Political Theory

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:35:08 GMT

Wrongly

Correctly.

Maybe you don't. Praxeology deals with necessary relations, not with tendencencies or likely (or not) outcomes such as "monarchy tends to be better than democracy".

A claim such as "man acts" is necessarily true. On the other hand, "monarchy is better than democracy" is not a necessarily true claim.

It is an extrapolation of the dictum that a private owner (by the definition I gave) is more economically efficient in the use of his holdings than one who is a mere caretaker. If it is not a necessarily true claim it is only because the former is not one either, and that is only because profit maximization is not an axiom in a way that "man acts" is. It is nonetheless part and parcel of praxeological theorems.

-Jon

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

Juan — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:26:55 GMT

I've addressed this nonsense before.

Wrongly.

You do not understand the character of economic laws.

Maybe you don't. Praxeology deals with necessary relations, not with tendencies or likely (or not) outcomes such as "monarchy tends to be better than democracy".

A claim such as "man acts" is necessarily true. On the other hand, "monarchy is better than democracy" is not a necessarily true claim.

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:15:30 GMT

If you wish to believe that. Your weak grasp of praxeology suggests otherwise.

-Jon

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

Juan — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:12:54 GMT

There's no 'praxeological', 'scientific' law that makes monarchy superior to any other form of government. The fact that the little Hoppe cult thinks otherwise doesn't change reality.

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:07:36 GMT

You are wrong. A stolen resource 'controlled' by a thief has not the same status as resources controlled by a legitimate owner, because the owner of a stolen resource is always risking retaliation, retribution and restitution.

No, I am right. It is private property as far as the laws of economics go. A private property owner constantly is at risk of being robbed. So what? In the case where the expropriation is seen as a matter of right, this argument is even more futile. Please don't waste my time with your ignorance of praxeology.

-Jon

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:04:28 GMT

Fine. And there's NO a-priori economic reason for monarchy to cause less damage than democracy. There's no economic 'law' that sets the tax rate of monarchy at a lower level than the tax rate for democracy. A monarchy can tax its subjects at 10% while a democracy taxes them at 50%...or vice-versa.

I'm not even bothering with this. I've addressed this nonsense before. You do not understand the character of economic laws.

There's NO economic law that forces monarchies to be more sympathetic, or less sympathetic, to the property rights of their subjects than democracies are.

Type it in caps, underline it, italicize it, do what you want. It does not bolster the validity of the negation.

So, it now turns out that not only economics is value free, but political theory is too ? We're discussing a political system but morality is not to be considered at all ? What a joke.

Yes, your posts are a joke. Neither political science nor political philosophy are ethical. They are wertfrei.

-Jon

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

Juan — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:03:57 GMT

Jon Irenicus:
I'll reiterate: as far as economics goes, all that matters is exclusive control over the resource for it to be considered privately owned. Is it justly owned? No. But that is extraneous to economic analysis.

You are wrong. A stolen resource 'controlled' by a thief has not the same status as resources controlled by a legitimate owner, because the owner of a stolen resource(thief) is always risking retaliation, retribution and restitution.

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

Juan — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:59:54 GMT

A comparison between monarchy and democracy is between to systems of expropriation, i.e. which causes the least damage.

Fine. And there's NO a-priori economic reason for monarchy to cause less damage than democracy. There's no economic 'law' that sets the tax rate of monarchy at a lower level than the tax rate for democracy. A monarchy can tax its subjects at 10% while a democracy taxes them at 50%...or vice-versa.

There's NO economic law that forces monarchies to be more sympathetic, or less sympathetic, to the property rights of their subjects than democracies are.

It is a question of economics/political theory. I could not care less what moral connotations you want to inject into the discussion.

So, it now turns out that not only economics is value free, but political theory is too ? We're discussing a political system but morality is not to be considered at all ? What a joke.

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:37:07 GMT

I don't see how that answers my question.

