Monarchy

I've just realized(silly me) that Russia was, for hundred of years, a monarchy. For instance, from 1613 to 1917 the government was 'owned' by the Romanov family.

If that's the case, then, why is it that Russia was one of the most backward and unlibertarian countries in Europe ?

Why is it that, despite the fact that the gov't, and indeed the whole country were privately owned, Russia was almost the polar opposite of an ancap utopia ?

At the same time in western Europe and America, where 'democratic' institutions were more widespread, where a fully private government didn't exist, people came closer to have their individual rights respected.

Wouldn't this cast some doubts on the 'virtues' of monarchy ?

I have a better question for you: why have you not actually read Hoppe's book yet, so that you do not set up a succession of strawmen anew? Wouldn't the fact that you're ignorant of the very arguments you're trying to attack cast some doubts on the virtue of your own argument? Yeah, thought so. Or is this like Aristotle, where you (think you) can just brush things off because he advocated slavery?

-Jon

Because the entire idea of monarchy as the "most libertarian" government relies on the monarch actually being a libertarian.  Without that little caveat, the whole thing falls apart rather quickly.  Besides, "private ownership" per se isn't the issue.  If the ownership isn't just (isn't derived from homesteading or exchange), then it may be "private" while still being illegitimate.  Some how, I doubt that the Russian monarchs improved every square mile of land in Russia with their own hands, or that they bought it in an equal exchange with the original owners.

Juan:

Wouldn't this cast some doubts on the 'virtues' of monarchy ?

Didn't you just commit the same thought crime that you accuse Hoppe of, in reverse?

P.S. You are trying to use a historical coincidence against a praxeological argument.

Wow. Not even one valid reply =] Try again guys.

wombatron:

Because the entire idea of monarchy as the "most libertarian" government relies on the monarch actually being a libertarian.  Without that little caveat, the whole thing falls apart rather quickly.  Besides, "private ownership" per se isn't the issue.  If the ownership isn't just (isn't derived from homesteading or exchange), then it may be "private" while still being illegitimate.  Some how, I doubt that the Russian monarchs improved every square mile of land in Russia with their own hands, or that they bought it in an equal exchange with the original owners.

That's an interesting way to put it.

Because the entire idea of monarchy as the "most libertarian" government relies on the monarch actually being a libertarian. Without that little caveat, the whole thing falls apart rather quickly.

Well, of course, if there's a libertarian government in place, then it follows that the country is libertarian...that is kind of a tautology, no ?

Besides, "private ownership" per se isn't the issue. If the ownership isn't just (isn't derived from homesteading or exchange), then it may be "private" while still being illegitimate.

Ah, that's interesting. Because some people in this forum believe that 'property' means...well, just physical control ?

Some how, I doubt that the Russian monarchs improved every square mile of land in Russia with their own hands

Right. And the same thing is true for all monarchies.

Not even a valid attempt at trolling to begin with, so why don't you try again, eh? Or do Austrian principles go out the window when you feel like it?

-Jon

JonBostwick:

Didn't you just commit the same thought crime that you accuse Hoppe of, in reverse?

I didn't mention Mr. Hoppe did I ? And what 'thought crime' would be that anyway ?

P.S. You are trying to use a historical coincidence against a praxeological argument.

I'm just stating some facts. Do you think that those are real facts or something I've just made up ? Russia was a monarchy : True or False ? Russia was highly authoritarian : True or False ?

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree; Russia was not the horrible monster that Bolshevik propaganda portray it as. Hell, the Federal Government is worse than the tsars ever were. There were only a few thousand policemen in the entire empire, the tsar was greatly limited by the zemstvos and peasant communes, there were fewer government employees both absolutely AND per capita than France, and it had some of the lowest taxes in Europe. It also had a healthy tradition of tyrannicide and rebellion (my great-great grandfather, also an anarchist, participated in such against Alexander II, and hell, Alexander freed the serfs!), which is far superior to the organized joke called elections. Erik von Kuehnelt Leddihn also tells us that Tsarist Russia was a haven for skilled workers and businessmen to emigrate to in order to make their fortune, which is another point in its favor.

This is not, of course, to say that tsarism is good; far from it, all states are predatorial beasts. But the tsars are hardly worse than democratic masters.

Yep. It's sort of like the USSR, which "disproves" Mises's arguments on calculation, but for the minor problem that it actually doesn't.

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

Or do Austrian principles go out the window when you feel like it?

What Austrian principles are you alluding to ? The claim that 'monarchy' (which is an ill defined term by the way) can be libertarian is an "Austrian principle" ?

No. JonBostwick's claim that praxeological theorems cannot be disproven by alleged empirical counter-examples, which apparently is not a "valid" reply. And yes, it is an Austrian principle that an exclusive owner with full ownership over both present and future uses of the good will tend better to a given good than one who is merely a temporary keeper. The rest follows automatically.

-Jon

It is an Austrian principle that an exclusive owner with full ownership over both present and future uses of the good will tend better to a given good than one who is merely a temporary keeper

Too bad you used the word 'tend', no ? Because, you know, 'tend' implies that things may go one way, but not necessarily so. Tend means there's a higher probability of something happening, but no necessity.

Claims like "humans acts" certainly can't be empirically 'disproven'. And theorems derived from such axioms are a-priori true as well. But there are no valid theorems proving that monarchical governments lead to a libertarian society. Facts like Russian history just illustrate this.

Tends, because one is not studying atoms in a deterministic fashion, and because it is assumed ceteris are paribus. Much like an over-issuance of credit will tend to lead to malinvestment, but need not if no one is fooled by the expansion of the money supply. This is basic. You do not even know what it is you're arguing against, so I fail to see why you even made this thread without first having read DTGTF to get a grasp of Hoppe's arguments, and not ones you pull out of your ass.

-Jon

Juan:

But there are no valid theorems proving that monarchical governments lead to a libertarian society.

Whoever stated such theorem?

Much like an over-issuance of credit will tend to lead to malinvestment, but need not if no one is fooled by the expansion of the money supply.

I'm afraid your grasp of economics is a bit shaky, eh ? If credit is 'created' by lending real savings then it can't lead to malinvestments. If 'credit' is actually created out of thin air, then it will lead to malinvestments. There's no 'tend' here.

There is no "will" about it, though. Only if one avails oneself of the credit is it pernicious in any way. Otherwise, the expansion is harmless and pointless. That is why one would say "tends" in this case, even though the tendency is very strong, to account for ceteris being imparibus. This is only good economic practice.

-Jon

Juan:

At the same time in western Europe and America, where 'democratic' institutions were more widespread, where a fully private government didn't exist, people came closer to have their individual rights respected.

Except Tsarist Russia came out with it's Emancipation Manifesto four years before The US congress officially abolished slavery. Both had at best mixed success, but it's worthy of note that the Russian attempt to end involuntary servitude did not involve the wholesale slaughter of five hundred thousand of its own citizens. 

Except Tsarist Russia came out with it's Emancipation Manifesto four years before The US congress officially abolished slavery. Both had at best mixed success, but it's worthy of note that the Russian attempt to end involuntary servitude did not involve the wholesale slaughter of five hundred thousand of its own citizens.

True. But my point is, since the Romanov family fully controlled the state for three hundred years, why is it that they didn't implement a libertarian society ? If they were interested in 'maximizing' their profits, then economic freedom was the way to go ?

But wait. Since they 'owned' the country and some 20+ millions of slaves anyway, maybe there were no incentives for them to try anything different...?