Are Monarchies Better for Economic Growth? Here’s What the Empirical Evidence Says.

Source: Mises Institute.

The writer’s observations are interesting in several ways.

First, they validate the hierarchy of government systems Plato asserted 2,000 years ago: Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy, Tyranny.

Second, they show that self-interest operates in a government system just as it does in a market system.

Third, they suggest that government may have a natural, but absolute, size limit.

19 thoughts on “Are Monarchies Better for Economic Growth? Here’s What the Empirical Evidence Says.

  1. I’d put tyranny ahead of Democracy.

    There’s always a chance you will get a wise and benevolent tyrant, but there will never be a mob that is anything but the basest elements of its worst members.


      1. I am beginning to worry that a Constitutional republic eventually devolves to a true democracy, and from there to fascism.

        The only thing standing in the way right now is the filibuster and a single Senator from West Virginia.


        1. There are many, many countries whose governments are far, far closer to “true democracy” than we are and yet they are much further from fascism than we are. Bottom line is that the evidence runs counter to your doctrinaire, anti-democratic beliefs.

          And, I will add that your expressed fear of fascism does not sit comfortably with your uncritical support of Donald Trump who was, after all, the closest thing we have ever had to a fascist in the White House.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “If you believe that, you have no idea what fascism is.”

            One of us clearly doesn’t.
            Your combination of fearing it and supporting Trump shows clearly which one of us that is.

            Perhaps you have been taken in by the likes of Jonah Goldberg who managed to twist language and history into pretzels to “prove” that Democrats are fascists?


    1. RE: “There’s always a chance you will get a wise and benevolent tyrant…”

      That would be a good king, leading to monarchy..


  2. Judging by the comments of two Trump supporters, there is no doubt in my mind that anointing the ex-president as “president for life” was not just a wish, but the plan from the beginning. Which makes the denigration by Trump of the elections in 2016 and 2020 a steady drumbeat of a call for dictatorship.

    So now that we understand each other, perhaps you should at least pick a smart, honest and curious person to upstage the Constitution.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. NOT





      But even so, being permanently governed by Trump, constrained by the Constitution, is far better than by the Mob which will not be constrained by anything.

      Democracy in its true form is a horror that would put the Nazis on a pedestal.

      And that is why preserving the Constitution is a fight worth having over every tiny detail.


      1. …”constrained by the Constitution”…

        He was doing everything he could to ignore or destroy the Constitution. He was not constrained by it. Proven by his refusal to accept Constitutionally mandated laws with regard to elections. Including asking his VP to overturn the EC.

        But that is OK by you.

        ANd while not everything is about 45, you made the same kind of statements with regards to Obama, so there is the good ol’ Libertarian hypocrisy again.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. But Trump was constrained by the Constitution, Where he exceeded his authority, SCOTUS stopped him.

          Now, Democrats seek to pack the court and remove the protections for the minority in the Senate so their excesses cannot be stopped.

          That is the problem, we have checks and balances built it to limit excesses and the Democrats are seeking to remove those fail safes.

          That makes the horrors of true democracy a real and present danger.


          1. The filibuster is NOT in the Constitution.

            And while SOME Democrats may be pursuing court packing (I disagree with the premise), that does not mean that ALL Democrats are so inclined.

            Meanwhile GOP legislatures across the country are working on or passing bills targeting Democrat voting blocs and protecting people who decide to run over peaceful protesters.

            Think about that the next time there is a 2A rally in Richmond and someone decides to run over someone walking to said rally.


          2. No, the filibuster is not in the Constitution but it is definitely in harmony with the intent.

            The House court packing bill was passed with every single Democrat voting for it, so yes, they are so inclined.


          3. “The House court packing bill was passed with every single Democrat voting for it . . .”

            You are either lying or you have been duped. Again. Such a bill was introduced by a three members of the Democratic caucus. Speaker Pelosi immediately shot it down. There has been no vote.

            This is a good example of why you should apply critical thinking skills before posting (assuming you were not selling a lie). If something fits too closely with what you really, really want to believe but is otherwise outlandish, double check so that lying liars don’t leave you with egg on your face. The idea that every single Democratic member of Congress would vote for such a bill IS outlandish.


            Liked by 1 person

          4. …”I was thinking of the unConstitutional DC Statehood bill.”

            How so?

            And I find it interesting that you refer to almost ANY bill introduced by Democrats to be unconstitutional. You’re blinded by hatred.


          5. Senior moment?

            Okay, but the comment about applying a little bit of critical thinking still applies. The claim you made in that senior moment is “too good to be true” for someone who thinks like you. That is a sign that a little fact checking is called for.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. “Democracy in its true form is a horror that would put the Nazis on a pedestal.”

        What in the world are you talking about? Which current or past country has experienced this “true horror?”

        This sounds like the “No true Scotsman” fallacy since there are many VERY democratic countries with clear-cut majority rule through parliamentary systems where the result has been the opposite of “horror.” It is obvious that you would say that such countries are not experiencing “Democracy in its true form.”

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Nazis are already on the pedestal. Hundred with torches chanting “Jews will not replace us” was the opening bid.

    And they were not leftists. They were emboldened by the ex-president and continued to be so until 1/6/2021. And, of course, there was your “mob not constrained by anything”. They also were not leftists.

    You will never admit that for some reason.

    Why do you keep referring to pure democracy when that is not even a reality?

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s