Imperialism and the Logic of War Making
Commentaries on war stretching back more than two millennia to the Peloponnesian Wars have enshrouded the fundamental causes of war in an almost impenetrable fog of myths, fallacies, and outright lies. In most studies, war is generally portrayed as the inevitable outcome of either complex historical forces or accidental circumstances generally beyond the understanding or control of the human combatants. Fortunately, there exists a science of human action that is applicable to all purposeful activities. This science is referred to as "praxeology." Although economics is its most developed branch, the basic principles of this science can also be applied to analyzing violent action including warfare. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (68)
RogerM
"We thus arrive at a universal, praxeological truth about war. War is the outcome of class conflict inherent in the political relationship — the relationship between ruler and ruled, parasite and producer, tax-consumer and taxpayer. The parasitic class makes war with purpose and deliberation in order to conceal and ratchet up their exploitation of the much larger productive class."
Here's another example of extremely sloppy reasoning. The author starts out making weak, indefensible assumptions about the motives for war:
"All governments past and present, regardless of their formal organization, involve the rule of the many by the few."
This is a half-truth, the most dangerous type of falsehoods. It's true for most of history; not true under republics, not necessarily true under democracies.
"Genuine "majority rule" on a permanent basis is impossible because it would result in an economic collapse as the tribute or taxes expropriated by the more numerous rulers deprived the minority engaged in peaceful productive activities of the resources needed to sustain and reproduce itself."
The author seems to assume that all people want to steal from their neighbors and they have no other thought in their heads. Religion and general decency restrain most people. Most democracies, but especially republics, limit the power of the state and people to use it to enrich themselves. But he also assumes that if the majority rules, it quits working and tries to live off the few productive people who are not in government. He doesn't even consider possible the current state of affairs in the US where the majority rules (except on matters limited by the Constitution) and works at productive jobs at the same time! As large as the government is in the US, government employees don't even come close to the majority and they don't represent a permanent class; they rotate.
"[In] all human groups at all times there are the few who rule and the many who are ruled."
Again, half-true. In a republic the people who rule can be changed, so they frequently rotate. There is no class of people, like the nobility of Europe, who rule perpetually.
"War has a number of advantages for the ruling class."
Because war has advantages for a few people, the author assumes that these advantages are the only motivations for war; none others exist or at least are not worthy of considertion. He also assumes only evil motivations on the part of his so-called ruling class. He then builds his whole case against war on these false premises. You don't need to read further because you know that any conclusions built on such shaky foundations are going to be false.
"We thus arrive at a universal, praxeological truth about war. War is the outcome of class conflict inherent in the political relationship — the relationship between ruler and ruled, parasite and producer, tax-consumer and taxpayer."
Of course you arrive at this "truth about war" if you accept the author's ridiculous premises. We have no permanent ruling class in the US. And I can't tell you what the motivations of the people in power are at the time of war. Knowing people, I'm sure they're mixed.
I love this: "The term "democratic" is here being used in the broad sense that includes "totalitarian democracies" controlled by "parties" such as the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party in Germany and the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. These political parties, as opposed to purely ideological movements, came into being during the age of nationalist mass democracy that dawned in the late nineteenth century."
So I guess we could call any politcal party that came into being during the late 19th century democratic. The chief demonstration of a weak argument is when the author has to resort to private definitions of words. No one on the planet would accept this definition of democracy, except for a handful of anarchists. Under any common understanding of democracy, Nazism, Communism and Maoism are the opposite of democracies. But the author must have his private definition in order for his argument to work. He needs to lump the US in with the greatest criminal governments in history in order to make it look evil by association.
If anyone can define any word as he sees fit, so as to make a sloppy argument appear coherent, then here's mine for anarchy--chaos and the rule of criminals.
Published: December 6, 2006 9:53 AM
jeffrey
I must say, this is one of the best articles Mises.org has ever published.
Published: December 6, 2006 12:24 PM
David White
RogerM:
"The author seems to assume that all people want to steal from their neighbors and they have no other thought in their heads."
No, the author merely assumes what history has gone out of its way to prove: that the few have always dominated the many, no matter how they have rationalized their doing so.
"There is no class of people, like the nobility of Europe, who rule perpetually."
Not in perpetuity, perhaps, but certainly over long periods of time. But in any case, the point is not that one particular class rules for any length of time but that the few always rule over the many. And to contend that majoritarianism in any way vitiates this truth is simply to fail to understand how the few use majoritarianism to suit their purposes. Who was actually "ousted" in the midterms elections, after all? Did one faction of the ruly elite not merely swap seats with the other -- again -- while nothing else changed?
Methinks your ignorance of history is exceeded only by the all-too-commonplace exceptionalism that you bestow on America and upon which its rulers endlessly feed. But then, not for nothing did Goethe say: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Published: December 6, 2006 12:56 PM
Francisco Torres
Roger, in a Republic as in a democracy you still have a few representatives governing over the many. It is not a half-truth; it simply does not include any romantic or adorning language.
Again, half-true. In a republic the people who rule can be changed, so they frequently rotate.
Seems naive from your part. There is not one democracy in history where the governing class was totally replaced in each election. Even in Mexico where there is no reelection of representatives, the ruling class is still the same - they simply change jobs within government.
He also assumes only evil motivations on the part of his so-called ruling class. He then builds his whole case against war on these false premises. You don't need to read further because you know that any conclusions built on such shaky foundations are going to be false.
Roger, the motives are besides the point. It is the ACT itself that is the point of argument. The author assumes something that is true by itself: that aggressive warmaking IS evil, since it involves the taking of life and property. From this premise he can argue successfully against war.
Because war has advantages for a few people, the author assumes that these advantages are the only motivations for war; none others exist or at least are not worthy of consider[a]tion.
The author is looking at the issue from a praxeological point of view. If a person is to act (doing something rationally), he or she must find an advantage of that act over others. If a government (i.e. the ruler or rulers) are willing to go to war (as aggressors), is because they find the act to their advantage.
We have no permanent ruling class in the US.
This is besides the point - the author is not talking about a permanent ruling class. At any point, there is only a few individuals in power ruling over the many.
Under any common understanding of democracy, Nazism, Communism and Maoism are the opposite of democracies.
It would be to the advantage of your criticism to privide this "common" understanding, in order to compare it to the author's. This would help in determining whether his definition is private, and if yours is NOT private.
Published: December 6, 2006 1:03 PM
RogerM
David:"But in any case, the point is not that one particular class rules for any length of time but that the few always rule over the many."
Who makes up this mysterious ruling class in America? How do they persuade voters to cast their ballots for them? Are you saying that voting is a sham, that the ruling class fools voters into thinking they're making a difference in government while all along the ruling classes are making the decisions? This sounds a lot like the conspiracy theories where Jews, international bankers, the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, or a number of other groups actually control the world but trick the rest of us fools into thinking we have a say in matters by letting us vote.
Published: December 6, 2006 1:08 PM
RogerM
Francisco:"...in a Republic as in a democracy you still have a few representatives governing over the many. It is not a half-truth; it simply does not include any romantic or adorning language."
Unless elections in the US are a sham, then the author's statement doesn't apply to the US, nor to any democracy in the world.
"There is not one democracy in history where the governing class was totally replaced in each election."
Who makes up this governing class? This is the first I've heard of it.
"The author is looking at the issue from a praxeological point of view. If a person is to act (doing something rationally), he or she must find an advantage of that act over others. If a government (i.e. the ruler or rulers) are willing to go to war (as aggressors), is because they find the act to their advantage."
No doubt a person will act for his advantage, but that advantage can encompass far more than what the author suggests. That the author limits the advantage to stealing from the productive class shows nothing but his lack of imagination.
"It would be to the advantage of your criticism to privide this "common" understanding, in order to compare it to the author's."
Dictionaries represent the author's attempt to discern the common understanding of words. Here's Wikipedia's: "Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek δημοκρατία-demokratia demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") is a form of government in which all the citizens have a vote."
Published: December 6, 2006 1:29 PM
Evans Munyemesha
Great exposition!
Published: December 6, 2006 1:30 PM
David White
RogerM:
"Who makes up this mysterious ruling class in America?"
You mean you haven't seen them on TV?
"How do they persuade voters to cast their ballots for them?"
Beats me; must be a testament to the endless gullibility of the American people.
"Are you saying that voting is a sham, that the ruling class fools voters into thinking they're making a difference in government while all along the ruling classes are making the decisions?"
But of course. As freedom fighter Emma Goldman famously said, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
Published: December 6, 2006 1:57 PM
quasi-Austrian
The Austrians' (considerable) skill and insight seems to break down when they venture outside of economics.
It saddened me to read Rothbard's ham-handed attempt to establish the axiom of "human action" early in Man, Economy, and State (the book got profoundly better when it moved to his natural domain: economics... and I'll include liberty and defense in Rothbard's domain, but not epistemology) - how does the ability/inability to conceive of something (or it's absence) contribute to it's proof/disproof... (and why won't you people just leave it as an axiom, or even analyze what makes it an axiom and exactly what the assumption involves... i.e. what you're leaving out)
Mises seemed more skilled with epistemology, but it troubled me greatly to read Mises's ad hominem psycho-analysis of Marx.
I think the problem is that you (proponents of the Austrian school in general) have your conclusions before you begin, and then concoct theory to get from point A to point B (when dealing outside economics, where you don't have the shoulders of giants to stand upon).
btw, I don't agree with RogerM above, but the article was too easy to pick apart.
The quality of the anti-copyright 'articles' (if you can call them that) is also quite poor.
As a side note... I was playing Unreal Tournament 2004 the other day... and there was a guy on named LudwigVonMises... so I renamed myself to MurrayRothbard... got in a manta (fast moving hover vehicle)... and squashed him... he was amused... got a "lol". :-)
Published: December 6, 2006 3:00 PM
RogerM
David:"You mean you haven't seen them on TV?"
May have. I'm not sure. Are they the Jews, UFO's, or the Knights Templar?
Published: December 6, 2006 3:42 PM
Brian Drum
May have. I'm not sure. Are they the Jews, UFO's, or the Knights Templar?
Have you never seen a politician or bureaucrat or state-funded 'expert' on TV? That's your ruling class right there.
Published: December 6, 2006 4:02 PM
tarran
I think Roger is confused, because he assumes that to enter the ruling class, one must be born into it.
In the U.S. nearly anyone can join the ruling class. It requires only a bit of luck and hitting the ritght entry point for example interning with a politician, amassing influence through business acumen or being an entertainer.
Despite the relative ease of joining it, it still is, in effect, a class of rulers who dominate a larger number. Inevitably a few people must decide how to use the resources siezed by the state. There can only be one president, only 535 members of Congress, etc.
Of course, these people will use these resources as they personally judge to be best. This will inevitably not jibe with the desires of those from whom these resources were taken.
End result, the few rule the many.
Published: December 6, 2006 4:20 PM
RogerM
tarran: "Of course, these people will use these resources as they personally judge to be best. This will inevitably not jibe with the desires of those from whom these resources were taken."
OK, so you're saying that anyone in a government office or job is in the ruling class. But how do the get those positions? The 535 in Congress and the President have to persuade voters to vote for them. And as the last election showed, the voters can fire them, too. Voters fire them when their elected servants don't do what the majority thinks they should do. So to equate our "ruling classes" with those of the USSR, China, or Rome is simply dishonest.
I doubt any anarchist would be so cynical as to believe that those who want to be in the ruling class don't have to appeal to voters at all. So the debate is over how much power voters have to throw out bad public servants.
Still, everyone in a government position isn't evil. Most are decent people trying to do the right thing. Even the few bad one find themselves constrained by principle, religion, public opinion, desire to be re-elected, peer pressure and the law.
For anarchists to claim that all people in all government positions are there only to loot and start wars to hide their theft is ridiculous!
Published: December 6, 2006 4:36 PM
Francisco Torres
Unless elections in the US are a sham, then the author's statement doesn't apply to the US, nor to any democracy in the world.
What does the alledged legality of an election have to do with the fact that only a few people rule? People do not vote in order to rule themselves, they vote in order to empower a few to rule them.
No doubt a person will act for his advantage, but that advantage can encompass far more than what the author suggests.
For instance?
That the author limits the advantage to stealing from the productive class shows nothing but his lack of imagination.
The author is not limiting anything, he is making a logical deduction. If the final result from an act is that people lose their property and the ruling class possesses that property, and if the rulers acted rationally, then one cannot conclude that there existed a greater advantage in doing something else besides taking that property.
Still, everyone in a government position isn't evil. Most are decent people trying to do the right thing.
Ah, the "They are simply too decent to..." fallacy.
"By their acts they should be judged". If they try to do the "right thing" with stolen money, they are no better than thieves. I cannot know nor assume if people in government jobs are decent or undecent - I can only judge by the results, and the net result is that my money gets stolen while I receive poor products in return.
Published: December 6, 2006 5:55 PM
quincunx
@ RogerM
"This is a half-truth, the most dangerous type of falsehoods. It's true for most of history; not true under republics, not necessarily true under democracies."
You are syaing that because people get some choices in picking who the ruling minority is, therefore there is no ruling minority. Huh?
"The author seems to assume that all people want to steal from their neighbors and they have no other thought in their heads."
No, some people want others to steal from their neighbors on their behalf. Actually doing it is a dirty job. The easiest way to steal from your neighbors is obviously to prevent good things from coming to them: raise tariffs, print more paper tickets, create legal monopolies, etc. They'll never know what isn't coming!
"Most democracies, but especially republics, limit the power of the state and people to use it to enrich themselves."
Really? Which ones?
Switzerland may be the best example, but it too has grown.
"We have no permanent ruling class in the US. And I can't tell you what the motivations of the people in power are at the time of war. Knowing people, I'm sure they're mixed."
The ruling class is not just those that sit in the bureaucracy, it is also the corporations that sponsor the bureaucrats. I think they are even more important.
Published: December 6, 2006 6:05 PM
George Gaskell
Most democracies, but especially republics, limit the power of the state and people to use it to enrich themselves.
Of all the errors and fallacies in your arguments, Roger, this is one of the more glaring ones.
About 95% of what our federal government does today is blatantly unconstitutional. It seized these extra powers during periods of crisis, most notably the War of Southern Independence, the so-called Progressive era (under Roosevelt and Wilson), and the Great Depression.
The ultimate insult is that the federal government created each of these crises before using the harm that flowed from them to seize power.
The limits on power in which you place so much faith are illusory.
Also, on the topic of a temporary, rotating ruling class, I highly recommend Hoppe's Democracy, the God that Failed. It explains how rulers who occupy a position of power for a limited term are actually more predatory on the populace compared to hereditary aristocrats. Monarchs take a more long-term view of exploitation, whereas democratic governments take what they can while they can. Democracy was a step backward for the cause of freedom.
Published: December 6, 2006 7:23 PM
Sam
What about the part in Joseph Samelo's article where he absolves the crimes of the many to the few leaders? Why should the soldiers go free whilst the officers get jailed? Are we naive to believe that Hilter coerced and hypnotised the Germans to become Nazis? Isn't the real situation one of the everyday person joining the conflict so that they too could hope to share in the plunder? Wasn't murder, rape and pillage the footman's reward for his participation of which many were quite eager to join up and enjoy. To suggest ALL ordinary folk don't automatically want war and only the leaders do could just as well come from any Liberal or Marxist commentator.
I think Eric Cartman, that fat kid from South Park, and Homer said it best:
"If you had a chance to go back in time and stop Hitler wouldn't you do it? . . . I mean I personally wouldn't cause I thought he was awesome." - Eric.
"It takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen." - Homer.
PS that's Homer Simpson not the ancient Greek guy! ;D
Published: December 6, 2006 11:26 PM
Tim
An excellent article. Unfortunately the Joseph Schumpeter quotation lacks citations. Does anyone know where Dr Salerno sourced this quote?
Published: December 7, 2006 2:13 AM
M E Hoffer
"Also, on the topic of a temporary, rotating ruling class, I highly recommend Hoppe's Democracy, the God that Failed. It explains how rulers who occupy a position of power for a limited term are actually more predatory on the populace compared to hereditary aristocrats. Monarchs take a more long-term view of exploitation,..."
Yes. The 'short-term' owner, of the Cow, is more likely to walk off with the Hide, than just a Quart of Milk.
Published: December 7, 2006 5:07 AM
adi
What if the monarchs time-preference is so high that he tries to consume all wealth in the country as quickly as possible? :)
Old saying: "There might as well be Great Flood after I'm gone"
Didn't Hoppe himself said something about how certain sexual minorities have so high time preference that they practise many dangerous activities?
Published: December 7, 2006 5:42 AM
gene berman
I can't understand what objection the anarchistically-inclined have to the (real, observable) phenomenon that those ruling are always few in relation to those ruled. The simple process of increasing specialization of function would bring about such a result in any case.
Whether fortunate or not, we have not much in the way of ongoing, observable examples of significantly numerous human groups existing without some method for establishing just who would constitute that small number (of rulers).
I'm no anthropologist but it seems that the aborigines of Australia might be close to the anarchist ideal. And, in fairness, we should also admit that they never--even once (that we know of) launched a war designed to rape, pillage, and bring under their dominion those of a foreign land.
The arguments of Roger M. are correct; all attempts at refutation, though consisting of factual statements, make no more point than that present systems are flawed in one way or another. These continually beg both questions: "Is there a better way?" and "How is the better way to be brought into existence?" Without reasonable answers to both those questions, reasonable (which is to say most) people will remain unconvinced. And, what is more, they will tend toward association of more liberal (and libertarian) policies and recommendations with descent into lawlessness and the war of all against all. In this wise, they do not serve the cause they espouse but merely insure positions within a marginalized "kook" fringe.
It's working. References (to Mises.org) I see elsewhere on the web are almost exclusively directed to its anarchistic radical libertarian views rather than to any economic knowledge propounded by Mises himself.
Published: December 7, 2006 6:19 AM
M E Hoffer
"some people want others to steal from their neighbors on their behalf. Actually doing it is a dirty job. The easiest way to steal from your neighbors is obviously to prevent good things from coming to them: raise tariffs, print more paper tickets, create legal monopolies, etc. They'll never know what isn't coming!" --quincunx
+
"About 95% of what our federal government does today is blatantly unconstitutional. It seized these extra powers during periods of crisis, most notably the War of Southern Independence, the so-called Progressive era (under Roosevelt and Wilson), and the Great Depression."--GG
+
"ignorance of history...+...all-too-commonplace exceptionalism that \one bestows\ on America allows its rulers endlessly feed. But then, not for nothing did Goethe say: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.""--D White
"They'll never know what isn't coming!" --quincunx
2X
Published: December 7, 2006 7:18 AM
RogerM
In my attempt to keep my posts short, I may have given the impression that the author is dishonest. What I intended to say was that some of the techniques he uses are dishonest, though he may not know it. Those techniques are commonly used in everday speech and especially in the popular media. Using private definitions--such as the anarchist one for democracy-- is one is just one example.
I had forgotten that anarchists also have their own definition of taxes--theft. For the uninitiated, that explains why they feel free to accuse all people in government of theft. But if you look up theft in a dictionary, you won't find taxes equated with theft. That comes from the Rothbard/Hoppe property covenant.
A more subtle technique, is to use a vague word with a lot of meanings, starting out with one meaning and switching to another without telling the reader you're switching meanings. This article does that with the term "ruling class". At first, the author uses it to refer to despots in the Roman Empire and pre-modern Europe. Then he applies the term to elected officials and bureaucrats in republics. Both concepts of "ruling class" are legit, because the words "class" and "ruling" have dozens of meanings. But the "ruling class" in republics is very different from the "ruling class" in despotic regimes. In the despotic regimes, the ruling class came to power through violence or heredity, was very limited in size and entry, and had no restraints on its power. In a republic, entry into the ruling class is easy, the limits are power are large, and entry requires convincing the majority of your worthiness. So the author starts out with one definition of class and switches to another when using it for republics, not telling the reader that he's switching definitions.
Most people don't recognize these as dishonest techniques because they're so commonly used. The left is the worst offender, particularly with the uses of the words "justice" and "exploitation." But these are techniques that libertarians want to avoid.
Published: December 7, 2006 8:32 AM
RogerM
"I highly recommend Hoppe's Democracy, the God that Failed. It explains how rulers who occupy a position of power for a limited term are actually more predatory on the populace compared to hereditary aristocrats. Monarchs take a more long-term view of exploitation..."
I've read Hoppe's views on the wonders of monarchy. I think his argument has a lot of problems, but the main one is his assumption that the higher taxes under republics are inherent in the nature of democracy. In econometrics, we would call that error mispecification. In other words, when analyzing cause and effect, you want to consider as many causes as seem reasonable in order to make sure you have the right ones and you're not leaving anything out that should be included.
Hoppe takes one cause, the fact that in democracies rulers are short-timers, and builds his whole world around it. He should consider other legit causes, such as the rise of the popularity of socialism and social engineering. He would also need to compare apples with apples. For example, compare monarchies/dictatorships in the 19th century with democracies/republics in the 19th century. That would factor out the social changes common to both. Instead, he compares monarchies of the 17th and 18th centuries with democracies of the 19th and 20th centuries, leading the reader to believe that nothing had changed between those centuries but the type of government.
Published: December 7, 2006 8:44 AM
Francisco Torres
I had forgotten that anarchists also have their own definition of taxes--theft.
This is ludicrous. What do you call the act of coercively taking someone's property? Loving?
It is not the anarchists' "own" definition. Tax as theft has been the underlying reason for many uprisings, and not precisely anarchist uprisings.
In the despotic regimes, the ruling class came to power through violence or heredity, was very limited in size and entry, and had no restraints on its power. In a republic, entry into the ruling class is easy, the limits are power are large, and entry requires convincing the majority of your worthiness. So the author starts out with one definition of class and switches to another when using it for republics, not telling the reader that he's switching definitions.
The reason is because they are not definitions, just variations of the same result: SOMEONE rules, over MANY. Whether the ruler has all the power or has the aquiescence of a majority, both will show that warmaking endeavours appeal to them equally, as the author (and history) has demonstrated.
Published: December 7, 2006 9:35 AM
Guy
Enjoying your article -- not finished. There is a new little website, with a little chit chat section, called praxeology.org just getting cranked up. I think they're about a week old. The URL is www.praxeorium.allscience.org/. I don't know where they are or who they are. I stumbled across them by a Google Alert for the word praxeology. They seem very very interested in praxeology.
I have wondered about your first quote of Rothbard's for years and a similar one by Mises.
Published: December 7, 2006 9:36 AM
George Gaskell
A more subtle technique, is to use a vague word with a lot of meanings, starting out with one meaning and switching to another without telling the reader you're switching meanings. This article does that with the term "ruling class". At first, the author uses it to refer to despots in the Roman Empire and pre-modern Europe. Then he applies the term to elected officials and bureaucrats in republics. Both concepts of "ruling class" are legit, because the words "class" and "ruling" have dozens of meanings. But the "ruling class" in republics is very different from the "ruling class" in despotic regimes. In the despotic regimes, the ruling class came to power through violence or heredity, was very limited in size and entry, and had no restraints on its power. In a republic, entry into the ruling class is easy, the limits are power are large, and entry requires convincing the majority of your worthiness. So the author starts out with one definition of class and switches to another when using it for republics, not telling the reader that he's switching definitions.
This is not a change in definitions of terms.
You simply disagree with the use of terms that have been employed to criticize hereditary governments (of which you disapprove) to apply to democratic or republican governments (of which you approve).
Using the same terms paints them in the same light. It points out the similarities, whereas you want to emphasize the differences.
This is not dishonest, nor does it involve a change in the definitions of terms. In plain, literal terms, the ancient Roman imperial government AND the modern American republican bureaucratic democracy consist of minority ruling classes.
Even if it makes you feel better to argue that one form of minority ruling class is somehow more or less legitimate than some other form of minority ruling class, the simple fact is that they are both minority ruling classes.
Published: December 7, 2006 10:32 AM
George Gaskell
In keeping with the discussion about Hoppe's thesis, I also highly recommend this article about the change in the economic lives of the people of England during the Stuart period, which includes the execution of the monarch, the republican period, and the Restoration of the monarchy (albeit in an altered form).
I think this fact sums up the author's main point:
By contrast, once Parliament assumed the dominant role in government, taxes jumped to record levels.
Published: December 7, 2006 10:38 AM
RogerM
George:"This is not a change in definitions of terms. Using the same terms paints them in the same light. It points out the similarities, whereas you want to emphasize the differences."
Yes, it is a change in definitions. No honest person can tell me that no differences at all exist between the ruling class of despots and the ruling class in a republic. The real question is whether or not those differences are large enough to disregard.
Francisco claims they're not, saying it's still a situation of the few ruling the many. But the dictionary definition of a republic is rule by the majority of the population except for those issues covered by the constitution and law. Essentially, a republic is rule by law. The so-called ruling class in a republic is the hired servants of the rulers, which are the voting citizens.
I maintain that the differences are so huge as to make attempts to conflate them under the same term, "ruling class", dishonest. Much of the author's reasoning requirs such a conflation.
Published: December 7, 2006 11:07 AM
RogerM
George,
The article you linked to is interesting. But it introduces another problem I have with Hoppe's reasoning. The author writes "Hoppe argues that because the monarch is the government’s owner, his incentives are those of an owner, and he will tend not to try to maximize his current income at the expense of the capital value of his assets...By contrast, because officials in a democracy are caretakers and not owners, they control only the current use of the state, not its capital value."
Hoppe assumes economic rationalism on the part of the monarch. But we know that most of the nobility and monarchs did not act rationally on economic matters. Conspicuous consumption was required by social customs, and as a result, monarchs and nobility regularly bankrupted themselves. Also, they resisted investing in new farming/manufacturing techniques because such investment would delay consumption until the investment began to pay off.
All other things being equal, ownership by the monarch should provide better management of resources than the stewardship of a parliament. But we know that all other consideration do not remain equal in the change. And those other things change the dynamics to the point that ownership versus stewardship no longer matter as much as the multitude of other things.
Published: December 7, 2006 11:28 AM
George Gaskell
But the dictionary definition of a republic is rule by the majority of the population except for those issues covered by the constitution and law. Essentially, a republic is rule by law. The so-called ruling class in a republic is the hired servants of the rulers, which are the voting citizens.
This is just metaphor and propaganda.
A "hired servant," according to the ordinary meaning of the term, is someone who actually does what I say. A democratic government agent is at least two or three steps away from actually being a genuine hired servant.
What happens when government actors disregard their documented limits? You cannot honestly say that the US government we live under today actually resembles the one spelled out in the text of the Constitution. If they exercise power that no one has given them, which no one even had the authority to give to them, then what are they? Criminals! What is the difference between some person who engages in acts of violence beyond the scope of his authority and someone who engages in acts of violence for personal profit? His good intentions? Where is the "law" that is supposed to "rule" these unconstitutional actions?
I cannot understand how you can purport to defend democratic government using such metaphorical conceits as "hired servants" while at the same time objecting to plain, literal descriptions of government agents as a "minority ruling class."
"Minority ruling class" is at least objectively, factually, literally true, even if you dispute the moral significance of that term. "Hired servants" and "rule of law by republican government" are just propaganda tools used to justify the aggressive behavior of government actors, and in most cases, are just fantasies.
Published: December 7, 2006 1:19 PM
RogerM
George:"What happens when government actors disregard their documented limits?"
We fire them! That shows that the voters rule, not the elected officials or bureaucrats.
Published: December 7, 2006 2:48 PM
quincunx
Oh come on, Roger, how often does that really happen?
We still have not managed to get King George dethroned, even though he has violated 700+ (IIRC) federal laws.
And what happens when the documented limits are tossed aside by our monopoly courts?
Seriously, you've been commmenting here for a while, why are you still harboring delusions as to how politics actually works?
Published: December 7, 2006 4:04 PM
Paul Edwards
George:"What happens when government actors disregard their documented limits?"
Roger: "We fire them! That shows that the voters rule, not the elected officials or bureaucrats."
Roger. Such a comment is amazing. If an unpopular policy or constitutional infraction gets implemented, enough for a few politicians to loose their seats will their replacements immediately and vigorously agitate to have the unpopular legislation reversed? Rarely. Over the long haul, things are not reversed; they progress on their way, one politician after another.
This is how we came to have such things as increasing federal income taxation, inflation, military aggression, government debt, removal of local state legislature control over the senate, and federal courts ruling on abortion.
The view that the two parties are substantially different in philosophy has been seriously mistaken since before the 1900's. You may take pleasure in seeing a bum thrown out of office. But surely you realize that it is simply another bum who replaces him; a bum with very similar perspectives and interests as the one he replaces, and which seldom are in alignment with those of constituents’.
Published: December 7, 2006 6:12 PM
Mark Brabson
Actually, the parties are different in philosophy and ideology, the problem is both of them are bad.
The Republicans are the Mercantilists. That means aggressive subsidies and anti-market interferences and of course aggressive foreign interventions. The only difference between the modern Republicans and their Federalist/Whig/early Republican forbears is that they have eschewed protective tariffs in favor of structured trade arrangements (i.e. NAFTA, ad naseum).
The Democrats are the Socialists. They prefer to use the term "Progressive" but we all know that "Progressive" = "Socialist". That means regulatory schemes, wage and price controls and blantantly socialist programs such as Social Security. They soon intend to create a fully socialist medical system.
So they are NOT the same. Both very bad, just in different ways. The only political party that represents true free market capitalism is the L.P. and they are not likely to gain power anytime soon, if ever.
Published: December 7, 2006 6:32 PM
Sam
What stumps me is the way Libertarians seem, in the choice between Dictatorship and Democracy, to suggest that Dictatorship is more preferable.
Would they suggest that the average person has it better in China than the USA? Do they suppose the average person in Medieval times had more choice and freedom than now?
It would make me cringe to think that would-be Dictators could use Libertarian arguments to discredit and demolish Democracy. For Liberations to want to discredit democratic values because it isn't quaintly libertarian is to cause people to presume that there are really two types of societies: Dictatorship and Self-Rule.
And where is there any proof of a complex Self-Rule society for the modern world? How would it look any different from a great many tiny-property-owning dictatorships with private sovereignty and duty to self-arm against the other tiny dictatorships who might be tempted to start imperialist aims.
So far Libertarian ideas towards Self-Rule if put into practice would only allow for a quaint psuedo-medieval style of living. I'm sure most people would like to live in modern technology era.
After all Dictators who may be concerned about the long-term interests of their own nation, don't usually care much for the interests of other nations and are quite open to imperialist aims if it enhances their nation. To complain that Democracies are open to imperialism too, would suggest we should all revert to Monarchies and Dictatorship for honesty's sake and then start to talk of a perfect Self-Rule society?
Published: December 7, 2006 6:42 PM
averros
Sam - monarchy is not dictatorship. Libertarians never ever said anything in defense of dictatorship - and of the monarchy they only say that it was better than democracy, on average, not that it is the best possible system. (In fact, the unifying view of both anarchist and minarchist fractions of libertarianism is that the best system is polity, in Aristotelian classification of forms of the government).
The current misunderstanding of the nature of monarchy is caused by the century of systematic socialist propaganda (the socialists being so afraid of the monarchies past that they still spew outright lies and very selective presentations of the history - concentrating on anecodtes about excesses rather than mundane things which affected plain people much more than the glorious wars and court intrigues - like, real tax rates and such).
Like any democratic government, a monarch can only rule as long as subjects respect him. The history is full of deposed kings. And, unlike the democratic rules - subjects of monarchies are keenly aware that the ruler has its own interests, different from the interests of his subjects. So the kings had to tread very carefully, if they wanted to keep their heads on their shoulders.
You may want to reflect on the meaning of the famous quip by Montesquieu that the honour is the principle of monarchy.
Published: December 7, 2006 7:23 PM
Paul Edwards
Mark,
“Actually, the parties are different in philosophy and ideology, the problem is both of them are bad.”
I think you have somewhat of a point, in that the rhetoric of the two parties can sometimes be different and along the lines of what you are saying. Their actions: I’m not convinced. Not that I think it’s a crucial point, but I’ll just point out a few reasons why I disagree with you.
“The Republicans are the Mercantilists. That means aggressive subsidies and anti-market interferences and of course aggressive foreign interventions.”
