The Paradox of Imperialism
Here I present the outlines of a theory of empire, particularly democratic empire. While all states must be expected to have aggressive inclinations, the incentive structure faced by traditional kings on the one hand and modern presidents on the other is different enough to account for different kinds of war. Whereas kings viewed themselves as the private owner of the territory under their control, presidents consider themselves as temporary caretakers. The owner of a resource is concerned about the current income to be derived from the resource and the capital value embodied in it (as a reflection of expected future income). His interests are long-run, with a concern for the preservation and enhancement of the capital values embodied in "his" country. In contrast, the caretaker of a resource (viewed as public rather than private property) is concerned primarily about his current income and pays little or no attention to capital values. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (92)
banker
This is by far the best article I have ever read on democratic governments. It makes so much sense and is so logical that it seems this should have been obvious to me for many years. Great work!
Published: November 20, 2006 9:20 AM
ilsm
Refreshing.
A modern person yearning to be ruled by a person whose position results from the status of the loins issuing him.
Published: November 20, 2006 9:43 AM
Reactionary
ilsm,
Would you rather be threatened by the whims of one moron, or by the whims of every moron in society?
Published: November 20, 2006 10:13 AM
David C
I agree with the implication that liberty is an end in itself, not democracy. But I think the reality is that people are always going to oraginze in the form of government to secure their liberties. Grouping, is a very natural human behaior. And when they they do it is better that it be organized so that there exists the potential to kick out corrupt leaders than no potential at all other than violence. After all, if youy have a group of people, and this group has "leaders". The only way to minimize disenfranchisation is to have a leadership that everyone can have a role in choosing.
I guess the problem is that Liberty is the ends in itself, but people have a right to have a say in who leads even if that leader hates liberty. For the longest time, the US got arround this by having strong constitutional limits on government but that eventually got overtaken by the democratic mob somewhere between 1910 and 1935. Now the question is, how the hell do we put the government back in it's place? Violence? Voteing? It looks like the current strategy is "milk the system for all it's got till it crashes into the dirt, and hope a pheonix rises from the ashes". I guess with the economy on the edge and the birth of the information age, this is the moment of truth.
Published: November 20, 2006 10:53 AM
Reactionary
David C,
The only way government can be kept in its place is by the threat of physical harm to the governors. In a democracy, this threat is removed.
Published: November 20, 2006 11:47 AM
quasibill
"The only way government can be kept in its place is by the threat of physical harm to the governors."
I can't agree. Hoppe touches on the other option at the beginning of this piece - "exit". Exit presents the threat of economic harm to the governors, and is therefore taken every bit as seriously as physical threats. If you make it as cheap as possible (i.e., make the state as small as possible) to exercise exit, you will keep the governors in check. Democracy (like any government) works best in small, culturally homogenous units.
Published: November 20, 2006 12:24 PM
Daniel M. Ryan
"With the end of World War II, essentially all of — by now: democratic — Western Europe (and democratic Japan and South Korea in the Pacific region) has become part of the US Empire, as indicated by the presence of US troops in practically all of these countries. What the post World War II period of peace then "proves" is not that democracies do not go to war against each other but that a hegemonic, imperialist power such as the United States did not let its various colonial parts go to war against each other (and, of course, that the hegemon itself did not see any need to go to war against its satellites — because they obeyed — and they did not see the need or did not dare to disobey their master)."
Very good point. In addition, there is another causal factor keeping wars limited in our time, which has nothing to do with democracy directly. That is the existence of the nuclear bomb, and the general perception of it as a doomsday weapon. If that taboo were ever broken, a major restraint against war would be removed, without any change in the structure of the world's governments. The indirect connection with democracy that the "doomsday bomb" has is: it was a democracy that first came up with it, in a race against a dictatorship that was a usurper-hijacked ex-democracy.
The sentence above does give the grain of truth in the Wilsonite myth. If democracies are ranked against decayed democracies that have been hijacked by usurpers, then democracies do look relatively peacelike. Even with this comparison, though, there are valid counterexamples.
Here's an idea to reflect upon: was the State of Kaiser Wilhem II really a nascent democracy, with the generals ending up hijacking the government on the strength of the war's popularity?...
Published: November 20, 2006 12:33 PM
Reactionary
quasibill,
I suppose that could be true, but capital flight hasn't done much to reform, say, Zimbabwe, or Mexico for that matter.
Published: November 20, 2006 12:47 PM
Reactionary
And to be fair, you can add the US to that list. There is no threat of capital flight here--the US offers the best return on capital of any nation on earth--yet it remains a place where people's lives can be destroyed for the most picayune criminal or civil violations.
Published: November 20, 2006 1:03 PM
Stranger
No amount of exit will deter democratic governments; democratic governors do not pay the cost of their actions! Only monarchs pay a cost for their actions.
Published: November 20, 2006 2:14 PM
quasibill
reactionary:
You are confusing two separate, if related phenomena - "capital flight" and "exit". First, "exit" concerns the acting human being, and not necessarily his property. After all, leaving a jurisdiction in this vein often means the surrender of all property in that jurisdiction. Such are the costs of exit (akin to the costs of exit in the stock market). Since capital in the sense you're using it is only property, and not human, it's a different phenomenon.
Second, trying to draw too many conclusions from present conditions is a bad idea. States aren't very small (in general) therefore exit costs are relatively high. So regimes that are bad on an absolute scale can continue to be seen as the best possible alternative through lack of competition and high costs of exit.
Furthermore, current conditions are bad to extrapolate from because the global economy is built on the illusion of the U.S. dollar. Someday, that illusion will end, and things will become drastically different. Until that day, however, you'll see all kinds of unlikely "fantastic" (in the value neutral definition) scenarios occuring as people make what would otherwise be irrational decisions because of their belief in the illusion.
Published: November 20, 2006 2:15 PM
Som
a good point in the article is about democracy being a soft variant of communism. Perhaps you could say democracy is the "socialization" of politics where monarchies were the "privitization" of politics, and we all know the consequences of socialization and Hoppe decribed their implications very well.
I was also surprised to read that there is so much more racism and genocide is in democracies. It makes me wonder why minority groups in this country are so democratic leaning, since obviously majority rule does not favor minorities. Or maybe, that's a way for such a democratic state as powerful as the U.S. can uphold it's legitimacy in such a cosmopolitan environment. Any thoughts?
Published: November 20, 2006 2:18 PM
RogerM
Hoppe is very selective in his use of history to bolster his points. The European wars of the 18th century were the only wars in history that were limited. Hoppe conveniently ignores the Protestant/Catholic war in Germany in the early 17th century that killed about half the population.
Monarchs have ruled the earth for most of its history, yet limited war appeared only in Europe and only in the 18th century. How does Hoppe manage to credit monarchs for this? The truth is that the Dutch Republic, not a monarchy, introduced limited war in the 17th century fight against the monarchies of Spain, France and England. The concept caught on in the rest of Europe by the next century.
In its war for independece from Spain, the Spanish monarch had his troops massacre every man, woman and child in dozens of cities (see histories by Israel), while the Dutch Republican armies protected civilians in cities they conquered. The Dutch never aggressed against a neighboring country, but was attacked by these monarchs dozens of times in 17th and 18th centuries.
"Monarchical wars typically arose out of inheritance disputes brought on by a complex network of inter-dynastic marriages."
Eli Heckscher in his book "Mercantilism" makes it clear that the economics of mercantilism caused most of the wars of 17th and 18th centuries, not family feuds over territory. And most of those wars were directed at the Dutch by monarchies.
Hoppe claims that total war began with the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars, but I didn't realize that France was a democracy under Napoleon, since he called himself an emporer. And what about Japan in WWII, ruled by a monarch and committing some of the worst atrocities in history?
Could it be that limited war faded because both sides must agree to it for it to work? If one side refuses to surrender when defeated, as Conferade generals refused for years, and then resort to guerrilla war, total war becomes inevitable.
Also, technology and wealth make a huge difference. When states were limited in their destructive power by technology, and the length of wars were limited by wealth, damage was limited as well. Limited wars began to fade as the destructive power of weapons increased and wealth increased enough to sustain armies in the field longer.
"Western Europe (and democratic Japan and South Korea in the Pacific region) has become part of the US Empire, as indicated by the presence of US troops in practically all of these countries."
Here, Hoppe becomes just plain dishonest, because he switches the meaning of empire from its literal one to a figurative one without informing the reader and while continuing to attach the evils of empire to it. Hoppe clearly intends to say that the US controls S. Korea, Japan and Germany in the same way that the Great Britain, France and Spain controlled theirs, which is not true in the least.
"Monarchies are the semi-organic outgrowth of hierarchically structured natural — stateless — social orders. Kings are the heads of extended families, of clans, tribes, and nations."
So why did people want to overthrow monarchies for hundreds of years?
"...minorities had also been treated fairly well under the Ottomans. However, when the multicultural Ottoman Empire disintegrated in the course of the 19th century and was replaced by semi-democratic nation-states such as Greece, Bulgaria, etc., the existing Ottoman Muslims were expelled or exterminated."
This is just plain ignorance! Please read anything by Bat Ye'or or Bernard Lewis for a dose of the truth: the Ottoman empire regularly murdered and enslaved Jews and Christians.
"...the Union government quickly proceeded to exterminate the Plains Indians."
Good grief! The ignorance is appalling! The US began killing Natives from day one. Andrew Jackson committed the worst atrocities against Indians with his forced removal of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, Creek and Chickasaws from their native lands in the 1830's. But was democracy to blaim? If so, how does Hoppe explain the mass murder and looting of natives by the Spanish monarch!
This article is so bad that libertarians should be ashamed.
Published: November 20, 2006 2:53 PM
quasibill
"I was also surprised to read that there is so much more racism and genocide is in democracies. It makes me wonder why minority groups in this country are so democratic leaning, since obviously majority rule does not favor minorities. Or maybe, that's a way for such a democratic state as powerful as the U.S. can uphold it's legitimacy in such a cosmopolitan environment. Any thoughts?"
1. For most of our history, we were not a "democracy", but a Constitutional Republic, which protected minorities. It is now often spun in our publik skools that we have always been a democracy, and that it is democracy that provided protection of minorities. One need only look at post-WWII SCOTUS caselaw to see the absurdity of that contention. Or look at the bashing of "activist judges who thwart democracy" by those on the religious right.
2. What saves minorities in this country, to a large extent, is a cultural tendency towards tolerance. However, as the limits on government (especially the federal gov't) become more attenuated, you're seeing the loss of tolerance, and the gravitation into competing sects that wish to impose their version of utopia on the other. While we are still early on the path, we are heading to the same destination that befell the democracies created by "the white man's burden" in the ME and Africa - where the results of the election become of life or death importance.
It's a feedback loop, where the observance of centralized power leads one to a) believe in "improving" others (the domain of the modern day liberal and neoconservative), or b) fear being "improved" by others (the domain of those who wish to fan a "clash of civilizations"), which of course in both instances leads to a yielding of ever more centralized power, which in turn merely feeds back into the driving memes once more.
Published: November 20, 2006 3:11 PM
Paul Marks
In the United States the elite where in favour of statism long before the "mob" were.
Many of the leading universities were full of collectivists long before the 1930's and many of the writers and politicians who went to these universities tended to reflect this.
Even the election of F.D.R. in 1932 was not really a vote for collectivism - his campaign platform was no such thing.
It was only after four years of not just "fireside chats" but a vast propaganda effort by the government (and by the private radio stations who licences came from the government) that the American people voted (60% to 40%) for the New Deal. And, of course, bad though it was the New Deal was hardly full collectism (especially as the National Industrial Recovery Act and some other measures had already been struck down by the Supreme Court before 1936.
Even what limited support for statism that there was among the public before the 1930's can be traced to such things as government education - and this was set up (by H. Mann and others) with the deliberate intention of making people statist.
Again it was the elite long before the "mob".
As for the topic of democracy and war.
I can think of one counter example (no doubt there are others). In 1914 the German Parliament (elected by the men and women of Germany) voted in support of war credits against France (a country whose Parliament was only elected by men - but certainly democratic by most definitions).
A counter argument would be the German Kaiser and key ministers were the "real" power in Germany - but they did not use force to influence the vote of the German Parliament.
Another example would be the vote for Hamas by the Palestinians - this was a democratic vote for war (indeed total war - war of extermination) against the democratic state of Israel.
War can be about the desires of a King or an elite - but it is true that the majority of a whole people can hate another people and seek to destroy them.
Published: November 20, 2006 3:34 PM
Renato Drumond
"For most of our history, we were not a "democracy", but a Constitutional Republic, which protected minorities." Except if you were a slave, right?
Published: November 20, 2006 5:25 PM
Gavin
I think the French Revolution was democratically spawned, and Napoleon came to power via means of this. Similarly, the dictators in Italy and Germany , like Hitler and Mussloni, were very popular, and I believe that achieved their power via the democratic and parliamentary ballot box. So, a popular fascist group takes over a democracy, and this leads to a dictatorship.
The Tsar was bettern than the Communists. King Loui better than the Directorate in France. The Kaiser superior to Hitler. Mussolini arose through the coalition building in the Italian parliament, along with his fascist gangs (not to mention a fear of communnism, etc).
Yes, there PRotestant/Roamn Catholic wars were horrible, but, like Dr. Hoppe says in other works, especially in his book, these were wars of ideology, like more modern ones. Wars of ideology would seem to be much worse, than say, a war over conquering a specific territory. The territorial dispute can be solved rather easily in comparison to one in which two irreconciliable beliefs are pitted against each other (Reformed vs Roman Catholic, Roman Catholic vs Lutheran, Lutheran vs. Reformed, etc). Things like philosophy, religion, political ideology are difficult to reconcile.
I suppose a real issue, encompasing the whole issue, would be having a laws, rules, etc. that no one is above, even the leaders. Hoppe defends the rights of the lower barons, burghers, free cities, against the centralizing power of many of the European monarchs.
Very interesting discussion.
Published: November 20, 2006 6:02 PM
Joe
Are there any plans to reprint Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism?
Published: November 20, 2006 10:02 PM
Björn Lundahl
Joe
The book can be read online as well. But that you probable know.
http://mises.org/etexts/Soc&Cap.pdf
Björn Lundahl
Published: November 21, 2006 1:37 AM
Nicholas Matyaszek
This is my first post here and while I normally don't comment, I felt compelled to do so by Prof. Hoppe's speech. I couldn't agree more with the November 20 comments made by RogerM. The text seems to suggest that we would be better off under a monarchical, aristocratic system than under what we have now? Democracy may be bad, but it's the least bad choice we have. I usually find the insights on Mises.org refreshing, but I am re-considering stopping my financial support of mises.org, if it continues to support this biased drivel.
~ Nicholas Matyaszek
Alexandria, VA
Published: November 21, 2006 6:22 AM
banker
To the previous poster, all opinions are biased by definition.
The problem with people who support democracy is the notion of the "social contract" between the people and the state. That just because the leaders are democratically elected that the government represents the will of the people. Basically, State = People. So, I think what Hoppe was trying to point out was that since in a democracy State = People that it is impossible for the citizens to escape the consequences of the government's actions. This leads to total war. Does anyone agree with that or do I have it right?
Monarchy does not seem to be too different from a dictatorship, anyways, so I don't know what the point is advocating one over the other. The most successful monarchies were the ones that had to compete with some sort of parliament (i.e. England).
Published: November 21, 2006 6:55 AM
Rob
I think Hoppe is indeed being selective with his data.
http://www.warscholar.com/Timeline.html
It is very difficult to see a trend linking an increase in warfare with democracy. However, this does not prove the inverse. History plainly shows democracy has initiated no change whatever in the state’s desire to wage war. In the US alone every administration of the 20th century except Coolidge and Harding has put the military to violent use in foreign lands. So I think this whole argument is a non starter.
In an overarching sense I agree completely with Hoppe’s critique of democracy. I find myself frustrated that so many continue to defend the notion that democracy is the best and, therefore, only legitimate form of the state. To accept the idea that democracy is good because it transfers power to the citizens is to grant nothing other than a condition of universal tyranny of every man over every other.
The state as a social entity is inherently illiberal. The form it takes ultimately does not change this fact. The people who call themselves the state will always seek to maximize their violent control. The U.S. was the first state deliberately organized to be self-limiting in any degree. Sadly this proved to be little more than the statement of preference of a group of men in Philadelphia. Once the first group actually claimed power, the drive to remove these limitations began and has only accelerated since. I believe democracy has done nothing to slow this tyrannous race, indeed it has been its high octane fuel. When everyone believes they have the right to mold society to their whim, what else but total regulation of society by the state will be the result?
Published: November 21, 2006 7:35 AM
David White
Reactionary:
"There is no threat of capital flight here..."
On the contrary, it's already rampant:
http://www.actionamerica.org/taxecon/tickfast.shtml
Nicholas Matyaszek:
I think Hoppe's overall point is that the modern nation-state, insofar as Fukuyama considers "Western liberal democracy" to be "the final form of human government," is a disaster. Thus, the state itself is a disaster, it having no form that isn't inimical to freedom, as no less than Vladimir Lenon well knew:
"It is nonsense to make any pretense of reconciling the State and liberty."
Published: November 21, 2006 7:46 AM
Reactionary
Nicholas,
I think most monarchs would be absolutely giddy with the unbridled power of taxation, policing, and warfare enjoyed by democratically elected rulers. As a tool for limiting government, democracy is a complete and utter failure.
The truth is that government should be so small that it doesn't really matter who runs it, so hereditary monarchy is as good as anything--better, because it operates on the premise that the king must answer to God pursuant to a Divine grant of authority, and there's only one of him and lots of us. Democracy completely upends this premise. The majority answers to nobody but itself so whatever it decides, from banning smoking to war on Iraq, must therefore be correct. It also justifies "total war," since the voters must be every bit as complicit in war as their government. Now, you may be saying, "But I didn't vote for George Bush!" In that case, in order to avoid the minority being tagged with responsibility for the majority's decisions, then we should allow secession from democratic rule. But that would completely undercut the premise of democracy. So while you may claim to be a democrat, in reality you're just a democrat so long as everybody else agrees with you.
Published: November 21, 2006 7:58 AM
Reactionary
Rob,
A democratic state is inherently liberal, which is why it invents innumerable individual rights and enforces them regardless of the morals and sensibilities and property rights of others. The logical and historical conclusion of liberalism is the tyranny of rights.
Published: November 21, 2006 8:03 AM
Wild Pegasus
RogerM,
Libertarians are embarassed every time Hoppe opens his mouth. We should have no more to do with him than the Republican Party has to do with the Klan.
- Josh
Published: November 21, 2006 8:13 AM
Rob
I understand your take R and I agree. This was the point of my closing sentence.
I used the term (il)liberal in association with maximizing freedom, not in the modern leftist context. In this sense any violent interference with the peaceful interaction of people is illiberal.
Published: November 21, 2006 8:22 AM
Daniel M. Ryan
"Hoppe is very selective in his use of history to bolster his points. The European wars of the 18th century were the only wars in history that were limited. Hoppe conveniently ignores the Protestant/Catholic war in Germany in the early 17th century that killed about half the population."
Sorry to intrude, RogerM, but you forgot to include the entire medieval era. Prof. Hoppe did do so. Many wars during the Dark and Middle Ages were fought by knights and nobles alone, as they were the only ones who had weapons and training; the typical peasant was inclined to see warriors as entertainment, unless his own field was destroyed.
Published: November 21, 2006 8:22 AM
Reactionary
David,
Billions of dollars of capital and labor flow into the United States on a daily basis, as compared to a few tax protestors relocating each year.
Josh,
I think your post is prescient, and I think Hoppe and several others will be persona non grata at Mises within a few years. Hoppe recognizes that a liberal society has no choice but to protect itself by illiberal means. Since this violates the libertarians' precious NAP, they can only follow the Marxists in their role as permanent levellers of organic society.
Published: November 21, 2006 8:24 AM
RogerM
Reactionary:"I think most monarchs would be absolutely giddy with the unbridled power of taxation, policing, and warfare enjoyed by democratically elected rulers."
Hoppe is simply historically inaccurate when he claims that monarchs financed wars with their own income. Monarchs funded wars primarily through forced loans, which they immediately defaulted on after the war.s
Nicholas, Don't give up, yet. This is still the best site for practical economics, and articles like Hoppe's are rare.
I think what clouds the issue is the proposition that one system of government is better than another. The system matters little; the people filling government positions is what matters. A benevolent monarch is far better than a corrupt democracy, but nothing is worse than an evil monarch.
The reason for a republican form of government was to limit the damage of a bad monarch, not to create a utopia. The founders of the US were very pessimistic about human nature, so they divided power among as many groups as possible. But they were very clear that they expected religion to control people, not law. The wrote that the Constitution would not prevent a tyranny of the majority as bad as a monarchy if the voters strayed from their religious beliefs. What has ruined our republic is the abandonment of Christianity in favor of idolatry in the form of worship of the state.
Published: November 21, 2006 8:25 AM
Reactionary
RogerM,
"Nothing" is worse than an evil monarch? I'd submit that nothing is worse than an evil democrat, since she enjoys the imprimatur of the majority. An evil monarch can be declared as such and poisoned or beheaded. The execution of an evil democrat is an act of subversion against the majority itself, which is why presidents who get young men killed for no reason go on to corporate board memberships and academic posts rather than being marched to the gallows.
