# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Monarchy Is the Best Form of Government

## r3volution 3.0

For the purpose of this thread, I'm defining the "best" form of government as the one which interferes in the market economy _the least_.  So, for instance, one which interferes only by collecting minimal taxes  to finance basic law and order operations would be very good, while one  which maintains an elaborate regulatory and welfare system would be  very bad. I'll give you five reasons (there may be others) that a  monarchy is best by this standard.

*1. Cost Externalization* - The  state's revenues are a percentage of GDP. As the economy grows, the  state's revenues grow; if the economy shrinks, the state's revenues  shrink. Thus the state would seem to have an incentive to pursue good  pro-growth economic policies, to grow the economy so that state revenue  grow - _but it entirely depends on how the state is structured_.  If the state is a democracy (multiple rulers) the incentives are  different than if the state is a monarchy (one ruler). With a monarchy,  whenever the economy shrinks and then the state's revenues shrink, the  ruler's own personal revenues also shrink (since in a monarchy the  state's revenues _are_ the ruler's personal revenues). Whereas,  when there are multiple rulers, it is possible for some of them to  increase their own personal revenues even as the economy shrinks and  total state revenue shrinks. For example, suppose state revenues are  $100 and there are five rulers each receiving $20. Then three of them (a  majority) decide to introduce a new program which increases their share  from $20 to $30, and which also causes the economy to shrink so that  total state revenues decline from $100 to $95. It is possible for the  three rulers in the majority to profit from this economically  destructive program only because the losses can be shifted onto (aka  externalized) the two rulers in the minority (their shares dropped from  $20 to $2.50). This is mathematically impossible if there is only one  ruler - if his policies shrink the economy and therefore total state  revenue, his own revenues must necessarily fall as well. He cannot push  the burden off (externalize the cost) onto anyone else. So what does  this mean? It means that a king cannot profit from economically  destructive policies, while a democratic majority can: which may give it  an incentive to do precisely that. To give a concrete example: a  democratic majority might vote itself a part of the wealth of the  minority, thus shrinking the economy overall, but also increasing their  own incomes. Thus, all else being equal, a king should pursue better  (i.e. more laissez faire) economic polices than a democratic majority. 

*2.  Looting By Proxy* - There are two reasons why a government might engage  in economically destructive policies (e.g. corporate subsidies or  popular welfare): (1) to directly benefit itself (as if members of the  government owned shares in the subsidized corporation), or (2) to  benefit others whose support it needs to remain in power (voters,  political donors). A monarchy totally lacks the second reason; a king  has no need to pass economically destructive policies to please voters  or donors, because his position is not dependent on support from voters  or donors. Thus, all else being equal, a king one one less reason to  engage in economically destructive policies than a democratic  government.

*3. Time Preference* - If the goal of a government is to maximize revenue, one must ask - _over what time period_?  If a government prefers short term gains, even at the expense of long  term costs greater than the initial gains (i.e. if it has high time  preference), it will behave differently than if it prefers to maximize  revenue in the long run (i.e. if it has low time preference).  Specifically, a government with high time preference will tend to pursue  more destructive economic policies than one with low time preference.  For instance, one can greatly increase state revenue in the short term  by greatly increasing taxes, but at the cost of lower economic growth in  the longer term, and therefore lower long-term revenue for the state;  whereas, if one wanted to maximize revenues long-term, one would keep  taxes relatively low to encourage greater economic growth and therefore  greater future revenues. A democratic government will tend to have  higher time preference than a monarchy, simply because the rulers in a  democracy are in office for shorter periods of time. Democratic rulers  are trying to maximize their revenues durian their term in office, and  don't care about the long term consequences (their successors will have  to deal with that). Whereas, a king has a life term, and therefore the  highest possible time-preference (if it is a hereditary monarchy, his  concern may stretch beyond even his own lifetime, if he cares about what  his son inherits). This was Hoppe's primary argument in favor of  monarchy in his "Democracy: The God That Failed."

*4. Regime  Certainty* - A democratic government changes routinely, while the king is  there for life. Hence, in a democracy, there are likely to be more  frequent changes of policy, which in themselves (whatever the nature of  the changes) tend to disrupt economic activity (because they make it  more difficult for entrepreneurs to plan for the future). 

*5. Selection Pressures* - This concerns the _personality_ of the ruler(s), specifically their _morals_.  In a hereditary monarchy, the personality of the ruler is essentially  random - it is whatever Nature gives us. In a democratic system, the  rulers are not selected at random, but through electoral competition. It  so happens that the most ruthless, dishonest, unscrupulous people tend  to rise to the top in this system. 

P.S.  - All of these criticisms also apply to oligarchy and all kinds of "mixed" government (ask me how if you don't see it).

P.P.S.  - Read "The Magic of Symmetrical Sovereignty" in my signature below for  a nice illustration of the good incentives present in monarchy.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

What is the benefit to the monarch to not treat us as slaves?  Domestic production for domestic consumption would just be his slaves moving money around, he could instead use those resources and man-hours to export a product and increase his wealth.  The most efficient way to run a government is the same as to run a business, if wealth is what you seek, where the citizens are your 'employees', not your consumers.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> For the purpose of this thread, I'm defining the "best" form of government as the one which interferes in the market economy _the least_.  So, for instance, one which interferes only by collecting minimal taxes  to finance basic law and order operations would be very good, while one  which maintains an elaborate regulatory and welfare system would be  very bad. I'll give you five reasons (there may be others) that a  monarchy is best by this standard.
> 
> *1. Cost Externalization* - The  state's revenues are a percentage of GDP. As the economy grows, the  state's revenues grow; if the economy shrinks, the state's revenues  shrink. Thus the state would seem to have an incentive to pursue good  pro-growth economic policies, to grow the economy so that state revenue  grow - _but it entirely depends on how the state is structured_.  If the state is a democracy (multiple rulers) the incentives are  different than if the state is a monarchy (one ruler). With a monarchy,  whenever the economy shrinks and then the state's revenues shrink, the  ruler's own personal revenues also shrink (since in a monarchy the  state's revenues _are_ the ruler's personal revenues). Whereas,  when there are multiple rulers, it is possible for some of them to  increase their own personal revenues even as the economy shrinks and  total state revenue shrinks. For example, suppose state revenues are  $100 and there are five rulers each receiving $20. Then three of them (a  majority) decide to introduce a new program which increases their share  from $20 to $30, and which also causes the economy to shrink so that  total state revenues decline from $100 to $95. It is possible for the  three rulers in the majority to profit from this economically  destructive program only because the losses can be shifted onto (aka  externalized) the two rulers in the minority (their shares dropped from  $20 to $2.50). This is mathematically impossible if there is only one  ruler - if his policies shrink the economy and therefore total state  revenue, his own revenues must necessarily fall as well. He cannot push  the burden off (externalize the cost) onto anyone else. So what does  this mean? It means that a king cannot profit from economically  destructive policies, while a democratic majority can: which may give it  an incentive to do precisely that. To give a concrete example: a  democratic majority might vote itself a part of the wealth of the  minority, thus shrinking the economy overall, but also increasing their  own incomes. Thus, all else being equal, a king should pursue better  (i.e. more laissez faire) economic polices than a democratic majority. 
> 
> *2.  Looting By Proxy* - There are two reasons why a government might engage  in economically destructive policies (e.g. corporate subsidies or  popular welfare): (1) to directly benefit itself (as if members of the  government owned shares in the subsidized corporation), or (2) to  benefit others whose support it needs to remain in power (voters,  political donors). A monarchy totally lacks the second reason; a king  has no need to pass economically destructive policies to please voters  or donors, because his position is not dependent on support from voters  or donors. Thus, all else being equal, a king one one less reason to  engage in economically destructive policies than a democratic  government.
> 
> *3. Time Preference* - If the goal of a government is to maximize revenue, one must ask - _over what time period_?  If a government prefers short term gains, even at the expense of long  term costs greater than the initial gains (i.e. if it has high time  preference), it will behave differently than if it prefers to maximize  revenue in the long run (i.e. if it has low time preference).  Specifically, a government with high time preference will tend to pursue  more destructive economic policies than one with low time preference.  For instance, one can greatly increase state revenue in the short term  by greatly increasing taxes, but at the cost of lower economic growth in  the longer term, and therefore lower long-term revenue for the state;  whereas, if one wanted to maximize revenues long-term, one would keep  taxes relatively low to encourage greater economic growth and therefore  greater future revenues. A democratic government will tend to have  higher time preference than a monarchy, simply because the rulers in a  democracy are in office for shorter periods of time. Democratic rulers  are trying to maximize their revenues durian their term in office, and  don't care about the long term consequences (their successors will have  to deal with that). Whereas, a king has a life term, and therefore the  highest possible time-preference (if it is a hereditary monarchy, his  concern may stretch beyond even his own lifetime, if he cares about what  his son inherits). This was Hoppe's primary argument in favor of  monarchy in his "Democracy: The God That Failed."
> 
> *4. Regime  Certainty* - A democratic government changes routinely, while the king is  there for life. Hence, in a democracy, there are likely to be more  frequent changes of policy, which in themselves (whatever the nature of  the changes) tend to disrupt economic activity (because they make it  more difficult for entrepreneurs to plan for the future). 
> ...


More rational than every Constitutionalist thread on RPFs.  Well done, bro.  +rep

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What is the benefit to the monarch to not treat us as slaves?


Higher income.

The richer the society, the greater his income.

And a free market society is going to be vastly richer than a slave society.




> Domestic production for domestic consumption would just be his slaves moving money around, he could instead use those resources and man-hours to export a product and increase his wealth.  The most efficient way to run a government is the same as to run a business, if wealth is what you seek, where the citizens are your 'employees', not your consumers.


The king trying to run the entire economy like a vast business or estate = socialism.

Socialism produces very little wealth in comparison to laissez faire. 

The king will have more income under laissez faire.

Socialist King = huge slice of tiny and stagnant pie
Laissez Faire King = moderate slice of gigantic and growing pie

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Higher income.
> 
> The richer the society, the greater his income.
> 
> And a free market society is going to be vastly richer than a slave society.
> 
> 
> 
> The king trying to run the entire economy like a vast business or estate = socialism.
> ...


This^^  As Hoppe noted, a property owner (in this case, the Sovereign) has incentive to make sure his property and citizenry are safe and well cared-for.  If he does something harmful to the people, he hurts himself in the short AND long runs.  The elected politician, however, has only to think of the next election at most.  He also incurs no harm if bad comes to the property or residents.  Pretty easy choice-monarchy FTW.

----------


## erowe1

Another big plus for monarchy (at least a plus as far as the people are concerned) is that it keeps the regime and its responsibility of its faults separate from its subjects.

If a monarch commits some crime against the people of a foreign nation, they aren't going to blame all the serfs in that monarch's homeland who are themselves but victims of other crimes of the same, the way Americans get blamed for the deeds of the regime in Washington, DC.

----------


## erowe1

> Higher income.


Also reputation and legacy.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> only one ruler - if his policies shrink the economy and therefore total state revenue, his own revenues must necessarily fall as well. He cannot push the burden off (externalize the cost) onto anyone else. So what does this mean? It means that a king cannot profit from economically destructive policies,*


 If the Monarch's reasoning is reasonable. If I recall correctly kings have been known to shave coins from time to time. But I agree his incentives are to grow his assets and preserve them for his heirs. Where as in point 2 in paragraph 2, incentives in a democracy are almost a certain path to destructive behavior. My reasoning is that group decisions tend to follow incentives, rejecting the occasional outlier. Whereas individual decisions are more unpredictable. One is probable the other is almost a certainty. Which makes it easy to reject democracy as an economic positive and a little more difficult to accept monarchy as economic salvation.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

Why would the monarch resort to socialism?  Feed the slaves enough to keep them working, and supply demand of foreign nations.

What is it you imagine would take place if anarchism took hold?  Why would this apparatus act differently than a monarch?  Or why would a monarch act differently than this apparatus?  It seems they would both be acting in self interest.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Another big plus for monarchy (at least a plus as far as the people are concerned) is that it keeps the regime and its responsibility of its faults separate from its subjects.
> 
> If a monarch commits some crime against the people of a foreign nation, they aren't going to blame all the serfs in that monarch's homeland who are themselves but victims of other crimes of the same, the way Americans get blamed for the deeds of the regime in Washington, DC.


Less incentive to sustain a war.

Edit: Or pehaps I should say more constraints on sustaining a war.

----------


## jj-

Sure, but it's not gonna happen.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Another big plus for monarchy (at least a plus as far as the people are concerned) is that it keeps the regime and its responsibility of its faults separate from its subjects.
> 
> If a monarch commits some crime against the people of a foreign nation, they aren't going to blame all the serfs in that monarch's homeland who are themselves but victims of other crimes of the same, the way Americans get blamed for the deeds of the regime in Washington, DC.


This^^ 


> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to erowe1 again.

----------


## jj-

> *5. Selection Pressures* - This concerns the _personality_ of the ruler(s), specifically their _morals_.  In a hereditary monarchy, the personality of the ruler is essentially  random - it is whatever Nature gives us. In a democratic system, the  rulers are not selected at random, but through electoral competition. It  so happens that the most ruthless, dishonest, unscrupulous people tend  to rise to the top in this system.


I disagree here, in all societies, even in undemocratic ones, those who end up with the power of the state tend to be psychopathic, they have a tendency to pick another person with a personality disorder for a mate, and it's also more likely that their children end up sicker than say, a random middle class child.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Also reputation and legacy.


Isn't that what gives democracy its bad traits?  We don't need some nancy trying to appease, we need a damn iron fist!

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Another big plus for monarchy (at least a plus as far as the people are concerned) is that it keeps the regime and its responsibility of its faults separate from its subjects.
> 
> If a monarch commits some crime against the people of a foreign nation, they aren't going to blame all the serfs in that monarch's homeland who are themselves but victims of other crimes of the same, the way Americans get blamed for the deeds of the regime in Washington, DC.


Peoples perception of foreign individuals is generally based on what the media tells them to think.  We have not taken it easy on any serfs when we disposed of their dictators.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Less incentive to sustain a war.
> 
> Edit: Or pehaps I should say more constraints on sustaining a war.


Why, the ruler now has control of all resources and isn't subjected to a vote.  He may lose lives that could be used for production at home, but securing resources abroad may be more beneficial.

----------


## erowe1

> Peoples perception of foreign individuals is generally based on what the media tells them to think.  We have not taken it easy on any serfs when we disposed of their dictators.


We being who?

As I recall, I don't remember Americans thinking the Iraqi people were to blame for the actions of Hussein.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> We being who?
> 
> As I recall, I don't remember Americans thinking the Iraqi people were to blame for the actions of Hussein.


Maybe not you and I, but the general public.  The intellects of other societies may understand our plight, but the general public could care less.  We fought the Iraqi *army* for a very short time I remember.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> If the Monarch's reasoning is reasonable.


As  in economics itself, all of these statements comparing different forms  of government are ceteris paribus statements. Any ruler, in any system,  can be incompetent or insane. Unless there's some reason to think a king  more likely to be incompetent/insane, we have to compare apples to  apples - i.e. treat them both as incompetent/insane (in which case  there's really no difference between the systems), or treat them both as  competent/sane (in which case monarchy is superior for the reasons  cited). 




> My reasoning is that group decisions tend to  follow incentives, rejecting the occasional outlier. Whereas individual  decisions are more unpredictable.


If the group is the  general population as voters, then I'd say the opposite is true -  they're guaranteed to be ignorant, while there's only a chance of the  king being ignorant. 

If the group is something more elite? ....I don't know. 




> I  disagree here, in all societies, even in undemocratic ones, those who  end up with the power of the state tend to be psychopathic, they have a  tendency to pick another person with a personality disorder for a mate,  and it's also more likely that their children end up sicker than say, a  random middle class child.


The first generation, the person who initially seized/built the throne? Yes.

Subsequent generations? I don't think so. I don't believe that such traits are that strongly hereditary.




> Why would the monarch resort to socialism?  Feed the slaves enough to keep them working, and supply demand of foreign nations.


Again, that would result in less wealth being created than laissez faire.

Do you thin US GDP would increase if the US government adopted this plan? 

...it would plummet. 




> What is it you imagine would take place if anarchism took hold?  Why would this apparatus act differently than a monarch?  Or why would a monarch act differently than this apparatus?  It seems they would both be acting in self interest.


I didn't mention anarchy for the same reason that I didn't mention unicornocracy. 

I'm only interested in comparing possible forms of social organization. 

But I don't want to drag the anarchy v. minarchy debate into this thread, so that's all I'll say. We can discuss it here, if you like.

----------


## erowe1

> Maybe not you and I, but the general public.  The intellects of other societies may understand our plight, but the general public could care less.  We fought the Iraqi *army* for a very short time I remember.


The rhetoric the regime used was that it was liberating the Iraqi people from them.

----------


## jj-

> Subsequent generations? I don't think so. I don't believe that such traits are that strongly hereditary.


The mom has a personality disorder, mistreats the child which makes it more likely for him to acquire a personality disorder. The child is attracted to another woman with a personality disorder, who mistreats the new child, and so on.

North Korea. 3 generations. Uncle eaten by dogs. You sleep when the monarch is speaking and you get executed.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> The rhetoric the regime used was that it was liberating the Iraqi people from them.


Exactly, truth doesn't really matter, so it isn't a good reason to switch to monarchy.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The mom has a personality disorder, mistreats the  child which makes it more likely for him to acquire a personality  disorder. The child is attracted to another woman with a personality  disorder, who mistreats the new child, and so on.


Sure, that's possible, but consider the comparison with democracy.

Are  you more likely to be unscrupulous if _you yourself_ had to fight your way to a  position of power (democracy), or if you're merely the child, grand-child, etc of  someone who did?




> North Korea. 3 generations. Uncle eaten by dogs. You sleep when the monarch is speaking and you get executed.


Libertarian Michael Malice wrote a great book on North Korea recently (interview with Tom Woods here),  suggesting that the Norks (contrary to the propaganda they themselves  promote, probably for advantage at the negotiating table with the US)  are not insane - they're _terrified_ of a revolution which  sees them hanging upside down from a lamp post. They all know that  reforms need to be done, ala China from Mao to present, but they're  afraid that if they loosen up they'll lose control. 

It's not a problem of crazy monarchs, it's a problem of insecure government in general. 

Insecure governments brutalize out of the necessity for self-preservation.

Think of China and Russia - in the early days of their experiments with communism, they had the most brutal governments imaginable, but then they moderated a great deal later on, as they became more secure. Compare to Africa, same problem, but still super-instable, coups every other month it seems, and so still as brutal as ever.

----------


## jj-

> Sure, that's possible, but consider the comparison with democracy.
> 
> Are  you more likely to be unscrupulous if _you yourself_ had to fight your way to a  position of power (democracy), or if you're merely the child, grand-child, etc of  someone who did?


How hard it is to get power in a democracy changes a lot with the times, depending on the beliefs of the population. Before fascism and communism, getting elected with our ideas was a lot more easy. The idea that the government should heavily regulate relationships between employers and employees I don't think was even around in many places. The government also had much fewer opportunities or resources to distribute so better people were politicians.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Again, that would result in less wealth being created than laissez faire.
> 
> Do you thin US GDP would increase if the US government adopted this plan? 
> 
> ...it would plummet.


I don't necessarily agree with that, but even if that is the case, GDP going down means lower possible tax receipts, which could be covered by the fact that the monarch now receives all profits.  How high is your ideal tax burden?  If it is 5%, then the monarch only needs to be 5% as efficient as the free market to make the same.  20%?  Only 20% as efficient, and so on.  But, I must ask, why is big business necessarily inefficient business?  If the monarch is not trying to forecast demand for its own populace, and is instead focused on fulfilling actual demand of foreign individuals/companies/governments, why will it fall?  Because he has the title 'monarch' instead of CEO?  I'm sure you understand the wealth generating effects of a balance of trade surplus.  Consumerism has no benefit to the monarch, it is not bringing any more money into the system, it is creating a higher monetary velocity, but all that is is a function of our happiness.  The monarch could have that money in his pocket, and the resources spent building our consumerist products could be a) shipped over seas, or b) used to create other items desired by people over seas.  And by those transaction, money enters the system, ala the monarchs pocket.





> I didn't mention anarchy for the same reason that I didn't mention unicornocracy. 
> 
> I'm only interested in comparing possible forms of social organization. 
> 
> But I don't want to drag the anarchy v. minarchy debate into this thread, so that's all I'll say. We can discuss it here, if you like.


I think you misunderstood my statement, and I will definitely oblige you if you still feel I'm off topic when I rephrase my question.  This social organization that forms when anarchy fails I assume would also be looking out for their best long term interests, and to me sounds very similar to a monarch, ruled by force and non-democratically, so I'm asking why a monarch, as you paint it, would be better and different than this other social organization that would form out of anarchy's dust.

----------


## otherone

Assassination is more effective than in a bureaucracy.

----------


## erowe1

> Exactly, truth doesn't really matter, so it isn't a good reason to switch to monarchy.


It seems like you missed my point. This all goes back to what I said in post #6.

Do you really think Middle Easterners would have cheered on the murders of 3,000 innocent people in the Twin Towers if they didn't see the American people as having some responsibility for the actions of the regime in Washington, DC?

----------


## acptulsa

> As  in economics itself, all of these statements comparing different forms  of government are ceteris paribus statements. Any ruler, in any system,  can be incompetent or insane. Unless there's some reason to think a king  more likely to be incompetent/insane, we have to compare apples to  apples - i.e. treat them both as incompetent/insane (in which case  there's really no difference between the systems), or treat them both as  competent/sane (in which case monarchy is superior for the reasons  cited).


Your whole argument just fell apart.

A republic with a legislative body is a form of government created specifically because it was presumed that a few psychopaths could be rendered toothless in a committee--while if the king turns out to be a psychopath everyone is just screwed.  No one anticipated that the only people who would run for election to that legislature are the local psychopaths.  But they should have, because they knew from long experience that any prince who wasn't a psychopath would be killed by his psychopathic brother.

Now, go back to the beginning, presume the lot of them are psychopaths, and try again.  Or stop jacking yourself off and spend your time trying to convince a sane person to run for Congress instead.

I say if you're going to put sociopaths in charge, put a bunch of them in charge so they'll fight with each other.  That tends to slow them down at least a little bit.

----------


## Ronin Truth

FWIW, I prefer and will take Autarchy as being much better.

----------


## ProIndividual

The best form of theft is as little of it as possible. The best form of state is as little of it as possible. That would entail perhaps a benign or beneficent monarch. That said, history shows they don't tend to be or stay benign or beneficent. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and power attracts the corrupt as well. I find this as likely to last as minarchy...which is to say I don't see it working out for long in this benign/beneficent form.

If you all would protest outside my house, forcing me choose between a lack of sleep, being able to leave, receive deliveries, work, etc. OR become your monarch in a semi-free market economic situation, I would accept regrettably based on your forcible drafting of me as king. Then I'd spend my entire reign carefully untangling the knot that is the state, and abolish it before my reign was over. Most of this would be making the case the people don't need me at all, and in fact my position is pure evil, albeit a better one than all other evils you could choose (but not better than the singular moral good you could choose, via anarchy). If I were assassinated, or died naturally somehow before my deconstruction of the state was complete, you'd all be idiots to let someone else be monarch...how many people will actually seek to abolish their own power? One I know of for sure....lol.

If I was forced into an election this way, as a side note, my slogan would be "No. HELL NO! Anybody but me, please! I don't want to rule you!"

----------


## Ronin Truth

*“That government is best which governs least.”*

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> A republic with a legislative body is a form of government created specifically because it was presumed that a few psychopaths could be rendered toothless in a committee--while if the king turns out to be a psychopath everyone is just screwed.


We really have three relevant categories of troublemakers to consider: 

(1) the insane (in the sense of having lost touch with reality, e.g. schizophrenics)
(2) the depraved (people with no moral compass, sociopaths)
(3) the incompetent (no insane or depraved, just mediocre at their job)

For a representative government, there is ~0% of the majority being insane or incompetent (they would be out-competed electorally), but there's an ~100% chance of the majority being depraved - because electoral politics, a most dirty game, tends to select for such people.

For a monarchy, there is a small chance of each, since the selection of the monarch is a biological throw of the dice. 

To summarize, representative governments are virtually certain to be staffed by competent sociopaths all the time; while the monarch will only sometimes be either insane, sociopathic, or incompetent (and in the case of insane or incompetent monarchs, he most likely becomes a mere figurehead with one of his ministers ruling, as was the case historically). The scales clearly, to my mind, fall on the side of monarchy here.

But even if I'm wrong, and government by committee is superior in this respect, that would be a reason to prefer _oligarchy_, not democracy; since oligarchy would have the (alleged) benefits of rule by committee without all the disadvantages of democracy.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*"In individuals, insanity is rare, but in groups, parties, nations and epochs it is the rule." -- (Nietzsche, 'Beyond Good and Evil')*

----------


## erowe1

> We really have three relevant categories of troublemakers to consider: 
> 
> (1) the insane (in the sense of having lost touch with reality, e.g. schizophrenics)
> (2) the depraved (people with no moral compass, sociopaths)
> (3) the incompetent (no insane or depraved, just mediocre at their job)
> 
> For a representative government, there is ~0% of the majority being insane or incompetent (they would be out-competed electorally), but there's an ~100% chance of the majority being depraved - because electoral politics, a most dirty game, tends to select for such people.
> 
> For a monarchy, there is a small chance of each, since the selection of the monarch is a biological throw of the dice.


I would argue that monarchy would practically guarantee the depravity of the monarch, since, even if her weren't corrupt when first attaining power, the holding of power would corrupt him.

But that still doesn't make monarchy worse than democracy. There are always practical limitations placed on what any regime can do to its subjects.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I would argue that monarchy would practically guarantee the depravity of the monarch, since, even if her weren't corrupt when first attaining power, the holding of power would corrupt him.


The "do anything to get power" mentality (so ubiquitous with our elected rulers) is alien to someone who already has, and has no fear of losing, supreme power.

Incidentally, this is why a monarchy - to have the many advantages of that system - must be _secure_.

If the king is constantly fearing assassination or revolt, he's not going to rule well - no better than a Congressman fearing the next election.

----------


## erowe1

> The "do anything to get power" mentality (so ubiquitous with our elected rulers) is alien to someone who already has, and has no fear of losing, supreme power.


But the temptation to use that power immorally in order to achieve selfish ends is endemic to the power itself.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> But the temptation to use that power immorally in order to achieve selfish ends is endemic to the power itself.


Ah, but what ends?

An absolute monarch (unlike an elected ruler) doesn't need to use his power in pursuit of more power.

And if his selfish end is to maximize his income over time, then he won't use his power to interfere with the market (assuming he understands economics). 

That covers money and power, the two great pursuits that get our own politicians in trouble.

----------


## TheGrinch

This is not even worth arguing. It's disproven by the history of virtually every monarchy/dictatorship that ever existed. 

Sure, I don't think anyone would argue that a benevolent caring laissez-faire dictator is clearly the best form of governance, but that person has almost never existed in the entire course of human history. You have to really dig to find them, and those are probably all smaller countries and groups, certainly not in large valuable countries where the urge to control is so great, and the worst of the worst will fight and kill to control it.

"An absolute monarch (unlike an elected ruler) doesn't need to use his power in pursuit of more power." No, once he has the power, he can just abuse the $#@! out of it.  Maybe even taxate without representation across the sea and deny them their independence through military means. The possibilities are endless!

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, it's a cliche for a reason.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> This is not even worth arguing. It's disproven by the history of virtually every monarchy/dictatorship that ever existed.


Actually, history demonstrates that non-democratic governments tend to be _much_ smaller than democratic ones.

Can you show me a monarchy which consumed 30%+ of GDP every year in peacetime?

I'll save you some time: no, you can't, nothing even close.

----------


## erowe1

> This is not even worth arguing. It's disproven by the history of virtually every monarchy/dictatorship that ever existed.


Is it really?

After the USA broke off from the UK, how did that work out for us?

----------


## erowe1

> Ah, but what ends?
> 
> An absolute monarch (unlike an elected ruler) doesn't need to use his power in pursuit of more power.
> 
> And if his selfish end is to maximize his income over time, then he won't use his power to interfere with the market (assuming he understands economics). 
> 
> That covers money and power, the two great pursuits that get our own politicians in trouble.


Lots of ends. Sleeping with a subject's wife, for example.

Also, I don't think you can rule out the pursuit of more power. Whatever limitations are placed on the monarch's power, he will be tempted to lessen, and to use his power to do so.

At points you seem almost to have crossed the line between saying that monarchy is less bad than democracy and saying that monarchy is not bad at all.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Lots of ends. Sleeping with a subject's wife, for example.


Sure, or banning rap music, or burning Trekkies at the stake, or forcing everyone to eat quinoa - there are all kinds of odd picadillos a monarch might have.

But these all strike me as fairly trivial/unlikely compared to the great lusts for power and money, which cause most of the problems in actuality. 




> Also, I don't think you can rule out the pursuit of more power. Whatever limitations are placed on the monarch's power, he will be tempted to lessen, and to use his power to do so.


Absolute monarchy - what limitations?

My point is that limitations on power actually cause government to _grow_. Imagine an absolute monarch wants to increase military spending by $1 billion. He does so, and spending rises by $1 billion - the end. Now imagine a constitutional monarch who wants to do the same. Well, the consent of parliament isn't going to come cheap. To get his $1 billion, he has to agree to $10 billion for a new vote buying welfare scheme, to help the parliamentarians get re-elected next year. It is that bargaining or horse-trading between different elements of a divided government that generate most of the growth. An absolute monarchy will be smaller precisely _because_ the monarch's power is unlimited. 

Counter-intuitive but true. 




> At points you seem almost to have crossed the line between saying that monarchy is less bad than democracy and saying that monarchy is not bad at all.


By no means am I saying that absolute monarchy is perfect (i.e. that the monarch would always behave as if he were Ron Paul). 

It's not perfect, no system could ever be, it's just the better than all the others (and by a country mile relative democracy).

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> Again, that would result in less wealth being created than laissez faire.
> 
> Do you thin US GDP would increase if the US government adopted this plan? 
> 
> ...it would plummet.
> 
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with that, but even if that is the case, GDP going down means lower possible tax receipts, which could be covered by the fact that the monarch now receives all profits.


Yes, but total output would fall. Various types of intervention, up to and including outright socialism, would enable the monarch to increase his share of the output pie, but the cost of shrinking the pie. In the long run, this will lower his own income. 100% of a small pie might be less than 1% of a large pie. E.G. the GDP of North Korea is ~1% of the GDP of South Korea, so that a king of South Korea imposing a 2% income tax would be richer than Jim Whatever Whatever seizing 100% of Nork output (and, actually, he can't sieze 100% - since then everyone would literally starve to death and there'd be no production at all).  




> But, I must ask, why is big business necessarily inefficient business?  If the monarch is not trying to forecast demand for its own populace, and is instead focused on fulfilling actual demand of foreign individuals/companies/governments, why will it fall?


If the monarch is centrally planning production for his own consumption or for sale on the foreign market, then he does not face the problem that he would if he were trying to centrally plan for the satisfaction of his own people's wants - i.e. Mises' calculation problem does not apply in such cases. However, there are other equally damning problems. The first is that the monarch cannot personally have all the technical expertise required (how to mine coal, how to make steel, etc), nor the time to run all those operations, so he has to delegate authority to people who will do this on his behalf. But if he knows nothing about all these enterprises, how would he know whether his appointees are doing a good job, if the current practices could be improved upon? The best way for him to solve this problem is to have multiple firms in each industry, and to have open entry (he doesn't have to authorize a new would-be producer, they can just start up on their own). This entails private ownership of the means of the production and a market for capital goods. Second, for people (ordinary workers or entrepreneurs) to have incentives to produce efficiently (the whip only provides so much incentive - reward proportion to work is much better), they have to be rewarded in proportion o the value they create for the monarch, which means a labor market. And this entails a market for consumer goods, since what good is pay for your work if you can't buy things with it? I could go on, it's all interconnected, but as you should be starting to see - the most efficient way for a property owners to manage a gigantic estate (i.e. a king to manage a kingdom) is actually to recreate lassiez faire, and just skim product off the top through taxes - otherwise leaving the machine to run on its own. This is the lesson of the "Story of Fnargl" linked in my sig line. 

EDIT: oops, make that *formerly* in my sign line (only so much space there, had to make room for something new), here is it




> I think you misunderstood my statement, and I will definitely oblige you if you still feel I'm off topic when I rephrase my question.  This social organization that forms when anarchy fails I assume would also be looking out for their best long term interests, and to me sounds very similar to a monarch, ruled by force and non-democratically, so I'm asking why a monarch, as you paint it, would be better and different than this other social organization that would form out of anarchy's dust.


Sorry, I did misunderstand. I thought you meant to compare monarchy with anarchy _as it is supposed to work_. 

But you meant the thing which arises when anarchy _fails_. 

Yes, the latter would be a state, probably undemocratic (either oligarchical or monarchical). 

So if monarchy might emerge from anarchy, and I think monarchy is the best form of government, why oppose anarchy?

Because, why take the long route to monarchy through anarchy? Why not go direct to monarchy?

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

The best form of monarchy is where I am king.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

^^^

I would support almost anybody for king, provided they're of at least moderate intelligence and aren't bat$#@!.

So, if you meet those criteria, get to work and report back to us on your progress. 

All I ask for in exchange for my loyalty is access to the royal harem. 

Your Faithful Subject,

r3volution 3.0

----------


## erowe1

> Absolute monarchy - what limitations?


Natural limitations that exist at all time. One of these is whatever the limit of his subjects' level of tolerance of him is.  He has various tools at his disposal to manipulate this variable, especially through propaganda.

----------


## thoughtomator

The core problems with government are fundamentally due to the nature of humanity; the form of government is ultimately not terribly important to the outcomes. Those who lust for power rise to the top of all hierarchical systems, causing any government to degrade in quality over time until the people have had enough oppression.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Natural limitations that exist at all time. One of these is whatever the limit of his subjects' level of tolerance of him is.  He has various tools at his disposal to manipulate this variable, especially through propaganda.


For one thing, a monarchy - per everything we've been talking about - should tend to have a lighter hand than ay other form, and so should be doing fewer things to arouse the opposition of its subjects in the first place. Second, unlike in a democracy, that opposition doesn't actually matter at all to the state so long as it doesn't lead to active resistance (people will vote against you much sooner than they're revolt against you). The result is that a monarchy is not as likely to try to control public opinion (say, through state media or mandatory public education) as a democracy. But, to the extent that there is popular resistance to some measure, might the monarch try to overcome this with propaganda? Of course, but I don't see that as necessarily problematic - it all depends on what the state is trying to accomplish (which, again, should be more benign under a monarchy). E.G. If the state is trying to implement liberalizing reforms, and the people - in their economic ignorance - oppose this  (the story of the French Revolution, more or less), I have no problem at all with the state propagandizing them.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The core problems with government are fundamentally due to the nature of humanity;


True




> the form of government is ultimately not terribly important to the outcomes.


Decidedly false. Aside from all theoretical considerations, as have been under discussion, just look at history (or current events).

Different types of states behave very differently.

To deny this is akin to saying that all economic systems function the same, since human nature is everywhere the same. 

No, incentives matter - and different arrangements, political or economic, have radically different incentives. 




> Those who lust for power rise to the top of all hierarchical systems


Not if the rulers are hereditary.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> If the monarch is centrally planning production for his own consumption or for sale on the foreign market, then he does not face the problem that he would if he were trying to centrally plan for the satisfaction of his own people's wants - i.e. Mises' calculation problem does not apply in such cases. However, there are other equally damning problems. The first is that the monarch cannot personally have all the technical expertise required (how to mine coal, how to make steel, etc), nor the time to run all those operations, so he has to delegate authority to people who will do this on his behalf. But if he knows nothing about all these enterprises, how would he know whether his appointees are doing a good job, if the current practices could be improved upon?


I disagree.  A solid scientific foundation and knowledge of the *demand* should suffice to spur the questions and ideas needed promote innovation.  Such an individual would not have trouble identifying and surrounding themselves with others of the same background.  Warren Buffet may be an example, but I think Henry Ford may be a better one.  He did not produce numerous things, but he did produce everything that went into his vehicles.  And you don't mention that, if the means of production were available to the plebs rather than the monarch, it would still be the case that most establishments practices could be improved upon.  Large corporations benefit much more from innovation, because instead of just using a new thread and sewing technique on their backpacks, the large corporation is using new thread and sewing techniques on their backpacks, stuffed animals, clothing, and so forth.  So the Monarch, after giving the means of production to the plebs, sees a company still hand sewing their pants with costly thread, its costing the company $5 profit per pair of pants, more importantly its costing the monarch $.05 in tax revenues per pair of pants.  What does he do?!  

I think its worth pointing out _very little_ different things are produced.  Some things are very complex and unique.  But I think for most things, if you understand the demand, what the product will be used for and what kind of abuse it will be exposed to, it is a matter of how to set up this plastic mold, or how to form this sheet of metal, or what gauge windings to use for the motor, and obviously the composition of them and so forth.  





> The best way for him to solve this problem is to have multiple firms in each industry, and to have open entry (he doesn't have to authorize a new would-be producer, they can just start up on their own). This entails private ownership of the means of the production and a market for capital goods.


Suggesting that the monarch's ownership is a public one is punishable by life in prison in P3terTopia.  

Monopolies are generally 'bad' because the consumer has no other choice, it can promote inefficiency within the company and high prices for he consumer.  But in this case monopoly is not relevant in such a way, we are talking about a foreign market which could buy from foreign producers.  Direct control means a monopoly over the resources and other means of production.  No competition, just look at the price signals and apply your resources where it makes most sense.  It is what every company strives for, but of course does not have the resources to purchase.  Open entry would just promote malinvestment and competition for the same consumer, while there is only one best way to produce any given good.  And open entry would again relegate the monarch to a piece of the pie rather than the whole pie.




> Second, for people (ordinary workers or entrepreneurs) to have incentives to produce efficiently (the whip only provides so much incentive - reward proportion to work is much better), they have to be rewarded in proportion o the value they create for the monarch, which means a labor market. And this entails a market for consumer goods, since what good is pay for your work if you can't buy things with it? I could go on, it's all interconnected, but as you should be starting to see - the most efficient way for a property owners to manage a gigantic estate (i.e. a king to manage a kingdom) is actually to recreate lassiez faire, and just skim product off the top through taxes - otherwise leaving the machine to run on its own. This is the lesson of the "Story of Fnargl" linked in my sig line.


There are probably quite a few people that would make sense to keep fed the finest steaks and drunk on the best wines and in bed with the best women (or men).  Military members, advisers, the people whipping, etc.  But I think a whip is a plenty good motivator for those doing the mundane factory or ag work.  And again, this is a metric of money to the monarch, that is the monarch's only care.  Does the lost productivity of utilizing a whip outweigh the benefits of not paying labor?

There are a few other questions you left unanswered.  How does the monarch deal with trade deficits for instance?  How does the monarch deal with individuals making poor choices?  Right now the fed takes that role, does the monarch allow the people to bankrupt themselves and the monarch in the process?  Is it not true if valued by our productive value we would be no different than cattle?  Why should a monarch allow black individuals to own land if they are indeed less efficient at tending to it?  

I think we would be more likely to get a monarch as you describe because they thought it was the morally correct way to rule rather than the most economically beneficial.





> So if monarchy might emerge from anarchy, and I think monarchy is the best form of government, why oppose anarchy?
> 
> Because, why take the long route to monarchy through anarchy? Why not go direct to monarchy?


I have faith that should the day come we have the opportunity to establish a free society you will not stand in the way.  For it might lend you the opportunity to say 'I told you so'.

----------


## Ronin Truth

What is the best form of plague infection?

----------


## AuH20

The only problem is the continuity of a just ruler. You could end up with an unstable individual like Caligula.

----------


## Ronin Truth

What is the best form of radiation poisoning?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> The only problem is the continuity of a just ruler. You could end up with an unstable individual like Caligula.



The floors and ceilings are the same.  In the same vain an individual could argue the only problem with democracy is continuity of 535 elected Ron Pauls.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> What is the best form of plague infection?



Biggest difference is there is a lot more objective room to stand on when picking between plagues.  As I said above they both have the same ceilings and floors.  I argue from the standpoint that democracy is less likely to go to one of the extremes, and I find it unlikely that any government will promote freedom, which means the extreme I see a monarchy most likely going to is extreme totalitarianism.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

I don't know if it's the best form of government, but it's better than democracy or republicanism.

----------


## willwash

> The "do anything to get power" mentality (so ubiquitous with our elected rulers) is alien to someone who already has, and has no fear of losing, supreme power.
> 
> Incidentally, this is why a monarchy - to have the many advantages of that system - must be _secure_.
> 
> If the king is constantly fearing assassination or revolt, he's not going to rule well - no better than a Congressman fearing the next election.


I take issue with the idea that monarchs have no fear of losing power.  Take a look at Henry VIII.  He killed a lot of the other nobility because he was afraid of a challenge to his dynasty.  You think it would be any different?

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Sure, but it's not gonna happen.


This is true. In the REAL WORLD scenario, moving over to monarchy is going to be just as difficult as Anarcho-Capitalism or whatever because at least for now, masses have been sold on the whole democracy thing.




> To summarize, representative governments are virtually certain to be staffed by competent sociopaths all the time; while the monarch will only sometimes be either insane, sociopathic, or incompetent (and in the case of insane or incompetent monarchs, he most likely becomes a mere figurehead with one of his ministers ruling, as was the case historically). The scales clearly, to my mind, fall on the side of monarchy here.
> 
> But even if I'm wrong, and government by committee is superior in this respect, that would be a reason to prefer _oligarchy_, not democracy; since oligarchy would have the (alleged) benefits of rule by committee without all the disadvantages of democracy.


Yes, this is one of the reasons I believe some form of oligarchy might be the best form of government because it eliminates the extremes that monarchy could produce but at the same time it doesn't dilute power as much as democracy. Personally, I lean towards Heathianism, whereby individuals or companies could own pieces of land that they own & sort of provide "residency services", where people can move around & seek the best "residency service", & since there are many of them around, there's competition ensuring optimal economic conditions because as you can imagine, better providers would be able to attract more people & hence, earn more profit.

----------


## Sola_Fide

No.  1st Samuel 8 makes the case that monarchy results in institutionalized theft, so I can't support it.  All government institutionalizes theft.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, this is one of the reasons I believe some form of oligarchy might be the best form of government because it eliminates the extremes that monarchy could produce but at the same time it doesn't dilute power as much as democracy.


Democracy can't really exist. It's always actually oligarchy.

----------


## Carlybee

> Actually, history demonstrates that non-democratic governments tend to be _much_ smaller than democratic ones.
> 
> Can you show me a monarchy which consumed 30%+ of GDP every year in peacetime?
> 
> I'll save you some time: no, you can't, nothing even close.


Is there a non Democratic govt with a population the size of the US that has benefitted the people?

----------


## Carlybee

> I take issue with the idea that monarchs have no fear of losing power.  Take a look at Henry VIII.  He killed a lot of the other nobility because he was afraid of a challenge to his dynasty.  You think it would be any different?


They were all like that. Kings were always in fear of losing their thrones. That's why they married off their children to royals from neighboring countries, so they could call on them to provide military support in the case of an attempted coup.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> If the monarch is centrally planning production for his own consumption  or for sale on the foreign market, then he does not face the problem  that he would if he were trying to centrally plan for the satisfaction  of his own people's wants - i.e. Mises' calculation problem does not  apply in such cases. However, there are other equally damning problems.  The first is that the monarch cannot personally have all the technical  expertise required (how to mine coal, how to make steel, etc), nor the  time to run all those operations, so he has to delegate authority to  people who will do this on his behalf. But if he knows nothing about all  these enterprises, how would he know whether his appointees are doing a  good job, if the current practices could be improved upon?
> 
> 
> I disagree.  A solid scientific foundation and knowledge of the *demand*  should suffice to spur the questions and ideas needed promote  innovation.  Such an individual would not have trouble identifying and  surrounding themselves with others of the same background.  Warren  Buffet may be an example, but I think Henry Ford may be a better one.   He did not produce numerous things, but he did produce everything that  went into his vehicles.


As you seem to recognize, it is impossible for a single person to _directly_  manage the millions (if not billions or trillions) of separate  production processes which constitute a large, industrial economy.  Obviously, Warren Buffet does not have nearly enough knowledge or time  to make every little decision for every firm in the country (even if  there were only one firm in each industry).  

However, you imply  that the problem could be solved by delegating authority; i.e. instead  of directly managing each production process (which is impossible),  Warren would only have to supervisors the local managers. But this too  is impossible on a large scale. A single person cannot have the  knowledge or time to supervise a million managers. You might think that  the time problem could be solved by having more levels of management  hierarchy; e.g. instead of the king supervising a million managers, the  king supervises a thousand senior managers who each supervise a thousand  junior managers. This, or any similar arrangement, can solve the time  problem (the number of people under the direct supervision of the  monarch can be reduced to a manageable level), but it doesn't solve the  knowledge problem. Just as the king lacks the technical expertise to  directly manage a million production processes, he lacks the technical  expertise to supervise those appointed to manage those production  processes on his behalf (by way of analogy, how would you know whether a  mechanic you had hired to fix your car is doing a good job if you know  nothing about auto repair?); he also lacks the knowledge to supervise  the supervisors of the managers, etc, etc. Creating additional layers of  managerial hierarchy does not and cannot solve the knowledge problem.  Only decentralization of management (as w/ competition in a market  economy) solves the problem.

In addition to these knowledge problems, there are also massive _incentive_  problems. If the managers (or supervisor of managers, or supervisors of  supervisors of managers, etc) do not own own the firms they manage, i.e. do  not receive  reward in proportion to the firm's profitability, what  incentive have they to maximize profits? None. And, because of the  knowledge problem, the monarch (though _he_ may want profits  maximized) cannot possibly evaluate the profitability of each firm (he  can know what a firm's profits/losses are, but not whether/how this  could be improved upon) in order to hire and fire managers in a way to  maximize profits. 




> And you don't mention that, if the means of production were available to the plebs rather than the monarch, it would still be the case that most establishments practices could be improved upon.


The  market economy (characterized by private ownership of the means of  production and competition among producers) best promotes such  improvements; private ownership of the means of production provides  producers with the incentive to maximize efficiency (absent in  socialism), while competition ensures that the most competent producers  command the most resources, again increasing overall efficiency (also  absent in socialism). 




> Large corporations benefit much  more from innovation, because instead of just using a new thread and  sewing technique on their backpacks, the large corporation is using new  thread and sewing techniques on their backpacks, stuffed animals,  clothing, and so forth.  So the Monarch, after giving the means of  production to the plebs, sees a company still hand sewing their pants  with costly thread, its costing the company $5 profit per pair of pants,  more importantly its costing the monarch $.05 in tax revenues per pair  of pants.  What does he do?!


The point is that the central planner is unlikely to even _notice_ this problem (see: knowledge problem).

Whereas,  the market economy solves the problem automatically (competitive  pressure either forces the firm to reform, or drives it out of business,  to be replaced by its more competent rivals). 




> I think its worth pointing out _very little_ different  things are produced.  Some things are very complex and unique.  But I  think for most things, if you understand the demand, what the product  will be used for and what kind of abuse it will be exposed to, it is a  matter of how to set up this plastic mold, or how to form this sheet of  metal, or what gauge windings to use for the motor, and obviously the  composition of them and so forth.


I think you're underestimating the complexity of a large, industrial economy: to put it mildly. 

See: I Pencil




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> The best way for him to solve this problem is to have multiple firms in  each industry, and to have open entry (he doesn't have to authorize a  new would-be producer, they can just start up on their own). This  entails private ownership of the means of the production and a market  for capital goods.
> 
> 
> Suggesting that the monarch's ownership is a public one is punishable by life in prison in P3terTopia.  
> 
> Monopolies are generally 'bad' because the consumer has no other choice,  it can promote inefficiency within the company and high prices for he  consumer.  But in this case monopoly is not relevant in such a way, we  are talking about a foreign market which could buy from foreign  producers.  Direct control means a monopoly over the resources and other  means of production.  No competition, just look at the price signals  and apply your resources where it makes most sense.


The central planner is not in a position to know which allocation of resources makes the most sense (again: knowledge problem).




> It is what every company strives for, but of course does not  have the resources to purchase.  Open entry would just promote  malinvestment and competition for the same consumer, while there is only one best way to produce any given good.  And open entry would again relegate the monarch to a piece of the pie rather than the whole pie.


True, but the problem is - again - that the central planner is not going to be able to know _what that is_. 

No one person in a market economy has this knowledge either, of course;  but no one needs to, since market forces naturally converge on optimal  production methods. 




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> Second, for people (ordinary workers or entrepreneurs) to have  incentives to produce efficiently (the whip only provides so much  incentive - reward proportion to work is much better), they have to be  rewarded in proportion o the value they create for the monarch, which  means a labor market. And this entails a market for consumer goods,  since what good is pay for your work if you can't buy things with it? I  could go on, it's all interconnected, but as you should be starting to  see - the most efficient way for a property owners to manage a gigantic  estate (i.e. a king to manage a kingdom) is actually to recreate lassiez  faire, and just skim product off the top through taxes - otherwise  leaving the machine to run on its own. This is the lesson of the "Story  of Fnargl" linked in my sig line
> 
> 
> There are probably quite  a few people that would make sense to keep fed the finest steaks and  drunk on the best wines and in bed with the best women (or men).   Military members, advisers, the people whipping, etc.  But I think a  whip is a plenty good motivator for those doing the mundane factory or  ag work.  And again, this is a metric of money to the monarch, that is  the monarch's only care.  Does the lost productivity of utilizing a whip  outweigh the benefits of not paying labor?


The whip can force people to do _what they're ordered to do_; it gives them no incentive to innovate.

If  the orders given are wrong or incomplete (again - knowledge problem),  the slaves will follow those orders blindly simply to avoid the whip.

This is why slaves are less productive than free laborers, especially in more complex types of work. 

Consider  this; how could you use the whip to force a software engineer to design  a new and improved operating system? You can't give him precise orders  about what to do (if you knew the best way to create the OS, you  wouldn't need the engineer), so you can only give him some vague  guidelines; which he will follow to the letter to avoid the whip,  without putting in the lightest bit of effort beyond that. 




> There are a few other questions you left unanswered.  How does the monarch deal with trade deficits for instance?


I don't understand the question. What's the problem exactly?




> How does the monarch deal with individuals making poor choices?


If  left to their own devices, people will sometimes make poor choices  (e.g. a businessman will do something stupid), reducing total output: of  course. However, a central planner will make even _worse_  decisions, reducing output even more - again, the central planner cannot  have enough knowledge to know when people are making uneconomic  decisions. 




> Right now the fed takes that role, does the  monarch allow the people to bankrupt themselves and the monarch in the  process?


...don't know what you mean.




> Is it not true if valued by our productive value we would be no different than cattle?


If the monarch is purely selfish, that's how he'll view us, yes.

And  so what? I want to live in a free society; if the monarch brings that  about, I'm happy. I could care less what he thinks of us or what his  motives are.




> Why should a monarch allow black individuals to own land if they are indeed less efficient at tending to it?


See  answer above re people making bad choices - the central planner is not a  position to evaluate the efficiency of every enterprise/person and  manage them accordingly, his best bet is to allow market forces to  operate freely, since these tend toward maximizing efficiency. 




> I think we would be more likely to get a monarch as you describe  because they thought it was the morally correct way to rule rather than  the most economically beneficial.


I tend to think that most monarchs would be benevolent.

My point in this discussion is simply that the monarch will pursue good policies _even if_ he's indifferent and just wants to enrich himself. 




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> So if monarchy might  emerge from anarchy, and I think monarchy is the best form of  government, why oppose anarchy?
> 
> Because, why take the long route to monarchy through anarchy? Why not go direct to monarchy?
> 
> 
> I have faith that should the day come we have the opportunity to establish a free society you will not stand in the way.  For it might lend you the opportunity to say 'I told you so'.


If by free society you mean anarcho-capitalism, then there is never going be such an opportunity.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Is there a non Democratic govt with a population the size of the US that has benefitted the people?


There should not be any kind of government with a population the size of the US.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I take issue with the idea that monarchs have no fear of losing power.  Take a look at Henry VIII.  He killed a lot of the other nobility because he was afraid of a challenge to his dynasty.  You think it would be any different?


Any government, of any kind, can potentially be removed by force (coup, revolution, losing a war with a foreign power, etc). 

The difference between a democratic government and a monarchical government is that a democratic government can also be removed by legal means (elections), while a monarchical government cannot.

In monarchy, instability is a bug; in democracy, it's a _feature_.

----------


## erowe1

> Is there a non Democratic govt with a population the size of the US that has benefitted the people?


Benefitted the people? That's setting the bar a bit high.

----------


## Carlybee

> There should not be any kind of government with a population the size of the US.


Okay let me rephrase....is there a country or has there been with a population the size of ours that has been successfully run by a non democratic government or specifically a monarchy where the ruler was not just a figurehead?

----------


## Carlybee

> Benefitted the people? That's setting the bar a bit high.


Isn't that the argument of Monarchists? That the ruler will be so happy with all his prosperity that goodness, light and prosperity naturally flows down to the people?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Is there a non Democratic govt with a population the size of the US that has benefitted the people?


There have only been a handful of states in world history the size of the US.

The British Empire at its height
China for about the last century
India post-independence
...? 

Not much of a sample; and all of them were/are democratic, except for China. 

As for China, it's benefited its people immensely since pro-market reforms began in the late 70s.

Standards of living have increased much faster than in democratic India, for instance.

----------


## Carlybee

> There have only been a handful of states in world history the size of the US.
> 
> The British Empire at its height
> China for about the last century
> India post-independence
> ...? 
> 
> Not much of a sample; and all of them were/are democratic, except for China. 
> 
> As for China, it's benefited its people immensely since pro-market reforms began in the late 70s.


So really there is no example to support Monarchism as a successful model in a country this size.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Isn't that the argument of Monarchists?* That the ruler will be so happy with all his prosperity that goodness, light and prosperity naturally flows down to the people?


I don't think so, but it's still very easy to demonstrate that monarchy is less bad than democracy/republicanism.  People in this thread have been doing a pretty damn good job of this AFA one can expect in this sort of discussion format.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So really there is no example to support Monarchism as a successful model in a country this size.


There is only one example of a country this size with a non-democratic government (China), and it's been enjoying much higher rates of economic growth than it's democratic peers for the last several decades. If anything, this supports the monarchist thesis - no?

However, I'd say the sample size is much too small. You should look at all countries, regardless of population.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

Let's see, hereditary leadership ensures the best qualified person will not be in charge. No guaranteed rights for the citizens, tiny isolated little fiefdoms rather than a large interconnected economy that unleashes productive capacity.

And there's the whole thing about rights and freedoms. You see, in the modern world, governments are engineered to serve the people living in them (the majority of people anyway). In a monarchy, governments are entirely engineered to serve the monarch. It's like the monarch is the brain, and every single piece of the economy are just the arms, legs, and vital organs that serve the will of the brain. While a democratic society is more like a school of fish. 

Your argument that a monarch will keep the government small, because it will promote economic growth is foolish. Wouldn't the same argument apply to a pure democracy? Of course the people will vote for free markets, after all, isn't this what benefits them the most? No, this isn't human nature. 

Because the truth is a monarch might be motivated by more than just economic self interest. They might be motivated by the need to dominate, and control, and bend people to their will. At a certain point you have enough money, and life just becomes a passing fancy for you to play around with. Caligula allegedly was driven totally mad with power. Story is he was sitting in the Colosseum one day, bored to death. So he pointed to a section of the audience and had them thrown in the arena to fight for his amusement. He had daily sex orgies at his palace, would often dress up like a woman, and took great personal pleasure in randomly selecting people to be tortured or abused for frivolous reasons. Was Caligula being motivated by rational self interest, or something else entirely?

Also, in a monarchy, the monarch only really cares what happens over the course of his lifetime. For all he cares, the world could go up in a fiery explosion the day after he dies. Expect policies geared towards temporary, short sighted gains. The entire society is now at the mercy of the whims, emotions, and personality flaws of a single human being at the top.

-----------------------------------------

Furthermore, in order for economic self interest to properly guide behavior, you need competition. This little fiefdom is going to have to be in competition with surrounding territories that taxpayers can choose between (assuming they aren't walled off like livestock). And it's VERY likely that the most popular government will be one which offers citizens a voice in policy decisions. 

Most large companies today do something like this. Video game companies allow customers to give feedback on what games are produced, and how they are managed after release. Plenty of large companies provide an avenue for customers to have a voice in company policy, if not through an outright vote, then through petitions and polling. It's part of basic customer service. 

