De La Court argued that republican government was superior in every way to monarchy. He excoriated the Princes of Orange that had historically ruled Holland, noting the "pernicious effects" of their rule. Writing that "the inhabitants of a republick are infinitely more happy than subjects of a land governed by one supreme head," he argued that the Dutch would continue their prosperity to the extent that they embraced the principles of republicanism, which in turn had to be based upon free market principles. As a negative example, de la Court pointed to the Habsburg monarchy currently ruling Spain, the Bourbons of France, and other despotic monarchies. Only the ignorant "rabble," he wrote, could be happy under such a government.
De la Court extolled the virtues of commerce, claiming that it smashed prejudices, paved the way to prosperity, and tied the Dutch people together with a common "interest," i.e., the drive to make money. This was an authentic social adhesive, far more organic and natural than that imposed by monarchs, who violated the natural law. Many of Holland's problems in the past were actually rooted in the capriciousness of rulers of the House of Orange who focused too much on military conquests and aspired to rule with absolute power over the Dutch people. In this way, de la Court's analysis of what was then called "political economy" tied together economic, social, and political factors to assert the Dutch way of life as the best in Europe.