Why is civilization crumbling? And should we go back to monarchy?
Submitted by Toban on Sat, 06/20/2009 - 18:36
Hey folks, check out my new article: Monarchy vs. Democracy and The Decline of Civilization
I discuss Hoppe's book, Democracy—The God That Failed and his thesis that democratic-republican, or public, government is much worse than monarchical, or privately-owned, government. In addition, I explore the idea that public government is responsible for the stagnation and decline of living standards.
Enjoy!
»
Ad hominem attack
It occurs to me, this is why some people call us 'far right'
Seccesion may be
the only hope to restore freedom (counties first, then states)
http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com
http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com
Exactly!
As the USA collapses due to its own girth, liberty will be born in seceding communities. These independent communities will have whatever structure of government they choose, and there will be widespread competition is forms of social organization. I have no doubt that a market anarchist order would be the most prosperous.
Unfortunately this is war with a few banking families...
that has been carried down through the centuries, All the rest is an illusion, http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Andrew.Carrington.Hitchco...
Also on the front page of the DP, under essential videos watch Money Masters you may learn the hard truth about the situation and it's not what you were taught in high school!~
My karma ran over your dogma~
My karma ran over your dogma~
I've seen Money Masters. It was trash.
Bill Still is a monetary socialist. He opposes the gold standard in favor of a fiat paper currency. Although there may be some truth in the banker conspiracy theories, I think you're placing way too much weight on them by claiming that "the rest is an illusion." Wake up!!
"...some truth in banker conspiracy theories..." ??!!
And you tell the other person to wake up?
Even Jesus had to fight the friggin' banksters, if you are into Bible stories.
ARREST THE ROTHSCHILDS. All other activities ought to be driving to that goal. Liberty will only be ours if we bring the tyrants down. The tyrants are, and have been, the banksters since currency was invented. They have taken on much broader powers, and now sit in top government seats, at the head of corporations, etc, but all rabbit trails lead to the bank.
Insurance companies are just the newest morphology, too. That is why you WILL be forced to buy health insurance. And expected to thank your Obamessiah for the privilege.
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
I don't believe in the bankster scary tales
You're trying to explain too much, as though the bankster idea is the key to understanding all of history. I'm very familiar with this bankster conspiracy worldview, and I stopped believing in this worldview when I became an Austro-libertarian. The Austrian view explains the world much more accurately and satisfactorily, by focusing on economics, incentives and the nature of the state. We don't need to invoke any evil conspiracies to explain the horrors of statism—the Austrian analysis tells us that this is just the normal result of public government and coercive monopoly in general.
Cycles of civilization
One of the better books I have read is "The Mayan Calendar and the Transformation of Consciousness" by Carl Josef Calleman, Ph.D. The Mayans were brilliant at predicting changes that would affect vast tracts of civilization, and right now the West is heading into a dark time.
It has little to do with governmental systems, but that consciousness is changing and there are some mighty struggles going on - just about everywhere. In Star Wars terms, the forces of evil and the forces of good are in a pitched battle. To an extent this has always been the case, but we are seeing threats, violence and resistance in every corner of the globe, and on a much wider scale than ever before.
Greed is taking its toll also and we are seeing the collapse of the financial monetary systems, pretty much worldwide. Unemployment will burgeon here, though much of Europe is fairly steady now. Asia seems to be safe for the moment. (Well, North Korea is stirring things up).
Your point about a monarchy is a good one. But only an enlightened monarch would work. There were good kings, queens and Emperors in the past - particularly in England and ancient Rome. But there were some rats also. The big snag about monarchs is the Divine Right stuff. No such thing.
A kooky theory, to say the least
That's a bit of a wacky theory. Mises refuted the idea of "laws of social evolution" or "historical laws". Furthermore, there's no way the Mayans could predict the future (unless you believe in magic).
I agree that monarchy sucks, it's just that democracies and republics suck way more. But the essential point of my article was that the state has to go, and only market anarchy can be considered as a real solution.
An overview of America
Watch the short film by JBS called "An overview of America".
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTQQJOEn9yI
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW6AKVyi6As
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23JIFy8Vm6Q
Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I16M-qH3SbU
Democracy = Rule of the People
Republic = Rule of Law
In a Democracy, the majority can deprive life, liberty, and property from individuals. In a Republic, individuals are protected from mob rules mentality by "Equal protection under the laws", so that 99% of the people can not infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of the individual. If you read our founding documents, the word "Democracy" is no where to be found. In a Republic we use the "Democratic Processes" to elect our representatives, but that is tempered by "Equal protection under the laws".
