Hoppe's Argumentative Ethics disallows one to protect oneself (when violence is the only means necessary).
Hoppe, in his book Economic Science, aligns himself and Mises ( adopting Mises means using adopting a libertarian's works for communist usage) with Kantean a priori synthetic knowledge- which is anti-objective, and thus supports moral relativism.
Hoppe is simply (whether he knows it or not) undermining objective liberty.
who fucking cares about liberty
liberty in and of itself is worthless especially to people unworthy of it
hoppe can't infiltrate shit because his work is designed for a small minority to consume and not to the masses
This, fuck liberty.
amoralism and moral nihilism is where it's at.
>hoppe can't infiltrate shit because his work is designed for a small minority
That is my point...that Hoppean ethics are anti-white...while purporting to be pro liberty...
What the fuck are you shitposting about?
> What do you mean that Hoppe is actually a communist infiltator!?!?!?"
I would not expect a double digit IQ country to understand.
Would you lay out an argument besides just resorting to MUH EMPIRICISM. So far, your argument has been equivocating the use of a priori logic to communism.
>guy posts contradiction to your premise
>respond by saying uhh ur dumb you wouldn't understand
argument over
sage
> So far, your argument has been equivocating the use of a priori logic to communism.
I'm saying how a priori synthetic truths enable moral relativism, and thus destroy logic...which weakens people's (moral) defenses against commies.
> guy posts contradiction to your premise
Guy posted the work of someone that I say is contradicting himself...and expects me to take such as evidence. Sage the USA.
Wouldn't holding something to be *truth*, existing a priori, serve to exclude relativism?
Relativism exists when moral systems can be exchanged and the belief is that one is as good as the other at the end of the day. If there is objective truths that exist in the world that can be understood a priori, doesn't that mean that the moral system that serves that truth is objectively superior to other moral systems?
>Wouldn't holding something to be *truth*, existing a priori, serve to exclude relativism?
The problem is that such a priori truths (as Kant explains), justify actions without concern for any person's welfare. Thus the one who acts can have no expectation that their action will benefit themselves. Hoppe is a commie.
bump for interest
They're only anti-white in response to the reality Malthusian sociological/population theory.
In theory it works, but only if you ignore population and genetics based behavior theory.
Hoppes didn't have a political philosophy; it was an ideaology.
How exactly does this justify actions without concern for any person's welfare?
>Hoppes didn't have a political philosophy; it was an ideaology.
Yet is the upcoming model for the common (not actual) anarchoCapitalism/libertarian. Just as common libertarianism bears little resemblance to actual libertarian, common anarcho-capitalism is following the same path.
The difference will be that while the common libertarian violates physical property rights, the common ancap will violate intellectual property rights.
>How exactly does this justify actions without concern for any person's welfare?
Kantean ethics (including Hoppe's Argumentative Ethics) are deontological, and thus are defined without any regard for humans.
Kantean ethics's, in its affects on humans, is similar to environmentalism...both divorce morality from humans.
How do you figure ancaps will violate intellectual property rights?
It is, as you say, mostly idealogy...the question is, "for whose interests?"
Their deontological ethics are defined by rules made to create harmony with human lives. (Ie the NAP)
How does that divorce it from humans?
>How do you figure ancaps will violate intellectual property rights?
They confuse one's ability to protect IP as meaning that IP is not property. This is specifically purported by Hoppe, who is (as is the communist (not idiot) Kinsella.) The issue is that while protecting IP may require immoral action, Hoppe disaproves of violence even towards those who commit such against you.
>Their deontological ethics are defined by rules made to create harmony with human lives.
Not according to Kant, who divorces consequences from ethics.
And that's a fair assertion.
I suppose I've never considered Hoppe's audience.
As the user posted earlier, Hoppe seems to favor the culture of high IQ white Anglo Saxon men. It seems obvious that this would be the case as this demographic largely composes the libertarian population.
It's possible, however, that his beliefs were intended to be held solely by the elite and not the common rabble
Violence isn't necessary to ensure the protection of intellectual property though.
Mind explaining that idea further?
Kant's ethics means that moral actions bear no necessary relation to any people's welfare.
>Violence isn't necessary to ensure the protection of intellectual property though.
I'm supposing that your sentiment is based upon a person not being morally able to keep others from using his IP, as IP can be simutarously used.
The use of IP by others (who did not create, nor gain permission to use it) means that the creator loses the ability to gain from that which only exists because of him.
Physical property is defended because it exists because a person created it to profit from it- not because it can only be used, at one time, by a single person.
>It's possible, however, that his beliefs were intended to be held solely by the elite and not the common rabble
What do you mean?
He goes for deontological ethics (rules etc, think 10 commandments), in which the rules are obeyed regardless of outcome. So if you believe 'thou shalt not lie' you will tell the axe murderer where your kids are hiding.
>So if you believe 'thou shalt not lie' you will tell the axe murderer where your kids are hiding.
Yet Hoppe is gaining popularity...Hoppe never betrayed his communist teachers, but has only chosen to infiltrate libertarian ethics.
Both deontology and consequentialism have issues. It's clear that for rw libertarianism to succeed, it needs a 'high trust' society. Democracy, the God that failed is a masterpiece.
>It's clear that for rw libertarianism to succeed, it needs a 'high trust' society.
Libertarianism requires "high trust," which I'd say is tied to knowing 2 things:
1. That actions have consequences, and people are allowed to defend themselves (including excommunication from the country.)
2. Knowing what causes what...this can only be known, to any degree, by eliminating low-IQ, and by the weight of one's votes being tied to how much one pays in taxes. Women and blacks definately not voting.
I'd argue that situation is rather contrived.
The man is free to answer as he pleases. He shouldn't lie, but he also shouldn't let a man commit a violent act against his children. He can achieve this without physical violence or intent to hurt.
>I'd argue that situation is rather contrived.
Hoppe's ethics require you to act against your own interests...so long as you preserve your moral purity...what are blacks currently doing, while whites are trying to preserve their moral purity?
> The man is free to answer as he pleases.
Not according to Hoppe...and while Hoppe's ethics are fine in a moral society, they cannot exist outside of such.
Without a largely united (culturally, ideologically, and arguably spiritually) community, the ability to understand the weight of one's actions is greatly weakened, requiring either a third parties to explain the Truth. This, as we know, just leads to corruption.
Thus the unity of a community is important to the well being of any libertarian state.
>not according to Hoppe
Please provide some reasoning. I'd like a direct quote to support this, not reasoning from your interpretation of his ideaology.
>Thus the unity of a community is important to the well being of any libertarian state.
Unity, as Hayek advocates, is supported by the Extended Order (of markets). But money has been perverted by governments, and is blamed for evil- when its actually the most effective method at both avoiding war and achieving social welfare- however *seemingly* impersonally.
I'll strike that.
My original reasoning before was that the man doesn't need to say where his kids are. He isn't compelled to accept the authority of a man who seeks evil against him. He can then subdue this man without physical violence.
Saying he has to accept another man imposing his will upon him goes against Hoppe's interpretation of freedom.
Argumentative Ethics. Which claims that it's impossible to condemn condemnation without contradiction, and thus condemnation can not (without contradiction) exist.
If you want to get lost (and waste lots of time), you can try to understand the reasoning of a communist...but you will only understand that Hoppe's work is similar to Kant's in that they both are written to support ideologies...the first for God, the second as a way to subvert the West to communism.
>He isn't compelled to accept the authority of a man who seeks evil against him.
While he can subdue the violator, he is limited in his actions against a man who is unlimited in his.
The system that is created doesn't support human affairs though.
Such a free market avoids wars and let's individuals live comfortably, but impedes on their freedoms quite readily.
One needs only look at the invasion of privacy brought about by the ever growing market for information in tech.
>but impedes on their freedoms quite readily.
How?
> One needs only look at the invasion of privacy brought about by the ever growing market for information in tech.
So long as information is not stolen, only given and shared, there is no invasion...only companies being competitive, and thus selling information (which people give, and permit to be sold).
