Posted on 05/09/2005 6:19:48 AM PDT by kjvail
The second anniversary of America's expedition into Iraq passed with relatively scant fanfare. Since hostilities in Mesopotamia commenced, thousands of American and Iraqi casualties have been tallied. Every month Washington spends billion of dollars on counterinsurgency and rebuilding efforts in Iraq and further afield, which swells the nation's largest budget and budget deficit in its history[i].
As vast quantities of blood and treasure are expended abroad, Washington politicians win plaudits domestically for their warmongering, and government contracting at home and abroad burgeon, on what basis is this imperial project—financed by foreign lenders and American taxpayers—justified?...
...Democracy deconstructed
As Hans Hermann-Hoppe adeptly describes in Democracy: The God that failed, the democratic state is inherently a "public" monopoly. Unlike privately-owned monopolies, e.g., monarchies where the sovereign generally has an incentive to moderate expropriations of property to preserve the realm's present value for heirs, state officials in a democracy are mere caretakers who cannot privately enrich themselves from ownership or sale of government property.
Rather, a moral hazard and tragedy of the commons ensues as bureaucrats and politicians may merely exercise use of government property while on the state payroll, precipitating a strong inducement to maximize current use of government property, irrespective if such activities entail dire consequences for taxpayers and the economy at large.
As concerns government finance, officials conduct the borrowing and enjoy the resultant political plaudits from the constituencies that benefit from state largesse while other private citizens defray the expenditures and debts via taxation or government-stoked money creation. Indeed, Hoppe contends an elected president can run up public debts, instigate inflation, inaugurate long-running wars, and introduce other state projects footed by hapless taxpayers without being held personally liable for the consequences.
Rothbard’s Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy methodically chronicles how the personnel of successive democratically-elected administrations manipulated American foreign policy to secure the narrow self-interests of connected business interests whilst justifying these massive, costly and incessant interventions on the pretext of combating communism or promoting democracy.
Politicians who have aggressively expanded the state in America and elsewhere are extolled as great. Verily, democratic governance provides an alluring career for aspiring politicians, their cronies and bureaucrats. Not only do officials have the resources accrued by the state at their disposal, they also exercise the authority and wherewithal to confiscate private property and participate in the process of spending and borrowing—absent individual culpability—all the while receiving a salary and pension funded by taxpayers. Furthermore, politicians and appointed administrators are only accountable during regular popularity contests, in which voters can reshuffle personnel but are not inclined to alter fundamentally the scheme of free-for-all theft.
Hoppe states democracy abolishes the distinction between rulers and ruled—the limited opportunity to become a member of the royal family that pervaded under monarchy—and assumes that any member of the political system may ascend to the upper echelons of governance. Given the state's indispensable need to steal for its subsistence and the nearly unfettered entry into the ranks of the ruling class, democracy renders it that much easier for politicians to accelerate exactions from the public, as the gates remain open for any individual or faction to gain access to governmental powers and impose the same taxes or regulations themselves. As democracy has taken root in the United States and elsewhere, jostling between rival political factions has been less about how flaccid or robust the state should be, but what direction the state should take as its scope expands.
The ability of elected politicians and entrenched bureaucrats to institutionalize and enforce systematic predation and redistribution of private property is an outcome of the democratic ethos itself. Indeed, the grand bargain of democracy is this: every individual within the system—whether voluntarily or not—cedes the inviolable title to his or her property for the ability to either elect, participate in or marshal a political movement that competes for the privilege of seizing and spending everyone else's money. It follows that individual responsibility and private property ownership are seriously impaired and denigrated as the government-instituted "law of the jungle" taps innate human characteristics such as envy, self-preservation, and keenness for gratification.
As Frederic Bastiat explained in The Law, self-preservation and self-development are universal instincts among men as is the preference to do so with the minimum amount of pain and the maximum level of ease. Plunder then is favored over production, so long as the risks and inputs of confiscation are not as agonizing or as indomitable as the painstaking act of production and exchange. When given an opportunity to seize private property or stipulate regulations on owner's use thereof, as democratic rule is wont to do, participants in the political system vie for the chance to apply the state's coercive arm in service of their supporters' ends.
Motivated by envy and self-preservation, all classes of individuals demand, whether through forceful or pacific means, the franchise as its price for defraying the expenses of others running the government. Once empowered to help decide the course of public expenditures—Bastiat wrote—plundered classes opt to be as licentious as other enfranchised classes, rendering the systematic looting universal, even though such profligacy is undeniably detrimental to the economy's well-being.
It should be noted that the chief feedback mechanism of democratic government, voting, does occur in private enterprises and associations. Beyond this superficial similarity, however, there are acute distinctions. Shareholders exercise voting rights in a corporation proportionate to stock ownership whereas every eligible voter in a democratic election is entitled to one vote, irrespective if they are net tax-eaters or taxpayers.
Should shareholders grow disaffected by voting procedures, business strategies or dividends payouts they may opt out of owning a portion of an enterprise by selling stock, a prerogative denied to democratic voters who must acquiesce to government spending plans and policies—regardless of consent—lest they risk jail or emigration. The intrinsic tenuousness of property ownership in a democratic system and the inability to extricate oneself and possessions from possible confiscation accelerates the temptation to seize other people’s goods.
Bastiat argues that the onset of universal plunder undermines the purpose of law, in his view the collective organization of the individual right to defense of life, liberty and property. The moment law is perverted to engineer ends contrary to individual liberty, e.g., enshrining the notion individuals are entitled to a portion of each other’s property absent voluntary agreement, the conversion pits morality versus the adulterated law. Thus, moral chaos is the outcome of democratization, as one must either relinquish respect for the law or compromise moral sense.
The divergence between morality and democratic rule can be observed in legal positivism, the notion that right and wrong are absent prior to the introduction of legislation. Legislation attenuates predictability of law as the free entry into government and the intrinsic fluidity of political priorities ensure the governing process reflects the most urgent desires of policy-makers and the electorate, irrespective of the long-term ramifications of the enacted rules. Furthermore, the emergence of public or administrative law, which exempts government agents from individual culpability when exercising their sanctioned duties, enables the state's workforce to engage in behaviors that no other individual may commit licitly. Lew Rockwell cites a few euphemisms where the state excused itself from the laws it professes to uphold, such as kidnapping posing as selective service, counterfeiting masquerading as monetary policy and mass murder sold as foreign policy[v].
Consequently, law is not considered negative—inimical to injustice as Bastiat would have it—much less universal, eternally bestowed, discoverable by man and anterior to the institution of government. Bastiat asserts that the prior existence of life, liberty, and property is the impetus for enacting laws in the first place. Moreover, the demarcation between right and wrong and the very definition of crime is obfuscated and debased by the inexhaustible and transitory adoption and amendment of legislative diktat and the bifurcation of law codes applicable to the rulers and the ruled.
In sum, the unique characteristics of democratic government tend, according to Hoppe, Bastiat and others, to accelerate rising time preference, decivilization, and the incidence of crime to the detriment of private property, voluntary production and exchange, individual responsibility and even morality.
Why then do Messrs. Bush, Wolfowitz, and any other politicians, statesmen or bureaucrats get away with inaugurating recurring conflicts and administer an ever-expanding vehicle of coercion and plunder? The fundamental rules and ethos of democratic government impel man's innate inclination toward self-preservation and self-development to not only produce, trade and safeguard his own possessions but also employ legal theft to acquire more property from others.
Politicians and their deputies are merely the best at exploiting the system's impaired moral climate to organize the state's confiscatory arm to serve their backer's interests.
Democratic government inherently has a short term time preference and will inevitably lead to socialism...
I disagree. Such generality is hardly supportable. It might be worth noting that the monarchies of Europe have kept pace with democrats in embracing socialism.
Democracy presents the worst combination because it is a territorial monopolist while being publicly owned.
I agree that it "presents the worst combination." Setting aside exactly what that combination is, I disagree that it is because it is both a territorial monopolist and publicly owned. I agree however that "temporary caretakers of government have no incentive to consider the long term ramifications of their policies." But disagree that "warfare tends to be worse when fought by democracies."
With a few variations, I find myself switching back and forth throughout your entire posted reply, until the last paragraph. There you say:
The ideal system would be that of non-monopolistic privately owned protective services competing with each other for citizen-subscribers. How a society gets to that point I do not know. But perhaps that will be the next phase of the evolution of Western civilization.
On this we are in complete agreement. This was one of many considerations under serious consideration with in the Libertarian Party when it still had education as one of its primary purposes. That of course ended when the out of touch with reality dreamers took over in 1984. They moved the LP away from education to focus on their silly notion of winning elections and focusing on recruiting rightwing conservatives to the Party. Today, the LP is fast becoming as much a part of the problem as are the Republican and Democratic Parties. Though not quite yet.
Sounds like the old maxim of crooks everywhere: "When you are skinning the customer, leave some skin to grow back ... that way you get to skin them again!"
The remaining monarchs of Europe hardly deserve the name - only in Lichenstein and Monanco do they have any remaining power. The parliaments - throughly democratic organs have all the power.
But disagree that "warfare tends to be worse when fought by democracies."
This is a historical fact, so disagree all you want.
Check out EVK-L Monarchy and War it is also central to his thesis in Leftism Revisited and Liberty or Equality
Even absent those works tho one has to recognize the 20th century was famous for two things - mass murder by government and democracy.
Remember that the French First Republic introduced conscription into warfare.
Their Monarchy failed because we forced it to. Same as Germany's. President Wilson refused to deal with Monarchies during the First World War. Insisting on a regime change in both counties before we would consider any peace with them. That the Wiemar republic was unbalanced was only because it was more purely democratic even then our own system, political power was based on a total percentage of votes. It's often been argued that the Nazi's took over Germany extrademocratically because they never got a complete majority of votes, and had to form a coalition government. But as far as I know, no party ever got a full majority of votes. And since it was a choice between Hitler or Bolshevism it's pretty clear our entry into the First World War, and it's subsequent transformation into a crusade for Democracy, was the direct cause of Hitler.
People often express wonder that a culture, ostensibly as civilized as Germany's could descend into such animalism so quickly. It really should surprise no one. Germany and Austria were civilized under their Monarchies, and then were forcibly pushed into the democratic law of the jungle, and the result was Nazism (or theoretically Bolshevism, but will never know how that would have turned out).
Your standard for defining a historic fact seems quite lacking. Maybe you might consider first using a dictionary and then reading a little science and history, before spouting off about what is or is not a "fact."
the 20th century was famous for two things - mass murder by government and democracy.
Setting aside the point that I do not agree with any part of what you say here, mass murder occurred quite regularly in other centuries. Monarchies have carried out such killings no less than democratic states have. I find that highlighting the mass murder in warfare of the 20th century as opposed to other centuries is comparatively more hype than representative of what actually occurred.
While the Soviets did carry mass murder to a new height in the general conduct of their wars, for others it was more of a punctuation than a general practice. The same general practices in warfare with similar punctuation of mass murder can be found to have occurred equally in prior wars of other centuries, including monarchist lead wars. The only difference is that the exceptional punctuations of mass murder do not get repeated as often and are not presented as a central point of history in those wars. Additionally, while the numbers of those slaughtered are generally greater in the 20th century, the percentages are not.
Thats only because democracies employ vast armies made up of a bellicose citizenry who are trained to literally hate the enemy (as opposed to monarchical warfare where the enemy is usually respected as a fighter and a gentleman). Before the resurrection of republicanism (I'll place that during the English civil-war) armies were privately owned entities. When countries went to war it was the governments (in the form of the Monarchs and Aristocrats) fighting each other, not the people.
In a democracy however, since the people are the government, warfare is between two peoples and takes one the qualities of the total war which we see in modern times.
It can be argued that the number of combatants, or the high percentage of civilian casualties in modern war are the result of technological developments rather then any particular logica belli. However one major difference between democratic warfare and monarchical warfare, that cannot be denied is the relative ease with which monarchies make peace with each other. War between two democracies, is however a war between to peoples and the enmity of the masses can almost never be overcome save through unconditional serenader, and even then the tendency of cruelty towards the conquered is a major feature of democratic warfare.
Consider for instance the frequent agitation to "Nuke" the dirty Arabs. This may be merely the letting off of steam among frustrated individuals. But it is still a ridiculously anti-Christian attitude. Ask yourself honestly if you would vote for someone who advocated such a policy, assuming he made the arguments seem good. Would you vote for such a person?
We have one good simultaneous example of how democracies react in wartime and how monarchies react, World War I.
"We spoke already about the indoctrination of draftees, which, naturally, becomes important in a time of war. An even greater evil is the fact that, since the recruits are taken from the population at large, the people itself has to be indoctrinated, in other words, made to hate the enemy collectively. For this purpose, modern governments invoke the support of the mass media, which then inform the populace about the evil of the enemy (with little or no regard for the truth). The attack stresses the wickedness and inferiority of the hostile nation and the evil deeds committed by its armed forces, which consists of cowards, a low breed recruited from a fiendish people."
(my that sounds familiar, but for another time)
"In the First World War, the Western Allies, being more democratic, were also more skilled in organizing collective hatreds. Taking advantage of the stupidity of the masses (everywhere!), they could print almost anything, and even the silliest accounts, for instance that German soldiers cut off the hands of Belgian babies, were readily believed.
Louis Raemaekers, a Dutchman in the service of the Allies, produced incredibly nauseating etchings depicting atrocities committed by the German Army. One of the worst showed a naked French girl crucified and spat upon by bespectacled, unshaven German soldiers. Nothing like it was manufactured by the Central Powers.31
In a memorable book, Georges Bernanos described the idiocies of French war propaganda of the period. According to Bernanos, the French were told that the German bodies on the battlefield had a worse stench than those of the French, and that the Germans were ridiculous cowards who would not dare to interrupt the cozy life of the French poilus in their trenches. It was deceitful propaganda of the worst kind.32 (Yet, during the French mutinies in 1917, entire batallions were decimated, i.e., every 10th man was executed. The war, therefore, was not so entertaining or cozy at all.)
