Monarchy Is the Best Form of Government

[r3volution 3.0]

For the purpose of this thread, I'm defining the "best" form of government as the one which interferes in the market economy the least. So, for instance, one which interferes only by collecting minimal taxes to finance basic law and order operations would be very good, while one which maintains an elaborate regulatory and welfare system would be very bad. I'll give you five reasons (there may be others) that a monarchy is best by this standard.

1. Cost Externalization - The state's revenues are a percentage of GDP. As the economy grows, the state's revenues grow; if the economy shrinks, the state's revenues shrink. Thus the state would seem to have an incentive to pursue good pro-growth economic policies, to grow the economy so that state revenue grow - but it entirely depends on how the state is structured. If the state is a democracy (multiple rulers) the incentives are different than if the state is a monarchy (one ruler). With a monarchy, whenever the economy shrinks and then the state's revenues shrink, the ruler's own personal revenues also shrink (since in a monarchy the state's revenues are the ruler's personal revenues). Whereas, when there are multiple rulers, it is possible for some of them to increase their own personal revenues even as the economy shrinks and total state revenue shrinks. For example, suppose state revenues are $100 and there are five rulers each receiving $20. Then three of them (a majority) decide to introduce a new program which increases their share from $20 to $30, and which also causes the economy to shrink so that total state revenues decline from $100 to $95. It is possible for the three rulers in the majority to profit from this economically destructive program only because the losses can be shifted onto (aka externalized) the two rulers in the minority (their shares dropped from $20 to $2.50). This is mathematically impossible if there is only one ruler - if his policies shrink the economy and therefore total state revenue, his own revenues must necessarily fall as well. He cannot push the burden off (externalize the cost) onto anyone else. So what does this mean? It means that a king cannot profit from economically destructive policies, while a democratic majority can: which may give it an incentive to do precisely that. To give a concrete example: a democratic majority might vote itself a part of the wealth of the minority, thus shrinking the economy overall, but also increasing their own incomes. Thus, all else being equal, a king should pursue better (i.e. more laissez faire) economic polices than a democratic majority.

2. Looting By Proxy - There are two reasons why a government might engage in economically destructive policies (e.g. corporate subsidies or popular welfare): (1) to directly benefit itself (as if members of the government owned shares in the subsidized corporation), or (2) to benefit others whose support it needs to remain in power (voters, political donors). A monarchy totally lacks the second reason; a king has no need to pass economically destructive policies to please voters or donors, because his position is not dependent on support from voters or donors. Thus, all else being equal, a king one one less reason to engage in economically destructive policies than a democratic government.

3. Time Preference - If the goal of a government is to maximize revenue, one must ask - over what time period? If a government prefers short term gains, even at the expense of long term costs greater than the initial gains (i.e. if it has high time preference), it will behave differently than if it prefers to maximize revenue in the long run (i.e. if it has low time preference). Specifically, a government with high time preference will tend to pursue more destructive economic policies than one with low time preference. For instance, one can greatly increase state revenue in the short term by greatly increasing taxes, but at the cost of lower economic growth in the longer term, and therefore lower long-term revenue for the state; whereas, if one wanted to maximize revenues long-term, one would keep taxes relatively low to encourage greater economic growth and therefore greater future revenues. A democratic government will tend to have higher time preference than a monarchy, simply because the rulers in a democracy are in office for shorter periods of time. Democratic rulers are trying to maximize their revenues durian their term in office, and don't care about the long term consequences (their successors will have to deal with that). Whereas, a king has a life term, and therefore the highest possible time-preference (if it is a hereditary monarchy, his concern may stretch beyond even his own lifetime, if he cares about what his son inherits). This was Hoppe's primary argument in favor of monarchy in his "Democracy: The God That Failed."

4. Regime Certainty - A democratic government changes routinely, while the king is there for life. Hence, in a democracy, there are likely to be more frequent changes of policy, which in themselves (whatever the nature of the changes) tend to disrupt economic activity (because they make it more difficult for entrepreneurs to plan for the future).

