Replies

You know what, here we are debating this and that about our democracy and taxation, etc., over an article that -- does it really? -- claims a monarchy would better care for the people. Did I read it right?

By comparison with the rule of our alleged equals, most kings displayed remarkably little ambition for power. And compared with modern war, the wars of kings were mere scuffles.

Wow. That's what he wrote. I guess we've all just been dragged into Sobran's abyss of historical regret and self-loathing.

It's stupid. Just plain stupid.

It also ignores a crucial element to the American experience which is untouched in these anti-statist threads: the meaning of equality. There will be now and then an admission here that one of the core American principles is that "all men are created equal." And this will be occasionally juxtaposed against outcome-based politics, but truly, is that the only context for this most stunning, unique, and historically distinct proposition that all men are created equal?

And this will be occasionally juxtaposed against outcome-based politics, but truly, is that the only context for this most stunning, unique, and historically distinct proposition that all men are created equal?

I believe the proper context for this proposition with respect to the Constitution is best expeplified by the blindfold on the statue of Lady Justice. Our fidelity to that proposition is best measured by our degree of respect for the integrity of the idea of blind justice.

It also ignores a crucial element to the American experience which is untouched in these anti-statist threads: the meaning of equality. There will be now and then an admission here that one of the core American principles is that "all men are created equal." And this will be occasionally juxtaposed against outcome-based politics, but truly, is that the only context for this most stunning, unique, and historically distinct proposition that all men are created equal?

Well you know, equality was all fine and good till Massa Lincoln came along and rueened it for evabody. An if anyone had any doubts about that, jus lookit what happened with that uppitty niggra King many yahs lata, always going on about the Declaration and the equality of man and ole man Lincoln. Damn'd unfortunate they eva mentioned equality at all. Judging from the way Jefferson and his friends actually lived, one has to wonder what they meant by equality. Seems the patriots were split on that point.

You know what, here we are debating this and that about our democracy and taxation, etc., over an article that -- does it really? -- claims a monarchy would better care for the people. Did I read it right?
"By comparison with the rule of our alleged equals, most kings displayed remarkably little ambition for power. And compared with modern war, the wars of kings were mere scuffles."

Wow. That's what he wrote. I guess we've all just been dragged into Sobran's abyss of historical regret and self-loathing. It's stupid. Just plain stupid.

No sir, you simply haven't read Hoppe's book, unlike Sobran. Hoppe discusses therein his natural law / classical liberal theory of government. He points out that a monopoly of the application of force invariably leads to worse results under democratic conditions. Under democracy, universality of potential access to power and the transitory hold by any one group upon that power lead to decisions that deprive more of the "citizens" of more of their life, liberty and property than even under a traditional monarch. Hoppe argues that the Hobbesian outcome of democracy is inherent to it.

Hoppe argues that monopolies worsen conditions for consumers, including consumers of the only product that the state monopoly on force proffers - protection of life, liberty and property.