Democracy: The God That Failed is available on Spotify to listen to and I recently finished going through it. This article is an excellent summary. Hoppe rehabilitated Libertarianism for me. I think this is a great book to introduce people to more serious right-wing thought. I have found it very useful in discussing politics with normies and expanding the minds to considering ideas they previously couldn't even imagine.
Glad you liked both the book and the review. Personally, I’d have trouble listening to it on Spotify — I found myself having to pause and scribble notes from time to time.
That is a downside of listening while doing other things, I can't make notes. But it was good for a first pass through. I plan to pick up a copy at some point and write all over it.
This is absolutely correct. The libertarianism that most envision — would necessarily require that nearly everyone is in agreement on the functioning of government.
It’s for that very reason that isolationism is integral to the system. It’s also why it would require a rather small group of people to maintain it, at least in any real sense.
It’s as if libertarianism requires a kind of “purity” that communism requires. I say that because systems that require such homogeneity are not natural on any large scale. To operate a “pure” system as such, goes against human nature.
I also agree with the “skin in the game” idea as well. The simple fact that most people don’t consider what will happen in a few years — greatly influences their decision making process. Of course, one might say, “If the person has a family and kids, wouldn’t that afford them skin in the game?” Perhaps, but then it depends on many other factors as well. A husband could decide to run off and leave his wife and kids to their own devices. I would assume in that true libertarian society that might be rare, but it’s happened throughout history — pretty much everywhere in the world (shy of small tribes) — so it’s always a possibility.
The land ownership aspect is key I believe, because unless you have something holding you to a place, you don’t have any real long-term ties to it. Whether that be a legacy, or land ownership.
The same goes for politicians. Most politicians (at the federal level) are wealthy enough to leave the country if they want. Take Lindsey Graham for instance. He’s wealthy enough, has no kids. He has no legacy to speak of. He doesn’t really have any true motivation to make things better for other people within the US? I guess we’ll just have to take his word for it.
So, how do you fix all of these things? I don’t think anyone can. People are individuals, and as individuals, their motivations will always vary in ways that contradict some larger moral framework. I mean, that’s what Jesus is all about. We’re all going to fall short.
The question then becomes, how to construct a system to where upholding a moral code maximizes the benefit for those who adhere to it?
Right now (in the US) we have the opposite. Those who have figured out how to game the system are those who have the most money and power. We literally have some of the worst people at the top — because the system allowed for illogical rule changes. Of course, that is one of the biggest weaknesses of the US system, the idea that noble, virtuous people would usually occupy positions of power. That has not been the case, as it’s too easy to lie to people, and it’s too hard to ratchet things back once they’ve betrayed the public.
Congress has largely abdicated their duty to unelected officials. That’s where the bureaucracy comes from. The Permanent Government, or Deep State, whatever you want to call it. Congress is charged with oversight of these bureaucracies, but do they ever hold them accountable? They have oversight, but they don’t have “control.” Stopping the flow of money is (more or less) congress’ only means of control. And that’s not going to happen, because money is funneled (laundered) through those institutions — right back to the very people who are charged with stopping that kind of corruption.
The executive branch has the authority to restructure and make changes within these bureaucracies, but the courts (which are bought and paid for) are trying to stop that. Congress is not going to remove judges who are trying to keep their money laundering enterprise going.
Up to and until congress is once again bound to their constitutional duties, this will not change.
It’s hard to say what’s worse, progressivism, or the overall rot that it allows to fester.
Pretty good, I like your note of optimism at the end. I write on a similar topic but opposite angle in 'FutureDad 16: Why Does the Right Hate Libertarianism?'
The United States is facing her rapid debacle if the left (the Democrats) continue their rampage against the conservatives and the nation, whereas the MAGA patriots are constrained in every step of the way to hold the Democrats accountable for the treasonous crimes the Dems have committed.
The constitution of America and Britain, if fully understood and upheld by educated citizens, would guarantee the liberty of the people.
Why?
Because the central pillar of the constitution is trial by jury - jury independence. This ancient customary practice of natural justice is the occulted mechanism that elevates the people above the legislature as the final arbiter of law.
Not many people understand that the constitution is the people owning the law and applying checks on legislation through the 'voice of the country' - the jurors in the court of conscience.
The constitution is in fact, real democracy as opposed to adult suffrage, which is collectivism.
"Nor does he address the elephant in the room: the U.S. and United Kingdom, countries which enjoyed untold flourishing under electoral democracy, in which the monarch was either removed or castrated. "
The answer here is that the USA and Great Britain were Aristocratic societies, dominated by nominal or practical nobility: The Gentry and Royal Navy/EIC commanders in Britain, the Landowners and Explorers in the (Pre-antebellum) USA.
The resources and social connections just were not there for a European style nobility, the Carolinas tried this at their founding and couldn't make it work.
France was more sucessful with their Seigneurial system in Quebec, but did not scale their population to match.
But a Swiss or Fresian style republic? much easier to get going with the starting populations they had, and then founder effects carried them all the way into the 20th Century.
The Anglo-Saxon countries suceeded because they exported both their excess population and the leadership to build effective societies. France and the continent stayed bottled up until wars and revolution rendered them unable to challenge the Royal Navy.
I hear you, but I doubt that’s the entire story. There is something in Anglo culture that seems more individualistic, and it seems to have ancient roots.
AI drone swarm security providers controlled by smart contract will solve the power problem, replacing the need for an authoritarian monarch with a decentralized authoritarian pro liberty AI system.
Democracy: The God That Failed is available on Spotify to listen to and I recently finished going through it. This article is an excellent summary. Hoppe rehabilitated Libertarianism for me. I think this is a great book to introduce people to more serious right-wing thought. I have found it very useful in discussing politics with normies and expanding the minds to considering ideas they previously couldn't even imagine.
I resemble that remark, she actually forced everyone in her cult to sign the repudiation letter, and her brightest star would stand before congress and say: "There was a flaw in my model", not remembering he wrote it up in the 1960's, it was the model, the gift that keeps on giving; go read Princes of the Yen with the long lost chapter
Interesting, but far too Anglo/ Western European focused and they are all f***ed (no other term suffices). A common fault with western analysts, who still imagine their rapidly decaying societies are important.
The real standards for powerful centralised non democratic societies are of course Russia and China, both of which have made enormous strides under long term strong leaders who support pragmatic traditional family based values and don’t tolerate the undermining of such.
Nothing in the west is remotely comparable to the success of China and also Russia, which has gone from a failed state to 4th largest economy by PPP in 20 years. By contrast traditional values and pragmatism are non existent in the west.
A rewrite from that perspective would be interesting, if it’s not to threatening.
I use english because that is the language you write in. Where I live and whether I am muslim or not are irrelevant to the observations I made, none of which you have responded to - why is that?
Your response eloquently demonstrates what you are - a small minded bigot with intellectual pretensions. You are also clearly a coward without the courage to put your real name to your views.
This isn’t english (so you may struggle to comprehend,even though a good percentage of English is derived from latin) but it describes your “method” of argument perfectly:
ad hominem /hŏm′ə-nĕm″, -nəm/
adjective
1] Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.
2] Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason.
I believe leftists indeed want to destroy everything for no reason. Judicial branch are holding solid. Legislation is a mud slinging match. It’ll mostly be alright.
Judicial branch holding solid? Federal district judges ordering nationwide injunctions of Executive policy at will; a toss-up "conservative" Supreme Court; and several leftist federal Circuit Courts of Appeals routinely ruling against the Constitution is not solid.
Checks and balances have their days as a hydrant, and their days as the dog. It will never be perfect. But it will never mean we cannot live well and free.
Very good article. Well argued and summarized.
Thank you.
Democracy: The God That Failed is available on Spotify to listen to and I recently finished going through it. This article is an excellent summary. Hoppe rehabilitated Libertarianism for me. I think this is a great book to introduce people to more serious right-wing thought. I have found it very useful in discussing politics with normies and expanding the minds to considering ideas they previously couldn't even imagine.
Glad you liked both the book and the review. Personally, I’d have trouble listening to it on Spotify — I found myself having to pause and scribble notes from time to time.
That is a downside of listening while doing other things, I can't make notes. But it was good for a first pass through. I plan to pick up a copy at some point and write all over it.
This is absolutely correct. The libertarianism that most envision — would necessarily require that nearly everyone is in agreement on the functioning of government.
It’s for that very reason that isolationism is integral to the system. It’s also why it would require a rather small group of people to maintain it, at least in any real sense.
It’s as if libertarianism requires a kind of “purity” that communism requires. I say that because systems that require such homogeneity are not natural on any large scale. To operate a “pure” system as such, goes against human nature.
I also agree with the “skin in the game” idea as well. The simple fact that most people don’t consider what will happen in a few years — greatly influences their decision making process. Of course, one might say, “If the person has a family and kids, wouldn’t that afford them skin in the game?” Perhaps, but then it depends on many other factors as well. A husband could decide to run off and leave his wife and kids to their own devices. I would assume in that true libertarian society that might be rare, but it’s happened throughout history — pretty much everywhere in the world (shy of small tribes) — so it’s always a possibility.
The land ownership aspect is key I believe, because unless you have something holding you to a place, you don’t have any real long-term ties to it. Whether that be a legacy, or land ownership.
The same goes for politicians. Most politicians (at the federal level) are wealthy enough to leave the country if they want. Take Lindsey Graham for instance. He’s wealthy enough, has no kids. He has no legacy to speak of. He doesn’t really have any true motivation to make things better for other people within the US? I guess we’ll just have to take his word for it.
So, how do you fix all of these things? I don’t think anyone can. People are individuals, and as individuals, their motivations will always vary in ways that contradict some larger moral framework. I mean, that’s what Jesus is all about. We’re all going to fall short.
The question then becomes, how to construct a system to where upholding a moral code maximizes the benefit for those who adhere to it?
Right now (in the US) we have the opposite. Those who have figured out how to game the system are those who have the most money and power. We literally have some of the worst people at the top — because the system allowed for illogical rule changes. Of course, that is one of the biggest weaknesses of the US system, the idea that noble, virtuous people would usually occupy positions of power. That has not been the case, as it’s too easy to lie to people, and it’s too hard to ratchet things back once they’ve betrayed the public.
Congress has largely abdicated their duty to unelected officials. That’s where the bureaucracy comes from. The Permanent Government, or Deep State, whatever you want to call it. Congress is charged with oversight of these bureaucracies, but do they ever hold them accountable? They have oversight, but they don’t have “control.” Stopping the flow of money is (more or less) congress’ only means of control. And that’s not going to happen, because money is funneled (laundered) through those institutions — right back to the very people who are charged with stopping that kind of corruption.
The executive branch has the authority to restructure and make changes within these bureaucracies, but the courts (which are bought and paid for) are trying to stop that. Congress is not going to remove judges who are trying to keep their money laundering enterprise going.
Up to and until congress is once again bound to their constitutional duties, this will not change.
It’s hard to say what’s worse, progressivism, or the overall rot that it allows to fester.
Pretty good, I like your note of optimism at the end. I write on a similar topic but opposite angle in 'FutureDad 16: Why Does the Right Hate Libertarianism?'
https://open.substack.com/pub/futuredad/p/futuredad-16-why-does-the-right-hate?r=59rk8t&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Thanks bro
The United States is facing her rapid debacle if the left (the Democrats) continue their rampage against the conservatives and the nation, whereas the MAGA patriots are constrained in every step of the way to hold the Democrats accountable for the treasonous crimes the Dems have committed.
Tearing up the Constitution is the only way.
The constitution of America and Britain, if fully understood and upheld by educated citizens, would guarantee the liberty of the people.
Why?
Because the central pillar of the constitution is trial by jury - jury independence. This ancient customary practice of natural justice is the occulted mechanism that elevates the people above the legislature as the final arbiter of law.
Not many people understand that the constitution is the people owning the law and applying checks on legislation through the 'voice of the country' - the jurors in the court of conscience.
The constitution is in fact, real democracy as opposed to adult suffrage, which is collectivism.
Demokratia - The people to rule!
https://www.commonlawconstitution.org/resources/the-occulted-powers-of-the-british-constitution
The Tragedy of the West.
