I have turned into a
zero state or
zero government guy, as should have become clear over the past months and years. The criticism against both feudal and democratic state orders, is too fundamental and too destructive as if I could make compromises with it anymore. Note that Hoppe too condemns both feudalism and democracies. even worse, I think the likelihood of demicracy bringing bad perosnnel into controlling power is greater than the cfhance in a monarchy. Due to the implicaitons of the election mechnsim, you have extremely high chances, that the worst of the worst, the lowest charcters, the greatest cheaters liars, the most unscrupulous liars, the most immoral egoists come to power. And qualification is no argument in all this anyway. A monachy, on the other hand, "owns" land and people, and thus has an interest in keeping its property in good shape and manage it wisely. At lerast it shoudl have, and if that is the case, muzch more effort is donbe to make sure the next ruling generation indeed is sufficiently qualified. Of course, the monarchic system however gets haunted by corrupted gangsters, too, and history is filled with monarchs having caused havov on their nations and people. I would only argue that the chance to occasionally get a good administrator at the top is greater in a monarchic syste, than in a democracy, especially in the degenrated culture we have today the chance that political elections will give us responsible leaders, is zero. Because those telling the grim truths do not get elected, and do not get supported by established parties and lobbies, and voters prefer to vote for those making them better promises. It's all about voter bribery, as I have often said now, and by that making every voter a complice in crime who therefore has no right to complain, to criticise, to resist. In other words: it all is about preserving power and control for the elite at the top, and delaying the judgement day when our collapsing system will have no more space to evade. The power m onopoly and the monopoly of orinting money are the two most important tools for that. And if you think you can change that by going to the next elections and vote for the other guy, then I really cannot help you. I don't say it is naive, but I silently think it is.
I do not trust politicians and states, nor symbols or paroles, and my state of alertness is the higher the greater the group is by which it is triggered. Crowds of people are nothing but herds of cattle, easy to be led around. Also, to me, human intelligence and its resulting behavior and decision-making, and group size, are inversely proportional. By my life experience so far, I have no reason to step away from that assessment.
On quotes, for an academic paper you of course have different standards for source validation, than in private, and when the same quotes get printed in several different books, in several languages, and on the web get quoted up and down anyway, it becomes difficult to not realise what may or may not be historically original. In the end, while it might be correct to attribute a quote to "Anonymous" or somebody else, or like you did: giving a totally different quote replacing the first, which is different in wording and syntax, even in length and number of sentences, in the end it is the content that counts as long as the theme debated is not the historical figure assumed to be behind the quote, a person that then may appear in a different light
Such disputes about to whom a given quote is to be attributed, also are not new, nor are they rare.