This Cardinal Is In Serious Error

A few weeks ago, I welcomed Pope Benedict's call, delivered at the German parliament, for a public debate on positivism. 


Well, today, it seems that the first shot has been fired from within the Vatican itself, with Cardinal Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace releasing a document titled “Towards reforming the international financial and monetary systems in the context of the global public authority." This document - which is not a "papal document" - opposes a priorism in Economics, espouses empiricism and positivism, and since these are both "intellectual covers for socialism" - as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has written - the document ends up with all the grave errors of socialism, to the extent of calling for a global central bank.


But the Cardinal begins with some half-truths - half-truths that have prompted one commentator to call this document "Right diagnosis, deadly cure." After the diagnosis, the Cardinal asks the question:

What has driven the world in such a problematic direction for its economy and also for peace?

And his first answer is this:

First and foremost, an economic liberalism that spurns rules and controls. Economic liberalism is a theoretical system of thought, a form of “economic apriorism” that purports to derive laws for how markets function from theory, these being laws of capitalistic development, while exaggerating certain aspects of markets. An economic system of thought that sets down a priori the laws of market functioning and economic development, without measuring them against reality, runs the risk of becoming an instrument subordinated to the interests of the countries that effectively enjoy a position of economic and financial advantage. 

This is an issue concerning epistemology. The question is: Does Economics have to follow the method of physics - which is measurement, after which theories are arrived at a posteriori. Or are the Laws of Economics arrived at a priori, by deduction, and are established by logic, just like the propositions of mathematics or geometry, such that they do not need measurement and observation to validate them?


Let us take an example:


The Law of Exchange - which says that when a good is traded voluntarily, both parties gain by the trade; that their individual valuations of that good are unequal. Obviously, if I prefer beer over money, the barowner prefers money over beer. How does such a law require "measurement" or "observation" to validate it? Obviously, this law is NOT going to be established a posteriori. It is true a priori. 


In fact, "value" cannot be measured, for it lies within the valuing mind. "Value is subjective." All that can be measured are prices and quantities - and the price at which exchange transpires will show agreement, not unequal valuation. The "demand-and-supply curves" type of education teaches nonsense - and these curves can only be produced by "measurement." The curves are actually "statistics."  They are thus History - they are not Theory, which in Economics must be true a priori.


Hence, the methods of physics are NOT applicable to the Science of Economics. Positivism and empiricism are the intellectual covers for socialism and interventionism, since they deny the MIND of the acting individual, and they create the false impression of a "national economy" - with its "national income" and its "growth rate" - which must be managed by a super-human mind: that of the central planner; that of the Great Leader. 


Thus, Hans-Hermann Hoppe concludes his brief essay against empiricism with these words:

If we want to attack socialism, we must also attack the absurd intellectual error of empiricism. And if we want to defeat socialism, we must make a principled Misesian case based on the logic of human action and the irrefutable laws of economics.

Since Cardinal Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace,  espouses empiricism and disavows a priorism, he is led deep into socialism, statism, and even the "primacy of politics."


Here are some quotes from the rest of the document:

...the world’s peoples ought to adopt an ethic of solidarity as the animating core of their action... [But we are all individuals, and we buy and sell in markets full of strangers. See my article on "catallaxy."]

the risk of an “idolatry of the market..." [The real risk is idolatry of the State and political authority. See also Tom Woods' rejoinder here.]

global social justice seem most urgent... for achieving... a fair distribution of world wealth... [The "mirage of social justice" gone global!]

one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of “central world bank” [Horrors!]

strengthening the existing institutions, such as the European Central Bank [Here is a report that Germany will ditch the Euro if the ECB starts printing more of them.]

In this process, the primacy of the spiritual and of ethics needs to be restored and, with them, the primacy of politics – which is responsible for the common good – over the economy and finance. [Read Anthony de Jasay's Before Resorting to Politics.]

forms of recapitalization of banks with public funds making the support conditional on “virtuous” behaviours aimed at developing the “real economy” [Moral hazard.]

