What do you think?
Rate this book
Democracy: The God That Failed
The core of this book is a systematic treatment of the historic transformation of the West from monarchy to democracy. Revisionist in nature, it reaches the conclusion that monarchy is a lesser evil than democracy, but outlines deficiencies in both. Its methodology is axiomatic-deductive, allowing the writer to derive economic and sociological theorems, and then apply them to interpret historical events.
A compelling chapter on time preference describes the progress of civilization as lowering time preferences as capital structure is built, and explains how the interaction between people can lower time all around, with interesting parallels to the Ricardian Law of Association. By focusing on this transformation, the author is able to interpret many historical phenomena, such as rising levels of crime, degeneration of standards of conduct and morality, and the growth of the mega-state. In underscoring the deficiencies of both monarchy and democracy, the author demonstrates how these systems are both inferior to a natural order based on private-property.
Hoppe deconstructs the classical liberal belief in the possibility of limited government and calls for an alignment of conservatism and libertarianism as natural allies with common goals. He defends the proper role of the production of defense as undertaken by insurance companies on a free market, and describes the emergence of private law among competing insurers.
Having established a natural order as superior on utilitarian grounds, the author goes on to assess the prospects for achieving a natural order. Informed by his analysis of the deficiencies of social democracy, and armed with the social theory of legitimation, he forsees secession as the likely future of the US and Europe, resulting in a multitude of region and city-states. This book complements the author's previous work defending the ethics of private property and natural order. Democracy - The God that Failed will be of interest to scholars and students of history, political economy, and political philosophy.
A compelling chapter on time preference describes the progress of civilization as lowering time preferences as capital structure is built, and explains how the interaction between people can lower time all around, with interesting parallels to the Ricardian Law of Association. By focusing on this transformation, the author is able to interpret many historical phenomena, such as rising levels of crime, degeneration of standards of conduct and morality, and the growth of the mega-state. In underscoring the deficiencies of both monarchy and democracy, the author demonstrates how these systems are both inferior to a natural order based on private-property.
Hoppe deconstructs the classical liberal belief in the possibility of limited government and calls for an alignment of conservatism and libertarianism as natural allies with common goals. He defends the proper role of the production of defense as undertaken by insurance companies on a free market, and describes the emergence of private law among competing insurers.
Having established a natural order as superior on utilitarian grounds, the author goes on to assess the prospects for achieving a natural order. Informed by his analysis of the deficiencies of social democracy, and armed with the social theory of legitimation, he forsees secession as the likely future of the US and Europe, resulting in a multitude of region and city-states. This book complements the author's previous work defending the ethics of private property and natural order. Democracy - The God that Failed will be of interest to scholars and students of history, political economy, and political philosophy.
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
376 people are currently reading
10k people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 219 reviews
February 10, 2014
Hoppe's argument is essentially a well-executed follow through of Etienne de la Boetie's call to "support [the tyrant] no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces." Hoppe does an excellent job extending this line of logic into the modern democratic era. In doing so, he rightfully understands that the institution of the state functions as a monopolist over a territorial region. Consequently, Hoppe observes that governments inherently will trend toward increased exploitation of property while diminishing the quality of goods and services that it offers (law, defense, policing, etc.). Hoppe's truly unique observation to me is his analysis of how democratic governments(which include any form of representative government) make this problem much worse. Since elected officials in representative governments are only temporary caretakers of the economic resources of government, their incentive is to waste more resources in the present and rack up significant long-term debt.
In other words, a democratic state, according to Hoppe, speeds up its inevitable destruction and insolvency due to the incentive structure of its elected officials and bureaucratic enforcers to embrace waste. Brilliant.
But Hoppe doesn't stop there. It's not enough to merely recognize the failings and evils of the state. Hoppe advocates for a natural order anarchy that is pioneered by small pockets of individuals who care not for the state's control and seek to live in freedom. He advocates for dozens of competing Hong Kongs and Singapores, with no formal regulations established by any government with the power to tax. As these experiments prove to be far more successful than the wasteful and crumbling modern states that are already in the early stages of their death throes, more and more free cities can help society transition from the failed nation state model to liberty.
One of the most inspiring things I find about Hoppe's writing is that we really don't even need geographically defined free cities to consider if his ideas will be successful. The digital age is already breaking down traditional geographic barriers and allowing us to experiment with competitive free societies that are based in the digital world, but with everyday, real-world application. Projects like Ethereum are the realization of Hoppe's worldview today, despite all of the massive government regulatory agencies and tens of thousands of laws. Freedom cannot ever be stopped.
Hoppe also has a brilliant understanding of why libertarians need to be more conservative and why conservatives need to be more libertarian (which was encouraging to see since I have been thinking the same thing for quite some time).
Although I find Hoppe either difficult to understand and even on some points, unpersuasive (at least based on my current understanding), I am highly impressed by Hoppe's overall defense of voluntary society in the face of democratic states and I look forward to the continuing development of technologies that will allow us to realize the ultimate failure of the nation-state experiment as a means of social organization.
In other words, a democratic state, according to Hoppe, speeds up its inevitable destruction and insolvency due to the incentive structure of its elected officials and bureaucratic enforcers to embrace waste. Brilliant.
But Hoppe doesn't stop there. It's not enough to merely recognize the failings and evils of the state. Hoppe advocates for a natural order anarchy that is pioneered by small pockets of individuals who care not for the state's control and seek to live in freedom. He advocates for dozens of competing Hong Kongs and Singapores, with no formal regulations established by any government with the power to tax. As these experiments prove to be far more successful than the wasteful and crumbling modern states that are already in the early stages of their death throes, more and more free cities can help society transition from the failed nation state model to liberty.
One of the most inspiring things I find about Hoppe's writing is that we really don't even need geographically defined free cities to consider if his ideas will be successful. The digital age is already breaking down traditional geographic barriers and allowing us to experiment with competitive free societies that are based in the digital world, but with everyday, real-world application. Projects like Ethereum are the realization of Hoppe's worldview today, despite all of the massive government regulatory agencies and tens of thousands of laws. Freedom cannot ever be stopped.
Hoppe also has a brilliant understanding of why libertarians need to be more conservative and why conservatives need to be more libertarian (which was encouraging to see since I have been thinking the same thing for quite some time).
Although I find Hoppe either difficult to understand and even on some points, unpersuasive (at least based on my current understanding), I am highly impressed by Hoppe's overall defense of voluntary society in the face of democratic states and I look forward to the continuing development of technologies that will allow us to realize the ultimate failure of the nation-state experiment as a means of social organization.
March 17, 2012
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.
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.
December 19, 2021
The argument in short:
Democracy destroys time preferences of countries by making their leaders unaccountable for the long-term consequences of their decisions. As a public servant, you only have to worry about one thing: getting re-elected. And how does one get re-elected? Bread and circuses!, welfare and deficit spending! Yippee, it's party time! The problem is that spending everything now means that you have no money for later, so your currency inflates, you go into massive debt, etc. etc.
And why is this not a problem for a monarchy? The thing about a monarchy is that the monarch has ownership rights over his land. Meaning: he treats his country as he would his household. Would you want to throw a massive party in your household, just to ruin it? No. In other words, the monarch treats his country as he would private property, knowing he will pass it on to his progeny and therefore taking care of its long term value. Which means that he will be careful about destroying it via promising bread and circuses today and ending up with barbarians and angry mobs tomorrow.
Another great thing about monarchies is that there is a clear division between ruler (hereditary family) and ruled (the rest), as opposed to democracy where the populace inject the psychological drug that "we rule ourselves". This means that the populace trusts the monarch less and will resist his Octopus arms spreading everywhere, at least more than people do in a democracy.
The above a priori theory is substantiated by the statistics: government employees have multiplied by 10x since the Middle Ages, the government now has debt increasing exponentially instead of paying it off (as happened before ~1800), and tax rates have multiplied by around 10x as well since Medieval times. So everybody's time preference is now shorter and we are destroying ourselves by not saving for our progeny, if we even have progeny in modernity's furor over pleasure. We have massive credit card debt and pay $200,000 for a degree in gender studies.
What is next? Certainly not "progress". What is probably imminent is a collapse of the West, as predicted metaphysically by Spengler and biologically by Dutton and Sarraf et al. Think of the late Western Roman Empire. Think of the West today. See how many comparisons you can make.
Democracy destroys time preferences of countries by making their leaders unaccountable for the long-term consequences of their decisions. As a public servant, you only have to worry about one thing: getting re-elected. And how does one get re-elected? Bread and circuses!, welfare and deficit spending! Yippee, it's party time! The problem is that spending everything now means that you have no money for later, so your currency inflates, you go into massive debt, etc. etc.
And why is this not a problem for a monarchy? The thing about a monarchy is that the monarch has ownership rights over his land. Meaning: he treats his country as he would his household. Would you want to throw a massive party in your household, just to ruin it? No. In other words, the monarch treats his country as he would private property, knowing he will pass it on to his progeny and therefore taking care of its long term value. Which means that he will be careful about destroying it via promising bread and circuses today and ending up with barbarians and angry mobs tomorrow.
Another great thing about monarchies is that there is a clear division between ruler (hereditary family) and ruled (the rest), as opposed to democracy where the populace inject the psychological drug that "we rule ourselves". This means that the populace trusts the monarch less and will resist his Octopus arms spreading everywhere, at least more than people do in a democracy.
The above a priori theory is substantiated by the statistics: government employees have multiplied by 10x since the Middle Ages, the government now has debt increasing exponentially instead of paying it off (as happened before ~1800), and tax rates have multiplied by around 10x as well since Medieval times. So everybody's time preference is now shorter and we are destroying ourselves by not saving for our progeny, if we even have progeny in modernity's furor over pleasure. We have massive credit card debt and pay $200,000 for a degree in gender studies.
What is next? Certainly not "progress". What is probably imminent is a collapse of the West, as predicted metaphysically by Spengler and biologically by Dutton and Sarraf et al. Think of the late Western Roman Empire. Think of the West today. See how many comparisons you can make.
March 29, 2023
This is one of those books whose central thesis falls apart if you look at actual history behind its idea, rather than what the author thinks is clearly the rational thing to do.
To wit, Hoppe argues that monarchy was better than democracy because hereditary monarchs had more of an incentive to keep down debt and expenses, because they’re going to pass the kingdom down to their heirs. That certainly sounds like it would be an entirely sensible thing for monarchs to do. Unfortunately, looking at the actual history of monarchy doesn’t particularly support the idea. The actual history of monarchy is replete with warmongers and spendthrifts who bled their treasuries dry to fund wars against some territory they desperately wanted to rule over. Just to look at medieval England alone, Edward I, Edward III, and Henry V left their heirs settled with a lot of debt and aggressive wars of conquest that they couldn’t possibly win. The Scottish War of Independence and Hundred Years’ War provided few tangible benefits to the English burghers or peasantry (although the aristocracy is another story) and were based on the desires of the aforementioned kings to expand their holdings. Out of the numerous Medieval and Early Modern kings of England and France who can be judged as fiscally prudent at all, we’re limited to a mere handful of candidates: Henry II, Charles V, Henry VII, Louis XI, and Louis XII, of whom whose relatively parsimony was remarked on by contemporaries as something highly unusual.
Hoppe has had the existence of spendthrift kings pointed out to him before another professor of economics, but he dismissed the examples of John of England, Felipe II of Spain, and Louis XV of France in a separate essay as unimportant. What he either ignores or does not understand is that far, from being unusual, most monarchs and nobles acted more like John, Felipe, and Louis than whatever fiscally prudent ideal monarch he imagines. The norms of European aristocratic cultures demanded the nobles and royals eat, dress, and live luxuriously while also being generous to the poor and the church, even if they had to do so on credit. This is precisely why so many contemporaries commented on the stinginess of Henry VII and Louis XI: being kings while not wearing the finest velvet and silk clothing, eating large banquets, and spending millions on failed military campaigns was so beyond the norm. For someone who is obsessed with the norms of racial and cultural behavior, he never stops to consider if perhaps there was a reason why there are so many more stories of aristocratic men like Humbert II of Viennois, Edward de Vere, George IV of Great Britain, or Garech Browne. Perhaps if he read more of cultural history or sociology, he might realize that things like thrift and planning for the future (part of what he dubs high time preference and farsightedness) were and are middle-class values, which the upper class had little use for.
Hoppe is, however, at his most mendacious when he discusses war:
That would come as a huge surprise to the English and French peasantry and burghers who were repeatedly levied with taxes to fund the Hundred Years’ War, which they did not always appreciate. Indeed, the Jacquerie in France arose after Jean II of France was taken prisoner at the Battle of Poitiers and it became clear the English we’re going to demand a huge ransom to free him and English peasants’ rebellion of 1381 was set off after two poll taxes were levied on the populace to finance the war against France.
Hoppe would also have us believe that “‘collateral damage’ become part of war strategy” only became a part of military strategy under democracies, suggesting he’s never heard of the medieval chevauchée, a more polite way of saying, “Rape, pillage, and burn.” The existence of the chevauchée and its extensive use during the Hundred Years’ War also gives lie to Hoppe’s bogus claim that:
Someone needs to tell him about the St. Brice’s Day massacre, Harrying of the North, Massacre at Béziers, Burnt Candlemas, Grand Chevauchée of 1355, Mérindol massacre, Massacre of Novgorod, or St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre and pronto. If monarchs and nobility in the past managed to kill less, it’s only because the world population was smaller and they also lacked the kind of military technology available to 20th century tyrants, rather than moral fastidiousness. For the matter, it’s extremely debatable whether monarchical wars were never ideologically motivated; I’d be interested to hear how one could possibly claim that, say, the Albigensian Crusade, the Hussite Wars, the French Wars of Religion, or the Thirty Years’ War were not ideologically motivated.
On a lighter note, it’s curious that Hoppe’s apparent enthusiasm for “natural” aristocracy (whatever that’s supposed to mean) is that’s radically at odds with his apparent distaste for “sexual deviants.” Historically, aristocracy and libertinism went hand-in-hand, most likely because a legally privileged position gives people the feeling that they have no need to rein in their worst instincts. A deep dive in actual monarchy (rather than what Hoppe imagines it to be) would reveal cadres of self-seeking sycophants around kings, who were routinely demonized as greedy leeches who were single-handedly destroying the country. For example: Edward II’s Piers Gaveston and Hugh le Despenser, Henry VI’s William de la Pole and Edmund Beaufort, or James I’s Esmé Stewart and George Villiers.
To be fair, Hoppe doesn’t think monarchies of the past were flawless, but he fails to explain why his imagined utopia of “natural” aristocracy wouldn’t fall prey to the same pitfalls of the military aristocracies of the past. You might think I’m being dismissive of Hoppe’s ideal of natural aristocracy, but he genuinely never does get around to explaining what he means by that nor does he actually explain how a “natural” aristocracy might be formed. To be certain, past aristocracies were based on talents: the gifts of military command and sycophancy, mostly, as well as having a flair for propaganda, but I gather that’s not the kind of natural aristocracy he imagines. Then again, anarcho-capitalists as whole generally don’t tend to do well when asked to ask to imagine the particulars of how their improved society would function. Oh, well.
To wit, Hoppe argues that monarchy was better than democracy because hereditary monarchs had more of an incentive to keep down debt and expenses, because they’re going to pass the kingdom down to their heirs. That certainly sounds like it would be an entirely sensible thing for monarchs to do. Unfortunately, looking at the actual history of monarchy doesn’t particularly support the idea. The actual history of monarchy is replete with warmongers and spendthrifts who bled their treasuries dry to fund wars against some territory they desperately wanted to rule over. Just to look at medieval England alone, Edward I, Edward III, and Henry V left their heirs settled with a lot of debt and aggressive wars of conquest that they couldn’t possibly win. The Scottish War of Independence and Hundred Years’ War provided few tangible benefits to the English burghers or peasantry (although the aristocracy is another story) and were based on the desires of the aforementioned kings to expand their holdings. Out of the numerous Medieval and Early Modern kings of England and France who can be judged as fiscally prudent at all, we’re limited to a mere handful of candidates: Henry II, Charles V, Henry VII, Louis XI, and Louis XII, of whom whose relatively parsimony was remarked on by contemporaries as something highly unusual.
Hoppe has had the existence of spendthrift kings pointed out to him before another professor of economics, but he dismissed the examples of John of England, Felipe II of Spain, and Louis XV of France in a separate essay as unimportant. What he either ignores or does not understand is that far, from being unusual, most monarchs and nobles acted more like John, Felipe, and Louis than whatever fiscally prudent ideal monarch he imagines. The norms of European aristocratic cultures demanded the nobles and royals eat, dress, and live luxuriously while also being generous to the poor and the church, even if they had to do so on credit. This is precisely why so many contemporaries commented on the stinginess of Henry VII and Louis XI: being kings while not wearing the finest velvet and silk clothing, eating large banquets, and spending millions on failed military campaigns was so beyond the norm. For someone who is obsessed with the norms of racial and cultural behavior, he never stops to consider if perhaps there was a reason why there are so many more stories of aristocratic men like Humbert II of Viennois, Edward de Vere, George IV of Great Britain, or Garech Browne. Perhaps if he read more of cultural history or sociology, he might realize that things like thrift and planning for the future (part of what he dubs high time preference and farsightedness) were and are middle-class values, which the upper class had little use for.
Hoppe is, however, at his most mendacious when he discusses war:
“As violent inheritance disputes, monarchical wars are characterized by limited territorial objectives. They are not ideologically motivated quarrels but disputes over tangible properties. Moreover, as inter-dynastic property disputes, the public considers war essentially the king’s private affair to be paid for by himself and as insufficient reason for any further tax increase.”
That would come as a huge surprise to the English and French peasantry and burghers who were repeatedly levied with taxes to fund the Hundred Years’ War, which they did not always appreciate. Indeed, the Jacquerie in France arose after Jean II of France was taken prisoner at the Battle of Poitiers and it became clear the English we’re going to demand a huge ransom to free him and English peasants’ rebellion of 1381 was set off after two poll taxes were levied on the populace to finance the war against France.
Hoppe would also have us believe that “‘collateral damage’ become part of war strategy” only became a part of military strategy under democracies, suggesting he’s never heard of the medieval chevauchée, a more polite way of saying, “Rape, pillage, and burn.” The existence of the chevauchée and its extensive use during the Hundred Years’ War also gives lie to Hoppe’s bogus claim that:
“as private conflicts between different ruling families the public expects, and the kings feel compelled, to recognize a clear distinction between combatants and non-combatants and to target their war efforts specifically and exclusively against each other and their respective personal properties.”
Someone needs to tell him about the St. Brice’s Day massacre, Harrying of the North, Massacre at Béziers, Burnt Candlemas, Grand Chevauchée of 1355, Mérindol massacre, Massacre of Novgorod, or St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre and pronto. If monarchs and nobility in the past managed to kill less, it’s only because the world population was smaller and they also lacked the kind of military technology available to 20th century tyrants, rather than moral fastidiousness. For the matter, it’s extremely debatable whether monarchical wars were never ideologically motivated; I’d be interested to hear how one could possibly claim that, say, the Albigensian Crusade, the Hussite Wars, the French Wars of Religion, or the Thirty Years’ War were not ideologically motivated.
On a lighter note, it’s curious that Hoppe’s apparent enthusiasm for “natural” aristocracy (whatever that’s supposed to mean) is that’s radically at odds with his apparent distaste for “sexual deviants.” Historically, aristocracy and libertinism went hand-in-hand, most likely because a legally privileged position gives people the feeling that they have no need to rein in their worst instincts. A deep dive in actual monarchy (rather than what Hoppe imagines it to be) would reveal cadres of self-seeking sycophants around kings, who were routinely demonized as greedy leeches who were single-handedly destroying the country. For example: Edward II’s Piers Gaveston and Hugh le Despenser, Henry VI’s William de la Pole and Edmund Beaufort, or James I’s Esmé Stewart and George Villiers.
To be fair, Hoppe doesn’t think monarchies of the past were flawless, but he fails to explain why his imagined utopia of “natural” aristocracy wouldn’t fall prey to the same pitfalls of the military aristocracies of the past. You might think I’m being dismissive of Hoppe’s ideal of natural aristocracy, but he genuinely never does get around to explaining what he means by that nor does he actually explain how a “natural” aristocracy might be formed. To be certain, past aristocracies were based on talents: the gifts of military command and sycophancy, mostly, as well as having a flair for propaganda, but I gather that’s not the kind of natural aristocracy he imagines. Then again, anarcho-capitalists as whole generally don’t tend to do well when asked to ask to imagine the particulars of how their improved society would function. Oh, well.
October 30, 2017
This book makes the case that 1) democracy, in the sense of mob rule, is a bad social order, as it inevitably leads to socialism 2) monarchy, particularly of the feudal and highly localized/informal model, is superior 3) a theoretical libertarian/anarcho-capitalist social order would be superior to even monarchy. These are pretty shocking conclusions for most Americans today (and westerners in general), but the argument, from some basic and acceptable premises, seems sound -- in particular, the argument for monarchy of the circa 1215 ad English kind being superior to modern "democratic socialism" of the form found in most of the world to varying degrees (including the US).
(I originally heard of Hoppe as "a racist guy who gave intellectual support to the far right", and then later as "someone so extreme as to call Hayek and Mises and Friedman leftists". Eventually, after seeing enough other references (and the popular "Hoppean Snek" series of memes ... the snake from the Gadsden flag crossed with Augusto Pinochet, engaged in "physical removal, so to speak"), I decided to read Hoppe's greatest book. )
I think the case for monarchy or some kind of limited franchise republicanism is well made. The case for anarcho-capitalist utopia seems a bit weaker (essentially, that everything is done by contract, and there are insurance companies with a non-monopoly of force which take a lot of the protective functions of the state). The main weakness of the anarcho-capitalist argument is Hoppe repeatedly says "X is bad", which it is, but it's entirely possible X is less-bad than the alternatives.
Another problem Hoppe finds with "mainstream libertarianism" and modern culture is essentially moral -- he argues that true liberalism/anarcho-capitalist libertarianism must be highly morally upright, and that a wide array of things would be sufficiently injurious to life that they would be banned (not by monopolistic law, but by covenant) -- hence the famous "physical removal" arguments, the proposal that some property could be posted "no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus" as an example, etc. I think it's important here to separate out his deliberately provocative "to ban" list, from his idea that private property owners should have the ultimate right to ban anyone for any arbitrary reason. However, he does repeatedly reinforce the value of the traditional heterosexual/nuclear/etc. family and a lot of very conventional beliefs as ultimately best, and I think that's debatable -- it's possible something was never the best, or was the best in a certain setting but not the current setting, etc. -- but I do agree on the fundamental premise of private property owners being unrestricted in their use of property (provided it doesn't interfere with the property rights of others.)
The weakest part of his argument is localized secession as a route to achieving this anarcho-capitalist utopia; as we've seen, this just doesn't happen in the modern world, in that the only people who tend to do so are just as statist as those they're separating from. States also violently suppress any true secession from their system. I'm a firm believer in technology as the only route to achieving any kind of durable and lasting property protection (through computing, cryptography, and at some point, the conquest of new physical frontiers), and I don't think Hoppe has particularly considered that.
The book is very accessible -- it's a collection of 13 essays, each of which can stand alone. There are extensive footnotes, including quotes from other works and references to those works. This probably isn't the ideal introduction to libertarian thought, but it, along with Murray Rothbard, define one extreme.
(I originally heard of Hoppe as "a racist guy who gave intellectual support to the far right", and then later as "someone so extreme as to call Hayek and Mises and Friedman leftists". Eventually, after seeing enough other references (and the popular "Hoppean Snek" series of memes ... the snake from the Gadsden flag crossed with Augusto Pinochet, engaged in "physical removal, so to speak"), I decided to read Hoppe's greatest book. )
I think the case for monarchy or some kind of limited franchise republicanism is well made. The case for anarcho-capitalist utopia seems a bit weaker (essentially, that everything is done by contract, and there are insurance companies with a non-monopoly of force which take a lot of the protective functions of the state). The main weakness of the anarcho-capitalist argument is Hoppe repeatedly says "X is bad", which it is, but it's entirely possible X is less-bad than the alternatives.
Another problem Hoppe finds with "mainstream libertarianism" and modern culture is essentially moral -- he argues that true liberalism/anarcho-capitalist libertarianism must be highly morally upright, and that a wide array of things would be sufficiently injurious to life that they would be banned (not by monopolistic law, but by covenant) -- hence the famous "physical removal" arguments, the proposal that some property could be posted "no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus" as an example, etc. I think it's important here to separate out his deliberately provocative "to ban" list, from his idea that private property owners should have the ultimate right to ban anyone for any arbitrary reason. However, he does repeatedly reinforce the value of the traditional heterosexual/nuclear/etc. family and a lot of very conventional beliefs as ultimately best, and I think that's debatable -- it's possible something was never the best, or was the best in a certain setting but not the current setting, etc. -- but I do agree on the fundamental premise of private property owners being unrestricted in their use of property (provided it doesn't interfere with the property rights of others.)
The weakest part of his argument is localized secession as a route to achieving this anarcho-capitalist utopia; as we've seen, this just doesn't happen in the modern world, in that the only people who tend to do so are just as statist as those they're separating from. States also violently suppress any true secession from their system. I'm a firm believer in technology as the only route to achieving any kind of durable and lasting property protection (through computing, cryptography, and at some point, the conquest of new physical frontiers), and I don't think Hoppe has particularly considered that.
The book is very accessible -- it's a collection of 13 essays, each of which can stand alone. There are extensive footnotes, including quotes from other works and references to those works. This probably isn't the ideal introduction to libertarian thought, but it, along with Murray Rothbard, define one extreme.
December 15, 2009
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.
February 26, 2020
I read how democracies die then saw this book and decided to give it a go...
When it arrived I saw who the publisher was and realized my mistake. But anyway, I gave it a go...
Oh boy... The first thing I would like to point out is that the author like footnotes and is completely ok even if they span over more than half a page... The definition of footnote makes no sense for the author.
Contentwise, lots of repetitions, weak arguments and "unquestionable" truths that, in my opinion are pathetic. The author has a point when he argues that a monarch thinks differently than a president, preferring long term implications. Other than that, lots of thoughts based on little evidence and strong prejudice. Insurance companies should "rule" the new, government free world... Poor people are worse than rich people... and other nonsense ideas are all over the place.
I wonder if the author know how reality works or if he lived all his life in the first world bubble. I would like to introduce him to Milicias from Rio de Janeiro... They resemble a lot the private companies he suggests to provide people's security...
When it arrived I saw who the publisher was and realized my mistake. But anyway, I gave it a go...
Oh boy... The first thing I would like to point out is that the author like footnotes and is completely ok even if they span over more than half a page... The definition of footnote makes no sense for the author.
Contentwise, lots of repetitions, weak arguments and "unquestionable" truths that, in my opinion are pathetic. The author has a point when he argues that a monarch thinks differently than a president, preferring long term implications. Other than that, lots of thoughts based on little evidence and strong prejudice. Insurance companies should "rule" the new, government free world... Poor people are worse than rich people... and other nonsense ideas are all over the place.
I wonder if the author know how reality works or if he lived all his life in the first world bubble. I would like to introduce him to Milicias from Rio de Janeiro... They resemble a lot the private companies he suggests to provide people's security...
January 18, 2019
This collection of essays is a mixed bag. Hoppe's arguments for the superiority (well, really the less-badness) of monarchy over democracy are startling and persuasive, and he does a good job showing the nonsensical nature of theories of the social contract and the entire concept of democratic representation. His arguments for anarcho-capitalism are less interesting, original and persuasive. Nor is his description of his ideal stateless society based solely on private property and contracts particularly appealing - perhaps he would do better to take a page from Jeffrey Tucker's book and avoid speculation on what a stateless society would look like, since ultimately we can't possibly know except in the unlikely event that one comes into existence. It's also hard to take arguments for a fully voluntary society seriously when they come from someone who believes socialists and other undesirables should be forcibly ejected.
By far the most off-putting aspects of the book, though, are some of Hoppe's cultural arguments, particularly in the essays on immigration. I don't mean that I found his actual position on immigration offensive, since I am still more or less on the fence (pun not intended) where that issue is concerned. The problem is that Hoppe goes overboard in his critique of multiculturalism - instead he operates on the assumption that different ethnic and cultural groups cannot possibly live together in harmony (though he acknowledges that they may collaborate from a distance). At times he also implies, though to my memory never states explicitly, that he subscribes to theories of scientific racism. In general he is a bit of a nasty elitist.
By far the most off-putting aspects of the book, though, are some of Hoppe's cultural arguments, particularly in the essays on immigration. I don't mean that I found his actual position on immigration offensive, since I am still more or less on the fence (pun not intended) where that issue is concerned. The problem is that Hoppe goes overboard in his critique of multiculturalism - instead he operates on the assumption that different ethnic and cultural groups cannot possibly live together in harmony (though he acknowledges that they may collaborate from a distance). At times he also implies, though to my memory never states explicitly, that he subscribes to theories of scientific racism. In general he is a bit of a nasty elitist.
Read
March 24, 2025This is a very funny argument—better for diagnostics than treatment. I’ve got to hand it to Hoppe for writing a clear, conviction-driven model of polity.
February 17, 2021
كتاب الديمقراطية الإله الذي فشل المؤلف هانز هيرمان هوبا.
يتحدث هوبا عن الديمقراطية والملكية والنظام الطبيعي في كتابه هذا بشكل مفصل، لا فرق لديه بين النظام الجمهوري والملكية الدستورية من حيث تأثيرها وممارستها، إذ النظامين تحركهما الديمقراطية المستندة لكل فرد صوت، وإذ يذهب بعيدا في هذا الموضوع من خلال مسألة (التفضيل الزمني)، و(الملكية العامة والملكية الخاصة)، إذ يكون فيمها الفرق في أسس أنظمة الحكم الموجودة، وأما عن النظام الطبيعي من خلال وجود الصفوة من الناس وبمصطلحنا (الوجهاء) وبحسب وصفه (إن اجتماع الامتيازات الفائقة للثروة والحكمة والشجاعة أو لمزيج منها يمنح بعض الأفراد "سلطة طبيعية"، وتحظى آراؤهم وأحكامهم باحترام واسع النطاق).
موضوع الملكية الخاصة (النظام الملكي) وليس الملكية الدستورية إذ الملكية الدستورية وضعها في صف النظام الجمهوري الديمقراطي والملكية العامة (النظام الديمقراطي)، والتفضيل الزمني.
هنا يرى كل ما كانت ملكية خاصة كل ما كان التفضيل الزمني منخفض وكان النظر للمكاسب بشكل بعيد زمنيا وكل ما كانت ملكية عامة أصبح التفضيل الزمني مرتفعا إذ تصبح المكاسب آنية، وفي مقلب آخر الملكية الخاصة ستحافظ على مكتسباتها ومكتسبات أجيالها القادمة بعكس الملكية العامة (الديمقراطية) التي لا تملك أصول الملكية ولكن لديها تخويل بإدارة الملكية العامة مما يجعل التفضيل الزمني مرتفعا والمكاسب آنية.
هوبا يرجع ازدياد الجرائم وتفكك الأسرة والمشاكل الأخلاقية التي ارتفعت مع انتشار الديمقراطية، والتي جائت بعد الحرب العالمية الأولى، وسبب انتشارها هو النظام الأمريكي (الديمقراطي) الذي انتصر في الحربين العالمية الأولى والثانية وبسببه انحسرت الأنظمة الملكية في أوروبا والعالم، ومن هنا انطلقت الحريات في كل شي وخصوصا الحرية الفردية وتسلط الديمقراطية على الشعوب بقوانينها الكثيرة والحادة من الملكية الخاصة للأفراد سواء عبر القوانين أو الضرائب والتي ترتفع مع تقدم السنوات.
وبهذا الخصوص حسب رأي هوبا أن الديمقراطية (الملكية العامة) فتحت المجال لأي شخص بإدارتها وبمعنى أدق أن يكون حاكما مهما كان هذا الحاكم ومهما كانت ميوله، ولفترة محددة وبشكل أوضح سيكون لديه التفضيل الزمني مرتفعا.
هناك العديد من النقاط التي تطرق لها المؤلف، ومنها نظام الحماية الذاتية أو الدولتية (الدولة) يربطها بموضوع الضرائب ومدى الحماية التي يتم توفيرها، والتفضيل بينها وبين الحماية عبر شركات التأمين، وأن النظام الديمقراطي كل ما رفع منسوب الحماية فستكون من جيوب دافعي الضرائب.
اقتباسات:
ففي إدارة ويلسون أصبحت الحرب الأوربية مهمة أيديولوجية تسعى لجعل العالم ملاذاً آمناً لممارسة الديمقراطية وخالياً من الأسر الحاكمة.
لم يمثل انهيار الإمبراطورية السوفيتية انتصاراً للديمقراطية بقدر ماكان إفلاساً لفكرة الاشتراكية، وهو بذلك يوجه اتهاماً مباشراً لنظام الديمقراطية الأمريكي (الغربي) بدلاً من الاشتراكية الديكتاتورية.
لقد كانت النمسا في ظل هابسبورغ وعصر ما قبل الديمقراطية دولة أكثر جاذبية.
لا تنسجم الديمقراطية (حكم الأغلبية) مع الملكية الخاصة (الامتلاك والحكم الفردي)
الانتقال من الملكية إلى الديمقراطية نوع من التدهور الحضاري.
إن الاختيار بين الملكية والديمقراطية يتعلق بالاختيار بين نظامين اجتماعيين معيبين.
إن العلامة المميزة لانتهاكات الحكومة لحقوق الملكية الخاصة هي أنها، على خلاف الأنشطة الإجرامية، تعتبر شرعية ليس فقط من قبل وكلاء الحكومة القائمين عليها، بل من قبل عامة الشعب أيضاً (وحتى من قبل الضحية نفسها أحياناً). ومن ثم، في مثل هذه الحالات، قد لا تدافع الضحية قانونياً عن نفسها ضد هذه الانتهاكات.
كان الجشع والحذر هما من جعل الحرب أكثر إنسانية... أصبحت الحرب لعبة بين الملوك. لعبة لها قواعدها ورهاناتها - أرض، وميراث، وعرش، ومعاهدة؛ والخاسر يدفع الثمن ولكن بمقدار عادل يقع دائما بين قيمة الرهان والمخاطر التي يجب خوضها، وكانت الأطراف على أهبة الاستعداد دائما لهذا النوع من الرهان.
في حين تميل الحروب الديمقراطية لأن تكون حروبا شاملة.
يجب اعتبار القرن العشرين، عصر الديمقراطية، من بين أكثر الفترات دموية في التاريخ.
ما يجب أن يكون واضحاً الآن هو أن معظم، إن لم يكن كل التدهور الأخلاقي والعفن الثقافي من حولنا - علامات تدهور الحضارة - هو من النتائج التي لا مفر منها والتي لا يمكن تجنبها لدولة الرفاهية ومؤسساتها الأساسية.
إن حالة الانحطاط الأخلاقي والتفكك الاجتماعي والعفن الثقافي هي على وجه التحديد نتيجة التسامح الخاطئ والمضلل.
سوف يتضح على ما يبدو أن الأمن الجماعي ليس أفضل أنماط الأمن الخاص للأفراد، بل للدولة..
إن وجود الدول - وخاصة الدول الديمقراطية - يعني ضمناً أن حرب العدوان والدفاع - سوف تتحول إلى حرب شاملة بلا تمييز.
يتحدث هوبا عن الديمقراطية والملكية والنظام الطبيعي في كتابه هذا بشكل مفصل، لا فرق لديه بين النظام الجمهوري والملكية الدستورية من حيث تأثيرها وممارستها، إذ النظامين تحركهما الديمقراطية المستندة لكل فرد صوت، وإذ يذهب بعيدا في هذا الموضوع من خلال مسألة (التفضيل الزمني)، و(الملكية العامة والملكية الخاصة)، إذ يكون فيمها الفرق في أسس أنظمة الحكم الموجودة، وأما عن النظام الطبيعي من خلال وجود الصفوة من الناس وبمصطلحنا (الوجهاء) وبحسب وصفه (إن اجتماع الامتيازات الفائقة للثروة والحكمة والشجاعة أو لمزيج منها يمنح بعض الأفراد "سلطة طبيعية"، وتحظى آراؤهم وأحكامهم باحترام واسع النطاق).
موضوع الملكية الخاصة (النظام الملكي) وليس الملكية الدستورية إذ الملكية الدستورية وضعها في صف النظام الجمهوري الديمقراطي والملكية العامة (النظام الديمقراطي)، والتفضيل الزمني.
هنا يرى كل ما كانت ملكية خاصة كل ما كان التفضيل الزمني منخفض وكان النظر للمكاسب بشكل بعيد زمنيا وكل ما كانت ملكية عامة أصبح التفضيل الزمني مرتفعا إذ تصبح المكاسب آنية، وفي مقلب آخر الملكية الخاصة ستحافظ على مكتسباتها ومكتسبات أجيالها القادمة بعكس الملكية العامة (الديمقراطية) التي لا تملك أصول الملكية ولكن لديها تخويل بإدارة الملكية العامة مما يجعل التفضيل الزمني مرتفعا والمكاسب آنية.
هوبا يرجع ازدياد الجرائم وتفكك الأسرة والمشاكل الأخلاقية التي ارتفعت مع انتشار الديمقراطية، والتي جائت بعد الحرب العالمية الأولى، وسبب انتشارها هو النظام الأمريكي (الديمقراطي) الذي انتصر في الحربين العالمية الأولى والثانية وبسببه انحسرت الأنظمة الملكية في أوروبا والعالم، ومن هنا انطلقت الحريات في كل شي وخصوصا الحرية الفردية وتسلط الديمقراطية على الشعوب بقوانينها الكثيرة والحادة من الملكية الخاصة للأفراد سواء عبر القوانين أو الضرائب والتي ترتفع مع تقدم السنوات.
وبهذا الخصوص حسب رأي هوبا أن الديمقراطية (الملكية العامة) فتحت المجال لأي شخص بإدارتها وبمعنى أدق أن يكون حاكما مهما كان هذا الحاكم ومهما كانت ميوله، ولفترة محددة وبشكل أوضح سيكون لديه التفضيل الزمني مرتفعا.
هناك العديد من النقاط التي تطرق لها المؤلف، ومنها نظام الحماية الذاتية أو الدولتية (الدولة) يربطها بموضوع الضرائب ومدى الحماية التي يتم توفيرها، والتفضيل بينها وبين الحماية عبر شركات التأمين، وأن النظام الديمقراطي كل ما رفع منسوب الحماية فستكون من جيوب دافعي الضرائب.
اقتباسات:
ففي إدارة ويلسون أصبحت الحرب الأوربية مهمة أيديولوجية تسعى لجعل العالم ملاذاً آمناً لممارسة الديمقراطية وخالياً من الأسر الحاكمة.
لم يمثل انهيار الإمبراطورية السوفيتية انتصاراً للديمقراطية بقدر ماكان إفلاساً لفكرة الاشتراكية، وهو بذلك يوجه اتهاماً مباشراً لنظام الديمقراطية الأمريكي (الغربي) بدلاً من الاشتراكية الديكتاتورية.
لقد كانت النمسا في ظل هابسبورغ وعصر ما قبل الديمقراطية دولة أكثر جاذبية.
لا تنسجم الديمقراطية (حكم الأغلبية) مع الملكية الخاصة (الامتلاك والحكم الفردي)
الانتقال من الملكية إلى الديمقراطية نوع من التدهور الحضاري.
إن الاختيار بين الملكية والديمقراطية يتعلق بالاختيار بين نظامين اجتماعيين معيبين.
إن العلامة المميزة لانتهاكات الحكومة لحقوق الملكية الخاصة هي أنها، على خلاف الأنشطة الإجرامية، تعتبر شرعية ليس فقط من قبل وكلاء الحكومة القائمين عليها، بل من قبل عامة الشعب أيضاً (وحتى من قبل الضحية نفسها أحياناً). ومن ثم، في مثل هذه الحالات، قد لا تدافع الضحية قانونياً عن نفسها ضد هذه الانتهاكات.
كان الجشع والحذر هما من جعل الحرب أكثر إنسانية... أصبحت الحرب لعبة بين الملوك. لعبة لها قواعدها ورهاناتها - أرض، وميراث، وعرش، ومعاهدة؛ والخاسر يدفع الثمن ولكن بمقدار عادل يقع دائما بين قيمة الرهان والمخاطر التي يجب خوضها، وكانت الأطراف على أهبة الاستعداد دائما لهذا النوع من الرهان.
في حين تميل الحروب الديمقراطية لأن تكون حروبا شاملة.
يجب اعتبار القرن العشرين، عصر الديمقراطية، من بين أكثر الفترات دموية في التاريخ.
ما يجب أن يكون واضحاً الآن هو أن معظم، إن لم يكن كل التدهور الأخلاقي والعفن الثقافي من حولنا - علامات تدهور الحضارة - هو من النتائج التي لا مفر منها والتي لا يمكن تجنبها لدولة الرفاهية ومؤسساتها الأساسية.
إن حالة الانحطاط الأخلاقي والتفكك الاجتماعي والعفن الثقافي هي على وجه التحديد نتيجة التسامح الخاطئ والمضلل.
سوف يتضح على ما يبدو أن الأمن الجماعي ليس أفضل أنماط الأمن الخاص للأفراد، بل للدولة..
إن وجود الدول - وخاصة الدول الديمقراطية - يعني ضمناً أن حرب العدوان والدفاع - سوف تتحول إلى حرب شاملة بلا تمييز.
December 7, 2019
عنوان الكتاب وبعض أفكاره صادمة، أبان فيه المؤلف ثغرات الأنظمة الديمقراطية مع الاعتراف بأفضال الأنظمة الملكية... وهذا طرح غريب على الفكر الأوروبي... في المجمل لم يعجبني الكتاب وكنت أتوق إلى رميه جانباً... ربما بسبب الاسلوب الجاف والرتيب أو بسبب عدم وضوح الرؤية والمقصد.
الفرد هو من يحدد معدل تفضيله الزمني time preference، فالطفل له مع معدل زمني عالي يعيش فيه حياته يوماً بيوم ومن إشباع لآخر، ثم ينخفض التفضيل الزمني مع تقدم العمر والبلوغ حيث ينشط الادخار والاستثمار وتطول فترات الإنتاج والتوفير.
بالنسبة للفرد البالغ، فإن تفضيله الزمني يتحدد وفقاً لتقييمه الشخصي، فقد يكون أشبه بطفل لا همّ له سوى الإشباع الفوري لرغباته، وقد يعيش تائهاً أو مدمناً أو حالماً وهو يمارس أقل قدر من العمل من أجل أن يستمتع بكل يوم من حياته، على النقيض منه يوجد شخص دائم القلق حيال مستقبله وعائلته ويرغب بالادخار وبناء مخزون من المال والسلع الاستهلاكية المُعمرة، وهناك نمط ثالث يعيش بين الطفل والقلق يشعر بحالات مختلفة ويعيش اساليب حياة مختلفة بحسب ظروفه.
الفرد هو من يحدد معدل تفضيله الزمني time preference، فالطفل له مع معدل زمني عالي يعيش فيه حياته يوماً بيوم ومن إشباع لآخر، ثم ينخفض التفضيل الزمني مع تقدم العمر والبلوغ حيث ينشط الادخار والاستثمار وتطول فترات الإنتاج والتوفير.
بالنسبة للفرد البالغ، فإن تفضيله الزمني يتحدد وفقاً لتقييمه الشخصي، فقد يكون أشبه بطفل لا همّ له سوى الإشباع الفوري لرغباته، وقد يعيش تائهاً أو مدمناً أو حالماً وهو يمارس أقل قدر من العمل من أجل أن يستمتع بكل يوم من حياته، على النقيض منه يوجد شخص دائم القلق حيال مستقبله وعائلته ويرغب بالادخار وبناء مخزون من المال والسلع الاستهلاكية المُعمرة، وهناك نمط ثالث يعيش بين الطفل والقلق يشعر بحالات مختلفة ويعيش اساليب حياة مختلفة بحسب ظروفه.
April 13, 2022
ربما يعد هوبا أشجع من كتب في مجال نقد النظم الديمقراطية، والأكثر جرأة بين من اقترحوا وأسسوا لنظم اجتماعية بديلة للدولة والدولتية.
استصعبت في بادئ الأمر فكرة التخلص نهائيا من الحكومة ولم أستوعب تماما كيف يمكن لمجتمع استبدال المؤسسات الأمنية والقضائية الحكومية بأخرى خاصة، ولكن بعد الكثير من الشرح والتفصيل، بات الانتقال لمثل هذه الأنظمة ممكنا فيما لو حدث بالتدريج، بل وجذابا.
