In order to dissuade many of the idea that the popularity of the news of the pending nuptials between an unemployed girl and a soldier from a welfare family is any evidence of the impact of any Hoppean advantages (Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy by Hans Hoppe), I would suggest many of them have been lost on Merry England since well before the days of Churchill (Rethinking Churchill by Ralph Raico).
I might grant the point if one were speaking of Monaco or Liechtenstein. The Monegasque enjoy no income tax and a higher life expectancy than the citizens of the United States. Liechtenstein’s gross national income per capita is the highest in the world, double Australia, and 320% of New Zealand’s. Strong banking and machinery-export sectors power this tiny monarchy. For more read Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order.
But, this is just the pomp and circumstance of an unemployed English girl that is to wed a soldier from a welfare family well skilled in theft and coercion. However, I certainly hope them both well and that they do eventually find productive endeavors.
Anyway, London’s mayor, Boris Johnson, was quite correct when he stated: “In a weird way, it cheers everyone up.” Weird indeed as we consider the politics of obedience and voluntary servitude.
{ 15 comments }
One of the reasons the Royal Family are so popular over here is because they’re not politicians and are considered to be above politics.
Sir, one should not confuse “above politics” with “ejected to all but total irrelevance for politics,” which is a far more correct term for modern, symbolic monarchs when it comes to most — if not all — practical purposes.
Yes, “considered” is the key word. Members of the “Royal Family” past and present have worked hard for that appearance. That does not in anyway discount the illegal and immoral conquer and conquest.
I think it is not servitude if it is voluntary.
That is a gross misrepresentation. Both have private means and parental support, and welfare is not involved at all (the Privy Purse and related grants are not welfare, but buying out private property). All that lot ever stole – and generations ago, at that – is what yet others had stolen and had no remaining rightful owners, and they did so in a manner that prevented more of the same (the Glorious Revolution of 1688, anybody?). Although unfortunately that did not stop politicians from embarking on their own course of expropriation, little by little but at an ever increasing pace, at present they form one of the few hindrances to that.
Well said.
I think this article is confused.
The author seems to be supporting ruling monarchies such as Monaco and Lichenstein, but not supporting non-ruling, symbolic monarchies such as the UK.
Why does Ptak complain about the “theft and coercion” of non-ruling monarchies and not that of ruling monarchies? That makes no sense, the Hohenzollerns, Hapsburgs and so on practiced just as much theft and coercion as the families of the current Queen of England did if not significantly more. Why does that become justifiable if the monarchy actually rule?
Maybe because the Hapsburgs and Hohenzollerns are long gone.
But, the historical Hapsburgs and Hohenzollerns are examples of ruling monarchies, exactly what Justin Ptak wishes to return to. Hoppe specifically *praises* them in his book as good rulers.
I don’t see the author of this post writing about any wish to return to anything. I think you may be the one confused.
The author is speaking approvingly about Hoppe’s view that monarchy is superior to democracy. Not the sort of symbolic monarchy that the UK has, but rather a real, ruling monarchy.
Now, historically real ruling monarchies – and the very monarchies that Hoppe approves of – have committed a great deal of theft and coercion. So, why is it that Ptak criticises this but approves of Hoppe’s views?
Certainly Ptak may not want to return to the ruling monarchies of the past. But, Hoppe’s argument is that monarchies provide better rule than democracy. But either one – democracy or ruling monarchy – involves some theft and coercion by libertarian standards.
“But, Hoppe’s argument is that monarchies provide better rule than democracy. ”
Well, actually it’s a compartive analysis. Holding the character of the rulers constant, monarchy is superior to democracy; certainly there can be rotten monarchs and democrats of high character, however. The argument ultimately concerns the incentive structure under the two systems of government (both of which, Hoppe would freely acknowledge, involve theft and depredation like any other State).
As usual, Huelsmann has some insightful things to say on the matter:
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_1_7.pdf
Monarchy or not, it shows that nation-state decentralization can be beneficial. Also, there is San Marino and it’s a republic.
Citizens of San Marino do not pay taxes and if I remember correctly the Euro VAT is not applicable, which explains why many European merchants and consumers do a lot of shopping there. Their small government gets revenue on stamps, that’s about it.
When you cross the border into San Marino the sign says “Welcome to San Marino. Border formalities – there are no border formalities”. Beautiful. However, immigration isn’t exactly free. You can live there, but you have to live there 30 years before you can be a citizen.
Their “public” bathrooms are privately owned, or at least well attended to by a person, and a visitor must pay a small fee to use it (about 1/2 Euro if I remember correctly). Whether or not a restaurant permits smoking is up to the owner, most do. Just about anything was sold in the markets, except live firearms I think… although there were plenty of air guns for sale.
The only “government” I saw was a man in uniform conducting traffic and the capitol building that looked more like a nice small hotel. The word Libertas was everywhere. Far from being chaos San Marino was amazingly pleasant, safe, and clean. If you’re ever visiting Italy I highly recommend also taking the time to visit San Marino.
What about Switzerland’s Direct Democracy? It’s further away from Hoppe vision of a Monarchy then the U.S. yet it practices many Libertarian freedoms.
Comments on this entry are closed.