[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 840 KB, 1200x1600, Hans-Hermann-Hoppe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14965657 No.14965657 [Reply] [Original]

what books refute democracy? I've already read Hoppe and Plato

>> No.14965997

>>14965657
Kenneth Arrow. Social Choice and Individual Values.

But to be honest it also refutes markets and the price system :(

>> No.14966000

>>14965657
Leviathan, The Prince

>inb4 le prince was satire

>> No.14966005

>>14965657
nihilism by seraphim rose

>> No.14966025

>>14965657
Attempting to refute democracy is like attempting to refute a guy punching you in the face: it's useless. Instead, you manipulate the ideas of enough people TO THINK it is a shitty system and that you know what you are talking about, then get the manpower and resources to back you up, then you blow shit to the curb and replace what was there with what you want, a new bona fide system of your own. Call it what you want, and taa daa! "Democracy" has been "refuted".

>> No.14966319

>>14965657
The greatest refutation of democracy came out of the Italian elitist school. You could read Pareto and Mosca but it's far better to just read "the machiavellians: defenders of freedom" by James Burnham. Dude absolutely btfo of democracy and them proceeds to perfectly explain the nature of ideology in politics.

You might also enjoy Mencius Moldbug. He's fairly unpopular on this board (at least with the butthurt leftists) but you could probably say him and Hoppe are nextdoor neighbors.

>> No.14966325

>>14966000
Trips of truth. Why is the Prince so misunderstood?

>> No.14966329

>>14965657

Refutation of democracy:
>>14966301

>> No.14966333

>>14966025
Unless OP is chair of the department of education I doubt hes asking for recommendations because he intends to convince everyone to read Hoppe.

>> No.14966364

>>14966319
As a little teaser. The Italians don't just say democracy is ineffective or immoral, they demonstrate that the entire theory is literally impossible. They show that there is no possible way to implement a system of voting which does not rely on a ruling class which inevitably sets the agenda within a framework that suits their ends.

>> No.14966583

>>14965657
Reign of Quantity and the signs of the End Times by René Guénon, and Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler.

>> No.14966608

>>14966025
Well one would HOPE you wouldn't want democracy overturned until you yourself know that democracy is refutable and there is a preferable alternative. Which is what OP means to ask. I would tell OP that no book refutes democracy because books can't refute anything, they all depend on the readers. I would see anyone with eyes should be able to see democracy is garbage.

>> No.14967234

>>14965657
The Qur'an. Only God has the right to legislate

>> No.14967285

>>14965657
beyond good and evil

>> No.14967554

Start with the Greeks.

>> No.14968637

>>14965997
it doesn't refute markets because market ideologists conspicuosly stress the point that society is a sum of individuals hence entities like "social utility function" are meaningless in the context of market liberalism. the fact that there doesn't exist a of individual preferences into social preferences that would satisfy certain conditions is not a problem to a system that is not based on social need but rather free exchange between individuals however it does pose the problem to the democrats because the entire idea of democracy rests on the assumption that social welfare function exists and has these desirable properties
>>14965657
OP you should definitely check out Bob Black's work
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-debunking-democracy

>> No.14969212

>>14968637
Actually most liberals claim markets result in a situation where everyone is satisfied, or content, with the outcomes which is something democracy can't satisfy. Free markets supposedly don't only result in the optimal solution to resource allocation but is a solution to politics. They don't really fully "get" Arrow's impossibility theorem.

>> No.14969225
File: 110 KB, 750x1000, 1579495674491.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14969225

>>14969212
>Arrow's impossibility theorem.

>> No.14969282

>>14969212
>Actually most liberals claim markets result in a situation where everyone is satisfied
no one claims that, what they do claim is that competitive markets achieve Pareto optimality which is distinctively different from a socially "optimal" allocation which is what the notion of social welfare function and Arrow's theorem pertain to

>> No.14969338
File: 31 KB, 449x136, 88207406_826279834557086_3667506573015515136_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14969338

>>14965657
BASED

>> No.14969372

>>14969282
Are you just being stubborn now? Basically every popular rhetorical variation on liberalism is putting forward the idea people freely exchanging things is the best and fairest way of reaching a social consensus. Go fucking watch milton friedman on youtube or whoever else people would be introduced to these ideas. I'm not even getting into welfare economics because people wouldn't understand that but Arrow actually proved that general equilibrium is impossible.

>> No.14969411

>>14969372
>Arrow actually proved that general equilibrium is impossible
lol you don't know what you're talking about, general equilibrium has nothing to do with social welfare, it has to do with the possibility of reaching zero excess demand through Walrasian tatonnement. Pareto optimality is not defined on a social welfare function but on a set of individual utility functions and ironically enough Arrow proved the theorem which asserts that under strict assumptions competitive markets will give a Pareto optimal result
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics
Arrow's impossibility theorem pertains to impossibility of translating individual preferences into social preferences while preserving some desirable conditions. this has nothing to do with general equilibrium. it should be obvious if you've ever read Arrow since his works on general equlibrium and social choice are contained in different volumes of Collected Papers of Kenneth Arrow
>Basically every popular rhetorical variation on liberalism is putting forward the idea people freely exchanging things is the best and fairest way of reaching a social consensus. Go fucking watch milton friedman on youtube or whoever else people would be introduced to these ideas.
Milton Friedman doesn't use the term "social utility" or "social welfare function", you claimed that liberals don't "get" Arrow's impossibility theorem which is preposterous since most liberals deny that "social utility" has any meaning as their analysis is based on methodological individualism so the criticism "individual preferences don't map into social preferences" doesn't really affect them.
>I'm not even getting into welfare economics because people wouldn't understand that
more likely you don't understand it yourself

>> No.14969534

>>14966025
Looks like democracy just got refuted in your silly little example. Dullard.

>> No.14969536

>>14969411
I know Pareto was trying to subvert the notion of utility being commensurable. If you know Paretos politics you know why.
>under strict assumptions competitive markets will give a Pareto optimal result
Yes but no one claims those conditions are "real". After this "economists" move on and try to make reality to be more "perfect" (unreal/"optimal").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_second_best

The impossibility theorem really does problematizes markets as much as voting as a solution if you think about it. And Arrow was openly sympathetic to socialism later in life
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1426269747ACautiousCaseforSocialism.pdf

>Milton Friedman doesn't use the term "social utility" or "social welfare function", you claimed that liberals don't "get" Arrow's impossibility theorem which is preposterous since most liberals deny that "social utility" has any meaning as their analysis is based on methodological individualism so the criticism "individual preferences don't map into social preferences" doesn't really affect them.
Where does Friedman talk about "methodological individualism"? In his Essays in Positive Economics? Friedmans whole public career was essentially about propagandizing how government could maximize social utility wasn't it?

>> No.14969549
File: 11 KB, 202x250, schmitt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14969549

Carl Schmitt

>> No.14970141
File: 4 KB, 136x186, index2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14970141

>>14965657
Lysander Spooner was a very interesting American legal theorist with anarchist tendencies who produced most of his work a decade or two before the Civil War.

He does address himself to refuting democracy, as such (as best I can recall), but he does do yeoman's working in wrecking the various political apparatuses that are built upon democratic assumptions, such as constitutions, or *the* Constitution, in the case of his "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority":

>The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago...

>Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years.

>And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them.

>They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.

Spooner's views are cogently summarized by Randy Barnett, pbuh, here:

https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/lm-spooner

>> No.14970148

second paragraph:

He does *not* address himself...

>> No.14970155

I just shit out weird ball shaped poops I hope I'm okay

>> No.14970168
File: 29 KB, 260x377, 260px-Mussolini_and_Hitler_1940_(retouched).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14970168

>d-democracies are w-weak
*gets their shit clapped*

>> No.14970216

>>14965657
Carl Schmitt is my ride or die

>> No.14970249

>>14969536
>The impossibility theorem really does problematizes markets as much as voting as a solution if you think about it.
only if your definition of desirable result is a social optimum (in the sense of maximization of social welfare function) rather than Pareto optimality. you're right in this regard - prior to the 20th century the law of diminishing marginal utility was indeed used by many economists to justify more egalitarian distribution of income, sometimes even by economists of more liberal leanings like Wieser or Menger. however this is only justifiable if you think of the social utility function as a sum total of individual utility functions of the members of society and Arrow showed that this doesn't stand closer scrutiny. to summarize - no one would argue for free markets from the standpoint of social welfare function because with Arrow's impossibility theorem in mind it's unclear which social utility function to choose (max? sum total? sum of squares? weighted sum?).
>And Arrow was openly sympathetic to socialism later in life
and this matters because...? economists are well known for violating the principles which they preach in textbooks, Stiglitz shilled for a minimum wage increase while still presenting a standard Econ 101 argument against it in his textbook.

>> No.14970251

>>14965657
Carl Schmitt's Political Theology and Concept of the Political, Bertrand de Jouvenel's On Power: The Natural History Of Its Growth, and C.A. Bond's Nemesis: The Jouvenelian vs. Liberal Model of Human Orders

>> No.14970265

If you don't think democracy is the end goal then you should just nuke humanity you retards

>> No.14970267

>>14970251
Based poster.

>> No.14970271

>>14970265
?????????????????????????????

>> No.14970285

>>14965657
I'd say look for books that admonish people for lack of autonomy. Though I am a fledgling in philosophical literature and as such don't have any recommendations.

>> No.14970291
File: 703 KB, 1000x562, alex jones unbalanced.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14970291

>>14970141
Spooner was really THE proto-lolbertarian/common law woo woo/sovereign citizen nut... in many ways he's more "democratic" (which isn't just mass politics and representation) insofar as he thought a jury of random boobs off the street could put things straight better than an actual caste of trained experts... and yet Spooner believed in stuff like intellectual property (presumably because it was in his interest) even though it doesn't exactly work in his nutty system of everything being between contractual parties.

>>14970249
People do present the price system as an alternative to voting as being a more fair and efficient system.

>> No.14970321

>>14970271
If you don't believe that you can ever have a constituency of only informed and intelligent voters, then such a constituency has no reason or worthiness to exist.

>> No.14970656

>>14970168
>gets their shit clapped by an autocracy even more controlling and absolute even than theirs

yeah, nice line of reasoning anon...

>> No.14970732

"On liberty" by John Stuart Mill and some writtings by Alexis de Tockeville, I can't remeber the tittles

>> No.14970843

>>14970656
Cope

>> No.14970950

>>14970321
This is a pretty inane opinion and I don't really understand how one reaches it.

Why does a person's 'worthiness to exist' rest on their ability to make good decisions in matters of state in collective with many other people? Seems like a ludicrous standard to me. Human beings can have all sorts of value, yet you only value this one.
Sounds like some hyper-liberal moralistic gobbledygook, really. Your perfect system can never be wrong. 'If this system is suboptimal it must be the people who are wrong.' Reminds me of that Brecht quote but without the irony.

>> No.14971004

>>14970141
Lol brainlet clearly didn't read his Burke or Tocqueville. His being from the 1840s doesn't make him interesting

>> No.14971091

>>14970251
As far as I remember there is nothing in the CotP that attacks democracy

>> No.14971112
File: 289 KB, 793x794, 1494559109432.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14971112

>>14970251
>>14970216
Socialist rubbish

>> No.14971134

>>14966364
>a system of voting which does not rely on a ruling class which inevitably sets the agenda within a framework that suits their ends.
That's like saying all military coups end with the military in power

>> No.14971197

>>14965657
The Dark Enlightenment essay by Nick Land

>> No.14971208

>>14970251

Based c a bond poster, also worth checking out his blog for more anti democratic stuff

>> No.14971263

a five-minute conversation with the average voter

>> No.14971280

>>14971112
Anarcho capitalism is anti-democratic for all the wrong reasons

>> No.14971292

>>14971263
>r/i_am_very_smart

>> No.14971329

>>14971292

Wow a reddit reference! That will be an upvote and a reddit silver from me my fellow redditor!

>> No.14971346

>>14971280
Have you read the man in OP's pic? Shut your mouth

>> No.14971682

>>14971346
Hoppe's brand of anarcho-capitalism doesn't seem as anarchic as advertised

>> No.14971888

>>14971682
anarchy = a-narkos = no ruler, not no rules

>> No.14971955

>>14971112
I can tell you have read and understand Carl Schmitt.

>> No.14971959

>>14965657
1984 unironically

>> No.14972013

>>14971955
National socialism is incompatible with private property

>> No.14972024

>>14972013
Truly bizarre post, my man.

>> No.14972173

>>14970843
In what way?

>> No.14972465

>>14965657
Read Bordiga

>> No.14972700

>>14972024
vanish, beast

>> No.14972792

>>14972700
Some one with greater power to muster force (say, the government) can take every thing that is 'yours' from you. There is no 'private property' only what stronger, greater entities allow you to possess.