I never realized until recently that there is a sub-culture of libertarian "philosophers" and scholars that have their own "institutes" and meet regularly at conferences around the world to discuss the dangers of "fractional reserve banking", the need to return to the gold standard, the principles of Austrian Economics, etc. This alternate universe is comprised principally of economists and scholars from third-rate colleges and state universities whose "theories" were generally ignored – until recently, that is. With the rise of the Tea Party movement in the US, some of their ideas are entering the political mainstream.
The foremost authority of Austrian Economics in the US (despite its name, this is primarily an American school) is a German-American professor, Hans-Hermann Hoppe. An interview with Professor Hoppe – The Mind of Hans-Hermann Hoppe – was recently published on the Web site of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. In the interview, Hoppe discusses his core beliefs -which are evidently the foundation of the Austrian school: the evils of democracy and superiority of monarchy, the cult of private property, the need for the gold standard. Egalitarian thinking is the greatest evil of modern society; tribal structures and clans such as existed in the Dark Ages are to be emulated and supported as much as possible:
HOPPE: I don't think that we, in the Western world, can go back to clans and tribes. The modern, democratic state has destroyed clans and tribes and their hierarchical structures, because they stood in the way of the state's drive toward absolute power. With clans and tribes gone, we must try it with the model of a private law-society that I have described. But wherever traditional, hierarchical clan and tribe structures still exist, they should be supported; and attempts to "modernize" "archaic" justice systems along Western lines should be viewed with utmost suspicion.
In another interview – this one in German published in the Schweizer Monatshefte – Professor Hoppe elaborates on his antipathy towards democracy:
Hoppe: Ja, natürlich ist die Demokratie, ob direkt oder indirekt, eine Form des Kommunismus. Eine Mehrheit entscheidet darüber was dir und mir gehört und was ich und du tun dürfen oder nicht. Das hat mit Privat-Eigentum nichts zu tun, sehr viel aber mit der Relativierung von Eigentum, also mit Gemeineigentum, also mit Kommunismus.
(Yes, of couse democracy is directly or indirectly a form of communism. A majority decides what belongs to you or to me, what you and I may or may not do. That has nothing to do with private property, but a great deal to do with the relativization of property, that is with common property, in other words communism;)
In the interview Hoppe goes on to praise Switzerland for being less democratic than other European countries and for its efforts to exclude non-Swiss from its soil He also praises the right-wing extremist politician and millionaire Christoph Blocher for his anti-immigrant policies, lamenting that "we could never have a politician like Blocher in the US. "
But, as Hoppe has written elsewhere, he is all in favor of immigration – as long as the immigrants are (white) Europeans with superior intelligence and education:
More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between "citizens" (naturalized immigrants) and "resident aliens" and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias;
So, in his Liberatarian order, Hoppe would exclude the non-Europeans, since they can never be part of what he labels "the natural elite" – whose innate superiority is passed along genetically from generation to generaion:
In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other.
We know who these Herrenmenschen are. They are the rightful property owners in Hoppe's Libertarian order. There can be no room for those of inferior genes – or, "sexual deviants", homosexuals, etc:
There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. 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.
Once we have rounded up the hippies and the gays, there is one more group that Hoppe would eliminate, since he despises them most of all:
"There can be no tolerance toward democrats … in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society."
All of this would be laughable – after all, the anarchist and anti-statist Hoppe is an employee of the state of Nevada, and he able to publish whatever he wishes thanks to the freedoms offered by the federally enshrined US constitution he hates – but increasingly we see these ideas expressed in mainsstream politics. We see Hoppe's racist and anti-immigrant ideas in the rhetoric of the Tea Party. We see his concept of the "natural elites" expressed in the policies of the Republican party – which has renamed them "job creators" who must not be taxed or restricted in any way in their dirve to accumulate wealth. And we see it in the general ridicule of the concept of the common good, which leads to drive to wreck or privatize all public institutions. Hans-Hermann Hoppe can watch with some satisfaction as the democratic experiment in America slowly collapses.
0 comment
Despite your hyperventilating, I’ll check out the interview. Thanks for the tip!
Your “common good,” of course, is defined by a tiny minority of jew-leftists, and paid for out of the pockets of the White earners you despise. So if anyone’s sick – it’s you, not Hoppe.
Looks like some Nazis have discovered this blog.
Junge Junge. All those white mediocrities can’t take the competition.
Herrenmenschen… aren’t they the guys the KDF-Wagen was big enough for five of them? lol
To provide some context, even in America, its alleged home, the Austrian School is rather small and marginal. It shouldn’t be confused with the much larger, libertarian-leaning, pro-immigration Chicago School, whose size and influence (in America at least) is roughly equal to the socialist-leaning Keynsian School.
There are many non-Austrian School economists who criticize the Fed and fractional reserve banking, or who are buying gold right now.
Also, I wouldn’t describe Hoppe as the “The foremost authority of Austrian Economics” (for example, he is only cited once at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School ) but he is certainly an important voice within that School.
Is Austrian Economics “primarily an American school”? Yes, in the sense that the Marxist School, in the early years at least, was primarily a British school. Marx was the leader of a group of ex-pat Continentals who found refuge in London. I see the Austrian School as an ex-pat community that found refuge in America without truly assimilating. Given Hoppe’s position on immigration, it is a delicious irony.
Marx, of course, is far, far more important to the history of ideas than is Hoppe.
People like Hoppe have attempted to base their economic and social ideas in the Continental Rationalist tradition, rather than the Anglo-American Empiricist tradition.
Libertarian Perry de Havilland of Samizdata.net provides an excellent summary and critique of Hoppe and the Austrians. You really have to read the whole thing, but here is a taste:
“Some like Hans-Hermann Hoppe have what I believe to be quite incorrect understandings of not just the inevitably fluid nature of society in a modern extended order but have also failed to grasp the dramatic effect of capitalist trade based economics on making societies more dynamic and adaptive when they interact increasingly globally. As a result, Hoppe takes an extremely non-Anglosphere, quintessentially Germanic view of the nature of civil society when viewed separately from the state: at its core he sees a blood and soil Volk, racially, genetically as well as culturally based and therefore leading to self reinforcing communities of ‘like cultures’.”
…
“Yet I look around at London and see a very different world to that of Hoppe. It is abundantly clear that when the state does not enforce distorting multiculturalism, social values will naturally evolve not to Hoppe’s hypothetical future libertarian neo-tribalism but rather to cosmopolitanism, right here and right now. The only Volk of the future is the Volkswagen. When people of different cultures and races actually interact economically, the inevitable consequence is familiarity, cultural confluence and ultimately miscegenation, not a regression to atavistic tribalism. One only has to walk down the streets of London to see the truth of that.”
Read the rest at
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2002/03/immigration_and_libertarians.html
Personally, I would modify de Havilland’s statement to replace “quintessentially Germanic” with “quintessentially Continental”.
As to the Tea Party connection…the Tea Party at its best is a rebirth of the practical, middle class wisdom of living within our means. No person, family, or business can live on debt forever. Governments should follow the same rule.
However, I am forced to admit that there are elements of the Tea Party for whom Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s ideas do resonate. Those elements represent the Tea Party at its worst.
I am even more concerned that Hoppe’s ideas will be discovered in Russia or worse, China, if that hasn’t happened already.
Out of curiousness, what path led you to the mind of Hoppe? Is there a connection to Thilo Sarrazin?
I’ll have to read de Havilland, but does he view cosmopolitanism as a good or bad outcome?
For de Havilland, cosmopolitanism is certainly a good outcome, as long as it isn’t distorted by state-financed, state-enforced multiculturalism.
A picture is worth a lot. Be sure to scroll down to the end of his post.
Well, I read the article. De Havilland is certainly better than Hoppe on the issue, but his rejection of any state sanctions on the issue is wrong. If it were up to de Havilland, there would be no civil rights laws, segregation would be the rule, women would have no rights in the workplace, etc. America would look very much like Apartheid South Africa.