"What has ruined our republic is the abandonment of Christianity in favor of idolatry in the form of worship of the state."
The Christian form of government is monarchy or, at its most liberal, patriarchy. Democracy is a clear form of state-worship, and it is where a republic inevitably leads. Constitutions are just words on paper.
Published: November 21, 2006 8:36 AM
Rob
Roger,
I disagree. Christianity and state worship have more or less always coexisted. The only time they did not in any sense was when the early church refused to engage in actual ritualistic worship of the Roman state.
In theological terms only Augustinianism and its modern derivatives of Lutheran and Reformed Christianity would suggest a libertarian view of the state in as much as they place the absolute sinfulness of all men at the forefront. The main proponents (Augustine, Luther & Calvin) have all commented on the inherent evil of the state. None the less they often promoted violent state interventions as have many who've followed in their theological footsteps. As to America specifically, many of the significant players were outright deists and not Christian in any sense. Indeed it seems state worship was on their mind from the get go as they viewed the post war confederacy as a problem to be solved by erection a single super-state.
As a Christian, I believe the Gospel is the only thing that can actually transform society for the better. However, the only method for its dissemination is preaching and the state has absolutely nothing to do with that.
Published: November 21, 2006 9:14 AM
RogerM
Reactionary:"The Christian form of government is monarchy or, at its most liberal, patriarchy."
I don't think Christianity espouses a form of government. It just provides a guide to the actions of those in government and a limit to its power.
Rob:"Christianity and state worship have more or less always coexisted."
You're right. Constantine's coup against Christianity in the 4th century was a disaster for real Biblical Christianity. I was referring to the Christianity of the early Americans. Yes, many were deists, but the leaders in political thought were Protestants, people we would call fundamentalists today.
"As a Christian, I believe the Gospel is the only thing that can actually transform society for the better."
I agree completely, and research into culture and economics demonstrates that cultures build institutions while religion/philosophy determines culture. Hoppe has the process backwards when he assumes that institutions mold culture.
Published: November 21, 2006 10:17 AM
Raymond Keller
While reading Hoppe's speech, it finally struck me that, when others challenge me for my not voting, the best and most accurate reply is: "I don't vote because I don't believe in democracy."
Published: November 21, 2006 10:17 AM
Yancey Ward
I think Hoppe overstates the case for monarchy's benignness, and overstates the case for total war being caused by the spread of majoritarian democracy.
I think there is a much stronger case for the rise of total war being caused by the advance of technology. Such advanced weapons such a tanks, planes, rockets, and bombs depend on industrial output. This makes the "non-combatants" natural targets for war, and the advanced weapons make such peoples easy to attack and hard to defend.
Now, having written that, I also don't think very highly of our modern democracies, and I think Hoppe is correct that the democracy promoters are wrong in their belief that democracy is the cause of peace in Western Europe and parts of the Pacific. It seems quite clear to me that the peace really has been enforced by the United States in these areas.
How do you prevent the degeneration of democratic governments? In the end, I don't think it is possible. The US Constitution, as originally written and understood, was probably the best attempt at limited government ever conceived, but even it is failing in the face of majoritarian desires- the major of which is the desire to have something for nothing, and this always leads to enslavement of, first, the productive, then the enslavement of everyone else. The founding fathers might have created even higher barriers to state action, but, in the end, majorities always dissolve such barriers regardless of how strong or high they may be. The fault lies deep within our inherent nature.
Published: November 21, 2006 10:57 AM
Paul Edwards
Speaking of what embarrasses whom, I’ll mention what embarrasses me. It is when those unable even to understand what Hoppe is talking about use mises.org as a platform to insult him. These people are too obtuse to recognize that even the text they are basing their ignorant comments on is his ACCEPTANCE SPEECH at this years MISES INSTITUTE SUPPORTERS SUMMIT. The award Hoppe was accepting was the Schlarbaum Award for LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT in the Study of LIBERTY.
I am afraid that a little bit of cool Latin simply can not pass for a display of intelligence, when it cannot even obscure a person’s stupidity.
This confirms in my mind why some authors never respond to these blog comments. Some comments are so asinine as to render the exercise of even reading them unworthy of their time and effort.
Published: November 21, 2006 11:06 AM
Sag
Paul,
I completely agree with you. That's why I stopped commenting some time ago. Basically I look for genuine Mises Institute writers and the few commentators such as yourself that have brains. There are people who have been ranting on here for years that have learned and quite clearly read absolutely nothing. Nor do they intend to. Some are right wing madmen. But the general characteristic is a complete lack of understanding of the basic principles of logic.
I tell you this to spare you the grief that comes with engaging with these types. It's truly a mystery why they come to this site - but it will cause more aggravation than it's worth if you try to solve it.
On a completely different note (since, that is if, I have your attention Paul), I am not convinced of Hoppe's argument regarding monarchy. What he has to say about democracy is excellent (and of course about anarchy, economics etc.). Unfortunately I have a lot to get to (a few Mises, Rothbard books and Reisman's "Capitalism") before I can come to a final judgement. BTW, thanks for your recommendations on the Spooner/Tucker debate: more things to read!
Published: November 21, 2006 12:18 PM
quasibill
"Hoppe has the process backwards when he assumes that institutions mold culture."
Like most processes in nature, the causal arrow is most definitely NOT uni-directional. Both affect the other, and at certain points, fall into feedback loops that cause drastic changes.
Culture and institutions mold each other. Beyond that, it is extremely dangerous to throw the term "culture" around without nailing it down to specifics in reality. For example, is there a "European" culture? Is French culture the same as German? Italian? What is "Western" culture? Is "Christian" culture the crusades, or Amish?
Quite often, people use the term "culture" very sloppily.
"It seems quite clear to me that the peace really has been enforced by the United States in these areas."
That might be the one part of this essay that I disagreed with. I personally think that much of why Europe and East Asia are peaceful today is that they still have a living conscience to remind them of what total warfare does to your livelihood. Which is partially why the U.S. is more belligerent - we don't have a living conscience of what total warfare is like to live through as civilians, only as mercenaries.
Published: November 21, 2006 12:25 PM
Yancey Ward
quasibill,
In our lifetimes we may get to see if I am correct or not. I think US power is on the wane in Europe. Will the peace between Europeans survive this event? I doubt it.
Published: November 21, 2006 12:30 PM
quasibill
Yancey,
I think the "peace" of Europe is also not long for this Earth, but for a different reason. Namely, that the living conscience is merely a weak restraining force, and at that, its biological source is dying out. Even if those people lived forever, it wouldn't be a guarantee against war, but with them dying out, what little force it possesses is naturally waning.
That said, I doubt we see anything like the chaos that exists in the ME or Africa, but I can see some nasty "civil" wars erupting in Spain and in the remains of the USSR. And we'll see a repeat of late 1800s early 1900s power politics in Europe.
Published: November 21, 2006 12:46 PM
Paul Edwards
Sag!
Long time no chit chat.
The thing I like about Hoppe’s arguments is that they go very far, and yet are all based on the logic of action; and when he points to empirical or historical facts that confirm his thesis, he does not fail to remind us that such facts do not and cannot prove or refute his arguments, but only serve an illustrative purpose. Therefore, you will be glad to know that once you do immerse yourself in his arguments that it will be through logic alone that you will prove him either right or wrong about the relative merits of monarchy over democracy. Ultimately, of course, it is only libertarian anarchy that can be justified.
Published: November 21, 2006 1:28 PM
Stranger
"Hoppe has the process backwards when he assumes that institutions mold culture."
"Italy is made, We still have to make Italians."
All the national cultures of Europe are completely artificial creations, made by states.
Published: November 21, 2006 1:31 PM
RogerM
quasibill: "Culture and institutions mold each other."
Read "Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress" by Lawrence E. Harrison,Samuel P. Huntington and visit www.geert-hofstede.com. They'll clear a lot of things up for you.
Paul:"...such facts do not and cannot prove or refute his arguments, but only serve an illustrative purpose."
If an idea is true logically, you should be able to find corresponding examples in the real world and in history. In other words, reality should act as a guide to help determine if I'm being logical, or if I'm making committing some logical fallacy. Reality doesn't make logic any more or less true, but I would be very suspicious of the conclusions of a logical process that I could find no example of in reality or history. In Hoppe's case, the counterfactual examples are so numerous that they should lead him to rethink his logical steps and see if he got something wrong. Usually, I find that the mistake is a leap in logic in which the conclusions one reaches are too weighty for the assumptions. Or the fault could be with the assumptions. Hoppe seems to be assuming that human nature is a formless lump of that economic systems mold for better or worse. That was also Marx's assumption and the cause of many of his errors.
Published: November 21, 2006 1:56 PM
quasibill
"They'll clear a lot of things up for you."
Not really - mostly a quasi-scientific mish-mash of "I wish" and "I like". But it does describe half of the process fairly well.
Always beware of charlatans that claim that they can assign unidirectional causality in the social sciences. Virtually in every instance they are cranks or worse.
Read some on the scientific method, what it means to apply it rigorously, and its faults. That'll clear up a lot of your confusion.
Published: November 21, 2006 2:06 PM
Sag
Paul,
I definitely look forward to reading Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed". The title alone is worth the price of admission. I'm not sure I'll come out believing that a monarchy is inherently better than a democracy. But since democracy is indeed the "god that failed", I'm willing to consider his argument when I get the chance to read the book.
Published: November 21, 2006 2:42 PM
Paul Edwards
Roger,
“If an idea is true logically, you should be able to find corresponding examples in the real world and in history.”
I didn’t realize your contention was that there is absolutely no history that is consistent with or suggests Hoppe’s conclusions may be correct. If that is your contention, then I disagree with you.
“In other words, reality should act as a guide to help determine if I'm being logical, or if I'm making committing some logical fallacy. Reality doesn't make logic any more or less true, but I would be very suspicious of the conclusions of a logical process that I could find no example of in reality or history.”
Since you imply it again here, I suppose I am curious enough to ask: are you suggesting there are absolutely no examples in reality or history that might possibly support Hoppe’s conclusions? I doubt you will be so brash to explicitly suggest such a thing.
“In Hoppe's case, the counterfactual examples are so numerous that they should lead him to rethink his logical steps and see if he got something wrong.”
I would think that, assuming that you have grasped his arguments, and are convinced empirical evidence is against him, that you would, by now, have developed a logical argument yourself which you would be willing to elaborate on as to where Hoppe’s logic is flawed. Your dependence on your counterfactual empirical examples does not refute his logic. Only logic can do this.
