The Case for Libertarian Monarchism, Part One

By Daniel Szewc | Poland

To many, the sheer idea of any government form that isn’t reduced to nothingness is incompatible with liberty. Yet, to see the full picture, we must look at it from all angles possible. In the case of government systems, the placement of power is the most important. In democracy, the power of the state is absolute, yet the state is a public entity, run by majority rule.

This is precisely presented by the fact that Adolf Hitler came to power democratically. “Democracy is the road to socialism”, as the founder of communism, Karl Marx, once said. What many forget, is that the second power in the Bundestag during the 1930’s was the Communist Party. Thus, totalitarianism in Germany was simply not possible to avoid.

In fact, any system that uses democratic measures of picking leaders is bound to fall into an étatiste (Fr. for “statist”, a term corrupted by modern English speaking anarchists) spiral, over a longer period of time. Whenever democratization occurs, in the long run, so does the expansion of the state apparatus. In Europe, on the other hand, monarchism often has lasted over a thousand years.

A democratic-like system in the USA is failing already, before it’s 300 year mark. This failing state has not faced threats from its usually peaceful neighbors in 200 years. We can see the fall of the system in the USA, by viewing it’s support for socialists like Bernie Sanders within its youth, as well as populists and career politicians for it’s older generation.
Why does this happen? The answer is simple. Whenever elections of any sort occur, conflicts of interest begin to appear. Then, the losing side lobbies to give voting rights to those who support their ideas. The more voters, the more conflicts, and so the snowball effect goes. In the end, people with no meritocratic basis get the right to vote, and strong, monarchism eventually may take over from within or from outside.

Some consider the Republican model as the best idea to preserve liberty, yet in all its forms, it assumes an elective body, and/or a constitution, which is insentient as the sovereign. In this case, since ownership of the state cannot be considered a part of the Constitution’s role, it is viewed as a passive manager of the morals (…of policies passed by sentient beings, able to manipulate words and context).

All of the above disproves two main forms of government- ones in which the sovereign is a person chosen by the majority, and one in which the sovereign can be edited and interpreted by the irrational mob that holds sovereignty. Clearly, monarchism, to be detailed more in part two, is a more secure system to protect liberty.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

World War 1 And The Danger Of The Ideology Of Democracy

By Mason Mohon | United States

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand sparked what was quickly termed “The Great War” and “The War to End All Wars.” World War 1 was an absolute bloodbath, causing about 17 million deaths, yet it doesn’t quite get that attention it deserves. World War 2 can easily be blamed on evil Nazis and an evil Japanese emperor, but World War 1 is a little harder to write off like that. What was the cause of this war, and how can we avoid it again?

The history is cloudy from the beginning. Historian Ralph Raico maintains that “there is no evidence whatsoever that Germany in 1914 deliberately unleashed a European war which it had been preparing for years.” Economist David Gordon says that “the catastrophe resulted from miscalculation and botched diplomacy.” It is a complicated conflict, and the true causes that plunged multiple continents down such a spiral must be rooted out.

Why was the U.S. involved, though? Historians and high school history classes will make it seem like it was very cut and dry: Germany said they would quit with the U-boats, and they didn’t quit with the U-boats, so the United States joined the conflict. This explanation seems sensible enough, but it has holes, and it has since the beginning. Senator Norris said in a speech on April 4, 1917, that the United States was being partial towards Britain in its actions:

The reason given by the President in asking Congress to declare war against Germany is that the German Government has declared certain war zones, within which, by the use of submarines, she sinks, without notice, American ships and destroys American lives. The first war zone was declared by Great Britain. She gave us and the world notice of it on the 4th day of November, 1914. Both of these orders declaring military zones were illegal and contrary to international law. It is sufficient to say that our Government has officially declared both of them to be illegal and has officially protested against both of them.

Britain and Germany were in violation of the same international laws. They had both done wrong, so why was the United States so upset with Germany and why did it find allegiance with Britain. As a matter of fact, most of Woodrow Wilson’s administration was partial towards the British from the very start, leaving no room for any blame to be put on the rainy little island.

Britain and Germany had both violated international laws, but Wilson turned a blind eye to their actions to act in favor of Britain and declare war on Germany in response to the Zimmerman telegram that was intercepted. The president declared war with the intention of making the world “safe for democracy,” an idea that at this point had become all too vague. This allows us to root out the real issue that brought such peril to the global table.

