Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Myth of Limited Government
Lew Rockwell.com ^ | Jan. 2001 | Joe Sobran

Posted on 11/14/2002 11:12:52 AM PST by u-89

The Myth of 'Limited Government'
by Joseph Sobran

We are taught that the change from monarchy to democracy is progress; that is, a change from servitude to liberty. Yet no monarchy in Western history ever taxed its subjects as heavily as every modern democracy taxes its citizens.

But we are taught that this condition is liberty, because "we" are ? freely ? taxing "ourselves." The individual, as a member of a democracy, is presumed to consent to being taxed and otherwise forced to do countless things he hasn?t chosen to do (or forbidden to do things he would prefer not to do).

Whence arises the right of a ruler to compel? This is a tough one, but modern rulers have discovered that a plausible answer can be found in the idea of majority rule. If the people rule themselves by collective decision, they can?t complain that the government is oppressing them. This notion is summed up in the magic word "democracy."

It?s nonsense. "We" are not doing it to "ourselves." Some people are still ruling other people. "Democracy" is merely the pretext for authorizing this process and legitimizing it in the minds of the ruled. Since outright slavery has been discredited, "democracy" is the only remaining rationale for state compulsion that most people will accept.

Now comes Hans-Hermann Hoppe, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas, to explode the whole idea that there can ever be a just state. And he thinks democracy is worse than many other forms of government. He makes his case in his new book Democracy ? The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order (Transaction Publishers).

Hoppe is often described as a libertarian, but it might be more accurate to call him a conservative anarchist. He thinks the state ? "a territorial monopoly of compulsion" ? is inherently subversive of social health and order, which can thrive only when men are free.

As soon as you grant the state anything, Hoppe argues, you have given it everything. There can be no such thing as "limited government," because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power (and can simply expand its own power).

We?ve tried. We adopted a Constitution that authorized the Federal Government to exercise only a few specific powers, reserving all other powers to the states and the people. It didn?t work. Over time the government claimed the sole authority to interpret the Constitution, then proceeded to broaden its own powers ad infinitum and to strip the states of their original powers ? while claiming that its self-aggrandizement was the fulfillment of the "living" Constitution. So the Constitution has become an instrument of the very power it was intended to limit!

The growth of the Federal Government might have been slowed if the states had retained the power to withdraw from the confederation. But the Civil War established the fatal principle that no state could withdraw, for any reason. So the states and the people lost their ultimate defense against Federal tyranny. (And if they hadn?t, there would still have been the problem of the tyranny of individual states.) But today Americans have learned to view the victory of the Union over the states, which meant an enormous increase in the centralization of power, as a triumph of "democracy."

Hoppe goes so far as to say that democracy is positively "immoral," because "it allows for A and B to band together to rip off C." He argues that monarchy is actually preferable, because a king has a personal interest in leaving his kingdom in good condition for his heirs; whereas democratic rulers, holding power only briefly, have an incentive to rob the public while they can, caring little for what comes afterward. (The name "Clinton" may ring a bell here.)

And historically, kings showed no desire to invade family life; but modern democracies want to "protect" children from their parents. By comparison with the rule of our alleged equals, most kings displayed remarkably little ambition for power. And compared with modern war, the wars of kings were mere scuffles.

Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: democracy; hoppe; sobran
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last
Not sure why the ? appears where there should be '. Must be a html thing.
1 posted on 11/14/2002 11:12:52 AM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: u-89
Right on Target.
2 posted on 11/14/2002 11:13:52 AM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: u-89
"Yet no monarchy in Western history ever taxed its subjects as heavily as every modern democracy taxes its citizens"

An interesting concept.
3 posted on 11/14/2002 11:16:02 AM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
"Yet no monarchy in Western history ever taxed its subjects as heavily as every modern democracy taxes its citizens"

Interesting concept, indeed. Seems that Joe's forgotten the basic rules of the feudal system.

4 posted on 11/14/2002 11:20:31 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
now it isn't suprising that you are the first one I ping to this, is it?
5 posted on 11/14/2002 11:20:37 AM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: u-89
Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves.

Well said.

6 posted on 11/14/2002 11:21:29 AM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: u-89
And historically, kings showed no desire to invade family life; but modern democracies want to "protect" children from their parents.

Not true - check out the Prussians. Among other invasions, their government required a report on the menstrual cycle of every married woman, and imposed penalties if a woman wasn't pregnant quickly enough.

By comparison with the rule of our alleged equals, most kings displayed remarkably little ambition for power.

Pish! Most of them just didn't have the technology and communications infrastructure to sieze the power they wanted.

A smart man, Joe, but ...

7 posted on 11/14/2002 11:33:27 AM PST by Tax-chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: u-89
Perhaps we've got socialism confused with democracy here.

Prior to WWI there was no income tax (a temporary measure to finance the war), SS#s, FBI, FCC, etc. People didn't have formal credit (except the rich) and thus worked and lived on a cash/barter basis.

The computer age has inpinged quite nicely on the privacy of the citizenry. Now we've got records and documentation to bite us in the rump we could never have foreseen. Most of which, but not all, revolving around our SS#.

No avoiding these things either. Can't get a job without your SS# and possibly a credit check. Try to get a loan to buy a house or car without having a prior credit record.

Regarding expenses: It ain't cheap to operate and maintain a globally dominant military presence. No monarchy ever tried that AND guarantee a dignified retirement AND spend itself into such a hole of debt in history like our democracy has.
8 posted on 11/14/2002 11:44:50 AM PST by Jake0001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Yes - rather historically stupid. First of all on taxes. Kings taxed very heavily and very brutally. Tax Collectors were often free agents who demanded even higher taxes than the King demanded becasue they kept a part of the money collected. And one shouldn't forget the "duties" different classes within these monarchny systems were forced to perform- wether it be military service from the gentry to public works labor from the lower classes- without pay and up to several months out of the year. That may not be a "tax" but it prevents one from earning for ones self. As for wars not being as rough and tumble as the mass wars of the 20th century- has Sobran ever heard of the first world war? That was largely a war of Monarchs- the last breath from that era. As soon as kings had the technology- they raised mass armies and fought a mass war.
9 posted on 11/14/2002 11:47:31 AM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jake0001
Ever here of the British Empire?
10 posted on 11/14/2002 11:49:16 AM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen
ping
11 posted on 11/14/2002 11:51:42 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
As soon as you grant the state anything, Hoppe argues, you have given it everything. There can be no such thing as "limited government," because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power (and can simply expand its own power)

Finally, finally, somebody who gets it. Thank you for posting and pinging, KC. Obviously, as a monarchist myself I couldn't agree more.

12 posted on 11/14/2002 11:53:41 AM PST by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: u-89
I don't believe that we can devise a form of government that can run on autopilot. Self-government means just that; you have to keep your eyes open and your hands on the wheel. I think that is where we as a people have failed. Too many of us have let the politicians con us into letting them have the wheel. Now the idea of taking care of oneself seems bizarre. Until more of us get back to being truly self reliant we will have this problem regardless of our form of government.
13 posted on 11/14/2002 11:54:34 AM PST by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alpowolf
"I don't believe that we can devise a form of government that can run on autopilot. Self-government means just that; you have to keep your eyes open and your hands on the wheel. I think that is where we as a people have failed. Too many of us have let the politicians con us into letting them have the wheel. Now the idea of taking care of oneself seems bizarre. Until more of us get back to being truly self reliant we will have this problem regardless of our form of government."

And there lies the source of the problem exposed in all its naked ugliness. I have had the bad habit for most of my life of speaking out against government oppression and mostly what it got me is ridicule. Some people agreed with me but were not interested in lifting a finger and most seemed to think I was just a kook. Freedom is only possible for an educated people who understand and believe in it and that rules out the majority of today's "citizens."
14 posted on 11/14/2002 12:07:20 PM PST by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
The changing forms of acceptable representation in government aren't spoken of in this otherwise fine article on this book.

In days of yore, the citizen free-holder in various lands thought of his soverign or aristocrat as being more worthy of representing him because he distrusted (rightly in most cases) the ability, constancy or independence of motive of his peers. His "participation" in the particapatory aspects of his age was in support of those so vested.

In our modern "particapatory" representation we have devolved from Deliberative Representation to a desire for Pliebistitory Delagate, and sometimes further, to desires to personally attend to every issue with the whim of the moment and the command of the democratic demogogue.

15 posted on 11/14/2002 12:11:55 PM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Interesting concept, indeed. Seems that Joe's forgotten the basic rules of the feudal system.

Either I misunderstand your reply, or we have different facts.

Serfs paid about 25%. We pay over 50%. Seems to me Sobran's got it right.

16 posted on 11/14/2002 12:17:15 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
I think is limiting his analysis to absolute monarchy, otherwise, of course, one could ask: what about the Kingdom of Sweden?
17 posted on 11/14/2002 12:19:46 PM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
For that matter, Napoleon was a monarch both in effective power and in title (after crowning himself Emperor), and he created modern national war mobilization.
18 posted on 11/14/2002 12:25:11 PM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Ever here of the British Empire

When the British tried it they were still on gold. We are paying for it with fiat and expecting currency manipulation to lessen the damage. When the rest of the worlds gets tired of fiat dollar games we got a problem
19 posted on 11/14/2002 12:31:34 PM PST by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
the Constitution has become an instrument of the very power it was intended to limit!

For me, this is the point. The Constitution has been turned on its head; instead of providing a limitation on the power of government to regulate the lives of the citizens, it has now been twisted to limit the freedom of the citizens and to 'grant' unlimited authority to government. And the corrupt judiciary has been part and parcel of the shift.

20 posted on 11/14/2002 12:36:39 PM PST by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Well- let's examine absolute Monarchs then. The Russian Czars were absolute and as their power became even more absolute and consilidated Serfdom actually got worse until it resembled American slavery by it's final years (where serfs could be bought and sold at markets and were no longer merely tied to the land). Further- Russia expanded and conquered most of it's territory while under the rule of these absolute monarchs (as did the Austro- Hungarian empire). Chinese Emperors waged wars with millions of troops even before guns or cannon had been invented and decimated entire populations. The Mayan Kings and the Aztecs- both waged war on mass scale- mobilizing the entire population for the effort.

I think the argument is highly flawed that Monarchs are "less intrusive" and or wage war less than "Democracies".

21 posted on 11/14/2002 12:39:59 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I have never, ever, heard of this, and I have studied Prussia rather extensively. Do you have a source for this?

Prussia was generally considered the most "liberal" of the German monarchies -- so much so that the 1848 revolutionaries offered the crown of a united Germany to King Friedrich Wilhelm IV. Even in the 18th century, Prussia was thought of very highly by both the English (generally reputed to have been the most free among all Europeans) and the Americans. There were some in the Continental Congress who seriously entertained the idea of offering the crown of an American monarchy to Heinrich of Prussia, the King's brother.

With respect to the technology issue, Russia under Lenin and Stalin, and Germany under Hitler, were able to execute, starve, and brutalise tens of millions of people with technology that had already been in existence during the previous, constitutional (and monarchical) governments.

22 posted on 11/14/2002 12:42:09 PM PST by Goetz_von_Berlichingen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
"As for wars not being as rough and tumble as the mass wars of the 20th century- has Sobran ever heard of the first world war? That was largely a war of Monarchs- the last breath from that era."

The Great War was started by ministers, rather than monarchs. The main instigator of Russian mobilisation had been the French emissary to the Tsar. If it were left up to the Tsar and Kaiser Wilhelm, there probably would not have been a war at all.

23 posted on 11/14/2002 12:47:30 PM PST by Goetz_von_Berlichingen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: u-89
Yet no monarchy in Western history ever taxed its subjects as heavily as every modern democracy taxes its citizens.

