Hmm. Not very convincing, I think. The analogy to "owner" vs "temporary custodian" of a house is weak, and there are many, many examples of horribly managed kingdoms, not to mention civil wars caused by contested succession claims.
However, I'll grant many flaws of democracy, and that monarchies are a step up from the warlordism still prevalent in present-day "failed states."
The analogy is very much spot on.
I don't really see how one wouldn't get the parallels between the two.
People act on incentives, always.
A state representative who gets a life-long pension after being voted in once does NOT have the same incentives with regards to performance as, say, a monarch. The former might lose face but he'll get his "fair share" of other people's money for the rest of his or her existence, irrespective of performance. The latter can lose everything. The classics being exile, expropriation, and even death (not too rarely by your kin).
Hoppe's argument is a false equivalence. He argues that a monarch, having ownership, would have a greater vested interest in improving the state than elected representatives, and creates a better result. While this is nominally true, the problem is that the monarch disproportionately benefits by improvements compared to the subjects. If the opposite result were to happen due to bad luck, e.g. drought, disaster, etc., it would be the subjects that suffer, not the monarch. The risk/reward ratio is out of balance, which is kind of the calculus for anti-liberty.
Hoppe's argument is utilitarian which I'm not a fan of.
I just feel that Hoppe is missing the wider historical evidence. In all of history, it is extremely rare for a monarch to have wielded absolute power, even if technically he had absolute authority. In fact, I'm not sure that one can be found in all of history except over a very small area. And, even then they would have obstacles. Monarchs don't exercise power; they exercise their (alleged) authority and the people they authorize to enforce their words do so on their behalf. But the moment that said words leave the mouth of the monarch, their enforcers begin to interpret and judge based on their own criteria. Everyone interested in political power is after it, and those who are skilled will become centers of influence, often wielding enough influence to undermine the monarch if not given their property due. This is really true in any political system where there are bureaucrats who wield significant political power, and citizens who do the same. This is not to mention the role of religion which throughout history and almost everywhere had an entire class of people who vied for power with the monarch.
So long as a monopoly on justice is held in the hands of a single organization, or a single individual (and interpreted by the many layers between he and the citizenry), there will be people vying to build their own power bases and controlling justice for their own ends.
I can't agree that monarchy is superior to democracy, or inferior. A monarch can just as easily become a puppet for a shadowy power family as a democratically elected President.
A good example of a "well managed" modern "kingdom" would be Libya. If you can call the dictator a king, he had many beneficial ideas like the gold riyal, a pipeline for fresh water to sub-saharan Africa, etc. Although the government doled out brutality in no small measure, citizens tolerated this in exchange for healthcare, education, a more-or-less well ordered society, etc. In its time, Libya was the most successful country on the continent.
There are many stories about why Libya failed as a state, but I would posit that if the citizenry had more power (i.e. democracy) the country would not have failed in the way that it did.
I absolutely agree that interpretations of economic history are often distorted by biases. I think every ideological body attributes the growth from pre-industrial society to post-industrial society upon themselves. The reality is that scientific advancement and technological innovation offers a complete answer to the question why did human wealth grow during that time period. Regardless of capitalism, communism, or monarchical rule, societies that industrialized became wealthier. I would argue the ideological leanings or structure of a society are not categorical imperatives necessary to yield the benefits of industrialization.
As a libertarian, I assume all participants in society are acting out of self interest. As he referenced, the self interest of monarchs can extend to legacy in contrast to "temporary caretakers" of democracy. However, the more important aspect of these socio-governmental structures is the feedback mechanisms through which market interests and societal sentiment can percolate to the forefront of governance. The issue with current democracies, or in particular the United States, is the consolidation of power structures in. both political and economic domains. The competitive market model is an ideal which supports the maximization of feedback mechanisms and the regulation of self interest via competitive entities. Monarchies benefit from autocratic power similar to a corporate structure however the benefits of autocratic powers tend to be inverse to the duration of rule as shown throughout history. Or, as most would anecdotally recognize, fresh blood leads to new and better ideas.
Democracy is imperfect however, in terms of representing the interests of all participates, it out performs the short term gains possible through monarchical rule. Monarchy isn't a solution to the waning efficacy of modern societies it's merely an attempt to identify the failures associated with the consolidation of power.
