NationStates Jolt Archive

The Commonwealth Party

Preamble

There is no political constitution to which I more absolutely deny the name of a Commonwealth, than that in which all things lie in the power of the multitude... it appears that a multitude of men may be just as tyrannical as a single despot; and indeed this is the most odious of tyrannies, since no monster can be more barbarous than the mob, which assumes the name and mask of the people.

In human order, only the individual is significant, for without the individual no order can exist. Thus, each institution of this order must work to serve the individual, for if it does not it is unworthy of continued existence. So it must be that that vile institution known as government, that greatest thief and murderer, must be torn down. And above all forms of government, democracy is the one most worthy of immediate destruction.

Democracy, with its bloody wars...

Democracy, with its punitive taxes...

Democracy, with its wastrel spending...

Democracy, with its crippling debt...

Democracy, with its pandering, schizophrenic laws and regulations, its lying politicians, its collectivist disregard for individual thought, its unending depreciation of our money, its obsessive monitoring of its citizens, and all the other miseries that it has wrought upon us behind the facade of "freedom" and "the will of the people."

Though it would seem that democracy might be able to destroy itself intentionally, this is not so, for the first law of any institution is to preserve itself, the second to expand. So we should not expect democracy to truly surrender its power like we would not expect a tinpot dictator to surrender his own. But there is one way that we can destroy democracy- by piercing its veil of deception with the light of truth. Thus, we, the Commonwealth Party, resolve to bear this light so that all men may be illuminated by the torch of true freedom.

Our Methods

1. Should any of us be elected to any office, we shall immediately resign in protest against the government. This serves two purposes. One, it shall prevent any of our members from being corrupted by the political class, which has happened all too often to supposed champions of liberty. Two, it is an incredibly visible sign of protest against the state which can only serve to diminish the belief that it can govern well.

2. We shall regularly publish and inform the populace of specific government excesses, especially regarding individual politicians. While other politicians may be expected to do the same thing to one another, it is vital to their own self-interest that they do not have their own excesses highlighted or weaken the credibility of the government. We have no such interest, and thus have a free hand to criticize as strongly and harshly as possible. This also will weaken the credibility of the government, as the ignorant impression that they are just stewards will by eliminated at last.

3. This is perhaps the most important step of all, as we cannot focus only on negative campaigning, but rather must provide a valid alternative to statism. We shall found enclaves throughout the country, which will be based upon mutually beneficial voluntary exchange and peaceful coexistence. All goods and services will be privately owned and provided, and there shall be no forceable expropriation or unilateral declarations of coercion. These enclaves, focused on satisfying the consumers, i.e. the residents, will outcompete the statist cities and weaken the statists' local base of power. This will have three effects.

A. These statist cities will either have to adapt towards more libertarian approaches or wilt away.

B. It will show the unnecessary nature of the government and further reduce its credibility.

C. These enclaves will raise children in a climate of libertarian freedom, and these children will grow up to continue the fight against the state until our mission has been completed.

Members-
Greill
Congo-Kinshasa

Recommended Scholarly Articles, as of March 12, 2007
The Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy, and the idea of a Natural Order (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/11_2/11_2_3.pdf) by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. An interesting look into how democracy encourages decivilization.
Monarchy and War (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_1/15_1_1.pdf) by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. This article explores democracy's bloodthirsty nature, beginning with the gruesome French Revolution and continuing under supposedly liberal democracies and dictatorships (aliberal democracies) alike.

Apparently someone doesn't believe in democratic peace theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

I don't think I could be a part of this. It is too radical by far.

Apparently someone doesn't believe in democratic peace theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

I don't think I could be a part of this. It is too radical by far.

I would say that the democratic peace theory is bogus. It is to be expected that culturally homogenous nations (as nearly all democracies have been) will not engage in war very often. When we enter a time when democratic nations are not mostly made up of western capitalisms (and it is coming) then we can judge whether democracy promotes peace.

If there is any method for peace, it is trade:

Trade is the natural enemy of all violent passions. Trade loves moderation, delights in compromise, and is most careful to avoid anger. It is patient, supple, and insinuating, only resorting to extreme measures in cases of absolute necessity. Trade makes men independent of one another and gives them a high idea of their personal importance: it leads them to want to manage their own affairs and teaches them to succeed therein. Hence it makes them inclined to liberty but disinclined to revolution.

I am not so much a defender of that theory as I disliked a statement of his.Democracy, with its bloody wars... Now, many initiators of wars have ended up being non-democratic nations, in fact, I really do think that democracy probably has better peaceful tendencies if only because liberal democracy has less ability to shut out the wishes of the people and of their desire for peace. I am not somebody who claims that democracy will make the world perfect, only that it provides a relatively good feedback and incentive system for reasonable behavior with regards to rights and such.

I will agree that trade is a better way to prevent war though.

I am not so much a defender of that theory as I disliked a statement of his. Now, many initiators of wars have ended up being non-democratic nations, in fact, I really do think that democracy probably has better peaceful tendencies if only because liberal democracy has less ability to shut out the wishes of the people and of their desire for peace. I am not somebody who claims that democracy will make the world perfect, only that it provides a relatively good feedback and incentive system for reasonable behavior with regards to rights and such.

I will agree that trade is a better way to prevent war though.

The French Republic was a democracy, but it was quite imperialistic. So was the British Empire. The era of total war grew up with the era of democracy- in fact, some may say that the concept of total war began with Sherman's march through the south- again, in a democracy. This is because while most private state wars were based, ultimately, on ownership, since the king wanted to expand his property, and thus there was some incentive in conquering rather than destroying an area (there was still some incentive in short-term plunder, a la the 30 Years War, but there would be long-term costs that would have to be weighed against the short term benefits.)

However, since democratic rulers are not the owners of government, but rather temporary caretakers who wish to exploit their possibilities for self-interest as quickly as possible so long as they last, their wars become ideological so as to gain the short-term support of their constituents, regardless of the actual costs of war, which are externalized. Thus, with the people fused to the government, it is logical that they would no longer be considered something to acquire but another enemy combatant, seeing as how they are, effectively, the enemy state. Indeed, the only true foundation of peace is not an easily subvertible populace, but long-term costs of refusing mutually beneficial exchange and instead opting for force. Without these costs as a disincentive, there can be no peace.

The French Republic was a democracy, but it was quite imperialistic. So was the British Empire. The era of total war grew up with the era of democracy- in fact, some may say that the concept of total war began with Sherman's march through the south- again, in a democracy. This is because while most private state wars were based, ultimately, on ownership, since the king wanted to expand his property, and thus there was some incentive in conquering rather than destroying an area (there was still some incentive in short-term plunder, a la the 30 Years War, but there would be long-term costs that would have to be weighed against the short term benefits.) The only issue is that many of the major wars of the 20th century had a lot to do with anti-democratic societies against more democratic societies where we have seen the non-democratic engage in more horrible brutalities than the more democratic. Even rulers have ideological interests. I really think that you over-estimate the good of the privately owned state as we have many examples of those gone bad.

However, since democratic rulers are not the owners of government, but rather temporary caretakers who wish to exploit their possibilities for self-interest as quickly as possible so long as they last, their wars become ideological so as to gain the short-term support of their constituents, regardless of the actual costs of war, which are externalized. Thus, with the people fused to the government, it is logical that they would no longer be considered something to acquire but another enemy combatant, seeing as how they are, effectively, the enemy state. Indeed, the only true foundation of peace is not an easily subvertible populace, but long-term costs of refusing mutually beneficial exchange and instead opting for force. Without these costs as a disincentive, there can be no peace.
So, the USSR had no ideological interests? If anything we see that the ideologies of the private state lead to greater brutalities as noted in the religious wars across europe in the age of private states. Really though, I don't think that the incentives are the same as you claim, democratic populaces have shown a dislike of unnecessary war in many cases, including the Vietnam war and the Iraq war going on today. Rulers easily can and would drive their people to war BECAUSE they don't carry the costs, they shift those costs on to their people which end up being expendable depending more on marginal value to them rather than the importance of those lives. We have had this discussion before and I really don't care about it, most of the world has seen the poor incentives of the privately owned state and tends to respond with more democracy to link public welfare to private welfare. There is no need responding to this last comment of mine given that we could continue this discussion until the end of time.

The Commonwealth Party

Preamble

In human order, only the individual is significant, for without the individual no order can exist.
LOGICAL FLAW

LOGICAL FLAW

Elaborate

So it must be that that vile institution known as government, that greatest thief and murderer, must be torn down. And above all forms of government, democracy is the one most worthy of immediate destruction.

Democracy is worse than communism, fascism, theocracies, etc? :confused:

1. Should any of us be elected to any office, we shall immediately resign in protest against the government.

I'm a libertarian, and I will not waste my vote on someone who will simply resign after being elected. Few others will waste their votes in this way either.

Two, it is an incredibly visible sign of protest against the state which can only serve to diminish the belief that it can govern well.

It isn't a sign of protest. It is a sign over one's head saying "I'm a kook. Don't ever vote for my party again."

...eh?

The only issue is that many of the major wars of the 20th century had a lot to do with anti-democratic societies against more democratic societies where we have seen the non-democratic engage in more horrible brutalities than the more democratic. Even rulers have ideological interests. I really think that you over-estimate the good of the privately owned state as we have many examples of those gone bad.

So, the USSR had no ideological interests? If anything we see that the ideologies of the private state lead to greater brutalities as noted in the religious wars across europe in the age of private states. Really though, I don't think that the incentives are the same as you claim, democratic populaces have shown a dislike of unnecessary war in many cases, including the Vietnam war and the Iraq war going on today. Rulers easily can and would drive their people to war BECAUSE they don't carry the costs, they shift those costs on to their people which end up being expendable depending more on marginal value to them rather than the importance of those lives. We have had this discussion before and I really don't care about it, most of the world has seen the poor incentives of the privately owned state and tends to respond with more democracy to link public welfare to private welfare. There is no need responding to this last comment of mine given that we could continue this discussion until the end of time.

Greil considers nations such as Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communst China, ect. democracies.

Greil considers nations such as Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communst China, ect. democracies.
I consider them anti-democratic. Considering them democracies is purely self-delusion considering how these countries were not ruled by free elections. Even then it must be looked at the non-democratic nations involved with WWI. Really though, going against democracy seems to be a step backwards to me considering democracy's role in providing a good feedback mechanism between the masses and the rulers and how democracy allows for ideas to be cycled through.

Greil considers nations such as Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, ect. democracies.

Where does he say that? :confused:

Where does he say that? :confused:

He has said it in another thread where he and I had a long debate. I don't the name exactly, something to do with Republicans.

I consider them anti-democratic.

Ditto.

Whatever, even hardcore libertarian scholar Ludwig von Mises lauds democracy as a peace bringer, so I don't think that most thinkers in the libertarian tradition really have a problem with democracy.

"Because the division of labor requires undisturbed peace,
liberalism aims at the establishment of a system of government that
is likely to preserve peace, viz., democracy."

"For the sake of domestic peace liberalism aims at democratic
government. Democracy is therefore not a revolutionary institution.
On the contrary, it is the very means of preventing revolutions and
civil wars. It provides a method for the peaceful adjustment of government
to the will of the majority. When the men in office arid their
policies no longer please the majority of the nation, they will-in the
next election-be eliminated and replaced by other men espousing
different policies."

both quotes from Human Action btw.

The only issue is that many of the major wars of the 20th century had a lot to do with anti-democratic societies against more democratic societies where we have seen the non-democratic engage in more horrible brutalities than the more democratic. Even rulers have ideological interests. I really think that you over-estimate the good of the privately owned state as we have many examples of those gone bad.

But they would rein in their ideological interests when their practical interests were threatened. Unless they were crazy, but you can't really help having an idiot in office, democracy or privately owned state.

So, the USSR had no ideological interests? If anything we see that the ideologies of the private state lead to greater brutalities as noted in the religious wars across europe in the age of private states. Really though, I don't think that the incentives are the same as you claim, democratic populaces have shown a dislike of unnecessary war in many cases, including the Vietnam war and the Iraq war going on today. Rulers easily can and would drive their people to war BECAUSE they don't carry the costs, they shift those costs on to their people which end up being expendable depending more on marginal value to them rather than the importance of those lives. We have had this discussion before and I really don't care about it, most of the world has seen the poor incentives of the privately owned state and tends to respond with more democracy to link public welfare to private welfare. There is no need responding to this last comment of mine given that we could continue this discussion until the end of time.

No, I would say that the USSR is a public state too. Brezhnev could never have gone and sold the USSR to someone else, he's only a caretaker. A powerful one, but still a caretaker. And I distinctly recall the US engaging in war against the Spanish and the Mexicans unnecessarily, as well as occupying the Philippines for a good time. Democracies shift their costs onto the populace- all governments do. But the private state would have to suffer a capital depreciation from an unwise war where he could have applied resources elsewhere. The caretaker, if he's just in for four years, has no worry. I hardly think that there is any greater value of life to politicians in a democracy than in another kind of state- 3000 dead in Iraq, many more thousands dead in Vietnam and all the other places seem to say otherwise. But if you don't want to talk about it, fine, I won't (and really can't) make you.

Whatever, even hardcore libertarian scholar Ludwig von Mises lauds democracy as a peace bringer, so I don't think that most thinkers in the libertarian tradition really have a problem with democracy.

"Because the division of labor requires undisturbed peace,
liberalism aims at the establishment of a system of government that
is likely to preserve peace, viz., democracy."

"For the sake of domestic peace liberalism aims at democratic
government. Democracy is therefore not a revolutionary institution.
On the contrary, it is the very means of preventing revolutions and
civil wars. It provides a method for the peaceful adjustment of government
to the will of the majority. When the men in office arid their
policies no longer please the majority of the nation, they will-in the
next election-be eliminated and replaced by other men espousing
different policies."

both quotes from Human Action btw.

I like Hans-Hermann Hoppe take on democracy more. Besides, Mises, though great, was not an anarcho-capitalist.

I consider them anti-democratic. Considering them democracies is purely self-delusion considering how these countries were not ruled by free elections. Even then it must be looked at the non-democratic nations involved with WWI. Really though, going against democracy seems to be a step backwards to me considering democracy's role in providing a good feedback mechanism between the masses and the rulers and how democracy allows for ideas to be cycled through.

It doesn't matter if they're not ruled by free elections- the demagogues in Athens were not elected, but it would be foolish to not consider them democratic. All of these ideologies depend not on the ownership of the country by one person or persons, but as being some sort of "caretaker" of the people. They may not be liberal democracies, but they're democracies nonetheless.

Anyway, I am out of here. Not dealing with this, I don't think that most people will.

The caretaker, if he's just in for four years, has no worry. I hardly think that there is any greater value of life to politicians in a democracy than in another kind of state- 3000 dead in Iraq, many more thousands dead in Vietnam and all the other places seem to say otherwise. But if you don't want to talk about it, fine, I won't (and really can't) make you.

How about Western Europe? The last 60 years has been our golden age of democratic rule, and also the longest period of peace in recorded history.

How about Western Europe? The last 60 years has been our golden age of democratic rule, and also the longest period of peace in recorded history.

Well, you did go and bomb Serbia (with US help.) I'd hardly call that peaceful. And Europe has continued to intervene in the rest of the world after '45 (Vietnam and Algeria with the French, for example). The peace between Western European states themselves was moreso the result of freer trade, just as it was in the later 19th century.

Democracies shift their costs onto the populace- all governments do. But the private state would have to suffer a capital depreciation from an unwise war where he could have applied resources elsewhere. And what of wise wars? How would these be prevented?

And what of wise wars? How would these be prevented?

Well, that's a problem with the private state, that they have much more incentive to go to war because they can shift costs onto others. It's not that I love the private state and hate the public state- I hate both, but just the public state more. But one solution to make wars in general less wise is to increase interdependence through trade. That way, there would be increased cost in going to war (through loss of revenue and loss of trust for potential contracts) that would make wars less wise. But if we want war to be unwise, it is important that we must find a mechanism so that people cannot shift their costs onto others, like all states do.

No one is a member but me, I see. I guess my big-tent policy didn't work out so well.

Well, that's a problem with the private state, that they have much more incentive to go to war because they can shift costs onto others. It's not that I love the private state and hate the public state- I hate both, but just the public state more. But one solution to make wars in general less wise is to increase interdependence through trade. That way, there would be increased cost in going to war (through loss of revenue and loss of trust for potential contracts) that would make wars less wise. But if we want war to be unwise, it is important that we must find a mechanism so that people cannot shift their costs onto others, like all states do.But why trade if you can take what you're trading for by force? I think you underestimate the effect that low prices have against stands of principle (against militaristic nations, in this case).

No one is a member but me, I see. I guess my big-tent policy didn't work out so well.Big-tent policy... <giggle>

No one is a member but me, I see. I guess my big-tent policy didn't work out so well.

Eh, what the hell, I'll join.

But why trade if you can take what you're trading for by force? I think you underestimate the effect that low prices have against stands of principle (against militaristic nations, in this case).

Again, I'm not denying that any state would not attack regardless of trade- it's just that the losses from foregoing trade and losing trust in the long run are a cost that discourage violence. It may not be enough in certain cases (i.e. Kaiser Wilhelm II), but it's better than nothing, and it's what allowed for much of the peace and prosperity of the 19th century. I still would hold that having no state, and thus having any individual who commits crime face much more burdensome costs, would be a better system than a private state.

Big-tent policy... <giggle>

I don't discriminate- anyone can join! They just choose not to.

Eh, what the hell, I'll join.

Woohoo! You're my new favorite person! :D

Again, I'm not denying that any state would not attack regardless of trade- it's just that the losses from foregoing trade and losing trust in the long run are a cost that discourage violence. It may not be enough in certain cases (i.e. Kaiser Wilhelm II), but it's better than nothing, and it's what allowed for much of the peace and prosperity of the 19th century. I still would hold that having no state, and thus having any individual who commits crime face much more burdensome costs, would be a better system than a private state.I disagree, but I think I'll cease debating in this thread. ;)

I don't discriminate- anyone can join! They just choose not to.Fair enough.

Well, with the promise of a coming election (hopefully this time it will ACTUALLY come), I've decided to gravedig this thread. I'm not sure if it will attract more members, but the controversy will definitely make the election more interesting. :D

Woohoo! You're my new favorite person! :D

Yay! *dances*