Let's Hoppe-pill the masses on libertarianism.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe thread
Adam Stewart
Other urls found in this thread:
sol.sapo.pt
mises.org
mises.org
riosmauricio.com
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
mises.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Asher Cruz
Bumping for interest.
As far as I'm aware, the nationstate would no longer exist under Hoppe-libertarianism. As a nationalist, and a bit of a realist, I don't like this. Small communes coule not defend from huge outside forces. There would still be a need for large nationstates, perhaps just very decentrelised.
Why should I be a Hoppe-libertarian
Matthew Perry
...
Easton Wood
There'd be several disadvantages for a state to try and fuck with an AnCap society:
>resentment with the attacking state by its own populace at home because of the war (as it happened with Vietnam and, here in Portugal, the Ultramar War)
>large military expenditures which would invariably drive taxes and government spending up on the attacker's side, suffocating its economy
>guerrilla warfare and other types of retaliation by the AnCap state
>attacking side's populace not wanting the people of AnCapistan to be in their country as neighbors and fellow Statesmen
Also we have to understand that in an AnCap society, the same services (and new and better services) that a State used to do still exist. If there was a significant reason to distrust the neighboring countries, the demand would create the supply of several defense industries with artillery and military-style personnel.
Read: "The Myth of National Defense" and "Democracy—The God That Failed."
Easton Phillips
Luis Jones
Kek, bad sign. /pp/ thread will be tonight btw
Gabriel Edwards
...
Easton Powell
...
Brayden Nelson
...
Ryan Adams
...
Oliver Powell
...
Ryder Martinez
...
Logan Price
...
Liam Bell
...
Ryder James
...
Hunter Brown
How large would these societies be, then? Think about countries like Finland. Our largest city has a population of around 500,000. The second largest a population of less than 300,000. They could not amass enough money to fund tanks or fighter jets. Were a country like Russia attack them, they'd fall, no matter how much they resisted. Our rifles wouldn't stop their bombs.
Caleb Martin
They wouldn't be "societies" in the traditional sense that they would be lands encompassed by a single state. Instead, they'd be "pockets" of privately-owned lands, "covenants," in as little or as much integration as the property owners or residents desired. Hoppe says that it is natural that some of these covenants would find economic and spacial integration much more desirable, thereby developing villages, cities, metropolises, etc. All, of course, within the premise that each private property owner owns the totality of his property and can therefore declare his house, building, site, etc. as an "independent territory," to be treated as a foreign embassy, so to speak. So you could have covenants of dozens of people to covenants of millions, depending on the economic, cultural and taste preferences the citizens had.
Also, there's no reason to assume a private enterprise could not develop and use bombs and other material in self-defense against states aggressing against their customers/clients. Just think of the bombs that can be done at home or with very rudimentary materials, and theorize what a large company could do within perfectly legal conditions.
Cameron Ortiz
Brump, for interest.
Adam Watson
Thank you Spain bro. I really wish more people were this interested in Hoppe libertarianism.
Luis Allen
bump
Mason Campbell
It wouldn't be a state, but any nation to adopt Hoppean ancap would thrive.
Austin Moore
HOPPE READING LIST
>The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (1993; 2006 2nd edition)
mises.org
>A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline (2015)
mises.org
>Democracy—The God That Failed (2001)
riosmauricio.com
>A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (1988; 2010 edition)
mises.org
>From Aristocracy, to Monarchy, to Democracy (2014)
mises.org
>The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production (2003)
mises.org
>The Private Production of Defense (1998; 2006 edition)
mises.org
>Economic Science and the Austrian Method (1995)
mises.org
>What Must Be Done (2009)
mises.org
Wyatt Scott
As there wouldn't be a Finnish government which could surrender to them, the Russians would have to physically occupy every square inch of Finland to subdue it - a most expensive venture.
They would eventually have to leave, just like they did in Afghanistan.
Camden Harris
>on libertarianism
HHH is anarcho-capitalist, and a social conservative.
Robert Kelly
what is an ancap but a consistent libertarian?
Carson Thompson
Hoppean/Rothbardian libertarianism is the purest libertarianism there is. I just choose Hoppe because he confronts degeneracy head on and actually explains a priori why the source of it comes from the State.
Joshua Barnes
>Hans-Hermann Hoppe
That's dumb as fuck. Libertarianism within nation states is better. Ancap douchbagery doesn't work in real life. Otherwise I largely agree with Hoppe's philosophy.
Ian King
States will always seek to increase their power, and the easiest way to do that is through hyper-inclusive democracy.
Kevin Collins
Hoppe's dismantling of marxist class theory is what I believe made the faculty go after him and get him drummed out of his position.
First martyr in the education wars.
Hoppe is right.
Easton Roberts
>Libertarianism
>nation states
Top fucking kek. The US called, it wants 1913, 1917, and 1965 back.
Incidentally, have you read Hoppe's "Democracy" or Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty"? They explain why you're wrong. States, everywhere, have the tendency to increase their size and power. It's no coincidence that secessionist, decentralizing or separatist movements are combated by states and created bottom-up.
And also because of that comment he made that homos have higher time preferences.
Aaron Mitchell
Should I read in English or in Portuguese Hoppebro?
Camden Perry
Which is why every country should adopt a libertarian nation state system similar to the one espoused by the American Founding Fathers.
The fact is that the Founding Fathers despised democracy and wanted a Republic in its place. In the Federalist papers John Adams said that democracies are unstable and subject the individual to the whim of the majority and that any single majority will seek to continuously bring down their opposites: the poor to tear down the rich, the atheists the religious, the powerful the weak, etc. That's why they liked the idea of electors and voting for an individual, who votes for an individual, who votes for another individual, etc., Republican style (that is, through a scheme of representation) -- so instead of voting directly for an idea you vote for an individual with whom your ideological convictions align -- which limits the power of any one individual.
That, in combination with a federal government with an extremely limited set of powers, and power vested primarily on the local level, is preferable to ancap dumbfuckery. That's not to say that America is perfect by the way, or hasn't diverted from its original purpose.
Andrew Cox
English. The quality of the writings go down with every translation. Also, his style is very difficult to reproduce in Portuguese. Trust me, I've tried.
Jayden Morales
Yeah, that's what I thought. Thanks.
James Robinson
Well, America is as far as anyone got to trying to create an essentially perfect governmental system. Thomas Jefferson I think, called it the "science of government" -- actually applying thousands of years of philosophy into a constitution.
I know that the state will always continually grow and increase its powers rather than shrink and scale down its powers, which is why we need a stable and ethnically/culturally homogeneous society in which we adopt a constitution in which clearly limited powers are carefully delegated between governmental institutions.
The reason I say ethnically and culturally homogeneous is that you can only preserve and protect a founding philosophy based on individual liberty and limited government as long as your population is cohesive in its belief in that system. That's why John Adams again said that the U.S Constitution will work only "for a moral and religious people".
Anyway, my bottom line is that I don't believe in non-government.
Henry Walker
No legal document can restrict government powers. The US Constitution is the prime example of a constitution designed for that goal and it has failed in so many respects its painful to watch. All states do that.
Carter Perez
Fair argument, yet the same principle underlying the concept of a state would still apply—that a state is a geographical monopolist on legislation and taxation. And just like every other monopoly, a state, its institutions and its officials will always try to maximize the use of the monopoly: to increase prices (taxation) and decrease quality (fiat currency, legislation, quality/quantity of services, etc.). No constitution can be prepared towards this threat. As a matter of fact, a constitution is the one document which "legitimizes" the existence of a state, and thus will be expansionist in itself (the obvious exception would be the US, but even in America we can already see aspects on which the Constitution has been butchered by the state).
Also, anarcho-capitalism is the only system which allows homogeneous peoples (in any sense of the word) to live as separate or as close to other peoples of different types (private property + freedom of association).
Also take in consideration that literally all of the white man's stumbling blocks these days (affirmative action, forced minority integration, third world immigration, penalty taxes, nefarious legislation) are all L I T E R A L L Y the work states.
Isaac Perry
A P R I O R I
Joseph Adams
You called?
Jacob Scott
...
Sebastian King
Yes, a constitution will legitimize the existence of government, but I simply don't agree that government in and of itself is an inherent wrong, or that a constitution or a legal system can not prevent government from overreaching its delegated powers. Again, the only massive infringements in the American government's limited powers have come fairly recently, when America and the West were at its height of moral and racial decay. America has preserved absolutely historically unique liberties for hundreds of years based solely on constitutional principles -- true freedom of speech, gun rights, freedom of association, etc. In any other country these freedoms either do not exist, or exist in sham forms. Take for example National Action, a white nationalist organization which was outright banned by the British government at their whim. Yet in the U.S we've had violent and radical organizations that promote "hateful" messages and practice voluntary segregation and promote violent revolution for decades, the KKK, National Alliance, etc.
Why would an anarcho-capitalist system be the only system to allow homogeneous peoples to live separate? Assuming governments and their powers are derived from a People, a Constitution would guarantee the ethnic independence and integrity of that people.
I just don't see how non-government is defensible in any real way. We need a societal agent with a monopoly of violence, to enforce contracts, to uphold the rule of law, and assuming that the people are endowed with inalienable individual rights, a national defense force capable of protecting those freedoms against foreign adversaries.
Grayson Peterson
INSOFAR AS SO TO SPEAK
While I admire your desired outcome for a state, similar to my own, thinking that, in this day and age, a white mono-racial democratic-republican state is possible, is simply wishful. I don't want to repeat myself as to why the state is inherently expansionist and overreaching, but I should remind you that all European states have also betrayed the white man and the ideals we strive to achieve throughout the years.
An-Cap is the only system which allows people to live peacefully because there is no overarching banner on which people must collect under. There is no democracy or struggle for "equal representation" (affirmative action" in anarcho-capitalism because all property is private. You don't like it? You vote with your feet or declare your property to be "off-limits."
Please read the last three chapters of Democracy, whose link is posted above. They're titled On the Errors of Classical Liberalism and the Future of Liberty; On Government and the Private Production of Defense; and On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospect for Revolution.
As you can tell by the names, they contain the full answers to your arguments.
Aiden Long
Is Hoppe the only unkiked Libertarian?
Brody Gutierrez
He's a Roman Catholic if I recall. If by kike you mean "globalism, progressivism, inclusivity, egalitarianism," etc. then yes.
Xavier Collins
...
Easton Rogers
...
Luke James
saved
Carter Price
shame Sup Forums doesn't know a lot or isn't interested in Hoppe.
though I still cannot fully support Ancapism.
because introducing it today would mean a complete corporate, consumerist takeover.
and his argument on borders and immigration is too risky for me, especially after what we experienced today.
f.e., read an article about 10 000 icelanders (of a total population of 250 000) would voluntarily welcome a syrian refugee in their house, private support, without government push or support
under ancapism this would be completely tolerated. but it would mean ethnic suicide
Joshua Thompson
Do you a version of this that isn't blurry as hell?
Jacob Nelson
Physical Removal Man?
Christopher Evans
dammit bad grammar and spelling
he is really based tho
Brandon Mitchell
...
Hunter Myers
Belgium bro is here. Top kek!
Jace Baker
>under ancapism this would be completely tolerated. but it would mean ethnic suicide
who would direct the syrians into Iceland? it's an island after all. It's always the state inviting these people in
Parker Brooks
What do my fellow Hoppefags think about argumentation ethics? I think it's an interesting idea, but it may be too autistic even for me
Jose Perry
Dominic Peterson
I take smug satisfaction that this 'anarcho'-capitalist who is against immigration makes his living in the public sector and now resides in Turkey.
The only acceptable Hoppeanism is the left-Hoppean variant. In order to preserve a left-libertarian order we must physically remove conservatives, capitalists and bigots from society and throw them into gulags.
Justin Anderson
...
Jace Phillips
was about to ask for this
thanks poortuguese poster
Andrew Taylor
wellno. that is the point. they do not have refugees or immigrants sanctioned by the state.
i was talking about 5-10% of the population willing to let syrians live with them.
we all know it would snowball, as they will mix, outbreed and attract even more refugees.
also, as pointed out by others. ancapism today would mean a materialistic, consumerist hegemony by global corporations, who would even more be able to corrupt, soften, degenerate the masses
Evan Young
It looks fine on my computer. Your smartphone just has bad resolution or has trouble with images on Sup Forums. Happens on my phone as well sometimes too.
those Icelanders are committing a stupid mistake which I'm sure they'll pay heavily for in the future. Hoppe says immigration under statism must be regarded as a "sponsoring" program where the inviting parties declare themselves to be liable for all property damages caused by the invitees. So if those refugees commit a property crime, they should be expelled and the Icelanders who brought them in punished. If they turn out to be bad people, then no harm is done. Except under AnCap society, those who still say "ok, they're good people but they're still not white" would be perfectly capable of creating their own ethnic communities. Also, those Icelanders only did that because "society" will be responsible if anything is done by the refugees. Socialized responsibility, it's what's happening here.