At this point, I would like to remind the Cardinal of his views on the Principle of Subsidiarity, which he upholds, and defines as follows:

According to the logic of subsidiarity, the higher Authority offers its subsidium, that is, its aid, only when individual, social or financial actors are intrinsically deficient in capacity, or cannot manage by themselves to do what is required of them.

Now, money has ALWAYS been "private money": GOLD. Accordingly, we human beings, in freedom, without the aid of any political authority, can manage to produce our own money. Free banking can be conducted under traditional commercial law - as Jesus Huerta de Soto has shown. Thus, according to a Principle upheld by the Church, and also by Cardinal Turkson, there is NO NEED for ANY POLITICAL AUTHORITY over money and banking, and certainly not at the global level.


This is NOT new - not "neo-liberalism." This is "classical liberalism." Adam Smith's "Three Duties of the Sovereign" did NOT include anything to do with money. I have recounted these three duties here.


Mises put it best, in Human Action, when he wrote:

The use of money in a market economy is a praxeologically necessary fact. That gold, and not something else, is used as money is merely a historical fact and as such cannot be conceived by catallactics.

Thus, we Hindus are currently celebrating Diwali - when we traditionally buy gold. It is a "custom" - from History. This has NOTHING to do with "theory."

As far as "world order" is concerned, Mises also put it best when he wrote, in Nation, State, and Economy:

Liberalism, which demands full freedom of the economy, seeks to dissolve the difficulties that the diversity of political arrangements pits against the development of trade by separating the economy from the state. It strives for the greatest possible unification of law, in the last analysis for world unity of law. But it does not believe that to reach this goal, great empires or even a world empire must be created.

I also recommend to my reader this Islamic Judgment on Paper Money - which shows very clear reasoning.

But recall where I began unraveling this litany of errors - with Cardinal Turkson's empiricism, his antipathy to a priorism, and his love for "measurement" in Economics. On the subject of epistemology, I earnestly recommend Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Economic Science and the Austrian Method, which you can find here.


Professor Hoppe's article "Why the State demands Control of Money" is also a very useful read in today's times.

Why I Despise Central Banking, Keynes, And Keynesians Like Paul Krugman

Western Europe, and, in particular, England, developed ahead of the rest of the world only because here the people managed to contain their rulers. Kings, and their royal servants, had to "obey the law" no less than the people. Property and contracts were thus secure from State predation. Economic development naturally followed. In England, the beginning was in 1215 AD - the signing of the Magna Carta. With this, there was "due process," habeas corpus, and much more. After this, the people said, of their rulers:

The King is UNDER God and the Law

and

There is no King where Will rules and not the Law

Such events never happened in nations like ours. Our rulers were always arbitrary.


With the coming of written constitutions, a new concept emerged alongside that of the Rule of Law - and that is "limited government": the purpose of constitutions was to limit the powers and scope of the State. There are two effective means of limiting this power: one, by constitutional law; and the second, by the Budget.


Both these limits to government have been overthrown in modern times by the Keynesians, what with central banking and fiat paper money. These have been weapons in the hands of rulers to buy up support and to finance anything and everything to their own glory, from wars to welfare to space exploration. Entire parliaments can be bought. This is particularly true of India.


The whole world has been inflated. Money is no longer something "hard." It is just government paper. 


Yet, this government paper still has a "promise to pay" inscribed upon it, signed by the central banker. This promise - which makes the note a solemn contract - is meaningless today. The note is actually a Property Title. Today, there is no property backing this title. This is the problem the whole world is facing.


These central banksters practice "fractional reserve banking" with private bankers who are members of their paper money cartel. They say they are "lenders of last resort." Money as well as banking become corrupt under such a system. 


We need gold as money - and free private banking under ordinary commercial law. The writings of Jesus Huerta de Soto are vital in this context. And there is an essay on their import in my Natural Order: Essays Exploring Civil Government & the Rule of Law, which you can read online here. This version is dated 2007 - and I am hoping to have a new edition out next year.


The Keynesians have a very different view of money and banking - one based on "immorality." Keynes claimed to be an "amoralist" - but that was just his homosexuality. As an economist of money and banking, he was a pucca immoralist. Read about Keynes and the "ruling class" who adopted his ideas wholesale in this brief article by Garet Garret. Also, do read the article "Why the State demands control of money" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.


