Why minarchists should be monarchists
If minarchists are serious about sustainable limited government, then they should ditch republican government in favor of monarchical government. You read that right: I said a monarchy is better than a republic.
The following analysis is based on Hans Hoppe's book Democracy—The God That Failed.
There are very solid reasons for monarchy over a republic: it comes down to the problems of public property and the benefits of private property.
As basic economic reasoning tells us, public property will be afflicted with the 'tragedy of the commons'. Since nobody owns public property, it is in everyone's interest to maximize their own benefits while they can. For example, buffalo were hunted to near extinction because nobody could own them (you had to kill what you could before the next guy did), whereas cattle face no such danger.
The tragedy of the commons will also arise with public government (e.g., a republic). Because government officials are temporary caretakers—not owners—of the government, they have no long term interest in the capital value of government. They have little interest in adopting policies that increase the prosperity of their taxpayers over the long-term because they won't be around to reap the benefits of increased tax revenues. Rather, they must reap what benefits they can while they are still in office. This institutionalized short-sightedness will inevitably cause republican governments to tax and regulate their citizens excessively, and will cause the government to grow exponentially. This has been the history of the USA.
Monarchy, on the other hand, is a minarchist's dream. With private ownership of the government, the king takes a long term interest in increasing the prosperity of his subjects (and hence his future tax revenues). Thus, taxation will remain moderate and destructive policies will be avoided. Many other amazing benefits come from private property in government: universal private property law, limited or no warfare, commodity money, etc. To quote Hoppe:
From the perspective of economic theory, the end of World War I can be identified as the point in time at which private-government ownership was completely replaced by public government ownership, and from which a tendency towards rising degrees of social time preference, government growth, and an attending process of decivilization should be expected to have taken off. Indeed, as indicated in detail above, such has been the grand underlying theme of twentieth century Western history. Since 1918, practically all indicators of high or rising time preferences have exhibited a systematic upward tendency: as far as government is concerned, democratic republicanism produced communism (and with this public slavery and government sponsored mass murder even in peacetime), fascism, national socialism, and, lastly and most enduringly, social democracy ("liberalism"). Compulsory military service has become almost universal, foreign and civil wars have increased in frequency and in brutality, and the process of political centralization has advanced further than ever. Internally, democratic republicanism has led to permanently rising taxes, debts, and public employment. It has led to the destruction of the gold standard, unparalleled paper-money inflation, and increased protectionism and migration controls. Even the most fundamental private law provisions have been perverted by an unabated flood of legislation and regulation. Simultaneously, as regards civil society, the institutions of marriage and family have been increasingly weakened, the number of children has declined, and the rates of divorce, illegitimacy, single parenthood, singledom, and abortion have increased. Rather than rising with rising incomes, savings rates have been stagnating or even falling. In comparison to the nineteenth century, the cognitive prowess of the political and intellectual elites and quality of public education have declined. And the rates of crime, structural unemployment, welfare dependency, parasitism, negligence, recklessness, incivility, psychopathy, and hedonism have increased. (Democracy—The God That Failed, pp. 42-43)
Limited government can only exists sustainably with private government ownership. If you are actually serious about restraining government, then look beyond paper constitutions and republics: they are doomed to fail. The only workable solution is to privatize the government.
Funny Hoppe quote
From Ch. 13 of Democracy—The God That Failed (p.278), he's talking about the results of the Constitution:
Causation?
Hi Toban,
Do you think our current form of government is largely responsible for society's ills (e.g. more war, more taxes, more debt, more government controls, etc.), or are society's ills (add greed, lack of personal responsibility, and apathy to the list) largely responsible for our current form of government?
RH
Democracy is the root
Democracy has the effect of making people more and more short sighted (present minded). So democracy (or republics) cause the social ills that reinforce the effects of government. It's scary, democracy is a mad dash towards it's own destruction.
lol
this is like arguing whether you want to be grilled alive or broiled alive.
sheesh.
a president would be better.
no it's not. a king would be better.
no it's not. a president would be better.
yada yada yada.
here's a clue. you're screwed either way.
Cognitive dissonance
Just to be clear, I posted this not to generate support for monarchy, but to expose just how ludicrous minarchism is. Most rightly see monarchy as illegitimate, but as soon as the monarch's powers are open to competition they are seen as ok. I'm trying to show that monarchy is vastly superior in order to create cognitive dissonance, to spur people on to consistent libertarian anarchy.
Ultimately, all government is illegitimate as it involves some people ruling over other people by force and without consent. Market anarchy is the answer—just keep reading Rothbard.
I posted this not to
I posted this not to generate support for monarchy
yea....I picked up on that. But you failed to define miniarchism.
well actually you failed to define any of your major terms.
and that's time wasted, most online debates are definitional, in fact most arguments in general are definitional.
who knows what's going through that head of yours when you start tossing these terms around.
then your closing statement is just absurd.
but of course all those words you used, mean something different to me.
standard definitions
I'm using the commonly accepted definitions.
those are lousy definitions
those are lousy definitions and NOT commonly accepted.
here's a definition for you
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://en...
learn how to use it. you might even learn something.
Can you be specific?
I seriously believe my definitions are standard. Can you offer a more in-depth critique so I can see what the problem is?
I'll take a Traditional Catholic monarchy any day over this
Unless it's British. Even when they were Catholic, the Brits were tyrants.
But I'd gladly be subject to monarchs like Louis IX of France, Queen Isabella of Spain or Charles I of Austria. It's unfortunate that in the US monarchy has become synonymous with tyranny. But part of England's problem in the 18th century was that it had put itself above the Church with the Protestant Revolution in the 16th century. Unlike Catholic monarchies, in England there was no authority above the throne.
Sure, a society where the
Sure, a society where the death penalty is the punishment for misdemeanors rather than a system of punishment where the community has some say is great.
Ventura 2012
Ron Paul is a Minarchist
The Minarchism I advocate is a "transitionary" model the goal is 100% Free-Market Anarchy (Austrian Economics -- Murray Rothbard -- Mises).
Public Gov't (means tax theft -- no argument there) -- it suggest that there are portions of gov't responsibility that can't be trusted to private interests. If this seems logical to most everyone then it don't need to be negative -- the question what responsibilities cannot be given to the private market (during this "transition").
I believe that there are only such responsibilities:
#1 the Navy (Ships - WMD Weaponry - Nuclear)
#2 the Army and Air Force (WMD Weaponry - Nuclear)
Meditate on the sheer fire power of the Navy -- Take an Inventory. Now ask yourself this question; "which banking family do you want to buy up the Navy at absurd rock bottom prices?" Which is what would happen if we moved from our present 7% Free-Society to a fully 100% Free-Society (which is why I recommend a transition through Minarchism or to put it differently a 93% Free-Society).
Central Gov't in my Minarchism would receive 1% sales tax (that's it). They would be a 24 member team (who competed "free-market style" for their jobs and were selected by analysts from polarized positions of knowledge and politics) -- They would have Zero Regulatory Power in the Private Markets. They would have Zero Taxing Authority. Their pay would be best on a rubric designed to measure Naval effectiveness, cost reduction, response times, communication, and weapon system advancement. They would be a Meritocracy, as far as election was concerned. ONLY NAVAL RESPONSIBILITY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
State Gov't would receive 3% sales tax (within that state). All Army and Air Force hardware would be turned over to Army and Air Guard -- Each state would be asigned a coastal or border region to coordinate with or to co-defend or co-support (financially). Since the interior states benefit the most from the distance from border or coast they must build up their interior defenses lastly. Some might say -- why not privatize. Because "war" or "invasion" requires serious pre-planning and preparation and drills. That prep and weaponry development requires a lot of capital. They would always coordinate with disaster and search and rescue.
Murder - Rape - Arson - Kidnapping - Theft Investigations can all be paid for via individual insurance -- however; there would need to be a clause for this type of insurance that the first 100 homes nearest the event must pay for it if the individual does not have insurance -- the carriers can argue over which firm performs the investigation.
A 3% sales tax to pay off all foreign debt.
Thus a 7% total tax. The State nor Central Gov't has Regulatory or Taxing Authority -- All contracts are handled in the Free-Market and currency is never set - always competitive - and ever in Anarchy.
Thus 93% Free-Society (minarchism) as a transitionary gov't.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
You're 93% there
I used to think a transition to market anarchy would need a minarchist transition. But now I just think that's ridiculous. After all, government doesn't work, so why would it work for a transition?? Take a look at Rothbard's critique of gradualism from The Ethics of Liberty.
Keep reading and learning and you'll see that the Rothbardian position is abolitionist and also the best practical solution.
Toban -- I disagree friend
I don't think you read my post clearly -- I think you got the gist of it and moved into your answer, because it sounded similar to your own reasoning prior to becoming a full Rothbardian.
#1 If we moved (right now) today into a Rothbardian Society who would get all of the Naval Power? Who could afford it - what league of men? Banking Clans?
#2 Given that the world will not also jump into a Rothbardian Liberty-Hole we must maintain our defenses. If the Navy were sold privately how would they be supported?
#3 The Gov't I proposed was a Meritocracy (meaning they are elected to one-term by merit). They have no regulatory power in the markets, no taxing authority, no money authority. That means the markets are 100% free -- only individuals pay a small sales tax (in my 93% Free Society) of 1% to Naval Oversight - 3% to Army and Air Guard (State Level) - 3% to Pay off Foreign Debt.
You can't answer #1 -- Neither can any of the Misesian scholars I'm in regular contact with -- They can only answer it "after" a transition because the assumptions are always "who is going to attack us - what do we need to defend" and those statements are just ignorant of the vile we've spread.
Essentially in my 93% Free-Society (as a transition from our present 7% Free Society) argument you forget that the Bankers would be thrown out of the country -- What about the other countries they control? Do you think they wont try to start working against us during the transition?
Idealistically you are correct.
The "evil" in gov't is twofold: 1) more than one-term and 2) regulatory power (et al).
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
hmmm...
if people were allowed to own buffalo, there would have never been that problem.
i dont see how a monarchy would have helped privitize them.
i agree that republics are doomed to fail, but monarchies are pretty horrible as well, as history shows.
if one person owns the government, he owns the means to destroy you and your property.
but, i must say, it would be much easier to overthrow one or even a few despots than millions of despots.
myself, i think minarchy is too much government in the first place.
Incentives
Of course, monarchies are bad, as all governments are. But monarchies at least have an incentive structure that allows them to exist sustainably without collapsing on themselves.
I also think that the historical record supports monarchy. Taxes and warfare were way more limited. The democrats have been spreading lies about monarchy to make the disaster of democracy look palatable.
An occasional colapse is good
The trick is to come out better than before each go around.
The real problem now is the desire to keep the status quo. The civil war was an opportunity to fix the inherent problems of the constitution, and it was squandered by a tyrant.
The problem with democratic
The problem with democratic collapses is that they destroy civilization through hyperinflation. I'd rather not go back to the dark ages. I expect that as things get progressively worse, more and more people will realize that democratic-republicanism was a bad idea. And the solution will hopefully be market anarchy.
Patrick Henry weighs in on the subject.
From a speech delivered June 5, 1788:
Not all the Founders thought the presidency was a good idea.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Uh, no.
"tragedy of the commons" is a classic socialist mantra to encourage big government, because the "commons" become anything and everything. See also Thom Hartmann, who while he does a good radio show, doesn't know squat about economics, property rights, or libertarianism.
FAIL.
Plus, minarchy has a reliance on individual freedom and personal responsibility since government is no longer Big Nanny. Monarchy, in contrast, *is* Big Nanny gone cuckoo. If anything, monarchy is a form of dictatorship or oligarchy, which is exactly NOT what both a democracy or a republic are.