تخيل عالما لا حكومات تحكمه، بل مؤسسات خاصة تقدم خدماتها مقابل مبالغ مالية وحسب الحاجة، شركات تأمين للحماية والتحكيم وغيرها.
ما يعيب الكتاب كثرة الاسهاب، إذ وجدته كثيرا ما يكرر ذات الأفكار بلا داعي. كما وغابت السلاسة في الترجمة.
كتاب لا بد أن يُقرأ.
استصعبت في بادئ الأمر فكرة التخلص نهائيا من الحكومة ولم أستوعب تماما كيف يمكن لمجتمع استبدال المؤسسات الأمنية والقضائية الحكومية بأخرى خاصة، ولكن بعد الكثير من الشرح والتفصيل، بات الانتقال لمثل هذه الأنظمة ممكنا فيما لو حدث بالتدريج، بل وجذابا.
تخيل عالما لا حكومات تحكمه، بل مؤسسات خاصة تقدم خدماتها مقابل مبالغ مالية وحسب الحاجة، شركات تأمين للحماية والتحكيم وغيرها.
ما يعيب الكتاب كثرة الاسهاب، إذ وجدته كثيرا ما يكرر ذات الأفكار بلا داعي. كما وغابت السلاسة في الترجمة.
كتاب لا بد أن يُقرأ.
October 13, 2017
While I only agree with half of the book, I give it five stars for brilliance. In the first half, Hoppe argues that democracies introduce elements of decivilization and ultimately pave the way for barbarism. He documents how countries actually became poorer when they moved from monarchies to democracies.
His most interesting point is his thesis that World War 1 marked the end of civiliation. He is correct.
To the reviewer that said Hoppe argues for constitutional monarchies over democracies, taht is incorrect. Hoppe says monarchies are bad, too. They just preserve liberty longer than democracies.
His most interesting point is his thesis that World War 1 marked the end of civiliation. He is correct.
To the reviewer that said Hoppe argues for constitutional monarchies over democracies, taht is incorrect. Hoppe says monarchies are bad, too. They just preserve liberty longer than democracies.
August 6, 2022
Awful book. The authors starts by prefacing his work by devaluing empirical based hypothesis formulation (science as a we know it) and states that all his work is literally make believe (rationalism). Immediately evident are his lack of references. This man is an elitist racist eugenicist at heart I am certain: a quack anaracho capitalist who understands nothing about the real world and lives in a fake world where private property protection is the answer to all of the world's problems. I could only reach half way before dropping this deluded work.
August 27, 2024
Hoppe’s understanding of economics, history, and philosophy is quite astounding. Proof of this can be seen in the copious amounts of footnotes that are on every page. His intellect and knowledge of the subject is something that cannot be denied. However, Hoppe still falls prey to the dreamy eyed fairly tale that many anarchists tell themselves.
Hoppe’s arguments for Monarchy are outstanding. Many of them I will use in the future, and for the most part they don’t require an assumption of libertarian axioms in order to be argued. The arguments are fairly simple and most boil down to this: the government is only incentivized to be successful when it’s a privately owned institution rather than publicly owned. This is an intuitive point when you think about it. If you want a corporation to run smoothly and profitably, you would presumably want a competent CEO who privately owns the business and has an interest in its upkeep.
This is a four star book for the many in-depth versions Hoppe gives of the argument above. However, the deeper into the book you go, the more it becomes about anarchism and the less it becomes about monarchy. The second half of this book really isn’t dedicated to the failure of democracy and the hopes of monarchy in the future. Instead, it is Hoppe pontificating on the evils of liberalism and the virtues of a stateless society. Hoppe spends at least 75 pages arguing for how insurance companies could act as defense contractors. None of these chapters mention monarchy, or privately owned governance. Moreover, these arguments are much less convincing and much less impressive than the ones before. This book could have done without them and would easily have been five stars if Hoppe is simply chosen to dedicate another book to anarchism and leave this book to the subject indicated by the title.
Hoppe’s arguments for Monarchy are outstanding. Many of them I will use in the future, and for the most part they don’t require an assumption of libertarian axioms in order to be argued. The arguments are fairly simple and most boil down to this: the government is only incentivized to be successful when it’s a privately owned institution rather than publicly owned. This is an intuitive point when you think about it. If you want a corporation to run smoothly and profitably, you would presumably want a competent CEO who privately owns the business and has an interest in its upkeep.
This is a four star book for the many in-depth versions Hoppe gives of the argument above. However, the deeper into the book you go, the more it becomes about anarchism and the less it becomes about monarchy. The second half of this book really isn’t dedicated to the failure of democracy and the hopes of monarchy in the future. Instead, it is Hoppe pontificating on the evils of liberalism and the virtues of a stateless society. Hoppe spends at least 75 pages arguing for how insurance companies could act as defense contractors. None of these chapters mention monarchy, or privately owned governance. Moreover, these arguments are much less convincing and much less impressive than the ones before. This book could have done without them and would easily have been five stars if Hoppe is simply chosen to dedicate another book to anarchism and leave this book to the subject indicated by the title.
February 20, 2022
Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a right-libertarian anarcho-capitalist. Intellectually, he is a descendant of Murray Rothbard, who was himself a descendant of Ludwig von Mises. This is a 2001 collection of his writings. As such, there is considerable repetition, as the same points are made again and again, often in the same words, in different essays, especially the first two chapters.
Hoppe’s thoughts on time preference are clearly and persuasively presented. Some of his other thoughts will surprise or shock readers, such as his well-argued case that monarchy is in many ways superior to democracy. He eventually discards both. Unfortunately, Hoppe thinks a better alternative would be rule by the “elites” in society. This is utter and dangerous garbage. If there is one thing that the 21 years since the publication of this book has proved, it is that the “elites” (left and right) are appallingly bad at government – smug, tyrannical, incompetent, out of touch and corrupt. William F. Buckley was right when he said in 1961, "I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory than by the Harvard University faculty". Over the ensuing 60+ years, the elites have resoundingly proven they should not be sought, but rather disqualified and excluded.
On a more positive note, Hoppe’s ideas about the private provision of defense and security needs (military, police and courts) are intriguing. And his ideas about discrimination, “civil rights” and morality will make “woke” heads explode, which is always fun.
The quality of the material is so uneven that it is difficult to give the book a single rating. My rough breakdown is:
Quality of the “big ideas” – mostly 4-5 stars, with a few exceptions.
Quality of the thinking about how to practically implement the big ideas – 1-3 stars, mostly wildly impractical.
Editing/organization/focus/formatting – 1 star. There is way too much repetition, and this is one of the worst formatted ebooks I have ever read.
Overall, I would rate it 3.5 stars. I am rounding up to 4 stars because the thought-provoking big ideas are what are most important in a book such as this.
Hoppe’s thoughts on time preference are clearly and persuasively presented. Some of his other thoughts will surprise or shock readers, such as his well-argued case that monarchy is in many ways superior to democracy. He eventually discards both. Unfortunately, Hoppe thinks a better alternative would be rule by the “elites” in society. This is utter and dangerous garbage. If there is one thing that the 21 years since the publication of this book has proved, it is that the “elites” (left and right) are appallingly bad at government – smug, tyrannical, incompetent, out of touch and corrupt. William F. Buckley was right when he said in 1961, "I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory than by the Harvard University faculty". Over the ensuing 60+ years, the elites have resoundingly proven they should not be sought, but rather disqualified and excluded.
On a more positive note, Hoppe’s ideas about the private provision of defense and security needs (military, police and courts) are intriguing. And his ideas about discrimination, “civil rights” and morality will make “woke” heads explode, which is always fun.
The quality of the material is so uneven that it is difficult to give the book a single rating. My rough breakdown is:
Quality of the “big ideas” – mostly 4-5 stars, with a few exceptions.
Quality of the thinking about how to practically implement the big ideas – 1-3 stars, mostly wildly impractical.
Editing/organization/focus/formatting – 1 star. There is way too much repetition, and this is one of the worst formatted ebooks I have ever read.
Overall, I would rate it 3.5 stars. I am rounding up to 4 stars because the thought-provoking big ideas are what are most important in a book such as this.
June 28, 2009
Expectedly, Hoppe does not hold back views that may rub people the wrong way. If you are capable of looking past your first emotional reaction to his words, you will see that there is a logical consistency that he is arguing. He is also not saying unpopular things just for the wow factor. Rather, he tries to systematically take ethical and economic truths to their logical conclusions.
This book is a collection of essays that have been published individually before. They are put together at 13 different chapters. Although you could read the book out of order, I felt that the order of the chapters was thoughtful with the earlier ones laying out some basics. There is some repetition between chapters, but not overly so. The work is footnoted throughout showing the author's familiarity with philosophy, economics, and history.
Although his argumentation is usually consistent and convincing, I was not entirely convinced or happy with every chapter. The main hiccups I had were on his chapter on Immigration and Free Trade, as well as his chapter on conservatism/libertarianism. For the former, I found his arguments inconsistent. In the latter, I just didn't find the arguments convincing, although I can't find a particular flaw in the argumentation.
Overall, this is a book that makes you think and may even change your mind on a thing or two. I should note that this book is dense and, for me, a relatively slow read.
This book is a collection of essays that have been published individually before. They are put together at 13 different chapters. Although you could read the book out of order, I felt that the order of the chapters was thoughtful with the earlier ones laying out some basics. There is some repetition between chapters, but not overly so. The work is footnoted throughout showing the author's familiarity with philosophy, economics, and history.
Although his argumentation is usually consistent and convincing, I was not entirely convinced or happy with every chapter. The main hiccups I had were on his chapter on Immigration and Free Trade, as well as his chapter on conservatism/libertarianism. For the former, I found his arguments inconsistent. In the latter, I just didn't find the arguments convincing, although I can't find a particular flaw in the argumentation.
Overall, this is a book that makes you think and may even change your mind on a thing or two. I should note that this book is dense and, for me, a relatively slow read.
December 19, 2014
Highly thought provoking. Not an easy read, very chewy ideas that require a fair bit of time to digest and sink in.
Probably not a beginner read if you're not already accustomed to some of the ideas of liberty but HHH offers compelling and not easily refutable arguments in defense of his ultimate argument that, contrary to popular opinion, democracy leads to a degradation of society and is not actually an improvement to the old monarchical systems of the past.
Ultimately, however, he argues the best form of government is no government and concludes his book with a couple treatises on how private defense would work vs the government monopoly system in place currently.
Highly recommend if you're into well researched, logical, fact based advancement of liberty ideas.
Probably not a beginner read if you're not already accustomed to some of the ideas of liberty but HHH offers compelling and not easily refutable arguments in defense of his ultimate argument that, contrary to popular opinion, democracy leads to a degradation of society and is not actually an improvement to the old monarchical systems of the past.
Ultimately, however, he argues the best form of government is no government and concludes his book with a couple treatises on how private defense would work vs the government monopoly system in place currently.
Highly recommend if you're into well researched, logical, fact based advancement of liberty ideas.
November 5, 2009
Democracy is often considered the best political system among the alternatives. Though he does not endorse either system, Hoppe argues that between the two, monarchy has many advantages, not the least of which include greater individual liberty and prosperity. He makes a convincing case.
August 20, 2016
So eyeopening. I love the use of economic theory to develop political theory, and to top it off, the use of empiricism to show how this political theory is in fact what has happened in the last 100 years.
June 13, 2024
Best and most insightful book on libertarianism ever written.
May 14, 2022
الديمقراطية: الإله الّذي فشل
هانز هيرمان هوبا
منشورات تكوين
___
الكتاب المحيّر، الّذي يشدّك لذكائه، وينفّرك ويستفزك بفكر مؤلّفه.
مداره إثبات فشل الديمقراطية كوسيلة حكم وتناقضها وإضرارها بأخلاقيّات واقتصاد وفكر المجتمع، والأهمّ عند المؤلّف تناقضها مع الملكيّة الخاصّة وتهديدها المحدق لها.
وهنا لا يدافع الكاتب عن الأوتوقراطيّة والدولة البوليسيّة كما قد يبدو من السطح، بل هو مدافع عن الأناركيّة -اللاسلطويّة- ويرى أنّها الوسيلة المثلى لحفظ الملكيّات الخاصة والحرّيّات الفرديّة.
في بداية الكتاب يضعنا المؤلّف أمام معيار لطيف لن يفارق عقلك -على الأقل بعد شهور من قراءة الكتاب- وستسقطه على كافّة خياراتك في الحياة (ماليّةً أو اجتماعيّة). وهو معيار التفضيل الزمني. (تفضيل المرء القيام بشيء أو كسب شيء أو متعة في وقت معيّن، فلو ارتفع التفضيل الزمنيّ زادت رغبتك في تحقّق الأمر فوراً أو في أسرع وقت، وإذا انخفض التفضيل الزمنيّ فأنت تؤجّل نيل المكسب لوقت لاحق، وعليه سيزداد المكسب مع مرور الوقت. فمثلا إن استثمرت مبلغاً في التجارة وكان أمامك خياران: جني الربح يعد شهر وتكون ربحت ٥٠% من قيمة رأس مالك، أو أن تصبر ٥ أشهر فتربح ٣٠٠%، فلو اخترت الأول يكون تفضيلك الزمنيّ مرتفعاً، ولو اخترت الثاني كان منخفضاً). واعتمد هانز هيرمان هوبا هذا المعيار لقياس ازدهار الحضارة، فكلما فل التفضيل الزمنيّ للمجتمع زاد تركيزه على بناء الحضارة الراسخة، ولم ينصرف ذهن وجهد المجتمع المكاسب الآنيّة البائدة.
وبناء على ما سبق، اتّخذ هوبا معيار التفضيل الزمنيّ في دحضه لألوهيّة أو قداسة الديمقراطية، فحسب رأيه: الديمقراطية تؤدي لزيادة التفضيل الزمنيّ، وبالتالي انهيار الأخلاق والحضارة.
واعتبر الطريقة الّتي يكذب أو يدلّس بها المرشّحون السياسيّون في الانتخابات في النظام الديمقراطيّ (المعتمد على الأغلبيّة) على النّاخبين نتيجةً لارتفاع التفضيل الزمني عند الشعوب، فيطمحون للنتائج السريعة الّتي يعدونهم بها ولا ينظرون إلى الأمور نظرة واعية محيطة مدركة لبواطنها ومآلاتها.
ثمّ يبدأ بالمقارنة بين الديمقراطيّة والمَلَكيّة. (وهنا يجب التمييز بين الملكيّة المطلقة والملكيّة القانونيّة والدستوريّة، فقصد هوبا هنا هو الملكية المطلقة الّتي تعتبر السّمة الأوضح للدول ما قبل الحرب العالميّة الأولى).
والمقارنة بين الديمقراطية والمَلَكيّة مقارنةٌ مَعيبةٌ اصطلاحا، وكان أولى لو سمّى الملكية بمصطلح الديكتاتوريّة أو الأوتوقراطيّة، لأنهما وسيلتا حكم مثل الديمقراطية، أما الملكيّة فهي نظام سياسيّ. ومقارنة المختلفات لا تجوز عقلاً.
وأساس هذه المقارنة أنّ الملك أو الدكتاتور يتعامل مع الدولة كملكيّة خاصّة له ولأسرته يرثونها من بعده، فيحرص على إنمائها كونها مِلكاً خاصّاً مورّثاً. أمّا في الديمقراطيّات فالقائم بأعمال الإدارة ليس صاحب سيادة، بل ممارساً لمهمامها لمدّة معيّنة غير قابلة للتجديد بشكل مطلق، فيرى هوبا أنّ هذا الشخص سيسعى لاستغلال ثروة البلاد أو المنصب لصالحه في هذه المدّة، وكون هذا المال ليس ملكاً له، ولا لورثته بعده، فإنه سيجتهد في استغلاله بكل الطرق الممكنة، لا إنمائه كالملوك، وبتتابع الرؤساء والنوّاب على المنصب، سيستغلّ استغلالاً جائراً بشكل متكرّر حتّى تضمحلّ الثروة ثمّ تتلاشى، وبالتالي تلاشي الدولة. لأن هذا المسؤول لا يتحمّل عبء الديون التي يُثقل بها الدولة، بل يتحملها الشعب، أما الملك فيعتبر هذا الدين دينا يجب أداؤه من ذمّته الماليّة الخاصّة (الدولة، المزرعة).
والملك أحرص على توسيع أرضه وسلطاته وبالتالي ثراء الدولة، من المنتخَب محدود المدّة الّذي لا هموم توسّعيّةً عنده غالباً.
كما اعتبر المَلَكيّات أكثر استقراراً من الديمقراطيّات، من نواحي التشريعات والمجتمع والاقتصاد.
ونظرته للملكيّة هنا ليست دعماً لها، بل تفضيلاً لها على الديمقراطية.
والنّظام الأمثل بالنسبة لهوبا هو اللانظام، أو النظام الطبيعي الّذي يخلو من العيوب الاقتصاديّة والأخلاقيّة، أي أنّه خالٍ من الاحتكار والضرائب. (الأناركيّة المنظّمة أو الرأسمالية الخالصة أو مجتمع القانون الخاص[يكون جميع الأفراد فيه مُعامَلين على قدم المساواة دون سلطة عليا للحكومة أو مؤسساتها]) ويعتبر هوبا القانون العام (الدستوريّ والإداريّ والماليّ وقانون العقوبات) الذي تكون الدولة فيه صاحبة سلطة وسيادة تعلو على الأفراد العاديّين، عدوّاً للقانون الخاص. وحقيقة الأمر أنّه ضمانة وحماية لأشخاص القانون الخاص.
وسبب هذه الفكرة عنده أنّه يعتبر الدولة والحكومة مجرّد فارض ضرائب محتكر للقوّة والإكراه في إقليم معيّن، هدفه سرقة الملكيّات الخاصّة وتعميمها.
والخطير بنظره أنّ الحكومة تمارس الإجرام تحت مظلّة قانونيّة بنزعها الملكيّات الخاصّة من مُلّاكِها الأصليّين.
وبناءً على هذا "التهديد" يرتفع التفضيل الزمنيّ عند أصحاب الملكيّات الخاصة، لخوفهم من سلطة الحكومة وتهديد نزع ملكيّاتهم منهم؛ وبالتالي امتناع التطوّر الحضاريّ للمجتمع، وازدياد السّعار الملاحق للمُتَع السّريعة، أي الانحطاط الأخلاقيّ العامّ.
وكون الديمقراطيّة إعادة توزيع للثروات (أخذ من الأغنى لصالح الأفقر)، فإنه يعتبرها مسبّبا رئيسيّاً للكسل والتّواكل وعدم الاعتماد على الذات وزيادة الاستهلاك وقصر النظر، فطالما يغتني من لا يجتهد على حساب من يجتهد فلن يكون هناك أي داعٍ ليقوم الفقير ليعمل. وعلى الناحية الأخرى، فالذي يعمل ويُقتطع جزء من دخله لإعالة من لا يريد إعالة نفسه، سيعمل بإنتاجيّة أقل.
وعليه، فتوزيع الثروة زاد المشاكل الّتي جاء لحلّها إشكالاً.
والديمقراطيّات تدعو إلى الحروب الأهليّة، خاصة في البلاد متعدّدة القوميّات، لأنّ القوميّات الأكبر ستنفرد بحق تقرير المصير دون غيرها لنيلها أغلبيّة الأصوات في الانتخابات، وبالتالي توليد شعور بالظلم مآله حتماً الدعوة للانفصال أو الثورات، أي إعلان حرب على الدولة المركزيّة.
•نتائج الديمقراطيّة:
ازدياد الحروب الأهلية والدوليّة.
تقدم سير المركزيّة السياسيّة.
ارتفاع دائم للضرائب والديون.
تضخم وتوحّش هيكليّة الدولة وازدياد الموظفين العموميّين.
الهجرات من مراكز الفقر إلى مراكز الثروة.
تحريف القوانين والتشريعات وفق رغبات النوّاب والوزراء.
تضخّم عدد القوانين فبالتالي استحالة إدراكها من العوامّ، ولو أدركوها فهي سريعة التعديل منعدمة الاستقرار.
تدهور مؤسسة الأسرة والزواج، وازدياد نسب الطلاق والولادات غير الشرعيّة والإجهاض والأبوّة المنفردة.
انخفاض نسب المواليد.
تراجع النخب السياسيّة والفكريّة لتراجع مستوى التعليم.
الركود الاقتصادي.
ارتفاع معدلات الجريمة والبطالة والتدهور النفسيّ، والسعي خلف المتعة.
السماح لأيّ كان بالوصول إلى المناصب التشريعيّة والإدارية، وبالتالي وصول حمقى وعنصريين وفشلة إلى مناصب خطيرة قد تهلك الدولة.
•الضرائب وكيفيّة صرفها في الحكومات الديمقراطيّة:
١-تصرف على تكاليف القبض على المجرمين ومحاكمتهم وسجنهم، وبالتالي يتحمّل الملتزمون دافعو الضرائب عبء المجرمين.
٢-مشاريع الحفاظ على البيئة التي تؤدي "لإيجاد حيوانات ميسورة وبشر أعسر وأقلّ جودة.
٣-تعتبر الضرائب مورد ميزانية الدولة الأكبر، فرواتب الموظفين العمومين والمؤسسات والهيئات والمشاريع الحكومية منها. فلو تشعّبت مصارف الضرائب إلى الأمور غير المهمة تزيد النفقات وبالتالي تقل رواتب الموظفين وكفاءة الأجهزة الحكومية كافّة.
من أقواله العظيمة:
•يجب الحذر في الاستثمارات الأيدولوجيّة كما في الاستثمارات المادّيّة.
•يجب أن تبدأ كل ثورة اجتماعيّة بالضرورة ببضعة رجال استثنائيين، هم النخبة الطبيعيّة.
•في حال غياب معيار ثابت «للحق» «لن يكون هناك أيضاً تعريف ثابت» للجريمة.
•الاختيار بين الديمقراطيّة والملكيّة اختيار بين نظامين اجتم��عيّين معيبين.
•تنحرف عمليّة بناء الحضارة عن مسارها بشكل دائم عندما تتّخذ انتهاكات حقوق الملكيّة شكل تدخّلات حكوميّة. إن العلامة المميّزة لانتهاكات الحكومة أنّها على خلاف الأنشطة الإجراميّة تعتبر شرعيّة، ليس فقط من قبل وكلاء الحكومة القائمين عليها، بل من قبل عامّة الشعب أيضاً، وحتّى الضحيّة أحياناً.
•يحدّد مسار التاريخ البشريّ من خلال الأفكار: سواء صحيحة كانت أو خاطئة.
•ألا تملك الحقيقة دوماً جاذبيّتها الخاصّة؟!
الانتقادات على الجزئيات السابقة:
• تحيّز شديد في المقارنة، فهو يعطيك أسوأ ما عند الديمقراطية وأفضل ما عند الملكيّة، ولو راعى الحقّ في مقارنته لما كانت على هذا الشكل من تفضيل الملكيّة تفضيلا مطلقاً على الديمقراطيّة.
•اعتبر الديمقراطية مجرد وسيلة للحكم، إلا أنّها ممارسة شاملة ركنها الأساسي الرقابة والمساءلة، فلا مجال واسعاً للاستغلال الّذي يصفه هوبا في الديمقراطيات المحترمة. أما لو اعتبر مصر وليبيا ديمقراطيات فخطؤه في فهم جوهر الديمقراطيّة.
يقول هوبا: إن الوصيّ على الحكم ليس لديه مصلحة في عدم تدمير بلاده. (لأنه ليس مالكاً له) وهذا الرأي غريب.
معاملة أشخاص الإدارة بهذا الأسلوب إطلاقاً وكأنهم لا غاية لهم إلا السرقة والاستغلال أمر غريب، ويحاول هوبا بناء نظرية سياسية-اقتصادية عليه.. والبناء على انمساخ في الفهم لا يولد إلا مسخا فكريّا، لا نظريّة واقعية.
ولو استغلوا مناصبهم لمصالح غير قانونيّة فهم في حالة شذوذ غير طبيعيّة، تعاقب عليها الأنظمة، خاصّة أنّهم خاضعون للرقابة الشعبيّة أو رقابة من ينوب عن الشعب.
•التاريخ يثبت على امتداده أن الملوك ليسوا قادرين على إثراء وتعظيم ملكهم، لجهل أغلبهم في السياسية والحرب وضعفهم العام، وذلك لاعتياده حياة الرغد. والملوك الأقوياء ليسوا إلا طفرات نادرة في التاريخ.
راجع مقدمة ابن خلدون ، فصول اضمحلال الدولة. ففيها شرح واف.
•خلطه في المصطلحات الدستوريّة والسياسيّة، الذي قد يكون سببه مرجعيّته الاقتصادية.
مثل الخلط بين أنظمة الحكم ووسائل الحكم، وخلطه بين الدولة والحكومة.
•اعتبر حروب المَلكيّات حروبا غير عامّة لأن هدفها توسيع الملكيّة الخاصة للملك، وحروب الديمقراطيات حروبا شاملة. ولو نظر في غالب الحروب عبر التاريخ لوجد سببها إمّا دينيّا أو طائفيا، أو قوميّا، وكلا النوعين حروب عامة شاملة، أما حروب توسيع الملكية الخاصة فقليلة.
وتوسع جمهوريّة فرنسا وبريطانيا (بعد اعتبار الملك سائدا ولا يحكم) توسع له نفس أثر توسع الملوك لزيادة ملكيّاتهم الخاصة. فلا علاقة هنا لنوع النظام الحاكم بالاستعمار والتوسع، فهو نزعة طبيعية للحكومات المركزية مهما كان شكلها.
•اعتبار الدولة مجرد سارق للضرائب والملكيات الخاصة ومحتكر للقضاء وقوة الإكراه اعتبار لا إنصاف فيه، وسأوضح سببه عند مناقشة جزئية الحماية من الشركات الخاصة.
•تجيز الأناركية تملّك أي شيء، فلا وجود للمال العام فيها، وبالتالي يمكن ل"حيتان السوق" شراء الأنهر والمياه الإقليمية والشواطئ ومنابع المياه وحتى الجوّ كاملا، ويمكن للمالك منع من يشاء من دخول ملكيّته الخاصة، فلهؤلاء المُلّاك منع الكل من استخدام الموارد الطبيعية الي يملكون، وهذا مؤذن بخراب النظام الاجتماعي كاملا.
•الحديث عن كثرة القوانين وتفصيلها "لكل شيء تقريبا" كونه أمر سيئ، إلا أنه حماية للمستهلكين والمواطنين، وليس لزاما على كل الشعب معرفة كل القوانين والأنظمة فهو عمل المختصّين القانونيّين. كما أنه لا يلزم الجميع معرفة جميع الأدواء وأدويتها، فهو عمل الأطباء.
وأتفق معه تماما بخصوص استقرار التشريعات.
•منح حق الانفصال للأقليات كما قاله ميزيس وأيده فيه هوبا أساسه منطقيّ صحيح، لكنه مثير للإشكالات والحروب ومهلك للشعوب والملكيّات، ويزيد التمييز العرقيّ والدينيّ، كما أنّه سيخلق عالما ضائعا مليئا بالأشخاص الدوليّين، لآلاف الدول على الأقل، التي لا يعرف أغلبُها أغلبَها.
•اعتبار الدساتير والمحاكم العليا ألعابا في أيدي رجال الحكومة، وهذا لا يكون إلا في دولنا التعبانة.
•يعيب هوبا على الديمقراطيّات حدّها من الحريات العامّة لحفظ الصالح العام. كحظر التجارة في الأوبئة والحؤوب مثلا، وهذا لا أراه إلا وقاحةً واستهتاراً بالمجتمع.
•اعتبر العلاقة بين المركزيّة والازدهار مجرّد صدفة زمنيّة، دون توضيح أو تفسير لكلامه. واعتبر العديد من النتائج نتائج لأسباب هو افترضها دون إثبات كلامه. ولا أعلم على ماذا بنى منهجيّته في ربط الأسباب بالنتائج.
•مقارنته بين الانفصال الطوعيّ والاندماج القسريّ باطلة أساساً لأنه لا مقارنة بين شيئين من جنسين مختلفين. فلو أراد توضيح الفرق بين الانفصال والاندماج لقارنه بموضوعية أكبر. (دون أخذ أفضل صورة للانفصال مع أسوأ صورة للاندماج، كما فعل بمقارنة الديمقراطية والملكيّة).
•فكرته الأخلاقيّة للدول الشيوعيّة بعد زوال الشيوعيّة فيها رائعة نظريا لكن صعبة التطبيق عمليّا. ومفادها إعادة الأملاك المؤمّمة لأصحابها الأصليين أو ورثتهم الطبيعيّين إن وجدوا، لا طرحها في المزادات.
•يقول هوبا: لكل شخص الحق في استخدام ممتلكاته الخاصّة بأي طريقة يراها مناسبة طالما أنّه لا يؤذي السلامة الجسديّة لشخص آخر أو لممتلكاته.
وهذه نظرة قاصرة لحقوق الآخرين.
اعتمد القضاء والفقه الإداريّ والتشريعات من بعدهما أنّ النظام العام جزآن مادّيّ ومعنويّ، ويتمثل المعنويّ في الآداب والأخلاق العامّة. أما نظرة هوبا لهذا النظام فمادّيّة بحتة.
•الأمنية الليبرالية في حكومة عالميّة أمنية مرعبة. كما قال كارل ياسبر: في هذه الحالة لن يكون هناك مكان للهروب ولا الاختباء.
•مقارنته بين القانون العام والخاص واعتبار أنهما في عداوة، وحقيقتهما تكامل لا استقامة للأمر دونه، لأنه ضمانة للحق الخاص وللصالح العام في نفس الوقت.
•نتيجة لدعوته لإلغاء الدولة كلها لفشلها حسب نظرته لأنها تأخذ الضرائب مقابل الحماية والقضاء، ولا بديل يقدم هذه الخدمات غيرها، وبالتالي ستتردّى نسبة فاعلية خدماتها لانعدام المنافسة والبيروقراطية الحكومية في إدلرتها، فيجب إيجاد حل لمشكلة الحماية والأمن بعد إزالة الدولة، وكان حله الشركات الخاصة للتأمين والحماية، واشترط عدم احتكار هذه الخدمات من عدد قليل من الشركات.
نقد الفكرة:
١-كنّا ندفع الضرائب، والآن ندفع الاشتراكات، التي قد تكون أعلى، فلم تحلّ المشكلة الماليّة.
٢-الخدمة لا تشمل إلا المشتركين القادرين على الدفع، أما الفقراء فلا بواكي لهم.
٣-كما في أيّة تجمع تنافسيّ للشركات، قد يتفق أصحاب هذه الشركات إما من خلال نقابة أو جمعية بينهم على وضع حد أدنى للقيمة المطلوبة للخدمة، وبالتالي لن يكون التنافس التجاري بينها مطلقاً لضمان مصلحة الشركات الكبرى. وعليه لن تكون الأسعار منخفضة كما ظنّ هوبا.
٤-إذا نشأ خلاف قضائي بين الشركة القضائية والمنتفع، فلأيّ جهة ستقدّم الدعوى في ظل انعدام الدولة؟ ببساطة سنتحول من دكتاتورية الحكومات إلى دكتاتورية الشركات. تماما كدكتاتورية العمّال في الاشتراكيّة!
هانز هيرمان هوبا
منشورات تكوين
___
الكتاب المحيّر، الّذي يشدّك لذكائه، وينفّرك ويستفزك بفكر مؤلّفه.
مداره إثبات فشل الديمقراطية كوسيلة حكم وتناقضها وإضرارها بأخلاقيّات واقتصاد وفكر المجتمع، والأهمّ عند المؤلّف تناقضها مع الملكيّة الخاصّة وتهديدها المحدق لها.
وهنا لا يدافع الكاتب عن الأوتوقراطيّة والدولة البوليسيّة كما قد يبدو من السطح، بل هو مدافع عن الأناركيّة -اللاسلطويّة- ويرى أنّها الوسيلة المثلى لحفظ الملكيّات الخاصة والحرّيّات الفرديّة.
في بداية الكتاب يضعنا المؤلّف أمام معيار لطيف لن يفارق عقلك -على الأقل بعد شهور من قراءة الكتاب- وستسقطه على كافّة خياراتك في الحياة (ماليّةً أو اجتماعيّة). وهو معيار التفضيل الزمني. (تفضيل المرء القيام بشيء أو كسب شيء أو متعة في وقت معيّن، فلو ارتفع التفضيل الزمنيّ زادت رغبتك في تحقّق الأمر فوراً أو في أسرع وقت، وإذا انخفض التفضيل الزمنيّ فأنت تؤجّل نيل المكسب لوقت لاحق، وعليه سيزداد المكسب مع مرور الوقت. فمثلا إن استثمرت مبلغاً في التجارة وكان أمامك خياران: جني الربح يعد شهر وتكون ربحت ٥٠% من قيمة رأس مالك، أو أن تصبر ٥ أشهر فتربح ٣٠٠%، فلو اخترت الأول يكون تفضيلك الزمنيّ مرتفعاً، ولو اخترت الثاني كان منخفضاً). واعتمد هانز هيرمان هوبا هذا المعيار لقياس ازدهار الحضارة، فكلما فل التفضيل الزمنيّ للمجتمع زاد تركيزه على بناء الحضارة الراسخة، ولم ينصرف ذهن وجهد المجتمع المكاسب الآنيّة البائدة.
وبناء على ما سبق، اتّخذ هوبا معيار التفضيل الزمنيّ في دحضه لألوهيّة أو قداسة الديمقراطية، فحسب رأيه: الديمقراطية تؤدي لزيادة التفضيل الزمنيّ، وبالتالي انهيار الأخلاق والحضارة.
واعتبر الطريقة الّتي يكذب أو يدلّس بها المرشّحون السياسيّون في الانتخابات في النظام الديمقراطيّ (المعتمد على الأغلبيّة) على النّاخبين نتيجةً لارتفاع التفضيل الزمني عند الشعوب، فيطمحون للنتائج السريعة الّتي يعدونهم بها ولا ينظرون إلى الأمور نظرة واعية محيطة مدركة لبواطنها ومآلاتها.
ثمّ يبدأ بالمقارنة بين الديمقراطيّة والمَلَكيّة. (وهنا يجب التمييز بين الملكيّة المطلقة والملكيّة القانونيّة والدستوريّة، فقصد هوبا هنا هو الملكية المطلقة الّتي تعتبر السّمة الأوضح للدول ما قبل الحرب العالميّة الأولى).
والمقارنة بين الديمقراطية والمَلَكيّة مقارنةٌ مَعيبةٌ اصطلاحا، وكان أولى لو سمّى الملكية بمصطلح الديكتاتوريّة أو الأوتوقراطيّة، لأنهما وسيلتا حكم مثل الديمقراطية، أما الملكيّة فهي نظام سياسيّ. ومقارنة المختلفات لا تجوز عقلاً.
وأساس هذه المقارنة أنّ الملك أو الدكتاتور يتعامل مع الدولة كملكيّة خاصّة له ولأسرته يرثونها من بعده، فيحرص على إنمائها كونها مِلكاً خاصّاً مورّثاً. أمّا في الديمقراطيّات فالقائم بأعمال الإدارة ليس صاحب سيادة، بل ممارساً لمهمامها لمدّة معيّنة غير قابلة للتجديد بشكل مطلق، فيرى هوبا أنّ هذا الشخص سيسعى لاستغلال ثروة البلاد أو المنصب لصالحه في هذه المدّة، وكون هذا المال ليس ملكاً له، ولا لورثته بعده، فإنه سيجتهد في استغلاله بكل الطرق الممكنة، لا إنمائه كالملوك، وبتتابع الرؤساء والنوّاب على المنصب، سيستغلّ استغلالاً جائراً بشكل متكرّر حتّى تضمحلّ الثروة ثمّ تتلاشى، وبالتالي تلاشي الدولة. لأن هذا المسؤول لا يتحمّل عبء الديون التي يُثقل بها الدولة، بل يتحملها الشعب، أما الملك فيعتبر هذا الدين دينا يجب أداؤه من ذمّته الماليّة الخاصّة (الدولة، المزرعة).
والملك أحرص على توسيع أرضه وسلطاته وبالتالي ثراء الدولة، من المنتخَب محدود المدّة الّذي لا هموم توسّعيّةً عنده غالباً.
كما اعتبر المَلَكيّات أكثر استقراراً من الديمقراطيّات، من نواحي التشريعات والمجتمع والاقتصاد.
ونظرته للملكيّة هنا ليست دعماً لها، بل تفضيلاً لها على الديمقراطية.
والنّظام الأمثل بالنسبة لهوبا هو اللانظام، أو النظام الطبيعي الّذي يخلو من العيوب الاقتصاديّة والأخلاقيّة، أي أنّه خالٍ من الاحتكار والضرائب. (الأناركيّة المنظّمة أو الرأسمالية الخالصة أو مجتمع القانون الخاص[يكون جميع الأفراد فيه مُعامَلين على قدم المساواة دون سلطة عليا للحكومة أو مؤسساتها]) ويعتبر هوبا القانون العام (الدستوريّ والإداريّ والماليّ وقانون العقوبات) الذي تكون الدولة فيه صاحبة سلطة وسيادة تعلو على الأفراد العاديّين، عدوّاً للقانون الخاص. وحقيقة الأمر أنّه ضمانة وحماية لأشخاص القانون الخاص.
وسبب هذه الفكرة عنده أنّه يعتبر الدولة والحكومة مجرّد فارض ضرائب محتكر للقوّة والإكراه في إقليم معيّن، هدفه سرقة الملكيّات الخاصّة وتعميمها.
والخطير بنظره أنّ الحكومة تمارس الإجرام تحت مظلّة قانونيّة بنزعها الملكيّات الخاصّة من مُلّاكِها الأصليّين.
وبناءً على هذا "التهديد" يرتفع التفضيل الزمنيّ عند أصحاب الملكيّات الخاصة، لخوفهم من سلطة الحكومة وتهديد نزع ملكيّاتهم منهم؛ وبالتالي امتناع التطوّر الحضاريّ للمجتمع، وازدياد السّعار الملاحق للمُتَع السّريعة، أي الانحطاط الأخلاقيّ العامّ.
وكون الديمقراطيّة إعادة توزيع للثروات (أخذ من الأغنى لصالح الأفقر)، فإنه يعتبرها مسبّبا رئيسيّاً للكسل والتّواكل وعدم الاعتماد على الذات وزيادة الاستهلاك وقصر النظر، فطالما يغتني من لا يجتهد على حساب من يجتهد فلن يكون هناك أي داعٍ ليقوم الفقير ليعمل. وعلى الناحية الأخرى، فالذي يعمل ويُقتطع جزء من دخله لإعالة من لا يريد إعالة نفسه، سيعمل بإنتاجيّة أقل.
وعليه، فتوزيع الثروة زاد المشاكل الّتي جاء لحلّها إشكالاً.
والديمقراطيّات تدعو إلى الحروب الأهليّة، خاصة في البلاد متعدّدة القوميّات، لأنّ القوميّات الأكبر ستنفرد بحق تقرير المصير دون غيرها لنيلها أغلبيّة الأصوات في الانتخابات، وبالتالي توليد شعور بالظلم مآله حتماً الدعوة للانفصال أو الثورات، أي إعلان حرب على الدولة المركزيّة.
•نتائج الديمقراطيّة:
ازدياد الحروب الأهلية والدوليّة.
تقدم سير المركزيّة السياسيّة.
ارتفاع دائم للضرائب والديون.
تضخم وتوحّش هيكليّة الدولة وازدياد الموظفين العموميّين.
الهجرات من مراكز الفقر إلى مراكز الثروة.
تحريف القوانين والتشريعات وفق رغبات النوّاب والوزراء.
تضخّم عدد القوانين فبالتالي استحالة إدراكها من العوامّ، ولو أدركوها فهي سريعة التعديل منعدمة الاستقرار.
تدهور مؤسسة الأسرة والزواج، وازدياد نسب الطلاق والولادات غير الشرعيّة والإجهاض والأبوّة المنفردة.
انخفاض نسب المواليد.
تراجع النخب السياسيّة والفكريّة لتراجع مستوى التعليم.
الركود الاقتصادي.
ارتفاع معدلات الجريمة والبطالة والتدهور النفسيّ، والسعي خلف المتعة.
السماح لأيّ كان بالوصول إلى المناصب التشريعيّة والإدارية، وبالتالي وصول حمقى وعنصريين وفشلة إلى مناصب خطيرة قد تهلك الدولة.
•الضرائب وكيفيّة صرفها في الحكومات الديمقراطيّة:
١-تصرف على تكاليف القبض على المجرمين ومحاكمتهم وسجنهم، وبالتالي يتحمّل الملتزمون دافعو الضرائب عبء المجرمين.
٢-مشاريع الحفاظ على البيئة التي تؤدي "لإيجاد حيوانات ميسورة وبشر أعسر وأقلّ جودة.
٣-تعتبر الضرائب مورد ميزانية الدولة الأكبر، فرواتب الموظفين العمومين والمؤسسات والهيئات والمشاريع الحكومية منها. فلو تشعّبت مصارف الضرائب إلى الأمور غير المهمة تزيد النفقات وبالتالي تقل رواتب الموظفين وكفاءة الأجهزة الحكومية كافّة.
من أقواله العظيمة:
•يجب الحذر في الاستثمارات الأيدولوجيّة كما في الاستثمارات المادّيّة.
•يجب أن تبدأ كل ثورة اجتماعيّة بالضرورة ببضعة رجال استثنائيين، هم النخبة الطبيعيّة.
•في حال غياب معيار ثابت «للحق» «لن يكون هناك أيضاً تعريف ثابت» للجريمة.
•الاختيار بين الديمقراطيّة والملكيّة اختيار بين نظامين اجتم��عيّين معيبين.
•تنحرف عمليّة بناء الحضارة عن مسارها بشكل دائم عندما تتّخذ انتهاكات حقوق الملكيّة شكل تدخّلات حكوميّة. إن العلامة المميّزة لانتهاكات الحكومة أنّها على خلاف الأنشطة الإجراميّة تعتبر شرعيّة، ليس فقط من قبل وكلاء الحكومة القائمين عليها، بل من قبل عامّة الشعب أيضاً، وحتّى الضحيّة أحياناً.
•يحدّد مسار التاريخ البشريّ من خلال الأفكار: سواء صحيحة كانت أو خاطئة.
•ألا تملك الحقيقة دوماً جاذبيّتها الخاصّة؟!
الانتقادات على الجزئيات السابقة:
• تحيّز شديد في المقارنة، فهو يعطيك أسوأ ما عند الديمقراطية وأفضل ما عند الملكيّة، ولو راعى الحقّ في مقارنته لما كانت على هذا الشكل من تفضيل الملكيّة تفضيلا مطلقاً على الديمقراطيّة.
•اعتبر الديمقراطية مجرد وسيلة للحكم، إلا أنّها ممارسة شاملة ركنها الأساسي الرقابة والمساءلة، فلا مجال واسعاً للاستغلال الّذي يصفه هوبا في الديمقراطيات المحترمة. أما لو اعتبر مصر وليبيا ديمقراطيات فخطؤه في فهم جوهر الديمقراطيّة.
يقول هوبا: إن الوصيّ على الحكم ليس لديه مصلحة في عدم تدمير بلاده. (لأنه ليس مالكاً له) وهذا الرأي غريب.
معاملة أشخاص الإدارة بهذا الأسلوب إطلاقاً وكأنهم لا غاية لهم إلا السرقة والاستغلال أمر غريب، ويحاول هوبا بناء نظرية سياسية-اقتصادية عليه.. والبناء على انمساخ في الفهم لا يولد إلا مسخا فكريّا، لا نظريّة واقعية.
ولو استغلوا مناصبهم لمصالح غير قانونيّة فهم في حالة شذوذ غير طبيعيّة، تعاقب عليها الأنظمة، خاصّة أنّهم خاضعون للرقابة الشعبيّة أو رقابة من ينوب عن الشعب.
•التاريخ يثبت على امتداده أن الملوك ليسوا قادرين على إثراء وتعظيم ملكهم، لجهل أغلبهم في السياسية والحرب وضعفهم العام، وذلك لاعتياده حياة الرغد. والملوك الأقوياء ليسوا إلا طفرات نادرة في التاريخ.
راجع مقدمة ابن خلدون ، فصول اضمحلال الدولة. ففيها شرح واف.
•خلطه في المصطلحات الدستوريّة والسياسيّة، الذي قد يكون سببه مرجعيّته الاقتصادية.
مثل الخلط بين أنظمة الحكم ووسائل الحكم، وخلطه بين الدولة والحكومة.
•اعتبر حروب المَلكيّات حروبا غير عامّة لأن هدفها توسيع الملكيّة الخاصة للملك، وحروب الديمقراطيات حروبا شاملة. ولو نظر في غالب الحروب عبر التاريخ لوجد سببها إمّا دينيّا أو طائفيا، أو قوميّا، وكلا النوعين حروب عامة شاملة، أما حروب توسيع الملكية الخاصة فقليلة.
وتوسع جمهوريّة فرنسا وبريطانيا (بعد اعتبار الملك سائدا ولا يحكم) توسع له نفس أثر توسع الملوك لزيادة ملكيّاتهم الخاصة. فلا علاقة هنا لنوع النظام الحاكم بالاستعمار والتوسع، فهو نزعة طبيعية للحكومات المركزية مهما كان شكلها.
•اعتبار الدولة مجرد سارق للضرائب والملكيات الخاصة ومحتكر للقضاء وقوة الإكراه اعتبار لا إنصاف فيه، وسأوضح سببه عند مناقشة جزئية الحماية من الشركات الخاصة.
•تجيز الأناركية تملّك أي شيء، فلا وجود للمال العام فيها، وبالتالي يمكن ل"حيتان السوق" شراء الأنهر والمياه الإقليمية والشواطئ ومنابع المياه وحتى الجوّ كاملا، ويمكن للمالك منع من يشاء من دخول ملكيّته الخاصة، فلهؤلاء المُلّاك منع الكل من استخدام الموارد الطبيعية الي يملكون، وهذا مؤذن بخراب النظام الاجتماعي كاملا.
•الحديث عن كثرة القوانين وتفصيلها "لكل شيء تقريبا" كونه أمر سيئ، إلا أنه حماية للمستهلكين والمواطنين، وليس لزاما على كل الشعب معرفة كل القوانين والأنظمة فهو عمل المختصّين القانونيّين. كما أنه لا يلزم الجميع معرفة جميع الأدواء وأدويتها، فهو عمل الأطباء.
وأتفق معه تماما بخصوص استقرار التشريعات.
•منح حق الانفصال للأقليات كما قاله ميزيس وأيده فيه هوبا أساسه منطقيّ صحيح، لكنه مثير للإشكالات والحروب ومهلك للشعوب والملكيّات، ويزيد التمييز العرقيّ والدينيّ، كما أنّه سيخلق عالما ضائعا مليئا بالأشخاص الدوليّين، لآلاف الدول على الأقل، التي لا يعرف أغلبُها أغلبَها.
•اعتبار الدساتير والمحاكم العليا ألعابا في أيدي رجال الحكومة، وهذا لا يكون إلا في دولنا التعبانة.
•يعيب هوبا على الديمقراطيّات حدّها من الحريات العامّة لحفظ الصالح العام. كحظر التجارة في الأوبئة والحؤوب مثلا، وهذا لا أراه إلا وقاحةً واستهتاراً بالمجتمع.
•اعتبر العلاقة بين المركزيّة والازدهار مجرّد صدفة زمنيّة، دون توضيح أو تفسير لكلامه. واعتبر العديد من النتائج نتائج لأسباب هو افترضها دون إثبات كلامه. ولا أعلم على ماذا بنى منهجيّته في ربط الأسباب بالنتائج.
•مقارنته بين الانفصال الطوعيّ والاندماج القسريّ باطلة أساساً لأنه لا مقارنة بين شيئين من جنسين مختلفين. فلو أراد توضيح الفرق بين الانفصال والاندماج لقارنه بموضوعية أكبر. (دون أخذ أفضل صورة للانفصال مع أسوأ صورة للاندماج، كما فعل بمقارنة الديمقراطية والملكيّة).
•فكرته الأخلاقيّة للدول الشيوعيّة بعد زوال الشيوعيّة فيها رائعة نظريا لكن صعبة التطبيق عمليّا. ومفادها إعادة الأملاك المؤمّمة لأصحابها الأصليين أو ورثتهم الطبيعيّين إن وجدوا، لا طرحها في المزادات.
•يقول هوبا: لكل شخص الحق في استخدام ممتلكاته الخاصّة بأي طريقة يراها مناسبة طالما أنّه لا يؤذي السلامة الجسديّة لشخص آخر أو لممتلكاته.
وهذه نظرة قاصرة لحقوق الآخرين.
اعتمد القضاء والفقه الإداريّ والتشريعات من بعدهما أنّ النظام العام جزآن مادّيّ ومعنويّ، ويتمثل المعنويّ في الآداب والأخلاق العامّة. أما نظرة هوبا لهذا النظام فمادّيّة بحتة.
•الأمنية الليبرالية في حكومة عالميّة أمنية مرعبة. كما قال كارل ياسبر: في هذه الحالة لن يكون هناك مكان للهروب ولا الاختباء.
•مقارنته بين القانون العام والخاص واعتبار أنهما في عداوة، وحقيقتهما تكامل لا استقامة للأمر دونه، لأنه ضمانة للحق الخاص وللصالح العام في نفس الوقت.
•نتيجة لدعوته لإلغاء الدولة كلها لفشلها حسب نظرته لأنها تأخذ الضرائب مقابل الحماية والقضاء، ولا بديل يقدم هذه الخدمات غيرها، وبالتالي ستتردّى نسبة فاعلية خدماتها لانعدام المنافسة والبيروقراطية الحكومية في إدلرتها، فيجب إيجاد حل لمشكلة الحماية والأمن بعد إزالة الدولة، وكان حله الشركات الخاصة للتأمين والحماية، واشترط عدم احتكار هذه الخدمات من عدد قليل من الشركات.
نقد الفكرة:
١-كنّا ندفع الضرائب، والآن ندفع الاشتراكات، التي قد تكون أعلى، فلم تحلّ المشكلة الماليّة.
٢-الخدمة لا تشمل إلا المشتركين القادرين على الدفع، أما الفقراء فلا بواكي لهم.
٣-كما في أيّة تجمع تنافسيّ للشركات، قد يتفق أصحاب هذه الشركات إما من خلال نقابة أو جمعية بينهم على وضع حد أدنى للقيمة المطلوبة للخدمة، وبالتالي لن يكون التنافس التجاري بينها مطلقاً لضمان مصلحة الشركات الكبرى. وعليه لن تكون الأسعار منخفضة كما ظنّ هوبا.
٤-إذا نشأ خلاف قضائي بين الشركة القضائية والمنتفع، فلأيّ جهة ستقدّم الدعوى في ظل انعدام الدولة؟ ببساطة سنتحول من دكتاتورية الحكومات إلى دكتاتورية الشركات. تماما كدكتاتورية العمّال في الاشتراكيّة!
![Profile Image for [Name Redacted].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1347082397i%2F287915._UY200_CR0%2C0%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
October 2, 2023
A post-Evolan Evola who rejects monarchy but concludes that it is nowhere near as tyrannical as what we claim to be "Democracy." Instead Hoppe advocates for a pseudo-Libertarian anarchy grounded in the free association of families. Fascinating, if decidedly bleak in its perspective on the 21st century -- even more-so because it predicted our current plight nearly 25 years ago.
I think I'll have to re-read this one day, both because it is so dense and because it is a more intense black pill than I'd anticipated.
I think I'll have to re-read this one day, both because it is so dense and because it is a more intense black pill than I'd anticipated.
December 5, 2020
This controversial book is an excellent collection of essays on the flaws of the sacrosanct institution of expansive democratic government. Hoppe argues that an expansive, compulsory democratic system incentivizes the short-term consumption of capital goods at the expense of long-term interests. After all, public officials in a democratic system do not own public property; thus, they are motivated to seek maximum income from the use of that property during their short tenure in office. As a result, they will not engage in wise saving/investment like private property-owners and instead will waste capital goods extorted, in the first place, from the nation's populace. Further, expansive democratic control turns people, corporations, and special interests into "political entrepreneurs" seeking favors and transfers of wealth via appeal to the majority population (see also Buchanan's work on public choice economics and Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter). Increasingly, the rich acquire their wealth through association with the coercive machinery of the state rather than through the creation of value typical of the free market. Hoppe credits expansive democratic control with the erosion of freedom (particularly freedom of association and economic liberty). All of this is done under the legitimizing auspices of popular government.
The weakest element of the book is the explanation of how a free-market system might address problems traditionally handled by the state (transportation infrastructure, security/anti-crime services, etc.). While I enjoy reading about Hoppe's theories, they have the least practical value. After all, if we could accurately predict how the free market would respond to various demands, effective central planning would be possible!
It is important to note that democratic control does not legitimize human rights abuses, infringement on private property, or violent aggression. It does not erase the calculation problem of centralized control of the economy or diminish the damage of social engineering. With that in mind, Hoppe is correct in asserting that the reach of government - even democratic government - must be strictly curtailed to preserve human rights (property rights). While I am not entirely on board with Hoppe's views, I appreciate his unconventional thinking and his willingness to take on sacred institutions. This is a fun, engaging read. At the very least, it challenges strongly held views and requires its readers to think about why they believe what they believe.
The weakest element of the book is the explanation of how a free-market system might address problems traditionally handled by the state (transportation infrastructure, security/anti-crime services, etc.). While I enjoy reading about Hoppe's theories, they have the least practical value. After all, if we could accurately predict how the free market would respond to various demands, effective central planning would be possible!
It is important to note that democratic control does not legitimize human rights abuses, infringement on private property, or violent aggression. It does not erase the calculation problem of centralized control of the economy or diminish the damage of social engineering. With that in mind, Hoppe is correct in asserting that the reach of government - even democratic government - must be strictly curtailed to preserve human rights (property rights). While I am not entirely on board with Hoppe's views, I appreciate his unconventional thinking and his willingness to take on sacred institutions. This is a fun, engaging read. At the very least, it challenges strongly held views and requires its readers to think about why they believe what they believe.
January 9, 2015
What starts out as an argument against democracy eventually devolves into an argument for an anarcho-capitalist society run by multinational insurance companies. Democracy: The God That Failed has many flaws, but for anyone moderately interested in history, political theory, and political philosophy would be wise to read Hoppe's book. It has a several flaws and will probably have left-wing types foaming at the mouth most of the time, but it's a well-written collection of radical libertarian arguments.
Hoppe is one the most lucid clear, well read and thorough political writers I've read in quite some time. Unfortunately his major flaw comes shining through quite too much: he is a slave to his premises of radical libertarianism. He acknowledges this, but anyone who disagrees with any part of his premises will have a hard time justifying his ultimate thesis of a stateless society.
So I'll give a bit of pros and cons. Let's start with the pros.
1. Hoppe loves footnotes. LOVES them. I've added about 10+ books I'm interested in reading just from footnotes alone. Many a time a footnote alone will exceed the length of an entire section or chapter. It's very clear that Hoppe has done his research on his subjects, but he does have a severe tendency to cull from the same sources. (This book might as well be called: Mises & Rothbard: Why They Are Right About Everything)
2. The complete lack of political correctness. This might be a con depending on your political persuasion, but I'm much more prone to enjoy an author who isn't afraid to share his radical beliefs proudly and logically.
3. Sections on democracy, immigration, and modern American conservatism. Here is where Hoppe shines. It's also one of the few places where he no longer has to rely on his premise that any government is unjust.
Cons
1. This is a book of collected speeches, so often I found myself re-reading paragraphs I had read in previous chapters. At first I had no issues with Hoppe repeated clarifying his position, but by the 17th time he repeats what a state is supposed to do, you get a bit sick of it.
2. As mentioned previously, Hoppe is a radical libertarian. If you think Ron Paul is crazy, Hoppe belongs in the mental asylum. This distracts from his arguments against democracy and spoils the book.
Generally a thought provoking read, Democracy: The God That Failed too often slips into radical libertarian rants. If you're a libertarian or interested in political theory, highly recommended. Otherwise, steer clear.
Hoppe is one the most lucid clear, well read and thorough political writers I've read in quite some time. Unfortunately his major flaw comes shining through quite too much: he is a slave to his premises of radical libertarianism. He acknowledges this, but anyone who disagrees with any part of his premises will have a hard time justifying his ultimate thesis of a stateless society.
So I'll give a bit of pros and cons. Let's start with the pros.
1. Hoppe loves footnotes. LOVES them. I've added about 10+ books I'm interested in reading just from footnotes alone. Many a time a footnote alone will exceed the length of an entire section or chapter. It's very clear that Hoppe has done his research on his subjects, but he does have a severe tendency to cull from the same sources. (This book might as well be called: Mises & Rothbard: Why They Are Right About Everything)
2. The complete lack of political correctness. This might be a con depending on your political persuasion, but I'm much more prone to enjoy an author who isn't afraid to share his radical beliefs proudly and logically.
3. Sections on democracy, immigration, and modern American conservatism. Here is where Hoppe shines. It's also one of the few places where he no longer has to rely on his premise that any government is unjust.
Cons
1. This is a book of collected speeches, so often I found myself re-reading paragraphs I had read in previous chapters. At first I had no issues with Hoppe repeated clarifying his position, but by the 17th time he repeats what a state is supposed to do, you get a bit sick of it.
2. As mentioned previously, Hoppe is a radical libertarian. If you think Ron Paul is crazy, Hoppe belongs in the mental asylum. This distracts from his arguments against democracy and spoils the book.
Generally a thought provoking read, Democracy: The God That Failed too often slips into radical libertarian rants. If you're a libertarian or interested in political theory, highly recommended. Otherwise, steer clear.
August 4, 2020
عندي مشكلة مبدأية مع مقاربة المسألة الديمقراطية وأشكال الحكم الرشيد من زاوية اقتصادية محضة. فلكونها غير سوية أخلاقياً وقيمياً فإنها ستؤدي حتماً لنتائج من نفس العينة، مثل تفضيل هوبا في هذا الكتاب الأنظمة الملكية (رغم استبدادها) على الديمقراطية، وحكم الفرد على حكم الجماعة، واستحسانه الفروقات الطبقية ونقده لتوزيع الثروات والعدالة الاجتماعية وغيرها. الاقتصاد وحده - بعبارة موجزة - ليس أساس النهوض الحضاري في وجهة نظري
هناك انتقادات محقة للمسألة الديمقراطية، فهي ليست النموذج الأفضل بشكل مطلق بل خلاصة التجربة البشرية وربما أفضل الأنظمة السيئة كما قال تشرشل، ولذا فهي تتطلب على أي حال النقد والتصويب. ولكن عندما نتناولها بالنقد فمن الضروري التمييز بين العناصر المتداخلة في تكوين الدولة الحديثة التي نشأت بعد الحرب العالمية الأولى: الديمقراطية الليبرالية والرأسمالية والدولة القومية، حتى نفرق بين ما نتج عن الديمقراطية وما نتج عن هيمنة الرأسمالية، وما تسببت به هيكلية الدول القومية الخ
في واقع الأمر، عند النظر في تشخيص هوبا للوضع العالمي بعد الحرب العالمية الأولى، نجد أن الكثير من المشكلات التي أشار إليها من ارتفاع في معدلات البطالة والدين العام وارتفاع التفضيل الزمني وغيرها، هي نتاج صعود وهيمنة الرأسمالية والفردانية التي ارتكزت عليها الليبرالية الغربية ولا علاقة لها بالممارسة الديمقراطية كما يحاول هوبا إثباته في الكتاب.
والمشكلة في الكتاب تتخطى ما وجهه هوبا من نقد للديمقراطية، إلى البديل الذي يطرحه، الرأسمالية اللاسلطوية كما أسماها، والتي ستقود حتماً إلى أكثر صور الرأسمالية توحشاً وجموحاً، وهو ما سيؤدي إلى تأزيم المشكلات ذاتها التي استعرضها هوبا ونسبها للديمقراطية ظلماً
المدهش، أن هوبا ارتكز في بناء نظريته على مقارنة الأنظمة الديمقراطية اليوم بالأنظمة الملكية في أوروبا القرن الثامن عشر والتاسع عشر، رغم وجود فروقات ضخمة بين الحقبتين التاريخيتين لا سيما في وسائل التسلط، ما لو توفرت لتلك الأنظمة لربما أدت لاستبدادها أكثر (وقد كانت مستبدة على أي حال ودموية تجاه شعوبها وتجاه شعوب العالم الأخرى التي لا يبدو هوبا مكترثاً بها على أي حال). كان الأولى لو نظر هوبا إلى الأنظمة الملكية الوراثية القائمة في زماننا ولو فعل لما استعصى عليه الخلوص إلى تهافت نظريته واستنتاجاته.
هناك انتقادات محقة للمسألة الديمقراطية، فهي ليست النموذج الأفضل بشكل مطلق بل خلاصة التجربة البشرية وربما أفضل الأنظمة السيئة كما قال تشرشل، ولذا فهي تتطلب على أي حال النقد والتصويب. ولكن عندما نتناولها بالنقد فمن الضروري التمييز بين العناصر المتداخلة في تكوين الدولة الحديثة التي نشأت بعد الحرب العالمية الأولى: الديمقراطية الليبرالية والرأسمالية والدولة القومية، حتى نفرق بين ما نتج عن الديمقراطية وما نتج عن هيمنة الرأسمالية، وما تسببت به هيكلية الدول القومية الخ
في واقع الأمر، عند النظر في تشخيص هوبا للوضع العالمي بعد الحرب العالمية الأولى، نجد أن الكثير من المشكلات التي أشار إليها من ارتفاع في معدلات البطالة والدين العام وارتفاع التفضيل الزمني وغيرها، هي نتاج صعود وهيمنة الرأسمالية والفردانية التي ارتكزت عليها الليبرالية الغربية ولا علاقة لها بالممارسة الديمقراطية كما يحاول هوبا إثباته في الكتاب.
والمشكلة في الكتاب تتخطى ما وجهه هوبا من نقد للديمقراطية، إلى البديل الذي يطرحه، الرأسمالية اللاسلطوية كما أسماها، والتي ستقود حتماً إلى أكثر صور الرأسمالية توحشاً وجموحاً، وهو ما سيؤدي إلى تأزيم المشكلات ذاتها التي استعرضها هوبا ونسبها للديمقراطية ظلماً
المدهش، أن هوبا ارتكز في بناء نظريته على مقارنة الأنظمة الديمقراطية اليوم بالأنظمة الملكية في أوروبا القرن الثامن عشر والتاسع عشر، رغم وجود فروقات ضخمة بين الحقبتين التاريخيتين لا سيما في وسائل التسلط، ما لو توفرت لتلك الأنظمة لربما أدت لاستبدادها أكثر (وقد كانت مستبدة على أي حال ودموية تجاه شعوبها وتجاه شعوب العالم الأخرى التي لا يبدو هوبا مكترثاً بها على أي حال). كان الأولى لو نظر هوبا إلى الأنظمة الملكية الوراثية القائمة في زماننا ولو فعل لما استعصى عليه الخلوص إلى تهافت نظريته واستنتاجاته.
December 13, 2013
Been wanting to read this book for awhile, finally have. Over time, I've found myself with a leaning toward monarchy--not sure why. Hoppe provides some excellent examples in this book of why democracies are inherently bad. Throughout, he tends to contrast democracies with either monarchies or anarcho-capitalist communities. While he obviously favors the latter, he has many good things to say for the former.
One point of interest is that he rarely says anything bad about monarchies. When he does, it is generally more of an assertion that they are bad because they can exercise the power to tax and use force. He assumes that his readers will agree that any exercise of these powers is necessarily an evil, what Frederic Bastiat called "legal plunder." He offers very little to prove such an assertion. Generally, however, he is very positive of monarchies, recognizing that they have what democracies do not: private ownership. This private ownership is built into the system for the king or queen and provides a protection (an imperfect one, but a protection nonetheless) against excessive tyranny by the king or queen. This private ownership and protection is similar to what is found in the theoretical benefits of a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist community. Democracies, on the other hand, have no such private ownership built into the system, and therefore offer none of the protections against abuse.
This book is a good one, and worth reading if you are at all interested in libertarian or monarchical politics. He's clearly arguing for his own ultimate perspective: anarcho-capitalism, but he provides many great arguments in favor of a monarchy.
One point of interest is that he rarely says anything bad about monarchies. When he does, it is generally more of an assertion that they are bad because they can exercise the power to tax and use force. He assumes that his readers will agree that any exercise of these powers is necessarily an evil, what Frederic Bastiat called "legal plunder." He offers very little to prove such an assertion. Generally, however, he is very positive of monarchies, recognizing that they have what democracies do not: private ownership. This private ownership is built into the system for the king or queen and provides a protection (an imperfect one, but a protection nonetheless) against excessive tyranny by the king or queen. This private ownership and protection is similar to what is found in the theoretical benefits of a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist community. Democracies, on the other hand, have no such private ownership built into the system, and therefore offer none of the protections against abuse.
This book is a good one, and worth reading if you are at all interested in libertarian or monarchical politics. He's clearly arguing for his own ultimate perspective: anarcho-capitalism, but he provides many great arguments in favor of a monarchy.
September 20, 2012
Often rigorous and powerful, yet deeply flawed.
February 9, 2025
Hoppe's analysis of Democracy is an instigate investigation on this new statist model that prevails in the contemporary era. Starting very saddle, with the introduction of Time Preference, a concept which connects all the topics of the book, and ending criticizing minarchists. Explaining how any type of Democracy subverts, and abuses, human natural time preferences to gain more power. And how this will lead to the destruction of human society. All this said, I still think this book have some problems that can lead to bad philosophical takes and vicious that should be avoided.
The first thing that was on my concern is the abuse of praxeology, while philosophers investigation on the reason why humans act can advance our knowledge of reality, exist an abysmal jump to say that because humans act one way, as in the act of thinking that they possess property over something, this would justify believing that this says something about reality, the maximum we should say is that "this concept is a useful fiction" as one would have to justify why they believe that the object of the acting, as in the latter example the property over something, actually exist. And in this book, at least in my first reading of it, Hoppe seems to believe that property is something that exist ontologically, not as just useful fiction. This would be one of my criticism of this book, not to say that this is the only problem of it, one that resonated with me, was that Hoppe never criticizes Rothbard bad philosophy, to the contrary, and as I was reading the book it was appears that the majority of arguments relies on them, and I couldn't get myself to not remember Feser's critiques of Rothbard.
Now, to finalize this review, I would briefly talk about the Lockean justification. For the one that doesn't know about it, the Lockean Justification is a very common justification of the existence of private property, that basically goes this way:
"Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it, it hath by his labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others. He that is nourished by the Acorns he pickt up under an Oak, or the Apples he gathered from the Trees in the Wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No Body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, When did they begin to be his? When he digested? Or when he eat? Or when he boiled? Or when he brought them home? Or when he pickt them up?"
So why I chose to talk about this specific justification? The reason would be that, for the libertarian, it comes from necessity that property NEED to exist outside a state. And because of this need, they use the Lockean justification, that doesn't need the existence of a state to work. But exist a big problem with the Lockean justification, that it falls under the Hume's guillotine. So if you remember how I start the second paragraph, I have a problem with the way Hoppe abuses praxeology to justify things, specially property, and now I'm criticizing the Lockean justification of property, so one would be in reason to say that my major problem with this book is that I don't found its justification of property to be good, and I would agree. I still have a problem with some sociological analysis of the book, but I would need a little more study to be able to talk about it.
By the end of this book, I found myself with serious doubts about everything, while I have some opinions that coincide with Hoppe, I don't found a big chunk of his argumentation to be good. In the end, I just got a very mix feelings on this book.
The first thing that was on my concern is the abuse of praxeology, while philosophers investigation on the reason why humans act can advance our knowledge of reality, exist an abysmal jump to say that because humans act one way, as in the act of thinking that they possess property over something, this would justify believing that this says something about reality, the maximum we should say is that "this concept is a useful fiction" as one would have to justify why they believe that the object of the acting, as in the latter example the property over something, actually exist. And in this book, at least in my first reading of it, Hoppe seems to believe that property is something that exist ontologically, not as just useful fiction. This would be one of my criticism of this book, not to say that this is the only problem of it, one that resonated with me, was that Hoppe never criticizes Rothbard bad philosophy, to the contrary, and as I was reading the book it was appears that the majority of arguments relies on them, and I couldn't get myself to not remember Feser's critiques of Rothbard.
Now, to finalize this review, I would briefly talk about the Lockean justification. For the one that doesn't know about it, the Lockean Justification is a very common justification of the existence of private property, that basically goes this way:
"Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it, it hath by his labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others. He that is nourished by the Acorns he pickt up under an Oak, or the Apples he gathered from the Trees in the Wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No Body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, When did they begin to be his? When he digested? Or when he eat? Or when he boiled? Or when he brought them home? Or when he pickt them up?"
So why I chose to talk about this specific justification? The reason would be that, for the libertarian, it comes from necessity that property NEED to exist outside a state. And because of this need, they use the Lockean justification, that doesn't need the existence of a state to work. But exist a big problem with the Lockean justification, that it falls under the Hume's guillotine. So if you remember how I start the second paragraph, I have a problem with the way Hoppe abuses praxeology to justify things, specially property, and now I'm criticizing the Lockean justification of property, so one would be in reason to say that my major problem with this book is that I don't found its justification of property to be good, and I would agree. I still have a problem with some sociological analysis of the book, but I would need a little more study to be able to talk about it.
By the end of this book, I found myself with serious doubts about everything, while I have some opinions that coincide with Hoppe, I don't found a big chunk of his argumentation to be good. In the end, I just got a very mix feelings on this book.
September 17, 2024
TL DR: Worth only skimming, the writing style is repetitive, and so is the content. The book could have been shortened by 50% without much if any loss of actual content.
5 stars for the criticisms of democracy as a system
-7 stars for the writing style, suggestions of eugenics, and garbage reasoning for alleged solutions
Some quotes highlighting the hypocrisy and nonsense propositions:
"One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society"
This line of reasoning opens the door to the same systemic approach that has brought forth the very system he criticizes.
In other parts, he is alluding to eugenics or lines of reasoning of "racial purity" or the like, either which way it's anathema to the notion of freedom of association, which he is all in favor of across the book.
"In order not to endanger their own position as a merchant, great care must be taken that every mixed marriage is, or at least appears to the relevant ethnicities to be a marriage between "equals." Consequently, the racial mixture brought on by the merchant class will more likely than not contribute to genetic "luxuration" (rather than genetic "pauperization")."
Two chapters later he is even more clear concerning this.
"As a result of this overproportional growth of low and even underclass people and an increasing number of ethnically, tribally, racially mixed offspring especially in the lower and lowest social strata, the character of democratic (popular) government will gradually change as well. Rather than the "race card" being essentially the only instrument of politics, politics becomes increasingly "class politics."
His proposed solutions end up in the same pattern that resulted in the status quo - Hoppe has no answers for crucial problems of governance. Blatant self contradictions also arise - monopoly in the concentration of power in the state and a "world government" is decried as bad. Yet the concentration of law to a "universal law" is seen positively. Make up your mind.
The notion that security and other services could be brought by insurance companies is nonsensical for a number of reasons - many of them can be explained by simple human interaction with insurance companies. The notion that insurance companies would just compete and not coalesce into conglomerates is not addressed reasonably. Nothing addresses the natural tendency of many to coalesce into hierarchies (and the resulting pendulum of theft and power concentration).
The suggestion that monarchy is superior to democracy falls apart from a quick perusal of history:
When the monarch is a moron - there's nothing to stop him from being so wholly destructive of his empire. History is full of examples, see Roman emperors, Louis XVI, etc.
It all falls part when you consider the mechanisms in place - you need checks and balances, and they historically worked less well, or not at all, in the case of monarchy.
5 stars for the criticisms of democracy as a system
-7 stars for the writing style, suggestions of eugenics, and garbage reasoning for alleged solutions
Some quotes highlighting the hypocrisy and nonsense propositions:
"One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society"
This line of reasoning opens the door to the same systemic approach that has brought forth the very system he criticizes.
In other parts, he is alluding to eugenics or lines of reasoning of "racial purity" or the like, either which way it's anathema to the notion of freedom of association, which he is all in favor of across the book.
"In order not to endanger their own position as a merchant, great care must be taken that every mixed marriage is, or at least appears to the relevant ethnicities to be a marriage between "equals." Consequently, the racial mixture brought on by the merchant class will more likely than not contribute to genetic "luxuration" (rather than genetic "pauperization")."
Two chapters later he is even more clear concerning this.
"As a result of this overproportional growth of low and even underclass people and an increasing number of ethnically, tribally, racially mixed offspring especially in the lower and lowest social strata, the character of democratic (popular) government will gradually change as well. Rather than the "race card" being essentially the only instrument of politics, politics becomes increasingly "class politics."
His proposed solutions end up in the same pattern that resulted in the status quo - Hoppe has no answers for crucial problems of governance. Blatant self contradictions also arise - monopoly in the concentration of power in the state and a "world government" is decried as bad. Yet the concentration of law to a "universal law" is seen positively. Make up your mind.
The notion that security and other services could be brought by insurance companies is nonsensical for a number of reasons - many of them can be explained by simple human interaction with insurance companies. The notion that insurance companies would just compete and not coalesce into conglomerates is not addressed reasonably. Nothing addresses the natural tendency of many to coalesce into hierarchies (and the resulting pendulum of theft and power concentration).
The suggestion that monarchy is superior to democracy falls apart from a quick perusal of history:
When the monarch is a moron - there's nothing to stop him from being so wholly destructive of his empire. History is full of examples, see Roman emperors, Louis XVI, etc.
It all falls part when you consider the mechanisms in place - you need checks and balances, and they historically worked less well, or not at all, in the case of monarchy.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 219 reviews