On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution… “What can possibly be done about this state of affairs? First, the American Constitution must be recognized for what it is – an error.” ~ by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
What can possibly be done about this state of affairs? First, the American Constitution must be recognized for what it is – an error.
On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution by Hans-Hermann Hoppe…
On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution
Recently by Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Obsessed by Megalomania
This essay was originally published in Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom, edited by John V. Denson, pp. 667–696. An MP3 audio file of this article, read by Dr. Floy Lilley, is available for download.
In a recent survey, people of different nationalities were asked how proud they were to be American, German, French, etc., and whether or not they believed that the world would be a better place if other countries were just like their own. The countries ranking highest in terms of national pride were the United States and Austria. As interesting as it would be to consider the case of Austria, we shall concentrate here on the United States and the question of whether and to what extent the American claim can be justified.
In the following, we will identify three main sources of American national pride, the first two of which are justified sources of pride, while the third actually represents a fateful error. Finally, we will look at how this error might be repaired.
Gunny G: …THE GOD THAT FAILED, ETC…
May 15, 2004 … War, the God That Failed. by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Thinking back to the scandals of the Clinton years, when …
Sep 26, 2009 … By rendering the labor of one, the property of the other, they cherish pride, luxury, and vanity on one side; on the other, vice and servility, …
On August 8, 2008, In Podcast, By editor. Lew Rockwell interviews Hans- Hermann Hoppe. 15. Democracy: The God That Failed [ 11:32 ] Play Now | Play in …
Sep 1, 2009 … Recently by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.: Obama and the Post Office … say that no one can read works like Democracy — The God that Failed, …
Joe Sobran on evil. President Ron Paul? Joe Sobran on The Man. What Do We Owe the State? Joe Sobran on Hans Hoppe’s Democracy, the God That Failed.
Turn to Mr. Libertarian for the answer, says Lew Rockwell. …. Lew Rockwell on the failure of propaganda and the return of reality. ….. War, the God That Failed …
On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution – Hans-Hermann Hoppe – Mises Daily
…..How does secession fit into a bottom-up strategy of social revolution? More important, how can a secessionist movement escape the Southern Confederacy’s fate of being crushed by a tyrannical and dangerously armed central government?
In response to these questions, it is first necessary to remember that neither the original American Revolution nor the American Constitution was the result of the will of the majority of the population.
A third of the American colonists were actually Tories, and another third were occupied with daily routines and did not care either way.
No more than a third of the colonists were actually committed to and supportive of the revolution, yet they carried the day.
And as far as the Constitution is concerned, the overwhelming majority of the American public was opposed to its adoption, and its ratification represented more of a coup d’état by a tiny minority than the general will. All revolutions, whether good or bad, are started by minorities; and the secessionist route toward social revolution, which necessarily involves the breaking-away of a smaller number of people from a larger one, takes explicit cognizance of this important fact.
America’s Self-Contradictory Constitution and Bureaucrats’ Illegitimate Monopolies by Scott Lazarowitz
…There are those who agree with localization, but worry about “national defense.” But in reality, the original purpose of the federal government’s Constitutionally mandated territorial security monopoly has long been forgotten.
The bigger and more powerful the federal government had become, the more each temporary ruler has used such powers to intentionally act aggressively, inhumanely and belligerently against foreigners, the more they have done nothing but provoke foreigners to act against the people of the United States. I have addressed the federal government’s central planning monopoly in territorial protection here, here and here. (And for more, see this, this [.pdf], and this.)
And here Hans Hoppe analyzes the association between democracies and war.
And we have been seeing, day after day, how the local governments’ monopoly in community policing and security not only gives the government-monopolized police the power to be above the law, but many times now government police have been getting away with crimes of murder, assault, theft, rape, property destruction, and terrorizing innocent civilians. (Just see any of these LRC articles by Will Grigg to find many examples.)
And because of the power of local and state governments, as well as the federal government, to artificially make just about every civilian behavior a crime, no matter how harmless and innocent, the police are arresting people really for no good reason (except mainly to raise revenue to fund local and state bureaucrats’ six-figure salaries that they probably would not be getting in a freed market). This is what America has come to: lawlessness and criminality mainly committed by the agents of the State.
Imagine you are in command of the state, defined as an institution that possesses a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision making in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving the state and its agents itself, and, by implication, the right to tax, i.e., to unilaterally determine the price that your subjects must pay you to perform the task of ultimate decision making.
To act under these constraints — or rather, lack of constraints — is what constitutes politics and political action, and it should be clear from the outset that politics, then, by its very nature, always means mischief. Not from your point of view, of course, but mischief from the point of view of those subject to your rule as ultimate judge. Predictably, you will use your position to enrich yourself at other people’s expense.
More specifically, we can predict in particular what your attitude and policy vis-à-vis money and banking will be.
Assume that you rule over a territory that has developed beyond the stage of a primitive barter economy and where a common medium of exchange, i.e., a money, is in use. First off, it is easy to see why you would be particularly interested in money and monetary affairs. As state ruler, you can in principle confiscate whatever you want and provide…..
Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the Impracticality of One-World Government and the Failure of Western-style Democracy
Daily Bell: If democracy has failed what would you put in its place? What is the ideal society? Anarcho-capitalism?
Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: I prefer the term “private law society.” In a private law society every individual and institution is subject to one and the same set of laws. No public law granting privileges to specific persons or functions exists in this society. There is only private law (and private property), equally applicable to each and everyone. No one is permitted to acquire property by means other than through original appropriation of previously un-owned things, through production, or through voluntary exchange, and no one possesses a privilege to tax and expropriate. Moreover, no one is permitted to prohibit anyone else from using his property in order to enter any line of production he wishes and compete against whomever he pleases.
Daily Bell: How would law and order be provided in this society? How would your ideal justice system work?
Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: In a private law society the production of law and order – of security – would be undertaken by freely financed individuals and agencies competing for a voluntarily paying (or not-paying) clientele – just as the production of all other goods and services. How this system would work can be best understood in contrast to the workings of the present, all-too-familiar statist system. If one wanted to summarize in one word the decisive difference – and advantage – of a competitive security industry as compared to the current statist practice, it would be: contract.
The state operates in a legal vacuum. There exists no contract between the state and its citizens. It is not contractually fixed, what is actually owned by whom, and what, accordingly, is to be protected. It is not fixed, what service the state is to provide, what is to happen if the state fails in its duty, nor what the price is that the “customer” of such “service” must pay. Rather, the state unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can change them, per legislation, during the game. Obviously, such behavior is inconceivable for freely financed security providers. Just imagine a security provider, whether police, insurer or arbitrator, whose offer consisted in something like this: I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you – but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service. Any such security provider would immediately disappear from the market due to a complete lack of customers.
How to Win an Election
by Mark Brandly An MP3 audio file of this article, read by Steven Ng, is available for download.
In his superb analysis of democracy, Hans-Hermann Hoppe observes that “prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Thus, democracy virtually assures that only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government.”
The greater the power of the political office that a candidate is seeking, the more likely it is that that individual has no sense of right and wrong.At the local level, we sometimes find elected officials that we respect, but at the federal level, such candidates are few and far between. With few exceptions, Congressman Ron Paul comes to mind, it seems that the minimum requirement to be a viable congressional or presidential candidate is the ability to exploit others.George W. Bush is a prime example of candidates’ apparent willingness to be unscrupulous in order to acquire and wield political power. The deceit of his administration during his eight years of reign was readily apparent to unbiased observers, and we see the same characteristics in the Barack Obama administration.