In my opinion, a well run government wouldn't give the vote to everybody, but it would give everybody the opportunity to EARN the right to vote. People with a voice in government would be like stockholders of a large company. They would have a vested interest in the success of the organization, and would directly benefit as a result. I think perhaps a mandatory income tax, with the weight of your vote directly correlating to your total tax burden. Anyone who receives a check from the government would lose the right to vote at all due to a clear a conflict of interest (employees don't get to steer company policy, only stockholders)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Let's see, hereditary leadership ensures the best qualified person will not be in charge. No rights for the citizens, tiny isolated little fiefdoms rather than a large interconnected economy that unleashes productive capacity.
> 
> And there's the whole thing about rights and freedoms. You see, in the modern world, governments are engineered to serve the people living in them (the majority of people anyway). In a monarchy, governments are entirely engineered to serve the monarch. It's like the monarch is the brain, and every single piece of the economy are just the arms, legs, and vital organs that serve the will of the brain. While a democratic society is more like a school of fish. 
> 
> Your argument that a monarch will keep the government small, because it will promote economic growth is foolish. Wouldn't the same argument apply to a pure democracy? Of course the people will vote for free markets, after all, isn't this what benefits them the most? No, this isn't human nature. 
> 
> Because the truth is a monarch might be motivated by more than just economic self interest. They might be motivated by the need to dominate, and control, and bend people to their will. At a certain point you have enough money, and life just becomes a passing fancy for you to play around with. Caligula allegedly was driven totally mad with power. Story is he was sitting in the Colosseum one day, bored to death. So he pointed to a section of the audience and had them thrown in the arena to fight for his amusement. He had daily sex orgies at his palace, would often dress up like a woman, and took great personal pleasure in randomly selecting people to be tortured or abused for frivolous reasons. Was Caligula being motivated by rational self interest, or something else entirely?
> 
> Also, in a monarchy, the monarch only really cares what happens over the course of his lifetime. For all he cares, the world could go up in a fiery explosion the day after he dies. Expect policies geared towards temporary, short sighted gains. The entire society is at the mercy of the whims, emotions, and personality flaws of a single human being at the top.
> ...


Your arguments against monarchy here can just as easily be leveled against democratic/republican regimes.  Even moreso, actually, because the elected person only thinks forward to the end of his term and trying to get another one (and POTUSes only care about 1 re-election).  The king sees the kingdom as property, while the democratically elected person sees the place he represents as a very temporary overseer-ship/renter-ship.  He has limited liability, while the monarch has unlimited liability.  The incentives for doing good or bad are pretty obvious when you examine it closely like this.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

> Your arguments against monarchy here can just as easily be leveled against democratic/republican regimes.  Even moreso, actually, because the elected person only thinks forward to the end of his term and trying to get another one (and POTUSes only care about 1 re-election).  *The king sees the kingdom as property*, while the democratically elected person sees the place he represents as a very temporary overseer-ship/renter-ship.  He has limited liability, while the monarch has unlimited liability.  The incentives for doing good or bad are pretty obvious when you examine it closely like this.


Yes, _including the people_. And that's part of the problem. It's wrong that the entire society should be at the mercy of the day to day whims and personality flaws of a single man at the top.

----------


## erowe1

> Isn't that the argument of Monarchists? That the ruler will be so happy with all his prosperity that goodness, light and prosperity naturally flows down to the people?


Maybe. But I think you could still call all states bad and compare them for which is least bad.

----------


## erowe1

> So really there is no example to support Monarchism as a successful model in a country this size.


Nor an example to support anything else as a successful model in a country this size.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Let's see, hereditary leadership ensures the best qualified person will not be in charge.


Do elections insure that the most qualified person will be in charge?




> No rights for the citizens


Did you read any of the thread? I've explained a length why a monarch would indeed respect the rights of his subjects, even if only to maximize his own income.




> tiny isolated little fiefdoms rather than a large interconnected economy that unleashes productive capacity.


There's no reason that a monarchy must be characterized by "little fiefdoms rather than a large interconnected economy."

Monarchy =/= feudalism




> And there's the whole thing about rights and freedoms. You see, in the modern world, governments are engineered to serve the people living in them (the majority of people anyway).


You believe that democratic governments are serving the interests of the majority of the population?

And, even if they were (hint: they're not), what about the minority?




> Your argument that a monarch will keep the government small, because it will promote economic growth is foolish. Wouldn't the same argument apply to a pure democracy? Of course the people will vote for free markets, after all, isn't this what benefits them the most?


Yea, you didn't read the thread...

See the OP, especially point #1 about cost externalization.

This is the single most important part of the monarchist argument, IMO; i.e. it is rational for voters to vote themselves a larger share of the pie, even if this redistribution causes the whole pie to shrink; whereas, for the monarch, it is rational to grow the pie (since his income is a share of it, which grows or shrinks with the pie).




> Because the truth is a monarch might be motivated by more than just economic self interest. They might be motivated by the need to dominate, and control, and bend people to their will. At a certain point you have enough money, and life just becomes a passing fancy for you to play around with. Caligula allegedly was driven totally mad with power. Story is he was sitting in the Colosseum one day, bored to death. So he pointed to a section of the audience and had them thrown in the arena to fight for his amusement. He had daily sex orgies at his palace, would often dress up like a woman, and took great personal pleasure in randomly selecting people to be tortured or abused for frivolous reasons. Was Caligula being motivated by rational self interest, or something else entirely?


You know why those sadistic rulers like Caligula are still remembered nearly 2000 years later?

...because they're rarities in the history of monarchy, exceptions to the rule. 




> Also, in a monarchy, the monarch only really cares what happens over the course of his lifetime. For all he cares, the world could go up in a fiery explosion the day after he dies. Expect policies geared towards temporary, short sighted gains.


And democratic politicians don't care what happens beyond the _next election_.

 Again, try reading the OP. Note point #3, labelled "Time Preference."




> Furthermore, in order for economic self interest to properly guide behavior, you need competition. This little fiefdom is going to have to be in competition with surrounding territories that taxpayers can choose between (assuming they aren't walled off like livestock).


Competition between government for labor and capital encourages good policy, yes.

And it is best if all governments involved in this competition are monarchies.

The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. 




> And it's VERY likely that the most popular government will be one which offers citizens a voice in policy decisions.


If that were true (I see no reason to suppose it is), it would be an argument against inter-governmental competition, not monarchy. 




> Most large companies today do something like this. Video game companies allow customers to give feedback on what games are produced, and how they are managed after release. Plenty of large companies provide an avenue for customers to have a voice in company policy, if not through an outright vote, then through petitions and polling. It's part of basic customer service.


A democratic government's relationship to its voters is not comparable to a business firm's relationship to its customers, at all. 




> In my opinion, a well run government wouldn't give the vote to everybody, but it would give everybody the opportunity to EARN the right to vote. People with a voice in government would be like stockholders of a large company. They would have a vested interest in the success of the organization, and would directly benefit as a result.


If you don't allow shares to be exchanged, this is just mass democracy under another name.

If you _do_ allow the shares to be exchanged, the competent will buy them up from the incompetent, and this will become an oligarchy (a good alternative to democracy, btw).




> I think perhaps a mandatory income tax, with the weight of your vote directly correlating to your total tax burden. Anyone who receives a check from the government would lose the right to vote at all, after all it's a conflict of interest (employees don't get to steer company policy, only stockholders)


Sure, those would be improvements. 

Monarchy would be an even bigger improvement.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yes, _including the people_. And that's part of the problem. It's wrong that the entire society should be at the mercy of the day to day whims and personality flaws of a single man at the top.


Even if he treats the people better (i.e. allows more freedom) than a democratic government would?

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

> And democratic politicians don't care what happens beyond the next election.


Yeah but a Democratically elected representative is more than just a temporary monarch. His power is checked and divided among many branches of government. Even in the 18th century people had this figured out. Outright Monarchies were exchanged for constitutional monarchies, and/or monarchies limited by a legislative branch elected by the people. They realized that giving total dictatorial power to a single person was a _really bad idea_. Heck even Rome figured this out, before they descended into totalitarianism and barbarism. You simply can't have total power in the hands of a single person. He might choose to rule through violence and fear.

Also, you keep saying that the monarch wants to maximize his revenue. Why? What if he's motivated by dark or sadistic impulses, and not squeezing every single extra penny out of his tax base? What if he's motivated by something other than rational self interest?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, _including the people_. And that's part of the problem.


Not quite.  "Subjects" aren't exactly the same as property. Hence, kings have to be concerned about upsetting the masses-lest they start a R3volution.




> It's wrong that the entire society should be at the mercy of the day to day whims and personality flaws of a single man at the top.


Yeah, but it isn't necessarily true that a monarch would do this.  This is also a flaw in democratic regimes.  Though it may be the arbitrary whims of a _group_ of tyrants such as congress or city hall on occasion, mayors, governors, and presidents are known to do outrageous things on a whim.  Partisans call it "strong leadership" when "their guy" does it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yeah but a Democratically elected representative is more than just a temporary monarch. His power is checked and divided among many branches of government.


The idea that divided power is checked power is a myth. 

Sounds good on paper, in practice what happens is that the different branches (or members within each branch) don't compete with one another in such a way as to limit the total growth of government; instead, they compete in such a way as to grow government even more (e.g. if one offers up some welfare spending to buy votes, the other then offers up even more welfare, etc). I address this is point #2 in the OP, "looting by proxy."




> Even in the 18th century people had this figured out.


They developed this idea, but this idea is wrong.




> Outright Monarchies were exchanged for constitutional monarchies, and/or monarchies limited by a legislative branch elected by the people.


And, as a result, the state grew by leaps and bounds.

By any objective measure (tax rates, spending as % of GDP), democratic governments are _massive_ in comparison to their non-democratic predecessors. 

And what does most of this spending consist in? Free$#@! for the voters and donor class, of course.

...which was entirely predictable.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yeah but a Democratically elected representative is more than just a temporary monarch.* His power is checked and divided among many branches of government.* Even in the 18th century people had this figured out. Outright Monarchies were exchanged for constitutional monarchies, and/or monarchies limited by a legislative branch elected by the people. They realized that giving total dictatorial power to a single person was a _really bad idea_. Heck even Rome figured this out, before they descended into totalitarianism and barbarism. You simply can't have total power in the hands of a single person. He might choose to rule through violence and fear.
> 
> Also, you keep saying that the monarch wants to maximize his revenue. Why? What if he's motivated by dark or sadistic impulses, and not squeezing every single extra penny out of his tax base? What if he's motivated by something other than rational self interest?


Sorta.  Ever heard of Executive Orders?  In recent decades, the US regime has greatly centralized political power.  How many outrageous things have Bush II and Obama alone done by executive _diktat_?  I've lost track long ago.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Furthermore, in order for economic self interest to properly guide behavior, you need competition. This little fiefdom is going to have to be in competition with surrounding territories that taxpayers can choose between (assuming they aren't walled off like livestock). And it's VERY likely that the most popular government will be one which offers citizens a voice in policy decisions.


This is the reason I believe individuals or companies owning land & cities/countries with people being free to move around between cities/countries is the best way forward for maximum freedom. It ensures competition between different cities/countries for "customers" i.e. residents, & unlike a monarchy, only the land is the property not the free people/residents living on it.

A while back I was reading something about some of the big American hedge funds owning so much debt of some of the developing nations that if things go bad then these hedge funds could effectively become "owners" of these countries, calling all the shots so companies owning cities/countries might not be that far away. If we start seeing some of companies owning cities/countries & running them as a business then that could be the last straw for nation-states as these "private-cities/countries" will likely be vastly more productive, more freer & more enjoyable to live in that the "old way" of nation-states will no longer be a viable structure.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> This is the reason I believe individuals or companies owning land & cities/countries with people being free to move around between cities/countries is the best way forward for maximum freedom. It ensures competition between different cities/countries for "customers" i.e. residents, & unlike a monarchy, only the land is the property not the free people/residents living on it.


I agree with this.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> This is the reason I believe individuals or companies owning land & cities/countries with people being free to move around between cities/countries is the best way forward for maximum freedom. It ensures competition between different cities/countries for "customers" i.e. residents, & unlike a monarchy, only the land is the property not the free people/residents living on it.


This idea is not incompatible with monarchy. A patchwork of proprietary communities, where each community is held by a _sole proprietor_ (as opposed to, say, a partnership or a joint stock company), is functionally the same as a patchwork of monarchies (if the communities are held by partnerships or joint stock companies, then they are effectively oligarchies). 

In any event, I'm all for patchwork (hyper-federalism, Hoppean anarchy, Heathian anarchy, whatever you want to to call this system) in principle; the problem is that it's unstable in practice. It subverts itself. How do you prevent these states (which is in effect what these communities are, whether we call them that or not) from _warring_ with one another? If this cannot be prevented, then there is inevitably going to be a reduction in the number of states over time (as the weaker are annexed by the stronger), until eventually we're back at a single, centralized state. Not to mention, of course, that war is bad in itself; even if the states warred with one another without anyone ever winning decisively and annexing any other, that state of continuous warfare is hardly ideal. 

The classical federalist solution is clearly unstable (see: 1861-1865). The Moldbuggian solution is eccentric, relying on the continued deterring power of nuclear weapons (this might work at the moment, but eventually changes in military technology are going to undermine MAD).

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> As you seem to recognize, it is impossible for a single person to _directly_  manage the millions (if not billions or trillions) of separate  production processes which constitute a large, industrial economy.  Obviously, Warren Buffet does not have nearly enough knowledge or time  to make every little decision for every firm in the country (even if  there were only one firm in each industry).  
> 
> However, you imply  that the problem could be solved by delegating authority; i.e. instead  of directly managing each production process (which is impossible),  Warren would only have to supervisors the local managers. But this too  is impossible on a large scale. A single person cannot have the  knowledge or time to supervise a million managers. You might think that  the time problem could be solved by having more levels of management  hierarchy; e.g. instead of the king supervising a million managers, the  king supervises a thousand senior managers who each supervise a thousand  junior managers. This, or any similar arrangement, can solve the time  problem (the number of people under the direct supervision of the  monarch can be reduced to a manageable level), but it doesn't solve the  knowledge problem. Just as the king lacks the technical expertise to  directly manage a million production processes, he lacks the technical  expertise to supervise those appointed to manage those production  processes on his behalf (by way of analogy, how would you know whether a  mechanic you had hired to fix your car is doing a good job if you know  nothing about auto repair?); he also lacks the knowledge to supervise  the supervisors of the managers, etc, etc. Creating additional layers of  managerial hierarchy does not and cannot solve the knowledge problem.  Only decentralization of management (as w/ competition in a market  economy) solves the problem.
> 
> In addition to these knowledge problems, there are also massive _incentive_  problems. If the managers (or supervisor of managers, or supervisors of  supervisors of managers, etc) do not own own the firms they manage, i.e. do  not receive  reward in proportion to the firm's profitability, what  incentive have they to maximize profits? None. And, because of the  knowledge problem, the monarch (though _he_ may want profits  maximized) cannot possibly evaluate the profitability of each firm (he  can know what a firm's profits/losses are, but not whether/how this  could be improved upon) in order to hire and fire managers in a way to  maximize profits.


Why would he surround himself with such brilliant individuals?  To solve knowledge problems.  I think it is relevant, and maybe it is not, that the monarch is focused on wealth to himself.  He does not necessarily need to increase the whole pie when deciding how best to increase his wealth, but he must look at it as a possibility.  So you can think of this knowledge problem as an estimated X multiplied by your desired tax rate in percentage form, in which X is the estimated GDP or taxable economic activity produced by free individuals in a society such as you mention multiplied by your tax rate(in its totality we'll call it Z), compared to Y, which is the income possible to the monarch having privatized (to himself) all resources and means of production.  Now I do not think it is unreasonable to fathom that a monarch could send a group of individuals to survey and database his kingdom and itemize the monarchs resources.  So this becomes a problem much like a password cracking solver, where the password 'guesses' (possible Y's) are arrangements of the monarchs resources and the actual password is any number greater than Z, essentially figuring how to make Y > Z.  And I truly think there must be some.  Nevertheless, for any monarch that doesn't wish to spend his days jerking off, and would like to be challenged, I think this is a challenge that would likely be undertaken.




> The  market economy (characterized by private ownership of the means of  production and competition among producers) best promotes such  improvements; private ownership of the means of production provides  producers with the incentive to maximize efficiency (absent in  socialism), while competition ensures that the most competent producers  command the most resources, again increasing overall efficiency (also  absent in socialism).


As we discussed this is not a problem because the monarch is producing goods for foreign markets.  He is still in competition with foreign producers for foreign consumers, and having all means of production within a country including slave labor would give him a large comparative advantage.




> The point is that the central planner is unlikely to even _notice_ this problem (see: knowledge problem).
> 
> Whereas,  the market economy solves the problem automatically (competitive  pressure either forces the firm to reform, or drives it out of business,  to be replaced by its more competent rivals).


There are many inefficient practices that will not drive a business under.  It would seem like if the monarch didn't have the burden of production on himself that he would at least be making rounds to make sure to maximize income from his plebs.





> I think you're underestimating the complexity of a large, industrial economy: to put it mildly. 
> 
> See: I Pencil


It looks interesting and I promise to read it, but I only had time to skim it right now.  One thing that stands out though, 'that only God creates a tree', well trees can be created in a petri dish nowadays, without the need for the plant to produce gametes.  And again, as I referenced in my first post, I think you are overestimating the problem.  The monarch is trying to make more money for themselves than taxing 'free' individuals would, not replicate the same path.




> The central planner is not in a position to know which allocation of resources makes the most sense (again: knowledge problem).


I think a database could solve that.




> True, but the problem is - again - that the central planner is not going to be able to know _what that is_. 
> 
> No one person in a market economy has this knowledge either, of course;  but no one needs to, since market forces naturally converge on optimal  production methods.


I think large companies are most likely to find the solution to how to best produce any given item.  If the answer to 'Y' for instance is automobiles, appliances, machinery, and weaponry, having such large resources dedicated to their production would probably lead to great efficiency.




> The whip can force people to do _what they're ordered to do_; it gives them no incentive to innovate.
> 
> If  the orders given are wrong or incomplete (again - knowledge problem),  the slaves will follow those orders blindly simply to avoid the whip.
> 
> This is why slaves are less productive than free laborers, especially in more complex types of work. 
> 
> Consider  this; how could you use the whip to force a software engineer to design  a new and improved operating system? You can't give him precise orders  about what to do (if you knew the best way to create the OS, you  wouldn't need the engineer), so you can only give him some vague  guidelines; which he will follow to the letter to avoid the whip,  without putting in the lightest bit of effort beyond that.


Maybe the software engineering will have to be one of the 'chosen' ones, as he'll also have to develop the database to ensure you can solve the knowledge problem.  But more so, a company does not need to be a great innovator of new $#@! to make loads of money, let foreign companies do the R&D then reverse engineer the product and plug it into the database as another possible use of the monarchs resources.




> I don't understand the question. What's the problem exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> If  left to their own devices, people will sometimes make poor choices  (e.g. a businessman will do something stupid), reducing total output: of  course. However, a central planner will make even _worse_  decisions, reducing output even more - again, the central planner cannot  have enough knowledge to know when people are making uneconomic  decisions. 
> 
> 
> 
> ...don't know what you mean.


It would seem that if the monarch let individuals make their own choices, and individuals choose to send all their money to foreign producers in exchange for stuff, while not producing stuff to exchange for that money back, eventually their would be a currency drain and the country would be left with a lot of stuff, but no money.




> If the monarch is purely selfish, that's how he'll view us, yes.
> 
> And  so what? I want to live in a free society; if the monarch brings that  about, I'm happy. I could care less what he thinks of us or what his  motives are.


Fair enough.




> See  answer above re people making bad choices - the central planner is not a  position to evaluate the efficiency of every enterprise/person and  manage them accordingly, his best bet is to allow market forces to  operate freely, since these tend toward maximizing efficiency.


You have said in the past statistics show that in a future time blacks are more likely to be under represented in the economy and over represented in prisons.  I disagree with the extrapolation of statistics in such a manner, but what you advocate is to let individuals be free, and make the poor decisions if they happen to.  I think this is because of your morality, for if a monarch thought the same why would he let the individuals be free if they are perceived to be more likely to make poor decisions?