The French under the last few Louis's were taxed heavier than we are, by far.

It caused a revolution.

Walt

24 posted on 11/14/2002 12:49:12 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: u-89
We adopted a Constitution that authorized the Federal Government to exercise only a few specific powers, reserving all other powers to the states and the people. It didn?t work.

The Constitution doesn't do that.

But...Americans drive automobiles on the Moon. Is anybody else going to do that any time soon?

25 posted on 11/14/2002 12:50:48 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: u-89
The growth of the Federal Government might have been slowed if the states had retained the power to withdraw from the confederation.

The states never had that power -- except by revolution. The Supreme Court ruled on that as early as 1793. The Judiciary Act of 1789 requires that "controversies of a civil nature" between the states be submitted to the Supreme Court. Lastly (until the usual suspects show up) the Militia Act of 1792 requires that United States law operate in all the states.

The states have never had a right to withdraw from the Union under U.S. law.

Walt

27 posted on 11/14/2002 12:54:38 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcochran
I doubt it. There wasn't that much to spare. Taxes were lower before the machine age because they had to be: it took several farmers to feed a non-farmer. Farmers didn't have that much to spare. Todaay, a small fraction of the nation's work hours provides all the necessities, so there's a lot more surplus to play with. The government levies higher taxes today because it can.

If you read some of the accounts of the tax collectors in France, you might not think so.

Ironically, the Frogs bankrupted themselves into revolution in order to help us out against the Brits.

Walt

28 posted on 11/14/2002 12:56:30 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
And the corrupt judiciary has been part and parcel of the shift.

While I imagine that you used the term "corrupt" as one readily at hand, I do wish the problem was that simple with that branch.

The activist judiciary we have is every bit as much a danger to the Rule of Law and legitiment government when animated by leftist ideals as it was when acting to support reactionary agendas, like Dred Scott, in the last century.

The Tempting of America by Robert Bork is an excellent study of this issue.

If it was nothing but "corruption", impeachment and other measures might address it. Instead, it is a foundational perversion of the role of a judiciary.

29 posted on 11/14/2002 12:57:27 PM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen
If it were left up to the Tsar and Kaiser Wilhelm, there probably would not have been a war at all.

I dunno. Kaiser Bill couldn't wait to get it on.

Walt

30 posted on 11/14/2002 12:57:42 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves.

Well said.

--------------------------------

Yeh, I really liked that line too.

31 posted on 11/14/2002 12:58:19 PM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: u-89
Hans-Hermann Hoppe appears to have missed all the developments in economics over the last 25 years and is stuck in Economics 101.

A state is defined conventionally as an agency that exercises a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decison-making (jurisdiction) and of taxation. By definition then, every state, regardless of its particular constitution, is economically and ethically deficient. Every monopolist is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers.

That's a static example, with one good, which is private. Both cited powers are public rather than private goods.

So much for the "theory" of the state.

32 posted on 11/14/2002 12:59:52 PM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimt
You seem to think that Serfs were "share croppers". They were not. Even under the best form of Serfdom in England or in France Serfs didn't keep 75% of their crop (what would they do with it? Eat it? Not likely.) Serfs worked land as slaves with "rights" on paper and by tradition that may have been respected by their Lord- or not. ONe can't compare the "tax rates" of a Serf who wasn't even working his own land- not allowed to accumulate land, wealth, or pass anything on to his Children- to a modern a American citizen.

Totally off subject but: It is interesting to note as well that Serfdom declined in Western Europe faster than the Center or the East because of one event- The Black Death. The Plauge hit Western Europe much more severely than the rest of Europe (England suffered perhaps worst of all.) There were places in Western Europe were entire villages disappeared off the map and were swallowed by the wilderness again. This massive de-population of Western Europe gave the remaining Serfs power- their labor was needed and they could demand wages and even land titles for their labor from a landed class that had land but no hands to work it. The free, Western Europeon yeoman farmer was born from out of the ashes of the black death- and this class in turn generated a need for property rights law- real estate law- more sophisticated inheritence laws- indeed- created a demand for the rule of law, courts and officers to enforce law. One can trace a line from the birth of this new post Black Death class of free farmers and their "common law" to our Constitution.

33 posted on 11/14/2002 1:02:18 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
The Costitution was tossed in the toilet when the Senate became elected instead of appointed by state governors. This made the states incapable of stopping any excess of the federal government and led to the little monarchs we have in the senate today.

This single change allowed the states to be loaded up with mandates with no end in sight.

All these arcane senate rules were designed to allow the states/governors to block onerous legislation. The filibuster was specifically to be used by state's senators to prevent big states from mandating things small states didn't want or couldn't do/afford.

Small changes mean a lot.

snooker
34 posted on 11/14/2002 1:02:59 PM PST by snooker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen
Well- thats a bit of a false argument isn't it? Are you saying that WWI wasn't the result of "true Monarchism" much like leftists say that "real communism" wasn't Stalinism? Communists in the Gulags used to blame their arrest and torture on "ministers" as well and would moan "if only Stalin knew what was going on!"
35 posted on 11/14/2002 1:05:48 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
accounts of the tax collectors

Pretty loathsome bunch those tax collectors. I read once about why in Jesus' days tax collectors were so despised. The Romans used some locals to collect the taxes and had a rate set for themselves and gave authority to certain chaps to get it and with this power these agents raked people over the coals and the Romans didn't care as long as they got theirs. The tax collectors got weallthy at the expense of their fellow citizens. Matthew, I believe was a tax collector, seems he had good reason to repent.

36 posted on 11/14/2002 1:15:48 PM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
War, unlike tango, does not require two. It only requires one who is sufficiently pushy. That would be the French. They invaded Germany in 1870 and got their heads handed to them. As a result, they lost two provinces that had been stolen by Napoleon in the first place. So they wanted to get even, and enlisted the Tsar's government in their scheme.

In a supporting role, perfidious Albion, which hasn't been a proper monarchy since the Stuarts went away.
37 posted on 11/14/2002 1:17:06 PM PST by Goetz_von_Berlichingen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
My recollection is that Bismarck got canned for, essentially, trying to talk Kaiser Bill into making policy based on rational thought instead of overcompensation for his bad arm.
38 posted on 11/14/2002 1:20:12 PM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen
War, unlike tango, does not require two. It only requires one who is sufficiently pushy. That would be the French.

Er, the objective fact is that the Germans launched the invasion of France in 1914, not vice versa.

One might argue that the Germans were responding to French "pushiness", just as one might argue that the 9-11 Massacre was a response to American "imperialism". In either case, you'd better get your weight down to the point where it can be supported by the tensile strength of straws.

39 posted on 11/14/2002 1:25:06 PM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
This has been the English party line since 1914. Recent historiography (see The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson. Basic Books, 1998.) suggests the opposite.

The myth of German war guilt gave the western allies lots of leverage to bring the U.S. into the war. It also provided a moral justification for the peace that was dictated afterwards.

40 posted on 11/14/2002 1:26:17 PM PST by Goetz_von_Berlichingen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen
The myth of German war guilt gave the western allies lots of leverage to bring the U.S. into the war.

The Germans gambled that unrestricted submarine warfare would win the war for them before the resulting US involvement would win the war for the Allies. They lost their bet. Notions of "guilt" didn't really enter into the equation.

41 posted on 11/14/2002 1:30:21 PM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen
I think I read it in John Taylor Gatto, "Underground History of American Education." He'd have it footnoted. I can't swear it was Prussia, though, might have been some other Central European monarchy, although it seems to me that the emphasis on growing the fighting population fits well with the agressive policies of the Prussians. And the opinion of the 1848 revolutionaries, I don't find too persuasive :-).
42 posted on 11/14/2002 1:30:23 PM PST by Tax-chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I'm rather skeptical of that claim myself, but I do recall a rather more plausible assertion from several sources that the modern government school system was a Prussian invention.
43 posted on 11/14/2002 1:38:23 PM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Strictly speaking, the French launched an invasion of Germany, with the first battle taking place on 7 August, 1914. The Battle of Muhlhausen.