FDR and LBJ were both key democrats who both favored aggressive foreign military intervention. Today, Hillary Clinton is considered a war Hawk and a potential democratic presidential candidate. I am unaware that democrats have a strong and reliable track record of rescinding subsidies and market interventions, and it would surprise me if this were the case.
“The only difference between the modern Republicans and their Federalist/Whig/early Republican forbears is that they have eschewed protective tariffs in favor of structured trade arrangements (i.e. NAFTA, ad naseum).”
But did the Whigs have a “no child left behind” slogan? I think the republicans have a strong streak of egalitarian social democratic socialists amongst themselves as well.
“The Democrats are the Socialists.”
Yes, they are.
“They prefer to use the term "Progressive" but we all know that "Progressive" = "Socialist". That means regulatory schemes,”
Didn’t you say it was the republicans that tend to enact the “anti-market interferences”? But never-mind; I agree with you on both counts.
“wage and price controls”
That was one great republican Nixonian implementation wasn’t it? (http://mises.org/daily/1875 )
“and blantantly socialist programs such as Social Security.”
But what is the current republican/Bush view on Social Security? Isn’t it pretty democratic? Or have they been talking about eliminating it without my knowing it?
“They soon intend to create a fully socialist medical system.”
But will the republicans resist this thrust tooth and nail? Surely it is only those voting republican, rather than those republicans in office, who hold such delusions.
“So they are NOT the same. Both very bad, just in different ways. The only political party that represents true free market capitalism is the L.P. and they are not likely to gain power anytime soon, if ever.”
I guess they are different, but still, their differences confuse me.
Published: December 7, 2006 7:31 PM
Paul Edwards
Sam,
“What stumps me is the way Libertarians seem, in the choice between Dictatorship and Democracy, to suggest that Dictatorship is more preferable.”
The way I would look at is this: Libertarians prefer liberty to despotism. Liberty comes in different degrees under different forms of government, as does despotism also, and I think it is true that monarchs can have a tendency to be despotic. However, I think that democracies are far more predisposed to becoming despotic.
Here’s an interesting observation that I found very hard to get my mind around originally. Despotic dictatorships arise out of some form of democratic process and with popular support. It turns out that, while mobs can certainly be despotic in their own right, in a mob rule democracy such as was demonstrated in France’s disgusting and murderous revolutions, mobs can also be in favor of individual despotic rulers as well, and they select them through a democratic process. Democracy is highly unstable and subject to the whims of the typically ignorant and envious masses, and also the whims of the demagogues who manipulate them. Hitler, Lenin and Stalin are such examples of this.
So the libertarian hates despotism in all its forms and nuances. It is just a simple observation, from a praxeological perspective, that monarchs, if not less prone to despotism, are less able to act on their despotic impulses, for the many reasons given here and by Hoppe. Such inhibiting factors can be shown to be logically not in play in democracies, and history bears this out in pretty vivid living colors.
Published: December 7, 2006 7:48 PM
RogerM
I forgot! In addition to a private dictionary in which none of the words are used with their commonly understood definitions, anarchists have their own private histories, too. In those histories, all the kings are good, the women are strong, the men handsome and all the children are above average.
Published: December 7, 2006 8:30 PM
Sam
Interesting replies averros and Paul Edwards you better do indeed say that Monarchies are indeed better than Democracies. That Monarchs have long-term families interests and are 'protectors of the realm'. Whereas politicians can't see past the next election, etc.
Indeed the Bible and most history supports the notion of 'Divine Right'. After all doesn't the Bible say (somewhere) that ALL Monarchs rule by God's whim. Weren't Hebrews supposed to respect to ALL kings as even pagan kings had the Right? Hence I heard somewhere about Daniel showing basic acts of respect towards Nebuchadnezzar . . .
Strange how I would think Democracy was better than various forms of autocratic rule (by which I mean the average person takes orders and has no say on how society runs). I for some reason think that people can have say and be heard, especially with all these advocate groups all around, and might be a good thing for better change. Likewise I would have thought Monarchies and Dictator were worse because the average person would only get ordered around for the 'betterment of society' which means usually means enrichment for the upper class. Similarly I would have thought that such societies prefer to keep the average person unarmed and ignorant to stop the average person wanting greater freedoms over themselves.
The fact is that Dictators, Emperor, Kings, Queens, etc., take a long-term interest in their own society doesn't bode well for the rest of humanity. After all, wouldn't imperial wars against weaker, but resource-rich neighbours, make sense? Wouldn't such wars enrich and improve the winning society and tough luck to the losers? Similarly where is also the incentive for innovative change too, you know, the changes that empower the average person? Sounds like a Monarch would prefer a static, and therefore hopefully, predictable society.
To be sure, yes, I do cringe when Democratic leaders can go to war despite against the wishes of most people, but it does seem more that Democracy is on the wane rather than Democracies are no better per se. Especially when Democracy is a cutesy ideal and most 'Democracies' are usually are half-heartedly so at best.
Finally, to averros, are revolutions preferable to reforms? To Paul and others, if Democracy is apparently as false as Socialism is, sounds good but never seems to work, then what is Self-Rule and how is it supposed to be any more than a nice idea on paper where everyone plays nice and gets along with one another?
Published: December 7, 2006 10:51 PM
Reactionary
RogerM,
Most people, as in most voters, want something for nothing, are not very bright, and are easily manipulated into supporting disastrous policies. Thus, whereas under monarchy you're subject to the whim of a single moron, under democracy you're subject to the whims of every moron in society.
When government is run by a few people who are assigned based on the luck of the hereditary draw, the citizens fear and distrust it. It's not that government under a monarch is qualititatively better. Rather, it's that because of citizen distrust, the number of things government is allowed to f*** up is much, much smaller.
When government IS the people, then there is no systemic limit on what government is allowed to do. Debt can pile up into the trillions because, after all, we only "owe it to ourselves." Taxes are paid by the minority since "the majority rules."
And please don't waste your time with talk about constitutional limits on government. The only effective limit on government is the threat of retaliatory violence by the citizenry. But if government IS the citizenry, then there is no recourse.
Published: December 8, 2006 9:45 AM
RogerM
Reactionary: "The only effective limit on government is the threat of retaliatory violence by the citizenry. But if government IS the citizenry, then there is no recourse."
Does it strike anyone else that anarchists sound more and more like Marxists? Reactionary's statement reads like a section from Das Kapital.
I debated Marxists and atheists for decades before discovering Austrian economics, which I'm very greatful for. But I was discouraged to learn that anarchists use the same rhetorical devices that Marxists and atheists use--selective, distorted definitions of words and histories. Reactionary's description, and those of most anarchists, of the US system of government is so distorted as to be completely dishonest. Such practices only underscore the weakness of the anarchist arguement; it can't stand the light of truth.
Published: December 8, 2006 10:51 AM
Reactionary
RogerM,
I'm not an anarchist, as I would have hoped my posts on this blog would have made clear. You almost but don't quite get it. Anarchists are comrades-in-arms with the Marxists in that, to be pure to their ideology, they must be permanent levellers of organic society.
Now to my point: unless the governors fear for their very lives, government growth will not be constrained. There is some exception to this: an organic society where traditional and stable three-generation families for the most part govern themselves and their relations with each other. Otherwise, I challenge you to provide a single contrary example.
Published: December 8, 2006 11:09 AM
Reactionary
"Reactionary's description, and those of most anarchists, of the US system of government is so distorted as to be completely dishonest."
RogerM,
Lincoln's war against the Confederacy is how the US system of government works. This process has been repeated, albeit on much smaller scales, in Waco, Texas and elsewhere.
Published: December 8, 2006 11:32 AM
RogerM
Reactionary:"Now to my point: unless the governors fear for their very lives, government growth will not be constrained."
If democracy naturally causes government spending to increase, as Hoppe claims, then explain to me why it didn't in the US until the Great Depression. I'm aware of the hatred of many for Lincoln, but please, take time to look at the actual historical figures for government spending. Other than for war time, government spending didn't increase significantly until the Depression. It increased for wars but shrank quickly to pre-war levels aftewards. We had a republic, for over a century without large increases in government spending. What changed in 1930? We still had a republican form of government. That did not change. We did not have a monarchy before 1930.
