Democracy: the God that failed

lewrockwell.com ^ | November 12, 2001 | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[VOA]

Dear Voice out of @r$$hole:

Fair enough. We agree to disagree on this topic. At least you have been more
polite than some folks I've met.

[Aurelius]

We constantly hear the phrase "one size fits all", but that is the fate and the curse of large centralized government. The answer is many smaller independent political entities, with enough variation to suit many people. A not inconsiderable positive of that, had the present United State been divided into two or more such independent "political entities", those would have been no less capable of uniting for common defense if threatened from abroad, but would have been much less likely, through the arrogance resulting from "super-power" status to bring down on our country attacks such as those of Sept. 11.

By the way, even the Lander (there should be an umlaut on the "a") of the Federal Republic of Germany have more independence than our states. I was recently reading a German gun magazine. In Germany, as here, there is excessive legislation concerning sem-automatic rifles. I think there the legislation is a little less irrational i that it doesn't focus on illegalizing features that are simply cosmetic. Letter writers to the magazine complined however about the variation of rules from Land to Land, features permitted in one not being permitted in another. The point is the regulations are not federalm but on a state by state basis. Of course in other aspects of gun law, maybe more important ones, we have very considerable state variation. I used to think Pennsylvania was fairly liberal (in the good sense of the word) in iyt s gun laws. Then I moved to Lousiana.

[Aurelius]

"At least you have been more polite..."

Either you have encountered some very nasty people or you have forgotten your sarcasm alert. Sometimes I get a little carried away. To try to go back and express myself a little more tactfully: I think there was more to Hoppe's message than what you expressed in your post.

I would acknowledge that in the first exchange on a thread, one should probably be more restrained than I was.

[VOA]

I would acknowledge that in the first exchange on a thread, one should probably
be more restrained than I was.

Aurelius,
Sincerely, I apologize.
I was also terse...and my post definitely was flippant in tone.
It's been a long day...started with my cousin calling me to tell me to turn on
the TV and watch another disaster. And the day just went into the tank from there.
My apologies. I was venting a bit. And at the wrong targets.

But don't think I'm gravely offended...without the "rough and tumble" of
www.freerepublic.com...we'd never "wrestle" out way to a good approximation of the truth.

And, as has happened many times before...please don't have a heart attack when you
find me agreeing with you on another thread/topic.

NOW, let the debate continue con gusto!!!

Cheers for now, Aurelius

[Aurelius]

Thank you, I don't think you have anything for which to apologise. If we have survived this little encounter with no hard feelings so much the better. I have to conclude you are probably a pretty tolerant person. So, as you say, let the debate continue. Con gusto.

[Carry_Okie]

Not only do I agree with much of this, I have applied for patent on a management method to make it work! :-)

There is a missing component to his thesis. Property rights, to be unalienable and absolute, must either proceed from a social contract (democratic in nature) or must be endowed by God. The former is paradoxical and thus the latter is IMHO, essential.

This nature creates a sort of paradox:

1. Property rights must precede the claims of any state.
2. To enfoce contracts requires police power capable of confiscating property.

How does one then have enforceable contracts without police power?

The founders' answer (lacking the understanding of how to resolve competing claims and privatize mobile commons), was constitutionally limited government. That proved unsuccessful, as the politically popular expansion of regulatory government in the 20th century demonstrated. Having solved that part of the puzzle (see link), as far as I can tell, we are left with the paradox to which I referred.

Any thoughts?

[VOA]

So, as you say, let the debate continue. Con gusto.

If ya can't "wrassle" a bit with a fellow Freeper...well, what would this
forum be coming to?!
We're cool...now "Let's Roll" onward with more fun stuff here at freerepublic!

[Aurelius]

I think a response to you post would require some time and some thought. But,also, unfortuntely, I can't get your link to work.

[Carry_Okie]

Sorry, only two w's.

HERE. Click the "Thesis."

Yep, I'm the author.

[nonliberal]

Let's not forget the most famous act of democracy,

Jesus or Barabbus?

[constitution]

One law of nature: Government is bad.

No law of nature has ever been repealed.

[Aurelius]

Very good, I never thought of that story quite in that light. Did Pilate wash his hands before or after?

[mlocher]

thanks for your comments on the violation of the bill of rights. i especially agree with your description of the rape of the first amendment. i will respond to your question:

i am not sure what you mean by this [that free democracy and industrialization go hand in hand]

a point of clarification that may have gotten lost in the shuffle: i define free democracy to be a democracy where the citizens have basic freedoms, but more importantly are not supporting a large government. that is, they keep most of the fruits of their labor. i define a socialist democracy to be a government where you elect the officials, but the government intervenes significantly in your life.

a person will only invest in a business if he can reap the benefits of his risk. he reaps these benefits when two things occur: the government does not take them and barbarians or other invader does not take them. this only happens when there is a free democracy and a strong militia (or in the case of europe, a strong uncle to provide protection.)

i hope that clarifies what i mean. if not, let me go further. democracy in western civilization preceeded the industrial revolution. england was moving to a democracy with the signing of the magna carter in the 1200s i think. it had a strong militia (and had easily defendable borders). it benefited highly from the industrial revolution, and those who invested benefited extremely well. i can make the same comments about the united states -- except replace the magna carta part with the dec of indep.

