Libertarian professor[b] Hans-Hermann Hoppe[/b] argued, around the turn of the millennium, that monarchy is better than democracy, because the politicians who are elected do not have any kind of self-interest in the long-term future of the nation. But with a monarchy the nation is a family business and a King or Queen wants to leave it in good shape for the heirs.
You can download[i] “Democracy – the God That Failed”[/i] in pdf format, in its entirety, here: http://bit.ly/1aL6uGa
The problem with monarchies is that they are dependent upon the personality of the ruler that governs them. Take my country England for instance, we had a whole series of highs and lows caused mainly by the rulers we had, from amazing Kings like Edward I to terrible ones like King John who was so bad that no male child of the royal family, or at least those with a direct connection the throne are named John.
@impulsive agree. but that is the wild card in all forms of government. I think Hoppe makes a good argument. I also think the whole idea of kings having been trained since birth in the constitution and the "family business" is good. Unlike Hamilton, I think a hereditary monarchy is best.
@beckychandler Hmm I disagree with you there. The problem with that is the divine right of kings, monarchs who feel they are entitled to do whatever they want and are above everyone else. It was that mentality that led to the English Civil War and the execution of Charles I and later on the French revolution.
The problem with democracy is its inept, corrupt and relies far too much on the goodness of human nature in the same way that Communism relies on workers actually wanting to break the status quo rather than simply turn the wheel around.
I think a better example would be the Roman Empire. Look into its golden era shortly after the Flavian dynasty. Emperors like Trajan and onwards were made Emperor not because they were born into it but they were the right man for the job. When that precedent was broken by Marcus Aurellius who made his son Commodus Emperor, that sowed the seeds for the eventual downfall of the Empire as it returned back to its dark days of entitled and incompetent emperors and degenerate dynasties.
I am not fond of our liberal democracies, but I cannot agree with that argument. It would work if human nature was smarter and less selfish. But history has proven that very often monarchs have chosen their immediate satisfaction over the welfare of the kingdom.
A good, smart monarch would understand that a wealthy strong nation and a happy population are the best ways to keep people's loyalty so that the dinasty goes on. But, since they are not chosen, and therefore are not in danger of being replaced, the temptation of being tyrannical or indifferent to the common people is strong
@Pherick I think of the kings and queens of my country, Spain. Some of there were good, cared about the kingdom and the people. Others just cared to enjoy a life of luxury in their court and did not give a damn about common people.
Most of the were simply inefficient. And if you are a royal child, you are bound to be king and queen even if your character is weak and have the IQ of a fencepost. Only blood determines who rules, meritocracy does not exist.
@Cierzo True, thats why I didn't under the argument thats being a King somehow automatically made you a better ruler than a politician. Becoming a King is not hard, just get born to the right people and bam.
Getting elected to public office can be abit tougher, at least getting elected to a position that can actually make changes.
@Pherick My main concern with representative democracy, compared to direct democracy, is that in a representative democracy what gets to the people (and what they vote) is a product rather than a person, with an image and a message that needs the seal of approval of many oligarchies (financial, media, corporative...).
I would have to argue that most Kings of medieval Europe didn't think that way at all. Sure they wanted heirs, but were they really worried about how they left their country? Eh ...
[quote]That is the gist of the argument is that kings have an interest in leaving a healthy country to their children (if you are going to reject that idea then any further discussion is worthless) A politician elected for a term of years has no such self-interest --he can run up debt (which of course has to be repaid) and not worry about how it is going to be repaid once he is gone.[/quote]
Your statement just doesn't hold true for me. I don't disbelieve that a King wants to leave behind a country for his heirs, but I also believe a politician does. You aren't really giving me any evidence that isn't true.
@Pherick The politician does not have a self-interest in doing so. He may have some altruistic patriotic reason --but not a tangible self-interest that the king does -- the type of interest which modern economics is based on. [b] But, I just came back to let anyone who is interested in this know -- Professor Hoppe does not think monarchy is the best form of government, even though he thinks it is better than democracy.[/b]
But go ahead and take the last word -- I really do have to run!!!!!!! 😓
@beckychandler My last word will just be that I don't agree with this statement.
[quote]The politician does not have a self-interest in doing so. He may have some altruistic patriotic reason --but not a tangible self-interest that the king does -- the type of interest which modern economics is based on.[/quote]
I think good politicians do have that self-interest.
