulers of government own “public” property, their ownership is not secure in the long run, since they may always be defeated in an election or deposed. Hence government officials will tend to regard themselves as only transitory owners of “public” resources. While a private owner, secure in his property and its capital value, may plan the use of his resource over a long period of time in the future, the government official must exploit “his” property as quickly as he can, since he has no security of tenure. And even the most securely entrenched civil servant must concentrate on present use, because government officials cannot usually sell the capitalized value of their property, as private owners can. In short, except in the case of the “private property” of a hereditary monarch, government officials own the current use of resources, but not their capital value. But if a resource itself cannot be owned, but only its current use, there will rapidly ensue an uneconomic exhaustion of the resource, since it will be to no one’s benefit to conserve it over a period of time, and yet to each owner’s advantage to use it up quickly.
Furthermore, he uses scarequotes throughout the section when referring to government "ownership". So it's not sarcasm.
Clearly, this idea is not controversial—it is a basic economic fact.
this is all a distraction from the point that states are bad. further Rothbard is sarcastic about 'public ownership', whats not to be sarcastic about?
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
nirgrahamUK: this is all a distraction from the point that states are bad. further Rothbard is sarcastic about 'public ownership', whats not to be sarcastic about?
Nobody cares about your silly libertarian moralizing, this an economics discussion, so leave your political views out of it. This is a good reason that nobody takes Austrians seriously, because self proclaimed Austrian laymen such as yourself can't have a discussion about economics without proclaiming that the state is bad and assuming the issue to be over.
swap out bad for 'economically non-optimal', and my post is saved from being political and ethical and has become economic.
Alright everyone, Giles is back. Vacation is over. All libertarians back on the meat hooks in the freezer.
GilesStratton:No, it's not. If a monarch was killed, it was, in all likelihood, by a member of the royal family.
What is naive is to say that King cannot exert large scale coercion.
Juan, Rothbard is making the exact same point as Hoppe.
the government official must exploit “his” property
nirgrahamUK: swap out bad for 'economically non-optimal', and my post is saved from being political and ethical and has become economic.
Presumably you're going to want to prove such a statement, in which case you're required to eluciadate what it is that makes states bad. In which case, there are clear implications as to what makes certain states, or types of states, particularly bad and others less so.
Anarchist Cain:What is naive is to say that King cannot exert large scale coercion.
No, they can't, most certainly not for prolonged periods of times. What you don't understand is that if you wish to exert large scale coercion you need the money and the men to do so. Now, monarchs lacked both of those and found them far more difficult to obtain than democratic governments do.
GilesStratton:What you don't understand is that if you wish to exert large scale coercion you need the money and the men to do so. Now, monarchs lacked both of those and found them far more difficult to obtain than democratic governments do.
Again nonsense. Do you actually know any history? A king has his caste of knights or warrior class to enforce his powers and a priest/scholar caste to legitimize his actions. What is stopping a king from confiscating the land and wealth of serfs? Essentially nothing. A peasant rebellion can easily be put down because they weld pitchforks while knights weld armor. A king can make land wide edicts without anyone challenging his authority. I've started reading up on Hoppe and what I agree with him on is the fact that democracy is more inclusive then monarchy. However, which is more inclusive and less inclusive is irrelevant. All states are immoral whither they are run by masses or castes.
nirgrahamUK:this is all a distraction from the point that states are economically non-optimal. further Rothbard is sarcastic about 'public ownership', whats not to be sarcastic about?
Giles-o:Presumably you're going to want to prove such a statement, in which case you're required to eluciadate what it is that makes states bad. In which case, there are clear implications as to what makes certain states, or types of states, particularly bad and others less so.
now why should this require me to say why states are 'bad' Giles ?
Anarchist Cain:Again nonsense. Do you actually know any history? A king has his caste of knights or warrior class to enforce his powers and a priest/scholar caste to legitimize his actions. What is stopping a king from confiscating the land and wealth of serfs? Essentially nothing. A peasant rebellion can easily be put down because they weld pitchforks while knights weld armor. A king can make land wide edicts without anyone challenging his authority. I've started reading up on Hoppe and what I agree with him on is the fact that democracy is more inclusive then monarchy. However, which is more inclusive and less inclusive is irrelevant. All states are immoral whither they are run by masses or castes.
I think Giles' remark was much more modern. It was common for kings to go out in public with no "security detail" in the 19th century. The threat of assassination, historically, came from members of the royal family (who stood to gain most from his death).
Regardless of that threat, the king would seek to increase the capital of the state as the state would remain in his family. That is not true for elected politicians.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Regardless of that threat, the king would seek to increase the capital of the state
Monarchy = Warfare (usually limited due to limited funds)
Modern democracy = Warfare + Wellfare (remember, even if countries don't engage in open wars they still support some kind of a military organization like Nato and have military and police).
The degree of democratic interference in people's life is unprecendented in the known history. Even the Roman Empire lags behind. Although it could be attributed simply to the lack of means: we tend to forget the role that instant communication and much shorter travel play not only in bringing people together but also in increasing government's control of our lives.
One note though, you have to remember that monarchy also changed over time, so decentralized unstable medieval holdings are quite different from far more centralized absolutist nation-states of the so-called Englightment era.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings