Crimes Of Democracy

Versus
Crimes Of Communism
Book By Karol Ondrias

The book presents data (112 graphs) from the real experiment of socialism versus capitalism in
Slovakia, the former socialist countries and in the world. From the data it presents evidence of the
crimes of democracy, which are several times higher than the crimes of communism. It discusses the
rules of global capitalistic democracy leading to high inequality, modern democratic serfdom and the
crimes of democracy, which are based on the rules of the capitalistic democracy coupled with unlimited
private property.
It describes the costs of the transition from socialism to capitalism, from "totalitarianism" to democracy
across the whole region, highlights the dramatic and widespread deterioration of human rights and
security, where democracy is killing people several times more efficiently than Stalin's execution
guards. It presents evidence of the astonishing power of recent totalitarian neo-liberal capitalistic
democracy. It presents evidence that policies of some democratically elected governments produced
significantly more criminal military interventions, significantly more innocent deaths and committed
more severe crimes against humanity than totalitarian communism. That it is not possible, under the
recent democratic rules, to punish democratically elected governments for well-known crimes against
humanity and violation of international law.
Democracy in the capitalistic system cannot work and is not working properly because the recent
democracy is based on unlimited private property. The freedom of expression is incompatible with
unlimited private property. Capitalistic democracy means that the owners of the unlimited property
have power to govern through thedemocratically elected representatives over democracy.

http://books.google.com/books?
id=yXYbMu98CJsC&dq=karol+ondrias&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=syGpg7pE05&sig=op
WcL5Q5NyfFCWrLu3aNu1DhciQ&hl=en&ei=1d--
Str4GpDMsQPV1pxG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=&f=false

RNDr. Karol Ondrias, DrSc. - curriculum vitae

Curriculum vitae Karol Ondrias, Ph.D., D.Sc. Permanent address: Institute of Molecular Physiology
and Genetics Slovak Academy of Sciences Vlarska 5 83334 Bratislava Slovak Republic Phone: ++421-
2-54774102; ++421-2-65314106 Fax: ++421-2-54773666 Email: umfgonds@kramare.savba.sk
http://nic.savba.sk/sav/inst/umfg/lmp/index.htm Personal 1952, March 30: born in Zlate Moravce,
Slovakia. Nationality: Slovak. Married. Education 1977: M. Sc., Physic-biophysics, Comenius
University, Bratislava, Slovakia. Diploma work: Use of electron spin resonance to study membrane
fluidity. 1985: Ph.D., Institute of Experimental Pharmacology, Slovak Academy of Sciences,
Bratislava, Slovakia. Title of thesis: Biophysical analysis of local anesthetic action on membranes.
1988: DSc., Mathematical–Physical faculty, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia. Title of thesis:
Antioxidant properties of some pharmacologically active drugs. Research Experience Doctoral: 1977-
1985: Research Associate, Institute of Experimental Pharmacology, Slovak Academy of Sciences,
Bratislava, Slovakia. Topic: Study of fluidization effect of pharmacologically active drugs. 1979-1980:
The Seven International Course on Biology. Biological Research Center, Szeged, Hungary. Topic: Use
of electron spin resonance method in Biology. Postdoctoral 1985-1988: Institute of Experimental
Pharmacology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia. Topic: Use of ESR spectroscopy to
study free radical interactions in biological systems. 1988-1990: Laboratory of Prof. B.E. Ehrlich, The
University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA. Topic: Electrical properties of single
RyR channels in planar lipid membrane. 1990-1992: Independent researcher, Head of the Laboratory of
Biophysical Pharmacology, Institute of Experimental Pharmacology, Slovak Academy of Sciences,
Bratislava, Slovakia. Topic: Interactions of pharmacologically active drugs with free radicals. 1992-
1996: Postdoctoral Fellow: Laboratory of Prof. A. R. Marks, Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai
Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. Topic: Effect of phosphorylation of IP3R on its single channel
properties. 1995-1996: Research Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Medical
Center, New York, NY, USA. 1998-2002: One-two months visit at laboratory of Prof. A. R. Marks,
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. Topic: Coupled properties of RyR channels. 1996-present:
Head of the Laboratory of Intracellular Ion Channels, Institute of Molecular Physiology and Genetics,
Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia. Honors and Awards 1997: 3-years research grant,
from S.G.A. Slovak Republic. 1999: 3-years research grant FIRCA Collaborator, from NIH, USA.
2000: 3-years research grant, from S.G.A. Slovak Republic. 2000: Certificate of merit for research,
from Inst. Molec. Physiol. Gen., Bratislava. 2002: 3-years research grant FIRCA Collaborator, from
NIH, USA. 2002: Silver Medal of merit for research, from Slovak Academy of Sciences 2002: 3-years
APVT grant. Slovak republic 2003: 3-years research grant, from S.G.A. Slovak Republic. 2005: 3-
years APVT grant. Slovak republic 2006: 3-years research grant, from S.G.A. Slovak Republic. Karol
Ondrias, Ph.D., DSc. Bratislava, December 1, 2008

http://www.sav.sk/?lang=en&charset=ascii&doc=org-user&user_no=2069&action=cv
C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and
Public Education

The following quotes below are taken from his satirical Screwtape Proposes a Toast (1959). Screwtape,
a demon, speaks at the graduation of other younger demons from Tempters’ Training College.
Hidden in the heart of this striving for Liberty there was also a deep hatred of personal
freedom. That invaluable man Rousseau first revealed it. In his perfect democracy, you
remember, only the state religion is permitted, slavery is restored, and the individual is told
that he has really willed (though he didn’t know it) whatever the Government tells him to
do. From that starting point, via Hegel (another indispensable propagandist on our side) we
easily contrived both the Nazi and the Communist state….

Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose…. [T]hey should never
be allowed to give this word a clear and definable meaning. They won’t. It will never occur
to them that democracy is properly the name of a political system, even a system of voting,
and that this has only the most remote and tenuous connection with what you are trying to
sell them. Nor of course must they ever be allowed to raise Aristotle’s question: whether
“democratic behaviour” means the behaviour that democracies like or the behaviour that
will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these
need not be the same.

You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It
is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men
should be equally treated. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this
political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal…. As a result you can use the word
democracy to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of
human feelings. You can get him to practise, not only without shame but with a positive
glow of self-approval, conduct which, if undefended by the magic word, would be
universally derided.

The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say I’m as good as you….

No man who says I’m as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St.
Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the
bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political
field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it
expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the
patient refuses to accept.

And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resents every kind of superiority in others;
denigrates it; wishes its annihilation. Presently he suspects every mere difference of being a
claim to superiority…. “They’ve no business to be different. It’s undemocratic.”

Now, this useful phenomenon is in itself by no means new. Under the name of Envy it has
been known to humans for thousands of years. But hitherto they always regarded it as the
most odious, and also the most comical, of vices. Those who were aware of feeling it felt it
with shame; those who were not gave it no quarter in others. The delightful novelty of the
present situation is that you can sanction it — make it respectable and even laudable — by
the incantatory use of the word democratic.

Under the influence of this incantation those who are in any or every way inferior can
labour more wholeheartedly and successfully than ever before to pull down everyone else
to their own level. But that is not all. Under the same influence, those who come, or could
come, nearer to a full humanity, actually draw back from fear of being undemocratic….
They might (horror of horrors!) become individuals….

Meanwhile, as a delightful by-product, the few (fewer every day) who will not be made
Normal or Regular and Like Folks and Integrated increasingly become in reality the prigs
and cranks which the rabble would in any case have believed them to be. For suspicion
often creates what it expects…. As a result we now have an intelligentsia which, though
very small, is very useful to the cause of Hell.

But that is a mere by-product. What I want to fix your attention on is the vast, overall
movement towards the discrediting, and finally the elimination, of every kind of human
excellence – moral, cultural, social, or intellectual. And is it not pretty to notice how
“democracy” (in the incantatory sense) is now doing for us the work that was once done by
the most ancient Dictatorships, and by the same methods?…

Once you have grasped the tendency, you can easily predict its future developments;
especially as we ourselves will play our part in the developing. The basic principle of the
new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent
and industrious pupils. That would be “undemocratic.” These differences between pupils –
for they are obviously and nakedly individual differences – must be disguised. This can be
done at various levels. At universities, examinations must be framed so that nearly all the
students get good marks. Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all,
citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher
education or not. At schools, the children who are too stupid or lazy to learn languages and
mathematics and elementary science can be set to doing things that children used to do in
their spare time…. Whatever nonsense they are engaged in must have – I believe the
English already use the phrase – “parity of esteem”…. Children who are fit to proceed to a
higher class may be artificially kept back, because the others would get a trauma…by being
left behind. The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group
throughout his school career….

In a word, we may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when I’m as good
as you has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will be
prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers – or should I
say, nurses? – will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to
waste any time on real teaching. We shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread
imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men. The little vermin themselves
will do it for us.

Of course, this would not follow unless all education became state education. But it will.
That is part of the same movement. Penal taxes, designed for that purpose, are liquidating
the Middle Class, the class who were prepared to save and spend and make sacrifices in
order to have their children privately educated. The removal of this class, besides linking up
with the abolition of education, is, fortunately, an inevitable effect of the spirit that says I’m
as good as you. This was, after all, the social group which gave to the humans the
overwhelming majority of their scientists, physicians, philosophers, theologians, poets,
artists, composers, architects, jurists, and administrators. If ever there were a bunch of
stalks that needed their tops knocked off, it was surely they. As an English politician
remarked not long ago, “A democracy does not want great men.”

We, in Hell, would welcome the disappearance of democracy in the strict sense of that
word, the political arrangement so called. Like all forms of government, it often works to
our advantage, but on the whole less often than other forms. And what we must realize is
that “democracy” in the diabolical sense (I’m as good as you, Being Like Folks,
Togetherness) is the fittest instrument we could possibly have for extirpating political
democracies from the face of the earth.

For “democracy” or the “democratic spirit” (diabolical sense) leads to a nation without
great men, a nation mainly of subliterates, full of the cocksureness which flattery breeds on
ignorance, and quick to snarl or whimper at the first sign of criticism. And that is what Hell
wishes every democratic people to be. For when such a nation meets in conflict a nation
where children have been made to work at school, where talent is placed in high posts, and
where the ignorant mass are allowed no say at all in public affairs, only one result is
possible….

It is our function to encourage the behaviour, the manners, the whole attitude of mind,
which democracies naturally like and enjoy, because these are the very things which, if
unchecked, will destroy democracy. You would almost wonder that even humans don’t see
 it themselves. Even if they don’t read Aristotle (that would be undemocratic) you would
have thought the French Revolution would have taught them that the behaviour aristocrats
naturally like is not the behaviour that preserves aristocracy. They might then have applied
the same principle to all forms of government….

The overthrow of free peoples and the multiplication of slave states are for us a means
(besides, of course, being fun); but the real end is the destruction of individuals. For only
individuals can be saved or damned, can become sons of the Enemy or food for us. The
ultimate value, for us, of any revolution, war, or famine lies in the individual anguish,
treachery, hatred, rage, and despair which it may produce. I’m as good as you is a useful
means for the destruction of democratic societies. But it has a far deeper value as an end in
itself, as a state of mind which, necessarily excluding humility, charity, contentment, and all
the pleasures of gratitude or admiration, turns a human being away from almost every road
which might finally lead him to Heaven.

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/c-s-lewis-on-diabolical-democracy-
socialism-and-public-education/#respond

Demos by Edwin Arlington Robinson

http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/edwin_arlington_robinson/poems/1857I
All you that are enamored of my name
And least intent on what most I require,
Beware; for my design and your desire,
Deplorably, are not as yet the same.
Beware, I say, the failure and the shame
Of losing that for which you now aspire
So blindly, and of hazarding entire
The gift that I was bringing when I came.
Give as I will, I cannot give you sight
Whereby to see that with you there are some
To lead you, and be led. But they are dumb
Before the wrangling and the shrill delight
Of your deliverance that has not come,
And shall not, if I fail you—as I might.
II
So little have you seen of what awaits
Your fevered glimpse of a democracy
Confused and foiled with an equality
Not equal to the envy it creates,
That you see not how near you are the gates
Of an old king who listens fearfully
To you that are outside and are to be
The noisy lords of imminent estates.Rather be then your prayer that you shall have
Your kingdom undishonored. Having all,
See not the great among you for the small,
But hear their silence; for the few shall save
The many, or the many are to fall—
Still to be wrangling in a noisy grave.
 Socialism ≠ Social Disease
“Socialism is the exploitation of man by man;
capitalism is the opposite.” Polish proverb

Part I, Propaganda and Plunder, examined how people in power abuse words by twisting them into
their opposite meaning, a technique called false logic labeling or doublespeak. Doublespeak is made
easier because words are tossed around whose meaning isn’t clear in the first place. Take the word
“socialism”.
Here’s one dictionary definition: “a political theory advocating state ownership of industry”. While
that definition is concise, it is not particularly useful since it could serve just as well to define
“communism”.
Some do use those words interchangeably – some out of misfeasance and some out of ignorance – but
there is, or certainly ought to be, a distinction between the two. For example, the nations of Western
Europe are generally thought of as “socialistic” or “social democracies”, but few informed people
would describe them as communist nations.
This confusion is due in part to classic Marxist economic theory, which holds that socialism is merely a
way station on the road from capitalism to communism. Marxists assume the journey will inevitably be
completed, but the social democracies of Western Europe have now enjoyed more than half-a-century
at the way station, and they show little interest in continuing the journey.
The fact that hundreds of millions willingly, even more or less happily, live under socialism hasn’t
deterred those with a political axe to grind. Thus we are treated to the ridiculous spectacle of the
Republican National Committee insisting the Democratic Party change its name to the Democratic
Socialist Party.
Those who do not learn from history
Rather than renaming the Democratic Party, perhaps these so-called “Conservatives” need to be
renamed. Perhaps they should be called Consumatives, given that their political agenda favors
consumption over conservation.
Certainly, the behavior of Consumatives should concern true conservatives because it sullies a worthy
political philosophy. One wonders if Consumatives know any more about conservatism than they do
about socialism.
Thomas Hobbes is widely regarded as the philosophical founder of modern conservative thought. His
observation that life is “nasty, brutish and short” is used by some who call themselves conservatives as
an excuse to behave like brutes.
But Hobbes saw his observation not as an excuse for jungle ethics, but as the very reason for
government. Government was a necessary hedge against the jungle, because as he chillingly put it
“even the strongest man must eventually sleep.”
Hobbes argument for government was not altruistic; it was practical. Even a king – if he wants to keep
his head – cannot afford to ignore the needs of his subjects. Government that exists solely for the
benefit of a despot or an oligarchy – or corporations – cannot long endure. To survive and prosper,
government must benefit society as a whole, or as Hobbes deemed it, government exists to serve the
commonweal.
Hobbes philosophy is reflected in the words of the Founders:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.”
Consumatives enthusiastically support the charge to “provide for the common defense” – particularly
in districts where defense contractors are head-quartered. But on the whole, they are disinclined to
“promote the general welfare” – welfare having become another dirty word.
Beware the bathtub
Consumatives cling to “economic darwinism”, a jungle-ethic, survival of the fittest, virulent strain of
capitalism they mistakenly call Free-Market Economics. But their ideology owes more to Ayn Rand
than to Adam Smith.
Unfortunately, that ideology dominated American politics over the last three decades. It retrofitted the
old Calvin Coolidge axiom that “the business of government is business” and offered up the fantastical
claim that things would be perfect if government just got out of the way. As Grover Norquist
infamously put it, "My goal is to cut government down to the size where we can drown it in the
bathtub."
Ronald Reagan pontificated that government wasn’t the solution but the problem. What was needed
was deregulation and privatization. With government out of the way, Supply-Side Economics would
increase revenue while reducing taxes. Millions blithely or blindly accepted that absurd accounting, but
Reagan’s future Vice-President George H. W. Bush rightly called it “Voodoo Economics”.
In the end, Voodoo Economics led to the worst of all worlds; effective government programs were
abolished or hamstrung, while reasonable government regulation was drowned in the bathtub.
Meanwhile, the size and cost of government grew dramatically.
Heads I win, tails you lose
One reason Reaganomics was bound to fail is that our present system isn’t really capitalism; it’s the
worst of all worlds, socialism for capitalists. Companies plunder, pollute and pull-out, taking their
profits with them and leaving behind disastrous environmental and healthcare costs to be passed on to
society. Profits are privatized while costs are socialized.
As I mentioned in Part I, Propaganda and Plunder, George W. Bush’s “Clear Skies Initiative” was a
glaring example of this short-sighted, jungle-ethic capitalism. It permitted whole mountain-tops to be
removed in West Virginia and Tennessee to increase profits for coal-mining companies. But it did
nothing to address the horrors they left behind.
We see this socialism for capitalists as well in our current financial crisis, where risk is being passed on
to the public while the reward remains with those whose irresponsible behavior caused the crisis.
Trillions were wagered on what were little more than casino bets.
But thanks to the machinations of Henry Paulsen and others, the Casino Economy has been replaced by
the Coin-Flip Economy. For financial executives, it’s heads I win, tails you lose.
This kind of “socialism”, this unfair sharing of burden and profit, is something that ought to concern
every citizen. But sadly, many citizens vote against their own self-interest because they are deceived by
pundits and politicians who abuse words like “socialism”.
The persistence of myth
As I discussed in my post Unmasking American Myths, these gullible citizens are also blinded by
myths left over from our frontier days . One of these myths is that of fierce independence and rugged
individualism, a myth that underlies the belief that in this country anyone can become obscenely
wealthy simply through hard work, grit and determination.
That belief persists – despite abundant evidence to the contrary – because a few talented, dedicated and
– dare I say it – lucky individuals sometimes succeed in spite of their disadvantaged background. But
their success proves only that they are exceptions to the rule.
Those who cling to this myth need to understand a simple mathematical absolute: Not everyone can be
exceptional.
Or to put it another way; Barack Obama is the exception; George W. Bush is the rule.
For citizens who are not wealthy and well-connected, government is the solution, not the problem,
especially when it comes to protection from the wretched excesses of corporate capitalism.
Socialism may not be perfect, but until someone comes up with a better alternative than corporate
capitalism, it will have to do. In the meantime, it's high time we stopped treating socialism like a social
disease.
©2009 Tom Cordle
http://open.salon.com/blog/tom_cordle/2009/05/29/speaking_with_forked_tongue_part_ii
Democracy: The God That Failed
On the most abstract level, I want to show how theory is indispensible in correctly interpreting history.
History – the sequence of events unfolding in time – is "blind." It reveals nothing about causes and
effects. We may agree, for instance, that feudal Europe was poor, that monarchical Europe was
wealthier, and that democratic Europe is wealthier still, or that nineteenth-century America with its low
taxes and few regulations was poor, while contemporary America with its high taxes and many
regulations is rich. Yet was Europe poor because of feudalism, and did it grow richer because of
monarchy and democracy? Or did Europe grow richer in spite of monarchy and democracy? Or are
these phenomena unrelated?

Likewise, is contemporary America wealthier because of higher taxes and more regulations or in spite
of them? That is, would America be even more prosperous if taxes and regulations had remained at
their nineteenth-century levels? Historians qua historians cannot answer such questions, and no amount
of statistical data manipulation can change this fact. Every sequence of empirical events is compatible
with any of a number of rival, mutually incompatible interpretations.

To make a decision regarding such incompatible interpretations, we need a theory. By theory I mean a
proposition whose validity does not depend on further experience but can be established a priori. This
is not to say that one can do without experience altogether in establishing a theoretical proposition.
However, it is to say that even if experience is necessary, theoretical insights extend and transcend
logically beyond a particular historical experience. Theoretical propositions are about necessary facts
and relations and, by implication, about impossibilities. Experience may thus illustrate a theory. But
historical experience can neither establish a theorem nor refute it.

The Austrian School

Economic and political theory, especially of the Austrian variety, is a treasure trove of such
propositions. For instance, a larger quantity of a good is preferred to a smaller amount of the same
good; production must precede consumption; what is consumed now cannot be consumed again in the
future; prices fixed below market-clearing prices will lead to lasting shortages; without private property
in production factors there can be no factor prices, and without factor prices cost-accounting is
impossible; an increase in the supply of paper money cannot increase total social wealth but can only
redistribute existing wealth; monopoly (the absence of free entry) leads to higher prices and lower
product quality than competition; no thing or part of a thing can be owned exclusively by more than
one party at a time; democracy (majority rule) and private property are incompatible.

Theory is no substitute for history, of course, yet without a firm grasp of theory serious errors in the
interpretation of historical data are unavoidable. For instance, the outstanding historian Carroll Quigley
claims that the invention of fractional reserve banking has been a major cause of the unprecedented
expansion of wealth associated with the Industrial Revolution, and countless historians have associated
the economic plight of Soviet-style socialism with the absence of democracy.

From a theoretical viewpoint, such interpretations must be rejected categorically. An increase in the
paper money supply cannot lead to greater prosperity but only to wealth redistribution. The explosion
of wealth during the Industrial Revolution took place despite fractional reserve banking. Similarly, the
economic plight of socialism cannot be due to the absence of democracy. Instead, it is caused by the
absence of private property in factors of production. "Received history" is full of such
misinterpretations. Theory allows us to rule out certain historical reports as impossible and
incompatible with the nature of things. By the same token, it allows us to uphold certain other things as
historical possibilities, even if they have not yet been tried.

Revisionist History

More interestingly, armed with elementary economic and political theory, I present in my book a
revisionist reconstruction of modern Western history: of the rise of absolute monarchical states out of
state-less feudal orders, and the transformation, beginning with the French Revolution and essentially
completed with the end of World War I, of the Western world from monarchical to democratic States,
and the rise of the US to the rank of "universal empire." Neo-conservative writers such as Francis
Fukuyama have interpreted this development as civilizational progress, and they proclaim the "End of
History" to have arrived with the triumph of Western – US – democracy and its globalization (making
the world safe for democracy).

Myth One

My theoretical interpretation is entirely different. It involves the shattering of three historical myths.
The first and most fundamental is the myth that the emergence of states out of a prior, non-statist order
has caused subsequent economic and civilizational progress. In fact, theory dictates that any progress
must have occurred in spite – not because – of the institution of a state.

A state is defined conventionally as an agency that exercises a compulsory territorial monopoly of

ultimate decison-making (jurisdiction) and of taxation. By definition then, every state, regardless of its
particular constitution, is economically and ethically deficient. Every monopolist is "bad" from the
viewpoint of consumers. Monopoly is hereby understood as the absence of free entry into a particular
line of production: only one agency, A, may produce X.

Any monopoly is "bad" for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into its line of
production, the price for its product will be higher and the quality lower than with free entry. And a
monopolist with ultimate decison-making powers is particularly bad. While other monopolists produce
inferior goods, a monopolist judge, besides producing inferior goods, will produce bads, because he
who is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict also has the last word in each conflict involving
himself. Consequently, instead of preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-
making will cause and provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage.

Not only would no one accept such a monopoly judge provision, but no one would ever agree to a
provision that allowed this judge to determine the price to be paid for his "service" unilaterally.
Predictably, such a monopolist would use up ever more resources (tax revenue) to produce fewer goods
and perpetrate more bads. This is not a prescription for protection but for oppression and exploitation.
The result of a state, then, is not peaceful cooperation and social order, but conflict, provocation,
aggression, oppression, and impoverishment, i.e., de-civilization. This, above all, is what the history of
states illustrates. It is first and foremost the history of countless millions of innocent state victims.

Myth Two

The second myth concerns the historic transition from absolute monarchies to democratic states. Not
only do neoconservatives interpret this development as progress; there is near-universal agreement that
democracy represents an advance over monarchy and is the cause of economic and moral progress.
This interpretation is curious in light of the fact that democracy has been the fountainhead of every
form of socialism: of (European) democratic socialism and (American) liberalism and neo-
conservatism as well as of international (Soviet) socialism, (Italian) fascism, and national (Nazi)
socialism. More importantly, however, theory contradicts this interpretation; whereas both monarchies
and democracies are deficient as states, democracy is worse than monarchy.

Theoretically speaking, the transition from monarchy to democracy involves no more or less than a
hereditary monopoly "owner" – the prince or king – being replaced by temporary and interchangeable –
monopoly "caretakers" – presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament. Both kings and
presidents will produce bads, yet a king, because he "owns" the monopoly and may sell or bequeath it,
will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on
"his" territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value
of his property, he will exploit only moderately and calculatingly. In contrast, a temporary and
interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is
permitted to use it to his advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not
eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted (present-oriented) and uncalculated,
i.e., carried out without regard for the value of the capital stock.

Nor is it an advantage of democracy that free entry into every state position exists (whereas under
monarchy entry is restricted by the king's discretion). To the contrary, only competition in the
production of goods is a good thing. Competition in the production of bads is not good; in fact, it is
sheer evil. Kings, coming into their position by virtue of birth, might be harmless dilettantes or decent
men (and if they are "madmen," they will be quickly restrained or if need be, killed, by close relatives
concerned with the possessions of the dynasty). In sharp contrast, the selection of government rulers by
means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise
to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position as a result of their efficiency as
morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise
to the top of government.

In particular, democracy is seen as promoting an increase in the social rate of time preference (present-
orientation) or the "infantilization" of society. It results in continually increased taxes, paper money and
paper money inflation, an unending flood of legislation, and a steadily growing "public" debt. By the
same token, democracy leads to lower savings, increased legal uncertainty, moral relativism,
lawlessness, and crime. Further, democracy is a tool for wealth and income confiscation and
redistribution. It involves the legislative "taking" of the property of some – the haves of something –
and the "giving" of it to others – the have-nots of things. And since it is presumably something valuable
that is being redistributed – of which the haves have too much and the have-nots too little – any such
redistribution implies that the incentive to be of value or produce something valuable is systematically
reduced. In other words, the proportion of not-so-good people and not-so-good personal traits, habits,
and forms of conduct and appearance will increase, and life in society will become increasingly
unpleasant.

Last but not least, democracy is described as resulting in a radical change in the conduct of war.
Because they can externalize the costs of their own aggression onto others (via taxes), both kings and
presidents will be more than 'normally' aggressive and warlike. However, a king's motive for war is
typically an ownership-inheritance dispute. The objective of his war is tangible and territorial: to gain
control over some piece of real estate and its inhabitants. And to reach this objective it is in his interest
to distinguish between combatants (his enemies and targets of attack) and non-combatants and their
property (to be left out of the war and undamaged). Democracy has transformed the limited wars of
kings into total wars. The motive for war has become ideological – democracy, liberty, civilization,
humanity. The objectives are intangible and elusive: the ideological "conversion" of the losers preceded
by their "unconditional" surrender (which, because one can never be certain about the sincerity of
conversion, may require such means as the mass murder of civilians). And the distinction between
combatants and non-combatants becomes fuzzy and ultimately disappears under democracy, and mass
war involvement – the draft and popular war rallies – as well as "collateral damage" become part of
war strategy.

Myth Three

Finally, the third myth shattered is the belief that there is no alternative to Western welfare-democracies
a la US. Again, theory demonstrates otherwise. First, this belief is false because the modern welfare-
state is not a "stable" economic system. It is bound to collapse under its own parasitic weight, much
like Russian-style socialism imploded a decade ago. More importantly, however, an economically
stable alternative to democracy exists. The term I propose for this alternative is "natural order."

In a natural order every scarce resource, including all land, is owned privately, every enterprise is
funded by voluntarily paying customers or private donors, and entry into every line of production,
including that of property protection, conflict arbitration, and peacemaking, is free. A large part of my
book concerns the explanation of the workings – the logic – of a natural order and the requirements for
the transformation from democracy to a natural order.

Whereas states disarm their citizens so as to be able to rob them more surely (thereby rendering them
more vulnerable also to criminal and terrorist attack), a natural order is characterized by an armed
citizenry. This feature is furthered by insurance companies, which play a prominent role as providers of
security and protection in a natural order. Insurers will encourage gun ownership by offering lower
premiums to armed (and weapons-trained) clients. By their nature insurers are defensive agencies. Only
"accidental" – not: self-inflicted, caused or provoked – damage is "insurable." Aggressors and
provocateurs will be denied insurance coverage and are thus weak. And because insurers must
indemnify their clients in case of victimization, they must be concerned constantly about the prevention
of criminal aggression, the recovery of misappropriated property, and the apprehension of those liable
for the damage in question.

Furthermore, the relationship between insurer and client is contractual. The rules of the game are
mutually accepted and fixed. An insurer cannot "legislate," or unilaterally change the terms of the
contract. In particular, if an insurer wants to attract a voluntarily paying clientele, it must provide for
the foreseeable contingency of conflict in its contracts, not only between its own clients but especially
with clients of other insurers. The only provision satisfactorily covering the latter contingency is for an
insurer to bind itself contractually to independent third-party arbitration. However, not just any
arbitration will do. The conflicting insurers must agree on the arbitrator or arbitration agency, and in
order to be agreeable to insurers, an arbitrator must produce a product (of legal procedure and
substantive judgment) that embodies the widest possible moral consensus among insurers and clients
alike. Thus, contrary to statist conditions, a natural order is characterized by stable and predictable law
and increased legal harmony.

Moreover, insurance companies promote the development of another "security feature." States have not
just disarmed their citizens by taking away their weapons, democratic states in particular have also
done so in stripping their citizens of the right to exclusion and by promoting instead – through various
non-discrimination, affirmative action, and multiculturalist policies – forced integration. In a natural
order, the right to exclusion inherent in the very idea of private property is restored to private property
owners.
Accordingly, to lower the production cost of security and improve its quality, a natural order is
characterized by increased discrimination, segregation, spatial separation, uniculturalism (cultural
homogeneity), exclusivity, and exclusion. In addition, whereas states have undermined intermediating
social institutions (family households, churches, covenants, communities, and clubs) and the associated
ranks and layers of authority so as to increase their own power vis-a-vis equal and isolated individuals,
a natural order is distinctly un-egalitarian: "elitist," "hierarchical," "proprietarian," "patriarchical," and
"authoritorian," and its stability depends essentially on the existence of a self-conscious natural –
voluntarily acknowledged – aristocracy.

Strategy

Finally, I discuss strategic matters and questions. How can a natural order arise out of democracy? I
explain the role of ideas, intellectuals, elites, and public opinion in the legitimation and de-legitimation
of state power. In particular, I discuss the role of secession – and the proliferation of independent
political entities – as an important step toward the goal of natural order, and I explain how to properly
privatize "socialized" and "public" property.

The book grew out of speeches I presented at various Mises Institute and CLS conferences during the
1990s. These conferences, organized by Lew Rockwell, Burt Blumert, and, until his death in 1995,
Murray Rothbard, had the purpose of advancing libertarianism by locating and anchoring abstract
libertarian theory historically, sociologically, and culturally and thereby creating what has become
known in the meantime as paleo-libertarianism (in contrast to left-countercultural-libertarianism and
cold-and-hot-war "new" and "neo"-conservatism). The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, the precusor to
LRC, was the first and most immediate expression and reflection of this intellectual movement. Others
included The Costs of War, Reassessing the Presidency, and The Irrepressible Rothbard. Democracy the
God That Failed is my attempt to define and give expression to the paleo-libertarian movement.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html
http://mises.org/store/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-P240.aspx