Comments on: Monarchy vs. Democracy and The Decline of Civilization

By: rlamade

rlamade — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:12:12 +0000

Whie this argument does, on the surface appear to give credence to the thought that monarchy might be able to withstand what democracy cannot, it actually turns into a very persuasive argument for limited (small) centralized government. I believe that was the intention of the original founders of the US, and that the latest generation of government officials have truly done all in their power to grow government, thereby, according to this author, enabling the downfall of this "greatest nation on God's green earth" (to quote Michael Medved).
Forget the doomsday thinking that this country will ultimately fail because of democracy. Accept the truth that if the country fails, it will be because people like the one in the White House right now have taken away all our freedoms and delivered all that we have to those who deign to not work hard for their own advancement. He, among others have chosen to redistribute instead of demanding that one gain his or her own throught hard work, sweat and tears. Simple as that. If EVERYONE were to quit griping and work hard, all have the chance to succeed.

By: bxjam85

bxjam85 — Mon, 30 May 2011 15:18:09 +0000

The first civilizations were anarcho-capitalist at the beginning. They later developed into monarchies because the private judicial firms, which were owned by the wealthiest families, violently competed for power. The winning firm/family monopolized the judicial industry and created the state/compulsory government. There is no reason to believe that this will not happen again.

By: Julien Peter Benney

Julien Peter Benney — Sat, 21 May 2011 23:41:45 +0000

The real issue – and even Hoppe appears to implicitly admit this – is that the working masses of Europe were in favour of universal suffrage, democracy and a large-scale welfare state long before World War I broke out. They may have lacked the self-confidence and been too afraid of retaliation to directly overthrow Europe’s existing limited-suffrage systems by force, but it’s still false to suggest they supported the existing limited monarchy, at least judging by election results throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

The stability of an anarchic culture is a quite complex matter. If resources are abundant and not portable so that theft is impossible, then a society without government can be extremely peaceful. This is how societies like the Amish and Hutterites have been able to maintain pacifism and extremely high fertility for so long. Depending on farming and living in very reliable climates on exceedingly fertile soils produced by Pleistocene glaciers in Europe and latterly North America, they have always been able to provide a comfortable abundance.

In contrast, in an industrial economy those nations whose fertile soils are a unique pre-industrial resource are at the greatest possible disadvantage. The processes that make the soils of Eurasia and North America so fertile compared to those of the tropics, Australia, Southern Africa, and most critically all soils in the preglacial fossil record are the very processes that remove or destroy the most important resources of an industrial economy. These resources – ores of iron, manganese, aluminium and titanium – were except in the first case impossible to exploit before the Industrial Revolution owing to the high reactivity of those metals. However, compared to the resources of the easily reducible metals of mercury copper, tin and lead, these reactive metals are generally around a thousand times more abundant in the Earth’s crust and thus not prone to exhaustion (which has already occurred with mercury).

The result is that Eurasia, North America and the temperate parts of South America are extremely resource-poor in an industrial economy. Under such a scenario, especially since the industrial economy’s resources and products are more portable than land, theft is more practical a route to bounty than in the pre-industrial economy of these regions. Without government, the result would be a “culture of honour” among industrial workers whereby violence for any affront at one’s strength and aggression is normal and murder rates can be very high. It would mean that workers would be armed against bosses and vice versa – which would probably lead to labour practices not very different from what we see today in the long term. If law enforcement firms were competing amongst an armed masses, it could certainly have the effect you say, bxjam85.

By: bxjam85

bxjam85 — Fri, 20 May 2011 11:24:44 +0000

I have another dish of cognitive dissonance for you. Anarchic "civilizations" are inheritable unstable and unsustainable. Faith in anarchism relies on a severe misconception and underestimation of human nature. Let's suppose that an anarchic society will have private law enforcement firms. These law enforcement firms answer to nobody. They will eventually begin to compete with other law enforcement firms for territory and this competition will likely become violent. Furthermore, the lack of a central government will almost certainly lead to rising crime rates. Civilization progressed from anarchism to monarchism for a reason. The human propensity for possession, aggression and domination runs much deeper than the state.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 09 May 2011 00:25:55 +0000

Do you have statistical evidence to back it up. Some monarchies are very poor, such as cambodia. Others are very wealthy, such as lichenstein, monaco..

By: Jeff Cox

Jeff Cox — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 08:00:37 +0000

The concept of Monarchy defined by "Dei Gracia" Ruling by the grace of God for the benefit of mankind.

Faith and Honor were above above all. And yes, these people were willing to die for their beliefs.

Look at the people and leaders of today: Spineless, belligerent crooks who would do anything to make a few bucks…

Where are all the bright and honest people of conscience to come forward and save the nation?

By: banana

banana — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:58:00 +0000

i agree with the guy above.there has been a war on another country every time a president has been elected or is soon to leave office.

By: Toban Wiebe

Toban Wiebe — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 10:38:03 +0000

So then is a constitutional republic really a solution? The USA experience shows that the constitutional limits on government weren't good enough. We need to do better, not repeat the mistake. How about seasteading? Competition in forms of governance.

By: Henry Ritscher

Henry Ritscher — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:10:53 +0000

I agree with many of the points brought out in this discussion. Democracy fails because the people demand more from the government than they are willing to contribute. Many times, they demand the welfare state and volunteer to be its slaves. The real answer is a constitutional republic, which limits the ability of the government to grow while protecting the citizens from aggression by others. Anarchy only works when everyone has the ability to defend him or herself and agrees that aggression is the wrong way to acquire that, which is necessary for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unrestrained anarchy destroys civilization even faster than democracy. The founders of the USA Constitution attempted to build a framework, which restricted government and permitted individual freedom. We have strayed very far from where we were in the late 1700's.

By: chesapeake public sc

chesapeake public sc — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:59:26 +0000

The Civil War was started when the South seceeded due to tariffs that they felt were unfair. Lincoln only freed the slaves after 2 years as a tactic to help win the war. He wanted to ship all blacks back to Africa, as he didn't feel the nation would survive with such diversity.

Certainly slavery was a hotly debated issue at the time, but it was not the primary motivation behind the South's secession and subsequent war. It's weird how we're only taught about the slavery aspect in school.