Oddbean

History definitively proves humans are FAR better off under democracy than monarchy, regardless of Hoppe's opinions. Granted, prosperity comes from free markets, which can be had under many forms of government. Free markets can also be eroded by democracies, which we now see in the west. However, my ability to protect my rights as a pleb is usually higher under a democratic government.

History proves prosperity comes from free markets, not inherently from democracy and definitely not interventionism. Democracies, as we’re now seeing in the West, are prone to eroding those very markets and individual rights over time. Hoppe highlights that monarchy, as a ‘privately owned government,’ has stronger incentives to protect property rights and foster long-term stability compared to the short-termism of democracies. #Bitcoin changes the game. It secures private property in a way no government or authority, monarchic or democratic, can ever interfere with. Maybe it’s time to rethink where true protection of rights lies, especially private property rights and individual sovereignty. On an incentives basis, monarchy is better aligned to promote low time preference behaviours and ensure generational stability.

I mentioned that democracies can erode rights and wealth as well. I would argue that monarchies have a strong incentive to protect THEIR property rights but little else. As for long-term stability, I would say there are varying forms. Some greater for plebs and others that are less so. Stability generally comes for stable and unchanging legislation. Where the rules change little and individuals and corporations know what rules they are playing by. It doesn't mean those rules promote prosperity and freedom. I suppose the question I need to ask is what is the incentive a monarchy has to protect the property rights of their constituents? Monarchies have existed throughout most of human history and only when they became restrained and their power limited did the people break the bonds of slavery and did poverty start to vanish. I agree that Bitcoin changes the game. But what about a system without legislators or kings?

The correct question is, do you need a monarch when property rights are inviolable. Instituting a Monarchy requires a man be presented and through a consensus mechanism be elected. (Vote, counvil of elders etc.) Most Monarchies are democratically established but democracy normally ends where raw power begins. People establish monarchies because of uncertainty and doubt. Wanting to abdicate responsibility in favour of centralised organisation of human resources. It is possible that the richest of the rich bitcoiners debose the banks as systems of power like the bankers conspired against the Monarchs. We will see, either way I believe the world is healing. Anyway, Jesus is King. And we are all Satoshi.

The largest number of monarchs were not elected. True, some had to consolidate some of the ruling families/powers in their nations, but that is hardly a vote of the people. I would go further and say that we establish governments, not because we want to abdicate responsibility, but because it is more economical for the protection of rights. But only if that government remains restrained, which they never do. Absolutely, the world will heal when Christ sets up His kingdom. Interestingly enough, I'd like to do more reading on Bruno Leoni. He advocated for a system of judges, similar to Israel before they established kings.

It is possible to attribute some of the benefits of technological advancement to the fruits of democracy confusing the reason for the advantage. Liechtenstein has a constitution under which the king is subordinate and the country is economically very ordered and prosperous compared to democracies that are looking more and more like third world communist shitholes.

I wouldn't necessarily attribute advancement to government's at all. Government can only hinder advancement, it cannot necessarily drive it, long-term and proper advancement (without coercion) at least. Government's that are heavily restrained will have populations that generally outperform other populations - monarchy or democracy. Many modern monarchies, in Europe at least, are just figure heads with little political power. They just manage and allocate the massive wealth their ancestors stole from their countrymen. But a monarchy with the powers @princfilip is potentially referring makes prosperity dependent on the heart and character of the individual. Unless I'm misunderstanding his position.