Replies

A brief comment on the Democracy vs Aristocracy thing, not to get too heavy. In the known 4000 years of world history, democracies existed in some of the city states of Greece for part of the two hundred years from about 500 BC to 350 BC, and in some other states, including Rome, up to the last part of the first century BC. Since then, with minor exceptions (Iceland, Switzerland), free republics have existed only in much of the western world, starting with the US at the end of the 18th century, and spreading to include most western countries. In recent decades freedom has become ever more limited in most of these countries, and now we see increasing restrictions on both the first and second amendments to our constitution, among others.

In the past the change from republic to monarchy has been occasioned by invasion (e.g. the Germanic invasions of the Roman Empire), civil war between social classes (e.g. the Greek city-states), and by people demanding safety and subsidies from their political leaders (e.g. Rome). The change from monarchy to stable republic has only come when people are willing to restrict the state and keep it weak.

It seems to me that it has been demonstrated that autocracies are the natural form of government for all but the most virtuous and self-restrained peoples, a category that no longer includes the citizens of our country. For the rest, the Ring of Power will come to Rule Them All.

/End of Rant.

Good (if sobering) rant. Have you by any chance ever read Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order by Hans-Hermann Hoppe? Though Hoppe is a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist Misesian economist, his book does point out several aspects in which monarchy is preferable to democracy.

I remember a sermon my Pastor was preaching once. His text was the passage in Daniel that tells us about Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the giant image with the head of gold and feet of iron and clay.

He made the point that the material that made up the image gradually decreased in value the further down the image you went. Nebuchadnezzar was the golden part of the image, his kingdom was an absolute monarchy. The empires that came after, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and eventually the revived Roman Empire are all weaker forms of government.

Well, to make a long story short(or is it to make a short story long?) he made the case that it would be a democracy that would make up the empire represented by the feet of clay and iron. It was his contention that God has a dim view of democracies.

Any thoughts about that? I know this had nothing to do with Tolkien so if you would like to take this conversation to The Neverending Story that would be ok with me.

-ksen