I was recommended to read Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe...

Unsure why a libertarian would advocate for monarchy honestly

Honestly, that's whats been bothering me about this whole Neo-reactionary thing of late along with this right-libertarian movement that either advocates a singular philosopher king to rule from on high who will magically open up markets (despite having a strong command economy element from being an absolute monarch) to meme-ball tier An-Cap movements where it comes down to "Hurr! Loli slaves for me and my sludge factories! Niggers can be my horses!". Surely they realize that they're probably not going to be landed gentry.

What really grind my gears is that they loathe the Enlightenment, but they love all the rulers like Frederick and Joseph II who pretty much allowed for those ideas to spread or at least gain credence.

Former Libertarian here, I'm just settling on Classical Liberalism for a while until this shit storm blows over.

I'm a libertarian myself but honestly I don't fucking get how people could think a monarchical system would result in the most social/political/economic freedom, despite the fact monarchies in the paat have been mostly just the ruler imposing their ideals on the entire populace (but I guess that's okay because the person arguing figures the ""philosopher king"" must OBVIOISLY agree with them ib everything r-right?) And anarchocapitalism wouldn't just result in a new government forming out of corporations.

OP here, the argument in the Democracy Failed book goes like this:

Time preference is how much you value money right now compared to slightly more money later.
Taking a loan means you value money now much more, since you get X money now, and pay X+Y money later, where Y is a positive number (interest). Investing means you value money later, since you lose money X, but take money X+Y later.
The author claims that a republic makes it so people have high time preference, as in they need money right now, and don't think long term.

To prove that claim he cites interest numbers, which go down over time, but go up after the world wars (which he calls the turning point, when republics beat monarchies). He doesn't consider that the war and destruction may have been the cost, rather says that under republics people value money right now more, and are willing to pay a larger percentage to get them right now.

Another side of this argument is that the republican ruler has high time preference, since he is only ruler for a short while. A monarch has low time preference, he invests and doesn't waste, because the state is his private property, and his son will inherit it, thus he thinks long term and develops it. On the other hand a democratic politician is in power for 4 years, and any long term project will benefit his competition that replaces him, and not himself. So a democratic politician will take what he can right now, without thinking of the future.

This is the main argument, basically. There is also stuff about the size of wars, that a monarch simply can't afford huge and frequent war, while a republic easily can, etc. But its mostly time preference, and insisting that a monarchy means more long term investment and less loans, thus more stable.

>Oh hey everyone! Look at this important guy's normative view!
Gas

I don´t get how you think authoritarianism automatically means government interference in the markets, and that a democracy automatically means that there is no governmental interference in markets. In the end, you see the end result of democracy always becoming the lowest classes voting for policies that interfere in the market for their benefit and at the detriment of others, while demagogues appease them for a seat at some position of authority.

I think that monarchic capitalism could only result in a landed elite who use the freedom from taxation and regulation to abuse the lower classes and their political power to keep the lower classes in line, just as anarcho-capitalism could only result in a corporate elite who does just the same thing. It is a very core capitalist idea that some men are more capable than others, And I see them eventually using their ability to form a kind of state in and of itself that puts them in a more favorable position over other men, and so the very principles of capitalism would destroy anarchism extremely quickly. Idk though, I used to be a big anarcho capitalistTM but I think I only came into it because it is the farthest right you can be while still being accepted by society, and you can say that it is a completely non racist ideology as well, which gets you in the clear with normies. I don´t even know what the fuck I am anymore.

What does any of that shit have to do with libertarianism and freedom? This may adequately explain why the Chinese single-party state is so good (?) at reinvesting but it's not exactly a libertarian utopia.

Dunno, just explained whats in the book. Libertarians love it, so there must be something.

Hoppe is beloved of closet fascists and the kind of edgy kids who like talking about throwing communists out of helicopters. I haven't read his stuff, so I don't know whether he is a libertarian, but most of his fans whom I've encountered are certainly not libertarians by any sort of sane definition of the word.

