Book Review: Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Many ideas are presented in The God that Failed, and it would be impossible to present them all in a short review. The essence of the book, then, is a critique of democratic nation-states, in which the author concludes that democracy is an inferior form of government to monarchy, and that both are inferior to a hypothetical libertarian society Hoppe terms as 'natural order.'
I was highly skeptical when I began reading it, but the author makes some compelling points. For example, there probably is some truth to the assertion that warfare between monarchies was often (although certainly not always) limited warfare strictly between professional armies, whereas warfare between governments based on democratic, or at least 'popular' ideologies, tend far more strongly towards 'total war,' such as happened repeatedly through the 20th century.
A major foundation stone of Hoppe's analysis is the observation of the evils of the American entrance into WWI. Before the American entrance, according to Hoppe, the war was a more traditional conflict between old-world powers over territory and predominance, but with the entrance o the democratic U.S. on the pretext of "making the world safe for democracy," the war became increasingly ideological and "total" in nature, and the unequal peace that resulted from the triumph of the democracies directly paved the way for the rise of fascism and communism, followed by World War II.
Hoope holds that monarchy is essentially "privately owned government," and that as such monarchs have more incentive to look after the long-term well-being of their nation state and subjects so that they can pass on this inheritance to heirs, while democratic politicians have only short terms in office and no such incentive. One major obstacle for Hoppe, which he doesn't much address, is that contrary to this idea, the monarchical nations of Germany, Austro-Hungary and Russia are widely held to be the first aggressors of World War I. But aside from that, there is an even more serious issue.
As Hoppe points out, but doesn't resolve, Woodrow Wilson, the U.S. President who dragged the U.S. into World War I with all the disastrous consequences that followed, ran as a peace candidate. Wilson explicitly ran on his second term as a peace candidate who would keep the U.S. out of war. This is evidently what the majority who elected him expected he would do.
So then, in criticizing Wilson, which is laudable, it's fair to ask whether Hoppe is effectively criticizing democracy. After all, the basic meaning of the word, derived from its roots is "demos" - people, and "kratos" - rule. If, when a majority of voters elect a peace candidate but instead get a war candidate, can we legitimately call this a critique of democracy, or is it rather a critique of an absence of democracy?
Nations like the U.S. are called democratic under the theory or representation. This theory is that a variety of candidates state their positions and run for various offices, and that the public votes for the candidates who most reflect their own views. The incentive of remaining in office entices candidates to remain true to their stated positions.
But all of this is just a theory. If other incentives are stronger than remaining in office - if there is a term limit - if the candidate isn't enticed by a repeat term - is election funding heavily favors incumbents, among other possibilities - this theory of representation can break down. Majoritarian elections do not a democracy make, anymore than someone with a crown called a king within the borders of a state makes a monarchy. For a government to be a monarchy, the person called King or Queen must actually determine policy, and for it to be a democracy the majority must actually determine policy. It would be unfair to criticize Queen Elizabeth II for the policies of the present day U.K., because she doesn't set them and has only minor influence over them; likewise, it is unfair to criticize the majority of voters, and hence democracy, if those voters are not in fact determining policy and may have only minor influence over them. Unfortunately, this is the basic unfairness on which Hoppe's book is based.
At the start of the book, Hoppe lays out a critique of empirical, or evidence based readings of history, preferring to argue by logic alone. So, on that basis, a logical problem must be examined. If monarchies are 'privately owned governments,' and that this provides an incentive for good government, then do not monarchs suffer from a serious 'knowledge problem' - they have to imagine what 'good government' might be for their subjects, while, if the subjects themselves owned the government, there would be far less of a knowledge problem. The individuals themselves would, as Austrian theory points out, know their own interests better than anyone else, and certainly far better than a distant hereditary ruler or bureaucrat in a capitol.