I'll reiterate: as far as economics goes, all that matters is exclusive control over the resource for it to be considered privately owned. Is it justly owned? No. But that is extraneous to economic analysis.

So, you just keep saying that monarchs 'own' what they've stolen from their subjects ? What is 'efficient' about this criminal activity carried on by monarchs ? Why are monarchs any different than a bunch of thieves and murderers ?

Statism is systematic expropriation (and this reflects on how it affects time preferences.) It is not random. A comparison between monarchy and democracy is between to systems of expropriation, i.e. which causes the least damage. It is a question of economics/political theory. I could not care less what moral connotations you want to inject into the discussion. It is purely praxeological.

Are you discussing how good thieves, sorry, monarchs and natural elites, are at 'ruling' their subjects ? Why are these criminals any different than democratic criminals ?

I'm not repeating arguments over and over for your sake. Read Hoppe's book if you want to know.

-Jon

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

Juan — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:28:23 GMT

You're asking us if a theif owns what they steal, the answer is no,

So, monarchs don't own 'their' tax receipts ? You acknowledge that ?

however, in regards to economics the answer doesn't matter.

That's just a general, and false claim of yours.

As for the rest of what you said you're just repeating the same straw men over and over again, it's not very convincing.

How is a strawman supposed to be convincing ? The fact is, there's no strawman. I'm saying that monarchy is no different than democracy, or any other form of government - all governments are oligarchies.

It's interesting though that people who claim to be making 'value-free' economical analysis are actually trying to smuggle their conservative bias into the picture...

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

hayekianxyz — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:15:24 GMT

Juan:
I don't see how that answers my question.

In which case your question isn't relevant. You're asking us if a theif owns what they steal, the answer is no, however, in regards to economics the answer doesn't matter.

As for the rest of what you said you're just repeating the same straw men over and over again, it's not very convincing.

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

Juan — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:09:39 GMT

As far as economics is concerned, ownership consists solely in exclusive control over a resource.

I don't see how that answers my question.

Tax receipts and the monarch's own personal estates.

So, you just keep saying that monarchs 'own' what they've stolen from their subjects ? What is 'efficient' about this criminal activity carried on by monarchs ? Why are monarchs any different than a bunch of thieves and murderers ?

Are you discussing how good thieves, sorry, monarchs and natural elites, are at 'ruling' their subjects ? Why are these criminals any different than democratic criminals ?

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

Jon Irenicus — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:53:40 GMT

So, again, thieves own what they steal ?

As far as economics is concerned, ownership consists solely in exclusive control over a resource. Its laws concerning private ownership do not change if a good is stolen, no.

Besides, what good is 'under control' in the case of monarchy ? It seems that you're referring to humans (subjects...) as 'goods' ?

Tax receipts and the monarch's own personal estates.

-Jon

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

Juan — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:16:28 GMT

Jon Irenicus:
No, praxeology only presupposes a given good is under the exclusive control of an economic agent for it to be treated as private property for purposes of analysis.

So, again, thieves own what they steal ? (There's nothing normative about my question. I'm not saying whether stealing is right or wrong.)

Besides, what good is 'under control' in the case of monarchy ? It seems that you're referring to humans (subjects...) as 'goods' ?

Re: Hoppe, Monarchy, and Democracy

Julio — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:42:38 GMT

shazam:

I understand the argument made by Hoppe in theory, that an owner of the state will be more likely to care for his subjects than a renter of the state. However, I am having trouble buying the theory in practice, considering that the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century were one-party dictatorships, not democracies. While I know that some of these genocidal regimes may have originated out of a democracy, they were not democratic when they commited the mass murder.

Dictators is political power concentrated not a crown. Kings have no need to worry, so much about being overtrown, as dictators do. All politicians, including dictators will be there for a limited time. However, a monarch does not need to steal or anything, he is the king and he will be able to transfer power to his sons without no problem.

An abyss exists between a king and a dictator.