Hans-Hermann Hoppe thread

To all of you who say anarcho-capitalism is all about moral degeneracy, cultural stagnation, economic plunder and (((globalist))) control, I'd recommend you to read Prof. Hoppe. I'll post a few quotes and recommended reading guide for you to see for yourself:

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/system/tdf/Economics and Ethics of Private Property Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/A Short History of Man — Progress and Decline.pdf?file=1&type=document
riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf
mises.org/system/tdf/Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, A_4.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy_Hoppe_Text 2014.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/Myth of National Defense, The Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/Economic Science and the Austrian Method_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
mises.org/system/tdf/What Must Be Done_7.pdf?file=1&type=document
amazon.com/Economy-State-Power-Market-Scholars/dp/1933550996/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1484241620&sr=8-3&keywords=murray rothbard
youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqM
youtube.com/watch?v=6InUaGbtw8k
lewrockwell.com/2014/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/smack-down/
youtube.com/watch?v=eozmuiXcsS0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

HOPPE READING LIST

>The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (1993; 2006 2nd edition)
mises.org/system/tdf/Economics and Ethics of Private Property Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline (2015)
mises.org/system/tdf/A Short History of Man — Progress and Decline.pdf?file=1&type=document

>Democracy—The God That Failed (2001)
riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf

>A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (1988; 2010 edition)
mises.org/system/tdf/Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, A_4.pdf?file=1&type=document

>From Aristocracy, to Monarchy, to Democracy (2014)
mises.org/system/tdf/From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy_Hoppe_Text 2014.pdf?file=1&type=document

>The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production (2003)
mises.org/system/tdf/Myth of National Defense, The Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>The Private Production of Defense (1998; 2006 edition)
mises.org/system/tdf/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>Economic Science and the Austrian Method (1995)
mises.org/system/tdf/Economic Science and the Austrian Method_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

>What Must Be Done (2009)
mises.org/system/tdf/What Must Be Done_7.pdf?file=1&type=document

havent started in on hoppes stuff yet. been mucking my way through this god aweful pos
amazon.com/Economy-State-Power-Market-Scholars/dp/1933550996/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1484241620&sr=8-3&keywords=murray rothbard
so boring to read, but i'd say its required reading for minarchist/anarchist/lolbertarians.
what are the first couple books of hoppe i should buy?

wew lad. Why do you think MES is a piece of shit? It's the foundation for libertarian/ancap thinking. Maybe it's boring as hell, but it's certainly not a POS.

Regardless, I'd recommend you to read Hoppe's Democracy—The God That Failed and A Short History of Man to get acquainted, and then move on to the other books.

bump

it isnt a pos. it was just a struggle to get through.
>Hoppe's Democracy—The God That Failed
was just eyeballing that on amazon.

Triple H is great, but too highbrow for Sup Forums's current user base.

Good to hear m8. Feel free to download it from the Hoppe Reading List I just posted above. All essential Hoppecore is there.

Yeah, I think modern libertarianism has tainted everyone associated with the word. Seldom do libertarians (with the obvious exceptions being Hoppe and Rothbard) realize that all the moral and cultural degeneration of nowadays is largely subsidized by the welfare state and would be reduced if public welfare and states were to be eliminated.

sweet! didnt know they were available as a free download. going to make a thumb drive of required reading. still going to buy the book though. i like having a physical copy i can thumb through.

I just got this one from Amazon. It's not from Hoppe but rather a collection of essays in his honor along with a short biography of him. And am still waiting on another of his books, The Great Fiction, which I ordered from Amazon. Thankfully I already have Democracy in physical format, it's a wonderful book. It's neo-reactionary as fuck, but the logic is clear and concise, and he is one helluva storyteller and genius in identifying social problems.

>eliminated
What is it with anclaps and their anal fixation on pushing their agenda while completely ignoring merits of, for example, welfare systems or even the fact that most of the welfare-related problems stem from misuse and outright corruption?

Seriously, this shit is awful lot like communism with it's inevitable degeneration into religious zealotry, to the point that they don't even give a fuck about their precious proletariat as long as they believe they can hurt those nasty bourgeoisie exploitators (because fuck having rights and shit).

>systems or even the fact that most of the welfare-related problems stem from misuse and outright corruption

All welfare is missuse.

>welfare-related problems stem from misuse and outright corruption?
They don't. It has to do with welfare and taxation in general creating legal confusion, higher individual time preferences and subsidizing "bad" (unwarranted) behavior, like unemployment, single parenting, alcoholism, dependency, etc.

okay but he's one guy out of like the whole fucking movement

It's not only him. You also got Lew Rockwell, Stephan Kinsella, Thomas DiLorenzzo, Tom Woods Jr., Jeffrey Tucker, etc. Essentially everyone involved with the Mises Institute or the Property and Freedom Society.

A good idea taken to it's extreme can easily become shit decision. This applies both to the welfare and removal of state influence.

>They don't. It has to do with welfare and taxation in general creating legal confusion, higher individual time preferences and subsidizing "bad" (unwarranted) behavior, like unemployment, single parenting, alcoholism, dependency, etc.
Right, because safety net that could catch otherwise normal, functioning people and give them another chance to get up by providing temporary assistance is the same as subsidizing generations of niggers and giving free education to wetback illegals.
That's kinda the whole point: welfare and education HAS merit, it's just that ancaps actively ignore them, thus fouling up good ideas (less state) with shit (24/7 economic FFA Deathmatch).

Welfare is obtained compulsory and through property expropriation. It is immoral, regardless of who gets the benefits.

...

...

...

>Opens his borders to immigrants, because borders don't exist anyway

Anarcho capitalism is a meme because the only people who can adopt it are a priori intelligent people. Niggers don't get it, Arabs don't get it.

Traditionalism is the final redpill.

Haven't got to hoppe yet, was going to watch a speech of his at mises last night but never got around to it. Any suggestions? Don't want to start another book until I finish wealth of nations and human action.

Countries' borders are illegitimate, but the tangible borders to your private property are real. And since under Anarcho-Capitalism all property is private, unwanted immigrants will be thrown out of the "private country" without any "muh rights" protests.

Traditionalism (embracing the "natural order") and anarcho-capitalism are essentially the same thing. See pic related. Trust me I know what you mean and why you would be suspicious, but anarcho-capitalism (no welfare, borders everywhere, no anti-discrimination laws) would almost immediately end all abhorrent and "unnatural" lifestyles existing today.

Watch:
youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqM

and most importantly

youtube.com/watch?v=6InUaGbtw8k

Also read:

lewrockwell.com/2014/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/smack-down/

Alright, bookmarked. Thanks user

is this the guy that wrote parents selling their kids would be jusified in ancap society?

That's rothbard

thats murray rothbard

also bump

Libertarianism with hard money and without third world immigration is something I could embrace.

He meant it in the context of adoption.

paleo-libertarianism

Doing God's work as usual Portugal.

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

That would be Rothbard, but then again the image that is usually posted around to discredit his position on it omits an important part of his reasoning. He does not see "selling children" as the illegal act of selling children's WILL to third parties. When he talks about a free market in children, he talks about a free market in the temporary property titles to take care of children until they are old enough to say "I am independent" and leave the house. If you leave adoption to the government, it will set a maximum price (price fixing) on children. According to economic theory, capping something's price will lead to lasting shortages (because it fucks up the supply-demand equilibrium point). So, there will be a lot of unsatisfied parents willing to adopt and love a child.

Now let's take in consideration that under an anarcho-capitalist society, orphanages and adoption agencies would most likely be for-profit. Children's prices would be free-floating, meaning every child would likely find a family to be adopted by. Children would have incentives to behave better (and thus reduce child rebellion and make them more attractive to being adopted by wealthier families), and those particularly nasty kids who refused to cooperate or to behave would be worth less, thus being most likely being adopted by the lower/middle class families.

Also, agencies would have absolutely every incentive to investigate the adoptive families' backgrounds. After all, if an adoption agency/orphanage sold a child to traffickers or to criminals/child abusers, their reputation would tank and they'd lose profits.

So the employees of the agency would win; the unwanted children would have families to love them; and parents who did not want their children could sell them for a profit.

Everyone would in.

\argument.

Libertarians don't believe in "human rights"
Cuckservatives BTFO again.

Almost cry how beautiful the market works

...

The free market is truly the best thing that ever came out of species Man. And there are remnants of anarcho-capitalism everywhere we look. Every time we trade something voluntarily (as opposed to state coercion), anarcho-capitalism. Every time we buy something on the "black market," anarcho-capitalism. Every time we dodge taxes, anarcho-capitalism. Every time two or more people willingly get together to participate in an event, anarcho-capitalism. It's beautiful.

Why is he so based lads?

doing god's work portubro
free market is truly beautiful
because he is free

He has been endowed by All-Mighty God with the power to praxeologically, physically, ethically, and psychologically remove all fallacious arguments and communist propaganda from one's mind. He is the Argumentation Ethics Master.

Well put

more HHH quotes to keep the thread alive.

for those who still are not sold on the cultural and ethnic conservation under anarcho-capitalism.

Thank you based croissant. I love you

why the libertarian movement was appropriated by manchildren, the byproduct of the welfare state

great thread portubro!

*muffled sounds of Leftists being thrown out of helicopters in the distance*

The time will come when libertarianism will be once again uncucked, and a real movement toward Liberty will be achieved.

This reminds me a lot of the stuff coming out of the US LP and publications like Reason Magazine.

What do you think about Tom Woods, do you ever listen to his show?

''They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.''

I do. I love him. The man is absolutely based and a joy to hear. Although I must admit I seldom listen to podcasts and the likes. The only real one I follow is Molymeme and Black Pigeon, although Christopher Cantwell is alright sometimes. He's also really into Hoppe.

*physical removal intensifies*
Incidentally, how is your Capitalist Party doing?

Day of the Helicopter when ?

SOON
O
O
N

We do have ''liberalistene'' they are for the moment a micro party and few know of them. We do not have many major parties that promote capitalism too much as all of them are socdem (just to varying degrees)

Yes, I was talking about Liberalistene. Too bad if they're not doing good. People have been duped by this social-democracy crap and democracy bullshit for too long and cannot see what lies beyond it.

David D. Friedman
The absolute genius of anarcho-capitalism

based Friedman. So much better than his father.

Heard him speak a few years ago, truly a genius.

That "Safety Net" was originally provided by maintaining close family ties and local charity. The welfare state disincentivizes both.

I don't really listen to Cantwell much, but everytime I see something on Facebook it's always him either going on some racist rant or literally taking drugs on his program. I know a few of the people up here in NH that know him and everyone pretty much disassociates from him.

Of this list, which would you recommend to get a good intro to his thought? I'm interested to learn more about him but not nec. sure where to begin.

>pic related
Read rothbards work first though, ethics of liberty and for a new liberty

Yeah, he does come off as a degenerate and LARPs as a crazy survivalist waaaay too much if you ask me. He always sounds like he's on coke on his show. Regardless, he's entertaining to watch, but nowhere near Tom Woods or other commentators in terms of actual argumentation skills and logical reasoning.

As an intro? I'd say A Short History of Man: From Progress and Decline, followed by Democracy—The God That Failed, and then by A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. If you want to get into the nitpicks and main foundational arguments behind his reasoning (although he always summarizes them in his books), you should read The Economics and Ethics of Private Property. Regardless, A Short History of Man followed by Democracy is the way to go. You will reach levels of reactionary enlightenment you did not even know existed, all supported with thorough and concise logical arguments.

I've been browsing Sup Forums for a few months now, but this has to be the most stupid shit I have ever read.