the industrial revolution bypassed germany initially. germany was a very loose collection of between 370 and 38 monarchies (depending on the year) under an emperor. militia was handled by each king, and typically on a more granular entity than that. overall, the empire's militia was non-existent as each king was more interested in protecting his own fiefdoms. as a result, germany could rarely muster the troops to fight an invading force. as an example, from 1618 until 1648 the thirty years ravaged germany. the habsburgs, french, swedes, austrians and turkmen all waged war against each other on german soil. from 1648 to about 1800 the average GDP per person in germany was about one-third that of england. they were an economic backwater.

in the early 1800s prussia became a power in germany and unified the northern democratic monarchies. they did this with a strong militia. this was followed by capital investment which turned germany into an economic powerhouse. of course, in 1870 the rest of germany was included in the new state under a democracy.

finally, i would like to point out that in socialistic and communistic societies, the industrial revolution had little impact and the average person lived (lives) like a peasant.

in summary, the industrial revolution is (was) necessary to improve the human condition. it only occurs in an environment that allows those who invest to reap (keep) their rewards. this only happens in a free democracy with a strong militia.

side bar: germany went very quickly from free democracy to social democracy from the death of bismarck to the rise of hitler. many people lost their fortunes during this period, and in fact after WW2 many millions of people faced starvation. (again a strong uncle came to the rescue)

i will let you have the final thought

[Architect]

I consider constitutional democracy the best option among several flawed choices.

The notion of constitutional democracy is a chimera. In fact, a written constitution is probably worse than an unwritten one. Certainly the Canadian would appear indicate this. When the country obtained a bill of rights in 1982, the courts promptly used it to justify all kinds of PC garbage, much of which contradicted the plain wording of the law. Previous to that, the courts restricted judgements to deciding whether the federal or provincial governments had jurisdiction over a particular area.

It took much longer for the US to turn its constitution into a tool to expand government, rather than to restrain but it eventually happened. As it did all over the world.

Constitutions simply allow the elite to impose their will without any restraint whatsoever and without any mechanism to repeal what they have done.

Democracy itself is not really about majority rule. It is rather a process of gradual accretion of political favors to individual groups at the expense of the general polity. It eventually suffocates itself. Eventually everyone is stealing from everyone else and no one is producing anything.

The only reason why the West hasn't already destroyed itself is because the advance of technology has provided additional spoils to be distributed among the interest groups.

[Architect]

This notion that democracy is necessary for industrialisation is a myth; the exact opposite of the truth. I defy you to find a single example of a country which passed through the industrial revolution as a democracy. Britian did not. France did not. Germany did not. The US did not. Japan did not.

The same thing is true today. The countres which have modernized have done so as authoritarian dictatorships which respect the rule of law and economic freedom. Many have switched to democracy afterwards but, when democracy comes first, modernization does not happen. Hong Kong. Chile. Taiwan. South Korea.

It's obvious enough why this should be. Democracy is a form of socialism and socialism cannot survive unless the society in question is already rich enough to support the inevitable parasite.

[mlocher]

i agree with you that we need to rid ourselves of the parasite.

you are confusing political (or governing) stucture with economic structure. we choose to govern ourselves as a democracy. once we had a free market economic structure. fdr and then lbj moved us strongly in the direction of socialism. so we went from a free democracy to a socialist democracy. to remain strong we must move back in the direction of where we once were economic-structurally.

the solution is to instill an economic bill of rights that limits (and significantly rolls back) government taxing and spending. this solution fits within the framework of what we have, and more importantly is proven to work.

i will not debate your points on some of the countries not being democracies as they went through the industrial revolution. we will not come to agreement because it is clear that we do not have the same definition of a democracy.

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

As long as we are doing a critique on our democratic form(republic, that is),let us look at a few things that will bring it down.
1)Lawyers have brought about a scourge on American society. They have vitually taken over the House and Senate,and once in power, they pass laws to help keep them in power, regardless who runs against them.They deliberatly misinterpret the Constitution in order to put their personal political ideology into law. They pass laws that apply to all citizens EXCEPT THEM!! We also have the A C L U U to defend murderers, and remove any christianity from the public eye. We have the trial lawyers, who have managed to BUY the Democratic Party,and have helped to teach every American how to sue his next door neighbor.
2)We have allowed the invasion of our country by illegal immigrants, many of whom have no intention of even learning English, and many others who want to destroy us.

[lavaroise]

By definition then, every state, regardless of its particular constitution, is economically and ethically deficient. Every monopolist is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers. Monopoly is hereby understood as the absence of free entry into a particular line of production: only one agency, A, may produce X.

That's a lie, the Republic is founded on a balance of competing powers through several dimensions: first the separation of powers, then the "seaparation" of church and state powers, the balance of powers between federal, state, local and individual governance. Each of these protect specific sectors of life (such as the economy or the borders) in professional manner.

Removing any of these would create the kinds of imbalances that would not only increase servitude to any one of them, but moreover would render us more vulnerable in the end. Of course, it does not mean that Pharoh's dictature is not possible, quite the contrary, it is one successful dictatorship in terms of resilience, but certainly not in terms of auto-durability when certain powers of its base come to fail.

Lew Rockwell Libertarians adopt communist rhetoric on different targets. Communists talked about potemkin victims of the Bourgeois class, Libertarians talk about potemkin victims of the government class. Incidentaly the communists' hurdle in Europe was the Bourgeois and aristocrat, in the US it is the government balance of powers. In other words I suspect Lew and his clones to be nothing but communists.

[Architect]

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

[Architect]

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges