Some days ago I made a post to see how many people in Sup Forums knew about Hans Hermann Hoppe, and how many thought his ideas were worth following. I saw not many even knew about him. I'm sure this fragment of one of his speeches will help you make up your mind: youtube.com
By the way, 10/10 to whoever made this pic on the other post
Other urls found in this thread:
infoshop.org
twitter.com
We all know about Hoppe m8, it's time to grow up
I didn't read your entire post; however, I get the point and I agree: the "mainstream" libertarian movement is cucked and doesn't understand that in our current social and cultural context, we can't just "accept everyone". But Hoppe isn't a mainstream libertarian. He is a true, rothbardian libertarian, and he understands that, if it is needed, you will have to physically remove filthy from your property.
After studying Hoppe and reading into what he wrote and said in his speeches, and even though he is self proclaimed as an AnCap, I firmly believe that he is a lot more authoritarian that what he comes off as and possesses many fascist ideals.
there is a quintessential difference between fascism and the ideals of hoppe: while fascism ALWAYS looks after the "interest of society" (if there is such a thing, anyways), Hoppe is much more mature in his reasoning: what he proposes is a society made up by voluntary associations of people who follow rules which they voluntairly agree on and have values that they voluntairly share (if they don't, they are by all means not forced to become part of that association, as they can always look for another). While fascism is expansionist and seeks war against those who it considers degenerates, Hoppe just proposes to ostracize them. Neighboring "private states" wouldn't have to go to war with each others, as long as one wasn't disturbing the other. Fascism, on the other hand, declares that just one state has the universal right to rule over all the righteous people, and that those who are not righteous should be purged. Hoppe does never defend that.
jesus fuck you sound like a fedora tipper telling church going grandmas to grow up
KEK'D
People who haven't read a single word written by Hoppe are criticizing Hoppe?
Wow, that's never happened before.
the biggest problem with fascism is that every fascist actively wants a government that is in charge of everything and tells everyone what to do, which is great if it's in your hands, but results in today's europe if you lose it, and eventually you will. German normies, being statists as they are, went from full fascist to full cuck in the span of a generation.
I know hoppe comes off racist
But how does he deal with the whole IQ thing? Thats my biggest turn off from ancap these days.
Hoppe is literally a feudalist.
wow have you even read my post? I wasn't criticizing him, I was defending him!
what do you mean?
buy a patch of land in the middle of the desert, fraction it and sell it off to high IQ people, through a statute which forces any buyer to only re-sell to other high IQ people
Well, that is no argument against him ;). Yeah, I agree, he is a neo-feudalist, but how is that bad?
Hoppeism is just neofeodalism and you have to be either incredibly ignorant or sadistic to support it.
Feodalism is an incredibly inefficient economic system and extremely degenerate.
>Fascism, on the other hand, declares that just one state has the universal right to rule over all the righteous people
What? No, get all nonwhites out. I don't even want all of the white ethnostate(s) in the US to be fascist--that's one of the default agreements here: lolbergs and NatSocs put aside their differences until we get an ethnostate, which is in our common interest (for NatSocs, as an explicit goal, for you guys, because only whites give a damn about freedom).
And white nationalism is for the New World mutts. Individual European countries should remain ethnic nationalist, if practicable.
I'm NatSoc out of necessity. I see it is a more temporary measure that we need to purge shitskins, degenerates, and kikes out of society with. After that is done, and the ethnostate is stabilized, my views are basically just Jeffersonian paleoconservatism (even if I'd prefer a monarch/dictator over democracy).
>'an'cap shows his real colours.
You lot have never valued liberty for its own sake. You dislike the state because you want to replace its ability to dominate with your own.
feudalism requires the initiation of force. you are retarded.
I think statism and by extension fascism is in many ways retarded retarded, but i do tolerate them and/or pretend there's literally nothing wrong with it because of similar reasons. They help prevent the status quo from shifting too far towards the left.
what i do like about fascism is the Evolian men among the ruins thing, and the importance of the will and the spirit, both compatible with libertarianism, and seeing beyond the strictly materialistic which is the leftist doctrine. Not so much into the racial part but I guess I'm not really in a place where race is a problem.
correction, middle ages feudalism was inefficient because it didn't allow a free market inside of each feudal domain. In modern feudalism, that wouldn't be the case.
Hoppeianism + Christianity is the ticket.
How does a feudal lord protect his land from the peasants who work it?
What do you mean? Are you saying that modern feodalism would have more open trade? How was trade not open in the middle ages?
I'm not reading that wall of text.
No it doesn't. It just means that one person protects another group of people that work for him. It is true that in the past it did imply initiation of force, but this "modern feudalism" wouldn't, because those people would voluntairly choose their feudal lord
Hoppe made libertarianism cool again desu.
And what happens when the feodal lord doesn’t let them?
>getting to choose who dominates you is freedom
'Anarcho'-capitalism everyone.
Good because it’s a really impotent argument.
Then it isn't feudelism.
I'm a Hoppean/Rothbardian ancap. I don't consider his views feudalist.
Feudalism is a microstate wherein a warlord extracts taxation from peasants bound to the land, usually sending a portion of it to a sovereign.
That is not Hoppean covenant communities or anything else I would consider Hoppean.
well, I agree with you. I just was using a different definition of feudalism.
His interpretation of history is fucking retarded. It's basically Adam and Eve, Locke's man in the state of nature making the social contract, all over again, except society itself in the state of nature was naturally ancap before the fall and everything changed. It's inorganic, it makes zero sense, that nigga had some good points but his idea of how history developed is so fucking stupid.
I know him and I've watched this video already and several others. I was libertarianish in my normie days, but never went full into it with reading texts by him and Mises or others. Sadly actual libertarianism is completely dead in Germany and there's a reason why he left it. The head of the only libertarian party here, which always got around 1% where it was able to elect them, committed suicide about a year ago out of desperation. So what's left of it, is only kinda surviving in the AfD under the Alice Weidel wing. So I can absolutely see why Hoppe thinks that the Alt-Right is an ally of libertarians. If ANY party in Germany promotes less government and at the same time physical removal so to speak, it is the AfD.
Liberty is freedom to do what is right. Having hierarchy with better men above and lesser men below enhances liberty. Treating slaves as equal to aristocrats denigrates greatness and you have slaves running wild through the streets impeding everyone's liberty. Of course feudalism falls out of ancap, corporations are just fiefdoms, kings style themselves as CEOs. There is hierarchy, there is order, and there is prosperity.
t. happy surf in privately held company
>While fascism is expansionist and seeks war against those who it considers degenerates
No, not necessarily. Even WW2 was forced upon Hitler himself, not the other way around.
The one war that was full of social-darwinist thinking and "war as a means to solve all problems of Europe" was actually WW1.
>Nepotism + degeneracy = prosperity
???
see
he's just using the word wrongly
this is a problem, as it will convince retards like you that you're right and turn off normies from considering ancap.
wow, such a falacy! You choose who grants you protection and in exchange for his protection you have to produce something valuable because obviously he won't protect you for free! And fyi, NO state will protect you for free; the difference is that states forcefully tax you, while a private security corporation would be open to negotiation and would have to offer you the best service for the lowest price because of competition!
For Hoppe and the rest of ancaps we say fuck you to chickenshit Libertarians. These guys are the right's soyboys. Too pansy to take a stand in principle. What's so hard to understand: you can't have open boarders and a welfare state! Fucking simple.
if you knew Hoppe, you'd know he is against borders and welfare state! In facts, he supports the right to discrimination, as it is the basis of private property
A good argument against that reasoning is that you are using state action to solve a problem caused by the state, which is what pretty much every market interference is based on and almost always has unintended negative consequences like every other state intervention. I still want closed borders if we have a welfare state, but I can't help agree with that counter.
Don’t agree with lord of boston.
>Move to chicago.
Don’t agree with US government.
>Mobe to mexico.