That will always be a price that is paid by those of righteous baring.
>That will always be a price that is paid by those of righteous baring.
aka Black domination of Whites
It's a tragedy of the commons situation, friend.
It takes the most tech savvy individual to avoid the pervasive data collection done by by corporations. Indeed it is so bad that one must choose to opt out of most of society to avoid it. The collection is not voluntary, and there is no way to opt out.
Like not becoming a nigger to stop a nigger.
>Indeed it is so bad that one must choose to opt out of most of society to avoid it.
It's a tragedy of the commons only in the way that data sharing is preferred (by action, whether knowledgable or not) by most consumers.
> not voluntary
We still choose to participate in society.
i agree but he's pretty good in other aspects
this is a pretty good series of articles related to the topic
>Like not becoming a nigger to stop a nigger.
Defending oneself does not make you a nigger- starting the fight does.
xd epic i love daddy government :)) please you violence to seize private property from me daddy xddd
Choosing not to is death.
How is that different from a gun being pointed to your head?
In both you choose death.
Are you arguing that once the NAP is off then full chimp out is allowed?
>i agree but he's pretty good in other aspects
He regurgitates common economic knowledge...in order to pretend to be friends with liberty...while denying law-followers the moral sanction to defend themselves.
Come to think of it, regrading pol and horseshoe theory, perhaps being communist is not necessarily the opposite of this board.
Liberty tempered by virtue is simply chaos.
Untempered*
>Choosing not to is death.
Or could revert to tribal man, with the SOL common to such. Society provides benefits for costs.
>Are you arguing that once the NAP is off then full chimp out is allowed?
Against those involved, ofc...why would I submit to a nigger with a knife, when I have no knife but only a gun (assuming gun > knife).
banal platitude
Yes, at the cost of human rights such as liberty.
It's clear your ideaology ultimately fails to protect human rights at the cost of money.
Not an argument
> It's clear your ideology fails to protect human rights by allowing people to act for incentives.
This is what you said. That we cannot protect if we don't prevent humans from acting.
>implying your banal platitude was an argument
you have not justified
>le epik national socialism xd le fugg liberty le hitler pls save us from le degeneracy adn le jooowz
This is an escalation of power.
Don't you see how this works? You fear the might of your neighbor so you build a bigger gun. This continues ad infinum until you both create states.
Power is ultimately what this is about. The only way to win is for no one to play.
But you're saying "well what about niggers?!" You're right, there will always be niggers vying for power. But we can't just become the nigger to destroy the nigger. We have to get smarter and beat them in ways that don't impede on their liberty and right to live. Saying "just kill them if they wrong you" is lazy and what lead us to this mess.
I never argued for nat soc. I just don't see how "liberty" is positive without virtue and respect for the rights of man.
>enjoying the thread
>too dumb to contribute
>We have to get smarter and beat them in ways that don't impede on their liberty and right to live.
-in order to not escalate violence to the point where states are created.
I don't believe in this runaway creator of warring states.
The problem, as I see it, is encouraging/allowing hugely different people to live together...ofc there will be theft/resentment in such a community...without being able to discern who "the others" (as is possible from country to country) are.
>I just don't see how "liberty" is positive without virtue and respect for the rights of man.
Which is why Hoppe is cancer, as is the common Misean ("utilitarianism libertarianism") "libertarianism."
That's your right to believe otherwise, but reasonably speaking, it is everyone's interest to escalate the power of the state.
Why else do all world powers also maintain incredibly large militaries and domestic police forces?
How does Hoppe not respect the rights of man?
>Why else do all world powers also maintain incredibly large militaries and domestic police forces?
To protect the government from its people under the guise of defending citizens.
>How does Hoppe not respect the rights of man?
By obligating man to action which has no necessary realation to his welfare.
From each man to his ability, to each man to his need.
I'm beginning to realize you just don't understand Hobbes at all.
That's why nuclear arms are maintained?
>feign understanding at beginning
>work to confuse thread
>claim that OP does not understand Hoppe
Not only DO you understand me, but you are a subvresive the same as Hoppe.
