From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy: A Tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay

by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

In this tour de force essay, Hans-Hermann Hoppe turns the standard account of historical governmental progress on its head. While the state is an evil in all its forms, monarchy is, in many ways, far less pernicious than democracy. Hoppe shows the evolution of government away from aristocracy, through monarchy, and toward the corruption and irresponsibility of democracy to have been identical with the growth of the leviathan state. There is hope for liberty, as Hoppe explains, but it lies not in reversing these steps, but rather through secession and decentralization. This pocket-sized, eye-opening pamphlet is ideal for tabling, conferences, or sharing with friends. It can revolutionize the way a reader sees society and the state.

Genres: Politics, History, Economics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Political Science, Sociology

51 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 18, 2014

Reviews

[Amin · Rating 2 out of 5]

تز اصلی کتاب، قابل تامل و رادیکال است. گذار از آریستوکراسی به پادشاهی و سپس به دموکراسی، به لحاظ اداره جامعه و حکومتداری لزوما نمی تواند پیشرفت تاریخی محسوب شود. اگر آن دوران ها دوران فئودالیته یا استبداد شاهنشاهی بوده اند، دموکراسی فعلی نیز دوران قدرتمند شدن دولت - به زعم نویسنده - و فسادهای مرتبط با آن است. فسادهایی که ناشی از محدود شدن قدرت در دستان دولتی ها و اعضای پارلمان، بدون نظارت و پاسخگویی کافی است و به نظرم تا اینجای داستان، همه ما مثالهایی از ناکارآمد بودن این شیوه دموکراسی پارلمانی و سواستفاده از قدرت سیاسی در ذهن داریم

اما در واقعیت، نوع نگاه نویسنده عمیقا اقتصادی و معطوف به نگاه نئولیبرالی است که ورود دولت به بازار را خطرناک و محدود کننده نوآوری و توانایی بشر میداند. یعنی ضعفهای سیستم فعلی در تجارت و مخصوصا قضاوت، جای را برای نویسنده باز می کند تا مزایای سیستم اشرافی گری در متنوع بودن اربابان برای رعیت و اهمیت این غیرمتمرکز بودن قدرت را برشمرد. گرچه نمی توان باور کرد که آن سیستم آریستوکراتیک و رعیت دیدن مردم شکل ایده آل است و نویسنده هم چنین ادعایی ندارد، اما نقد اصلی بر سیستم فعلی است که انگار دشمن مالکیت فردی و رقابت هستند و جامعه را به سمت دیکتاتوری دموکراسی و دولت پیش می برند

بدیهی است سوالات اساسی در این نگاه نئولیبرال پیش می آید مبنی بر راه حلی برای اقشار ضعیف تر جامعه، و پاسخ نویسنده نگاه فاشیستی مستتر در بحث را به خوبی نمایان می کند که "اما بعد از همه اینها باید گفت ثروتمندی و فقر دلیل خود را دارند: ثروتمندان اغلب از لحاظ شخصیتی باهوش و کوشا هستند و فقرا کندذهن و تنبل هستند. احتمال چندانی نمیرود که این گروه از انسانهای کندذهن و تنبل حتی اگر اکثریت را نیز تشکیل دهند، به صورتی سیستماتیک نسبت به تامین و متمول کردن خود با هزینه اقلیت توانا و افراد پرانرژی پیش دستی کنند" مقایسه کنید این حرف را با حرف کسانی دیگر مانند هایک - و طرفداران پروپاقرص وطنی مانند غنی نژاد - که فاشیسم و نازیسم و سوسیالیسم را یکی می دانستند، چون همه در دخالت دولت در بازار مشترکند، و حال تفسیر یکی از طرفداران سرسخت فون میزس را از نظام رقابت آزاد می بینیم

به نظرم ایده ها وقتی راه به پیشنهاد راه حل می یابند، لایه های عمیق تر خود را نشان می دهند. من با نویسنده همدل هستم در توجه بیشتر به معایب سیاسی سیستم های دموکراتیک فعلی. اما دو تفسیر شخصی ام از این قرار است که اول، برای جوامع در حال توسعه، چنین گذاری به نظام های دموکراتیک گاهی غیرقابل اجتناب است و برای دشمنان دموکراسی چنین نقدهایی نمی تواند بهانه ای برای فرار از گام گذاردن به شیوه های مردم مدارانه فراهم آورد. چرا که اگر دموکراسی را نقد می کنیم، راه حل ما می بایست ارزش افزوده ای به میزان مشارکت مردم، پاسخ گویی افراد در قدرت و نظارت مستقیم بر عملکرد آنها فراهم آورد
و دوم اینکه با رویکرد پوپری بیشتر می توان موافق بود در مقایسه با چنین نگاهی که قدرت آریستوکراسی را افزایش می دهد (و معایب آن را هم در واقعیت دیده ایم و هم در کتابی همچو "چرا ملتها شکست می خورند") آنجا که پوپر می گوید باید تلاش کنیم تا افرادی به قدرت برسند که شایستگی و تجربه سیاستمداری را دارند، اما مهمتر از آن این است که سازوکاری داشته باشیم که در مواقع لزوم بتواند سیاستمدار ناشایسته را به راحتی از تخت قدرت به زیر بکشد. و این مکانیسم، حلقه گمشده دموکراسی ها یا دیکتاتوری های فعلی است

[Amin · Rating 1 out of 5]

جای تاسف دارد که انتشارات دنیای اقتصاد، این کتاب را با چنین ترجمه افتضاح و ویراستاری ضعیف روانه بازار می کند. وقتی ناشرانی که در ظاهر بصورت تخصصی کتاب چاپ می کنند، چنین نتایج اسفناکی از خود بجای می گذارند، دیگر به ناشران عمومی خرده ای نمی توان گرفت

مترجم، در حالی که بدیهی است بخشهای زیادی از متن را نفهمیده و ترجمه های گاه خنده داری دارد، به خودش اجازه داده که در بخشهایی که به نظرش متن پیچیده بوده - و البته برای کسی که متن را نفهمیده طبیعی است - در پرانتز تفسیر خودش را هم به خورد خواننده بدهد. میدانم باور کردنی نیست، اما واقعی است که در وسط متن توضیحی از مترجم می بینیم که خوش بختانه اشاره کرده که اینها حرفهای مترجم است. البته مترجم های قدیمی تر دست به این کار می زدند، همچو هاشم رضی، اما حداقل از پانوشت استفاده می کردند

برای نمونه، سواد و فهم مترجم را در متن زیر ببینید و استفاده اش از کلمات "ویژگی های اقلیمی" و "خصائص عینی اشراف" که مخصوصا دومی تاسف آور است

As violent inheritance disputes, monarchical wars are characterized by limited territorial objectives. They are not ideologically motivated quarrels but disputes over tangible properties

ترجمه:
"خشونت جنگ های شاهنشاهی به مثابه نزاع های ارثی، به ویژگی های اقلیمی محدود میشد. نزاع ها انگیزه های ایدئولوژیک نداشت، بلکه به خصائص عینی اشراف بازمی گشت"

بدیهی است مجبور شدم به سراغ متن اصلی بروم و تجربه استفاده از کالای داخلی و پرداخت حق ناشر و مترجم و ناشر الکترونیک! این بار هم با شکست مواجه شد

[JoséMaría BlancoWhite · Rating 4 out of 5]

A synthesis of a thousand years of history from a philosophical and economic perspective, for the general reader. The purpose of this short essay is precisely purported in the title, no more no less. And the addendum to the title A tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay is very well suited. Great books are -to me- those whose authors are capable of synthesizing a lot of ideas or information into as few words as possible and making it all intelligible to the average intelligent reader. Here is one instance.

The conclusions that surface from the passing of one chapter to the next are not -at all- the ones that the immense majortity of the civilized world would be accustomed to; but do not run away: this is not some outlandish theory from a nutty philosoper or economist. On the contrary, this is rational, and quite common sense, thinking meeting historical facts as we all know them. Philosophy and economics are intertwined with history in an articulate and masterly way.

The state of Democracy today is where all that history/evolution pointed to. Therefore the need for this brief summary. Check out for yourself if Mr. Hoppe's conclusions are correct or not. I very much agree with him: we are back to servitude. Look around you. The future is not the subject of this book, but prospects look grim if the policies are not reverted. Mr. Hoppe welcomes the possible emergence in the near future of mini-States, in the likes of new Switzerlands, Luxemburgs, Singapurs, etc, but mind you: not as a solution that can take away power from the plutocratic democratic states we live in, but at least to have the states compete with each other and maybe pay a little more attention to the servile state in which they have left us with their policies, so-called progressive but really degressive.

