Here I present the outlines of a theory of empire, particularly democratic empire. While all states must be expected to have aggressive inclinations, the incentive structure faced by traditional kings on the one hand and modern presidents on the other is different enough to account for different kinds of war. Whereas kings viewed themselves as the private owner of the territory under their control, presidents consider themselves as temporary caretakers. The owner of a resource is concerned about the current income to be derived from the resource and the capital value embodied in it (as a reflection of expected future income). His interests are long-run, with a concern for the preservation and enhancement of the capital values embodied in “his” country. In contrast, the caretaker of a resource (viewed as public rather than private property) is concerned primarily about his current income and pays little or no attention to capital values. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/5920/the-paradox-of-imperialism/
The Paradox of Imperialism
Previous post: Pro-Slavery Democrats
Next post: The Fairness of “Unequal” Exchange
{ 92 comments }
Next Comments →
This is by far the best article I have ever read on democratic governments. It makes so much sense and is so logical that it seems this should have been obvious to me for many years. Great work!
Refreshing.
A modern person yearning to be ruled by a person whose position results from the status of the loins issuing him.
ilsm,
Would you rather be threatened by the whims of one moron, or by the whims of every moron in society?
I agree with the implication that liberty is an end in itself, not democracy. But I think the reality is that people are always going to oraginze in the form of government to secure their liberties. Grouping, is a very natural human behaior. And when they they do it is better that it be organized so that there exists the potential to kick out corrupt leaders than no potential at all other than violence. After all, if youy have a group of people, and this group has “leaders”. The only way to minimize disenfranchisation is to have a leadership that everyone can have a role in choosing.
I guess the problem is that Liberty is the ends in itself, but people have a right to have a say in who leads even if that leader hates liberty. For the longest time, the US got arround this by having strong constitutional limits on government but that eventually got overtaken by the democratic mob somewhere between 1910 and 1935. Now the question is, how the hell do we put the government back in it’s place? Violence? Voteing? It looks like the current strategy is “milk the system for all it’s got till it crashes into the dirt, and hope a pheonix rises from the ashes”. I guess with the economy on the edge and the birth of the information age, this is the moment of truth.
David C,
The only way government can be kept in its place is by the threat of physical harm to the governors. In a democracy, this threat is removed.
“The only way government can be kept in its place is by the threat of physical harm to the governors.”
I can’t agree. Hoppe touches on the other option at the beginning of this piece – “exit”. Exit presents the threat of economic harm to the governors, and is therefore taken every bit as seriously as physical threats. If you make it as cheap as possible (i.e., make the state as small as possible) to exercise exit, you will keep the governors in check. Democracy (like any government) works best in small, culturally homogenous units.
“With the end of World War II, essentially all of — by now: democratic — Western Europe (and democratic Japan and South Korea in the Pacific region) has become part of the US Empire, as indicated by the presence of US troops in practically all of these countries. What the post World War II period of peace then “proves” is not that democracies do not go to war against each other but that a hegemonic, imperialist power such as the United States did not let its various colonial parts go to war against each other (and, of course, that the hegemon itself did not see any need to go to war against its satellites — because they obeyed — and they did not see the need or did not dare to disobey their master).”
Very good point. In addition, there is another causal factor keeping wars limited in our time, which has nothing to do with democracy directly. That is the existence of the nuclear bomb, and the general perception of it as a doomsday weapon. If that taboo were ever broken, a major restraint against war would be removed, without any change in the structure of the world’s governments. The indirect connection with democracy that the “doomsday bomb” has is: it was a democracy that first came up with it, in a race against a dictatorship that was a usurper-hijacked ex-democracy.
The sentence above does give the grain of truth in the Wilsonite myth. If democracies are ranked against decayed democracies that have been hijacked by usurpers, then democracies do look relatively peacelike. Even with this comparison, though, there are valid counterexamples.
Here’s an idea to reflect upon: was the State of Kaiser Wilhem II really a nascent democracy, with the generals ending up hijacking the government on the strength of the war’s popularity?…
quasibill,
I suppose that could be true, but capital flight hasn’t done much to reform, say, Zimbabwe, or Mexico for that matter.
And to be fair, you can add the US to that list. There is no threat of capital flight here–the US offers the best return on capital of any nation on earth–yet it remains a place where people’s lives can be destroyed for the most picayune criminal or civil violations.
