The Shotgun Blog
« George Bragues: The financial crisis of 2007-2008 | Main | Peter Holle: Public choice and public policy »
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Re: Democracy and liberalism
Western Standard general manager Kalim Kassam makes an excellent point on how popular democracy often subverts the cause of individual liberty and individual rights. It was Karl Marx himself who wrote that "democracy is the road to socialism." Moreover, Lord Acton reminds us that the doctrine of unlimited popular rule is not an idea of classical liberalism but of pure democracy theory with its sources in Rousseau.
While Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues that individual human rights are better preserved through monarchy, there are two other answers to the very challenging inquiry worth exploring; that of Catholic political theorist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn who claims that there is a fundamental tension in the Anglo-American concept of "liberal democracy" and that true liberalism and support for individual rights can be better preserved by aristocracy, specifically aristocratic monarchy. Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's work Liberty or Equality? is a classic warning of the dangers of majority tyranny.
Then of course, there is the advice of the founders of the American constitutional polity, who advocated a weak federal government, federalism, and republican government to be the solution to this problem.
For a contemporary analysis of what popular democratic choke holds do to liberal democratic countries, see conservative public policy scholar Morris Fiorina's great work Congress: The Keystone of the Washington Establishment wherein he argues that popular demand and Congressional self interest lead to an Iron Triangle of bureaucratic statism based in a big government Washington Establishment.
Posted by Omar Abu Hatem on November 29, 2008 in Libertarianism | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e20105362a79b1970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Re: Democracy and liberalism:
Comments
Interesting points made in this article.
"Congressional self interest lead to an Iron Triangle of bureaucratic statism based in a big government Washington Establishment"
Yes it does. Bureacracy, wether by coincidence or design has the effect of stifling people while at the same time demanding they conform. Josef Stalin used this idea to his great advantage in the absolute control of the Russian people.
More Government = More Bureacracy = Less Freedom.
Simple.
"It was Karl Marx himself who wrote that "democracy is the road to socialism."
Democracy as an ideology seems a wonderful idea.
But in practical terms, "choosing" your oppressor
is really no better for preserving individual rights than a straight up communist regime.
Which is not to say that is what we have...but it is where we are going.
"While Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues that individual human rights are better preserved through monarchy,"
I'm reminded of something George Carlin said:
" I think we're too stupid to rule ourselves, what we need is a King. And every now and then, if he pisses us off...we kill him."
Now that just might work! lol
Posted by: JC | 2008-11-29 8:35:15 AM
JC, right on the money.
Posted by: JC | 2008-11-29 10:09:19 AM
as many of you a possible should send similar letters to
info@liberal.ca
If indeed the current “ELECTED” government falls due to your collaboration with the anti Canadian Bloc-QEBECOIS (<-get it that who they represent). I will consider this an invalidation of Canada
And work towards a succession of Saskatchewan to join a western federation, or union with the United States. I will actively try to spread this message to get others to do like wise.
Consider you move carefully there are repercussions when you get into bed with traitors!
Posted by: rob | 2008-11-29 10:34:09 AM
JC, right on the money.
Posted by: JC(?) | 29-Nov-08 10:09:19 AM
Thanks, whoever you are...
JC
Posted by: JC | 2008-11-29 3:23:34 PM
Which 'founders' worked for a weak federal polity? Certainly not Madison or Hamilton. They already had one under the Articles and didn't like it much because it was too democratic (see Madison's 'Vices' essay). Their solution (in the Federalist Papers) was more central authority in order to better preserve individual liberty.
Posted by: Craig | 2008-11-29 3:24:32 PM
Of course Craig, not all of the founders agreed, nevertheless the Federalist Papers are a beautiful exposition of classical liberalism.
Tom DiLorenzo's newest book on Alexander Hamilton is supposed to be really good by the way.
Posted by: Omar Abu Hatem | 2008-12-01 12:00:35 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.