Actions
(3.27 MB, 2250x3000)
>>/3807/ You know, I don't know... This whole series of articles feels reduntant to me. This here: Hoppe advocates an anarcho-capitalist ‘private law society’, but between monarchy and democracy he does not hesitate (and his argument is strictly Hobbesian): As a hereditary monopolist, a king regards the territory and the people under his rule as his personal property and engages in the monopolistic exploitation of this “property.” Under democracy, monopoly and monopolistic exploitation do not disappear. Rather, what happens is this: instead of a king and a nobility who regard the country as their private property, a temporary and interchangeable caretaker is put in monopolistic charge of the country. The caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his and his protégés’ advantage. He owns its current use – usufruct– but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. To the contrary, it makes exploitation less calculating and carried out with little or no regard to the capital stock. Exploitation becomes shortsighted and capital consumption will be systematically promoted. I mean sure, but isn't this obvious? Do we need to go over this line of thought in detail? I feel like this is starting at a point I was over 10 years ago and have since long left. I don't feel I need to read this. For someone who believes strongly in the shallow ideals presented, this may be an entry point, but (and this is what I mean by "redundant") most people with any curiosity and perception would have noticed early in their life that "democracy" is just a way for the super rich to obfuscate their own role in the negative development of society. We have this concept here from organized crime called a "goal keeper", it's some druggie or homeless person who gets some cash to put his name on a paper. He's then the owner of several businesses and maybe 100s of cars. He pays no taxes and when police investigators come to get him he has no assets and no knowledge of anything. Politicians are just "goal keepers" on a larger scale. They are formally responsible and will take the blame, but they have no actual responsibility for the policies they implement, they also do not gain much from it compared to their shady employers. In this, light, it's irrelevant if we call the goal keeper a president, a king, a queen, a dictator or what political ideology he or she adheres to. This is all a play for the people to watch and get engaged in so they don't notice who runs off with the profit. I feel like creating theoretical reasoning like that you linked is just part of this obfuscating business.