libertarianism vs totalitarianism

[Darth Executor]

I've been frequently told by libertarians that too much centralized power results in more evil than mostly decentralized power. Can one of you explain how that works?

[joel]

I've been frequently told by libertarians that too much centralized power results in more evil than mostly decentralized power. Can one of you explain how that works?
First we need to clarify what is meant by centralized power.

Libertarians believe that individual rights must be protected. (And usually that the non-agression principle defines the basic rights that need to be protected.) How rights are protected is secondary. I would be perfectly fine with a monarch that protected individual rights (and thus did not infringe individual rights). That would be preferable to a democracy that infringed rights. In that sense, the centrality or decentrality of power is not really the issue. (A libertarian argument for or against democracy, say, is really arguing that one or the other is more likely to result in protection of rights.)

On the other hand, we may be talking about certain uses of power. For example, allowing individuals to decide what food to eat may be considered decentralized, while the government deciding what food people shall and shall not eat would be considered centralized. In that context, libertarians absolutely insist on "decentralized power", because forcing people to eat (or not eat) certain food is a violation of rights. There are also practical arguments beyond rights-based arguments. Central economic planning (as well as being unjust) will arguably produce worse results than a "decentralized" free market.


So, in the sense that individual rights can be seen as "decentral", libertarians insist on that, as opposed to "centralized" infringement of rights. But in the sense of the question of who will wield the use of force necessary to protect individual rights, that is a separate question, and ultimately it doesn't matter, as long as rights are protected.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Adding to, or rather commentating on, what joel said:

I think in an ideal world, where we could be sure that people in positions of power wont try to abuse or expand their own power(and take people's rights with it), a monarchy, would be the idea.

However since we live in a far from ideal world, where even in our representitive government we have abuses of power and government(especially at the Federal level) expanding FAR beyond what they need to, I support a democratic government, and term limits on ALL elected officals,

[Darth Executor]

Adding to, or rather commentating on, what joel said:

I think in an ideal world, where we could be sure that people in positions of power wont try to abuse or expand their own power(and take people's rights with it), a monarchy, would be the idea.

However since we live in a far from ideal world, where even in our representitive government we have abuses of power and government(especially at the Federal level) expanding FAR beyond what they need to, I support a democratic government, and term limits on ALL elected officals,

How are democratic governments sheltered from corruption? And if the tendency of people in general is to do bad things (and thus the tendency of government to do bad things), how is a democratic government going to suppress the misused power of the people?

Yes, you could argue that a democracy can replace a corrupt government, but there's no guarantee the replacement won't be corrupt (quite the opposite, if we look at modern day democratic politicians, irrelevant crap like charisma usually makes sure no genuinely competent candidate even gets to the primaries). And on the other side of the coin, a monarch could suppress his population if they're considerably crazier and more evil than the government (several Arab nations like Jordan and Saudi Arabia fit this profile). Likewise, if the monarch is truly gone off his population can rebel and depose him.

[joel]

However since we live in a far from ideal world, where even in our representitive government we have abuses of power and government(especially at the Federal level) expanding FAR beyond what they need to, I support a democratic government, and term limits on ALL elected officals,
As a side note, term limits are not limits on those in power but a limitation upon the will of the people. It directly limits whom the people can choose.


How are democratic governments sheltered from corruption? And if the tendency of people in general is to do bad things (and thus the tendency of government to do bad things), how is a democratic government going to suppress the misused power of the people?

Yes, you could argue that a democracy can replace a corrupt government, but there's no guarantee the replacement won't be corrupt (quite the opposite, if we look at modern day democratic politicians, irrelevant crap like charisma usually makes sure no genuinely competent candidate even gets to the primaries). And on the other side of the coin, a monarch could suppress his population if they're considerably crazier and more evil than the government (several Arab nations like Jordan and Saudi Arabia fit this profile). Likewise, if the monarch is truly gone off his population can rebel and depose him.
True. The voice of the people is not the voice of God. There is nothing sacred about majority vote. The US founding fathers were worried about a tyranny of the majority.

The thing that a democratic process has going for it is that it provides peace. If there is a wide gap between the government and what the people want, the people will tend to get what they want one way or another. The benefit of a democratic process is that it avoids violent revolution.

You may find interesting, this chapter of a book by Ludwig von Mises. http://mises.org/books/socialism/part1_ch3.aspx#_sec2
"The significance of the democratic form of constitution is not that it represents more nearly than any other the natural and inborn rights of man; not that it realizes, better than any other kind of government, the ideas of liberty and equality.
...
"it is difficult to see why democracy should necessarily be luckier than autocracy or aristocracy in selecting people for directing the state. In nondemocratic states, history shows, political talents have frequently won through, and one cannot maintain that democracy always puts the best people into office. On this point the enemies and the friends of democracy will never agree.

"The truth is that the significance of the democratic form of constitution is something quite different from all this. Its function is to make peace, to avoid violent revolutions.
...
"Grave injury has been done to the concept of democracy by those who, exaggerating the natural law notion of sovereignty, conceived it as limitless rule of the volonté générale (general will)....The idea that...nothing should resist the will of the sovereign people, has done more evil perhaps than the caesar-mania of degenerate princelings."
Note, if you read the chapter, that when he uses the word "liberalism" he means classical liberalism, and not modern "progressive" "liberalism".

[Darth Executor]

True. The voice of the people is not the voice of God. There is nothing sacred about majority vote. The US founding fathers were worried about a tyranny of the majority.

The thing that a democratic process has going for it is that it provides peace. If there is a wide gap between the government and what the people want, the people will tend to get what they want one way or another. The benefit of a democratic process is that it avoids violent revolution.

You may find interesting, this chapter of a book by Ludwig von Mises. http://mises.org/books/socialism/part1_ch3.aspx#_sec2
"The significance of the democratic form of constitution is not that it represents more nearly than any other the natural and inborn rights of man; not that it realizes, better than any other kind of government, the ideas of liberty and equality.
...
"it is difficult to see why democracy should necessarily be luckier than autocracy or aristocracy in selecting people for directing the state. In nondemocratic states, history shows, political talents have frequently won through, and one cannot maintain that democracy always puts the best people into office. On this point the enemies and the friends of democracy will never agree.

"The truth is that the significance of the democratic form of constitution is something quite different from all this. Its function is to make peace, to avoid violent revolutions.
...
"Grave injury has been done to the concept of democracy by those who, exaggerating the natural law notion of sovereignty, conceived it as limitless rule of the volonté générale (general will)....The idea that...nothing should resist the will of the sovereign people, has done more evil perhaps than the caesar-mania of degenerate princelings."
Note, if you read the chapter, that when he uses the word "liberalism" he means classical liberalism, and not modern "progressive" "liberalism".

Interesting. I do not believe, like most people do, however, that peace is the ultimate outcome we should all strive towards. If peace ends up doing violence to innocent people (and in our present state, it certainly does), then peace itself becomes a tool of evil.

[joel]

Interesting. I do not believe, like most people do, however, that peace is the ultimate outcome we should all strive towards. If peace ends up doing violence to innocent people (and in our present state, it certainly does), then peace itself becomes a tool of evil.
Right. I'm not saying that peace is to be valued above all else. What I, and Mises, are saying is that all else being equal, peace is better. If both democracy and non-democracy will tend to result in the will of the people getting what they want, we might as well have it happen peacefully, rather than violently, and instead focus on changing the minds of the people in the marketplace of ideas. But, again, this is a general rule of thumb, and only secondary to the need to protect rights (do justly), and to keep in mind that we must reject "the idea that nothing should resist the will of the sovereign people."

Indeed, when the US founders instituted checks and balances, several of the checks and balances are placed against the will of the majority. That's the reason for such things as the electoral college, the fact that Supreme Court justices are not elected, the Bill of Rights, the reason why Senators (if I recall correctly) initially were not elected by the people but by State legislatures.

[Augustine2004]

Peace is indeed desirable, but is slavery that includes resistance, rebellion, or attempts to escape, to be altogether proscribed? If so, what checks do slaves have against tyranny?

I would be happy if the will of the people is to follow the Maybury precepts.

Does Joel really believe that the ‘checks and balances’ that he mentions have really worked? For example, that Supreme Court justices are not elected, but are rather selected by the Parasite Class, do not seem to have resulted in rulings that tend to go against that class.

Hans-Herman Hoppe points out that democracies buy the votes of the poor class by looting the wealthy: panem et circenses is hardly a motto unique to the Roman Empire. The wealthy are few in number, so could hardly protect themselves, generally speaking.

He argues in Democracy: The God that Failed

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=199 (Book review by David Gordon)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0765808684/ludwigvonmisesinst (Amazon.com)

that monarchies are preferable to democracies. The king is not worried about buying off the poor, as long as he can leave the kingdom to his heir. Rather, he wants the kingdom to prosper. Thus, he will tend to do what makes for peace and prosperity.

