Response on democracies

In a message dated 6/1/02 2:24:59 PM, freetrader2300@... writes:

Whether they can compete with democracies remains to
> be seen but it's quite
> likely. Afterall the USSR managed to beat the US
> into space and if it weren't
> for all the problems they had with their moon rocket
> they could have beaten the
> US to the moon. >>

OK, I has seen a few posting with respects to the debate over the value of
democracies. I will make a few points.

First of all, the book Democracy: The God that Failed by a political
economist Hans Hermann Hoppe. Professor Hoppe is not favoring the idea of a
king over democracy. He is a capitalist-anarchist who see the market as an
purer expression of the people's will in the emerging network effect of
individuals' actions of producting and consuming. I has read many of his
articles (without reading the book) and it seems that he is very much in the
line of individualist anarchists of 19th century America such as Lysander
Sponner. What I understand is that he is using a thought experiment to
compare democracy and kingship in order to more clearly show the inheirtable
flaws and strength in both systems. The poster who accused Prof. Hoppe of
being in favor of kings seem to be letting his emotions do the thinking as is
clearly expressed in his angry writing. That's understandable as I often
experience shock at a total different expressions and ideas. But for me, my
first reaction after shock is "how can I learn from it? how can I use it to
promote my value of liberty and productivity?" No matter what some might
think, there is alway a small truth in even the worst trash. Condemn the
evil of ideas and actions if we must but never condemn any truth by its
association. Maybe I can do this because as a artist, I never let my mistake
stop me from destroying it and start painting all over again.

Two, democracies and long term goals. You're right about the Cold War but
that really prove my point not yours. Any state that face a loss of power
will tends to work toward a very long term goal of victory, but once that is
done, their focus lose power. Witness the end of WW1, WW2, Cold War. A
better case is Apollo 11 in which the gas ran out right after the first moon
landing. This also raise a serious question: in order to enconrage the
state's long-term thinking, do we really want to push them into war mindset?
Every time, the state try to treat any problem as a war (like on poverty,
drugs, etc) it tends to mess up because the state is never capable of smooth
works. It can only know how to use force. Once they gain what they want by
force, they then fail to know what to do with the loot. Never productive and
any talk of the states making "investment" is a joke! The problem of
majority rule is best found in the Jim Crow South in which the whites
outnumber the blacks and therefore feel free to deny them the rights under
the Bill of Rights. Civil Right is in fact about restricting the power of
majority rule (and any other systems that employs force) in order to protect
minorities. If you must have a government or democracy you must set it up in
such a way that their power is EXTREEMLY limited.

One person ask why are we always seem to get into economies and politics.
The answer is that unless you can enjoy the fruits of your own labors, what
the point? If you ever read Robert Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold the Moon",
you will discover that the billionaire who made moon landing and space
colonization possible was prevented for his entire life from ever taking off
from earth by the bylaws of his own corporation and other laws that impacts
on space transportation. He never got to go to the moon until the very end
of his life and then by highly illegal methods.

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one,
He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear."
----Thomas Jefferson