*💬Bonus reading below: The Democratization of War...* 🥰Patreon: www.patreon.com/CallMeEzekiel ▶UA-cam Memberships: ua-cam.com/channels/nZ1r94_Ptz_1gN5VBnE0Mg.htmljoin ⭐SubscribeStar: www.subscribestar.com/CallMeEzekiel 🙏PayPal: www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=EAQPBZ8VHGFL6 📚Main sources: 🗳Democracy: The God that Failed: amzn.to/3h4lInS 🗡The Machiavellians: amzn.to/3Ubz1ko Note: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Crypto: 💸 🟠BTC: bc1qj2szqj0h0rj2zz5x0zdhr8fzrh85zmatwxht26 🔵ETH: 0x0344A4aF3eCe5F8E5C0f65FC4c7eB667bf31cD60 You can also watch us on... 👀 ❤Odysee: odysee.com/@CallMeEzekiel 💚Rumble: rumble.com/CallMeEzekiel *💬Bonus Reading:* An idea from Democracy: The God That Failed that didn’t make it into the video is that wars waged by democratic states are more brutal than those waged by monarchies. This is because, when a war is fought between kings, the conflict is a private matter. Since the war is a private matter, the people ruled by those kings have no stake in the conflict. One can think of these wars as lawsuits. And just like in real lawsuits the richer and more powerful parties tend to win. This means that acts of war against non-combatants are always viewed as atrocities. If you scorch the earth, however valid a strategy it may be, you are attacking people who everyone agrees are not part of the conflict. This doesn’t stop those atrocities from happening, but it does make them less frequent since they’re always viewed as illegitimate. Democracy changes that… If the state is the manifestation of the people’s will (as it is in a democracy) then whenever it’s at war, so are all of its citizens. In such a conflict, atrocities against them are justifiable. After all, those civilians you’re terror-bombing are, officially, your enemy. This doesn’t just increase the brutality that gets inflicted upon the enemy, but also the burden borne by the state’s own people. A king will always find it difficult to raise taxes or conscript his people. Why should a private citizen pay for or be forced to fight in another man’s conflict? But if you live in a democracy then every war is your war. Every dispute is your dispute. There is no sacrifice that the democratic state cannot ask you to make. You can see this contrast in action during the Napoleonic Wars. As a democratic state, Napoleonic France was able to ruinously tax and draft its own people into the armed forces. These policies were successfully implemented because the people of Napoleonic France did not resist them. Why would they? It was their war. But when the other potentates of Europe tried to do the same, they faced greater resistance. Their peoples did not think that they had a stake in the conflict.
The main thing Democracy is supposed to bring is accountability. Democracy should not just be the means to elect men into power but also the means to deprive then of that power if they fail to meet their promises. Without accountability any system fails.
@@FrankieFishess A dictator has no accountability, remember he needs to keep the keys to power happy if he wants to survive and an educated and well feed population might be content with him while their lifes are getting better but sooner or later their going to hit a wall, that being a economic depression or simply the stagnation of the system and when that happends the people will see the top 1% and look at them with anger and jealousy, the well eduacted and well feed population will become an obstacle to the dictator and they will have to be removed. In most democracies there exist political parties which are jumping boards for politicians to come to power, while yes a politician can just spend his term doing whatever he wants that will anger the party which will latter not allow the politician to become powerfull again and even more importantly it will not let him creat a dynasty. The Kennedys, the Clintons, the Bushes all had to respect the party so their children coud come to power, these are checks for responsibility and accountability inside a democracy
Precisely, accountability is the point of democratic processs. Problem is now, there doesn't exist a shred of it amongst our elected officials and they are in bed with globalist oligarchs who basically run the planet through trade and money.
@@ivanpetkovic2130 But those political dynasties have tremendous influence outside of politics, ie through Foundations, Non-government organizations, etc. Even if they don’t hold office, they can still influence those who do.
In the US we call corruption lobbying. It is just as rife here. Look at the correlation between laws the public supports and the ones that get passed. There's little to no correlation
@@alecwebster1 There is a legit picture of I think the old prime minister with stacks of cash and a gun. Also the richest man here is suspended to be a mafia boss
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no The fact that this is what Homosepians are tend to do by nature, doesn't mean that will always happen. Just like there is equality between men and women despite our nature. Just like we suppress our immediate need to, unlike what nature "intended". Just like we have medication.
@@מ.מ-ה9ד mighty talk for something that has just been implemented in 1/3 of the world's nations for about a century... Vs the entirety of human existance.
@@polishscribe674 Morality tends towards the side of egalitarianism. To decide the fate of another is considered deeply immoral, hence the immorality of murder; the ultimate form of deciding the fate of another.
@@danielvelasco4003 It's not a highly democratic way of thinking, it's a highly moral way of thinking. If you think that the reason murder is considered evil is because of "democratic thinking" you are hilarious, lol. Also keep in mind I'm Auth-Right and believe Democracy is for weaklings. Idc about morality. I'm merely saying that yes, democracy IS on the side of traditional morality; which is why so many people support it.
Also, Machiavelli was actually quite decent, thinking his work would actually help more merciful, and traditionally honorable princes as a prospectus to power, and how to understand the realities of politics and use them for their gain. Italy at the time most likely had a lot to effect his ideal.
@@mariochartouni you misunderstand, Machiavelli is not some "fallen hero" or w/e, he is a political commentator. He was interested in what makes certain Princes more successful than others, and why. That's it. It's hilarious people put moral weight on what is essentially a case study
A big issue I'm seeing with democracies is that they don't put good rulers or policies into power, only popular ones. "Populaces voting themselves money" etc.
The President of the United State's job description: - Be a Military tactician (Commander-in-Chief) - Be a clever Diplomat (Head of the Diplomatic service) - Be good at choosing the right people (Appointing Department Heads) Qualifications for getting the job: -Give really good speeches
@@thebighurt2495 we are the more bad in Indonesia for the leader qualified Will be -Have a lot of money -Muslim (yeah really the people here see themself defender their religion) -Have a good realitionship to millitary ( that was plus one not because they can kill the government but people is too believe to millitary) - and the last one is come from java (because majority people here see where he come)
@@thebighurt2495 "Give really good speeches" have you seen Biden? Qualifications for the job: 1) Not dead; 2) Have so much connections with the deep state that it doesn't matter if you are barely sentient, they will pull enough strings to make it happen
The Roman consuls has the same problem as modern democratic leaders. But amplified. They had 1 year terms, and because of Rome’s militaristic society, they were incentivized to go and wage wars to try and win as much glory for themselves as possible in their 1 year term regardless of how unsustainable said war or project may be.
this is how they rushed into decade long war with Carthage multiple times despite it costing them a 3rd of their male population. In the end they were forced to make most of italy Roman citizens to solve the long term consequences.
It's because it's time preference, and how much of it you have. If you're really concerned about getting it at a particular time, then time preference is high. It doesn't even have to be short time necessarily, it could be a narrow window sometime in the future
My main critique with the Democracy the God that Failed, is that we don't see that high time preference in dictatorships. Sddam Husain invaded Kuwait as a quick fix to his economy, and then after getting his shit kicked in immediately tried to invade again. Thus getting his shit kicked in a second time. China is infamous for half thought out projects that do more harm than good. Projects that require more half thought out projects to not fix. And Russia is trying to speed run a war. Then as a counter point democratic western nations have enough stability to just wait out their nondemocratic rivals. For instance the cold war.
To add to this, in a well-functioning democracy this issue can be more easily mitigated. Since people have the ability to influence their government, they can vote for those who promise to not waste money. This is difficult in practice, but less so then in a dictatorship.
I think you take the wrong exemples. For Hussein I don't know but actually Russia isn't a dictatorship. Just a authoritarian democracy it's a fact even if you don't agree. And if russia is a dictatorship to be fair Hungary, poland and even france are dictatorship too. But even in an authoritarian regime, the fact that Putin wants to speed run the war is actually a sign that he thinks in the long term... the destruction of Kiev now for securing Ukraine in the long run. And for China I would like you to name one of those project that actually failed and I can name you 5 more for France and Belgium... Your statement has 2 errors : One you chose the wrong exemples and second you should the wrong time frame. There are a lot bad dictatorship you could look up in history that were focus on short term preferences.
@@jojo6970 So yes technically Russia is a hybrid regime As for China's list of failures: The Great Leap Forward The Cultural Revolution The Great Green Wall Over leveraging the housing sector to counter the 2008 recession. Wolf Warrior Diplomacy They are still trying to contain Covid with lockdowns Turning a blind eye to Illegal fishing off Somalia by Chinese fishermen. Getting into a shooting war with Russia over a island Betraying one country two systems before Taiwan was reincorporated. Defacto banning Australian coal when they had insufficient stocks domestically Trying to switch to natural gas without sufficient sources or domestic reserves Allowing massive amounts of bad debt to accumulate Building "tofu dreg" structures Building an Irrigation dich so long that most of the water evaporates before it reaches its destination Building the world's largest damn on a fault line flooding historic landmarks to build said damn
The issue is that for every functioning democracy like the US or France you have literal failures existing on life support like Latin America (Honduras is a lost cause, fuck this place) and some SEA countries.
I think the problem with "Democracy: The God that failed" is that it assumes autocracies also don't have high time preferences. In a monarchy, leaving the aristocracy and clergy excempt from taxation and the peasantry with a heavy tax burden is not a good long-term strategy, but it might be necessary if the king wishes to maintain the support of the elite that keeps him into power. Likewise, his advisors also face similar problems. Sure, it would be best for them in the long term for the nation they rule prosper, so they should advice the autocract the best way they can. But on the short time, they want to not die, so depending on the autocract, being a yes man that gives whatever advice the autocrat wants to hear is the preferable alternative, even if it is damaging in the long term.
As an ancap I whole heartedly agree. I'm not really in agreement with hoppe on this one. History has proven that monarchies are also prone to high tp behavior.
But then again the last real autoceacies were imperial germany and tsarist Russia. Modern "autocracies" or more like radical democracies were the (relative) majority subjugates the minorities. Using a small group as scapegoat has proven to be very effective for staying in power and as long as thst is secure you have all the time in the world and can do whatever you want. In my opinion, if you want to be a potential leader then you hsve to be able to incite riots. That will be proof enough that you can mobilise the masses to whatever cause you may desire.
@@FeCyrineu short-term interest is just a natural part of humanity that destroys every society. The difference is that autocracies can take steps to limit the influence of short-term interests in decision-making, while democracies are inherently, by virtue of their structure, a short-term endeavour. What's more, most successful democracies today carry incredibly cautious cultures that both cripples their nation's ability to prosper (Japan and Europe with their horrifically low economic growth) and will degrade as soon as politicians set more examples of how the system can be warped and manipulated without repercussion (Rome breaking down after Sulla's Dictatorship).
@rimacutem of Alsvartrsmiðr Well in liberal Democracies, we have multiple incompetent, corrupt, and bought out bureaucrats. So both are incredible flawed.
@rimacutem of Alsvartrsmiðr Which is why the central question of politics should be how to best choose a capable absolute ruler, instead of wasting away centuries in the quagmire of stagnancy known as Democracy. It is free-market policies which have led to the furthering of nation-state power in the last couple centuries, not democratic institutions that enable the lowest common denominators of a society to halt the progress of the entire nation.
@@juliannemeth9285 But we have Political Dynasties that have tremendous influence outside of the electoral process through Foundations and other Non-government organizations. You can’t un-elect that.
@@juliannemeth9285 In public perhaps, but behind the scenes they’re all friends, see Bush Jr. and Bill Clinton. George Carlin: “It’s one big club and you ain’t invited”. Not that I want to be apart of that club, but still the quote rings true.
That was interesting I wonder what people think of the line: "In a Monarchy each new ruler is a roll of the dice, in a democracy each new ruler is a roll of the dice except the die is loaded against you."
While I feel like I can argue against that quote (much in the same way that I have arguments against what’s presented in the video). I feel like there’s context here that I haven’t heard, and would like to know.
@@lava2istrue Oh isn't anything too exciting I said it once in a debate with someone over the functionality of monarchy in the modern-day. I was responding to them saying, "In a monarchy, every time the crown changes hands it's a roll of the dice as to whether it's a good ruler or a tyrant."
@@cryptarisprotocol1872 No I was getting at that in most democratic countries you have to trust that politicians with a track record of broken promises and lying are telling the truth *this* time.
Actually, monarchy is rule of royalty and aristocracy is rule by heirs. And what you mean by rule of one is autocracy, and rule of the best is meritocracy
While it might seem true that in the long term taking great care of their country would net the most benefit...I think time tells that dictators don't tend to rule that rationally. Or rather, it doesn't really matter how well you take care of your "property", or country, if the military or other pillars of power don't support you. The fastest/most effective way of doing so ends in ologarchies again, where you make the most amount of money for the powerful few. And the dictators that don't? Some rival takes care of them and gives the powerbrokers what they want. A "perfect" dictatorship would probably be the best form of government, though.
It still would be nice if our leaders actually cared about our land and its people, but instead they mostly enrich themselves and their donors. Not saying that dictatorships are any better, but maybe they're not the only two options.
Yeah Dictators are usually short term thinking idiots, that think more in lines of how to keep my head by the end of the week, so they expend and expend to keep the oligarchs happy and into the military in order to keep people from revolting. The dictators are the one who always pick the short net, since they are in survival mode. Putin invading Ukraine is his short net and boy is his failing to catch the fish.
There is a solid point to be made, though, that the only monarchs you ever hear about, are the ones who did the worst at their job. Out of thousands of monarchs that have existed, we happen to remember the absolute tyrants because they were the outliers. And even then, in the case of DTGTF, Hoppe merely makes the case that Monarchy happens to be better than Democracy, not that it's a good, nor ideal, system.
@@generalphobia the problem with you bringing up history is that centralization of power of the scale of the modern state has never been possible. Monarchs kept power simply because feudalism made it harder for them to do anything that would upset the staus quo. They just gave nobles their own mini countries in hopes of them been loyal and showing up when they were at war. In fact I would argue the US president holds far power than a monarch in the 8th century. The power to levy an income tax, would've been the stuff of dreams for monarchs.
@@addithehun4044 All I said was that it'd be nice to have leaders who put the good of the nation first instead of enriching themselves and their donors, which I just don't that happening in a liberal democracy, where different interests are trying to pull the country in different directions and dictatorships, well they either are overthrown, or sometimes some kind of reform may happen and the country gradually comes out of it. That's why I think Corporatism should be considered. (A series of Professional guilds made up of both employees and employers, not multi-corporations or Big Tech)
I live in Turkey. 20 years ago Erdoğan and his conservative AKP democratically overthrew Kemalist regime, mostly ruled by the military elite. When they came to power, they promised democracy, free market, LGBT rights, EU membership and peace. Liberals, feminists, Islamists, ethnic minorities, gays, in short, almost everyone who disliked Kemalists supported them. In 2000's, Turkey rapidly adopted free market economy. The government started negotiations with PKK to end terrorism that existed since 80's. Bans on turban, prostitution, Kurdish language, etc. were all lifted. Turkish economy became a perfect success story and Turkey almost became an EU member. While all of these were happening, Erdoğan and his Gülenist (a cult) allies slowly purged Kemalists from everywhere and replaced them with their own men. Turkish foreign policy started to slowly became more Islamist. AKP and Gülen cult infected every single organ of the state. Corruption skyrocketed to the point that only a few companies could get tenders. All relatives, even class mates (I'm not joking) of AKP management became extremely rich. There are entire universities that every academician is related to each other. Journalists got jailed, Turkey's EU membership became just a dream and our economy became a joke. PKK, which Erdoğan was making a peace with, turned against Turkey once again and JUST BEFORE ELECTIONS we had terrorist attacks in every corner to the point my parents never allowed me to go to mall for an entire year. Panic created by terrorist attacks helped Erdoğan win. Then Erdoğan purged his old Gülenist allies. It became even shittier after July 15th, the probably fake military coup, made by either Erdoğan or Gülenists, which 300 people died. Now, we are a literal banana republic. The even worse thing is that Erdoğan got re-elected over and over again for 20 YEARS. His approval ratings are still around 40%. And a portion of remaining 60% would actually vote for him if the economy wasn't this bad. When you enter Turkey, anti-democratic theory stops being a theory. If I could choose, I'd prefer the old Kemalist regime over democracy that gave us AKP, without even thinking.
@@zyanego3170 Yeah most Kemalist became social democrat and even CHP is now a mixture of Kemalists and social democrats. I'd call this Neo-Kemalism, since legitimize their social democratic ideas with Atatürk's ideas.
@@mikaelantonkurki True, he worked for democracy, but at the end both he and his successor (İnönü) were military dictators. Although, these two were the best leaders of the republic.
One would argue that you're not a democracy but an autocracy. Democracies can cease being democracies with a thunderous applause but that's nothing new.
God damnit. Now I have to revaluate my ideology, *again*. These are excellent videos. I love how you focus on the topic at hand and narrate them as a neutral bystander, not pushing the ideology you examine, nor your own.
You'd do yourseflf a favor to see the other side's arguments also. Especially in human sciences. A lot of economics already sits on shaky empirical ground and political thought is even more difficult to make isolated tests for.
Friend, obviously always remain open-minded to ideological arguments and counter-arguments. I, for one, will not be trying to direct you per se. However, I will please encourage you to avoid that Hoppean shit that the other guy is mentioning.
While I love the video as always, I can't shake the thought that the reliance on praxeology to form the ground argument on the short and long timespans' solutions is at fault here. On "oligarchs and monarchs have a long time span for their decisions and therefore can make decisions that benefit the long term" does'nt jive with realities of self-indulgence, emotions, prestige and overall incompetence you can find in droves in history. Examples from that could go from when rulers killed their sons in bouts of rage or misgiven thoughts, such as Sultan Suleyman killing his son Ibrahim, or Ivan the Terrible. Both regretted those decisions, and they weren't best or logical, which is already a break from the praxeological axiom. (Someone also commented on Putin, and that's a great example considering the current talks about not paying back foreign creditors and seizing international firms' property). On "democracies deal with the shortest time span possible", I can agree in part with the limits on reelections of Executive rulers and lowers chambers of Congress making cheap and fast populism a problem.... but then we have situations where there aren't reelection limits, and longer time spans of Senate members, and the fact that the survival of a political party is risked by the repercussions of its members, which often creates a "social buffer" against individuals stepping out of line or acting disregarding the future and the problems it will have in the reelections. A body of people in the legislative is more capable of whistanding individual whims and emotions in this regard. On praxeology itself, we could always comment on the existance of panic buying, disliking products due to tastes or wants totally unrelated to them or just following motions of others. I understand the adoption of the mindset when we consider ourselves proper logical human beings, but humans cannot be considered reliable enough. My biases are pro neokeynesian (Krugman's in particular) economics, but I think the argument can still stand on itself even disregarding that. Once again, great video and thanks for bringing the interest in economic and political theory to a wider set of people in a fun, engaging and concise way.
You make a profound point about the parties especially, I think. Perhaps the faulty part of "Anti-democratic theory" lies in that it seems to take the perspective that the short-sightedness of democracy comes from the individualism of ego-oriented politicians wanting to maximise the effect of their actions during their terms; but it perhaps fails in emphasising individuals as the main actors of democracies, as opposed to bodies like parties and institutions and the like, the lifetime and needs for survival of which stretch for far longer.
This is why democratic institutions are more important than the electorate ballot. Accountability,transparency and non discriminative rights and responsibility are the core of a democracy,not electorate rulership.
that's not what happens, power centralises because its useful, and why do you think the institutions are imaginary? You don't have to imagine it to exist
Aristotle's idea of democracy isn't the same as our democracies, our system would probably be categorized as a "Politeia" under aristotelian terms, which he considers to be the best system...
The issue with dictatorship is the same issue as that of a monopoly. If you don’t have strong competition in governance which is accountable to the masses, there is no incentive to improve the living conditions of the people beyond what’s neccecary to keep power. In fact, keeping the people starving is incentivised since starving peasants don’t make good revolutionaries.
Could be argued yes but they won't pass that bare minimum to keep power The problem comes with democratic rulers who can pass that bare minimum if they wanted to as they don't rule for a life time and thus don't care But it really all comes down to the leader if they are good or bad
@@KingdomRepublic Yeah. Constituitons exist in order to restrict leaders ability to make self interested policy, so a strong constitution is nessecary.
@@Draktand01 dude you are far behind in perception do you really think an ink on paper is going to stop a bad leader? And a constitution basically became taboo just like the church which was a religious taboo in Europe The constitution is made by humans and they make mistakes example is US constitution having slavery in it!! Still don't believe? Look at America now and the division among them The constitution is not a magic solution A tried and true one would be the people always being United which is practically impossible and the people always making informed decisions again also impossible We need a better system than shitty democracy like come on it is over 1000 years old
Just to clarify, it's not like the opposite is true for democratic systems. Citizen welfare just happens to be aligned with their representatives' interests to maintain power. This means democracies are (usually) better places to live for their citizens, but not that it is inherent to the system. Source: The Dictator's Handbook.
Came here for Victoria 2 tips, stayed here for this epic content, I absolutely love it! I especially loved the Czechoslovak Legions 2 part series, cuz I am from Slovakia and we were literally having classes about ww1 and creation of republic around that time and it sadly wasnt that much discused by our teacher, keep going, absolutely love it, love from big fan from Slovakia
The problem with democracy is that it requires responsibility and morality in its citizens to function but in the long run responsible individual end up paying for the mistakes of others. Responsibility becomes disincentivized and democracy fails
That can apply to other forms as well like a good monarch or a benevolent authoritarian or dictator So i guess it all comes down if the leader is good or bad and what should be done about it in the case of being bad I can understand not being able to do much in a dictatorship or monarchy but in democracy there is no excuse so that is why i hate it
@@KingdomRepublic here’s the thing, dictators or monarchs rule for life/ a long time. Presidents or chancellor’s or prime minister’s or whatever don’t. They have a much shorter overall time in office in comparison. So a bad monarch will have a much greater effect then a bad president or what ever.
@@natebox4550 and a good monarch has a much better effect than a good president that won't last long Dude you are deflecting your own arguments lmao And my above point remains firmly the same it is about the leader
@@KingdomRepublic does it really? There is a long list of great presidents who have done much in 4-8 years. You don’t need and entire life to accomplish shit. And you shouldn’t, you shouldn’t have families rule over a country, it’s stupid. It’s archaic, I could at least see use of elected monarchs, but even then, they have much more power then a president. Which isn’t a good thing.
Now having finished the video (could tell the quality early on) definitely much more " In Defense of Freedom" Machiavellian, rather than a "The God that Failed" Machiavellian. :)
@@lexguttman I definitely recommend you read the books, “democracy the god that failed” isn’t Machiavellian, it’s just a critique. I have only read the aforementioned, and not “in defense of freedom”, which is now on my reading list. But “democracy…” brings up some fascinating points, and also some stats. It’s a pretty long book, but there is an audiobook on UA-cam. I am not pro monarchy, nor is the book really, but it is a great critique, and I am still trying to think of how to fix the issues it found without a form of monarchy. Also the prince, by Machiavelli, is brilliant and gives insight into the behavior of politicians.
@@mj6463 I can never get through the prince. Each time I do I get about a quarter of the way through, and I'm like. "Thank you Machiavelli, I get your point. And that is enough." Man was incredibly insightful but seemed to forget that they are still people.
@@lexguttman yeah, I will say this audio book is very good for car rides, it can be a bit dull, but on a nine hour drive it’s easy to listen to. I think his point does get more complex, but it’s been a few months since the last time I listened. ua-cam.com/video/IdRxHTih-28/v-deo.html But yeah all good man, it can be a bit dull.
Possible? Yes, very common? Less so. Besides, this isn't saying that all dictators will think long term, but that they are incentivized to do so if they want to stick around and have their heirs do so as well. Whereas democratic rulers are incentivized to do the opposite, to do as much as possible in as short an amount of time.
Ask yourself, who has more of a reason to end his rule with a very functional, and stable society and State. A King, who is handing his rule to his child, which can be under harsh scrutiny to the point of the threat of violence. Or, a politician who at most will run 8 years, spend whatever he can (using short time preference to raise his approval rating, neglecting future costs) to get that next term, and leave not to be seen again.
@@Octavian2 Tbh though Saddam was praised for his "stability", he did a bunch of internal genocides amidst the Kurds and Shiites, plus his sons abused the shit out of their power and did all forms of horrors on random citizens
@DogeickBateman I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing an important point of difference. There's intrinsic reasons why a king would prefer a stable society, and more importantly, a future stable society. Familial lineage of rule creates incentive. Owns the property, which creates incentive. And so on. Conflict and genocide would be going against the incentive of the king. There's also safe guards as well, but that's a side point.
One of the good arguments against current democracy in countries such as the US is that there's way too much tolerance of lobbying (which shouldn't even exist in a true democracy) and therefore the needs of the people don't get represented, even if the party that they, the constituent, voted for wins. Most of the time, even without lobbying, modern democracy is still built on a network of back pedaling and lies from politicians anyway
I love this discussion about democracy and Machiavellianism since I live in a country in which democracy legitimized the rule of an oligarchy of elites who control us. Just one thing, the background music is too loud when you speak and distracts a lot of attention from what you're saying but overall, a great video.
@@ericboom1712 Then why were there so many revolts? Ever heard of the peasant rebellion in 1527? And did all of them "like" the idea or did they simply accept it bc they were raised in it, the church or other spiritual institutions told them this system was "god given" and did they have access to accounts from other cultures that can live without hierarchies or states?
@@BiturixTaranuncnos most of these revolts just resulted in a new monarchy. Also tell me how many times in just the last hundred years that democracies failed?
@@ericboom1712 ? Which revolts? Also, 1. you didnt answer my question 2. And how many times have monarchies walked over their peoples corpses for their interest? 1527, 1626, 1848... thats what comes to mind
4:39 "Standing here, I realize you were just like me trying to make history. But who's to judge the right from wrong. When our guard is down I think we'll both agree. That violence breeds violence. But in the end it has to be this way."
I really don't like how people are thinking in a binary between democracy and dictatorship. You don't have to resort to an unlimited absolute dictatorship to accept that democracy is not a good system. People need to start thinking of systems that don't pretend a popularity contest is a suitable check and balance while still having checks and balances lmao.
@@baneofbanes accountability only needs a supreme law and a judiciary that can independently enforce it. We already see the legislative assembly just being avoided with executive powers. The only difference between what's happening now and what could exist is that the executive branch wouldn't be so short-sighted to survive elections, and wouldn't change governments every couple of years.
I think both absolutism and democracy brings about corruption and tyranny so we need to find a good middle ground. That middle ground is constitutional monarchy. Not the weak constitutional monarchy of Britain where the queen is just a symbol but one where the king has absolute power so long as he serves God and the rule of law. This system will allow for order, the rule of law, but also accountability for the ruling class because the monarch could not go against the constitution or the law set by a legislative branch.
The king (or president or sultan or emir) is just one man.History is full of examples of what happened when a single person is given absolute control over the multi faceted aspect of the body politics even if its done within a constitutional framework. US is actually a perfect example of this.George Bush declaring war on Iraq is actually constitutional and lawful,all things considered.Does not make it less of a disaster
@@ihavenojawandimustscream4681 I agree that absolute power does lead to tyranny but a government without powerful leaders are always weak and ineffective. If the government has a strict interpretation of a constitution and if it adheres to the rule of law than tyranny can be avoided. I can agree that Bush and the elites of the west no longer care about the rule of law and that's a big problem we face in the modern day but if we bring a true American elite, similar to what the federalists wanted, then that problem will be solved.
I find that view on democracy really interesting, but that view of Oligarchys being inevitibly depends on what you see as an Oligarchy, like does a political party that is in charge for 4 years count as an Oligarchy or are Oligarchys buisness men that control the law making from the shadows or is it an actual elite of nobles and rich people that are the only ones allowed to make the decision. Because personly I believe Oligarchys are a form of goverment where only a certain class is allowed to "participate" in a states goverment.
I guess it depends of the question " what is power in the country of X ?" For example where I live currently the people can only vote for representatives, that will vote themselves for the Prime Minister in theory. In practice the PM cannot be your common low-born citizens, you have to be from a certain elite from birth to have those REALLY IMPORTANT positions where you have actually power over the government. I see this type of government as an olygarchy ( even a mafia depending of how you view life ) because whatever the people do this groupe will not change. Ever. And you can't really elect people to be in that group, everyone know it's actually from birth or maybe you have really really good friends but well, still an oligarchy
All of the above. Look to American and Canadian politics, where we have dynastic politicians. The Clinton's, the Bushes and the Trudeaus. Families that have become entrenched in the political class in a manner normal People are not. That is budding oligarchy. Then you have the two party system, with no term limits in certain areas creating life long politicians that have vested interests in making political choices that favour themselves and their parties, over others. Oligarchic self selection. Then we have the power of lobbying. Big business and these days, big business makes even big government seem small, has the kind of money, power and influence to subvert democratic will in a massive way. They control industries, communications and media platforms. The media! They own politicians in a way. Technofuedalism. They buy votes and elections, with money, influence and if that doesn't work, they can galvanise public outrage against individual politicians. They are the emerging technoaristocracy, whose children will inherit their powers of control and their wealth and are no longer subject to any one nations laws as they interests are global, and decentralised. The future oligarchy is one of Technofuedalism and it is ruled by a few.
Oligarchy in this context means that you have a small amount of people making the majority of the decisions often against the majority. A lot of times these people aren’t even that rich but they share a common interest think of people at the New York Times, Pentagon workers, influential Academics. In some sense there will always be an elite looking back we can see the Catholic Church in Europe or the Founding Fathers in America being elites of their time. Go back any point in history and there is small minority of people who control the majority.
> high dictator time preference > Putin > Hussein > Lukashenko Yeah, cool book, I'll keep living in democracies. I hope we'll see the other side of the coin in a future video.
@Map Painter true also Singapore is a dictatorship and it ranks high on every metric im not promoting anti democracy im just saying that democracy does not always work
This entire video proves the saying, "Bad times create strong men, strong men make great times, great times make weak men, weak men create bad times."creat
I feel so validated after commenting on that community post about believing or not in democracy that hoppe's book convinced me that it was not the ideal system hahaha, jokes aside you actually do a great job here even if you don't believe these ideas you give them a fair shake and i appreciate it.
@@jakobinobles3263 Id advocate for the removal of political ideas locked behind ideologies. You should be able to pick and choose specific ideas that work from different ideologies and combine them into your government without having to go all the way with one ideology.
@@מ.מ-ה9ד well I mean “ The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. The greatest argument for it is every other system.”
@@jakobinobles3263 this was something that I was once told by someone I knew. They argued that part of the reason the us failed in the Middle East was the fact that a democracy was not the best form of government for that region and forcing it just made the government worse. That the US should have put in benevolent dictatorships instead or allowed the tribal leaders to take charge.
D:TGTF is basically everything one of our Polish politicians Janusz Korwin-Mikke says. The problem is that most of population considers him a lunatic (sometimes he looks so) and Russian agent (without proof).
Yeah, it's kind of sad knowing that one of the most reasonable guys within polish parlament is treated by most of the people as nothing more than a joke.
It's really ironic the author of this book decided to call what he believed in "machiavellism" because Machiavelli wrote the Prince specifically to criticize monarchy, he himself stated in the first chapter of the book that the work only dealt with "principalities" and that he would reserve his thoughts on republics for a later work, this later work "Discourses on Livy" basically praises republicanism... so yeah, i feel like I shouldn't trust someone who doesn't even understand the ideology of the man who he named his theory after. Edit: If the argument of the book is being represented corrrectly, it doesn't even seem convincing on it's own, if you have to redefine what "democracy" means to prove it's bad you are already on a losing position. Edit 2: Hoppe once said something along the lines of "my theory can't be criticized empirically" which is fitting, since the whole thing falls apart when you look at the actual human experience aka history, hell you don't even have to go that far back, practically all modern absolute monarchies are oil states, who are running themselves into the ground by relying their entire economy on one depleting natural resource that is also destroying the planet, this is not surprising as well, since the whole austrian idea that every man will always act in rational self interest is obviously fallacious to anyone who knows how human beings actually behave.
This is a common misunderstanding of austrian theory. Acting "rationally" simply means that people act to achieve ends according to the their purposes, and this is undeniable, since arguing against it is self-contradiction. All action is (purposeful behavior), by definition, necessarily "rational". Even if its seemingly crazy or wrong people still act for their own reasons. "Irrational" behavior is, by definition, all behavior outside of one's will or volition, like reflexes. "my theory can't be criticized empirically" isn't a great paraphrase. he means that, in general, empirical observations don't necessarily disprove economic theory because its impossible to account for all the potential variables. Economic theory relies on the knowledge that flows out of known variables and configuations, it doesn't mean that empiricism is useless or he's invulnerable from criticism.
@@CV-ju6ul Yes, but under this definition of "rational" Hoppe's argument doesn't make nearly as much sense, if a king's desires are more in line with short term pleasure and gain than long term goals he will act in according to that, no matter what the "incentives" are, the opposite is also true for a democratic president (see Seretse Khama of Botswana for an example), because people don't always choose the most optimal path. There is also the problem that the theory goes both ways, if a Monarch has long term goals which are fundamentally immoral (genocide for example) or just flawed and damaging for the country, they wouldn't face much opposition, while a president with the same goal would have a much harder time, one could argue the risks outweigh the rewards in this regard, this ties back into the rationality question, even long term goals aren't necesserialy good or effective.
@@CV-ju6ul I mean if you argue with a communist or a liberal with Marxist flirtation, they will argue in contradiction and double down if called out on those contradictions.
Hmm... The supposedly low time preference of dictators discussed here goes against what I learned in CGP Grey's rules for rulers. I guess the presumption in Rules for rulers that the democrat must give back more to the people is kind of flawed in that he doesn't have to actually do so, but bread and circuses get him the same effect. Use debt and inflation instead to cash in in the near future. This builds the staircase to getting the structure of dictatorship on top of the democratic foundation. My takeaway is that no government structure, even the best one we've found so far, can compensate for the direction that a stupid populace takes everyone along. Critical thinking is the pillar of progress.
Finally someone who draws the gas tube on an ak correctly. Alot of people don't connect it and that just doesn't make sense cause the gun would work. Just a pet peeve good job.
At first it seemed to me that a familiar song was playing. I read the description, and yes, "Bad Apple". I must conclude, that you a man of culture, i subscribe
That's why reelection is so harmful for democracy. And this video gives me one idea, what if not only reelection of the same leader is prohibited but also the leader's party can't participate on the next election?
Hell yeah, Ezekiel! You just got my patreon money for the 80s aestethic and Hall and Oats soundtrack. Real banger in concert. Loved the info! Hopefully you explain how the economy in the new Victoria game works when it drops!
3 minutes in and all of a sudden i go from listening to what your saying to thinking "wait i recognise this tune..." After a few seconds of listening to the music i must say. You clever dog sneaking Bad apple in.
I hate your channel...because the contents are too good to watch later. Instead of sleeping I am watching your youtube videos. Awesome quality, but seriously dawg, awesome job!
*Too much power for too long will make a person corrupt, no matter what.* If you have the power to cross a red line with little to no self consequences, after time, you will cross the line.
@@invidusspectator3920 I think you are wrong. Look up CGP Greys Rules for Rulers (and the sequel) Take the throne to act, and the throne acts upon you. He explains why even people with really good intentions NEED do "bad" stuff.
I feel like the problem with the current Democratic system is that their is no faith in the nation and no pride in the institutions. If you love your country and what it represents, you want to just improve it and keep it stable for your people and children. However, if there is major social strife, you hate half the population. Also after WWI general faith in Western Civilisation in Western Civilisation has declined, thus making the idea of long term thinking redundant, which it wasn’t before, as while you wasn’t the owner of the nation, your People or nationality were, thus with a less coherent and socially stable society Democracy is less stable, which dictatorships don’t always have a problem with.
@@crusader2112 Yes. It has quite a bit to do with Civilisational trauma. When the Mongols took pillaged and burned Russia and China, they became isolationist and absolutist, paired with extreme conservatism and fear of the outside. After the sheer horrors of the World Wars, many of the notions of Western superiority were shattered, and those who weren’t were destroyed in the Aftermath, with a general distrust of everything that was the norm before the world wars. It’s rather sad to see.
The Marxists have been chopping away at any social cohesion for that entire time frame. Racism, sexism, us vs them in every conceivable way. The collectivization of society. Tribalism in order for divided to fall.
Western institutions have armed themselves and declared half of the population which traditionally supported them as domestic terrorists. There is no pride in the institutions, as they are controlled by our enemies.
@@shamusson Of course. This is also a consequence of the lack of faith in Western Superiority after the World Wars. The enemies could easily infiltrate as nobody cared about stopping them, or at least not enough people cared.
A big problem dictatorships have is that doesn't have a system to take the incompetent out of power in the same manner that you can have a good king for 60 years you can also have a bad king for 60 years while in democracies the leadership is rotated a lot faster thus giving more opportunity to competent people to get power and minimising the impact of incompetent people in power
One thing or another. It's also worth mentioning that dictatorships produce less incompetent leaders, as either heir is teached how to rule around 10 years (if nothing bad happens) or gets his power because he was appointed for his skills by previous dictator. Most of incompetent kings was surrounded by other kings, so the bar was setted higher.
@@athishnirup1815my personnel type of libertarianism is Classical Liberalism but a bit more focused on technological development trough the free market
Democracy the god that failed was hard To get through. The book makes some good points, but is also full of a lot of pure garbage. Within the first chapter, the drooling over kings making responsible decisions while in power is hilariously ignorant if history. Also the claim that war used to be more civilized was also another knee slapper.
*💬Bonus reading below: The Democratization of War...*
🥰Patreon: www.patreon.com/CallMeEzekiel
▶UA-cam Memberships: ua-cam.com/channels/nZ1r94_Ptz_1gN5VBnE0Mg.htmljoin
⭐SubscribeStar: www.subscribestar.com/CallMeEzekiel
🙏PayPal: www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=EAQPBZ8VHGFL6
📚Main sources:
🗳Democracy: The God that Failed: amzn.to/3h4lInS
🗡The Machiavellians: amzn.to/3Ubz1ko
Note: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Crypto: 💸
🟠BTC: bc1qj2szqj0h0rj2zz5x0zdhr8fzrh85zmatwxht26
🔵ETH: 0x0344A4aF3eCe5F8E5C0f65FC4c7eB667bf31cD60
You can also watch us on... 👀
❤Odysee: odysee.com/@CallMeEzekiel
💚Rumble: rumble.com/CallMeEzekiel
*💬Bonus Reading:* An idea from Democracy: The God That Failed that didn’t make it into the video is that wars waged by democratic states are more brutal than those waged by monarchies. This is because, when a war is fought between kings, the conflict is a private matter. Since the war is a private matter, the people ruled by those kings have no stake in the conflict. One can think of these wars as lawsuits. And just like in real lawsuits the richer and more powerful parties tend to win.
This means that acts of war against non-combatants are always viewed as atrocities. If you scorch the earth, however valid a strategy it may be, you are attacking people who everyone agrees are not part of the conflict. This doesn’t stop those atrocities from happening, but it does make them less frequent since they’re always viewed as illegitimate. Democracy changes that…
If the state is the manifestation of the people’s will (as it is in a democracy) then whenever it’s at war, so are all of its citizens. In such a conflict, atrocities against them are justifiable. After all, those civilians you’re terror-bombing are, officially, your enemy.
This doesn’t just increase the brutality that gets inflicted upon the enemy, but also the burden borne by the state’s own people. A king will always find it difficult to raise taxes or conscript his people. Why should a private citizen pay for or be forced to fight in another man’s conflict? But if you live in a democracy then every war is your war. Every dispute is your dispute. There is no sacrifice that the democratic state cannot ask you to make.
You can see this contrast in action during the Napoleonic Wars. As a democratic state, Napoleonic France was able to ruinously tax and draft its own people into the armed forces. These policies were successfully implemented because the people of Napoleonic France did not resist them. Why would they? It was their war. But when the other potentates of Europe tried to do the same, they faced greater resistance. Their peoples did not think that they had a stake in the conflict.
Man why did you have to put a touhou music, i can't really take it seriously.
But great video keep up.
You should do a video on huey long
What's your faction in 40k?
Thank you so much for this video on Machiavellianism lmao, you don't know how much it has made my day.
@@igobybign6747 Somebody call me?
The main thing Democracy is supposed to bring is accountability. Democracy should not just be the means to elect men into power but also the means to deprive then of that power if they fail to meet their promises. Without accountability any system fails.
Arguably there’s more accountability if they have to stay in power. They lose power, it’s up to the next guy to fix it.
@@FrankieFishess A dictator has no accountability, remember he needs to keep the keys to power happy if he wants to survive and an educated and well feed population might be content with him while their lifes are getting better but sooner or later their going to hit a wall, that being a economic depression or simply the stagnation of the system and when that happends the people will see the top 1% and look at them with anger and jealousy, the well eduacted and well feed population will become an obstacle to the dictator and they will have to be removed. In most democracies there exist political parties which are jumping boards for politicians to come to power, while yes a politician can just spend his term doing whatever he wants that will anger the party which will latter not allow the politician to become powerfull again and even more importantly it will not let him creat a dynasty. The Kennedys, the Clintons, the Bushes all had to respect the party so their children coud come to power, these are checks for responsibility and accountability inside a democracy
Precisely, accountability is the point of democratic processs. Problem is now, there doesn't exist a shred of it amongst our elected officials and they are in bed with globalist oligarchs who basically run the planet through trade and money.
@@ivanpetkovic2130 But those political dynasties have tremendous influence outside of politics, ie through Foundations, Non-government organizations, etc. Even if they don’t hold office, they can still influence those who do.
@@gino456123789 Bingo. Well Said.
i thought i'd never see Senator Armstrong as a countryball in my life
STANDING HERE I REALIZE YOU WERE JUST LIKE ME TRYING TO MAKE HISTORY
BUT WHOS TO JUDGE
THE RIGHT FROM WRONG
@@clickbait6646 THAT VIOLENCE BREEDS VIOLENCE
@@alexparker5127 BUT IN THE END IT HAS TO BE THIS WAY
I CARVED MY OWN PATH
In a corrupt country like where I come from this video is very true.
In the US we call corruption lobbying. It is just as rife here. Look at the correlation between laws the public supports and the ones that get passed. There's little to no correlation
Where are you from
@@alecwebster1 Bulgaria
@@alecwebster1 There is a legit picture of I think the old prime minister with stacks of cash and a gun. Also the richest man here is suspended to be a mafia boss
@@krum1703 That sucks, hope it gets better over there
The Iron Law of Oligarchy is one of my favorite topics to hear about.
This 'law' is simply not true.
@@מ.מ-ה9ד Yes it is. Across all domains, both creative and natural, a majority of the rewards and/or power will be reaped by a minority of organisms.
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no
The fact that this is what Homosepians are tend to do by nature, doesn't mean that will always happen.
Just like there is equality between men and women despite our nature. Just like we suppress our immediate need to, unlike what nature "intended". Just like we have medication.
@@מ.מ-ה9ד it like the 9-3 curse in valorant or CS:GO , or the murphy law , or the reiman hypothesis , it not proven , but undoubltly observable,
@@מ.מ-ה9ד mighty talk for something that has just been implemented in 1/3 of the world's nations for about a century... Vs the entirety of human existance.
The main problem of democracy is that is being portrayed as morally right thing by itself
It is morally right. The problem is that moral righteousness has nothing to do with what actually works in the real world lol
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no why is it morally right? democracy is just a system, it's neither good or bad. Like a tool.
@@polishscribe674 Morality tends towards the side of egalitarianism. To decide the fate of another is considered deeply immoral, hence the immorality of murder; the ultimate form of deciding the fate of another.
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no you’re kind of proving his point. This is a highly democratic way of thinking.
@@danielvelasco4003 It's not a highly democratic way of thinking, it's a highly moral way of thinking. If you think that the reason murder is considered evil is because of "democratic thinking" you are hilarious, lol.
Also keep in mind I'm Auth-Right and believe Democracy is for weaklings. Idc about morality. I'm merely saying that yes, democracy IS on the side of traditional morality; which is why so many people support it.
Also, Machiavelli was actually quite decent, thinking his work would actually help more merciful, and traditionally honorable princes as a prospectus to power, and how to understand the realities of politics and use them for their gain. Italy at the time most likely had a lot to effect his ideal.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, my friend
@@mariochartouni you misunderstand, Machiavelli is not some "fallen hero" or w/e, he is a political commentator. He was interested in what makes certain Princes more successful than others, and why. That's it. It's hilarious people put moral weight on what is essentially a case study
@@HierophanticRose Machiavelli described, and you can't morally judge a description.
Makes sense, the scoundrels already knew everything he was talking about, it was the virtuous who needed to be reminded.
A big issue I'm seeing with democracies is that they don't put good rulers or policies into power, only popular ones. "Populaces voting themselves money" etc.
The President of the United State's job description:
- Be a Military tactician (Commander-in-Chief)
- Be a clever Diplomat (Head of the Diplomatic service)
- Be good at choosing the right people (Appointing Department Heads)
Qualifications for getting the job:
-Give really good speeches
@@thebighurt2495 we are the more bad in Indonesia for the leader qualified Will be
-Have a lot of money
-Muslim (yeah really the people here see themself defender their religion)
-Have a good realitionship to millitary ( that was plus one not because they can kill the government but people is too believe to millitary)
- and the last one is come from java (because majority people here see where he come)
@@thebighurt2495 "Give really good speeches" have you seen Biden? Qualifications for the job: 1) Not dead; 2) Have so much connections with the deep state that it doesn't matter if you are barely sentient, they will pull enough strings to make it happen
I mean Plato figured this out 2000 years ago. Popular democracy is inevitably going to collapse into oligarchy
@@DragonZombie2000 No he didn't; his issues with democracy are beyond hypocritical when his grand idea effectively is an oligarchy by default.
The Roman consuls has the same problem as modern democratic leaders. But amplified. They had 1 year terms, and because of Rome’s militaristic society, they were incentivized to go and wage wars to try and win as much glory for themselves as possible in their 1 year term regardless of how unsustainable said war or project may be.
this is how they rushed into decade long war with Carthage multiple times despite it costing them a 3rd of their male population. In the end they were forced to make most of italy Roman citizens to solve the long term consequences.
@@sosig6445 Yep.
Who the fuck called it "low time preference" and "high time preference" rather than "short time preference" and "long time preference"? Bruh...
Because it is the preference of time over other conditions such as efficiency as opposed to the preference for a short time over a long time
@@andresmartinezramos7513 That actually sounds like it checks out. Thank you!
@@andresmartinezramos7513 Never thought of it that way.
It's because it's time preference, and how much of it you have. If you're really concerned about getting it at a particular time, then time preference is high. It doesn't even have to be short time necessarily, it could be a narrow window sometime in the future
My main critique with the Democracy the God that Failed, is that we don't see that high time preference in dictatorships.
Sddam Husain invaded Kuwait as a quick fix to his economy, and then after getting his shit kicked in immediately tried to invade again. Thus getting his shit kicked in a second time.
China is infamous for half thought out projects that do more harm than good. Projects that require more half thought out projects to not fix.
And Russia is trying to speed run a war.
Then as a counter point democratic western nations have enough stability to just wait out their nondemocratic rivals. For instance the cold war.
To add to this, in a well-functioning democracy this issue can be more easily mitigated. Since people have the ability to influence their government, they can vote for those who promise to not waste money. This is difficult in practice, but less so then in a dictatorship.
I think you take the wrong exemples.
For Hussein I don't know but actually Russia isn't a dictatorship. Just a authoritarian democracy it's a fact even if you don't agree. And if russia is a dictatorship to be fair Hungary, poland and even france are dictatorship too.
But even in an authoritarian regime, the fact that Putin wants to speed run the war is actually a sign that he thinks in the long term... the destruction of Kiev now for securing Ukraine in the long run.
And for China I would like you to name one of those project that actually failed and I can name you 5 more for France and Belgium...
Your statement has 2 errors : One you chose the wrong exemples and second you should the wrong time frame. There are a lot bad dictatorship you could look up in history that were focus on short term preferences.
@@jojo6970 So yes technically Russia is a hybrid regime
As for China's list of failures:
The Great Leap Forward
The Cultural Revolution
The Great Green Wall
Over leveraging the housing sector to counter the 2008 recession.
Wolf Warrior Diplomacy
They are still trying to contain Covid with lockdowns
Turning a blind eye to Illegal fishing off
Somalia by Chinese fishermen.
Getting into a shooting war with Russia over a island
Betraying one country two systems before Taiwan was reincorporated.
Defacto banning Australian coal when they had insufficient stocks domestically
Trying to switch to natural gas without sufficient sources or domestic reserves
Allowing massive amounts of bad debt to accumulate
Building "tofu dreg" structures
Building an Irrigation dich so long that most of the water evaporates before it reaches its destination
Building the world's largest damn on a fault line
flooding historic landmarks to build said damn
@@jojo6970 waiting on the french and belgian failures
The issue is that for every functioning democracy like the US or France you have literal failures existing on life support like Latin America (Honduras is a lost cause, fuck this place) and some SEA countries.
I think the problem with "Democracy: The God that failed" is that it assumes autocracies also don't have high time preferences.
In a monarchy, leaving the aristocracy and clergy excempt from taxation and the peasantry with a heavy tax burden is not a good long-term strategy, but it might be necessary if the king wishes to maintain the support of the elite that keeps him into power. Likewise, his advisors also face similar problems. Sure, it would be best for them in the long term for the nation they rule prosper, so they should advice the autocract the best way they can. But on the short time, they want to not die, so depending on the autocract, being a yes man that gives whatever advice the autocrat wants to hear is the preferable alternative, even if it is damaging in the long term.
I think the problem with democracy the god that failed was written by an insane sociopath who hates democracy because most people disagree with him.
@@retroflame3104 That too, yes.
As an ancap I whole heartedly agree. I'm not really in agreement with hoppe on this one. History has proven that monarchies are also prone to high tp behavior.
But then again the last real autoceacies were imperial germany and tsarist Russia. Modern "autocracies" or more like radical democracies were the (relative) majority subjugates the minorities.
Using a small group as scapegoat has proven to be very effective for staying in power and as long as thst is secure you have all the time in the world and can do whatever you want.
In my opinion, if you want to be a potential leader then you hsve to be able to incite riots. That will be proof enough that you can mobilise the masses to whatever cause you may desire.
@@FeCyrineu short-term interest is just a natural part of humanity that destroys every society. The difference is that autocracies can take steps to limit the influence of short-term interests in decision-making, while democracies are inherently, by virtue of their structure, a short-term endeavour. What's more, most successful democracies today carry incredibly cautious cultures that both cripples their nation's ability to prosper (Japan and Europe with their horrifically low economic growth) and will degrade as soon as politicians set more examples of how the system can be warped and manipulated without repercussion (Rome breaking down after Sulla's Dictatorship).
...this all assumes that the dictator is actually competent...which is not a natural outcome of dictator power context.
@rimacutem of Alsvartrsmiðr Well in liberal Democracies, we have multiple incompetent, corrupt, and bought out bureaucrats. So both are incredible flawed.
@rimacutem of Alsvartrsmiðr Which is why the central question of politics should be how to best choose a capable absolute ruler, instead of wasting away centuries in the quagmire of stagnancy known as Democracy. It is free-market policies which have led to the furthering of nation-state power in the last couple centuries, not democratic institutions that enable the lowest common denominators of a society to halt the progress of the entire nation.
@@juliannemeth9285 But we have Political Dynasties that have tremendous influence outside of the electoral process through Foundations and other Non-government organizations. You can’t un-elect that.
@@juliannemeth9285 In public perhaps, but behind the scenes they’re all friends, see Bush Jr. and Bill Clinton.
George Carlin: “It’s one big club and you ain’t invited”.
Not that I want to be apart of that club, but still the quote rings true.
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no thing is in an autocratic state you don’t choose the ruler, at best it’s the oligarchs that do.
4:35 ARMSTRONGGG! I see you’re making the mother of all omelettes Ezekiel, can’t fret over every country ball!
Representatives, son
You should make a video for the book "why nations fail" it would be an interesting addition to the 80s Anthology
That was interesting I wonder what people think of the line: "In a Monarchy each new ruler is a roll of the dice, in a democracy each new ruler is a roll of the dice except the die is loaded against you."
While I feel like I can argue against that quote (much in the same way that I have arguments against what’s presented in the video). I feel like there’s context here that I haven’t heard, and would like to know.
@@lava2istrue Oh isn't anything too exciting I said it once in a debate with someone over the functionality of monarchy in the modern-day.
I was responding to them saying, "In a monarchy, every time the crown changes hands it's a roll of the dice as to whether it's a good ruler or a tyrant."
@@datnoob4394 And that saying is saying Democracy is rigged or its outcome a foregone conclusion before any input from “the people”
@@cryptarisprotocol1872 No I was getting at that in most democratic countries you have to trust that politicians with a track record of broken promises and lying are telling the truth *this* time.
Original meaning of words:
Democracy: Rule of the people/many.
Monarchy: Rule of one.
Aristocracy: Rule of the best.
Oligarchy: Rule of the few.
Actually, monarchy is rule of royalty and aristocracy is rule by heirs. And what you mean by rule of one is autocracy, and rule of the best is meritocracy
@@lunaria3542 ur actually just wrong
@@mattwatson6259 Really? Correct me then.
@@lunaria3542google protip: term+etymology. Works like a charm
Oh I get it now. Thanks
While it might seem true that in the long term taking great care of their country would net the most benefit...I think time tells that dictators don't tend to rule that rationally.
Or rather, it doesn't really matter how well you take care of your "property", or country, if the military or other pillars of power don't support you.
The fastest/most effective way of doing so ends in ologarchies again, where you make the most amount of money for the powerful few. And the dictators that don't? Some rival takes care of them and gives the powerbrokers what they want.
A "perfect" dictatorship would probably be the best form of government, though.
It still would be nice if our leaders actually cared about our land and its people, but instead they mostly enrich themselves and their donors. Not saying that dictatorships are any better, but maybe they're not the only two options.
Yeah Dictators are usually short term thinking idiots, that think more in lines of how to keep my head by the end of the week, so they expend and expend to keep the oligarchs happy and into the military in order to keep people from revolting. The dictators are the one who always pick the short net, since they are in survival mode. Putin invading Ukraine is his short net and boy is his failing to catch the fish.
There is a solid point to be made, though, that the only monarchs you ever hear about, are the ones who did the worst at their job. Out of thousands of monarchs that have existed, we happen to remember the absolute tyrants because they were the outliers. And even then, in the case of DTGTF, Hoppe merely makes the case that Monarchy happens to be better than Democracy, not that it's a good, nor ideal, system.
@@generalphobia the problem with you bringing up history is that centralization of power of the scale of the modern state has never been possible. Monarchs kept power simply because feudalism made it harder for them to do anything that would upset the staus quo. They just gave nobles their own mini countries in hopes of them been loyal and showing up when they were at war. In fact I would argue the US president holds far power than a monarch in the 8th century. The power to levy an income tax, would've been the stuff of dreams for monarchs.
@@addithehun4044 All I said was that it'd be nice to have leaders who put the good of the nation first instead of enriching themselves and their donors, which I just don't that happening in a liberal democracy, where different interests are trying to pull the country in different directions and dictatorships, well they either are overthrown, or sometimes some kind of reform may happen and the country gradually comes out of it.
That's why I think Corporatism should be considered. (A series of Professional guilds made up of both employees and employers, not multi-corporations or Big Tech)
I live in Turkey. 20 years ago Erdoğan and his conservative AKP democratically overthrew Kemalist regime, mostly ruled by the military elite. When they came to power, they promised democracy, free market, LGBT rights, EU membership and peace. Liberals, feminists, Islamists, ethnic minorities, gays, in short, almost everyone who disliked Kemalists supported them.
In 2000's, Turkey rapidly adopted free market economy. The government started negotiations with PKK to end terrorism that existed since 80's. Bans on turban, prostitution, Kurdish language, etc. were all lifted. Turkish economy became a perfect success story and Turkey almost became an EU member.
While all of these were happening, Erdoğan and his Gülenist (a cult) allies slowly purged Kemalists from everywhere and replaced them with their own men. Turkish foreign policy started to slowly became more Islamist. AKP and Gülen cult infected every single organ of the state. Corruption skyrocketed to the point that only a few companies could get tenders. All relatives, even class mates (I'm not joking) of AKP management became extremely rich. There are entire universities that every academician is related to each other. Journalists got jailed, Turkey's EU membership became just a dream and our economy became a joke. PKK, which Erdoğan was making a peace with, turned against Turkey once again and JUST BEFORE ELECTIONS we had terrorist attacks in every corner to the point my parents never allowed me to go to mall for an entire year. Panic created by terrorist attacks helped Erdoğan win. Then Erdoğan purged his old Gülenist allies. It became even shittier after July 15th, the probably fake military coup, made by either Erdoğan or Gülenists, which 300 people died. Now, we are a literal banana republic. The even worse thing is that Erdoğan got re-elected over and over again for 20 YEARS. His approval ratings are still around 40%. And a portion of remaining 60% would actually vote for him if the economy wasn't this bad.
When you enter Turkey, anti-democratic theory stops being a theory. If I could choose, I'd prefer the old Kemalist regime over democracy that gave us AKP, without even thinking.
But remember khemal Demanded democracy.
Aren't the Kemalists in Turkey just ordinary Social Democrats nowadays?
@@zyanego3170 Yeah most Kemalist became social democrat and even CHP is now a mixture of Kemalists and social democrats. I'd call this Neo-Kemalism, since legitimize their social democratic ideas with Atatürk's ideas.
@@mikaelantonkurki True, he worked for democracy, but at the end both he and his successor (İnönü) were military dictators. Although, these two were the best leaders of the republic.
One would argue that you're not a democracy but an autocracy.
Democracies can cease being democracies with a thunderous applause but that's nothing new.
Democracy Worst System but It didn't have any better Than it
debatable opinion but i kinda prefer that there is a democracy system
The Swiss system doesn't have Representatives, and the Laws are DIRECTLY Selected by a Majority.
God damnit. Now I have to revaluate my ideology, *again*.
These are excellent videos. I love how you focus on the topic at hand and narrate them as a neutral bystander, not pushing the ideology you examine, nor your own.
I dont know, I feel like there are some pretty good comments saying why the concept is rather flawed.
You'd do yourseflf a favor to see the other side's arguments also. Especially in human sciences. A lot of economics already sits on shaky empirical ground and political thought is even more difficult to make isolated tests for.
I was like you for a while now im a hoppean be a hoppean
Friend, obviously always remain open-minded to ideological arguments and counter-arguments. I, for one, will not be trying to direct you per se.
However, I will please encourage you to avoid that Hoppean shit that the other guy is mentioning.
@@b.t.peterson6429 bruh
I loved hearing at the end Out of Touch, lots of love man.
While I love the video as always, I can't shake the thought that the reliance on praxeology to form the ground argument on the short and long timespans' solutions is at fault here.
On "oligarchs and monarchs have a long time span for their decisions and therefore can make decisions that benefit the long term" does'nt jive with realities of self-indulgence, emotions, prestige and overall incompetence you can find in droves in history. Examples from that could go from when rulers killed their sons in bouts of rage or misgiven thoughts, such as Sultan Suleyman killing his son Ibrahim, or Ivan the Terrible. Both regretted those decisions, and they weren't best or logical, which is already a break from the praxeological axiom. (Someone also commented on Putin, and that's a great example considering the current talks about not paying back foreign creditors and seizing international firms' property).
On "democracies deal with the shortest time span possible", I can agree in part with the limits on reelections of Executive rulers and lowers chambers of Congress making cheap and fast populism a problem.... but then we have situations where there aren't reelection limits, and longer time spans of Senate members, and the fact that the survival of a political party is risked by the repercussions of its members, which often creates a "social buffer" against individuals stepping out of line or acting disregarding the future and the problems it will have in the reelections. A body of people in the legislative is more capable of whistanding individual whims and emotions in this regard.
On praxeology itself, we could always comment on the existance of panic buying, disliking products due to tastes or wants totally unrelated to them or just following motions of others. I understand the adoption of the mindset when we consider ourselves proper logical human beings, but humans cannot be considered reliable enough. My biases are pro neokeynesian (Krugman's in particular) economics, but I think the argument can still stand on itself even disregarding that.
Once again, great video and thanks for bringing the interest in economic and political theory to a wider set of people in a fun, engaging and concise way.
Thank you for this well written comment, it clarified well the uneasy feeling I had listening to the second part of this video.
Nicely said ol chap
You make a profound point about the parties especially, I think. Perhaps the faulty part of "Anti-democratic theory" lies in that it seems to take the perspective that the short-sightedness of democracy comes from the individualism of ego-oriented politicians wanting to maximise the effect of their actions during their terms; but it perhaps fails in emphasising individuals as the main actors of democracies, as opposed to bodies like parties and institutions and the like, the lifetime and needs for survival of which stretch for far longer.
@Hernando Malinche I agree on this
As an ancap I agree. This is where I'm more misesian than hoppean.
This is why democratic institutions are more important than the electorate ballot.
Accountability,transparency and non discriminative rights and responsibility are the core of a democracy,not electorate rulership.
Power will centralize. This is the nature of power. An imagined, 'transparent, accountable' democratic institution is just that, imagined.
that's not what happens, power centralises because its useful, and why do you think the institutions are imaginary? You don't have to imagine it to exist
Democracies cringe read some Aristotle
-John Doyle, 2020
Aristotle's idea of democracy isn't the same as our democracies, our system would probably be categorized as a "Politeia" under aristotelian terms, which he considers to be the best system...
I like the addition of Out of Touch by Hall and Oates when discussing how democratic leaders are pushed to destroy their countries.
The issue with dictatorship is the same issue as that of a monopoly.
If you don’t have strong competition in governance which is accountable to the masses, there is no incentive to improve the living conditions of the people beyond what’s neccecary to keep power.
In fact, keeping the people starving is incentivised since starving peasants don’t make good revolutionaries.
Could be argued yes but they won't pass that bare minimum to keep power
The problem comes with democratic rulers who can pass that bare minimum if they wanted to as they don't rule for a life time and thus don't care
But it really all comes down to the leader if they are good or bad
@@KingdomRepublic Yeah. Constituitons exist in order to restrict leaders ability to make self interested policy, so a strong constitution is nessecary.
@@Draktand01 dude you are far behind in perception do you really think an ink on paper is going to stop a bad leader?
And a constitution basically became taboo just like the church which was a religious taboo in Europe
The constitution is made by humans and they make mistakes example is US constitution having slavery in it!!
Still don't believe? Look at America now and the division among them
The constitution is not a magic solution
A tried and true one would be the people always being United which is practically impossible and the people always making informed decisions again also impossible
We need a better system than shitty democracy like come on it is over 1000 years old
Dictator doesn't have monopoly, his rivals are other countries
Just to clarify, it's not like the opposite is true for democratic systems. Citizen welfare just happens to be aligned with their representatives' interests to maintain power.
This means democracies are (usually) better places to live for their citizens, but not that it is inherent to the system.
Source: The Dictator's Handbook.
Came here for Victoria 2 tips, stayed here for this epic content, I absolutely love it!
I especially loved the Czechoslovak Legions 2 part series, cuz I am from Slovakia and we were literally having classes about ww1 and creation of republic around that time and it sadly wasnt that much discused by our teacher, keep going, absolutely love it, love from big fan from Slovakia
I was conditioned by the U.S. school system to love democracy. I'm proud to tell you I'm now enthusiastically critical of it.
Ayo?
Good
The problem with democracy is that it requires responsibility and morality in its citizens to function but in the long run responsible individual end up paying for the mistakes of others. Responsibility becomes disincentivized and democracy fails
That can apply to other forms as well like a good monarch or a benevolent authoritarian or dictator
So i guess it all comes down if the leader is good or bad and what should be done about it in the case of being bad
I can understand not being able to do much in a dictatorship or monarchy but in democracy there is no excuse so that is why i hate it
@@KingdomRepublic then why not hate the other forms of government either?
@@KingdomRepublic here’s the thing, dictators or monarchs rule for life/ a long time. Presidents or chancellor’s or prime minister’s or whatever don’t. They have a much shorter overall time in office in comparison. So a bad monarch will have a much greater effect then a bad president or what ever.
@@natebox4550 and a good monarch has a much better effect than a good president that won't last long
Dude you are deflecting your own arguments lmao
And my above point remains firmly the same it is about the leader
@@KingdomRepublic does it really? There is a long list of great presidents who have done much in 4-8 years. You don’t need and entire life to accomplish shit. And you shouldn’t, you shouldn’t have families rule over a country, it’s stupid. It’s archaic, I could at least see use of elected monarchs, but even then, they have much more power then a president. Which isn’t a good thing.
Thank you Ezekiel. Far better explained than I ever could!
Now having finished the video (could tell the quality early on) definitely much more " In Defense of Freedom" Machiavellian, rather than a "The God that Failed" Machiavellian. :)
@@lexguttman I definitely recommend you read the books, “democracy the god that failed” isn’t Machiavellian, it’s just a critique. I have only read the aforementioned, and not “in defense of freedom”, which is now on my reading list. But “democracy…” brings up some fascinating points, and also some stats. It’s a pretty long book, but there is an audiobook on UA-cam. I am not pro monarchy, nor is the book really, but it is a great critique, and I am still trying to think of how to fix the issues it found without a form of monarchy. Also the prince, by Machiavelli, is brilliant and gives insight into the behavior of politicians.
@@mj6463 I can never get through the prince. Each time I do I get about a quarter of the way through, and I'm like.
"Thank you Machiavelli, I get your point. And that is enough."
Man was incredibly insightful but seemed to forget that they are still people.
@@lexguttman yeah, I will say this audio book is very good for car rides, it can be a bit dull, but on a nine hour drive it’s easy to listen to. I think his point does get more complex, but it’s been a few months since the last time I listened.
ua-cam.com/video/IdRxHTih-28/v-deo.html
But yeah all good man, it can be a bit dull.
That's true assuming that the dictator isn't a crazy guy that only thinks about himself and not his heirs which is a very common thing
Well that's not very machiavellian
Possible? Yes, very common? Less so. Besides, this isn't saying that all dictators will think long term, but that they are incentivized to do so if they want to stick around and have their heirs do so as well. Whereas democratic rulers are incentivized to do the opposite, to do as much as possible in as short an amount of time.
Ask yourself, who has more of a reason to end his rule with a very functional, and stable society and State. A King, who is handing his rule to his child, which can be under harsh scrutiny to the point of the threat of violence. Or, a politician who at most will run 8 years, spend whatever he can (using short time preference to raise his approval rating, neglecting future costs) to get that next term, and leave not to be seen again.
@@Octavian2 Tbh though Saddam was praised for his "stability", he did a bunch of internal genocides amidst the Kurds and Shiites, plus his sons abused the shit out of their power and did all forms of horrors on random citizens
@DogeickBateman I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing an important point of difference.
There's intrinsic reasons why a king would prefer a stable society, and more importantly, a future stable society. Familial lineage of rule creates incentive. Owns the property, which creates incentive. And so on.
Conflict and genocide would be going against the incentive of the king. There's also safe guards as well, but that's a side point.
Polish Cat Girl strikes again!!
cat iran is the most cursed and haram thing that i have laid my eyes on
To be honest saying representative democracy is just saying republic with extra steps.
euh..... my dream and hope are crush once again
Depends on if you count most constitutional monarchies as actual monarchies or not.
IMAGINE A WORLD FREE OF CANCEL CULTURE WHERE NOONE CAN CALL ME OUT FOR MY OUTLANDISH CLAIMS! A WORLD WHERE I CAN SAY THE N WORD!!!
One can dream
One of the good arguments against current democracy in countries such as the US is that there's way too much tolerance of lobbying (which shouldn't even exist in a true democracy) and therefore the needs of the people don't get represented, even if the party that they, the constituent, voted for wins. Most of the time, even without lobbying, modern democracy is still built on a network of back pedaling and lies from politicians anyway
I love this discussion about democracy and Machiavellianism since I live in a country in which democracy legitimized the rule of an oligarchy of elites who control us. Just one thing, the background music is too loud when you speak and distracts a lot of attention from what you're saying but overall, a great video.
Democracy more like cringocracy
-every single major political thinker.
Monarchy is the natural system of government
Do we have genes for that?
Did kings order members of their tribe if they went hunting that day or what?
@@BiturixTaranuncnos look thru history, almost all historical government's where monarchies, proving that people generally like the idea.
@@ericboom1712 Then why were there so many revolts? Ever heard of the peasant rebellion in 1527?
And did all of them "like" the idea or did they simply accept it bc they were raised in it, the church or other spiritual institutions told them this system was "god given" and did they have access to accounts from other cultures that can live without hierarchies or states?
@@BiturixTaranuncnos most of these revolts just resulted in a new monarchy. Also tell me how many times in just the last hundred years that democracies failed?
@@ericboom1712 ?
Which revolts?
Also, 1. you didnt answer my question
2. And how many times have monarchies walked over their peoples corpses for their interest?
1527, 1626, 1848... thats what comes to mind
4:39
"Standing here, I realize you were just like me trying to make history. But who's to judge the right from wrong. When our guard is down I think we'll both agree. That violence breeds violence. But in the end it has to be this way."
Nano machines son
I've curved my own path!
"I'm making the omelet of omelets Jack, can't fuss over every egg."
Politics & History AND A SYNTHWAVE AESTHETIC
you just got yourself a new subscriber
Nanomachines, son!
I've been on a binge of this channel just watching video after video. I love the book suggestions with each topic!
I really don't like how people are thinking in a binary between democracy and dictatorship. You don't have to resort to an unlimited absolute dictatorship to accept that democracy is not a good system. People need to start thinking of systems that don't pretend a popularity contest is a suitable check and balance while still having checks and balances lmao.
Thing is checks and balances can only be enforced through accountability.
@@baneofbanes accountability only needs a supreme law and a judiciary that can independently enforce it. We already see the legislative assembly just being avoided with executive powers. The only difference between what's happening now and what could exist is that the executive branch wouldn't be so short-sighted to survive elections, and wouldn't change governments every couple of years.
The worst system is dictatorship pretending to be a democracy.
4:38
Never knew I needed to see a Senator Ballstrong
I think both absolutism and democracy brings about corruption and tyranny so we need to find a good middle ground. That middle ground is constitutional monarchy. Not the weak constitutional monarchy of Britain where the queen is just a symbol but one where the king has absolute power so long as he serves God and the rule of law. This system will allow for order, the rule of law, but also accountability for the ruling class because the monarch could not go against the constitution or the law set by a legislative branch.
You mean like Thailand, an extremely corrupt nation?
How the fuck are you a “true American” you unironically believe in monarchies, like the most anti American thing next to communism.
Now yer talking.
The king (or president or sultan or emir) is just one man.History is full of examples of what happened when a single person is given absolute control over the multi faceted aspect of the body politics even if its done within a constitutional framework.
US is actually a perfect example of this.George Bush declaring war on Iraq is actually constitutional and lawful,all things considered.Does not make it less of a disaster
@@ihavenojawandimustscream4681 I agree that absolute power does lead to tyranny but a government without powerful leaders are always weak and ineffective. If the government has a strict interpretation of a constitution and if it adheres to the rule of law than tyranny can be avoided. I can agree that Bush and the elites of the west no longer care about the rule of law and that's a big problem we face in the modern day but if we bring a true American elite, similar to what the federalists wanted, then that problem will be solved.
I find that view on democracy really interesting, but that view of Oligarchys being inevitibly depends on what you see as an Oligarchy, like does a political party that is in charge for 4 years count as an Oligarchy or are Oligarchys buisness men that control the law making from the shadows or is it an actual elite of nobles and rich people that are the only ones allowed to make the decision.
Because personly I believe Oligarchys are a form of goverment where only a certain class is allowed to "participate" in a states goverment.
I guess it depends of the question " what is power in the country of X ?"
For example where I live currently the people can only vote for representatives, that will vote themselves for the Prime Minister in theory.
In practice the PM cannot be your common low-born citizens, you have to be from a certain elite from birth to have those REALLY IMPORTANT positions where you have actually power over the government.
I see this type of government as an olygarchy ( even a mafia depending of how you view life ) because whatever the people do this groupe will not change. Ever. And you can't really elect people to be in that group, everyone know it's actually from birth or maybe you have really really good friends but well, still an oligarchy
Yes
All of the above. Look to American and Canadian politics, where we have dynastic politicians. The Clinton's, the Bushes and the Trudeaus. Families that have become entrenched in the political class in a manner normal People are not. That is budding oligarchy.
Then you have the two party system, with no term limits in certain areas creating life long politicians that have vested interests in making political choices that favour themselves and their parties, over others. Oligarchic self selection. Then we have the power of lobbying. Big business and these days, big business makes even big government seem small, has the kind of money, power and influence to subvert democratic will in a massive way. They control industries, communications and media platforms. The media! They own politicians in a way. Technofuedalism. They buy votes and elections, with money, influence and if that doesn't work, they can galvanise public outrage against individual politicians. They are the emerging technoaristocracy, whose children will inherit their powers of control and their wealth and are no longer subject to any one nations laws as they interests are global, and decentralised.
The future oligarchy is one of Technofuedalism and it is ruled by a few.
Oligarchy in this context means that you have a small amount of people making the majority of the decisions often against the majority. A lot of times these people aren’t even that rich but they share a common interest think of people at the New York Times, Pentagon workers, influential Academics. In some sense there will always be an elite looking back we can see the Catholic Church in Europe or the Founding Fathers in America being elites of their time. Go back any point in history and there is small minority of people who control the majority.
Meanwhile, China: Okay guyz, if we remove 1% of tax on this extremely specific part of the economy, we'll be able to grow 5% faster by 2100 AD
I subscribed for the game stuff, but I guess this is cool aswell.
Get with the times bro
"C'on, let's vote, this time will surely work"
All I can say is:
No protests = good government
Either the state is feared or it is respected. In both cases it is stable.
Thomas Hobbes fan
Ruh roh!
A feared state is not a stable state, as the moment the fear because too much or too little, it collapses.
> high dictator time preference
> Putin
> Hussein
> Lukashenko
Yeah, cool book, I'll keep living in democracies. I hope we'll see the other side of the coin in a future video.
@Map Painter Never let data get in the way of good narrative!
@Map Painter All states with high quality of life.
@Map Painter true also Singapore is a dictatorship and it ranks high on every metric im not promoting anti democracy im just saying that democracy does not always work
@@christopherscott1336 High quality of life for their citizens. Not for the foreign laborers that make up huge fractions of their population.
@@christopherscott1336 As long as you don't happen to be gay, atheist or enjoy alcohol.
This entire video proves the saying, "Bad times create strong men, strong men make great times, great times make weak men, weak men create bad times."creat
Democracy has, and always has been, Rule By Oligarchy.
Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic. We are weird by historical standards.
4:34 In the end I realize you were just like me trying to make history
But who i am
~But who's to judge~
@@alexgg-5079 the right or wrong
@@carlrodalegrado4104 When our guard is down
A UA-camr? Showing the other side of democracy?! You earned a sub, epic.
I feel so validated after commenting on that community post about believing or not in democracy that hoppe's book convinced me that it was not the ideal system hahaha, jokes aside you actually do a great job here even if you don't believe these ideas you give them a fair shake and i appreciate it.
what is the best form of government if it isn't democracy?
"Democracy is the worst form of government *execpt all others* ".
@@jakobinobles3263 Id advocate for the removal of political ideas locked behind ideologies. You should be able to pick and choose specific ideas that work from different ideologies and combine them into your government without having to go all the way with one ideology.
@@מ.מ-ה9ד well I mean “ The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. The greatest argument for it is every other system.”
@@jakobinobles3263 this was something that I was once told by someone I knew. They argued that part of the reason the us failed in the Middle East was the fact that a democracy was not the best form of government for that region and forcing it just made the government worse. That the US should have put in benevolent dictatorships instead or allowed the tribal leaders to take charge.
Out Of Touch by Hall and Oats is such a great song. Been listening to it a lot recently and it was a pleasant surprise to hear it here!
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. “Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
bad apple and plastic love in the background somehow fits well with the video
0:10 jokes on you I'm chinese
D:TGTF is basically everything one of our Polish politicians Janusz Korwin-Mikke says. The problem is that most of population considers him a lunatic (sometimes he looks so) and Russian agent (without proof).
Yeah, it's kind of sad knowing that one of the most reasonable guys within polish parlament is treated by most of the people as nothing more than a joke.
Well he was cradling a femboy in a skirt, I think that does qualify him as a lunatic
It's really ironic the author of this book decided to call what he believed in "machiavellism" because Machiavelli wrote the Prince specifically to criticize monarchy, he himself stated in the first chapter of the book that the work only dealt with "principalities" and that he would reserve his thoughts on republics for a later work, this later work "Discourses on Livy" basically praises republicanism... so yeah, i feel like I shouldn't trust someone who doesn't even understand the ideology of the man who he named his theory after.
Edit: If the argument of the book is being represented corrrectly, it doesn't even seem convincing on it's own, if you have to redefine what "democracy" means to prove it's bad you are already on a losing position.
Edit 2: Hoppe once said something along the lines of "my theory can't be criticized empirically" which is fitting, since the whole thing falls apart when you look at the actual human experience aka history, hell you don't even have to go that far back, practically all modern absolute monarchies are oil states, who are running themselves into the ground by relying their entire economy on one depleting natural resource that is also destroying the planet, this is not surprising as well, since the whole austrian idea that every man will always act in rational self interest is obviously fallacious to anyone who knows how human beings actually behave.
This is a common misunderstanding of austrian theory. Acting "rationally" simply means that people act to achieve ends according to the their purposes, and this is undeniable, since arguing against it is self-contradiction. All action is (purposeful behavior), by definition, necessarily "rational". Even if its seemingly crazy or wrong people still act for their own reasons. "Irrational" behavior is, by definition, all behavior outside of one's will or volition, like reflexes.
"my theory can't be criticized empirically" isn't a great paraphrase. he means that, in general, empirical observations don't necessarily disprove economic theory because its impossible to account for all the potential variables. Economic theory relies on the knowledge that flows out of known variables and configuations, it doesn't mean that empiricism is useless or he's invulnerable from criticism.
@@CV-ju6ul Yes, but under this definition of "rational" Hoppe's argument doesn't make nearly as much sense, if a king's desires are more in line with short term pleasure and gain than long term goals he will act in according to that, no matter what the "incentives" are, the opposite is also true for a democratic president (see Seretse Khama of Botswana for an example), because people don't always choose the most optimal path.
There is also the problem that the theory goes both ways, if a Monarch has long term goals which are fundamentally immoral (genocide for example) or just flawed and damaging for the country, they wouldn't face much opposition, while a president with the same goal would have a much harder time, one could argue the risks outweigh the rewards in this regard, this ties back into the rationality question, even long term goals aren't necesserialy good or effective.
@@caiawlodarski5339 not if the majority is with the political party or the leader
@@CV-ju6ul I mean if you argue with a communist or a liberal with Marxist flirtation, they will argue in contradiction and double down if called out on those contradictions.
It's not a changing of definitions of Democracy, it's what Democracy actually is in lived reality.
Hmm... The supposedly low time preference of dictators discussed here goes against what I learned in CGP Grey's rules for rulers.
I guess the presumption in Rules for rulers that the democrat must give back more to the people is kind of flawed in that he doesn't have to actually do so, but bread and circuses get him the same effect. Use debt and inflation instead to cash in in the near future. This builds the staircase to getting the structure of dictatorship on top of the democratic foundation.
My takeaway is that no government structure, even the best one we've found so far, can compensate for the direction that a stupid populace takes everyone along. Critical thinking is the pillar of progress.
Never clicked on a video faster in my life
Based
hans hermam hoppe
is a giga chad
Finally someone who draws the gas tube on an ak correctly. Alot of people don't connect it and that just doesn't make sense cause the gun would work. Just a pet peeve good job.
@4:00 i notice Plastic Love playing in the background.
To anyone who actually believes in the Democratic system. Did you follow the Ghislanne Maxwell trial?
Democracy is not God democracy is an abomination.
It was supposed to be god but failed. That's the point of title.
Just noticed Russia eating Ukraine, is funny
Immediate subscriber. I have never researched or got into Machiavellianism and you have sparked my curiosity.
Democracy more be like...government by the certain people, of the certain people... to the certain people
At first it seemed to me that a familiar song was playing.
I read the description, and yes, "Bad Apple". I must conclude, that you a man of culture, i subscribe
>hoppe
BASED.
@Lucas Lombardo hoppe isn't a neo-nazi, lol
That's why reelection is so harmful for democracy. And this video gives me one idea, what if not only reelection of the same leader is prohibited but also the leader's party can't participate on the next election?
Hell yeah, Ezekiel! You just got my patreon money for the 80s aestethic and Hall and Oats soundtrack. Real banger in concert. Loved the info! Hopefully you explain how the economy in the new Victoria game works when it drops!
great video and channel my man, keep up the great work!
3 minutes in and all of a sudden i go from listening to what your saying to thinking "wait i recognise this tune..." After a few seconds of listening to the music i must say. You clever dog sneaking Bad apple in.
Same thing here. You just can't hide from it, it even creeps into politology.
I hate your channel...because the contents are too good to watch later. Instead of sleeping I am watching your youtube videos. Awesome quality, but seriously dawg, awesome job!
*Too much power for too long will make a person corrupt, no matter what.*
If you have the power to cross a red line with little to no self consequences, after time, you will cross the line.
Power always reveals, never corrupts. It reveales what the person always wanted to do once they gained power.
@@invidusspectator3920
no, no... power also changes people.
Not all, but most.
Too much power is also very addictive.
@@מ.מ-ה9ד it only exposes the shadows that they always possessed.
@@invidusspectator3920 I think you are wrong. Look up CGP Greys Rules for Rulers (and the sequel)
Take the throne to act, and the throne acts upon you. He explains why even people with really good intentions NEED do "bad" stuff.
@@foty8679 I agree but it always reflects back your worst aspects that were always there. I've watched it, I've even made a comment with it here.
Video Kojima watching this video: *"WRITE THAT DOWN WRITE THAT DOWN!!!!!"*
I feel like the problem with the current Democratic system is that their is no faith in the nation and no pride in the institutions. If you love your country and what it represents, you want to just improve it and keep it stable for your people and children. However, if there is major social strife, you hate half the population. Also after WWI general faith in Western Civilisation in Western Civilisation has declined, thus making the idea of long term thinking redundant, which it wasn’t before, as while you wasn’t the owner of the nation, your People or nationality were, thus with a less coherent and socially stable society Democracy is less stable, which dictatorships don’t always have a problem with.
That’s true, unfortunately apathy does seem to have increased since the 2 World Wars.
@@crusader2112 Yes. It has quite a bit to do with Civilisational trauma. When the Mongols took pillaged and burned Russia and China, they became isolationist and absolutist, paired with extreme conservatism and fear of the outside. After the sheer horrors of the World Wars, many of the notions of Western superiority were shattered, and those who weren’t were destroyed in the Aftermath, with a general distrust of everything that was the norm before the world wars. It’s rather sad to see.
The Marxists have been chopping away at any social cohesion for that entire time frame. Racism, sexism, us vs them in every conceivable way. The collectivization of society. Tribalism in order for divided to fall.
Western institutions have armed themselves and declared half of the population which traditionally supported them as domestic terrorists. There is no pride in the institutions, as they are controlled by our enemies.
@@shamusson Of course. This is also a consequence of the lack of faith in Western Superiority after the World Wars. The enemies could easily infiltrate as nobody cared about stopping them, or at least not enough people cared.
(2:29) "Any man who must say, "I am the King", is no true king." ~Game of thrones
"I bet you dear viewer live in a democracy"
*Cries*
See... the only thing I have to dispute there is that dictators and kings actually think long term.
@@weakspirit_ I finally got the notification. Just what the floop happened here?
I'm from the USA, I was born in a republic
Thank you for your work.
A big problem dictatorships have is that doesn't have a system to take the incompetent out of power in the same manner that you can have a good king for 60 years you can also have a bad king for 60 years while in democracies the leadership is rotated a lot faster thus giving more opportunity to competent people to get power and minimising the impact of incompetent people in power
One thing or another. It's also worth mentioning that dictatorships produce less incompetent leaders, as either heir is teached how to rule around 10 years (if nothing bad happens) or gets his power because he was appointed for his skills by previous dictator. Most of incompetent kings was surrounded by other kings, so the bar was setted higher.
2:58 I suddenly realize that bad apple was playing💀
I have to ask, make a video about the handbook for dictators.
You really make awsome vids man, keep it up!❤
a very interesting video gives me and other libertarians something to think about
You are a libertarian
@@athishnirup1815 yes
@@giganisgaming9476 what type of libertarian are you if don't mind me asking
@@athishnirup1815my personnel type of libertarianism is Classical Liberalism
but a bit more focused on technological development trough the free market
@@giganisgaming9476 that's good, thank you for answering
STANDING HERE
I REALISE
YOU WERE JUST LIKE ME, TRYING TO MAKE HISTORY
Another good book on this topic is "The End of Democracy"
Possibly the most insightful video ive seen in awhile
Me who came for Vicky 2 tutorials.
"LET ME OFF THIS DAMN RIDE!"
Democracy the god that failed was hard To get through. The book makes some good points, but is also full of a lot of pure garbage. Within the first chapter, the drooling over kings making responsible decisions while in power is hilariously ignorant if history. Also the claim that war used to be more civilized was also another knee slapper.