In defence of Prince Charles

It's not exactly the most shocking thing to read that Members of Parliament are criticising Prince Charles for his management of the Duchy of Cornwall. That's what we expect MPs to do - it's much more exciting than examining their own expenditure.

I have no idea whether the Duchy is managed efficiently, or indeed whether it can be argued that it came into the possession of the Royal Family by means that are acceptable to libertarians. It would certainly be fascinating to conduct an audit of the Duchy's affairs, but that's not my concern here.

This is what caught my eye:

The landed estates are supposed to be in trust for future monarchs, but MPs had concerns that current beneficiaries could draw loans from the capital.

Charles's spokesmen say that the estate is not being run down by excessive current expenditure:

They denied that the prince's role in the running of the duchy would compromise the interest of future dukes, such as Prince William.

It seems clear to me that the MPs concerned take it as axiomatic that a private owner such as the Prince will prefer to spend the estate's income now instead of taking a long-term approach and conserving capital for the benefit of his heirs. I submit that this is nonsense.

I strongly recommend that readers purchase a copy of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy, the God that Failed, in which:

... monarchical government is reconstructed theoretically as privately owned government, which in turn is explained as promoting future-orientedness and a concern for capital values and economic calculation by the government ruler. Secondly, equally unorthodox but by the same theoretical token, democracy and the democratic experience are cast in an untypically unfavorable light. Democratic government is reconstructed as publicly owned government, which is explained as leading to present-orientedness and a disregard or neglect of capital values in government rulers, and the transition from monarchy to democracy is interpreted accordingly as civilizational decline.

Like Murray Rothbard, Hoppe understands that it's democracy, not monarchy, that's more likely to lead to economic short-sightedness. When Members of Parliament demonstrate that they have a good understanding of economic principles I'll be willing to treat them with a bit more respect. In the meantime we need to be far more concerned about politicians' expenditure than by anything that Prince Charles might be up to.