Jacques René Chirac - Today's International Political Scapegoat

Yesterday former President of France, Jacques Chirac, was convicted of using public money in order to hire his own cronies and aid in his electiona and re-election efforts. And as this news item came in, I immediately wanted to play the Devil's advocate. I want to defend Monsieur Chirac against these charges, but not by saying that he is not guilty of them - far from it, in fact! I agree that he did use public funds to gain votes and approval. I agree that he gave useless and needless jobs on the public payroll to his friends. But using such arguments to condemn a man in a statist society is pretty much a diluted straw-man. Every single person who has ever held political office is guilty of these charges. Saying that Mr. Chirac is guily of them is like saying that the presence of oxygen is what caused the Great Fire of London in 1666! I can also level additional charges at Jacques Chirac. He has never held a real job (he spent all of his adult life in politics or in the "civil service"). He was a leech on the public purse all his life! So how is this making him look better, you might ask? Well, let's just say these kinds of things can be said about most politicians.
George W. Bush hired Condoleezza Rice to be his Secretary of State, and before her, he favored Colin Powell. President Barack Obama hired Hillary Clinton. So we can see that, just like Chirac, American politicians also give their own "political partners" (this is a euphemism for "cronies") jobs all of the time. And these jobs are also perfectly useless to the ordinary tax-payer. When have I ever thanked Hillary Clinton for anything in my life? She is nothing but another useless leech. And all this is done with public money. One could argue that Mr. Chirac has been very modest in his evil-doing. His budget has always been much smaller than that of the US, and he has led France through a moderately good period of history, unlike Mssrs. Bush and Obama, who collapsed the world economy along with other of their "cronies" such as Geithner, Greenspan, Bernanke... the list is endless. And this applies to every state I know of in the history of the world!
Furthermore, Jacques Chirac cannot be charged with international terrorism, which we can easily charge Mssrs. Bush, Obama, or Sarkozy with. All of the men mentioned endorsed barbaric invasions of places like Iraq or Libya (Mr. Chirac did no such thing). Therefore I infer that Mr. Chirac, though just as guilty of being a leech on his own people as the aforementioned men, is at least not a genocidal maniac.

I must admit, Jacques Chirac was a bad man, but so is anyone who ever enters into or dabbles in democratic politics. In democratic politics the only way to gain and keep power is to exploit a number of the people and use those funds to pay off your own constituency. There is no other way. As the great sage Laozi said "a leader is best when people barely know he exists". So think about it, what leader do you know of less - Bush, Obama, Blair, Sarkozy, or maybe Chirac?

Anarchism and Voting

I have decided to boycott the upcoming Polish Parliamentary elections due to the fact the party I supported was not allowed to participate in countrywide elections (despite this being unconstitutional). So far I have always maintained that despite being anti-State, anarchists should exercise their privilege to vote (or, as the democrats like to say, the 'right to vote') for the purpose of self-defense. This was also Lysander Spooner's argument - voting can be used legitimately as a form of self-defense, protecting yourself from hostile aggressors (i.e. other voters). The great Herbert Spencer argued likewise. He thought voting was legitimate because there is in fact no way to show your disapproval of state policy in any other way. Whether I would vote for one party, another party, or refuse to vote at all, most democratic demagogues would argue that I have consented to the state and that the government over me is legitimate. As Spencer puts it: "So, curiously enough, it seems that he [the citizen] gave his consent in whatever way he acted - whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine this."
Obviously this is a difficult choice to make and I think it is a personal one. Any pacifists among us, for example, cannot vote because of their belief that even self-defense is not legitimate (or ill-advised). Over the past couple weeks, however, I have been leaning in the direction of boycotting all elections myself. I think that choosing a political party could potentially be an aggressive act against the portion of the population who did not vote. They did not use the voting mechanism against me, so I should not use it against them. Democracy puts us all in a very difficult position. The democratic creed is "attack others, or be attacked yourself". The Democratic state is where we really see the famous Hobbesian 'war of all against all'. Especially in today's age when pretty much every caveat of our lives has been politicized. Democratic elections end up deciding about what happens not only on public property, but also on private property and even (alas!) in our own bodies! How much more dangerous and invasive can democracy become?
I am therefore leaning more and more in the sceptical anti-pragmatic direction of ignoring all elections and politics in general.

It seems redundat to remind everyone of those famous words by Lord Acton, who said that "the one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
So let's think for a moment. Is egoistic self-defense and unjust democratic peace worth putting ourselves in the position of being those tyrants in the majority?

The Münchausen syndrome in Politics

The Münchausen syndrome is a psychiatric disorder which causes someone to fake illness in order to be cared for - it is sometimes described as an addiction to hospitals or other types of care. But there is also a version of the syndrome very common among women known as "Münchausen syndrome by proxy". The afflicted woman simulates a disease for her child - she often will actually cause damage to the child in order for it to appear sick or vulnerable. The goal of this type of behaviour is to appear very caring and devoted in the eyes of others. Such a mother gets self-esteem from others telling how well she is taking care of her very sick child, while in reality she is the one keeping the child sick, often through very dangerous means. You can read an example here.
My point is that this is more or less how democratic politicians do their work. First they create all kinds of problems in society, and then they attempt to 'fix' them for us. Many people get tricked into believing that these problems are actually natural and that the politicians are actually curing them and performing a necessary task! Many of the politicians are tricksters (they know they are doing harm on purpose just to seem like celebrities later) but I am also sure many politicians come from the part of the population who are either stupid or naive, and they really believe they are actually doing good. The great Polish publicist and writer, Stefan Kisielewski, used to say that "Socialism is the system under which people bravely combat problems not present under any other system!" And he was essentially correct, democracy is a mild form of communism after all; democracy is the socialization of political power (where extreme political equality prevails over natural ability and rights).
I strongly suggest putting all politicians through thorough psychiatric evaluation. If any of them want to legislate anything above the Natural Law, their doctors should strongly suspect some deficiency, either in intelligence, or just pure megalomania (i.e. the type of Münchausen syndrome by proxy I just described above). Either way, the best thing we could do is just stop any of these people from getting power - so let's END DEMOCRACY NOW!

As H.L. Mencken wrote "Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." These imaginary hobgoblins are threats created consciously by power-hungry politicians. And the real hobgoblins (few and far between) are all created by legislation through our political class.

Plato was Right on One Thing

I read a very good blog post by Mr. Janusz Korwin-Mikke today, which translates into English something like this:

"Who rules in Poland?
If we listen to Mr. Janusz Palikot [a prominent Polish leftist politician] we would be under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church rules Poland. If we listen to Fr. Tadeusz [a prominent Polish priest and media owner] we would be under the impression that we are ruled by Jews. Or perhaps: Freemasons. The Freemasons, on the other hand, suggest that the European continent is being ruled by "The Great East" - a rival, leftist organization, which seeks to impersonate the Masonry. The Catholic Church states we are still ruled by post-Communists - and the socialists think our rulers are the nasty capitalists.
The capitalists say that the labour unions have all the influence. But the unionists think that liberals have taken over.
Oh - and I forgot - there are also some people called politicians who claim that the real rulers are the bureaucrats[...]"

Mr. Korwin-Mikke is a great man, a true leader of the classical liberal and Monarchist causes in Poland (which is probably why his political party has been unconstitutionally banned from this year's parliamentary elections). What he has correctly observed in the above segment is the Ship-of-State phenomenon first described by Plato is Book VI of his famous Republic. In this case, I would strongly suggest that people like Mr. Korwin-Mikke (or Ron Paul, for that matter) are those star-gazing philosopher kings. The ship ruled by Democracy can never take any course, but a disastrous one. It will be full of quarrels, fights, and agitation. Violence will break out periodically. The history of the democratic state is the history of oppression, taxation, and civil war.