Read the Federalist Papers, and you will understand why the founders did not want a full democracy. It's not very confusing, and it is a pretty simple concept to understand. Once you get it, decide for yourself which type of government you prefer. If you are still leaning towards Democracy over a Constitutionally limited Republican form of government, which Ron Paul supports, then maybe you are more influence by Woodrow Wilson's belief that "We must make the world safe for Democracy." This is the root of all of our foreign military interventionism over-sea's. In this regard, the neocons are more allied with the Democratic Party than they are with the base of the Republican Party. Democrats and neocons both believe in Leon Trotsky's view of "permanent revolution", or "permanent war" as a means to keep the masses loyal to the state. They both follow the advice of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Geobles. "Just tell them there is a common external threat, and wave the flag, and they will come running to offer up their liberties for more security", or something like that.
For me, this is why I like Ron Paul. He offers something different. Something we have not had in America since before there was a Federal Reserve. If you want to stop our war mongering, you have to stop the engine that funds and feeds the military industrial complex, and that is the Federal Reserve.
I don't see "monarchy" as a solution. George Washington sure didn't either!
Just my 2 cents, thx :)
I've seen Overview of America...
It's a pretty good video for constitutionalists, but as a market anarchist I must say it was trash. It gave a totally dishonest portrayal of anarchy as a power vacuum that always descends into oligarchy. Come on! That's just the old statist myth—I don't think they read a single thing about market anarchy.
I am very strongly opposed to public government, including both democracy and republics. So long as the rulers do not personally own the government, they operate under perverse incentives. Of course, monarchy is not the answer. We need a market anarchist order based on universal private property.
What is wrong with you people?! Republics are democracies!
Democracy: rule by the people
Republic: constitutionally limited democracy
Democracy is the broad category of which Republic is a subtype. Quit ducking the arguments against democracy by claiming that a republic is different. PUBLIC government is the problem, including the most idealistic constitutionally limited republic. The incentive structure that the rulers operate under virtually guarantees that they will expand the powers of government.
What is wrong with............
Did you watch the video? Where do you get your definitions from?
What is wrong with you? You don't know the difference?
"These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demr...
Perhaps if you understood the difference, you would not be arguing.
The best you can hope for under a monarchy is a benevolent dictatorship. Thanks anyway, but I vote we should pass. In a constitutional republic, my vote counts, in a monarchy I don't have a vote. Can you understand that difference?
They're both PUBLIC government
My argument is against public government, whether direct and unlimited democracy or constitutional limited republic. I understand that they are different, but they are just subtypes of public government, or what most people call democracy.
I really find it weird that you guys make such a big deal about the difference between the two. Democracy is government by the people, of the people, for the people. That's exactly what you say a Republic is as well.
My argument stands as an indictment of public government, and you can't duck it by claiming that a republic isn't a democracy.
We are not supposed to be a democracy.
The founding fathers offered a crown to George Washington, who refused.
Our country was founded as a constitutional republic.
Our current form of government is an oligarchy, and has been for almost 100 years. An oligarchy is basically a monarchy, except without the titles. So the idea of instituting another monarchy is not a very good, nor original one.
An oligarchy and a monarchy are based upon elitism, which is why they fail. Elitists are usually self-appointed, so the elitism is an illusion. This is why we have so many of the elite that are wrong about everything, but still insist we have to keep listening to the elite for answers.
A democracy is based on mob rule and ignorance.
A constitutional republic is based upon the rule of the people by themselves (instead of a monarch) through elected representatives.
Basically, you saying we should go back to being a monarchy, is like saying you want to go back to wearing diapers. You cannot handle cleaning up after yourself.
Disagree
A federation with a federal government was founded to be the agent of thirteen soverign states. By hook and by crook the federal government evolved into a national one. We did not begin as one country, but thirteen.
There was no hook or crook. It happened. No one stopped it.
Done by elected representatives. Just like what is going on now. 80% of the people told representatives no bailout, yet we got a bailout. It is not what the people wanted, but it is what our legally elected representatives gave us. Just like the constitution. You are right about that not being the original intent of the meeting which resulted in the constitution, but we had picked our representatives.
None of this really matters, does it? It is not going to get Dr. Paul elected president.
The first question
is not what kind of government or no-government (anarchy), but the consent of the governed.
It's said there are as many as ten thousand different kinds of people in the world living in 195 countries. Almost all countries are empires where minorities are ruled (persecuted) by a ruling elite.
Whether we like it or not, nationality is how most people in the world identify themselves, nationality being a people not a country (e.g. the Pashtun are a nation living along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border). They live in two countries because Europeans drew an artificial line dividing them.
The first freedom is to be free of persecution from the foreigner. When Rwanda was formed Tutsis and Hutus became part of the same country, under the same government. Putting these two rivals in the same country was insane, the result genocide.
A more civilized world would mean, as far as practible, one nation, one country. Ruling elites oppose this because control would be much more difficult, if at all possible.
As some have noted, Europe before WWI was composed of countries that had a hodge-podge of nationalities living in most of the them.. Two World Wars separated these nationalities, creating a more stable situation. The fall of communism further stabilized Europe. The consent of the governed there became, with some exceptions, a reality.
There just aren't enough countries in the world. When they number in the thousands then the world will achieve consent of the governed, freedom from the foreigner.