5. Selection Pressures - This concerns the personality of the ruler(s), specifically their morals. In a hereditary monarchy, the personality of the ruler is essentially random - it is whatever Nature gives us. In a democratic system, the rulers are not selected at random, but through electoral competition. It so happens that the most ruthless, dishonest, unscrupulous people tend to rise to the top in this system.

P.S. - All of these criticisms also apply to oligarchy and all kinds of "mixed" government (ask me how if you don't see it).

P.P.S. - Read "The Magic of Symmetrical Sovereignty" in my signature below for a nice illustration of the good incentives present in monarchy.

[P3ter_Griffin]

What is the benefit to the monarch to not treat us as slaves? Domestic production for domestic consumption would just be his slaves moving money around, he could instead use those resources and man-hours to export a product and increase his wealth. The most efficient way to run a government is the same as to run a business, if wealth is what you seek, where the citizens are your 'employees', not your consumers.

[heavenlyboy34]

For the purpose of this thread, I'm defining the "best" form of government as the one which interferes in the market economy the least. So, for instance, one which interferes only by collecting minimal taxes to finance basic law and order operations would be very good, while one which maintains an elaborate regulatory and welfare system would be very bad. I'll give you five reasons (there may be others) that a monarchy is best by this standard.

1. Cost Externalization - The state's revenues are a percentage of GDP. As the economy grows, the state's revenues grow; if the economy shrinks, the state's revenues shrink. Thus the state would seem to have an incentive to pursue good pro-growth economic policies, to grow the economy so that state revenue grow - but it entirely depends on how the state is structured. If the state is a democracy (multiple rulers) the incentives are different than if the state is a monarchy (one ruler). With a monarchy, whenever the economy shrinks and then the state's revenues shrink, the ruler's own personal revenues also shrink (since in a monarchy the state's revenues are the ruler's personal revenues). Whereas, when there are multiple rulers, it is possible for some of them to increase their own personal revenues even as the economy shrinks and total state revenue shrinks. For example, suppose state revenues are $100 and there are five rulers each receiving $20. Then three of them (a majority) decide to introduce a new program which increases their share from $20 to $30, and which also causes the economy to shrink so that total state revenues decline from $100 to $95. It is possible for the three rulers in the majority to profit from this economically destructive program only because the losses can be shifted onto (aka externalized) the two rulers in the minority (their shares dropped from $20 to $2.50). This is mathematically impossible if there is only one ruler - if his policies shrink the economy and therefore total state revenue, his own revenues must necessarily fall as well. He cannot push the burden off (externalize the cost) onto anyone else. So what does this mean? It means that a king cannot profit from economically destructive policies, while a democratic majority can: which may give it an incentive to do precisely that. To give a concrete example: a democratic majority might vote itself a part of the wealth of the minority, thus shrinking the economy overall, but also increasing their own incomes. Thus, all else being equal, a king should pursue better (i.e. more laissez faire) economic polices than a democratic majority.

2. Looting By Proxy - There are two reasons why a government might engage in economically destructive policies (e.g. corporate subsidies or popular welfare): (1) to directly benefit itself (as if members of the government owned shares in the subsidized corporation), or (2) to benefit others whose support it needs to remain in power (voters, political donors). A monarchy totally lacks the second reason; a king has no need to pass economically destructive policies to please voters or donors, because his position is not dependent on support from voters or donors. Thus, all else being equal, a king one one less reason to engage in economically destructive policies than a democratic government.

