Posted on 11/12/2001 6:49:48 AM PST by Aurelius
Hoppe's system, a castle in the sky worthy of Rousseau, Marx or Heidegger, will not alter the nature of the men and women who populate it any more than the reckless ideas of those three "thinkers" created a "noble savage," a "new soviet man," or an "Aryan übermensch." Jefferson captured the problem quite well when he wrote in 1798, "let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." The Constitution--a document created by consensus and legitimized by the ballot.
As I said, Hoppe is a wack-job.
Excellent observation. International fascism (Soviet communism) functioned in the same way. Both were variants of democracy.
Oh, come on. That is extremely convoluted reasoning. Folks show up at mass rallies in totalitarian countries more from fear than from willingness...
Folks show up at mass rallies in totalitarian countries more from fear than from willingness...
Motivation is not the point: that they are there confers "democratic" legitimacy on the regime. No one questions your motives to vote; they can be any number of things. But your ballot casting confers legitimacy on the regime. The point is that both look to the people -- despite methods -- for legitimacy. Monarchies were fundamentally different.
That is still a convoluted attempt to equate fascism with democracy.
Monarchies were fundamentally different.
Not really. Look at what the Chinese said about the mandate of the people. And monarchies could be pretty bloodthirsty in their own right. The point is, the process of replacing monarchies with representative government coincided with the Industrial Revolution, which in turn led to much more massive wars due to economic and demographic factors that resulted from the Industrial Revolution - but that does not mean that massive war is a result of democracy, but of the Industrial Revolution itself.
And how again does this long record of empirical data show that incontrovertiby? Can you cite me some source that might enlighten me on that point a little better than your totally unsubstantiated assertion?
Also, can you explain to me how the "reckless" ideas of Martin Heidegger created an Aryan Ubermensch (can't do the umlaut)? Not that I'm an admirer of Heidegger. I know that he had a very brief flirtation with Nazism, but I don't think he devoted much time or thought to creating Aryan Ubermenschen.
Wish this site had a spell check.
myth 1... the emergence of states has caused subsequent economic and civilization progress
we only need to study the romans to learn that this is not a myth. barbaric tribes brought the roman empire to its knees. without a strong state that ensures national security there will be no investment leading to economic improvement because the outsiders will gather the fruit of one's toils.
Well, that's the Roman's spin on the fall of their Empire. Too bad it's a whitewash of their history. As Roman politics got more and more populist and their military bureaucracy more and more entrenched their civilization declined. The number one reason the barbarians won is taxes. If you were a peasant you ate more under the barbarians. The collapse of Rome primarily benefitted the illiterate which is why we consider it a "dark" time.
myth 2...there is near-universal agreement that democracy represents an advance over monarchy
democracy is an advance over monarchy. absolute monarchs keep their subjects in poverty, while tolerating a nobility class that help keep the peace and help bring wealth. democracy is responsible for the improvement of the human condition in western civilization.
Here you are attributing the growth of the middle class to democracy rather than to its true source, industrialization. Democracy allows the people to vote themselves a share of other people's property. This "communalizing" of property leads to moral decay and provides the intellectual climate necessary for socialism and/or fascism.
myth 3 ... there is no alternative to western style democracies [to guarantee freedom]
his arguments backing the debunking of this myth ring hollow. replacing elected officials with an elite ruling class will result in a dictatorship. absolute power corrupts absolutely. sooner or later there will be corruption.
Here you misunderstand Hoppe. Hoppe is not advocating monarchy. Rather, he is saying monarchy is better in most respects than democracy. The system he advocates is what is known as "market anarchism."
Hoppe's fundamental unit of "government" is insurance. He envisions a world of thousands of gated communities and city-states linked by a common law court system.
Unfortunately, we do not have an economic bill of rights. our government can tax, implement socialist programs and implement welfare programs. it is too easy for our government to raise taxes, and this does what the barbarians of an earlier era does: keeps people from wanting to invest in economic progress.
I think we've seen that democracy isn't restrained by a civil liberties bill of rights -- so why would we believe it would be restrained by an economic one. Political power is the power to steal. Giving it to a small handful of people is flawed (monarchy) but giving it to everyone (democracy) is a disaster. Best that no one be consider a "legitimate thief."
If you really believe that Lew Rockwell is communist then you're one very confused individual. Rockwell and his site advocates extreme laissez faire capitalism, the very antithesis of communism.
I will hope for the best and assume you were kidding.
Where exactly did you get this idea? In fact, Hoppe's point is that not democracy lead to war per se but rather that democracy leads to total war. It's an important insight, one which is clearly true. Democracies engage in total war because the enemy must be proven evil to rally the citizenry to the battle.
America has not fought a war in the 20th century for limited purposes such as territorial gain. American wars are always fought for abstract reasons, to eradicate evil. This is impossible but that doesn't stop us from trying. Zviadist was right when he says that communism, a form of democracy, fights wars for the same reason.
Democracy also fights wars on the home front. To eradicate poverty. Or patriarchy. Or drugs. Or racism... Once again the objectives are impossible at attain and ultimately the purpose becomes the perpetration of the war and the self-satisfaction of the warriors, rather than progress towards the supposed goals.
Lousy, rotten, stinkin' commies...
Actually, democracy is the fartherest thing from God's government in heaven.
1) You can't run against God in an election. (Doesn't sound democratic to me)
2) There is a hierarchical structure, with no chance of promotion. (You're never gonna be the arch-angel unless Michael makes Lucifer's mistake and tries to become Numero Uno.
3) You get whatever you are deemed to need (your own cloud), and are required to do whatever you are deemed to be able (sing in the choir for eternity). (Sounds like communism to me).
Unless, of course, the majority of voters determines otherwise.
The United States, a sparsely populated territory of 13 former British colonies of whom only white, male landowners had the franchise, was never meant to be a democracy. Only social democracies can unify territories as large and varied as ours has become. Government essentially divides and conquers, buying support by distributing largesse among various groups.
This system of government currently employed by the modern United States is beginning to fray on two fronts. First, the net-tax consumers now outnumber the net-tax producers. Very soon, the government will be unable to find new wealth to tax to fund its continued expansion. For now, the problem is being papered over by inflating the money supply and issuing debt. Second, the 2000 elections were, in admittedly over-simplified terms, 50 million people telling 50 million other people (plus 200 million non-voters) what to do. There is a limit to the existence of such a state of affairs.
And nothing makes makes a better case than that for secession and the proliferation of independent political entities.
"In particular I discuss the role of secession - and the profileration of independent political entities - as an important step toward the goal of natural order..."
Certainly I don't believe that Hoppe's idea of thousands of feudal despotisms bound by loose ties is an improvement. On the contrary, bloodshed and strife would increase.
It's no wonder the Dems want a Democracy, and their attempt to steal the election last year only confirmed that it is their goal, whether they realize, know, acknowledge it or not.
I agree with you, let's never lose site of our Republic.
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.