Great opening post. Hope this theme is pursued further. One of the many disappointments of our sorry crop of leaders is their failure to engage in any of these vital conversations. (See for example, Steve Bannon who fancies himself a leader of resistance yet, even after being railroaded by a corrupt DOJ and Congress, can only direct people to redouble their insane faith in a Red Wave etc...)
If anything, autocracy of some form of probably more compatible with subsidiarity than democracy. It's simply impossible for one man to personally direct everything, therefore, the natural and wise move is to delegate as much decision making power as possible so as to free his attention to focus on the big issues that affect the entire state. Given that political systems tend to be fractals, the same organizational principle then gets replicated at each level. Thus for instance in the Roman system, just as the imperator had total power over the state, the paterfamilias had total power over the household.
The other advantage of autocracy is the nature of the selection process. Democracy selects for glibness; leaders are almost invariably manipulative dark triad types, because they outcompete others when it comes to pretty words. A system that prioritized candidates possessing the virtues - strength, wisdom, justice, charity, and the like - would result in a leadership class that systematically excluded venal sociopaths. This could be achieved by having candidates compete in contests of skill and ability, rather than popularity.
It is difficult to argue with Hoppe. While perverse incentives may vary between different forms of government, I'm starting to think culture is more important than the particular form of government. The government will grow and get away with as much as it can. It is constrained by cultural opposition to this more than any particular laws. Hoppe's argument about familiar monarchies having a better incentive to conserve resources and for the long term is persuasive, but I think early America had a culture that was so thoroughly libertarian that it easily outperformed other countries in spite of this mismatch of incentives in government structure. I think this is the same reason an attempt to clone the U.S. Constitution without the cultural foundation to support it results in immediate collapse. Regarding your point about diversity, I agree that is probably true, but wanted to highlight that ideological conformity might be able to substitute the function of religious or ethnic conformity resulting in an emergent diversity of demographic characteristics in communities, say, culturally committed to the NAP.
Republic means you don't have a monarchy. Democracy means you have elections. These do not exclude each other. France is a republic and a democracy. So is Germany. So is Italy. So it Finland. So is Hungary. So is Czechia, Ireland, and on and on. Not a single one says "No, we can't be a democracy, because we're a republic!"
Neither did the Founding Fathers say that. That's why Thomas Jefferson and James Madison founded the DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY. Which blows all this "a republic is ackshually not a democracy!" nonsense out of the water even in the U.S.
The only people in the world who don't understand what a republic and a democracy are, and who keep saying they can't be the same, are part of the GOP voters base. "Haha, wez a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY, and our party is called the Republicans! Take that, Democrats!" If the party names had been reversed you wouldn't be saying that.
"But, but I have this quote from Benjamin Franklin, who was practually a Founding Father, that says 'a republic if you can keep it'." Take that quote and shove it, finally. How many times do we have to hear a quote as "proof" of something? The only thing this group of GOP voters have to cling on in this argument is that some in the first days lied about the matter, because some landowners didn't like the idea that the common rabble could vote. "No," the soothing answer came, "it's actually NOT a democracy. It's ... uh ... a republic! That's not a democracy."
How to claim there's a difference? "Well, you see ... yes! A republic has a CONSTITUTION! A democracy doesn't!"
Another lie. That has never been the definition of either a republic or a democracy. Again, a republic means you don't have a monarchy, a democracy means you have elections. Whether these have constitutions or not is irrelevant, and in fact, republics the world over do have constitutions, and still call themselves democracies.
And democratic monarchies like Britain, Spain and Sweden also have constitutions. By a GOP voter's definition that would make them republics. Nice job.
Nowhere in history has "republic" been defined as "a country that has a constitution," and nowhere has democracy been defined as "elections without constitutions and whatever," except among those GOP voters who use it to "own" the Democrats because of party names. Time to give it up. Stop showing that right-wing voters can be as dumb as left-wing voters. If you cling to this ridiculous definition you are no better than leftists who still think corona is deadly. In fact your issue is far dumber, because it's so easy to show how wrong you are.
