 |
| Hans-Hermann Hoppe |
In this book, Hoppe lays out why democracy based governments ultimately become unstable, and collapse into tyrannies. He uses historical examples, from Ancient Greece and Rome, Nazi Germany, and others to the present. Hoppe draws heavily from the works of the late Murray Rothbard, whom he called his "mentor and master". Hoppe studied under Rothbard at his last job, as a professor at the University of Las Vegas at Nevada.
 |
| Murray Rothbard |
Although he and I don't advocate for monarchy, Hoppe goes into detail explaining why monarchies as a general trend have been more stable. (This however does play into our belief system, for reasons I will explain below.)
I will now elaborate in the space below, about how our once limited government has devolved into an overbearing, overtaxing system, that is waging wars, has run up an $18+ trillion debt, and much more... All in the name of "the people".
"Isn't democracy (or republicanism) the best system because it represents the will of the people?"
This is the common argument made in favor of democracy, but it's not difficult whatsoever to answer.
Who actually signed the Constitution?
This was a very compelling argument made to me, by the libertarian-anarchist thinker, Lysander Spooner in his work "The Constitution of No Authority".
 |
| Lysander Spooner |
And where does it say that applies to their descendants, and anyone living with them?
Shouldn't adults be able to decide what kind of rules and political system they want to live under themselves, not simply defer this decision to someone else?
How much of the population votes?
For the last few elections, it's been about a third.
How many people do you know who vote because they feel that it "won't make a difference"?
Even at the time of the American Revolution, one third opposed the revolution, one third was for it, and the remaining third didn't care either way.
What's wrong with "one man, one vote"?
The more people that vote, the less and less each vote actually matters... especially with our electoral college system.
The Northeastern States and California for example, have always been blue (Democrat) in recent times, so voting Republican there doesn't change anything. The reverse is true for much of the South.
What accountability is there? When you vote for a politician, you vote for nothing but promises, not guaranteed results.
If you sign a business contract, the person has to provide what was promised or they could go to jail. In a less formal setting, the person could demand a refund, stop buying products from that company, or do other things that could harm them economically. This gives an incentive to ensure that the products are the right price and quality.
There are websites at present where you can look up the promises that various presidents made while running, and what they actually did while in office. Often times, it's night and day.
Example: George W. Bush saying that he would pay off the National Debt to "record low levels" when in fact he was the second largest spending president.
Who are the politicians really beholden to?
I think anyone with half a brain knows that there is a series of special interests that manipulates our government. Between reading and general observation, I find that different interests support the two parties at different times, and some will even support both just to hedge their bets.
These are just a few off the top my head, not a complete list:
Republicans: Military contractors, Big Oil, Gas, and Coal, Pharmaceutical, Police Lobby groups (Yes, they exist!), Big farms, Wall Street banks, and more.
Democrats: Public Sector unions (Often teacher unions), Hollywood, Health Insurance companies, Lawyers, Wall Street banks, and more.
The "conflict of voter interest" problem
When you look at who votes and contributes, and who wants different things from the government, you realize that nearly everyone voting has a conflict with someone else.
A few quick examples:
People who benefit from wars (military contractors), versus people who pay for them and/or lose loved ones from them.
People who vote to get social program benefits, versus people who don't receive them.
People who want others to be taxed to fund their children's education, versus the childless.
People who want the tax payers to pay their pensions, versus those who have no desire to pay those people.
People who benefit from the complex tax and regulatory structure (like lawyers and tax accountants) versus those who are hurt by it. (Everyone else.)
And on and on.
Does the average person support bailouts, corporate welfare, these wars, foreign aid, and so on?
I'm more than willing to be proven wrong on this, but I doubt it.
How do we end the corruption and keep money out of politics?
I'm of the belief that it's not possible. Political systems by their very nature draw in people that advance not based on their skill and efficiency, but rather speaking skills, charm, and sometimes good looks.
If these people were capable of being productive citizens, they would be running businesses or working in science labs.. not telling people what they want to hear.
Would Obama live the kind of lifestyle he has now, if he hadn't gone into politics?
As Lord Acton so famously said: "Absolute power corrupts.. Power corrupts absolutely."
