0
0

[–] superspathi ago 

I'm a fan of Hoppe and his concept of market anarchism. Covered in great depth in this book:

http://www.riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf

0
0

[–] bilog78 ago 

I tried to give that book a read, but honestly it is so … imprecise and “interpretative” right from the premises that I cannot in good faith take it seriously. Can you summarize?

0
0

[–] superspathi ago  (edited ago)

He critiques democracy and finds it inferior to monarchy. A big part of this comes from his application of Austrian economic ideas about time preference on the actions of different governments. Monarchs have an incentive to preserve and grow their nation's capital, where elected governments are incentivized by time preference to raid the treasury to bribe voters.

He also points out that democracy leads to a general degradation of the entire society:

In every society, people who covet another man's property exist, but in most cases people learn not to act on this desire or even feel ashamed for entertaining it. In an anarcho-capitalist society in particular, anyone acting on such a desire is considered a criminal and is suppressed by physical violence. Under monarchical rule, by contrast, only one person- the king-can act on his desire for another man's property, and it is this that makes him a potential threat. However, because only he can expropriate while everyone else is forbidden to do likewise, a king's every action will be regarded with utmost suspicion. Moreover, the selection of a king is by accident of his noble birth. His only characteristic qualification is his upbringing as a future king and preserver of the dynasty and its possessions. This does not assure that he will not be evil, of course. However, at the same time it does not preclude that a king might actually be a harmless dilettante or even a decent person. In distinct contrast, by freeing up entry into government, the Constitution permitted anyone to openly express his desire for other men's property; indeed, owing to the constitutional guarantee of "freedom of speech," everyone is protected in so doing. Moreover, everyone is permitted to act on this desire, provided that he gains entry into government; hence, under the Constitution everyone becomes a potential threat.

To be sure, there are people who are unaffected by the desire to enrich themselves at the expense of others and to lord it over them; that is, there are people who wish only to work, produce, and enjoy the fruits of their labor. However, if politics-the acquisition of goods by political means (taxation and legislation)-is permitted, even these harmless people will be profoundly affected. In order to defend themselves against attacks on their liberty and property by those who have fewer moral scruples, even these honest, hardworking people must become "political animals" and spend more and more time and energy developing their political skills. Given that the characteristics and talents required for political success- of good looks, sociability, oratorical power, charisma, etc.-are distributed unequally among men, then those with these particular characteristics and skills will have a sound advantage in the competition for scarce resources (economic success) as compared to those without them.

Worse still, given that in every society more "have-nots" of everything worth having exist than "haves," the politically talented who have little or no inhibition against taking property and lording it over others will have a clear advantage over those with such scruples. That is, open political competition favors aggressive (hence dangerous) rather than defensive (hence harmless) political talents and will thus lead to the cultivation and perfection of the peculiar skills of demagoguery, deception, lying, opportunism, corruption, and bribery. Therefore, entrance into and success within government will become increasingly impossible for anyone hampered by moral scruples against lying and stealing. Unlike kings then, congressmen, presidents, and Supreme Court judges do not and cannot acquire their positions accidentally. Rather, they reach their position because of their proficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues.

Moreover, even outside the orbit of government, within civil society, individuals will increasingly rise to the top of economic and financial success not on account of their productive or entrepreneurial talents or even their superior defensive political talents, but rather because of their superior skills as unscrupulous political entrepreneurs and lobbyists. Thus, the Constitution virtually assures· that exclusively dangerous men will rise to the pinnacle of government power and that moral behavior and ethical standards will tend to decline and deteriorate all-around.

======================================

This book is also notable for spawning the 'physical removal' meme, that gave philosophical cover to ancaps to act kind of fashy:

"In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Like-wise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there·can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting life-styles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."

0
0

[–] Zoldam ago 

At this point really anything other then communism. Europeans have shown to perform best under a hierarchical system with a strongman at the head. There is a reason Europe thrived under monarchy for centuries, nobody can seriously say Europe has been a utopia post-WW1, and probably the reason autocrats and monarchs are portrayed as evil in the (((MSM))).

Not saying is has to be monarchy, but just hierarchical with a strongmen at the front. Monarchy, Fascism, etc.

0
0

[–] bilog78 ago 

Wishing for a strongman to take the lead sounds to me like one of the beta-est things to wish for. You're essentially asking to give up total control on your life to somebody else. (And that's without even going into the deep socialist roots of fascism.)

0
0

[–] Zoldam ago 

Just saying it worked for Europeans for a long time, not that it is what I would like personally.