Well I read all the way to the end of this very interesting essay expecting to see a discussion of how the Founding Fathers considered having a King, rather than a President. They did indeed consider this. After all, not a hundred years before, the mother country (England) had selected and appointed a monarch. This was entirely consistent with the traditions of constitutional liberty in the (then) new English mode.
Yeah I could have gone deeper into that I knew that to be true but was also working with what I knew fairly well and it was long enough I didnt feel like doing new research
Thank you, that makes sense. I may have known that at some point. I worked way too many hours in a row on this and that was not something I stopped to look up though I should have and ran afrer 1000 other butterflies.
You have done an excellent job and you are absolutely right. Even from a great distance, the US looks exactly as you see it at the time of the protests. And that's a pity, because there is a lot of good, but it is overshadowed by a vast cloud of obtuseness.
From Canada, it looks weird that the Democrats would come up with this argument of "No Kings". It's not a principled rejection of authoritarian overreach but just of one flavour of it.
Took me a while to get around to reading this, and I am glad I did. I particularly liked the conclusion. In many ways Trump was America's king long before being elected.
It has always been the thing that bothered the libs the most is that in fact Trump is the most representative American who has existed in the modern era.
Hans Herman Hoppe points out that if you have a monarchy, there's at least a chance you'll get a decent ruler, whereas with democracy you're guaranteed to never get one.
Indeed, I need to read Democracy A God That Failed, I red about half of it like 15 years ago. I do remember that. Also most Kings try to limit looting.
Right, his overall argument is that kings at least have more long term incentive to not loot their own property, whereas elected politicians are "temporary owners" who have every incentive to loot before their time runs out. (Really I was just quoting a trailing soundbite, "and oh yeah, you might even get lucky and have a good king"). You probably read enough of the book to get the gist.
If only we simply had this for a starting point, how much more peaceful this nation would be: “. . .the state, “Owes to every citizen a certain subsistence, a proper nourishment, convenient clothing, and a kind of life not incompatible with health.”
Fascinating essay, and I couldn’t agree more about the inanity of the “No Kings” astroturfed oblivious principle-free protest. They wouldn’t know tyranny if it splashed into their kale smoothie.
Yeah he talks about various methods and the way ideally you make your nation so prosperous enough things are minimally necessary and how such programs should be temporary so as to not encourage idleness etc but he is absolutely discussing the modern conception of government welfare cons say didnt exist back then.
it was always remarked upon by visitors that colonial America had remarkable general public prosperity, of course it's easy when there's a lot more land and resources than the labor pool. Or at least it can be, I suppose for many generations Mexico was desperate poor despite sitting on incredible resources
anyway the problem we run in with modern progressives is fundamentally the opposite that they don't want to do anything that works for the public at large because they invent some theoretical most disadvantaged [and incredibly unsympathetic person!] that any idea doesn't work for and then say you can't do it. Not even sure how that's an argument.
Well I read all the way to the end of this very interesting essay expecting to see a discussion of how the Founding Fathers considered having a King, rather than a President. They did indeed consider this. After all, not a hundred years before, the mother country (England) had selected and appointed a monarch. This was entirely consistent with the traditions of constitutional liberty in the (then) new English mode.
Yeah I could have gone deeper into that I knew that to be true but was also working with what I knew fairly well and it was long enough I didnt feel like doing new research
Fair point!
The use of “Prince” by Machiavelli and others is due to the etymology of “princeps” which denotes the person who holds authority.
Thank you, that makes sense. I may have known that at some point. I worked way too many hours in a row on this and that was not something I stopped to look up though I should have and ran afrer 1000 other butterflies.
Really great essay and it’s clear how much work went into it. Thanks again, I really enjoyed reading ut and I like your writing style.
Thanks that is kind of you to say I powered through it and by the time I was done couldnt decide if it was goos or not because I was half delirious
You have done an excellent job and you are absolutely right. Even from a great distance, the US looks exactly as you see it at the time of the protests. And that's a pity, because there is a lot of good, but it is overshadowed by a vast cloud of obtuseness.
From Canada, it looks weird that the Democrats would come up with this argument of "No Kings". It's not a principled rejection of authoritarian overreach but just of one flavour of it.
Its because Americans just hate the very name of king
Strictly speaking the Duchy of Cornwall benefits the heir to the throne, and not the monarch. But that’s splitting hairs I guess.
Yes it does, though its still one of the Crown Duchys. Traditionally York goes to the second son.
Took me a while to get around to reading this, and I am glad I did. I particularly liked the conclusion. In many ways Trump was America's king long before being elected.
It has always been the thing that bothered the libs the most is that in fact Trump is the most representative American who has existed in the modern era.
Hans Herman Hoppe points out that if you have a monarchy, there's at least a chance you'll get a decent ruler, whereas with democracy you're guaranteed to never get one.
Indeed, I need to read Democracy A God That Failed, I red about half of it like 15 years ago. I do remember that. Also most Kings try to limit looting.
Right, his overall argument is that kings at least have more long term incentive to not loot their own property, whereas elected politicians are "temporary owners" who have every incentive to loot before their time runs out. (Really I was just quoting a trailing soundbite, "and oh yeah, you might even get lucky and have a good king"). You probably read enough of the book to get the gist.
May I recommend a look at Leighton Woodehouse’s essay on the myth of America on the NYT editorial page today.
If only we simply had this for a starting point, how much more peaceful this nation would be: “. . .the state, “Owes to every citizen a certain subsistence, a proper nourishment, convenient clothing, and a kind of life not incompatible with health.”
Fascinating essay, and I couldn’t agree more about the inanity of the “No Kings” astroturfed oblivious principle-free protest. They wouldn’t know tyranny if it splashed into their kale smoothie.
Yeah he talks about various methods and the way ideally you make your nation so prosperous enough things are minimally necessary and how such programs should be temporary so as to not encourage idleness etc but he is absolutely discussing the modern conception of government welfare cons say didnt exist back then.
The prosperity of a nation is measured by the welfare of its people, not by the wealth of a few.
it was always remarked upon by visitors that colonial America had remarkable general public prosperity, of course it's easy when there's a lot more land and resources than the labor pool. Or at least it can be, I suppose for many generations Mexico was desperate poor despite sitting on incredible resources
anyway the problem we run in with modern progressives is fundamentally the opposite that they don't want to do anything that works for the public at large because they invent some theoretical most disadvantaged [and incredibly unsympathetic person!] that any idea doesn't work for and then say you can't do it. Not even sure how that's an argument.
Your style of critique reminds me of a line from The Simpsons:
"Why would I want to keel his body when I can set his soul ablaze with a slanderous Mamba?"