[Burkeman1]

Yes - rather historically stupid. First of all on taxes. Kings taxed very heavily and very brutally. Tax Collectors were often free agents who demanded even higher taxes than the King demanded becasue they kept a part of the money collected. And one shouldn't forget the "duties" different classes within these monarchny systems were forced to perform- wether it be military service from the gentry to public works labor from the lower classes- without pay and up to several months out of the year. That may not be a "tax" but it prevents one from earning for ones self. As for wars not being as rough and tumble as the mass wars of the 20th century- has Sobran ever heard of the first world war? That was largely a war of Monarchs- the last breath from that era. As soon as kings had the technology- they raised mass armies and fought a mass war.

[steve-b]

For that matter, Napoleon was a monarch both in effective power and in title (after crowning himself Emperor), and he created modern national war mobilization.

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

"As for wars not being as rough and tumble as the mass wars of the 20th century- has Sobran ever heard of the first world war? That was largely a war of Monarchs- the last breath from that era."

The Great War was started by ministers, rather than monarchs. The main instigator of Russian mobilisation had been the French emissary to the Tsar. If it were left up to the Tsar and Kaiser Wilhelm, there probably would not have been a war at all.

[x]

Good argument. They could counter that emperors wouldn't have had the power of mass drafts if the French Revolution hadn't led the way. It's not an entirely convincing counterargument though.

Hoppe's argument follows Bertrand de Jouvenel's analyis in "On Power." It's an intriguing analysis of how the French Revolution made governments more powerful and intrusive, but it relies too much on the experience of Northwestern Europe to become a generalizable law.