Morty: Nor were they monarchies. The one-party dictatorships of the 20th century have much more in common with democracies than monarchies, is what Hoppe argues.
Nor were they monarchies. The one-party dictatorships of the 20th century have much more in common with democracies than monarchies, is what Hoppe argues.
Sorry to be asking this rather than purchasing the book, but does he use that reasoning because the state is rented out to the party's prefered man, rather than the people's prefered man?
Stranger: GilesStratton: Yes we do, look at how the size of government has increased with the transition from monarchy to democracy. I love how the left libertarians are so very offended by Hoppe's theory though. The characteristic belief of the left has been of human salvation achieved through politics. What Hoppe is doing that's new is applying rational economic analysis to political systems, and thus de-mystifying politics in the process. That shatters the left's pseudo-religious beliefs.
GilesStratton: Yes we do, look at how the size of government has increased with the transition from monarchy to democracy. I love how the left libertarians are so very offended by Hoppe's theory though.
Yes we do, look at how the size of government has increased with the transition from monarchy to democracy.
I love how the left libertarians are so very offended by Hoppe's theory though.
The characteristic belief of the left has been of human salvation achieved through politics. What Hoppe is doing that's new is applying rational economic analysis to political systems, and thus de-mystifying politics in the process. That shatters the left's pseudo-religious beliefs.
???? I don't recall left-libertarians believing in human salvation thru politics... :|
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
Maybe they are a product of democracy going bad.
shazam:Sorry to be asking this rather than purchasing the book, but does he use that reasoning because the state is rented out to the party's prefered man, rather than the people's prefered man?
Well, it is more about the fact that a dictator does not own the country like a monarch owns the country. His reign is much more fraught with dangers as his legitimacy is in much more serious question than a monarch's or a democrat's, which is the reason that dictators are often much more violent and repressive than the other two. They rule based on fear more than a mandate from God (monarch) or the people (democrat). This makes his time preference much more in line with a democratic leader who will be out in a couple years than a monarch who is almost assured to be in for a long life.
Furthermore, dictators do not get to pass on their titles to their children (at least not usually), so they have less concern for the capital value than a monarch. In this same vein and regarding my first point, because they are chosen by the party for their abilities, rather than their bloodline, and anyone in the party can become the new dictator, there is a lot more worries of infighting. In a monarchy, it is family and bloodline which determine the monarch, not ability or party loyalty, so it is not so simple as to kill off the current monarch and suddenly become the new one. That's only the case with the monarch's children, who are less likely to do this because they will inherit it regardless of how or when the monarch dies and are younger than the monarch. Political rivals of dictators, on the other hand, are often around the same age and their only chance is really a show of force.
So, basically, because of the nature of a dictatorship, it ends up much more like a democracy in form and function than a monarchy.
This really has nothing to do with "the left" vs. "the right" and Hoppe is hardly the first person to attempt to apply rational economic analysis to political systems. He just makes a utilitarian defense of monarchy compared to democracy, which has little to do with justice. I could care less about capital value when the fundamental concern is justice. Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant.
I would say it's nature vs. nurture. The left believes that all sorts of things can be transformative, liberty amongst those. And yes, the beliefs are pseudo-religious.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Stranger: Brainpolice: Based on what you're saying, in a monarchy, I'm outright owned "privately". This is better WHY? Sounds like the difference between chattel slavery and "wage slavery" - chattel slavery is worse by far. I'd rather have my labor be rented then be outright owned by someone else. I have no idea why one would think it would be beneficial to me to be treated as someone's private property. I'm not interested in being "taken care of" by an owner to begin with, since noone can legitimately own me. You didn't understand the response. Under democracy you are still owned by the state as much as under monarchy. However, under democracy, the state rents you to politicians who don't give a damn how they use you up. It's the difference between chattel slavery and gulag slavery. Someone who owns you as part of his chattel at least has an incentive to keep you in good health.
Brainpolice: Based on what you're saying, in a monarchy, I'm outright owned "privately". This is better WHY? Sounds like the difference between chattel slavery and "wage slavery" - chattel slavery is worse by far. I'd rather have my labor be rented then be outright owned by someone else. I have no idea why one would think it would be beneficial to me to be treated as someone's private property. I'm not interested in being "taken care of" by an owner to begin with, since noone can legitimately own me.
Based on what you're saying, in a monarchy, I'm outright owned "privately". This is better WHY? Sounds like the difference between chattel slavery and "wage slavery" - chattel slavery is worse by far. I'd rather have my labor be rented then be outright owned by someone else. I have no idea why one would think it would be beneficial to me to be treated as someone's private property. I'm not interested in being "taken care of" by an owner to begin with, since noone can legitimately own me.