"Nor does he address the elephant in the room: the U.S. and United Kingdom, countries which enjoyed untold flourishing under electoral democracy, in which the monarch was either removed or castrated. "
The answer here is that the USA and Great Britain were Aristocratic societies, dominated by nominal or practical nobility: The Gentry and Royal Navy/EIC commanders in Britain, the Landowners and Explorers in the (Pre-antebellum) USA.
The resources and social connections just were not there for a European style nobility, the Carolinas tried this at their founding and couldn't make it work.
France was more sucessful with their Seigneurial system in Quebec, but did not scale their population to match.
But a Swiss or Fresian style republic? much easier to get going with the starting populations they had, and then founder effects carried them all the way into the 20th Century.
The Anglo-Saxon countries suceeded because they exported both their excess population and the leadership to build effective societies. France and the continent stayed bottled up until wars and revolution rendered them unable to challenge the Royal Navy.
I hear you, but I doubt that’s the entire story. There is something in Anglo culture that seems more individualistic, and it seems to have ancient roots.
I dig it. The people, including libertarians, are enlightenment retards!
Huh?
AI drone swarm security providers controlled by smart contract will solve the power problem, replacing the need for an authoritarian monarch with a decentralized authoritarian pro liberty AI system.
Democracy: The God That Failed is available on Spotify to listen to and I recently finished going through it. This article is an excellent summary. Hoppe rehabilitated Libertarianism for me. I think this is a great book to introduce people to more serious right-wing thought. I have found it very useful in discussing politics with normies and expanding the minds to considering ideas they previously couldn't even imagine.
I resemble that remark, she actually forced everyone in her cult to sign the repudiation letter, and her brightest star would stand before congress and say: "There was a flaw in my model", not remembering he wrote it up in the 1960's, it was the model, the gift that keeps on giving; go read Princes of the Yen with the long lost chapter
Interesting, but far too Anglo/ Western European focused and they are all f***ed (no other term suffices). A common fault with western analysts, who still imagine their rapidly decaying societies are important.
The real standards for powerful centralised non democratic societies are of course Russia and China, both of which have made enormous strides under long term strong leaders who support pragmatic traditional family based values and don’t tolerate the undermining of such.
Nothing in the west is remotely comparable to the success of China and also Russia, which has gone from a failed state to 4th largest economy by PPP in 20 years. By contrast traditional values and pragmatism are non existent in the west.
A rewrite from that perspective would be interesting, if it’s not to threatening.
“A common fault with western analysts, who still imagine their rapidly decaying societies are important.”
And yet here you are, using English to communicate.
Do you live in a western country, and are you a Mohammedan?
Do you live under a rock and are you a practicing cretin ?
Unfortunately defensive and paranoid response.
I use english because that is the language you write in. Where I live and whether I am muslim or not are irrelevant to the observations I made, none of which you have responded to - why is that?
In other words, you probably enjoy the fruits of western civilization while harbouring hatred for it.
You’re a parasite. I don’t need to stoop to your level, and pretend that you have an ‘argument’ that’s worth addressing.
Your response eloquently demonstrates what you are - a small minded bigot with intellectual pretensions. You are also clearly a coward without the courage to put your real name to your views.
This isn’t english (so you may struggle to comprehend,even though a good percentage of English is derived from latin) but it describes your “method” of argument perfectly:
ad hominem /hŏm′ə-nĕm″, -nəm/
adjective
1] Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.
2] Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason.
Enjoy.
All the more why I’m grateful the US is a Constitutional Federal Republic.
Not anymore.
The three branches of government say otherwise. Mainstream media? They certainly have their theatrics.
The three branches of U.S. government, except perhaps the executive under Trump, are controlled by Leftist tyrants.
DOGE was not allowed into the DOD; and we have the $TRUMP bribe mechanism.
The executive has been gone since 1963. It's all bread and circuses now.
I believe leftists indeed want to destroy everything for no reason. Judicial branch are holding solid. Legislation is a mud slinging match. It’ll mostly be alright.
Judicial branch holding solid? Federal district judges ordering nationwide injunctions of Executive policy at will; a toss-up "conservative" Supreme Court; and several leftist federal Circuit Courts of Appeals routinely ruling against the Constitution is not solid.
Checks and balances have their days as a hydrant, and their days as the dog. It will never be perfect. But it will never mean we cannot live well and free.