Political Incentive to create crises?

Economics Political Theory
1

Okay so pretend you are a sociopathic powerhungry politician what would be the fastest way to wield power? I think the most effective means of doing so would be this:

  1. Create a crisis

  2. Avoid being blamed for this crisis

  3. Use the political capital created by crisis to wield more power.

Now the twisted thing is is this sort of thing happens perhaps unintentionally if you just replace the individual politician with the institution that is the state. Gradually state power is ratcheted up.

So in addition to Hoppe’s idea that monarchy is superior because in democracy they have an incentive to exploit the state while they are in power.

My idea is that democracy makes possible the rapid growth of the state. Because with Monarchy if they create problems they will be blamed and if they want to stay in power they best behave themselves. In democracy the state is virtually cleansed of any blame once a particular administration leaves the whitehouse (in the case of the US)

2

I don’t know what I’d rather have when it comes to monarchy or democracy. I think democracy is preferable to a slight degree because the individuals are not separate from society, so they also have a stake in what they declare to be the societal standards. An autocracy could abuse power whereas the individual voters I think may be more respectful of their neighbors.

3

But to answer your question, Rahm Emmanuel said it himself: “never let a good crisis go to waste.” If I were in power, that would be a good way to go about it. I have a dual nature about me because I absolutely refuse to think that that many people in power can be that despicable, but at the same time with what I read at Mises and understand about our government, it’s hard not to reach that conclusion.

4

read machiavelli’s- the prince - it will all become clear… you would think he wrote it about this administration or the last, or the next…