Democracy: The God That Failed

[viresh_amin]

Are there any critiques on this book?

[E_R_Olovetto]

@mises.org forum trolls

A travesty… 1/5 stars

Hoppe longs for a romantic period of feudal slavery

There is not much substance around these parts otherwise. You want to look here though.

[Stranger]

Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy fans will remember the ultimate cocktail drink; the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. Imbibing this infectious blend was like being hit in the head by a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick. But does the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster remain the ultimate cocktail? I think I may have stumbled across something even stronger.

Imagine a blowtorch. A really fierce one glowing bluely in the dark. Turn it up a little, hear that roar. Stuff a small lemon into the top of an Irish whiskey flagon. Lay the flagon on its side, perhaps propped up on some old hitchhiking towels, and place the blowtorch against the flagon’s newly exposed underside. Retire to an unsafe distance. When the flagon explodes, try to catch the whiskey-flavoured lemon between your teeth. Suck it and see what you think. Because that’s what it’s like reading Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book, Democracy: The God That Failed, first published in 2001. As the latest professor of economics at the University of Nevada, and senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises institute, this book out-Rothbards Hoppe’s old Austrian mentor, Uncle Murray Rothbard. Did you even imagine this was possible? Check this:

The mass of people, as La Boetie and Mises recognised, always and everywhere consists of “brutes”, “dullards”, and “fools”, easily deluded and sunk into habitual submission. Thus today, inundated from early childhood with government propaganda in public schools and educational institutions by legions of publicly certified intellectuals, most people mindlessly accept and repeat nonsense such as that democracy is self-rule and government is of, by, and for the people.

Schwing, Baby. And that’s just the warm-up. Try this, if you like your lemon juice even sharper:

Hence, the decision by members of the [libertarian] elite to secede from and not cooperate with government must always include the resolve of engaging in, or contributing to, a continuous ideological struggle, for if the power of government rests on the widespread acceptance of false indeed absurd and foolish ideas, then the only genuine protection is the systematic attack of these ideas and the propagation and proliferation of true ones.

Sounds like a great idea for a web site.

And if you like it really rough, try this:

As a result of subsidizing the malingerers, the neurotics, the careless, the alcoholics, the drug addicts, the Aids-infected, and the physically and mentally challenged through insurance regulation and compulsory health insurance, there will be more illness, malingering, neuroticism, carelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction, Aids infection, and physical and mental retardation.

Crazy, dude.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004776.html

[E_R_Olovetto]

Notice how in all that verbiage there is exactly zero substantive criticism. Skimming through the rest of that guy’s rant I was hard pressed to find anything at all. Yep, the truth is a bitter pill, and it is stamped triple H.

[JosephBright]

@Stranger

Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy fans will remember the ultimate cocktail drink; the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. Imbibing this infectious blend was like being hit in the head by a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick. But does the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster remain the ultimate cocktail? I think I may have stumbled across something even stronger.

Imagine a blowtorch. A really fierce one glowing bluely in the dark. Turn it up a little, hear that roar. Stuff a small lemon into the top of an Irish whiskey flagon. Lay the flagon on its side, perhaps propped up on some old hitchhiking towels, and place the blowtorch against the flagon’s newly exposed underside. Retire to an unsafe distance. When the flagon explodes, try to catch the whiskey-flavoured lemon between your teeth. Suck it and see what you think. Because that’s what it’s like reading Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book, Democracy: The God That Failed, first published in 2001. As the latest professor of economics at the University of Nevada, and senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises institute, this book out-Rothbards Hoppe’s old Austrian mentor, Uncle Murray Rothbard. Did you even imagine this was possible? Check this:

The mass of people, as La Boetie and Mises recognised, always and everywhere consists of “brutes”, “dullards”, and “fools”, easily deluded and sunk into habitual submission. Thus today, inundated from early childhood with government propaganda in public schools and educational institutions by legions of publicly certified intellectuals, most people mindlessly accept and repeat nonsense such as that democracy is self-rule and government is of, by, and for the people.

Schwing, Baby. And that’s just the warm-up. Try this, if you like your lemon juice even sharper:

Hence, the decision by members of the [libertarian] elite to secede from and not cooperate with government must always include the resolve of engaging in, or contributing to, a continuous ideological struggle, for if the power of government rests on the widespread acceptance of false indeed absurd and foolish ideas, then the only genuine protection is the systematic attack of these ideas and the propagation and proliferation of true ones.

Sounds like a great idea for a web site.

And if you like it really rough, try this:

As a result of subsidizing the malingerers, the neurotics, the careless, the alcoholics, the drug addicts, the Aids-infected, and the physically and mentally challenged through insurance regulation and compulsory health insurance, there will be more illness, malingering, neuroticism, carelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction, Aids infection, and physical and mental retardation.

Crazy, dude.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004776.html

So, where is the part where he actually refutes Hoppe’s points?

[hayekianxyz]

@viresh amin

Are there any critiques on this book?

If I were to make one I’d start with his citation practises. Look guys, it’s not exactly a new result that democratic leaders tend to be short sighted and that term limits will only exacerbate said short-sightedness, Hoppe just doesn’t know standard citation practises really.

Of course, that’d only be the beginning. I think ERO summed it up nicely when he referred to it as an intellectual travesty.

By the way, this is coming from somebody who has read D:TGTF twice, and most of Hoppe’s other works at least once. So before anybody implies or states otherwise I just thought I’d point out that I didn’t like the book because I found it full of empty, angry rhetoric with very little real discussion of the issues at hand.

[MatthewF]

Did you decide that after the first or second read?

[E_R_Olovetto]

@hayekianxyz

@viresh amin

Are there any critiques on this book?

If I were to make one I’d start with his citation practises. Look guys, it’s not exactly a new result that democratic leaders tend to be short sighted and that term limits will only exacerbate said short-sightedness, Hoppe just doesn’t know standard citation practises really.

Of course, that’d only be the beginning. I think ERO summed it up nicely when he referred to it as an intellectual travesty.

By the way, this is coming from somebody who has read D:TGTF twice, and most of Hoppe’s other works at least once. So before anybody implies or states otherwise I just thought I’d point out that I didn’t like the book because I found it full of empty, angry rhetoric with very little real discussion of the issues at hand.

So, Hoppe doesn’t live up to Giles’ citation standards. Thank you for your vacuous criticism. I found it amusing.

[viresh_amin]

@E. R. Olovetto

@hayekianxyz

@viresh amin

Are there any critiques on this book?

If I were to make one I’d start with his citation practises. Look guys, it’s not exactly a new result that democratic leaders tend to be short sighted and that term limits will only exacerbate said short-sightedness, Hoppe just doesn’t know standard citation practises really.

Of course, that’d only be the beginning. I think ERO summed it up nicely when he referred to it as an intellectual travesty.

By the way, this is coming from somebody who has read D:TGTF twice, and most of Hoppe’s other works at least once. So before anybody implies or states otherwise I just thought I’d point out that I didn’t like the book because I found it full of empty, angry rhetoric with very little real discussion of the issues at hand.

So, Hoppe doesn’t live up to Giles’ citation standards. Thank you for your vacuous criticism. I found it amusing.

Besides citations, is the links on his website the only arguments against the heart of his book?

[JosephBright]

@hayekianxyz

@viresh amin

Are there any critiques on this book?

If I were to make one I’d start with his citation practises. Look guys, it’s not exactly a new result that democratic leaders tend to be short sighted and that term limits will only exacerbate said short-sightedness, Hoppe just doesn’t know standard citation practises really.

Of course, that’d only be the beginning. I think ERO summed it up nicely when he referred to it as an intellectual travesty.

By the way, this is coming from somebody who has read D:TGTF twice, and most of Hoppe’s other works at least once. So before anybody implies or states otherwise I just thought I’d point out that I didn’t like the book because I found it full of empty, angry rhetoric with very little real discussion of the issues at hand.

Sounds a lot like your post. Be specific with your criticisms, or don’t bring them up at all.

[hayekianxyz]

@E. R. Olovetto

So, Hoppe doesn’t live up to Giles’ citation standards. Thank you for your vacuous criticism. I found it amusing.

Let me put it this way, the sloppy citation practises are indicative of the level of “scholarship” found in the rest of the book. I think what Hayek said about Keynes is relevant here, what’s original isn’t very interesting, what’s interesting isn’t very original. Or to put it another way, it’s not surprising that Hoppe wrote a book that says nothing about the real world, he can’t have a very good view of it from down by the feet of the Prince of Liechtenstein.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@viresh amin

Besides citations, is the links on his website the only arguments against the heart of his book?

You know, there is actually more about argumentation ethics that I know of there. Sorry if there isn’t much criticism of DTGTF.

Here are a couple of links I found from a quick google, YMMV.

[viresh_amin]

haha this is kind of cool. The “travesty” part. I never really cared too much about if a book was written in correct intellectual format. I’m not sure if thats a good thing (tell me if I should care and why). I always just tried to get what I can out of the books I read.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@hayekianxyz

@E. R. Olovetto

So, Hoppe doesn’t live up to Giles’ citation standards. Thank you for your vacuous criticism. I found it amusing.

Let me put it this way, the sloppy citation practises are indicative of the level of “scholarship” found in the rest of the book. I think what Hayek said about Keynes is relevant here, what’s original isn’t very interesting, what’s interesting isn’t very original. Or to put it another way, it’s not surprising that Hoppe wrote a book that says nothing about the real world, he can’t have a very good view of it from down by the feet of the Prince of Liechtenstein.

Can you cite these sloppy citation practices with a page # and explanation? I have the book right here and have actually read it. I am a bit skeptical that the same is true for you, considering that you still have said nothing of substance.

[E_R_Olovetto]

While Giles is warming up for his next act, let’s read Rothbard on Hoppephobia.