If this guy Rothbard, is a troll incarnate, then bravo.

Absolute madness.

I recognize you. Bump, based hoppe-Portugal bro

topkek

Does he mean in the modern world?

Bc multiculturalism worked really well in the past i.e. Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire.

Cantwell is nigger-tier bonehead convicted felon. There's plenty of videos of him screaming at people on the streets.

>Bc multiculturalism worked really well in the past i.e. Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire.
it really didn't
go read a book

soldiers from the fringes of the roman empire pillaging roman cites was a major problem in the late era roman empire

Thanks, bros. I'll check these out.

He's talking about multiculturalism as it exists today, i.e. through forced integration policies (anti-discrimination laws). On a chapter dedicated to the development of cities and the like, he admits that before states got fatter and cracked down on all forms of private life, it was in the cities where civilization shined and peoples, merchants, businessmen, traders, etc. of all colors and backgrounds met and exchanged goods and services. The downfall of the city is quite well summarized in Democracy. If you take a look at the links I posted in the beginning of the thread, he explains the degeneration of the city in a chapter called "On Cooperation, Tribe, City, and State."

>my system is better than just accepting that there can be no system
>its because those people are incompatible with niggers and arabs
>not me though, our system is compatible with them
ok?

...

do we get to physically remove communists or not?

You do, of course.

Based neighbourd, keep doing God's work.

we will one day physically remove communists along each other, brother.

>intolerance and discrimination against mhm mhm mhm mhm ok yep mhm mhm wait wait wait muh Sup Forums muh reactionaries muh memes

hoppe is proof that christianity is the only way; you can't disagree with him and you can't get to where he's talking about by just shitposting all day either

I'm in. In my understanding a fascist revival would simply enable the transition into a free market system, would you agree?

There are many cataclysmic changes that have to take place before a Hoppean system could emerge, am i correct?

>it really didn't

The two longest lasting empires in world history, embracing multiple cultures/religions, didn't wok?

Yes, it has to end sometime but to say it didn't work is willful ignorance.

Violent revolution will probably not work.

People tend to opt for the promise of security of demagogues when bullets are being fired outside. It's what we're hardwired to want

>The two longest lasting empires in world history, embracing multiple cultures/religions, didn't wok?
They absolutely in no way embraced multiple cultures. that's so wrong as to be comical. The Ottomans kept the Arabs and all other vilayat people under bootheel. The culture of the Ottoman Empire was Ottoman Turkic in nature.

And the Romans? Distinctly Latinate with Greek superstructure. Romans did not embrace foreign cultures, they subjugated them violently and breeded them out of existence with the colonia.

The solution is not fascism, but radical decentralization, secessionist and separatist movements. Although Mises himself said fascism had "earned its merit" in history for preventing communism's spread to the West. We don't have to give more power to the state to bring about the Hoppetopia, we just have to bring the state down and then people's mask of egalitarian and multiculturalism will fall and we will return to our tribal roots and natural preferences for people alike. The cataclysmic changes you are talking about would have to be the implosion of the current economic/political system. Breaking up the EU, government shutdown in the US with militia uprisings and states like Texas demanding secession, throwing illegal migrants and refugees into the oceans, etc. It would be glorious.

Hoppe actually outlines the strategy in "What Must Be Done."

Libertarianism is cucked because its bound to make the society kill itself over time.

...

Interesting. Thank you for good response.

What do you think of Chesterton's "Distributism" , where he really emphasizes keeping the means of production into as many hands as possible, ie. self sufficient yeoman farmers / craftsmen in villages and city state type situation?

My question thus, is, what is to keep tribalist / hoppean small political units from forming federations? what is to keep a particularly powerful warlord from taking over and forming an empire of sorts?

My dream are small, sufficient ethostates based on common culture and religion having nice healthy communities but i feel that's unlikely

Great thread
I've never read Hoppe but I do enjoy HoppeanSnakeMemes on kikebook

>what is to keep tribalist / hoppean small political units from forming federations?