Today, the most prominent Keynesian in the world is the Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. On the crisis in the Eurozone, Krugman writes that the best way out is to resort to "the power of the printing press" - and let the European Central Bank do the needful, even if current rules do not permit it. 


Really! If printing money could produce wealth, Indians would have been rich long, long ago.


Indeed, even producing more gold and silver does NOT create wealth, as the history of Spain and Portugal testify. The silver mines of Potosi and all the gold looted from South America did not make these nations rich. 


Britain got rich when gold was exported by the East India Company in exchange for spices - much to the displeasure of the mercantilists. What constitutes the "wealth of nations"? Adam Smith answered that in 1776 - and the plain answer was that it was NOT the hoard of bullion. If so, what can more irredeemable paper notes accomplish?


But Keynesian errors are not new. Ludwig von Mises, in his Notes & Recollections, writes of Carl Menger that his essay on "Geld" (money) which he contributed to the German-language Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences was brilliant. A few pages later, Mises writes:

For obvious reasons I frequently discussed G. F. Knapp's Staatliche Theorie des Geldes (State Theory of Money) with Menger. His answer was, "It is the logical development of Prussian police science. What are we to think of a nation whose whose elite, after two hundred years of Economics, admire such nonsense, which is not even new, as highest revelation? What can we still expect of such a nation?"

Menger, Mises writes, foresaw the destruction of Old Europe. He foresaw the wars that engulfed the whole world. All these wars were financed by "funny money." And these wars will forever continue until the State is once again "limited" by the Budget. And money is gold. Money is private.


Mises once wrote that these "intellectual battles" of our time are something everyone must plunge into - if civilisation is to be saved. These are not difficult issues to understand: what is money? what is banking? etc. I see people crack their brains on crossword puzzles, computer games and Sudoku every day. Yet, these are just pleasurable pastimes, meant to banish boredom.


Surely people can crack their brains at the vital issues of our age - money and banking? The future of our kids - and theirs - depend on it. If Krugman-types win the day, all will be lost.


Paul Krugman also wants to "protect" corrupt banking practices. He wants the power of the printing press to wipe out banking sector losses - irrespective of how much inflation will surely follow, and how much capital loss ordinary people will have to suffer. At least we in India ought to know better than to endure continued inflationism to fund welfare.


In the USSA, there is only one presidential candidate who knows money and banking well - and that is Ron Paul. His photograph graces this post. He wants to "end the Fed." He wants to end war too. He stands for Gold, Freedom, and Peace. 


I wish Ron Paul would add PROPERTY to this list. Without property, there can be no freedom; there can be no "limited government"; there can be no "rule of law": rechtstaat.


Ron Paul will succeed - and civilisation will be saved - only if all you people out there STUDY money and banking and arrive at your own decisions as to what is truth and what is falsehood; what is good, and what is evil.


So, don't "agitate" at political rallies before agitating your brains first.


This is my sincere advice to you all. 

What Is "National Greatness"?

Thanks to a link provided by a The God That Failed post, I found a brief article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe published in The Free Market in 1999, on Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), arguably the greatest genius Germany has ever produced, detailing facets of Goethe's life, and ending with a long quote on Goethe's views on "national greatness." The article so moved me that I am publishing it in full below:

Goethe on National Greatness

by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

This year [1999] marks the 250th birthday of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, the greatest of all German writers and poets and one of the giants of world literature. In his political outlook, he was also a thorough-going classical liberal, arguing that free trade and free cultural exchange are the keys to authentic national and international integration. He argued and fought against the expansion, centralization, and unification of government on grounds that these trends can only hinder prosperity and true cultural development.

Born in 1749 in the free imperial city of Frankfurt am Main into an upper middle-class family, Goethe studied law in Leipzig and Strassburg. However, upon receiving his doctorate and practicing briefly as a lawyer, he set out on a career that can only be characterized as a spectacular success. A poet, dramatist, novelist, lyricist, artist, and critic of architecture, art, literature, music, and nature; a natural scientist and a student of anatomy, botany, morphology, and optics, Goethe to this day, at least for Germans, defines the meaning of genius, with an oeuvre encompassing more than sixty volumes.