No amount of exit will deter democratic governments; democratic governors do not pay the cost of their actions! Only monarchs pay a cost for their actions.
reactionary:
You are confusing two separate, if related phenomena – “capital flight” and “exit”. First, “exit” concerns the acting human being, and not necessarily his property. After all, leaving a jurisdiction in this vein often means the surrender of all property in that jurisdiction. Such are the costs of exit (akin to the costs of exit in the stock market). Since capital in the sense you’re using it is only property, and not human, it’s a different phenomenon.
Second, trying to draw too many conclusions from present conditions is a bad idea. States aren’t very small (in general) therefore exit costs are relatively high. So regimes that are bad on an absolute scale can continue to be seen as the best possible alternative through lack of competition and high costs of exit.
Furthermore, current conditions are bad to extrapolate from because the global economy is built on the illusion of the U.S. dollar. Someday, that illusion will end, and things will become drastically different. Until that day, however, you’ll see all kinds of unlikely “fantastic” (in the value neutral definition) scenarios occuring as people make what would otherwise be irrational decisions because of their belief in the illusion.
a good point in the article is about democracy being a soft variant of communism. Perhaps you could say democracy is the “socialization” of politics where monarchies were the “privitization” of politics, and we all know the consequences of socialization and Hoppe decribed their implications very well.
I was also surprised to read that there is so much more racism and genocide is in democracies. It makes me wonder why minority groups in this country are so democratic leaning, since obviously majority rule does not favor minorities. Or maybe, that’s a way for such a democratic state as powerful as the U.S. can uphold it’s legitimacy in such a cosmopolitan environment. Any thoughts?
Hoppe is very selective in his use of history to bolster his points. The European wars of the 18th century were the only wars in history that were limited. Hoppe conveniently ignores the Protestant/Catholic war in Germany in the early 17th century that killed about half the population.
Monarchs have ruled the earth for most of its history, yet limited war appeared only in Europe and only in the 18th century. How does Hoppe manage to credit monarchs for this? The truth is that the Dutch Republic, not a monarchy, introduced limited war in the 17th century fight against the monarchies of Spain, France and England. The concept caught on in the rest of Europe by the next century.
In its war for independece from Spain, the Spanish monarch had his troops massacre every man, woman and child in dozens of cities (see histories by Israel), while the Dutch Republican armies protected civilians in cities they conquered. The Dutch never aggressed against a neighboring country, but was attacked by these monarchs dozens of times in 17th and 18th centuries.
“Monarchical wars typically arose out of inheritance disputes brought on by a complex network of inter-dynastic marriages.”
Eli Heckscher in his book “Mercantilism” makes it clear that the economics of mercantilism caused most of the wars of 17th and 18th centuries, not family feuds over territory. And most of those wars were directed at the Dutch by monarchies.
Hoppe claims that total war began with the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars, but I didn’t realize that France was a democracy under Napoleon, since he called himself an emporer. And what about Japan in WWII, ruled by a monarch and committing some of the worst atrocities in history?
Could it be that limited war faded because both sides must agree to it for it to work? If one side refuses to surrender when defeated, as Conferade generals refused for years, and then resort to guerrilla war, total war becomes inevitable.
Also, technology and wealth make a huge difference. When states were limited in their destructive power by technology, and the length of wars were limited by wealth, damage was limited as well. Limited wars began to fade as the destructive power of weapons increased and wealth increased enough to sustain armies in the field longer.
“Western Europe (and democratic Japan and South Korea in the Pacific region) has become part of the US Empire, as indicated by the presence of US troops in practically all of these countries.”
Here, Hoppe becomes just plain dishonest, because he switches the meaning of empire from its literal one to a figurative one without informing the reader and while continuing to attach the evils of empire to it. Hoppe clearly intends to say that the US controls S. Korea, Japan and Germany in the same way that the Great Britain, France and Spain controlled theirs, which is not true in the least.
“Monarchies are the semi-organic outgrowth of hierarchically structured natural — stateless — social orders. Kings are the heads of extended families, of clans, tribes, and nations.”
So why did people want to overthrow monarchies for hundreds of years?
“…minorities had also been treated fairly well under the Ottomans. However, when the multicultural Ottoman Empire disintegrated in the course of the 19th century and was replaced by semi-democratic nation-states such as Greece, Bulgaria, etc., the existing Ottoman Muslims were expelled or exterminated.”
This is just plain ignorance! Please read anything by Bat Ye’or or Bernard Lewis for a dose of the truth: the Ottoman empire regularly murdered and enslaved Jews and Christians.
“…the Union government quickly proceeded to exterminate the Plains Indians.”
Good grief! The ignorance is appalling! The US began killing Natives from day one. Andrew Jackson committed the worst atrocities against Indians with his forced removal of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, Creek and Chickasaws from their native lands in the 1830′s. But was democracy to blaim? If so, how does Hoppe explain the mass murder and looting of natives by the Spanish monarch!
This article is so bad that libertarians should be ashamed.
“I was also surprised to read that there is so much more racism and genocide is in democracies. It makes me wonder why minority groups in this country are so democratic leaning, since obviously majority rule does not favor minorities. Or maybe, that’s a way for such a democratic state as powerful as the U.S. can uphold it’s legitimacy in such a cosmopolitan environment. Any thoughts?”
1. For most of our history, we were not a “democracy”, but a Constitutional Republic, which protected minorities. It is now often spun in our publik skools that we have always been a democracy, and that it is democracy that provided protection of minorities. One need only look at post-WWII SCOTUS caselaw to see the absurdity of that contention. Or look at the bashing of “activist judges who thwart democracy” by those on the religious right.
2. What saves minorities in this country, to a large extent, is a cultural tendency towards tolerance. However, as the limits on government (especially the federal gov’t) become more attenuated, you’re seeing the loss of tolerance, and the gravitation into competing sects that wish to impose their version of utopia on the other. While we are still early on the path, we are heading to the same destination that befell the democracies created by “the white man’s burden” in the ME and Africa – where the results of the election become of life or death importance.
It’s a feedback loop, where the observance of centralized power leads one to a) believe in “improving” others (the domain of the modern day liberal and neoconservative), or b) fear being “improved” by others (the domain of those who wish to fan a “clash of civilizations”), which of course in both instances leads to a yielding of ever more centralized power, which in turn merely feeds back into the driving memes once more.
In the United States the elite where in favour of statism long before the “mob” were.
Many of the leading universities were full of collectivists long before the 1930′s and many of the writers and politicians who went to these universities tended to reflect this.
Even the election of F.D.R. in 1932 was not really a vote for collectivism – his campaign platform was no such thing.
It was only after four years of not just “fireside chats” but a vast propaganda effort by the government (and by the private radio stations who licences came from the government) that the American people voted (60% to 40%) for the New Deal. And, of course, bad though it was the New Deal was hardly full collectism (especially as the National Industrial Recovery Act and some other measures had already been struck down by the Supreme Court before 1936.
Even what limited support for statism that there was among the public before the 1930′s can be traced to such things as government education – and this was set up (by H. Mann and others) with the deliberate intention of making people statist.
Again it was the elite long before the “mob”.
As for the topic of democracy and war.
I can think of one counter example (no doubt there are others). In 1914 the German Parliament (elected by the men and women of Germany) voted in support of war credits against France (a country whose Parliament was only elected by men – but certainly democratic by most definitions).
A counter argument would be the German Kaiser and key ministers were the “real” power in Germany – but they did not use force to influence the vote of the German Parliament.
Another example would be the vote for Hamas by the Palestinians – this was a democratic vote for war (indeed total war – war of extermination) against the democratic state of Israel.
War can be about the desires of a King or an elite – but it is true that the majority of a whole people can hate another people and seek to destroy them.
“For most of our history, we were not a “democracy”, but a Constitutional Republic, which protected minorities.” Except if you were a slave, right?
I think the French Revolution was democratically spawned, and Napoleon came to power via means of this. Similarly, the dictators in Italy and Germany , like Hitler and Mussloni, were very popular, and I believe that achieved their power via the democratic and parliamentary ballot box. So, a popular fascist group takes over a democracy, and this leads to a dictatorship.
The Tsar was bettern than the Communists. King Loui better than the Directorate in France. The Kaiser superior to Hitler. Mussolini arose through the coalition building in the Italian parliament, along with his fascist gangs (not to mention a fear of communnism, etc).
