What is the most wrongthink book you've ever read?

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Democracy: The God The Failed - Hans-Hermann Hoppe

The first book I read that conclusively proved democracy is the problem and that the system is unfixable by definition (see the concept of time preference). I always half-assed understood that just based on general observations, but this book throroughly and systematically proves it.

By the end you are forced to either accept that democracy and freedom are incompatible and that our system can only degenerate more as time goes on, or you ignore axiomatic truths because the alternative scares you. It's a foundational book in that everything else you read should be viewed through that lens for clarity.

I've read edgier "wrongthink" books, but that one is probably one of the more legitmately dangerous books because it proves the system is unfixable and once enough people realize that, the facade has to come down.

I read it, agreed with it, and then later went back on my view. I'd have to refresh myself on it to know if this criticism is really fair (and it's been long enough to be worth doing), but as I recall he faltered a bit in:

1) Comparing Enlightened despots to modern states and especially to modern totalitarian states. Hoppe takes a position, as I remember, that if an ideology calls itself something, it makes it that thing, but I think there is still a very obvious qualitative difference between something like the Soviet Union and something like the USA. With the despots, I don't remember him addressing how the more representative governments (like Britain, the Swiss, the Dutch, Italian republics, Holy Roman free cities...) were generally a LOT more prosperous materially and culturally. He never really considers that technology and even that era's tendency towards state-building might have been what made the state get out of hand...

2) Common for economists, naivety. Rationality is a good sketch of how people behave on average in their own individual little lives. But there are people out there that are fucking dumbasses. It's like what people say about slaveowners taking care of slaves. There are women out there that will destroy a car by never adding engine oil. There are monarchs that will rape their country.

3) Thinking like just because it's the despot's property, that means everything in the state will go the way the despot wants. Not recognizing that force (I'm Heinleinian here) is the ultimate basis for everything. The enlightened despot is going to have to play ball with his core supporters, who play ball with their core supporters. Rent-seeking is baked into every social system.

4) Thinking mercenary armies (this may be the worst one) will actually work against the force of a state geared up for total war, or even a determined army of nobility and militias that are willing to fight to the death for something other than gold. Thinking you can provide a public good in an anarchist society. (We did have stateless society in recorded history. American Indians. They lost as much because of the shitshow that was their organization as because of being outnumbered - they were doomed, but the actual forces used to suppress them didn't have to be that big - and definitely not because of technology.)

5) Assuming that cultivating the state like a little garden is always going to pay off for him better than looting the place and leaving. The only places I know of that were genuinely run as Moldbuggian "neocameralist" corporate states - Appalachian company towns and the British East India Company - were horrorshows. Corporate raiding is a valid strategy to build wealth.

I think the mainstream is much more realistic. Acemoglu (Why Nations Fail), Bueno de Mesquita (The Dictator's Handbook). I like Hoppe mostly as a Devil's Advocate to stop the democracy circlejerk. Democracy isn't about crowds being smart, it's about people being evil selfish bastards so you have to split power up in such a way that some don't just have their way with the others.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I like Hoppe mostly as a Devil's Advocate to stop the democracy circlejerk. Democracy isn't about crowds being smart, it's about people being evil selfish bastards so you have to split power up in such a way that some don't just have their way with the others.

I mostly agree with this. I split the book into two things; the critique of democracy, and the potential alternative(s). I think the critique of democracy is where the value is, and it's profound in how it demonstrably proves that Democracy can't succeed long term.

As far as proposed solutions, you're never going to have a perfect system because the majority of people are self-interested, lazy and retarded. So you just do the best you can. So I agree that he didn't move the needle much on that part of it.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

I mostly agree with this. I split the book into two things; the critique of democracy, and the potential alternative(s). I think the critique of democracy is where the value is, and it's profound in how it demonstrably proves that Democracy can't succeed long term.

As far as proposed solutions, you're never going to have a perfect system because the majority of people are self-interested, lazy and retarded. So you just do the best you can. So I agree that he didn't move the needle much on that part of it.

I find this interesting how this is so often the case. With books, with political or cultural critiques. The ease to find problems, how hard it is to solve them.

 

[Radola Gajda]

Mein Kampf .
Hitler's second book , sequel of Mein Kampf. Mostly focused on foreign policy. It was only published after death of author.
Diaries of Joseph Goebbels.
Doctrine of Fascism . Basically Commie manifesto for Fascism . Pretty important book to read . If you want to know what "real" Fascism is.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Doctrine of Fascism . Basically Commie manifesto for Fascism . Pretty important book to read . If you want to know what "real" Fascism is.

Reminds me of that recent jubilee debate where a guy talked about carl schmitt and how he's certain he wouldn't be one of the people that would be killed.

It's interesting, if fascist books were pushed as hard as commie ones in our education systems, the world would probably be full of "but it wasn't real fascism" fellas.

Doctrine of fascism is just 9 pages right? Or did I find the wrong thing?

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I mostly agree with this. I split the book into two things; the critique of democracy, and the potential alternative(s). I think the critique of democracy is where the value is, and it's profound in how it demonstrably proves that Democracy can't succeed long term.

As far as proposed solutions, you're never going to have a perfect system because the majority of people are self-interested, lazy and retarded. So you just do the best you can. So I agree that he didn't move the needle much on that part of it.

I think there's a bit of a mistake in expecting systems to last forever. The life cycle is built in. Making the system that's both stable and decent to live under is like the Philosopher's Stone of political science. Maybe one day we'll figure it out. I figure if we do it will be because we use political economy (assume people are bastards, solve for the system that limits their bastardry). And Hoppe and Acemoglu are both in that spirit, just disagree with one another.

And another thing both have in common is not believing in something even remotely like the mainstream - both public and academic - understanding of democracy.

Edit: I mean, what do we have? If a person's going after democracy, this system is way far off of the Madisonian tradition (what I like). It's way far off from the Founding Fathers in general (the Hamiltonians were even more elitist). So much of what people take issue with is more progressive democracy (universal suffrage, crowds are assumed to be all-knowing, civil servants incorruptible), but we've also seen that our progressive "democracy" is very undemocratic. It's technocratic. But this is something I brood over too: how much credit can you give the Founding Fathers if their system's only real safeguard was "people choose to follow the rules" and they rather quickly stop following "the rules." I think they were a good first start, but a future constitution would have to be designed with hard enforcement mechanisms, way way less ambiguity. Madison was a great start but in the same way something like Newton is. Problem is that we live in retard world and everybody (Left and Right alike) want to throw Madison out completely.