180 million desires or 1 desire of selfish-natured human wouldn't produce utopia. It's all about effective laws&principles that makes society tolerable.
Anyone who believes in the "current thing" is just the product of current propaganda. People must think for themselves, and come to their own conclusions as a result instead of accepting someone elses.
In spite of the numerous failures of Democracy along with astonishingly entitled nonbinary gender unicorns screeching apoplectically, the Hans-Hermon Hoppe Physical Removal Service might transition from free helicopter rides to a airborne vehicles capable of a much greater scale, namely, immense logistical dirigibles which would be much more economically sound relocation from society where they behave more like a cancer, to places like say; high above the Atlantic Ocean from which to drop them at great distances, so to speak. In other words, although classic free helicopter rides have a historic charm all their own, the ratio of subtraction of human debris is more efficiently contended with, now after the procurement and purposing of these large scale logistical dirigibles. Also related are Industrial Scale Wood-chippers, for operation too far from oceanic elimination points.
The quote you referenced is often attributed to Aristotle, but it does not appear in his known works. It is likely a paraphrase or interpretation of his ideas about political systems and gender roles. Aristotle discussed concepts of governance and the nature of different political systems in works such as "Politics," but the specific wording of that quote is not found in his texts. The themes of masculinity, femininity, and the progression of political systems can be found in his writings, but the exact quote may be a later interpretation or misattribution.
true, African monarchies too but no solution is universal, what works for Western civilization might be disastrous for some other culture, we see that in Arab countries, if allowed to vote, they'd vote in radical Islamists and no constitution could stop them to bring about sharia law. Each culture has to figure out what works best for them.
B.C Drisk As compared with Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, or other corrupt politicians? The idea is that in the case of politician, they loot the treasury and leave. With a king, at least you have a chance of them caring about the future of the country if their kids will be in charge of it. Also, if there are many kingdoms, you can move nearby to find a better king. Sure, it is far from ideal, but it seems better in some ways than what we have now...that is the point. Monarchy is not Hoppe's suggestion, he is an ancap with private defense. There are minarchist options that I like best personally.
B.C Drisk That is the idea. History shows it rarely, if ever, works out like that. If you disagree, of the last 10 U.S. presidents, which ones were not corrupt? Beyond the problems here, you have the issue of people voting themselves other people's money, due to the constitution being largely shredded at this point. The U.S. founders were clear that direct democracy is a terrible system that amount to abuse of minorities at the hands of the "violence of the majority faction". The supposed remedy is a strong constitution with taxes and spending that are under control, limiting the power of government. Once these things are gone, you have all the problems of democracy with none of the benefits of using it to support a constitutional republic kept safe though elected guardians of that constitution.
On the surface this is a strange stance to me, but than I take a step back and see what "democratically elected" officials have destroyed to the west and really start to think a monarchy might be a better option compared to what we have now.
Sure, but this assumes the Monarchy won't become a puppet to the nobles, becoming an inefficient, ineffective mess of corruption. This also assumes the monarchy is always benevolent and won't exploit his position and power against the people. A monarchy can be just as worse as Corporatist Democracy. A democracy in which Corporations use the state and systems as a tool to control the economy, the consumers' and eliminate competition. It's basically Corporatism just under Democracy.
At the very least, doing away with pointless endless election cycles and all the insanity that the political party system has wrought would be an improvement.
I disagree with Hoppe on everything when it comes to social issues but he's absolutely correct about Democracy and he's someone I respect regardless of my disagreements. We both desire a better world where we both can choose to physically remove each other, so to speak.
I agree with some of his social opinions to be honest. Even though I myself am bisexual, I'm really not bothered by socially right-wing people. I agree with some things Hoppe says, except for his opinions on gays and minorities
@@ballisticpug6764 I hate degenerate traditionalist almost as much as I hate the lefty progs. Collectivism is a mental illness and men like Hoppe can be brilliant in the physical world but when it comes to the mental they are basically deficient. They are to the mental world what Commies are to the physical. Collectivizers. Better than being a physical collectivist by a far margin, but something to be disrespectful of. I take the good from Hoppe and respect the bad is just the way he sees the world and that, no matter how much I hate it and he hates my world view, he would not violate the NAP against me and I would not violate the NAP against him.
We should really get used to saying the "Democrat" voter, not the "democratic" voter, is the greatest threat to liberty in our time. The distinction (a long-term one for me) is increasingly useful. Best.
+Tom Jones They still possess it for their full tenure on earth 40-80 years, not just 2 to 6 years. It is like those who think term limits will be beneficial. Replacing the fools every term gives them greater incentive to do as much damage as possible in their short time.
@Viktor M because dictators have no claim,no right rulling tge country thus it is not certain whether his/her child will become a ruler so they dont think long term
I think Mr Hoppe's has a assumption that all the kings were rational and intelligent. But in the real cases, most of them were not. Monarchy indeed limited the economy development, that is the history of China.
China has a long history before the industrial revolution, and the industrial revolution had nothing to do with arbitrary structures of government. Capitalism led to economic development, and you don't need democracy to have capitalism.
The culture also has a great deal of impact on economic development. Since Chinese culture is much much more conservative than western culture. Which unfortunately caused them to not use technological developments which drive economic development for the successful west. So I think it’s a problem with the culture that bleeds into the system and not with the system. Since monarchism worked for the west compared to its dark days now under a democracy system.
Excellent points, as a voluntarist though, i observed that he is in essence arguing that methamphetamine is worse than nicotine, and I think he would agree that neither are good drugs for folks to consume. The voluntaryist perspective would be that "no government" is the pure and good way a society could organize itself.
Hoppe has in his argumentation lot of nostalgia for monarchies. Forgetting that people in monarchies were trying to make decisions through conversations and lobby between different interest groups and social classes.
great video and insights. interesting comment on the more long-term interests of the monarch. probably a long list of examples otherwise, but may make more sense depending on the degree of authority within the monarchy. also, afree that the short-run incentive is still stronger with democracy.