In 1775, at the invitation of Duke Carl August von Saxe-Weimar, Goethe visited Weimar and took up residence there until his death in 1832, interrupted by frequent and extended travels all across Germany, to Switzerland, Italy, and France. It was surely during these travels that he developed his liberal political position.

From 1648 until the Napoleonic wars, Germany consisted of some 234 countries, 51 free cities, and about 1,500 independent knightly manors. Of this multitude of independent political units, only Austria counted as a great power, and only Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, and Hannover could be considered major political players. Saxe-Weimar was one of the smaller and poorer countries, encompassing just a few dozen villages and small towns.

As a result of the Vienna Congress of 1815 following Napoleon's defeat, the number of independent political territories was reduced to thirty-nine. Owing to the family relationship of its ruling house with the Russian dynasty, Saxe-Weimar grew by about one third of its former size (to a size slightly larger than that of Rhode Island) and became the Grand Duchy of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach. Still, it remained one of Germany's smaller, poorer, and politically less significant countries.

Its capital, Weimar, was a small town of less than 6,000 inhabitants when Goethe moved there, and even at the time of his death in 1832 it had only grown to 10,000. Goethe had come to Weimar as Carl-August's favorite, and he continued in the role of Carl-August's closest personal advisor until the Duke's death in 1828. Carl-August and Goethe rode, hunted, and caroused together, and in the year following his arrival in Weimar, Goethe was appointed by Carl-August to his four-member Privy Council, becoming his second most highly paid servant (with a rather modest salary of 1,200 Taler per annum).

At the behest of Carl-August, Goethe was ennobled by the Emperor Joseph II. At various times, Goethe's duties as a member of the Privy Council involved the supervision of the Duchy's six-hundred- strong army (he reduced its size to 293), the construction of its roads and mines, the management of its finances (he cut taxes), the operation of the court theater, and the oversight of its nearby University of Jena, which at that time included among its faculty Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, Schiller, Humboldt, and the brothers Schlegel.

Already acclaimed throughout Germany when he settled in Weimar, Goethe's fame grew immensely in the following years. Whether it was on his travels or in Weimar, nearly everyone sought his companionship, from Johann Gottfried Herder, Alexander and Wilhelm von Humboldt, Madame de Stael, Friedrich von Schiller, Felix Mendelssohn, Ludwig van Beethoven, Freiherr vom Stein, and Empress Maria Ludovica of Austria, to Napoleon. Indeed, by the last decade of Goethe's life, he and Weimar had become synonymous with German culture, and Weimar and the Goethe residence became the objects of veritable pilgrimages by members of the German Bildungsbürgertum (the educated bourgeoisie).

It was during this last phase of his life when Goethe, in a conversation recorded by one of his devotees, Johann Peter Eckermann, made the following remarks concerning the relationship between political particularism (Kleinstaaterei) and culture. At the time these remarks were made, on October 23, 1828, Germany had become increasingly affected by democratic and nationalistic sentiments as a result of the French Revolution and the following Napoleonic era. Most of the German liberals had become democrats and advocates of a unified German nation state.

As a liberal, Goethe, wisely and with remarkable prescience, stood largely alone in firm opposition to this transformation of the liberal creed. In his view, mass democracy was incompatible with liberty. "Legislators and revolutionaries who promise equality and liberty at the same time," he wrote in his Maximen und Reflexionen, "are either psychopaths or mountebanks." And political centralization, as Goethe explained in his conversation with Eckermann, would lead to the destruction of all culture:

"I do not fear that Germany will not be united; our excellent streets and future railroads will do their own. Germany is united in her patriotism and opposition to external enemies. She is united, because the German Taler and Groschen have the same value throughout the entire Empire, and because my suitcase can pass through all thirty-six states without being opened. It is united, because the municipal travel documents of a resident of Weimar are accepted everywhere on a par with the passports of the citizens of her mighty foreign neighbors. With regard to the German states, there is no longer any talk of domestic and foreign lands. Further, Germany is united in the areas of weights and measures, trade and migration, and a hundred similar things which I neither can nor wish to mention.