I’m not sure–the English conquest of Scotland seems to be a counterexample: Braveheart. However, certainly we do have corrupt cops including rapists in the United States.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

I've been frequently told by libertarians that too much centralized power results in more evil than mostly decentralized power. Can one of you explain how that works?
As an aside to this (and perhaps that demands another thread) I find no support for democracy in the Bible. Quite the contrary. Whenever the people chose their leaders problems were the result for the nation. Do you think I am incorrect?

[Augustine2004]

As an aside to this (and perhaps that demands another thread) I find no support for democracy in the Bible. Quite the contrary. Whenever the people chose their leaders problems were the result for the nation. Do you think I am incorrect?Right, no support for democracy. But how are leaders selected, anyway?

[joel]

As an aside to this (and perhaps that demands another thread) I find no support for democracy in the Bible. Quite the contrary. Whenever the people chose their leaders problems were the result for the nation. Do you think I am incorrect?
Right, but that is because the ideal is that the omniscient, omnipetent, omnibenevolent God (and not Man) be the government.

Out of curiosity, where are you referring to where the people of Israel chose their leader?

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

Right, but that is because the ideal is that the omniscient, omnipetent, omnibenevolent God (and not Man) be the government.

Out of curiosity, where are you referring to where the people of Israel chose their leader?
The people demanded a King be appointed in Samuel Chapter 8 for one example. You could say that they did not specifically demand Saul but the point is that they demanded a voice in the governance of the nation. This was not pleasing to God (see Samuel 8:7). Now can you show me any place where democracy is sanctioned by God in the Bible?

[Philosophickle]

The people demanded a King be appointed in Samuel Chapter 8 for one example. You could say that they did not specifically demand Saul but the point is that they demanded a voice in the governance of the nation. This was not pleasing to God (see Samuel 8:7). Now can you show me any place where democracy is sanctioned by God in the Bible?

It isn't there. And, as far as I know, most libertarians aren't supporters of democracy either. It's funny though because you see many Christians on this board throwing around the "if you don't like it you can leave lol" defense of democracy, as if that makes the moral issues surrounding voting someone else's rights away any less significant.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

It isn't there. And, as far as I know, most libertarians aren't supporters of democracy either. It's funny though because you see many Christians on this board throwing around the "if you don't like it you can leave lol" defense of democracy, as if that makes the moral issues surrounding voting someone else's rights away any less significant.
At first I was confused by you saying it isn't there but a close read leads me to understand that you are agreeing that there is no Scriptural basis for a democracy. I find myself wondering how we extricate ourselves from this obviously incorrect political system and get a ruler installed by God. Doesn't the Bible say in essence that we need to lead lives in obedience to his word if we want that to happen?

[Philosophickle]

At first I was confused by you saying it isn't there but a close read leads me to understand that you are agreeing that there is no Scriptural basis for a democracy. I find myself wondering how we extricate ourselves from this obviously incorrect political system and get a ruler installed by God. Doesn't the Bible say in essence that we need to lead lives in obedience to his word if we want that to happen?

Uh, no. Sardonic wit aside, no one sane thinks we should attempt to install God (or one of his vicars) as ruler over the United States. The Bible doesn't say that 1) we should try to bring about a theocracy or 2) how we could go about such a thing.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

Uh, no. Sardonic wit aside, no one sane thinks we should attempt to install God (or one of his vicars) as ruler over the United States. The Bible doesn't say that 1) we should try to bring about a theocracy or 2) how we could go about such a thing.
Surely it says that our nation will prosper if we live in obedience to his will. Are you claiming that is impossible and therefore we are doomed to long term problems under bad rulers?

[Philosophickle]

Surely it says that our nation will prosper if we live in obedience to his will.

No.


Are you claiming that is impossible and therefore we are doomed to long term problems under bad rulers?

No. No.

[joel]

The people demanded a King be appointed in Samuel Chapter 8 for one example. You could say that they did not specifically demand Saul but the point is that they demanded a voice in the governance of the nation. This was not pleasing to God (see Samuel 8:7). Now can you show me any place where democracy is sanctioned by God in the Bible?
The thing that was not pleasing to God is that the people rejected God Himself and instead wanted to imitate the pagan nations. The Israelites were set apart from the rest of the world--were supposed to be the people of God.

The Bible is not a handbook on general-purpose political philosophy.

[Augustine2004]

It isn't there. And, as far as I know, most libertarians aren't supporters of democracy either. It's funny though because you see many Christians on this board throwing around the "if you don't like it you can leave lol" defense of democracy, as if that makes the moral issues surrounding voting someone else's rights away any less significant.I guess many people still don't know that the US requires those who wish to end their US citizenship to hand over maybe 1/2 of their 'estates' to the government.