So here is the whole original Plato from Book VI, read and learn:
"Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering --every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard, and having first chained up the noble captain's senses with drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands into their own whether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?"

Are we libertarians not often called star-gazers and dreamers with no realistic world-view whatsoever? We are the philosopher kings.

Here we go again...

Everyone outside the US knows the good old saying:
"Why has there never been a coup within the United States?"
"Because it's the only country in the world with no US Embassy."
I see the things going on in Tunisia. I see the things going on in Egypt. I saw the things that went on in the former Yugoslavia and in the Caucasus. I saw even more of that in the Middle East. I know from history all the things that went on in South-East Asia, Central and Latin America, Korea, and the Caribbean. So far only Europe, Antarctica, Australia, and sub-Saharan Africa have been more or less safe (although of course most of these places are being occupied by US troops to some extent).
Recently everyone here in America has been on a crazy rampage to promote "democracy" and "stability" in the Middle East - latest targets being Tunisia and Egypt.I recently read an article posted on MEP Daniel Hannan's facebook page (here). As much as I love and admire Mr. Hannan I could not help myself and responded to this article thusly:
Dear Mr.Hannan,
Democracy actually causes instability in regions which reject Western systems. Aside from the fact democracy is bad in principle, it is especially bad in places like Egypt, Tunisia, or the Middle East in general. Usually strong leaders can keep law enforcement functioning while democracy causes extreme factions to gain power (like in modern-day Iraq or Afghanistan - does anyone think those countries' governments wouldn't collapse if foreign troops left right now?). In Western countries democracy is also an affront to human rights unless it allows for secession (anti-state democracy). I am always on the side of Lord Acton on this issue - Democracy is tyranny of the majority.
I wrote this short comment because I sincerely believe in the Rule of Law. Where there is democracy there can be no Rule of Law. The two are mutually exclusive. In a country like Egypt democracy can lead only to the worst of consequences. As moderate and relatively peaceful that country is (largely because of Western influence), democratic initiatives could prove disastrous. After all Muslim majorities are not known for being very tolerant, and such a majority would certainly not be a (to paraphrase Lord Acton once more) benevolent dictatorship. I in no way want to cause offense to Muslims by this comment, but even observing Shi'a-Sunni relations gives some reason for pessimism in this situation.
We already know that in Tunisia it is Mr. Mohamed Ghannouchi who will take over power from the ousted President. Is this a good thing? This guy was Prime Minister under the old regime for many years and didn't seem to have a problem with it. Is he any less corrupt than his predecessor? That is to be seen, but I highly doubt it. I am always a skeptic where democracy is involved because I have as of yet never seen the masses make a right and informed choice when electing an official (sometimes the mob makes a good choice by chance - it just votes for the opposition because the government is so bad). I will make one exception to this rule - before women were allowed to vote socialists had little chance of getting into power (I do not want this to be interpreted as a sexist comment, it is just a fact of life...).

Immanuel Kant wrote back in the 18th Century that "Democracy is necessarily despotism, as it establishes an executive power contrary to the general will; all being able to decide against one whose opinion may differ, the will of all is therefore not that of all: which is contradictory and opposite to liberty". Democracy is quite an evil institution - as I never fail to point out on this blog. But I also have a question for my great democratic friends, especially fans of universal suffrage: When will children finally be granted the right to vote? You seem to be overlooking this discrimination...

What's not to Love about Monarchy?

What is the best aspect of Monarchy? What is its single best feature? This is a very easy question. The best part of any Monarchist order is its respect for private property rights. In a Monarchy the King tends to enforce private property rights while in a Democracy or Republic it is the public property rights that are strengthened over time. Private property rights are (as I have maintained all along) the only rights man has. The right to life or the right of free speech are actually Private Property Rights (i.e. a man owns his own body, no one else having the right to do so). A Monarchy is, strictly speaking, either absolute or feudal. I support the latter, but the former is still highly superior to the world order we have today. Why? Same answer: Because Kings tended to explain their power through private property rights and it was exceedingly difficult for them to abuse the population. Any undermining of his subjects' property rights would erode the Monarch's claim to his own! In an absolute Monarchy the King was the owner of the entire landmass (much like in today's system) and the people were his tenants. In essence he was a landlord and they were renting his land. This meant many things. It meant, for instance, that the King could rarely legislate without the consent of the people. A landlord today has no right to unilaterally change the contract with the man who rents his house, so it was with even the (so-called) absolute Kings. Today, of course, we have legislative tyranny. The government does not wait for our permission to abuse our rights, it simply does so. Most of what democratic states do would have cost an absolute Monarch his head. Just think of the taxation situation. Even the most efficient absolute Monarch, the last Kaiser of the German Empire Friedrich Wilhelm von Preußen (known as Wilhelm II), was only able to collect taxes amounting to just over 10% of GDP in times of war. Meanwhile today's democracy collects nearly 50% or over 50% of GDP all the time! This is theft pure and simple (because supposedly we have private property... but just try refusing the taxman). The King was not payed taxes as we have today, he was paid small fees. Most of the population did not pay at all.

To know that the above is true we don't need to look far. Just find the origins of liberty and property as we think of them today. Probably the best definition of property comes from that immense work of beauty, the Commentaries on the Laws of England, by Sir William Blackstone. Blackstone (who is widely cited by many from Herbert Spencer to the US Supreme Court) is the founder of rights are we know them today. As he wrote: "...the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe." That is our most important right. The only one we really need. This is why all socialists (whether the hardcore communist variety or the parasitic democrats) are our enemies everywhere and anywhere because they are the enemies of civilization and humanity itself.

Good Old Democracy

Democracy (Greek "demokratia" - "rule of the people") is a very vague term. Today in schools the state propaganda machine defines it as a system in which majority rule is applied and which creates freedom and equality. This definition is false for too many reasons to count (for one, liberty is contrary to egalitarianism). Still, democracy based on this false definition has many followers. And many of these democratic demagogues take the time to research my opinions before or after they debate me on the issue of government(NB. I greatly respect people who are willing to actually go through the task of research and finding information rather than just blabbering and shouting). Such people often get back to me with snide remarks about two men who I consider to be some of my greatest philosophical mentors - Herbert Spencer and Ludwig von Mises - being in favor of democracy. This is a basic error. Indeed Spencer and Mises thought democracy preferable to monarchy, but that is only because they had a very different definition of democracy. For them it was not something vague and associated with freedom and equality and majority rule. Rather it was, as Mises put it "the right of self-determination both of individuals and of nations". This means that "rule of the people" was interpreted differently by liberal philosophers. Rather than meaning "everybody rules" as is accepted today, democracy used to mean "everybody rules themselves and themselves alone". This is what liberal democracy was really about. This is the principle on which the United States were founded. Herbert Spencer wrote about this most eloquently when establishing his Right to Ignore the State. Secession was the most important and deeply fundamental aspect of liberal democracy as defined by Mises, Spencer, or Jefferson. This principle, cited in the Declaration of Independence, was only quenched and eliminated from the definition of democracy after the War to Prevent Southern Secession in the 1850's. Unfortunately the greatest liberal democracy which ever existed, those Jeffersonian United States, killed itself soon after its foundation...

I think Mises described his views best when writing about liberalism in Man, Economy, and State - "It forces no one against his will into the structure of the state. Whoever wants to emigrate is not held back. When a part of the people of the state wants to drop out of the union, liberalism does not hinder it from doing so. Colonies that want to become independent need only do so. The nation as an organic entity can be neither increased nor reduced by changes in states; the world as a whole can neither win nor lose from them." This is what liberal democracy was really supposed to embody. The democracy we have today is mob rule, a dictatorial democracy. Sadly liberal democracy always degenerates thus, which is why we must oppose this doctrine at ever corner.

