Facts and ideas: King’s Horses Amok in London

Serious arguments exist, both economic and moral, to justify the state (the central and sovereign government apparatus). There are also serious objections to these arguments. It is interesting to note that most people, including most economists, ignore both types.

I was thinking about this when I read the fun fact reported by the Wall Street Journal about the king’s horses running amok in London this morning (“King’s Horses run amok in London and escape Monarch’s birthday parade“, April 24, 2024):

Several of the king’s horses and some of his men caused chaos in the streets of this capital on Wednesday when members of the Household Cavalry lost their mounts, allowing the animals to gallop through rush-hour traffic and into taxis and double-decker buses as they were chased . by the police over several kilometers. …

News that equine members of the Household Cavalry – which bills itself as the ‘trusted guardians of the monarch’ – had gone rogue quickly set social media on edge.

“How could we have the king’s horses without the state?” would not be a serious argument, except perhaps in recognition of the importance of traditions. It certainly wouldn’t be a decisive argument in favor of the monstrous states we have now. The king’s horses carry little weight compared, for example, to the strong arguments against the state developed by Anthony de Jasay, who was also a strong believer in convention and tradition. About the Jasay, see my post from this morning, as well as my Econlib review of it Against politics.

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

DALL-E has no information about the King’s horses galloping in London this morning. So I asked them to imagine such an event. I’m using one of the zir responses as the featured image of this post.