[Philosophickle]

I guess many people still don't know that the US requires those who wish to end their US citizenship to hand over maybe 1/2 of their 'estates' to the government.

I didn't even know that.

[Augustine2004]

general-purpose political philosophy.I'm not sure what you mean by that. 'Secular' may be the term that you want.

[Augustine2004]

Peace and prosperity should reign when the entire people live in conformance to God's commandments. Note, 'should,' not 'will.' I'm not sure if the latter word applies.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

The Bible is not a handbook on general-purpose political philosophy.
I suppose that means you can find no support within the Bible for a democracy?

[Traveller]

I've been frequently told by libertarians that too much centralized power results in more evil than mostly decentralized power. Can one of you explain how that works?

I suggest you read Thomas Payne's Common Sense, he explains it well, reviewing three types of government: monarchy (England at his time), democracy (what the U.S. has morphed to), and the preferred (which the U.S. has abandoned) a republic.

[Augustine2004]

I suggest you read Thomas Payne's Common Sense, he explains it well, reviewing three types of government: monarchy (England at his time), democracy (what the U.S. has morphed to), and the preferred (which the U.S. has abandoned) a republic.'Government of the people, by the people, for the people,' yeah. The problem is, if everyone will not govern himself well, then the government of the people is unlikely to be good. We should expect it to do more bad than good.

[Traveller]

'Government of the people, by the people, for the people,' yeah. The problem is, if everyone will not govern himself well, then the government of the people is unlikely to be good. We should expect it to do more bad than good.

That was not Payne's government, his was fairer to the colonies:


Let the assemblies be annual, with a President only. The representation more equal. Their business wholly domestic, and subject to the authority of a Continental Congress.

Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten, convenient districts, each district to send a proper number of delegates to Congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole number in Congress will be least 390. Each Congress to sit and to choose a president by the following method. When the delegates are met, let a colony be taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which, let the whole Congress choose (by ballot) a president from out of the delegates of that province. In the next Congress, let a colony be taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that colony from which the president was taken in the former Congress, and so proceeding on till the whole thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And in order that nothing may pass into a law but what is satisfactorily just, not less than three fifths of the Congress to be called a majority. — He that will promote discord, under a government so equally formed as this, would have joined Lucifer in his revolt.

[Augustine2004]

I'm still skeptical.

[Traveller]

I'm still skeptical.

That, at least, is one right the politicians aren't trying to take away.

[joel]

I suppose that means you can find no support within the Bible for a democracy?
No explicit support comes readily to mind. Nor any condemnation of it.
I do find support for liberty and justice. That I will defend (whether via democracy or otherwise).

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

No explicit support comes readily to mind. Nor any condemnation of it.
I do find support for liberty and justice. That I will defend (whether via democracy or otherwise).
Yes but we do find cases where the people are led by one anointed by God such as David. During such times the nation is blessed under a king. It would seem to me that we should follow the positive example God's word provides and not set out on some other course of action which has no support in the Bible. :shrug:

[Augustine2004]

IMO, to be ruled by someone like David would be much better than our present so-called democracy. Queen Elizabeth I of Great Britain was excellent also.

Note, however, the north part of Solomon's kingdom broke away because his rule was quite heavy.

[joel]

Yes but we do find cases where the people are led by one anointed by God such as David. During such times the nation is blessed under a king. It would seem to me that we should follow the positive example God's word provides and not set out on some other course of action which has no support in the Bible. :shrug:
David would never have been king if the people had not rejected God by demanding a king to be like the surrounding pagan nations.
I would have no problem with having a just king. (Except that, historically, rule being handed down by birth has selected many unjust kings, so I would be worried about the future.)

[Traveller]

Yes but we do find cases where the people are led by one anointed by God such as David. During such times the nation is blessed under a king. It would seem to me that we should follow the positive example God's word provides and not set out on some other course of action which has no support in the Bible. :shrug:

If you remember it was God who selected who would be king. Based on that, the only current leader who would qualify would be the Pope, as it is believed that God selects the Pope. No other leader is currently selected with input from God, and God has not agreed to select any political leader since the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon. How would you suggest asking for his agreement?

Also, as was stated earlier, God agreed to a king only when Israel rejected him, his choice was a monarchy with him as the ruler. I doubt many, even here, would enjoy living under laws imposed upon us by God. How many here are divorced? How many have had sexual relations outside marriage? Anyone guilty of a "G-d damn it!", or "J.C."?

