Jon: It's incredible how fast you are to reject praxeological insights as "hypothesis" when they don't suit your ideological inclinations.
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:Too bad indeed, but that's not the point is it ?
Apparently you completely missed the point. Bush's time preference carried the day. The existence of millions of drones with longer time preference, whose time preference doesn't actually affect policy decisions, is completely irrelevant.
--Len
Juan: Jon: It's incredible how fast you are to reject praxeological insights as "hypothesis" when they don't suit your ideological inclinations. That's interesting. I think it is obvious that my 'ideological inclination' is justice and laissez-faire, but I do wonder, what is your ideology ? Are you a monarchist ? Or just an statist trying to prove that state granted privileges(private monopoly) are economically superior to state granted privileges (democracy) ?
My ideology is the search of and love for knowledge.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
That's interesting. I think it is obvious that my 'ideological inclination' is justice and laissez-faire, but I do wonder, what is your ideology ? Are you a monarchist ? Or just an statist trying to prove that state granted privileges(private monopoly) are economically superior to state granted privileges (democracy) ?
I'm a market anarchist, but I do not let it interfere with economic questions.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
-
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.
Spare me the appeals to authority. I already responded to this.
Ok I seem to understand now, I think I'll be reading Hoppe's books then. Which book in particular are you guys referring to?
Also another question, if rather than what things currently appear to be (a cycle of new elected rulers) we actually just have a bunch of organisations such as the CFR, bohemian grove, etc. making sure each election is won by the people they choose, and that this is all just an unbroken chain of puppets, does this change anything? Doesn't this make the current democracies more like monarchies (the organisations in general are interested in the preservation of the country's wealth)?
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.
In theory, this is not necessarily true, though in practice it is in almost every case. There was a thread a while regarding the Vatican which dealt with this concept somewhat. As a country, Vatican City has a monarch - the pope. As a land mass, Vatican City is private property, owned by the Catholic Church, headed by the pope.
Brainpolice:The state is not "private property"! It's stolen property.
It really comes down to how the state was aquired. If an area of land was homesteaded or legitimately purchased by a family, and then others came to live there, paying rent, etc., would not the owning family have the right to set rules of behaviour within their property? This would in effect make such a family royalty.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Jon: Spare me the appeals to authority.
You're an awfully presumptuous fellow, aren't you? Yet I do not think you've even read Hoppe. Again, as I said, none of what you mentioned refutes his thesis, because it is comparative in nature and it does not deny that under monarchy exploitation was present too.
Fred, his arguments are advanced in Democracy - the God that Failed. Regarding that example, it essentially depends on two things, as I noted - a) that the ruler owns the capitalized value of the country in question and is the recipient of all future income streams (as opposed to current income streams and possessing mere custodial title), and can furthermore pass down title to this and b) that there is a clear class distinction. Hoppe basically notes that a republic might, for instance, come closer to a monarchy and a monarchy closer to a democracy, depending on its particular institutional arrangements (hence, modern European monarchies scarcely differ from democracies.)
Len: Apparently you completely missed the point
You said: The critical difference is time preference. Bush's opportunity to profit from graft, corruption, etc., is guaranteed to end in January
I objected: 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.
Stranger: History is meaningless without the theory to interpret it. That something happened in monarchy does not imply that it happened because of monarchy.
Juan: I'd like an answer to that without using 'examples' like the war in Iraq, please ?
If you're too dense to understand what I plainly stated already: the millions of drones in government are irrelevant, because important decisions are not made based on their time preference.
Juan:(By the way, you've previously said that the difference between a 'private' monopoly and a public one is the same difference between being hanged and shot. Now you've changed your mind ?)
You constantly confuse rational discussion for advocacy. Incentives differ between various state structures; one can acknowledge that, and even characterize some as "better" and some as "worse" in some metric, without advocating any of them. You seem to harbor a superstitious notion that King George III will rise from the dead and take over if anyone points out that we were worlds better off under his rule than we are under GWB's. The observation won't pull him out of the grave, nor does it imply that anyone is pining to get him back.