US government spending was constrained very well until the Great Depression and no government official feared for his life. The explosion in spending came about because the rulers, the voters, swallowed socialist propaganda. The majority voted to surrender control of their lives to the government because the majority believed in social engineering. Had Hoover and Roosevelt no expanded government spending, the voters would have elected someone else who would. In fact, a handful of conservative legislators restrained Hoover and Roosevelt from pleasing the masses with even greater spending.
The fault lies with the people, the voters, not the system.
Published: December 8, 2006 11:49 AM
Reactionary
RogerM,
"The fault lies with the people, the voters, not the system."
But if the people are voters then they are the system. And since most people prefer something for nothing and are not particularly bright, giving them a hand in running the country can only mean a long but sure march to socialism.
Published: December 8, 2006 12:09 PM
adi
RogerM, do you believe that ordinary people who often dont have much knowledge about economics would believe when you educate them and offer true insights on working of economy?
There is a tendency for people to believe that there are free lunches available and most economic decisions are also political ones (e.g "end of poverty is just a political decision").
And of course there are those who would claim that our subjectivist Austrian economics is just a bourgeois class economics, which doesnt work in truly socialist economy. Intellectual bancrupcy of modern mainstream economics doesnt necessarily advance our position, since some might classify Austrians as being just a minor group inside economic orthodoxy.
Published: December 8, 2006 12:10 PM
RogerM
Adi: "...do you believe that ordinary people who often dont have much knowledge about economics would believe when you educate them and offer true insights on working of economy?"
Good question. I really don't know. I'm pessimistic. But I don't know anything else to do, other than continue to try to educate people. A slim chance exists that the current system will collapse, but that doesn't mean libertarianism will prevail, since most Americans are socialists. It's more likely that some form of totalitarianism will follow.
Published: December 8, 2006 12:21 PM
Reactionary
RogerM,
"US government spending was constrained very well until the Great Depression and no government official feared for his life."
Which government do you think would tax more: a government with only a small standing army and a few cannons in a nation populated by riflemen or a government with a large standing army, an air force, and nuclear weapons?
Published: December 8, 2006 12:35 PM
RogerM
Reactionary:"Which government do you think would tax more: a government with only a small standing army and a few cannons in a nation populated by riflemen or a government with a large standing army, an air force, and nuclear weapons?"
Obviously the first one. But what does that have to do with the debate over monarchism vs. democracy?
Published: December 8, 2006 12:49 PM
Reactionary
RogerM,
It underscores my point that the threat of retaliatory violence is what keeps governments in check. When that threat is removed, bureaucrats are free to act without consequence. "Separation of powers" is really an empty concept in a democracy.
Published: December 8, 2006 1:21 PM
George Gaskell
What do you mean that there was no substantial increase in spending before the Depression?
You are aware of the government's involvement in "internal improvements" from the 1830s through ... well, today? Railroads? Road building? There was no such thing at the federal level before Lincoln.
Lincoln did everything he could to create a Hamiltonian central bank, which did not actually succeed until 1913. He was also a fan of protectionist tariffs.
I realize that corporate welfare, central banking and protectionism may not fit your conventional definition of socialism, but it is functionally socialistic nonetheless.
Today, we'd call these things right-wing socialism, maybe. It is really no different in character than the left and right wings of the French Assembly that Bastiat railed against 150 years ago -- two factions appealing to a central government for special economic favors, which come at the other side's expense. This was the same division that we see in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, with the right and left factions slugging it out, often brutally. Hitler was a socialist, just a right-wing socialist, along with Mussolini.
One of the reasons that monarchies are marginally preferable to democracies, especially in financial terms, is that the debt that private governors who go into debt tend to lose their property when they get overextended. Democratic governments actors don't risk their personal wealth when they borrow, so they have a less immediate sense of potential loss. Instead, social-democratic governments tend to print their way out of debt, which is the reason that the ascendancy of social-democratic government and central banking are pretty much in lock step -- democratic governments create and empower autonomous central banks for the purpose of having a ready source of easy credit they couldn't otherwise get. Private governments that borrow from private banks have to actually pay their debts back, which means that when time comes to pay, they have to impose taxes or start selling off property, both of which are inherently difficult.
You still have not given me a serious answer to my question about social-democratic governments that exceed their Constitutional authority. They don't get fired, do they? I mean, do you think that Medicare and Social Security are Constitutional? If not, then why haven't those who created and operate these illegal operations been "fired," as you say?
Published: December 8, 2006 1:26 PM
RogerM
George:"You are aware of the government's involvement in "internal improvements" from the 1830s through ... well, today? Railroads? Road building? There was no such thing at the federal level before Lincoln."
Just look at the actual figures for government spending. Isolated anecdotes don't prove anything.
"One of the reasons that monarchies are marginally preferable to democracies, especially in financial terms, is that the debt that private governors who go into debt tend to lose their property when they get overextended."
Look at the historical facts. Kings who got overextended didn't suffer at all; their creditors went bankrupt. I can't think of a single example of a monarch being deposed because of his debts. Never happened!
"You still have not given me a serious answer to my question about social-democratic governments that exceed their Constitutional authority. They don't get fired, do they? I mean, do you think that Medicare and Social Security are Constitutional?"
I think a lot of what the US government does is unconstitutional. The list is too long for this web site. But the Supreme Court has the job of interpreting the Constitution and they disagree with me. The President appoints the members of the Supreme Court and the majority of voters elect the president. So the Supreme Court reflects the opinions of the people. We have a socialist Supreme Court because we have a socialist majority of voters.
Hoover was the nation's first socialist president and he got fired by the people for not being socialist enough. The socialist voters then elected the greatest socialist of all, Roosevelt. Had he not implemented socialist policies, they would have fired him, too.
A slim majority of Americans have elected Republican presidents over the past two decades in part because they're tired of much of the socialism in government. We fired the Democrats.
Libertarians are frustrated at being right, but being in the minority. I share that frustration. I'm libertarian, too, on most issues. I try to convince people that free markets not only perform better than government at most things, but that private property and free markets are the only moral form of economic organization.
But I can't go along with Hoppe's attempt to distort the language and history in order to convince people that democracy is evil. Sound reason and honest history prove the opposite.
Published: December 8, 2006 2:40 PM
Reactionary
"But I can't go along with Hoppe's attempt to distort the language and history in order to convince people that democracy is evil. Sound reason and honest history prove the opposite."
What are you talking about? Your own examples prove Hoppe's point. I do think Hoppe engages in some romanticism but I think he would agree that the point is not so much that monarchy is a qualitatively better form of government, but rather that monarchy means government will be treated with the mistrust that it deserves. Under monarchy, the British had the Magna Carta and derelict kings could be beheaded. Under democracy, there is literally no aspect of human existence that the British government will not regulate, and the US is right behind them. Under democracy, government is transformed from at best a necessary evil to a positive good. The will of the people! What could be better?
Published: December 8, 2006 2:58 PM
RogerM
Reactionary:"...there is literally no aspect of human existence that the British government will not regulate, and the US is right behind them."
You're right there. Actually, my understanding of US history is that people distrusted government from the beginning. That's the reason for the checks and balances. The change in the West came about with the abandonment of fundamentalist Christianity for German "higher" criticism. Fundamentalist Christianity had given natural law and property its moral force. People abandoned natural law for positive law, making anything the state did legal and moral.
The perception of the nature of man changed from one of free will to one of determinism, specifically Marxist materialism, which teaches that people are born good and go bad only because of economic oppression. Poverty creates crime, for example. The step is short from those assumptions to socialism, which most Americans embraced in the 1920's, whether they called themselves socialist or not.
If you believed that government had the power to change human nature, perfect it by removing economic oppression, and thereby create a perfect society, wouldn't you go along?
But the same thing would have happened whether a monarch, dictator, democracy, republic or anarchy ruled at the time. When the thinking of the people goes bad, everything goes bad.
Published: December 8, 2006 3:38 PM
George Gaskell
I think a lot of what the US government does is unconstitutional. The list is too long for this web site. But the Supreme Court has the job of interpreting the Constitution and they disagree with me. The President appoints the members of the Supreme Court and the majority of voters elect the president. So the Supreme Court reflects the opinions of the people. We have a socialist Supreme Court because we have a socialist majority of voters.