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

If you remember it was God who selected who would be king. Based on that, the only current leader who would qualify would be the Pope, as it is believed that God selects the Pope. No other leader is currently selected with input from God, and God has not agreed to select any political leader since the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon. How would you suggest asking for his agreement?

Also, as was stated earlier, God agreed to a king only when Israel rejected him, his choice was a monarchy with him as the ruler. I doubt many, even here, would enjoy living under laws imposed upon us by God. How many here are divorced? How many have had sexual relations outside marriage? Anyone guilty of a "G-d damn it!", or "J.C."?
OK you make good points. I would dispute the Pope simply because it seems to me Cardinals cast the votes there days. But you do not refute that democracy is not Biblical while rule under a King is Biblical. So how would you suggest we return to a proper form of government? David was selected by God but it took a while for Saul to get himself killed and only then was David installed as King. How should we proceed?

[Traveller]

OK you make good points. I would dispute the Pope simply because it seems to me Cardinals cast the votes there days. But you do not refute that democracy is not Biblical while rule under a King is Biblical. So how would you suggest we return to a proper form of government? David was selected by God but it took a while for Saul to get himself killed and only then was David installed as King. How should we proceed?

If I remember my course in Papalism, the College of Cardinals vote on their choice. Once a successful vote is achieved the votes are burned in a fireplace and the outcome is approved/disapproved by God: white smoke = approved; black smoke = disapproved. There have been instances when the College voted and God disapproved.

I do not agree with going back to a kingship, the kings of Israel proved that kingship was not a proper form of government. Just read of everything that David did, and how God disapproved.

If you truly want to go to something Biblical, then I would suggest the anarchic form used by the Apostles - Communism. It wasn't perfect, it didn't last long (blame the Romans for that), and it is impossible to administer with large groups. But, unless you can find someone to have a one-on-one with God, you're not going to get a true Biblical kingship.

[Augustine2004]

If I remember my course in Papalism, the College of Cardinals vote on their choice. Once a successful vote is achieved the votes are burned in a fireplace and the outcome is approved/disapproved by God: white smoke = approved; black smoke = disapproved. There have been instances when the College voted and God disapproved.

I do not agree with going back to a kingship, the kings of Israel proved that kingship was not a proper form of government. Just read of everything that David did, and how God disapproved.

If you truly want to go to something Biblical, then I would suggest the anarchic form used by the Apostles - Communism. It wasn't perfect, it didn't last long (blame the Romans for that), and it is impossible to administer with large groups. But, unless you can find someone to have a one-on-one with God, you're not going to get a true Biblical kingship.What is your definition of communism? I understand that word as a particular kind of state. I really don't object to people sharing things voluntarily. That's not a kind of state, though.

[Traveller]

What is your definition of communism? I understand that word as a particular kind of state. I really don't object to people sharing things voluntarily. That's not a kind of state, though.

Be careful, you can easily confuse communism with socialism (aka USSR). Communism, strictly speaking, is a social system whereby everything is shared within the community, and everyone within the community has a say it the running. All property, money, etc. is shared equally by the members of the community. The closest to a modern example would be the Amish or Mennonites, though they have drifted some from their original founding.

From a leadership standpoint, leaders are usually selected by the community (in the NT that was done by lot). A true democracy is/was not possible because it takes too much time to get everyone up-to-date on issues, take and tally votes, then work out any disagreements; the larger the community the more difficult a true democracy becomes. Which is why democracies are usually formed on a republic basis.

[Augustine2004]

Be careful, you can easily confuse communism with socialism (aka USSR). Communism, strictly speaking, is a social system whereby everything is shared within the community, and everyone within the community has a say it the running. All property, money, etc. is shared equally by the members of the community. The closest to a modern example would be the Amish or Mennonites, though they have drifted some from their original founding.That certainly doesn't describe Red China, the USSR, Cambodia, and other governments. Many people were killed for resisting.


Which is why democracies are usually formed on a republic basis.I don't think I understand.

[Traveller]

That certainly doesn't describe Red China, the USSR, Cambodia, and other governments. Many people were killed for resisting.

I don't think I understand.

Those are socialist regimes, not true communistic governments, as I said: be careful.

Republics, like America, are built around elected/appointed representatives who vote for the people. Ideally, these representatives are responsible to the people and can be recalled if the people do not believe they are being properly represented. This is how America was first setup, and Congress was not paid for their posts; corruption began when Congress voted itself out of the original setup, became paid, and changed the election laws.