What Hoppe is really critiquing is "representative' democracy," and not truly the concept of democracy itself. For example, the problem of a politician who will serve a short term in office and thus has a short time-preference [for example, by making decisions which will be popular in the short term but destructive in the medium to long term] is not truly a critique of democracy per se, but a critique of a defective machinery which (often falsely) promises democracy. As a critique of representative democracy as a "god that failed," the book is very interesting and offers some highly original and perhaps useful critiques. However, what I was expecting to find - a cogent critique of majoritarian policy determination, is not truly found within the book.
Ravochol:and for it to be a democracy the majority must actually determine policy.
Ravochol:if those voters are not in fact determining policy and may have only minor influence over them. Unfortunately, this is the basic unfairness on which Hoppe's book is based.
Ravochol: If monarchies are 'privately owned governments,' and that this provides an incentive for good government, then do not monarchs suffer from a serious 'knowledge problem' - they have to imagine what 'good government' might be for their subjects, while, if the subjects themselves owned the government, there would be far less of a knowledge problem. The individuals themselves would, as Austrian theory points out, know their own interests better than anyone else, and certainly far better than a distant hereditary ruler or bureaucrat in a capitol.
Ravochol:As a critique of representative democracy as a "god that failed,"
ravochol:I was highly skeptical when I began reading it, but the author makes some compelling points. For example, there probably is some truth to the assertion that warfare between monarchies was often (although certainly not always) limited warfare strictly between professional armies, whereas warfare between governments based on democratic, or at least 'popular' ideologies, tend far more strongly towards 'total war,' such as happened repeatedly through the 20th century.
There's definitely good reason to think so. China and Russia quickly jump in and quickly jump out in their skirmishes with their tinier neighbours, while the democratic United States can prolong the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War for very long. Mass media extremists in US can have thousands of civilians howling and beating their chests if any politician dare suggest retreat or quick end to hostilities, and he'll take a beating in elections.
Well actually, we can't assign any simplistic cause-and-effect relation between all the events of WWI and WWII. The author himself prefers the a priori method of reasoning, knowing that historical analysis is prone to confirmation bias and narrative fallacy. The conclusions he reaches from that a priori may be used to jot down possible relations between certain events, but it's unlikely they were the lone events in isolation to cause one thing or another. As such, it's necessary to be careful about discussing whether democracy contributes anything better to human social and political climate through a priori, and another to see whether democracy had a big role in aggravating hostilities between the world wars. The latter can not be given a definite answer anyway.
Everybody was a first aggressor in WWI. They all had their armies ready beforehand, and were getting ready for war at any minute. Total war is really a situation of prisoner's dillemma.
As Hoppe points out, but doesn't resolve, Woodrow Wilson, the U.S. President who dragged the U.S. into World War I with all the disastrous consequences that followed, ran as a peace candidate. Wilson explicitly ran on his second term as a peace candidate who would keep the U.S. out of war. This is evidently what the majority who elected him expected he would do. So then, in criticizing Wilson, which is laudable, it's fair to ask whether Hoppe is effectively criticizing democracy. After all, the basic meaning of the word, derived from its roots is "demos" - people, and "kratos" - rule. If, when a majority of voters elect a peace candidate but instead get a war candidate, can we legitimately call this a critique of democracy, or is it rather a critique of an absence of democracy?
No, it's a critique of democracy. In many cases, groups of people can "buy" peace; by negotiating treaties in good faith. Thus the Greek Orthodox community in Lebanon or the Khazars between Constantinople and the Sultanate won their neutrality - as individuals, they offered whatever they could as traders or dealers in information to keep their lands peaceful. In a democratic nation, you can't buy peace, only make compromise with rest of your citizens through a single candidate. It is the will of unwilling masses at work. To keep everybody happy, if 60% of the nation didn't want war, but 40% did, why can't a candidate just say he won't go to war, wink, and then make excuses and go to war after having satisfied other voter demands?