Monarchy and Crisis

In my last post I referenced His Highness Louis XV, the King of France and Navarre. Most opponents of my Monarchist views love to talk about the House of Bourbon and how it brought about the horrible conditions in France. They say this is absolutely proof of the terror and destruction Monarchies can unleash upon their own people. What they don't realize is that I also love to talk about those poor Capetians who ruled France. Why? Because their history shows us what happens when a Monarch brings about unfavorable conditions for the populace living on his private property. It proves that very important thesis, that "a bad Monarchy will inevitably bring about its own destruction". This, of course, applies to any system of government based on arbitrary rule, democracy included. So why would I advocate Monarchy over democracy? The answer is very simple! In a Monarchy when the King is a bad one, he is usually swiftly eliminated. He is killed either by unhappy plebeians, unhappy nobles, or unhappy members of his own dynasty. I would say that offers any ruler a strong incentive to act as he/she is supposed to act. In all the years of my studies of history I have never found any mention of a financial crisis under a normal system of law (a Monarchy, feudal system, or an anarchy). Meanwhile the last few hundred years (filled with dictatorships, "constitutional monarchies", and democracies) have been marred by countless financial debacles and problems of a grand scale previously unknown to mankind. A King would have been held accountable for any such problems. Therefore he knew better than to interfere with the basic rights of his subjects. Most medieval Kings, who are now portrayed as primitives of all sorts, had specialized (usually Jewish) financial advisers who overlooked all economic matters and kept the King's attention elsewhere. This was especially true in the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.
And what about our "great" democracy? No personal responsibility of rulers. No incentive to act morally or honorably. Nothing preventing crisis after crisis after crisis all in a gigantic cesspool of corruption...
I therefore call upon all those people who are "practical". At least for the pragmatic reason of preventing crises, please endorse Monarchy! For once you democrats, be human!

"Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day." Il Duce himself said this once. And if anyone doubts that in single-ruler states the leader is always held accountable for his actions, I encourage people to read about his fate...

Mr. Lukashenko!

Today I watched a Polish news report about yesterdays events in Belarus. Thousands of people took to the streets there to demonstrate against lack of democracy and the rigged election in which, for the fifth time in a row, Alexander Lukashenko was victorious. The protesters proceeded to their protesting (with a bit of additional vandalism here and there) until they were completely pacified by the state militia. During the said news report I heard very interesting language used. Mr. Lukashenko was reffered to as "the last dictator in Europe" and his militia's actions were called a "pogrom". His government was also called a "regime". Following this there were a number of interviews with Polish and EU observers of the elections who said it was a farce or (the less radical ones) that it was undemocratic and there was a lack of good will from the establishment. Mr. Paweł Poncyljusz (a Polish Parliament deputy for whom I have a lot of respect) also said that the process was "uneuropean".
Now as this was said I actually started listening to the report. "Uneuropean" and "undemocratic" are compliments after all. As terrible as Lukashenko is, at least he scored a plus on those two fronts.
What exactly is this man's problem then? He is a dictator, that is certain, but I don't think there is anyone naive enough to believe he could lose this election even if it was fully democratic (just as Hitler or Stalin would not have lost in the 1930's). He is a devout leftist, however (just like the aforementioned duo)! There is a huge statue of Lenin in front of his government headquarters. And, sadly, a leftist dictator is just as bad as a democratic one...
There is one thing though that Mr. Lukashenko is doing right. Namely, he is maintaining his country's independence. If democracy really worked there Belarus would have long ago voted itself to be united with Russia. Furthermore, he is protecting Belarus from "Europe". The EU is a state which bribes other states to join it. In essence, it is a fisherman with some bait and a very sharp hook. Mr. Lukashenko is being roundly condemned for not biting on it! Surely it's a better option to be ruled by him than by the likes of Danny Cohn-Bendit, Dany le Rouge. Protecting any independence is good because localism is always good, no matter what level it is on. I can assure the people of Belarus that if they have such a hard time changing their own political scene they will have a much tougher job in the EU where they would be an insignificant minority with no voice or power. Sure, they could have their demonstrations. But would anybody listen? And even if someone did hear them, one of the Commissars of the EU Politburo would punish them by taking away necessary funding. Wait, who was it who invented such tactics of withholding resources as punishment? Oh yes, Trotsky and Stalin!

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and State Warfare

A lot of libertarians are very harsh in the criticism of Harry S. Truman and the US decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 before the end of World War II. I am no less critical - in an 8th grade social studies essay I equated Truman with Stalin (quite a bold statement for a 14 year old to make). The tragedy of the bombings is mostly attributed to the evil of Truman, American aggression, and racism. Few people, however, emphasize the role of the State as an entity as the culprit here. By State I mean just what it is - the conceptual being encompassing some landmass and ruling over a certain population through government. So why would the existence of the state make it justifiable or at least rational for Mr. Truman to order the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians? The answer lies in democracy and the rule of common ownership. In a democracy all people own the state (at least that is the theory). Therefore in theory all people are responsible for the state's actions. They are also required to participate in maintenance of the state. Individuals in a democratic state are simply feeder units of the state itself - they have no individuality in political matters. This is especially true in foreign affairs and wars. Thus when Mr. Truman was bombing the people of Hiroshima he was bombing people who were supplying the hostile Japanese government with means of resisting American troops. Furthermore, he was bombing people who approved of the Japanese government's actions! In the same way all these Japanese were responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor (nb. a military base), all Americans were responsible for the atomic bombings. At the very least all the ones who voted for Harry Truman. Total war exists only in the statist system. Wiping out entire populations makes sense if those populations are supplying your opponent with the means to resist you.
This concept is best explained by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his undeniable masterpiece Democracy The God That Failed. He contrasts the tendency for total war in collectivist societies of states with tendencies for war being restricted to few casualties (even among the troops) in feudal and monarchical societies.
I for one totally distance myself from any politicians in my homeland of Poland. I in no way feel responsible for their actions. The President of Poland is not my President. I want it to be clear (and on public record) that this man, Mr. Bronisław Komorowski, does not have my approval and does not have my consent to speak in my name. Same goes for current Prime Minister Donald Tusk. In case they try to commit some crime (of lesser proportions than Hiroshima I would hope) I feel this post should absolve me.

Democracy forms Communism, or is It a form of Communism?

"Democracy is the road to socialism" - Karl Marx

"Communism needs Democracy like the body needs Oxygen." - Lev Davidovich Bronstein (also known as Comrade Trotsky)

Most of the greatest theorists of Communism agree that Democracy will bring about socialization of any country and, as they said, socialism is just one step away from Communism. Here is how the process works:
1. The majority of people are stupid (or at least easily swayed by superfluous arguments which seem to favour them).
2. In Democracy the majority rules over the minority (i.e. mob rule).
3. The policies that sound simplest and easiest to implement are almost always socialistic. For example, it's easy to understand how welfare or public education might help people. It is more difficult to understand that in actual fact they do great harm.
Now we can all see that this is true not only in theory, but in practice. All countries which initially started out as liberal democracies are now (after a period of prolonged democratic rule) socialist republics. The best examples I can give are the United States and the United Kingdom. Could any one of the founding fathers (even the raging centralizer Hamilton) conceive of an American government overwhelmed largely by entitlements and welfare spending? I doubt any of them would agree (Jefferson was against the existence of public debt at all! - as should be!) this should be the case.
The best book on Democracy (by far!) that I have read is Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed. Read it - to say it's enlightening is an understatement.

To quote Hoppe on the relationship between communism and democracy: "Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else."

Who is an adult in a "democratic" world...

Most people would say that a person becomes an adult at the moment they become responsible for their own decisions and actions. Their parents are no longer liable - it is the person who bears all consequences. I agree with this definition. However, it seems that in democratic countries that is not the case. I will use the example of the USA because it is the best known democracy and also because I happen to be personally effected by the laws of this country. One of the most blatantly ridiculous laws I have spotted on this matter is the drinking age law (a very frustrating law I might add - to a person who in Europe has long been considered an adult). Apparently when it comes to drinking in the USA everyone becomes an adult at age 21. This, however, makes no sense. Isn't the voting age 18? This means that a person is allowed responsibility of ruling over other people before he/she is given the right to rule their own body! I think people should be appalled at this clear lack of logic. Either the drinking age should be lowered or the voting age raised. Also - what about the age of consent? Or the age legal marriage can be performed at? Why are all these different? Once an adult is an adult he should be able to do as he wishes with his own time, money, body, or everything and anything that is in his possession. I understand that in different countries, societies, or cultures, this age could be different (or it doesn't have to be a particular age - in some societies a person became an adult once they proved their worth through some trial). What all this really proves is that none of us are adults, whether out age is 1 or 101. Our responsibilities and rights are all purely subjective and can change at any given moment. Democracy can just take them away from us all or from a certain group. In these cases age groups are being discriminated against. As I said many times before on this blog - eliminate state-organized discrimination and there will be no discrimination left in the world at all!

I'd like to ask Daniel Hannan...

Mr Daniel Hannan is undoubtedly the most intelligent and articulate MEP currently on duty in Brussels. I read his brilliant blog for the Daily Telegraph (link on the left side of this page) nearly everyday. He is a member of the British Conservative Party, he is a virulent critic of the European Union, the NHS, and "the Lefties". You might think he is perfect - our Eurosceptic champion! There is, however, one major problem with his views. Namely - Daniel Hannan is a Democrat. Now I know his vision of democracy differs from the established one; he is a localist and wants democracy to work in as small and regional a way as possible. I support localism - anything that takes decision-making power from National or Global level governments is good. However, where does the democracy come in? Mr Hannan has repeatedly stated that he is a follower of the real Burkean Conservative way. Burke and Democracy don't mix! A Burkean democrat is a concept as outrageous as a "liberal democrat", something I discussed in an earlier post (here). Edmund Burke was a great critic of the French Revolution, a revolution led in the name of Rousseau and his egalitarian democratic ideals. What frustrates me most about Mr Hannan's views is that he has started to justify things based on whether a majority of people support them or not. Lately he did this in his discussion about Álvaro Uribe, the president of Colombia, being able to serve a third term as president due to popular support. Also, he has said that people should be given referendums about the Lisbon Treaty and if they reject it their voice should be heard and the treaty repealed. I, for one, don't see how referendums are relevant. If something like the Lisbon Treaty violated natural law then it must be rejected even if 100% of the people want it to take effect. I know that throughout history many Conservative Party leaders have agreed democracy is the way to go on government. Most famous was probably Winston Churchill ("Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - 1947) However, we are thinking human beings and just because a famous and great man said something in the past doesn't mean we should be parroting it today. In ages past many great men have said that the Earth was flat.
Of course Daniel Hannan and I disagree on multiple other things (he seems to have caught the "Friedman bug" when he studied economics), but democracy is most crucial.

Maybe someday I'll get to face Mr Hannan (it would be my honor!) and ask him the following question: How can a man so versed in philosophy of Law and Rights as yourself hold democracy as a legitimate system of government?

