Introduction to Hoppe's main work

[Skybird]

Link to Text

Since in a thread some days ago I mentioned the critical analysis of of democracy (and monarchy) byH.H. Hoppe, and recommended his book, somebody has taken me by the word and picked the book and read it. Obviously he must have read day and night, since he now reported completion in an enthusiastic email to me this late afternoon.

He also asked me about a certain website and whether I knew it. Well, I didn't know it, but when checking it out I found there this full reprint of the introduction of the book, "Democracy - The god that failed". The title is reminding of an earlier book of apostates from communism in the middle of last century, that was entitled as "Communism. The failing god", or close to that.

Hoppe is neither a communist nor a monarchist, to leave no doubt on that. He is anti-state and anti-etatist. Even most libertarians take fire by him, since most libertarians nevertheless defend a remaining basic state as a basis - which Hoppe sees as part of the problem that always must lead to growing injustice, socialism and tyranny.

Hoppe is strongest when on the attack, there his full callibre comes to effect in brilliant and logical analysis that leaves little space for evasion or deflection. Onm his recommended solutions that he sees as most liekly to be able to overcome the desastrous solution, I only follow him fully in his thoughts on"sezession", but his idea of private legislation union and free market in the typical naive understanding of libertarians that simply ignore the excesses shown by free markets, I am hesitent still to agree with him, sinc eI see such a system only work in dimensions of communal organisation that are not bigger than those minimal ciomm unity level diemnsion where maybe, possibly, basic democratic principles could work. So, to me Hoppe is best when running the diagnosis of present failling and desintegration. When it comes to remedies, handle him with care, however. I see many preconxitioons needing to be fulfilled for his ideas to work as advertised. Probably too many as if they could ever work as he intends.

The introduction is interesting due to the brief reflection about recent Western history, and how he indicates that he has a reverse view of the positve nature of the change from monarchy to democracy. To Hoppe, this indicates a phase not of growing civilising of human communities, but growing de-civilising. However, as I said, Hoppe is no monarchist, do not be misled there.

The book is 600 pages in its German edition, with many lengthy footnotes. Esoeciallyx the first two chapters are a bit difficult, sicne they are a bit abstract and theoretical, however, the basic sorting of terms that he explains there is essential to undersdtand his logic and hmotives in the later chapters of the book which usually are easier to read. The chapters are autark essays, which could be taken each for themselves, every essay standing alone, but combining with the others.

Hoppe is close to the Austrian-Mises tradition of economy, but does not share Rothbard'S and Mises'S sympatyh for democracy. He teaches economy and I think politics at the university of Nevada in Las Vegas. He still holds German citizenship.

And yes, he is slaughtering the fat golden cow, and very determinedly so. If you prefer to still dream on of democracy being the best of all bad options, and consider it to be just and lawful - don't touch it then. Your idols are unlikely to survive this lecture. Hoppe is the most uncompromised critic and attacker of the institution of states that I have ever read.

LINK

LINK 2

[Catfish]

Thanks, but imho we do have as much as a democracy as Russia was a communist state (the latter was a dictatorship, and it remains unclear whether this is always the outcome when trying this - the same as if capitalism has to be the way it is - we will probably see the whole economy fall, after globalization is more or less established).

We say the government has been elected by us, but who did we directly elect, and are the wants and needs of the people being followed by the politicians (also what real possibility does a politician have, to overrule its own secret services and their clandestine actions, let alone know of it ?)
And why should the old grand mother in the black forest have the same voting authority (one vote) like a well-studied Dr. of political, state sciences or philosophy ?


Lots of questions, it's like electing cholera or the plague alright, but which better system would you or Hoppe advise ? Alternatives ?
Aufgeklärter Absolutismus ?
We pay more taxes than in the middle ages, and we are still reigned by people who think of their people as dumbs and 'Stimmvieh', using propaganda like the media (Fox News etc.) to condition and influence people.

But what bothers me most - you said close to Mises ? Is the Austrian Mr. Mises not the one who said that National Socialism would be the same as socialism, along with a lot of other nonsense the US libertarians so like to embrace ?
I know how all right wingers embrace this idea, but it unfortunately is nonsense.

Apart from America, which other nations are part of his 'equation' ? Where e.g. is Great Britain, what about the colonies etc. ?

