Democracy - The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order

This, for me, has been perhaps the most important book I have ever read, as it introduced me to the Austrian School and libertarianism more generally. In my earlier youth I had been a staunch monarchist (with somewhat anti-capitalist biases), and thus the book's defence of monarchy had piqued my interest. In short order I purchased the book. Given that I read it without a sufficient background in either Economics or Philosophy (both of which I am in my second year of studying now), it was a difficult read. Nonetheless, the author's clear prose and intelligent commentary and explanations aided me through reading and partially understanding the content of his work. The book is heavily packed both with theoretical and empirical insights, and the author makes a convincing case for his thesis that monarchy provided a better framework for liberty than democracy, that the logical conclusion of classical liberal thought ought to have been market anarchism and not minarchism, and that this largely is the cause of the movement's slow death, and that conservatism needs to make a return to basic principles. The author is particularly excellent when writing on the topic of private defence and the evolution of the city and cooperation. A few problems I have with the book; although I appreciate Hoppe's tendency to include multiple footnotes, a lot of their content could've been integrated into the core text. Better editing of the book could've avoided instances of repetition. I disagree almost entirely with Hoppe's thesis on immigration in a democratic State (which has been the source of much undeserved controversy surrounding the author, mainly by unscrupulous individuals, and I also believe that the author overstates the necessity of the libertarian to be a cultural conservative (though the reverse certainly is true.) Hoppe also does not offer a full grounding of his theory on property in this book, but given that it is not the core topic of the volume, I can forgive the oversight. This is not a book for beginners in Economics, Philosophy or political economy. I recommend reading this book after one has read Rothbard's For a new Liberty, and after one has achieved a sufficient grounding in economic and philosophical theory (Economic Logic is an excellent place to start.) In spite of these flaws, the author's contribution is invaluable, and ought to be on any serious thinker's bookshelf.

Personally I had never fallen for the myth of democracy (neither had any of the founding fathers of America; do a web search on James Madison quotes, for example). It ought to be obvious to any thinking person, or anyone who talks to the typical voter, that mob rule cannot work. But my objection was always more along the lines of that of Traditionalists, such as Julius Evola. Despite my knowledge of Austrian economics, of which Hoppe is of course a devotee, I had never thought of objecting on a purely economic basis. That's what makes this book so valuable: Hoppe uses the only existing valid economic theory to demolish any illusions any serious person might have about mob rule. The book is not perfect. Hoppe lacks the perspective that comes with an understanding of history as cyclical. This causes him to imagine that ideas are what drives social organizations; of course, ideas are only invented after the fact, to rationalize whatever stage a given society has reached. Humans act on instinct. All civilizations pass through the same phases. There is nothing that can stop the ongoing collapse of the West. Likewise, monarchies always follow the anarcho-capitalism phase Hoppe prefers (which in practical terms will reduce to a benign feudalism, as the natural elites emerge as rulers of small domains). Monarchies are in turn replaced by mobs as the society comes unglued. It is much the same on the individual level. The poor strive and save and become rich; the rich become decadent and spend their capital inheritance, and again become poor, and the cycle starts anew... Nevertheless this is the best book on political theory I have seen simply because it is the only one written from the perspective of real economics. It gets extra points for not shrinking from very important ideas which are controversial, for example footnoting the work of social scientists such as J. P. Rushton, which of course the false schools of sociologists and egalitarians despise and fear. And personally I like this better than Evola's pro-monarchist works because it doesn't ever devolve into mushy mysticism. An absolute must for the bookshelf of anyone who wants to understand the exact mechanisms by which the West was undone.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a very important political economist and philosopher in the intellectual tradition of the Austrian School of Economics -- I would say he is without a doubt the most important anarchocapitalist thinker since Murray Rothbard. His book, _Democracy: The God That Failed_, is the most devastating and solid critique of democracy I have seen, and is essential reading for everyone in our new millennium. Democracy is conventionally regarded as the best form of government. Even most rigorous anti-statists such as Murray Rothbard (to whom Hoppe is intellectually indebted) looked upon democracy as an improvement over alternative systems of government. Professor Hoppe dissents with this view, averring that monarchy (ancien-regime-style) is a 'better' system than democracy. However, this is _not_ a defense of monarchy, for Hoppe sees any form of state as morally unjustifiable. Rather, _Democracy: The God That Failed_ serves a twin purpose: firstly, to interpret history and account for the dramatic rise in exploitation observed in the democratic age. Secondly, Hoppe asserts the moral and economic superiority of a system he calls "natural order" -- a stateless society of private property anarchy. By what insight does Hoppe show that monarchy is the superior system? It is shockingly brilliant in its simplicity, yet the implications that follow are critical. What Hoppe states is this: A monarch is essentially the _private_ owner of the government -- all exploited resources are *owned* by him. (Perhaps the insightful reader will already be able to predict Hoppe's conclusion.) As such, he will work to maximize both current income and the total capital value of his estate. In effect, he owns the kingdom. Thus, assuming self-interest, his planning horizon will be farsighted and exploitation be far more limited. Contrarily, in a publicly-owned government -- i.e. democracy -- the rulers' have current use of resources only, not their capital value. These government caretakers cannot personally keep that which is exploited from the tax-producers. Thus, systematic property violations will be greater under a democracy. In economic jargon, the monarch's degree of time-preference will be substantially lower than that of the publicly-owned government caretaker due to difference in ownership. But isn't the democratic system kept in check by elections? Not really, argues Hoppe, as those in power "buy" votes with their redistribution policies and egalitarian schemes. (Just like Alberta's current premiere buys votes with oil rebate checks, psh.)With these propositions, Hoppe examines issues the varying impact of monarchies and democracies on time preference (the rate at which present satisfaction is preferred to future satisfaction) (Chapter 1), differing policies on immigration (Chapters 7 and 8), differences in degree of exploitation (Chapter 2) the economics of redistribution (Chapter 4).He also makes the positive case for a natural order in the private pro

Jack Rain, a reviewer on another site, used the phrase above to describe this book, and I unhesitatingly appropriate it for my review because it is so dead-on accurate. This is a very, very good, and very, very important, book. It's also a strong argument for the author's elevation to the pantheon of pro-freedom writers and philosophers, alongside Mises, Rothbard, Spooner, de Jasay, and a select few others.I have to admit that I found the first two chapters, especially, to be tough reading, and had to work through them several times. The economic analysis in the sections on time preference, for example -- while the outline of the argument becomes clear soon enough -- need extra time for all the shadings and implications to fall into place.After that, though, the truly important work begins, as Hoppe is engaged in nothing less than (to use his own words from a slightly different context) "an ideological campaign of delegitimizing the idea and institution of democratic government." In so doing, he undertakes a two-pronged approach of both demonstrating the failures of democracy (failures that are part of the very nature of democracy, and therefore irreparable) and the superiority of "natural order" -- a condition known by many other names too, including anarcho-capitalism and individualist or free-market anarchism.Personally, I responded most strongly to Hoppe's argument that "conservatives today must be antistatist libertarians and, equally important, [that] libertarians must be conservatives" [p. 189]. In so arguing, Hoppe gives us a thorough and revealing deconstruction of modern "conservatism" (so-called), showing how many self-styled conservatives are in fact merely the right wing of social democracy. He convincingly links the Buchananites, on the other hand, to "social nationalism or national socialism" (p. 192). In either case, the neo-cons, the Buchanan brigades, and also the so-called Christian Right have, in Hoppe's eyes, "not a trace of principled antistatism."Libertarians shouldn't start feeling too smug, however. Hoppe also calls for principled antistatists to retake libertarianism from the "lifestyle libertarians," who see antistatism as just one part of a comprehensive revolt against all social order and bourgeois culture (these folks were devastatingly described by Rothbard as "modal libertarians" or MLs -- a description Hoppe reprints in a footnote). He also targets "left libertarians" like the Cato Institute and Reason magazine, whose leading lights throw in the towel on the key question of State legitimacy, revel in the glamour and importance of life Inside the Beltway, and are reduced to arguing for reductions on the margin of an ever-expanding Leviathan.Hoppe's final chapter, "On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for Revolution," expands on the philosophical basis for his earlier-defined strategy of personal secession. (It's important to note that Hoppe's "revolution" explicitly and firmly rejects violen

Dr. Hans-Herman Hoppe is a professor of economics and fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It is obvious from reading this work that his primary intellectual debt is to Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Prof. Hoppe, following Rothbard, advocates anarcho-capitalism, or, as he calls it, "natural order." He is not a monarchist, but shows the many advantages of monarchy over democracy.As Prof. Hoppe tells us, both Rothbard and von Mises, although by no means supporting most of the changes in the twentieth century, held a generally favorable opinion of the change from monarchy to democracy. However, Prof. Hoppe shows that this transition was not at all favorable to the protection of civil rights and restricting the growth of government. In fact, just the opposite happened. Contemporaneous with this change, we have seen a decline in morals and individual responsibility. This is largely explained by Prof. Hoppe's fascinating discussion of time preference to democratic and monarchical governments. A monarchical government is more likely to enact policies similar to what an individual, unfettered by government, would do. Take for example immigration. A monarch, who in some sense "owns" the country, will establish an immigration policy that reflects his country's need for new citizens. He will ask what the immigrant can contribute to the economy, whether the person has good values, and whether he is likely to become a public charge. The democratic government will permit massive immigration, more concerned with social engineering and expanding the pool of voters who will support the welfare state. He also shows that, contrary to many supposed conservatives and libertarians, "free trade" doesn't required "free immigration." This is one of the most interesting books I've read in a while. It's hard to summarize all the valuable insights of Prof. Hoppe. In particular, his demonstration that a libertarian philosophy is most conducive to traditional morality was quite persuasive. I didn't completely agree with his attack on Patrick Buchanan and Samuel Francis, which I think exaggerated some of the least libertarian aspects of their thought.