Looks same to me.
the difference about an ancap society in the state of nature and a future ancap society is that now we would be aware of the value of liberty. Before, we weren't. In fact, before, we were stupid people who lived in caves.
exactly.
Someone hasn't read Hoppe...
quote-mining
Well, that would be a good point If we didn't have things like
-Globalization
-The United Nations
Not to speak that most 1st world countries are democracies, the least desirable form of government. In contrast, in an ancap society, rules wouldn't be made by the majority, but by the market and for specific groups of people who voluntairly wanted to associate.
Physical removal is a central tenant of Hoppean Libertarianism.
Idiot. This is right wing libertarianism/ancap, not allepo johnson shite
>not wanting real market anarchism
Y'all need to read Proudhon
Why wouldn’t globalism and democracy exist in an ancap society?
...
sure, but Hoppe never said homos need to be remove simply for being homos
His PR applies to people who are actively fomenting anti-libertarian sentiment within a covenant community which explicitly forbade it. You can't just throw all the people you don't like out of helicopters.
Democracy is a form of government. There is no government in ancapistan. Therefore there is no democracy. Voluntary institutions tend to be hierarchical anyway- closer to monarchies (eg. corporations)
Define 'globalism.'
By no means am I an expert on this dude, but by that video he doesn't seem to be saying anything new or innovative. Just seems like your typical dude who like's to have people listen to him rant about simple ideas/concepts. People like this aren't bad by themselves, but when idiots start to follow them and give them "messiah"-like status, then it's a problem. He isn't actually doing anything to change the current state of western society, and is just cashing in on the idiots who follow him and give him popularity boosts.
Democracy is voting in a state, bruh.
Globalism is a worldwide state, bruh.
It's pretty obvious why democracy wouldn't exist: you wouldn't have to collectivelly decide rules and follow those of the majority if you can just choose the set of rules that suits you the most, and you can even negotiate with your rule-provider in order to improve on those rules.
Now, globalism is kind of a more complex issue, but basically, without central banking and state enforced taxation, no single entity would obtain the economic power to govern the world. If you want a more extended explanation about it, I can give it to you.
It's one short clip, you fucking leaf. He has a shitload of books and lectures and is the most seminal living libertarian thinker. Blimey, you're a dumb fuck.
...
...
I just showed this video to provide an example that he is not your usual free-borders libertarian. However, he has much more interesting ideas in other talks and in his books (though I have only read "democracy: the god that failed").
kek'd reading your response
But why wouldn’t a local lord use democracy to set the rules? Of course they’d maintain control of the economy but if you want to maintain peace in your holdings then surely allowing the people to decide collectively is the most succesfull method. Even without institutional democracy the collective would ultimately set societal norms.
...
...
read 'a theory of socialism and capitalism' and the pamphlet 'economic science and the austrian method'
See, people like you. You act like this dude is somehow important because of the simple shit he spits out. You then try to get others to follow him. But in the end, nothing happens. Just a bunch of morons like you following some dude who likes to have an audience for his rants. Nobody does anything; nothing changes. It's just a waste of time.
You will either figure this out someday, or you never will. Plenty of old idiots still ranting and listening to other idiots ranting, pretending like it does something, but all it actually does is make them feel better for a short time. It's a type of therapy.
Please elaborate on the globalism. Of course we can leave the following from this discussion, but from the perspective of improving humanity ancap is a horrible ideology.
the difference is that the local landlord would probably make something more simillar to a poll to know if he can improve his services in some way (which would be the closest to democracy), and he wouldn't be able to change the set of rules unless everyone agreed on it (because it would violate the terms of the contract).
You've literally never read one of his books or listened to a lecture and then you claim to know that all he does is say simple, trite shit. Top tier leafposting.
evola was a faggot who got himself blown up for the sake of being edgy
Surely the landlord can change his rules whenever he wants. He wouldn’t corner himself by making a contract preventing that. And what’s the difference between doing a poll for rules and democracy?
