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?
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).
Sage.
It depends on the quality of people in the democratic majority.
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.
Ah yes. I love my Vatican-produced high-tech gadgets…
‘High-tech gadgets’ are not a comprehensive indicia for civilization. The low-tech Amish and Buddhist monks are two examples of highly civilized people, and neither society is governed by democratic principles.
lol. Of course, if your definition of ‘civilization’ is theocracy, collectivism and poverty, yes, the Amish are civilized. Oh and the Amish do buy some stuff in ‘America’ right ? As to buddhist monks … do they even work ? Or rely on begging ?
By the way, I wasn’t defending ‘democracy’ whatever you think ‘democracy’ means.
One more point : buddhist monks are not a ‘society’.
Family, religious faith, community. Sounds just awful. I’m sure atomized dilettantes have it better.
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. 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, and?
Hes specifically said that he does NOT advocate monarchism, just that as governments go monarchies are better than democracies.
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 