Democracy: the God that failed

[larousser]

Although believed to be a “god” of sorts, when one compares democracy to monarchy, the result is that monarchy is a superior system of government.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe discusses this in his book Democracy: The God That Failed.

Democracy: The God That Failed

Some arguments:

Monarchs were seen for what they are
-that is, privilaged individuals with the power to tax and steal.

However under democracy, the illusion that “we rule ourselves” arises, while it is obvious that under democratic government there exist rulers and ruled. This leads to a lessening of the resistance when it comes to an increase in taxation.

Democratic governments can increase taxes more easily as the illusion that “we are just paying ourselves” persists. It is for this reason that taxation and inflation has exploded.

Time preference:
Monarchs treat the land they rule and their subjects as their “private” property. They also remain in power for a long time. Therefore they have an interest in maintaining the long term capital value of their property.

In contrast, a democratic government is merely a property “caretaker” of the property in question. They have a time frame of perhaps 5-10 years and has a large incentive to use up the capital value of the nation for political success in as quick a time as possible. After all, democratic goverments do not bear the consequences of a lower capital value of the nation.

Therefore kings have a long run view, while democratic governments prefere short run gain in expense of long term prosperity. One only needs to look at the last few Republican Presidents, and indeed the Irish governments of the past decade+ for an illustration.

War:
Monarchical wars arose as property disputes; “does this castle/land belong to me or does it belong to you?”. As such, wars in the monarchical era were less bloody. Also, the end of the war was easily determined when the victorious monarch retained the right to the property.

In contrast, democratic wars are ideologically based. Think of the wars of the 20th century and the most recent war on “terror”. As such it is more difficult to determine a winner. In fact the only way one can be sure of victory is to kill all the people in a given territory.

Democratic wars involved mass murder of civilians on an enormous scale.

Also, military drafts were the hallmark of democratic societies. The logic goes that since one now has a stake in the nation (ie one can become leader) then he also can be recruited to serve in the military.

More here: Speech - Mises Audio/Video Hans-Hermann HoppeHans-Hermann Hoppe

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Also, with a monarchy, you only have to kill one corrupt ruler. In a democracy…

 

[kermitz06]

War:
Monarchical wars arose as property disputes; “does this castle/land belong to me or does it belong to you?”. As such, wars in the monarchical era were less bloody. Also, the end of the war was easily determined when the victorious monarch retained the right to the property.

In contrast, democratic wars are ideologically based. Think of the wars of the 20th century and the most recent war on “terror”. As such it is more difficult to determine a winner. In fact the only way one can be sure of victory is to kill all the people in a given territory.

Democratic wars involved mass murder of civilians on an enormous scale.

Also, military drafts were the hallmark of democratic societies. The logic goes that since one now has a stake in the nation (ie one can become leader) then he also can be recruited to serve in the military.

Hmm… what abouit WWII? Italy, Russia, Germany, and Japan… were any of those democracies?

The holocaust of the Jews, the Bolshevik revolution and slaughter of millions of Christians… any democratic war pales in comparison to those atrocities.

Try again

God Bless!

 

[Lujack]

Monarchs were seen for what they are
-that is, privilaged individuals with the power to tax and steal.

However under democracy, the illusion that “we rule ourselves” arises, while it is obvious that under democratic government there exist rulers and ruled. This leads to a lessening of the resistance when it comes to an increase in taxation.

Democratic governments can increase taxes more easily as the illusion that “we are just paying ourselves” persists. It is for this reason that taxation and inflation has exploded.

Land taxes were much, much lower in republican early America than they were in monarchical Europe of the same time. What does that indicate?

Time preference:
Monarchs treat the land they rule and their subjects as their “private” property. They also remain in power for a long time. Therefore they have an interest in maintaining the long term capital value of their property.

In contrast, a democratic government is merely a property “caretaker” of the property in question. They have a time frame of perhaps 5-10 years and has a large incentive to use up the capital value of the nation for political success in as quick a time as possible. After all, democratic goverments do not bear the consequences of a lower capital value of the nation.

This is a logical fallacy. Democratic leaders don’t die once they leave office; they remain citizens of the country, and so have a reason to invest themselves in their country’s success. Thus, leaders do indeed bear the consequences of a lower capital value. Unless, of course, you want to argue that the only people who care about the success of the country are those who are in government at the time.

Therefore kings have a long run view, while democratic governments prefere short run gain in expense of long term prosperity. One only needs to look at the last few Republican Presidents, and indeed the Irish governments of the past decade+ for an illustration.

Kings do take a longer view, but also a narrower view. A republican government has no choice but to consider the needs of all aspects of society, while a king needs only to consider the powerful. Beyond that, though, there are republican leaders who have taken the long view. Presidents like John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Lyndon Johnson (although his views are discounted all too frequently) laid the groundwork for future actions.