Aristocrats, monarchs, democrats. You thought there was an evolution there? you are being fooled.

[Mostafa Bushehri · Rating 2 out of 5]

دیدگاه‌های هوپ به عنوان یک آنارکوکاپیتالیست قابل تامل و جنجالی است و شاید چندان مورد پسند اندیشمندانی که در قالب وضع موجود و جریان اصلی می‌اندیشند نباشد. می‌شود در بسیاری از موارد با او موافق بود و می‌شود در بسیاری از موارد نیز با او مخالفت و جدل کرد.
نمی‌دانم هوپ سخت‌نویس است (که البته با توجه به کتاب قبلی‌اش، "سوسیالیسم و سرمایه‌داری"، بعید می‌دانم!) یا مترجم سخت‌ و ناخوب ترجمه کرده است!

[Owen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is more or less a condensed version of "Democracy, the God that Failed" which was equally overrated yet insightful nonetheless.
This book would never convince someone who wasn't already a libertarian of some stripe. His citations are always other libertarians. Nevertheless, his description of democratic governance as a "competition in the production of bads" isn't easily cast aside.
However correct Hoppe and other monarchist libertarians may be in their critiques of society, it seems that the state of North Korea is a good example of an absolutist monarchy at work.
Admittedly it is a former communist state. Admittedly it the state plays an enormous role in governing society. I don't need his defenders to point that out.
However, the state is a hereditary monarchy, with ownership passing from father to son. So surely, the Kim dynasty should have already done the rational thing and liberalized its economy in order to encourage those to migrate to it.
What we see is the opposite. Instead of making itself a great example of statecraft, it has isolated itself and stopped anybody from leaving. Can Hoppe or anybody who agrees with him think of a suitable candidate for an absolutist monarchy?

Hoppe refers to small states such as Liechtenstein as great examples of a rational monarchy that is driven by competition for subjects. However, what is to stop it going either way?

Hoppe provides a great critique of the weaknesses of democracy and how it has historically been harmful for economies (he destroys universal suffrage quite well), nevertheless his alternative seems good on a small scale at best, and a horrific nightmare at worst.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very deep, pithy, logical and analytical little monograph, which essentially is a condensed version of his famous critique of democracy ("Democracy, the God That Failed"). He discusses, in typical Hoppe fashion (which is to say, extremely logical and erudite) the pros and cons of the feudal system, monarchy, and especially democracy (I don't recall that he found any benefits to democracy, actually; It is probably the worst of all systems so far).
One thing I appreciate about Hoppe---whether in a small book like this, or most of his larger works---is his copious use of footnotes, which offer so many opportunities for further research and follow-up. (And, he places the footnotes at the bottom of the page, and not at the end of the book, like some editors annoyingly do).
FYI, to kill two birds with one stone, a person interested in this book could simply purchase his other book, "A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline," which contains this, and another longer essay that details, essentially, the evolution of man's standard of living, i.e. from Neolithic times to the Industrial Age, how man's social and technological innovations and discoveries enabled him to move past mere subsistence survival, and finally achieve the ability to practice capital-accumulation, which gave rise to the relative riches and wealth of today.

[Daniel Moss · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this along with: Income Tax: Root of all Evil & The Rise and Fall of Society and you'll see very quickly why the solutions that are being proposed these days quite simply can't work because they quite literally caused the problem.

[Unazoomer · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title says it all: From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy: A Tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay. In this essay Hoppe tells the tale of the development of state and government, arguing that it is not progress, but decay. At first I was skeptical. While it is generally a good thing to be open-minded and to delve into a wide range of ideas, I must admit that I mostly do so for the memes. To my surprise I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Hoppe had to say.

To most democracy is the best form of government we have. Almost everyone agrees that democracy is generally a good thing; it provides us with freedom and justice and protects us from tyranny. Hoppe turns this notion on its head (in a good way). He argues the opposite, arguing in favour of "natural aristocracy" instead, making you re-evaluate what you thought you knew about democracy, government, and history.

That said, I found some of his ideas problematic, or at least too simplistic. My main gripe being his take on private property. He autistically argues that in a perfect world everything would be privately owned, following some basic, well-defined rules of appropriation and ownership such that they prevent confusion and conflict. I think this is naïve. Not everything can or should be privately owned. I won't delve into it any further, since I would like to keep this review short, but it does give an idea of the nature of his ideas.