Ok will read something more of Hoppe about it and then protest properly

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Thanks, but imho we do have as much as a democracy as Russia was a communist state (the latter was a dictatorship, and it remains unclear whether this is always the outcome when trying this - the same as if capitalism has to be the way it is - we will probably see the whole economy fall, after globalization is more or less established).

We say the government has been elected by us, but who did we directly elect, and are the wants and needs of the people being followed by the politicians (also what real possibility does a politician have, to overrule its own secret services and their clandestine actions, let alone know of it ?)
And why should the old grand mother in the black forest have the same voting authority (one vote) like a well-studied Dr. of political, state sciences or philosophy ?

You do not contradict Hoppe. Hoppe says that democracy is a tyranny, always (for example the dictate of the majoirty on the minority, we call it decision-making by majority vote), and that it always bases on more redistribution patterns than under a monarchy. He is about the interest of saving private property and treat it so that it grows and survives, to be able to give it to your offsprings. If you have personal value at stake, you care more for something, than if you do deal with something you do not own. That is why democratic leaders are frantic spenders and raise debts and taxes like crazy - they spend money that is not theirs and that they cannot use once they are no longer in office, because it is not theirs. So they make maximum abuse of it as long as their power lasts. Redistribution of this kind always is robbery. Politicians use the robbed money to please demands of the canaille. The canaille demands more, politicians increase taxing and make more debts, to redistribute, and by that getting elected. More and more people become dependent on the gifts by the state, the state goes bankrupt, few and fewer have to pay more and more.

Lots of questions, it's like electing cholera or the plague alright, but which better system would you or Hoppe advise ? Alternatives ?

Statelessness. No state. Local communities acting independent and basing on people forming relations on the basis of private law. The unavoidable minimum of regional administration - due to the small size of community - being grounded on basic democratic principles, but leaving as little to such an administration as possible. People then vote with their feet: if they do not like the market situation in one such small region or do not like the laws and legal rules in place that regulate social interaction, they must not move far to move to another community where there is a different. That way, administrations and regions necessarily would need to compete with each other. It is like this a bit in Switzerland and its Kantone, in the 70s for example I think the region around Zurich split because many people disagreed over something, and a group split away and founded a new Kanton, Jura it was, I think.

Hoppe insists, and I agree since I thought it through, that every democracy is dictatorship by the state, and is pure socialism, so that in the end it necessarily leads to socialist economy, communist state, and collapsing economy and finances in the end. Look at the EU. It has taken over power mechanisms and principles to deceive the people from the GDR and USSR. It looks more like these than 20 years ago I would ever have imagined possible. I am not joking when comparing Western Europe to the former Warsaw Pact states occasionally. When I see our state TV news, its empty phrases and stupid slogans, the language reminds me of what they used to broadcast during GDR-TV's Aktuelle Kamera. Even the language style is the same now.

German readers might like to compare to this: Geld für Claquere - EU setzt neue Standards in Manipulation und Täuschung.

The opposite to democracy is not dictatorship or monarchy, but freedom from any state.

Aufgeklärter Absolutismus ?
We pay more taxes than in the middle ages, and we are still reigned by people who think of their people as dumbs and 'Stimmvieh', using propaganda like the media (Fox News etc.) to condition and influence people.

Yes, taxes some 100 years ago were between 5 and 8% of peoples incomes, today are 45-55%. As I just explained Hoppe, democracies tax more and more, to keep their elected politicians in power by making more and more promises that can only be fulfilled temporarily by getting more money - through more taxes and more debts. Democracy means massive and ever increasing mismanagement and unscrupulous abuse of the public property that is not owned by politicians, but the public. If all own everything, nobody owns anything he feels responsibility for, and so everybody grabs as much as he can, and runs. Sociology knows this problem under a special name, I think it is called the problem of the Alm: if several farmers share possession of a meadow, and use turns to use it to feed their cattle on it, than everybody can use it for a limited time only. So in this time he tries to maximize his profit from it by letting as many cattle eat from it as possible. And the next... And the next... Hopeless overgrazing is the result, to the loss of all. Meadow gone. Cattle dying. Farmers dying. That is where we are today in the Western democracies. We have overgrazed the Alms we live by. The cattle is ourselves. The farmers is the leaders we have voted for.

