Democracy vs. Freedom (And The Nation-State)?
By Jared Taylor
Almost all libertarians (with the exception of the
heroic Von Mises Institute) want open borders because they think border control
is just one more tyrannical act of government. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a libertarian
who teaches economics at University of Nevada at Las Vegas, has finally set the
movement right on this question. Free immigration, he explains, is a misnomer.
What the open borders crowd are really pushing is forcible integration, a denial
of the rights of natives. This argument is just one of many that make
Democracy—The God That Failed deeply subversive, even revolutionary.
This book is a powerful critique of government,
specifically of democratic government, which Prof. Hoppe thinks is worse,
theoretically, than monarchy. It marshals the laws of economics and human nature
to explode one liberal myth after another.
For example, many people think “free immigration”
and “free trade” are necessary complements, but Prof. Hoppe points out they have
little in common. Free trade requires willing buyers and sellers of goods, but
immigrants walk across the border whether they are wanted or not. Even if there
are employers who want immigrants, it does not mean other citizens want to share
parks, shopping malls, streets, and movie theaters with them. Therefore, if
capitalists really want foreign workers, they should keep them in
self-sufficient company towns rather than force them on the rest of us.
Prof. Hoppe points out that antipathy towards those
unlike one’s own group is perfectly natural and no obstacle to trade:
“From the fact that one does not want to associate
with or live in the neighborhood of Blacks, Turks, Catholics or Hindus, etc., it
does not follow that one does not want to trade with them from a distance. To
the contrary, it is precisely the absolute voluntariness of human association
and separation—the absence of any form of forced integration—that makes peaceful
relationships—free trade—between culturally, racially, ethnically, or
religiously distinct people possible.”
Immigration policy, in Hoppe’s controversial view,
is just one example of how democracies are inferior to monarchies. A king takes
a proprietary view of his kingdom—because he owns it—and wants to increase the
value of the estate he will pass on to his heirs. By contrast, Hoppe argues,
democratically-elected rulers act like tenants who want to get as much out of
their temporary occupancy as possible. They have to appeal to the mob to be
elected, and once in office care more about short-term exploitation than
long-term improvements.
An owner/king has a simple immigration policy: He
expels criminals and losers and admits only productive people. Prof. Hoppe
explains how presidents are different:
“[B]ums and unproductive people may well be
preferred as residents and citizens, because they create more so-called ‘social
problems,’ and democratic rulers thrive on the existence of such problems.
Moreover, bums and inferior people will likely support egalitarian policies,
whereas geniuses and superior people will not. The result of this policy of
non-discrimination [in immigration policy] is forced integration: the forcing of
masses of inferior immigrants onto domestic property owners who, if the decision
were left to them, would have sharply discriminated and chosen very different
neighbors for themselves.”
It is egalitarianism—the myth behind
one-man-one-vote—that Prof. Hoppe dislikes most about democracy. “There is
nothing ethically wrong with inequality,” Prof. Hoppe explains, but democracy
promotes the idea that inequality is an outrage, which leads to indignation over
differences of wealth and income. Politicians win elections by promising to
reduce these differences, which means one of the central tasks of government is
redistribution of wealth by taxing away the property of one group of citizens
and giving it to another.
Transfer payments of this kind foster a spirit of
larceny:
“Everyone may openly covet everyone else’s
property, as long as he appeals to democracy; and everyone may act on his desire
for another man’s property, provided that he finds entrance into government.”
Since candidates win office by appealing to
covetousness, “prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven
efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues.” Kings, on the other hand, were
not necessarily bad people. Moreover, they didn’t believe in equality and didn’t
have to win votes, so had neither theoretical nor practical reasons to
redistribute wealth.
Prof. Hoppe takes the view that cultural
conservatism is not compatible with the big-government nanny-state democracy
inevitably brings. Social security and Medicare support people in old age and
makes them less dependent on their children, thus weakening family ties and
reducing birth rates. Support for single mothers encourages illegitimacy. All
such programs subsidize irresponsibility.
Ultimately, it is inherent in the nature of
government—which Prof. Hoppe defines as “a territorial monopoly of
compulsion”—to increase its powers and exploit citizens. If there must be
governments, they should do nothing more than protect property against fraud,
crime, and foreign invasion, but as Prof. Hoppe explains, they always want to do
more:
“In the name of social, public or national
security, our caretakers ‘protect’ us from global warming and cooling and the
extinction of animals and plants, from husbands and wives, parents and
employers, poverty, disease, disaster, ignorance, prejudice, racism, sexism,
homophobia, and countless other public enemies and dangers.”
In the United States, all this protection requires
a Code of Federal Regulations that takes up 26 feet of shelf space, thus
“revealing the almost totalitarian power of democratic government.” It also
requires high taxes and armies of parasitic bureaucrats.
The United States is, in fact, a perfect example of
the futility of trying to limit government. It has a plainly-written
Constitution that enumerates specific federal powers and reserves the rest to
the states and the people. But presidents and bureaucrats simply ignore the
Constitution.
What to do? Prof. Hoppe thinks it is pointless to
tinker with policy, thereby leaving the “territorial monopolist of compulsion”
in place. He insists on outright abolition of government, with private,
competing organizations assuming its few genuinely useful functions. He thinks
insurance companies could protect against crime and invasion, just as they do
against natural disasters. He also thinks that in the absence of government,
natural aristocrats would arise to arbitrate contract disputes between citizens.
Prof. Hoppe is not optimistic government can be
abolished soon—indeed, it is expanding relentlessly towards a global government
that would be colossally repressive—yet he reminds us that “every government can
be brought down by a mere change in public opinion, i.e., by the withdrawal of
the public’s consent and cooperation.” He suggests that, after a critical
mass of opinion was achieved, a few cities might secede and form “natural order”
societies, whose success would prompt imitators.
Appealing as this vision may be, it is hard not to
be skeptical of the idea of abolishing government entirely. Insurance companies
might be able to track down burglars and rapists, but it is hard to imagine even
the best-equipped among them managing to protect libertarian statelets from
greedy neighbors with governments, armies – and potential immigrants. Abolition
of government is the sort of experiment one might prefer to watch some other
country try before attempting it oneself.
But whether a “natural order” society is ever
established, it is refreshing to read an author who so clearly and logically
justifies the contempt for government that is increasingly widespread. It may
never be possible to put every last bureaucrat out to pasture, and so long as
even a few remain we are well advised to heed Prof. Hoppe’s warning:
Once the principle of government - judicial
monopoly and the power to tax - is incorrectly accepted as just, any notion of
restraining government power and safeguarding individual liberty and property is
illusory.
Jared Taylor is editor of American Renaissance.
December 28, 2001
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available
for free from http://www.printcharger.com/emailStripper.htm
Archibald Bard
ICQ 83834746 TO KEEP THE PEACE, KEEP YOUR PIECE! |