"One is mistaken, however, if one thinks that Germany's unity should be expressed in the form of one large capital city, and that this great city might benefit the masses in the same way that it might benefit the development of a few outstanding individuals.

"To be sure, the state has been compared to a living body with many parts, and a state's capital thus might be compared to the heart, which supports the life and well-being of its near and distant parts. If the parts are very far from the heart, however, the flow of life will become weaker and weaker. A thoughtful Frenchman, I believe Daupin, has drawn up a map regarding the state of culture in France, indicating the higher or lower level of enlightenment of its various 'Departements' by lighter or darker colors. There we find, especially in the southern provinces, far away from the capital, some `Departements' painted entirely in black, indicating a complete cultural darkness. Would this be the case if the beautiful France had ten centers, instead of just one, from which light and life radiated?

"What makes Germany great is her admirable popular culture, which has penetrated all parts of the Empire evenly. And is it not the many different princely residences from whence this culture springs and which are its bearers and curators? Just assume that for centuries only the two capitals of Vienna and Berlin had existed in Germany, or even only a single one. Then, I am wondering, what would have happened to the German culture and the widespread prosperity that goes hand in hand with culture.

"Germany has twenty universities strewn out across the entire Empire, more than one hundred public libraries, and a similar number of art collections and natural museums; for every prince wanted to attract such beauty and good. Gymnasia, and technical and industrial schools exist in abundance; indeed, there is hardly a German village without its own school. How is it in this regard in France!

"Furthermore, look at the number of German theaters, which exceeds seventy, and which cannot be disregarded as bearers and promoters of higher public education. The appreciation of music and song and their performance is nowhere as prevalent as in Germany, and that counts for something, too.

"Then think about cities such as Dresden, Munich, Stuttgart, Kassel, Braunschweig, Hannover, and similar ones; think about the energy that these cities represent; think about the effect they have on neighboring provinces, and ask yourself, if all of this would exist if such cities had not been the residences of princes for a long time.

"Frankfurt, Bremen, Hamburg, Luebeck are large and brilliant, and their impact on the prosperity of Germany is incalculable. Yet, would they remain what they are if they were to lose their independence and be incorporated as provincial cities into one great German Empire? I have reason to doubt this."

As highly as Germans revered Goethe as a national hero, they did not heed his advice at the end of the Cold War. Nor have most people in Europe paid heed to his warnings on the dangers of political centralization. Pertinent today as they were when written, Goethe's insights regarding the social and political foundations of culture still demand our attention.

**************        **********************      ****************

My comments:

I think what Goethe has written applies to our entire sub-continent, and I wrote a leader article along these lines in The Times of India in 2002, titled "Alternative Nation: The Public Administration of Anarchy." This article has been preserved here.

In 1947, let us not forget, there were 652 "princely states" - and Goa was Portuguese. Pondicherry was French. And the British co-existed - and our civilisation of cities and towns was well-administered.

Food for thought, what?

And I hope some people in the USSA as well as "United Germany" are reading this!

Only Liberty And Property, Dudes

I found a strange article - actually a sort of book review - in Mint the other day, with the strange title:

More literacy + More per capita income= More democracy

And the sub-title read:

Whether education promotes democracy or the causality is the other way around, has been the subject of a heated debate, with some economists saying that institutions are the prime engine of growth, while others view human capital as the root cause of economic development

And, at the bottom, was the author, 

Manas Chakravarty's, conclusion:

Developing countries in East Asia, for instance, slowly became more democratic as they became richer. That could hold true for China as well. And for India, the success of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and the concomitant higher levels of literacy, together with higher per capita income, will lead to a more meaningful participation in our democracy.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Note that the author never mentions the sweet word "Liberty." Nor that other sweet word "Property." We have neither - but we have "democracy." It is democratic legislation that banned 70,000 dancing girls in Bombay - and put some 5,00,000 musicians, bartenders, waiters, bouncers and cooks out of work. It is subordinate legislation that does not permit anyone to open a simple beer bar in Nude Elly. 