>libertarianism is JUST capitalism and free markets and not political and social liberty too
>>>libertarianism is literally wanting a small government
>>>authoritarianism

His books, quotes and image show up in ancap threads on that other board.
He was hotly recommended there, and after I saw libertarians here recommend him in a literature thread, I picked him up.

>Libertarians love it, so there must be something.
Alt-right ancap morons online love it. I don't think that means that libertarians love it. Hoppe is a fairly obscure author in the libertarian movement.

First result in Google for me.

It's just some guy Stephan Kinsella's favorite books list. Who is Stephan Kinsella?

Imo some of his books are better than others, when he stays to economics ie socilaism vs capitalism he's fine, but i find rand to be much better on matters of state and philosophy
again, my opinion

Libertarianism is literally wanting liberties, not a small government, that would be minarchism. And I did fail to address social liberties, but they apply in the same section I mention market interference, and political liberty is not necessarily libertarian, but I do agree that this is a large part of many libertarian ideologies. But, in the end, I think democracy will only infringe upon their social and economic liberties, while perhaps giving them political liberty, while monarchism would´nt necessarily infringe on anything, but could infringe on everything, same as democracy.

I don't know, I literally googled top 10 libertarian books, this was my first result.

Hoppean ancaps want to solve their political problems by forming closed societies of carefully chosen people with extremely strict border controls. Not a bad idea necessarily, but most of the edgy kids online who talk about Hoppe spend about 10% of their time thinking about how these societies would function and about 90% of the time talking about the nasty things they want to do to their imagined political opponents. It's a strangely hateful, aggressive movement despite the fact that the core idea is supposedly to live at peace behind well-guarded borders.
I'm sure there are Hoppeans out there who are not disingenuous and have functioning moral compasses, I just rarely encounter any.

I mean, you're technically not wrong, though libertarianism is generally defined as including political freedom (if you use wikipedia as a metric of what the most common definition is, understand you may take it with a grain of salt). Guess I was letting my personal views cloud my view of the ideology as a whole.

Capitalism and borders seem strange bedfellows.

That I can understand. Libertarianism, at its core, isn't about capitalism.

Liberty and borders also seem strange bedfellows.
Surely if you want all to be free, you'd permit them freedom to move.
If you are a capitalist, you want supply of workers moving to where the demand for workers is. If you are a libertarian, you want people moving to where they want to move, as free men.

Borders are just a planned thing, a state enforced thing, you know?
I am all for borders, but then again I also like a strong state.

Cont to My problem is that these fuckers don't try just moving to Montana and starting their ancap community already. They just talk on and on about how they want to physically remove everybody. Yes, I get it, you're pissed off at having to pay taxes to support the society you want to not be a part of. But you're protected by the stability and defensive prowess of that society. There's no reason to believe the utopian ancap closed society would necessarily even work. Surely paying taxes while getting the ancap society is reasonable. And yes, I get it that anti-discrimination laws get it the way. So try working on changing them peacefully first before talking about murder, maybe?
But the alt-right Hoppeans always rush to the murdering part. Hmm... makes me think they're more closet fascists than libertarians.

Libertarians disagree about what kinds of borders society should recognize. Almost all want society to recognize private property ranging up to various sort of corporate and financial rights. But there's a lot of disagreement about whether society should recognize geographical borders. Some libertarians want there to be no state-enforced borders, but for people's private land ownership rights to be able to function as de-facto national borders. I don't think this would actually work, but many people buy into the idea.

No, I agree that a great many libertarians hold minarchist principles, but I don´t think it is a core tenet of the ideology. If you want to know what the vast majority of American libertarians believe, look at Ron Paul (just take out the pacifism).

I can´t say I am any better in terms of ideology clouding my judgement, and if I had replied to this thread as myself from 8 months ago I would probably ruin it with shitposting ancap memes.

This election cycle has really made me examine what my core beliefs are, and have really made me realize that serving any ideology is suicide. Ideology should be molded around serving you and those who matter to you, it should not be a set of beliefs you have because you have been taught to have them, or bullied into not thinking outside of the box of accepted things.

Seems like it would lead to the kind of warfare that happens when an empire shatters into a dozen pieces.
It would just be private companies having border disputes instead of kings.

I think that the ancap vision would almost certainly lead to that, and very quickly. That's why I don't take ancaps seriously, even though I consider myself a libertarian in some ways.

Well, to clarify, I do occasionally encounter a sane ancap who has some sense of practicality and takes it into consideration, but that's fairly rare - at least on Internet discussion boards.

only version of libertarianism that isn't full autist

Roughly 0.001% of Hope memers have read literally anything by him

>supposedly great book seriously
People always want confirmation of their feelings not challenge. Hoppe is a total joke.

heh have u plebs even read memeicious moldbug

>WWI was a war between Austria and the USA
If you imagine hard enough, maybe.
>WWI was an ideological war between republics and monarchies
Indirectly, yes, 100%
>>the USA won the war for team Republics, and if it hadn't joined that team Austria would've won leading team monarchies
Essentially correct, except for "Austria leading team monarchies"
> >this led to much and huge war, because monarchies only lead infrequent wars with small armies, while republics lead frequent wars with huge armies
Republics have bigger armies because they can afford them. Only thing he's arguing here is that Monarchies are inefficient
>republics need to expand with war, while monarchies expand with marriage and thus don't promote war
Hesitantly, yes, but it's completely retarded to state that Monarchies don't promote war. Kingdoms can expand through marriage but mostly through war. This isn't an option for republics because there is no dynasty.
>the USSR was a republic, and its fate demonstrates that a republic is more violent and worse to live in than the monarchy it succeeded
USSR wasn't bad because it was a republic, the USSR was bad because it was socialist.

>doesn't consider that the war and destruction may have been the cost, rather says that under republics people value money right now more,
But isn't wanting a war the same thing? And weren't the wars primarily set up over the matter of economic dominance?

The wars were all caused by what boils down to financial concerns due to spending on make work projects.

The wars were therefore caused by this short term thinking in the markets. Would a king allow for the financial madness of the roaring 20s?

The main distinction between Ancaps and more mainstream libertarians is utopianism. Ancaps are the same Utopians as Communists/Facists in that the problem with thier ideology is the people who are in the Ancap society i.e. Ancapistan can only exist when every single citizen is sufficiently an ancap. This is where the 'physical removal' idea comes in.

>"My problem is that these fuckers don't try just moving to Montana and starting their ancap community already."

Because its not actually about making an Ancap community, its about the purity test and ideological thought experiment. If they actually went and did it, like they most certainly could with some exceptions, the whole movement would lose some of its 'we are being oppressed by the state' vibe. Its the same thing that socialists do when they seem to do everything but set up worker owned co-operatives, which can most certainly be done in every Western country.

NatSoc duh

Moderate Catholic, actually. Natsoc is the new fad ideology for impressionable young men in search of a father figure, but mainly it's just an excuse to bitch about brown people and scapegoat them for all their failures in life.

I still believe in markets, but I've come to realize the nativity of the central premise of libertarianism: belief that there is some self-evident "natural law" guiding human behavior towards capitalism, with societies who succeed living in accordance with natural law, and government is a distorting mechanism which violates sacred universal truths.

Markets don't rain down like manna on the true believers, and capitalism rapidly breaks down under conditions of anarchy, which is the counterfeit of freedom. In practice, anarchy promotes the most ruthless mob bosses, who eventually collide with each other to maintain market stability while keeping it rigged.

It's not just libertarians who believe this: Thomas Jefferson thought there should be a revolution every 20 years and was an ardent supporter of the French Revolution, until it turned into a shitshow. When the Bush administration "liberated" Iraq, they assumed that people would be so grateful to have freedom from an authoritarian regime that Iraq would be able to pull democracy out of its ass without issue. Libertarians just take the idea and run with it to its logical conclusion, imagining societies which are almost or totally privatized. At its core it's a refusal to acknowledge the role that centralized government plays in maintaining, strengthening, and creating new markets