Someone on here, I can't remember who, has a signature that links to www.libertariananarchy.com. This site has an article on democracy and the decline of civilization. I would like to know why democratic countries have better economies if democracies lead to the decline of civilization.
How advanced would their civilisations be if it were not for the policies of democratic governments?
Irish Liberty Forum
Democracy arose in advanced countries; it is not otherwise related to economic strength - nobody seriously suggests that Columbia(a democracy) has a better economy than China(a dictatorship).
Individualist:Someone on here, I can't remember who
Sage.
The economy of Europe's remaining monarchies, Monaco, the Vatican, Liechtenstein, Andorra, and to a certain extent Luxembourg, is much more prosperous than neighbouring democratic states.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
The only cause for a better economy is the degree of freedom; Capitalism.
I would guess that statistics may show that Democratic countries have a higher degree of economic freedom, but I would be extremely cautious in inferring causation. India is a Democracy! It is still one of the poorest countries in the world. There are others.
I personally don't see any proof that Democracy is somehow more compatible with Capitalism then other forms of government. On the contrary, property rights are not compatible with Democracy. When property rights are legally protected, it is usually in the form of a limitation on Democracy, like a Constitution or a basic law. So it actually seems that Democracy is incompatible with Capitalism.
Laissez-faire London in 18th century was not a Democracy.
I'm highly skeptical of the idea that democracy is somehow inherently worse than other forms of government. While it's by no means perfect, if you look at democratic countries, the people generally tend to be freer (both socially and economically) than those that live in non-democratic countries.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Well the point of Anarchism is the decentralization of power so I have to disagree with Hoppians and those who want to get rid of democracy just for the sake of having something akin to monarchy or the like. The premise that we can centralize power into the hands of a king...then somehow get anarchy is in my mind a base absurdity. Democracy is a horrible system, but the point is to decentralize further from where we are.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Individualist:Someone on here, I can't remember who, has a signature that links to www.libertariananarchy.com. This site has an article on democracy and the decline of civilization. I would like to know why democratic countries have better economies if democracies lead to the decline of civilization.
The decline is already happening, look at Europe and North America.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Natalie: Individualist:Someone on here, I can't remember who, has a signature that links to www.libertariananarchy.com. This site has an article on democracy and the decline of civilization. I would like to know why democratic countries have better economies if democracies lead to the decline of civilization. The decline is already happening, look at Europe and North America.
I see the destruction of our government and a subjective social construct given an objective tite [ North America ]. I welcome such destruction.
Anarchist Cain:Well the point of Anarchism is the decentralization of power so I have to disagree with Hoppians and those who want to get rid of democracy just for the sake of having something akin to monarchy or the like. The premise that we can centralize power into the hands of a king...then somehow get anarchy is in my mind a base absurdity. Democracy is a horrible system, but the point is to decentralize further from where we are.
I don't think Hoppe actually advocated such a thing.
Angurse: Anarchist Cain:Well the point of Anarchism is the decentralization of power so I have to disagree with Hoppians and those who want to get rid of democracy just for the sake of having something akin to monarchy or the like. The premise that we can centralize power into the hands of a king...then somehow get anarchy is in my mind a base absurdity. Democracy is a horrible system, but the point is to decentralize further from where we are. I don't think Hoppe actually advocated such a thing.
I've listened to his lecture on Democracy the God that failed and he seems to imply that monarchism had all these wonderful qualities that democracy took away. Democracy allows more people into government and it makes it harder for assassination.
Anarchist Cain:I've listened to his lecture on Democracy the God that failed and he seems to imply that monarchism had all these wonderful qualities that democracy took away. Democracy allows more people into government and it makes it harder for assassination.
Yes, and?
Hes specifically said that he does NOT advocate monarchism, just that as governments go monarchies are better than democracies.
Anarchist Cain:I see the destruction of our government and a subjective social construct given an objective tite [ North America ]. I welcome such destruction.
