NationStates Jolt Archive

For that matter, why is the French Revolution - which led to, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's words "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War" - so glorified, even though it was essentially a mass orgy of senseless torture, slaughter, and violence?

Gotta celebrate something.

I agree - celebrations are fun. :)

For fun?

For that matter, why is the French Revolution - which led to, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's words "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War" - so glorified, even though it was essentially a mass orgy of senseless torture, slaughter, and violence?

I'd celebrate any holiday if I get a paid day off work. Also... not all the things on your list are bad things to me. I kind of like Regicide, Egalitarianism, Democracy and the hatred of all religion.

I'd celebrate any holiday if I get a paid day off work. Also... not all the things on your list are bad things to me. I kind of like Regicide, Egalitarianism, Democracy and the hatred of all religion.

And I like regicide, egalitarianism, and democracy! Three great tastes that taste great together!

For that matter, why is the French Revolution - which led to, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's words "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War" - so glorified, even though it was essentially a mass orgy of senseless torture, slaughter, and violence?

It was [all of the above] in the name of the Republic, not the king.

For that matter, why is the French Revolution - which led to, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's words "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War" - so glorified, even though it was essentially a mass orgy of senseless torture, slaughter, and violence?

Er... what's wrong with democracy Egalitarianism, and even socialism? The others, yes, terrible, but even so, not all of those are terrible, or even bad.

its all about French identity and such, its there weird little patriotism fest

For that matter, why is the French Revolution - which led to, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's words "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War" - so glorified, even though it was essentially a mass orgy of senseless torture, slaughter, and violence?

Most of that isn't really that bad...in fact a lot of it is good.

its all about French identity and such, its there weird little patriotism fest

They need SOMETHING to celebrate. I mean, what else are they going to do? Have Treaty of Frankfurt Day? Dien Bien Phu Day? Vichy Day? Oh! Borodino Day!
They could have Orleans Day, but then the English might start celebrating Agincourt Day.

This post was a source of irrational embarrasment to me… so it's in white text now. You can still read it, if you must.

They need SOMETHING to celebrate. I mean, what else are they going to do? … Vichy Day?

They can celebrate Vichy all they want… just as long as they keep off'f our monumental territory... *glares threateningly*

Edit: Dear god! I got Vichy mixed up with Vimy! Oh well. My statement still stands. (or does it?)

Why did you read that, you nosy snooper?

The Revolution was the symbol of overthrowing capitalist and clergy privilege.

Because the event that it commemorates stands for the birth of the Republic... how is that hard to understand?

If you're going to make it a value judgement based upon bad behaviour, then you're still on to a loser in backing what stood before. Soldiers firing on civilians, the birth of imperialism, massive inequality in taxation, but, it seems, the lives of a few people with a lot of money are worth more than the lives of a lot of people with no money. The Terror is remembered as much more bloody than it actually was. Not that this makes it right, but, all being relative, it's certainly not worth harping on about.

it seems, the lives of a few people with a lot of money are worth more than the lives of a lot of people with no money.

Strawman.

The Terror is remembered as much more bloody than it actually was.

No, it isn't. If it was, it wouldn't be so glorified.

Not that this makes it right, but, all being relative, it's certainly not worth harping on about.

I suppose you would think differently if it had been a rightist revolution?

The terror is totally overemphasized and used by reactionaries to try and obfuscate the true message of the Revolution, which is overwhelmingly about the abolition of clergy and aristocracy privilege, it was about economic equality against a society in which wealth was horded by the ruling classes while the majority lived in squalor for over 50 years. The terror was necessary to eliminate the reactionary opportunist elements that were bent on using the instability to benefit economically etc.

The terror was necessary to eliminate the reactionary opportunist elements that were bent on using the instability to benefit economically etc.

You seem to be fine and dandy when your kind commit terrorism, but when others do it, you raise holy hell. Hypocrisy, much?

Politics and good PR,... hypocrisy is a pretty much SOP for lubing the gears of society.

You seem to be fine and dandy when your kind commit terrorism, but when others do it, you raise holy hell. Hypocrisy, much?

My Kind? you mean the common people right? It's always the elitist rich minorities who do these things.

They can do no wrong during the Tour as far as I'm concerned. As Bastille Day happens to fall on a very important day of the Tour, let it be celebrated throughout the country with enthusiasm and joy. They deserve it.

My Kind? you mean the common people right? It's always the elitist rich minorities who do these things.

No, I mean leftists. When you guys commit atrocities, it's all nice and peachy, but when others do, you get hysterical.

No, I mean leftists. When you guys commit atrocities, it's all nice and peachy, but when others do, you get hysterical.

Yes but by common logic, 'leftists' are the majority middle/lower classes, while the rich property owning minority upper classes are the 'rightists', so if that tiny group were to be persecuted or destroyed by the majority people, it would be justified as democratic because it is the common will, while if a 'rightist' minority does it it's a tiny minority destroying the majority classes.

Yes but by common logic, 'leftists' are the majority middle/lower classes, while the rich property owning minority upper classes are the 'rightists', so if that tiny group were to be persecuted or destroyed by the majority people, it would be justified as democratic because it is the common will, while if a 'rightist' minority does it it's a tiny minority destroying the majority classes.

Terrorism is terrorism, no matter who does it. Just because "the majority" supports it, doesn't make it right. If the majority of Germans had supported the Holocaust (oh, I forgot, you deny that it happened), would you support that?

i know this is an hour later, but i just have to have my say. The french (i have been to france, and unlike you americans, we scottish actually learn about the outside world) are very patriotic, and very proud of the fact that they are all equal. In fact, their president pays to stay in the palace. Back then, when the revolution took place, the royals were bleeding the puplic dry, taxing them more than they could afford, and then building castles like out of a fairytale. If that doesn't deserve a war, and if they don't deserve it too, who does?

Terrorism is terrorism, no matter who does it. Just because "the majority" supports it, doesn't make it right. If the majority of Germans had supported the Holocaust (oh, I forgot, you deny that it happened), would you support that?

Democracy is democracy, whether we think the will of the common people is 'morally justified' is irrelevant, under democracy the common people should rule and elite minorities should get power only comparative to their numbers.

i know this is an hour later, but i just have to have my say. The french (i have been to france, and unlike you americans, we scottish actually learn about the outside world) are very patriotic, and very proud of the fact that they are all equal. In fact, their president pays to stay in the palace. Back then, when the revolution took place, the royals were bleeding the puplic dry, taxing them more than they could afford, and then building castles like out of a fairytale. If that doesn't deserve a war, and if they don't deserve it too, who does?

I know quite a bit about the outside world. Mr. Scottsman, can YOU rattle off the names (in chronological order) of the Tsars of Russia starting with Ivan III? He wasnt TECHNICALLY Tsar of course, but that hardly matters.
Do try to think before you make rash generalizations about a nation with a population of three hundred million. Its all I can do to assume that most European countries arent full of clones for the way some of them act like everybody in a country is the same as the tourist they once saw on a bus somewhere.
In regards to the causes of the French Revolution, one cannot lay the blame soley on Louis. The nobility, clergy, and a series of unlucky events played a major part as well. A 'collision of history' as it were. Famine, war, the occasional idiot nobleman, an airheaded wife. Louis was a pawn of history, really. I feel rather sorry for him. He wasnt even an especially BAD king by the standards of the time, just not particularly smart, especially when compared to Louis XV.

You seem to be fine and dandy when your kind commit terrorism, but when others do it, you raise holy hell. Hypocrisy, much?I suggest doing yourself a favour and never, ever reading - yet alone replying to - any of Andaras Prime's 'Intellectual' equivalents of diarrhoea - it's much more pleasant to go through life without your brain bleeding from his...

His...

I lack the words, really. Will have to invent a new one.

Saying that something is a strawman doesn't make it so =/

The Terror claimed a few lives relative to the numbers killed several generations more recently in Paris when Thiers re-took the city for an elite, and yet the blood spilled in excess after the Revolution is more widely recalled than the greater quantities shed by ordinary people in 1871.

The Terror seems to be used to discourage anti-authoritarian sentiment in counter-weight to the still-remembered spirit of the Revolution. The Bastille is remembered because it represented the begining of the final act in the foundation of Republic, which, in a different form, constitutes the modern French state, but that we remember The Terror better than we remeber larger and more recent abuses in the other direction is deeply unsettling to me... or to any democrat.

March, march,
The blood of 'the blues'
Shall redden our furrows
Vive Libertie, Vive La Vendeé

so the french shouldnt celebrate bastille day because the revolution killed people?

hmmmm the US revolutionary war killed lots of people and we celebrate it every year.

the french revolution made france what it is today, its only right for them to celebrate that.

For that matter, why is the French Revolution - which led to, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's words "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War" - so glorified, even though it was essentially a mass orgy of senseless torture, slaughter, and violence?

For the same reason people celebrate Guy Fawkes day?

I don't think that most french people "celebrate" Bastille Day. In fact that's the term used outside France, the French call it the "14th of July" or "Fête Nationale".

http://www.uoregon.edu/~sschetzs/picturegallery/frogs.jpg

They celebrate the day they started a riot against a dictatorial king, and the very start of democracy. Napoleon messed it kinda up, but the principle was noble.

For the same reason people celebrate Guy Fawkes day?

But are we celebrating the attempt or the failure.;)

It's a celebration of French national identity much like Independence day in the US.

I'd celebrate "Russians beat us to space Day" if it meant I get a paid day off.

Saying that something is a strawman doesn't make it so =/

The Terror claimed a few lives relative to the numbers killed several generations more recently in Paris when Thiers re-took the city for an elite, and yet the blood spilled in excess after the Revolution is more widely recalled than the greater quantities shed by ordinary people in 1871.The estimates for the number killed in The Terror and fall of the Paris Commune seem to vary wildly. Depending on which figures you used you could claim that in either one more were killed or that the numbers killed were equal.

Besides, I don't understand why you're using the second President of the French Republic, who was politically opposed by royalists, as an example of aristocratic/royalist violence and massacre.

The Terror seems to be used to discourage anti-authoritarian sentiment in counter-weight to the still-remembered spirit of the Revolution. The Bastille is remembered because it represented the begining of the final act in the foundation of Republic, which, in a different form, constitutes the modern French state, but that we remember The Terror better than we remeber larger and more recent abuses in the other direction is deeply unsettling to me... or to any democrat.Oh, and please don't try to be overly sophisticated in the construction of your sentences. Few people manage it adequately, and you are not one of those few. My head hurts from trying to decipher what you mean.

the French Revolution - which led to, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's words "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War"

amazing how 'anarcho'-cappies toss in regicide and egalitarianism among the evils of the french revolution.

"oh, we're anarchists, but we would never oppose the king or inherited privilege. yay anarchy!"

come on guys, if you want our word, at least be vaguely plausible.

amazing how 'anarcho'-cappies toss in regicide and egalitarianism among the evils of the french revolution.

"oh, we're anarchists, but we would never oppose the king or inherited privilege. yay anarchy!"

come on guys, if you want our word, at least be vaguely plausible.

lol good point

from the point of view of neither the french revolutionaries did us a huge favor in doing away with the aristocracy.

if you find the british royal family annoying (and i do) imagine how much worse it would be to have a french royal family attention whoring every day?

For that matter, why is the French Revolution - which led to, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's words "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War" - so glorified, even though it was essentially a mass orgy of senseless torture, slaughter, and violence?

Well, it was that, still it was an improvement on the old regime.

For that matter, why is the French Revolution - which led to, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's words "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War" - so glorified, even though it was essentially a mass orgy of senseless torture, slaughter, and violence?

Yeah, 'cause glorifying violence is so unlike human nature. :rolleyes:

Why Bastille Day specifically? I don't know. It wasn't even the most important day in their revolution. I think that was the Oath of Tennis Court. However, I am glad they celebrate it. It was the premier event in French history, and a turning point for the world.

Why Bastille Day specifically? I don't know. It wasn't even the most important day in their revolution. I think that was the Oath of Tennis Court. However, I am glad they celebrate it. It was the premier event in French history, and a turning point for the world.

Symbolism. 4th of July became memorable with just as little justification.

For that matter, why is the French Revolution - which led to, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's words "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War" - so glorified, even though it was essentially a mass orgy of senseless torture, slaughter, and violence?

Kinda like the Fourth of July in the States then... right? Well, except that they didn't get to kill the royalty of Britain.

:D

I think that Bastille Day is completely overrated. So these miscreants rescued some forgers, a child molester and an aristocrat. Hardly anything noble. And, in fact, that revolution spawned gentricide and the destruction of the best part of humanity to favor the supposedly noble "common man" and his woeful inadequacies.

so the french shouldnt celebrate bastille day because the revolution killed people?

hmmmm the US revolutionary war killed lots of people and we celebrate it every year.

the french revolution made france what it is today, its only right for them to celebrate that.

The French Revolution was nothing more than a massive orgy of senseless torture, slaughter, looting, and violence.

amazing how 'anarcho'-cappies toss in regicide and egalitarianism among the evils of the french revolution.

"oh, we're anarchists, but we would never oppose the king or inherited privilege. yay anarchy!"

come on guys, if you want our word, at least be vaguely plausible.

Monarchy is bad, but not as bad as democracy. That's the point Hoppe was trying to make. And egalitarianism is a bad thing. It's reducing everyone to the lowest denominator, plain and simple. The idea that "everyone is equal," is, quite simply, a fallacy. For example, a child molester and a fire fighter are not equal.

Yeah, 'cause glorifying violence is so unlike human nature. :rolleyes:

Right, I forgot. Which is why warmonger Presidents are held in higher esteem than pro-peace Presidents.

Monarchy is bad, but not as bad as democracy.
You are basing this on what?
That's the point Hoppe was trying to make. And egalitarianism is a bad thing. It's reducing everyone to the lowest denominator, plain and simple. The idea that "everyone is equal," is, quite simply, a fallacy. For example, a child molester and a fire fighter are not equal.
It more tends to mean (in practise) everyone equal in the eyes of the law. We aren't talking complete communism here it was obviously more: lets not have our lives ruined while elites get to completely assfuck us. And the French revolution did not bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Nor has equality in most of the western world done that. The smarter people still will have a better chace of rising to the top (although some idoits do get a "helping" hand) which is more of the idea of it, uniting the lower class and bringing it up to par with the oppressor.
I think it is mainly celebrated because it brought Napoleon to power, and while his foreign policy was... well.. you know, his domestic reforms where impressive for the time period.

I think that Bastille Day is completely overrated. So these miscreants rescued some forgers, a child molester and an aristocrat. Hardly anything noble. And, in fact, that revolution spawned gentricide and the destruction of the best part of humanity to favor the supposedly noble "common man" and his woeful inadequacies.

You make me sick, 'the best part of humanity', that's sickening, just because of their capital worth and accident of birth that makes them better people? The majority should always rule, I for one support the destruction of the minority upper class.

You make me sick, 'the best part of humanity', that's sickening, just because of their capital worth and accident of birth that makes them better people? The majority should always rule, I for one support the destruction of the minority upper class.

...it wasn't just the upper class....

...it wasn't just the upper class....

Again, elitist minorities who had oppressed the majority using their control of the means of production, they deserved to die.
Arab Maghreb Union and others on NSG are nothing but elitists.

I used to know someone who was born on Bastille Day. Things didn't work out too well.

The estimates for the number killed in The Terror and fall of the Paris Commune seem to vary wildly. Depending on which figures you used you could claim that in either one more were killed or that the numbers killed were equal.

Besides, I don't understand why you're using the second President of the French Republic, who was politically opposed by royalists, as an example of aristocratic/royalist violence and massacre.

Oh, and please don't try to be overly sophisticated in the construction of your sentences. Few people manage it adequately, and you are not one of those few. My head hurts from trying to decipher what you mean.

Who said that I was using Thiers as an example of aristocratic/royalist violence? Other than yourself, I mean.

I was speaking of how it irks me that society at large gives more memory over to atrocities rising from what was briefly or partially a genuine leftist movement than to the brutality meted upon the majority -and the left especially- by the right.

Thiers doesn't have to be supported by royalty in order to be an agent against the left or a protector of minority interests at the expense of the majority. So he's a conservative to an aristocrat's reactionary, but that's neither here nor there when considering why I used that example.

The (1871) commune was just the first example that came to mind when considering the other side of things. When someone questioned the commemoration of the storming of the Bastille, I happened to wonder if it wouldn't be as well to celebrate the defiance of the communards.

But then that didn't come to much, since Thiers crushed it and the right got back on top again. And nobody cares except to cleverly observe that Thiers wasn't a king or such.

A parting question, though: who in the heck manages to adequetly construct overly sophisticated sentences? If you're going to try picking at my linguistics (not that there was much worth correcting, there) I dare say it'd pay to make a little more sense yourself.

Monarchy is bad, but not as bad as democracy.

Well, if you like exclusive unaccountable power at the expense of human freedom....

That's the point Hoppe was trying to make.

Then why not just say egalitarianism and democracy?

And egalitarianism is a bad thing. It's reducing everyone to the lowest denominator, plain and simple.

In a sense, yes--it's recognizing that all the nonsense people toss out to justify their privilege is, well, nonsense.

The idea that "everyone is equal," is, quite simply, a fallacy. For example, a child molester and a fire fighter are not equal.

That depends on the sort of "equality" you're talking about. Clearly they are not morally equal... but this is not the issue at hand, because it is not the sort of equality with which egalitarians are concerned. They both have the right to political equality and equality under the law.

Again, elitist minorities who had oppressed the majority using their control of the means of production, they deserved to die.
You should be careful with saying that sort of thing. I quite like Tolkien's "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

A parting question, though: who in the heck manages to adequetly construct overly sophisticated sentences? If you're going to try picking at my linguistics (not that there was much worth correcting, there) I dare say it'd pay to make a little more sense yourself.You seem to have perfectly understood my meaning, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. I may have mangled my grammar slightly, but I didn't do what you did. Which was to use 56 words in a sentence, such that it lost most of its meaning. Maybe you only missed a certain word out, but I can't figure out what word it was or were it was meant to be.

Who said that I was using Thiers as an example of aristocratic/royalist violence? Other than yourself, I mean. Well I'm sorry if I misunderstood your meaning, but you didn't exactly make it clear in your original statement. You were quite ambigous, so I had to make do trying to figure out what you meant from the context, which was a the Terrors - mass executions of aristocrats and peasants perpatrated by socialists and republicans.

I was speaking of how it irks me that society at large gives more memory over to atrocities rising from what was briefly or partially a genuine leftist movement than to the brutality meted upon the majority -and the left especially- by the right.

Thiers doesn't have to be supported by royalty in order to be an agent against the left or a protector of minority interests at the expense of the majority. So he's a conservative to an aristocrat's reactionary, but that's neither here nor there when considering why I used that example.

The (1871) commune was just the first example that came to mind when considering the other side of things. When someone questioned the commemoration of the storming of the Bastille, I happened to wonder if it wouldn't be as well to celebrate the defiance of the communards.

But then that didn't come to much, since Thiers crushed it and the right got back on top again. And nobody cares except to cleverly observe that Thiers wasn't a king or such.Thank you for clearing that up. I now understand your position, and it's quite understandable.

The French Revolution was basically a bloody civil war over power. The peasants and whatnot were angry that the royalty and church people and whatnot basically had all the power. Then, once the power was in the hands of the people, you had a power struggle. Some of the best people were executed, including the father of modern chemistry, what's-his-face.

Kinda funny how France is a liberal country compared to the relatively conservative United States, yet the American Revolution was over the basic human rights (the colonists were taxed without any consent or really any way to voice opposition, colonists could be jailed and punished for just about anything, they really couldn't voice opposition the Britain's policies, etc.) while the French Revolution was started because the French people continually starved in squallar while the powerful lived like kings. Only one really was one. The rest merely lived like kings. One fought over liberal (at the time) ideals while the other was fought over power and control, mostly over resources and power. What happened over the 2 and a quarter centuries?

The French Revolution was nothing more than a massive orgy of senseless torture, slaughter, looting, and violence.

you should probably read up on it then.

it was so much more.

You make me sick
You're certainly one to speak... perhaps people should quote you as well when you justify what ever killings you happen to support.

Well if the majority were to rise up and destroy their minority oppressors, it would be democratic and justified for years of class struggle. It wouldn't be me supporting them, it would be the common people.
I see. Makes so much more sense now.

You're certainly one to speak... perhaps people should quote you as well when you justify what ever killings you happen to support.

Well if the majority were to rise up and destroy their minority oppressors, it would be democratic and justified for years of class struggle. It wouldn't be me supporting them, it would be the common people.


Also, OP, you probably shouldn't quote Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the guy is a raving homophobe and reactionary responsible for such quotes as:

'the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.'

Source: http://blog.mises.org/hoppe/

Well if the majority were to rise up and destroy their minority oppressors, it would be democratic and justified for years of class struggle.

How would it be "justified for years of class struggle"?

But are we celebrating the attempt or the failure.;)

What's being celebrated is the failure and very messy execution of Guy Fawkes. I mean seriously, you burn the Guy every year, seems pretty self-explanatory.

Not to mention the torture of said Guy beforehand and the repression and persecution of Catholics generally....

you should probably read up on it then.

it was so much more.Indeed. He forgot about the rape and how it appropriated the entire imperialist agenda of the French Kings :D

You are basing this on what?

I'll leave it to men better than myself (or in this case, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Theory)) to explain it.

In Democracy: The God That Failed, Hoppe contrasts and compares dynastical monarchies with democratic republics. In his view, a dynastical monarch (king) is like the "owner" of a country, because it is passed on from generation to generation, whereas an elected president is like a "temporary caretaker" or "renter". Both the king and the president have an incentive to exploit the current use of the country for their own benefit. However, the king also has a counterbalancing interest in maintaining the long-term capital value of the nation, just as the owner of a house has an interest in maintaining its capital value (unlike a renter). Being temporary, democratically elected officials have every incentive to plunder the wealth of productive citizens as fast as possible.

Not to mention the torture of said Guy beforehand and the repression and persecution of Catholics generally....

I wonder why burning in effigy hasn't caught on here. Sounds like it could be kinda fun. :p

I'll leave it to men better than myself (or in this case, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Theory)) to explain it.

I guess it makes sense if your democratic representative can do anything they like without consequences, but most democracies demand at least a little accountability. :p

I guess it makes sense if your democratic representative can do anything they like without consequences, but most democracies demand at least a little accountability. :p

Demand, yes. Receive? Not so much. ;)

'the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.'

If this quote is accurate, it explains his contempt for egalitarianism.

It also demonstrates the contempt for liberty that turns up when so-called "libertarianism" morphs into the defense of aristocratic class privilege and social conservatism.

I wonder why burning in effigy hasn't caught on here. Sounds like it could be kinda fun. :p


Well, it depends on the climate it takes place in, I suppose. They still chuck a Pope on in one or two places in England, but I doubt may sit down and connected mentally "stuffed pope= That guy in rome" in many a year.

In NI, yes, they most certainly do.

I guess it makes sense if your democratic representative can do anything they like without consequences, but most democracies demand at least a little accountability. :pSo will Bush face any charges when he goes out of office? I really hope someone will at least indict him at The Hague.

i know this is an hour later, but i just have to have my say. The french (i have been to france, and unlike you americans, we scottish actually learn about the outside world) are very patriotic, and very proud of the fact that they are all equal. In fact, their president pays to stay in the palace. Back then, when the revolution took place, the royals were bleeding the puplic dry, taxing them more than they could afford, and then building castles like out of a fairytale. If that doesn't deserve a war, and if they don't deserve it too, who does?

Shut up, Mr. Scotsman. "Unlike you Americans..." Not all Americans are alike, you know. So, if you intend to continue these generalizations, there's a cozy place you can them. However, I do agree with your points.

You make me sick,

Hopefully sick enough to catch fever.

'the best part of humanity', that's sickening, just because of their capital worth and accident of birth that makes them better people? The majority should always rule, I for one support the destruction of the minority upper class.

Firstly, it wasn't just the nobles who died in the French revolution. Many tradesmen, middle-class and other skilled people died from the bloodthirsty mob. Much of the gentry came from families with histories of far-sightedness and prudence, hence where many of them got their capital from. This, of course, is completely in opposition to the mob's irrationality and hedonism; traits glorified by a world now dominated by people with such attitudes. To put such blind faith in the majority is the height of irrationality, as there is no guarantee that just because more people think one way that that way is at all true (see geocentrism in Galileo's day.) Putting the power in the hands of the mob does not result in freedom but the steady destruction of all that is good.

And yes, I am an elitist. You say it like it's a bad thing.

But are we celebrating the attempt or the failure.;)Guy Fawkes was Catholic. 'Nuff said. That is if you are also aware of the religous and political conflicts going on in England at that time

Guy Fawkes was Catholic. 'Nuff said. That is if you are also aware of the religous and political conflicts going on in England at that time

You people spoiling my fun with your logic and historical facts.

We burn effigies of the perpetrator but recreate what would've happened if he'd succeeded.

It also demonstrates the contempt for liberty that turns up when so-called "libertarianism" morphs into the defense of aristocratic class privilege and social conservatism.

do we have any examples of 'libertarians' that even vaguely approve of liberty? certainly not among the major players of their movement, but maybe some second tier guys?

do we have any examples of 'libertarians' that even vaguely approve of liberty? certainly not among the major players of their movement, but maybe some second tier guys?

Quite a few, in fact.

Hopefully sick enough to catch fever.



Firstly, it wasn't just the nobles who died in the French revolution. Many tradesmen, middle-class and other skilled people died from the bloodthirsty mob. Much of the gentry came from families with histories of far-sightedness and prudence, hence where many of them got their capital from. This, of course, is completely in opposition to the mob's irrationality and hedonism; traits glorified by a world now dominated by people with such attitudes. To put such blind faith in the majority is the height of irrationality, as there is no guarantee that just because more people think one way that that way is at all true (see geocentrism in Galileo's day.) Putting the power in the hands of the mob does not result in freedom but the steady destruction of all that is good.

And yes, I am an elitist. You say it like it's a bad thing.

Democracy in it's true form is majority rule, the common rule, if you don't support that you are anti-democratic and anti-populace.

do we have any examples of 'libertarians' that even vaguely approve of liberty? certainly not among the major players of their movement, but maybe some second tier guys?

How very nice of you to say that. Thank you for your uninformed input.

Democracy in it's true form is majority rule, the common rule

You mean tyranny by majority/mob rule.

if you don't support that you are anti-democratic

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Bleh. Why would we French people need to justify le 14 juillet ? Especially since it is not a celebration of la Prise de la Bastille, but of the Fête de la Fédération (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%AAte_de_la_F%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration), which is a celebration of the peaceful reunion of all the French people after the bloody events of the revolution and of the Prise de la Bastille. But not that you would now that, since a negatively and uneducated bias of the subject is apparently of more value to you than the actual truth, demonstrated by your use of the erroneous term : "Bastille Day".

We celebrate la Fête Nationale, because it is the symbol of the rebirth of France, from monarchy to republic, and of its centuries old individuality. I'm not much of a nationalist, but facing such dishonesty and ignorance, all I can say is : trouve toi un putain de livre d'histoire, renseigne toi, et après tu pourras ouvrir ta gueule.

And so as to end this post on a happy note, I shall now sing la Marseillaise, since I know very well that the kind of idiots that criticize France for the 14th of july celebrations or that actually believe the "France has no military victories" kind of bullshit instantly burst into flames of their own rage and self-hatred at its view.

Allons enfants de la Patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé !
Contre nous de la tyrannie,
L'étendard sanglant est levé, (bis)
Entendez-vous dans les campagnes
Mugir ces féroces soldats ?
Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras
Egorger vos fils, vos compagnes !

You mean tyranny by majority/mob rule.



You say that like it's a bad thing.

I find it disturbing that you refer to the common people as somehow less than human by calling them 'the mob', your upper class pompous bias is sickening.

I'll keep these quotes and links to remember that you oppose democracy and the rest.

Also, you have yet to reply to my Hoppe quote, do you support that quote of his?

'the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.'

I find it disturbing that you refer to the common people as somehow less than human by calling them 'the mob', your upper class pompous bias is sickening.

I said no such thing.

I'll keep these quotes and links to remember that you oppose democracy and the rest.

You do that. And I'll use some of your quotes endorsing genocide. ;)

Also, you have yet to reply to my Hoppe quote, do you support that quote of his?

No. I don't agree with Hoppe on everything, but I do agree with him on democracy.

Well then, refer to them as 'the majority' and not 'the mob'.

Again, elitist minorities who had oppressed the majority using their control of the means of production, they deserved to die.
Arab Maghreb Union and others on NSG are nothing but elitists.
*sighs*

Do you never get tired of this crap?

I'm a leftist, but you can't just ignore the deaths and/or justify them on stupid grounds that Marx himself would consider a betrayal of his original works.

They're not nothing but elitists, a great many of them are probably centrists who are sort of fed-up with your wannabe revolutionary rubbish.

For that matter, why is the French Revolution - which led to, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's words "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War" - so glorified, even though it was essentially a mass orgy of senseless torture, slaughter, and violence?

Because it is just to remember that, altough this world is still full of idiots like Hoppe, who equate "democracy" and "rape", there is still some hope that the forces of progress and democracy will smite down the ancien regime and its privilege-based society, to create a society based on equality, rights, freedom, solidarity.

Maybe Hoppe would like to be a subject of the Nazi Empire - oh noes, sorry, Hitler didn't have children so he couldn't create a dinasty. Too bad, Hoppe.;)


In Democracy: The God That Failed, Hoppe contrasts and compares dynastical monarchies with democratic republics. In his view, a dynastical monarch (king) is like the "owner" of a country, because it is passed on from generation to generation, whereas an elected president is like a "temporary caretaker" or "renter". Both the king and the president have an incentive to exploit the current use of the country for their own benefit. However, the king also has a counterbalancing interest in maintaining the long-term capital value of the nation, just as the owner of a house has an interest in maintaining its capital value (unlike a renter). Being temporary, democratically elected officials have every incentive to plunder the wealth of productive citizens as fast as possible.


So, unless wiki is totally wrong, this guy wants us to be OWNED by a king, and he claims that it would be better for us "plebeians".

Looks like Hoppe totally forgets (or tries to hide) the fact that the last 2500 years of Western history show that Dark Ages and decadence have always took place when republics and democratic rule fall, not when they are working. The transition from the Roman Republic to the Empire; the fall of Rome under the invasions of the barbarians (they carried the idea of the "owner-king"); Hitler's dictatorship replacing the German Republic; Lenin's and Trockij's Soviet Union becoming Stalin's dictatorship; the Italian Comuni of the Renaissance becoming Signorie...

Subject (as opposed to citizen) Hoppe also forgets that, under the sway of a king that "owns" the land like private property (hence, very different from, let's say, the scandinavian monarchies) he -very likely- wouldn't had the very chance to study and to be called professor, and paid as such.

Strikes me the coherence of this guy. Instead of living in -let's say- Nepal or Saudi Arabia (more or less absolutist monarchies), he lives and "works" in the USA, that is, A REPUBLIC BORN DURING ENLIGHTENMENT.

Also, the ignorant subject Hoppe forgets that even BEFORE the French Revolution there were murders, mass slaughters, rapes and military draft (Prussia, the "recruiters" of the British Navy, anyone?).
I fail to understand why military draft should be considered "evil" or "antiethical" if it's for the defense of the country, of course, but it is clear that a professional-only army is necessary to an "owner-king" to subdue the revolts of the oppressed populace.

Hence, since subject Hoppe wants us to be OWNED by a king, verily I say this unto him: "If thou want to get owned, this is what thou shalt get."

;)

We celebrate la Fête Nationale, because it is the symbol of the rebirth of France, from monarchy to republic, and of its centuries old individuality. I'm not much of a nationalist, but facing such dishonesty and ignorance, all I can say is : trouve toi un putain de livre d'histoire, renseigne toi, et après tu pourras ouvrir ta gueule.

(...)

Allons enfants de la Patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé !
Contre nous de la tyrannie,
L'étendard sanglant est levé, (bis)
Entendez-vous dans les campagnes
Mugir ces féroces soldats ?
Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras
Egorger vos fils, vos compagnes !


Que veut cette horde d'esclaves,
De traîtres, de rois conjurés ?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves
Ces fers dès longtemps préparés ? (bis)
Français, pour nous, ah! Quel outrage,
Quels transports il doit exciter !
C'est nous qu'on ose méditer
De rendre à l'antique esclavage !

I'd say that these verses (the second stanza) are even more appropriated.

As Italian and European, I feel that the 14 juillet is part of my own cultural heritage, and I embrace the values of the French Revolution.

Vive la Republique! And...

Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira
les aristocrates à la lanterne!
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira
les aristocrates on les pendra!

Hoppe obviously needs to read up also on what the reign of Louis the Sun King did to the majority of the population.

Quite a few, in fact.

who? rothbard wanted free markets in children, hoppe thinks monarchy is peachy, rand didn't think that homosexuals have to be rounded up and put in camps but she thought we should each individually treat them as if they had been, lew rockwell loves him some southern confederacy, ron paul thinks black people are all incredibly fleet-footed criminals, friedman the first was a fan of pinochet, etc. hmm, i can't remember anything particularly off with friedman the second, so maybe him?

who? rothbard wanted free markets in children, hoppe thinks monarchy is peachy, rand didn't think that homosexuals have to be rounded up and put in camps but she thought we should each individually treat them as if they had been, lew rockwell loves him some southern confederacy, ron paul thinks black people are all incredibly fleet-footed criminals, friedman the first was a fan of pinochet, etc. hmm, i can't remember anything particularly off with friedman the second, so maybe him?

Any evidence at all?

Rothbard stated that parental rights over children, and the only rights that could be traded, were trustee rights. The parent was responsible for handling the affairs of the child while the child was unable to handle them him/herself. Rothbard advocated a market in parental rights (not in definitive ownership of children, your wording is loaded and not entirely truthful.) as a matter of liberty, not as a restriction to it. Indeed I imagine you would be hard pressed to find any political theorist who has a theory of child right's that is palatable to the layman's common sense when considered consistently.

Hoppe is an anarcho-capitalist, but argues convincingly that monarchy would be less of a threat to liberty than would democracy. He doesn't think that monarchy is peachy, rather that it points out the deficiencies of democracy. Again, your wording is loaded and misleading.

Rand did not claim to be a libertarian and never uttered the sentiments that you place in her mouth.

Secession is a legitimate option for all those who support liberty, perhaps you wish to denounce Spooner's "No Treason" as anti-liberty? The unfortunate fact that secession is now invariably linked to slavery is not a knock on secession, but a knock on those moralizers who wish for secession to bear a negative connotation. Are you one of them?

And please don't lie about Friedman. Supporting economic reform does not equate to supporting the reformer, and you know that.

"Chilean economy did very well, but more important, in the end the central government, the military junta, was replaced by a democratic society. So the really important thing about the Chilean business is that free markets did work their way in bringing about a free society."
-Milton Friedman

Because it is just to remember that, altough this world is still full of idiots like Hoppe, who equate "democracy" and "rape",

He said no such thing.

there is still some hope that the forces of progress and democracy will smite down the ancien regime and its privilege-based society, to create a society based on equality, rights, freedom, solidarity.

Do you mean a society where everyone is reduced to the lowest common denominator, where individual rights are non-existent, and where everyone is slave to their commune? No, thanks.

Maybe Hoppe would like to be a subject of the Nazi Empire - oh noes, sorry, Hitler didn't have children so he couldn't create a dinasty. Too bad, Hoppe.;)

This is such a blatantly false and stupid strawman it doesn't even merit any effort refutating it.

So, unless wiki is totally wrong, this guy wants us to be OWNED by a king,

Thanks for lying.

and he claims that it would be better for us "plebeians".

Your words, not his.

Looks like Hoppe totally forgets (or tries to hide) the fact that the last 2500 years of Western history show that Dark Ages and decadence have always took place when republics and democratic rule fall

They also occur when those things "succeed."

Subject (as opposed to citizen) Hoppe also forgets that, under the sway of a king that "owns" the land like private property (hence, very different from, let's say, the scandinavian monarchies) he -very likely- wouldn't had the very chance to study and to be called professor, and paid as such.

Prove it.

Strikes me the coherence of this guy. Instead of living in -let's say- Nepal or Saudi Arabia (more or less absolutist monarchies), he lives and "works" in the USA, that is, A REPUBLIC BORN DURING ENLIGHTENMENT.

He doesn't support absolute monarchies. Anymore strawmen?

Also, the ignorant subject Hoppe forgets that even BEFORE the French Revolution there were murders, mass slaughters, rapes and military draft (Prussia, the "recruiters" of the British Navy, anyone?).

He never said there wasn't. Please, stop making things up.

I fail to understand why military draft should be considered "evil" or "antiethical" if it's for the defense of the country

Conscription is slavery, plain and simple.

of course, but it is clear that a professional-only army is necessary to an "owner-king" to subdue the revolts of the oppressed populace.

?

Hence, since subject Hoppe wants us to be OWNED by a king, verily I say this unto him: "If thou want to get owned, this is what thou shalt get." ;)

Except that he doesn't. Thanks for lying.

You do understand right that the enlightenment and French Revolution created the concepts of human rights over upper-class privilege, equality, humanitarianism and everything that the modern West is based upon, stop being such a reactionary.

who? rothbard wanted free markets in children, hoppe thinks monarchy is peachy, rand didn't think that homosexuals have to be rounded up and put in camps but she thought we should each individually treat them as if they had been, lew rockwell loves him some southern confederacy, ron paul thinks black people are all incredibly fleet-footed criminals, friedman the first was a fan of pinochet, etc. hmm, i can't remember anything particularly off with friedman the second, so maybe him?

Is that all you can do is troll and dispense strawmen?

You do understand right that the enlightenment and French Revolution created the concepts of human rights over upper-class privilege, equality, humanitarianism and everything that the modern West is based upon, stop being such a reactionary.

This coming from an Ahmadinejad sycophant. Oh, the irony.

Democracy in it's true form is majority rule, the common rule, if you don't support that you are anti-democratic and anti-populace.

At my core I am simply anti-irrationality. Since democracy is founded upon the idea that majority rule is true, an institutionalization of the argumentum ad populum, it is inherently irrational. If that entails being anti-democratic and anti-"populace" (i.e. against the hedonistic and destructive tendencies of the masses), then so be it.

an institutionalization of the argumentum ad populum

The functional equivalent of this is true of all political power.

The functional equivalent of this is true of all political power.

In what sense? All political power is fallacious, but I'm not quite sure they're fallacious by way of argumentum ad populum.

He said no such thing.

He did. In the very sentence you quoted. Democracy and rape, according to subject Hoppe, are two of the despisable byproducts of the French revolution.
see the original text:
http://www.jf-archiv.de/archiv05/200526062409.htm


Do you mean a society where everyone is reduced to the lowest common denominator, where individual rights are non-existent, and where everyone is slave to their commune? No, thanks.
Your choice to live as a slave of the king.


This is such a blatantly false and stupid strawman it doesn't even merit any effort refutating it.

Thanks for lying.

Thanks for the flaming, subject. It is the last resort of those who cannot answer with rational arguments - thus proving that their ideas have fragile bases, indeed.


Your words, not his.

My extrapolation of his words. Then again, he might be claiming what we should be owned (because he claims that an owner-king is a better ruler, and THAT'S A FACT) for our own evil instead that for our own good. I was really trying to take his -well, let's say so- "thought" on the bright side, but if you want to claim that he's such a jerk... well, suit yourself, he's your favoured political thinker after all, not mine.


They also occur when those things "succeed."

So, there is NO correlation. This disproves subject Hoppe's argument - and yours, by the way.


Prove it.

Go read the figures about illiteracy of let's say - pre-revolutionary France.
Proved.


Also

Does he ever lived in Saudi Arabia or Nepal?
No. from wiki, subject Hoppe's biography:

Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Born September 2, 1949 (1949-09-02) (age 57) Peine, Germany
Residence US
Nationality German
Institutions UNLV

Hans-Hermann Hoppe (born September 2, 1949) is an Austrian school economist, an anarcho-capitalist (libertarian) philosopher, and a professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Academic career
Born in Peine, West Germany, he attended the Universität des Saarlandes in Saarbrücken, and the Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, studying philosophy, sociology, history, and economics. He earned his Ph.D. (Philosophy, 1974) and his Habilitation (Foundations of Sociology and Economics, 1981), both from the Goethe-Universität. He was a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor from 1976 to 1978.

He taught at several German universities as well as at the Johns Hopkins University Bologna Center for Advanced International Studies, Bologna, Italy. In 1986, he moved from Germany to the United States, to study under Murray Rothbard. He remained a close associate until Rothbard's death in January 1995.

Hoppe is currently Professor of Economics at University of Nevada, Las Vegas (...)



He doesn't support absolute monarchies. Anymore strawmen?

He does. He claims that a dinasty of owner-kings rules a country better than a democratically elected government, because the owner-kings have personal interest in ruling better. So, he DOES support absolute monarchies - that is, a monarchy without an elected government. If you can't read AND understand what you post, your loss.


He never said there wasn't. Please, stop making things up.

So, again, THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND LOSS OF CIVILIZATION, which is exactly my point, while subject Hoppe's is that there is a correlation between democracy (or "mob rule" as he calls it, in a rendering of the correct greek term "oklocracy" iirc) and loss of civilization/liberties.


Conscription is slavery, plain and simple.

And defending one's country is a DUTY of every citizen. If you don't want to have to defend your country, you should abandon your citizenship and become an apolid. No one will ask you to defend your country, no country will defend you.
You cannot expect other people to risk their hides to protect you if you aren't willing to do the same to protect them.


?

Just what I said. An army, expecially a non-drafted one, can also be used as a political repression tool.

Except that he doesn't. Thanks for lying.
again, wiki:
In Democracy: The God That Failed, Hoppe contrasts and compares dynastical monarchies with democratic republics. In his view, a dynastical monarch (king) is like the "owner" of a country, because it is passed on from generation to generation, whereas an elected president is like a "temporary caretaker" or "renter". Both the king and the president have an incentive to exploit the current use of the country for their own benefit. However, the king also has a counterbalancing interest in maintaining the long-term capital value of the nation, just as the owner of a house has an interest in maintaining its capital value (unlike a renter). Being temporary, democratically elected officials have every incentive to plunder the wealth of productive citizens as fast as possible.

So, if you want to blame someone for lying, blame Wikipedia. I'm sure they're waiting you to understand better subject Hoppe's work. *nod*

Since I am a part of the country, I am part of the owner-king's capital value, in subject Hoppe's view.
I refuse to be considered as a "capital", because I am a "person" (hence, carrier of inalienable rights) and a "citizen" (hence, a co-ruler).

Again, thanks for flaming. I'm sure that now everybody listens to you. *nod*

Btw, your signature really makes me rofl. You clearly don't even know what the Sozis of the Weimarer Republik thought about Hitler, or what Hitler did after being given full powers by the Enabling Act.

"Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War"I most certainly do not approve of "terror measures, rape and murder, military draft and... War." But six out of ten ain't bad:p

The French Revolution was a very complicated set of events. It encompasses many opposing interests and actors. Some of them are worth celebrating, others ought to be reviled. At least most of us shall agree that the deathblow that the Great French Revolution had dealt to the aincien regime ought to be celebrated.

Viva La Revolucion!

"Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War"
I support the bolded text.

I support the bolded text.

Eh. I don't really see how hatred of anything is helpful. And of course, socialism is a complete dead-end.. :p

You do understand right that the enlightenment and French Revolution created the concepts of human rights over upper-class privilege, equality, humanitarianism and everything that the modern West is based upon, stop being such a reactionary.

what about the Levellers Manifesto

what about the Levellers Manifesto

Sorry, but weren't the Levellers like English Civil War?

what about the Levellers Manifesto

Is it on the level?

Hehe. :p Sorry.

For that matter, why is the French Revolution - which led to, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's words "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War" - so glorified, even though it was essentially a mass orgy of senseless torture, slaughter, and violence?

Is it glorified? I mean, it's a period in French history remembered as "The Terror". That doesn't seem overwhelmingly positive.

Sorry, but weren't the Levellers like English Civil War?

yes
This manifesto for constitutional reform in Britain paved the way for many of the civil liberties we cherish today: universal vote, the right to silence in the dock, equal parliamentary constituencies, everyone being equal under the law, the right not to be conscripted into the army, and many others. This particular version was smuggled out of the Tower of London, where Lilburne and the others were being held captive. All Leveller soldiers, and they were the majority in many regiments, carried this agreement proudly tucked into their hat-band. The Constitution Society

The Levellers were also socialists too I believe, or at the least they believed in common ownership.

At my core I am simply anti-irrationality. Since democracy is founded upon the idea that majority rule is true, an institutionalization of the argumentum ad populum, it is inherently irrational. If that entails being anti-democratic and anti-"populace" (i.e. against the hedonistic and destructive tendencies of the masses), then so be it.

In abstracto, a perfect enlightened despotism is the ideal system of government. In reality, you have the same chance of finding a perfect enlightened despot than a snowball in a supernova.

Hence, history and human imperfection have led us to settle for a compromise called democracy: it is not the most perfect system of government, but it is the best system to avoid civil wars. Rule of the majority with respect of the minority granted by fundamental laws and principles, that is.

In abstracto, a perfect enlightened despotism is the ideal system of government. In reality, you have the same chance of finding a perfect enlightened despot than a snowball in a supernova.

Hence, history and human imperfection have led us to settle for a compromise called democracy: it is not the most perfect system of government, but it is the best system to avoid civil wars. Rule of the majority with respect of the minority granted by fundamental laws and principles, that is.

Rule of the majority with respect of minority rights is a fantasy. Guess who is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the rights of the minority? (Hint: Not the minority.) Checks and balances merely encourage cooperation between the branches of government to exploit the population, and constitutions are glorified pieces of paper, seeing as how the ones who are in charge of upholding the Constitution are also the majority. Democracy simply provides an outlet for the majority to exploit the minority under the guise of "the will of the people" and an all-powerful system of functional privilege that crushes the law of private citizens. All that democracy has done is make plundering fuss-free, not freed anyone. In fact, it might be better to have civil war, seeing as how physical retribution is one of the few credible ways to protect liberty, whereas going through the ritual of checking a box every year is simply the conning of oneself.

The Levellers were also socialists too I believe, or at the least they believed in common ownership.

Could have sworn they were a band too....

All political power is fallacious, but I'm not quite sure they're fallacious by way of argumentum ad populum.

They're not... but they're fallacious for basically the same reason, a conflation of "is" and "ought."

The fact that the majority decides to do something does not mean that it is right.

The fact that a minority decides to do something does not mean that it is right.

The fact that a monarch decides to do something does not mean that it is right.

The fact that a private security company decides to do something does not mean that it is right.

The fact that any institution, whatever its governing system, decides to do something does not mean that it is right.

You can hardly say that we should abandon democracy for a failure of it that is common to every other conceivable political system.

For that matter, why is the French Revolution - which led to, in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's words "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War" - so glorified, even though it was essentially a mass orgy of senseless torture, slaughter, and violence?

Most of that came later. The storming of the Bastille was one of those "enough is enough" moments. The crap that came later was just what happens when idiots let evil people take charge. Most revolutions are followed by crap like that.

They're not... but they're fallacious for basically the same reason, a conflation of "is" and "ought."

The fact that the majority decides to do something does not mean that it is right.

The fact that a minority decides to do something does not mean that it is right.

The fact that a monarch decides to do something does not mean that it is right.

The fact that a private security company decides to do something does not mean that it is right.

The fact that any institution, whatever its governing system, decides to do something does not mean that it is right.

You can hardly say that we should abandon democracy for a failure of it that is common to every other conceivable political system.

Well, I really can't argue with what you're saying. The only justifiable system would be one that recognizes the inalienability of the will and all that is implied with that notion.

Greill and others don't seem to realize that their isn't many examples of majoritarian direct democracies doing bad things, except maybe the Athenian Empire, when on the other side of the coin their are plenty of examples of even enlightenment despotism or party minority dictatorships going out of rational control in office.

Greill and others don't seem to realize that their isn't many examples of majoritarian direct democracies doing bad things, except maybe the Athenian Empire, when on the other side of the coin their are plenty of examples of even enlightenment despotism or party minority dictatorships going out of rational control in office.

I am not wishing to defend monarchy, but how many direct democracies have existed?

Greill and others don't seem to realize that their isn't many examples of majoritarian direct democracies doing bad things, except maybe the Athenian Empire, when on the other side of the coin their are plenty of examples of even enlightenment despotism or party minority dictatorships going out of rational control in office.

Actually, of what few majoritarian direct democracies have existed, they have been rather shitty. Athens, as you mentioned, is one example- especially in light of the fact that the idiot mob put Socrates, one of the greatest minds in history, to death. The Spanish communes would put people to death for using money (though you've demonstrated the joy you feel at thinking of mass murder.) And in the United States, states with direct democracy such as California have had heavy financial burden foisted onto them by the rapacious tendencies of the mob.

Also, do not conflate party minority dictatorships with enlightened despotism. Party minority dictatorships play to egalitarianism, identitarianism and materialism, just like any other system that plays upon the idiocy of the masses. For all the flaws of monarchies and aristocracies, their foundation upon private rights are entirely antithetical to such vile concepts.

I think that Bastille Day is completely overrated. So these miscreants rescued some forgers, a child molester and an aristocrat. Hardly anything noble. And, in fact, that revolution spawned gentricide and the destruction of the best part of humanity to favor the supposedly noble "common man" and his woeful inadequacies.

Hmm.

I think a little Rousseau quotage is in order. I think he understands the "best part of humanity" better than you, since he lived then.

"It is impossible that men should not at length have reflected on so wretched a situation, and on the calamities that overwhelmed them. The rich, in particular, must have felt how much they suffered by a constant state of war, of which they bore all the expense; and in which, though all risked their lives, they alone risked their property. Besides, however speciously they might disguise their usurpations, they knew that they were founded on precarious and false titles; so that, if others took from them by force what they themselves had gained by force, they would have no reason to complain. Even those who had been enriched by their own industry, could hardly base their proprietorship on better claims. It was in vain to repeat, "I built this well; I gained this spot by my industry." Who gave you your standing, it might be answered, and what right have you to demand payment of us for doing what we never asked you to do? Do you not know that numbers of your fellow-creatures are starving, for want of what you havein excess? You ought to have had the express and universal consent of mankind, before appropriating more of the common subsistence than you needed for your own maintenance. Destitute of valid reasons to justify and sufficient strength to defend himself, able to crush individuals with ease, but easily crushed himself by a troop of bandits, one against all, and incapable, on account of mutual jealousy, of joining with his equals against numerous enemies united by the common hope of plunder, the rich man, thus urged by necessity, conceived at length the profoundest plan that ever entered the mind of man: this was to employ in his favour the forces of those who attacked him, to make allies of his adversaries, to inspire them with different maxims, and to give them other institutions as favourable to himself as the law of nature was unfavourable.

With this view, after having represented to his neighbours the horror of a situation which armed every man against the rest, and made their possessions as burdensome to them as their wants, and in which no safety could be expected either in riches or in poverty, he readily devised plausible arguments to make them close with his design. "Let us join," said he, "to guard the weak from oppression, to restrain the ambitious, and secure to every man the possession of what belongs to him: let us institute rules of justice and peace, to which all without exception may be obliged to conform; rules that may in some measure make amends for the caprices of fortune, by subjecting equally the powerful and the weak to the observance of reciprocal obligations. Let us, in a word, instead of turning our forces against ourselves, collect them in a supreme power which may govern us by wise laws, protect and defend all the members of the association, repulse their common enemies, and maintain eternal harmony among us."

Far fewer words to this purpose would have been enough to impose on men so barbarous and easily seduced; especially as they had too many disputes among themselves to do without arbitrators, and too much ambition and avarice to go long without masters. All ran headlong to their chains, in hopes of securing their liberty; for they had just wit enough to perceive the advantages of political institutions, without experience enough to enable them to foresee the dangers. The most capable of foreseeing the dangers were the very persons who expected to benefit by them; and even the most prudent judged it not inexpedient to sacrifice one part of their freedom to ensure the rest; as a wounded man has his arm cut off to save the rest of his body.

Such was, or may well have been, the origin of society and law, which bound new fetters on the poor, and gave new powers to the rich; which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality, converted clever usurpation into unalterable right, and, for the advantage of a few ambitious individuals, subjected all mankind to perpetual labour, slavery and wretchedness. It is easy to see how the establishment of one community made that of all the rest necessary, and how, in order to make head against united forces, the rest of mankind had to unite in turn. Societies soon multiplied and spread over the face of the earth, till hardly a corner of the world was left in which a man could escape the yoke, and withdraw his head from beneath the sword which he saw perpetually hanging over him by a thread. Civil right having thus become the common rule among the members of each community, the law of nature maintained its place only between different communities, where, under the name of the right of nations, it was qualified by certain tacit conventions, in order to make commerce practicable, and serve as a substitute for natural compassion, which lost, when applied to societies, almost all the influence it had over individuals, and survived no longer except in some great cosmopolitan spirits, who, breaking down the imaginary barriers that separate different peoples, follow the example of our Sovereign Creator, and include the whole human race in their benevolence."

I am not wishing to defend monarchy, but how many direct democracies have existed?

Switzerland comes close as the government can be forced to hold a referendum on any decision if enough signatures can be collected. Democratic Peace theory isn't infallible, but it's a very good rule of thumb.

It is celebrated as the start of a trend, the first revolution, and like all revolutions it has gone round and round...

Bastille day is celebrated because it was at bastille were the peasants of france released the prisoners & stole the french armys weapons & started its revoultion against monarchy.why shouldnt it be celebrated

I am not wishing to defend monarchy, but how many direct democracies have existed?
Ermm the Worker's Councils in Germany in 1918 in some of the services such as shipping etc. were probably the closest we got to that.

The Red Army for about 9 minutes or something, too, before it was realised that privates with no military experience made exceptionally poor leaders, and since this constitutes the great mass of a conscripted army, this was inevitably what occurred.

Hence Trotsky's reforms.