A Correct Way to Correct
6 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
St. John of San Francisco
Orthodox Information & Resources
Orthodox Blogs
-
-
-
Me and My Bible3 days ago
-
-
-
Stories5 weeks ago
-
-
-
-
So, what is the Eucharist, really?3 months ago
Non-Orthodox Blogs
-
-
This is a test46 minutes ago
-
-
-
The Woman, the Alligator, and the Swamp4 hours ago
-
-
Can we trust the Spirit?6 hours ago
-
-
-
Politics Economics Culture & Miscellaneous Blogs
Don't blame me... I voted for George (the Third)
-
Why Did Shakespeare Write Macbeth?12 minutes ago
-
-
-
The Quiet S&P 5008 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
Facial Recognition and Your Privacy4 weeks ago
Miscellaneous Sites of Interest
The Blog Yard
Where the best blogs go when they die...
Gone But Not Forgotten
-
My good people4 months ago
-
-
A Brief Return1 year ago
-
‘The Jews are beloved of God’4 years ago
-
-
Moving day6 years ago
-
Sayonara for now6 years ago
-
MY FELLOW AMERICANS7 years ago
-
A Week in Iceland! Part 18 years ago
-
Coda8 years ago
Atom / RSS
10 comments:
Amen. Amen. Amen.
God Save the Tsar!
I'd be curious to hear your explanation as to why monarchism is superior? Granted, it doesn't have the same problems as does a democracy. But it seems like it may have pretty substantial problems of its own, particularly in this "day and age", does it not?
Also, a hypothetical: If America were to up and decide to become a monarchy tomorrow, who would be the monarch?
Thanks
I suggest reading Democracy: The God That Failed. (http://www.riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf)
That aside the United States is not going to become a monarchy. I understand this. But purely for amusement the question of who would be king or queen should be based on legitimacy. To my mind the two strongest candidates would be Louis XX (Bourbon) of France by virtue of royalist France being the reason we gained our independence from Britain, or (IMHO the stronger candidate from a legitimist POV) Francis Duke of Bavaria and the legitimate (Jacobite) heir to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland.
Hoppe's racist belief in "natural elites" is pretty disgusting thought. He also advocates the forcible removal of democrats and communists (whom he lumps together) from a society built on "libertarian" order. It's a tragedy that people take him seriously.
Hoppe doesn't use the term "natural elites" in a racist sense. I assume you have no problem with the fact that the Church has a hierarchy.
Democrats and communists are levelers. Any forward-thinking society would ban them.
To ban ideas is not the same as forcible removal, although in Hoppe's world one would follow the other. This is someone who uses the term "human trash." How is this compatible with Christian thought? Unless, of course, we are talking Catholic Ustase.
Indeed he is a racialist, and means a natural elite with European roots.
Nobody has a problem with South Africa being governed by Zulus or Arabs being governed by the House of Saud. European countries should likewise be run by Europeans. What is the problem with that?
There is plenty of undeniable human trash out there. They should be treated fairly and kept from harming others.
So Hoppe's vision for Europe as a quiltwork of monarchies ruled by their own natural elite, and remaining within their continental boundary, is the end work? I don't believe it, but how quaint.
And how does one treat "human trash" fairly, especially when using it in Hoppe's terms as describing certain groups of people? The very derogation of people in such a way leads to brutality.
Jason
Your criticisms of Hoppe's racism is a fair point. But I think his overall criticisms of democracy still hold water. In any event, as I noted above, none of it is gong to happen. Eventually the American Republic will fall. We are already on the downward slide. But it won't be replaced by a monarchy.
Post a Comment