Homesteading theory does not describe the rise of monarchies, or any state for that matter. If this were the case, we must concede to the points of the socialists that private property inevitably leads to the state. This is why I think that this analysis of monarchy actually harms the case for libertarianism.
Brainpolice:Homesteading theory does not describe the rise of monarchies, or any state for that matter.
True. That has nothing to do with Hoppe, though: he's arguing what follows praxeologically from the ruler's belief that he is an owner.
Len Budney: Brainpolice:Homesteading theory does not describe the rise of monarchies, or any state for that matter. True. That has nothing to do with Hoppe, though: he's arguing what follows praxeologically from the ruler's belief that he is an owner. --Len
From the perspective of the average reader, whether they are right or wrong, he is legitimizing monarchy and consequentially they will be turned off by libertarianism. I happen to think that even if his intent is not to legitimize monarchy, that's precisely what he's doing nonetheless.
Well if they read the other half of the book, they'll realize he's doing no such thing and legitimizing anarcho-capitalism instead.
Jon Irenicus: Well if they read the other half of the book, they'll realize he's doing no such thing and legitimizing anarcho-capitalism instead. -Jon
It can easily be interpreted to imply that he's pushing the notion that fuedal monarchy pretty much is anarcho-capitalism, or that anarcho-capitalism is merely a modernized version of the same thing. It appears that he's using the comparative analysis of monarchy and democracy to make a case for anarcho-capitalism, but then all of the ugly implications of monarchy that people hold will then be superimposed onto anarcho-capitalism.
Brainpolice:Homesteading theory does not describe the rise of monarchies, or any state for that matter. If this were the case, we must concede to the points of the socialists that private property inevitably leads to the state. This is why I think that this analysis of monarchy actually harms the case for libertarianism.
That becomes an argument of semantics. What makes a state? Is Vatican City a state? It is recognized as such by other rulers. It is quite clearly private property. Is the pope, as head of the organization that owns the propery, the head state or merely a landlord? For that matter, in a libertarian sense, what is the difference between a landlord and a monarch?
JackCuyler: Brainpolice:Homesteading theory does not describe the rise of monarchies, or any state for that matter. If this were the case, we must concede to the points of the socialists that private property inevitably leads to the state. This is why I think that this analysis of monarchy actually harms the case for libertarianism. That becomes an argument of semantics. What makes a state? Is Vatican City a state? It is recognized as such by other rulers. It is quite clearly private property. Is the pope, as head of the organization that owns the propery, the head state or merely a landlord? For that matter, in a libertarian sense, what is the difference between a landlord and a monarch?
Considering that a monarchy nonetheless imposes taxation and controls a monopoly on basic services such as law and defense through the exclusion of competition, it qualifies as a "state" as much as any other. Usually we go by the Weberian definition here.
Is a fuedal landlord's dominion, even if it is considered to be "private" (in legal terms in particular), legitimate under a libertarian theory of justice in property? According to Rothbard, no, and the peasants have the moral authority to claim the fruits of their labor.
Fred Furash: Ok I seem to understand now, I think I'll be reading Hoppe's books then. Which book in particular are you guys referring to? Also another question, if rather than what things currently appear to be (a cycle of new elected rulers) we actually just have a bunch of organisations such as the CFR, bohemian grove, etc. making sure each election is won by the people they choose, and that this is all just an unbroken chain of puppets, does this change anything? Doesn't this make the current democracies more like monarchies (the organisations in general are interested in the preservation of the country's wealth)?
Not really. CFR's control of the president is not secured by law. They do not have exclusive control of the president, and their own internal organization is not based on private property either.
Brainpolice:Is a fuedal landlord's dominion, even if it is considered to be "private" (in legal terms in particular), legitimate under a libertarian theory of justice in property? According to Rothbard, no, and the peasants have the moral authority to claim the fruits of their labor.