Yet, we are told we have The Vote. But you cannot eat The Vote; nor can you feed it to your family. Liberty is what you need - not The Vote.


And as for State Education: There are lots of people who could survive very well without formal education - like dancing girls and musicians.


There are lots of people who know something valuable that no formal education can teach them - like the tribals who "know" how to distil mahua from a jungle flower of the same name. They need Liberty.


Democracy is "the god that failed" - and this is clear when we look at Europe and the USSA today. With a "time preference" of just five years, democratic rulers "loot and scoot." Lord Keynes has given them the ability to do so even better. And their "education" (and their "intellectuals") have just endorsed Keynesian and socialist myths. 


If you read Hoppe's book, you will find a clear demonstration of the fact that "traditional monarchies" were better than democracy - because then, the ruler was "under the law," the people had liberty as well as property, and the ruler's time horizon was limitless, because his son would take over after he died, and so he had the desire to keep on increasing the capital value of his State. 


Under democracy, all we have, internationally, is "capital consumption" - which is the road to "de-civilisation." Just wait a few months, and you will realise how The Vote has destroyed the world. Especially "western civilisation." 


Destroyed.


Apart from Liberty, people need the inviolable right to Property - because this unlocks the "mystery of capital." As Hernando de Soto has shown, through field  studies all over the Third World, from Bangladesh to Egypt, poor people own property in these "poor nations" - property worth trillions - but possess no "titles." This bars them from Capitalism. They remain poor - forever. They live in shantytowns.


The sort of book that Manas Chakravarty has reviewed for his column is a good example of the kind of "empirical research" the subject of Economics does NOT need. There is no theoretical proposition in this subject that can be either established or proved by such research. The theories of Economics are best thought through by the economist in an armchair - and then used to confirm reality in the outside world. 


The Science of Economics consists of "looking out from within the consciousness." The importance of Liberty and Property are embedded within our consciousness. 


It is tragic that a columnist who purports to talk "Simply Economics" loses sight of his objective, gets entangled in pointless "empirical research," and then arrives at conclusions that support the ambitions of our Predatory State. 


So I go beyond what I said the other day:

Our poor people need Liberty and Property - and Nothing Else. 

They do NOT need Welfare.

They do NOT need Miseducation.

They do NOT need The Vote.

PS: The picture above is of John Locke, who wrote, in 1691, "where there is no Property, there is no Justice."

The God That Failed: Take #2

Democracy is also a form of worship. 

It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.

—H. L. Mencken

Democracy has been the recipient of many an abuse - perhaps none greater than PJ O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores, though that is an insult to whores, who, unlike parliaments, do not fuck you by force.

Today, this very same parliament has been heaped with abuse in this LRC post by Laurence Vance titled "The US Congress Contains the Biggest Bunch of Buffoons, Idiots and Morons in the World." 

The subject matter pertains to Google, because of whom we all enjoy so many free facilities, and who are now  being accused of being "monopolistic and violating anti-trust laws." Well, if you download Google Chrome, before installation you have a choice of three search engines. Monopolistic?

Anyway, which libertarian believes in busting monopolies by anti-trust legislation and competition commissions? What did MRTPC ever achieve in socialist India? And, as I discussed yesterday, it is State-owned Air India and BSNL that offer the private sector "unfair competition."

What is required is openness to entry by new players - which is how Microsoft's Windows Explorer got busted by Mozilla and Google Chrome.

Yes. The US Congress is nuts. And, incidentally, they are very corrupt as well.

Let us turn our attention to UK. Here is how a post from Andy Duncan's "The God That Failed" blog begins:

It would seem that as we enter the ‘idiot’ season, in which various British government halfwits (a.k.a. politicians) have pontificated on the need for more ‘stimulus’ – because previous attempts at ‘stimulus’ have been so successful – this country is standing at the edge of an abyss of debt collapse.

When will we learn that those who rule us are morons? 