3. Time Preference - If the goal of a government is to maximize revenue, one must ask - over what time period? If a government prefers short term gains, even at the expense of long term costs greater than the initial gains (i.e. if it has high time preference), it will behave differently than if it prefers to maximize revenue in the long run (i.e. if it has low time preference). Specifically, a government with high time preference will tend to pursue more destructive economic policies than one with low time preference. For instance, one can greatly increase state revenue in the short term by greatly increasing taxes, but at the cost of lower economic growth in the longer term, and therefore lower long-term revenue for the state; whereas, if one wanted to maximize revenues long-term, one would keep taxes relatively low to encourage greater economic growth and therefore greater future revenues. A democratic government will tend to have higher time preference than a monarchy, simply because the rulers in a democracy are in office for shorter periods of time. Democratic rulers are trying to maximize their revenues durian their term in office, and don't care about the long term consequences (their successors will have to deal with that). Whereas, a king has a life term, and therefore the highest possible time-preference (if it is a hereditary monarchy, his concern may stretch beyond even his own lifetime, if he cares about what his son inherits). This was Hoppe's primary argument in favor of monarchy in his "Democracy: The God That Failed."

4. Regime Certainty - A democratic government changes routinely, while the king is there for life. Hence, in a democracy, there are likely to be more frequent changes of policy, which in themselves (whatever the nature of the changes) tend to disrupt economic activity (because they make it more difficult for entrepreneurs to plan for the future).

5. Selection Pressures - This concerns the personality of the ruler(s), specifically their morals. In a hereditary monarchy, the personality of the ruler is essentially random - it is whatever Nature gives us. In a democratic system, the rulers are not selected at random, but through electoral competition. It so happens that the most ruthless, dishonest, unscrupulous people tend to rise to the top in this system.

P.S. - All of these criticisms also apply to oligarchy and all kinds of "mixed" government (ask me how if you don't see it).

P.P.S. - Read "The Magic of Symmetrical Sovereignty" in my signature below for a nice illustration of the good incentives present in monarchy.

More rational than every Constitutionalist thread on RPFs. Well done, bro. +rep

[r3volution 3.0]

What is the benefit to the monarch to not treat us as slaves?

Higher income.

The richer the society, the greater his income.

And a free market society is going to be vastly richer than a slave society.

Domestic production for domestic consumption would just be his slaves moving money around, he could instead use those resources and man-hours to export a product and increase his wealth. The most efficient way to run a government is the same as to run a business, if wealth is what you seek, where the citizens are your 'employees', not your consumers.

The king trying to run the entire economy like a vast business or estate = socialism.

Socialism produces very little wealth in comparison to laissez faire.

The king will have more income under laissez faire.

Socialist King = huge slice of tiny and stagnant pie
Laissez Faire King = moderate slice of gigantic and growing pie

[heavenlyboy34]

Higher income.

The richer the society, the greater his income.

And a free market society is going to be vastly richer than a slave society.



The king trying to run the entire economy like a vast business or estate = socialism.

Socialism produces vastly less wealth than laissez faire.

The king will have more income under laissez faire.

This^^ As Hoppe noted, a property owner (in this case, the Sovereign) has incentive to make sure his property and citizenry are safe and well cared-for. If he does something harmful to the people, he hurts himself in the short AND long runs. The elected politician, however, has only to think of the next election at most. He also incurs no harm if bad comes to the property or residents. Pretty easy choice-monarchy FTW.

[erowe1]

Another big plus for monarchy (at least a plus as far as the people are concerned) is that it keeps the regime and its responsibility of its faults separate from its subjects.

If a monarch commits some crime against the people of a foreign nation, they aren't going to blame all the serfs in that monarch's homeland who are themselves but victims of other crimes of the same, the way Americans get blamed for the deeds of the regime in Washington, DC.

[erowe1]

Higher income.

Also reputation and legacy.

[Henry Rogue]

only one ruler - if his policies shrink the economy and therefore total state revenue, his own revenues must necessarily fall as well. He cannot push the burden off (externalize the cost) onto anyone else. So what does this mean? It means that a king cannot profit from economically destructive policies,*

If the Monarch's reasoning is reasonable. If I recall correctly kings have been known to shave coins from time to time. But I agree his incentives are to grow his assets and preserve them for his heirs. Where as in point 2 in paragraph 2, incentives in a democracy are almost a certain path to destructive behavior. My reasoning is that group decisions tend to follow incentives, rejecting the occasional outlier. Whereas individual decisions are more unpredictable. One is probable the other is almost a certainty. Which makes it easy to reject democracy as an economic positive and a little more difficult to accept monarchy as economic salvation.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Why would the monarch resort to socialism? Feed the slaves enough to keep them working, and supply demand of foreign nations.

