Political Theory

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Stranger — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 04:03:14 GMT

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.

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

meambobbo — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:35:56 GMT

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.

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Prateek Sanjay — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:26:40 GMT

Really it doesn't matter tho. These monarchies were not so progressive until they were democratized.

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.

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Solid_Choke — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:10:32 GMT

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.

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?

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Laotzu del Zinn — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:00:29 GMT

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.

Really it doesn't matter tho. These monarchies were not so progressive until they were democratized.

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Laotzu del Zinn — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:58:17 GMT

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.

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

DD5 — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:47:23 GMT

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.

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

ravochol — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:56:11 GMT

@ 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.

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Prateek Sanjay — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 06:51:36 GMT

@Ibn Kalhoun

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.

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.

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Solid_Choke — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 01:43:01 GMT

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.

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

ravochol — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:37:23 GMT

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...

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

William — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:12:09 GMT

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.

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

William — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:06:38 GMT

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?

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.

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

ravochol — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:51:35 GMT

Also, you're right - that Lew Rockwell article is really interesting

Re: Book Review: 'Democracy, the God that Failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

ravochol — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:46:32 GMT

@ 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.