A republic is not inherently shortsighted anymore than a monarchy is inherently corrupt and isolated.

War:
Monarchical wars arose as property disputes; “does this castle/land belong to me or does it belong to you?”. As such, wars in the monarchical era were less bloody. Also, the end of the war was easily determined when the victorious monarch retained the right to the property.

1. The premise, monarchical wars arose as property disputes, does not lead to the conclusion, that the wars were therefore less bloody. In large part, they were less bloody because military technology has improved and we’re better at killing each other now. If you put guns in medieval Europe, you’ll see the death toll rise dramatically.
2. The premise is false. Wars of ideology were common in monarchies; look at the 30 Years War, or the French Wars of Religion.

In contrast, democratic wars are ideologically based. Think of the wars of the 20th century and the most recent war on “terror”. As such it is more difficult to determine a winner. In fact the only way one can be sure of victory is to kill all the people in a given territory.

1. The premise, democratic wars are ideologically based, does not lead to the conclusion, that they are therefore bloodier. Military technology has improved dramatically, and we are now better at killing each other. Furthermore, there was a territorial motive in many of the 20th Century Wars; World War I arose from tensions that developed primary over the scramble for colonies, World War II was justified to the German people, at least initially, as a war for lebensraum, which is nothing if not territorial, and in Asia as part of a Japanese effort to establish itself as the premiere power in the region, by asserting superiority over China and taking control of Indochina.

Democratic wars involved mass murder of civilians on an enormous scale.

Since when was Nazi Germany a democracy, or Stalin’s Russia, or Tojo’s Japan?

Also, military drafts were the hallmark of democratic societies. The logic goes that since one now has a stake in the nation (ie one can become leader) then he also can be recruited to serve in the military.

Feudal levies. British press-gangs. Conscription is not unique to republics or democracies. I’m not sure why you believe that men were not forced to fight under monarchies.

 

[Timothysis]

War:
Monarchical wars arose as property disputes; “does this castle/land belong to me or does it belong to you?”. As such, wars in the monarchical era were less bloody. Also, the end of the war was easily determined when the victorious monarch retained the right to the property.

If I’m not mistaken, I believe that the First World War involved the King of England, The Kaiser of Germany, the Emperor of Austria, the Czar of Russia, the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire and various other bearers of royal titles; would you say that over 9,000,000 dead soldiers, not including wounded and civilian populations was “less bloody???”

King Louis XIV spent the future of France to build the name The Sun King for himself and ended up sowing the seeds for the French Revolution which did its best to eradicate Catholicism from the country. Is that considered a plus for monarchies?

Democracy may or may not be the best shining example of government but the past 1,000 years of monarchies are hardly anything to hold up as an alternative. I’ve always admired the story of Godfrey of Bouillon, the leader of the first crusade, who after conquering the city of Jerusalem refused to “wear a crown of gold in the same city that Christ wore a crown of thorns” taking the title Defender of the Holy Sepulchre instead of king. His brother, Baldwin, didn’t share Godfrey’s sense of religiousness and didn’t hesitate a bit to be crowned the first king of Jerusalem. If you read enough history you will see that a far greater number of kings were scoundrels, murderers, thieves and often incompetent rulers. At least with presidents we get to elect a new one every four years!

 

[thunderballs75]

Let’s face it. *Most *kings have been evil corrupt dictators.

 

[Jimzz12]

I would wager as a historian that most kings have not been corrupt dictators.

I’d say many have been corrupt, but no king is a dictator. By the same token many have been true national leaders born into a very demanding position. It’s easy to point a finger at a monarch and say, “Off with yer head!” The genius behind the throne of England was to maneuver their government into a constitutional monarchy. As an Irishman, I think I should watch my tail when saying it, but I earned enough credit supporting Bobby Sands, et al. The English really do have an awesome-awesome form of government. The Spanish have a great one too. The Italians and French royally messed. The 1789 Massacre and Garabaldi really didn’t do much to advance the civility of the human race. Ignoring all the negatives for the sake of discussion, stability is a wonderful thing. The right to vote is a wonderful thing – but it is not the end all and be all. The pursuit of democracy in it’s strict definition inevitably leads to tyranny and oligarchy. Christendom had ended and indeed monarchs have conducted – better yet – decimated the Church over the centuries. We can begin with Emperor Constantine the Worthless (Arian) and end with guys like Emperor Maximilian in Mexico. I’m definitely a monarchist at heart. My vertical view of the world is compatible with it – as is my world view that unlimited democracy like in the United States burdens the many with a yolk of too much choice. What ever happened to the days when a shoe salesman could support a family? When my father was young, he told me, “The kid whose father had the best job in the neighborhood was a shoe salesman.” The same really goes for the rest of the toss-away people in our society. There was a time when everything was more interpersonal. The everyday development of relationships is gone. There was a certain value attributed to every link in the chain. We live in a more dehumanized world when I am asked for my social security number instead of my full name and address. Am I a monarchist at heart? Yes. Have we treated our democracy like something to worshipped? Yes. I agree with George Wiegel on the point that there was a shifting of the paradigm in the late 1990’s during a political speech by William Clinton. In the speech he spoke more as if he were the personality cult than an elected official. And, now recently, I see our current president, Barry Satoro, lifting a paragraph from Jacobite literature in his acceptance speech – “liberty, fraternity, and fraternity” What kind of garbage is that? Fathers John Corapi, Robert Barron, Bonaventure, etc. are right. We are in for it.

Currently I am going over the “Trial and Death of Socrates”, as I figure it is certainly á propo to preparation for Massimp Franco latest libro, “Parallel Empires”.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I recall reading someplace that a Democracy flourishes until people realize that they are not limited to voting themselves only the things they need. They can vote themselves all the goodies they want. Then it collapses. Are we there?

 

[Lujack]

I recall reading someplace that a Democracy flourishes until people realize that they are not limited to voting themselves only the things they need. They can vote themselves all the goodies they want. Then it collapses. Are we there?

That was never true; people realized as early as the 1830’s that they could do that, and yet the republic (we’ve never actually been a democracy) survived.

There are many theories on when a representative government has passed the point of no return, but they are all just guesses, really.

 

[Liberty_Belle]

No comment, just that I really like this book, author and most of the Mises Institute writers.

 

[mmmcounts]

when one compares democracy to monarchy, the result is that monarchy is a superior system of government.

False.

Monarchs were seen for what they are
-that is, privilaged individuals with the power to tax and steal.

They were also seen in the context of “the divine right of kings.” You really think that was entirely accurate?

However under democracy, the illusion that “we rule ourselves” arises, while it is obvious that under democratic government there exist rulers and ruled. This leads to a lessening of the resistance when it comes to an increase in taxation.

And then 4 years later, there’s an election. If there’s resistance to taxation, Americans elect Republicans. Other democracies have similar options.

Democratic governments can increase taxes more easily as the illusion that “we are just paying ourselves” persists. It is for this reason that taxation and inflation has exploded.

There are problems that arise which are inherent to democracy. These problems are more easily dealt with than the problems inherent to other systems of government. Have you heard of the Republican party? The GOP? It stands for Grand Old Party, and it also stands for low taxes. Furthermore, under a monarchy, don’t you think all attempts at a graduated tax system would be graduated in the wrong direction?

Time preference:
Monarchs treat the land they rule and their subjects as their “private” property. They also remain in power for a long time. Therefore they have an interest in maintaining the long term capital value of their property.

They also get to treat other people’s property as “their property.” Permanently. There is something wrong with that.

In contrast, a democratic government is merely a property “caretaker” of the property in question. They have a time frame of perhaps 5-10 years and has a large incentive to use up the capital value of the nation for political success in as quick a time as possible. After all, democratic goverments do not bear the consequences of a lower capital value of the nation.

It’s called an election. Sheesh. It really is not just a concept central to Calvinism; it is also central to democracy. You haven’t mentioned it yet. Additionally, there’s a concept known as “re-election.” If you do a bad job as caretaker, you lose the election. That is the consequence. And if you think you can do whatever you want in your lame duck term, look at Bush. While he was there, Republican had the House, Senate, and White House. As of 2008, they lost every single one. Bush gets most of the blame. Every elected official knows that danger going in. And of course they think long-term relative to the party’s best interests.

In fact the only way one can be sure of victory is to kill all the people in a given territory.

Or build a successful McDonald’s in that country. From the mid-20th century on, that’s a benchmark that’s pretty hard to argue with from an American perspective.

Democratic wars involved mass murder of civilians on an enormous scale.

Support? I see none. Is there evidence that it goes above and beyond what you see from countries without democracy- like, for example, every country on the planet that is predominantly Muslim? For the moment, a Muslim government is roughly synonymous with authoritarian rule. Is that the kind of thing you’re supporting? Because I was under the impression that this is the very thing that needs to change in the Islamic political sphere.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

In a talk some 40 years ago Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn spoke on the subject of monarchy vs democracy. He noted that one advantage of a monarchy was that the monarch is under no illusion that he represents the will of the people, or has a mandate from them. This tends to make him cautious lest they decide to decrease his height. As an example, he noted that Louis XV may have claimed to be the state, but he never tried to forbid his loving devoted subjects drinking wine. Only in a democracy does a government think people will accept that.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Let’s not forget to mention the classifications of Aristotle from the best to the worst:
Monarchy
Aristocracy
Polity
Democracy
Oligarchy
Tyranny