The essay is great despite its flaws. I think Hoppe himself recognises the simplistic nature of his essay, but this can be excused, since it means it remains within its scope and goes straight to the point. It provides a solid base which can be elaborated further and expanded on. Just the fact that he argues something so fundamentally different from what is generally accepted, making a lot of sense while doing so, is enough for me to recommend it to people. It really does make you think about things you take for granted.

[Juan Campos Alonso · Rating 3 out of 5]

My first ever approach to anarchocapitalism. Some ideas seemed like a nonsense to me. Other conclusions also triggered me and my beliefs but did not seem as a total craze. That is maybe why I found it thrilling, although I was tempted to quit its reading few times. Warning: the author often presents his own oppinion as if it was a fact.

It is not a reading for everyone but all in all, it was great to see him tackling the Status Quo, although I don't mostly agree with his conservative and superlibertatian view of private property.

Bonus: given the summarized nature if this short essay and the credentials of the author, I would like to dive a bit deeper on this doctrine and and read other works from the author like "The Myth of National Defense".

[Amir Javadi · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب به شکل مختصر و مفیدی شکل‌گیری روند به وجود آمدن دموکراسی و سپس مشکلات تاریخی‌ای که با خود به همراه آورده را ارائه داده است. شاید کمی رادیکال به نظر برسد، اما من فکر می‌کنم اینطور نیست. در انتهای کتاب دو مقاله از نویسنده هم اضافه شده که بیان دیگری -به طرزی جزئی‌تر- از نظریه‌ی آشوب هستند. در مجموع متن انسجام خیلی خوبی دارد و شاید بهتر بود -یا حداقل من اینطور بیشتر می‌پسندیدم- که کمی توضیح و تفسیر بیشتری برای آن روند تاریخی ارائه می‌داد. خصوصا با توجه به اینکه هانس هرمان هوپ استاد برجسته‌ی تاریخ است، درواقع می‌توانست خیلی بیشتر از تخصصش استفاده کند. در نهایت اما کتاب بسیار مفیدی است و به کسانی که به مفاهیم نظری سیاست علاقه‌مند هستند پیشنهاد می‌کنم مطالعه کنند.

[Riri · Rating 3 out of 5]

این سبک از کتاب رو خیلی دوست دارم‌؛ کتاب هایی که تفکرات پذیرفته شده توسط عموم (اکثر افراد) رو به چالش می کشند. (فارغ از دست و غلط بودنشون)

پ.ن: انگار یه مدل تمرین برای تفکر نقادانه است، برای نپذیرفتن چیزها بدون دلیل.

«۱۵ اردیبهشت ۴»

[Saeedeh Z‌are · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتابی جالب با بدترین ترجمه‌ی ممکن!

در عصر ما روش‌های حکومتی بر پایه پادشاهی بسیار تقبیح می‌شن. جای تعجبه که در چنین فضایی چنین کتابی اجازه انتشار گرفته. بخونیدش، برای دیدن وجوه نادیده و مثبت حکومت برمبنای پادشاهی و بعد برگردید به مدل سیاسی مورد علاقه‌اتون.

[Dan Coats · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very quick read and serves as a great primer to Hoppean political theory.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This a long essay covering the same material as Hoppe's best work, Democracy: The God that Failed. In order to shorten it, little justification is given for his assertions, and for someone who isn't already a Rothbardian/Hoppean/Anarcho-Capitalist, it may be hard to accept these assertions without justification. However, it does accurately summarize the AC perspective on politics, although it doesn't go into enough detail on how to get from the status quo (large democratic states) to this end state. The audiobook is decent but I'd prefer it be read by Hoppe himself.

