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
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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 ...
@Pherick Sure they cared about their heirs (same as people -- rich and poor do today)-- and leaving the country to them. Having heirs was a big thing -- for example, the demon Henry VIII killed a wife, his best friend and broke with the Church inorder to have an heir to leave the country to. Of course, he wanted to leave a strong, healthy country to that heir.
In a democracy a politician is elected for a term of years, and has no self-interest past his/her term.
But what is clear is that the experiment with democracy has been a failure -- as Plato and Aristotle (and the founders of America) warned it always is, and for 1800 years the West stayed away from it (especially since two of its principle founders Socrates and Christ were killed on the democratic order of the mob).
Read Hoppe's book if interested in further argument and detail.
@Pherick You are just saying that, and apparently have no reasons to back it up -- and are proud that you will live in your pre-conceived ignorance. To understand Hoppe's argument all you have to do is look how politicians in a democracy act -- for example, they run up debt -- not caring one whit about how it is ever going to be paid. A king is not going to leave something like that to his child.
@Pherick You are showing your ignorance again. In those days Kings had to borrow money from bankers like the Rothchilds --this is one of the reasons we did not have mass war until the French Revolution and the advent of democracy.
Those debts, which had to repaid in the same way ordinary people have to repay their debts, were nothing compared to the staggering debt of modern liberal-democracies. The debt of the United States federal government is $13.62 trillion, and goes up about a million dollars a second. Someday, that house of cards will all come tumbling down,
The debt of these kings that you are hooting up as the nail in the coffin of economist Han-Hermann Hoppe's argument -- are the same kind of thing that ordinary people do to buy houses and cars, and entrepreneurs borrow for business reasons. That they may sometimes get over extended or have difficulty repaying is not indicative that they don't care about what they leave to their children
@beckychandler So the debt our country is incurring never has to be repaid? I bet that will surprise alot of people ..
Just be honest, your analogy failed and now you are trying to rush and make it sound like you were just caught in misstep. Its OK it happens to us all.
My belief that politicians have just as much self-interest as Kings, you said has no evidence. Yet your evidence for it not being true is that Kings don't incur debt, which is demonstrably false.
Good politicians understand that they leave the world to their children just as well as any King understand it.
@Pherick It is not my argument --it is the argument of a professor in economics. Thhe 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.
For anyone else that may be playing attention -- Professor's Hoppe's argument goes beyond economics and debt -- but I think anyone can understand where he is coming from.
[b]But, perhaps the argument does not resonate in a postmodern world where people prefer pets to children.[/b]
Anyway, I gotta run or I am gonna be in trouble with my husband: https://similarworlds.com/3263084-I-Believe-In-Traditional-Roles-Within-Marriage/1114397-My-husband-says-I-have-been-spending-too-much-time
[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.