Hoppe is the highest redpill level
so, currently we have central banks which basically mantain the ponzi scheme that is fractional reserve banking, which is the main cause of the excesive accumulation of power by excesivelly small groups of people and, thus, monopolies and chronie capitalism. And industries like the armament industry, which is way too big because of the state making us go to wars that we don't need to go to.
On the other hand you have forcefull taxation, which is the other part of the reason why the government is so powerful and can sustain such a big military and armed forces that basically enforce their rules on you even if you don't agree with them.
And to top it off, you have public education and chronie news networks that are also statist and keep everyone indoctrinated. That wouldn't be the case in a fully libertarian society, as everyone would appreciate the value of liberty and wouldn't voluntairly support this kind of behaviour (and even go as far as to ostracize anyone who is a threat to the libertarian society)
no he wouldn't be able to make such a contract because obviously people wouldn't accept it. We have to assume first that the kind of people living in a libertarian society wouldn't be stupid niggers, but educated and non-degenerate individuals. otherwise, it is obvious that a libertarian society wouldn't be viable.
You’re making a huge assumption by saying that everybody would support ancap in an ancap society. And what would prevent landowners from coming up with a global trade union?
trade unions are fine so long as they're voluntary
There are fewer landlords than tenants so they have more bargaining power to maintain their ability to change the rules. However if we assume that the rules cannot be changed then what do you do when they need to be changed? For example assume that one of the tenants decides to start selling drugs to the children of the neighbourhood.
you can ostracize your fellow tenant and make a pact with the tenants that also don't want the guy selling drugs to the kids living there so that he basically would be unable to buy or sell anything, so he would have to move (voluntairly) and then everyone else would be ok to change the rules
But so you do have a democracy at a local level.
whoever doesn't support it... (in an ancap society, helicopter rides would be free, you know!).
And I'm assuming that your point with the trade union is that landlords could all choose to colaborate with each other in order to form a world government. My response is that you are thinking landlords are more powerful than what they would actually be: they would be more like a private hotel security company than like a nowadays police or military force. And if they tried to violate your NAP, you would have your own weapons and your fellow tenant's to respond.
Also you can always decide to start being your own landlord, as long as enough people support you on that.
I mean if you want to call it that way... But it's still technically not democracy because as long as someone disagrees you wouldn't be able to apply a set of rules.
But if the landlord controls lets say new york then surely they’ll have a massive private army against bandits and other landlords. Also globalism doesn’t require a world government, and you need to be clearer on the support part.
Yes but as you said once you have a large enough of a majority you can effectively enforce a local democracy. How is this different from what we have now?
it is different in the sense that everyone who lives under a set of rules has voluntairly accepted them. Nowadays, rules are enforced by the state, and there is some people in a democracy that may not accept this rules but still live under them, thus incentivizing those kinds of people to commit crimes.
if other landlords also had small armies, there wouldn't be a need for big armies in the first place. And bandits aren't that big of a threat really. As I said, here, like in the wild west (which wasn't as wild as they portray it) would depend on your ability to defend yourself, and landlords would be more of a supplement.
But the rules in a democracy are based on its population’s morals. The difference is merely a technicality whether you assume laws exist or not.
The wildwest is a unique scenario because the area was so under developed. By the same logic states wouldn’t have large armies, but you’ll quickly find prisoners dilemma to come into play.
yeah, as I said the difference is that here if you had a big enough group of people following you, you would be able to quit being under the protection of your local landlord and go make your own rules. Nowadays, you can't do that: even if you buy a portion of land, that land is still part its original country, so you have to still follow the rules of the majority of that country (even having a big enough following yourself).
also, states can fund such large armies (as i said before) thanks to
-imposed taxation
-central banking
Only if you have enough investment capital and the previous owner is willing to sell it to you.
That’s a technical detail. The lord of new york will have enough money to enforce any rules he wants.
you can't just assume that... Well, anyways, I'm going off. Was a pleasure talking to you. Wouldn't throw you off a helicopter
See ya
Think of anarcho capitalism as kind of like the internet. You are using Sup Forums voluntarily, and are agreeing to its rules. Any website can ban you for violating its rules, and every website is used voluntarily by its users.