> I tend to think that most monarchs would be benevolent.


I don't feel the same.  Maybe it is because you'd be a better, more benevolent, monarch than I.




> My point in this discussion is simply that the monarch will pursue good policies _even if_ he's indifferent and just wants to enrich himself.


And I'm trying to show you why he may not.




> If by free society you mean anarcho-capitalism, then there is never going be such an opportunity.


I'm trying to hold off that realization as long as I can, and trying to help steer the liberty movement in the right direction while I do, because I $#@!ing hate politics.  Spending my life arguing for my freedom sounds terrible.  As long as we are, most importantly, on the right path, and to a lesser degree making progress, I'll be around.

----------


## oyarde

> Benefitted the people? That's setting the bar a bit high.


LOL , yes , yes it is .

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> LOL , yes , yes it is .


To be fair, R3v is a minarchist and monarchist, and I think it is pretty clear but may be an assumption on my part, he believes a monarchy will be more of a benefit to the people than the lack of a monarchy.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So you can think of this knowledge problem as an estimated X multiplied by your desired tax rate in percentage form, in which X is the estimated GDP or taxable economic activity produced by free individuals in a society such as you mention multiplied by your tax rate(in its totality we'll call it Z), compared to Y, which is the income possible to the monarch having privatized (to himself) all resources and means of production.  Now I do not think it is unreasonable to fathom that a monarch could send a group of individuals to survey and database his kingdom and itemize the monarchs resources.  So this becomes a problem much like a password cracking solver, where the password 'guesses' (possible Y's) are arrangements of the monarchs resources and the actual password is any number greater than Z, essentially figuring how to make Y > Z.  And I truly think there must be some.  Nevertheless, for any monarch that doesn't wish to spend his days jerking off, and would like to be challenged, I think this is a challenge that would likely be undertaken.


That would be the plan for a would-be central planner (try to allocate resources in a more profitable way than they are allocated by the market).

But this is impossible in practice, for the reasons I've been explaining (knowledge and incentive problems).

I don't think you've explained how the central planner would overcome these problems. 




> As we discussed this is not a problem because the monarch is producing goods for foreign markets.  He is still in competition with foreign producers for foreign consumers, and having all means of production within a country including slave labor would give him a large comparative advantage.


Whether he's producing for a foreign market or not is beside the point. 

The domestic economy is going to be inefficient for lack of internal competition and no private ownership of the means of production.




> There are many inefficient practices that will not drive a business under.  It would seem like if the monarch didn't have the burden of production on himself that he would at least be making rounds to make sure to maximize income from his plebs.


Again, how is one person going to be making the rounds to check on _millions_ of production process, about which he knows virtually _nothing_? And if he appoints subordinates to manage things for him, he still has no way to evaluate their performance (since he knows nothing about the processes they're managing). And if he doesn't evaluate their performance, and just hopes they do a good job, he's going to be disappointed: first, because they have no incentive to do a good job (no private ownership = no profit motive), and second, even if they were motivated, how competent are they? The monarch has no idea, and in the absence of competition between managers, there's no natural mechanism to weed out the incompetent. 




> It looks interesting and I promise to read it, but I only had time to skim it right now.  One thing that stands out though, 'that only God creates a tree', well trees can be created in a petri dish nowadays, without the need for the plant to produce gametes.  And again, as I referenced in my first post, I think you are overestimating the problem.  The monarch is trying to make more money for themselves than taxing 'free' individuals would, not replicate the same path.


The point of the story is to show that, even in the production of a simple pencil, the production process is so enormously complex that no single person could ever possibly manage it; it can only be accomplished through the interaction of many people coordinating via the market.




> I think a database could solve that.


Listing all the things in an economy doesn't tell you how to use them to maximize output. 




> I think large companies are most likely to find the solution to how to best produce any given item.  If the answer to 'Y' for instance is automobiles, appliances, machinery, and weaponry, having such large resources dedicated to their production would probably lead to great efficiency.


There are limits to economies of scale. 

At a certain size, enterprises experience diseconomies of scale because of knowledge and incentive problems.

If mere bigness insured greater efficiency, laissez faire would always result in one giant monopoly in each industry (or even one giant monopoly for the entire economy), but in historical reality, this has never once happened (monopolies have been attempted but they always fail, because firms that large are in fact naturally inefficient). 




> It would seem that if the monarch let individuals make their own choices, and individuals choose to send all their money to foreign producers in exchange for stuff, while not producing stuff to exchange for that money back, eventually their would be a currency drain and the country would be left with a lot of stuff, but no money.


In a market economy, trade deficits self-correct.

As money leaves the trade-deficit country, prices fall in that country, discouraging imports and encouraging exports, until the deficit is balanced.

There's an equal and opposite process for self-correcting trade surpluses. 




> You have said in the past statistics show that in a future time blacks are more likely to be under represented in the economy and over represented in prisons.


You're referring to my comments in the thread on race realism. My point  was that, even if there are substantial differences in average IQ  between the races, which cause disparities in crime  rates, this does not justify any segregationist policies or other   special actions by the government. All the government ever needs to do  is punish criminals; it makes no sense to punish everyone who happens to  belong to the same statistical aggregate as said criminals. Such a policy has substantial costs and no benefits; it's irrational. 




> but what you advocate is to let individuals be free, and make the poor decisions if they happen to.  I think this is because of your morality, for if a monarch thought the same why would he let the individuals be free if they are perceived to be more likely to make poor decisions?


re the racial issue, see above

In general, though, the reason that the monarch should not order everyone around, rather than allowing them to make decisions for themselves, is that his orders are far more likely to be mistaken (in relation to the goal of maximizing output) than their decisions: which is another way of saying that central planning is inefficient (and for the reasons I keep citing: knowledge and incentive problems).

*N.B. A General Point* - the market economy is the most efficient way of producing the goods/servies that _consumers_ desire; a monarch presiding over a market economy is effectively a_ consumer_ (he _buys_ good/services _on the market_ with the money obtained from taxes); just as with any other consumer, there is no more efficient way for the monarch to obtain the good/services he desires. *Another way to think about it*; the best way for a thief to enrich himself is to steal money and then use it to buy the goods/services he desires, not to steal the factors of production required to produce those goods/services and try to produce them himself.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> This idea is not incompatible with monarchy. A patchwork of proprietary communities, where each community is held by a _sole proprietor_ (as opposed to, say, a partnership or a joint stock company), is functionally the same as a patchwork of monarchies (if the communities are held by partnerships or joint stock companies, then they are effectively oligarchies).


A true monarch can effectively lay claim on everything & everyone in his territory (he isn't really much of a monarch if he couldn't), which isn't the case with private property-ownership (& private-cities as such). The guy that owns a hotel doesn't own the people that check into the hotel or their personal property that would be the difference between a monarchy & a private-city.




> In any event, I'm all for patchwork (hyper-federalism, Hoppean anarchy, Heathian anarchy, whatever you want to to call this system) in principle; the problem is that it's unstable in practice. It subverts itself. How do you prevent these states (which is in effect what these communities are, whether we call them that or not) from _warring_ with one another? If this cannot be prevented, then there is inevitably going to be a reduction in the number of states over time (as the weaker are annexed by the stronger), until eventually we're back at a single, centralized state. Not to mention, of course, that war is bad in itself; even if the states warred with one another without anyone ever winning decisively and annexing any other, that state of continuous warfare is hardly ideal. 
> 
> The classical federalist solution is clearly unstable (see: 1861-1865). The Moldbuggian solution is eccentric, relying on the continued deterring power of nuclear weapons (this might work at the moment, but eventually changes in military technology are going to undermine MAD).


The thing that you have overlooked in your assessment is that monarchs not only desire more wealth but they desire more power as well (often, power over more people & larger territory) so they often engage in their imperial ambitions, which mayn't necessarily be in the best interest of the people so monarchies are more prone to engaging in wars.
The private-cities won't keep fighting with each other because wars are a huge expense & private-cities can't pass those costs, human costs as well as material costs, to other people like States can (including monarchies) by conscription or by invoking "patriotism", & seizure, taxes, etc.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> This idea is not  incompatible with monarchy. A patchwork of proprietary communities,  where each community is held by a _sole proprietor_  (as opposed to, say, a partnership or a joint stock company), is  functionally the same as a patchwork of monarchies (if the communities  are held by partnerships or joint stock companies, then they are  effectively oligarchies).
> 
> 
> A true monarch *can*  effectively lay claim on everything & everyone in his territory (he  isn't really much of a monarch if he couldn't), which isn't the case  with private property-ownership (& private-cities as such). The guy  that owns a hotel doesn't own the people that check into the hotel or  their personal property that would be the difference between a monarchy  & a private-city.


....that depends on what you mean by "can."

1.  If the owner of a proprietary community is going to to adhere to  libertarian ethics, then he cannot do just whatever he likes with the  residents, though he can do an awful lot by threatening to eject people  from the community ("you must follow rule X or leave"). In effect, it is  like a state whose criminal code provides for only one punishment for  every crime: namely, banishment. Being banished from a hotel in NYC? No  big deal, go to another hotel. Being banished from NYC itself? Well then  you have to move to Yonkers. As the size of the proprietary community  increases, the costs associated with banishment increase, which means  the ability of the owner of the community to compel obedience increases.

2. As a practical matter, it may well be within the _power_ of the owner (all ethics aside) to indeed do just whatever he likes with the residents: as he controls the _security apparatus_ within the community. In other words, the owner of a proprietary community has an opportunity to _make himself a king_,  simply by declaring that he is and having the force to back it up. This  possibility increases as the size of the community increases; the  larger the community, the larger and more intimidating the security  apparatus relative any individual resident who might like to resist  (just as resistance to the federal government in the US is much less  feasible than resistance to a local government). 

So, yes, there are differences; but in practice these differences don't amount to much. 

Proprietary  communities are de facto states (those owned by a single person being de  facto monarchies, those owned by multiple people being de facto  oligarchies); moreover, it's quite likely that they will evolve over time into _de jure_ states as well (as per point #2 above). 




> The thing that you have overlooked in your assessment is that  monarchs not only desire more wealth but they desire more power as well  (often, power over more people & larger territory) so they often  engage in their imperial ambitions which mayn't necessarily be in the  best interest of the people so monarchies are more prone to engaging in  wars.


This (war) is the one area where monarchs do indeed  have bad incentives; the rationally self-interested monarch (who will,  as I've bee explaining, maintain lassiez faire at home) will try to  expand his territory, fighting wars as necessary. HOWEVER, this is not a  special problem for monarchies. This is a problem for states in general.  Monarchies are no more war-prone than democracies. 




> The private-cities won't keep fighting with each other because  wars are a huge expense & private-cities can't pass those costs,  human costs as well as material costs, to other people like States can  (including monarchies) by conscription or by invoking "patriotism",  & seizure, taxes, etc.


See my first point above: the owner of a proprietary community can  (without violating libertarian ethics) externalize his costs in pretty  much the same way as a monarch (i.e. "pay or be  banished"); or (if he doesn't care about ethics and has enough armed men  at his disposal) can do exactly as any monarch could do ("pay or I  shoot you"). In fact, conflict between communities may well be the primary force driving owners to become rulers, as it gives them a great motive and opportunity for doing so.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> ....that depends on what you mean by "can."
> 
> 1.  If the owner of a proprietary community is going to to adhere to  libertarian ethics, then he cannot do just whatever he likes with the  residents, though he can do an awful lot by threatening to eject people  from the community ("you must follow rule X or leave").
> 
> 2. As a practical matter, it may well be within the _power_ of the owner (all ethics aside) to indeed do just whatever he likes with the residents: as he controls the _security apparatus_ within the community. In other words, the owner of a proprietary community has an opportunity to _make himself a king_,  simply by declaring that he is and having the force to back it up.


There will be other private-cities so no problem. Besides, the owner(s) will be hurting himself if he puts in unreasonable rules & drives away his customers.

Under a monarchy, people are conditioned to be patriotic & be loyal to the monarch & the people so someone wanting to leave could be seen as a "traitor" & be subjected to punishment; further, gaining entry into another monarchy might be difficult because again, you're one of "them", not "us", you could be a spy, etc. States create conditions to foster a Stockholm Syndrome amongst people but not so with private-cities, people understand that it's an arrangement driven by convenience rather than emotions.




> So, yes, there are differences; but in practice these differences don't amount to much.


People under a monarchy are a property, not so in a private-city; that's a HUGE difference as far as I'm concerned. If I'd the choice, I'd choose NOT to be someone's property, thank you very much!




> Proprietary  communities are de facto states


Private-cities aren't "states" just as private hotels aren't.




> This (war) is the one area where monarchs do indeed  have bad incentives; the rationally self-interested monarch (who will,  as I've bee explaining, maintain lassiez faire at home) will try to  expand his territory, fighting wars as necessary. HOWEVER, this is not a  special problem for monarchies. This is a problem for states in general.  Monarchies are no more war-prone than democracies. 
> 
> See my first point above: the owner of a proprietary community can  (without violating libertarian ethics) externalize his costs in pretty  much the same way as a monarch (i.e. "pay or be  banished"); or (if he doesn't care about ethics and has enough armed men  at his disposal) can do exactly as any monarch could do ("pay or I  shoot you"). In fact, conflict between communities may well be the primary force driving owners to become rulers, as it gives them a great motive and opportunity for doing so.


Monarchies & democracies go to war for different reasons, monarchies for imperial ambitions or retaliation, democracies out of fear or retaliation; I'm not totally sure which one is better in this respect as far statistics go but maybe democracies are since people are the ones bearing the costs while a monarch can externalize his costs.
Nonetheless, private-cities can't externalize costs like States (monarchies & democracies) because if they start forced conscription or property-seizure, existing customers will start fleeing, revolt much earlier than they normally would if they aren't allowed to leave because there's no Stockholm Syndrome aka patriotism, "our land, our people" emotional baggage, etc holding them back.

The biggest advantage of private-cities is that people actually get to choose where they want to live whereas with States, most people are pretty much stuck wherever they were born. Of course, there be could monetary or other obstacles that limit choices just as they do in the case of States but private-cities offer more options & choices; and of course, you're not someone's property.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> There will be other private-cities so no problem. Besides, the owner(s) will be hurting himself if he puts in unreasonable rules & drives away his customers.


The same is true for states.




> Under a monarchy, people are conditioned to be patriotic & be loyal to the monarch & the people so someone wanting to leave could be seen as a "traitor" & be subjected to punishment; further, gaining entry into another monarchy might be difficult because again, you're one of "them", not "us", you could be a spy, etc. States create conditions to foster a Stockholm Syndrome amongst people but not so with private-cities, people understand that it's an arrangement driven by convenience rather than emotions.


Leaders (whether they call themselves king, president, scout leader, or CEO of TownCo) can always gin up irrational tribal loyalties in the people. 

Note my use of the word "tribal."

This tendency in the people long precedes the state, and is innate in human beings; the state just exploits it (as any leader can). 




> Private-cities aren't "states" just as private hotels aren't.


A hotel is the same as a state the size of that hotel. 




> Monarchies & democracies go to war for different reasons, monarchies for imperial ambitions or retaliation, democracies out of fear or retaliation; I'm not totally sure which one is better in this respect as far statistics go but maybe democracies are since people are the ones bearing the costs while a monarch can externalize his costs.


The foreign policy of democratic America (or democratic Britain, democratic France, etc) isn't/wasn't motivated by imperial ambition?




> Nonetheless, private-cities can't externalize costs like States (monarchies & democracies) because if they start forced conscription or property-seizure, existing customers will start fleeing, revolt


ditto for states




> much earlier than they normally would if they aren't allowed to leave because there's no Stockholm Syndrome aka patriotism, "our land, our people" emotional baggage, etc holding them back.


See above: what you call Stockholm Syndrome is not unique to the populations of states

People are natural followers and will pledge their loyalty to the highest authority around; state or otherwise. 




> The biggest advantage of private-cities is that people actually get to choose where they want to live whereas with States, most people are pretty much stuck wherever they were born.


Very few states have ever restricted emigration. People are as free to leave states as they would be to leave a proprietary community. 

The obstacles are the inconvenience of moving, giving up your house, changing jobs, leaving family and friends, etc.

And these costs are directly related to the size of the state/community.

The possibility of exit does put pressure on states to behave themselves, but obviously not enough for them not tax, inflate, regulate, spy, imprison for victimless crimes, etc. Hence, it's absurd to think that the possibility of exit in a Hoppean world would be sufficient to keep the community owners acting as pure libertarians.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> The same is true for states.


Nope.

A monarch doesn't look at his people as customers, as P3ter_Griffin has already pointed out, foreign buyers could be his customers so he will be catering to their desires, not those of his people, his people are just property to him.

In a democracy, voters are like owners as well as customers but since those who are not paying any taxes also get to vote (in fact, in poor democracies, taxpayers tend to be a small minority), the whole balance of incentives is messed up & it doesn't work like proper market.

A private-city is going to be most responsive to its customers just as any other private companies on the market are expected to be.




> Leaders (whether they call themselves king, president, scout leader, or CEO of TownCo) can always gin up irrational tribal loyalties in the people. 
> 
> Note my use of the word "tribal."
> 
> This tendency in the people long precedes the state, and is innate in human beings; the state just exploits it (as any leader can).


Of course, there might be loyalties but despite a loyal following, can you imagine the outrage if Apple started conscripting people or seizing people's property, imagine what will happen to Apple as a company......it will be history......same isn't true of States, they can literally get away with murder; that's the difference between a State & a private entity, people may be loyal to a degree but they don't feel duty-bound to oblige to private entity's needs, they just move on to the next best option.




> A hotel is the same as a state the size of that hotel


So according to you, a private hotel is a State? Really? What about a cab?




> The foreign policy of democratic America (or democratic Britain, democratic France, etc) isn't/wasn't motivated by imperial ambition?


Do people in these democracies want to own the middle-east or do they simply fear the terrorists?




> The possibility of exit does put pressure on states to behave themselves, but obviously not enough for them not tax, inflate, regulate, spy, imprison for victimless crimes, etc. Hence, it's absurd to think that the possibility of exit in a Hoppean world would be sufficient to keep the community owners acting as pure libertarians.


The primary incentive for owners of a private-city is more wealth, the primary incentive for monarchs is more power; it makes a HUGE difference in how they treat people living on their property.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> A monarch doesn't look at his people as customers


If a monarch raises taxes too much, people flee. 

If the owner of a proprietary community raises rents too much, people flee. 

= same incentives




> In a democracy, voters are like owners as well as customers but  since those who are not paying any taxes also get to vote (in fact, in  poor democracies, taxpayers tend to be a small minority), the whole  balance of incentives is messed up & it doesn't work like proper  market.


Example A -- a farm owned equally by a million people (each have equal shares and voting rights)
Example B -- a farm owned by a single person, or a small number of shareholders

...which will be better managed?




> A private-city is going to be most responsive to its customers  just as any other private companies on the market are expected to  be.


The only reason you've cited is exit pressure, but states face the same exit pressure. 




> Of course, there might be loyalties but despite a loyal  following, can you imagine the outrage if Apple started conscripting  people or seizing people's property, imagine what will happen to Apple  as a company......it will be history......


Only because  there are currently higher authorities than Apple (like governments) to  which people have already attached their loyalty. 

