"After the collapse of our civilization there must be one of two things: either the whole of it will perish like the ancient civilizations, or it will adapt itself to a decentralized world.
It rests with us, not to break up the centralization (for it automatically goes on increasing like a snowball until the catastrophe comes), but to prepare for the future." - Simone Weil
I don't exactly know when this was written, but it must've been written before the high phase of the Second World War (the collapse of our civilization). The author handed notes which contained this phrase to a friend in mai 1942 and died in august 1943.
That’s a great quote. I don’t view it as “capitalism” collapsing, but the state and the civilization built around it collapsing. Capitalism lives on wherever people voluntarily cooperate and transact within a framework that recognizes private property rights. I think as things get worse, there will be pockets of freedom that continue to grow. This is why I’m pessimistic short to medium term and optimistic medium to long term
Capitalism did collapse during the world financial crysis in 08/09, although that collapse was cushioned by the tax payers. The collapse got delayed but not nulified. Before the nazis came to power there were also two severe economic crysis in the 20s where people lost all their savings and hat to go to the bakery with a wheelbarrow full of money to buy some bread. The ever ongoing tendency for wealth to centralize/concetrate in the hands of few will at some point have its price.
I mean capitalism is likely not to die out completely. There are some great things about it. But there must be better protection from peoples greed, like more decentralization. Maybe that's where crypto can have a good big impact.
I think that’s debatable. It may be the best statist or centralized system available. I think Hoppe made a great case for why Monarchy, although it definitely isn’t the best option, would preserve individual liberty more effectively than Democracy. Under the former system, there’s no doubts about who the state serves or who is to blame for bad outcomes and it’s obvious who the nobles work for. Under the latter system, blame can always be shifted to the voters and politicians can claim that they’re public servants carrying out the will of the voters. Regardless, it’s clear that Democracy inevitably results in tyranny.
I can’t remember which but either Plato or Socrates said that tyranny was the child of democracy and democracy was the child of oligarchy. I tend to agree.
I feel like monarchy has the same paradox that you mentioned in the video. The people who seek that kind of power are unlikely to willingly give it up.
I’m definitely not claiming that rulers under monarchy would be of a finer character. That would essentially be the same. The ruler(s) just wouldn’t be able to feign “public service” or hide behind the ostensible “will” of the voters as they govern.
Also, since monarchs typically have lifetime rulership, there’s a greater incentive to lengthen time preference and keep taxes lower in order to keep the public more complacent so they stay where they are and the monarch can pass their kingdom on to an heir. This would also incentivize less national debt. Under the current system, politicians make incredibly risking decisions and milk as much as they can from the system in the short time they have because of high time preferences that come with terms. Under the current system, politicians don’t care how much the debt goes up because they’ll be out with their millions by the time it comes to a head.
I think it's important to be aware of the fact that power was distributed by heritage in monarchy. So people either had it or not, there was no incentive to seek it. We humans are ultimately corruptible by power. In the poems of the lord of the rings the ring of power was denied by the wise mage and handed to the person who wanted it least and could do least with it. I think there is some actual wisdom in the poem:
the person carrying the ring of power (Frodo) didn't want to have it, he saw it as a burden, while many others desired to have it for its powers and yet were regarded incompatible for it exactly because of their desire for it. this was true even for the wisest and most powerful sages in the poems. also, if the races in the lord of the rings represent different social classes, the guy who was best suited to carry the power was from normal, easy folks, his people were far away peasants who neither cared nor were involved in world politics.
It is a regular pattern in human history that the rich and powerful disregard ordinary workers or peasants. From Martin Luther, the great hero of the Reformation, who advised the princes to beat out the peasants' striving for freedom rights as one would beat a rabid dog, to Lenin, the great hero of socialism, who wrote the following:
“The peasant must suffer a little hunger in order thereby to save the factories and the cities from starvation. On a national scale, this is a perfectly understandable thing; but we do not expect the fragmented, impoverished farmer to understand it. And we know that we will not be able to manage without coercion - without coercion, to which the impoverished peasantry will react very violently.” These lines are also a precursor to the Holodomor under Stalin...
In an old fashioned monarchy, power was determined by heritage, not by any voters will. So the people who seeked power had to do it somewhere else, not in the political system. There is a reason for why the feudal age lasted so much longer than our western civilization is likely to last. We already had the most severe world wars in the entire human history and this is not merely reducible to the fact that we own the most devastating weapons in human history.
The chances for a government or monarchy to actually serve the peoples will was still kinda random though. I believe it was more likely than in our times today, but still subject to randomness and ultimately the people who were striving for power found their way (through institutionalized christian religion, for example, lol).
I find it astonishing how much we are being lied to without anyone noticing. I'm a German citizen and one foundational law in the constitution is "The power of the state emanates from the people."
This is so obviously not the case. The reality is, that the power of the state emanates from the state itself. The state only receives its legitimization from the people. But there are actual state politicians who receive the power from the people and act on their behalf. This leads to the distinction, where the actual power of the people is equal to zero, since there is absolutely no way for them to make their own political decisions. In order for a person to be able to contribute towards political decision making this person needs to become part of the state. I personally find this mechanism horrible. Power is ceded by the people, thus creating a ruling class (the state politicians) and a ruled class (the people)...
We must, emphasize that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people.1 But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.2 No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that “we are all part of one another,” must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.
Ehronatha@reddit
"Freedom of Opinion, but no Freedom of Choice"
LeavesOfOneTree@reddit
Pretty interesting. Not sure what the inflection point will be to get quality people to run for office but hopefully it happens soon.
PaulTheMartian@reddit (OP)
Power naturally attracts the worst people. I don’t see it getting better any time soon
fonzane@reddit
"After the collapse of our civilization there must be one of two things: either the whole of it will perish like the ancient civilizations, or it will adapt itself to a decentralized world.
It rests with us, not to break up the centralization (for it automatically goes on increasing like a snowball until the catastrophe comes), but to prepare for the future." - Simone Weil
I don't exactly know when this was written, but it must've been written before the high phase of the Second World War (the collapse of our civilization). The author handed notes which contained this phrase to a friend in mai 1942 and died in august 1943.
PaulTheMartian@reddit (OP)
That’s a great quote. I don’t view it as “capitalism” collapsing, but the state and the civilization built around it collapsing. Capitalism lives on wherever people voluntarily cooperate and transact within a framework that recognizes private property rights. I think as things get worse, there will be pockets of freedom that continue to grow. This is why I’m pessimistic short to medium term and optimistic medium to long term
fonzane@reddit
Capitalism did collapse during the world financial crysis in 08/09, although that collapse was cushioned by the tax payers. The collapse got delayed but not nulified. Before the nazis came to power there were also two severe economic crysis in the 20s where people lost all their savings and hat to go to the bakery with a wheelbarrow full of money to buy some bread. The ever ongoing tendency for wealth to centralize/concetrate in the hands of few will at some point have its price.
I mean capitalism is likely not to die out completely. There are some great things about it. But there must be better protection from peoples greed, like more decentralization. Maybe that's where crypto can have a good big impact.
Grumblepugs2000@reddit
Unfortunately it's the best imperfect system we have of all the imperfect systems available
PaulTheMartian@reddit (OP)
I think that’s debatable. It may be the best statist or centralized system available. I think Hoppe made a great case for why Monarchy, although it definitely isn’t the best option, would preserve individual liberty more effectively than Democracy. Under the former system, there’s no doubts about who the state serves or who is to blame for bad outcomes and it’s obvious who the nobles work for. Under the latter system, blame can always be shifted to the voters and politicians can claim that they’re public servants carrying out the will of the voters. Regardless, it’s clear that Democracy inevitably results in tyranny.
I can’t remember which but either Plato or Socrates said that tyranny was the child of democracy and democracy was the child of oligarchy. I tend to agree.
Subtle_Demise@reddit
I feel like monarchy has the same paradox that you mentioned in the video. The people who seek that kind of power are unlikely to willingly give it up.
PaulTheMartian@reddit (OP)
I’m definitely not claiming that rulers under monarchy would be of a finer character. That would essentially be the same. The ruler(s) just wouldn’t be able to feign “public service” or hide behind the ostensible “will” of the voters as they govern.
Also, since monarchs typically have lifetime rulership, there’s a greater incentive to lengthen time preference and keep taxes lower in order to keep the public more complacent so they stay where they are and the monarch can pass their kingdom on to an heir. This would also incentivize less national debt. Under the current system, politicians make incredibly risking decisions and milk as much as they can from the system in the short time they have because of high time preferences that come with terms. Under the current system, politicians don’t care how much the debt goes up because they’ll be out with their millions by the time it comes to a head.
fonzane@reddit
I think it's important to be aware of the fact that power was distributed by heritage in monarchy. So people either had it or not, there was no incentive to seek it. We humans are ultimately corruptible by power. In the poems of the lord of the rings the ring of power was denied by the wise mage and handed to the person who wanted it least and could do least with it. I think there is some actual wisdom in the poem:
the person carrying the ring of power (Frodo) didn't want to have it, he saw it as a burden, while many others desired to have it for its powers and yet were regarded incompatible for it exactly because of their desire for it. this was true even for the wisest and most powerful sages in the poems. also, if the races in the lord of the rings represent different social classes, the guy who was best suited to carry the power was from normal, easy folks, his people were far away peasants who neither cared nor were involved in world politics.
It is a regular pattern in human history that the rich and powerful disregard ordinary workers or peasants. From Martin Luther, the great hero of the Reformation, who advised the princes to beat out the peasants' striving for freedom rights as one would beat a rabid dog, to Lenin, the great hero of socialism, who wrote the following:
“The peasant must suffer a little hunger in order thereby to save the factories and the cities from starvation. On a national scale, this is a perfectly understandable thing; but we do not expect the fragmented, impoverished farmer to understand it. And we know that we will not be able to manage without coercion - without coercion, to which the impoverished peasantry will react very violently.” These lines are also a precursor to the Holodomor under Stalin...
There are likely many more examples...
fonzane@reddit
In an old fashioned monarchy, power was determined by heritage, not by any voters will. So the people who seeked power had to do it somewhere else, not in the political system. There is a reason for why the feudal age lasted so much longer than our western civilization is likely to last. We already had the most severe world wars in the entire human history and this is not merely reducible to the fact that we own the most devastating weapons in human history.
The chances for a government or monarchy to actually serve the peoples will was still kinda random though. I believe it was more likely than in our times today, but still subject to randomness and ultimately the people who were striving for power found their way (through institutionalized christian religion, for example, lol).
Grumblepugs2000@reddit
That's the issue with every system. It sucks but that's humanity unfortunately
fonzane@reddit
Commenting on the beginning of the video:
I find it astonishing how much we are being lied to without anyone noticing. I'm a German citizen and one foundational law in the constitution is "The power of the state emanates from the people."
This is so obviously not the case. The reality is, that the power of the state emanates from the state itself. The state only receives its legitimization from the people. But there are actual state politicians who receive the power from the people and act on their behalf. This leads to the distinction, where the actual power of the people is equal to zero, since there is absolutely no way for them to make their own political decisions. In order for a person to be able to contribute towards political decision making this person needs to become part of the state. I personally find this mechanism horrible. Power is ceded by the people, thus creating a ruling class (the state politicians) and a ruled class (the people)...
PaulTheMartian@reddit (OP)
Well said.
Murray Rothbard:
PaulTheMartian@reddit (OP)
Source