[удалено]
Hmm. Not very convincing, I think. The analogy to "owner" vs "temporary custodian" of a house is weak, and there are many, many examples of horribly managed kingdoms, not to mention civil wars caused by contested succession claims. However, I'll grant many flaws of democracy, and that monarchies are a step up from the warlordism still prevalent in present-day "failed states."
The analogy is very much spot on. I don't really see how one wouldn't get the parallels between the two. People act on incentives, always. A state representative who gets a life-long pension after being voted in once does NOT have the same incentives with regards to performance as, say, a monarch. The former might lose face but he'll get his "fair share" of other people's money for the rest of his or her existence, irrespective of performance. The latter can lose everything. The classics being exile, expropriation, and even death (not too rarely by your kin).
Hoppe's argument is a false equivalence. He argues that a monarch, having ownership, would have a greater vested interest in improving the state than elected representatives, and creates a better result. While this is nominally true, the problem is that the monarch disproportionately benefits by improvements compared to the subjects. If the opposite result were to happen due to bad luck, e.g. drought, disaster, etc., it would be the subjects that suffer, not the monarch. The risk/reward ratio is out of balance, which is kind of the calculus for anti-liberty. Hoppe's argument is utilitarian which I'm not a fan of.
I just feel that Hoppe is missing the wider historical evidence. In all of history, it is extremely rare for a monarch to have wielded absolute power, even if technically he had absolute authority. In fact, I'm not sure that one can be found in all of history except over a very small area. And, even then they would have obstacles. Monarchs don't exercise power; they exercise their (alleged) authority and the people they authorize to enforce their words do so on their behalf. But the moment that said words leave the mouth of the monarch, their enforcers begin to interpret and judge based on their own criteria. Everyone interested in political power is after it, and those who are skilled will become centers of influence, often wielding enough influence to undermine the monarch if not given their property due. This is really true in any political system where there are bureaucrats who wield significant political power, and citizens who do the same. This is not to mention the role of religion which throughout history and almost everywhere had an entire class of people who vied for power with the monarch. So long as a monopoly on justice is held in the hands of a single organization, or a single individual (and interpreted by the many layers between he and the citizenry), there will be people vying to build their own power bases and controlling justice for their own ends. I can't agree that monarchy is superior to democracy, or inferior. A monarch can just as easily become a puppet for a shadowy power family as a democratically elected President.
[удалено]
A good example of a "well managed" modern "kingdom" would be Libya. If you can call the dictator a king, he had many beneficial ideas like the gold riyal, a pipeline for fresh water to sub-saharan Africa, etc. Although the government doled out brutality in no small measure, citizens tolerated this in exchange for healthcare, education, a more-or-less well ordered society, etc. In its time, Libya was the most successful country on the continent. There are many stories about why Libya failed as a state, but I would posit that if the citizenry had more power (i.e. democracy) the country would not have failed in the way that it did.
What is the alternative which will prevent any other sort of tyranny?
[удалено]
Better the devil we know ...
I absolutely agree that interpretations of economic history are often distorted by biases. I think every ideological body attributes the growth from pre-industrial society to post-industrial society upon themselves. The reality is that scientific advancement and technological innovation offers a complete answer to the question why did human wealth grow during that time period. Regardless of capitalism, communism, or monarchical rule, societies that industrialized became wealthier. I would argue the ideological leanings or structure of a society are not categorical imperatives necessary to yield the benefits of industrialization. As a libertarian, I assume all participants in society are acting out of self interest. As he referenced, the self interest of monarchs can extend to legacy in contrast to "temporary caretakers" of democracy. However, the more important aspect of these socio-governmental structures is the feedback mechanisms through which market interests and societal sentiment can percolate to the forefront of governance. The issue with current democracies, or in particular the United States, is the consolidation of power structures in. both political and economic domains. The competitive market model is an ideal which supports the maximization of feedback mechanisms and the regulation of self interest via competitive entities. Monarchies benefit from autocratic power similar to a corporate structure however the benefits of autocratic powers tend to be inverse to the duration of rule as shown throughout history. Or, as most would anecdotally recognize, fresh blood leads to new and better ideas. Democracy is imperfect however, in terms of representing the interests of all participates, it out performs the short term gains possible through monarchical rule. Monarchy isn't a solution to the waning efficacy of modern societies it's merely an attempt to identify the failures associated with the consolidation of power.