Wow…do you read text the way normal people do? How on earth do you read de Havilland’s admiration for cosmopolitan London and conclude that he wants Apartheid? Don’t you get that he is appalled by Apartheid? Don’t you get that, for him, state-sponsored multiculturalism is a kinder, gentler form of Apartheid?
You may not agree with de Havilland, but to so distort his position is beyond absurd.
How did Apartheid end? How did slavery end in the US? How did we end school segregation in the US?
By using the power of the state to enforce federal laws. As a libertarian, de Haviland opposes these state sanctions.
Do you know anything about the history of the civil rights movement in the US and the role of the federal government?
David, that is a stupid argument because Apartheid and forced segregation also came into being through the power of the state. Calling each other names does not help: Here is some nice rap music to explain it to simpletons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc&feature=player_embedd
People don’t all want to live in the same type of society. So the answer is simple if you acknowledge the right to cessation, we can divide peacefully into autonomous spaces for all ideologies/nations/races/religions if not the only answer left is to kill you. It is a terrible thing to say but what other alternatives are there?
David, you opposed the US invasion of Iraq. Therefore, you must be in favor of Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror.
Do you see the problem with your logic yet?
If you don’t, keep trying. I just know you’ll get the hang of it!
What the hell is your logic? Would segregation have ended by itself? No, equality is enshrined in our constitution and the state finally enforced it. You and your friend Attie hate state intervention, so presumably you would have been fine with segregated schools, lunch counters, etc.
BTW, please provide examples of “state-financed, state-enforced multiculturalism.”
It’s just another one of your straw men.
Examples? wow I just got 33 in an hour I could probably do about a thousand a weekend at this pace but I don’t want to spend my weekends like this. Ok I admit it not all are forced multiculturalism from central government, but they are all left wing articles, some just too bizarre to leave out. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0308/Obama-administration-more-civil-rights-enforcement-in-schools
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8444418/David-Cameron-brands-all-white-Oxford-University-a-disgrace.html
Utterly fascinating. David would (correctly) be offended if anyone suggested that his opposition to the Iraq War meant that he would have been “fine with” (his words) Saddam’s many crimes and injustices. And yet, he doesn’t seem to see how anyone could possibly object to his accusation that Libertarians, who have fundamental moral objections to slavery, Jim Crow and Apartheid, must be “fine with” these things because they tend to favor non-intervention.
Personally, I am a libertarian-pragmatist, so (for example) I actually do favor federal civil rights laws.
David knows this perfectly well, we’ve discussed it many times before, but apparently when he gets in high dudgeon he looses both his memory and his rational facility.
And yet, try getting him excited about slavery in the Islamic world, or in China, or as practiced by “undocumented” sex trafficers (I mean the pimps and smugglers, not their victims) in the US…I am sure he’s against slavery in all these cases, but somehow, the passion is usually lacking. Why?
Very interesting stuff, I hadn’t heard of Hoppe before this. I suppose Hoppe’s position has some internal consistency, but his credibility as a philosopher is definitely undermined by his naive mystical Randian rationalism….. Hoppe seems to conclude that statism is malevolent per se, and humans are better off in the ‘state of nature’.
I wonder how he deals with objections based on ecology, as well as objections based on the increase in cruelty in day-to-day life that would emerge in his utopia. In a sense Hoppe comes off as more of a conservative anarchist than a libetarian in the American sense.
My experience is American libertarians are more egalitarian and more pacifist than Hoppe (Hoppe strikes me as a historical anachronism). Ron Paul–an admirer of MLK–is surely closer in spirit to de Havilland.
In my view most libetarians desire peace, smaller government, and shoring up fundamental liberties. They may be misguided, but they are potential allies in the fight against corporatism and corporate aristocracy.
Hoppe is actually one of my favorite expositors on liberty and the functional possibility of libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society. I found your opinions to be either poorly informed, cherry-picked, or the result of one incapable of considering the logic of an argument in opposition to his own. To claim that Hoppe is racist or sick in the head is ludicrous. His ideas on immigration, monarchy, feudalism, and the like stem from very well-supported arguments on self-ownership, private property rights, and natural law. Your presentation was uninformed at best and deliberately misleading at worst.
