Hans Hermann Hoppe - Democracy Is the GREAT LIE Sold to the People
The argument for Monarchy vs Democracy
Here’s my first substack article, the original script for my recent video on Monarchy - watch here
Democracy at a large scale like in America, usually goes to shit. Even the founding fathers were wary of it, and philosophers like Plato and Socrates openly despised the devastation democracy brings. And YET, we tout it as a god in the west. A sacred ideal we fight wars for. But if we take a step back, we may realize it is a promise that has failed.
mass manipulation of public opinion, inflationary economic policy, a cold civil war between citizens, and a deep state of beaurocratic and private interests and oligarchs running the country…. Is this what we signed up for?
Is this best?
I Just want to start the convo, specifically about monarchy in this short video, because 99.9% of people cannot see outside of Liberalism and Democratic hegemony whatsoever. And in fact, there have been massive propaganda campaigns to cancel any other social orders and make them look barbaric.
PART 1: The rise of Democracy
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a prominent Austrian school economist and philosopher, provides a compelling critique of democracy in his books, especially Democracy: The God That Failed. He argues that much of the West’s economic progress occurred not because of democracy but in spite of it. Hoppe outlines how democracy incentivizes short-term thinking and undermines long-term prosperity, favoring bureaucrats and oligarchs over the people.
Side note, Hoppe also inspired Javier Milei, Argentina’s revolutionary president who slashed the bureaucracy and fixed the economy. The Deep States worst enemy.
To understand the dominance of democracy in modern times, it's essential to look at a pivotal moment in history: World War I. Before the war, monarchies & aristocracies were the norm in Europe, with Austria-Hungary and other royal nations maintaining a centuries-old structure. Essentially this was a war between liberal capitalist democracy, aka the US, versus monarchy led by Austria.
History is written by the victors. Never forget.
And if you think the media is full of lies, imagine history.
America, after winning the war, enforced a shift in global ideology. Monarchies were increasingly seen and depicted as archaic and oppressive, while democracy was championed as the path to freedom and progress. democracy was elevated to a moral imperative, and defending it became religious in nature, with people viewing democratic governance as inherently righteous and superior.
MONARCHY:
Imagine owning land, vs Renting land.
How do you treat it? Most people only take care of a garden if they own the house.
Without private ownership, people give way less fucks about everything.
Right now we live in a renters society. My generation will scarcely be able to afford houses. And this is because Democracy itself is a rental.
Our leaders are temporary caretakers. Hence they drive the nation like a rental. they think short term vs long, and often make decisions based on private interests or getting votes. As a result is common to make decisions that undermine generations to come, like in 1971 going off the gold standard, and allowing inflationary monetary practice which is basically stealing. All of these things pad the pockets of people with assets, and destroy the prospects of future generations.
Warren buffet is most enthusiastic about investing in FAMILY OWNED companies. Because they plan for the longest time frame, and are most steady and successful. When you think your kids will inherit the business, you plan generations ahead, vs months ahead.
If men don't own their own land, they care far less about everything. If leaders don't own the nation, they drive it like a rental.
This is the argument for Monarchy vs Democracy.
Monarchy is always depicted as dreary and tyrannical. But what if it worked better? Based off the sole fact it incentivizes long term thinking and private ownership.
People will argue But we've had so much higher living standards without greedy kings…. Hoppe said in "Aristocracy, to Monarchy to Democracy" a super short read, that western economic progress happened IN SPITE of democracy, not because of it. And the strawmanning of Monarchy happens because we don’t understand it.
To have civilization, you need leaders—people who settle disputes and organize efforts. In the most barebones type of society, a natural aristocracy tends to arise to fulfill these roles, composed of men who demonstrate more courage, wisdom, and intelligence than most. We call such men natural leaders today. And they have always comprised the chiefs and war leaders of tribes. People instinctively turn to such personalities to resolve conflicts and lead in times of trouble. These aristocrats tend to have higher quality friends, mates, and offspring, and this overtime becomes recognized as a basic noble family.
A King, for most of human history, is simply the head of such a noble family. And he is the one most often looked to settle disputes and make decisions. Essentially, people must externalize authority to something to settle disputes and indecision, so they chose a king. Today, we choose endless laws and beurocratic processes instead, which can be far more tiresome and tyrannical than any man.
Hoppe pointed out that a natural monarch does NOT create the law, he arbitrates over decisions to arrive at most just solution. He's not drawing on precedent, but reason. And the fundamental laws of the people, everyone is beholden to, even him. Original kings were not above the law. That only occurred in absolute monarchies, which are a corruption to Hoppe that came much later. In a natural system, free men could and would turn to a different noble if the king is unfair,. Basically the kings people would leave him if he sucked, strip his authority, and nobles could dispatch a bad king if needed.
Hence monarchy, where the king is the first amoung peers to settle disputes and lead, is perhaps the most organic form of governance and social structuring. And the more just the king is, the more the people prosper, the greater the power of the nation.
We still use this model of monarchy and hierarchy, for all successful businesses and movie production. Directors and CEOs are basically pseudo kings. Imgaine trying to make a good film out of beauocratic process instead of a director with a visoin, you get the new Disney movies. And this was the fear of every philosopher worth his salt, that democracy leads to the disbelief of all great men, and elevates the cunning and common beurocrat instead.
If everything broke down. And we went back to sticks and stones. natural aristocracies would arise out of tribes immediately. People would gather around charismatic and strong leaders. Men of vision. And from within their families, monarchs would arise in future generations.
Some would be bad. But not all leaders are evil. IN a natural system, Leaders are actually incentivized to make sure conditions are good. The best leaders, who stewarded the most prosperous population, would grow in dominance and influence, and take over more lands. Hence, I think royal families, might have started out more royal than you think.
Feudal kingship had flaws, especially the lack of private ownership and social mobility. However, decentralized feudal kingdoms that arose after the fall of the Western Roman Empire proved remarkably resilient. In the future, we may see a return to decentralization—honestly I think the city state is the ideal for humanity.
Im no pure monarchist, but the right mixture, between natural aristocracy, with a precedent of adoption for new leaders, + anarcho captialism seems very appealing. Though Im still exploring all these ideas.
We don't need to rely on my ideas or Plato's Republic, or Marx, or any political theories. We could try them out in small civilizational projects, and see what works.
I think it's time to get curious about forms of states and political structuring. Especially, with the eye to building resilient and flourishing communities. If you are interested in that, and saving the west, subscribe for more content on this topic.
To start, you mentioned the founding fathers, Plato, and Socrates were weary of democracies. That’s why ancient Greece and the United States were set up as Republics. This put a layer of protection against the whims of the crowd with pure democracy. Also, the concept in the US of federalism was supposed to be the experiment stage of civilization. Instead, it has become the cold culture war of today.
Someone in the video’s comment section posted, ‘“Democracy breeds Tyranny" ~ Plato.’ by Carlos-sd6cz. While that may be true, I posit, “Royalty breeds smugness.” History has shown the wealth of those like the robber barons of the 19th century and the fortunes of the early 20th century ended in a few ways.
Most likely, the progeny of the wealthy person spent away the fortune on frivolities losing most to all the inherited wealth within 3-4 generations. Wealth left to charitable organizations usually was taken over by activists within that same time frame to be spent in a way antithetical to the original donor’s wishes. And yes, some small percentage of businesses stayed in the family and lasted into the present.
I believe most of those businesses more likely lasted longer due to survivorship bias and the Lindy effect. Some number of businesses will survive a few generations. I don’t believe it is due to family ties in many cases like that of monarchies. I think those businesses had much better transition practices to quality leaders than their competitors. Also, the Lindy effect is where the longer something has been around, the longer it is likely to continue existing and thriving. I first read about this in Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book, Antifragile.
I believe Warren Buffet buys more out of tradition – in the sense of business experiments that have worked over the years – than by some sense of a traditional family leadership and inheritance process. Additionally, family-owned companies are more likely to be privately owned and therefore have less competition regarding investment opportunities than a publicly traded company.
For my less modern argument, if the aristocracy could remove the figure head (King), then the king wasn’t really in charge. The oligarchy of aristocrats was in charge. Your life as a peasant was tied to the benevolence of the landlord/local aristocrat than it was the king. If your local lord was a dictator, your life was barely better than that of a slave. The only reason your local aristocrat kept anyone alive and well was to raise an army if necessary.
A modern corporation does not need an army. The state takes care of that along with the power of conscription. Instead, your corporate lord/manager can get the next school dropout, recent immigrant, or foreign workforce to work for lower wages instead. Only the activism of the people created an environment where the elites of society provided protection against some forms of exploitation.
Before Republicanism with democratic institutions, the peasants had to wait for the neighboring tribe to conquer and hope they were more benevolent. Sometimes, the lower classes would turn tide and help their future conquerors, thereby making a bet on a better life.
If monarchy was so great, how has the world become exponentially wealthier with over 8 billion people, especially within the last 80 years? In fact, it has been argued that colonialism of the European monarchies pre-world wars at best broke even for the empires and may have cost them more to administer than it was worth in the long run. The monarchies of the last few millennia didn’t accomplish what a more decentralized government structure did over the last 250ish years.