Eliminate those, make Apple the sole provider of law and order, and those loyalties will shift to Apple. 




> So according to you, a private hotel is a State? Really? What about a cab?


Every  property owner has the ability to exclude people from his property,  which gives him leverage over the people who want to use his property. 

The  difference between a hotel, a small private town, and a large private  city (for instance) is only one of degree; the hotel-owner has very  little influence (because the cost of being excluded from his property  is very low); the owner of the small town has more influence (because  the cost of being excluded from a whole town is greater than being  excluded from a single hotel); and the owner of the large city has even  more influence (because the cost of being excluded from the whole city  is even greater). 




> Do people in these democracies want to own the middle-east or do they simply fear the terrorists?


Democratic  politicians make wars of aggression in order to win elections (which is  always their primary goal, obviously, since anything else they may want  to do is contingent on staying in office). If you can manage to create a  boogeyman in the voters' minds, and then present yourself as most fit  to fight said boogeyman, you can earn a lot of votes. War also brings  forth lots of campaign contributions, from those who profit from it.




> The primary incentive for owners of a private-city is more  wealth, the primary incentive for monarchs is more power


...and you base this claim on what?

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> If a monarch raises taxes too much, people flee. 
> 
> If the owner of a proprietary community raises rents too much, people flee. 
> 
> = same incentives


Nope. A true monarch will own the people too so raising taxes isn't the only thing he is able to do, he can do much worse & get away with it while a private-city can't.
Further, States impose much stricter barriers on entry & exit. States put more barriers because States expect your undivided loyalty so they are more concerned about spies, traitors, etc while private entities are primarily concerned about profit so they are ok with it even if you don't pledge your loyalty to them.




> Example A -- a farm owned equally by a million people (each have equal shares and voting rights)
> Example B -- a farm owned by a single person, or a small number of shareholders
> 
> ...which will be better managed?


A single throw of a dice is a gamble, the more times we throw it (or at least a "sufficient" number, whatever that may be in terms of number of owners) the more "normalized" results we can expect......

An individual owner could be really good or really bad or anything in between; it's just a very big gamble.




> The only reason you've cited is exit pressure, but states face the same exit pressure.


Again, exit pressures are much much stronger for a private-city because they can only raise their prices; a monarch can not only do that but he can also conscript & seize property if the fancy strikes to pursue his imperial ambitions; & as I've said, as far as States are concerned, there are more barriers to entry & exit in general which significantly reduce exit pressure on the monarch.




> Only because  there are currently higher authorities than Apple (like governments) to  which people have already attached their loyalty. 
> 
> Eliminate those, make Apple the sole provider of law and order, and those loyalties will shift to Apple.


You can make Apple the sole provider of law & order, & people will still won't put up with it if they engage in conscription & seizure because they'll still see it as "them", not "us" because it's a private entity, & if people could then they'd overthrow Apple in order to install "their" government, whatever it may be.
So the idea of "us" is very crucial to sustaining State-coercion, many monarchies gave way to democracies because people saw democracies to be more in line with the idea of "us", & therefore, found democratic coercion to be more justifiable than monarchical coercion.




> Every  property owner has the ability to exclude people from his property,  which gives him leverage over the people who want to use his property. 
> 
> The  difference between a hotel, a small private town, and a large private  city (for instance) is only one of degree; the hotel-owner has very  little influence (because the cost of being excluded from his property  is very low); the owner of the small town has more influence (because  the cost of being excluded from a whole town is greater than being  excluded from a single hotel); and the owner of the large city has even  more influence (because the cost of being excluded from the whole city  is even greater).


Ability to exclude someone from a property doesn't equal a State. I can exclude you from my property & you can exclude me from yours but neither of us is a State.

So you have not answered my question. Is a private hotel a State? Is a cab a State?




> Democratic  politicians make wars of aggression in order to win elections (which is  always their primary goal, obviously, since anything else they may want  to do is contingent on staying in office). If you can manage to create a  boogeyman in the voters' minds, and then present yourself as most fit  to fight said boogeyman, you can earn a lot of votes. War also brings  forth lots of campaign contributions, from those who profit from it.


You haven't said anything that contradicts what I've said. You've only reiterated my point that democracies don't go to war for imperial ambitions like monarchs do. As I've said, the people within the nations fighting the "war on terror" don't intend to OWN those middle-eastern countries, they just fear the terrorists so they think "something" needs to be done.




> ...and you base this claim on what?


As I've already said, private entities don't have the option to conscript & seize property in order to engage in imperial ambitions, like a monarch can, so their best bet is to provide the best possible product at lowest possible price. Isn't that the whole reason all of us keep whining about free markets, efficiency & all that?

No offense but it's really sad that I'm having to point this out to you because based on many of your posts I've seen, you seem to understand markets really well but somehow, States seem to be your "blind spot" so to speak. In the Minarchy vs Anarchy thread, you said that AnCap wasn't sustainable, & I conceded that AnCap mayn't necessarily be viable long-term solution (I don't claim to know that for sure though) but private-cities are certainly a conceivable solution to Statism, & as I've said earlier, with so many countries in so much debt, we mayn't even be that far off from individuals/companies owning & managing cities/countries but you still want to hold on to Statism? Sorry but it really is sad when people who understand the power of the free markets so well keep clinging on to Statism like fish to water despite the fact that States are the biggest barrier to free markets.

----------


## Natural Citizen

What a load of horse sht this is.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What a load of horse sht this is.


Certainly a better smelling and more rational pile of horse $#@! than the minarchists ever came up with.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Certainly a better smelling and more rational pile of horse $#@! than the minarchists ever came up with.


If you'd like to be taken seriously, never speak on matters of Individual Liberty again, please. America is a Constitutional Republic. We do not bow to Kings. The Minority of One still means something.

I've shared with you before but I'll share with you again...

*A Democracy....which is what you people are promoting here....*

 ...is Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.



We, on the other hand, are  a...*Constitutional Republic*

Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.


That means Limited for Liberty. Unlike the horse sht you folks are peddling here. Monarchy is the absolute worst form of government.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

First, sorry for the ridiculously long delay Paul. I completely forgot about this thread. Second, to restate what this debate is all about**: we're in agreement that the propriety community is an excellent form of social organization. Our disagreement is about my claim that a proprietary community is a de facto (non-democratic) state. 




> A true monarch will own the people too so raising taxes isn't the only thing he is able to do, he can do much worse & get away with it while a private-city can't.


If a proprietor has the means (e.g. enough armed men) to force people to do whatever he wants, he effectively owns them.

It makes no difference if there's a piece of paper somewhere saying he doesn't; it changes nothing in practice. 




> Further, States impose much stricter barriers on entry & exit. States put more barriers because States expect your undivided loyalty so they are more concerned about spies, traitors, etc while private entities are primarily concerned about profit so they are ok with it even if you don't pledge your loyalty to them.


...which is precisely why they wouldn't want people to leave: less profit. 




> A single throw of a dice is a gamble, the more times we throw it (or at least a "sufficient" number, whatever that may be in terms of number of owners) the more "normalized" results we can expect......
> 
> An individual owner could be really good or really bad or anything in between; it's just a very big gamble.


It's pretty well-established that resources are better managed when privately owned than when communally owned.

See: Tragedy of the Commons




> Again, exit pressures are much much stronger for a private-city because they can only raise their prices; a monarch can not only do that but he can also conscript & seize property if the fancy strikes to pursue his imperial ambitions; & as I've said, as far as States are concerned, there are more barriers to entry & exit in general which significantly reduce exit pressure on the monarch.


See my first comment above.

There's no reason to think that a proprietor with the same resources (e.g. armed men) as a monarch couldn't do those same things.




> You can make Apple the sole provider of law & order, & people will still won't put up with it if they engage in conscription & seizure because they'll still see it as "them", not "us" because it's a private entity, & if people could then they'd overthrow Apple in order to install "their" government, whatever it may be.


Or not, if Apple has enough armed men to scare them into obedience.

There are plenty of states based purely on the the power of the sword, rather than any sense of loyalty. 

Historically, most states began as overt military dictatorships, and only gradually, as generations passed, acquired perceived legitimacy. 




> Ability to exclude someone from a property doesn't equal a State.


 I didn't say it does. 

I'm saying that if the property is large enough, it's owner has the ability to establish himself as ruler of a state.




> So you have not answered my question. Is a private hotel a State? Is a cab a State?


Of course not




> You haven't said anything that contradicts what I've said. You've only reiterated my point that democracies don't go to war for imperial ambitions like monarchs do.


Right, they go to war for other reasons.

So what?

They're not less likely to go to war. 




> As I've already said, private entities don't have the option to conscript & seize property in order to engage in imperial ambitions, like a monarch can, so their best bet is to provide the best possible product at lowest possible price. Isn't that the whole reason all of us keep whining about free markets, efficiency & all that?
> 
> No offense but it's really sad that I'm having to point this out to you because based on many of your posts I've seen, you seem to understand markets really well but somehow, States seem to be your "blind spot" so to speak. In the Minarchy vs Anarchy thread, you said that AnCap wasn't sustainable, & I conceded that AnCap mayn't necessarily be viable long-term solution (I don't claim to know that for sure though) but private-cities are certainly a conceivable solution to Statism, & as I've said earlier, with so many countries in so much debt, we mayn't even be that far off from individuals/companies owning & managing cities/countries but you still want to hold on to Statism? Sorry but it really is sad when people who understand the power of the free markets so well keep clinging on to Statism like fish to water despite the fact that States are the biggest barrier to free markets.


Again, you need to set aside the abstractions and focus on the material reality of the situation. 

Rights are concepts in the minds of human beings.

You can think Bob doesn't have the right to tax you all day long, while Bob puts a gun in your face and takes your money.

If Bob owns every bit of land for a 50 mile radius, and the police force, and courts, and he tells you to jump, you are going to ask "how high?"

...because the alternative is having those fine thought of rights and liberties blown out the back of your noggin.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If you'd like to be taken seriously, never speak on matters of Individual Liberty again, please. America is a Constitutional Republic. We do not bow to Kings. The Minority of One still means something.


You bow to Kings in all but name. The Minority of One only matters to a very small percentage of the population. FYI, America _was_ a Constitutional Republic. Y'all gave that up after Lincoln's regime got done.




> I've shared with you before but I'll share with you again...
> 
> *A Democracy....which is what you people are promoting here....*


In your humble opinion. Democracy is The God That Failed. (Representative Republicanism is a subset of democracy, FYI)





> ...is Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
> 
> This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.


One reason democracy and its variants are abhorrent.






> We, on the other hand, are  a...*Constitutional Republic*
> 
> Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
> 
> 
> That means Limited for Liberty. Unlike the horse sht you folks are peddling here. Monarchy is the absolute worst form of government.


Wishful thinking. Would be nice if it worked the way you want it to, but it doesn't.

----------


## HVACTech

_Monarchy Is the Best Form of Government_



such a novel idea!   should this be done worldwide... or just on a local scale?  

did you come up with this approach? or has it been tried before?

----------


## HVACTech

Monarchy Is the Best Form of Government

Rights are concepts in the minds of human beings.



sorry, it WILL NOT let me neg rep you.  
you are clearly an anointed one around here.  I am OK with that.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PniNdDr-iJo

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> should this be done worldwide... or just on a local scale?


Worldwide, though on a sort of feudal model: local rulers under the ultimate authority of a central ruler. 

From another thread:




> When  the state is beyond a size that can be directly managed by the  king, he  has no choice but to delegate authority; but these appointed  managers don't have  the same good incentives that he does, and so they  themselves require  management: and eventually it's impossible for the  king to manage even his  appointee managers, and he loses effective  control (with the quality of  governance suffering as a result).  Ordinary corporations face the same  diseconomies of scale. 
> 
> But there's a solution to the problem. 
> 
> Instead  of delegating authority to salaried officials (who don't have   proprietary incentives to govern well), divide the kingdom into parcels   and auction off the governorships thereof to the highest bidder. The   governors would essentially be petty kings, managing local affairs on   their own with all the proprietary incentives of the king himself: whose   only task now would be to collect taxes from the governors, keep the   peace between them, and make sure none of them get powerful enough to   challenge him. The governoships would not be hereditary, they would be   alienable like any other property, to encourage competition and higher   quality governance. Further stimulate competition by using the Georgist   land value tax as the method of taxing the governorships. This means   they self-asses the value of their governorships, but are legally   required to sell at that self-assessed price should anyone offer to buy  at  that price (ensures a fair assessment and provides a method of  removing  bad and stubborn governors who might not otherwise sell). 
> 
> This  looks like a form of feudalism or federalism, but it's crucially   different in one respect. The governors have no formal rights   whatsoever, no independent political power. The division of power here   is only apparent. It's not that the governors are checking each other's   power or that of the king (as per the classic understanding of  feudalism  or federalism), it is that the absolute king is _choosing_ to  employ this pseudo-federal system as an _administrative technique_  in  order to overcome the diseconomies of scale mentioned above. Why  would  he choose to do this? Precisely to increase his revenues: the  same  reason the king of a small state governing directly would govern  well.  Why do I want the king to have absolute power, in the hopes he  chooses  this system, rather than binding him to it through genuine  federalism  (where the constituent parts have formal and real power to  resist him)?  Because federalism is unstable (tends to either break  apart  in civil war or evolve into centralized government anyway - often  as a  result of civil war) , and skews incentives like every other  political  order in which power is divided (cost externalization etc). 
> 
> Final thought  - essentially, what I want is an absolute monarch, who is  a revenue  maximizer, and who understands economics, because he will _create_ a system  like this, which ends up looking pretty much like *patchwork + an overlord*   whose job is to prevent wars between the patches (not because he "has  to," says  some constitution, but because he recognizes that it is in  his own  selfish interest to do so).


*"patchwork" refers to a concept developed by the blogger Mencius Moldbug, it means basically a world of tiny proprietary states




> did you come up with this approach?


Did I come up with the idea that non-democratic government is more likely to be liberal than democratic government?

No, it's been around for a long time. I'm just elaborating on it. 




> or has it been tried before?


Non-democratic governments have of course existed, and were typically much more liberal than modern democracies.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Rights are concepts in the minds of human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, it WILL NOT let me neg rep you.  
> you are clearly an anointed one around here.  I am OK with that.  
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PniNdDr-iJo


...I take it you don't agree that rights are concepts in the minds of human beings?

Well, what are they then? 

Physical things? 

What do they weigh?

How many can I stuff into my HVAC system before it clogs?

P.S. ....I see you figured out how to negrep me LOL

----------


## misterx

There's actually a lot of merit to this idea.

----------


## HVACTech

> ..._I take it you don't agree that rights are concepts in the minds of human beings?_
> 
> Well, what are they then? 
> 
> Physical things? 
> 
> What do they weigh?
> 
> How many can I stuff into my HVAC system before it clogs?
> ...


seriously dude?  you really have no idea what a _"Natural Right"_ is? 

and, you are dense enough... to think that you should be able to hold them in your hand?  LOL! 

how much does a pound of electricity weigh sir?

----------


## HVACTech

> What a load of horse sht this is.


LOL!

"it's good to be King"  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SF1iLXSQto

I am oughta  + rep for natural citizen...

----------


## nobody's_hero

> There's actually a lot of merit to this idea.


Only if I get to be king.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

What you said is simply not factually true. In addition, you are wrongfully applying neoclassical assumptions to one individual man. /End Thread

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What you said is simply not factually true.


What's factually untrue?




> In addition, you are wrongfully applying neoclassical assumptions to one individual man. /End Thread


How so?

----------


## Athan

> Monarchy Is the Best Form of Government


Ha ha ha top kek friend. Great joke!

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Ha ha ha top kek friend. Great joke!


Compelling argument..

----------


## Athan

I don't need to provide much argument. History shows you what happens when a monarchy is created. The class separation and aristocratic beneficiaries and development, the class oppression, democide, economic slavery, slavery to economic orders, heck even extremes like feudalism, and etc.

Have you tried looking at history books?

----------


## Dr.3D

Why do so many people think there is a need for government?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why do so many people think there is a need for government?


IDK. Probably conditioning from ~12 years of gov'ment schooling and usually 4+ years of gov'ment subsidized college.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't need to provide much argument. History shows you what happens when a monarchy is created. The class separation and aristocratic beneficiaries and development, the class oppression, democide, economic slavery, slavery to economic orders, heck even extremes like feudalism, and etc.
> 
> Have you tried looking at history books?


The history books also demonstrate the many horrors and crimes against humanity of democracies/republics unrivaled by monarchs. Pick your poison.

----------


## Dr.3D

> IDK. Probably conditioning from ~12 years of gov'ment schooling and usually 4+ years of gov'ment subsidized college.


From what I can see, the less government there is, the more freedom there is.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> From what I can see, the less government there is, the more freedom there is.


Indeed!  ~hugs~

----------


## TheTexan

I think Donald Trump will be a great King

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I think Donald Trump will be a great King


Certainly very entertaining!  The world's first orange king!

----------


## Dr.3D

Sort of a court jester/king combined.

----------


## dannno



----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> What's factually untrue?
> 
> 
> 
> How so?


It's factually untrue that monarchies(read: dictatorships) have freer markets and more Liberty than democracies.

What you're doing is basically saying that because markets tend to allocate resources rationally that there for this individual property owner is going to be rational. There's absolutely no basis for that assumption.

Keep in mind that Hoppe is an ivory-tower academic trying to sell books and be cute intellectually. I doubt he honestly believes what he says.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> The best form of theft is as little of it as possible. The best form of state is as little of it as possible. That would entail perhaps a benign or beneficent monarch. That said, history shows they don't tend to be or stay benign or beneficent. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and power attracts the corrupt as well. I find this as likely to last as minarchy...which is to say I don't see it working out for long in this benign/beneficent form.
> 
> If you all would protest outside my house, forcing me choose between a lack of sleep, being able to leave, receive deliveries, work, etc. OR become your monarch in a semi-free market economic situation, I would accept regrettably based on your forcible drafting of me as king. Then I'd spend my entire reign carefully untangling the knot that is the state, and abolish it before my reign was over. Most of this would be making the case the people don't need me at all, and in fact my position is pure evil, albeit a better one than all other evils you could choose (but not better than the singular moral good you could choose, via anarchy). If I were assassinated, or died naturally somehow before my deconstruction of the state was complete, you'd all be idiots to let someone else be monarch...how many people will actually seek to abolish their own power? One I know of for sure....lol.
> 
> If I was forced into an election this way, as a side note, my slogan would be "No. HELL NO! Anybody but me, please! I don't want to rule you!"





> The history books also demonstrate the many horrors and crimes against humanity of democracies/republics unrivaled by monarchs. Pick your poison.


 so Hitler Stalin and Mao are the same as the United States in its imperial state. Good to know.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's factually untrue that monarchies(read: dictatorships) have freer markets and more Liberty than democracies.
> 
> What you're doing is basically saying that because markets tend to allocate resources rationally that there for this individual property owner is going to be rational. There's absolutely no basis for that assumption.
> 
> Keep in mind that Hoppe is an ivory-tower academic trying to sell books and be cute intellectually. I doubt he honestly believes what he says.