Kek where did he say that? Also, I like how my memes are already being re-edited by other posters. Based Netherlands.
No problem!
>poortuguese
although that was distasteful
Jose Foster
Tradional Catholic Anarcho-capitalist society with old American Southern Culture is what I dream about.
My beloved New Orleans was so very close to this from 1861 until occupation in 1862. My family bled so much to preserve but in the end the Marxist and German Socialist in control of the Union were to many in number to keep at bay. Damn Yankees. Damn them all.
Daniel Cruz
Yeah that is one thing pisses me off about this damn phone.
Mason Stewart
It truly is sad to think of what could have been if 1913, 1917, 1965 and 2001 had never happened.
Justin Lewis
The strange thing is that my phone is very recent and with a Full HD, and this doesn't happen with all the images. It's probably a compression issue. Try searching for "hoppe" on the pol archives website and then find the image posted by another user and see if their version works.
Dominic Foster
yea probably, but you never know.
what if a company, that owns a factory, ships in foreign workers to work for a dime? they can afford liability, yet they dilute society, ethnically, economically etc
still not completely sold portobro
Wyatt Thomas
Jeremiah Murphy
I've read parts of "The God That Died".
My principal problem with the absolutist logic of liberty (self-governorship and private property), is that the moment you subscribe to absolutist reasoning in your justification of "liberty" is the moment your entire philosophical scheme collapses on its own absolutism. For example, Hoppe correctly argues that there is no proper logical justification for government monopolies of force without ceding moral ground to socialism. And if C is required to maintain peace between A and B within X, then Z is required to maintain peace between X and Y -- conclusively leading to world government.
While the argument holds up and is properly forced to its absolute end-point, one might logically step backwards further than Hoppe and classical liberalism and ask, from where natural or negative rights themselves are derived and by what authority they should be able to be enforced. The moment you accept any justification for private property rights and self-governorship as opposed to, for example, public property (total abolishing of private property rights), you've again ceded moral ground to unnamed and unjustified authority. Who's to say that the absolutist Darwinian perspective isn't more morally justifiable than the idea of private property rights? Who's to say that the strongest warlord literally enslaving and accumulating everything within his grasp, and other attempting the same, isn't equally justifiable and more in line with basic biological imperatives?
The moment you ascribe to any system of philosophy which is to be applied universally is the moment any such system becomes equally justifiable. Because every principle and belief is based on a subjective rationalization of what system would provide the best subjective outcome.
And this is why liberty, government and "rights" are the most difficult questions of philosophy.
Elijah Harris
He answered those questions with Argumentation Ethics.
Jackson Sullivan
It has been rightly remarked that "there is not one freedom, but many freedoms. There is no general, abstract freedom, but there are articulated freedoms conformed to one's own nature. Man must not generate within himself the idea of a homogeneous liberty, but rather that of the whole of such differentiated and qualified liberties." The other freedom, which is upheld by libertarianism and by natural laws, is a fiction just like the idea of "equality." Practically speaking, it is only a revolutionary weapon: freedom and equality are catchwords certain strata or groups employed in order to undermine other classes and gain preeminence; having achieved this task, they were quickly set aside.
Robert Hernandez
Don't do this to me Portugal. Not today.
Owen Bailey
>Ancap
Fuck you, pussy.
Fix that dire shithole you live in.
Anthony Gray
To be fair, Hoppe is slightly younger than Rothbard, who died in 1995 and had its peak in the 60s-70s. Rothbard saw the threat of universalism-globalism (like in the "nation by consent" article) and the rise of "alternative lifestyles" at the end of his life but these were secondary concerns for most of his life.
Jackson Sanchez
I'll stick to my Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, thank you very much
Aaron Ross
>Small communes coule not defend from huge outside forces.
small countries could not defend from huge outside countries
what's your point?
Mason Bell
based Evola.
I truly am torn apart between Libertarianism and ancapism on one hand, and traditionalism on the other.
a synthesis between these two is necessary.
national libertarianism, ethnolibertarianism, or something like that
Brayden Perry
Just ordered that book from Amazon, Macedonia. How is it?
Joseph Bennett
Liberty or Equality is top ten red pilled books in existence.
Carter Miller
the first three chapters of democracy: the god that failed made me a monarchist
Isaac Cruz
Ethno-libertarianism/traditionalist libertarianism could perfectly coexist with other covenants under an AnCap system. No need to "fuse" or botch anything up together. All types of covenants are possible, should there be willing people to live in them and uphold their values.