Many of the candidates are bought and paid for before they even run.. The people funding them know what they are doing.
I find that one of the failures of the Political Left, (and one of the main reasons I fell away from this belief system) is that it rests heavily upon the hope that someone better will come along, who will actually have the interest of "the people" in mind... This never seems to be the case.
Below, I will talk about some more of the problems with democracy, and some possible alternatives.
The time preference of the rulers
I didn't think much about this until it was explained to me, but one of the trade-offs that monarchy does have over democratically elected governments, is that they have a longer term view.
A democratically elected president/prime minister is thinking about what they can do to get elected for another 4-8 years... Not what about what effects their policies will have on the long term health of the nation.
Upon coming to power, monarchs expected to be there for another 20, 40, or more years. This meant of course, that they were looking down the road.
One such example of this is that national debts under monarchy generally rose only during war times, and declined during peace. A monarch would borrow money to fight a war, and then pay things off once things were better.
There were even cases of monarchs being killed by members of their own family, since they were responsible for the debt if the monarch failed to paid it off. Also, responsible rulers were thinking in terms of what their children had to inherit, and didn't want to burden them.
Due to gerrymandering and no term limits, congresspeople and senators are pretty much set for as long as they want.
(For those that don't know, "gerrymandering" means redrawing the voting districts in order to make sure that people of a given political party are included.. and thus making sure that the person doing the gerrymandering is guaranteed votes from members of their own party.)
While it could be argued that congresspeople and senators are in for the long haul, there aren't really consequences to what they do since they aren't personally held liable, the way a monarch was.
The point that can be drawn from all of this is that monarchs wanted to maintain their states, in the same sense an individual wants to maintain their private property.
Public places such as roads, parks, bridges, and so on are dirty, polluted or broken down because they're public property. Since they're owned by "everyone", nobody is really focusing on taking care of them. The former Soviet Union and modern day China are the most polluted nations in history for this reason. It was said that there were rivers in the Soviet Union so polluted that they caught on fire!
Politicians in a democratically elected government are viewing the government in a sense as public property. I.e. not thinking about the general well being of it, but rather what they can get during their time in office.
On the impossibility of "limited government"
Murray Rothbard once said "The notion that a government however limited, can stay limited is truly Utopian."
As a former conservative/libertarian, I used to just believe that we needed a government that is confined by a limiting document such as the US Constitution, which historically has been the most ambitious attempt at restraining government power.
The problem is that various moneyed interests arise in the economy, and want to fight to maintain and expand their power. They do this by lobbying, bribery, and so on.
Many of the government's own regulatory agencies are usually presented as being there to "protect us" but many of them are desired by special interests, become corrupted, and work in the favor of said interests.
Examples:
The former head of Monsanto running the FDA.
The Treasury being run by a former CEO of Goldman Sachs.
There have been some studies showing that the bottom 10% of college students are the ones who become regulators.. The smarter ones get jobs making millions a year on Wall Street.
The reality is that the majority of what the government already does now does violate the Constitution.
For what consequences do the people in power face if they go against it?
The Constitution won't grow fangs and bite you.
A blog I wrote about detailing some potential alternatives to the current regulatory structure.
The monopoly on judicial review
One of Rothbard's greatest insights into the weaknesses of the Constitution is our Supreme Court, and the way it's organized.
Aside from children in Social Studies classes, nobody believes that the Supreme Court Justices are truly neutral and apolitical. They are appointed by the President, who has his own views and agenda. And beholden to various moneyed groups.
The problem is that the government has a monopoly on interpreting its own powers, which is like letting a child decide what rules they want to live by. Since the Supreme Court generally rules in favor of the State, (and its constituents) what really keeps it in check? Over time, the government can essentially grant itself more and more power, until we are left with a government of unlimited powers... which is the direction we have been sliding in.
An alternative way law could be organized.
The monopoly on defense
Even if a government is limited to protection and defense, what stops the government from taxing and spending what it wants on the military and police?
Since nothing really restrains taxation and spending, this like all government powers, increases over time. We currently spend about $600 billion a year, which the majority of the population believes is way more than needed.
