Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Rembrandt_fan
I'm well aware of that and I am using it in the European sense - my assertion remains and history proves liberal democracy always leads to socialism.

Human nature is such it can do nothing else, for the poor will always outnumber the rich. Take a look at Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed . An excerpt on point:

In particular, democracy is seen as promoting an increase in the social rate of time preference (present-orientation) or the "infantilization" of society. It results in continually increased taxes, paper money and paper money inflation, an unending flood of legislation, and a steadily growing "public" debt. By the same token, democracy leads to lower savings, increased legal uncertainty, moral relativism, lawlessness, and crime. Further, democracy is a tool for wealth and income confiscation and redistribution. It involves the legislative "taking" of the property of some – the haves of something – and the "giving" of it to others – the have-nots of things. And since it is presumably something valuable that is being redistributed – of which the haves have too much and the have-nots too little – any such redistribution implies that the incentive to be of value or produce something valuable is systematically reduced. In other words, the proportion of not-so-good people and not-so-good personal traits, habits, and forms of conduct and appearance will increase, and life in society will become increasingly unpleasant.

Democracy of any type only assures the most opportunistic, ruthless and skilled demogogues will ever be elected to high office as Hoppe illustrates in Why Bad Men Rule . The West will never throw off the yoke of socialism until the give up the idol of democracy.

86 posted on 02/10/2005 9:09:09 AM PST by kjvail (Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]


To: kjvail

To paraphrase Churchill (since I can't remember the exact quote): 'Democracy may be a terrible form of government but it is also the best we have...' or something like that. I also have some passing familiarity with the Hoppe quote you offer. I am always leery of 'must' and 'always' statements in a political discussion. Whenever these absolute terms are used, a single counter-example renders them a fallacy.

George Washington, for example, refutes the "Democracy of any type only assures the most opportunistic, ruthless and skilled demogogues..." statement. The ascendance of this American Cincinnatus belies the truth of Hoppe's argument (and yours).


87 posted on 02/10/2005 9:21:43 AM PST by Rembrandt_fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

To: kjvail
"The West will never throw off the yoke of socialism until the give up the idol of democracy."

You forget the influence of technology. Todays most productive individuals and corporations are increasingly international and with the use of technology are less tied to any one location or government than in the past. While this is taking place already on a limited scale, in the future governments will increasingly have to compete for these individuals and corporations if they want the benefits they can bring.

Even though the man on the street may want to vote himself a condo on the beach from the government, practical considerations will mean that only those governments who provide a liberal and relatively unregulated working and trading environment for the most productive will have the means to ensure that it's citizens stay employed and happy.

It will be survival of the fittest in terms of governments. A sort of social political Darwinism.

Democracies don't HAVE to end in failure.
88 posted on 02/10/2005 9:25:21 AM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson