About book Democracy--The God That Failed: The Economics And Politics Of Monarchy, Democracy, And Natural Order (2001)
This is the second time that I read “Democracy the God that Failed”, by Hans-Herman Hoppe. The first time I gave it three stars. This time I upped its celestial rating by one star. It is a deep book. For most people it will be contrary to their sensibilities as proud Americans….and contrary to what they have been taught. For it is a critical “Austrian view of an American age”…. That is, it is an Austrian Economics school view of world democratization. Still, if one carefully looks to the US founders, one will find in their words a very prediction of what has come and is coming to pass as concerns democracy, according to Hoppe. Like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, many founders saw in democracy a catalyst for decivilization. Benjamin Franklin said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch…” John Adams said, “ There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.” Jefferson said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.” Madison said “Democracy is the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.” John Marshall said that “Between a balanced Republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” Patrick Henry said, “It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” Franklin also said, “When people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” And the founders were not the only ones who recognized the depredations of democracy. Oscar Wilde said that, “Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people. And Karl Marx in a rare moment of accurate insight said, “Democracy is the Road to Socialism.” Seeing this danger, the founders set up a Republic, informed by the Declaration, and bounded by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights meant to set up a filter between government and democracy and to limit the powers of government. They built a wall against tyranny that thwarted the governments’ drive for increasing power but proved ultimately to be tragically porous. What happened? Through time, government caretakers (elected officials) ignored the Constitution, and finding that being more “responsive” to the people also aligned with their own goals for greater power, began to institute more and more democratic reforms…. More and more programs that benefited the short time horizon of their term of office. More and more programs that set up dangerous dependencies but also assured election and re-election of the patrons. This democratic infusion ignited a process of decivilization which has direct bearing on the current chaotic political situation of the US and the world. Democratization, according to Hoppe was inevitable, as was that it would result in progressive decivilization-- in contrast to rule by monarchy. How then to account for the remarkable material success of the US and Western society other than recent times? The success has come despite democratization. So does Hoppe call for a return to monarchy? No, because first, monarchy now shattered cannot be reconstituted and second because monarchy, though less destructive than democracy, is also destructive to the natural order of man. And what is, says Hoppe, the natural order of man? It is “ordered anarchy” and other such terms including “private property anarchism,” “private property anarchism,” “anarcho-capitalism,” “private law society,” and “pure capitalism.” It is only in these systems, where territorial monopolists (governments) of all kinds have been abolished that man consistently leans toward greater peaceful prosperity and civilization. Meanwhile, both monarchy and democracy are both parasitic; differing only in that monarchy being a private parasitism is generally less destructive.*Hoppe makes a convincing case that the shorter time horizons of democracy leads to a chaotic tendency towards decivilization.* He makes a convincing case that democracy is inevitably redistributive and at enmity with principles of private property.* He makes a convincing case that private property rights lead to longer time horizons resulting in a steady rise of both prosperity and civilization.* He correctly points out that while crime results in only intermittent property rights violations, government property rights violations, presented as legitimate, are continual and inevitably increase over time.* He correctly upholds the importance of the family and of private property in enabling the progress of man, and its undermining to be a primary cause for his degradation. * He (inaccurately I think) fingers the democracy as the cause of the rise of total war, while ignoring other factors that have greater merit in determining this outcome.* He calls the US Constitution a “noble experiment” that has failed due to its fatal error of putting temporary and interchangeable caretakers, democratically elected, in charge of a nationwide monopoly of justice and protection. While he brings thought provoking evidence to this charge, I am not convinced that the noble experiment should be abandoned.So how do we stop and correct the process of decivilization before total chaos results? Hoppe says first and foremost that we must delegitimize the idea of majority rule and inculcate its alternative-- Natural Order-- based on the supreme principle of private property and powered by self determination and self rule. This will set into motion centrifugal forces of decentralization which is more amenable to natural order. Murkily, he insists that individuals and insurance institutions will be able to take over the traditional government role of protection and that a “secession” of the withdrawal of support for the central government union will ultimately be successful in accomplishing the abolition of government and the establishment of a private law society based on natural order. As you read “Democracy, the God that Failed” you may have difficulty with the appropriateness of Hoppe’s policy prescriptions, but you will be astounded at the accuracy of his analysis. You will be vigorously prodded to think anew about the efficacy of democracy as a vehicle for the progress of man.
Fantastic read and a must-know critique of democracy.Hoppe is relentless in showing how various facets of governing and state evolution are bound to enter an irredeemable downward spiral once democracy is adopted as a form of government. Broadly speaking many tendencies are correctly identified and make praxeological sense, but in practice praxeology is often out of synch with historical record and in the limit axiomatic deductions tend to be out of synch with actual human behavior. Still Hoppe’s analysis is well-worth knowing. Below is a quick run-down of small subset of his arguments. When comparing monarchy to democracy a few trends emerge. For example under monarchy the ruler treats the state as a private resource (to be passed down to his descendants). As such whatever the downsides the ruler at least cares about increasing resource’s value in the long term. In contrast, democratically elected ruler treats a country as a public resource with a short-term view of its value. It is a classic example of Hoppe’s famous ‘high time preference’ being more pronounced under democracy. Under any state (monarchy, democracy, theocracy) the tendency by the ruler(s) to ‘consume’ the country is present, but in addition under democracy the wealth redistribution tendencies within a country also noticeably increase. In another chapter Hoppe makes an argument that under monarchies wars tended to be mostly territorial affairs, while under democracy wars became ideological (aka ‘total’ war). While analyzing forms of gov’t as such, Hoppe touches upon a few peripheral subjects such as law vs. legislation, free immigration vs. forced integration, free trade, liberty vs. equality (incompatible according to Nisbet for example), public vs. private defense, state-provided safety net vs. community vs. family, natural law/rights, Locke and private property rights, secession and decentralization. Good stuff, you won’t be bored.Interestingly, secession argument seems like an Achilles heel for Hoppe’s central thesis. He makes an excellent case for how secession serves as a natural hedge against excesses of democracy but goes further and effectively advocates anarcho-capitalism. In my view secession IS an excellent hedge which must be incorporated into a successful democratic state to ensure long-term viability and survival. Hoppe argues that once secession is fully incorporated democracy itself is doomed. His reasoning is compelling but in the end I wasn’t convinced.Besides tactical points here and there my main objection to Hoppe is that his main thesis is in the end utopian. He shows how a specific ideal type of “state” can and should emerge over a long term. First of all it conflates “ought” and “is”, and secondly it ignores that in reality there will always be various flavors of governments, some will die out, some will evolve, some will morph into something else – expecting that human self-organization is bound to settle into a particular stable steady-state is a utopian vision at its worst. That said, the book is bulging with ideas, the footnotes merged with references are brilliant (akin to Popper’s in “Open Society and Its Enemies”), and finally you simply have to know Hoppe’s argument even if you fall on the other side.
Do You like book Democracy--The God That Failed: The Economics And Politics Of Monarchy, Democracy, And Natural Order (2001)?
Great book though I would like to point out three things:1. I don't find this to be H³'s magnum opus (The Economics and Ethics of Private Property is more "magnus opus-y")2. Because the book is based on several speeches it can be somewhat repetitive, especially towards the middle (a reason for why I don't find this book his magnum opus)3. It's not a book for the faint of heart: if you don't know how to not hate (leave your preconceptions at the door) you'll very likely reject this book out of hand.
—Daniel Valle
Mind-blowing. I had wondered what went wrong and when and started to think maybe it was more WWI than the Civil War, then I thought further, where did the founders go wrong? What should they have put in the constitution to forestall the massive growth of the federal government, then concluded, they did all they could. If everyone who had sworn to uphold the constitution had in good faith tried to do so, the founders' dream would have been realized but no. My conclusion? A just government in the end may not be possible, at least under democracy. It may be inevitable that it be corrupted. These premises are discussed, basically, on page 1 of the Intro of this book. And it gets better. A must read. The truth is out there--actually, it's in this book.
—Monica Perez
This book is the libertarian tract par excellence, insomuch that it has every silly thing that characterises other libertarian works, all jumbled together.• Toy models with no bearing to real life? Check.• Metrics that seem to have some meaning only when not examined under an ounce of scrutiny? Check.• An intrinsic, unjustified assumption of personal superiority? Check!It's more or less a greatest-hits compilation of dumb libertarian comments. Like reading r/bitcoin, but somehow even less comprehensible.
—Karpur Shukla
