January 6, 2003
L'ETAT CEST MOI:
-REVIEW: of Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (David Gordon, Mises Review)Classical liberals view the state with suspicion; indeed some, of whom Murray Rothbard and Hans Hoppe are examples, wish to do away with it altogether. However convincing the arguments for private-property anarchism, we now live in a world of states. Given this fact, what kind of state is best? If, as Albert Jay Nock famously said, the state is our enemy, which regime threatens us least? Many have looked to democracy, but Professor Hoppe dissents. [...]Monarchy preserves liberty far better than does democracy; and when our author says "monarchy," he means it. He does not have in mind constitutional kingdoms, in the style of contemporary Britain, where the monarch reigns but does not rule. Rather, he refers to the full-fledged kings of the Old Regime, with the Habsburgs as particular favorites.
But how can Hoppe say this? A king rules to benefit himself, and he need answer to no one. In a democracy, by contrast, a government that displeases the people can be replaced. Does not the knowledge that it can be turned out at the next election act to restrain the government now in power?
Our author turns on their heads these commonly held beliefs. True enough, a king regards the government as his personal possession; but exactly this will induce him to act with good judgment. Rather than squander his nation's resources, he will manage them prudently, all the more so if he expects to pass on the realm to his heirs. "Assuming no more than self-interest, the ruler tries to maximize his total wealth, i.e., the present value of his estate and his current income. He would not want to increase current income at the expense of a more than proportional drop in the present value of his assets". [...]
In a democracy, by contrast, the government will grab as much as it can, without regard to the future. Precisely because the holders of power do not own the government, they lack the incentive to look to the long run. "A democratic ruler can use the government apparatus to his personal advantage, but he does not own it . . . [h]e owns the current use of government resources, but not their capital value. In distinct contrast to a king, a president will want to maximize not total government wealth (capital values and current income), but current income (regardless and at the expense of capital values)".
Ah, if only we didn't always end up with a royal family whose gene pool could fit in a shotglass. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 6, 2003 8:38 PM
Funny, the incentive to prudently manage his nation's resources haven't seemed to work for Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il.
Posted by: pj at January 6, 2003 9:31 PMYou think either of them expects his son to take over?
Posted by: oj at January 6, 2003 10:17 PMDictatorships maximize the well-being of the dictator, while democracies maximize the well-being of the majority. The latter is usually better for the population.
Posted by: Mark Byron at January 7, 2003 2:48 AMIt's not readily apparent that dictatorships like Spain, Chile, the Domincan Republic, etc., fared worse than neighboring democracies.
Posted by: oj at January 7, 2003 7:24 AMGood point, pj; 'kings' are generally thugs or descendents of them the people have gotten used to. What we'd need would be someone who has dictatorial powers, but is wise and has the welfare of the people in mind -- maybe like a 'philosopher-king'...
Posted by: BobM at January 7, 2003 9:49 AMThe problem is you need a George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge, or Ronald Reagan, but they come several generations apart and aren't direct descendants.
Posted by: oj at January 7, 2003 10:44 AMSounds like an attempt to apply "Tragedy of the Commons" to governance.
As for Saddam Hussein, Kim John Il, Assad, Ghadaffi and their ilk-- seems like all these Great Leaders have been grooming their descendents to replace them, usually with some success. So what exactly makes them different from some 12th century usurper who is now called "king" and founder of a dynasty?
I'd disagree.
Having a benign dictator who makes all the decisions may bring benefits in the short term but leads to a deadening of political awareness compared to a society where everything is discussed and debated among the populace.
I think Tocqueville mentions as much in Democracy in America.
And there have been far, far too many corrupt, evil absolute rulers to make up for the few who are worthy of their position and could be called philosopher-kings.
You'd also have to mention Hitler-era Germany, Zaire and Haiti as counterpoints to your examples.
oj - Kim Jong Il did take over from his father, and Saddam has groomed Usay and Quday for succession.
Pinochet did good for Chile but he didn't inherit a crown, he had to compete for it; and he is exceptional - overall the record of powerful rulers is very, very poor.
Ali:
Tocqueville favored mixed democracy, including a monarch. And Hitler and several of Haiti's awful rulers were elected.
pj:
We can extend the list of successful autarchs to S. Korea, Singapore, Turkey, putin's Russia, etc. The point seems to be the purpose for which the dictatorship is established. True patriots seem to take seriously the idea that they are just there to re-establish order and lay the groundwork for a stable transition to some form of more democratic rule. That's as opposed to folks like Saddam, the Assads, Kim Jong Il, etc., who seem to view their rulerships as little more than kleptocracies.
Benevolent tyranny is clearly the best form of government, right up until you people have to deal with my successor. Thus, Churchill's crack about democracy.
Posted by: David Cohen at January 7, 2003 12:19 PMMr. Hoppe's arguments are devestated by none other than Ronald Reagan. In Mr. Reagan's speech to the students of Moscow State University, in his visit to the Soviet Union, Mr. Reagan noted that in the age of information, a society that engaged more of its citizens in sharing, possessing and understanding information, and then making decisions based on that information, would always be more successful than a society in which information and resulting decisions were held by a select few. Democracy would always win over socialism for this reason.
I would argue that Mr. Reagan's argument would apply in a contest of democracry versus monarchy. A benign monarchy might allow its citizens to possess a fair amount of information, but would necessarily have to limit the ability of citizens to make decisions based on that information -- else the monarchy would cease to exist. A malignant monarchy would keep the information to itself, and would in the end fare as well as the Soviet Union.
Now go on, Orrin -- you just go ahead and argue against Ronald Reagan :-)
Steve:
One of Ronald Reagan's greatest actions as President, his continued clandestine support of the Contras, funded by clandestine arms sales to Iran, was profoundly anti-democratic. His greatest failure as President, his failure to reign in public spending, was a triumph of democratic politics over responsible leadership. A political system that nearly thwarted that victory and caused that failure must be seen as problematic at best.