“Usually, I find that the mistake is a leap in logic in which the conclusions one reaches are too weighty for the assumptions. Or the fault could be with the assumptions.”
It seems you are quite unsure of just where the flaw is in his logic. Perhaps when you figure this out, you will elaborate your line of reasoning for us. Usually, I find that people are unwilling to logically think through an argument to see if it is true or not. If they see it as intuitively not obvious, this is sufficient for them to conclude it is not true. Therefore they prefer to point to empirical historical facts, as an adequate refutation of what is in fact, a praxeological argument, and can only be refuted by reason and a correct understanding of the nature of human action.
“Hoppe seems to be assuming that human nature is a formless lump of that economic systems mold for better or worse. That was also Marx's assumption and the cause of many of his errors.”
Hoppe is a praxeologist of the highest caliber. I think you should get better informed and get a better grip on his methods of investigation so you can avoid making wild and unfounded assessments of what his assumptions are about human nature.
Published: November 21, 2006 2:58 PM
Paul Edwards
Sag,
I predict you're going to love that book. Also A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism is just something else! I'd print it out, bind it up and put it on your shelf with the other Austrian classics. Deep insights come at the reader pretty fast and furious from that one as well.
The greats, Mises and Rothbard, had both left this planet before i discovered the Austrians. But can you believe it? With Hoppe still in our midst, we are actually around to watch another Austrian giant make history in the science of praxeology.
Published: November 21, 2006 3:07 PM
RogerM
Paul:"I didn’t realize your contention was that there is absolutely no history that is consistent with or suggests Hoppe’s conclusions may be correct."
I didn't say that. I said he was very selective in his examples and ignored the far more numerous counterfactual examples. Here's an example of his flawed logic. He writes this:
"Further, as tax-funded monopolists of ultimate decision-making, states are inherently aggressive institutions."
Are we supposed to take Hoppe's word for this, that because states tax their people and hold a monopoly on taxation that they are inherently aggressive? Where is the logical connection between taxation and agression against neighbors? I can think of dozens of reasons why one nation attacks another, but I can't see how a monopoly on taxation within a country would do it. Then he writes:
"Other things being equal, the lower the tax and regulation burden imposed on the domestic economy, the larger the population will tend to grow and the larger the amount of domestically produced wealth on which the state can draw in its conflicts with neighboring competitors."
Nothing wrong there. All he says is that liberty creates wealth and wealth makes states powerful. From this he concludes the following:
"This explains, for instance, why ... the United States, internally one of the most liberal states, has conducted the most aggressive foreign policy, while the former Soviet Union, for instance, with its entirely illiberal (repressive) domestic policies has engaged in a comparatively peaceful and cautious foreign policy."
This is an example of a logical leap the size of the Grand Canyon. He doesn't show why wealth increases aggressiveness; he just assumes it. He assumes that the US has been more aggressive than the Soviet Union but offers no proof, whereas history shows that the Soviets were far more aggressive than the US throughout the cold war. The US simply responded to their aggressiveness.
Here is an example of a false assumption: "Whereas kings viewed themselves as the private owner of the territory under their control, presidents consider themselves as temporary caretakers." Hoppe builds a world on this statement, but it's simply not true. But here's an interesting case where logic can't prove or disprove assumptions; you have to look at the historical facts. History proves that kings rarely viewed themselves as private owners of a territory, but more as god-like creatures above all morality and decency.
I could go on for several pages.
Published: November 21, 2006 4:19 PM
RogerM
quasibill:"Read some on the scientific method, what it means to apply it rigorously, and its faults."
I have. And those authors follow scientific methods rigorously. If you haven't read those sources, you're letting your crankiness get in the way of learning something useful.
Published: November 21, 2006 4:31 PM
Francisco Torres
If an idea is true logically, you should be able to find corresponding examples in the real world and in history.
That only pertains to scientific theories, not ideas that are born from deductive thinking. We can arrive at the conclusion that killing is wrong by pure deductive logic; however, would we have to find corroboration in the real world in order to validate such conclusion? Would the fact that many are killed every day invalidate the conclusion that killing is wrong?
This is why logical arguments can only be corroborated by using logic, or refuted by cogent counterarguments.
Published: November 21, 2006 4:46 PM
Francisco Torres
Are we supposed to take Hoppe's word for this, that because states tax their people and hold a monopoly on taxation that they are inherently aggressive?
Not his word, Roger, his logical argument. If taxation is the taking of property by force, the act is inherently aggresive (aggresion meaning the use of violence for a specific end). If a State has no qualms about taking its own population's property, it follows it does not have to show scrupules about taking the property of people in other States.
Where is the logical connection between taxation and agression against neighbors?
The logical connection is in the fact that having no restraint abut taking its own population's property, it does not have to show any restraint against the people in other States. The only thing that restrains a State from taking over other States is the power to retaliate or to defend itself successfully.
I can think of dozens of reasons why one nation attacks another, but I can't see how a monopoly on taxation within a country would do it.
A monopoly on taxation allows a State to have almost unlimited resources to wage wars. Without this, a State cannot raise armies and pay for weapons.
I think you are confusing things. Hoppe is not saying that States use taxation as a reason to attack another state - they can always conjure different reasons. He is saying that the reason a State can (and will) attack another is because it has the monopoly on taxation, which allows such state to pay for the aggresion.
He doesn't show why wealth increases aggressiveness; he just assumes it.
He did not say that being wealthy increases your level of aggressiveness. A wealthier nation can provide more taxes to its state, meaning that such a state will have the wherewithal to become more aggresive. You can have more wealth but less taxation, and thus less aggresiveness.
He assumes that the US has been more aggressive than the Soviet Union but offers no proof, whereas history shows that the Soviets were far more aggressive than the US throughout the cold war. The US simply responded to their aggressiveness.
That only shows just how much history you don't know. The US waged wars in a far more aggresive way that the Soviet Union. It was the US that intervened in Korea first, even though it was not their war. It was the US that intervened in Vietnam, even though it was NOT their war. It was the US whch invaded Grenada, Panama, intervened in Nicaragua (twice), in Haiti, intervened in Chile (to depose a democratically elected idiot), et cetera. The US has been far MORE aggresive than the Soviet Union.
History proves that kings rarely viewed themselves as private owners of a territory, but more as god-like creatures above all morality and decency.
I do not see how one thing (seeing themselves as owners) is necessarily contradicted by the other (that they viewed themselves as being god-like) so as to consider using the disyuntive "but". I believe this is a classic case of a non sequitur.
As for kings not seeing themselves as owners of a territory, this is absurd - they would not have invested in fortresses if it were not so, nor would they have married off their daughters.
Published: November 21, 2006 5:14 PM
RogerM
Francisco: "This is why logical arguments can only be corroborated by using logic, or refuted by cogent counterarguments."
While that may be true of abstractions, like morals, it doesn't apply to history. When Hoppe writes that "Whereas kings viewed themselves as the private owner of the territory under their control, presidents consider themselves as temporary caretakers," He makes that the premise that intends to build a syllogism on. Now he may commit no fallacies in logic and arrive at a logical conclusion, but if his premise is false, he's still wrong, no matter how elegant his logic. How do you test premises? With current reality or history. Nothing within the logical process itself enables one to test a premise with logic. You have to reach outside of logic to reality for the test. Hoppe fails the most in his ridiculous premises.
Published: November 21, 2006 5:14 PM
Francisco Torres
Nothing within the logical process itself enables one to test a premise with logic.
This is utterly false, Roger. You CAN test the premise by using logic - How does a king become a king?
A king becomes one when he conquers a territory, or when he inherits one. Both indicate ownership. You do not conquer what which you do not want to own, and you do not inherit that which your father did not own first.
A president is elected to a post. This does NOT indicate ownership, since in the same way he can be elected, he can also be impeached. Thus, his post is temporary - like a caretaker, or a nanny.
Both premises are self-evident. If a president believes he is the owner of a territory, it could imply mental unbalance, but not that the premise is incorrect. Your error is precisely that: you want to find the argument invalid by pointing out crazy presidents, but that is not the way to present a valid counterargument.
What I believe is happening is that you give too much credit to democracy over monarchy. In fact, Hoppe is not saying that the best form of government is monarchy, since he has stated before many times that no form of government is good - both tax and kill. What he IS saying is that, compared to democracy, monarchy is less damaging to an individual's liberty and property. He provides very cogent arguments to prove this.
Published: November 21, 2006 5:55 PM
Paul Edwards
{I think Francisco's comments probably render mine redundant, but whatever...}
Roger,
H: "Further, as tax-funded monopolists of ultimate decision-making, states are inherently aggressive institutions."
R:”Are we supposed to take Hoppe's word for this, that because states tax their people and hold a monopoly on taxation that they are inherently aggressive?”
P: It is not necessary to take Hoppe’s word for this. It is a plain fact. The essence of the state is to claim a monopoly on the right to tax. Taxation is an aggressive act. It is the expropriation of funds from non-aggressors under the threat of the initiation of violence.
R: “Where is the logical connection between taxation and agression against neighbors? I can think of dozens of reasons why one nation attacks another, but I can't see how a monopoly on taxation within a country would do it.”
P: An entity, the state, which claims the right to tax is necessarily aggressive because taxation is aggressive. The state most capable, resource-wise, to be aggressive in foreign policy, will be the most aggressive, given its inherently aggressive nature in general to begin with.
R: “Then he writes:
"Other things being equal, the lower the tax and regulation burden imposed on the domestic economy, the larger the population will tend to grow and the larger the amount of domestically produced wealth on which the state can draw in its conflicts with neighboring competitors."
“Nothing wrong there. All he says is that liberty creates wealth and wealth makes states powerful. From this he concludes the following:
"This explains, for instance, why ... the United States, internally one of the most liberal states, has conducted the most aggressive foreign policy, while the former Soviet Union, for instance, with its entirely illiberal (repressive) domestic policies has engaged in a comparatively peaceful and cautious foreign policy."
“This is an example of a logical leap the size of the Grand Canyon. He doesn't show why wealth increases aggressiveness; he just assumes it.”
P: His argument is that a wealthier tax base provides the already inherently aggressive state with the means and power to conduct a relatively more aggressive foreign policy than comparatively more poverty stricken states. Because it is more liberal at home, Washington has more and better means to be aggressive abroad. This is why Washington can send hundreds of billions of dollars worth of war machinery and capital to Iraq and all over the planet for destructive military purposes; because its economy accommodates such action.
R: “He assumes that the US has been more aggressive than the Soviet Union but offers no proof, whereas history shows that the Soviets were far more aggressive than the US throughout the cold war. The US simply responded to their aggressiveness.”
