Posted on 11/12/2001 6:49:48 AM PST by Aurelius
Hey Philman_36----How about lending a hand here---knowing firsthand your expertise on the subject.
You could not be more wrong in your you remark concerning this statement. This is a very import and fundamental truth; practically a tautology. Alternative explanations for such "sequences of events" are offered all of the time. One can not be proved "right" and the other "wrong" simply "from the facts". I don't share Hoppe's confidence that "theory" can clear up the matter beyond all doubt; it can certainly contribute to our judging the relative plausibility of two competing interpretatations.
Socialism contradicts basic aspects of human nature. Democracy doesn't, though its costs may increase beyond its ability to pay them. To be sure democracy may deny differences in ability between people, but that is to assert the basic worth of the person. Misean freemarketism is in accord with that part of humanity that socialism denies, but it neglects other aspects of human nature.
A small, wealthy, commercial republic that does well in its sharp dealings will attract envy. You can argue that it shouldn't, but that it does is human nature. Larger states and democracies spread the risk and benefits and provide a larger base for society and more resources for its defence.
What's true of international relations is true of internal affairs. A society of armed individuals runs the risk of becoming overrun by this or that armed band. The Old West was an armed society, but nonetheless was subject to bandits and desperados. Having police and courts provides more resources to deal with bandits and allocates the risks and costs of dealing with them to something more than the solitary individual or homestead. Remember Gary Cooper in "High Noon". That armed society was still disinclined to put their lives on the line. And that's often the case. Keep a gun to defend yourself. But are you really going to go out and hunt down the criminals yourself? By contrast armed Appalachian society of the late 19th century was too quick to take up arms. There's something to be said for having trained professional peace officers to do what people won't do in some societies and what they are far too ready to do in others.
Monarchy has its advantages, but many of them are tied up in its sacral, spiritual and even "democratic" or populist character. A Misean monarchy, designed to keep the masses in check, would be a brittle thing like the bourgeois monarchy of Louis Phillipe. People who might accept monarchy as the will of God aren't too keen on accepting it when it's just a scheme to limit their power -- something which successful republics have been able to do.
And kings have a notorious way of being fickle, self-willed and perverse. Your king may want all power for himself, or he may derive great pleasure out of seeing his state humble the wealthy. If kings all acted as we would want them to, we might all be living under monarchies. The reason why we don't is because they don't.
Granted, but if Germany had had a tradition of true democracy, I think it's clear that Hitler would have been persistently re-elected and Germany would still have manouevered for war.
And even if you want to continue to split hairs to keep that point, what of Japan and Germany under the Kaiser?
Japan is the stronger counterexample. However, the rise of Tojo's regime clearly follows the democritization of Japan (and the decline of its monarchy).
However, the Kaiser's Germany was really a representative republic. Germany had a national state, regional voting and a full-fledged welfare state. Although it's not the exact form of democracy that America has today -- it still counts.
If you want a good analysis of the demographic and economic factors that created the major wars of the 20th century . . .
I'm not sure Hoppe is correct either. Some of Hoppe's critique stems from his Austrian ancestry. He sees the disolution of the Austrian Empire after WWI as destroying classical liberal thought in central Europe (and blazing a path for the Nazis). Since his analysis relies largely on a belief that the Central Powers should have won WWI, he is open to criticism. OTOH, civilizations are notoriously incapable of noticing the cause of their own decline -- ours is no exception. Thus his analysis deserves consideration because our belief in democracy may be blinding us to its flaws.
Maybe for WWI, where there were a lot of nationalist ambitions - but I don't think that applies to WWII - although France and Britain had a common-defense treaty with Poland, it became clear after Poland was attacked that neither country was terribly interested in getting involved - until the Nazis came after them. As for the United States, it's a convoluted argument as to whether this country wanted to be part of WWII - but in the end, IMO we really didn't have much choice.
Enough of their garbage has been posted to know this.
Think we conservatives of today would have been the "Independent" party!
Now who is Quigley and why do I key on his name? Carroll Quigly was a Bill Clinton mentor at Georgetown, as I recall. He was famous for his works and theories on an overall world conspiracy controling all history. For him, the Illuminati are not only real, but the CFR, Skull and Bones, Bilderbergers, and the Knights of Malta along with the Jesuits control everything you do today.
The reasons that you suggest are certainly relevant to the continuation of this trend in this century, particulary advanced weapons technology. However, other factors also enter. The ideology of democracy, if not the reality, makes the whole population responsible for the actions of their government, this is then seen as an excuse for taking the war to the people. This is also how terrorists justify terrorism against civilians.
I think that's rose-colored glasses. The British during the Revolutionary War often destroyed civilian facilities that manufactured arms and equipment for the Continental Army, for example - so how is that different from bombing a German ball-bearing factory? What has changed over the years is the ability of military force to project great distances via air power into the heartland of the enemy - and with that comes the temptation to attack large civilian populations to crush their will to fight (a flawed theory IMO)...
Except that Hoppe is clearly criticizing Quigley for holding a belief which is false.
And I might add, Quigley is a intriguing historian and I've always been puzzled by Clinton's stated admiration of him. Did Clinton delude himself into thinking he could join Quigley's hidden elite?
Of course they did. I'm sorry, I should have been more specific and said: "civilians not explicitely involved in the war effort". I am referring to the bombing of civilian populations in non-industrial areas. As in the case of Dresden, for example. Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What does that have to do with this statement:
Democracy has transformed the limited wars of kings into total wars.
Fascism dispenses with voting as a means of conferring legitimacy on the rulers and uses mass rallies instead.
Excellent observation. International fascism (Soviet communism) functioned in the same way. Both were variants of democracy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.