I think Hoppe's is wrong in his regard to democracy. His idea completely relies on every monarch being exactly the same intelligent, all being equally equipped at running the economy. And being benevolent and not just having everyone become serfs.
PHOTO: KATEPANOMEGAS AND ARALDICA MONDADORI VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS. According to a survey published by the Istituto Piepoli about 12 million Italians, 15% of the population, are in favour of a return of the monarchy. Because of this, His Royal Highness Prince Emmanuel of Savoy continues his fight for a new Italian monarchy. Last week, he spoke about his idea to establish the Italian monarchy in several Italians newspapers. Among them the Italian paper Mole24 who asked him in detail how his plan could work. The words in some of Italy’s largest newspapers and TV stations last week read: “Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia is seriously considering the idea of founding a new monarchist party in Italy”. Since last time the Prince stated that he wanted a new monarchy, he has gained much more support than he had expected. The Prince is now working on his initiative, which would result in the most significant monarchist movement in Italy for decades.
Democracy is two lions and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Monarchy is one lion informing one sheep what's for dinner. The difference to the sheep, please? 🤨🤔
@@comesahorseman I read it again, just in case, and uhhh you are concerned about the opinions well being of sheep. Read my question again and then answer it.
@@blank4227 🙄 I did. I'm speaking as an outside observer, not as a sheep. If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you. Now, consider yourself blocked, have a great day.
My problem with this worldview is about focusing so much on debt and the value of money. We don't put people to death for the loss of profits and money, so why should it be the most negative in a society. Poverty is horrible and causes people to become their worse self but it isn't the worst thing one can be.
It is and I can tell you why poverty makes you the worst you can be. Namely that it turns you into a slave. To have shelter you must accept the rules of a third party organization. Usually the rules are stuff like: -Return at these hours. -No Parties or hosting of guests of any kind. -No Pets. -No Children and so on. I personally know of a story where a homeless couple were forced apart because of shelter rules. Unfortunately the stories old and I don’t remember the details point is the homeless are not free people, they are more bound then those who work 24/7. As to how this relates to government the same applies. Governments with no income and major debt is bound and forced to do whatever the will of those who feed it want.
There never has been or ever will be a government that is a pure Monarchy. These kinds of governments are more accurately described as oligarchies. No single person can rule over an entire nation. Every king must secure the support of the aristocracy and the general population, or they end up on the chopping block.
Monarchy = "A state ruled or headed by a monarch" I don't think you know what a monarchy is, a monarch is not the sole authority. It's the highest authority.
@Jesus él McNuggetCunt You know, I was already about to make a case for the absolute abscence of any decent alternative for our fallen Empire, but you seem to have perfectly done that yourself by bashing the Bolsheviks and mentioning an abstract 'proper democracy'. Well done!
the only way this makes any sense is if you're the sort of arrogant libertarian who think anything they believe must be "objective" only because they believe it. there are other forms of democracy, there are other economic bases to build democracy on top of. he acts as if his conclusions are scientific, but he tests none of his assumptions about democracy or about oligarchy in other words, it's not science, it's ideology
Also I'm not sure about that "democracy" problem. Isn't what the Americans have actually a republic? What's the difference, and would that difference make a difference to Hoppe's discussion?
We used to be a Constitutional Representative Republic. Then the "Civil War"(read War of Northern Aggression) and FDR happened. Now we function as a democratic democratic nation state instead of the federated union of individual Constitutional Representative Republics. Tragic really.
@@555Trout and to think FDR's VP called Hoover a socialist in the 1932 campaign. I say FDR's VP because I'm pretty sure he had 3 different ones and I only know Truman for sure which is terrible in its own right
No, these types always imagine they would be a close advisor and friend to the autocrat. It never occurs to them that they might not be part of the king's court.
I don't buy this guy's arguments at all. His whole theory is based on comparing being a king with owning a house in a capitalistic society. This is a nonsensical comparison. Kings rule over people. Owning a house, or any other physical possession, doesn't have anything to do with that.
@@lottivonhesse9382 England for most of it's history was a Parliamentary monarchy, And during the German Empire, even the highest military officials planned to replace the Kaiser after World War 1. Turning the position into nothing more than a puppet.
@@TJackson736 But monarchy is no peak either. If I am devising a ideology or philosophy for the matter of political discourse of humanity, I would like to think about the best I can and definitely not the second best there was. Just replying in good spirits no malafide intended.
A king is only as good as his moral, and principled actions, and his will to rule for a fair, and truly, honorable society in which his subjects are valued, even the poorest people. However, if a nation has a degenerate, and cruel king, the entirety of the nation, will suffer.
I love Hoppe, but I can´t really hate democracy as he does. In all dictatorships there is no dmocracy and they fucking starve. I can tell it by being a latinamerican who has lived through many many dictatorships whit no democracy. Yes, most countries suicide politically by electing tyrants, but every now and again people get into their senses and vote for candidates that make the country a great place. Is democracy the best system? Far from that, but it is clearly better than a country ruled by a dictator or a de facto king like they have in Cuba or in Africa. They usually don't give a damn about their people, they just benefit the political class while the lower classes starve.
But I think the victory of liberalism over traditional monarchy was very much technological. Traditional monarchy was economically based on peasant exploitation by nobility. Industrial society simply needed another system to function.
❤No one can predict with certainty. However, some things are for sure : 1. China will remain as authoritarian as it has been. That will not change. CCP is CCP. 2. Democracy is fundamentally flawed and weakened due to Self Interest as Unity never existed in NATO as only perceived unity exist. What existed was merely self interest. So the second certainty is Self Interest. 3. Authoritarianism trumps democracy because it is self destructive. The Opposition is the tool for CCP if it wants CCP to help take over the govt. This is true for usa and tw. In China, there is political stability thats not likely to change the CCP's dominance in foreseeable future. 4. Asians and Russians accept Authoritarian rule because of *Pragmatism.* Authoritarian rule allow all sorts of freedom a citizen to do what the americans do except in politics. As humans are all Selfish, self interest can be taken care of in authoritarian countries as long as they do not touch politics. This is why Asians and russians accept authoritarian rule which offers all sorts of freedoms except political ones. Most Asians are politically apathetic as they are Pragmatic and focussed on Self Interest in terms of wealth or income which they place above politics. To Asians in general, Politics has less value than Ideals which are not pragmatic and cannot supercede their self interest which is what is real and matters. Please try your best to rebut me.😅
Brings to mind the fascists who say fascism in preferable to democracy and that democracies would be "infinitely richer" if they were fascist like China (controlled by what amounts to a secular aristocracy); but democratic Taiwan is vastly richer per capita than mainland China (excluding democratic enclaves like Hong Kong).
