What are some solid books against democracy?

What are some solid books against democracy?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZtiJQZTqu9M
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

pere goriot chapter #9

The classic. It's hard to support democracy after this.

...

The Republic.

>reading the entire republic for that one section comparing democracy to monarchy

It's worth reading anyway

Begin with De Maistre.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZtiJQZTqu9M

theres nothing solid about democracy

Hoppe is a stupid piece of shit and his arguments are weak as hell.

Read The Problem of Democracy by Benoist and Against Democracy by Brennan if your education is sufficient.

The fucking greeks

this
read Plato

The results speak for themselves.

I wonder what you consider as a sufficient education and what are strong arguments.
Because looking at your post, I can't see a single argument, nor proof of a sufficient education.

The fact that you can buy antidemocratic books is the best argument for democracy

>democracy
Precisely the opposite, it's a good argument for the resilience of constitutional forms against democracy.

>Hoppe is dumb
>Read muh New Right :DDD

You're an idiot.

A good start
On Monarchist Statehood by Tikhomirov

Democracy is hopelessly intertwined with Protestantism. That's all you need to know.

What he's saying is that the state in which one can buy both is superior, because at least one can form an informed opinion. The state in which only one exists (anti democratic), leaves room for error (variable omission). It is counterintuitive that an ideal system of government would be so error prone. The truth is censorship most often restricts cold hard facts. For example, a North Korean scientist who publishes a paper saying the next missile test will fail likely faces execution, regardless of whether or not he was absolutely correct in his analysis. You can only hide things for so long before they come back to bite you in the ass.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Communist Manifesto

anyway we will never switch to a right wing dictatorship because you don't like girls getting dicked

Strong arguments are those in which conclusions follow logically from premises and the author goes out of his way to defend said conclusions and premises from likely refutations. Hoppe is very bad at this, while I am asserting Benoist and Brennan are very good at this in their works on democracy. Of course, OP is best off reading them himself and coming to his own conclusions. I stand by my opinion Hoppe is a waste of time and and an embarrassment to right wing thought, but have no interest in going further with that. My comment about education was a caveat, as Benoist and Brennan's argumentation is more rigorous than that found in books for laypersons, and takes some discipline to parse.

Brennan has nothing to do with the new right, he's an American Right Libertarian, retard.

I don't agree with Benoist or Brennan, but OP wants strong arguments against democracy and theirs are very well crafted. Hoppe is a sloppy thinker and not up to par, he only panders to those already convinced of the positions he espouses.

The Myth of the Rational Voter

>implying you can understand a single idea from the Republic without understanding the whole of it

His wife is disgusting.

The first chapter of the book alone is an almost unassailable argument of how monarchy is superior to democracy.

>Democracy means freedom of speech
>Every other regime means censorship
ok

I agree completely, a good place to start is throwing this book in the trash and picking up something not reddit-tier

Still no arguments, only assertions.

>my solution is to just let the market run everything

>centralized economies work guys
The price of one thing depends on the price of everything. Only the market can deal with such complexity through supply and demand.

The free market does pricing imperfectly for sure, but it's way better than any other way to do it.

>one thing
>everything
breh

Yes, money is a way to measure the value of something. I thought that was obvious, wasn't it?

Are there really any good arguments against democracy that aren't doubly as good arguments against any other form of government?

As far as I am aware no
t. ancap

>he hasn't started with the Greeks

Well I think the argument "the masses are easily manipulated and don't make educated decisions on government" can't really be used against states without elections. Likewise the argument that democracies tend to have very short term planning since they're usually more worried about getting re-elected, and the guys playing the long game get booted because people didn't get an instant gratification like a tax cut or whatever.

Wasn't talking about money
Implying "anarcho"-capitalism isn't a form of government

A Government violates the NAP. No Government can exist in a free market environment by definition.

I'm pretty sure that regardless of whatever kind of government you have, you need to appease your population somehow.

I mean, even Bismarck instituted welfarist capitalism to appease all the burgeoning labor movements in Germany at that time.

He didn't have to do it, he could've simply ruled with an iron fist, and yet he did it anyway.

>A government violates the NAP
How can you not see ?

True but it's not as volatile as democracy.
That's the main perk of monarchy : you ensure a certain stability over time which allows for calculated changes and long term planning

You are a literal fucking retard. Benoist is cool and I've read him, but he's a brainlet compared to Hoppe, especially when it comes to subjects he doesn't really understand (like theology lmao, get a load of his book on paganism). Benoist's critique of democracy borders cuckoldry, he just dislikes our modern democracy and is so historically deluded that he thinks the Greek version worked (spoiler: Socrates dies). Only read Benoist for understanding modern and contemporary political movements, specifically French ones. He's mediocre at best, though.

