Democracy: the God that failed

I assume that you are referring the problem of defending a place living under such rules. I would argue that the problem of subjunction to outside forces has become pretty much obsolete in the modern world. This period in our history was related to monarchy in ways that Hoppe describes quite well. It is almost over.

There are several reasons why this should be true and why it applies especially to the United State today.

To start with, the idea of an invasion of the United States is absurd. Our North American redoubt is virtually invulnerable to attack and there is no enemy which could even think of attacking, even if our armed forces were close to non-existent. As I said, a few warheads to pay homage to the God of MAD are quite sufficient.

It is possible that in, say 2020 or 2030, China could develop a real threat. If so, then deal with it when it happens. Why waste money on hardware today? It'll be obsolete before it could possibly become useful. It also retards the growth of our economy.

War has also become close to obsolete. National boundaries are pretty much inviolate. These days empires break up instead of being assembled. The last country to be annexed was Tibet. 42 years ago. Even in this case, China felt obliged to make to cover up the invasion by claiming that it is actually belonged to China, a claim that does, in fact, have some (weak) historical merit.

Many countries do not have armed forces. One good example is Costa Rica. Not by coincidence, the place is far more peaceful than any of its neighbors.

The observation has been made that democracies do not go to was with each other. This is probably because they need to demonize the enemy in order to wage war, as Hoppe observes. In fact, democracy makes a country virtually immune to invasion as well. The last invasion of an advanced country goes back to the Second World War.

Conclusion: armed forced are not really necessary, especially not here. They do, however, constitute a serious provocation to other people and nations. And they do represent a serious threat to our liberty. War is the health of the state.

My point was more that the Founders devised a system that could survive and expand while another would not have. You may have a point about the present situation. But it seems like every prolonged period of peace produces the feeling that we have put war behind us. Events have not been kind to such noble hopes. Societies that think they have outgrown war may become the victims of those who still practice it. Costa Rica or Norway may be admirable societies, but they benefit from the fact that others have armies that may be used to defend them.

thanks for the note. ok on currency -- we can use gold -- i can live with that. ok on roads -- let the states do those -- although quite frankly i was thinking in terms of military: move troops from one of the country to another.

even confederacies need to have relations with other countries. perhaps foreign policy is too harsh a word. i am looking for some type of diplomatic relationships. yes, ambassadors are needed.

i disagree with you on the military. we need a strong military that protects our borders and interests. without such a military we set ourselves wide open for those who want to pillage our great land. i laud you for taking this view in spite of 911 -- you are truly a man of principles -- but i have held mine prior to 911 as well. people will not invest if they think that some foreign power can come in a take things away -- a fate worse than taxes.

thanks for the debate -- as oreilly has said, you can have the last word

For democracy not to become dangerous there MUST be limits imposed on it. In particular basic individual rights must be unalienable above all else. Mob rule without limits is extremely dangerous and is what “democracy” becomes if not balanced against the individual. Germany dispensed with the individual and defined everything in terms of groups to become what it was in the 1930's. It is no accident the left is assaulting the individual in favor of groups.

At least that's my opinion...

Plato's Republic had a similar conclusion.

Here is an interesting debunking of the over simplification of Quigley in toto as a conspiracy advocate.

My objection to his inclusion in the original article was simply his association as Clinton's favorite professor, one he cited in his nomination acceptance speech.

Anything Clinton is suspect due to his corruption--B follows A.

Likewise, even from the same site as the original article there are many varied takes on Quigley and his supposed revelations.

The motives and effects of powerful interests will always be subject to debate. Simple explanations are therefore suspect to me as meant to propagandize or motivate people toward certain ends as envisioned by the person putting them forward. Likewise, the interlocking connections of the people of influence or in power in the world at large are easily deductable from the operation of any small society or group. From my first hand knowledge, local construction communities of businesses all have behind the scences influences, for example as do church congregations and universities. Why shouldn't the same exist in the world at large?

The questions are to do with degree. How effective, centrally organized, outcome driven, monolithic, thwartable or perverse are such associations? In my mind, like those smaller units we see in our own rhelms, I believe that they aren't the bugaboo that many present them as in their theories.

Can the processes of peoples through their states be short-circuited by such organizations? In the short run sure, but in the long run, with vibrant cultures, not in my opinion.

Two year old threads have some interesting things to read, don't they?

>> Democracy enables us to worship God freely, without interference.

I disagree. History has shown that democracy is destructive to rights. One of its tendencies is to grant privileges rather than enforce natural rights, and every granting process results in some form of disenfranchisement of some citizens from the ranks of free men. It is most troubling that we now live in a whimsical democracy, but from the beginning it was not so. Our founding fathers feared democracy, giving us instead a representative republic with a difficult amendment process to implement new federal powers. Here are a few quotes:

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found to be incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -- James Madison, Federalist Papers

"A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty . . . Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism . . . [democracy] pollutes the morals of the people before it swallows up their freedoms . . . There is no society without Jacobins; no free society without a formidable host of them; and no democracy whose powers they will not usurp, nor whose liberties, if it be not absurd to suppose a democracy can have any, they will not destroy. A nation must be exceedingly well educated in which the ignorant and the credulous are few . . . When it is said there may be a tyranny of the many as well as of the few, every democrat will yield at least a cold and speculative assent; but he will at all times act as if it were a thing incomprehensible, that there should be any evil to be apprehended in the uncontrolled power of the people.... The people, as a body, cannot deliberate. Nevertheless, they will feel an irresistible impulse to act, and their resolutions will be dictated to them by their demagogues. The consciousness, or the opinion, that they possess the supreme power will inspire inordinate passions; and the violent men, who are the most forward to gratify those passions, will be their favorites. What is called the government of the people is in fact too often the arbitrary power of such men." -- Fisher Ames

"I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives. It specifies & delineates the operations permitted to the federal government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry these into execution. Whatever of these enumerated objects is proper for a law, Congress may make the law; whatever is proper to be executed by way of a treaty, the President & Senate may enter into the treaty; whatever is to be done by a judicial sentence, the judges may pass the sentence. Nothing is more likely than that their enumeration of powers is defective. This is the ordinary case of all human works. Let us go on then perfecting it, by adding, by way of amendment to the Constitution, those powers which time & trial show are still wanting. " -- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas, Sep. 7, 1803

>>All democracies ultimately evolve towards fascism.

And so does a representative republic if its representatives are not bound by the chains of its constitution.