That's a silly anecdotal comparison. You compare Taiwan and China as if that's the be-all end-all truth of the matter, but do you think we can't find democracies that are extremely poor? Ever heard of South America or Eastern Europe?
@@bernkbestgirl Better poor in a democracy wherein you are accorded the dignity of having a say in the political process than a rich slave subject to the whims of an unelected elite like the murderous barbarians that rule China. You might like to reflect on the reason why democracies top the table of gross financial wealth per adult, with the most democratic nation (Switzerland) in first place. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_financial_assets_per_capita
@@Lutz101 In Democracy you're subject to the whims of the mob, as well as the whims of the elites that the mob elects. Constitutions are reinterpreted repeatedly and warped by political elites, eroding themselves over time. Even if you try to make an elaborate republic like the US founders did, eventually mob rule through universal suffrage undoes it all, and freedoms are voted away. Furthermore, in Democracy power is shifted from rulers to media elites and influencer elites that dramatically shape public opinion. Individualism and the "blank slate" is laughable nonsense when you consider how people come to believe what they believe. As for Switzerland, was there a time in history where Western European regions weren't better off than most of the world? It's a fallacy to link the economic gains of the industrial revolution with democracy. People did not vote steam engines and mass production into existence.
@@bernkbestgirl Feel free to move to authoritarian nations like China with a powerful central government where you don't need to worry about voting or mobs. A stable nation where the only way to change the government is... um... err... revolutions involving mobs? Wait a minute! Was the Cultural Revolution "mob violence"? Still, nations like China have to be better than nations like Switzerland don't they? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
@@Lutz101 You're forgetting all the revolutions and civil wars that have happened under democratic systems, including in the US. Germany, Spain, Iran, Italy, etc. Fukuyama's "end of history" argument for Democracy is ahistorical wishful thinking. Democracy doesn't ease tensions, it heightens them. Western Europe has always done well relative to other countries even under Feudalism, so I don't care for these asinine comparisons to China.
Brexit and Trump's election has given me some small hope for democracy. Did you know that Hillary wanted a no-fly zone over Syria and Trump did not? And that the joint chiefs of staff warned the federal government that a no-fly zone would result in a war with Russia? A war with Russia would be a nuclear war. We came real bloody close to a nuclear war, people. Russia was even practicing nuclear drills for the first time since the fall of the USSR. Maybe democracy does work. It's a shitty system, but it's the best system we have.
@@antibritish_anarchsim1547 In no way in that statement did I say that I like Trump. I like not getting nuked because politicians and their parties are fucking retarded. In this case, democracy did indeed work: it chose the right politician, the one who wasn't going to get us all nuked.
A self-serving diatribe by a lickspit for transnational corporations run by devotees of Ayn Rand who hate the idea of being accountable to the People via their elected governments. In 1999 the Constitutional Court of South Africa declared that: “The universality of the franchise is important not only for nationhood and democracy. The vote of each and every citizen signifies dignity and personhood.”
As Nikos Sakkas writes in his book "Democracy again! The EU Megapolis and challange to democracy". Hoppe is taking historically incorrect positions: Hoppe launches a far more fundamental attack on democracy. “Democracy, the God that failed” is the title of one of his most renowned books. In this work, the positions taken are not just about some mere confusion between democracy and representation. Of course, this is once again the case, as Hoppe typically refers to democratic republicanism to describe what is the current dominant political paradigm. Another unbelievable position relates to WWI. According to Hoppe, WWI was not the result of the utter and criminal incompetence of the ruling monarchies in Europe, whose eventual elimination, apparently, so much upsets Hoppe. Guess what?! WWI was the result of the democratic pathos of W. Wilson, the US president of the time!"
"Moderate communism". How come? Many liberal political theorist even as Bastiat argued for free conversations between individuals with a limited government.
In 3:45, Hoppe said that no great thinker thought democracy is more than a "soft form of communism", completelly ignoring his alleged "master" (Mises) (is him not a great thinker?): "It is an illusion to believe that a system of planned socialism could be operated according to democratic methods of government. Democracy is inextricably linked with capitalism. It cannot exist where there is planning." (Ludwig von Mises, Planned Chaos, "The Dictatorial, Anti-Democratic, and Socialist Character of Interventionism") "The more recent writers are inclined to assume a contrast between Liberalism and Democracy. They seem to have no clear conceptions of either; above all, their ideas as to the philosophical basis of democratic institutions seem to be derived exlusively from the ideas of natural law." (Mises, Socialism, chapter 3, part 2)
You do understand that, that is precisely what he said reworded. True democracy only exists in the market. Government it by definition planning so within it true democracy could not ever hope to exist. People do not think of democracy as a market but rather as standing at a voting booth. His use is apt.
Hoppe is in principle wrong about democracy. Because in his argumentation he is equalizing democracy with representation. And democracy is not per se equal to representation. Democracy is in its basics equal to conversation. One can have conversation between free individuals in order to make decisions without representation.
fascism :1 a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control Hans-Hermann Hoppe (German: [ˈhɔpə]; born September 2, 1949) is a German-born American Austrian School economist, and LIBERTARIAN ANARCHO-CAPITALIST philosopher
Clearly you both don't understand what the prefix "crypto" means, which isn't surprising. A crypto (anything) would use other labels to identify himself to fool dumbasses like you.