[Kaberoi Rua · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe one of the great libertarian scholars who left his native country of Germany for the United States in order to study under one of the greatest intellectuals of our time, Murray N. Rothbard (The Enemy of the State) from the Austrian School of Economics. Hoppe is a master of theoretical history. He tells us in the introduction to From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy: it is no my purpose here to engage in a standard history, i.e., history as it is written by historians, but to offer a logical or sociological reconstruction of history, informed by actual historical events, but motivated more fundamentally by theoretical – philosophical and economic – concerns. In his essay, Hoppe thinks that in economic life, the Industrial Revolution enabled mankind to achieve an unprecedented level of prosperity. In government, though, matters are entirely different, and here Hoppe is a firm opponent of progressive orthodoxy. Hoppe demonstrates the evolution of the state from the natural aristocracy through monarchy to the corrupt and irresponsible ways of democracy. In Bastiat’s words, under democracy the state becomes the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. Every person and his personal property come within reach of and are up for grabs by everyone else. In Hoppe’s words, theoretically speaking, the transition from monarchy to democracy involves no more (or less) than the replacement of a permanent, hereditary monopoly “owner” – the king – by temporary and interchangeable “caretakers” – by presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament. Both, kings and presidents, will produce “bads”, i.e., they tax and they legislate. Yet a king, because he “owns” the monopoly and may sell and bequeath his realm to a successor of his choosing, his heir, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on his territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, his exploitation will be comparatively moderate and calculating. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office his permitted to use it to his own advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted, present-oriented, and uncalculating, i.e., carried out with no or little regard for the value of the capital stock. In short, it promotes capital consumption. Hoppe is not an advocating monarchy over democracy but provides ample evidence that democracy in the end will impoverish society and make life increasingly unpleasant. An amazing short read for any lover of liberty and Austrian Economics who like Rothbard sees “The State” for what it really is: “A gang of thieves, writ large”

[Norberto Iazzetta · Rating 3 out of 5]

From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy - Hans-Herman Hoppe


Aproveitando a vitória do Milei na Argentina, pela primeira vez um libertário (ou anarcocapitalista) vence uma eleição a presidente resolvi comentar sobre este livro que eu li há muito tempo e reli recentemente, mas nunca falei dele nas redes.


Eu não sou libertário ou "ancap", mas eu reconheço boas ideias e princípios em vários de seus ideólogos e dá pra dizer que este panfleto curto, não chega a dar um livro, talvez um artigo longo, é o que de melhor Hoppe nos legou. 


E tudo que ele coloca aqui é bastante atual e tem tudo a ver com nossos dias, inclusive no Brasil...


Eu não sei se existe uma versão em português deste livreto, talvez tenha algum PDF em algum site de algum instituto liberal ou libertário brasileiro, eu li no original. Quem souber se tem ou não em português, comenta em baixo com as coordenadas, por favor.


Primeiro de tudo, o autor é não apenas "ancap", mas também economista e uma grande parte dessa galera tende a mensurar tudo na vida em temos econômicos. A primeira premissa dele no ensaio é falsa, quando ele rebaixa todos os conflitos da humanidade simplesmente pela escassez de recursos. Não, está não é e nunca foi a única e talvez nem mesmo a principal origem dos conflitos humanos, mas esta redução dos problemas humanos não invalida a digressão que o autor faz da história da Europa (basicamente) do início do feudalismo até o século 20, demonstrando que a despeito do enorme progresso econômico e da qualidade de vida que nós ganhamos ao longo deste tempo, isto não se deveu graças às mudanças políticas do mundo, saindo da aristocracia, passando pela monarquia (em suas diversas etapas) e culminando na democracia atual. 


E a democracia atual não é a de Atenas, mas mesmo usando o conceito moderno de democracia, ela já está degenerada tal qual Platão já tinha dito mais de 2500 anos atrás.


Em essência, ele consegue através de bons argumentos demonstrar q a sociedade "ideal" não é a democracia e sim a boa a velha "aristocracia natural". E o que significa isso? Leia a porra do livro porque eu não vou contar tudo pra você aqui. 😉


Recomendo também a leitura de: Democracy: the God That Failed, também dele.


Sim, ele critica a democracia e você, idiota que nunca leu merda nenhuma de útil na vida, só besteira de internet, vai torcer o nariz e dizer "ain, ele critica democracia, que monstro, deve ser ditador, ain", certo? Então você pode continuar burro ou LER e depois ponderar o que foi escrito pra depois fazer sua crítica, se for o caso. 