Do read my comment at the bottom - about a moron I saw on BBC, which is "State-owned broadcasting." Like Pravda. Doordarshan. All India Radio. Ha ha. Poor Brits. "Thought Control" writ large.


And there is worse: The very next post says "UK QE to resume in October." Well, Keynes was English, so whaddya expect? Morons.



And now, let us turn to our morons, "socialist planners." Our Great Leader, the socialist-welfarist-democrat, chacha manmohan s gandhi, is concurrently Chairman of the Planning Commission, and this Very Important Department of our The State has got its knickers in a twist over "measuring poverty." Is 26 rupees a day poor, or is 32 rupees? And what about inflation, etc.? 


The fuss is all about welfare - the "right to food," by which this The State will mail parcels of uncooked grain to the well-measured poor, while street vendors who sell cheap cooked food are preyed upon by both policemen as well as municipal functionaries.

The Predatory State pretending to be a Welfare State.

I suggest these people look at the Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International. India is ranked 87/178 with Albania, Jamaica, and Liberia, with a score of 3.3 out of 10!


And I suggest my readers read the World Economic Freedom Index, from the Heritage Foundation, which finds India "mostly unfree," ranked 124/179, below Pakistan, Malawi, Tonga and Benin!


Also, read this analysis of the Economic Freedom Index from the Mises Institute. They are also offering an online course on the importance of Economic Freedom.


Democracy: The God That Failed; The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order by Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a MUST READ. Buy it in India here.


Unfortunately, Hoppe does not write much about the "Natural Order": for that, read my eponymously titled book available as a free download on the right-hand bar.

Natural Liberty

Natural Order

Natural Justice

On Kings, For Kings: Take #2

This morning, at the tea-shop, I met two Gurkhas from Nepal. One said he'd been in Pondicherry for 12 years. The other said he'd been here for 26 years! Both said that they'd prefer to stay back home - if only their country had some economic prospects to offer. Both said that today things were far worse than during King Birendra's reign. They decried Nepal's politicians. And they did not say anything good about their new king, Gyanendra, or his son, Paras.


Hans-Hermann Hoppe comes to mind. In his magnificent book Democracy: The God That Failed Hoppe puts forward the thesis that "traditional monarchies" are always much better than democracies. Yet, if we look around, we see so many kings who don't know a thing about government: Thailand, Nepal, Bhutan, Japan - and even England and all the Crowned Heads of Europe.


To me (and I do believe Hoppe will concur with me on this) the greatest monarchs of Europe were the Hapsburgs - and America did the world a great disservice by pulling them down. Of course, they had their own tragedies, too - and the mysterious death/suicide of Crown Prince Rudolf was one of these. It damaged Carl Menger's career, for sure, for Menger was Rudolf's teacher.


In the world of today, democracies are ALL failing - from the USSA to Europe to Japan to India - and the main reason is the "funny money" which is causing "capital consumption" and consequent "de-civilisation."


Traditional monarchies must replace them - or we must head for a "Natural Order."


Traditional monarchies ruled without Parliament. The monarch commanded the public administration - and that is all. People lived in a "private law society." There was zero legislation. The King rarely passed statutes binding on all his subjects. The people had Property, Contracts and Torts - and Liberty, too.


And there is more. Traditional monarchies never produced paper money. Money was GOLD - and gold is a form of "private money." Under traditional monarchies, the world was under a Gold Standard. Below is Adam Smith's famous "Three Duties of the Sovereign" - and do note there is NO mention of money:

According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings:

first, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies; 

secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice;

and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.

Now, if some monarchs here and there want to emulate their ancient forbears and govern their nations well, I recommend a book, and that is Carl Menger's Lectures to Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria. Menger had been hand-picked by the Empress Catherine to tutor her son in "classical liberal political economy" and had he made it to the throne, Rudolf would surely have made an excellent king.


But this book is now with us, in an edition prepared by Professor Erich Streissler of Vienna University, from the hand-written notebooks of Rudolf himself, which were found in the State Archives.


Kings who wish to deserve their crowns and thrones ought to read this book.


And then, who knows, the magic of the Hapsburgs might be recreated in some other parts of the world.