+jay90374 Are the ones in charge of legislative and the executive power equal to the voter? So, what is the difference between a monarch and a government represantative? Hoppe answers these questions. Besides Hoppe doesn't advocate for monarchy, he points out how democracy is a step backwards compared to monarchy.
+jay90374 I hold these truths to be self-evident - that not all people are created equal; that we were placed by evolution on different steps on the ladder of social hierarchy; that better people should be on top and the dysfunctional and the dregs of society should be subservient at the bottom.
This man also appears to have little understanding of modern public debt. We will never have to pay of the goverment debt, we are entering a demand-defecit era where returns to captil are higher overseas. We will be able to roll it over for ever, if we ever needed to pay it off we would raise taxes on the welath of the bondholding class, and the bondholding class know this.
Oh so public debt is not a debt? It just an infinite money machine? Well then we dont need to maintain any budget restructions, we can just spend as much as we like, by infinite borrowing! Geuss all the economists, clerks and politicans that are trying to maintain any semblance of budget restricitions are just stupid and evil people, we could pave our streets with gold, and buy a private jet to evety poor fella in Bronks. The idea that you dont have to pay your debts and you can just grow money out of nowhere is magical thinking.
@Imperfectious I've always been a marginalist. My comment above, not my opinion anymore, is a mixture of Richard Koo's arguments (which I was very into at the time, and I still believe he has an important point) and some ideas about the Ricardian equivalence of the "bond holding class," which are outdated. They may have been relevant 100 years ago when a majority of bondholders were individual investors but these days it's mostly institutions. I think the point still stands, however, that as long as the debt is held internally, raising taxes to pay it back is not a wealth transfer out of the country. So internal debt will probably never "drain the government" as the creditors are in the tax base. Of course, the redistributive element (including the redistributive effect of the original spending and the repayment of debts) could be positive or negative on the size of the tax base depending on spending and taxes, but that would be the only element that affects the government's ability to borrow more/less.
@@reuvenpolonskiy2544 @The Sons of Liberty Neither of you account for the fact government spending does have real limits. I was only talking about borrowing as a self-contained dynamic (as opposed to taxing for example). We couldn't buy everyone a mansion because that would bid up the prices of mansions causing inflation, if we continued to borrow to pay the ever-higher prices we would cause huge distortions in production as the private sector diverted a lot of resources to mansion production. However, this is exactly the same as what would occur if we kept raising taxes to pay for the mansion, it's the spending, not the sourcing of funds that is a problem.
+Mark Portman history is littered with failed monarchies. funny how libertarians would scramble for an authoritarian monarchy. I believe republics can function much better than democracies, but a monarchy is a dedicated facto dictatorship.
Who would have guessed the culmination of 180 million desires wouldn't produce Utopia?
Well said
180 million desires or 1 desire of selfish-natured human wouldn't produce utopia.
It's all about effective laws&principles that makes society tolerable.
The socialist society has all these interests. Except they conflict with each other all at the same time. Under a capitalist system they don’t.
NPC Historian: monarchy bad democracy good lol
Both are bad
Anyone who believes in the "current thing" is just the product of current propaganda.
People must think for themselves, and come to their own conclusions as a result instead of accepting someone elses.
@@michaeljosephjackson2364 bro just wants anarchy 🤦🏾♂
I love his accent.
Captain Capitalism ... so to speak!
Ze hero we need, not deserve.. so to speak
In spite of the numerous failures of Democracy along with astonishingly entitled nonbinary gender unicorns screeching apoplectically, the Hans-Hermon Hoppe Physical Removal Service might transition from free helicopter rides to a airborne vehicles capable of a much greater scale, namely, immense logistical dirigibles which would be much more economically sound relocation from society where they behave more like a cancer, to places like say; high above the Atlantic Ocean from which to drop them at great distances, so to speak.
In other words, although classic free helicopter rides have a historic charm all their own, the ratio of subtraction of human debris is more efficiently contended with, now after the procurement and purposing of these large scale logistical dirigibles.
Also related are Industrial Scale Wood-chippers, for operation too far from oceanic elimination points.
Danke.
I can give you the same
i do too
LONG LIVE KING HANS!
Indeed, someone that far-sighted and wise would make a natural choice for one, wouldn't he?
"Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies, and feminine democracies give way to tyranny." - Aristotle
Justin tradeau is prime example
Patriarchal societies are the most successful one until the acceptance of feminine ideals taints and destabilizes its foundation
The quote you referenced is often attributed to Aristotle, but it does not appear in his known works. It is likely a paraphrase or interpretation of his ideas about political systems and gender roles. Aristotle discussed concepts of governance and the nature of different political systems in works such as "Politics," but the specific wording of that quote is not found in his texts. The themes of masculinity, femininity, and the progression of political systems can be found in his writings, but the exact quote may be a later interpretation or misattribution.
I'm sure what he's saying applies at most to European monarchies. Asian monarchies were completely different kind of beasts.
Though suudi arabia is not a free country by no means isnt better than other unstable neighbours
Or jordan
And i know ottomans were no good but atleast there were stability in middle east before these so calles republics
Qing dynasty of China was much more superior than any following thugs.
true, African monarchies too but no solution is universal, what works for Western civilization might be disastrous for some other culture, we see that in Arab countries, if allowed to vote, they'd vote in radical Islamists and no constitution could stop them to bring about sharia law. Each culture has to figure out what works best for them.
Excellent!
but how would you keep the monarch from being overly corrupt/brutal like Ivan the terrible or king louis the 14th?
B.C Drisk As compared with Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, or other corrupt politicians? The idea is that in the case of politician, they loot the treasury and leave. With a king, at least you have a chance of them caring about the future of the country if their kids will be in charge of it. Also, if there are many kingdoms, you can move nearby to find a better king.
Sure, it is far from ideal, but it seems better in some ways than what we have now...that is the point. Monarchy is not Hoppe's suggestion, he is an ancap with private defense. There are minarchist options that I like best personally.
With democracy you can have a bloodless revolution and the ruler would leave after a few years, with monarchy you are stuck with a scumbag for decades
B.C Drisk That is the idea. History shows it rarely, if ever, works out like that. If you disagree, of the last 10 U.S. presidents, which ones were not corrupt?