Nothing, that's the point. Ideally, the communities would form a confederation to coordinate military defense, like Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

>And the Romans? Distinctly Latinate with Greek superstructure. Romans did not embrace foreign cultures, they subjugated them violently and breeded them out of existence with the colonia.


"The Roman Empire was remarkably multicultural, with 'a rather astonishing cohesive capacity' to create a sense of shared identity while encompassing diverse peoples within its political system over a long span of time."
Michael Peachin, introduction to The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World (Oxford University Press, 2011)
>They absolutely in no way embraced multiple cultures.

hmmmm....user on 4 chan, Oxford....user on Sup Forums, Oaxford....I concede, you are right.

>like Switzerland
I've always been fond of the foederatio as a political unit.

So we've established this really only applies to High IQ peoples, the amount of tribal violence and warlordery that would take place in the black and arab enclaves in our countries would create immediately the need for coordinated military action, vale?

In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
So to speak

>"The Roman Empire was remarkably multicultural, with 'a rather astonishing cohesive capacity' to create a sense of shared identity while encompassing diverse peoples within its political system over a long span of time."

Dude this is clearly academe speak for forceful assimilation and demographic replacement. That's what the coloniae were for. It had 'cohesive capacity' because they fucking outbred the retard-tier natives if they didn't respect them enough. They didn't just form elite strata of society like the Franks, Goths and other conquerers did, they just straight up genetically became Romans with clear native admixtures, of course.

Where the genetic presence of Romanhood was weakest , the Romans had the hardest times ie. Palestine, Africa and Britain where their colonia were understaffed and whose progeny were quickly ran out when times were hard.

I like the idea of Distributism, although in a Hoppean anarcho-capitalist system all sorts of private property "covenants" could be formed, i.e. agrarian covenants, racially-homogeneous covenants, high-tech cities, covenants more or less inviting toward "multiculturalism", etc. There is no way to say what it would actually look like. One can only form the praxeological arguments (foundational logic) and then deduce or theorize what these covenants would consist of. Of course some political units could form confederations, and others would choose not to. There would be as much or as little integration, be it economic (beneficial) or people-related (only beneficial if upstanding people of good character are allowed in, the others must be "tamed" or made civilized, lest they be forcefully expelled).

When it comes to warlords, you must understand that wars everywhere are almost always by-products of states. Whether territorial (traditional monarchical wars) or ideological (democratic wars, like US imperialism for "world-wide democracy" or foreign states meddling in other peoples' affairs), wars are very expensive and would likely be reduced in an anarcho-capitalist society. Wars are expensive, deviate funds and destroy property, not protect it. Wars are only exacerbated under democracy, since the line between ruler and ruled is blurred, and all property and person is up for grabs, expropriation, murder and destruction (because they are tax-paying property or tax-paying persons).

Warlords would have enormous bounties on their heads because no person or business would want to risk being at the warlord's mercy, not to mention the fact that he would have a very hard time funding his war. Who, after all, would fund him if their reputation as an arms manufacturer/military supply would be sunken by concerned shareholders and customers?

> the amount of tribal violence and warlordery that would take place in the black and arab enclaves in our countries would create immediately the need for coordinated military action, vale?

If such enclaves did form, the solution would be either assimilating the minorities (practically impossible at this point, only possible in Eastern Europe or the homogeneous countries of Central Europe / Northern North America) or forcefully converting them to the libertarian social order.
That does not mean a full-on civil war, though. Simply, if they parasite on the civilized communities in any way (violently, economically or socially), they would have to be physically removed from society, so to speak.

have a ball niggas youtube.com/watch?v=eozmuiXcsS0

People arent convinced by ancap because they have never heard of natural law.

I mean you don't have to be an Oxford PhD to know that multiculturalism was one of the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire.

I love you, Spainbro. Your posts are wonderful to read.

...

...