…

The Lomasky review is an interesting example of what is getting to be a fairly common phenomenon: Hoppephobia. Although he is an amiable man personally, Hoppe’s written work seems to have the remarkable capacity to send some readers up the wall, blood pressure soaring, muttering and chewing the carpet. It is not impolite attacks on critics that does it. Perhaps the answer is Hoppe’s logical and deductive mode of thought and writing, demonstrating the truth of his propositions and showing that those who differ are often trapped in self-contradiction and self-refutation.

In the good old days, this was a common style in philosophy, employed by Kantians, Thomists, Misesians, and Randians alike. In the modern age, however, this method of thought and writing has gone severely out of fashion in philosophy, where truth is almost never arrived at – and certainly never argued for in a deductive fashion. The modern mode is utilitarian, positivist, tangential, puzzle-oriented, and pseudo-empiricist. As a result, modern positivist types have gone flabby and complacent, and reading hard-core deductivists – to say nothing of hard-core libertarians! – hits these people with the force of a blow to the gut.

Well, shape up, guys! In argument as in politics, those who can’t stand deductivist heat should get out of the philosophic or economic kitchen.

[hayekianxyz]

@E. R. Olovetto

I am a bit skeptical that the same is true for you, considering that you still have said nothing of substance.

Haha! I anticipated that one. Like I said, I’ve read the book twice, I’ve listened to his lecture series, I’ve read A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, The Ethics & Economics of Private Property and Economic Science and the Austrian Method. In retrospect, it appears like I’ve wasted my time, but nonetheless, I’m sure I learned something from those books, I’m just not sure it was the intended message(s).

OK, about sloppy citation practises, I’m flicking through my copy now and I don’t see one reference that would give the reader the impression that his conclusions on discount rates of democratic leaders was not original (when it was anything but original). I can’t say I see much in the way of references to serious discussions of the political economy of democracy (anything in the public choice tradition, Lomasky & Brennan’s book), what I do see is a few caricatures and “discussion” of a few catchphrases that are used in favour of democracy.

They have a word for this type of work: propaganda.

You know, ERO, having a reputation for being obnoxious is never something to be proud of, much less when one is a scholar.

[Lilburne]

@MNR

send some readers up the wall… chewing the carpet.

Carpeted ceilings?

[E_R_Olovetto]

@hayekianxyz

@E. R. Olovetto

I am a bit skeptical that the same is true for you, considering that you still have said nothing of substance.

Haha! I anticipated that one. Like I said, I’ve read the book twice, I’ve listened to his lecture series, I’ve read A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, The Ethics & Economics of Private Property and Economic Science and the Austrian Method. In retrospect, it appears like I’ve wasted my time, but nonetheless, I’m sure I learned something from those books, I’m just not sure it was the intended message(s).

OK, about sloppy citation practises, I’m flicking through my copy now and I don’t see one reference that would give the reader the impression that his conclusions on discount rates of democratic leaders was not original (when it was anything but original). I can’t say I see much in the way of references to serious discussions of the political economy of democracy (anything in the public choice tradition, Lomasky & Brennan’s book), what I do see is a few caricatures and “discussion” of a few catchphrases that are used in favour of democracy.

They have a word for this type of work: propaganda.

You know, ERO, having a reputation for being obnoxious is never something to be proud of, much less when one is a scholar.

What page will I be looking for “his conclusions on discount rates of democratic leaders”? Does he make the claim that whatever it is you are referencing is original, or else who should he have referenced? Maybe he didn’t discuss Lomasky & Brennan because he thought it is twaddle. What is one concrete point of their work that is relevant to a concrete point of Hoppe’s? If you can materialize something, I will look into it, otherwise this seems like run of the mill Giles “appeal to authority” Stratton to me.

So, I really don’t see how you have made much of a case here. Cite a page (I always take the time to transcribe) and say what your criticism is.

edit: 10 seconds searching and I can see why Hoppe ignored these 2:

Public choice generally assumes that (1) people are rational wealth-maximizers (homo economicus)

[Conza]

@Grayson Lilburne

@MNR

send some readers up the wall… chewing the carpet.

Carpeted ceilings?

Nay. lol.

“Hoppe’s written work seems to have the remarkable capacity to send some readers up the wall, blood pressure soaring, muttering and chewing the carpet.”

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=785043

"Although it’s used with reference to overacting in the quote, the original meaning is supposed to be to react with uncontrolled anger or anxiety according to the Random House Dictionary of American Slang."

[Lilburne]

@Conza88

@Grayson Lilburne

@MNR

send some readers up the wall… chewing the carpet.

Carpeted ceilings?

Nay. lol.

“Hoppe’s written work seems to have the remarkable capacity to send some readers up the wall, blood pressure soaring, muttering and chewing the carpet.”

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=785043

"Although it’s used with reference to overacting in the quote, the original meaning is supposed to be to react with uncontrolled anger or anxiety according to the Random House Dictionary of American Slang."

Yes, I knew that; it was a joke. [;)]