Hoppe's argument is simply that monarchy is preferable to democracy and it's variants-not that it is preferable generally. He's correct.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> The best form of theft is as little of it as possible. The best form of state is as little of it as possible. That would entail perhaps a benign or beneficent monarch. That said, history shows they don't tend to be or stay benign or beneficent. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and power attracts the corrupt as well. I find this as likely to last as minarchy...which is to say I don't see it working out for long in this benign/beneficent form.
> 
> If you all would protest outside my house, forcing me choose between a lack of sleep, being able to leave, receive deliveries, work, etc. OR become your monarch in a semi-free market economic situation, I would accept regrettably based on your forcible drafting of me as king. Then I'd spend my entire reign carefully untangling the knot that is the state, and abolish it before my reign was over. Most of this would be making the case the people don't need me at all, and in fact my position is pure evil, albeit a better one than all other evils you could choose (but not better than the singular moral good you could choose, via anarchy). If I were assassinated, or died naturally somehow before my deconstruction of the state was complete, you'd all be idiots to let someone else be monarch...how many people will actually seek to abolish their own power? One I know of for sure....lol.
> 
> If I was forced into an election this way, as a side note, my slogan would be "No. HELL NO! Anybody but me, please! I don't want to rule you!"





> Hoppe's argument is simply that monarchy is preferable to democracy and it's variants-not that it is preferable generally. He's correct.


His argument is fallacious and refuted by history. It's not even based on an Austrian perspective, but the fallacy of division based on neo classical assumptions

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> so Hitler Stalin and Mao are the same as the United States in its imperial state. Good to know.


They're variations of each other, yes. Hitler was actually an America fanboy for a good while. Fascists of a feather flock together. :P

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> His argument is fallacious and refuted by history


That's incorrect. But bully on you for wishful thinking.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> That's incorrect. But bully on you for wishful thinking.


There's nothing intellectual about bias towards the counterintuitive

----------


## HVACTech

> Why do so many people think there is a need for government?


I am not so sure that is the case. people "organize" for various, very good reasons. 
what is "government" but how we organize ourselves socially?  "Governments" are like weeds.  they will sprout spontaneously.

since the creation of "government" cannot be stopped.  the best approach is to limit them.  (Minarchy)  

btw. the design saturated suction temp for R-410-A 14 SEER is 45 degrees. not 40 like it was for R-22.
most of them also employ expansion valves. (about damn time eh!)

----------


## HVACTech

> Hoppe's argument is simply that monarchy is preferable to democracy and it's variants-not that it is preferable generally. He's correct.


you seem to find this stuff really complicated. it is not.  

leave the people alone. let them sort out their own differences locally. and let them keep most of the fruits of their labor. and they will produce more. 
this was the magic of the first Roman Republic. 

the first Roman Republic eliminated "Democracy" but retained the "Democratic process"

HB34, is "Democracy" legal is this country?

if perchance, you think that it is... please provide proof of your manifold wisdom. sir.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There's nothing intellectual about bias towards the counterintuitive


There is, I just don't have time or interest to engage you. You lack enough evidence to make a sound counterargument anyway. ~shrugs~ If anything of significance ever hinges on debating you, I'll return to this. Have a nice day! ~hugs~

I'll leave you with this:

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It's factually untrue that monarchies(read: dictatorships) have freer markets and more Liberty than democracies.







> What you're doing is basically saying that because markets tend to allocate resources rationally that there for this individual property owner is going to be rational. There's absolutely no basis for that assumption.


No, I'm saying that if the ruler is materially self-interested, and has a basic understand of economics, he will pursue liberal policies. 




> Keep in mind that Hoppe is an ivory-tower academic trying to sell books and be cute intellectually. I doubt he honestly believes what he says.


Hoppe is an imbecile as far as I'm concerned, due to his "argumentation ethics," which is an affront to logic. 

But no part of my argument rests on an appeal to authority, especially Hoppe's, so what's your point?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> No, I'm saying that if the ruler is materially self-interested, and has a basic understand of economics, he will pursue liberal policies.


This argument has been completely destroyed I must say.





A twist on the old saying 'the government that is best is the government that violates individual liberties the least'.

In that saying there is absolutely no reference to what form this best government takes.  Because none have a monopoly on being 'best' or 'worst'.

Looking at past statistics does not prove anything to be true in the future.

You use pipe-dream logic for how the monarch will act, but address the more common realities of democratic rule.

And your argument as to why the monarch would pursue liberal policies has been destroyed.


I can accept this argument, and would probably agree, if it was made under the banner of 'how the government we devise should operate'.  You instead come at this argument as a slave, intending to always be a slave.  Promoting monarchy absent how we achieve libertarian policy from it is no different than promoting democracy absent how we achieve libertarian policy from it, it is just saying 'hey, lets try this form of government, maybe they'll be nicer'.  Guess what.  Government aren't nice.  Its gonna take work to achieve a libertarian society.  You might know this saying:




> The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.


Just because you have no inclination to fight for your rights, ever, does not mean that others should join you in a game of russian roulette.  You are so wary about just wars that you suggest it's just best to bend over and take what we get.  That is not the spirit of a patriot.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> This argument has been completely destroyed I must say.


Oh, let's see how...




> A twist on the old saying 'the government that is best is the government that violates individual liberties the least'.
> 
> In that saying there is absolutely no reference to what form this best government takes.  Because none have a monopoly on being 'best' or 'worst'.


That would render the saying irrelevant to the question of which form of government is best from a libertarian POV. 




> Looking at past statistics does not prove anything to be true in the future.


It often does, as a matter of fact.

But, as you may have noticed, my argument is primarily an a priori argument. 

Empirical evidence is like desert: nice, but not necessary. 




> You use pipe-dream logic for how the monarch will act, but address the more common realities of democratic rule.


How so?




> And your argument as to why the monarch would pursue liberal policies has been destroyed.


How so?




> I can accept this argument, and would probably agree, if it was made under the banner of 'how the government we devise should operate'.  You instead come at this argument as a slave, intending to always be a slave.  Promoting monarchy absent how we achieve libertarian policy from it is no different than promoting democracy absent how we achieve libertarian policy from it, it is just saying 'hey, lets try this form of government, maybe they'll be nicer'.  Guess what.  Government aren't nice.  Its gonna take work to achieve a libertarian society.  You might know this saying:


...it's sort of like you didn't read and/or don't understand the (very basic economic) argument that I'm making. 

I've always thought that ignorance of economics is the chief obstacle to the advancement of liberty. 




> Just because you have no inclination to fight for your rights, ever, does not mean that others should join you in a game of russian roulette.  You are so wary about just wars that you suggest it's just best to bend over and take what we get.  That is not the spirit of a patriot.


That's a lot of personal and emotional noise.

...can't really help you with that.

I'm making an academic argument in favor of monarchy on the basis of economics.

----------


## TER

I haven't read this thread yet, but I freely confess that I much rather have King Ron Paul of America than President Hillary or President Trump.  Short-sighted?  Maybe.  But I bet his son Rand would do a better job too.  

Would Rand's son be just as good?  I don't know, but right now I am getting too concerned about global thermonuclear war to think that far ahead...

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> So you can think of this knowledge problem as an estimated X multiplied by your desired tax rate in percentage form, in which X is the estimated GDP or taxable economic activity produced by free individuals in a society such as you mention multiplied by your tax rate(in its totality we'll call it Z), compared to Y, which is the income possible to the monarch having privatized (to himself) all resources and means of production. Now I do not think it is unreasonable to fathom that a monarch could send a group of individuals to survey and database his kingdom and itemize the monarchs resources. So this becomes a problem much like a password cracking solver, where the password 'guesses' (possible Y's) are arrangements of the monarchs resources and the actual password is any number greater than Z, essentially figuring how to make Y > Z. And I truly think there must be some. Nevertheless, for any monarch that doesn't wish to spend his days jerking off, and would like to be challenged, I think this is a challenge that would likely be undertaken.





> That would be the plan for a would-be central planner (try to allocate resources in a more profitable way than they are allocated by the market).
> 
> But this is impossible in practice, for the reasons I've been explaining (knowledge and incentive problems).
> 
> I don't think you've explained how the central planner would overcome these problems.


The point you fail to realize is that the monarch doesn't need to have a greater GDP then the GDP of a free-market economy to make more money.  A monarch that is only 95% as efficient in production as free-markets would have been, would make the same amount of money as a monarch who taxed his population at 5%.  I think a retard could probably do better than 95% as efficient.  And obviously the more a monarch taxes to compensate for what his potential income would be under complete control, the free-market begins more and more to lose its efficiency.

And, if you expect this to be principle than it must hold true at all times.  Your argument that a monarch would decide that nationalization of all resources and means of production would be less efficient than taxing the citizens engaged in free-market is largely based on the size of the US.  You say it is to large, how could he possibly know how to arrange the resources in such a way that would provide him income greater than taxing his citizens and their decided arrangement, but what about a small country?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> You use pipe-dream logic for how the monarch will act, but address the more common realities of democratic rule.





> How so?


You say that the monarch will be logical and embrace free-markets (even if this is false) and yet do not give the same credit to 'voters', they truly benefit from free-markets and so it would be logical that their voting outcomes would embrace free-markets.  





> Just because you have no inclination to fight for your rights, ever, does not mean that others should join you in a game of russian roulette. You are so wary about just wars that you suggest it's just best to bend over and take what we get. That is not the spirit of a patriot.





> That's a lot of personal and emotional noise.
> 
> ...can't really help you with that.
> 
> I'm making an academic argument in favor of monarchy on the basis of economics.


You are making an argument in favor of monarchy, regardless of the outcome.  You do not suppose having influence on who this monarch is or what his policies are.  That is not a recipe for success.... unless your only goal is to install a monarch.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> You say that the monarch will be logical and embrace free-markets (even if this is false) and yet do not give the same credit to 'voters', they truly benefit from free-markets and so it would be logical that their voting outcomes would embrace free-markets.


No, I say that IF the monarch is selfish, and has some understanding of economics, he will pursue liberal policies. 

In contrast, IF the voters/donors/etc are selfish, and have some understanding of economics, the government will pursue socialism.

Why? 

...see the rest of the thread.

Disagree?

...specifically address the arguments presented in the rest of the thread.

----------


## TER

> You say that the monarch will be logical and embrace free-markets (even if this is false) and yet do not give the same credit to 'voters', they truly benefit from free-markets and so it would be logical that their voting outcomes would embrace free-markets.


Which would more quickly bring free markets to realization and fruition:  a hypothetical King Ron Paul, or a democratic vote of today's average Amercian voter?

----------


## HVACTech

> Oh, let's see how...
> 
> 
> 
> That would render the saying irrelevant to the question of which form of government is best from a libertarian POV. 
> 
> 
> 
> It often does, as a matter of fact.
> ...


"_Empirical evidence is like desert: nice, but not necessary._ "

I REALLY liked that part man.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Which would more quickly bring free markets to realization and fruition:  a hypothetical King Ron Paul, or a democratic vote of today's average Amercian voter?


But that is with a targeted goal in mind, a King Ron Paul.  I don't think the best form monarchy would operate in the fashion that it is normally assumed, more like a company board... with possibly no CEO, but still, King Ron Paul would be much better than current day voter.  R3v's argument however is not getting an individual installed, or having any control over that, just plainly that if we go to a monarch from here- we will be better off.  And there is no way of proving that.

----------


## TER

> But that is with a targeted goal in mind, a King Ron Paul.  I don't think the best form monarchy would operate in the fashion that it is normally assumed, more like a company board... with possibly no CEO, but still, King Ron Paul would be much better than current day voter.  R3v's argument however is not getting an individual installed, or having any control over that, just plainly that if we go to a monarch from here- we will be better off.  And there is no way of proving that.


I agree.  Simply going into monarchy does not fix our economic problems, without it being led by a good, just, and virtuous king.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> There is, I just don't have time or interest to engage you. You lack enough evidence to make a sound counterargument anyway. ~shrugs~ If anything of significance ever hinges on debating you, I'll return to this. Have a nice day! ~hugs~
> 
> I'll leave you with this:


Keep feeling the warm fuzzies over how heterodox you are lol. Super cool

----------


## HVACTech

> No, I say that IF the monarch is selfish, and has some understanding of economics, he will pursue liberal policies. 
> 
> In contrast, IF the voters/donors/etc are selfish, and have some understanding of economics, the government will pursue socialism.
> 
> Why? 
> 
> ...see the rest of the thread.
> 
> Disagree?
> ...


here in the south. we do not consider a lack of "Empirical evidence" to be  like "dessert"  (or a desert)

"_Empirical evidence is like desert: nice, but not necessary._ "    LOL!

around here.. we call that BULL$#@!. 

we also have rules about BULL$#@! dude.  and yes. you are in violation of our rules.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> *Completely irrelevant to your point everyone knows that democracies Trend toward social democracy. I want to know how free the markets are and how large the markets are compared to what they are under monarchy.  Prove your point show us the free-market monarchies*.
> 
> No, I'm saying that if the ruler is materially self-interested, and has a basic understand of economics, he will pursue liberal policies. 
> 
> *Okay so this is just an absolute speculation based on a pipe dream and not based on anything to do with human nature or the laws of economics, and the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Removing very very basic checks and balances will accomplish this. Create a Government monopoly claim  on all property. Got it.* 
> 
> 
> Hoppe is an imbecile as far as I'm concerned, due to his "argumentation ethics," which is an affront to logic. 
> 
> But no part of my argument rests on an appeal to authority, especially Hoppe's, so what's your point?


I was also responding to the other pro-monarchy guy in this thread and everyone else that brought up Hope.

What's really amazing to me is that we don't even have a democracy right now, we have an oligarchy that very much mirrors a feudal system. We just don't have the military dictator yet that you all are so keen on lol.

By the way, a good example if you want to make your case as a starting point would probably be Libya. I've heard that they were doing pretty well under Ghaddafi but I haven't really looked into it.

----------


## HVACTech

> I agree.  Simply going into monarchy does not fix our economic problems, without it being led by a good, just, and virtuous king.


have you discussed this with the Lady of the lake?

----------


## HVACTech

> *I was also responding to the other pro-monarchy guy in this thread and everyone else that brought up Hope.*
> 
> What's really amazing to me is that we don't even have a democracy right now, we have an oligarchy that very much mirrors a feudal system. We just don't have the military dictator yet that you all are so keen on lol.


HB34?

----------


## TER

> have you discussed this with the Lady of the lake?


I don't understand. Who is the Lady of the lake?

----------


## TER

> I was also responding to the other pro-monarchy guy in this thread and everyone else that brought up Hope.
> 
> What's really amazing to me is that we don't even have a democracy right now, we have an oligarchy that very much mirrors a feudal system. We just don't have the military dictator yet that you all are so keen on lol.
> 
> By the way, a good example if you want to make your case as a starting point would probably be Libya. I've heard that they were doing pretty well under Ghaddafi but I haven't really looked into it.


Actually, they weren't doing bad (relatively speaking for that culture and part of the world) until a democratically elected government came and dropped bombs on them and assassinated the leader.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I was also responding to the other pro-monarchy guy in this thread and everyone else that brought up Hope.
> 
> What's really amazing to me is that we don't even have a democracy right now, we have an oligarchy that very much mirrors a feudal system. We just don't have the military dictator yet that you all are so keen on lol.
> *
> By the way, a good example if you want to make your case as a starting point would probably be Libya. I've heard that they were doing pretty well under Ghaddafi but I haven't really looked into it*.


Aye. Ghaddafi didn't let the international bankers and Big Business control Libya. That's why he was taken out. (another common trait of democracies and republics is a strong tendency toward cronyism, corporatism, and militarism, btw)

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't understand. Who is the Lady of the lake?


LOL - Watch this:

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You say that the monarch will be logical and embrace free-markets (even if this is false) and yet do not give the same credit to 'voters', *they truly benefit from free-markets and so it would be logical that their voting outcomes would embrace free-markets*.


It indeed seems logical at first, but history hath shewn that voters normally want _stuff_ and "safety"-not liberty or free markets.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Keep feeling the warm fuzzies over how heterodox you are lol. Super cool

----------


## TER

> LOL - Watch this:




LOL  Now I got it. Love that movie!

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> Aye. Ghaddafi didn't let the international bankers and Big Business control Libya. That's why he was taken out. (another common trait of democracies and republics is a strong tendency toward cronyism, corporatism, and militarism, btw)


But he also was socialistic. Btw imperialism and colonialism were not alien to monarchs and dictator.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> have you discussed this with the Lady of the lake?


Been laughing for 10 minutes over this lol

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> But he also was socialistic.


Sure. But that's a social norm in that part of the world. Neither socialism nor any other economic philosophy is "good" or "bad" according to economic science.




> Btw imperialism and colonialism were not alien to monarchs and dictator.


True. But it was never so irrational before democracy. The collectivism of political power in democracy removed all sense of accountability and reason from the higher levels of political power. (IOW, irrationality is highly incentivized in democracy)

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

Simply not remotely historically accurate.

----------


## Firestarter

I cannot understand how anybody (besides the Royal families) could prefer a Monarchy. I will illustrate my reply with some examples from the Kingdom of the Netherlands, where I’ve survived numerous assassination attempts.

POLITRICS IN A MONARCHY
Let me first explain about the character of politrics in an absolute monarchy. Because the King/Queen (instead of what they make us believe) in reality depends on the support of enough people, they need to have some popularity, and have decreed “democratic” elections.
The subjects of the monarch can choose between the political parties founded by the Monarch. The reason the Monarchs have chosen for this solution, so they can blame their politicians whenever a scandal becomes too obvious. If you look at it in this way a monarchy has all the disadvantages of politrics in a democracy plus the tremendous costs of the thievery of the Royals.
The monarchy becomes even worse out of the comparison when you realize that the monarch will only choose corrupt politicians that are even less intelligent than the Monarch himself. So in a monarchy the politicians are even worse than in a “democracy” (but democracy is only a Utopian concept that has never anywhere existed).
A clear example is that Premier Mark Rutte studied at the same university and faculty as King Willem-Alexander in the same period (Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, Geschiedenis). The amount of former students of the Rijksuniversiteit Leiden and the fraternity (Minerva) of the Dutch Royals in cabinet is really amazing. In the first cabinet Rutte (installed in 2010 by then Queen Beatrix): 6 of the 12 ministers studied in Leiden with 4 members of Minerva. In the second cabinet Rutte (installed in 2012): “only” 4 ministers studied in Leiden. Also former minister and Secretary-General of NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was a member of Minerva.
The monarchs of the Netherlands have even regularly placed their most trusted puppets from the Raad van State at key positions in cabinet: 1) Willem Scholten was selected for the Raad van State in 1976 and became a minister from 1978 to 1980 (in the aftermath of the Lockheed affair), and from 1980 – 1997 was vice-president of the Raad van State; 2) Piet Hein Donner was selected for the Raad van State in 1998. In 2002 he was chosen by Beatrix as Minister van Justitie (that’s Newspeak for Justice); he was minister until December 2011, when he became vice-president of the Raad van State. His father was a member of the European Court of Justice and part of the Commissie van drie that covered up the bribes Prince Bernhard took from Lockheed and Northrop.
When Donner was Minister van justitie, I was coincidentally tortured for half a year in a psychiatric hospital.
Before Brexit a landslide voted against the EU/Ukraine association agreement, 61% against, 39% for. King Willem-Alexander went ahead as if nothing happened, because his subjects don´t have a thing to say: http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...sa-free-travel

DEGENERATE OFFSPRING
Royal families try to convince others they are superior by birth, but in reality the opposite is true.
Because Royals life the easy life, they degenerate with each generation. This can easily be understood when you look at it from the viewpoint of evolution. In reality it is only hardship that improves a species of animals.
That the degeneration is even worse becomes apparent when you consider the great amount of intermarriages between Royals (including marriages between cousins), which makes that Royals don’t have sufficient variety in genes.
It is not easy to see if the degeneration also applies to the subjects of monarch. Obviously the subjects suffer from the cruel dictatorship, which should improve them with each generation, more than a democracy (from the viewpoint of evolution). But on the other hand, because the monarch feels threatened by everybody with superior qualities: the best people in a monarchy are simply eliminated (so this could mean that the population in a monarchy degenerates because of the monarchy).