Yes, there PRotestant/Roamn Catholic wars were horrible, but, like Dr. Hoppe says in other works, especially in his book, these were wars of ideology, like more modern ones. Wars of ideology would seem to be much worse, than say, a war over conquering a specific territory. The territorial dispute can be solved rather easily in comparison to one in which two irreconciliable beliefs are pitted against each other (Reformed vs Roman Catholic, Roman Catholic vs Lutheran, Lutheran vs. Reformed, etc). Things like philosophy, religion, political ideology are difficult to reconcile.
I suppose a real issue, encompasing the whole issue, would be having a laws, rules, etc. that no one is above, even the leaders. Hoppe defends the rights of the lower barons, burghers, free cities, against the centralizing power of many of the European monarchs.
Very interesting discussion.
Are there any plans to reprint Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism?
Joe
The book can be read online as well. But that you probable know.
http://mises.org/etexts/Soc&Cap.pdf
Björn Lundahl
This is my first post here and while I normally don’t comment, I felt compelled to do so by Prof. Hoppe’s speech. I couldn’t agree more with the November 20 comments made by RogerM. The text seems to suggest that we would be better off under a monarchical, aristocratic system than under what we have now? Democracy may be bad, but it’s the least bad choice we have. I usually find the insights on Mises.org refreshing, but I am re-considering stopping my financial support of mises.org, if it continues to support this biased drivel.
~ Nicholas Matyaszek
Alexandria, VA
To the previous poster, all opinions are biased by definition.
The problem with people who support democracy is the notion of the “social contract” between the people and the state. That just because the leaders are democratically elected that the government represents the will of the people. Basically, State = People. So, I think what Hoppe was trying to point out was that since in a democracy State = People that it is impossible for the citizens to escape the consequences of the government’s actions. This leads to total war. Does anyone agree with that or do I have it right?
Monarchy does not seem to be too different from a dictatorship, anyways, so I don’t know what the point is advocating one over the other. The most successful monarchies were the ones that had to compete with some sort of parliament (i.e. England).
I think Hoppe is indeed being selective with his data.
http://www.warscholar.com/Timeline.html
It is very difficult to see a trend linking an increase in warfare with democracy. However, this does not prove the inverse. History plainly shows democracy has initiated no change whatever in the state’s desire to wage war. In the US alone every administration of the 20th century except Coolidge and Harding has put the military to violent use in foreign lands. So I think this whole argument is a non starter.
In an overarching sense I agree completely with Hoppe’s critique of democracy. I find myself frustrated that so many continue to defend the notion that democracy is the best and, therefore, only legitimate form of the state. To accept the idea that democracy is good because it transfers power to the citizens is to grant nothing other than a condition of universal tyranny of every man over every other.
The state as a social entity is inherently illiberal. The form it takes ultimately does not change this fact. The people who call themselves the state will always seek to maximize their violent control. The U.S. was the first state deliberately organized to be self-limiting in any degree. Sadly this proved to be little more than the statement of preference of a group of men in Philadelphia. Once the first group actually claimed power, the drive to remove these limitations began and has only accelerated since. I believe democracy has done nothing to slow this tyrannous race, indeed it has been its high octane fuel. When everyone believes they have the right to mold society to their whim, what else but total regulation of society by the state will be the result?
Reactionary:
“There is no threat of capital flight here…”
On the contrary, it’s already rampant:
http://www.actionamerica.org/taxecon/tickfast.shtml
Nicholas Matyaszek:
I think Hoppe’s overall point is that the modern nation-state, insofar as Fukuyama considers “Western liberal democracy” to be “the final form of human government,” is a disaster. Thus, the state itself is a disaster, it having no form that isn’t inimical to freedom, as no less than Vladimir Lenon well knew:
“It is nonsense to make any pretense of reconciling the State and liberty.”
Nicholas,
I think most monarchs would be absolutely giddy with the unbridled power of taxation, policing, and warfare enjoyed by democratically elected rulers. As a tool for limiting government, democracy is a complete and utter failure.
The truth is that government should be so small that it doesn’t really matter who runs it, so hereditary monarchy is as good as anything–better, because it operates on the premise that the king must answer to God pursuant to a Divine grant of authority, and there’s only one of him and lots of us. Democracy completely upends this premise. The majority answers to nobody but itself so whatever it decides, from banning smoking to war on Iraq, must therefore be correct. It also justifies “total war,” since the voters must be every bit as complicit in war as their government. Now, you may be saying, “But I didn’t vote for George Bush!” In that case, in order to avoid the minority being tagged with responsibility for the majority’s decisions, then we should allow secession from democratic rule. But that would completely undercut the premise of democracy. So while you may claim to be a democrat, in reality you’re just a democrat so long as everybody else agrees with you.
Rob,
A democratic state is inherently liberal, which is why it invents innumerable individual rights and enforces them regardless of the morals and sensibilities and property rights of others. The logical and historical conclusion of liberalism is the tyranny of rights.
RogerM,
Libertarians are embarassed every time Hoppe opens his mouth. We should have no more to do with him than the Republican Party has to do with the Klan.
- Josh
I understand your take R and I agree. This was the point of my closing sentence.
I used the term (il)liberal in association with maximizing freedom, not in the modern leftist context. In this sense any violent interference with the peaceful interaction of people is illiberal.
“Hoppe is very selective in his use of history to bolster his points. The European wars of the 18th century were the only wars in history that were limited. Hoppe conveniently ignores the Protestant/Catholic war in Germany in the early 17th century that killed about half the population.”
Sorry to intrude, RogerM, but you forgot to include the entire medieval era. Prof. Hoppe did do so. Many wars during the Dark and Middle Ages were fought by knights and nobles alone, as they were the only ones who had weapons and training; the typical peasant was inclined to see warriors as entertainment, unless his own field was destroyed.
David,
Billions of dollars of capital and labor flow into the United States on a daily basis, as compared to a few tax protestors relocating each year.
Josh,
I think your post is prescient, and I think Hoppe and several others will be persona non grata at Mises within a few years. Hoppe recognizes that a liberal society has no choice but to protect itself by illiberal means. Since this violates the libertarians’ precious NAP, they can only follow the Marxists in their role as permanent levellers of organic society.
Reactionary:”I think most monarchs would be absolutely giddy with the unbridled power of taxation, policing, and warfare enjoyed by democratically elected rulers.”
Hoppe is simply historically inaccurate when he claims that monarchs financed wars with their own income. Monarchs funded wars primarily through forced loans, which they immediately defaulted on after the war.s
Nicholas, Don’t give up, yet. This is still the best site for practical economics, and articles like Hoppe’s are rare.
I think what clouds the issue is the proposition that one system of government is better than another. The system matters little; the people filling government positions is what matters. A benevolent monarch is far better than a corrupt democracy, but nothing is worse than an evil monarch.
The reason for a republican form of government was to limit the damage of a bad monarch, not to create a utopia. The founders of the US were very pessimistic about human nature, so they divided power among as many groups as possible. But they were very clear that they expected religion to control people, not law. The wrote that the Constitution would not prevent a tyranny of the majority as bad as a monarchy if the voters strayed from their religious beliefs. What has ruined our republic is the abandonment of Christianity in favor of idolatry in the form of worship of the state.
RogerM,
“Nothing” is worse than an evil monarch? I’d submit that nothing is worse than an evil democrat, since she enjoys the imprimatur of the majority. An evil monarch can be declared as such and poisoned or beheaded. The execution of an evil democrat is an act of subversion against the majority itself, which is why presidents who get young men killed for no reason go on to corporate board memberships and academic posts rather than being marched to the gallows.
“What has ruined our republic is the abandonment of Christianity in favor of idolatry in the form of worship of the state.”
The Christian form of government is monarchy or, at its most liberal, patriarchy. Democracy is a clear form of state-worship, and it is where a republic inevitably leads. Constitutions are just words on paper.
Roger,
I disagree. Christianity and state worship have more or less always coexisted. The only time they did not in any sense was when the early church refused to engage in actual ritualistic worship of the Roman state.
In theological terms only Augustinianism and its modern derivatives of Lutheran and Reformed Christianity would suggest a libertarian view of the state in as much as they place the absolute sinfulness of all men at the forefront. The main proponents (Augustine, Luther & Calvin) have all commented on the inherent evil of the state. None the less they often promoted violent state interventions as have many who’ve followed in their theological footsteps. As to America specifically, many of the significant players were outright deists and not Christian in any sense. Indeed it seems state worship was on their mind from the get go as they viewed the post war confederacy as a problem to be solved by erection a single super-state.
As a Christian, I believe the Gospel is the only thing that can actually transform society for the better. However, the only method for its dissemination is preaching and the state has absolutely nothing to do with that.
Reactionary:”The Christian form of government is monarchy or, at its most liberal, patriarchy.”
I don’t think Christianity espouses a form of government. It just provides a guide to the actions of those in government and a limit to its power.
Rob:”Christianity and state worship have more or less always coexisted.”
You’re right. Constantine’s coup against Christianity in the 4th century was a disaster for real Biblical Christianity. I was referring to the Christianity of the early Americans. Yes, many were deists, but the leaders in political thought were Protestants, people we would call fundamentalists today.
“As a Christian, I believe the Gospel is the only thing that can actually transform society for the better.”
I agree completely, and research into culture and economics demonstrates that cultures build institutions while religion/philosophy determines culture. Hoppe has the process backwards when he assumes that institutions mold culture.
While reading Hoppe’s speech, it finally struck me that, when others challenge me for my not voting, the best and most accurate reply is: “I don’t vote because I don’t believe in democracy.”
I think Hoppe overstates the case for monarchy’s benignness, and overstates the case for total war being caused by the spread of majoritarian democracy.
I think there is a much stronger case for the rise of total war being caused by the advance of technology. Such advanced weapons such a tanks, planes, rockets, and bombs depend on industrial output. This makes the “non-combatants” natural targets for war, and the advanced weapons make such peoples easy to attack and hard to defend.
Now, having written that, I also don’t think very highly of our modern democracies, and I think Hoppe is correct that the democracy promoters are wrong in their belief that democracy is the cause of peace in Western Europe and parts of the Pacific. It seems quite clear to me that the peace really has been enforced by the United States in these areas.
How do you prevent the degeneration of democratic governments? In the end, I don’t think it is possible. The US Constitution, as originally written and understood, was probably the best attempt at limited government ever conceived, but even it is failing in the face of majoritarian desires- the major of which is the desire to have something for nothing, and this always leads to enslavement of, first, the productive, then the enslavement of everyone else. The founding fathers might have created even higher barriers to state action, but, in the end, majorities always dissolve such barriers regardless of how strong or high they may be. The fault lies deep within our inherent nature.
Speaking of what embarrasses whom, I’ll mention what embarrasses me. It is when those unable even to understand what Hoppe is talking about use mises.org as a platform to insult him. These people are too obtuse to recognize that even the text they are basing their ignorant comments on is his ACCEPTANCE SPEECH at this years MISES INSTITUTE SUPPORTERS SUMMIT. The award Hoppe was accepting was the Schlarbaum Award for LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT in the Study of LIBERTY.
I am afraid that a little bit of cool Latin simply can not pass for a display of intelligence, when it cannot even obscure a person’s stupidity.
This confirms in my mind why some authors never respond to these blog comments. Some comments are so asinine as to render the exercise of even reading them unworthy of their time and effort.
Paul,
I completely agree with you. That’s why I stopped commenting some time ago. Basically I look for genuine Mises Institute writers and the few commentators such as yourself that have brains. There are people who have been ranting on here for years that have learned and quite clearly read absolutely nothing. Nor do they intend to. Some are right wing madmen. But the general characteristic is a complete lack of understanding of the basic principles of logic.
I tell you this to spare you the grief that comes with engaging with these types. It’s truly a mystery why they come to this site – but it will cause more aggravation than it’s worth if you try to solve it.
On a completely different note (since, that is if, I have your attention Paul), I am not convinced of Hoppe’s argument regarding monarchy. What he has to say about democracy is excellent (and of course about anarchy, economics etc.). Unfortunately I have a lot to get to (a few Mises, Rothbard books and Reisman’s “Capitalism”) before I can come to a final judgement. BTW, thanks for your recommendations on the Spooner/Tucker debate: more things to read!
“Hoppe has the process backwards when he assumes that institutions mold culture.”
Like most processes in nature, the causal arrow is most definitely NOT uni-directional. Both affect the other, and at certain points, fall into feedback loops that cause drastic changes.
Culture and institutions mold each other. Beyond that, it is extremely dangerous to throw the term “culture” around without nailing it down to specifics in reality. For example, is there a “European” culture? Is French culture the same as German? Italian? What is “Western” culture? Is “Christian” culture the crusades, or Amish?
Quite often, people use the term “culture” very sloppily.
“It seems quite clear to me that the peace really has been enforced by the United States in these areas.”
That might be the one part of this essay that I disagreed with. I personally think that much of why Europe and East Asia are peaceful today is that they still have a living conscience to remind them of what total warfare does to your livelihood. Which is partially why the U.S. is more belligerent – we don’t have a living conscience of what total warfare is like to live through as civilians, only as mercenaries.
quasibill,
In our lifetimes we may get to see if I am correct or not. I think US power is on the wane in Europe. Will the peace between Europeans survive this event? I doubt it.
Yancey,
I think the “peace” of Europe is also not long for this Earth, but for a different reason. Namely, that the living conscience is merely a weak restraining force, and at that, its biological source is dying out. Even if those people lived forever, it wouldn’t be a guarantee against war, but with them dying out, what little force it possesses is naturally waning.
That said, I doubt we see anything like the chaos that exists in the ME or Africa, but I can see some nasty “civil” wars erupting in Spain and in the remains of the USSR. And we’ll see a repeat of late 1800s early 1900s power politics in Europe.
Sag!
Long time no chit chat.
The thing I like about Hoppe’s arguments is that they go very far, and yet are all based on the logic of action; and when he points to empirical or historical facts that confirm his thesis, he does not fail to remind us that such facts do not and cannot prove or refute his arguments, but only serve an illustrative purpose. Therefore, you will be glad to know that once you do immerse yourself in his arguments that it will be through logic alone that you will prove him either right or wrong about the relative merits of monarchy over democracy. Ultimately, of course, it is only libertarian anarchy that can be justified.
“Hoppe has the process backwards when he assumes that institutions mold culture.”
“Italy is made, We still have to make Italians.”
All the national cultures of Europe are completely artificial creations, made by states.
quasibill: “Culture and institutions mold each other.”
Read “Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress” by Lawrence E. Harrison,Samuel P. Huntington and visit http://www.geert-hofstede.com. They’ll clear a lot of things up for you.
Paul:”…such facts do not and cannot prove or refute his arguments, but only serve an illustrative purpose.”
If an idea is true logically, you should be able to find corresponding examples in the real world and in history. In other words, reality should act as a guide to help determine if I’m being logical, or if I’m making committing some logical fallacy. Reality doesn’t make logic any more or less true, but I would be very suspicious of the conclusions of a logical process that I could find no example of in reality or history. In Hoppe’s case, the counterfactual examples are so numerous that they should lead him to rethink his logical steps and see if he got something wrong. Usually, I find that the mistake is a leap in logic in which the conclusions one reaches are too weighty for the assumptions. Or the fault could be with the assumptions. Hoppe seems to be assuming that human nature is a formless lump of that economic systems mold for better or worse. That was also Marx’s assumption and the cause of many of his errors.
“They’ll clear a lot of things up for you.”
Not really – mostly a quasi-scientific mish-mash of “I wish” and “I like”. But it does describe half of the process fairly well.
Always beware of charlatans that claim that they can assign unidirectional causality in the social sciences. Virtually in every instance they are cranks or worse.
Read some on the scientific method, what it means to apply it rigorously, and its faults. That’ll clear up a lot of your confusion.
Paul,
I definitely look forward to reading Hoppe’s “Democracy: The God That Failed”. The title alone is worth the price of admission. I’m not sure I’ll come out believing that a monarchy is inherently better than a democracy. But since democracy is indeed the “god that failed”, I’m willing to consider his argument when I get the chance to read the book.
Roger,
“If an idea is true logically, you should be able to find corresponding examples in the real world and in history.â€
I didn’t realize your contention was that there is absolutely no history that is consistent with or suggests Hoppe’s conclusions may be correct. If that is your contention, then I disagree with you.
“In other words, reality should act as a guide to help determine if I’m being logical, or if I’m making committing some logical fallacy. Reality doesn’t make logic any more or less true, but I would be very suspicious of the conclusions of a logical process that I could find no example of in reality or history.â€
Since you imply it again here, I suppose I am curious enough to ask: are you suggesting there are absolutely no examples in reality or history that might possibly support Hoppe’s conclusions? I doubt you will be so brash to explicitly suggest such a thing.
“In Hoppe’s case, the counterfactual examples are so numerous that they should lead him to rethink his logical steps and see if he got something wrong.â€
I would think that, assuming that you have grasped his arguments, and are convinced empirical evidence is against him, that you would, by now, have developed a logical argument yourself which you would be willing to elaborate on as to where Hoppe’s logic is flawed. Your dependence on your counterfactual empirical examples does not refute his logic. Only logic can do this.
“Usually, I find that the mistake is a leap in logic in which the conclusions one reaches are too weighty for the assumptions. Or the fault could be with the assumptions.â€
It seems you are quite unsure of just where the flaw is in his logic. Perhaps when you figure this out, you will elaborate your line of reasoning for us. Usually, I find that people are unwilling to logically think through an argument to see if it is true or not. If they see it as intuitively not obvious, this is sufficient for them to conclude it is not true. Therefore they prefer to point to empirical historical facts, as an adequate refutation of what is in fact, a praxeological argument, and can only be refuted by reason and a correct understanding of the nature of human action.
“Hoppe seems to be assuming that human nature is a formless lump of that economic systems mold for better or worse. That was also Marx’s assumption and the cause of many of his errors.â€
Hoppe is a praxeologist of the highest caliber. I think you should get better informed and get a better grip on his methods of investigation so you can avoid making wild and unfounded assessments of what his assumptions are about human nature.
Sag,
I predict you’re going to love that book. Also A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism is just something else! I’d print it out, bind it up and put it on your shelf with the other Austrian classics. Deep insights come at the reader pretty fast and furious from that one as well.
The greats, Mises and Rothbard, had both left this planet before i discovered the Austrians. But can you believe it? With Hoppe still in our midst, we are actually around to watch another Austrian giant make history in the science of praxeology.
Paul:”I didn’t realize your contention was that there is absolutely no history that is consistent with or suggests Hoppe’s conclusions may be correct.”
I didn’t say that. I said he was very selective in his examples and ignored the far more numerous counterfactual examples. Here’s an example of his flawed logic. He writes this:
“Further, as tax-funded monopolists of ultimate decision-making, states are inherently aggressive institutions.”
Are we supposed to take Hoppe’s word for this, that because states tax their people and hold a monopoly on taxation that they are inherently aggressive? Where is the logical connection between taxation and agression against neighbors? I can think of dozens of reasons why one nation attacks another, but I can’t see how a monopoly on taxation within a country would do it. Then he writes:
“Other things being equal, the lower the tax and regulation burden imposed on the domestic economy, the larger the population will tend to grow and the larger the amount of domestically produced wealth on which the state can draw in its conflicts with neighboring competitors.”
Nothing wrong there. All he says is that liberty creates wealth and wealth makes states powerful. From this he concludes the following:
“This explains, for instance, why … the United States, internally one of the most liberal states, has conducted the most aggressive foreign policy, while the former Soviet Union, for instance, with its entirely illiberal (repressive) domestic policies has engaged in a comparatively peaceful and cautious foreign policy.”
This is an example of a logical leap the size of the Grand Canyon. He doesn’t show why wealth increases aggressiveness; he just assumes it. He assumes that the US has been more aggressive than the Soviet Union but offers no proof, whereas history shows that the Soviets were far more aggressive than the US throughout the cold war. The US simply responded to their aggressiveness.
Here is an example of a false assumption: “Whereas kings viewed themselves as the private owner of the territory under their control, presidents consider themselves as temporary caretakers.” Hoppe builds a world on this statement, but it’s simply not true. But here’s an interesting case where logic can’t prove or disprove assumptions; you have to look at the historical facts. History proves that kings rarely viewed themselves as private owners of a territory, but more as god-like creatures above all morality and decency.
I could go on for several pages.
quasibill:”Read some on the scientific method, what it means to apply it rigorously, and its faults.”
I have. And those authors follow scientific methods rigorously. If you haven’t read those sources, you’re letting your crankiness get in the way of learning something useful.
If an idea is true logically, you should be able to find corresponding examples in the real world and in history.
That only pertains to scientific theories, not ideas that are born from deductive thinking. We can arrive at the conclusion that killing is wrong by pure deductive logic; however, would we have to find corroboration in the real world in order to validate such conclusion? Would the fact that many are killed every day invalidate the conclusion that killing is wrong?
This is why logical arguments can only be corroborated by using logic, or refuted by cogent counterarguments.
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.