31 There were also hate-expressions current among the people of the Central Powers like the hate-poem of Ernst Lissauer. Slogans like Gott strafe England! (God punish England!) and Serbien muss sterbien! (Serbia must die!) were frequently repeated, but nobody invented such nonsense as calling Sauerkraut “Liberty Cabbage” or German Shepherd dogs “Alsatians.”
In England, people even burned German pianos, and put badger dogs to sleep to prevent their torture by children. In the United States, teachers stopped teaching German. Those who taught German enjoyed a sabbatical, and then had to teach Spanish.
32 See Georges Bernanos, La grande peur des bien-pensants (Paris: Grasset, 1949), pp. 414–18. Bernanos, a devout Catholic and monarchist, characterized World War I (in which he had partipated as a soldier), as “That famous, pitiless war of the pacifist and humanitarian democracies.”"
Journal of Libertarian Studies, " Monarchy and War Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn pp. 13-16, Vol 15, No 1 Fall 2000.
French , I mean "freedom", fries anyone?
Democracies are still doing this, because it works.
THE MYTH OF NATIONAL DEFENSE: ESSAYS ON THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF SECURITY PRODUCTION
What collosal arrogance we have.
Worked for a longer time than anything else?? The US Constitution is a scant 216 years old give or take, the Holy Roman Empire stood for nearly 900 years (if you exclude Charlemange and the Autrian-Hungarian Empire which would make it more like 1200 years), about 600 of those years under the guidance of Hapsburgs.
Saxon dynasty
Otto I, 936–73
Otto II, 973–83
Otto III, 983–1002
Henry II, 1002–24
Salian or Franconian dynasty
Conrad II, 1024–39
Henry III, 1039–56
Henry IV, 1056–1105
Henry V, 1105–25
Lothair II, duke of Saxony, 1125–37
Hohenstaufen dynasty and rivals
Conrad III, 1138–52
Frederick I, 1152–90
Henry VI, 1190–97
Philip of Swabia, 1198–1208
antiking: Otto IV (Guelph), 1198–1208
Otto IV (king, 1208–12; emperor, 1209–15), 1208–15
Frederick II (king, 1212–20; emperor, 1220–50), 1212–50
Conrad IV, 1237–54
antiking: Henry Raspe, 1246–47
antiking: William, count of Holland, 1247–56
Interregnum, 1254–73
Richard, earl of Cornwall, and Alfonso X of Castile, rivals
Hapsburg, Luxemburg, and other dynasties
Rudolf I (Hapsburg), 1273–91
Adolf of Nassau, 1292–98
Albert I (Hapsburg), 1298–1308
Henry VII (Luxemburg), 1308–13
Louis IV (Wittelsbach), 1314–46
Charles IV (Luxemburg), 1346–78
Wenceslaus (Luxemburg), 1378–1400
Rupert (Wittelsbach), 1400–1410
Sigismund (Luxemburg), 1410–37
Hapsburg dynasty
Albert II, 1438–39
Frederick III, 1440–93
Maximilian I, 1493–1519
Charles V, 1519–58
Ferdinand I, 1558–64
Maximilian II, 1564–76
Rudolf II, 1576–1612
Matthias, 1612–19
Ferdinand II, 1619–37
Ferdinand III, 1637–57
Leopold I, 1658–1705
Joseph I, 1705–11
Charles VI, 1711–40
Interregnum (1740–42) and other dynasties
Charles VII (Wittelsbach-Hapsburg), 1742–45
Francis I (Lorraine), 1745–65
Hapsburg-Lorraine dynasty
Joseph II, 1765–90
Leopold II, 1790–92
Francis II, 1792–1806
If the mass murder of the 20th century is indictative of your progress, you can keep it.
The other things you list have nothing to do with what form the government takes but it is indictative of the mindset of democratists
The reality is of course that Western civilization has been living off the capital built up by Catholic civilization for 400 years now, it's pretty much spent at this point. Decivilization is is full swing and it can only end one way.
Perhaps, but keep in mind the signature saying of a late, prominent Catholic leader "Be not afraid!" We are enjoined against despair -- and to keep in mind that the world will always be out of joint because none of us are of this world.
You don't even want to open that door. You really want to compare the artistic output and culture of democracies vs monarchies?
Hold on, I'm laughing too hard.
Oh I'm not afraid, I know the Church will be there to pick up the pieces if Our Lord should tarry. It's just not going to be pretty going down.
I suspect that centuries ago, you would have inclined toward Dominican gravitas and pessimism, while I would have tended more toward Franciscan optimism and laughter -- or at least tried to.
Somehow I have a difficulty putting microwavable TV dinners and St. Francis in a single coherent image.
Well, imagine you are the set of "The Name of the Rose," and in a break from the shooting, your pal Sean Connery -- in Dominican robes of course -- offers you a microwaved dinner from his trailer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.