Different a monarch. Owning his land and property, he has a very personal interest to protect his property, to let it foster and blossom, so he will limit taxation, where he is wise, to encourage and stimulate trade and attract wise thinkers and good artists increasing his fame. That was what Germany was before unification, when there were some 30 or 40 small kingdoms on German grounds, who all competed with each other for the best composers, painters, bridge builders, farming experts, and so on. It was the blossoming of German culture. It declined once Germany got united and turned into one national state.

Of course, bad monarchs who are greedy but stupid, will ruin it. They will try to finance wars of conquest, and by that ruin their property: country and its inhabitants. There is no remedy against bad leaders. Point is, democracy has no remedy against bad leaders as well. It seems, if I look around today, that democracy has bad leaders not as exceptions form the rule, but as the rule itself. We have democracy producing bad leaders everywhere, from beginning on. Leaders must not have any interest to deal careful with the communal property, because they do not own it: all own it, thus nobody owns it. The interest of the democratically elected leader is to make hay while the sun shines, to abuse his grab on legislation to increase his chances to get reelected by redistributing private property of private people even more: so that the canaille elects him again, the big group of parasites. That not only the rich but also the people pay in the end, many seem to not be aware of, maybe because it is more distant in time than the immediate profit. That is why Hoppe says it was no civilizational leap forward when democratic republican order took over the helm from monarchies after WWI, but it was a leap backwards. I must agree with him on that. The ruinous state the Western democracies are in, unsurvivable and unmaintainable, speaks volumes. Economies not worth the name, but being cadavers linked to life support machines. Finances hanging on the drip of heartblood that gets taken from the next generation who have their lifes sucked out of them to support the current misery just a little bit longer.

But what bothers me most - you said close to Mises ? Is the Austrian Mr. Mises not the one who said that National Socialism would be the same as socialism, along with a lot of other nonsense the US libertarians so like to embrace ?

I do not know that and do not know much about Mises, I also would not judge him on the basis of just one quote. Mises was part of the socalled Austrian school of economics, a very influential tradition. Hoppe is close to classical libertarians for sure, but he distances himself from them also, saying that most libertarians still hold ideas about a democratic state. And that is for Hoppe the beginning of all misery, this democratic state - or any state at all, this monopole of administration for dictating people what they are allowed to do and what not, with ever more rules strangling them (as we see today, we are hopelessly overregulated, and still they push more laws down our throat) and with ever climbing taxes and robbing of socalled wealthy people and socialist redistribution, which has a very demotivating effect on people, it strips them off their competitiveness, their creativity, their initiative, and more and more people turn into parasites, and few and fewer have to pay for that.

I here also link to another book I have mentioned before, Christian Ortner: Prolokratie. Blows into the same horn, but focusses more on how bad it is if you let people vote who cannot differ between the number of letters in BMW and AUDI, but every four years are being given the - minimum - opportunity to influence complex issues like taxing, state finances, economic question, future policies, without knowing sh!t about anything of that. Since ancient Greece, many philosophers and artists and thinkers said again and again that democracy means the tyranny of the uneducuted mob, the "Pöbel", the canaille. They are right. I try to discourage people from voting, as you may have noted, my argument being that they legitimise a rotten system by that no matter what party they vote for, and that parties mean nothing in net outcome. But in principle I am even more radical: I am against any general right to vote. Only people having private wealth at stake should be allowed to vote, people who in net effect contribute more to a society than they take from it, and who are actually showing a minimum level of general education so that they can even assess the highly complex stuff they are voting on. People who take more in net effect than they give, will just vote so that they can suck more life juice at other people'S cost, without any sense of responsibility for the whole communal context, they do not give a damn. They will, that is the translated subtitle of Ortner's "Prolokratie", democratically vote the state into bankruptcy.

I know how all right wingers embrace this idea, but it unfortunately is nonsense.

Hoppe shares views with libertarians, and many of the amerian foundign fathers can be described as liobertarians better than as anythign else. However, as I said, his basic idea is anti-etatism and non-statehood. And as I said in the opening post, Hoppe is best when attacking the current system and analysing it, his analysis is brilliant and intellectually irresistable. When he describes his views of how a free market between rivalling small communities will all by itself settle things, I am becoming more cautious, however. The belief in the totally unregulated free market I have always seen as somewhatg naive, and the pst years have shown us where total unregulated markets lead: abuse. Becaseu capitalism leads to monopolism, and if oyu let people vote by their feet so that they move into anbother small community where they like the rules better, monopolists from several such regions will form up cartels.

Maybe this "race" is a problem for which no solution exists. I do not believe in this kind of opportunistic optimism that for every problem there necessarily must be a solution, I think there are problems that cannot be solved, because whatever exists always has two sides, and everything carries the seed of its own self-destruction within itself. The everlasting and unavoidable tragedy of this polaristic thinking of ours.

Hoppe also points out that democracies are so slow moving in decision making and even slower in chnaing fundamentals of thinking and practicing, that they might be too suicidal to deal with challenges of critical nature, especially regarding their own survival in the future. Centralised governments have the capacity to act much faster and with greater detemrination in reaction to events. That is the great temptation of centralism, though a dangerous one. The EU's groiwng centraism however, is a carricature of it, since it is no competent leadership sitting in the central nest making the decisions. The central committee may be able to produces legally binding proposals fast - but whether they are competently done and have good intentions, is something totally different. And what I think of their competence, you should know by now. I would line up these corrupt suckers against the wall immediately. And that is no joke at all - if I could have my way, all heads of the EU institutions and the decision makers and the representatives and commissioners would loose their heads before this day is over. The charges would be the same for all: corruption, conspiracy against the people, high treason, forming of criminal organisations. - And all people in Europe voluntarily going to elections, would get a good, solid spanking on their bare bottoms.

[Sailor Steve]

The 'Stateless' state sounds good in principle, but I have some observations of my own. If there is no State, how to the communities interact with communities in what are now other countries? The United States originally tried to have individual smaller groups (the States) but were told by other established nations (Britain, France and Russia) that they would only deal with a unified central government. This was partly what led to our Constitution. If one nation followed the prescribed route and others didn't, how would the smaller communities deal with that?

Throughout history nations have been created by individuals who gathered followers, put togethere armies and dominated their neighbors, then their neighbors, until they had an empire. How would individual communities oppose the strong man?

It seems to me that Madison's statement, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary" holds true here. Such a thing might work, but how would it resist someone who created power of his own to subjugate the populace?

My biggest question is how would this all be put into effect? When the United States came into being the need for a strong central government was recognized as a necessary evil. I can see how it could work, but how would people be convinced to try it in the first place?

[MH]

Sounds like going back to tribal times.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The 'Stateless' state sounds good in principle, but I have some observations of my own. If there is no State, how to the communities interact with communities in what are now other countries?

On the basis of private relations and legal agreements for the most, and by small regional local communities competing for citizens wanting to live there - citizens that are free to move and to vote for living and working conditions by their feet. the real question is how in an era of big nationals tates, supra-national organisations and growing totalitarianism and centralism in Western nations, such ideas could succeed. Hoppe says: secession is the way to follow, but what if the central government does not accept that without putting up a violent fight? And let'S not be mistaken, governments will set up a fight if you queston their very basis on which they exist.

I doubt that it could go as reasonable and peacefully as Hioppoe maybe indicates. There is a reason why revolutions often are so bloody and violent - because peacefully a no longer wanted establishment does not give up its privileges, and it has tailored the rules of the running system since toi long to serve its interests to defend this power.

Another thing is that nothing will happen if people do not understand these things and are willing to get off their democracy-.drunken azzes and stand up against the reign of the very system itself - the system that they have learned to absue themselves, to take away their freedoms in exchnage for being nannied, etc.

So the real precondition in the end is that people understand how the status quo is ruining us all and that we will end in a malstrom if we do not break out. Th belief that democracy is the best form of government, roots deep in present man, and especially in America. It is a very big pill to swallow to see and understands that it is not, but in total summary is worse than the monarchy system that ruled before.

The United States originally tried to have individual smaller groups (the States)

I think thes eocmmunitie levels still are way too big. Mind you. in population sizes some of these states equal one European national state.

I think in community sizes of low thousands at max. Hoppe maybe more. Jarred Diamond, who also outlined that democracy can only work in very small community sizes beyond which it necessarily must fail, probably would favour smaller ones. I think that modern communication technology maybe allows us to slighty increase the size limit - if only we would show the ablity to use out hitech for slightly less childish main purposes thna we do today, consuming technoloy for entertainment and using only small part of the educational and administration levels it could offer us. In this regard I see very great potential - and great risks if we are not aware of the dangers. I am for technology, I absolutly am, but I do not share this blind n trusting hyper-optimism that we are beign fed with regarding technology.

I cannot give loyu a detialed answer, Steve, I have none, and Hoppe also does not offer a full-featured blueprint. We are too huge nations, and too many people. Evertyhing, in all regards: too much, too big, too huge, too many. So far, Hoppe or my opinions, still rank as theoretical work only. Whether it will ever turn true, I do not know. I'm pessimistic.

I also do not know whether these ideas coulöd ever work. But I believe I know quite certain now that if we stay with our current ways, we will be doomed, on so many levels.

but were told by other established nations (Britain, France and Russia) that they would only deal with a unified central government.

A strong unified centralised government with the monopole to enforce its will on the people existed only since the civil war.

This was partly what led to our Constitution. If one nation followed the prescribed route and others didn't, how would the smaller communities deal with that?

The state'S lacking self-justification is a very principle problem and doe snot depend on the question whether it is a monarchy, a military dictatorship or a democracy. State always means tyranny. So the question of how small communities would interact with great states, comes down to the question of how to abandon states globally, no matter for the form of government in these states.

Throughout history nations have been created by individuals who gathered followers, put togethere armies and dominated their neighbors, then their neighbors, until they had an empire. How would individual communities oppose the strong man?

Indeed. Maybe countries like Norway and Switzerland can serve as a hint. Especially Switzerland gets mentioned again and again.

It seems to me that Madison's statement, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary" holds true here. Such a thing might work, but how would it resist someone who created power of his own to subjugate the populace?

Subjugation demands two: the one who subjugates,m and the other who allows to get subjugated. Obviously, education and the influence of community play a role here.

For us modern Wetserners, it starts with coming to clear assessment of this thing that we see as our golden cow: democracy. As long as we do not even do the first step and just live on the ground as seeing it as the best that could happen to us, we must no make plans on whwere we will be once we have completed what probbaly will be a very long and stormy journey. I cannot imaginbe thta this journey could proceed without serious conflict, violence and probbaly even civil wars. I do not know what Hoppe would say on that. Mind you, he sees it from the perspective of a theoretician. and I admitted already that he is at the peak of his convincibility when diagnosing the present and the way that led us to where we are. On his remedies I am not so sure, and I do not know how they could be reached, or if they even could work at all. I believe to know that we must try, however. Staying with what we have, will spell desaster for us.

My biggest question is how would this all be put into effect? When the United States came into being the need for a strong central government was recognized as a necessary evil. I can see how it could work, but how would people be convinced to try it in the first place?

How could it work differently than in the way I am trying - by mouth-to-mouth convincing, interpersonal discussion that tries to sow doubt in people's mind? I do not believe that it makes any sense at all to form a party and trying to come to government - that runs the game by established rules that will lead nowhere. I speak with people in my real life, I try to challenge their views. I'm killing their nerves, especially in internet fora. I try to lead them to not to vote, to disrespect state authorities, to find ways of civil disobedience. I try to catch their attention by arguments, texts, books. I want people to not take the current situation for granted, and not to puit their trust in parties and demicracy, and I want people starting to ask questions and to lower their demands and expecations. You must not tell me how small the success rate is, and still - I see no other way than this. That is my way of being political, and you can be political only on the very basic level: when you tlak to the one person whose face is right in front of you. Everything else - is not politics but ,manipulation and propaganda. I think the turn must come form the people, from the social grassroots, by education and information. We have nothing good to expect from parties and governments, they are more interested in their own interests to stay in power and rob our wealth to survive a little longer before it all collapses.

Hm. Re-reading it I realise I sound a bit pathetic, but I cannot help it, I am not sure how to say it any different. Since many years I feel and realise a growing discomfort and sense of alertness in myself. I see how spendings grow, how debts grow, I see how our social realities change, our social rules fail, our communal integrity desintegrates, our freedoms get sold away, our liberties get limited, our rights get cut back, our opinions get manipulated, and how we turn into what 20 years ago we considered to have "defeated" - the ways and the system of the eastern Block states. But we have not really won, we are falling ourselves now, our system "democracy" shows its failure more and more openly and obviously. The price makes itself felt to more and more of us.

We need to get some basic acts together and correct some terrible mistakes we fell for - but I am not certain that we even have sufficient time left. There are other players ion the world coming to power, and although they are economically successful, they are not democratic at all, which makes another one of our wrong assumptions go flying out of the window.

In the end, the only thing that is acceptable to be given the right to rule, the the rule of the law, or "a" law. For economic fostering and legal stability, the law is far more important than democratic basic order, or even individual freedom. Many people live in un-freedom, from our perspective, but are happy as long as they enjoy some basic material wellbeing. In the Wets however we must realise how in the name of protecting democracy, democracy takes more and more rights away from us and legal insecurity grows by every quarter because some new government her,e some new lobby group there, or the EU comes with new suggestions, proposals and new laws that change the laws that yesterday were valid and that we yesterday founded our decision son that we made.

A stable legal system and the rule of law is far more important than democracy. Democracy does not lead to justice and legal stability - it ruins legal stability and justice - especially social justice, because growing redistribution destroy social justice.

Sorry if all this sounds as if I am just thinking loud. It's okay, because it seems that that indeed is what I do.

Edit. I am not just reflkecting on Hoppe. I also refer to the writings of Leopold Kohr, and in parts E.F. Schumacher. They too reiterated the importance of focussing on small local regions as the core cells of government and administration, and organising economies there instead on national and supranational levels. The latter simply are too big, and cannot be controlled, and start to live a life of there own, and act by a will of their own. Not good.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

How could it work differently than in the way I am trying - by mouth-to-mouth convincing, interpersonal discussion that tries to sow doubt in people's mind? I do not believe that it makes any sense at all to form a party and trying to come to government - that runs the game by established rules that will lead nowhere. I speak with people in my real life, I try to challenge their views. I'm killing their nerves, especially in internet fora. I try to lead them to not to vote, to disrespect state authorities, to find ways of civil disobedience. I try to catch their attention by arguments, texts, books. I want people to not take the current situation for granted, and not to puit their trust in parties and demicracy, and I want people starting to ask questions and to lower their demands and expecations. You must not tell me how small the success rate is, and still - I see no other way than this. That is my way of being political, and you can be political only on the very basic level: when you tlak to the one person whose face is right in front of you. Everything else - is not politics but ,manipulation and propaganda. I think the turn must come form the people, from the social grassroots, by education and information. We have nothing good to expect from parties and governments, they are more interested in their own interests to stay in power and rob our wealth to survive a little longer before it all collapses.

But what you fail to realize is that it makes you the missionary at the door, asking if we have found Jesus. It is your radio that is too loud, as you are attempting conversion that is not wanted. You have become the very thing that you claim to hate.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

On the basis of private relations and legal agreements

What legal agreements? No government means no law remember?. No one to write the laws and no one to enforce them if they were written. What you seem to be advocating here is a feudal system of city states who will constantly be at war with each other until one city defeats the rest and imposes their will.

[Skybird]

LINK: The Idea of a Private Law Society

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

LINK: The Idea of a Private Law Society

Doesn't answer the question. No law can exist without an authority to enforce it. This private law society lacks all authority and would quickly crumble into anarchy.

[Sailor Steve]

I like the idea, as an idea. The biggest problem I see is the same one all governments face - that they can only be their best if people are perfect, or close to it. I wish I had an answer.

Don't forget that Sky freely admitted that this is all theoretical. Within that context it merits discussion.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by August

What legal agreements? No government means no law remember?. No one to write the laws and no one to enforce them if they were written. What you seem to be advocating here is a feudal system of city states who will constantly be at war with each other until one city defeats the rest and imposes their will.

Thank you for describing the rise of the Roman Empire and thus most of western culture

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I like the idea, as an idea. The biggest problem I see is the same one all governments face - that they can only be their best if people are perfect, or close to it. I wish I had an answer.

To stay in Hoppe'S analogy, Crusoe did not need neither law nor government as loing as he stayed alone on his island. Crusoe and Friday still did not need a government when they had to deal with each other. The social context was that of a cxommunity - two people - that was so small that a government was not needed to oversee their interaction.

Hoppe argues that if communities are small enough that they leave people free of control by any state, needed monitoring of rules of interaction people in that community basicö-demoicratically gareed on would be ovberwatched by private service contractors providing that funciton on the grounds of sa commercial deal. That seems to be the basic principle behind his "private law society".

If people in such a community do not like the rules people agreed on, or the conditions by which deals and financial transactions - goods for money or money for work - get done, they move from one community tot he next one, a close neighbour which is because communities are so small. This seems to happen a lot in Switzerland, a high fluctuation of local populations if the single Kantons do not represent well enough the living cinditions people do like to live in.

Again, a government is not needed for all that. Like you also do not need a giovernment when handling the social interaciton in your huge family, for exmaple.

Every state is a tyranny, no matter who got in control by what mechnaism, demciractic eleciton or monarchy, it alsways is an entity that to differening degrees parasitically lives by the many and claims the right to enforce rules and imposoe them on people at cost of their self-determination and freeedom. The govenrment says: "taxes", and people have to pay taxes". The goivenrment says "law", and people have to live by laws. The monarch has an interest to do both in a way that the whole - which is his private possession - is blossoming, he uses his own property to foster it (if he is wise). The democratic govenrment does not posess anything, but is given tools and means (tax income and legislation power) for limited time only, so it will try to make maximum preofit from it, and you end with the problem of the Alm, as explained earlier in this thread. A respknsible monarchy will tax less and be careful with laws to let trade and private intiiave blossom. A democratric or dictatorial government, which in the endis the same , will also tax, but more and more over time, and will help to increase the number of laws that reuglate and limit freedom.

That is why Hoppe is no monarchist, in his own words. Both government tax and limit freedom, they only vary in the intensity of their efforts - with the democracy performing for the worse record.

Note that he also hints at how the change from monarchies to democracies turned wars from being waged over questions of private possession to wars over ideologies, brutalizing warfare and resulting in the ultimate confrontation between monarchies and republics in WWII. Like before the idea of religious wars made war much worse, the clash of now two ideologies deleted the inhibitions of trying to save one'S own (Royal) property, because where that property is not at stake because one does not own it,. one can hack away with much less self-limitation - one is not fighting for property, but ideology again. Hoppe mentions somewhere that Wilson and his administration did have reservations about the German emperor, but that they really HATED the Austrian monarchy, because more than any other it represented everything that monarchy stands for, plus it had shown sympathy with the Mexican "incident". Since then at the latest it was clear for the new American republic, that monarchies had to be rooted out worldwide - and that was the mission Wilson embarked on then. And that is why the monarchies had to fall in Europe one by one, either by getting mutilated (Austria), pressed down (Germany) or moving into representative functions only where they did not hold any power anymore (Scandinavia etc). To later hold close alliances with totalitarian regimes like that of Stalin, was not only the "lesser evil", it also resulted form a situation of clashing ideas in WWI that without that war would not have emerged at all, and, as Hoppe describes, most likely would have prevented the Nazis to come to power, WWII, Stalinism, the economic fall of Eastern Europe. Without all that, you would have had a nationalistic but nevertheless reasonable and moderate German kingdom and Austria as a center of cultural life that was unique at its time an rich in colour and diversity, wealth and general success. Imperial Vienna was the place to be, wasn't it, for artists, intellectuals, scientists, bankers, business entrepreneurs - everybody who considered himself worthy and being of name and fame. - But with Austria surviving as such an influential culture, there would not have been the dawning of the American century - which may have helped to motivate Wilson. From isolationjism to global influence - the European monarchies and especial,y Austria were in the was. They had to go.

Hoppe - and meanwhile me too - doubts that the overall gain in social, civil, and material welath in europe since then until today, is what it could have been if Europe would not have gone republican. I I look at the world today, I see the accelerating spreading of totakitarian control and the collpase of our welath. Me may have shown for some decades, but th shine all was on tick,, and obviously we build our palaces on quick sand. What we achieved thus was not meant to stay. And here we are, drowning in debts and burdens and a world totally off balance.

I feel a rapidly growing discomfort with our system since six, seven years. But not before one or two years ago I have started to put the many pieces and loose ends together. The puzzle is not yet complete, but the picture becomes clearer, slowly. And I do not like what it shows. Hoppe I did discover not before early Spring last year. Felt relief to read his analysis, helping me to finally come to terms with what confused me before because it seemd not connected in details and contradictory. But it isn't many different issues, it is just various aspects of one and the same issue. Felt like being less isolated in my thoughts.

[Oberon]

Coming back to the Crusoe analogy, what is there to stop Crusoe from smashing Fridays head open with a rock because he wanted his coconut?
In a larger society with policing the knowledge of potential punishment by an external source provides the deterrent, however if that overarcing governance is removed then absolute freedom is indeed obtained but that absolute freedom gives people the opportunity to commit acts of good and of great evil alike.

[August]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Thank you for describing the rise of the Roman Empire and thus most of western culture

Indeed every empire and culture our species has ever created. It's just who we are and utopian ideals like that never work because of it.