Jose Morales
this. From what I have read. I haven't finished it yet
Ryan Lewis
How?
Sebastian Martinez
Nice. I had that impression and I believe both Hoppe and Rothbard quote von Ritter in their works. The authors quotes throughout their books are quite fascinating. Robert Nisbet, Edward Banfield, Michael Levin, Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, Peter Brimelow, etc.
Ian Green
Something about arguing for statism (not owning your body) and yet using your body and vocal chords to do it (performative contradiction).
Henry Murphy
"Monarchy is government divinely established, and directed, ultimately, to the other world, government with the teaching of Christian Truth and the salvation of souls as its profoundest purpose; Nihilist rule--whose most fitting name, as we shall see, is Anarchy---is government established by men, and directed solely to this world, government which has no higher aim than earthly happiness.
The Liberal view of government, as one might suspect, is an attempt at compromise between these two irreconcilable ideas. In the 19th century this compromise took the form of "constitutional monarchies," an attempt--again--to wed an old form to a new content; today the chief representatives of the Liberal idea are the "republics" and "democracies" of Western Europe and America, most of which preserve a rather precarious balance between the forces of authority and Revolution, while professing to believe in both.
It is of course impossible to believe in both with equal sincerity and fervor, and in fact no one has ever done so."
Adrian Ward
He is retard. Socialist have royally fucked Portugal. The government actually bans people from working more than a certain number of hours.
Camden Bell
Nice rhetoric, let's see Evola actually develop a priori axiomatic logical reasoning to back up his pseudo-philosophic esoteric ramblings.
Alexander Kelly
then I guess it comes down to pure intolerance from me.
I just can't stomach things like a gay parade or gender benders, islamist neighbourhoods, foreign, absenteeist owners of appartments in cities,...
Too degenerate for me.
Landon Turner
"Individualism is what sponsors the spirit of debate everywhere. It is always possible to hold discussions within the realm of individual opinion, as this does not go beyond the rational order, and it is easy to find more or less valid arguments on both sides of a question when there is no appeal to any higher principle. Indeed, in many cases, discussion can be carried on indefinitely without arriving at any solution. The real motive is not the wish to attain to knowledge of the truth, but to prove oneself right in spite of opposition, or at least, if one cannot convince others, convince oneself of one’s own rightness.
It is very difficult to make our contemporaries see that there are things which by their very nature cannot be discussed. Modern man, instead of attempting to raise himself to truth, seeks to drag truth down to his own level"
Henry Wilson
Well... Can't force people to do something they don't want. But if we were to remove welfare and the other statist integration policies, most degenerate behavior would cease or go back into the closet. You always need heterosexual couples who build civilization if you wish to parasite off them as a homo, tranny or other mentally-deficient waste of a human being.
Daniel Gray
>You need to cuck to another men's authority to be redeemed
Sure.
Jacob Jones
>he's posting René Guénon now
wew lad, I grew out of him 2 years ago.
Brayden Rogers
an actual debate on Sup Forums that doesn't turn into shitposting after 3 replies?
have some snap tits as a reward
Andrew Baker
>What is subsidiarity
Your theology is weak
Ayden Miller
those are nice titties. My snek is aroused, so to speak.
Landon Collins
If you went from Guenon to Hoppe you just degenerated, that's all.
Cooper Miller
I think it's the other way around. You can have Evola absolutist traditionalist society within AnCap system, but not the other way around. Why do you want to dictate how I live bro? :(
Hudson Martin
And I will not surrender my country, so I can live in a "covenant". I will not quietly abide in a bunker complex while all around me degeneracy, foreigners, rules.
Ian Jackson
sorry m8, not a monarchist fan,
Owen Collins
This little piece of text is itself something which can only be expressed and understood by an individual, presumably written so as to convince other individual.
From where I'm standing this man seems to be taking his argument toward the idea that a logical fallacy should be the whole foundation of our whole way of determining truth. He wants a "higher authority to which one can appeal", which is literally what an appeal to authority, a fallacy with regard to truth in most cases, is. On what principle will the higher authority stand? What authority will establish the validity of its own claim to be the determining agent of what is true and what is false?
You can't escape the individual simply because its existence is undeniable, and truth is only a valid construct for beings capable of forming propositions, and thus of having consciousness.