Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice:Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant. Knowledge is irrelevant. Good one. That does not follow. I'm saying that utilitarian analysis of things is irrelevant to their justifiability in ethical terms. I don't know why you would say that, as "justifiability" is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, utility. Economics says "Wage controls cause unemployment" without ever having to address the morality of government wage controls; that is why it is value free. It is able to analyze all actions, regardless of morality. Knowledge of the utility of an action is required for a person to know if that action is compatible with their personal preference. Hoppes is spreading the knowledge that democracy is counterproductive towards liberty, its up to his readers to prefer liberty. Justifiability is 100% relevant to the topic of a comparative analysis of democracy and monarchy. A mere shallow utilitarian economic analysis does not make a comperehensive case for liberty.
JonBostwick: Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice:Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant. Knowledge is irrelevant. Good one. That does not follow. I'm saying that utilitarian analysis of things is irrelevant to their justifiability in ethical terms. I don't know why you would say that, as "justifiability" is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, utility. Economics says "Wage controls cause unemployment" without ever having to address the morality of government wage controls; that is why it is value free. It is able to analyze all actions, regardless of morality. Knowledge of the utility of an action is required for a person to know if that action is compatible with their personal preference. Hoppes is spreading the knowledge that democracy is counterproductive towards liberty, its up to his readers to prefer liberty.
Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice:Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant. Knowledge is irrelevant. Good one. That does not follow. I'm saying that utilitarian analysis of things is irrelevant to their justifiability in ethical terms.
JonBostwick: Brainpolice:Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant. Knowledge is irrelevant. Good one.
Brainpolice:Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant.
Knowledge is irrelevant. Good one.
That does not follow. I'm saying that utilitarian analysis of things is irrelevant to their justifiability in ethical terms.
I don't know why you would say that, as "justifiability" is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, utility.
Economics says "Wage controls cause unemployment" without ever having to address the morality of government wage controls; that is why it is value free. It is able to analyze all actions, regardless of morality.
Knowledge of the utility of an action is required for a person to know if that action is compatible with their personal preference. Hoppes is spreading the knowledge that democracy is counterproductive towards liberty, its up to his readers to prefer liberty.
Justifiability is 100% relevant to the topic of a comparative analysis of democracy and monarchy. A mere shallow utilitarian economic analysis does not make a comperehensive case for liberty.
In that case neither does a "shallow" analysis of the buisness cycle or a "shallow" analysis of the calculation under socialism. As I said, best forget economics.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice:Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant. Knowledge is irrelevant. Good one. That does not follow. I'm saying that utilitarian analysis of things is irrelevant to their justifiability in ethical terms. I don't know why you would say that, as "justifiability" is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, utility. Economics says "Wage controls cause unemployment" without ever having to address the morality of government wage controls; that is why it is value free. It is able to analyze all actions, regardless of morality. Knowledge of the utility of an action is required for a person to know if that action is compatible with their personal preference. Hoppes is spreading the knowledge that democracy is counterproductive towards liberty, its up to his readers to prefer liberty. Justifiability is 100% relevant to the topic of a comparative analysis of democracy and monarchy. A mere shallow utilitarian economic analysis does not make a comperehensive case for liberty. In that case neither does a "shallow" analysis of the buisness cycle or a "shallow" analysis of the calculation under socialism. As I said, best forget economics.
That simply does not follow. From the fact that utilitarian economics does not supercede libertarian normative ethics, it does not follow that economics is discarded. It just isn't enough by itself and is prone to misuse when justice in terms of ownership is not taken into account. Comparative economic analysis between state systems doesn't make a case for no state system and is irrelevant to the fundamental matter of principle in question.
Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice:Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant. Knowledge is irrelevant. Good one. That does not follow. I'm saying that utilitarian analysis of things is irrelevant to their justifiability in ethical terms. I don't know why you would say that, as "justifiability" is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, utility. Economics says "Wage controls cause unemployment" without ever having to address the morality of government wage controls; that is why it is value free. It is able to analyze all actions, regardless of morality. Knowledge of the utility of an action is required for a person to know if that action is compatible with their personal preference. Hoppes is spreading the knowledge that democracy is counterproductive towards liberty, its up to his readers to prefer liberty. Justifiability is 100% relevant to the topic of a comparative analysis of democracy and monarchy. A mere shallow utilitarian economic analysis does not make a comperehensive case for liberty. In that case neither does a "shallow" analysis of the buisness cycle or a "shallow" analysis of the calculation under socialism. As I said, best forget economics. That simply does not follow. From the fact that utilitarian economics does not supercede libertarian normative ethics, it does not follow that economics is discarded. It just isn't enough by itself.
That simply does not follow. From the fact that utilitarian economics does not supercede libertarian normative ethics, it does not follow that economics is discarded. It just isn't enough by itself.
Strawman, I never said that, all I asked is why you seem to find some areas of utilitarian ecomonics fit to be discarded and not others...
