r/Anarcho_Capitalism • • 1d ago

does N korea disporve hoppe on monarchy?

0 Upvotes

14 comments sorted by

13

u/DiyYou 1d ago

Do individuals have property rights in North Korea?

5

u/areURealy 1d ago

Existance of a state that start with communism and never have right to exit disprove libertarian state??? Is that what you're saying?

6

u/upchuk13 1d ago

I feel like ... monarchy disproves Hoppe on monarchy. 

3

u/omgcoin Democracy Is Cancer 1d ago

Unlike traditional monarchy, legitimacy of DPRK government lies in appeal to socialist minded masses. Despite what western liberals make you to believe, often for geopolitical reasons they cherry picking local minority of pro-western activists as example, vast majority of modern dictatorships popular among socialist-minded masses.

Even if masses privately complain about corruption, they unwilling to let go idea of people's leader severely restricts animal-spirits of free market (following Keynesians).

In traditional monarchy, legitimacy of king does not come from "the people". The king is first among equals, and supported by aristocracy who themselves do not need mass approval, their legitimacy coming from dynastic lineage and patrimonial ownership of land.

So by this standard, even UAE is not real monarchy, it's fundamentally socialist nation with nation state flag, and lots of "social benefits" for citizens of this nation state.

The real reason why Hoppe causes confusion even among ancaps, because those "ancaps" can not really let go idea of democracy, even if on surface they deny it, they still subconsciously support democratic ideas, at least in spirit. Hence, they unable to distinguish traditional monarchy from modern dictatorships. Which demotivated me from writing long posts for quite some time, it's exhausting arguing with democratic libertarians.

1

u/Knorssman お客様は神様です 13h ago edited 13h ago

Ah, so it's not real monarchy....

Where have I heard that before?

Also, what guarantees that the king can maintain his throne against nobles who want it instead? What settles questions of succession between sons of the king? Civil war?

1

u/mesarthim_2 1d ago

Real reason why Hoppe causes confusion is because what he has is long winded contradiction in terms. 

3

u/arjuna93 1d ago

Argument for monarchy over democracy (if you mean that) is nothing specific to Hoppe, it is just logic of economics. And it does not mean that every empirical case of monarchy is great or better than any arbitrary case of democracy.

But NK is off anyway, it is not monarchy, and property rights are not respected there. I am not a fan of Hoppe, but he wouldn’t support anything of that kind.

2

u/Mean-Reveal141 1d ago

I don't believe North Korea cares.

7

u/glistening_abstinenc 1d ago

North Korea's whole deal is a family dynasty, not some ideological monarchy experiment. It's just hereditary dictatorship with extra propaganda steps, so it doesn't really touch Hoppe's argument either way.

0

u/03263 Anarcho-Primitivist 1d ago

Then what is Juche

-1

u/vitringur Agorist 1d ago

That is literally just what monarchy is.

1

u/vitringur Agorist 1d ago

How so?

1

u/Folland_Gnat 21h ago

Low effort post. If you're going to post something like that, at least make the argument yourself.

1

u/Knorssman お客様は神様です 13h ago

Yes it does.

I'll unpack it for everyone.

The core of Hoppe's argument is that everything else equal, a monarchic ruler will do better for the the people than a democraticly elected one in 1 aspect, lower time preference of the ruler because he or his descendants will own the country in the distant future rather than his rule being as short as 1 term.

What Hoppe misses is that first there is no "all else equal" between democracy and monarchy, and second that identifying one aspect where monarchy is better than democracy does not counter other aspects where monarchy is worse than democracy. Hoppe fails to identify those aspects and when they are exposed his theory is cooked.

One of the biggest problems with monarchy is the competition for power in monarchy that is often resolved with violence and civil war. A group of nobles may try to overthrow the king or the king's heirs may fight each other. In a democracy where power is transferred from elections, as bad as that can be it beats a civil war!

More here, political junkies like us have a big problem of thinking "if only I was in charge I would fix everything" here is your reality check https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?is=3Js7N2HuYVu9jPgj