>That's the main perk of monarchy : you ensure a certain stability over time which allows for calculated changes and long term planning

But this isn't true historically though. Almost every monarchy has degenerated into civil war or revolution because the king and the aristocracy is taking all the wealth for themselves and leaving peasants with nothing.

A vault full of gold didn't stop a horde of pitchforks unfortunately.

>I can't ask simple questions
Capitalism is a Liberal concept I reject.
I am a monarchist

The Capetian Dynasty alone lasted a millennia.
Compare that to the French Republics which can't average more than a generation before they collapse.

>this isn't true historically
Democracies and most other regimes are dwarfed by the longevity or monarchies on an historic scale. A lot of these revolutions were protest against the current ruler, not the system itself (French Revolution was mostly followed by kings and emperor until 1870).
What your post brings across however is the risk of absolute monarchies. Constitution, judiciary system and even (which I personally refuse) parliaments can be considered good counterweights.

>Compare that to the French Republics which can't average more than a generation before they collapse.

Thanks to monarchist coups.

>The Capetian Dynasty alone lasted a millennia.

Probably not without it's ups and downs and times when it looked like it was going to implode.

I mean, it's not like I don't understand that a king can be a focal point for stability in a country or region, it's just that I object to political and economic power being subsumed into one person.

Also, there's no guarantee that an absolute monarchy would last millennia in a hypercapitalistic global economy where the average person is way more educated than even the gentry were 500 years ago.

Why on earth do you think a hereditary monarch in charge of the military gives a single solitary fuck about the constitution or judges?

There's appeasement and then there's the sort of pandering that comes with actually needing to win an election every few years, while competing with the sorts of people who will promise whatever dumb shit they need to to suit the whims of whatever's got people stirred up at any given moment.

It's shit like that which has the American government wasting its time over whether or not to fund a several billion dollar wall on the mexican border, despite it being pretty obvious that neither Trump nor his voters had any fucking concept of its cost or effectiveness.

They don't need to, the military just needs to give a single solitary fuck about the constitution or judges.

Absolute monarchies virtually never occurred. A strong aristocracy balanced the royal power in almost all cases, with the notable exception of the Imperial Chinese Bureaucracy which was still a version of an aristocracy

Voters plesbicited the end of second monarchy (even accounting for rigging)
Third Republic ended with occupation brought about by, you guessed it a democratically elected leader.
Fourth Republic ended because it was too parliamentary and De Gaulle and the people wanted a strong executive

Fucking monarchists, just doing what people want

So the military is free to refuse the monarch's orders when they go against the constitution? What a great and stable system.

But why would the military care in the first place anyways?

The Monarch doesn't even have an interest in going against the constitution. His legitimacy comes from the respect of it, if he doesn't he's just lost his credibility in front of the people.

Monarchy with meritocratic administration is best monarchy

>then there's the sort of pandering that comes with actually needing to win an election every few years, while competing with the sorts of people who will promise whatever dumb shit they need to to suit the whims of whatever's got people stirred up at any given moment.

Yeah, but there's actually not any solution to this problem which is better. It's a dialectical problem in my opinion. Do you really think a dictatorship or something else could do it better?

I don't.

And?
>I object to political and economic power being subsumed into one person.
1) it isn't. In a monarchy with an aristocracy (i.e., all of Europe) the king had a lot LESS power than a Prime Minister, in many ways. Local barons controls the local towns; higher level nobles were there to appeal to/crack down on poor local rule.
The king wasn't managing the village of Upper West Dormouth, the villagers did. If it was beyond their ability, they went to the baron. If he couldn't either, the duke, etc.
FFS, you have NO IDEA how monarchies work, yet you hate them!
>absolute monarchy
virtually never found in history
>would last millennia in a hypercapitalistic global economy
Go look at Liechtenstein's rankings in every area and get back to me. And the people of that nation are giving the king MORE power
> the average person is way more educated than even the gentry were
You have eperhaps 1/5th the social and verbal skills of a 14th Century peasant who had to rely upon only those for all tasks and you think the fact you can read BuzzFeed and know how to sign your name mean you are ungovernable?
What a tool

Because historically they did

So the monarch does have to suck up to the people now? Sounds like you have all the bad elements of a democracy without the good ones.

if you don't keep the populace/military happy your rule will be fucked, it's not like you can system this shit away, it's a constant of life

No he has to respect limits set by law which, if trespassed means he loses his legitimacy.
He doesn't have to give a fuck about every single mood swing of the masses

I think a monarchy could do it better because the monarch's well being is the country's well being. Thus his objectives are to ensure his rule is fruitful and the country stable, not to be elected again

>Liechtenstein
>population of 37000
>infamous as a tax haven for billionaires for centuries

toplel

>the monarch's well being is the country's well being

No it's not. I could use the same argument about Bill Gates.

Babby-tier shit. Read Carl Schmitt.

My diary desu

Schmitt was a democrat though. He just had a very different understanding of democracy than most people.

>I could use the same argument about Bill Gates
>Implying it disproves the point
He is the owner of his company, just as a Monarch is the owner of his country. The only difference is Bill Gates can sell his shares

Read the newspapers

Bill Gates sure has only his child workers' well-being in mind.

The only right one.

And yet you wouldn't want Gates as the absolute monarch of America.

Democracy always leads to the same place. Humans are irrational and need to be governed by something more rational than thier poorly inform opinions and desires. They will always seek to be absolute rulers of anything they control and they will always fall prey to those who would rule them absolutely. The river of public sentiment only flows one direction, towards incomprehensible foolishness.

pic related: Democracy

Sure, if you think so. The point is he wasn't an enemy of democracy in the slightest. All he hated was constitutional government and parliamentarism.

Please develop
I am precisely not advocating for absolute rule. I wouldn't want Gates because he hasn't been trained to be a country's ruler.

>Please develop

You are saying the monarch's well being is the country's well being and that Bill Gates doesn't disprove this.

Bill Gates doesn't give a flying fuck about his employees.

Not him, but I would argue that Bill Gates is actually better than a monarch because he actually pays them for their work, as opposed to the serfs who worked for vassals and kings throughout history.

Yup, cuz the lifeblood of his company are intellectual property and technologies, employees are just an asset that can be easily replaced.
A state on the other hand is only as mighty as its people.
One or two more answers then I need to sleep bro

>Please develop
different person, but it is not necessarily true that the well-being of a monarch is the well-being of their country. it is easily conceivable that a monarch would focus on enriching himself and his family, see: Saudi Arabia. currently the ruling class in democratic countries pursue policies that mostly enrich them and don't promote the well-being of the general population, so why would this change if one of them were an absolute monarch instead? at least in a democratic country a poor leader can be out in 4-6 years.

But you can just use this argument in favor of democracy. The people would be looking to see the country is governed well, because the countries well being is their well being.

Of course this doesn't work out in reality, but it's the same argument.

>absolute monarch
Again, I'm not advocating for something that never existed. Monarchy needs limits whether official (constitution) or de facto (strong admnistration). I cannot talk about Saudi Arabia but from my understanding the country is ruled by a minority of families. I dunno there.
>The people would be looking to see the country is governed well
But they aren't. Almost every votes confirms that the majority (not all) just want their immediate interests secured. Individuals can be intelligent but a crowd is a wild and moody beast.

>Democracy always leads to the same place. Humans are irrational and need to be governed by something more rational than thier poorly inform opinions and desires.
I vote for A.I.cracy

>So the military is free to refuse the monarch's orders when they go against the constitution? What a great and stable system.

That's literally the fucking point of a constitution. why do people assume every discussion of a monarchy means the monarch has to have complete indisputable power?

There's a section in Leviathan that deals with parlimentary vs mornarchical soveriegns.

I dunno, they just assume Louis XIV was the only king ever I guess

first, your posts suffer the same deficits you complain about in his posts.

second his reply was actually substantive. he identified that brennan and benoit's work is more rigorous than hoppe's. that's an argument that, however shy of doing the reading for you, is still an argument

third, youre basically asking him to do work for you. this place isnt here to spoonfeed you knowledge or pamper your sensibility of what constitutes good work. youre probably not used to that being challenged and turned defensive and rejected the authors and their ideas outright without so much as looking at a summary on amazon about the books. which is a shame because the books the guy suggested would probably benefit and strengthen your own views that are critical of democracy

I vote for a society with actual great individuals instead of believing a system can fix everything

Because if you want a constitutional monarchy there's literally no reason to have this discussion, because he would essentially only be a symbol of the country and have zero political power like in my country.

He's not necessarily talking about parliamentary monarchy

You need a good education system for that brethen

Even 'great' individuals can't rule a society alone, they're still dependent on systems themselves

Technocracy or bust. Consensus ruling isn't the problem. Universal suffrage is the problem.

Good talk guys
Nighty night

>Read Brennan, a left-libertarian that advocates epistocracy
Great one bruh.

give me the quick rundown, i don't speak french