Comments (34)

• Barry Loberfeld

  "And if anything warps people's values, it's the social-democratic redistributionism that forces everyone to throw their wealth onto the table and then allows them to grab what they can. There's your 'politics based on greed'!"

  From WHAT ABOUT THE POOR?

  Published: September 8, 2009 8:07 AM

• Abhilash Nambiar

  I do not understand why Douglas French is dragging in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, into his analysis. Is this hierarchy of needs representative of or derived from any self-evident axiom, that it can be objectively applied?

  Or is it possible for different people to have different hierarchy of needs? Is this a mechanism to discover the hierarchy in which people value things? Or is it used to show in what hierarchy people ought to value things? And words like 'basic needs', 'self-actualizations' they are all terms used to denote subjective states in the human mind. There is no way of knowing for sure if two people are referring to same experience when they speak about these terms.

  I may call Hoppe’s natural elites as self-actualizers in Maslow's hierarchy, but others may not even think of them as elites to begin with. A believer in the virtues of democracy may place the politician who won by the highest margin at the top of the hierarchy. I see Maslow's hierarchy of needs to be problematic because it can mean different things to different people in different contexts and that limits its usefulness. It is not objective enough to be used as a common scale to value various needs across various individuals. In fact what we know from Mises and Menger is that people have different needs, different people value different things and same things differently at different times and this value scale informs their needs.

  In fact the best it use I can think for Maslow's pyramid it is help it gives an individual to categorize his own subjective needs, based on categories that Maslow defined. I suppose some people will find that to be of convenience.

  Published: September 8, 2009 9:30 AM

• Misanthropist

  The trouble with democracy is that stupid people can vote and that voting power is not proportional to the amount of taxes you pay.

  The more you pay taxes, they more voting power you should have.

  The playing field is not even. Rich and smart people are being defrauded by a mob of stupid people voting to rob his money and any charismatic popular person has more chances of winning by promissing free pie to everybody than the nerdy looking intellectual who knows you must work to earn a living and who promisses no handouts.

  Democracy failed, it's a crime against humanity !

  If not stopped on time, democracy will lead us to the extinction of mankind.

  Published: September 8, 2009 9:53 AM

• Misanthropist

  The trouble with democracy is that stupid people can vote and that voting power is not proportional to the amount of taxes you pay.

  The more you pay taxes, they more voting power you should have.

  The playing field is not even. Rich and smart people are being defrauded by a mob of stupid people voting to rob his money and any charismatic popular person has more chances of winning by promissing free pie to everybody than the nerdy looking intellectual who knows you must work to earn a living and who promisses no handouts.

  Democracy failed, it's a crime against humanity !

  If not stopped on time, democracy will lead us to the extinction of mankind.

  Published: September 8, 2009 9:54 AM

• Mrhuh

  Abhilash brings up a good point. Many "natural elites" might actually get into politics. Many consider Barack Obama to be a "natural elite" as he wasn't exactly born with a silver spoon up his but (like Ted Kennedy was).

  Published: September 8, 2009 10:19 AM

• Magnus

  The trouble with democracy is that stupid people can vote and that voting power is not proportional to the amount of taxes you pay.

  The trouble with democracy is that I never agreed to put my life, liberty and property up to a vote.

  Published: September 8, 2009 10:20 AM

• HayeksHeroes

  Hayek pointed out that the scum rise to the top because they easily manipulate the masses. Educated people and intellectuals have diverse political opinions and can not be herded into a single party or platform. The uneducated masses can. The media, politicians and propaganda can shape their opinion to such an extent that a large majority will vote with their hearts and not their heads. Simple messages like Hope and Change can sway so many. So you end up with populists, Bill Clinton, and ideologues, Obama.

  Published: September 8, 2009 10:37 AM

• DixieFlatline

  Time for some Mencken.

  Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

  Published: September 8, 2009 11:47 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  The trouble with democracy is that majority rule isn't equivalent with the good and the right, that it allows people to make political decisions without considering the economic costs and incentives involved, or for that matter, worrying about other unintended consequences.
  
  The fact that we mostly have representative democracy instead of a direct democracy simply means that, besides the above problems, voters are one step removed from the real power of the government, leaving plenty of room for special interests and other power mongers to to make the actual decisions of government policy. There's also the point that what it takes to get elected is not the same as what it takes to perform while in office. Elections are thus in conflict with any kind of meritocracy.
  
  There's probably a few other problems or issues with democracy, but really, how many do you need?

  Published: September 8, 2009 11:56 AM

• Jarrod

  I think we'd mostly agree on the problem; so what's the best solution? I'm skeptical about giving more "weight" to those voters who pay higher taxes because it seems like a system that would require loads of regulation. I think we know where that would lead. We might also end up with a new profession of "High Power Voters" in which people could sell their power, effectively making their votes even more powerful.

  Published: September 8, 2009 1:43 PM

• Brainpolice

  "Because democracy is open to any and all who can get elected -- either through connections, personality, or personal wealth -- it is a social system where leadership positions become a hotbed for sociopaths."

  But this premise is clearly false. The text between the dashes even indicates as much. The positions of power are not literally open to any and all, they are open to those with a lot of money and the right connections. We even still have a tinge of heritarianism, with certain families (such as the Kennedies) commonly being in power. Your average Joe is not able to run for office even if he wanted to (not that he should). The vast majority of people have neglible decision-making power and are extremely alienated from the actual internal process.

  In reality, representative democracies are just oligarchies that have the illusion of inclusivity and consent.

  Published: September 8, 2009 1:47 PM

• mpolzkill

  Brainpolice,

  Yes, but anyone could conceivably get the money or connections (as long as they were willing to do the State's bidding, naturally)

  You have reminded me of my rhetorical formulation (with a nod to Spenser) on the subject: The world is made up of a handful of "players" and a great mass of "the played". Throughout history the played were held down by Divine myths of Authority; and when that failed, by swords, batons, and fetters. When their control began to slip, the players adopted an ancient Divine myth of Authority: Democracy. Democracy is the ultimate myth for it is the great tool to make the played THINK they are players.

  Published: September 8, 2009 2:09 PM

• Ronald

  I would conjecture that power in the hands of few will grow proportionately with how much civilization will allow them to have, thus democracy like all shapes of government start with intentions (some good some not so good), then slide from them toward depravity when their leash is allowed to slackened.

  In the end the need and effort it takes to maintain or even invent their power becomes the force they follow and that need for power has a way in human attributes that generally goes astray to the abusive, elitist and fascist.

  Unfortunately our leaders start that way and finish much worse......

  True leadership is by inspiration and example but when average men are predominant, legislation will become the default setting, brought on by the shear lack of candidates with inspired character.
  

  Published: September 8, 2009 3:02 PM

• K Ackermann

  This will save me some reading. In investigating the paradox of security and state, I read Hoppe's, The Myth of National Defense. I thought some of the essays that were critical of the way security was handled by the state were spot on, but the suggested alternatives started out weird, and then got worse.

  Hoppe's essay suggested that powerful multi-national insurance companies with apparently total information awareness would mete out justice and compensation for clients.

  I can just see it...

  "Hello, Global Insurance Corp., my son was just held at gunpoint and the robber demanded I hand over all my money. I told him all my money was in the bank but he said he knew I did not deposit my last 2 paychecks. I don't know how he knew that, but the bank had lost another deposit, just like the other banks, so I have been holding cash."

  "Mr. Smith, holding cash is just an invitation for robbery. You know we can't do anything about this. Had your son been injured or killed, the bank... I mean the robber would have been in big trouble as our non-state apparatus would have kicked down his door and terminated his life. As it is, I am going to have to raise your premium for your reckless behavior. I would suggest you resume depositing your checks."

  And now, to hear him say "a natural elite will arise..."

  Really? And naturally, they will be altruistic and have better judgement then the common folk, and that is why they are to be trusted, right?

  But they are not a government. They are the elite, without checks and balances.

  Yes. Hoppe is insane.

  The rule of law will happen. It just will. We have seen how the Constitution has been perverted. The next one should have a muzzle on all power, and 1 out of every 100 people should should be chosen as congressional representatives just like jury duty.

  They can do it from home. It would be pretty hard to bribe that many people. They can decide how big or small the military is, and they can drop the hammer on abusive organizations contracted to work for the common benefit.

  On a side note, one thing I found puzzling in the National Defense book was the repeated singling out and ostracizing of Free Riders. One of the central themes I hear on this site is the right to not pay into a collective system.

  If the sentiment is due to not wanting to pay into an insane system, then I agree. However, I think it is flat-out pragmatic that there be some common pool of resources in order to get the big things, or one-off things done. If they are going to benefit everyone, then everyone should pay. I don't really care if it offends somebody, their sensitivities should not stop an adequate defense, and it should not prevent an efficient means of coping with the mentally ill, the severely handicap, and old indigent people.

  That's the price you pay for being born. It doesn't have to be alot. All other systems are contrived nightmares that do not accomplish anything. You can ignore the crazy person in his pink lingerie shaking a spatula at you, or you can pay a few cents to plunk him in front of a TV in a creepy-looking building, and dose him up good. Actually, I'm saying it shouldn't be a choice.

  Published: September 8, 2009 3:55 PM

• Joshua

  K Ackermann,

  A few of objections to your proposal:

  1. What you propose (a higher % of individuals participating in gov't through a draft) would worsen the effects of temporary caretakers, which are described in Hoppe's "Democracy: TGTF"

  2. If a higher amount of people taking on the power of gov't is desirable, then why not 2 or 30 out of a 100 people? Why not 100 out of 100?

  3. You seem to dance over the reason why you think a larger group of leeches randomly selected would be better than a smaller group.

  Hmmm... maybe I've taken you too seriously. It's obvious by your proposals that you are "insane".

  Published: September 8, 2009 4:20 PM

• mpolzkill

  Ah, perfect: to represent the victims in my formulation, along comes Ackerman with yet more from his bottomless bag of fool-proof plans for us all. His biggest howler so far had been his claim that the only thing we really need is 100% publicly financed political campaigns. But his detailed description of our NEXT Constitution may have surpassed even that in its childishness.

  To follow his scatter-brained but tangentially on topic main "point": I believe that Hoppe's (actually) detailed theorizing about the future invites this ridicule where any joker feels perfectly free to join in, but still:

  Hoppe = insanity.

  Ill-informed, off-the-cuff, nonsensical, ego-centered meanderings = sanity

  Yep.

  Published: September 8, 2009 4:38 PM

• David Bratton

  K Ackermann,

  "...and 1 out of every 100 people should should be chosen as congressional representatives just like jury duty."

  The last time I served jury duty the sheriff had to come and get me.

  Published: September 8, 2009 4:47 PM

• K Ackermann

  Joshua, what I know is a natural elite rising up is not a thing to put trust in.

  I also know that there is a need for dealing with issues. They will get dealt with. They can be dealt with in a system with checks and balances, or they can be dealt with by a dictator.

  If you don't think that power happens, then you are a one-step-and-rest thinker. Even within the framework of the law, the banks have ripped us off with the aid of the state. Without the state, the banks will step in and become the state. They would hold all your money. They would know there is nobody you can complain to, and if you said you were going to go to the big tower across the street and bank with them, they would laugh in your face, and ask if they should call their friends and let them know you are coming.

  If security was handled by large insurance companies, and they held the power to blacklist you, and lock you out of security, then you would do anything they asked you to do. No? What could you do? Go to another insurance company? Haha, look at them now.

