Forums of the Libertarian Left

[XOmniverse]

So I was talking to this guy a minute ago, and he started giving me the Hoppean routine about how monarchy is better than democracy, if you had to pick one (why pick either?).

I think my fundamental issue with this viewpoint is fundamentally one of moral values. Democracy was at least partially grounded in the idea that government should exist, not to rule, but to serve the people, whereas monarchy operated under no such pretense. I think, as a result, monarchy was less free overall than modern democracy is.

This guy had a pretty romantic vision of what monarchy consisted of. It's almost like he didn't grasp that the monarch pragmatically allowing freedom to avoid rebellion wasn't concerned with serving the people; he was concerned with keeping his livestock productive.

[Ceapmann]

I don't think the Hoppean line is meant to be taken as an argument in favor of monarchy (though some idjots out there tend to take it as such.) It's supposed to be an argument against democracy, much in the same way that "Stalin was worse than Hitler" isn't meant to be taken as an argument in favor of Hitler.

[RoyceChristian]

I don't think the Hoppean line is meant to be taken as an argument in favor of monarchy (though some idjots out there tend to take it as such.) It's supposed to be an argument against democracy, much in the same way that "Stalin was worse than Hitler" isn't meant to be taken as an argument in favor of Hitler.

Even so, that doesn't excuse those who going around under the term 'Anarcho-Monarchist' from the fact that their position is ridiculous.

[Zanthorus]

Lolwut

I'm going to go ahead and take a guess that this guy tanked history classes (If indeed he ever learned history)

[Superdog]

It kinda seems like pointless contrarianism, even if we assume the argument is valid, which I don't think it is.

[Juan]

Hoppe seems to be a conservative who panders to conservatives and has a following of people with 'issues'.

[Juan]

I don't think the Hoppean line is meant to be taken as an argument in favor of monarchy (though some idjots out there tend to take it as such.)

Maybe 'some' idiots do. Or maybe many idiots do.

[RoyceChristian]

...and has a following of people with 'issues'.

I loled.

[Brainpolice]

So I was talking to this guy a minute ago, and he started giving me the Hoppean routine about how monarchy is better than democracy, if you had to pick one (why pick either?).

I think my fundamental issue with this viewpoint is fundamentally one of moral values. Democracy was at least partially grounded in the idea that government should exist, not to rule, but to serve the people, whereas monarchy operated under no such pretense. I think, as a result, monarchy was less free overall than modern democracy is.

This guy had a pretty romantic vision of what monarchy consisted of. It's almost like he didn't grasp that the monarch pragmatically allowing freedom to avoid rebellion wasn't concerned with serving the people; he was concerned with keeping his livestock productive.

Speaking of this, I started writting a blog post about this topic. Haven't finished it yet.

I think what Hoppe ends up demonstrating, contrary to his conclusions, is actually that monarchy is the most *efficient* form of government - efficient at ruling, which is a point against it, not for it. He mysteriously assumes that because the monarch "privately" owns the state, he has an incentive to be a low-time-preferance lenient libertarian. This is simply historically inaccurate in terms of the reality of monarchies, and it nonetheless seems to reduce to the fact he can better keep his subjects in place.

[Brainpolice]

I don't think the Hoppean line is meant to be taken as an argument in favor of monarchy (though some idjots out there tend to take it as such.) It's supposed to be an argument against democracy, much in the same way that "Stalin was worse than Hitler" isn't meant to be taken as an argument in favor of Hitler.

The fact of the matter, though, is that Hoppe's argument, regaurdless of its intention, actually reduces to a "private property argument for monarchy" (using Hoppe's line of reasoning, we could easily justify monarchy on the basis of a certain absolutist property rights norm - and this is precisely why after him we *do* end up with people touting "anarcho-monarchy") and it paints a romantisized picture of monarchy in the attempt to argue against democracy.

[neverfox]

BP, you nailed it, IMO.

[Juan]

Here's a variation on a theme. Right now there are people at the mises forums arguing that a boat owner can throw people overboard whenever he feels like it. One can invite people to one's boat and then throw them in the middle of the ocean where they 'might' die or not. If they die, 'nature' is to blame.

I wonder what the hell is wrong with these people.

[neverfox]

I wonder what the hell is wrong with these people.

They're shitty philosophers; that's a good place to start. They are concerned only with the letter and not the spirit of libertarianism. I cannot understand how they can ignore the fact that to take a disproportionate about of another person's self or property to defend their own can be defended without taking a major piss on the spirit of the whole philosophy.

[XOmniverse]

I wonder what the hell is wrong with these people.

They're shitty philosophers; that's a good place to start. They are concerned only with the letter and not the spirit of libertarianism. I cannot understand how they can ignore the fact that to take a disproportionate about of another person's self or property to defend their own can be defended without taking a major piss on the spirit of the whole philosophy.

Neverfox has the right idea. They don't ground libertarianism in anything; to them its simply an absolute that all other values must be submissive to.