In any case, diplomatic cause and effect occur often behind the scenes, so the person who fires the first shot is not necessarily the one is responsible for the war.

The French minister to St. Petersburg assured the Tsar that he could mobilise the Russian army while the French threat would prevent Germany from supporting Austria. Had a person like Bismarck been in charge of German policy, there is a good chance that this is the way things would have turned out. In such a scenario, Russia could have dismembered Austria-Hungary, annexed the eastern Slavic portions, and left Deutsch-Oesterriech, Bohemia and Moravia to Prussia.

Such an outcome would have been entirely consistent with Bismarckian policy.
44 posted on 11/14/2002 1:39:09 PM PST by Goetz_von_Berlichingen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: u-89
This is such a pile of hysterical garbage I don't even know where to start.
45 posted on 11/14/2002 1:56:20 PM PST by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
The Roman emperors also intervened heavily in family life. Hoppe and Sobran entirely ignore "oriental despotisms," the terribly oppressive regimes under which much of the world's population has lived. It's a very "Eurocentric" perspective.
46 posted on 11/14/2002 2:21:15 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Good argument. They could counter that emperors wouldn't have had the power of mass drafts if the French Revolution hadn't led the way. It's not an entirely convincing counterargument though.

Hoppe's argument follows Bertrand de Jouvenel's analyis in "On Power." It's an intriguing analysis of how the French Revolution made governments more powerful and intrusive, but it relies too much on the experience of Northwestern Europe to become a generalizable law.

47 posted on 11/14/2002 2:27:08 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: u-89
Check your encoding for the "'" and "?" thing. Your computer may be set to another character system, rather than Western.

Sobran has come out in favor of anarchy. He's no longer a reliable source of creditable opinion.

48 posted on 11/14/2002 2:31:41 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: u-89
There are so many factual errors here, I can't imagine where to begin. (Kings that taxed were considered "moderate", most just viewed everything and everybody in their Kingdom as their own property.)

But, this will lend support to a theory I've been developing about libertarians and their worldview. They view society as not only unnecessary, but also as harmful to liberty. To a libertarian, any form of government above and beyond personal choice is the same as the most tyrannical government imaginable.

Most "libertarians" on this site wail and anguish about returning to the Constitution, and yet if they were alive in the 1790's they would wail and anguish about returning to the Articles of Confederation. And under the Articles, they would wail and anguish about their State not being sovereign. And if their State were completely soveriegn, they would wail and anguish about living in a tyranny.

"Libertarians" don't want anybody telling them what to do under any circumstance imaginable. This author seems to have found the truth of his own convictions.

49 posted on 11/14/2002 2:34:04 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen
Strictly speaking, the French launched an invasion of Germany, with the first battle taking place on 7 August, 1914. The Battle of Muhlhausen.

Yeh, but even if this didn't happen because of alliance when a state of war existed between Germany and Russia France was involved and it would be sound for Germany to hit France hard and try and take them out before Russia could fully mobilize. One reason our founders warned against entangling alliances but even without legal alliances look at the example of WW2. We are officially neutral yet are aiding Britain who is at war with Germany. When Japan went to war with both the US and GB we became allies in war together against Japan. Under this guise we could massively aid Britain legally while still not being at war with Germany but our aid would not have to be limited to the Pacific Theatre. So we could aid them in N.Afrika as well as the home isles. Under these circumstances with large amounts of US shipping going into a hot war zone it would be only time before FDR would of had an incident to justify a war with Germany. Hitler realizing this decided to try and get some advantage out of the situation and declared war on us showing good faith with Japan hoping that they would reciprocate against Russia. The long and the short of this is that under a democracy, monarchy or any other system we're screwed.

50 posted on 11/14/2002 2:40:20 PM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson