Democracy: The God That Failed

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Jackson LaRose

@DBratton

In that context when he uses the word “state” he means specifically the modern state. Feudal states were not modern states. Absolute monarchies were.

What was the difference? Should the absolute monarchy of the Sumerian Kings, or the Pharaoh, or the King of Sparta, or Julius Cesar be considered modern states?

What is it now, more than a week and you still can’t just go get the book from a library?

part of the notes on 269, Hoppe citing Nisbet:

…Contrary to the modern political state with its principle of territorial sovereignty, for mopst of a thousand-year period in the West protection, rights, authority, and devotion inhered in a personal, not a territorial, tie. To be the “man” of another man, in turn the “man” of still another man, and so on up to the very top of the feudal pyramid, each owing the other either service or protection, is to be in a feudal relationship. The feudal bond has much in it of the relation between warrior and commander, but it has even more of the relation between son and father, kinsmen and patriarch…[That is, feudal ties are essentially] private, personal, and contractual relationships… The subordination of king to law was one of the most important of principles under feudalism.

[DBratton]

@Jackson LaRose

What was the difference?

The three defining characteristics of the modern state are:

1. They are immortal. When the king dies the only thing that changes in the modern state is the king.

2. They are administratively beyond human scale. The modern state is too large for any single person to manage alone.

3. They govern within defined territories. Louis XIV was not the king of the French, he was the king of France (though Louis Napoleon did later reverse this and called himself king of the French in an attempt to placate democratic forces).

Sumeria and Sparta were not modern states. Rome was a modern state. I don’t know much about Egyptian politics though it’s an interesting question.

[I_Ryan]

@hayekianxyz

There are no reviews or criticism of the book because nobody takes it seriously.

Well, that is a shame. Are there any arguments against compulsory democracy that those people do take seriously?

[hayekianxyz]

@I. Ryan

Well, that is a shame. Are there any arguments against compulsory democracy that those people do take seriously?

Sure, it’s called The Myth of the Rational Voter and it is written by Bryan Caplan.

[luckylad33]

@E. R. Olovetto

The latecomer would need some proof in a courtroom…?

You don’t base your ideas regarding what is legitimate property on courtroom decisions, do you? The person could merely claim that the courtroom is enforcing your illegitemate claim to the property if it rules in your favor.

@E. R. Olovetto

For the injured child hypothetical, keep this in mind. We might call the actions of the rescuers trespass, or assault, on the homeowner. This is within an exact scientific framework or praxeological legal theory. Still, a judge could simply refuse to press charges against the trespassers. His action as arbitrator is to determine the maximum allowable punishment which he or his security force will uphold.

You might call it trespass or assault. I however would not as I do not recognize the landowners right to prevent others from entering his land under certain conditions. I would also assume that given public opinion on the matter, it would not be likely for a court to press charges against the “trespasser.” If anything, it would be more reasonable to believe that the landowner would be charged. To be clear, I am not trying to argue against anarchism here.

@E. R. Olovetto

Also, this would be something good to discuss in my Police Forces thread, rather than here about Hoppe. First of all, people are going to make contractual agreements with security and justice providers ahead of time in many instances. These various agencies will reach agreement amongst themselves. When you sign up with Acme Security Inc., you are ceding your right to determine your own spin on justice and take all matters into your own hands. You are agreeing to abide by their rulings and whatever this may lead to because of the company’s other preexisting arrangements. There very may become common a clause to the effect of, “Given no apparent threat to one’s own life, the customer agrees to allow rescue efforts on his property, and any restitution for property damage”…[will be handled along such and such lines].

Right, we are in agreement here.

[E_R_Olovetto]

French on Caplan

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Eric

@E. R. Olovetto

The latecomer would need some proof in a courtroom…?

You don’t base your ideas regarding what is legitimate property on courtroom decisions, do you? The person could merely claim that the courtroom is enforcing your illegitemate claim to the property if it rules in your favor.

I don’t see what the point of this is and it is rather vague. No, I base it on Neo-Lockean, libertarian homesteading theory. A lot of people think health care and internet access are rights too, so what?

@Eric

@E. R. Olovetto

For the injured child hypothetical, keep this in mind. We might call the actions of the rescuers trespass, or assault, on the homeowner. This is within an exact scientific framework or praxeological legal theory. Still, a judge could simply refuse to press charges against the trespassers. His action as arbitrator is to determine the maximum allowable punishment which he or his security force will uphold.

You might call it trespass or assault. I however would not as I do not recognize the landowners right to prevent others from entering his land under certain conditions. I would also assume that given public opinion on the matter, it would not be likely for a court to press charges against the “trespasser.” If anything, it would be more reasonable to believe that the landowner would be charged. To be clear, I am not trying to argue against anarchism here.

Well, you can call it what you want but it just confuses a coherent application of the borders that lead to civilization. You simply need to realize that certain things are within the scope of libertarianism, and others are outside the law. If you are confident that society has certain values, like that injured children should be allowed to be rescued, what is the worry? Also, I think there are some ways that a case can be made against the guy “defending his property” if he takes violent means against people who state clearly that they want to rescue a child. This is getting off topic, please respond in another thread.

[I_Ryan]

@E. R. Olovetto

French on Caplan

@E. R. Olovetto

To fix all of this, Caplan naïvely thinks economics professors can correct human biases in economics class, thus making the public better voters. I side with Mencken: The voters are incurable.

I thought that Caplan was an “anarcho-capitalist” and therefore against compulsory democracy. But in the above quotation, French makes it sound like Caplan is just saying that we should better educate people and then democracy will work.

[I_Ryan]

@hayekianxyz

Sure, it’s called The Myth of the Rational Voter and it is written by Bryan Caplan.

Cool, I just ordered it.

[DD5]

@hayekianxyz

Because nobody outside the “Rothbardian bunch” even takes Hoppe seriously, I’m not even trying to be insulting here

Then I will be. I think you are a troll!

I have yet to see a single post from you with substance and I have yet to see a post that demonstrates that you actually know something about Austrian economics. All you ever do is resort to authority and majority opinion, you talk as if you know stuff but once you are challenged you are easily exposed for who you are - A fraud! If I respond to you, it’s only for the sake of others who are less knowledgeable and may actually be fooled by your game of pretending to be knowledgeable in Austrian economics.

I think you are troll who has managed to achieve 5000 posts. That is all. Congratulation.

[apehead]

@E. R. Olovetto

Contrary to the modern political state with its principle of territorial sovereignty, for mopst of a thousand-year period in the West protection, rights, authority, and devotion inhered in a personal, not a territorial, tie.

I’m not sure I understand this distinction. In a feudal society, the barons (initially through violence, could buy/sell territory, or be granted or inherit at later dates) came into possession of large tracts of land, and the non-warrior classes who dwelt upon that land, the serfs. The barons were still considered sovereign over that territory, although they still had to pay the capo tutti capi, the king. The only distinction I can see is that there was no concept of nationhood, but many absolute monarchies also lacked this concept in the 17th and 18th centuries.

@E. R. Olovetto

To be the “man” of another man, in turn the “man” of still another man, and so on up to the very top of the feudal pyramid, each owing the other either service or protection, is to be in a feudal relationship.

Isn’t this slavery, or at the very least, completely analgous to a mafia protection racket, or even the claims of the modern state?

@E. R. Olovetto

he feudal bond has much in it of the relation between warrior and commander, but it has even more of the relation between son and father, kinsmen and patriarch…[That is, feudal ties are essentially] private, personal, and contractual relationships

For the nobility and the kings, but not for the serfs. They were a resource, inextricably wedded to the land.

@E. R. Olovetto

The subordination of king to law was one of the most important of principles under feudalism.

Sure, common law and tradition were extremely important in feudal society, which is cool, but so was the power structure which hardened into a rigid caste system, based upon collusion between what is essentially crime lord mob bosses (the nobility) and the church to exploit the vast majority of inhabitants (serfs, slaves) by threatening either terrestrial or holy retribution for not submitting to the extortion.

I’m not saying feudalism is all bad, but I don’t see how the nobility is commendable, or how you could consider coercion based systematic slavery as superior to liberalism in general, even with democracy as a “necessary evil” of that system of political organization. If this isn’t what Hoppe is saying, than I apologize, but I haven’t seen any evidence against this.

[apehead]

@DBratton

1. They are immortal. When the king dies the only thing that changes in the modern state is the king.

Sparta and Akkad did not continue after one king, even one dynasty?

@DBratton

2. They are administratively beyond human scale. The modern state is too large for any single person to manage alone.

Who determines how much one individual can administer?

@DBratton

3. They govern within defined territories. Louis XIV was not the king of the French, he was the king of France (though Louis Napoleon did later reverse this and called himself king of the French in an attempt to placate democratic forces).

Every ruler governs within defined territories. Your example seems to confirm this.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Jackson LaRose

I’m not saying feudalism is all bad, but I don’t see how the nobility is commendable, or how you could consider coercion based systematic slavery as superior to liberalism in general, even with democracy as a “necessary evil” of that system of political organization. If this isn’t what Hoppe is saying, than I apologize, but I haven’t seen any evidence against this.

Hoppe is advocating a natural order or anarcho capitalism!..not feudalism… Go get the book if you want evidence. I don’t want to discuss things with people who contrive such things as above and refuse to learn on their own.

@DD5

@hayekianxyz

Because nobody outside the “Rothbardian bunch” even takes Hoppe seriously, I’m not even trying to be insulting here

Then I will be. I think you are a troll!

I have yet to see a single post from you with substance and I have yet to see a post that demonstrates that you actually know something about Austrian economics. All you ever do is resort to authority and majority opinion, you talk as if you know stuff but once you are challenged you are easily exposed for who you are - A fraud! If I respond to you, it’s only for the sake of others who are less knowledgeable and may actually be fooled by your game of pretending to be knowledgeable in Austrian economics.

I think you are troll who has managed to achieve 5000 posts. That is all. Congratulation.

QFT.

Giles, what is the second word on the 6th line of the footnote on page 141?

[DD5]

@Esuric

Check amazon. The book is highly controversial, and Hoppe’s argument appears to be rooted in social darwinism.

I strongly disagree. Don’t reject Hoppe’s insight based on a few controversies. His ability to apply economics and praxeology in political science is brilliant. In this particular case, his arguments against Democracy are deeply rooted in logical deductions. They are very convincing. He has also done great work in praxeology in general.

Don’t overlook his work.

[Stranger]

@Jackson LaRose

I’m not sure I understand this distinction. In a feudal society, the barons (initially through violence, could buy/sell territory, or be granted or inherit at later dates) came into possession of large tracts of land, and the non-warrior classes who dwelt upon that land, the serfs. The barons were still considered sovereign over that territory, although they still had to pay the capo tutti capi, the king. The only distinction I can see is that there was no concept of nationhood, but many absolute monarchies also lacked this concept in the 17th and 18th centuries.

The barons were sovereign over themselves but not their territories. Only with the Treaty of Westphalia did territorial sovereignty become a fact.

[Angurse]

@viresh amin

Are there any critiques on this book?

Here’s one.

[Conza]

@DD5

I think you are a troll!

From what I know, he was so disgraced with what he had previously wrote - he opted for a name change, because he didn’t want to be associated with it.

lol.

Anyway, my critique - it’s covered by IP..

[apehead]

@E. R. Olovetto

Hoppe is advocating a natural order or anarcho capitalism!..not feudalism… Go get the book if you want evidence. I don’t want to discuss things with people who contrive such things as above and refuse to learn on their own.

If you want to call me wrong, then please provide evidence. Just repeatedly typing “read it yourself” is a fairly unconvincing argument.

I realize that Hoppe does not advocate feudalism as the ultimate goal, that he would consider the natural order much more preferable. What he seems to be saying though, is that democracy would be least preferable, followed by absolute monarchy, then feudalism, then the natural order as most preferable. Therefore, Hoppe is tacitly advocating systematic slavery (feudalism) over democratic liberalism. Is this a faulty proposition?

[apehead]

@Stranger

The barons were sovereign over themselves but not their territories. Only with the Treaty of Westphalia did territorial sovereignty become a fact.

Maybe de jure, but as long as the baron forced taxes to be payed by his serfs he maintained de facto monopoly over the land and the people that worked it.

[Stranger]

@Jackson LaRose

Maybe de jure, but as long as the baron forced taxes to be payed by his serfs he maintained de facto monopoly over the land and the people that worked it.

So does the landlord who insists his tenants pay rent on their apartments, that doesn’t make the apartment building a state.