What is it you imagine would take place if anarchism took hold? Why would this apparatus act differently than a monarch? Or why would a monarch act differently than this apparatus? It seems they would both be acting in self interest.

[Henry Rogue]

Another big plus for monarchy (at least a plus as far as the people are concerned) is that it keeps the regime and its responsibility of its faults separate from its subjects.

If a monarch commits some crime against the people of a foreign nation, they aren't going to blame all the serfs in that monarch's homeland who are themselves but victims of other crimes of the same, the way Americans get blamed for the deeds of the regime in Washington, DC.

Less incentive to sustain a war.

Edit: Or pehaps I should say more constraints on sustaining a war.

[jj-]

Sure, but it's not gonna happen.

[heavenlyboy34]

Another big plus for monarchy (at least a plus as far as the people are concerned) is that it keeps the regime and its responsibility of its faults separate from its subjects.

If a monarch commits some crime against the people of a foreign nation, they aren't going to blame all the serfs in that monarch's homeland who are themselves but victims of other crimes of the same, the way Americans get blamed for the deeds of the regime in Washington, DC.

This^^

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to erowe1 again.

[jj-]

5. Selection Pressures - This concerns the personality of the ruler(s), specifically their morals. In a hereditary monarchy, the personality of the ruler is essentially random - it is whatever Nature gives us. In a democratic system, the rulers are not selected at random, but through electoral competition. It so happens that the most ruthless, dishonest, unscrupulous people tend to rise to the top in this system.

I disagree here, in all societies, even in undemocratic ones, those who end up with the power of the state tend to be psychopathic, they have a tendency to pick another person with a personality disorder for a mate, and it's also more likely that their children end up sicker than say, a random middle class child.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Also reputation and legacy.

Isn't that what gives democracy its bad traits? We don't need some nancy trying to appease, we need a damn iron fist!

[P3ter_Griffin]

Another big plus for monarchy (at least a plus as far as the people are concerned) is that it keeps the regime and its responsibility of its faults separate from its subjects.

If a monarch commits some crime against the people of a foreign nation, they aren't going to blame all the serfs in that monarch's homeland who are themselves but victims of other crimes of the same, the way Americans get blamed for the deeds of the regime in Washington, DC.

Peoples perception of foreign individuals is generally based on what the media tells them to think. We have not taken it easy on any serfs when we disposed of their dictators.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Less incentive to sustain a war.

Edit: Or pehaps I should say more constraints on sustaining a war.

Why, the ruler now has control of all resources and isn't subjected to a vote. He may lose lives that could be used for production at home, but securing resources abroad may be more beneficial.

[erowe1]

Peoples perception of foreign individuals is generally based on what the media tells them to think. We have not taken it easy on any serfs when we disposed of their dictators.

We being who?

As I recall, I don't remember Americans thinking the Iraqi people were to blame for the actions of Hussein.

[P3ter_Griffin]

We being who?

As I recall, I don't remember Americans thinking the Iraqi people were to blame for the actions of Hussein.

Maybe not you and I, but the general public. The intellects of other societies may understand our plight, but the general public could care less. We fought the Iraqi army for a very short time I remember.

[r3volution 3.0]

If the Monarch's reasoning is reasonable.

As in economics itself, all of these statements comparing different forms of government are ceteris paribus statements. Any ruler, in any system, can be incompetent or insane. Unless there's some reason to think a king more likely to be incompetent/insane, we have to compare apples to apples - i.e. treat them both as incompetent/insane (in which case there's really no difference between the systems), or treat them both as competent/sane (in which case monarchy is superior for the reasons cited).

My reasoning is that group decisions tend to follow incentives, rejecting the occasional outlier. Whereas individual decisions are more unpredictable.

If the group is the general population as voters, then I'd say the opposite is true - they're guaranteed to be ignorant, while there's only a chance of the king being ignorant.

If the group is something more elite? ....I don't know.

I disagree here, in all societies, even in undemocratic ones, those who end up with the power of the state tend to be psychopathic, they have a tendency to pick another person with a personality disorder for a mate, and it's also more likely that their children end up sicker than say, a random middle class child.

The first generation, the person who initially seized/built the throne? Yes.

Subsequent generations? I don't think so. I don't believe that such traits are that strongly hereditary.

Why would the monarch resort to socialism? Feed the slaves enough to keep them working, and supply demand of foreign nations.

Again, that would result in less wealth being created than laissez faire.

Do you thin US GDP would increase if the US government adopted this plan?

...it would plummet.

What is it you imagine would take place if anarchism took hold? Why would this apparatus act differently than a monarch? Or why would a monarch act differently than this apparatus? It seems they would both be acting in self interest.

I didn't mention anarchy for the same reason that I didn't mention unicornocracy.

I'm only interested in comparing possible forms of social organization.

But I don't want to drag the anarchy v. minarchy debate into this thread, so that's all I'll say. We can discuss it here, if you like.

[erowe1]

Maybe not you and I, but the general public. The intellects of other societies may understand our plight, but the general public could care less. We fought the Iraqi army for a very short time I remember.

The rhetoric the regime used was that it was liberating the Iraqi people from them.

[jj-]

Subsequent generations? I don't think so. I don't believe that such traits are that strongly hereditary.

The mom has a personality disorder, mistreats the child which makes it more likely for him to acquire a personality disorder. The child is attracted to another woman with a personality disorder, who mistreats the new child, and so on.

North Korea. 3 generations. Uncle eaten by dogs. You sleep when the monarch is speaking and you get executed.

[P3ter_Griffin]

The rhetoric the regime used was that it was liberating the Iraqi people from them.

Exactly, truth doesn't really matter, so it isn't a good reason to switch to monarchy.

[r3volution 3.0]

The mom has a personality disorder, mistreats the child which makes it more likely for him to acquire a personality disorder. The child is attracted to another woman with a personality disorder, who mistreats the new child, and so on.

Sure, that's possible, but consider the comparison with democracy.

Are you more likely to be unscrupulous if you yourself had to fight your way to a position of power (democracy), or if you're merely the child, grand-child, etc of someone who did?

North Korea. 3 generations. Uncle eaten by dogs. You sleep when the monarch is speaking and you get executed.

Libertarian Michael Malice wrote a great book on North Korea recently (interview with Tom Woods here), suggesting that the Norks (contrary to the propaganda they themselves promote, probably for advantage at the negotiating table with the US) are not insane - they're terrified of a revolution which sees them hanging upside down from a lamp post. They all know that reforms need to be done, ala China from Mao to present, but they're afraid that if they loosen up they'll lose control.

It's not a problem of crazy monarchs, it's a problem of insecure government in general.

Insecure governments brutalize out of the necessity for self-preservation.

Think of China and Russia - in the early days of their experiments with communism, they had the most brutal governments imaginable, but then they moderated a great deal later on, as they became more secure. Compare to Africa, same problem, but still super-instable, coups every other month it seems, and so still as brutal as ever.

[jj-]

Sure, that's possible, but consider the comparison with democracy.

Are you more likely to be unscrupulous if you yourself had to fight your way to a position of power (democracy), or if you're merely the child, grand-child, etc of someone who did?

How hard it is to get power in a democracy changes a lot with the times, depending on the beliefs of the population. Before fascism and communism, getting elected with our ideas was a lot more easy. The idea that the government should heavily regulate relationships between employers and employees I don't think was even around in many places. The government also had much fewer opportunities or resources to distribute so better people were politicians.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Again, that would result in less wealth being created than laissez faire.

Do you thin US GDP would increase if the US government adopted this plan?

...it would plummet.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but even if that is the case, GDP going down means lower possible tax receipts, which could be covered by the fact that the monarch now receives all profits. How high is your ideal tax burden? If it is 5%, then the monarch only needs to be 5% as efficient as the free market to make the same. 20%? Only 20% as efficient, and so on. But, I must ask, why is big business necessarily inefficient business? If the monarch is not trying to forecast demand for its own populace, and is instead focused on fulfilling actual demand of foreign individuals/companies/governments, why will it fall? Because he has the title 'monarch' instead of CEO? I'm sure you understand the wealth generating effects of a balance of trade surplus. Consumerism has no benefit to the monarch, it is not bringing any more money into the system, it is creating a higher monetary velocity, but all that is is a function of our happiness. The monarch could have that money in his pocket, and the resources spent building our consumerist products could be a) shipped over seas, or b) used to create other items desired by people over seas. And by those transaction, money enters the system, ala the monarchs pocket.

I didn't mention anarchy for the same reason that I didn't mention unicornocracy.

I'm only interested in comparing possible forms of social organization.

But I don't want to drag the anarchy v. minarchy debate into this thread, so that's all I'll say. We can discuss it here, if you like.

I think you misunderstood my statement, and I will definitely oblige you if you still feel I'm off topic when I rephrase my question. This social organization that forms when anarchy fails I assume would also be looking out for their best long term interests, and to me sounds very similar to a monarch, ruled by force and non-democratically, so I'm asking why a monarch, as you paint it, would be better and different than this other social organization that would form out of anarchy's dust.

[otherone]

Assassination is more effective than in a bureaucracy.

[erowe1]

Exactly, truth doesn't really matter, so it isn't a good reason to switch to monarchy.

It seems like you missed my point. This all goes back to what I said in post #6.

Do you really think Middle Easterners would have cheered on the murders of 3,000 innocent people in the Twin Towers if they didn't see the American people as having some responsibility for the actions of the regime in Washington, DC?

[acptulsa]

As in economics itself, all of these statements comparing different forms of government are ceteris paribus statements. Any ruler, in any system, can be incompetent or insane. Unless there's some reason to think a king more likely to be incompetent/insane, we have to compare apples to apples - i.e. treat them both as incompetent/insane (in which case there's really no difference between the systems), or treat them both as competent/sane (in which case monarchy is superior for the reasons cited).

Your whole argument just fell apart.

A republic with a legislative body is a form of government created specifically because it was presumed that a few psychopaths could be rendered toothless in a committee--while if the king turns out to be a psychopath everyone is just screwed. No one anticipated that the only people who would run for election to that legislature are the local psychopaths. But they should have, because they knew from long experience that any prince who wasn't a psychopath would be killed by his psychopathic brother.

Now, go back to the beginning, presume the lot of them are psychopaths, and try again. Or stop jacking yourself off and spend your time trying to convince a sane person to run for Congress instead.

I say if you're going to put sociopaths in charge, put a bunch of them in charge so they'll fight with each other. That tends to slow them down at least a little bit.

[Ronin Truth]

FWIW, I prefer and will take Autarchy as being much better.

[ProIndividual]

The best form of theft is as little of it as possible. The best form of state is as little of it as possible. That would entail perhaps a benign or beneficent monarch. That said, history shows they don't tend to be or stay benign or beneficent. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and power attracts the corrupt as well. I find this as likely to last as minarchy...which is to say I don't see it working out for long in this benign/beneficent form.

If you all would protest outside my house, forcing me choose between a lack of sleep, being able to leave, receive deliveries, work, etc. OR become your monarch in a semi-free market economic situation, I would accept regrettably based on your forcible drafting of me as king. Then I'd spend my entire reign carefully untangling the knot that is the state, and abolish it before my reign was over. Most of this would be making the case the people don't need me at all, and in fact my position is pure evil, albeit a better one than all other evils you could choose (but not better than the singular moral good you could choose, via anarchy). If I were assassinated, or died naturally somehow before my deconstruction of the state was complete, you'd all be idiots to let someone else be monarch...how many people will actually seek to abolish their own power? One I know of for sure....lol.

If I was forced into an election this way, as a side note, my slogan would be "No. HELL NO! Anybody but me, please! I don't want to rule you!"