Democracy - Slavery for the Feeble-minded

My job as a Monarchist and true believer in Liberty is clear - I must in equal proportion advance the notion of the greatness of Monarchy and bash Democracy, the system entirely responsible for most of the Western World's problems. One way of showing what a oxymoron of a term "liberal democracy" is, is looking at the question of slavery and forced servitude in society. In a liberal society the ultimate goal is freedom of the individual. This is best defined by Herbert Spencer (as his greatest creation, the Law of Equal Liberty) "each has freedom to do all that he wills provided that he infringes not the equal freedom of any other.". This is farily straight forward for most people. And because it is just such a plainly simple concept to grasp, I am baffled by the fact that so many people associate liberty with democracy. To best describe the way democracy is contrary to liberty is discussing forms of "people-ownership" in society, which comes in three varieties:
1. Nobody owns anybody else. This means each mature adult individual owns himself (or herself) and himself alone. He has no right to anybody else's life, liberty, or property (i.e. complete self-ownership).
2. Some people (or one person) own(s) some other people. This means that some individuals have the right to somebody else's life, liberty, or property. This could be for a variety of reasons, if an ethnic group is considered inferior for instance.
3. Everybody owns everybody else. In such a society every person has a say on what other people do (I am using a gross simplification here).
Plainly from these descriptions anyone can see that Monarchy can exist as either number 1 (which I fully support as true Monarchy - The Rule of Law) or number 2 (Absolute Monarchies). Another alternative for option 1 is anarcho-capitalism or natural order. Number 2 also contains a broad number of other systems and institutions such as some types of dictatorships, aristocratic rule (oligarchy for instance), or classic slavery (where the slave-owner has a full title to the slave as his property). Democracy, however, fits soundly into option 3. The people elect leaders who then rule them in a totalitarian fashion (for the duration of their term in office democratic leaders fit into option 2). Socialism and communism - two systems which don't acknowledge private property and self-ownership - are also everybody-owns-everybody societies.
Now, since we have established that liberty is self-ownership and democracy is contrary to self-ownership, we must conclude that there is no such thing as a liberal democracy. Democracy is a system which dresses mob-rule up in a fancy way and portrays it as something "superior" and "just to all". In relality democracy is has nothing to do with justice. In a democracy justice is a completely relative term which could mean something today and the opposite tomorrow. For example - alcohol prohibition. How is it possible that something that is considered normal today was outlawed? Or if it is not normal, why is it legal today? Either way you look at it, democracy is bad (either it forbids things which aren't evil, or permists things which are evil).

Obamacare polls - Democracy at work!

Every couple months we get new poll results about how Americans react to the Obama/Democrat healthacare plan. First the people seemed to like it, then they seemed to hate it, now it's around 50/50... My question is: Who cares what the people think?! If people like something and want it, it doesn't automatically mean that it is good! Unfortunately the US is now a prime example of democracy at work - mob rule has won in Washington, D.C. Appareantly nobody told these people ("these people" mainly refers to the Democratic Party Politburo: Nancy "Pom-pom" Pelosi, Joe "Bobblehead" Biden, and Barack "The Big Red" Obama) that democracy was considered primitive over 2000 years ago, and socialism joined it with the collapse of the USSR. I'd have nothing against the Democrats organizing their own little Sovetskiy Soyuz someplace, but I feel quite sorry for the hundreds of millions of Americans who might be forced into this healthcare serfdom. In the case of democracy, even Aristotle concluded it was an unworkable scam - and he lived only a few generations after the abominable system was introduced in Athens. Incidentally, few people know that Socrates was one of the first to "die by democracy" - a majority of people voted he should die. In a real State of Law (best represented in the form of a Monarchy) it doesn't matter how many people want something done - if it is against the Law, it will not happen. This is best discussed by Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 pamphlet titled simply The Law (I highly recommend it!). And therein lies the rub! What's the point of polls on such ridiculous subjects as Obamacare? Socialized medicine violates every moral principle in conservative and liberal ethics! Mainly, it violates the most important principle in conservative and liberal thought - private property rights. Polls are just another way for politicians to get a feel at which absolutely immoral reform they should have a crack at next time Congress/Parliament/Legislature is in session.




Frédéric Bastiat - The Best of the French