P: No, he shows how and why the US government has been able to afford to be more aggressive in its foreign policy than the Soviet Union has. The Soviets could barely calculate economically at all, let alone compete with the US in world domination. They had their hands full just in seeing to it that the part of the population it wasn’t intentionally murdering wasn’t starving and was able to buy itself shoes. Obviously Moscow did not have the means to dominate the world as the US military did then because of its relatively impoverished taxpayers and economy and its lack of capital to direct in this way. This is simple economics.
R: “Here is an example of a false assumption: "Whereas kings viewed themselves as the private owner of the territory under their control, presidents consider themselves as temporary caretakers." Hoppe builds a world on this statement, but it's simply not true.”
P: I don’t get what you disagree with. Which part do you dispute: that kings viewed themselves as private owners of a territory, or that presidents view themselves as temporary caretakers? I see no basis to dispute either claim. A King expects to pass his kingdom down to his family and only his family. A president expects to and must leave his temporary post in the White House and move on to write his memoirs. Please elaborate on how you disagree.
R: “But here's an interesting case where logic can't prove or disprove assumptions; you have to look at the historical facts. History proves that kings rarely viewed themselves as private owners of a territory, but more as god-like creatures above all morality and decency.”
Regardless of whether they claimed to be gods or not, they were in fact human and therefore acted in a self interested fashion like the rest of us. They certainly believed that they owned their kingdoms, at least to the extent that they intended to and did hand them down to their children in the form of an inheritance. From this fact, it follows that they held both an interest in the present income that their kingdom could provide them as well as its longer term capital value, just as Hoppe reasons.
Published: November 21, 2006 8:20 PM
averros
Yancey --
> I think there is a much stronger case for the
> rise of total war being caused by the advance
> of technology.
The rationale of total war (i.e. destruction of productive capacity of an opponent by slaughtering civilians) is completely technologically neutral - as many ancient and modern tyrants and fanatics have proven beyond any reasonable doubt by butchering dozens and hundreds of thousands with nothing more than knives and swords.
So the difference between monarchist and democratic/religious wars is not in weaponry but in motivation. Which Hoppe succintly points out, following Carl von Clausewitz.
Published: November 22, 2006 2:06 AM
Mathijs ter Wee
Democracies not fighting each other… What about Israel and Lebanon? Hong Kong might be a good example of a democratic stat that still respects liberty.
Published: November 22, 2006 4:50 AM
banker
Current example of monarch doing well: Dubai? Brunei? Muslim to boot! Hong Kong prospered because the English left them alone and they didn't have a "democracy".
Published: November 22, 2006 6:54 AM
RogerM
Fransico:"You CAN test the premise by using logic - How does a king become a king?..."
Your logic is fine, but that's not what Hoppe wrote. He wrote this:
"Whereas kings viewed themselves as the private owner of the territory under their control, presidents consider themselves as temporary caretakers."
Hoppe makes a statement about history that he claims if factual--"...kings viewed themselves as the privte owner..." How can you test whether they viewed themselves as private owners? Only by looking at history.
Now it's true that Hoppe probably drew that conclusion from the premises that kings inherit or conquer territory, so his conclusion that they must view their territory as their private property is logical. But if we look at history, we find that conclusion to be false, so I must assume that either his premise is false or he made a leap in logic that wasn't justified, otherwise his conclusion and history would match. Logical conclusion are like predictions; if my predictions fail, something must be wrong with my model.
Paul:"Taxation is an aggressive act."
There's your problem. Taxation is an illegit act only if governments are illegit. You guys are chasing your tail; assuming your conclusions. Yes, I would agree, if you accept that any government is illegit, then taxation is theft and states are inherently agrressive. But if you don't assume that all government is illegit, then taxation is not aggressive and states aren't inherently aggressive. As I have written, Hoppe's problems don't like with his logic, but with him premises, exept where he makes logical leaps.
Paul: "No, he shows how and why the US government has been able to afford to be more aggressive in its foreign policy than the Soviet Union has."
Based on the assumption that states are inherently aggressive, a false assumption, he concludes (predicts) that richer states will be more aggressive. Then he makes a statement of fact that the US was more aggressive than the USSSR. But if I check history, I find that the USSR was far more aggressive. Since his prediction fails, I have to look at his premises to see where he went wrong and I find the problem in his assumption that states are inherently aggressive. And even if you accept his assumption that taxation is aggression against the state's citizens, he commits a logical leap of faith in extending that to aggressiveness against other nations. There no necessary connection.
Paul:"The Soviets could barely calculate economically at all, let alone compete with the US in world domination."
That's all clear now, but it wasn't clear for over 70 years. The Soviets were far more aggressive than the US during most of their existence because they devoted 50% of their GDP to militory spending. The best analysts of the Cold War thought the USSR was attempting and had the ability to dominate the world. Only you an Hoppe, and some die-hard communists would believe that the USSR was less aggressive than the US. It shows a tremendous ignorance of history.
Paul:"They certainly believed that they owned their kingdoms, at least to the extent that they intended to and did hand them down to their children in the form of an inheritance."
This is probably just an exaggeration than anything. Kings viewed some aspects of their reign as their private property, but they also saw private property rights owned by their subjects as having prior claim over the king's rights. Even if I accept this ridiculous proposition that kings viewed their territory as their private properties, then I must explain why kings acted against their own self interest by wasting so much of their wealth and citizenry on extended wars, by defaulting on loans which caused interest rates to rise into the double digits, by murdering so many of their citizens, by selling monopolies for short term income, by controlling prices and ruining industries, by allowing corrupt judges to pervert justice, by selling offices to corrupt officials who stole from the king and the people, and the list goes on. How could King George allow parliament to pass laws that harmed the interest of the colonies and forced them to rebel?
In summary, Hoppe takes as his assumption that all governments are illegal and immoral, therefore taxation is an illegal aggressive act. From this false premise, he predicts that kings will view their kingdoms as private property and manage is wisely whereas democracies won't. He then predicts that poorer governments will be less agrressive than richer ones. His predictions are historically inaccurate, which proves that his logic fails, and it fails at the point of his premises, his logical leaps and his exaggerations.
Published: November 22, 2006 9:32 AM
Francisco Torres
Taxation is an illegit act only if governments are illegit.
Roger, Paul didn't say Taxation is an illegit act. He said it is an aggressive act. You can have legal aggression, but it would STILL be aggression.
Yes, I would agree, if you accept that any government is illegit, then taxation is theft and states are inherently agrressive.
But that is not the premise, Roger. It is not that one accepts all governments are illegit or legit, since these are meaningless terms - becoming "legit" only requires the aquiescence of 50% plus one of the population, whether the rest likes it or not. It is in the actions that one will be judged, and however you want to manipulate reallity, the fact is:
Taking that which is not yours, by force, is theft. Taking that which is not yours, by force, is an act of aggression. This is true no matter how you wish to see yourself, if legit or illegit.
Published: November 22, 2006 9:46 AM
RogerM
Francisco:"Taking that which is not yours, by force, is theft. Taking that which is not yours, by force, is an act of aggression."
I didn't want to get into it too deeply, but the whole idea that taxation is theft is based on Hoppe's fabricated system of morals based exclusively on property. In that system, only voluntary contributions to support the government are considered legit; involuntary payments are theft. But those conclusions hold only if governments don't have the right to force people to pay taxes.
I don't want to launch a debate about Hoppe's ideas on morality, other than to say I don't agree with it because he artificially limits the debate to property rights and excludes other rights that natural law theorists have always considered important and superior to property rights.
Only if you stay within Hoppe's very narrow, and artificial system of morality can you consider it theft for governments to force people to pay taxes. I'm not going to debate that. We've done it too many times on this site before. I side with the likes of Douglass North and others that the free rider problem is too great for Hoppe's system to work, and is in itself immoral.
That's why I argue that taxation is not theft and forced taxation is not aggression; it's simply enforcing the laws necessary for legitimate governments to survive and carry out their legitimate functions. If a majority of people form a government, common sense requires that they fund it; if others want the benefits of that government without paying for them, that is theft and the other citizens have an obligation to make them pay or have them move.
Even if states were inherently aggressive against their own citizens, it doesn't necessarily follow that they would be aggressive against other states. But since they're not aggressive against their own citizens, Hoppe's whole argument falls apart.
This provides one more factual argument against Hoppe: monarchies were far more aggressive against their citizens that democracies. How many democracies have murdered hundreds of thousands of their own citizens for no reason other than their religion, as many monarchies have?
Published: November 22, 2006 10:47 AM
Dan Coleman
RogerM, you wrote:
Based on the assumption that states are inherently aggressive, a false assumption . . .
What is your definition of a state, such that it makes false Hoppe's assumption? The definition of a 'state' that Hoppe is working with is probably along the lines of 'an organization with a monopoly of force over a geographic area.' By definition, therefore, states are aggressive.
But if you don't assume that all government is illegit, then taxation is not aggressive and states aren't inherently aggressive.
As Francisco Torres pointed out, you are conflating "legitimate" with "aggressive."
Do you not think that taxes are aggressive? Try to stop paying them and see how voluntary they were in the first place. Or try "taxing" your neighbor and see how they react. Taxes are by definition aggressive, otherwise they would be known as "prices" or "payment for services" or something else.
But let's grant some of your arguments for the moment, and let us say that the 'aggressiveness' of a state depends on its legitimacy. Now, what makes any transaction between people legitimate is consensual participation from all parties involved. Therefore, the state and its taxes (again, by definition) are both illegitimate and aggressive.
Published: November 22, 2006 10:49 AM
adi
Words like "unlawful" or "legitimate" are meaningless since you have to tell in which sense are you using them.
My own legal philosophic studies started in legal positivism and ended in legal positivism. This fixation with the natural law is Anglo-American tradition (with some Viking/Teutonic concepts) and in other parts of world not necesserily recognized.
All of you should read Vilfredo Pareto's Manual of Political Economy and its discussion with the elites of society. Words like liberty or democracy are just hiding more than revealing since elite's of society continue their struggles. In some cases the elite's are more aggressive and in some cases more cautious and conservative. Elites can thus be categorized into different types. There is no class war other than a change of ruling elite's.
There are always those who rule and those who are ruled. Talk about the legitimacy of some functions of government is thus deeply flawed.
Published: November 22, 2006 11:10 AM
John
Roger: This is how Gerard Radnitzky described Hoppe's thesis regarding Monarchy and Democracy in his chapter entitled "Is Democracy More Peaceful than Other Forms of Government?" in Hoppe's book The Myth of National Defense.
"In a seminal paper, Hans-Hermann Hoppe made a comparison between democracy and monarchy. I prefer to interpret the descriptive concepts Hoppe uses as ideal-typical concepts. Interpreted in this way, his theoretical analysis of the incentives of each is highly illuminating. Whether the concepts can also be interpreted as statistical concepts is a question
that must be put to the historians. To interpret them as classificatory concepts invites criticism from the historians, who easily
can find some counterexamples"
You are taking any example in history that runs contrary to Hoppe's thesis as being a refutation of it. His theory is not universal. Seeing as we have came out of the most bloodied century in human history you can hardly say that Democracy is preferable to Monarchy. The link between dictatorships and Democracy is a strong one. I suggest you read Bertrand de Jouvenel's book called "On Power: The Natural History of its Growth". I believe its available from the Mises Institute.
"There's your problem. Taxation is an illegit act only if governments are illegit. You guys are chasing your tail; assuming your conclusions. Yes, I would agree, if you accept that any government is illegit, then taxation is theft and states are inherently agrressive. But if you don't assume that all government is illegit, then taxation is not aggressive and states aren't inherently aggressive. As I have written, Hoppe's problems don't like with his logic, but with him premises, exept where he makes logical leaps."
A Premise put forth in an argument does not need to be a conclusion of a previous argument. If it is then you may question his argument but you can hardly fault someones argument for listing at least one premise that has not been "justified" by argument in its current exposition. Be that as it may he did - albeit briefly - touch upon what the State is and why it is illegitimate. Every argument ever posed could be said to be chasing its tail. You are looking for an infinite regress! On this issue you might want to read a book Gerard Radnitzky edited which attempts to get out of Agrippa's trilemma. http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Epistemology-Rationality-Sociology-Knowledge/dp/0812690397
"states are inherently aggressive, a false assumption"
A true assumption actually. If coercion is needed at the start in order for a State to originate then it, at the very least, starts aggressively. Every tax is coercive, so the coercion goes on indefinitely. The only way to argue that the State is not aggressive is the social contract. The social contract is in Anthony de Jasay's memorable words, "like saying that a man cannot jump over his own shadow(create a contract) as it's impossible but then say that a man has just jumped over his shadow(create the social contract)"
Wild Pegasus: You have posted on this blog in the past to say such things about Hoppe and it is quite frankly childish. If you cannot argue against what Hoppe is saying then why bother posting on the blog? I am a libertarian and I do not find what Hoppe says to be embarrassing. Indeed in his book the Myth of National Defense Bassani, Lottieri, Rothbard, Lemennicier, Radnitzky, Stromberg, Sechrest, Hummel, Block and Hulsmann contributed, all of whom are libertarians are they not? You may be embarrassed for some reason by Hoppe's work but do not make out like all or even most libertarians are.
Published: November 22, 2006 11:48 AM
John
"There are always those who rule and those who are ruled. Talk about the legitimacy of some functions of government is thus deeply flawed."
If everyone who has posted in this blog were the only people in a given society would we need a ruler? Being ruled implies being ruled in relation to some specific things. Do you need a ruler to tell you when to go to the toilet? If law and order are the things that only "rulers" can provide then fair enough but neither history nor a cogent logical argument has to shown it to my satisfaction. The arguments for a stateless society are compelling to me. Natural rights arguments to arrive at such a conclusion however are not, neither are Hoppes discourse ethics.
In relation to your first bit, I at least would use "unlawful" and "legitimate" in relation to whether it is a voluntary and hence a moral institution or social order.
Published: November 22, 2006 12:00 PM
Francisco Torres
RogerM wrote:
In that system [Hoppe's, or Anarcho-capitalism], only voluntary contributions to support the government are considered legit; involuntary payments are theft. But those conclusions hold only if governments don't have the right to force people to pay taxes.
States have no rights, Roger. Only individual humans have rights. And an individual does not have a right to take someone else's possessions, the State (being composed of single individuals) does not have a right to take someone's property by violent or cercive means.
How many democracies have murdered hundreds of thousands of their own citizens for no reason other than their religion, as many monarchies have?
How about:
The USA, during the War of Northern Aggression against the Southern States? Or the Armenian holocaust? Or the mass deportations by Nazi Germany (the State WAS democratic, the majority of people accepting Nazi rule)? Or the Chinese famines of the 50's (China is also a democracy)?
Just because some regimes were not aggreeable to some westerners, does not mean they were not democracies (they certainly were NOT monarchies).
Published: November 22, 2006 12:27 PM
Björn Lundahl
Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.
Oscar Wilde
” . . . the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.”
The last half of the last paragraph in John Maynard Keynes’s book General Theory of Employment Interest and Money.
That ideas rule the world is one of the very few correct ideas that John Maynard Keynes probably ever had.
Human history is in essence a history of ideas (H.G. Wells)
The democratic principle means that the majority of the people have the right use physical violence and theft, just because they are the majority.
If we grasp a state of things where majorities exist everywhere and in all human situations and places (i.e. in the classroom, shop, street, airport, forest etc) and that all those majorities would also have the right, and actually used this right, to use physical violence and theft against minorities, the human race would quickly perish.
Utilitarianism means that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Intellectually the principle lets the door stand wide open for the use of physical violence and theft against people which happens to belong to the lesser number. If we grasp a state of things where the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people exists in using physical violence and theft everywhere and in all human situations and places (i.e. in the classroom, shop, street, airport, forest etc) against all those people that happened to belong to the lesser numbers, the human race would quickly perish.
The principle “that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft” is on the other hand a principle which man can live by, without at the same time destroying the human race. The principle “that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft” is instead a diametrical opposite principle in comparison to the democratic principle and the principle of utilitarianism, because it does not allow aggressions and it preserves human life and prosperity.
I do believe, therefore, that this principle and idea is the correct one for the human race to follow.
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden
Published: November 22, 2006 1:27 PM
RogerM
John quoting Radnitzky:"To interpret them as classificatory concepts invites criticism from the historians, who easily
can find some counterexamples."
That's an interesting perspective, similar to taking Hoppe's vision of democracies and monarchies like Mises's evenly rotating economy, as analysis tool but not realistic. The trouble is, Hoppe doesn't stay within his imaginary world; he uses it to make predictions about the real world.
"...you can hardly fault someones argument for listing at least one premise that has not been "justified" by argument in its current exposition."
As I understand Hoppe, he starts with the premise that argumentation implies ownership, then proceeds to build an ethical system on the conclusion of private property. He concludes that taxation is theft because it's not voluntary exchange. So Hoppe is building from premise to conclusion and his conclusions become premises for the next logical step. I argue that the premises and conclusions must be tested against reality, in this case history, to determine if he is using false premises or arriving at false conclusions. Since his conclusions don't match with history, I argue that he took an unwarranted logical leap at several places. But the main problem is with his ethical system built on property, because it makes the state a thief by definition.
Francisco: "States have no rights, Roger. Only individual humans have rights. And an individual does not have a right to take someone else's possessions, the State (being composed of single individuals) does not have a right to take someone's property by violent or cercive means."
Yes states have rights--those granted by the people to it. The state has the right to take taxes by force in the same way that a lender may collect a debt from an unwilling debtor by force if the debtor violates the contract.
"The USA, during the War of Northern Aggression against the Southern States? Or the Armenian holocaust? Or the mass deportations by Nazi Germany (the State WAS democratic, the majority of people accepting Nazi rule)? Or the Chinese famines of the 50's (China is also a democracy)?"
Interesting examples. Of course, in the case of the Civil War, you have to make killing in war murder, another ridiculous conclusion by anarchists. Then you have to make Nazi Germany and Communist China democracies, neither of which even remotely resemble a democracy in the common use of the term.
I've noticed that anarchists use the same debating methods as Marxists--distorting history and changing the definitions of words. Are you sure you guys aren't anarcho-communists?
Published: November 22, 2006 1:42 PM
RogerM
Bjorn:"The principle “that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft” is on the other hand a principle which man can live by, without at the same time destroying the human race."
I agree. But what do you do when someone commits theft or violence against another that's unwarrented? Someone must use violence against the offender in order for justice to prevail. So your principle can't be absolute.
"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."
It can mean that. There's nothing inherent in democracies to prevent it. But monarchies, dictatorships and anarchies can mean the same thing. No system can guarantee a perfect government because people are imperfect.
But it's interesting that the first outbrake of liberty in the history of the world (excluding Israel in the period of judges) came from a republic, the Dutch Republic. The Dutch gave the world its first taste of economic and religious freedom. That tiny country's influence forced the monarchies of Europe to change. When the US won it freedom from the English monarch, the rest of the world hailed it as the freest nation on the planet and a beacon of liberty and justice. No one claimed anything even remotely similar for the monarchies of the world.
Published: November 22, 2006 1:53 PM
Björn Lundahl
RogerM
Björn:”The principle “that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft” is on the other hand a principle which man can live by, without at the same time destroying the human race."
RogerM” I agree. But what do you do when someone commits theft or violence against another that's unwarrented? Someone must use violence against the offender in order for justice to prevail. So your principle can't be absolute”.
Björn The very cause for violations of the principle (that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft) is derived from that the criminal is not, to the full extent, bearing the costs (uneasiness) of his bad actions through unjustly taking advantages of the condition for life that is by violating the principle. The very cause is, therefore, not that the criminal opposes a logical impossibility, namely the condition for his life.
In other words, if the intended criminal would beforehand, compensate the intended victim for the violations he intends to do, no agreement would be reached. Would an agreement, contrary to expectation be reached, then no criminal offense would exist.
In letting the criminal to bear the cost of his violations does not contradict the statement that the principle is absolute because in such a case when the criminal bears the cost of his violations, no aggression has been done against him.
Björn "Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."
RogerM“It can mean that. There's nothing inherent in democracies to prevent it. But monarchies, dictatorships and anarchies can mean the same thing. No system can guarantee a perfect government because people are imperfect”.
Björn The democratic principle and system is, in contrast to the principle and system “that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft”, imperfect.
It is better to support a perfect principle than an imperfect one.
Björn Lundahl
Published: November 22, 2006 4:13 PM
RogerM
Bjorn:"In letting the criminal to bear the cost of his violations does not contradict the statement that the principle is absolute because in such a case when the criminal bears the cost of his violations, no aggression has been done against him."
I guess it depends upon your perspective. From the criminal's perspective, someone certainly has used aggression against him in the process of carrying out justice.
But the real question is who will carry out the justice and force the unwilling criminal to bear the cost of his actions? In anarchy, the task falls to the offended party or his family, or a private agency he has hired. In a democracy, the citizen hires the government to carry out justice. Now one can argue all day about which system will be more efficient, but outside of Hoppe's fabricated ethic, democracy is just as ethical as any other system, and in general has produced much better results than any other system, that is, if you use the term democracy with its commonly understand definition, and not the bizarre definitions that some anarchists have proposed.
Published: November 22, 2006 4:28 PM
Björn Lundahl
RogerM
Björn: In letting the criminal to bear the cost of his violations does not contradict the statement that the principle is absolute because in such a case when the criminal bears the cost of his violations, no aggression has been done against him.
RogerM I guess it depends upon your perspective. From the criminal's perspective, someone certainly has used aggression against him in the process of carrying out justice.
Björn He might think that and he might not. In this case, I do not think that a criminal’s opinion is of any importance.
RogerM But the real question is who will carry out the justice and force the unwilling criminal to bear the cost of his actions? In anarchy, the task falls to the offended party or his family, or a private agency he has hired. In a democracy, the citizen hires the government to carry out justice. Now one can argue all day about which system will be more efficient, but outside of Hoppe's fabricated ethic, democracy is just as ethical as any other system, and in general has produced much better results than any other system, that is, if you use the term democracy with its commonly understand definition, and not the bizarre definitions that some anarchists have proposed.
Björn I think that the essence is to support the principle that I have mentioned. It is not the king, utilitarianism, state or democracy that should be supported but the principle. If people supported the principle as much as they today support democracy or the state, the principle would be as powerful in its ability to influence society as democracy or the state is. In such a society, criminals would be powerless.
The time is now in Göteborg 12:13 midnight, so I will have to go to bed, and I surely will have some nightmares about democracy. A little joke! I hope you do not mind.
Björn Lundahl
Published: November 22, 2006 5:15 PM
Gavin
Perhaps Dr. Hoppe is being selective, but, at least he is thinking, even if we disagree with his conclusions.
The Old American Republic, (and maybe the Dutch Republic?, and others?) were ones in which the idea was that the Federal Constitution would bind the rulers, even the ones who were elected. There would be a rule of law, and the government and people could not overturn that. Of course, the populace would have to believe this, so, I suppose it would be deomcratic in the sense of that.
The monarchy in much of England's was always a restricted one. King James, for example, could not raise taxes without parliaments consent. And if he tried to overstep his traditional bound, well, heads could role (in the case of his unfortunate son, this was literally true!). The King had lands from which he could exact revenue, but, Parliament could vote him additional funds. Often, the commoners were quite happy when parliament was not in session, since, parliament being in session usually indicated new taxes. The King was often bankrupt. This, ofcourse, wasn't a perfect system, and perhaps, the prevailing economic system of mercantilism was one of the worst features of the age. But, mercantilism has prevailed in systems as varied as monarchies to pure democracies.
Most of these political systems were tailored to the societies in which they existed, with centuries of laws, customs, and traditions. A republic which was founded, lets say on concepts of legal positivism, in which concepts of natural and moral laws that were absolute, might do much worse than a monarchy in which the smallest violation of the emperor/king of a custom, tradition, natural and moral law would raise the greatest protests. It all kinds of depends on the subject.
It would be interesting to see Dr. Hoppe engage in a debate with another libertarian who adopts the opposite position. Perhaps that would enable us to clear up a good amount of misunderstandings.
An earlier point was made that the Emperor Constantine created a coupt of 'biblical' Christianity. This seems to be only a concept held by certain groups, such as fundamentalist protestants (baptists, pentecostals, so-called non-denominationlists, etc ) and many 'leftists' scholars. It betrays a great misunderstanding of the events in the 4th century. One need only read the writings Lactantius, Athanasius, Eusbeius, Socratius, to realize that the Emperor did believe what the Church taught, and when he called several councils, his main concern was to have peace, but, if one reads the correspondence between Athanaisus (defender of the Trinity) and Constantine, one realizes that he held a good understanding of Christian theology. But, aside from that point, the Emperor never made Christianity the official religion of the Empire, it wasn't until the reign of Theodosius at the beginning of the 5th century that Chrisitianity was given that statues. IF one reads Augustine's "City of God", part of it was written in refutation to the many pagans who attacked Christianity, and who still operated many temples. Since the Western Empire collapsed in the 5th century, it was only in the Eastern Empire that hte concept of Symphonia between Church and State developed.
The Reformed tradition seemed to view the King as mainly just a sort of a chief magistrate. The Lutherans appear to have had a somewhat different view, more unquestioning, unfortunately. The Roman Catholic tradition was always able to be, at its best, a great opposition to government power, even if it wasn't for what many would consider to be the right reasons, well, at least it was opposition. The Orthodox Church's position was more complex, seeing that here were always bishops willing to accept the emperor's distortions, but always leaders, (Photius, for example) who opposed him, and they were almost always canonized decades later. The Orthodox and Roman Catholic (and perhaps the Reformed and Lutherans?) existed in systems as varied as centralized monarchies (Byzantine Empire, and Spanish kingdom), or in decentralized, city states or feudal republics (like the Italian and German free cities for Roman CAtholics, and the Novgorod feudal republic, and other city states in medieval Rus' for the Orthodox), or in decentralized monarchical systems, like in England, or Serbia. The Reformed were usually in the Dutch Republic, and Scotland I think. THe Lutherans in Scandinavia, and Northern Germany.
As far as the religious aspect to Church and State support issues goes, I bow to the observations of the learned Dr. Rothbard. IN this regard, he mentions how the more liturgical, ordered Christian confessions in American history, tended to favor less government interference (tended, i might add), like the Episcopalians, Lutherans, and good confessional Reformed groups. While the Methodists, Baptists, etc, tened to one the government to enforce a great deal of their particular moral theology upon others. Of course, this observation was historical, and not applicable today.
Democracy, it would seem, works much better, on a very small level. Assuming this democracy is controlled and constrained.
my tirade is not ordered, or well thought out, forgive me for anything I have said that may be taken in an untoward manner. this was typed very quickly.
thanks,
Published: November 22, 2006 5:50 PM
RogerM
Bjorn: "If people supported the principle as much as they today support democracy or the state, the principle would be as powerful in its ability to influence society as democracy or the state is. In such a society, criminals would be powerless."
I agree completely that if all people followed your principle the world would be a perfect place. But I don't believe that the system of government influences society; research into culture, institutions and economics shows that the type of government a people have reflects their culture. The system of government has little influence on the culture, especially the character of the people. This is one of my main arguments against socialism and anarchist libertarians. Each group thinks that their system will perfect the character of its people, but that is simply not true. Character reflects one's worldview, which is created by religion/philosophy.
I listened to a great historian from MIT years ago, though I can't remember his name at the moment, who said that people have the form of government they deserve. A society with a high level of self-control will have a government with a light hand; societies without self-control will have more totalitarian forms of government. The system of government is not as important as the character of the people.
Gavin, Thanks for the detail in church history. The main problem I have with the church after Constantine was its identification with the state. It took us a long time to break that link.
Published: November 23, 2006 8:12 AM
Gavin
Forgive me, RogerM, I misunderstood you.
Though, I would slightly disagree to the extent that the state was identified as the Church. Only the Roman Catholic Church, has ever really had the problem of confusion between state and Church, in the sense of them becoming a state (like the Vatican 'kingdoms' that existend in central Italy). The Symphonia attempted in the Byzantine Empire was different.
Yes, it would seem that people often get the form of government they want. However, of course, there are exception in which small groups (like the Bolsheviks) can effectively counter and suppress much majority opposition by masterful propaganda and 'statecraft'. I'm am somewhat certain, for example, that he 6 million Ukrainian's Stalin killed were not necessarily big supporters of his!
Published: November 23, 2006 10:18 AM
Björn Lundahl
RogerM” I agree completely that if all people followed your principle the world would be a perfect place. But I don't believe that the system of government influences society; research into culture, institutions and economics shows that the type of government a people have reflects their culture. The system of government has little influence on the culture, especially the character of the people. This is one of my main arguments against socialism and anarchist libertarians. Each group thinks that their system will perfect the character of its people, but that is simply not true. Character reflects one's worldview, which is created by religion/philosophy.
I listened to a great historian from MIT years ago, though I can't remember his name at the moment, who said that people have the form of government they deserve. A society with a high level of self-control will have a government with a light hand; societies without self-control will have more totalitarian forms of government. The system of government is not as important as the character of the people”.
A/ It is not “my principle”.
B/ No point for anyone, then, to justify any system. Whatever system we live under it is the right one. It reflects our culture, characters etc. Once upon a time, some people might have said that as an argument against democracy or utilitarianism.
C/ Do not debate because that might change things and that would be wrong and bad.
D/ If we do not debate and want changes to take place, that would also have a great influence. Whatever we do it will make things different.
E/ It might, then, be better to defend what we think is good and just than to defend what we think is bad and unjust.
Björn Lundahl
Published: November 23, 2006 1:05 PM
Stranger
"
Democracy, it would seem, works much better, on a very small level. Assuming this democracy is controlled and constrained. "
This is just inviting more questions. Who or what constrains it? Why can't a monarchy be similarly constrained?
Published: November 23, 2006 7:48 PM
Gavin
I'm sure it can, Stranger. And they have been.
Published: November 23, 2006 11:59 PM
Francisco Torres
"Yes states have rights--those granted by the people to it."
Sorry, Roger, either you do not know what is a "right" or you have a distorted idea of the concept. A "State" does not exist - it is only an abstraction. Only human beings, those that step on dirt and breathe air, can have rights.
"The state has the right to take taxes by force in the same way that a lender may collect a debt from an unwilling debtor by force if the debtor violates the contract."
Again, a State is only a construct, it is not real, thus it cannot have rights. Regarding the comparison, it is unsound, considering that a debt collector is simply following on a claim to HIS or HER property. Taxes are NOT the State's property nor is it debt. There is no agreement between the state to loan property or money to a person so as to collect it later.
Published: November 24, 2006 12:30 AM
Francisco Torres
"Of course, in the case of the Civil War, you have to make killing in war murder, another ridiculous conclusion by anarchists."
Under any circumnstance? I did not say the murder of soldiers. The Union killed thousands of civilians, by way of famine, disease or direct cause.
"Then you have to make Nazi Germany and Communist China democracies, neither of which even remotely resemble a democracy in the common use of the term."
When saying "the common use of the term", do you mean your use or someone else's? Because by such logic, we can give any term any meaning, just by saying it is "the common use". I prefer precision. The Nazi regime was a democracy in the classic term, since the population majority aquiesced totally to the regime's actions. Hitler's ascension to power came out of a totally lawful process. Communist China is a democracy, since the majority of people do believe in Communism (as the Cultural Revolution showed). Both represent the total concept of a democracy: the rule of the 50% plus one.
It would be interesting to listen to your take on the idea that, if Communit China was considered "legit" by its population, it had the same "right" to impose taxes.
Published: November 24, 2006 12:48 AM
RogerM
Francisco: "Again, a State is only a construct, it is not real, thus it cannot have rights."
It sure has a lot of power for something that is not real!