Beyond the problems here, you have the issue of people voting themselves other people's money, due to the constitution being largely shredded at this point. The U.S. founders were clear that direct democracy is a terrible system that amount to abuse of minorities at the hands of the "violence of the majority faction". The supposed remedy is a strong constitution with taxes and spending that are under control, limiting the power of government. Once these things are gone, you have all the problems of democracy with none of the benefits of using it to support a constitutional republic kept safe though elected guardians of that constitution.
On the surface this is a strange stance to me, but than I take a step back and see what "democratically elected" officials have destroyed to the west and really start to think a monarchy might be a better option compared to what we have now.
Sure, but this assumes the Monarchy won't become a puppet to the nobles, becoming an inefficient, ineffective mess of corruption. This also assumes the monarchy is always benevolent and won't exploit his position and power against the people. A monarchy can be just as worse as Corporatist Democracy. A democracy in which Corporations use the state and systems as a tool to control the economy, the consumers' and eliminate competition. It's basically Corporatism just under Democracy.
At the very least, doing away with pointless endless election cycles and all the insanity that the political party system has wrought would be an improvement.
It is absurd. Kings are surrounded by sycophants. Much better to have a representative republic of educated landed gentry.
Steve Cooper You mean an aristocratically elite, restricted franchise republic?
@@stevecooper7883 and presidents, senators, and representatives aren’t?...
I disagree with Hoppe on everything when it comes to social issues but he's absolutely correct about Democracy and he's someone I respect regardless of my disagreements. We both desire a better world where we both can choose to physically remove each other, so to speak.
I agree with some of his social opinions to be honest. Even though I myself am bisexual, I'm really not bothered by socially right-wing people. I agree with some things Hoppe says, except for his opinions on gays and minorities
@@ballisticpug6764 I hate degenerate traditionalist almost as much as I hate the lefty progs. Collectivism is a mental illness and men like Hoppe can be brilliant in the physical world but when it comes to the mental they are basically deficient. They are to the mental world what Commies are to the physical. Collectivizers. Better than being a physical collectivist by a far margin, but something to be disrespectful of. I take the good from Hoppe and respect the bad is just the way he sees the world and that, no matter how much I hate it and he hates my world view, he would not violate the NAP against me and I would not violate the NAP against him.
We should really get used to saying the "Democrat" voter, not the "democratic" voter, is the greatest threat to liberty in our time. The distinction (a long-term one for me) is increasingly useful. Best.
I never knew a libertarian could be so based
Usually they all are.
@@60sekundenpolitikThe Rothbardians and Hoppeans always are!
@@Si_Mondo for sure 👍
Brilliant man.
Even a monarch is temporary...he/she is going to die....yes, an heir will get it, but that too can have complications...
+Tom Jones They still possess it for their full tenure on earth 40-80 years, not just 2 to 6 years. It is like those who think term limits will be beneficial. Replacing the fools every term gives them greater incentive to do as much damage as possible in their short time.
@Viktor M because dictators have no claim,no right rulling tge country thus it is not certain whether his/her child will become a ruler so they dont think long term
@@jcwebb540 All kinds of societies do damage. It's all human made up bullshit, and bullshit does not last. It decomposes, as with all existence.
@@Tavarna "dictators have no claim, no right to rule" Thats just not true. Dictators arent necessarily illegitimate.
I think Mr Hoppe's has a assumption that all the kings were rational and intelligent. But in the real cases, most of them were not. Monarchy indeed limited the economy development, that is the history of China.
China has a long history before the industrial revolution, and the industrial revolution had nothing to do with arbitrary structures of government. Capitalism led to economic development, and you don't need democracy to have capitalism.
The culture also has a great deal of impact on economic development. Since Chinese culture is much much more conservative than western culture. Which unfortunately caused them to not use technological developments which drive economic development for the successful west. So I think it’s a problem with the culture that bleeds into the system and not with the system. Since monarchism worked for the west compared to its dark days now under a democracy system.
China's government was actually very open to participation.
5:50 Temporary Care Taker vs Full Owner
Relationship makes a difference on how you will act
9:50 Kid behavior vs adult behavior
Democracy vs Monarchy
Excellent points, as a voluntarist though, i observed that he is in essence arguing that methamphetamine is worse than nicotine, and I think he would agree that neither are good drugs for folks to consume. The voluntaryist perspective would be that "no government" is the pure and good way a society could organize itself.
Hoppe has in his argumentation lot of nostalgia for monarchies. Forgetting that people in monarchies were trying to make decisions through conversations and lobby between different interest groups and social classes.
Thanks for the great show.
great video and insights. interesting comment on the more long-term interests of the monarch. probably a long list of examples otherwise, but may make more sense depending on the degree of authority within the monarchy. also, afree that the short-run incentive is still stronger with democracy.
I think Hoppe's is wrong in his regard to democracy. His idea completely relies on every monarch being exactly the same intelligent, all being equally equipped at running the economy. And being benevolent and not just having everyone become serfs.
PHOTO: KATEPANOMEGAS AND ARALDICA MONDADORI VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS.
According to a survey published by the Istituto Piepoli about 12 million Italians, 15% of the population, are in favour of a return of the monarchy.
Because of this, His Royal Highness Prince Emmanuel of Savoy continues his fight for a new Italian monarchy. Last week, he spoke about his idea to establish the Italian monarchy in several Italians newspapers. Among them the Italian paper Mole24 who asked him in detail how his plan could work.
The words in some of Italy’s largest newspapers and TV stations last week read: “Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia is seriously considering the idea of founding a new monarchist party in Italy”.
Since last time the Prince stated that he wanted a new monarchy, he has gained much more support than he had expected. The Prince is now working on his initiative, which would result in the most significant monarchist movement in Italy for decades.
annoverami tra loro
Democracy is two lions and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Monarchy is one lion informing one sheep what's for dinner.
The difference to the sheep, please? 🤨🤔
why view yourself as a sheep? never understood this
@@blank4227 🤨 I'm not. Read it again.
@@comesahorseman I read it again, just in case, and uhhh you are concerned about the opinions well being of sheep. Read my question again and then answer it.
@@blank4227 🙄 I did. I'm speaking as an outside observer, not as a sheep. If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you. Now, consider yourself blocked, have a great day.
@@comesahorseman That's right, run away little sheep.
im from texas . can we get a hoppe fest?
Unfortunately I am to far away, but I would have loved to come.
Lost me with support of monarchy- do I need to give this more time --
My problem with this worldview is about focusing so much on debt and the value of money. We don't put people to death for the loss of profits and money, so why should it be the most negative in a society. Poverty is horrible and causes people to become their worse self but it isn't the worst thing one can be.
It is and I can tell you why poverty makes you the worst you can be.
Namely that it turns you into a slave.
To have shelter you must accept the rules of a third party organization.
Usually the rules are stuff like:
-Return at these hours.
-No Parties or hosting of guests of any kind.
-No Pets.
-No Children and so on.
I personally know of a story where a homeless couple were forced apart because of shelter rules.
Unfortunately the stories old and I don’t remember the details point is the homeless are not free people, they are more bound then those who work 24/7.
As to how this relates to government the same applies. Governments with no income and major debt is bound and forced to do whatever the will of those who feed it want.
The fatherless generation wanting Kings as the father's they never had. Nice.
There never has been or ever will be a government that is a pure Monarchy. These kinds of governments are more accurately described as oligarchies. No single person can rule over an entire nation. Every king must secure the support of the aristocracy and the general population, or they end up on the chopping block.
Monarchy = "A state ruled or headed by a monarch"
I don't think you know what a monarchy is, a monarch is not the sole authority. It's the highest authority.
He’s right. I’m going to become king and when I do, I will make Hoppe clean my feet. I’m sure he will agree that his standard of living has improved.
What an witty reply. Regards!! 😂
pipi poo poo monarch bad kills people pi pi poo poo
@@sold1er7 don’t make me improve YOUR standard of living too, peasant
@Jesus él McNuggetCunt You know, I was already about to make a case for the absolute abscence of any decent alternative for our fallen Empire, but you seem to have perfectly done that yourself by bashing the Bolsheviks and mentioning an abstract 'proper democracy'. Well done!
Let's all democratically vote to make you clean everyone's feet. That is better right?
the only way this makes any sense is if you're the sort of arrogant libertarian who think anything they believe must be "objective" only because they believe it.
there are other forms of democracy, there are other economic bases to build democracy on top of. he acts as if his conclusions are scientific, but he tests none of his assumptions about democracy or about oligarchy in other words, it's not science, it's ideology
We need to train our leaders like athletes and pay attention to their pay.
Also I'm not sure about that "democracy" problem. Isn't what the Americans have actually a republic? What's the difference, and would that difference make a difference to Hoppe's discussion?
almost every republican barrier to democracy has been destroyed
We used to be a Constitutional Representative Republic.
Then the "Civil War"(read War of Northern Aggression) and FDR happened.
Now we function as a democratic democratic nation state instead of the federated union of individual Constitutional Representative Republics.
Tragic really.
@@555Trout and to think FDR's VP called Hoover a socialist in the 1932 campaign. I say FDR's VP because I'm pretty sure he had 3 different ones and I only know Truman for sure which is terrible in its own right
@@immaculatesquid Isn't that ridiculous?
Unbelievable.
Government needs to Work for The American No they don’t get immunity but should be held accountable and responsible
Based and fashpilled
Claiming to be "libertarian" but want to be a subject of an autocrat.
No, these types always imagine they would be a close advisor and friend to the autocrat. It never occurs to them that they might not be part of the king's court.
@@jasonparker6138 Yes, exactly!
he's not saying he wants to be a subject, he is saying he is already the subject of a worse tyrant.
He's giving examples
monarchy are not meritocracy
Meritocracy of families.
I don't buy this guy's arguments at all. His whole theory is based on comparing being a king with owning a house in a capitalistic society. This is a nonsensical comparison. Kings rule over people. Owning a house, or any other physical possession, doesn't have anything to do with that.
you need to work on processing analogies
The German and Prussian monarchies were of HIGH moral standards - can you say that for much of the ruling classes in England?
@@lottivonhesse9382The Anglo-Saxon monarchies, yes. Since the Normans showed up, it's been a mixed bag...
@@Si_Mondo Definitely - most people do not even know that. Thanks for writing to me.
@@lottivonhesse9382 England for most of it's history was a Parliamentary monarchy, And during the German Empire, even the highest military officials planned to replace the Kaiser after World War 1. Turning the position into nothing more than a puppet.
Please. Monarchy's.
A truly free country is built on Individual Freedom. Not Monarchy, and not democracy. Both are incorrect.
Democracy is a step backwards compared to monarchy.
@@TJackson736 But monarchy is no peak either. If I am devising a ideology or philosophy for the matter of political discourse of humanity, I would like to think about the best I can and definitely not the second best there was. Just replying in good spirits no malafide intended.
2:07
Monarchy´s problem is the less-than-good monarch who is not wise or long-sighted.
A king is only as good as his moral, and principled actions, and his will to rule for a fair, and truly, honorable society in which his subjects are valued, even the poorest people. However, if a nation has a degenerate, and cruel king, the entirety of the nation, will suffer.
Hoppe is a vulgarian? Who knew?
+dontbeknowing what do you mean?
+dontbeknowing I'm Bulgarian. Got a problem with me?
Remark hoppe os not defending monarchy, always said monarchs loots, like burglars.
private ownership of a country ?
This guy is a nut case.
Well already the president of many countries own their country.
Yes.
tycoon replace the kings
I love Hoppe, but I can´t really hate democracy as he does. In all dictatorships there is no dmocracy and they fucking starve. I can tell it by being a latinamerican who has lived through many many dictatorships whit no democracy. Yes, most countries suicide politically by electing tyrants, but every now and again people get into their senses and vote for candidates that make the country a great place. Is democracy the best system? Far from that, but it is clearly better than a country ruled by a dictator or a de facto king like they have in Cuba or in Africa. They usually don't give a damn about their people, they just benefit the political class while the lower classes starve.
Bjswac Look at Iraq and Libya, they have democracy.
You realize that these publicly owned states only come out of democracy, yes?
chasem007ify Democracy is the God that failed...so to speak!
None of what you are comparing is close to what Hoppe is defending. Cuba is not a western modelled monarchy.
UAE has monarchs. Works fine.
But I think the victory of liberalism over traditional monarchy was very much technological. Traditional monarchy was economically based on peasant exploitation by nobility. Industrial society simply needed another system to function.
Austria was not a democracy until the 1860s. Prussia wasnt one either. Your thesis needs a rework
❤No one can predict with certainty. However, some things are for sure :
1. China will remain as authoritarian as it has been. That will not change. CCP is CCP.
2. Democracy is fundamentally flawed and weakened due to Self Interest as Unity never existed in NATO as only perceived unity exist. What existed was merely self interest. So the second certainty is Self Interest.
3. Authoritarianism trumps democracy because it is self destructive. The Opposition is the tool for CCP if it wants CCP to help take over the govt. This is true for usa and tw. In China, there is political stability thats not likely to change the CCP's dominance in foreseeable future.
4. Asians and Russians accept Authoritarian rule because of *Pragmatism.* Authoritarian rule allow all sorts of freedom a citizen to do what the americans do except in politics. As humans are all Selfish, self interest can be taken care of in authoritarian countries as long as they do not touch politics. This is why Asians and russians accept authoritarian rule which offers all sorts of freedoms except political ones. Most Asians are politically apathetic as they are Pragmatic and focussed on Self Interest in terms of wealth or income which they place above politics. To Asians in general, Politics has less value than Ideals which are not pragmatic and cannot supercede their self interest which is what is real and matters.
Please try your best to rebut me.😅
Brings to mind the fascists who say fascism in preferable to democracy and that democracies would be "infinitely richer" if they were fascist like China (controlled by what amounts to a secular aristocracy); but democratic Taiwan is vastly richer per capita than mainland China (excluding democratic enclaves like Hong Kong).
That's a silly anecdotal comparison. You compare Taiwan and China as if that's the be-all end-all truth of the matter, but do you think we can't find democracies that are extremely poor? Ever heard of South America or Eastern Europe?
@@bernkbestgirl
Better poor in a democracy wherein you are accorded the dignity of having a say in the political process than a rich slave subject to the whims of an unelected elite like the murderous barbarians that rule China. You might like to reflect on the reason why democracies top the table of gross financial wealth per adult, with the most democratic nation (Switzerland) in first place.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_financial_assets_per_capita
@@Lutz101 In Democracy you're subject to the whims of the mob, as well as the whims of the elites that the mob elects. Constitutions are reinterpreted repeatedly and warped by political elites, eroding themselves over time. Even if you try to make an elaborate republic like the US founders did, eventually mob rule through universal suffrage undoes it all, and freedoms are voted away.
Furthermore, in Democracy power is shifted from rulers to media elites and influencer elites that dramatically shape public opinion. Individualism and the "blank slate" is laughable nonsense when you consider how people come to believe what they believe.
As for Switzerland, was there a time in history where Western European regions weren't better off than most of the world? It's a fallacy to link the economic gains of the industrial revolution with democracy. People did not vote steam engines and mass production into existence.
@@bernkbestgirl
Feel free to move to authoritarian nations like China with a powerful central government where you don't need to worry about voting or mobs. A stable nation where the only way to change the government is... um... err... revolutions involving mobs? Wait a minute! Was the Cultural Revolution "mob violence"? Still, nations like China have to be better than nations like Switzerland don't they?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
@@Lutz101 You're forgetting all the revolutions and civil wars that have happened under democratic systems, including in the US. Germany, Spain, Iran, Italy, etc. Fukuyama's "end of history" argument for Democracy is ahistorical wishful thinking. Democracy doesn't ease tensions, it heightens them.
Western Europe has always done well relative to other countries even under Feudalism, so I don't care for these asinine comparisons to China.
Brexit and Trump's election has given me some small hope for democracy.
Did you know that Hillary wanted a no-fly zone over Syria and Trump did not? And that the joint chiefs of staff warned the federal government that a no-fly zone would result in a war with Russia? A war with Russia would be a nuclear war. We came real bloody close to a nuclear war, people. Russia was even practicing nuclear drills for the first time since the fall of the USSR.
Maybe democracy does work. It's a shitty system, but it's the best system we have.
No, democracy doesn’t work even if the politician you like wins🗿
@@antibritish_anarchsim1547 In no way in that statement did I say that I like Trump. I like not getting nuked because politicians and their parties are fucking retarded.
In this case, democracy did indeed work: it chose the right politician, the one who wasn't going to get us all nuked.
It's unfortunate but this comment didn't age well. I agreed with what you were getting at cause I felt it too but now I know democracy is a sham
Did Churchill say something along those lines?
A self-serving diatribe by a lickspit for transnational corporations run by devotees of Ayn Rand who hate the idea of being accountable to the People via their elected governments. In 1999 the Constitutional Court of South Africa declared that: “The universality of the franchise is important not only for nationhood and democracy. The vote of each and every citizen signifies dignity and personhood.”
As Nikos Sakkas writes in his book "Democracy again! The EU Megapolis and challange to democracy". Hoppe is taking historically incorrect positions:
Hoppe launches a far more fundamental attack on democracy.
“Democracy, the God that failed” is the title of one of his most
renowned books. In this work, the positions taken are not just
about some mere confusion between democracy and representation.
Of course, this is once again the case, as Hoppe typically
refers to democratic republicanism to describe what is the
current dominant political paradigm.
Another unbelievable position relates to WWI. According to
Hoppe, WWI was not the result of the utter and criminal incompetence
of the ruling monarchies in Europe, whose eventual
elimination, apparently, so much upsets Hoppe. Guess what?!
WWI was the result of the democratic pathos of W. Wilson, the
US president of the time!"
So Democracy is not representation?
Good to know.
Hoppe the most cringe Libertarian after Korwin (if we can even count people like them as libertarians...)
This is both a poor metaphor and a ridiculous idea. Republics CAN work, ours just isnt right now.
+Dank Dark Define "work."
"Moderate communism". How come? Many liberal political theorist even as Bastiat argued for free conversations between individuals with a limited government.
Democracy is not a sysnonim of moderate government.
In 3:45, Hoppe said that no great thinker thought democracy is more than a "soft form of communism", completelly ignoring his alleged "master" (Mises) (is him not a great thinker?):
"It is an illusion to believe that a system of planned socialism could be operated according to democratic methods of government. Democracy is inextricably linked with capitalism. It cannot exist where there is planning." (Ludwig von Mises, Planned Chaos, "The Dictatorial, Anti-Democratic, and Socialist Character of Interventionism")
"The more recent writers are inclined to assume a contrast between Liberalism and Democracy. They seem to have no clear conceptions of either; above all, their ideas as to the philosophical basis of democratic institutions seem to be derived exlusively from the ideas of natural law." (Mises, Socialism, chapter 3, part 2)
You do understand that, that is precisely what he said reworded. True democracy only exists in the market.
Government it by definition planning so within it true democracy could not ever hope to exist.
People do not think of democracy as a market but rather as standing at a voting booth. His use is apt.
Mises wasn't talking about political democracy.
Property is theft.
@@Joel-xt4hxwhere is your argument mate? 😄
Source?🗿
@@antibritish_anarchsim1547 critical sense.
@Jesus él McNuggetCunt eheh
Dude I'm begging you please read Marx's many critiques of that Proudhonist nonsense.
Hoppe is in principle wrong about democracy. Because in his argumentation he is equalizing democracy with representation. And democracy is not per se equal to representation. Democracy is in its basics equal to conversation. One can have conversation between free individuals in order to make decisions without representation.
Isnt Democracy is the Rule of the people?
the epitome of crypto-fascist
fascism :1 a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Hans-Hermann Hoppe (German: [ˈhɔpə]; born September 2, 1949) is a German-born American Austrian School economist, and LIBERTARIAN ANARCHO-CAPITALIST philosopher
@@npSylarpp to these people, all capitalists are fascists
Clearly you both don't understand what the prefix "crypto" means, which isn't surprising. A crypto (anything) would use other labels to identify himself to fool dumbasses like you.
A Monarchy, are you serious? Over my dead body. All men are created equal, end of story, we will never settle for anything less.
+jay90374 Are the ones in charge of legislative and the executive power equal to the voter? So, what is the difference between a monarch and a government represantative? Hoppe answers these questions. Besides Hoppe doesn't advocate for monarchy, he points out how democracy is a step backwards compared to monarchy.
+jay90374 I hold these truths to be self-evident - that not all people are created equal; that we were placed by evolution on different steps on the ladder of social hierarchy; that better people should be on top and the dysfunctional and the dregs of society should be subservient at the bottom.
I would never advocate a democracy, reclaim your Republic where everyone is sovereign
rightwingreactionary -Your bigoted comment is not worth a reply.
jay90374 Thank you for not replying, then.
ugh. not par with other mises lectures at all.
He's a good writer.
This man also appears to have little understanding of modern public debt. We will never have to pay of the goverment debt, we are entering a demand-defecit era where returns to captil are higher overseas. We will be able to roll it over for ever, if we ever needed to pay it off we would raise taxes on the welath of the bondholding class, and the bondholding class know this.
How do you account for value under this framework?
Oh so public debt is not a debt? It just an infinite money machine? Well then we dont need to maintain any budget restructions, we can just spend as much as we like, by infinite borrowing! Geuss all the economists, clerks and politicans that are trying to maintain any semblance of budget restricitions are just stupid and evil people, we could pave our streets with gold, and buy a private jet to evety poor fella in Bronks.
The idea that you dont have to pay your debts and you can just grow money out of nowhere is magical thinking.
if we never have to payoff debt why not put everyone in mansions
@Imperfectious I've always been a marginalist. My comment above, not my opinion anymore, is a mixture of Richard Koo's arguments (which I was very into at the time, and I still believe he has an important point) and some ideas about the Ricardian equivalence of the "bond holding class," which are outdated. They may have been relevant 100 years ago when a majority of bondholders were individual investors but these days it's mostly institutions. I think the point still stands, however, that as long as the debt is held internally, raising taxes to pay it back is not a wealth transfer out of the country. So internal debt will probably never "drain the government" as the creditors are in the tax base. Of course, the redistributive element (including the redistributive effect of the original spending and the repayment of debts) could be positive or negative on the size of the tax base depending on spending and taxes, but that would be the only element that affects the government's ability to borrow more/less.
@@reuvenpolonskiy2544 @The Sons of Liberty Neither of you account for the fact government spending does have real limits. I was only talking about borrowing as a self-contained dynamic (as opposed to taxing for example). We couldn't buy everyone a mansion because that would bid up the prices of mansions causing inflation, if we continued to borrow to pay the ever-higher prices we would cause huge distortions in production as the private sector diverted a lot of resources to mansion production. However, this is exactly the same as what would occur if we kept raising taxes to pay for the mansion, it's the spending, not the sourcing of funds that is a problem.
Wow. Tripe like this from Mises? Seriously damaged your credibility with this garbage.
+Tact Intel Could you go into more specifics as to what you consider tripe from this exchange?
+Mark Portman history is littered with failed monarchies. funny how libertarians would scramble for an authoritarian monarchy. I believe republics can function much better than democracies, but a monarchy is a dedicated facto dictatorship.
+Travis Spalding hey cupcake, break's over. back to your shift at the drive through. those burgers aren't going to flip themselves
+Tact Intel de facto, not dedicated. autocorrect is the bane of my existence lol.
+Shane MacD
"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years." - Lysander Spooner
embarrassingly oversimplified.... disappointing...