The Supreme Court does not have the authority to represent the opinions of voters (ignoring for the moment their multi-step isolation from actual responsiveness to those who are affected by their proclamations).
You said, above, that "the majority rules (except on matters limited by the Constitution)." Part of the basic source of legitimacy of democratic government, as you have argued, are the limitations on majority whim.
But, as you have just described, those limitations are illusory. Even the judges, who are selected to do a specific legal function, not to enact their personal agendas, are representatives of some majority (as you see it).
To the extent that they act contrary to their authority, on majoritarian preferences rather than the actual law, they are exercising nothing but raw power.
A majority also does not have the power to amend the Constitution. It must be ratified by the States, for example. To the extent that the Supreme Court purports to amend the Constitution, it is acting unconstitutionally.
The fact that we have too many examples of unconstitutional government activities to even list demonstrates that self-enforced, written limits on majoritarian power are essentially meaningless. Since, as you have said, those limits are part of the source of legitimacy of democracy in the first place, then the disregard of these limits de-legitimizes democracy.
In other words, you cannot simultaneously believe that our government is acting unconstitutionally, at the direction of a majority, and also believe that majoritarian government is legitimate.
You may, for practical, utilitarian reasons choose not to openly defy such a government (i.e., not wanting to get shot or imprisoned), but you cannot actually believe, on principle, in the legitimacy of democratic government that flagrantly, repeatedly violates its own limits.
I can't think of a single example of a monarch being deposed because of his debts. Never happened!
Of course it has. Hereditary aristocrats (not limited to monarchs) have lost property to money lenders for thousands of years. Charles I would have kept his head if he could have managed his finances a little better. Much of the time, cash-poor aristocrats end up losing wars to other aristocrats because of their inability to borrow enough money to pay for as many soldiers as the other side can. That describes pretty much every war in Euro-American history for the last 1000 years.
Libertarians are frustrated at being right, but being in the minority.
I'm not frustrated at being in the minority. Being in the majority does not make anyone's position any more legitimate. A position is no more or less correct, just or legitimate by virtue of the number of people who believe it, how loud they are, or how many bullets they have.
I'm frustrated that otherwise at least nominally intelligent people can't see when they are being robbed.
I can't go along with Hoppe's attempt to distort the language and history in order to convince people that democracy is evil. Sound reason and honest history prove the opposite.
Your view of history is selective.
Do you have any idea how many people have been murdered by democratically supported governments?
Do you have any idea the amount of wealth that has been stolen by democratically elected governments?
Published: December 8, 2006 3:40 PM
Sam
With regards to whether Democracy or Dictatorship/Monarchy is better, isn't one of the greatest rags to riches stories of the 20th century for a nation goes to Singapore? A nation that enjoys great economic freedom but has limited civil freedom. Does this suppose that then a Dictatorship or Monarchy is better provided it protects economic freedom?
Hence doesn't mean that when civil freedoms overtake and displace economic freedom (i.e. Socialism) that only chaos will ensue? If so then it shows why Dictatorships and Monarchies have been the staple leadership for humanity for aeons and I would't be surprised if the Democracies of the world dissipate over the 21st century. If these the new Dictatorships of the 22nd century respect the concept of economic freedom, like Singapore, then humanity could be in for a Golden Era.
By the way what is meant by the term 'Government murder'? Are you talking about capital punishment, sending troops to war, or what?
Published: December 8, 2006 9:10 PM
RogerM
Sam:"...isn't one of the greatest rags to riches stories of the 20th century for a nation goes to Singapore?"
Very good point! Of course under the rules of anarchy, historical evidence doesn't mean a thing. You have to show that their logic is wrong.
However, the anarchist haters of democracy should consider that the three nations that led the world into freedom and economic growth for the past four hundred years, the Dutch Republic, England, and the US, were essentially democracies.
Many people have pointed out that the Asian tiger nations developed economically under dictatorships and that shows you don't need a democracy for economic growth. And they're right to a degree. As China has shown, capitalism isn't an all or nothing proposition. If a nation starts with pure socialism, any addition of freedom will produce astounding economic results. Where the tigers have stumbled, and China will too, is the lack of the rule of law, incorrupt police and courts, and continuing government control of the economy. Japan is a good example of the latter. It has relatively free markets, the rule of law, honest courts and polic, but too much control over the economy by the government which led to a 10-yr long recession.
"By the way what is meant by the term 'Government murder'?"
Generally they mean war is murder.
Published: December 9, 2006 8:56 AM
Sam
Oh so war equates to 'government murder'. I think that is spurious. As I pointed out in my previous blog somewhere near the top of the page that, depending on the type of war, a lot of men actually volunteer to serve. Apparently many Libertarians must have bad memories from the Vietnam War with young men getting arrested for resisting the draft. How must the same folk must feel when not long after Sep. 11 did a great many young men volunteer to join the army for 'payback'?
For me, to class war as 'government murder' is a bit too convenient for my liking.
Published: December 9, 2006 9:28 PM
averros
How must the same folk must feel when not long after Sep. 11 did a great many young men volunteer to join the army for 'payback'?
Can't keep young idiots from getting themselves killed for no good reason.
However, when these same idiots are armed and glorified at the expense of people who didn't want their war (by literally threatening these unwilling with murder - or do you claim all of us pay taxes volutarily?) this becomes far from the personal affair of abovementioned idiots, and becomes the murder organized by the government and sustained by the extortion by the same government.
And, yes, I think anybody volunteering for military duty is a complete and total moron (and wannabe murderer). Sorry if I offended your patriotic sensibilities, but that's just how it is. There's no other way to describe someone willing to kill and be killed just because a bunch of known liars and scoundrels calls some other people enemies.
Published: December 10, 2006 2:33 AM
Sam
Don't worry averros. My previous blog wasn't from a sense of great patriotic duty. I was just pointing out that many people on the street agree with war at times and therefore the few at the top are not alone to blame.
Rather I was pointing out that enough people at times support war and therefore support such taxes. Perhaps a big question is why there are no protests towards the Iraq War on the scale as there was during the Vietnam War?
Don't you suppose that wars could be funded by voluntary 'war bonds'. Where only those who want the war can pay for it? I'm not holding my breath easier . . .
Published: December 10, 2006 4:27 AM
averros
Rather I was pointing out that enough people at times support war and therefore support such taxes.
This makes one to wonder if the main point of monarchists - namely, that the common people are too stupid and cannot be allowed to make decisions for themselves, has some validity to it. If so, well, what we should do is not to miss the right moment for running away from an oncoming train wreck. If not, then we have to keep telling them that they're being had, and hope that a sufficient number of them will understand. I'm, personally, cautiously optimistic.
Don't you suppose that wars could be funded by voluntary 'war bonds'. Where only those who want the war can pay for it? I'm not holding my breath easier . . .
This is one of the many libertarian points - that if the people who want to wage the war had to pay from their own pockets for their wars, there will be an awful lot fewer wars.
On the other hand, when the war is just - meaning when people defend themsevles from aggression, the history shows that they will contribute, and not only money but also their lives. And they will be inventive and highly motivated to fight - as is being currently demonstrated by the dirt-poor barely educated Iraquis managing to hold their own against the (by far) strongest military machine ever built by a State.
The right response to 9/11 wasn't to make war - but to collect funds from the volunteers, world-wide, to pay for the delivery of the heads of the masterminds of this atrocity by whomever manages to get them. With sufficient renumeration there'd be no shortage of willing bounty hunters.
And, yes, those on the top are to blame - because the war-like hysteria is entirely the work of the state-controlled propaganda machine (which masquerades as "free media" - and which, by now, has about as much integrity as Pravda used to have).
Published: December 10, 2006 10:07 AM
George Gaskell
This makes one to wonder if the main point of monarchists - namely, that the common people are too stupid and cannot be allowed to make decisions for themselves, has some validity to it.
I suppose I would be one of the "monarchists" you are referring to. But, I should say that I am not actually a monarchist; I simply believe that monarchies, in general, for economic reasons, tend to permit their subjects more economic freedom, tax productive people less, and are for that reason preferable to a democracy.
