A crooked look at freedom

I often encounter a somewhat misunderstood understanding of "freedom." It is fashionable to point to individual countries and say: ti They have free choices, that is free country. The others they have no free choice, it is not a free country. The possibility of "free elections" is often the only criterion for assessing the "degree of freedom" in a given country. But does it make sense?

North Korean People's Assembly (Novinky.cz, photo: ČTK / AP)
North Korean People's Assembly (Novinky.cz, photo: ČTK / AP)

Democracy does not guarantee anything

Such an understanding is absurd. Democracy with free elections does not automatically guarantee anything, not even the freedom of the individual. It is just a tool of governance. Nothing more, nothing less, just a tool.

Let's show it with an absolutely simple example - imagine that in our country there will be a "Party of the rights of croissants", which will have in its program that it will reduce the price of rolls.

How many rolls are sellers in our country and how many buyers? There are logically more buyers. Now imagine that the Party wins the election and calls a general referendum on the price of the croissant. Everyone can (or does not have to) participate in the referendum. Everyone can give their vote. The question will be:

"Do you agree that a law should apply in the Czech Republic that will give the Government of the Czech Republic the power to decide on the prices of rolls that are sold in private establishments throughout the Czech Republic?"

Of course, our winning Party would announce that it would set the price at (say) a pleasing 0,1 CZK, ie 10 pennies per croissant. Recall that there are more buyers at rolls than sellers.

The party, of course, won in free elections. It even introduced elements direct democracy, the law was approved in general, free referendum.

But is it freedom? After all, we can go further through "free referendums" and "free elections" - pass similar laws for many other products, declare "strategic industries", where (freely in a referendum) we nationalize large companies (the same is owned only by dusty capitalists) on the death penalty, to set strict limits on entry and exit (there is a risk of Islamic immigration)…

The constitution is not a problem. The constitution is a paper that democratically elected politicians can change.

Wasn't it here already?

The fact that proper democratic elections are taking place in a given country does not in any way mean that the country is free.

Freely?

But can anything like "elections" be free at all?

That's the question. You have the right not to "vote", but you do not have the right not to abide by the laws of the election. Again, imagine "free" elections, where the only candidate parties are the Communist Party and the NSDAP. And now beware, the most important thing: you can not vote, you are free!

You can even start a new party and go to the polls, just… you don't have the money for the campaign. Why? Because the previous government (for example, the coalition of the Communist Party and the NSDAP, an interesting combination), controlled prices, wages, financial flows.

It still doesn't matter. No one is stopping you from starting a party! You even have a choice! You don't even have to vote! You are free because you have "democratic" elections.

Do you understand what absurdity I wrote about at the beginning? The equation of democracy = freedom does not apply. Absolute democracy is the dictatorship of the majority.

Matěj Stropnický (SZ) once had the motto "more democracy, less market". Democracy is an artificial system for the functioning of state power, for enforcement. The market is a natural system for the functioning of voluntary cooperation. If Stropnický had the motto "absolute monarch, less market", he would in fact promote the same.

Do we have to or do we want to?

From this point of view, freedom should be seen. Society is not a real entity: there is no free society without free individuals. You can either act, achieve something, think something, say, do, anything simply because you "want", that is, voluntarily, or you can act (…) simply because you have to (or you must not).

As a result, we "must (we must not)" only "when it comes to the state or some state institution, which alone has the power, the monopoly of enforcement. Only the state and its institutions can force you to do something.

The state is included here in all components - central government, authorities, regions, cities, municipalities, state courts, state parliament. State institutions are all originally also private institutions (enterprises) that have begun to participate in state power - enterprises receiving subsidies, benefiting from regulations, "private" funds administering statutory retirement savings, "private" schools subject to the state and partially paid from state money and many more.

Yes, even at work we are voluntary (of our own choice) and we also take local decisions there. If not, we will revolt or terminate the employment. Our decision.

Don't like it, move out?

We were born into a state, we did not choose a state. We are not in the state voluntarily, so "escaping" from the relationship with the home state (emigration) may (may not) be an act of coercion, not a free choice. For this reason, the common saying is also absurd: “don't you like it? Move out! ”

Don't you like that we democratically took all your property? Don't you like that we have democratically determined that your race is inferior? Don't you like having to pay 90% income tax? Move out!

Thus, freedom can only be where there is an absence of coercion - the state. It is a question of where this situation is effective everywhere (this is for a different debate between anarchists, minarchists and interventionists of all kinds).

The idea that the absence of a state in an area is full of danger to the jungle is also absurd. However morality and the rules of human cooperation (market law) is a product of the market (voluntary human cooperation), the market arises.

However, if morality arises as an "internal" social institution in the market, then morality is the product of voluntary human cooperation, the system of freedom. It is precisely the market that brings ethics and morality among humanity over time. Where State intervention suppresses the efficient functioning of the market, state intervention also means the suppression of natural ethics and morality.

The identification of democracy with freedom is dangerous. It is equivalent to claiming that a totalitarian state is free because the government (once) came to power through free elections.

0 comments

  1. 3,14ranha - "it is naive to think that in the foreseeable future he will be able to persuade the irresponsible minority WITHOUT VIOLENCE (otherwise it would not be your anarchism) to be responsible"

    Even Galileo has not received the recognition of the truth in his life, but if one does not begin at all, he will never. I don't think a free society will emerge overnight, I don't even think it will happen in my lifetime. But that doesn't mean it's not worth fighting for.

  2. Re 3,14ranha: I do not think that affection for (un) freedom is innate. Rather, it is a question of prejudice (or socio-cultural programming, if you will), formed very early, and therefore inaccessible to rational reasoning.

  3. re: gofry: so after the shovel - really free-spirited (who really guarantee that freedom with their responsibility and do not delegate it higher) people are a MINORITY, and as far as we know it's so largely INGENATE! it is naive to think that in the foreseeable future they will be able to convince the irresponsible minority WITHOUT VIOLENCE (otherwise it would not be your anarchism) odpovědnosti

    it is the same as the communists claimed that people would voluntarily give up property and live as one community (they will not give up, just as, from a significant part of nature, irresponsible individuals will not stop behaving irresponsibly with the wave of a twig…)

  4. correction to # 28
    "And that it is absurd to base violence on it."

    is supposed to be

    "And that it is absurd for society to be built on it."

  5. @ 3,14ranha - That is all right, anarchism does not prevent people from delegating responsibility for their lives to someone else who agrees. But they cannot involve third parties and force them to do something they have not agreed to. This is ordinary violence, and anarchism only points out that such violence is unjustifiable and that it is absurd to base violence on it.

    Somalia is where it is not because of the free market, but because of the previous government, which robbed people of everything and then left them defenseless at the mercy of fate, basically threw them into a first-class society from where they will have to dig themselves out and it takes some time. However, this is not anarchy, this is precisely the violence against which anarchists protest and condemn (anarchists as defined on mises.cz, not "anarchists" such as Antifa and the like). Somalia, on the other hand, is an excellent example of where a boundless increase in state power will lead.

    In addition, on the other side of Somalia is North Korea, there can be no talk of a power vacuum, but there are also no supporters of a strong state.

  6. waffles: but you describe the ideal utopian state… a good half (maybe a little more) of people simply WANT to delegate their responsibility higher… even very decentralized feudalism could not do without the state, anarchy practicing Somalia would not be freely chosen for residence
    key term: POWER VACUUM….

  7. @Roman - A small state will never remain small. By its very nature, the state is inefficient and has no way of obtaining information on whether it spends a lot or a little money, whether people want its services or not. You can expand the services of the police indefinitely - the state does not know when to stop, it has no way of finding out, so it will always need more and more resources = more and more taxing. A small state is an unsustainable concept - an excellent example is today's area of ​​transport - laws are piling up one after another, and although the accident rate is the lowest in about 30 years, it is not enough for them. The state simply does not know the borders and must necessarily inflate until it bursts, ie goes bankrupt. The state is like cancer.

    @ 3,14ranha - As I wrote to the Roman, there is no way to stop the bureaucracy. Once you allow bureaucracy in any small space, it will eventually expand to the entire space.

    @ 3,14ranha - In anarchy, no one is prevented from joining a group that will have socialist rules. Only those socialist, slave rules must remain in the given group, they must not arbitrarily extend them to others. Yes, I agree with good will. The best goodwill is when people learn the principles of non-aggression and condemn aggression, ie anarchy.

    @Choronzon - How did we defend ourselves against the Munich Agreement? No. How did we defend ourselves at 68? No way, we did not defend ourselves, our state succumbed right at the beginning. How did the US defend itself against the attack on the twins? No. The state cannot provide functional protection, it does not provide any advantage over freedom. On the contrary, how many of the people who died were directly responsible for US foreign policy - putting their citizens at great risk - for example, those twins in the US? Probably very little. How many high-ranking officials died in the attack? Neither. State officials create a risk with their activities, the consequences of which will not affect them in any way, but they are passed on to someone who does not even have to agree with their policy. The state, on the other hand, is the guarantor of DANGER.

    In anarchy, the attacker has no way to attack "us", because there is no mass "we".

  8. to Chorozon: I can refer to the discussion I once had on this topic:

    http://kosikcsfd.wz.cz/ankap.htm (not completely perfect, but a few arguments are worth thinking about)

    And otherwise with the attack from abroad on a prosperous free society without a state. After all, it is as absurd as if Sarkozy had now decided to invade neutral Switzerland. A free society is inherently peaceful and an attack on it would be difficult to justify. Rather, it is more likely that the people of the potential aggressor would revolt when they see how a stateless society prospers in their neighborhood…. But these are already speculations 🙂

  9. 3,14:XNUMX: An enlightened leader is nonsense - there is no such thing.

    Kosik, waffles: if you imagine that there would be NO state, then how would we defend against an attack from abroad, for example?
    I will definitely think about this topic, but I am skeptical about this.

  10. re Waffles:
    open the Bible-Exodus how the former slaves (whom the crowds died for the greater glory of Pharaoh) wept that Moses would return them to Egypt that they did not like freedom, look at today's "stupid mood" as more and more people think about electing communists, do you think that history cannot be repeated?
    … What I want to say - if you leave it anarchistly to the people themselves, a fairly large part will long for communism with a human face, or for socially generous democracy (mutual differences are not trivial, but the common denominator remains the desire for a guardianship state)
    I do not want to overtake much, but an enlightened leader and generally "goodwill" in society will be much more important for real freedom than some anarchist dogmas (which, thanks to the human factor, ipso facto deny themselves)

  11. re waffles:

    slow down a little man… have you ever heard of a power vacuum? the word politics is not from politicians but on the contrary, a politician is a person who deals with politics (= "public affairs") on a full-time basis, the state is a social unit (legal entity if you want) with ambition for sovereignty over a certain territory (size does not matter) a word expressing a certain social arrangement, there is no need to demonize it

    pure anarchy is oxymoron,
    Don't you know what your google and facebook live from ?! do you think only from advertising? CIA rag,
    after all, these companies no longer hide (yet timid) political ambitions! and it was created so to speak "yesterday" (hated microsoft is against them - thanks to "anonymity" and (so far) mostly offline nature innocent, the second thing is that thanks to hard copying from google it will not last forever)

    moreover, you are wasting energy on future chimeras unnecessarily, while today we are solving a much simpler problem - to improve rapidly (the economy is a dynamic system and influences multiply) it is enough to stop the proliferation of bureaucracy and corruption (it will be necessary to proceed from below and above)

    let's agree on today's problems and let's solve it with today's people (small parts still haunt Nazism in the head, large parts communism and even most of today's youth are simply not qualified (without harm to health) to do without the welfare state… that is the reality, if you want real change you have to take this into account)

  12. Re Kosik:
    Regarding Hoppe, could you send me a link or directly to the email: rom.an@email.cz? I would also like to read it. Thanks

    Re Waffles:
    In that case, would the protection be paid for by the end customers - probably most people living in the area - advantages, disadvantages compared to a small state?

  13. @Choronzon

    "How will society prevent the pursuit of the unification of political power"

    There is no political power in a stateless society, so it does not need to be unified and this problem disappears. All that needs to be done is security and protection of property. And it's easy in a stateless society - just like today's google or facebook. End users pay nothing at all, everything is attracted by advertisers. Similarly, safety on the streets would be paid for, for example, by companies doing business in the area - they would benefit from it. They might need to put a certificate in the window stating that they pay for security and that they would have a better name among customers than companies that would not pay for security. The possibility is indefinite, unfortunately these mechanisms cannot develop today, because we are forced to use a single mechanism - the state police.

  14. to Choronzon: We are talking about a society without a state, ie without public property. Everything would be in private hands, which means that security would usually be provided by private owners (eg in public places). That insurance, as I wrote, would be in case something happened to you, someone robbed you, etc. So if someone didn't have this insurance, they would be unlucky. And these insurers should prevent the motivation for the crime, because in the case of a crime, they would have to pay.

    Well, otherwise I really recommend learning English, because then a whole new world will open up for you. You won't know what to read or listen to before :). One of the first is Democracy: The God That Failed by Hoppe (I can send), where one chapter is about security…

  15. Kosik: So if it was a form of insurance, this is exactly the case I described. Imagine 100 people pulling security in one city. Someone new moves in and refuses to pay. But he also enjoys the privileges of safe streets. Someone will look around and say to themselves, “why would I pay it like a jerk if that one doesn't apply either. And with everyone who drops out, the amount that every "insured person" has to pay would increase. It is not difficult to guess what would follow.

    It's something else with charity. Charity is supposed to provide mostly basic things. Few would contribute to a charity that would provide alcohol to its charges. And for a charity, this check is possible. It's much harder for the police department. On the one hand, the costs are spread over the entire territory of the Czech Republic (some institutes do only DNA, others only ballistics). How, then, can a contributor assess whether the cost of apprehending one thief of 12-48 thousand is justified? And does it really have the optimal effect for society to push the price down here as well?

    I can speak English, but it's no glory. I don't dare to go into English literature yet, but I plan to do something about it 🙂

    Waffles:
    If you do not agree with democracy, then tell me how will society prevent armed conflict, violence and civil war in the pursuit of the unification of political power?

    I have already read something about the judiciary and the police, but I still have a lot of ambiguity in this so that I can now say that I am convinced that it would work. But most importantly, it is not at all on the agenda to deal with private courts or the police. If it is redistributed around 50%, then it is necessary to cut from elsewhere first. Pensions, social redistribution, subsidies and subsidies, and the systematic liquidation of offices nicely one after the other.
    Once that happens, it will only be appropriate to think more seriously about the private police and the judiciary.

  16. @Choronzon

    "The government has responsibilities and does not carry them out as it should. But who to blame for that? The government? And who chose her? "

    For example, I do not vote because I do not agree with any party. Nor do I agree with democracy as a system of society. I do not agree with a system where I cannot choose not to be ruled by anyone. So I am always ruled by someone I have not been mandated to do. At present, I cannot legally release myself from a government that I am not interested in. Only violence remains, so unfortunately we have not helped democracy in any way.

    "But, for example, to ensure external and internal security and the rule of law, I am willing to submit to them."

    That's okay. However, for example, I am not willing to submit to them, I do not believe that this system will bring protection and I want a different system. Unfortunately, I have no choice, I am forced into your system, violence is being perpetrated on me (even organized ;-)). Basically, you can say that you support a violent organization, the mafia.

    "… The judiciary and the police. I would leave that until the end, and for the time being I have remained that the government is necessary in these areas. "

    I don't know if it's good. Because the state can redistribute about 50-60% only because it has a monopoly on the judiciary and the police (and money). Ie. the monopoly on law and the judiciary is the cause of state power, and until this monopoly is lost, redistribution will not diminish.

  17. Chorozon: This doesn't seem like a problem to me. Without the state, ensuring security would probably work on the principle of insurance, where everyone would pay premiums.
    But it's really hard to imagine, because it would be a completely different world. We do not know what institutional set-up would be created in the market over time.

    Too bad you don't speak English. This article is about:

    http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebsite/AnarchyDraft.pdf (I think it should be translated into Slovak soon)

    And otherwise, if your theory were correct, there could be no voluntary charity. Everyone would say that the others would contribute, so I don't have to, and suddenly the spiral would form. But as we know from history, nothing like this happens, because before the social area was taken over by the state, voluntary charity functioned normally.

  18. Kosik: I understand. So why the inconsistency? Because I believe that if an actor succeeds in improving his position in the future, then if it is possible to save his own expense and pass it on to others, then the increase in my satisfaction will be more noticeable than his decline in the long run. It can often go far beyond one life.

    In practice: The village has 100 inhabitants and there is no tax payment at all - we are consistent. The riot security service exists and is paid on a voluntary basis. As it is not able to present a monetary calculation (the goods provided to it cannot be valued on the market), its budget must be limited bureaucratically by regulation. Who gives this regulation on the limit of funds collected? If there really is no government, then it is something like a non-profit organization based on voluntary contributions.

    And now: The failure of one voluntarily paying individual will cause him to increase his own resources at the expense of other goods. The service provided in this way (security) then either has a lower budget for this amount or has to choose more from others.
    It seems very probable to me that, with the growth of such individuals, an increase in the amount converted into the remaining ones will lead to an approach for each individual approaching even faster. It seems to me that it will create a spiral where the rising cost will gradually force everyone to resign from security funding because the cost to individuals will be too great.

    What solution do you see for this problem when there is no government?

  19. Choronzon: I understand what you mean, but I don't agree with your position, because as Hoppe says, this position was one of the main reasons for the failure of classical liberalism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Realize what you're saying. You are advocating laissez faire, that is, that only the market and its pricing mechanism can best redeem scarce economic resources. Furthermore, economic theory says that central economic planning is impossible and that the monopoly of the law is always bad from the consumer's point of view. That is all right so far, but then you suddenly say that we need the state for the judiciary, defense and the police, indirectly saying that the state is better than the market in these areas. Do you see the obvious contradiction? Either the market is better or the state. There is nothing in between.
    Thus, to claim that there is a magical limit from which the state can provide the services better is as absurd as to say to a smoker that smoking is harmful to health, but that there is a limit to the number of cigarettes smoked per day beyond which smoking is good for health.

    Statatists and socialists can then easily attack this contradiction. They can say, for example: If you say that the state is necessary in the above-mentioned areas, then why not in others? If the market fails in these areas, it must fail in others, etc., etc.….

    So if someone holds laisses faire, then he must be consistent and bring this position to his logical conclusion - the market can do everything better than the state and therefore the state is unnecessary.

  20. Slave: I like the way Mises wrote it. That if a minority controls a majority, then only with its consent. The Bolsheviks offered aggressive reform, the National Socialists work and getting out of post-war reparations, while the Communists in our country offered "certainty". However, if most people did not care about these programs, they would have to offer something else, otherwise they would lose their power. Even the English in India, with a large technical superiority, would not be able to maintain power in the long run thanks to weapons alone. It would not be possible to isolate most of the nation from better equipment forever. If you have an example that you think refutes this, you like to count. or refer directly to the literature. thanks 🙂

    Waffles: Non-violent change of government is beneficial for both parties. No one wants his children to die fighting his neighbors' children.
    And do not think that citizens are in such a clear advantage over the monarch. Although I don't think the minority will hold much, the losses on the part of the population against the army would be frightening. Perhaps just as terrible, however, would be that markets would reflect political instability and the risk of civil war or armed conflict, and thus labor productivity would decline before anything like this happened (which, paradoxically, could serve as a pretext for violent demagogue action).

    The government has responsibilities and does not carry them out as it should. But who to blame for that? The government? And who chose her?

    I believe that if citizens insisted on certain principles (laissez faire), then politicians would behave accordingly. The fact that it is possible, as you write, to promise and then behave differently is not caused by any special rot of politicians as a class. This is due to the fact that this behavior on the part of voters will pass without punishment.

    To what you write at the end… Yes. Taxes are theft. Basically… But, for example, to ensure external and internal security and law enforcement, I am willing to submit to them.
    I know that some people write that it is possible to have a private judiciary and a private police. Personally, I'm not convinced about that yet, but still. At a time when the state is taking about 50% of our money, there is no need to deal with the judiciary and the police. I would leave that until the end, and for the time being I have remained with the fact that government is necessary in these areas.

  21. @Choronzon - The question is whether it is good that violence is no longer needed to change the monarch. For whom is it advantageous? For a monarch who no longer has to worry about his life, or for a citizen who is no longer able to take justice into his own hands and will his efforts be hard suppressed (for his own money) when trying to replace the monarch?

    Today, it is beautiful to see that there are other people in power, but still the same not / characters - first promise a lot and after the election to cough up promises. It is precisely the fact that today's rulers are not in danger of physical destruction that is an advantage for them - even if they rob us all, nothing will happen to them. This is very bad. In addition, the question is whether it is right to listen to the majority. It is not true that the majority is always right.

    The fact that the government has some responsibilities does not mean that it will perform them. More than once the trade unions have blocked the roads - this is violence. And the government did nothing about it. The government itself is afraid of trade unionists.

    Government is neither irreplaceable nor necessary. On the contrary, government is the worst intruder on security and property. The government is directly based on robbing people (taxes), so it can no longer be a guarantor of security and property.

  22. Choronzone,

    All that remains is the question "how long is it - for a long time"? Both history and the present are full of examples where the minority controls the majority in some way.

    I would almost say that the most basic principle of human society, from time immemorial and ancient times, is to manipulate the crowds and then control them with only a handful of the omnipotent.
    Democracy is just an attempt, perhaps a little less violent (but only if everything is going as it should), where mostly unconscious (they call themselves conscious) and mentally disturbed individuals, who crystallize themselves in the crowd, force the crowd to submit to the will that minority (sometimes hidden and anonymous).

  23. Waffles: The ability of a democratic establishment to prevent civil wars and revolutions lies in the fact that a minority is never able to maintain power against the will of the majority. Even a well-armed and determined minority cannot rule a majority for a long time against its consent.
    Democracy is good precisely because in order for the ruling regime to change and the government to be taken over by someone who will be willing to listen to the majority, it is no longer necessary to physically liquidate the current government.

    Those examples of trade union strikes seem insignificant to me. If they want to use unions of violence against people or property, then it is the duty of the government to intervene against them by force and to suppress such parades. That's where the government comes from. If they're just walking the streets and shouting, there's no need to deal with them.

    The role of government in society is necessary and irreplaceable for the protection of security and property. Now it is a question of how the government will be elected and what mechanisms will be given to the people to replace it. I think democracy is the best option we have.

  24. Without state coercion, we would have coercion by powerful private individuals. We see this wherever there is a weak state (mafia). If the market is voluntary human cooperation, is the recognition of ownership also voluntary? If not, then we are back to coercion.
    How to get out of it? Not in a scarce economy. It is possible to just agree on the fairest and most rational rules and enforce them. However, with the growth of production productivity associated with the regulation of population growth, the scarce economy will disappear and the desired freedom, ie communism, will occur.

  25. Democracy being taken into account is inherently totalitarian. As has already been said, democracy without any restrictions is the tyranny of the majority.

    If I am not mistaken, such a safeguard against the dictatorship of several duly elected individuals should be the constitution. And that should be as constant as possible. Together with direct democracy, such an arrangement could last for some time. It lasted in the USA until 1913.

    For interest, try to read the constitution of our republic, it's quite a sad reading, still from Mr. Uhde's workshop.

  26. @Choronzon - I think democracy is not able to prevent either revolutions or civil wars - see recent events in France, Greece or the need for trade union strikes in the Czech Republic (this is also a form of civil war, fortunately relatively mild).

    Democracy itself is based on the denial of freedom. It is just another expression of the right of the stronger, and even in theory it cannot be the guarantor of freedom. I am afraid that it does not give people more freedom or more protection than anarcho-capitalism, so it is useless.

  27. I see here that some people think that democracy and freedom are incompatible. Resp. that democracy can be a threat to freedom. That is certainly true. But let us not forget why democracy is essential for freedom. Because there must be a mechanism that determines the holder of power. And if power is seized by a minority and there is no way for the majority to deprive it of power, then there is nothing left but civil war and revolution. Civil war and revolution (or just their threat) lead to a reduction in the division of labor and attempts at preventive autarky. And that implies a restriction of our freedom. So I think that democracy is necessary to maintain freedom.

    It is, of course, possible to vote democratically on how many children there will be or what color of ties can be worn. But that is the downside that you need citizens for democracy. And citizens are simply people subject to error.
    So I would not see a mistake in democracy as a tool for establishing government (which is good precisely because it precedes revolutions and civil wars), but in the fact that this tool can be applied to anything. There is no way to prevent this without denying the very principle of democracy, so there is only the most difficult way left - to talk about it with others. Raising their awareness of what is the legitimate task of government and persuading others to renounce the application of the democratic principle to anything.

  28. Democracy is not a limitation of power. Anyone who can limit power can break that limit at any time. Democracy is just an application of the silly idea that the "majority" is right and that I am all "equal." Minorities of clever organized and determined people can then do anything. Maybe even destroy civilization.

  29. I call it a meeting, freedom and democracy are mutually exclusive. We can have a maximum of a mix, where more democracy will pay for the dying, the least freedom.

  30. Re_Evolvere, I would not forget "intellectuals" with (kinder: P) economists detached from reality .. 😉

  31. However, politicians in power seem to interpret this respect in their own way and, as long as they are in office, try to seize what they can. Otherwise, do you think that the Lisbon Treaty, for example, is a spontaneously created order?

  32. Democracy is primarily a limitation of the power of the government to help the assembly of representatives.… My teacher of political science said that the critical measure of whether democracy is or is not is the respect of the ruler to be replaced. Many times since then, I have verified that it really corresponds to a large extent to that measure, whether the government (in this sense, of its own will) is limited.

    Freedom as a complete absence of coercion, resp. the absence of the state is possible as a theoretical definition, but practically speaking it is a dysfunctional (naturally - "created by the market" - non-existent anywhere except the heads of the intellectual) anarchy…

    In this sense, on the contrary, it can be argued that the product of the spontaneous council are the rules (moral and legislative) of representative democracy, and the preservation of this spontaneous council, as well as the nation and their cultures, is the true (not intellectually left) service of freedom.

Comments are off.