Police have their own lobbyist groups, which fight for more funding and equipment. This is one of the reasons the "War on Drugs" has continued. They benefit from it.
In public schools, children are taught that "monopolies are bad, because they lead to increases in price and deterioration in quality... since without competition, the business can charge whatever it wants, and slack on quality." Ironically, the same holds true for the government itself. (I think perhaps our public schools are probably the best example of this, but that is a topic for another time.)
Is there a justification for the government itself not adhering to this law of economics?
America went from a federal government that taxed at less than 3% of the national income, to over 40%.. not to mention the fact that we borrow over $1,000,000 a minute to pay for things that we can't afford through taxation.... And on top of all of that, we're still running a budget deficit.
Some ways national defense could work, besides the current system.
An alternative way law enforcement could be set up.
The myth of "secession being treason"
Before the "Civil War", it was commonly accepted that the United States was a voluntary union of states, which could be entered or left as desired.
In the same sense a relationship can begin if both members want it, and can end if one or both members are unhappy.
This was in fact the Federalist (those who wanted a strong central government) viewpoint at the founding.
This is commonly overlooked, but earlier in our history, several New England states and South Carolina both tried to secede from the United States.
Lincoln and the Civil War
If you're interested, I talk a bit about this in my blog about Lincoln and the war.
The mark of a true statesman is to negotiate, and only to rely on war as an absolute last resort. This was the case when the other states tried to secede before 1861.
After the war, the overall view of the United States changed. It went from being a collection of states joined together through a voluntary union, to a powerful central government which managed the states like districts.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."- The Second Amendment
A common question I often hear regarding this Second Amendment is "Where are the militias?"
States used to have their own militias before the War between the States, but it became treason to do so afterwards.
The original purpose of multiple militias was to keep the federal government in check. The idea was that if the country was invaded, the militias along with a professional army would fight off the invaders. I know that during the time of Andrew Jackson, it was even debated whether or not we should have had a standing army.
Since the combined militias largely outnumbered the regular army, they could wipe out the army if a general tried to use it so seize power.
As stated above, states became terrified of seceding and having their own militias after the war, out of fear that they would be crushed just like the Southern Confederacy had.
The myth of the "educated voter", and the arguments behind limiting voting rights
As I stated above in my Revolutionary War example, having a population that doesn't care what the government does is nothing new. It goes back to the founding of the country, and most likely before.
This is one of the arguments are against "direct democracy", i.e. people voting directly on the laws themselves.
"Direct democracy doesn't work because the people aren't well informed enough."
Well if that's the case, what makes someone think that the people are informed enough to pick someone who will make the right decisions for them? They still have to deal with the same issues and policies.
I have seen studies of young adults being unable to explain what the Bill of Rights is, how many senators we have, how a bill becomes a law, and on and on.
Presidential speeches have also gone from a college age level, to high school level, and are now at a seventh grade level.
I personally like the idea of a voter aptitude test, but I know for a fact that the people in charge would never want it... because there are plenty in both political parties that rely on the votes of ignorant people.
"Why did the Founders of the country want to grant the right to vote to only rich, white men?"
The Founders had a tenuous relationship with democracy, and believed that the country needed to be protected from the "dangers" of democracy.
Initially, you could only vote if you owned property. The logic being that if you owned property and wealth, you had a stake in the well being of the nation.
The logic was that those who didn't own property would vote to take away the property of the rich.. and we would all be poor for it.
Or the alternative would be that the system would draw in demagogues that appeal to the masses through rhetoric, but in reality work at the behest of moneyed interests that want privileges.. which is where we are today.
"Where do we go from here?"
Although I used to believe that we simply need a government constrained by a binding document, I realize that this isn't possible
People are corrupted by power, and political systems draw in the most unsavory of characters.
I believe that the best arrangement would be to live under a society of private property rights, and voluntary contracts.
I believe that all adult relationships and transactions should be voluntary, not done at the point of a gun.
This isn't something that can happen overnight, but definitely a worthy goal to achieve across multiple generations.
I would say that we should at least start with ending a lot of these wars, the surveillance state, and the war on drugs.. Let's take things from there.
Hope you enjoyed this! More coming soon.
-STK