Mises explains the following on pages 819-820, and 827 of Human Action:

Aggressive nationalism is the necessary derivative of the policies of interventionism and national planning. While laissez-faire eliminates the causes of international conflict, government interference with business and socialism create conflicts for which no peaceful solution can be found. While under free trade and freedom of migration no individual is concerned about the territorial size of his country, under the protective measures of economic nationalism nearly every citizen has a substantial interest in these territorial issues…. Economic nationalism, the necessary complement of domestic interventionism, hurts the interests of foreign peoples and thus creates international conflict. It suggests the idea of amending this unsatisfactory state of affairs by war. Why should a powerful nation tolerate the challenge of a less powerful nation? Is it not insolence on the part of small Lapputania to injure the citizens of big Ruritania by customs, migration barriers, foreign exchange control, quantitative trade restrictions, and expropriation of Ruritanian investments in Lapputania? Would it not be easy for the army of Ruritania to crush Lapputania’s contemptible forces?

Economic nationalism is the cause of such great and powerful wars, and economic nationalism goes hand-in-hand with general nationalism. Much like how Trump’s “America First” policies come along with protectionism and military growth, the rise of American tariffs under president Taft and the idea of “Dollar Diplomacy” allowed for the growth of the “America is the greatest” attitude. This attitude was not unique to the U.S. either because much of Europe had adopted both economic and noneconomic nationalism, causing a race to high military power. Limiting free trade and becoming obsessed with the idea that the ideals of your nation are the best is sure to lead to war.

Germans were told their entire way of life was under attack, so absurd numbers of Germans threw themselves towards the war effort, creating a massive German army to reckon with. The destruction of so many untrained soldiers and fighters resulted in a mythos the Nazis could later propagate for support.

Ludwig von Mises went on to say that “To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war.” The ideology backing war is what causes it. Let us remember what Wilson’s rationale for involvement was: making the world “safe for democracy.”  That right there is the problem.

David Gordon said in response to this Wilsonian idea of Democracy promotion that “`democracy’ was already beginning to mean what it means today-of a government legitimized by formal majoritarian processes to dispose at will of the lives, liberty, and property of its subjects.” We still fight wars in defense of what we call Democracy. We bomb innocent civilians in the middle east, wiretap American citizens, and restrict movement across the globe, all under the guise of Democracy protection.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe was no kinder in his socioeconomic analysis of the system of governing. In my summary and explanation of Hoppe’s book earlier this year, I explained the following:

Public [democratic] governments at war engage in total war. Because the distinction between the rulers and the ruled is nonexistent, there is no ruler to target, so the entire civil population is suddenly involved in the conflict. This also means the would-be ruled get especially involved, leading to nationalism, or “the emotional identification of the public with large anonymous groups of people” based on language, culture, race, or just country, according to Hoppe. These wars now mold into national wars. The war is against two different ways of life, which means that the only way to win is “cultural, linguistic, or religious domination and subjugation (or extermination).” The distinction between combatants and noncombatants becomes null and the brutality of war increases to a horrific degree. “The new era of democratic republican warfare… is the era of total war.” Think of the American Civil War, where the Northern Union was intent on the complete decimation of the Southern lifestyle, causing entire towns to be burnt to the ground and a profound number of American-born troops to be lost.

A total war of nation against nation results in profound destruction and loss of life. Mises explained that we must take the roots out if we want to eliminate the fruits. The root of war is nationalism, and the root of nationalism in the modern age is Democracy. Eliminating such a bizarre socioeconomic system that promotes such horrid acts is the aim of many radical libertarians, and an elimination of this flawed and corrupt neoliberal American system must be our primary aim.

Is Patriotism a Gateway Drug to Slavery? – Jonny Watt

By Jonny Watt | UNITED STATES

Is patriotism the mere act of loving one’s country, or is this movement detrimental to the wellbeing of society?

This blindly followed movement is extremely contradictory with liberty and self-ownership, and on a praxeological basis, we can deduce that this ideology should have no support amongst freedom-lovers.

That said, patriots will argue that, while it has its faults, America is the greatest country to exist, and without the state, this wouldn’t be possible. While I tend to agree that America is better than most, I see a direct flaw in saying that the state is responsible for this. Rather than America being great because of the intervention of the state, America is great despite it. In fact, just about all of America’s flaws exist due to the government, and saying that it could be much worse, and thus continuing to praise America and the state is both illogical and hurtful for society.

The more leeway we, as citizens, give to our government, the more in control they are, and the more likely a shift to a more coercive and tyrannical government will occur. In fact, this is one area in which a private run (monarchical) government is superior to that of the public run (democratic) government. The very visible and extreme dichotomy between the general populace and ruling class nobles, as seen in democracy, left the former with more discontent and distrust for their government, as they felt completely separated from said government.

Due to this, monarchs had to be mindful of everything they did, as any decision deemed too coercive by the general public could be followed by either a revolution or perhaps simply a less productive society, which would hurt the king and his fellow nobles. While citizens of a democratic government tend to be more trusting of their government, as they feel a sense of involvement, American Patriots take it to the extreme and continue to let the government commit terrible, coercive, right-infringing acts.

With Patriots continuing to stay quiet, how long could it be before an age of total enslavement by the state is upon us?

Conscription, taxes, and jury duty indicate that we’re already in a state of partial enslavement. While patriots tend to be opposed to taxes, they, generally speaking, see no problem in supporting the government when it comes to conscription and jury duty, both of which border onto involuntary servitude.

If the definition of traditional slavery is the state of being the legal property of another, and thus being forced to obey them, then how can anyone justify conscription or jury duty, the legal act of the state forcing you to give them your labor? A patriot would respond that, as we are under state law, and given what the state does for us, we should be willing to give up some of our labor and fruits of our labor in order to “pay back the state.”

The problem with this argument is it completely misses the point, as this exact same argument could be applied to any other instance of slavery (including traditional slavery in America prior to 1865.) Of course, some patriotic Americans will argue that the state is what grants us our rights, and as such, we should thank them for this. While the government cannot give us rights, in rare cases, the state does protect certain God-given, inalienable rights, however, we should not thank an institution prone to infringing on our rights, just because it hasn’t yet infringed on them all.

Living with and preaching this mindset would only lead to further infringement and an overall reduction in wellbeing and freedom.  

The only solution, then, is to be as critical and judgmental of the state as possible, rather than being patriotic and supporting our country at every turn. America was founded by straying away from an overreaching and overly coercive government, and thus, to support the states attempted enslavement of its populace by following the blind path of patriotism is about as un-American as it gets.

Why Does Socialism Starve People?

By Mason Mohon | USA

It comes up in every single debate. We see it every time we are arguing with a communist or another sort of lefty. The right-wing proponent will throw out instances like Venezuela, the Soviet Union, and other catastrophic failures of socialist economies. This is followed by the response from the left-winger that either those were not real communism/socialism, or that there are factors that the right-winger fails to realize. In reality, both of these arguments are really bad. We cannot throw out death counts and assume they are causally related to the institution of socialism. What must be explored is economic law, and we need to look at what sort of incentives a socialist economy creates, and whether or not it is compatible with human actors.

In this article, socialism and communism will be used interchangeably because they both fit the definition of a planned economy.

We must first look into how we are supposed to study economics. The beginning of all economic thought comes from logical deductions coming from the action axiom. That is, we begin all economics with the axiom that man (human) acts. It is why Mises termed his magnificent economic treatise Human Action, and it is the starting point the Austrian School of economics comes from. This article is not to explore all of the warrants behind this line of thought, though. For an in-depth explanation of praxeological reasoning, I recommend the “Chapter Zero” of Chase Rachels’s book A Spontaneous Order, which is written by Will Porter and titled Epistemology and Praxeology. Within it, it is explained why we begin here and has refutations of the opposition.

What is important, though, is that we deduce economic law logically, not through reflecting upon history. This is not to say that history is not important, for it can prove itself to be an important tool in many instances, but all too often will people interpret history one way, which goes directly against logical deductions, one example being the second industrial revolution. Economic law cannot be deduced from history, it can only be reflected on and compared.

What this means to the present situation is that it goes directly against what it means to be a student of economics to say that “the Soviet Union had starving people, and because of that socialism/communism must lead to starvation.” We cannot use a historical example as an economic law. Rather, we must look to what economic law says and the reasoning behind why it says what it says. Once we have done this, then we may say that socialism is causally related to starvation and mass death. It is simply not enough to make claims about historical repetition.

Now, we may look at the economic issues with socialism. The argument will take its form in three planks: how socialism will cause misallocation, how socialism will incentivize people to produce, and how socialism will incentivize people to climb society.

In the first place, we must look at why socialism causes misallocations. These misallocations are the causes of the shortages of food and resources we associate with socialism. It is often objected that instances where this misallocation did occur, it was “not real socialism” or “not the right brand of socialism.” The problem is that misallocations will occur in any instance where the factors of production are no longer privately owned, which is the defining characteristic of socialism. In any economy, to determine whether or not an entrepreneur or producer is engaging in fruitful, efficient, and socially productive action, they must engage in economic calculation. This is the action of seeing whether or not their initial investment has created a profit or a loss. If an entrepreneur or producer discovers they have suffered a loss (people are not buying what they are providing), they discover that it is not good for resources to go where they are putting them. In a socialist economy, no economic calculation can exist, because market prices are nonexistent. Because of this, there is no way to discover whether or not resources are going to the right places. With something like food, it is extremely important that we figure out if it is going to the right places. To read more into how entrepreneurs serve society, I recommend this article.

Now that we have established the economic law proving socialism to misallocate resources, we can look at history and the world around us to see this being reflected. Socialist commonwealths across the globe have fallen apart. It is why there was no food in the Soviet Union, and it is why Venezuela failed to properly utilize its oil, resulting in profound economic decline. Some economies may seem to be socialist and successful, but those are instances in which we are either misunderstanding what their economy is, or they are purely surviving off of luck, meaning enough resources to keep the country from collapsing have been delegated, but there is no way to know what kinds of losses this is and will be producing without economic calculation.

Furthermore, we must look at the incentives to produce that are produced by a socialist economy. In Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s critique of socialism in his book Democracy: The God That Failed, he explains the ways wealth can be created within an economy. There are three, the first of which being mixing your work with untouched land. The second is to produce the good by combining or changing resources, and the third is by transferring a good through voluntary and contractual means. If the ownership of all assets is assigned to the collective (or the state), then individuals who mix their work (or homestead) with land, individuals who produce, and individuals who exchange lose their incentive to create wealth, because anything they create they will not own, for the collective (or the state) shall assume ownership. The cost of performing fruitful tasks is raised, and those that do not act productively still benefitted, increasing the incentive to not work (to each according to his need).

Moreover, we must look at the paths available to people to get to the top of society. In a capitalist free-market society, the best way to climb to the top is by starting a business and serving consumer needs. As Dr. Hoppe said, if one “wants to increase his wealth and/or rise in social status, he can only do so by better serving the most urgent wants of voluntary consumers through the use he makes of his property.” Clearly, the way to raise your own social status in a private property order is to serve others, making selfishness ultimately selfless. A socialist order stands in stark contrast, for to rise one must appeal to the collective or whoever elects people into the state. Doing this promotes cutthroat dirty politics, and it forces one to rise through “promises, bribes, and threats.” This has clearly been reflected throughout the world of big government and socialism, for Soviet Union leadership was given to whoever could stab the most people in the back in the end.

In conclusion, it is important that we know the causes of socialist terror. It is not logical or economically sound to make quick assumptions about starvation in the past and claim socialism and communism are failures. Rather, we must make praxeological economic deductions from the basis that man acts to determine whether or not socialism will work. The results are in strong opposition to socialism, which causes misallocations, laziness, and dirty politics. In the end, the results are catastrophic, and history only stands to prove.

What is Democracy and Why Does it Suck?

By Mason Mohon | USA

When I read Hoppe’s Democracy, I did it with a very skeptical mindset. I had heard the man preferred monarchy to democracy, and I had heard that he advocated for something called physical removal. Due to my time spent on social media, I had seen arguments against pure “majority rules” democracy and had bought in, but I thought “surely, the United States is not a democracy.” I hold the belief that so many others do: we aren’t a democracy, we are a constitutional republic (whatever that loosely means). This issue was that I had no idea what democracy was or the real reasons as to why it is bad. The intent of this article is to explain the first part of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy: The God that Failed, in a shorter and more concise manner.

The book begins with the explanation of the economic phenomenon of time preference. I have written on this before, but in short, what this means is that societies that are oriented towards the future will increase their process of civilization. Societies that are oriented towards the present will slow down or roll back the process of civilization. Remember that these societies are made of individuals, and these individuals are the ones who have a preference for or against the future. Think of the difference between a primitive man (caveman, if you will) living moment by moment to survive, doing very little to focus on the future. Contrast this idea of a man to the venture investor, sacrificing his present earnings for the hope of future gain. This investment is what lets civilization spring forward, so promotion of this investment is a good thing. It allows new medicines and technologies to be created, which alleviates our human suffering.

