DemocracyThe God That Failed
Page 18
17For an instructive study using Rothbard's suggestions for an alternative method of national income accounting see Robert Batemarco, "GNP, PPR, and the Standard of Living," Review of Austrian Economics 1 (1987).
18For a summary overview see Victoria Curzon Price, "The Mature Welfare State: Can It Be Reformed?" in Can The Present Problems of Mature Welfare States Such as Sweden Be Solved? Nils Karlson, ed. (Stockholm: City University Press, 1995), esp. pp. 15-19.
19In the U.S., for instance, between 1960 and 1990 the murder rate doubled, rape rates quadrupled, the robbery rate increased five-fold, and the likelihood of becoming the victim of an aggravated assault increased by 700 percent. See on this Seymour Itzkoff, The Decline of Intelligence in America; Roger D. McGrath, "Treat Them to a Good Dose of Lead," Chronicles (January 1994).
The central task of those wanting to turn the tide and prevent an outright breakdown is the "delegitimation" of the idea of democracy as the root cause of the present state of progressive "decivilization." To this purpose, one should first point out that it is difficult to find many proponents of democracy in the history of political theory. Almost all major thinkers had nothing but contempt for democracy. Even the Founding Fathers of the U.S., nowadays considered the model of a democracy, were strictly opposed to it. Without a single exception, they thought of democracy as nothing but mob-rule. They considered themselves to be members of a 'natural aristocracy,' and rather than a democracy they advocated an aristocratic republic.20 Furthermore, even among the few theoretical defenders of democracy such as Rousseau, for instance, it is almost impossible to find anyone advocating democracy for anything but extremely small communities (villages or towns). Indeed, in small communities where everyone knows everyone else personally, most people must acknowledge that the position of the "haves" is typically based on their superior personal achievement just as the position of the "have-nots" finds its typical explanation in their personal deficiencies and inferiority. Under these circumstances, it is far more difficult to get away with trying to loot other people and their personal property to one's advantage. In distinct contrast, in large territories encompassing millions or even hundreds of millions of people, where the potential looters do not know their victims, and vice versa, the human desire to enrich oneself at another's expense is subject to little or no restraint.21
20See on this Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism Revisited (Washington D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1990), esp. chap. 6. Of the American founders, Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist. Likewise, the Governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Morris, had strong monarchist leanings. George Washington expressed his profound distaste of democracy in a letter of September 30,1798, to James McHenry. John Adams was convinced that every society grows aristocrats as inevitably as a field of corn will grow some large ears and some small. In a letter to John Taylor he insisted, like Plato and Aristotle, that democracy would ultimately evolve into despotism, and in a letter to Jefferson he declared that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all, and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody and cruel." James Madison, in a letter to Jared Parks, complained of the difficulty "of protecting the rights of property against the spirit of democracy." And even Thomas Jefferson, probably the most "democratic" of the Founders, confessed in a letter to John Adams that he considered
the natural aristocracy ... as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts and governments of society. And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed men for the social state, and not have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of society. May we not even say that that form of government is best, which provides most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?
Characterizing the general attitude of the founders, then, the most appropriate pronouncement is that of John Randolph of Roanoke: "I am an aristocrat: I love liberty, I hate equality."
More importantly, it must be made clear again that the idea of democracy is immoral as well as uneconomical. As for the moral status of majority rule, it must be pointed out that it allows for A and B to band together to rip off C, C and A in turn joining to rip off B, and then B and C conspiring against A, and so on. This is not justice but a moral outrage, and rather than treating democracy and democrats with respect, they should be treated with open contempt and ridiculed as moral frauds.22 On the other hand, as for the economic quality of democracy, it must be stressed relentlessly that it is not democracy but private property, production, and voluntary exchange that are the ultimate sources of human civilization and prosperity. In particular, contrary to widespread myths, it needs to be emphasized that the lack of democracy had essentially nothing to do with the bankruptcy of Russian-style socialism. It was not the selection principle for politicians that constituted socialism's problem. It was politics and political decisionmaking as such. Instead of each private producer deciding independently what to do with particular resources, as under a regime of private property and contractualism, with fully or partially socialized factors of production each decision requires someone else's permission. It is irrelevant to the producer how those giving permission are chosen. What matters to him is that permission must be sought at all. As long as this is the case, the incentive of producers to produce is reduced and impoverishment will ensue. Private property is as incompatible with democracy as it is with any other form of political rule.23 Rather than democracy, justice as well as economic efficiency require a pure and unrestricted private property society an "anarchy of production" in which no one rules anybody, and all producers' relations are voluntary and thus mutually beneficial.24
21Rousseau's Social Contract, which appeared in 1762, was actually meant to be a theoretical commentary on the political situation in his hometown of Geneva, then an independent city state of less than 30,000 inhabitants ruled, in effect, by a tiny hereditary oligarchy of the heads of Geneva's leading aristocratic families in control of the Small Council and the Council of the Two Hundred. Rousseau's appeal to the "people" and "popular sovereignty" was intended as an attack on this oligarchy, but by no means as a defense of direct democracy and universal political participation as it is nowadays understood. Rather, what Rousseau had in mind when he wrote in support of the "sovereign people" were merely the members of Geneva's other political body, the Grand Council, which was made up of some 1,500 members and included besides Geneva's upper aristocratic crust also its lower hereditary aristocracy.