"When saying "the common use of the term", do you mean your use or someone else's? Because by such logic, we can give any term any meaning, just by saying it is "the common use". I prefer precision."
The purpose of language is to communicate, but communication can take place only when we use words in ways that are commonly understood. Usually, that is the dictionary definition, but occasionally it's just what most people think the definition is. If in a discussion you have to change the meaning of a word from its commonly accepted one, you're argument is obviously weak, and you're being dishonest.
Yes, it's true that some dictators come to power through a vote of the people, but when those dictators stop holding elections and murder opponents, they cease being democracies.
"Communist China is a democracy, since the majority of people do believe in Communism."
Believing in something is not the same as voting for it. You're promoting a false definition of democracies. Besides, from what I know of China, most Chinese don't believe and never have believed in Communism. Membership in the Communist Party is very small. China is a dictatorship (a monarchy) by the Communist Party.
"It would be interesting to listen to your take on the idea that, if Communit China was considered "legit" by its population, it had the same "right" to impose taxes."
You're confusing the legitimacy of government as an institution with the legitimacy of specific governments. Any form of government can be legit, whether a military dictatorship, a monarchy, a democracy, anarchy or a republic. This has been the opinion of natural rights theorists for ages. What makes them eligit are their actions, such as murder, theft and general disrespect for human rights.
Hoppeian anarchists, on the other hand, believe that no form or government under any circumstances is legitimate. That's why Hoppe can claim that all taxation is theft and all war is murder.
This might be a good time to bring up another point where I think Hoppeian anarchists are dishonest. There's a big difference between democracies and republics. I think, as did the US founding fathers, that democracies are a dangerous as dictatorships. Democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority. Republics restrain the majority with the rule of law and a constitution that protects fundamental human rights. Elected officials in a republic are not supposed to parrot the desire of their constituents, but act as an elite group, sort of like a nobility, to run the country according to the constitution and ignore the wishes of the voters if those wishes conflict with human rights and the constitution. The loss of liberty we have suffered in the US has come about because of the drift towards democracy.
Hoppeian anarchists treat republics as if they were democracies, just as you are trying to equate communism and Nazism with democracy, which is dishonest.
Published: November 24, 2006 9:15 AM
Stranger
"Elected officials in a republic are not supposed to parrot the desire of their constituents, but act as an elite group, sort of like a nobility, to run the country according to the constitution and ignore the wishes of the voters if those wishes conflict with human rights and the constitution."
Well if they're not "supposed" to be corrupt, then I guess republics are perfectly good after all.
The best of both worlds would then be a monarchical republic, which would have the time preference of monarchies and the imaginary, fantastical constraints of republics.
Published: November 24, 2006 4:55 PM
Björn Lundahl
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Murray Rothbard and ethics.
As I see it, Hoppe and Rothbard have the same views regarding which libertarian ethical principles a libertarian society should support.
The difference between them in this regard is the procedure in which they arrive at those principles.
Rothbard supported abstract reasoning within the realm of Natural Law. Hoppe on the other hand, might support Natural Law but does, at least, not do that openly and cleverly avoids, consequently, any debate regarding the validity of the concept of Natural Law.
Hoppe came into the insight that an extremely important part of the “Rothbardian ethics” was missing. The missing part was the abstract reasoning needed to prove the true validity of the concept “that no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft”. Hoppe filled that missing gap.
I also want to say that I think Hoppe is a golden asset for the libertarian movement and that he is, probably, the intellectual “godfather” of this movement that is still living.
That does not mean that any criticism against his ideas might not be correct. I could not tell.
Perfection does not exist in nature.
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden
Published: November 25, 2006 3:42 AM
adi
Björn, it appears to me that you cannot prove that “no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft” is true. You just accept that as a one of the axioms of your ethical system.
By constructing different ethical systems which are all consistent (no contradictions) you can compare these to each other and find out what conclusions you can draw from these.
So perhaps one could say that ethics resemples mathematical formalism (David Hilbert's Geometry and von Neumann's and Morgenstern expected utility theory are good examples). Like there is Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometries, there might be possible to construct different ethical systems. Some might have different basic properties.
I have said earlier that the natural law is alien concept outside of Anglo-American tradition. It's difficult to convince others to believe that mans reason can abstract some fundamental always applicaple truths concerning laws. Can we even be sure how the founders of republic of US thought that natural law is applied.
Still easier approach to laws, rulers and elite's is Pareto's "fox and lions" type of view. This is really cynical view and sees everything as a battleground. After that you cannot never believe in collectivism but even view about the liberal order might be impossible. That's because word liberal order might as well hide behind it just corporate statism.
Published: November 25, 2006 5:50 AM
RogerM
Adi:"I have said earlier that the natural law is alien concept outside of Anglo-American tradition."
The natural law school began with Thomas Aquinas in 13th century Europe and was the chief guiding force for European law/ethics for centuries. It may have reached its climax under the Anglo-Saxons Locke and Hume, but they didn't invent it.
The concept of natural law is fairly simple. Philosophers believed that only God has the authority to tell mankind how to act, because no man has moral authority over another. Morals are impossible without God. The shortcut to a moral code is through the Bible, but for non-believers, the natural law theorists believed you could arrive at most of God's moral law through reason by examining mankind's nature and determining what principles enable man to survive and flourish.
I think natural law rests on a firmer foundation than any other system I've discovered. Hoppe's system, though elegantly reasoned, suffers from several deficiencies. First, he bases the right to private property on what's implied when two people argue, that is, the implications about self-ownership which assume a principle of private property. I don't think he makes a strong case that self-ownership is implied in the process of argumentation, but even if you allow it, it seems to be a weak foundation for the single most important institution in all of Western civilization--private property. Natural law offers much more solid grounds for property.
Next, Hoppe builds his entire ethic upon the right to property, but this is just one aspect of human nature. Choosing just property on which to build a moral foundation is an arbitrary choice. Natural law starts with the right to life and includes private property as a subset right. Because Hoppe makes property an absolute, it naturally follows that all taxes are theft and all war is murder. Therefore, all forms of government are immoral. Natural law builds upon the right to life and the sociable nature of man to allow for limited government, with emphasis on limited. Natural law places more emphasis on the limits to government power because, in its day, tyranny was the main problem. But mob rule and criminal behavior were also dangers.
Natural law didn't belief that a perfect system of government could perfect mankind, either. I'm not certain that Hoppe thinks that a stateless society would perfect mankind, but he sure seems to imply it with articles like the one above. Natural law takes human nature as a given with some good people and some bad, but always with enough bad people to create chaos through lawlessness. Only religion/philosophy can change individuals. Natural law theorists would never have accepted a state-less society because they believed the criminal element would soon dominate it.
Finally, I think it's deceptive to even call Hoppe's system an ethical system because it leaves God out. Hoppe can't say that a thief or murderer is immoral in his system, only that he is unreasonable, illogical or doesn't follow the rules. Any man-made code of conduct is little more than a home-owner's covenant. If someone breaks the covenant, the other home owners can demand that he leave the community, but they have no authority to punish the offender beyond ostricism. Hoppe's system should be called a code of conduct in the same way that business organizations have codes of conduct.
Published: November 25, 2006 8:07 AM
Björn Lundahl
Adi
”It appears to me that you cannot prove that “no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft” is true. You just accept that as a one of the axioms of your ethical system.”
It is a true principle for it is no accident that societies all over the world, generally, forbid any violation of the principle. I think that this is a very strong proof by itself. It is, really, quite obvious.
No societies could, generally, allow violations of the principle, because it would undermine their very existence.
If you want to read and study some abstract reasoning about the ultimate justification of private property (i.e. that “no man shall have the right to use physical violence and theft”), please go to:
http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-10.pdf
Björn Lundahl
Published: November 25, 2006 10:37 AM
adi
Björn, it's altogether different thing to say that those societies which follow liberal order are most probable to survive than to say that some principle is self-evidently true. I will agree with you that liberal order is by it's consequences best solution. There are so many individuals though that disagree with us about these issues. Think about how many Swedes and Finns support Nordic Welfare state..
Tack så mycket för din kommenter!
RogerM, I said that many people might be sceptical about the possibility for man's reason to reach those universal truths about which you wrote. Situation is still more difficult when someone is invoking divine powers to found a ultimate legal system. I dont have such a clear opinion about previous issue, but we all seem to have somekind of liberal system as our ultimate form of society and we just happen to reach the same goal through different roads.
Published: November 25, 2006 12:58 PM
billwald
Excellent economical/political analysis.
A racist/genocidal society is "Libertarian" as lone as the rules are announced in advanced, children are protected, and people are free to leave taking their children and portable assets with them.
For example, a Islamo-fundimentalist society could be democratic and capitalistic. Or consider Calivin's Geneva. Whatshisname didn't have to return to Geneva. He was well warned he would be killed if he did.
Published: November 25, 2006 2:18 PM
Björn Lundahl
Adi
” it's altogether different thing to say that those societies which follow liberal order are most probable to survive than to say that some principle is self-evidently true. I will agree with you that liberal order is by it's consequences best solution. There are so many individuals though that disagree with us about these issues. Think about how many Swedes and Finns support Nordic Welfare state”.
Yes, I agree that it is an entirely different thing to argue that some principles are either self-evident true or/and as Hoppe puts it “the normative foundation which cognition and truth rest is the recognition of private property rights” than to support a liberal order because it is by its consequences the best solution.
I am, naturally, very aware of the fact that most people are not libertarians. But that does not change anything regarding the true validity of libertarian principles. They are true regardless of how many people believe so. It is like supporting Austrian economics. I am very aware of the fact that most people have not even heard of a school called the Austrian School of Economics. But that does not influence me at all in believing that there will be, for example, an end of the business cycles if we adopt 100 % gold reserve banking. It is the “internal logic” of such a system that has convinced me. The same goes with libertarian principles.
Nice, that you know some Swedish!
Tack själv, för dina fina kommentarer!
I really, now feel how strange my language must be for a foreign tongue! God!
Björn Lundahl
Published: November 25, 2006 4:12 PM
Björn Lundahl
Life Is a Gift from God
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life—physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
Frederic Bastiat
http://www.econlib.org/library/bastiat/basEss2a.html
http://www.answers.com/bastiat?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3
Björn Lundahl
Published: November 27, 2006 6:13 AM
RogerM
Bjorn,
Nice selection from Bastiat! Thanks!
Published: November 27, 2006 8:12 AM
M E Hoffer
Bjorn,
Nice selection from Bastiat! Thanks!
above, from RogerM
+ as nice, thus making it better: nice links!~
Published: November 27, 2006 9:07 AM
Björn Lundahl
RogerM & M E Hoffer
my pleasure!
Björn
Published: November 27, 2006 1:15 PM