And Jefferson and Madison, founders of the Democratic-Republican Party, would very much like you to stop using "the Founding Fathers" as your false support in this discussion, thank you.
Great explanation of something I have slowly come to realize about democracy. But one of the big issues with ANY kind of government is selecting the proper leaders. Specifically, WHO decides those which are qualified to lead? Somehow, many if not most of those "leading" us now are unfit for purpose. It has become increasingly obvious that most of them are not the pick of the litter.
This is the most cogent argument for anarchy I've ever read. There is a lot of discussion today about destroying and rebuilding the UN. The Russian Consulate says Russia cannot be excluded without disbanding the whole organization. I agree with destroying it but why rebuild it? I think of anarchy as the future achievement of a society of improved people. Right now we can't achieve anarchy because most people aren't good enough to live without rules imposed by an exterior force. When we improve enough to achieve anarchy, we will. In reality, we probably will have anarchy before we are ready for it, because all these tentacles of corporate governance will crumble as the stock company model fails, and as its currency fails. Call me a romantic idealist. I've been called worse.
Democracy only has a scaling problem if people sit back and allow it to NOT scale.
If you check US state freedom indexes, you'll find California consistently at or near the bottom, and New Hampshire consistently at or near the top.
As of 2020, California has about one state rep per 494,228 people. New Hampshire has 3,444, Iin fact, TTBOMK, New Hampshire has the 6th largest political body in the world, for a population of about 1M people. It's the closest thing to a plebiscite that exists. https://ballotpedia.org/Population_represented_by_state_legislators High representation isn't the only reason for more relative freedom, but I'll argue it's a big factor.
If they had kept the original level of representation in the US Congress, there'd be about 50,000 representatives. This IMO would be a huge improvement on the current state of affairs, because they wouldn't be able to get a damned thing done. Naturally, TPTB would never allow this, which is one of many reasons why the current system is stick-a-fork-in-it done.
Great opening post. Hope this theme is pursued further. One of the many disappointments of our sorry crop of leaders is their failure to engage in any of these vital conversations. (See for example, Steve Bannon who fancies himself a leader of resistance yet, even after being railroaded by a corrupt DOJ and Congress, can only direct people to redouble their insane faith in a Red Wave etc...)
If anything, autocracy of some form of probably more compatible with subsidiarity than democracy. It's simply impossible for one man to personally direct everything, therefore, the natural and wise move is to delegate as much decision making power as possible so as to free his attention to focus on the big issues that affect the entire state. Given that political systems tend to be fractals, the same organizational principle then gets replicated at each level. Thus for instance in the Roman system, just as the imperator had total power over the state, the paterfamilias had total power over the household.
The other advantage of autocracy is the nature of the selection process. Democracy selects for glibness; leaders are almost invariably manipulative dark triad types, because they outcompete others when it comes to pretty words. A system that prioritized candidates possessing the virtues - strength, wisdom, justice, charity, and the like - would result in a leadership class that systematically excluded venal sociopaths. This could be achieved by having candidates compete in contests of skill and ability, rather than popularity.
Mighty fine. Hit the nail on the head!
Would like to see a follow-up article where you detail precisely what kind of system you would prefer.
It is difficult to argue with Hoppe. While perverse incentives may vary between different forms of government, I'm starting to think culture is more important than the particular form of government. The government will grow and get away with as much as it can. It is constrained by cultural opposition to this more than any particular laws. Hoppe's argument about familiar monarchies having a better incentive to conserve resources and for the long term is persuasive, but I think early America had a culture that was so thoroughly libertarian that it easily outperformed other countries in spite of this mismatch of incentives in government structure. I think this is the same reason an attempt to clone the U.S. Constitution without the cultural foundation to support it results in immediate collapse. Regarding your point about diversity, I agree that is probably true, but wanted to highlight that ideological conformity might be able to substitute the function of religious or ethnic conformity resulting in an emergent diversity of demographic characteristics in communities, say, culturally committed to the NAP.
Republic means you don't have a monarchy. Democracy means you have elections. These do not exclude each other. France is a republic and a democracy. So is Germany. So is Italy. So it Finland. So is Hungary. So is Czechia, Ireland, and on and on. Not a single one says "No, we can't be a democracy, because we're a republic!"
Neither did the Founding Fathers say that. That's why Thomas Jefferson and James Madison founded the DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY. Which blows all this "a republic is ackshually not a democracy!" nonsense out of the water even in the U.S.
The only people in the world who don't understand what a republic and a democracy are, and who keep saying they can't be the same, are part of the GOP voters base. "Haha, wez a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY, and our party is called the Republicans! Take that, Democrats!" If the party names had been reversed you wouldn't be saying that.
"But, but I have this quote from Benjamin Franklin, who was practually a Founding Father, that says 'a republic if you can keep it'." Take that quote and shove it, finally. How many times do we have to hear a quote as "proof" of something? The only thing this group of GOP voters have to cling on in this argument is that some in the first days lied about the matter, because some landowners didn't like the idea that the common rabble could vote. "No," the soothing answer came, "it's actually NOT a democracy. It's ... uh ... a republic! That's not a democracy."
How to claim there's a difference? "Well, you see ... yes! A republic has a CONSTITUTION! A democracy doesn't!"
Another lie. That has never been the definition of either a republic or a democracy. Again, a republic means you don't have a monarchy, a democracy means you have elections. Whether these have constitutions or not is irrelevant, and in fact, republics the world over do have constitutions, and still call themselves democracies.
And democratic monarchies like Britain, Spain and Sweden also have constitutions. By a GOP voter's definition that would make them republics. Nice job.
Nowhere in history has "republic" been defined as "a country that has a constitution," and nowhere has democracy been defined as "elections without constitutions and whatever," except among those GOP voters who use it to "own" the Democrats because of party names. Time to give it up. Stop showing that right-wing voters can be as dumb as left-wing voters. If you cling to this ridiculous definition you are no better than leftists who still think corona is deadly. In fact your issue is far dumber, because it's so easy to show how wrong you are.
And Jefferson and Madison, founders of the Democratic-Republican Party, would very much like you to stop using "the Founding Fathers" as your false support in this discussion, thank you.
Great explanation of something I have slowly come to realize about democracy. But one of the big issues with ANY kind of government is selecting the proper leaders. Specifically, WHO decides those which are qualified to lead? Somehow, many if not most of those "leading" us now are unfit for purpose. It has become increasingly obvious that most of them are not the pick of the litter.
This is the most cogent argument for anarchy I've ever read. There is a lot of discussion today about destroying and rebuilding the UN. The Russian Consulate says Russia cannot be excluded without disbanding the whole organization. I agree with destroying it but why rebuild it? I think of anarchy as the future achievement of a society of improved people. Right now we can't achieve anarchy because most people aren't good enough to live without rules imposed by an exterior force. When we improve enough to achieve anarchy, we will. In reality, we probably will have anarchy before we are ready for it, because all these tentacles of corporate governance will crumble as the stock company model fails, and as its currency fails. Call me a romantic idealist. I've been called worse.
Democracy only has a scaling problem if people sit back and allow it to NOT scale.
If you check US state freedom indexes, you'll find California consistently at or near the bottom, and New Hampshire consistently at or near the top.
As of 2020, California has about one state rep per 494,228 people. New Hampshire has 3,444, Iin fact, TTBOMK, New Hampshire has the 6th largest political body in the world, for a population of about 1M people. It's the closest thing to a plebiscite that exists. https://ballotpedia.org/Population_represented_by_state_legislators High representation isn't the only reason for more relative freedom, but I'll argue it's a big factor.
If they had kept the original level of representation in the US Congress, there'd be about 50,000 representatives. This IMO would be a huge improvement on the current state of affairs, because they wouldn't be able to get a damned thing done. Naturally, TPTB would never allow this, which is one of many reasons why the current system is stick-a-fork-in-it done.