[Superdog]

Here's a variation on a theme. Right now there are people at the mises forums arguing that a boat owner can throw people overboard whenever he feels like it. One can invite people to one's boat and then throw them in the middle of the ocean where they 'might' die or not. If they die, 'nature' is to blame.

It's either that or Soviet Gulags.

[Juan]

They're shitty philosophers; that's a good place to start.

Hehe =]

They are concerned only with the letter and not the spirit of libertarianism.

Yes. Well, they don't even see things from a libertarian point of view. They don't rely on the non-aggression-principle. Their reasoning starts with 'conventional' property. They believe that a property title in land overrides all other rights.

Premise : "I own a plot of land (or a boat)"
Conclusion : "I own whoever is standing on my plot of land" "Love it or leave it."

[Brainpolice]

They believe that a property title in land overrides all other rights.

This, I believe, is the major reductio ad absurdum of the more simplistic formulations of anarcho-capitalism. So much emphasis is placed on property for the sake of property that rights in a more general sense essentially collapses and everything that one objected to about the state is legitimized all over again.

[manbear2pig]

This, I believe, is the major reductio ad absurdum of the more simplistic formulations of anarcho-capitalism. So much emphasis is placed on property for the sake of property that rights in a more general sense essentially collapses and everything that one objected to about the state is legitimized all over again.

Exactly - in their view, the only thing wrong with the State is that it didn't "legitimately" acquire "its" territory. But the problem with this is that as we saw during the Wal-mart war, it would appear that a lot of Misoids are opposed in principle to actually examining whether a given property was legitimately acquired or letting that have any bearing on whether it would be continue to be enforced. (recall how that was brushed off as Marxoid nihilism that would lead to a war of all against all -- sound familiar?) So logically, they don't really have any basis on which to oppose the State, at all, since you could use the exact same argument in favor of it -- and so in a perverse way, Hoppe is merely being consistent with his stated principles.

[neverfox]

This reminds me of Arthur Silber's "In Praise of Contextual Libertarianism". Good read.

[Brainpolice]

That was a good read.

[Cork]

Hoppe's conclusions may sound kooky to those who haven't taken the time to read or examine his arguments in great detail, but IMO he makes a pretty strong case that monarchies are less oppressive than democracies (at least in some ways).

One example he gives is that democracies allow "competition" in the looting, killing and controlling of others, ensuring that the worst possible scum always rise to the top. It's rather hard to argue with that!

He also believes citizens saw monarchs as arch enemies, while modern democratically elected "leaders" are seen as legitimate because they've been chosen by the "people."

IOW, if you're capable of separating Hoppe's other views (on immigration and culture) from his anarchistic critique of democracy, you're in for quite a treat.

[neverfox]

Yes, there is that aspect about democracy that it is sold as being antithetical to authoritarianism whereas monarchy doesn't really try to hide its true nature.

[Cork]

Democracy was at least partially grounded in the idea that government should exist, not to rule, but to serve the people

It's all an illusion. Democracies (by which I mean 'democratic' states) don't serve "the people." This sort of ruling-class propaganda has been ingrained into so many people's heads that apparently even anarchists believe it.

I think, as a result, monarchy was less free overall than modern democracy is.

Read Hoppe. He completely destroys this myth.

Or,even easier, listen to one of his lectures:
http://mises.org/mp3/War/War8a.mp3

[Brainpolice]

Hoppe's conclusions may sound kooky to those who haven't taken the time to read or examine his arguments in great detail, but IMO he makes a pretty strong case that monarchies are less oppressive than democracies (at least in some ways).

One example he gives is that democracies allow "competition" in the looting, killing and controlling of others, ensuring that the worst possible scum always rise to the top. It's rather hard to argue with that!

He also believes citizens saw monarchs as arch enemies, while modern democratically elected "leaders" are seen as legitimate because they've been chosen by the "people."

IOW, if you're capable of separating Hoppe's other views (on immigration and culture) from his anarchistic critique of democracy, you're in for quite a treat.

He doesn't give an anarchistic critique of democracy, he gives an aristocratic one, and goes on to propose an aristocratic theory of "natural elites". As for the rest of the points, none of them necessarily vindicate monarchy as being better - plenty of particular aspects of monarchy can be brought up that make it just as bad for different reasons, and the fundamental problems with political power still apply to it. There is no law of nature that a monarch is going to be more meritorous and restrained simply because the state is his exclusive "private property". Hoppe is abusing time preference theory out of context.

[Cork]

How do you deal with the mountains of evidence he gives to prove his points? Democracy has brought about many of the most brutal states we've ever seen in the history of mankind. The taxes people paid under monarchies--hell, even under feudalism IINM--were chump change compared to what we have now. Etc. (This is too short a space to rehash all his evidence, because there's a lot of it.)

Obviously nobody is arguing "for" monarchy. But the "democracy" myth is precisely what legitimizes the state in people's minds. The rule of a democratically elected thug is no more "legitimate" than a monarch and often even more tyrannical.