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.
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.
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.