[weikel]

19th century america had the highest standard of living.

[tallhappy]

The title is a variation of the classic book about Communism's abject failure called "The God that Failed."

These Lew Rockwell guys don't even try to hide their anti-American communist bent anymore.

[Aurelius]

Amazon.com

Democracy-The God That Failed : The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order

by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Hardcover - May 2001)

Usually ships in 2-3 days

List Price: $44.95

Our Price: $44.95

[Phantom Lord]

The God That Failed (by Metallica)

Pride you took
pride you feel
pride that you felt when you'd kneel

not the word
not the love
not what you thought from above

it feeds
it grows
it clouds all that you will know
deceit
deceive
decide just what you believe

I see faith in your eyes
never your hear the discouraging lies
I hear faith in your cries
broken is the promise, betraya
l the healing hand held back by the deepened nail

follow the god that failed

find your peace
find your say
find the smooth road in your way

trust you gave
a child to save
left you cold and him in grave

it feeds
it grows
it clouds all that you will know
deceit
deceive
decide just what you believe

I see faith in your eyes
never you hear the discouraging lies
I hear faith in your cries
broken is the promise, betrayal
the healing hand held back by the deepened nail

follow the god that failed

I see faith in your eyes
broken is the promise, betrayal
the healing hand held back by the deepened nail

follow the god that failed

pride you took
pride you feel
pride that you felt when you'd kneel
trust you gave
a child to save
left you cold and him in grave

I see faith in your eyes
never you hear the discouraging lies
I hear faith in your cries
broken is the promise, betrayal
the healing hand held back by deepened nail

follow the god that failed

As a side note, I saw Metallica perform this song the first time it was ever performed live.

[Verax]

I agree with some points...

Democracy has transformed the limited wars of kings into total wars. The motive for war has become ideological – democracy, liberty, civilization, humanity. The objectives are intangible and elusive:

and disagree with others...

Presidents and prime ministers come into their position as a result of their efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues.

Personally, I'm stickin' with The Republic...One Nation under God, 'till the end!

[germanshepherd]

Can't agree with this. Here's how I see it at present:

#1 Democracy is not God. There is only one God. Democracy is one of the closest things we have on earth to God's government in heaven.

#2 Democracy is not a god. A god is something/someone (other than the one and only God) which is worshipped, adored -- falsely; an idol, a false god. If we worshipped democracy I guess that would make it a false god. But we do not worship democracy. Democracy enables us to worship God (or whatever else we choose to worship) freely, without interference. IMHO.

PS Nice screen name.

[sayfer bullets]

" I always feeeeeel like....somebody's waaatching meeeeeeeeee.... AND I HAVE NO PRIVACY!"

- Rockwell

[beckett]

Historians qua historians cannot answer such questions, and no amount of statistical data manipulation can change this fact. Every sequence of empirical events is compatible with any of a number of rival, mutually incompatible interpretations.

Hogwash. This is the kind of thing somebody says when the empirical data doesn't suit his hypothesis. The guy is a wack-job.

[mlocher]

thanks for this provocative post. interestingly enough, i think that hans and i want freedom. however, i disagree with his means to ensuring we have a government that guarantees freedom.

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.

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.

as hans correctly points out, democracy does not guarantee freedom. democracy merely allows people to get the government that they deserve (er, i mean vote for). when the citizens do not understand democracy or are afraid to defend democracy, they will lose freedom, as happened in germany, italy and other cited situation. [nazi germany started out as a democracy, but quickly moved to a dictatorship as hitler solidified absolute power with a set of elitist rulers. the people of germany, who revere authority, for whatever reasons, did not stand up and by tacit approval allowed hitler the power he obtained.] nazi germany was a step from democracy to rule by the elite few.

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.

communism was supposed to be socialist system ruled by an elite few guaranteeing egalitarianism. history shows what has happened to our communist pals.

western style democracy is the only government that can guarantee the freedom of the citizens. as hans states, there are problems with it -- but throwing it out is not the answer. unfortunately, because of racism and those who would otherwise limit the freedom of others (thievery, crime, etc.), the government must put in place rules to ensure that the rule of the majority do not violate the rights of the minority. in the united states we have defined a set of laws that undergird our constitution and also have a bill or rights dictating what each of us can do.

to stay in power, our elected officials must bribe the voters with various government programs. this sad fact does state that a free democracy will move to a socialist democracy. this is not a state i desire.

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 wantint to invest in economic progress.
we need an economic bill of rights that limits how much taxing and spending our government can do. tax limits should be set and a balanced budget must be guaranteed. this has the further benefit of limiting how much our elected officials can bribe their way to office.

democracy is not the scourge of freedom, rather it is its friend. freedom is only guaranteed with a strong government that guarantees security. economic growth comes by allowing those who invest to reap their rewards. our constitution requires some changes to ensure we do not move further into a socialist democracy.

[LoneGreenEyeshade]

democracy=rule of the majority
republic=power is excercised by elected officers and representatives
Not the same thing...necessarily. Maybe some of our problems lie in the fact that we are a republic (with corrupt representatives?.)

Hey Philman_36----How about lending a hand here---knowing firsthand your expertise on the subject.

[x]

Democracy is a "God that failed." Socialism, Communism and Fascism are "Gods that failed." Miseanism is another "God that failed" or a "God that will fail." All systems have their flaws and failings. None is truly God. Of course some fail more than others.

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.

[In veno, veritas]

BTTT

[Don Myers]

Bump for later reading.

[VOA]

Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Good job Hans-Hermann!
You figured out what a bunch of dead white Eurocentric males figured out as they
were founding the USA.
That's why they didn't found a democracy.
And they established our Representative Republic.

Of course, anyone who had their ears cleared of wax during the Clinton impeachment
debate heard this factoid mentioned a few times.

[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?

[nonliberal]

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

Jesus or Barabbus?

[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.

[maestro]

United Airlines Flight# 93............!!!!!

[Jack Barbara]

bimp

[ffusco]

Plato's Republic had a similar conclusion.