The cornerstone of our democracy -“all men are created equal” – is antithetical to Hoppe’s neo-feudalism. His concept of “natural elites” has much more in common with Hitler’s “Herrenrasse”.
There are good reasons why Hoppe is ignored by serious political thinkers, but embraced by white sumpremacists (“Alternative Right”) and neo-Nazis (“Junge Freiheit”)
Being created with equal rights does not mean everyone does equally well with their assets. If you could maybe quote some Hoppe indicating that he believes Übermenschen should rule over those less accomplished or gifted I might lend credence to your assault. In reality Hoppe does not advocate any non-consensual rulership of one over another but rather contractually based and mutually beneficial community arrangements which you deride as ‘tribalism.’ His comparisons of Monarchy vis a vis Democracy are not presented as a plea for a return to Monarchy but rather as an antidote to the ridiculous notion that Democracy has somehow benefitted mankind by limiting government power to kind-hearted and generous ‘public servants.’
You would be taken more seriously if you actually countered some of his arguments with evidence that they are flawed rather than simply deriding him as a lunatic because some jackass backwards racists use selective aspects of his philosophy to support ugly ends. Charges of guilt by association are pretty flawed. Many who oppose Obama do so for perfectly good reasons having nothing to do with racism; the fact that they share their dislike with racists is a coincidence and does not negate their concerns. Many who support George Bush share that support with white supremacists; again, a coincidence which does not make them white supremacists themselves.
Emotionally charged screeds are great as far as persuading the uninformed but they really are no substitute for rational discourse.
I’d love to hear your defense of Hoppe’s statement in “Democracy, The God that Failed.”
“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-centred 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.”
Question is, where would people like me “be physically expelled” to? My guess, knowing Hoppe, is Theresienstadt.
All this bloviating over Hoppe’s statements, and not a single attempt to refute any of it.
What is sick about consequent non-agression?
“We know who these Herrenmenschen are. They are the rightful property owners in Hoppe’s Libertarian order. There can be no room for those of inferior genes – or, “sexual deviants”, homosexuals, etc:”
This man is not a libetarian, he is a Nazi.
Thanks for bringing attention to the ideas of individual liberty and peace that Dr. Hoppe is trying to spread. I am sure that many libertarians are grateful for your unintended assistance.
Hoppe is a joke and anyone taking him even remotely seriously ought to be watched carefully. I mean, he’s not dangerous in the sense of a Chomsky, someone whose butthair is more intelligent than Hoppe, not to mention just his overall moral disposition, but more in the sense of literally dangerous to humanity. AM said it above “This man is not a libertarian, he is a Nazi”.
I’d love to hear your defense of Hoppe’s statement in “Democracy, The God that Failed.”
“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-centred 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”ll defend this – you’d be expelled. It’s pretty obvious that you subscribe to such things, thus, your time preference would be too high to exist in a purely libertarian society where those that exist, the so-called “Hoppeian conservatism” would have a much higher time preference than current society. With that being said, who said that Hoppe’s society is correct? No one. Hoppe would want to live in a society with an exceptionally low time preference, where no homosexuals, cretans and other perverts would exist – so what!? His entire argument revolves around a society to which HE would like to live in that HE views as being “most correct”. I’m a great fan of Hoppe, but if you had done any research at all, if you had dug any deeper than your cursory understanding of what he’s said, you’d see that those of us in the private property movement need not totally agree with this idea. Walter Block has come out against “Hoppean conservatism” with the idea of physically removing various perverts. But again, without a state, without a place where you are required to interact with those whose lifestyles you don’t approve of, you’d be free to set up your own hedonistic, libertine society. But, you would quickly die out, as your high time preference would see the entire capital stock be consumed quickly. Without a decline in overall time preference, without future goods preferred over present goods, the capital stock can’t grow as current income is the only component of the capital structure that matters. Did you notice that? Did you notice how I just blew up your entire premise? That despite Hoppe’s continuum issues of who he wants to surround himself with, he’s still perfectly in the right to want to surround himself with like minded people? That no one cares who a racist is assuming he’s not aggressing against someone. That as Rabbi Lapin says, it’s not what you say that matters, it’s what you do. Your whole argument falls to shambles as you’re simply making a value judgment for government compulsion, one that requires people that don’t want to associate with one another, to do precisely that. You cling to the defunct, leftist ideal of egalitarianism, which despite your wanting, doesn’t exist in nature. I’m sure you’re an atheist (do you like how I took no time to dig into that further and yet, beyond pure conjecture reasoned from statements that I have no idea are actually true?? sound familiar?? sometimes you have to come down to one’s level to get them to understand) what’s great is that you would lose that argument to, as your “system” of belief doesn’t even allow for the one that you hold, as nothing in nature is equal.
Hoppe, as Libertarian, as private property proponent would not want you around. Yet, Hoppe, as private property proponent, would not exclude you from setting up your own enclave full of various parasites and perverts. All of us would revel in the idea, that you would quickly fall by the wayside, as your lack of understanding of economics would quickly lead you to consume the entirety of the capital stock you had – assuming you had any base to begin with.
“I’m sure you’re an atheist.”
Actually I’m a Christian – of the Anglican variety. We accept people of all ethnic backgrounds and sexual orientation. Because that is what the Gospel teaches.
Based on my reading of the Gospel, Hoppe’s (and your) vision of the world resembles Hell.
First, you need to read his books to criticize a man’s writing. Dr. Hoppe doesn’t support racism, but as libertarian he believes that nobody should be forced to be part of a group. So, if an individual doesn’t like (for whatever stupid reason) of people of certain ethnicity, he has the right to don’t accept those people in his bar, restaurant or even in his condominium.
About the attack on democracy, he couldn’t be more accurate than that. Democracy doesn’t respect private property. For example, here in Brazil I cannot allow my clients to smoke in my bar. I pay the bills, I pay my employees, and even with that other people keep telling me what I can and cannot do in my own property.
I’ll give you a suggestion: read the book Democracy-the god that failed.
Wrong. I did read “Democracy: The God that Failed” and was sickened by it. I am the type that Dr. Hoppe would like to isolate and destroy: someone who believes in democracy and the Common Good.
So easy to debunk!
The Austrian School is based on the ideas of Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, who was Minister of Finance in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as developed by Carl Menger, and brought to America by Ludwig von Mises. Mises served as an Economist for the Vienna Chamber of Commerce; he left Austria for Switzerland after the Nazi seizure of power in Germany, and came to America after the the Third Reich annexed Austria.
Ludwig von Mises was an outspoken opponent of National Socialism. His first book in English was “Omnipotent Government:the Rise of the Total State and Total War.”
Mises was committed to popular sovereignty expressed in democratic elections, as he makes clear in “Liberalism” – originally published as “Liberalismus” in 1927.
The views expressed by Mr Hoppe on Democracy are at variance with the views of the founders of the Austrian School of Economics, as are his views on immigration and many other issues.
Thanks for your comment.
I haven’t read von Mises, but I have read a couple of Friedrich Hayek’s key works, which impressed me.
The problem is that von Mises and Hayek have been hijacked by American libertarians – such as the followers of Ron Paul – who propagate crude conspiracy theories and wallow in racist fantasies.
If you love the “common good” so much, feel free to donate all of your income to it – but don’t use the power of the state to force me to do so.
Why the Free Markets concept is useless:
http://dbzer0.com/blog/why-the-free-markets-concept-is-useless
So many strawmen, bias, sophistry and outright lies in this article. 80% of what you claim he believes is simply false.
I only cite Hoppe’s own words – they speak for themselves:
“There can be no tolerance toward democrats … in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.”
Will someone please point out a modern functioning purely anarcho-capitalistic society of even moderate size, say 30,000 people or above? I am a champion of the individual first and foremost. I believe in life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness. Government exists to protect those most basic rights. So naturally on first blush libertarianism sounds good to me. But as much as so much of this ultra hardcore libertarian stuff sounds good (or does it?) in theory, it strikes me as awfully funny that it hasn’t been instantiated anywhere that I know of. Rather it seems an obscure academic fetish of some people. “Oh so-and-so gave an argument for that in his book blah blah blah…” Ok great. Show me a real functioning society based on these premises. On the other hand, every human group of even a few dozen people soon sets up rules and regulations, i.e. government. Form, storm, norm as the concept goes. I am no fan of statism, of the large and ever-growing welfare state, but it does seem that some form of government is a necessity. A dangerous servant, like fire, that must be closely watched, as the founders counseled. The idea of competing private security firms with no overseeing authority seems like a recipe for disaster. Sounds like Mogadishu. No thanks. No government will ever be perfect and we can argue, as people have since the beginning, about what constitutes a good one, but anarchy doesn’t seem to support human thriving. Even if a small band of people were to get a decently functioning little society going on a secluded patch of land somewhere, eventually outsiders would bump into that society and it would have to defend itself, or allow the assimilation of outsiders, deal with them in some way. And a small group of everyone-for-himself types would be quickly routed by any organized armed force. So like it or not, they would need to organize themselves to defend themselves. And make rules. And wait for it, govern themselves…a government by any other name is still a government…an army by any other name is still an army…Minarchy and meritocracy, private property and voluntary trade to mutual benefit seem to me the ideas and forms most conducive to human flourishing
PHYSICAL REMOVAL,SO TO SPEAK! *autistic screeching*
EnCacaoVeritas Liechtenstein. Their prince is actually a Hans Hermann Hoppe’s friend and admirer and he fought parliament to accept self-determination on an individual level, which is exactly what Anarcho Capitalists want.
In the end they came to a middle ground of cantonal self determination, which is by itself quite close to Anarcho Capitalism.
Liechtenstein is the richest country in the world when purchasing power is considered.
A short article showing the nuance that most miss in Hoppe’s thinking: http://www.actualanarchy.com/sotospeak
And to the minarchist suggesting Somalia: http://www.actualanarchy.com/2017/09/08/why-dont-you-move-to-somalia/
“Liechtenstein is the richest country in the world.”
That is true, but not because of Anarcho-Capitalism. The tiny country lives off of money it manages for dictators and international criminal enterprises. It is also a tax haven paradise for individuals and companies seeking to evade taxation. But maybe criminal enterprise is the essence of Anarcho-Capitalism?
I spent some time there working for Deutsche Bank.
The utter stupidity and ignorance expressed by leftists both in the article and in the comment section is astonishing. Why don’t you try reading what these people actually have written before you criticize them? Oh yeah, because you’re all dishonest whackos.
The utter stupidity and ignorance of the right-wing nuts who can’t discern that the words are actually quoted from the books and articles I’ve read. Go back to watching FOX NEWS and listening to Rush. Actually reading a book is far beyond your abilities.
I stopped reading the article as soon as I read the your misplaced analogy of austrian economics. The legitimacy of Hoppe’s theories are certainly debatable – I debase against them often – but to misrepresent austrian economics in such a way destroys the credibility of your argument.
Austrian economics is nothing more than the study of human action, or, how humans act in an economic sense, and the basic trends that form throughout said actions.
I follow the Austrian school. I know it well. I try my best to live through its practice. What you’ve said here in that regard is verifiably false.
“I follow the Austrian school. I know it well. I try my best to live through its practice.”
You have my deepest sympathies.
hippity hoppity abolish private property
You know you’re dealing with social democrats — read, communists, for all reasonable purposes — when they say that something is true, but don’t understand that stating true premises does not make your conclusion correct.
Reading all the name-calling and condescension is hilarious.
With regards to the quote from Hoppe about expelling communists and other types, what he’s saying is true. If you want to live in a peaceful society of mutual respect, you cannot include people who don’t know how to respect others, or their property. Communists must be expelled for a peaceful society to exist.
I don’t recall the context of his reference to homosexuals, but this certainly seems a valid point for them, too, as the modern gay rights movement is nothing but controlling and attacking other people in the name of special ‘protections’ that others aren’t allowed to have.
The fact that Nazis were socialists doesn’t ever stop socialists from calling capitalists Nazis. Funny how that works.
The far-left (which, today, is any Democrat, socialist, communist or likewise) aren’t just wrong, every time. They’re as wrong as they can possibly be.
Fun consideration: To label people as ‘left’ vs ‘right’ you have to come up with a single factor, quantifiable, to gauge them by. Even subjectively, but consistently and as reasonably as possible. To call Nazis “extreme right” requires some spectrum where they’re the polar opposite of “extreme left”.
Which I don’t believe you guys can do, but if someone else stumbles upon this tastefully aged article and wants to do so, please feel free.
Better pack your bags, my friend. The November 2018 election will be a Democratic sweep.
I like how this is written to make me dislike Hoppe and I just ended up liking his ideas even more.
“Hoppe, as Libertarian, as private property proponent would not want you around. Yet, Hoppe, as private property proponent, would not exclude you from setting up your own enclave full of various parasites and perverts. All of us would revel in the idea, that you would quickly fall by the wayside, as your lack of understanding of economics would quickly lead you to consume the entirety of the capital stock you had – assuming you had any base to begin with.”
Actually, it seems it is you that has misunderstood Hoppe here. This is actually the opposite of what he is saying.
Hoppe is arguing in ‘Democracy: The God That Failed’ that there is a ‘natural order’ to society–he further claims, based on the logic of argumentation ethics, that this ‘natural order’ is a ‘libertarian social order’, and that *other forms of social order should not be tolerated*. He says tolerance of these other forms is the major source of society’s problems:
“Rather than having all habitual democrats, communists, and alternative lifestylists quickly isolated, excluded and expelled from civilization in accordance with the principles of the covenant, they were tolerated by society. Yet this toleration only encouraged and promoted even more egalitarian and relativistic sentiments and attitudes, until at last the point was reached where the authority of excluding anyone for anything had effectively evaporated”
So he is actually *not* saying that he would “not exclude you from setting up your own enclave full of various parasites and perverts.” He is saying that, a priori, such enclaves are *not valid forms of society*, and thus *must not be tolerated*.
This undeniably implies that, under this rubric, Hoppe would be entirely justified in destroying any “enclave of parasites and perverts” that would set up shop anywhere–indeed, Hoppe is actually inferring that *libertarians have a duty to do so*, because allowing the enclave to continue to exist is precisely the form of ‘tolerance’ he says is unacceptable.
Ultimately, what Hoppe is attempting to do is to justify a fascist form of society using libertarian principles. He is not unlike many of the key luminaries of Austrian Economics in this sense; the whole school is a response to the spread of democracy to the Habsburg Empire. This was Carl Menger’s #1 fear when he wrote his treatises on political economy, and it was likewise the motivation for Mises and Hayek’s support of fascism over democratic movements. At the heart of it is the notion that authoritarian rule over the masses by elites is the best way to organize society, and that democracy is an illegitimate deviation from this. The only real difference between old-school Italian fascism and the philosophy of the Austrian economists is that the latter just try to silence the implicit militarism of this authoritarian rule by dressing it up and justifying with specialized definitions of ‘liberty’.
In what world are Republicans acting in the interest of the Austrian School? They are democrats at heart, and will have to be physically removed too, so to speak. References aside, when was the last time the Republicans have seriously proposed cutting regulations to below the levels from a decade or two earlier? When have they last proposed getting your troops home, and letting them stay home, and when have they called a stop to the many wars that America is waging abroad? When have they called for an absolute end to eminent domain, for overall taxation levels to be reduced to below 15% across the board, and for an end to all economic subsidies? Sure, some Republicans no doubt have plans to this end, but they are neither the mainstream nor even a sizable minority. Even Rand Paul or Gary Johnson fell far flat of the Austrian ideal.
And off course the ‘Nazis were socialists’ morons found their way to this article to defend their cult leader Hoppe
^^^ found the fascist
“You know you’re dealing with social democrats — read, communists, for all reasonable purposes — when they say that something is true, but don’t understand that stating true premises does not make your conclusion correct.”
Social democrats =/= communists, bruh.
“Reading all the name-calling and condescension is hilarious.”
Hoo boy, I’ll bet this comment is gonna be good and won’t end on a condescending note at all.
“With regards to the quote from Hoppe about expelling communists and other types, what he’s saying is true. If you want to live in a peaceful society of mutual respect, you cannot include people who don’t know how to respect others, or their property. Communists must be expelled for a peaceful society to exist.”
Most tyrants throughout history would agree with you, fascist. Funny how the overlap between fascists and “libertarians” is a full circle at times!
“I don’t recall the context of his reference to homosexuals, but this certainly seems a valid point for them, too, as the modern gay rights movement is nothing but controlling and attacking other people in the name of special ‘protections’ that others aren’t allowed to have.”
‘Special protection’ is a usual bigoted phrase that carries no weight. LGBTQ+ people have a lengthy history of being persecuted by a thing called “special/unique forms of intimidation”, i.e., violence directed towards them that have no meaning to someone of a different sexual orientation. Then again, I am not surprised that libertarians don’t seem to get that concept.
“The fact that Nazis were socialists doesn’t ever stop socialists from calling capitalists Nazis. Funny how that works.”
LMAO Hitler privatized a good deal of the German economy and rounded up socialists and communists into concentration camps (sort of what you advocate…). Boy, some socialist! Next thing you’re going to tell me is that Venezuela’s 70% private economy is “socialist” because the government calls itself that.
“The far-left (which, today, is any Democrat, socialist, communist or likewise) aren’t just wrong, every time. They’re as wrong as they can possibly be.”
Again LMAO, Dems aren’t socialist. They’re center to center-right at best, but then again anyone in the good old US of A is to the “left of Lenin” by righties if you advocate anything remotely progressive.
“Fun consideration: To label people as ‘left’ vs ‘right’ you have to come up with a single factor, quantifiable, to gauge them by. Even subjectively, but consistently and as reasonably as possible. To call Nazis “extreme right” requires some spectrum where they’re the polar opposite of “extreme left”.”
Well, according to you Dems are the same as socialists and communists so I don’t expect you to have a very good grasp on where on the political spectrum the pieces may fall. Please do tell me where a Dem has advocated that the workers should own the means of production. Do please look and look hard. Hint: it ain’t Bernie!
“Which I don’t believe you guys can do, but if someone else stumbles upon this tastefully aged article and wants to do so, please feel free.”
Kinda hypocritical to call an article “condescending” only to leave with an incredibly condescending remark, don’t ya think?
I realize that you’ll probably never read this wcj, but I felt your comment lacking in numerous areas. Admittedly I am not entirely sure how to end this, but I will say this: good lord, READ A BOOK.
All that matters, inherent of pseudo-intelectuals and neo-nazis trying to defend Hoppe’s clearly racist ideas, is that every decent human being wound want to punch this man in the face everytime he talked about “natural elites” or any of that bullshit.
And if you’re a libertarian supporter of the NAP, i’m sorry, but i’m up for full-time aggression on nazis. It should be a sport by now.
Typical straw man stuff.
You state, “Hoppe … is all in favor of immigration – as long as the immigrants are (white) Europeans with superior intelligence and education”, but when I read the actual quote in context, Hoppe clearly states that these restrictions must be requirements “as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy”.
That is, the racism you ascribe to Hoppe is denounced by Hoppe as a side-effect of centralised authority, and an argument against the presence of that authority.
You are either dishonest or terribly poor at comprehension.
I note that in the piece you reference Hoppe praises Chilean dictator Augosto Pinochet, who imprisoned, tortured and murdered tens of thousands of his fellow citizens. This is the type of “Libertarian” leadership Hoppe admires.
With respect to immigration, in “Democracy” Hoppe bases his views on crude 19th century Eugenics – the “science” that certain ethnic groups have an inferior genetic make-up. In his various “symposiums” Hoppe has invited White supremacist “thought leaders” such as Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, and Peter Brimlow as speakers. Hoppe is considered one of the fathers of the alt-right movement.
Jeez the amount of rightwing shitheads in the comments is astounding.