6 ms·

"Cool alternatives to democracy"??? Personally I wouldn't conflate a political philosophy, which Libertarianism is, with democracy, a form of government. A lib

by objclxt 14y ago

"Cool alternatives to democracy"??? Personally I wouldn't conflate a political philosophy, which Libertarianism is, with democracy, a form of government. A libertarian government could be fascist, democratic, or anything in between. I'm not sure why democracy isn't "cool" in of itself - sure, it isn't a be all and end all, and you can argue that X's implementation is wrong for Y and Z reasons, but fundamentally I can get behind Churchill when he said "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried".

Tichy 14y ago
As Churchill says, it is only a lesser evil.
waffle_ss 14y ago
Libertarian government is pretty much an oxymoron. Libertarianism applied in that sense is anarcho-capitalism, where everyone is free to do as they please and the only controlling force (i.e. the law) is the free market - no gov't at all. There are some people like David Friedman who have tried to make the case for how such a system could realistically work, but I'm still unconvinced (largely because the wealthy will have a monopoly on force). I'm more a fan of his father, Milton, who was very pragmatic and not totally against gov't.
- Zakharov 14y ago
  Extreme libertarianism is anarchy, but the vast majority of libertarians are not anarchists.
  - 5teev 14y ago
    Do you mean "anarchy" in the sense of "chaos" or "absence of government"?
saraid216 14y ago
> I'm not sure why democracy isn't "cool" in of itself - sure, it isn't a be all and end all, and you can argue that X's implementation is wrong for Y and Z reasons, but fundamentally I can get behind Churchill when he said "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried". I'm pretty willing to disagree with Churchill and say that democracy is actually an extremely good form of government. It's easy to frame it as the "least worst" by saying the problems with other forms of government are even worse, but if you turn it around and ask what it does right, it scores very high.
- Tichy 14y ago
  Has that been quantified? I suppose there are studies comparing forms of governments, it's just that I don't know them. Having grown up in a democracy, obviously I can not trust what I have been taught (ie people in communist countries are being taught that communism is the best form of government). I could imagine that democracy provides a more steady form of mediocrity whereas for example kingdoms might have more ups and downs depending on the current rulers.
  - scottjad 14y ago
    One book that tries to quantify along several dimensions is "Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Here's my notes from a related talk he gave on the subject: http://library.mises.org/media/The%20Costs%20of%20War/World%20War%20I%20as%20the%20End%20of%20Civilization%20Hans-Hermann%20Hoppe.mp3 http://library.mises.org/media/The%20Costs%20of%20War/World%... "in europe, during monarchy taxes were 3-5%, during democracy 25%. during monarchy debt was paid down during peace time, democracies increase debt during war and peace. during monarchy, price level fell century after century, and in democracy price level has risen. in monarchy interest rates fell, in democracy interest rates have risen. in monarchy money supply grew modestly (6x in century), in democracy it's grown enormously (1000x in century). govt gdp expenditures are much higher under democracy than monarchy. very little redistribution of wealth under monarchy. very little interference. very few new laws. most wars are limited to territory under dispute often bc of inheritance/marriage."
calpaterson 14y ago
He probably means liberal democracy with a welfare state, which obviously is something more than a form of government to which Hong Kong-style libertarianism is an alternative. "Democracy" has become such a vague word.
slackson 14y ago
Democracy's pretty cool, I agree, but the stagnation is problematic. It might be better than anything else that's been tried, but that doesn't mean as much when not much else has been tried for quite a while.
Jach 14y ago
Have you only read Churchill's quote on the matter, or have you actually looked at various forms of governments throughout the ages? (Not just the post-WW1 ones.) If democracy is so good for a State, why aren't corporations and military institutions modeled after it? I second the recommendation in this thread for "Democracy: The God that Failed". It has its problems and the author does not fully explore monarchism and related systems, only showing that monarchy is superior to democracy, and then he falls back to the comfort of his anarcho-capitalist views and rejection of the need of a State, but it's still an excellent read.
smacktoward 14y ago
Relax, he was making a joke. Sid Meier is the guy behind the Civilization line of video games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier In Civilization you can research various forms of government for your society, including Democracy. But for game purposes there's plenty of reasons why other systems work better under certain circumstances.

by objclxt 14y ago

Tichy 14y ago

As Churchill says, it is only a lesser evil.

waffle_ss 14y ago

Libertarian government is pretty much an oxymoron. Libertarianism applied in that sense is anarcho-capitalism, where everyone is free to do as they please and the only controlling force (i.e. the law) is the free market - no gov't at all. There are some people like David Friedman who have tried to make the case for how such a system could realistically work, but I'm still unconvinced (largely because the wealthy will have a monopoly on force). I'm more a fan of his father, Milton, who was very pragmatic and not totally against gov't.

Zakharov 14y ago
Extreme libertarianism is anarchy, but the vast majority of libertarians are not anarchists.
- 5teev 14y ago
  Do you mean "anarchy" in the sense of "chaos" or "absence of government"?

saraid216 14y ago

> I'm not sure why democracy isn't "cool" in of itself - sure, it isn't a be all and end all, and you can argue that X's implementation is wrong for Y and Z reasons, but fundamentally I can get behind Churchill when he said "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried". I'm pretty willing to disagree with Churchill and say that democracy is actually an extremely good form of government. It's easy to frame it as the "least worst" by saying the problems with other forms of government are even worse, but if you turn it around and ask what it does right, it scores very high.

Tichy 14y ago
Has that been quantified? I suppose there are studies comparing forms of governments, it's just that I don't know them. Having grown up in a democracy, obviously I can not trust what I have been taught (ie people in communist countries are being taught that communism is the best form of government). I could imagine that democracy provides a more steady form of mediocrity whereas for example kingdoms might have more ups and downs depending on the current rulers.
- scottjad 14y ago
  One book that tries to quantify along several dimensions is "Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Here's my notes from a related talk he gave on the subject: http://library.mises.org/media/The%20Costs%20of%20War/World%20War%20I%20as%20the%20End%20of%20Civilization%20Hans-Hermann%20Hoppe.mp3 http://library.mises.org/media/The%20Costs%20of%20War/World%... "in europe, during monarchy taxes were 3-5%, during democracy 25%. during monarchy debt was paid down during peace time, democracies increase debt during war and peace. during monarchy, price level fell century after century, and in democracy price level has risen. in monarchy interest rates fell, in democracy interest rates have risen. in monarchy money supply grew modestly (6x in century), in democracy it's grown enormously (1000x in century). govt gdp expenditures are much higher under democracy than monarchy. very little redistribution of wealth under monarchy. very little interference. very few new laws. most wars are limited to territory under dispute often bc of inheritance/marriage."

calpaterson 14y ago

He probably means liberal democracy with a welfare state, which obviously is something more than a form of government to which Hong Kong-style libertarianism is an alternative. "Democracy" has become such a vague word.

slackson 14y ago

Democracy's pretty cool, I agree, but the stagnation is problematic. It might be better than anything else that's been tried, but that doesn't mean as much when not much else has been tried for quite a while.

Jach 14y ago

Have you only read Churchill's quote on the matter, or have you actually looked at various forms of governments throughout the ages? (Not just the post-WW1 ones.) If democracy is so good for a State, why aren't corporations and military institutions modeled after it? I second the recommendation in this thread for "Democracy: The God that Failed". It has its problems and the author does not fully explore monarchism and related systems, only showing that monarchy is superior to democracy, and then he falls back to the comfort of his anarcho-capitalist views and rejection of the need of a State, but it's still an excellent read.

smacktoward 14y ago

Relax, he was making a joke. Sid Meier is the guy behind the Civilization line of video games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier In Civilization you can research various forms of government for your society, including Democracy. But for game purposes there's plenty of reasons why other systems work better under certain circumstances.