You didn't understand the response. Under democracy you are still owned by the state as much as under monarchy. However, under democracy, the state rents you to politicians who don't give a damn how they use you up.
It's the difference between chattel slavery and gulag slavery. Someone who owns you as part of his chattel at least has an incentive to keep you in good health.
There is no more reason why a monarch would give a damn how they use me up, I'm allegedly their property all the same and it will be unjust no matter how they "take care" of me. The fundamental issue is me being their property to begin with, not how exclusive or inclusive they are or how economically savy they are with property that they don't legitimately own to begin with.
And the marginal incentive of a slave owner to keep the slave just at substinance level so that they can continue milking them for all that they are worth is irrelevant to me and irrelevant from the perspectve of the slave - slavery is unjust. At best, all you're establishing is that monarchy is more efficient and sustainable as a system of rulership, and I don't care because I look foreward to systems of rulership collapsing. The Hoppeans are just making utilitarian arguments to give a pretty face to ugly things.
liberty student: I would say it's nature vs. nurture. The left believes that all sorts of things can be transformative, liberty amongst those. And yes, the beliefs are pseudo-religious.
I've consistantly argued that both sides over-emphasize either nature or nurture, with marxists falsely attributing nearly everything to nurture and the conservatives falsely attributing nearly everything to inexorable laws of nature, so you're not really argueing against my position. It's a straw man.
I sometimes have to wonder what's higher on some of your value scales: anti-state or anti-"left"?
Brainpolice:This really has nothing to do with "the left" vs. "the right" and Hoppe is hardly the first person to attempt to apply rational economic analysis to political systems. He just makes a utilitarian defense of monarchy compared to democracy, which has little to do with justice. I could care less about capital value when the fundamental concern is justice. Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant.
Economics is utilitarian.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Brainpolice:I've consistantly argued that both sides over-emphasize either nature or nurture, with marxists falsely attributing nearly everything to nurture and the conservatives falsely attributing nearly everything to inexorable laws of nature, so you're not really argueing against my position. It's a straw man.
Don't get your panties in a bunch SallyAnn. I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Stranger. When I respond to you, I will post "Hey Sweetie". That's a cue that I am referring to you.
Brainpolice:I sometimes have to wonder what's higher on some of your value scales: anti-state or anti-"left"?
Maybe they are on the same level. After all, leftists are not libertarians, no matter how much they want to be, or how much others want them to be.
Stranger: Brainpolice:This really has nothing to do with "the left" vs. "the right" and Hoppe is hardly the first person to attempt to apply rational economic analysis to political systems. He just makes a utilitarian defense of monarchy compared to democracy, which has little to do with justice. I could care less about capital value when the fundamental concern is justice. Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant. Economics is utilitarian.
Yes, but utilitarian economics is not the whole of libertarianism, and in the absence of a comprehensive libertarian theory of justice, the utilitarianism quickly turns into apologetics (this is part of why Rothbard wasn't a utilitarian). The way in which a ruler regaurds capital value is irrelevant to the justice (or lack thereof) of their rulership.
liberty student: Brainpolice:I've consistantly argued that both sides over-emphasize either nature or nurture, with marxists falsely attributing nearly everything to nurture and the conservatives falsely attributing nearly everything to inexorable laws of nature, so you're not really argueing against my position. It's a straw man. Don't get your panties in a bunch SallyAnn. I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Stranger. When I respond to you, I will post "Hey Sweetie". That's a cue that I am referring to you. Brainpolice:I sometimes have to wonder what's higher on some of your value scales: anti-state or anti-"left"? Maybe they are on the same level. After all, leftists are not libertarians, no matter how much they want to be, or how much others want them to be.
Then the following is also valid: Rightist are not libertarians, no matter how much they want to be, or how much others want them to be.I don't see how either statement invalidates attempts at dialogue from those associated in the various sides, however.I'm still not following the pseudo-religious beliefs remark (earlier posted), though. Any examples, beyond an "us vs. them" context?On another note (off-topic), I also don't understand why left-libertarianism isn't called "radical" instead; the label fits more approriatly in terms of a scale dealing with authority vs. liberty, not a scale referring to left or right...
I'm sorry, you're simply working with a false paradigm in a partisan manner in which "the right" is assumed to be "the good" and "the left" is made synonamous with statism as such and all that is in error. You know better, we have been over this ad nauseum. Libertarianism has essentially nothing to do with the contemporary left/right spectrum, it transcends it. Neither "leftists" or "rightists", in terms of the contemporary false paradigm, are libertarians. So stop the misleading semantic game. Coddling up to Hoppe's romantisization of monarchy or being associated with America's political right is not a requirement for one to be a libertarian, and having personal sympathies with segments of "the left" doesn't disqualify one.
Nitroadict:Then the following is also valid: Rightist are not libertarians, no matter how much they want to be, or how much other want them to be.
Uhm, ok. I don't think I've ever stated otherwise.
Nitroadict:I don't see how either statement invalidates attempts at dialogue from those associated in the various sides, however.
Me neither. I also don't see how either statement lends one side as being closer to liberty than the other.
But that's what all of this degenerates down to over and over again. Strawmen. Instead of seeing who was responding to whom, and reading the post within context, we have endless strawmen. It's quite pointless really.
liberty student: Nitroadict:Then the following is also valid: Rightist are not libertarians, no matter how much they want to be, or how much other want them to be. Uhm, ok. I don't think I've ever stated otherwise. Nitroadict:I don't see how either statement invalidates attempts at dialogue from those associated in the various sides, however. Me neither. I also don't see how either statement lends one side as being closer to liberty than the other. But that's what all of this degenerates down to over and over again. Strawmen. Instead of seeing who was responding to whom, and reading the post within context, we have endless strawmen. It's quite pointless really.
It was you and a few others who brought this left/right thing into the discussion.
Brainpolice:I'm sorry, you're simply working with a false paradigm in a partisan manner in which "the right" is assumed to be "the good" and "the left" is made synonamous with statism as such and all that is in error.
And how do you come to this conclusion that I am working in this false paradigm?
Brainpolice:You know better, we have been over this ad nauseum.
I do know better. It is inevitable that you will attack me by challenging things I never wrote.
Brainpolice:Libertarianism has essentially nothing to do with the contemporary left/right spectrum, it transcends it.
Uhm, yeah. I get that. End of argument? Oh wait, *groans* there is more...
Brainpolice:Neither "leftists" or "rightists", in terms of the contemporary false paradigm, are libertarians. So stop the misleading semantic game.
Is that the game where you put words into my mouth, or the one were you twist what I say? I'm happy to stop both.
Brainpolice:Coddling up to Hoppe's romantisization of monarchy or being associated with America's political right is not a requirement for one to be a libertarian.
And where did I mention that? Please, refute my position that you put words in my mouth, and show all of us where I wrote that. Quote specifically please.
Brainpolice:It was you and a few others who brought this left/right thing into the discussion.
I joined at the tail end of the discussion. And in order to bring something, I would have to be first. I don't even think I was 3rd.
Again, look for "Hey Sweetie". That's the cue that I am addressing you directly.
I apologize LS, I was not retorting or implying. I stated it as such an observation has been brought up before elsewhere (by others) in the past, usually ignoring the possibility of such a statement applying to "the other side".
As for the perception of how one side as being closer to liberty than the other, I think reactionary attitudes have a huge part in it, which help cloud over on the more important aspects of grasping basic principles & concepts of liberty, regardless of the background of said agent interested in learning. The backgrounds of those participating in such discussions obviously influence bias (I know it has/ does for me occasionally), which has lately led me to believe that Statism's insidious influence will be much harder to fight when we are born under said society ruled by Statism.
I dunno, maybe a book needs to be written to straighten out this meta-political argument over semantics, sides, & political compasses (probably already have been a few). "Forum Politics for Dummies" might even help at this point, imo
Brainpolice: Yes, but utilitarian economics is not the whole of libertarianism, and in the absence of a comprehensive libertarian theory of justice, the utilitarianism quickly turns into apologetics (this is part of why Rothbard wasn't a utilitarian). The way in which a ruler regaurds capital value is irrelevant to the justice (or lack thereof) of their rulership.
You got offended when I said that Hoppe was doing an economic analysis of political systems, which by nature must be utilitarian.
Libertarianism has nothing to do with it and is irrelevant to the argument.
Nitroadict:I'm still not following the pseudo-religious beliefs remark (earlier posted), though. Any examples, beyond an "us vs. them" context?
I'd refer you to the left/right thread but that was deleted. I'm not going to waste my time posting it again.
Nitroadict:On another note (off-topic), I also don't understand why left-libertarianism isn't called "radical" instead; the label fits more approriatly in terms of a scale dealing with authority vs. liberty, not a scale referring to left or right...
Well, you can't call it radical. Left-libertarians are not radical. I won't post what I would call it, out of respect for the fact you consider yourself a left-libertarian (when I don't really believe you are).
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap