Democracy – The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order (Perspectives on Democratic Practice) 1st Edition

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a very important political economist and philosopher in the intellectual tradition of the Austrian School of Economics -- I would say he is without a doubt the most important anarchocapitalist thinker since Murray Rothbard. His book, _Democracy: The God That Failed_, is the most devastating and solid critique of democracy I have seen, and is essential reading for everyone in our new millennium.Democracy is conventionally regarded as the best form of government. Even most rigorous anti-statists such as Murray Rothbard (to whom Hoppe is intellectually indebted) looked upon democracy as an improvement over alternative systems of government. Professor Hoppe dissents with this view, averring that monarchy (ancien-regime-style) is a 'better' system than democracy. However, this is _not_ a defense of monarchy, for Hoppe sees any form of state as morally unjustifiable. Rather, _Democracy: The God That Failed_ serves a twin purpose: firstly, to interpret history and account for the dramatic rise in exploitation observed in the democratic age. Secondly, Hoppe asserts the moral and economic superiority of a system he calls "natural order" -- a stateless society of private property anarchy.By what insight does Hoppe show that monarchy is the superior system? It is shockingly brilliant in its simplicity, yet the implications that follow are critical. What Hoppe states is this: A monarch is essentially the _private_ owner of the government -- all exploited resources are *owned* by him. (Perhaps the insightful reader will already be able to predict Hoppe's conclusion.) As such, he will work to maximize both current income and the total capital value of his estate. In effect, he owns the kingdom. Thus, assuming self-interest, his planning horizon will be farsighted and exploitation be far more limited. Contrarily, in a publicly-owned government -- i.e. democracy -- the rulers' have current use of resources only, not their capital value. These government caretakers cannot personally keep that which is exploited from the tax-producers. Thus, systematic property violations will be greater under a democracy. In economic jargon, the monarch's degree of time-preference will be substantially lower than that of the publicly-owned government caretaker due to difference in ownership. But isn't the democratic system kept in check by elections? Not really, argues Hoppe, as those in power "buy" votes with their redistribution policies and egalitarian schemes. (Just like Alberta's current premiere buys votes with oil rebate checks, psh.)With these propositions, Hoppe examines issues the varying impact of monarchies and democracies on time preference (the rate at which present satisfaction is preferred to future satisfaction) (Chapter 1), differing policies on immigration (Chapters 7 and 8), differences in degree of exploitation (Chapter 2) the economics of redistribution (Chapter 4).He also makes the positive case for a natural order in the private production of security (Chapter 12), explains the erroneous classical liberal belief in the possibility of a limited government (Chapters 11 and 13), explores methods of desocialization of public property (Chapter 6), argues for the right to secession (Chapter 5) and myriad other important things. One crucial chapter is "On Conservatism and Libertarianism" (Chapter 10), where Hoppe demonstrates that libertarians and conservatives are natural allies in their goals, thus libertarians must be social conservatives and conservatives must be anti-state libertarians. Their goals can only be realized in alliance against all opponents to private property rights, as well as the false libertarians (modal libertarians) and socialist conservatives and neoconservatives.In response to roGER's asinine review (I won't even comment on his blatant post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy about democracies and their GDPs), it is obvious that he simply does not understand what Professor Hoppe has done here. Firstly, this is not a defense of monarchy. Secondly, in order to correctly interpret history, Professor Hoppe's analysis of monarchical and democratic systems is rooted in social science theories that are established a priori. Thus it is important to recognize that his argument cannot be proven or refuted on empirical grounds. However, this does not detract from the power of his argument -- quite the contrary, it makes the position in _Democracy: The God That Failed_ even more convincing.In conclusion, Natural Order > Monarchy > Democracy. This book is in my opinion extremely important, not just to economists, historians, and defenders of liberty, but anyone really. A bonus is that Hoppe's prose is compact yet lucid, so it's not inaccessible to the average reader.

Hoppe's introduction alone is worth the price of the book. And it is crucial to read the introduction before starting the book. He explains a priori knowledge ("propositions which assert something about reality and can be validated independent of the outcome of any future experience") in a simple, straightforward manner providing many examples. I stress this because although the Austrian Economists, which includes Hoppe, regularly mention a priori knowledge/theory - some of which is more commonly known as human nature - this is the first time I've seen it explained in such a clear and concise manner.Hoppe also defines what a monopoly is and stresses that all governments are monopolies and must result in declining product quality at steadily increasing prices for any activity they are engaged in. And, of course, the reason monopolies always behave this way is explained by a priori theory.Another significant point the author makes in the introduction is the inability of most historians to logically interpret, or choose between competing interpretations, the facts they so meticulously gather. As Hoppe states, "The principle advantage that the political economist and philosopher has over the mere historian (and the benefits to be gained from the study of political economy and philosophy by the historian) is his knowledge of pure - a priori - social theory, which enables him to avoid otherwise unavoidable errors in the interpretation of sequences of complex historical data and present a theoretically corrected or "reconstructed," and a decidedly critical or "revisionist" account of history".Needless to say, a priori theory threads it way through the remainder of the book, which, by the way, is useful and enlightening itself. My favorite chapters were one, seven, eight, and ten.Chapter one deals with time preference and how that determines whether society is moving in the direction of increasing civilization through savings and investment (low time preference) or its opposite, decivilization (high time preference). Hoppe shows how government is the biggest contributor to high time preference.In chapters seven and eight the author discusses the merits and demerits of free or restricted immigration. Hoppe's arguments have encouraged me to rethink my position on this issue, which had been to support free and open immigration for all. He also discusses forced integration and free trade. His arguments favoring free trade are, in my view, simply unchallengeable.Chapter ten deals with conservatism and libertarianism. Hoppe and Rothbard's descriptions of "modal" libertarians are right on the money. As a former member of the Libertarian Party and county chairman for several years, I could have written these descriptions myself!In its entirety, I thought the book was excellent. Frankly, as an amateur economist and libertarian, it has to rank as one of the best book I've ever read.