That doesn't make me pro-monarchy. I am pro-liberty, nothing more or less, and am simply comparing the relative merits of various (bad) forms of government.
To that end, setting aside the mountain of propaganda and sentimentality about the American experiment, even a cursory review of the economic system of incentives and disincentives of government shows that democracy was a step backward for the cause of liberty, as our unrestrained, ever-growing federal government, which taxes us at rates that George III never dreamed of, demonstrates.
And, this progression, from the government in 1783, which England recognized our independence, to the socialist, consolidated government we have today, was pretty much inevitable. Maybe it didn't have to happen exactly as it did, on the time-table that it did, but the economic pressures that favor an ever-expanding socialistic government are inherent in any democracy. To the extent that our republican government was democratic, it was doomed to ultimate failure.
It will collapse, of course, eventually, the most immediate cause probably being currency manipulation. It is only a matter of time. Socialism is not sustainable, to borrow a term from the enviro-nutters.
Published: December 10, 2006 3:57 PM
Sam
Why does war have to come from the top down averros? Why would the masses be hynotised into some state propagana to throw away their lives for the benefit of the few? I would believe in the great imperialist armies that soldiers had their own selfish reasons for participating. Last time I looked the spoils of war were shared amongst the victorious army (not equally of course).
Indeed in Roman times the men who had the best life expectations were the soldiers. Isn't your argument along the Nuremburg lines of 'I was only following orders'?
P.S. If Monarchies are supposedly better because the people are 'too stupid' and it 'doesn't bode well for Democracy', then I'd say it bodes even worse for 'Self-Rule'.
Published: December 10, 2006 11:58 PM
averros
George --
well, I have a lot of experience with real monarchist mindset - my girfriend is one (which is not surprising giving that her family tree goes back nearly fifteen centuries).
I am (obviously) an an-cap libertarian. What's surprising is that we don't really have many things we disagree about (in the blogosphere she's considered a libertarian - which is downright funny). As I said it's a matter of optimism vs, well, long memory of atrocities committed by "freedom fighters".
That the socialism is not sustainable I learned not from the books of learned academicans, but rather by the living through the agony of the Soviet Union. Mises was absolutely correct in explaining why and how it collapsed.
Sam --
Why does war have to come from the top down averros?
Because common people have no resources, no reasons, and no will to wage the wars. Those have to be created - by collecting taxes to make arms (common people don't really need tanks and missiles for the personal defense), by manufacturing reasons (by pushing the ideas of national unity, national pride and by feeding people outright lies painting enemy de jour as monsters and agressors), and by marshalling common people into armies.
Wars are always organized by the rulers.
Why would the masses be hynotised into some state propagana to throw away their lives for the benefit of the few?
Because to believe without much thinking and to wish to belong to a strong crowd are universal human desires.
Last time I looked the spoils of war were shared amongst the victorious army (not equally of course).
What spoils? State pension and disability benefits for Vietnam vets? What spoils did the American soldiers bring back from Afganistan? Some dust, perhaps? Lifetime of nightmares?
The benefits of modern war are not in spoils - there isn't really much worth taking home from the bombed-out streets, and bringing home slaves is passe. The benefits the rulers are getting are in the increased ability to plunder their own people while they are distracted by the war and are amenable to "making sacrifices".
Isn't your argument along the Nuremburg lines of 'I was only following orders'?
Not at all - if someone joins an army out of stupidity and then goes to foreighn land to kill and burn - he's a murderer and a bandit, and deserves to be treated as such. Stupidity is not commonly considered an excuse for capital crimes.
If Monarchies are supposedly better because the people are 'too stupid' and it 'doesn't bode well for Democracy', then I'd say it bodes even worse for 'Self-Rule'.
If the "self-rule" is a system where every yahoo has a say in what other people are doing, then it does not bode well, indeed.
If the "self-rule" is a system where the same yahoos are disorganized and can only meddle with other people lives by engaging in petty crimes (and risk being shot by the victims who weren't disrmed by the State and are not afraid to be punished for defending themselves) - then the agressive idiots will tend to have relatively short lives.
Besides, having to bear full consequences of one's actions tend to improve one's ability to think straight.
The problem is not in the stupidity of the people, but rather in the collectivist belief held by these people. If they (with just as little thought) will hold the belief that every collectivist demagogue's rightful place is dangling from a lamppost, then they will live peacefully.
Published: December 11, 2006 4:57 AM
George Gaskell
Why does war have to come from the top down averros?
If I can add to averros's answer, I'd ask you to look at the historical examples of organizations that are voluntarily organized (i.e., where the members not only join voluntarily, which we have in the US military today, but also where the failure to remain in the organization is punishable only by a claim for breach of contract, not imprisonment, which is the way the US military operates), but also are voluntarily funded (also contrary to today's supposedly "all voluntary" US military).
Truly voluntary organizations do not go to war the way that governments do -- the system of incentives and disincentives is all wrong. Voluntary organizations are organized the way that churches are organized, civic groups, private schools, and businesses. Everyone in these organizations cooperates toward a common goal because it is in each person's interest to do so.
What does the phrase "top down" really mean? It means that at one or more points along the way, someone who is contributing to the effort is not doing so voluntarily. This is the only way that war can be accomplished effectively. War depends on coercion for either manpower or funding, and coercion is precisely what government (as a mode of organization) exists to provide.
If Monarchies are supposedly better because the people are 'too stupid' and it 'doesn't bode well for Democracy', then I'd say it bodes even worse for 'Self-Rule'.
I strongly disagree with the idea that people are "too stupid" to rule themselves, as I said above. People may vary widely in their intellectual abilities, and their types of interests, but one universal truth about humanity is that people know what's good for them. It is Mises's basic axiom that all people act to improve their condition, with each person defining improvement by subjective terms. The real differences among the population is not intelligence/stupidity, but time preferences -- how long one's time-scale for obtaining one's goals may be.
I have a lot of experience with real monarchist mindset - my girfriend is one (which is not surprising giving that her family tree goes back nearly fifteen centuries).
As far as I know, everyone's family tree goes back the same length of time. :)
But I know what you mean -- her family has done something other than anonymous agricultural labor for longer than most.
Published: December 11, 2006 9:17 AM
Sam
I'll try to point to make some points about my stance:
1. People tend to congregate into tribes. Self-Ruling Hermits are far and few between.
2. Each tribe is concerned with its own preservation. Tribes are generally not that concerned about other tribes.
3. Each tribe likes to be independent of other tribes.
4. If there is drastic shortage of resources then tribes fight it out to see which tribe gets the control of the remaining resources.
5. In tribal conflicts winners takes all, tough luck to losers.
6. Tribes can be in larger forms such as city-states, countries, monarchies, nation, etc. I don't see why a nation-state is that different from a simple tribe except in numbers.
7. Individual particaption can personally profit by scavenging deceased losers for their possessions say gold and silver.
8. Perhaps the traditional way the average person (those from the winning side and may have not fought as such) can profit is access to property and land of the newly annexed territory (a.k.a settlers/pioneers).
9. Some folks might not like imperialism, but not-nice as it is, it has given us the varous nation-states that exist today. Do those Libertarian who prattle on about their own plot of land consider that the land once belonged to native folk and they were usually forcibly removed from their land?
10. Do Libertarians believe that nation-states created from imperialism, as found in North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand, etc., should have a big Sorry Ceremony, return property rights to the native folk, and then trade peacefully to see if they get the property back?
11. Personally, I believe there are ultimately three groups of people: average, strong, weak. The average must be where Libertarians are, too strong to pushed around, not strong enough to desire pushing around others (not that I am saying pushing anyone around is a good thing). The strong obviously have such imperialist desire to bully, rule and be served. And finally the weak are too, well, weak to stand up for themselves and are willing to serve those strong folk who provide, for a fee, protection from other strong folk.
Unfortunately, the strong are few, the average are not so few, but the weak are many. Everyday proof of this is the way that few people are rich business-employers, not so few people seek self-employment, however most seek employment from the rich employers.
12. A ray of hope though: as the world does become interconnected and interdependent, hopefully war become unacceptably expensive to everyone. The quagmire that is the Iraq War does seem to show this might be happening. Oh well time will tell though . . .
Published: December 12, 2006 12:08 AM