  If you do not have recourse, or if there is no recognized authority with binding decisions and an appeals process, then what you have is a country like those places in Africa where people scratch in the dirt, and wait for the next band of local authority to ride up in their Jeeps to take their cut, and do some raping.

  Who's going to stop me from having my way with your wife? You and your little gun? Please. Are you going to stay awake, and on patrol at all times? Remember, there is no fingerprint database. There is no crime lab. You will not catch me. You do not have the resources. You put your family at risk if you think you can. In no time at all, you will demand something be done. You will crawl to the local warlord, and I will be there smiling right next to him.

  Published: September 8, 2009 4:56 PM

• mpolzkill

  David Bratton,

  Quick aside:

  That's funny, and I used to feel much like you. But I read some libertarian (I can't remember who) that made me do a 180. Jury service is one of the few tiny powers a citizen has today. You may very well go in to the box and come out having saved some fellow citizen's poor life from being ruined by a crooked and/or insane and always Postivist D.A.. (Or perhaps Ackerman will be on the jury applying his factual alchemy to the case, god help the defendant)

  Published: September 8, 2009 5:00 PM

• mpolzkill

  * Positivist

  Still more ill-informed ramblings from "no-steps-and-type" Ackerman.

  Anyone who says that banks or "PDAs" or insurance companies will become the State hasn't the foggiest notion what the State really is. And in his cartoonish scenario about insurance companies' monopolistic practices he leaves out the elephant in the room for the umpteenth time.

  Ridiculous, offensive descriptions of Africa result when one fails to take into the account the hundreds of years of European and now American States running roughshod over the Continent. There IS a power vacuum there in many places not because State power has been lacking but because social power has been decimated and continues to be strangled by the State. (with the U.N., IMF, World Bank: the entire rogue's gallery taking the place of the more self-aware and openly rapacious British, French, Italian, Dutch, German and Belgian imperialists. Really look out when the State looks like they sincerely want to help you)

  Hallucinatory dystopian and perhaps revealing fantasies for a close. I may have been wrong about him, thought he was a classic soft-hearted (headed is given, with statists) lefty: usually such ravings about how every one is a mad rapist or killer without a magic badg wielding cop looking over them reside only in the fevered minds of conservatives. Strange bird.

  Published: September 8, 2009 5:21 PM

• Keith Ackermann

  The last time I served jury duty the sheriff had to come and get me.

  Right on.

  You know, we have right now, the power to bring down the system simply by initiating a bank run. What we would find is that too many people would be afraid to participate. Even supposedly anti-government citizens who might like the idea would probably not participate in the end.

  Certainly the "elite" would not, and they would claim to have too much money to take out, so their money has trapped them.

  Published: September 8, 2009 5:28 PM

• K Ackermann

  And mpolzkill, you are a big fat dumb face. You are a liar liar, pants on fire.

  I am rubber you are glue...

  Jesus H. Christ. I'm arguing with a pinhead. I must be nuts.

  Published: September 8, 2009 5:35 PM

• Paul

  Another big problem with democracy is that people tend to vote for those who offer the most (handouts, welfare, "better" schools, etc) without sacrificing anything (have the rich pay for it). Additionally government wants the majority to remain dumb and poor, so they'll keep electing them. An educated citizen is one of the main enemies of the state. That's why Stalin (although not elected) executed so many intellectuals and businessmen. He felt that a poor and uneducated public would be easier rule.

  Published: September 8, 2009 5:59 PM

• mpolzkill

  Now Ackerman somehow confuses an argument with the frustration of having his assumptions, half-truths and hare-brained schemes countered. As to the "pinhead", of course I must be to not recognize his genius.

  I would like to counter him on any points he has regarding the article, but outside of mocking the idea that there are "natural elites", and his dismissing the article on the grounds that Hoppe is "crazy", there scarcely are any. Notice two of his ever-present "argumentation" tactics, when he mentions the "elite": the arbitrary criteria he has invented (they must be altruistic and trusted) and his habitual subtraction of inconvenient facts (in this case he is silent about relationship today's phony elites have with the State).

  Published: September 8, 2009 6:39 PM

• gene

  Oh yes, of course, it is much better to have rule by the few! and, certainly we will need an large element of force to convince those "stupid" masses that we few "enlightened" ones know what is best for them!

  It is amazing that one can profess to believe that all should have the liberty to choose, shouldn't have that liberty when they do actually choose!

  To blame the problems we have today on "democracy" is analagous to claiming our economic problems are due to the "free market". We have experienced neither.

  Published: September 8, 2009 8:43 PM

• Sonic Ninja Kitty

  Excellent article! It's one reason our founding fathers tried to give us a Constitutional republic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw
  We can only be a republic if states act like they know this. I have no idea what you'd accurately call what we have today.

  Published: September 8, 2009 10:24 PM

• Dave

  The propensity for the unscrupulous to rise to the top in politics is also true in the civil service. Having worked for the federal government for many years, I have noted that, almost exclusively, only narcissists rise to the top. These people care nothing about efficiency, productivity, or saving taxpayer dollars - their only concern is self-promotion. Sad but true!

  Published: September 9, 2009 5:58 AM

• Brainpolice

  "Oh yes, of course, it is much better to have rule by the few! and, certainly we will need an large element of force to convince those "stupid" masses that we few "enlightened" ones know what is best for them!

  It is amazing that one can profess to believe that all should have the liberty to choose, shouldn't have that liberty when they do actually choose!

  To blame the problems we have today on "democracy" is analagous to claiming our economic problems are due to the "free market". We have experienced neither."

  I believe you've touched on what I find to be the problem with the Hoppean analysis. Which is (1) the assumption that so-called "democracies" even remotely live up to their definition and (2) the bizarre premise that an aristocratic oligarchy isn't subject to the same fundamental problems of power that exist in any contemporary "democracy". Both premises are false - so-called "democracies" are still highly exclusive institutions run by elites ("natural" or not) and aristocratic sentiments are just as subject to the problem of power as any other theory.

  Published: September 9, 2009 6:44 AM

• Joshua

  K Ackermann: "I must be nuts."

  I rest my case.

  Published: September 9, 2009 9:36 AM

• DC

  Not sure why anyone would advocate elites, natural or elected.

  An explanation better than Maslow's hierarchy for the involvement of entrepreneurs in politics is the system is not laissez-faire but state interventionist.

  Published: September 9, 2009 9:56 AM

• Russ

  DC wrote:
  "Not sure why anyone would advocate elites, natural or elected."

  Well, if I were a business owner or a surgical patient, I would want a natural elite businessman to help me run the business, or a natural elite surgeon to perform the surgery. Even in Ancapistan, I would want the best people running the PDAs. What's wrong with a natural elite?

  At any rate, nobody has to advocate for a natural elite. The laws of statistics take care of that; there will always be those in the top X percentile, whatever X might happen to be.

  Published: September 9, 2009 1:46 PM

• Rafael Garcia

  I wish I had something to add, but mpolzkill's posts have been things of beauty. I simply second them all.

  Published: September 9, 2009 6:13 PM

• gene

  right brainpolice!

  democracies can never work from the top down. that is simply elected tyranny, what we have.

  democracies must work from the bottom up. small to large, with the option always that one can "search" for other regions [city states] where the majority is more inclined to one's own views.

  elitism works always, for the elites. we have that now and never in history has rule by the few benefitted many outside the few. that is common sense.

  those who believe otherwise are delusionary or obsessed with power.

  Published: September 9, 2009 6:26 PM

• Leon Jacobsen

  There may not be a definitive answer, but the question remains for me....what draws the politician to politics while the rest of us desire to live our own lives and leave everyone else to live theirs?

  Published: September 9, 2009 7:14 PM