Government violations of property rights (coercive taxes), thus raises time preference, which means that people prefer the present to the future. This is because they have less money now, but more importantly, taxes persist, which means less future money. If you are going to have less than you would hope to in the future, your expectations are lowered and you shall become more present-oriented. Government taxes everyone to different degrees, but nonetheless, everyone is made more present-oriented. Those that should be looking out the most for the future, which are investors and tech geniuses, are more heavily taxed (capital gains is really high) which does not do anything food for the process of civilization. It slows it down and keeps innovation from happening.

Private Government

Every government is a territorial monopolist which violates the property rights of the citizenry. Every government stands as a threat to civilization, but different governments stand as threats to civilization to a different degree. Hoppe argues (as an extension of Mises) that government relies on widespread popular contentment to exist. The original form of government is the development of small territorial monopolies that are formed by people with exceptional speech, persuasion, and leadership abilities, whom Hoppe calls “elite,” for they have the gift of being able to get followers to be content with what they’re doing. The state is under their control. They own the state as property as you own your house, Xbox, or car as property. It is theirs, and this is called a private government.

A private government owner individually owns the state and has the most powerful say in what it does and does not do. This ruler will have the final say, for the state is his. Because the ruler owns the state like private property, all taxes that he gains become his assets. He now owns the money stolen from his population. He may now do as he wishes. Hoppe goes on to say that “The institution of private government ownership systematically shapes the incentive structure confronting the ruler and distinctly influences his conduct of government affairs.” The structure of the state within a country plays a critical role in how the head of state will act.

Private ownership of government would promote foresight and economic calculation. Because the ruler is there for as long as he pleases, and his descendants may be there long after he is gone, he is urged to look far into the future. This means that he would actually be concerned about the long-term effects of debt and taxation, so he is mindful so to not overtax the population and destroy its long-term wealth. If the owner of a government destroys the long-term wealth of a country, that is less wealth for him in the future, for he makes his living by stealing from them, at least primarily. If he lets the economy grow, that is more money for him to live parasitically on in the future.

The king also would feel compelled to promote private property rights. Ron Paul likes to say “don’t steal, the government hates competition,” which is very true. The ruler would realize an economy is not productive when people are stealing from one another and eroding property rights, so he would take effective measures to prevent that. There is historical precedent for this, too, for French philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel wrote “The King’s rights have incomparably greater scope than those of the miller; but as far as the miller’s right goes it is as good as the king’s; on his own ground, the miller is entitled to hold off the king.” What de Jouvenel described is the private property norm being implemented and recognized among European kings, citing the French king’s oath, which stated that all shall be held to this equal justice.

The ruling family would be highly selective too, meaning that only the ruler and his close family (or whoever he deemed appropriate) would reap the benefits of the parasitic lifestyle. The boundary between the rulers and the ruled is clear. It is clear who the ruler is, too, but this also means there is someone specific to target in the event that over taxation is to happen. The ruler has many benefits, but he is also accountable.

When it comes to war, kingly rulers will fight wars over property disputes or territorial issues, if they fight them at all. The funding for the war would come from the capital held by the king’s estate, and he has to be mindful so as to not overtax the population, making them turn on him. This high cost of war makes peace a highly preferable alternative, which is why there was much cross-family marriage in the kingly times. He would also be mindful of where he does and does not fight, for he now has troops that volunteered to join, seeing as that an involuntary draft would threaten his legitimacy.

Public Government – Democracy

A different kind of government has become popular in recent days, though. That type of government is democracy. Democracy is not a system where a bunch of people vote on everything, and the 51% always rules. Rather, it is a governmental system that does not have a private owner. It is a government that the “people own,” at least allegedly. The United States fits under this definition, for there is no private owner of the government. Most of the world also fits under this definition today. This is a tough definition to grasp, for when the disadvantages of democracy are brought up, people think “surely I do not live in this type of country,” but this fact of the matter is that they probably do. These are the disadvantages of having a government that is ruled by the people, for when the people (or the public) rules, that is when the government is called a public government.

Unlike the ruler of a private state, the ruler of a public government does not own it. He is only there for a term, making him the caretaker, rather than the ruler. This means that whoever the ruler is, they will be compelled to use up as many government resources as they can during their time in office. That is why we see Donald Trump and we saw Barack Obama going on many many golf trips, and it is why we have seen presidents for decades go on lavish vacations with their families. This makes sense, for whatever the caretaker does not consume now, they may never be able to consume. This caretaker will also not have much foresight, for he is only looking at what it takes to be re-elected, rather than the long-term effects of policy. A ruler can make promises that he obviously cannot keep and rack up debt because of it, ignoring the long-term economic effects as long as it means re-election.