22Fortunately, despite the relentless propaganda spread by government funded and controlled school teachers—such as "democracy means that we all rule ourselves"—as well as by celebrated Nobel laureates such as James Buchanan and his "public choice" school of economics—such as "governments are voluntary institutions just as firms" (James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent [Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962], p. 19)— there is still enough common sense left, both in academia as well as among the general public, to find a sympathetic ear for such criticisms. As for academia, an economist as prominent as Joseph A. Schumpeter would note regarding views such as Buchanan's that "the theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or the purchase of the service of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of minds" (Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy [New York: Harper, 1942], p. 198). And as far as the general public is concerned, one can find consolation in the remarks of the great American journalist and writer H.L. Mencken, who wrote:
The average man, whatever his errors otherwise, at least sees clearly that government is something lying outside him and outside the generality of his fellow men—that it is a separate, independent, and hostile power, only partly under his control, and capable of doing him great harm.... Is it a fact of no significance that robbing the government is everywhere regarded a crime of less magnitude than robbing an individual, or even
a corporation?... When a private citizen is robbed, a worthy man is deprived of the fruits of his industry and thrift; when the government is robbed, the worst that happens is that certain rogues and loafers have less money to play with than they had before. The notion that they had earned that money is never entertained; to most sensible men it would seem ludicrous. They are simply rascals who, by accident of law, have a somewhat dubious right to a share in the earnings of their fellow men. When that share is diminished by private enterprise the business is, on the whole, far more noble than not." (A Mencken Chrestomathy [New York: Vintage Books, 1949], pp. 146-47; see also H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy (New York: Knopf, 1926).
Lastly, as for strategic considerations, in order to approach the goal of a non-exploitative social order, i.e., private property anarchy, the idea of majoritarianism should be turned against democratic rule itself. Under any form of governmental rule, including a democracy, the "ruling class" (politicians and civil servants) represents only a small proportion of the total population. While it is possible that one hundred parasites may lead a comfortable life on the products of one thousand hosts, one thousand parasites cannot live off of one hundred hosts. Based on the recognition of this fact, it would appear possible to persuade a majority of the voters that it is adding insult to injury to let those living off of other peoples' taxes have a say in how high these taxes are, and to thus decide, democratically, to take the right to vote away from all government employees and everyone who receives government benefits, whether they are welfare recipients or government contractors.
23See on this Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (Boston: Kluwer, 1989); idem, "Desocialization in a United Germany," Review of Austrian Economics 5, no. 2 (1991); Murray N. Rothbard, "The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited," in idem, The Logic of Action One (Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 1997); idem, "How and How Not To Desocialize," Review of Austrian Economics 6, no. 1 (1992).
24See on this Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty; Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (Boston: Kluwer, 1993) esp. part 2; also Anthony de Jasay, Choice, Contract, Consent: A Restatement of Liberalism (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1991).
In addition, in conjunction with this strategy it is necessary to recognize the overwhelming importance of secession and secessionist movements. If majority decisions are "right," then the largest of all possible majorities, a world majority and a democratic world government, must be considered ultimately "right," with the consequences predicted at the outset of this chapter. In contrast, secession always involves the breaking away of smaller from larger populations. It is thus a vote against the principle of democracy and majoritarianism. The further the process of secession proceeds to the level of small regions, cities, city districts, towns, villages, and ultimately individual households and voluntary associations of private households and firms, the more difficult it will become to maintain the current level of redistributive policies. At the same time, the smaller the territorial units, the more likely it will be that a few individuals, based on the popular recognition of their economic independence, outstanding professional achievement, morally impeccable personal life, superior judgment, courage, and taste, will rise to the rank of natural, voluntarily acknowledged elites and lend legitimacy to the idea of a natural order of competing (non-monopolistic) and freely (voluntarily) financed peacekeepers, judges, and overlapping jurisdictions as exists even now in the arena of international trade and travel. A pure private law society—as the answer to democracy and any other form of political (coercive) rule.26
25See on this also Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market, pp. 189ff.
26On the law and economics of secession see Secession, State and Liberty, David Gordon, ed. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1998), with essays by Donald W. Livingston, Stephen Yates, Scott Boykin, Murray N. Rothbard, Clyde N. Wilson, Joseph R. Stromberg, Thomas DiLorenzo, James Ostrowski, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Pierre Desrochersand Eric Duhaime, and Bruce L. Benson; also HansHermann Hoppe, "The Western State as a Paradigm: Learning From History," Politics and Regimes: Religion and Public Life 30 (1997); Robert W. McGee, "Secession Reconsidered," Journal of Libertarian Studies 11, no. 1 (1994).
5
On Centralization and Secession
A state is a territorial monopolist of compulsion—an agency which may engage in continual, institutionalized property rights violations and the exploitation—in the form of expropriation, taxation, and regulation—of private property owners.1 Assuming no more than selfinterest on the part of government agents, all states (governments) can be expected to make use of this monopoly and thus exhibit a tendency toward increased exploitation. On the one hand, this means increased domestic exploitation (and internal taxation). On the other hand, and this aspect in particular will be of interest in the following, it means territorial expansionism. States will always try to enlarge their exploitation and tax base. In doing so, however, they will come into conflict with other, competing states. The competition between states qua territorial monopolists of compulsion is by its very nature an eliminative competition. That is, there can be only one monopolist of exploitation and taxation in any given area; thus, the competition between different states can be expected to promote a tendency toward increased political centralization and ultimately one single world state.
A glance at Western history suffices to illustrate the validity of this conclusion. At the beginning of this millenium, for instance, Europe consisted of thousands of independent political units. Now, only several dozen such units remain. To be sure, decentralizing forces also existed. There was the progressive disintegration of the Ottoman Empire from the sixteenth century until after World War I and the establishment of modern Turkey. The discontiguous Habsburg Empire was gradually dismembered from the time of its greatest expansion under Charles V until it disappeared and modern Austria was founded in 1918. And only recently, before our very eyes, the former Soviet Empire disintegrated. There are now more than a dozen independent states on the soil of the former Soviet Union. The former Yugoslavia consists now of Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia. And the Czechs and the Slovaks have split and formed independent countries. However, the overriding tendency was in the opposite direction. For instance, during the second half of the seventeenth century, Germany consisted of some 234 countries, 51 free cities, and 1,500 independent knightly manors. By the early nineteenth century, the total number of the three had fallen to below 50, and by 1871 unification had been achieved. The scenario in Italy was similar. Even small states have a history of expansion and centralization. Switzerland began in 1291 as a confederation of three independent cantonal states. By 1848 it was a single (federal) state with some two dozen cantonal provinces.
1On the theory of the state see Murray N. Rothbard, For A New Liberty (New York: Macmillan, 1978); idem, The Ethics of Liberty (New York: New York University Press, 1998); idem, Power and Market (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1977); Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Eigentum, Anarchie und Staat (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1987); idem, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (Boston: Kluwer, 1989); idem, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (Boston: Kluwer, 1993); also Albert J. Nock, Our Enemy, the State (Delevan, Wise: Hallberg Publishing, 1983); Franz Oppenheimer, The State (New York: Vanguard Press, 1914); idem, System der Soziologie, Vol.2: Der Staat (Stuttgart: G. Fischer, 1964); Anthony de Jasay, the State (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985).
Moreover, from a global perspective, mankind has come closer than ever before to the establishment of a world government. Even before the dissolution of the Soviet Empire, the United States had attained hegemonical status over Western Europe (most notably over West Germany) and the Pacific rim countries (most notably over Japan)—as indicated by the presence of American troops and military bases, by the NATO and SEATO pacts, by the role of the American dollar as the ultimate international reserve currency and of the U.S. Federal Reserve System as the "lender" or "liq
uidity provider" of last resort for the entire Western banking system, and by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the recently established World Trade Organization (WTO).2 In addition, under American hegemony the political integration of Western Europe has steadily advanced. With the recent establishment of a European Central Bank and a European Currency (EURO), the European Community is near completion. At the same time, with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) a significant step toward the political integration of the American continent has been taken. In the absence of the Soviet Empire and its military threat, the United States has emerged as the world's sole and undisputed military superpower and its "top cop."
2On the role of "fiat" (paper) money, central banking, and international (interstate) monetary cooperation as a vehicle of political unification and an instrument of economic imperialism, i.e., the exploitation of "peripheral" by "dominant" states, see Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Banking, Nation States, and International Politics: A Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order," in idem, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property; JorgGuidoHulsmann, "Political Unification: A Generalized Progression Theorem," Journal of Libertarian Studies 13, no. 1 (1977); also Murray N. Rothbard, Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, (Burlingame, Calif.: Center for Libertarian Studies, 1995). See also notes 18 and 19 below.