I wasn't thinking in terms of feudal landlords, but simply landlords. If I legitimately aquire a plot of land and build (or contract to have built) apartment complexes on said land, do I not have the right to charge my tenants rent? Do I not have the right to create and enforce rules for the use my property (pet policy, speed limits in the parking lots, noise restrictions, etc.)? My tenants of course have the right to claim the fruits of their labor. They also have the right to live somewhere other than in one of my apartments, and I have a right to insist they do if they break the rules one too many times or stop paying their rent.
This does not describe the typical state or monarchy, as there is choice involved. However, as in the case of Vatican City, it can be argued that private property can, in fact, result in a state, or at least something similar to a state.
JackCuyler: That becomes an argument of semantics. What makes a state? Is Vatican City a state? It is recognized as such by other rulers. It is quite clearly private property. Is the pope, as head of the organization that owns the propery, the head state or merely a landlord? For that matter, in a libertarian sense, what is the difference between a landlord and a monarch?
The difference between a landlord and a monarch is that the monarch is the only supplier of security in his domain, and therefore if you have a conflict with the monarch there is no independent party that you can appeal to for justice.
Stranger:The difference between a landlord and a monarch is that the monarch is the only supplier of security in his domain, and therefore if you have a conflict with the monarch there is no independent party that you can appeal to for justice.
Is Vatican City a state, and is the pope a monarch, in your opinion?
Brainpolice: It can easily be interpreted to imply that he's pushing the notion that fuedal monarchy pretty much is anarcho-capitalism, or that anarcho-capitalism is merely a modernized version of the same thing. It appears that he's using the comparative analysis of monarchy and democracy to make a case for anarcho-capitalism, but then all of the ugly implications of monarchy that people hold will then be superimposed onto anarcho-capitalism.
Thankfully most people are not as stupid as you are and will not confuse the two thanks to Hoppe's laser-sharp writing.
JackCuyler: Stranger:The difference between a landlord and a monarch is that the monarch is the only supplier of security in his domain, and therefore if you have a conflict with the monarch there is no independent party that you can appeal to for justice. Is Vatican City a state, and is the pope a monarch, in your opinion?
The pope is a near-monarch, in that he cannot directly name his successor, he can only select the men who will pick his successor.
Stranger: Brainpolice: It can easily be interpreted to imply that he's pushing the notion that fuedal monarchy pretty much is anarcho-capitalism, or that anarcho-capitalism is merely a modernized version of the same thing. It appears that he's using the comparative analysis of monarchy and democracy to make a case for anarcho-capitalism, but then all of the ugly implications of monarchy that people hold will then be superimposed onto anarcho-capitalism. Thankfully most people are not as stupid as you are and will not confuse the two thanks to Hoppe's laser-sharp writing.
Personal attacks and petty insults are not called for. Provide an argument. Otherwise, it is you being childish here. I don't believe that anyone here is stupid, just wrong perhaps.
Oh, and I do have "Democracy: The God That Failed" right here on my bookshelf, as it has been for a number of years now. It was an interesting read that is both insightful and simultaneously wrong in some of its assertions (particularly the talk about immigration and conservatism, which I find to be a deviation in the conservative direction). I view it as a good criticism of political democracy, but a bad defense of monarchy. But apparently noone is allowed to the commit the sin of not falling 100% into line with Hoppe.
Stranger: JackCuyler: Stranger:The difference between a landlord and a monarch is that the monarch is the only supplier of security in his domain, and therefore if you have a conflict with the monarch there is no independent party that you can appeal to for justice. Is Vatican City a state, and is the pope a monarch, in your opinion? The pope is a near-monarch, in that he cannot directly name his successor, he can only select the men who will pick his successor.
Actually, he probably could unilaterally change that rule, but that's neither here nor there. How about the first question? Is Vatican City a state?
Len: You constantly confuse rational discussion for advocacy.
Incentives differ between various state structures;
He still characterizes monarchical rulers as exploitative and thus to that extent inefficient/unjust. If I recall he identifies the rise of monarchies as the formation of a state - what he is doing is trying to provide a revisionist account of feudalism and show how compared to it, democracy is flawed. And this is important given the degree to which democracy is hailed to be progressive, and is worshiped.
Juan: Len: You constantly confuse rational discussion for advocacy. I don't care what you advocate or don't advocate. You said that private and public monopolies were almost the same thing (fact) and now it looks like you are saying otherwise.
You're really comprehension-challenged, I'm afraid. Whether they're "almost the same thing" depends entirely on what aspects you're comparing. Morally, both are evil. Economically, there are all sorts of differences--starting with who are the victims, and who the beneficiaries, of the evil. It seems like you have a manichaean outlook whereby you classify things as good or evil and, having done so, can't conceive that there's anything more to say on the subject.
Incentives differ between various state structures; But the diferences are irrelevant from the point of view of consumers/citizens/subjects.
They're very relevant, which (for example) is why so much money is spent on lobbying in the US. The goal of lobbying is to make oneself a beneficiary, and someone else a victim, of government coercion. All sorts of economic consequences flow from the various details distinguishing one state from another. Your refusal to recognize this, let alone discuss it, strikingly recalls Christian types who refuse even to examine "heretical" ideas on the grounds that anything other than flat condemnation leaves one "tainted" with heresy. In other words, discussing the state somehow makes everyone involved into a statist.
Len: They're very relevant, which (for example) is why so much money is spent on lobbying in the US.
Bush's time preference carried the day. The existence of millions of drones with longer time preference, whose time preference doesn't actually affect policy decisions, is completely irrelevant.
Juan: I think the argument can easily be made that the Iraq war(or any other war) benefits the military-industrial complex.
At the cost of bankrupting the nation. The actual cost of the war is in the trillions; today's gas prices are a direct result of the war (except to the extent that inflation contributes); the military is overextended; terrorist recruiting is way way up; the entire world hates the US; etc. It's less than certain, but not much less, that the US empire is dead and this war killed it.
Which will not only pauperize the nation, but also the military-industrial complex. We're repeating the history of the British empire, and companies like Halliburton will fare about as well as the East India company did.
The idea that Bush can somehow do as he pleases is wrong.
Um, we were all there, chump. We know perfectly well that there's more to it than issuing a royal decree. However, we also know perfectly well that he wanted the war, and he got it.
Brainpolice:What don't you understand about "legally restricted competition"? Yes, that's effectively a gaurantee that the profits will go to you if they go to anyone because there are no other people for them to go to in the given area. Logic 101. This is especially true with respect to the patent monopoly, which is nothing but a legal gaurantee of future profits.
It's close, but no cigar. Profits are not guaranteed, not even effectively guaranteed, by a lack of competition. This is especially true with patent monoploies, where there is little chance of a government bail out. Do you realize how many patents are issued whose owners never profit from the invention/idea, or indeed, lose money on the deal? Say I invent and patent a widget. Just because no one else is allowed to make a widget does not mean that people will actually buy the widgets I produce. The widget may be an incredibly unuseful/unpopular/unwanted good.
Just to be clear, I am in no way defending monopolies. I am simply attempting to clarify the difference between a state monopoly and a state-enforced private monopoly. When a state provides a service, and outlaws competition, we are forced to accept and fund the service. If the service is not profitable, taxes will be raised to make up the difference. There is no "going without" a state service. On the other hand, when the state grants and enforces J.K. Rowling's monopoly on the production of Harry Potter stories, she and her publishers still assume some actual risk that the market will reject the stories. Granted, there is less risk than if other authors were allowed to produce Harry Potter stories, but there is still a significant amount of risk.
It's less than certain, but not much less, that the US empire is dead and this war killed it.
Juan: It's less than certain, but not much less, that the US empire is dead and this war killed it. In that case we should really thank Mr. Bush ?
Since getting rid of the state is good, destroying our economy and standard of living in the process is also good? Mercy mercy me.
JackCuyler: When a state provides a service, and outlaws competition, we are forced to accept and fund the service.
If the service is not profitable, taxes will be raised to make up the difference.