I'm more pessimistic. I only see more and more government interference in my affairs with each passing day. Just look at Obamacare. And most people seem to support it! Maybe the government will disintegrate at some point, but not before it bankrupts and makes a complete slave of everyone else :(
Angurse:Hes specifically said that he does NOT advocate monarchism, just that as governments go monarchies are better than democracies.
Since he wrote a book on how democracy failed...yet is championing how monarchy has all of these great qualities..would that not imply he is for monarchy?
Natalie: I only see more and more government interference in my affairs with each passing day. Just look at Obamacare. And most people seem to support it! Maybe the government will disintegrate at some point, but not before it bankrupts and makes a complete slave of everyone else
I see that Obama's opinion poll is gradually moving downward and where have to seen more support for the Obamacare? I have seen the opposite.
Personally, I have a lot of respect for the Amish. They're self-reliant and hardworking and definitely not poor. Even though use of technology is restricted (but not completely forbidden), no one is homeless or hungry - all without the welfare. They also fought against social security and medicare taxes, unlike everyone else. The Amish are far closer to the founders of the US than to the modern Americans.
Anarchist Cain:I see that Obama's opinion poll is gradually moving downward and where have to seen more support for the Obamacare? I have seen the opposite.
It doesn't matter, it's just one of the symptoms. Even if it doesn't pass, is there any significant movement against all the government regulation and monopolies that led to the rising costs in the first place? Is majority even aware of them? With the healthcare expenses going up (as they will do with baby boomers retiring), there will be more and more calls for free lunch. If it happened in all other "democratic" countries, there's a good chance it's going to happen here as well. It's already half socialised, in any case.
Anarchist Cain: Angurse:Hes specifically said that he does NOT advocate monarchism, just that as governments go monarchies are better than democracies. Since he wrote a book on how democracy failed...yet is championing how monarchy has all of these great qualities..would that not imply he is for monarchy?
Hoppe makes it quite clear that he is pro-anarchy, for instance:
Despite the comparatively favorable portrait presented of monarchy, I am not a monarchist and the following is not a defense of monarchy. Instead, the position taken toward monarchy is this:If one must have a state, defined as an agency that exercises a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and of taxation, then it is economically and ethically advantageous to choose monarchy over democracy.
Source.
MatthewWilliam: Anarchist Cain: Angurse:Hes specifically said that he does NOT advocate monarchism, just that as governments go monarchies are better than democracies. Since he wrote a book on how democracy failed...yet is championing how monarchy has all of these great qualities..would that not imply he is for monarchy? Hoppe makes it quite clear that he is pro-anarchy, for instance: Despite the comparatively favorable portrait presented of monarchy, I am not a monarchist and the following is not a defense of monarchy. Instead, the position taken toward monarchy is this:If one must have a state, defined as an agency that exercises a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and of taxation, then it is economically and ethically advantageous to choose monarchy over democracy. Source.
Obviously he is an anarchist or sympthatic to anarchism if he is a member of the Mises institute. However, my point was to convey what you quoted him as saying. He'd rather have monarchy instead of democracy if the state was still around. Obviously if anarchy is a possbility then I don't think he would hesitate. Perhaps it is my fault that I did a poor job wording what I was trying to convey.
Anarchist Cain:Obviously he is an anarchist or sympthatic to anarchism if he is a member of the Mises institute. However, my point was to convey what you quoted him as saying. He'd rather have monarchy instead of democracy if the state was still around. Obviously if anarchy is a possbility then I don't think he would hesitate. Perhaps it is my fault that I did a poor job wording what I was trying to convey.
A lot of people get hung up on this with Hoppe. Hoppe covers a lot of second-best scenarios, like immigration policy under the state, monarchy in lieu of democracy if there is to be a state etc.
Most people do not keep in context that these are second bests, and not his ideal outcome or position.
Sort of like Walter Block's joke that he is for a state that has only one role. To make everyone read "Man, Economy and State".
liberty student: Anarchist Cain:Obviously he is an anarchist or sympthatic to anarchism if he is a member of the Mises institute. However, my point was to convey what you quoted him as saying. He'd rather have monarchy instead of democracy if the state was still around. Obviously if anarchy is a possbility then I don't think he would hesitate. Perhaps it is my fault that I did a poor job wording what I was trying to convey. A lot of people get hung up on this with Hoppe. Hoppe covers a lot of second-best scenarios, like immigration policy under the state, monarchy in lieu of democracy if there is to be a state etc. Most people do not keep in context that these are second bests, and not his ideal outcome or position. Sort of like Walter Block's joke that he is for a state that has only one role. To make everyone read "Man, Economy and State".
Ok Ok I concede, I did not properly convey what I was trying to say.
liberty student: To make everyone read "Man, Economy and State".
has his advocation for tyranny doubled? at one point it was 'economics in one lesson'.....
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK:has his advocation for tyranny doubled? at one point it was 'economics in one lesson'.....
Yeah, Dr. Block has basically become a full blown tyrant now.
He's great on the latest LewRockwell.com podcast, highly recommended. AC check it out.
Anarchist Cain:Ok Ok I concede, I did not properly convey what I was trying to say.
Vee vill determine vhen you can koncede comrade!
He is for preserving monarchy against further democratization. However, it is not possible to reverse democracy back towards monarchy. History does not work backwards.
Stranger:However, it is not possible to reverse democracy back towards monarchy. History does not work backwards.
Monarchy can arise at anytime. There is no overall objective law that must be followed in the future.
liberty student: Anarchist Cain:Ok Ok I concede, I did not properly convey what I was trying to say. Vee vill determine vhen you can koncede comrade!
In Soviet America, interrogation come to you!
Anarchist Cain: Stranger:However, it is not possible to reverse democracy back towards monarchy. History does not work backwards. Monarchy can arise at anytime. There is no overall objective law that must be followed in the future.
No it can't. Some institutions must be in place for it to first emerge. That's the point of DTGTF.
Stranger:No it can't. Some institutions must be in place for it to first emerge.
I'm sorry but can you forsee the future?
Stranger:That's the point of DTGTF.
DTGTF?
Anarchist Cain:I'm sorry but can you forsee the future?
That is the entire point of economic science, being able to describe the future of society if it maintains its current constitution.
DTGTF is Democracy: The God that Failed.
Stranger:That is the entire point of economic science, being able to describe the future of society if it maintains its current constitution.
So by deducing the future through economics you can predict if the social institution of government is going to change?
Anarchist Cain: Stranger:That is the entire point of economic science, being able to describe the future of society if it maintains its current constitution. So by deducing the future through economics you can predict if the social institution of government is going to change?
No, I can deduce how it can change.
First off, I think that Stranger is right when he says that monarchy requires certain conditions to emerge. Hoppe identifies why States were predominantly monarchical in the past:
Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other. These leaders of the natural elite act as judges and peacemakers, often free of charge out of a sense of duty expected of a person of authority or out of concern for civil justice as a privately produced "public good." The small but decisive step in the transition to a state consists precisely of the monopolization of the function of judge and peacemaker. This occurred once a single member of the voluntarily acknowledged natural elite was able to insist, despite the opposition of other members of the elite, that all conflicts within a specified territory be brought before him. [Hoppe, Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State]
The small but decisive step in the transition to a state consists precisely of the monopolization of the function of judge and peacemaker. This occurred once a single member of the voluntarily acknowledged natural elite was able to insist, despite the opposition of other members of the elite, that all conflicts within a specified territory be brought before him. [Hoppe, Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State]
So a private property order is a necessary precursor to a monarchy. Strictly speaking, I doubt that much would change overnight if we made the president our new King.
I think that what Stranger means here is that by applying economic analysis to politics and governance we will be able to reconstruct history and predict what might happen in the future.
For instance, in D:TGTF, Hoppe refers to monarchies as "privately-owned" governments and democracies as "publicly-owned" governments. Monarchs own the actual country, so wish to maximise both current incomes and the country's capital value. A democratic government will wish to maximise current incomes at the expense of the country's future capital value. From this it follows that democratic governments will tax more, inflate more, and get into more debt, etc.
The above is pretty much the main thesis of D:TGTF, sorry for the spoiler. And of course, if I misrepresented Stranger's points I do apologise.