Nations like the U.S. are called democratic under the theory or representation. This theory is that a variety of candidates state their positions and run for various offices, and that the public votes for the candidates who most reflect their own views. The incentive of remaining in office entices candidates to remain true to their stated positions. But all of this is just a theory. If other incentives are stronger than remaining in office - if there is a term limit - if the candidate isn't enticed by a repeat term - is election funding heavily favors incumbents, among other possibilities - this theory of representation can break down. Majoritarian elections do not a democracy make, anymore than someone with a crown called a king within the borders of a state makes a monarchy. For a government to be a monarchy, the person called King or Queen must actually determine policy, and for it to be a democracy the majority must actually determine policy. It would be unfair to criticize Queen Elizabeth II for the policies of the present day U.K., because she doesn't set them and has only minor influence over them; likewise, it is unfair to criticize the majority of voters, and hence democracy, if those voters are not in fact determining policy and may have only minor influence over them. Unfortunately, this is the basic unfairness on which Hoppe's book is based.
I think we are hiding behind unfalsifiability. We are just saying, "The problems are not caused by democracy here, because there isn't true democracy here." You could just go on and keep saying there isn't true democracy. Now, between Austrian views on banking and free banking, the advocate of free banking can always hide behind unfalsifiability and say, "There wasn't true free banking in Scotland/France/Canada/Australia!" OK, so there were regulations, but just what do they have to do with the boom and bust cycles caused by the inflationary increase in credit? This is why we have a priori: so that we don't hide behind confirmation bias on historical events.
At the start of the book, Hoppe lays out a critique of empirical, or evidence based readings of history, preferring to argue by logic alone. So, on that basis, a logical problem must be examined. If monarchies are 'privately owned governments,' and that this provides an incentive for good government, then do not monarchs suffer from a serious 'knowledge problem' - they have to imagine what 'good government' might be for their subjects, while, if the subjects themselves owned the government, there would be far less of a knowledge problem. The individuals themselves would, as Austrian theory points out, know their own interests better than anyone else, and certainly far better than a distant hereditary ruler or bureaucrat in a capitol. What Hoppe is really critiquing is "representative' democracy," and not truly the concept of democracy itself. For example, the problem of a politician who will serve a short term in office and thus has a short time-preference [for example, by making decisions which will be popular in the short term but destructive in the medium to long term] is not truly a critique of democracy per se, but a critique of a defective machinery which (often falsely) promises democracy. As a critique of representative democracy as a "god that failed," the book is very interesting and offers some highly original and perhaps useful critiques. However, what I was expecting to find - a cogent critique of majoritarian policy determination, is not truly found within the book.
Majoritarian policy determination? Why don't you see the useless Propositions passed in California for that? Or the Swiss ban on minarets? Those two alarming episodes revealed direct democracy to be a possibly perilous and cartoonish affair (moreso than representative democracy is).
Speaking very loosely and not seriously at all, I'll tell you what will happen if we did have direct democracy. Our daily life will be a Daily Mail version of the ideal world - where police carry Uzis, children below 21 can't walk outside after 8:00 PM, all alcohol except wine is banned, criminals are publicly hung and executed on the spot of the crime, and celebrities have to publicly apologise for marital infidelity.
There will be city council meetings, where bikers, emo kids, punk rockers, catatonic mothers, senile racist conspiracy theorising old men, and garbage can dwelling hobos will have shouting matches over whether obese people should be required by law to enter physical fitness reality shows.
This is what I am saying about theory independant of evidence. It can lead down many mind-boggling roads that simply have no basis in reality. Compare the world pre and post democratization. We have our problems in this system, but I would say (and i guess this is subjective) democratic systems have been far greater for the world.
Also, go to TED and look up "the Myth of Violence" to see how much inter, intra state, and common violence has declined since the medieval era.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Theory independent of evidence? Of course there is evidence - you as a human know humans behave. You just take it from there and work upward.
If a candidate promised government insurance for waterfront homes like mine, I'd vote for him.
If the candidate for whom I voted takes the promise seriously for running in re-election, he'll give me cheap insurance for my waterfront home.
If my waterfront home gets washed down by waves or a strong tsunami, I use the insurance.
Since I know I will be insured, I build another big house 100 feet away from the shores.
A few years later, the house again gets washed away by waves, and as long as the candidate keeps giving me insurance, I keep voting for him.
Now, journalist John Stossel has shown specific real life instances of this happening, and even did an experiment by availing government insurance to build a waterfront home. He could rebuild his expensive home from public money as often as he wanted to do so. But even in spite of this actual physical evidence, would you have had a tinge of doubt that something could happen otherwise? You know human nature to know it will be abused.
I will submit, tho I have not any evidence at this present moment, that there was much more "gaming the system" in monarchial societies than democratic. Nobles were notorious for wasting the money/resource of the peasants.
You may like this article:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long8.html
@ Prateek
I think we are hiding behind unfalsifiability. We are just saying, "The problems are not caused by democracy here, because there isn't true democracy here." You could just go on and keep saying there isn't true democracy.
No, I don't think so - all I'm saying is that for something to be 'true democracy' the policy would have to match the opinion of at least a bare majortiy of citizens. As per the wisdom of the U.S. entering into World War I, Hoppe seems to be siding with the evidenced position of the majority of American voters at the time, so it's a poor critique of majoritarianism.
Also, with waterfront homes, that seems to me like a likely example of an undemocratic distortion caused by a defective process - in other words, do you think that generous government insurance for waterfront homes would pass a general referendum? My guess would be no, since only a small minority or people (even in many coastal counties, for example) have waterfront homes, the large majority that doesn't have them would not be likely to vote for it, since it's not in their interest.
I am non cognititve to how a "true opinion" could even come close to being had outside of a radically decentralized system, I do not see why a majority is needed as that would state a "true democracy" could only have 2 opposing issues, moreover I do not see how a majority (or plurality) is an inherently desiable thing to have; if there are the social differences are that irreconcilable as to require a mob to back ones opinions, it ought to be an affirmation for more decentralization, not an affirmation of democracy. I don't think there is much in the era of Nation States that cuts the mustard to shed a positive light on democracy as it is known today.
@ WIlliam
I agree with critiques of centralization, but I don't see how critiquing centralization per se is a critique of democracy per se. There's no inherent reason as far as I can see why there can't be many small decentralized (and possibly Federated) democracies. Athens and Corinth and Thebes could all be democracies and all have a mutual defense pact, and people could move between them if they had a serious enough problem with the ruling of their local majority.
A priori, this seems like the best system of government - if you don't have a rule in the interests of the majority, aren't the only alternatives rule in the interest of a minority, or no rule? Most market anarchists believe in law, so who should write the law and how should it be determined who is subject to it? Is there a logically better alternative?
Also, you're right - that Lew Rockwell article is really interesting
To be clear: I think the #1 issue is decentralizing.
ex: All things being equal, I would rather have a radically decentralized city-state life than living under a gigantic autocratic government.
I won't bring up an actual argument with why I still think autocratic power based off of market recognition is better (or perhaps inevitable even) than a democracy based off of market recognition. Let me just give you something to think about. Think how a soverign pirate ship would operate, why it would even exist, how it survives, how it is governed, what constitutes the "citizens" and why they are there in the 1st place (assuming they are not slaves), and how often and why a mutiny would take place. If there is a "national" democracy on the ship, it would only be to elect an autocrat.
Also, very important, think about continual elections happening on the ship during a voyage. Think about the incentive to "buy votes" and what the consequences of that would be vs sheer autocratic power during a voyage.
I'll never understand the argument that a dollar is a 'market signal' but a vote isn't and can't be. Both are indications of preference with their own advantages and disadvantages.
As to pirates, I'd think "buying votes" would lead to a very fair distribution of booty, whereas an autocratic captain would probably keep as large a share to himself as possible while still maintaining order, and would probably use lots of violence against fellow crew members to intimidate them into accepting the unfair, highly unequal distribution - you know, kind of like the old British Navy or the merchant marine.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/080222_pirates.htm
Pirates had “democratic” ways
Feb. 22, 2008 World Science staff
Pirates, like gangsters and other colorful outlaws, have always held a certain romantic appeal for many. Three centuries after piracy’s “golden age,” tales of these sea going bandits still capture imaginations. But could pirates have also offered models of democratic, constitutional government? Surprisingly, that’s not very far from the truth, a new study suggests. Although real-life piracy was and is a vicious form of organized crime, the study found that pirates in that era some how over came their viler in stincts to rule them selves effectively through mini-democracies.
The cap ture of the pi rate Black beard, 1718 by Jean Le on Gerome Fer ris (1863–1930)
“Pirates could and did democratically elect their captains,” writes the author, economist Peter Leeson of George Mason University in Virginia. In fact, he adds, pirates were better off in this respect than the crews of the merchant ships they plundered. Those men labored under unelected, dictatorial and some times severely abusive captains. Historical sources also suggest pirates tended to be scrupulously fair to each other, Lee son adds...
We have our problems in this system, but I would say (and i guess this is subjective) democratic systems have been far greater for the world.
If you are going to compare democracy to monarchy, compare apples to apples, not oranges. Compare 19th century democracies to 19th century monarchies and 20th century democracies to 20th centuries monachies. This isn't very easy since there aren't very many monarchies left. Another thing to be careful about is not to define your terms based on succes or failure. If you only define a failed democracy as not-really-a-democracy you haven't proven anything.
20th century Switzerland is a good example of how good (constitutional) democracy can be, but 20th century Monaco is a pretty good example of how good (constitutional) monarchy can be. I don't have to tell you about the wide variance in quality among different countries. Is the median democracy better than the median monarchy? I honestly don't know. It definitely isn't immediately obvious.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
@Ibn Kalhoun
The problem with such talk is that the progress of human beings across the world is always upward, in any system.
Even native Americans in North America evolved medicine and weaponry in their tribal system, and even absolutist Chinese dynasties developed many inventions.
Only a few West African countries and East African countries would be the rare exceptions of countries going backwards and backwards to pre-Stone-Age ways, due to some self-destructive behaviour by a large part of the populace, like throwing out Pakistani industrialists from Uganda, and ending up losing all industry and banking there.
@ Solid
Well, here's how I conceive of "democracy" - a nation (or group) is democratic to the extent that the policies of the government (or leadership) matches the preferences of its constituents. If I were to gauge how "democratic" a nation is, I would do a survey of random people who live there and ask them to what degree they agree with the policies of their government. Perhaps I could have them read the most recent laws or enactments (if public) and ask them to rate their approval of them individually. I would rank the countries in which the government policies most closely matched the preferences of its people as the most 'democratic,' in results even if not in procedure.
In other words, if the majority of the population does not willingly support the policies of the government could be called 'democratic.' "Democratic in aspiration" or "democratic in procedure" perhaps, but certainly not 'democratic' in reality or substance.
Ideally things like elections or parliaments or referendums would help facilitate this, but then again, maybe they wouldn't...An absolute hereditary monarchy might be 'democratic' in this sense, although I would certainly question how probable this is.
ravochol:I'll never understand the argument that a dollar is a 'market signal' but a vote isn't and can't be. Both are indications of preference with their own advantages and disadvantages.
A political vote is a "vote" with somebody else's dollar.
Never say never.
The problem with such talk is that the progress of human beings across the world is always upward, in any system
False. Roman Europe, compared to Dark Ages Europe, absolutely a regress in human progress. We didnt re-figure out roman concrete, running water, and automatic doors (and other inventions) until just in the last 200 years.
Only a few West African countries and East African countries would be the rare exceptions of countries going backwards and backwards to pre-Stone-Age ways
Falls of Rome and the Han dynasty would be my counter-argument. They may have reprogressed later to past what they were in those times, but they most certainly regressed.
Really it doesn't matter tho. These monarchies were not so progressive until they were democratized.
If a democracy is just a government that is supported by the majority, then it isn't a contradiction to say that a democracy doesn't require fair elections or even have voting at all. Is that really how you want to define democracy? Wouldn't that mean that you could have a democratic monarchy?
For pete's sake, Epicurus, you make the danger of confirmation bias and narrative fallacy here.
Your attempt to make historical relations between forms of government fails on one grounds - the progress of human beings has always been upwards in any and all regimes.
The success people of Qin China makes no more a case for Legalism than the success of people of Han China makes for Confucianism, than the success of people under Tokugawa makes for Shintoism, than the success of people under Asoka does for Buddhism, and so on.
Germans have shown upward progress all the way throughout their monarchist days, their republic days, their nationalist socialist days, and their democratic days, and so on. The upward progress of homo sapiens is always there because they are homo sapiens.
So let's not waste our time with historicism and empiricism.
Some things to take into account.
A majority of votes does not necessarily indicate the "will of the majority", whatever that actually means.
1) 10% of the populace can win an election or a referendum if only 19% of the populace votes.
2) Issues are never so simple as "do you want a or b?" You may want c but because you are lumped into a winner-take-all system, you choose a or b.
3) Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
It seems that Hoppe did a much better job defining monarchy vs. representative democracy. The monarch owns the tax revenue whereas the democratic representative does not. If the monarch buys a fancy car with tax money, that's his right. If a democratic representative does the same, he is labeled an embezzler, stripped of his state designation, and treated as a common criminal.
I think one should question how democratic our form of government is. Surely the representatives aren't receiving ownership of tax revenue (other than their salaries...they are surely corrupt to some degree but such embezzlement is considered illegitimate). However, it may be a feasible argument that those subsidized by the government come close to privately owning it - their lobbyists have great influence over policy, and their media influence greatly determines elections. they must support welfare policies and other public expenditures to maintain their rule in the electoral system, so there is definitely a "public" component to our government, but I don't think it's a big stretch to say a large part of it is quasi-privately-owned.
Ultimately, however, Hoppe's conclusions seem undeniably correct:
- The 20th century was the most glorious century in human history in spite of, not because of, democracy - almost all of the increase in labor productivity and technology came from the private sector, stemming from property rights. democracy appears more opposed to property rights than monarchs; however, each system opposes them to some degree - neither can claim responsibility for progress when each is based upon at least partially hindering it.
- Democracy promotes shorter-term time preferences in both the rulers and subjects, and undermines the development of a capital goods structure.
- Democracy promotes high taxation, public debt, and inflation in keeping with short-term goals.
- Democracy eliminates class solidarity between the rulers and ruled, making revolution and political protest more difficult.
- Democratic rulers are more likely to engage in conscription, send soldiers to die, advance war as ideological rather than strategic or wealth-enhancing, and kill innocent people than monarchs.
Since WWI, monarchy has vanished and democracy come to rule. During this time, numerous democratic regimes have completely undermined private property rights, often adopting fascism or socialism. Taxation rates have dramatically increased. Public debts have dramatically increased. Several nations have fallen into hyperinflation, while others have experienced high inflation. War is prevalent, with far more civilian casualties. Savings rates have fallen.
All this being said, we can play devil's advocate. Is modern war more conducive to civilian casualties because of weapons technology? Even if high taxes and lower time preferences are bad economic policy, could this be what the common individual desires? Have crime rates increased simply because of democratic economic feasibility and bad policies, or due to a lack of frontiers, increasing population density, and increased access to weapons and security-defeating devices?
I had numerous questions like this pass through my head, as I read the book. I think Hoppe goes a little too far in doling out blame for democracy, but in his defense he does qualify such empirical evidence as requiring solid logical theories to identify cause and effect.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Is modern war more conducive to civilian casualties because of weapons technology?
Weapons are designed to the objectives to be conquered. It was democracy and only democracy that created an objective for which a mass-murder weapon could be designed.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power