EXAMPLES – BAYBASIN AND LENSINK
The Turkish Kurd Huseyin Baybasın was “helped” by his attorney Mr. D. Moszkowicz to refuse to defend himself in the court case. After Donner became Minister van justitie on July 22, already on July 30, 2002 Baybasin was sentenced to life in prison, based on falsified tapes. On October 21, 2003 the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) confirmed the sentence to life in prison, because the government agency Nederlands Forensisch Instituut (NFI), that investigated the reliability of the tapes, is beyond doubt. On July 6, 2006 the ECHR decided that the human rights of Baybasin were violated in the Netherland because he was inhumanly treated: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["baybasin netherlands"],"itemid":["001-76262"]}
After Erwin Lensink threw a small object to the Gouden koets of Queen Beatrix he was declared insane and tortured in a psychiatric hospital and was also imprisoned. Lensink has an interesting web site (mostly in Dutch) – topics include anti-psychiatry, Bilderberg and paedophilia: http://erwinlensinkvrij.nl

CORRUPTION/VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS
Because the monarch has supreme control over education, media, legislative force (politrics) and the courts, he can get away with just about anything. And when some scandal reaches the public, some politician simply takes the fall.
About a month ago July 14, a citizen of the Netherlands got sentenced to 30 days in jail for insulting King Willem-Alexander. This man called our King: murderer, rapist, oppressor and thief (which should be allowed when there’s freedom of speech). When I read the verdict I noticed that his own attorney had pleaded against him.
It was found out that the yearly maintenance costs for the yacht the Groene Draeck of Princess Beatrix cost the tax payer 95,000 euro per year, instead of 32,500 euro. Later it became clear that the tax payer had spent 1,5 million Euro from 2004 to 2015 on maintenance for the boat (for which you could buy 2 boats). It is not difficult to imagine where this money went (but very difficult to prove): http://www.theroyalforums.com/tag/groene-draeck/
These are a lot more examples. It is not only tax money that finds their way to the Royal family, but they can also place their family and friends in easy well-paying jobs and make large profits in insider trading because they have foreknowledge of what will happen (they are the ones that decide!). When the Dutch central bank (DNB) had to be bought by the tax payers, they let them pay much more than the market value (while they still decide what happens). They also “sold” their palaces for much more than the market price and the Royals are the only ones that can life in these. When ABN AMRO bank wasn´t doing too well, the Monarch decided that the tax payer must compensate their losses (the Royals owned a large percentage of the stocks).
The history of Prince Bernhard is filled with corruption. Prince Bernhard was heavily involved in the international weapons trade. He received some 2 million dollar from the American corporations Lockheed and Northrop. When this was found out he didn´t get any kind of punishment in the Netherlands (he could even keep the money). At the beginning of the 1950s Bernhard was trading weapons to Indonesia and tried to stage a coup, he also in vain tried to exchange devaluated Dutch-Indonesian banknotes, what would’ve cost the Dutch tax payer 50 million guilders.

----------


## Athan

> The history books also demonstrate the many horrors and crimes against humanity of democracies/republics unrivaled by monarchs. Pick your poison.


Yes, I will pick the poison that won't place me less than a monarch, one that will guarantee me arms to rebel against authority, and one that allows for upward mobility. You can go to england if you want. I'm staying in Texas.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> I agree.  Simply going into monarchy does not fix our economic problems, without it being led by a good, just, and virtuous king.





> It indeed seems logical at first, but history hath shewn that voters normally want _stuff_ and "safety"-not liberty or free markets.


I agree with both of you.  It is the players and not the system that matter, no matter how logical it may be perceived that the chosen system will provide maximum liberty.  I think that America is a great example of that.  If the constitution was obeyed we would be pretty well off, as far as governments go.  But it takes action, not a system, to maintain liberty.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I cannot understand how anybody (besides the Royal families) could prefer a Monarchy. I will illustrate my reply with some examples from the Kingdom of the Netherlands, where I’ve survived numerous assassination attempts.
> 
> POLITRICS IN A MONARCHY
> Let me first explain about the character of politrics in an absolute monarchy. Because the King/Queen (instead of what they make us believe) in reality depends on the support of enough people, they need to have some popularity, and have decreed “democratic” elections.
> The subjects of the monarch can choose between the political parties founded by the Monarch. The reason the Monarchs have chosen for this solution, so they can blame their politicians whenever a scandal becomes too obvious. If you look at it in this way a monarchy has all the disadvantages of politrics in a democracy plus the tremendous costs of the thievery of the Royals.
> The monarchy becomes even worse out of the comparison when you realize that the monarch will only choose corrupt politicians that are even less intelligent than the Monarch himself. So in a monarchy the politicians are even worse than in a “democracy” (but democracy is only a Utopian concept that has never anywhere existed).
> A clear example is that Premier Mark Rutte studied at the same university and faculty as King Willem-Alexander in the same period (Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, Geschiedenis). The amount of former students of the Rijksuniversiteit Leiden and the fraternity (Minerva) of the Dutch Royals in cabinet is really amazing. In the first cabinet Rutte (installed in 2010 by then Queen Beatrix): 6 of the 12 ministers studied in Leiden with 4 members of Minerva. In the second cabinet Rutte (installed in 2012): “only” 4 ministers studied in Leiden. Also former minister and Secretary-General of NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was a member of Minerva.
> The monarchs of the Netherlands have even regularly placed their most trusted puppets from the Raad van State at key positions in cabinet: 1) Willem Scholten was selected for the Raad van State in 1976 and became a minister from 1978 to 1980 (in the aftermath of the Lockheed affair), and from 1980 – 1997 was vice-president of the Raad van State; 2) Piet Hein Donner was selected for the Raad van State in 1998. In 2002 he was chosen by Beatrix as Minister van Justitie (that’s Newspeak for Justice); he was minister until December 2011, when he became vice-president of the Raad van State. His father was a member of the European Court of Justice and part of the Commissie van drie that covered up the bribes Prince Bernhard took from Lockheed and Northrop.
> When Donner was Minister van justitie, I was coincidentally tortured for half a year in a psychiatric hospital.
> ...


*LOLOL*  Weak-ass study is *weak*. The Romanov Dynasty brought peace and prosperity to Russia unrivaled before or since-to name but one of many examples. The importation of democracy to Russia brought with it mass destruction, death, war, poverty, genocide, democide, and pretty much every horror you can think of.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Simply not remotely historically accurate.


Still wrong. Have a nice day!  ~hugs~

----------


## Firestarter

> *LOLOL*  Weak-ass study is *weak*. The Romanov Dynasty brought peace and prosperity to Russia unrivaled before or since-to name but one of many examples. The importation of democracy to Russia brought with it mass destruction, death, war, poverty, genocide, democide, and pretty much every horror you can think of.


If I remember correctly the Romanov Dynasty was brought down because they supported Abraham Lincoln in the American civil war; Lincoln started printing debt-free money and was later executed.
While I don't know why the Romanovs supported democracy in the USA, it were the Zionist Rothschilds that financed communism, that lynched all the Romanovs.
I don't know how democratic Russia was before the reign of the Romanovs, but the communist Soviet Union was certainly no democracy. The horrible crimes of Stalin are indeed evidence that a democracy is better than dictatorship (see for example the million killed by starvation in the Ukraine). I wouldn't call the one-party-state Soviet Union a republic, and I don't think it's fair to call the horrors of communism an argument for any monarchy.
Years before communism took control of Russia, the Rothschilds in Baku already paid Joseph Stalin to end a strike by the way.

----------


## HVACTech

> If I remember correctly the Romanov Dynasty was brought down because they supported Abraham Lincoln in the American civil war; Lincoln *started printing debt-free money and was later executed.*
> While I don't know why the Romanovs supported democracy in the USA, it were the Zionist Rothschilds that financed communism, that lynched all the Romanovs.
> I don't know how democratic Russia was before the reign of the Romanovs, but _the communist Soviet Union was certainly no democracy._ The horrible crimes of Stalin are indeed evidence that a democracy is better than dictatorship (see for example the million killed by starvation in the Ukraine). I wouldn't call _the one-party-state Soviet Union a republic_, and I don't think it's fair to call the horrors of communism an argument for any monarchy.
> Years before communism took control of Russia, the Rothschilds in Baku already paid Joseph Stalin to end a strike by the way.


help me to understand your definition of  "Democracy" and  "Republic".  

me likes to keep things simple.   Democracy = 1 man, 1 vote. majority rules.  Republic. =  a "rule of law" is somehow involved. 
how do you distinguish between the two? 

_I would NEVER confuse a VFD  (variable frequency drive) with an ECM (electronically commutated motor). 
YES! both types provide variable speed control...  however, one is AC, the other DC.  _  

that is HVAC  sophistry.  or, did I just lie to you?  
as sophistry is rampant on RPFs. 

 is it possible to differentiate a Republic, from a Democracy?

----------


## Dr.3D

> help me to understand your definition of  "Democracy" and  "Republic".  
> 
> me likes to keep things simple.   Democracy = 1 man, 1 vote. majority rules.  Republic. =  a "rule of law" is somehow involved. 
> how do you distinguish between the two? 
> 
> _I would NEVER confuse a VFD  (variable frequency drive) with an ECM (electronically commutated motor). 
> YES! both types provide variable speed control...  however, one is AC, the other DC.  _  
> 
> that is HVAC  sophistry.  or, did I just lie to you?  
> ...


This little video might help...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This little video might help...


'Murican Republicanism is a type of democracy (indirect/representative). Too bad they conveniently forget to teach this in skools nowadays.

----------


## HVACTech

> 'Murican Republicanism is a type of democracy (indirect/representative). Too bad they conveniently forget to teach this in skools nowadays.


do you have any PROOF that Democracy is legal in this country? 
our Founders were VERY clear on this subject. 

please provide supporting evidence for such a vacuous claim as this.

----------


## HVACTech

Section 4 - *Republican form of government guaranteed.* Each State to be protected.

*The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government,* and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.

— United States Constitution Article 4, Section 4

"Democracy is the most vile form of government. ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as the have been violent in their deaths."

— James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the U. S.

“The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness, which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be, liberty.”

— Fisher Ames (1758-1808) Founding Father and framer of the First Amendment to the Constitution

Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.

— P. J. O'Rourke (1947--) Political ournalist, writer, and author

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

— Winston Churchill (1874-1965), British Politician & Leader.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Third President of the United States

----------


## Firestarter

> is it possible to differentiate a Republic, from a Democracy?


Democracy is a theoretical concept invented by the ancient Greeks, in which the people decide what happens, instead of the elite. In reality nobody has even tried to lay the foundation of a democracy. There has never ever been any form of government, that can be called a democracy.

Formally every state that doesn't have a monarchy for a head of state, is a republic. If you follow this definition the communist Soviet Union was a republic.

----------


## HVACTech

> Democracy is a theoretical concept invented by the ancient Greeks, in which the people decide what happens, instead of the elite. In reality nobody has even tried to lay the foundation of a democracy. There has never ever been any form of government, that can be called a democracy.
> 
> Formally every state that doesn't have a monarchy for a head of state, is a republic. If you follow this definition the communist Soviet Union was a republic.


I agree sir.
 that *a Republic has a "rule of law"* does not define what it is based upon. it can be based on anything. 
it is the only form that allows for a choice in such matters.

when the people. cannot define the meaning of the words that they use.... 
how can they ever agree on anything?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I agree with both of you.  It is the  players and not the system that matter, no matter how logical it may be  perceived that the chosen system will provide maximum liberty.


Why does the market economy work better than socialism?

Is it because people living in a market economy are better?

...or is it because they operate within different *incentives*?




> I agree.  Simply going into monarchy does not fix our  economic problems, without it being led by a good, just, and virtuous  king.


If the political elite are good, just, and virtuous, then the form of government doesn't matter. 

But if the political elite are greedy (which they typically are), then monarchy is superior, for reasons explained.




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant to your point everyone knows that democracies  Trend toward social democracy. I want to know how free the markets are  and how large the markets are compared to what they are under monarchy.   Prove your point show us the free-market monarchies.


...?

That's _exactly_ what those charts show. 

More government spending means more governmental interference in the market.




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> I'm saying that if the ruler is materially self-interested, and has a  basic understand of economics, he will pursue liberal policies.
> 
> 
> Okay so this is just an absolute speculation based on a pipe dream  and not based on anything to do with human nature or the laws of  economics, and the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Removing very very basic checks and balances will accomplish this.  Create a Government monopoly claim  on all property. Got it.


I posted a lengthy argument, based in economics, to support my position.

You have not rebutted any of it, in fact you've barely addressed it at all; you're just *asserting* that I'm wrong.




> What's  really amazing to me is that we don't even have a democracy right now,  we have an oligarchy that very much mirrors a feudal system. We just  don't have the military dictator yet that you all are so keen on lol.


Democracy = government elected by mass suffrage

That is what we have. 

If you don't like the results of this system, perhaps you should rethink your support for it.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

I completely rebutted your economic arguments by pointing out that they were nothing more than a fallacy of division and misapplied economic theory.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

Also, the idea that I support the current situation is disingenuous, unless you are willing to accept the blame for Nazi Germany. Of course, contrary to history, you claim that you support a hypothetical "libertarian" king(oxymoron). Yet you don't afford me the same luxury.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I completely rebutted your economic arguments by pointing out that they were nothing more than a fallacy of division and misapplied economic theory.


You've _asserted_ that. In which post did you explain _how_ I misapplied economic theory?

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

> You bow to Kings in all but name. The Minority of One only matters to a very small percentage of the population. FYI, America _was_ a Constitutional Republic. Y'all gave that up after Lincoln's regime got done.


Why do you say "y'all" like you're distancing yourself from it?

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

> Wishful thinking. Would be nice if it worked the way you want it to, but it doesn't.



Yet the magnanimous, totally just and incorruptible laissez faire king is not wishful thinking.

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

> Aye. Ghaddafi didn't let the international bankers and Big Business control Libya. That's why he was taken out. (another common trait of democracies and republics is a strong tendency toward cronyism, corporatism, and militarism, btw)


Rich bankers who took out Ghaddafi would flock to a king and exert their influence.  

Voters are ignorant. They are distracted by mindless entertainment.  If they were educated they would not vote they way they do.  

It is a problem of education, not government.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Read my sig. 

End thread if there's an ounce of respect for the concept and cause of Individual Liberty.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Rich bankers who took out Ghaddafi would flock to a king and exert their influence.  
> 
> Voters are ignorant. They are distracted by mindless entertainment.  If they were educated they would not vote they way they do.  
> *
> It is a problem of education, not government*.


LOL  The most educated generations of 'Muricans (all of them pre-dept of ed) were also profoundly ignorant and made lots of terrible choices. C'mon, this is a terrible excuse. 'Murica has 24/7 education via webbernets for more than long enough. It's very much a problem of government.

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

> LOL  The most educated generations of 'Muricans (all of them pre-dept of ed) were also profoundly ignorant and made lots of terrible choices. C'mon, this is a terrible excuse. 'Murica has 24/7 education via webbernets for more than long enough. It's very much a problem of government.


That's a very broad brush you're painting there. Care to elaborate? Let's start with time periods pre dept. of ed.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> 'Murican Republicanism is a type of democracy (indirect/representative). Too bad they conveniently forget to teach this in skools nowadays.


No it is not.  We were given a democratic Republic.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If you don't like the results of this system, perhaps you should rethink your support for it.


Yes, yes.  World government.  The essence of liberty.

----------


## pcosmar

> No it is not.  We were given a democratic Republic.


That ended with the Civil War.
We became a federal state. 

and in 1913 after the socialist coup we became a socialist state. 
and an Authoritarian State. which has become increasingly so in the last few decades.


any free republic is long dead,,

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's a very broad brush you're painting there. Care to elaborate? Let's start with time periods pre dept. of ed.


According to J.T. Gatto, the generations of children after the Revolution till ~the 20th century were so well educated that they were extremely impressive to Frederic Bastiat (who wrote about this in his account of visit to 'Murica)-nothing on the Old Continent could compare.

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

> That ended with the Civil War.
> We became a federal state. 
> 
> and in 1913 after the socialist coup we became a socialist state. 
> and an Authoritarian State. which has become increasingly so in the last few decades.
> 
> 
> any free republic is long dead,,


My what a cynical determinist.  Yes we all know how evil and dictatorial Lincoln was for creating a federalist state and we know that nothing in our democratic process can ever undo what he did.

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

> According to J.T. Gatto, the generations of children after the Revolution till ~the 20th century were so well educated that they were extremely impressive to Frederic Bastiat (who wrote about this in his account of visit to 'Murica)-nothing on the Old Continent could compare.


Obviously there are different levels and definitions of what we mean by 'education'. I'm talking about education in logic and liberty.  Otherwise we would be calling any harvard professor or elitist think tank intellectual the most educated person in the country right now.

Pre dept. of education the US was going off of the Prussian model of education which was/is essentially factory education.  Instead we should have gone with teaching kids in the classical method of the Trivium and Quadrivium.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Obviously there are different levels and definitions of what we mean by 'education'. I'm talking about education in logic and liberty.  Otherwise we would be calling any harvard professor or elitist think tank intellectual the most educated person in the country right now.
> *
> Pre dept. of education the US was going off of the Prussian model of education which was/is essentially factory education.  Instead we should have gone with teaching kids in the classical method of the Trivium and Quadrivium*.


Source? Everything I've read tells me that the Prussian model was adopted when the DoE was created and the classical method was used before that.

----------


## CCTelander

> Source? Everything I've read tells me that the Prussian model was adopted when the DoE was created and the classical method was used before that.



Then you'd be in error since the Department of Education was created by Nixon in 1979. The Prussian model has been in use in American public schools since the advent of "free" public education in the 1800s as I recall.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Then you'd be in error since the Department of Education was created by Nixon in 1979. The Prussian model has been in use in American public schools since the advent of "free" public education in the 1800s as I recall.


Thanks. I get my dates wrong once in a while.  ~hugs~

----------


## Ender

> No it is not.  We were given a democratic Republic.


NO.

The united States of America was conceived as a Constitutional Republic- not democratic.

----------


## Ender

> According to J.T. Gatto, the generations of children after the Revolution till ~the 20th century were so well educated that they were extremely impressive to Frederic Bastiat (who wrote about this in his account of visit to 'Murica)-nothing on the Old Continent could compare.


Gatto's awesome- the father of the phrase: "Dumbing us down".

He sincerely understands what real education is and how important freedom is in learning.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yet the magnanimous, totally just and incorruptible laissez faire king is not wishful thinking.


That would indeed be wishful thinking.

...but that's not the argument.

The argument is that the king will be greedy, and his greed will motivate him to pursue laissez faire policies.

laissez faire --> richer country --> more potential tax revenue for the king

----------

