EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Author: Hans-Hermann Hoppe
The original text in English can be found here.
One of the most commonly held statements among political economists is this: every monopoly is bad from the consumer’s point of view. A monopoly in its classical sense is the exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a good or service, i.e., the lack of free access to enter the market. In other words, only company “A” can produce good “x.” A monopoly is bad news for consumers because, protected from potential new entrants to the market, the company can change the price of product “x” as it pleases, while at the same time lowering its quality.
This argument is often made in favor of democratically elected government over monarchical government. This is because in a democracy, entry into the government apparatus is free – anyone can become prime minister or president – whereas in a monarchy, only the king or his heir can.
However, this argument in favor of democracy is wrong. Free access is not always a good thing. If it is a question of competition in the production of goods, it is positive, but free competition in the production of "bad things" is not. Free access to the market for the torture and murder of innocent people, counterfeiting or fraud, for example, is not a positive thing. So we must ask ourselves the question - what kind of "business" is the state? The answer is that it is not a typical producer of goods sold voluntarily to consumers. Rather, it is a "business" that carries out theft and expropriation through taxes and counterfeiting. Therefore, free access to state power does not improve anything. On the contrary, it makes things worse.
Since man is what he is, in every society there are people who desire the property of others. In some people this feeling is stronger, but they usually learn to ignore it or even feel ashamed of it. Usually there are few who cannot suppress this desire and they are treated as criminals. Under monarchical rule only one person – a prince/tsar/monarch/king/sultan – can legally fulfill his desire to possess the property of others.
He is, however, limited in his desires, because all the other members of society have learned to regard his desire to appropriate the property of others as shameful and immoral. Accordingly, they observe his every action with the greatest suspicion. In complete contrast to this, in a democratically elected government, everyone has the right to freely express this desire for the property of others. What was considered immoral and therefore forbidden is now considered legitimate. Everyone can openly desire the property of everyone else in the name of democracy; and everyone can realize this desire of his, provided that he finds a place in the government.
Thus, under democratic rule, the popular, though immoral and antisocial, desire to appropriate the property of others is systematically strengthened. Every demand is legitimate if it is made public under the special protection of "freedom of speech." Even the seemingly most protected right to private property is under threat of redistribution. Even worse, in a mass election, those members of society who have little or no reservations about acquiring the property of others, and who are most talented in gathering a majority of mutually incompatible public demands, are most likely to rise to the top of state power. Thus a bad situation becomes worse.
Historically, the selection of a prince was based on his noble birth, and the only personal qualification required was his upbringing as a future prince and guardian of the dynasty. This of course does not guarantee that he would not be bad and dangerous. However, it is worth mentioning that any prince who fails to fulfill his primary task of preserving the dynasty - thereby destroying his country, causing unrest, or otherwise threatening the dynasty - faces the risk of being overthrown or killed by another member of his family.
In contrast, the election of government officials makes it almost impossible for a good or harmless person to rise to the top. Prime ministers and presidents are elected because they are immoral demagogues. Thus, democracy virtually guarantees that only bad and dangerous people will rise to the top of government. In fact, as a result of free political competition, those who rise will become increasingly bad and dangerous individuals, but being temporary and interchangeable officials they will rarely be assassinated.
Henry Louis Mencken's quote from "A Mencken Chrestomathy: His Own Selection of His Choicest Writing" fits perfectly:
“Politicians are rarely, if ever, elected on merit alone, at least in democratic countries. They are elected usually for very different reasons, the chief of which is their power to impress and charm the intellectually undeveloped… Will any of them dare to tell the truth and nothing but the truth about the state of affairs in the country? Will any of them refrain from making promises that they know they cannot keep—indeed, such as no man could keep? They will all promise every man, woman, and child in the country whatever they desire. They will all dig into the ground, seeking a way to make the poor rich, to fix the impossible, to help the discontented. When one of them says that two and two make five, another will say that it is six, six and a half, ten, twenty, and so on. In short, they will present themselves as sensible, sincere, and truthful people, and will turn themselves into candidates for office, seeking votes. They will all "They will learn, if they haven't already, that votes are won by talking nonsense and utopias. The winner will be the one who promises the most with the least likelihood of delivering anything."
The original publication of the translation can be found here.
