Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
92 of 106 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
"The first great book of the twenty-first century", July 18, 2002
Jack Rain, a reviewer on another site, used the phrase above to describe this book, and I unhesitatingly appropriate it for my review because it is so dead-on accurate. This is a very, very good, and very, very important, book. It's also a strong argument for the author's elevation to the pantheon of pro-freedom writers and philosophers, alongside Mises, Rothbard, Spooner, de Jasay, and a select few others.I have to admit that I found the first two chapters, especially, to be tough reading, and had to work through them several times. The economic analysis in the sections on time preference, for example -- while the outline of the argument becomes clear soon enough -- need extra time for all the shadings and implications to fall into place. After that, though, the truly important work begins, as Hoppe is engaged in nothing less than (to use his own words from a slightly different context) "an ideological campaign of delegitimizing the idea and institution of democratic government." In so doing, he undertakes a two-pronged approach of both demonstrating the failures of democracy (failures that are part of the very nature of democracy, and therefore irreparable) and the superiority of "natural order" -- a condition known by many other names too, including anarcho-capitalism and individualist or free-market anarchism. Personally, I responded most strongly to Hoppe's argument that "conservatives today must be antistatist libertarians and, equally important, [that] libertarians must be conservatives" [p. 189]. In so arguing, Hoppe gives us a thorough and revealing deconstruction of modern "conservatism" (so-called), showing how many self-styled conservatives are in fact merely the right wing of social democracy. He convincingly links the Buchananites, on the other hand, to "social nationalism or national socialism" (p. 192). In either case, the neo-cons, the Buchanan brigades, and also the so-called Christian Right have, in Hoppe's eyes, "not a trace of principled antistatism." Libertarians shouldn't start feeling too smug, however. Hoppe also calls for principled antistatists to retake libertarianism from the "lifestyle libertarians," who see antistatism as just one part of a comprehensive revolt against all social order and bourgeois culture (these folks were devastatingly described by Rothbard as "modal libertarians" or MLs -- a description Hoppe reprints in a footnote). He also targets "left libertarians" like the Cato Institute and Reason magazine, whose leading lights throw in the towel on the key question of State legitimacy, revel in the glamour and importance of life Inside the Beltway, and are reduced to arguing for reductions on the margin of an ever-expanding Leviathan. Hoppe's final chapter, "On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for Revolution," expands on the philosophical basis for his earlier-defined strategy of personal secession. (It's important to note that Hoppe's "revolution" explicitly and firmly rejects violence: "[I]t is not necessary to take [government] over, to engage in violent battle against it, or even to lay hands on one's rulers. In fact, to do so would only reaffirm the principle of compulsion and aggressive violence underlying the current system and inevitably lead to the replacement of one government or tyrant by another. To the contrary, it is only necessary that one decide to withdraw from the compulsory union and reassume one's right to self protection. Indeed, it is essential that one proceed in no other way than by peaceful secession and noncooperation" [p. 91].) This book now occupies a place of honor on my freedom bookshelf. But more than that, it's a reference I will return to (and already have returned to) often. To borrow from yet another review (Schumann's of Chopin, this time): "Hats off, gentlemen -- a genius!"
|
|
|
73 of 87 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Fascinating, November 9, 2001
Dr. Hans-Herman Hoppe is a professor of economics and fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It is obvious from reading this work that his primary intellectual debt is to Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Prof. Hoppe, following Rothbard, advocates anarcho-capitalism, or, as he calls it, "natural order." He is not a monarchist, but shows the many advantages of monarchy over democracy.As Prof. Hoppe tells us, both Rothbard and von Mises, although by no means supporting most of the changes in the twentieth century, held a generally favorable opinion of the change from monarchy to democracy. However, Prof. Hoppe shows that this transition was not at all favorable to the protection of civil rights and restricting the growth of government. In fact, just the opposite happened. Contemporaneous with this change, we have seen a decline in morals and individual responsibility. This is largely explained by Prof. Hoppe's fascinating discussion of time preference to democratic and monarchical governments. A monarchical government is more likely to enact policies similar to what an individual, unfettered by government, would do. Take for example immigration. A monarch, who in some sense "owns" the country, will establish an immigration policy that reflects his country's need for new citizens. He will ask what the immigrant can contribute to the economy, whether the person has good values, and whether he is likely to become a public charge. The democratic government will permit massive immigration, more concerned with social engineering and expanding the pool of voters who will support the welfare state. He also shows that, contrary to many supposed conservatives and libertarians, "free trade" doesn't required "free immigration." This is one of the most interesting books I've read in a while. It's hard to summarize all the valuable insights of Prof. Hoppe. In particular, his demonstration that a libertarian philosophy is most conducive to traditional morality was quite persuasive. I didn't completely agree with his attack on Patrick Buchanan and Samuel Francis, which I think exaggerated some of the least libertarian aspects of their thought.
|
|
|
29 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
down with democracy., September 18, 2003
Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a very important political economist and philosopher in the intellectual tradition of the Austrian School of Economics -- I would say he is without a doubt the most important anarchocapitalist thinker since Murray Rothbard. His book, _Democracy: The God That Failed_, is the most devastating and solid critique of democracy I have seen, and is essential reading for everyone in our new millennium. Democracy is conventionally regarded as the best form of government. Even most rigorous anti-statists such as Murray Rothbard (to whom Hoppe is intellectually indebted) looked upon democracy as an improvement over alternative systems of government. Professor Hoppe dissents with this view, averring that monarchy (ancien-regime-style) is a 'better' system than democracy. However, this is _not_ a defense of monarchy, for Hoppe sees any form of state as morally unjustifiable. Rather, _Democracy: The God That Failed_ serves a twin purpose: firstly, to interpret history and account for the dramatic rise in exploitation observed in the democratic age. Secondly, Hoppe asserts the moral and economic superiority of a system he calls "natural order" -- a stateless society of private property anarchy. By what insight does Hoppe show that monarchy is the superior system? It is shockingly brilliant in its simplicity, yet the implications that follow are critical. What Hoppe states is this: A monarch is essentially the _private_ owner of the government -- all exploited resources are *owned* by him. (Perhaps the insightful reader will already be able to predict Hoppe's conclusion.) As such, he will work to maximize both current income and the total capital value of his estate. In effect, he owns the kingdom. Thus, assuming self-interest, his planning horizon will be farsighted and exploitation be far more limited. Contrarily, in a publicly-owned government -- i.e. democracy -- the rulers' have current use of resources only, not their capital value. These government caretakers cannot personally keep that which is exploited from the tax-producers. Thus, systematic property violations will be greater under a democracy. In economic jargon, the monarch's degree of time-preference will be substantially lower than that of the publicly-owned government caretaker due to difference in ownership. But isn't the democratic system kept in check by elections? Not really, argues Hoppe, as those in power "buy" votes with their redistribution policies and egalitarian schemes. (Just like Alberta's current premiere buys votes with oil rebate checks, psh.) With these propositions, Hoppe examines issues the varying impact of monarchies and democracies on time preference (the rate at which present satisfaction is preferred to future satisfaction) (Chapter 1), differing policies on immigration (Chapters 7 and 8), differences in degree of exploitation (Chapter 2) the economics of redistribution (Chapter 4). He also makes the positive case for a natural order in the private production of security (Chapter 12), explains the erroneous classical liberal belief in the possibility of a limited government (Chapters 11 and 13), explores methods of desocialization of public property (Chapter 6), argues for the right to secession (Chapter 5) and myriad other important things. One crucial chapter is "On Conservatism and Libertarianism" (Chapter 10), where Hoppe demonstrates that libertarians and conservatives are natural allies in their goals, thus libertarians must be social conservatives and conservatives must be anti-state libertarians. Their goals can only be realized in alliance against all opponents to private property rights, as well as the false libertarians (modal libertarians) and socialist conservatives and neoconservatives. In response to roGER's asinine review (I won't even comment on his blatant post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy about democracies and their GDPs), it is obvious that he simply does not understand what Professor Hoppe has done here. Firstly, this is not a defense of monarchy. Secondly, in order to correctly interpret history, Professor Hoppe's analysis of monarchical and democratic systems is rooted in social science theories that are established a priori. Thus it is important to recognize that his argument cannot be proven or refuted on empirical grounds. However, this does not detract from the power of his argument -- quite the contrary, it makes the position in _Democracy: The God That Failed_ even more convincing. In conclusion, Natural Order > Monarchy > Democracy. This book is in my opinion extremely important, not just to economists, historians, and defenders of liberty, but anyone really. A bonus is that Hoppe's prose is compact yet lucid, so it's not inaccessible to the average reader.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Thomas E. Woods Jr.
by Ron Paul
by Murray N. Rothbard
by Walter Block