[Mark Geise · Rating 5 out of 5]

"From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy" is a long essay by Hans-Hermann Hoppe that challenges the widespread conception that the movement toward democracy has been one of continual progress. He traces the trends behind these developments and the role academics played in these processes. Prior to the rise of political kings, natural aristocrats arose as the result of superior resources, reputation, and/or talents. These aristocrats generally were looked toward to resolve disputes among other members of the community; aristocrats that were unfair would lose their standing to serve in these informal positions of respect. Because territories were small, it was easier to hold these aristocrats accountable by moving to different territories or aligning with different aristocrats. The most powerful aristocrats rose to king-like positions, but these kings did not hold the power we traditionally associate with monarchs until lawmaking power was vested in these kings. Before this, king-type figures were not able to create new laws, but they instead relied primarily on precedent.

Lawmaking power precipitated the rise of modern states headed first by kings with lawmaking authority and later by democratically elected governments with lawmaking authority. Academics played a major role in this process; they first convinced the public that political kings could better understand and look out for the well-being of the people than could decentralized aristocrats. Academics would have a wider role in a centralized system than in a decentralized one, so they have a vested interest in promoting centralization. Finally, academics convinced the people that democratically elected governments would best represent their interests. Unfortunately, though, democracy has led to redistributive government that has amassed ever greater powers. Because "the people are the government," it is far more difficult to put a check on this increasing power. Though Hoppe makes it clear that aristocracy and monarchy have major flaws, this work is important because it takes head-on the notion that democracy is the most enlightened system. Even if you strongly disagree with Hoppe, "From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy" will make you think.

[Kade · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not great. Hoppe makes excellent points as to why Monarchy is superior to Democracy, but completely mischaracterizes Aristocracy as a Utopian pre-monarchical "natural order," rather than the stepping stone between Monarchy and Democracy that it actually is. He doesn't recognize that man's "natural order" is a state of sin, chaos, and misery. His "history" seems limited to northwestern Europe, and his theory to explain the political changes doesn't hold water. In reality, Monarchy was debased into Aristocracy when kings felt the responsibility of their position was to much for one man, and began pawning authority and its concurrent responsibility off on advisers. This pattern continued with each successive level pawning off authority/responsibility on those below, until the utter debasement of Democracy was reached, where all authority/responsibility is theoretically pawned off to the lowest level, "the people." This can be easily seen by examining the history of any historical democracy.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe presents a compelling narrative of societal decline from aristocracy to democracy, reminiscent of Plato’s account. Challenging Hobbes’ view on the necessity of the state for property rights and the existence of a social contract, Hoppe argues that property rights predate the state, emerging from homesteading and trade to address claims over scarce resources. This, however, appears to be a normative rather than historical position.

In Hoppe’s view, natural elites arise within a free private property community based on merit, achievement in wealth, and moral reputation, passing their status through selective inheritance. These elites, due to their independent wealth, are sought to settle disputes. The state, however, emerges from artificial conflict, particularly war, where rights are determined by the conqueror (vae victis) rather than objective claims from homesteading and trade. The state enlists intellectuals and the ambitious as propagandists, whose services lack support in an aristocracy, limiting freedoms to those permitted by the arbitrary rule of conquerors—an affront to property rights that favors force over reason and agreement. Natural elites must then join or co-opt the state to avoid expropriation.

Hoppe rejects monarchy as the ideal form of government, viewing the state itself as unnecessary and immoral for social order. Yet, he considers monarchy preferable to democracy, as a monarch, owning the country without owing authority to regular elections, is more future-oriented and better at managing the nation’s value. Democracy, in contrast, fosters competition over social “bads” like taxation and war, benefiting those who can loot the most during their tenure. This monopolization of sovereignty under a single ruler is preferable long-term, though it implies markets are not always beneficial. With “have-nots” outnumbering “haves,” democracy’s reach becomes limitless, contradicting Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis. Instead, Hoppe sees democracy as the state’s historical endpoint, descending into tyranny and degeneration, with private property under a natural aristocracy as mankind’s true “final aim.”

My perspective on Hoppe is that his theory of property rights and natural aristocracy is normative rather than historical. The merit from which aristocrats arose often involved conquest and plunder—even if defensive or retaliatory—akin to Hobbes’ “sovereignty by acquisition” (where a subject’s life is spared under duress) or “sovereignty by institution” (where elites recognize a king or receive titles for fealty). Plato termed this timocracy—rule of honor—distinct from the ideal aristocracy (rule of the best), though timocracy was the best feasible state. Viewing the family and household as societal units, lords become timocratic kings within their domains, federating into broader systems.