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice:Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant. Knowledge is irrelevant. Good one. That does not follow. I'm saying that utilitarian analysis of things is irrelevant to their justifiability in ethical terms. I don't know why you would say that, as "justifiability" is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, utility. Economics says "Wage controls cause unemployment" without ever having to address the morality of government wage controls; that is why it is value free. It is able to analyze all actions, regardless of morality. Knowledge of the utility of an action is required for a person to know if that action is compatible with their personal preference. Hoppes is spreading the knowledge that democracy is counterproductive towards liberty, its up to his readers to prefer liberty. Justifiability is 100% relevant to the topic of a comparative analysis of democracy and monarchy. A mere shallow utilitarian economic analysis does not make a comperehensive case for liberty. In that case neither does a "shallow" analysis of the buisness cycle or a "shallow" analysis of the calculation under socialism. As I said, best forget economics. That simply does not follow. From the fact that utilitarian economics does not supercede libertarian normative ethics, it does not follow that economics is discarded. It just isn't enough by itself. Strawman, I never said that, all I asked is why you seem to find some areas of utilitarian ecomonics fit to be discarded and not others...
None of them are discarded. It's just that they are misleading or prone to be misused when libertarian normative ethics isn't taken into account. It's just a shallow cost-benefit comparative analysis between two wrongs.
Brainpolice:None of them are discarded.
So you admit Hoppe's argument is valuable?
Brainpolice:It's just that they are misleading or prone to be misused when libertarian normative ethics isn't taken into account.
How are these theories prone to be misused, I don't see many monarchists on these fourms.
GilesStratton:How are these theories prone to be misused, I don't see many monarchists on these fourms.
Don't be so quick to say that. I swear I saw the King of Samoa posting in the Health care thread this morning.
Brainpolice:The question is monarchy vs. democracy, and this does not require one to debate it in purely utilitarian terms, it also begs the broader question of legitimacy in the case of both systems.
See, here's where you've went wrong. Now you have changed the question from, "Which is less oppressive, democracy or monarchy?" to "Which should we support, democracy or monarchy?" None of the anarchists here, Hoppe included, think that monarchy or democracy are legitimate. That's given. But that's NOT the topic at hand. I'm sure you have, as us anarchists generally do, plenty of very good reasons why neither is legitimate. Yet, that is all irrelevant to the discussion being had.
Brainpolice: Juan: Who do you think should be 'expelled' ? Anyone who doesn't tow the pro-feudalism pro-nationalism pro-conservative line apparently.
Juan: Who do you think should be 'expelled' ?
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:As for the allegedly utilitarian argument that monarchy is superior to democracy, it's flawed. The argument is built around the concept of 'private' government, which in turn presupposes the concept of property. But it turns out that monarchs don't really own land - they've not homestead it, they've just usurped it.
Which is actually completely irrevelant to economics.
Juan:I don't think so.
Why would it be relevant?
Juan:do you believe that thieves own what they steal ?
Notice I said economics.
Juan: Monarchy is fatally flawed even from an 'utilitarian' point of view.
Who has said otherwise?
GilesStratton: Why would it be relevant?
GilesStratton: Juan: do you believe that thieves own what they steal ? Notice I said economics.
Juan: do you believe that thieves own what they steal ?
Juan: I said that economics presupposes private property -- you just glossed over it.
No I didn't, I just said it's not relevant as to how it's been acquired, why the strawman?
Juan:Well, the thing is, the economic/utilitarian defense of monarchy is nonsensical. Of course, I realize that monarchists don't care and would claim that objections to their pet theory are irrelevant...
There are no monarchists here as far as I'm aware, you can stop with the ad homs.
GilesStratton:There are no monarchists here as far as I'm aware, you can stop with the ad homs.
I had Burger King for lunch, does that count?
GilesStratton: Juan: I said that economics presupposes private property -- you just glossed over it. No I didn't, I just said it's not relevant as to how it's been acquired,
liberty student: GilesStratton:There are no monarchists here as far as I'm aware, you can stop with the ad homs. I had Burger King for lunch, does that count?
No because burger king is crap.
Juan: GilesStratton: Juan: I said that economics presupposes private property -- you just glossed over it. No I didn't, I just said it's not relevant as to how it's been acquired, Let me try again : property acquired by thieves or monarchs is NOT private property. The fact that monarchs DON'T own their realms and DON'T own their 'subjects' IS relevant to an economic analysis of monarchy.
So if I steal your watch the laws of economics suddenly stop working in reards to it? Monarch do own their "property" they just don't have a legitimate claim to it.
Let me try again : property acquired by thieves or monarchs is NOT private property. The fact that monarchs DON'T own their realms and DON'T own their 'subjects' IS relevant to an economic analysis of monarchy.
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. There are no normative implications involved.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
As far as economics is concerned, ownership consists solely in exclusive control over a resource.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you wish to believe that. Your weak grasp of praxeology suggests otherwise.
I've addressed this nonsense before.
You do not understand the character of economic laws.
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.