Then the type of government becomes relevant. For those who favor anarchy, this is the path. More countries gets you closer to anarchy (more freedom), assuming you'd still want to go there.
well
Fortune Favors the Bold
I would argue that we do have privately owned government under the guise of public government. A true democracy, besides being a bad idea in principle, is practically totally unworkable. The enforcers of the "will of the people" will always use their power for the interest of some individuals over others, if only for the reason that a state that required a true democratic vote on every decision would be doomed to failure.
Fortune Favors the Bold
I haven't read Hoppe's book
I haven't read Hoppe's book (waiting for a kindle release :) ), but thanks for the review. Definitely though provoking. Once the whole world becomes "democratic", and people can no longer easily blame other bogeymen for the worlds ills, I expect more debate along these lines.
Empirically, it does seem that those countries and regions that have abandoned dynastic rule for "democracy" have fared better than those that have not. At least in general, but that may only be because the "democrats" are allowed to disregard all the really bad cases ( communists/fascists ) as "not really democracy". Just like the communists do to all the failed communist experiments.
I always like to bring up India vs. Honk Kong as counterevidence against the "democracy is the goal in and of itself" crowd. In the late 40's both were British colonies, pretty destitute by contemporary Western standards. Now, India still remains so, while Hong Kong has advanced faster than pretty much any place on earth. And this despite India having the benefit of someone held in even higher reverence than Obama himself ( Gandhi ) at its outset, and then having Nehru making all the "enlightened" moves: Non alignment; not taking sides; no fixed ideology, just do what works for India; blah, blah..... While Hong Kong was never even democratic. More just a 'capitalist' (at least comparatively) experiment.
Despite this, there is one thing democracy may have in its favor, and it is relative stability. By providing a clear and universally accepted succession mechanism, lots of uncertainty is removed. Things may be bad and getting worse, but they do so in a predictable fashion. And this will likely lower time preferences. In the olden days, with universal acceptance of The King as divinely inspired, that may not have mattered much, but modern day dynastic rules tend to be rather unstable and revolution prone, with capital fleeing around successions.
How Anarchy will fare on the "stability" front is anyone's guess, but I'd be willing to bet most people would place it rather low. Which may well severely increase time preferences for quite some time until it gets around to proving itself, possibly to the point where enough capital flees to other "systems" to render the budding Anarchic region not viable.
Are UFOs real?
NASA going to bomb ETs on moon 10/09 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0zuey7E7ec
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
The Elite NWO thrive in
The Elite NWO thrive in Democracy(Mob Rule by selling fear) and Monarchy(by owning the Monarchy) and perish in constitutional republics that is why our country has slowly destroyed from the inside.
For we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy, that relies primarily on covet means for expanding it's fear of influence. -JFK WHACKED BY THE NWO
"Hell is truth seen too late...duty neglected in its season."- Tryon Edwards
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
Constitutional Republics are just a type of democracy!
A constitution is pretty meaningless when you consider that the government (which it is supposed to restrain) interprets it. The constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on!
I seriously considered the
I seriously considered the option of a monarchy, and I am still not entirely convinced that it is the worst of ideas.
For a little background in my thoughts, you can see my discussion of the problems with democracy here. One of the chief advantages that I can see is that a single man can turn around the downward progress of a nation and set things right. In a democracy, you have to hope for a huge up-swelling among the people that completely changes the shape of their government. There is a lot of bad momentum in a democratic system as I talked about in my article which makes such a change increasingly unlikely.
That being said, I think we would have been a whole lot better off if we had stuck to the original design of the Federal government as stated in the Constitution, the original Bill of Rights, and the abolition of slavery. There were a lot of safeguards that we lost along the way that turned our Republic increasingly into a Democracy, and the closer you get to the latter, the more in trouble you will be.
Have you considered self-government?
Did you read my article? The point is that both monarchy and democracy are bad, we want individual self-government and private property. Government doesn't work, and neither does collectivism.
You had some good points against democracy in your article. I'd highly suggest reading Hoppe's book. He has a formidable arsenal of arguments against democracy (including constitutional republics).
That
is why I want a constitutional government over a monarchy.
That is why I am here, and that is alone my beginning down a path of truth.
Henry below is who I was responding too.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
What about freedom?
My point in the article was that democracy is much worse than monarchy, but that both are bad and that the best solution is a market anarchist order based on universal private property.
I didn't say democracy
I said Constitutional Republic, and bill of rights. With a few tweeks of course to both.
Anarchy always leads to tyranny.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Anarcho leads to tyranny - Prove it
Another of the minarchist slogans - asserted but never proved. Nor can it be. Its akin to War is Peace and Freedom is Slavery.
Free market anarchist's (or AnCaps if you prefer) views will prevail when such views are accepted by the populace at large. Should that occur and considering such a view extols liberty above all else - how is it that tyranny grows from liberty? Maybe we should all endorse totalitarianism and it will produce liberty?
marlow
marlow