Medieval kings were not mere owners free to alienate their realms; tradition and posterity constrained them, distinguishing monarchy from despotism. Nobles handled governmental functions like military and courts, while the church managed social welfare. The alienable individual rights of capitalism emerged later with the decline of feudal entail and primogeniture, alongside modern states. Representative parliamentary government emerged from concessions granted by nobles in exchange for taxes and military service, thriving in regions like feudal Western Europe where ownership and sovereignty were broadly distributed. In contrast, autocracy flourished where elites relied on state power, as exemplified by Wittfogel’s hydraulic hypothesis linking centralized control to resource management.

Hoppe’s time preference argument for monarchy assumes an absolutist model—a privately held monopolist corporation governed by a lifelong CEO without a governing board. Fiscal independence (avoiding taxation or mass conscription) and careful public opinion management are required to prevent sedition. A monarch’s self-interest must align with the well-being of many subjects, necessitating personal investment in the nation and popular support—achievable through fiscal prudence, sovereign wealth funds, and avoiding military adventurism, which both sustains and destroys great states.

Contemporary democracy differs markedly from its ancient form. Historically, democracy involved free men in homogenous societies, lacking universal suffrage or modern rights, reflecting the household-led social order. Today, mixed governments have largely failed, with stable regimes consolidating into autocracies or democracies as social distinctions erode. Hoppe rightly critiques the collective irresponsibility and short time horizons of democratic politicians, whose expanded states create bureaucracies independent of popular will—a managerial “shadow government.” Efforts to limit the state often serve moneyed interests, perpetuating a cycle of populists versus technocrats or oligarchs, potentially reverting to personal rule as disorder grows.

A qualified defense of democracy exists, as Churchill noted it as the “worst form of government except for all the others.” Aristotle ranked monarchy and aristocracy above democracy in form, but their deviations—tyranny and oligarchy—were worse than democracy, a republic’s deviation. Monarchy and aristocracy rely heavily on virtuous rulers, while democracy is less harmed by a few bad actors, who are more easily replaced (though Hobbes favored individual rule’s consistency over a group’s). Per selectorate theory, a large electorate can source talent and oversee laws, especially as the state dominates life and economic activity disperses. Thus, democracy may be the best of imperfect options, with populist democracy preferable to technocracy or oligarchy’s lesser virtues.

[L. Samatar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hoppe quickly dissects the concepts of aristocratic rule, its pros and cons and to who and why the move to monarchical rule, its pros and cons. Hoppe the. crudely explains the flaws with democracy, how we got here and his views on the future. Lastly moving on towards his goal to shift from democracy back to aristocratic monarchical society.

In a very short and sweet format, we go from beginning to end with quick explanations in each stage.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book makes for a good introduction to Hoppe's work. It's basically the same content that you will find in his book A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline. However I would say this book is more similar to the second part, 'the decline'. This book/essay was good enough that it got me wanting to read more of Hoppe's work.

[Johannes J Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Holy truth

Ever since Moses in the (b)ible, man is doomed to be indoctrinated and intimidated by "the holy (b)ible, the holy Israelite (g)od, the holy religion, the holy land, the holy church", which is BS, and the curse of humanity.
Read this essay to understand how foolish man is.

[Gianluca Cameron · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good critique of capitalism's interaction with democracy but this guy is:

1) Way too optimistic about human nature

2) Way too enamoured with the idea that hierarchies correspond to worth/productivity

[William Schrecengost · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good and interesting. It's pretty much just a summary of his other book on Democracy. He covers a basic ideological history of monarchy and democracy. He showed well the hidden reign of the bureaucrats and businessmen via purchase of politicians.

[Frederick Hammill · Rating 1 out of 5]

I really felt that the author could’ve better organized his thoughts. This felt rambling at times, and seemed to make the same point different ways.

[Sam Dunn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Worth reading.

[Henrik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fantastic short book/essay that twist the standard perspective of progress of government. Hoppe is a well-known critic of democracy, in this book arguing that even monarchy is less pernicious.

[Bismark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting take on the development of the political institutions. This will change the reading of the history.

[TijnvHeertum · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eerste boek over anarcho-kapitalisme.
Erg interessant en logisch.

[Bryce Eickholt · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's basically an essay summarizing and clearifying things in Democracy: The God That Failed. It's short. Read both together.