At the same time, the class distinction is weakened, and almost nonexistent. Anyone can become a member of the ruling class, meaning that anyone can run for office. This creates an illusion and makes taxation seem much less of a violation of property rights. When your nice neighbor Jeff is the elected official raising taxes, the theft does not seem quite as horrendous as it did beforehand.

In comes a spiral of rising time-preference (or present orientedness). As politicians make promises that rack up debt, that increases future taxes. People see that the future looks bleaker and bleaker and decide to focus more on today. Fewer people are looking towards the long-term and more people look towards the short term, and the fastest way to get rich in the short term is the violation of property rights, so burglary and theft increase, along with corporate lobbying to get government benefits. We spend more and more and shovel more and more onto the next generation, which is why we tax the youngsters of today for the elderly’s social security, while today’s youth will never see a penny of that go back into their pockets. The national debt goes up and up, for spending bills in the house and senate only need to appease the public in the present, rather than the nation and its people in the long term. This process only gets worse as time goes on and spending goes up.

Democracy also promotes a welfare state. Law (which is based on ethics) erodes, while legislation (which is based on politicians) arises. Legislation will be passed to please today’s population, and the state will also work to make people dependent upon it. It will begin to give out welfare and entitlements, and since people respond predictably to incentives, this will predictably begin to decrease future productivity. If someone can get paid to not work, why would they work? If government can make people dependent on them by shoveling them money, why wouldn’t they? Decivilization will be set in motion, for people cease to be productive and focus more on the present.

The mere act of legislating creates uncertainty when it comes to the law, which causes people to be present-oriented, and we know what that does. At the same time constantly unpredictably changing legislation promotes disrespect for the law, causing crime rates to go up.

War

War changes as well. The best way to gain territory and increase the tax base for a public government becomes invading other countries. It is why we saw massive military conquests across Europe. Thankfully, the U.S. managed to contractually obtain land through most of its existence, but many other democratic countries did things non-peacefully.

When a king engages in a war, it is a war between him and his private resources against the private estate of another king. The attack will be contained between those two rulers, for if a king wants the other’s property, he will be careful as to not attack civilians and potential taxpayers for whatever king gains that property. The civil population would be “mere spectators” in a war between monarchs, according to Guglielmo Ferrero, an Italian historian. He continues that “having to economize their men, generals try to avoid fighting battles,” in his book Peace and War. The king was against the king, rather than the country being against the country.

Public governments at war engage in total war. Because the distinction between the rulers and the ruled is nonexistent, there is no ruler to target, so the entire civil population is suddenly involved in the conflict. This also means the would-be ruled get especially involved, leading to nationalism, or “the emotional identification of the public with large anonymous groups of people” based on language, culture, race, or just country, according to Hoppe. These wars now mold into national wars. The war is against two different ways of life, which means that the only way to win is “cultural, linguistic, or religious domination and subjugation (or extermination).” The distinction between combatants and noncombatants becomes null and the brutality of war increases to a horrific degree. “The new era of democratic republican warfare… is the era of total war.” Think of the American Civil War, where the Northern Union was intent on the complete decimation of the Southern lifestyle, causing entire towns to be burnt to the ground and a profound number of American-born troops to be lost.

The World Today

Today, we see a skyrocketing national debt, a growing welfare state, and American imperialist wars to implement the vague idea of “democracy” in middle eastern countries. We see increased present orientedness and rising crime rates, along with a bureaucratic system that does not care if it solves any problems. As Jeff Deist said after Trump’s inauguration:

Democracy was always a bad idea, one that encourages mindless majoritarianism, political pandering, theft, redistribution, war, and an entitlement mentality among supposedly noble voters. It’s an idea whose time has passed, both on a national and international scale. The future of liberty is decentralized, and will be led by smaller breakaway nations and regions where real self-determination and real consensus is not an illusion. Jefferson and Hoppe were right about democracy, but it took Trump and Brexit to show the world how quickly elites abandon it when they don’t prevail.

Democracy takes many forms and characterizes most of the world today. The small individually owned and ruled and economically calculable private governments are the prime alternative to this. The small state of Liechtenstein currently serves as the prime example for real-world Hoppeanism being implemented.

Democracy is a pathetically failed god that the west, along with the rest of the world, needs to quit idolizing. When you think of democracy, no longer this of raw majoritarianism, but rather see it for what it is: public government ownership. There is no hope for the future of civilization as long as we keep the model of the state.