Hoppe on Democracy, Progress, and the State
[This is David Gordons introductory essay to Hans-Hermann Hoppes new book From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy.]
Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a master of theoretical history. He tells us that
it is not my purpose here to engage in standard history, i.e., history as it is written by historians, but to offer a logical or sociological reconstruction of history, informed by actual historical events, but motivated more fundamentally by theoretical philosophical and economic concerns.
The work of Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises on the commodity origin of money is a prime example of what Hoppe has in mind.
In carrying out his illuminating project, Hoppe finds himself in opposition to the dominant way of looking at the evolution of government. According to this perspective, government has over the centuries become ever more democratic. Rule by the people is the final form of government; once it has been reached, history, at least as far as government is concerned, has ended. This historical movement, further, is a good thing. It is the triumph of freedom. History is the story of progress.
Hoppe is not a complete pessimist like the Gloomy Dean W.R. Inge, who, in his famous Romanes Lecture of 1920, denounced the superstition of progress. To the contrary, Hoppe thinks that in economic life, the Industrial Revolution enabled mankind to achieve an unprecedented level of prosperity.
In government, though, matters are entirely different, and here Hoppe is a firm opponent of progressive orthodoxy. For him, rather, history in this area is a tale of a fall not from the Garden of Eden but rather from a reasonable way of settling disputes.
How would real, rational, peace-seeking people have solved the problem of social conflict? ... What people would most likely accept as a solution, then, is this: Everyone is, first off or prima facie, presumed to be owner endowed with the right of exclusive control of all those goods he already, in fact, and so far undisputed, controls and possesses. This is the starting point. As their possessor, he has, prima facie, a better claim to the things in question than anyone else who does not possess these goods and consequently, if someone else interferes with the possessors control of such goods, then this person is prima facie in the wrong and the burden of proof, that is to show otherwise, is on him. However, as the last qualification already shows, present possession is not sufficient to be in the right.
Hoppe assumes that everyone agrees on the appropriate principles for settling property disputes:
The criteria, the principles, employed in deciding between a present controller and possessor of something and the claims of another person are clear then, and it can be safely assumed that universal agreement among real people will be reached regarding them.
Follow this link:
Hoppe on Democracy, Progress, and the State