I don't understand, in hoppes world there ore only negative rights, and the only obligations are those you have committed voluntarily to (ie covenant, contractual etc)
Hoppean ethics obligates one to, as per Christianity, turn the other cheek. Not to defend oneself.
You're a god damned retard if you think you can go teach Chinese people in Beijing how to be good Canadians. The entire point about moral relativism is that you can be good and hang out with people that you consider to be good thus creating communities where morality is absolute; if you think it's a good idea to go teach subsaharan niggers morality then you're a retard.
Using relativism only when it suits you to push gayness isn't a belief system, it's just jewish politics
is that evil dave letterman???
Hoppe SUPPORTS moral relativism OUTSIDE of covenants.
Source? This is the guy who said pic related, remember. His 'physical removal' goes from discrimination, through expulsion on up. He has said nap response should be proportional is all - no memeball shit like shooting your neighbour cos his dog shat in your yard. He absolutely does not rule out violence where warranted.
You might want to read his 'private production of defence'
>He absolutely does not rule out violence where warranted.
He advocates whites to cower inside covenant communities, instead of defending oneself whereever they are. White segregation will make white genocide easy.
Hoppe is the generation of commie, in his theft of the products of the mind (IP).
>You might want to read his 'private production of defence'
aka David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom applied to defense. Except that while Friedman believes that competing law enforcers can work, Hoppe advocates against proportional response, in its inate rightness, even though such may not be condusive for man's life.
I support relativism too in that I do not wish to go tell niggers or chinks what's wrong or right, as long as they don't fuck with me
>Hoppe's Argumentative Ethics disallows one to protect oneself
No it doesn't, are you a retard or a liar?
>Kantean a priori synthetic knowledge- which is anti-objective, and thus supports moral relativism.
>Kentean
>moral relativism
oh okay i see you're just a retard
>I support relativism too in that I do not wish to go tell niggers or chinks what's wrong or right, as long as they don't fuck with me
This is not relativism.
The question is, does indirect agression count as the initiation of force?- I believe it does. Hoppe, and cucks, don't believe it so.
What do you mean it is not relativism? Is the law or morality not relative to the context, i.e. western or Chinese?
What does an indirect aggression even mean?
> being this fooloed by a communist infiltraitor
> being a useful idiot
> being on this board, which derides other useful idiots
Objectivity beyond physics, chemistry, and biology doesn't exist.
>Objectivity beyond physics, chemistry, and biology doesn't exist.
>The gall to say this in a Hoppean thread.
Hoppe, in the book Economic Science, states that the only objective science is economics. And that physics/chemistry/biology study is necessarily non-objective
ITT:
>pseudo intellectual """arguments"""
>fedora tipping
>mouth breathing
>cringe
Always the Aussies looking to shitpost in quality threads. Mods.
They are just trying to push for demoralization and destabilization, the two main steps in Ideological subversion.
They want us dependent, ignorant, and defenseless so we won't defend our liberty and they can convert our great republic into a marxist shithole.
Pic related sound Marxist to you son?
Based
At least one lolbertardian will be spared the rope.
>They are just trying to push for demoralization and destabilization, the two main steps in Ideological subversion.
Exactly:
Stay to yourselves.
Have kids, be productive.
Don't mind us stealing- oh you mind?...well now it's easy to kill all of you in your covenant community.
Amazing how idiots fall for this subversive.
I'll ignore the shitty font, background color, and cringe anime picture.
No, that statement does not sound Marxist. I have not read Hoppe's books.
Any attempt to disarm the public and remove your right to defend yourself is pushing for marxist mentality.
>Any attempt to disarm the public and remove your right to defend yourself is pushing for marxist mentality.
Not only to disarm...but for whites to congregate, and thus be easily harmed if commie demands are not met.
this is thread is just a huge leaf bait you morons. probably a commie himself. ignore bait.
mixes lies for the informed and bait for the informed.
visit /lrg/ thread for proper information on hoppe.
Sounds just like the Terroists that want all the jews to all come to them so they may slaughter them all.