FAIL.
Minarchists should not only NOT support monarchy, but they should be dead-set against it, whether it's a pure monarch or an elected-for-life position in the mold of FDR, Castro, or Chavez, as the dumb-$h!t Hamilton envisioned.
call Hitler and Stalin
call Hitler and Stalin monarchs and the true absurdity becomes apparent.
Ventura 2012
There's little difference
The differences are only election or coup vs. claiming divine right or appointment by God. They're all oligarchies, just by different false reasons.
Hear Ye!
It's the answer!
Forget about all this "freedom" and "individualism" stuff, and get us a king!
Sometimes you characters make me laugh!
In fact, alot of the time!
yeah
the hebrew in the bible had judges before they had kings. they didnt like having all those judges, though. they cried out for a king, and got what they wanted. they were told that the king would basically own them and their things, but they didnt care. interesting read.
That's right. Just ridicule
That's right. Just ridicule those with whom you do not agree and dismiss their ideas out of hand. Is that not what everyone did with the Ron Paul movement from the beginning?
It may very well be that in the end, this concept of monarchy should be discarded, but I think it is worth the mental exercise to consider. We have been fed an awful lot of lies and distortions in our lifetimes. Could it be possible that even our concept of a Republic has been distorted and filled with lies?
It is an interesting intellectual argument, but at this point, I would much rather see our Constitutional Republic restored as I believe we should strive to adhere to the law of the land. As our congress is supposed to be sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, we should hold them to their word. I will concede that we have not given the Constitution a fair shot in the past 100 or so years, so in that sense, we are kicking it while it is down.
Seriously, you would have to
Seriously, you would have to have not read 1 page of world history to believe this nonsense.
1. Monarchies are monopoly ownership of all property within its borders.
2. You are assuming that Monarchs are sane capitalists that only want whats best for their property. Nothing could be further from the truth. History shows people endowed with such absolute power they will usually use aggression and search for expansion even unto death.
Hoppe bastardizes the praxeological axiom by assuming that since all people use known means to achieve desired ends, people will use what has been deemed effective to protect their property. Capital and property do not encompass the scope of human ends. People want power, glory, blood, women, etc... Political rulers are not limited by capitalist means in achieving those ends either, which is why we need checks and balances on them.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Mods, please delete this thread, it will drive people away from the Campaign for Liberty.
Ventura 2012
I read a very interesting
I read a very interesting series called "The Song of Albion" by Stephen Lawhead. In the monarchy he set forth, the king's power was balanced by the whole of the people represented by the chief bard. Only the bard could choose the next monarch (it was not based on bloodline), and he was the chief advisor to the king. The king was established with a strong sense of responsibility for his people. He did not rule over them... he belonged to them as a servant leader.
I do not mean to distract or undermine the efforts here. The last couple years have seen dramatic changes in my thinking processes started by Ron Paul's simple statements of truth and clear thinking. I find this kind of debate can be very enlightening, and it might offer ideas for changes that could be made within the model of the Constitution that would make our Republic stronger.
This kind of debate is
This kind of debate is better left to the obscure academic realm because it can damage our pro-active political cause here.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have listened to the book on tape of this idea and enjoyed the concept that monarchies can be less damaging because they didnt get their position through political activity. Its a fun dinnertime factotum. However, the flaws here(like ignoring the possible effects of absolute power on shaping an individual's values) are too immense to ignore, nevermind the negative effects it has on mobilizing the troops for our cause.
Ventura 2012
Is this book
on tape/CD? I wasn't aware of that.
---
“The very word government means some men governing--ruling over others. But to the degree that men are ruled by other men, they exist in slavery. - The Market for Liberty - Linda + Morris Tannehill
turns out it wasnt a book on
turns out it wasnt a book on tape, it was a lecture he gave. Here's the link: http://mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/20thCentury/12_20th_Hoppe.mp3
Ventura 2012