Hey guys,
Han Herman Hoppe states that:
"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."
While I understand that people naturally nurture their diverse talents, Han Herman Hoppe makes it sound like anarchy would be like feudalism! And when he says "selective mating" it sounds like he's talking about social darwinism.
I'm not an total egalitarian, but wouldn't we see more natural equality in a world without the state rather than the opposite?
"No person is so grand or wise or perfect as to be the master of another person." ~ Karl Hess
"look, property is theft, right? Therefore theft is property. Therefore this ship is mine, OK?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox
fancyshirtman: Hey guys, Han Herman Hoppe states that: "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." While I understand that people naturally nurture their diverse talents, Han Herman Hoppe makes it sound like anarchy would be like feudalism! And when he says "selective mating" it sounds like he's talking about social darwinism. I'm not an total egalitarian, but wouldn't we see more natural equality in a world without the state rather than the opposite?
I am reminded of a point that Liberty Student made in which he stated that 'natural elites' is largely an anachronism with the advent of globalization and information transference. 'Natural elites' would possibly work in a feudal society due to one's ability to access wisdom and wealth, however, with things like the internet this makes the concept a thing of the past. Happily I might add.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I think his views are off (but that's just me though). I think you will be quick to find (assuming you get enough responses) he is controversial to say the least. He may actualy be able to be labled as an "anarcho-conservative", or other off branded type terms rather than libertarian / anarcho-capitalist
Mmm yeah, me too.
Reminded of what Rothbard said about conservative "libertarianism":
"Such a strategy is foolish and untenable in a changing world."
fancyshirtman:While I understand that people naturally nurture their diverse talents, Han Herman Hoppe makes it sound like anarchy would be like feudalism! And when he says "selective mating" it sounds like he's talking about social darwinism.
Yes.
fancyshirtman: I'm not an total egalitarian, but wouldn't we see more natural equality in a world without the state rather than the opposite?
When did Hoppe ever state that there would be less equality in a free society than in the current one?
There will always be elites. The question is whther they will be selected by their superior ability to act as "morally uninhibited demagogues" or by the free market due to their talents, skills, etc.
As far as I can tell, aside from those who misquote him, Hoppe has only advocated the latter.
fancyshirtman:Han Herman Hoppe makes it sound like anarchy would be like feudalism! And when he says "selective mating" it sounds like he's talking about social darwinism
There are people who are more adroit than others. I'm not a fan of genetics, I think every individual despite breeding has infinite potential. Skillful folks make good natural leaders. In a stateless society it will be the skillful who will tend to lead. Some folks need or desire instruction to satisfy their wants.
I think he is trying to make the point that the cream tends to rise to the top. That more folks need to take initiative and be leaders for liberty. That's at least my short take on Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State.
I don't see Mr. Hoppe advocating feudalism, serfdom, or the like.
Individualism Rocks
I am not sure what you mean by 'natural equality' because no such thing exists naturally. The state's anti-discrimination and civil rights laws see to that there are supposed equality of outcomes.
The egalitarians won't like anarchy when it comes.
fancyshirtman: While I understand that people naturally nurture their diverse talents, Han Herman Hoppe makes it sound like anarchy would be like feudalism! And when he says "selective mating" it sounds like he's talking about social darwinism. I'm not an total egalitarian, but wouldn't we see more natural equality in a world without the state rather than the opposite?
Let me ask you this question. Is a man like Rand Paul the result of natural equality or natural elites?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Laughing Man: I am reminded of a point that Liberty Student made in which he stated that 'natural elites' is largely an anachronism with the advent of globalization and information transference. 'Natural elites' would possibly work in a feudal society due to one's ability to access wisdom and wealth, however, with things like the internet this makes the concept a thing of the past. Happily I might add.
The issue of nobility is not just about wisdom and wealth. It is principally about character. You can find lots of highly talented maniacs and crooks. These don't tend to accumulate respect or pass them down generations.
the train of thought seems to follow, as the market is simply a decentralized meritocracy.
Am I as brilliant as Einstein in physics? No, I can grasp its basics and maybe I grasp quantum mechanics better than him (with the proviso that Feynman posited that no one understands QM). Am I an athlete like Michael Jordan or Lance Armstrong? No, not in the least, although I'm good at bicycling (not professional level though). Am I as good of a programmer as RMS? Not really, but I can keep my code clean and coherent, better than most.
My point in answering this questions as part of the posted message is to illustrate that the concept of natural elites is not anti-liberty or anti-human. Some folks whether by biology or tenacity turn out to be the best of the best. And the rest of us are either 2nd or 3rd or lower in terms of competence. Like Rand pointed out through one of her characters in Atlas Shrugged, I need such people to look up, not to look down. The so-called natural elites are better called natural paragons as they inspire others to improve themselves even if they themselves will never always meet that level of excellence. Why should I begrudge such people? And why should we fear them? I see no logic in either reaction.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
From Human Action chapter 35...
"A characteristic feature of the unhampered market society is that it is no respecter of vested interests. Past achievements do not count if they are obstacles to further improvement.(...)
It is certainly true that the necessity of adjusting oneself again and again to changing conditions is onerous. But change is the essence of life. In an unhampered market economy the absence of security, i.e., the absence of protection for vested interests, is the principle that makes for a steady improvement in material well-being."
And from chapter 15...
"Ownership of the means of production is not a privilege, but a social liability. Capitalists and landowners are compelled to employ their property for the best possible satisfaction of the consumers. If they are slow and inept in the performance of their duties, they are penalized by losses. If they do not learn the lesson and do not [p. 312] reform their conduct of affairs, they lose their wealth. No investment is safe forever. He who does not use his property in serving the consumers in the most efficient way is doomed to failure. There is no room left for people who would like to enjoy their fortunes in idleness and thoughtlessness. The proprietor must aim to invest his funds in such a way that principal and yield are at least not impaired.
In the ages of caste privileges and trade barriers there were revenues not dependent on the market. Princes and lords lived at the expense of the humble slaves and serfs who owed them tithes, statute labor,and tributes. Ownership of land could only be acquired either by conquest or by largesse on the part of a conqueror. It could be forfeited only by recantation on the part of the donor or by conquest on the part of another conqueror. Even later, when the lords and their liegemen began to sell their surpluses on the market, they could not be ousted by the competition of more efficient people. Competition was free only within very narrow limits. The acquisition of manorial estates was reserved to the nobility, that of urban real property to the citizens of the township, that of farm land to the peasants. Competition in the arts and crafts was restricted by the guilds. The consumers were not in a position to satisfy their wants in the cheapest way, as price control made underbidding impossible to the sellers. The buyers were at the mercy of their purveyors. If the privileged producers refused to resort to the employment of the most adequate raw materials and of the most efficient methods of processing, the consumers were forced to endure the consequences of such stubbornness and conservatism.
...the composition of the entrepreneurial and capitalist groups has changed considerably. A great part of the former entrepreneurs and their heirs have been eliminated and other people, newcomers, have taken their places."
Yep, I agree with Lilburne on the economic consequence of natural elites. It's all about what you do *now* that counts, not what you've done. I'll give an example in game development: Richard Garriot and Tabula Rasa. This was suppose to be *THE MMO* to beat them all out. It was suppose to be a game that mixes both Eastern and Western aesthetics in game play and art as well as adding new features that made player choices have lasting impact on the game world. But two things occurred in its production. First, the Korean and American teams had conflicts of interest that could not be resolve, thus many game features clashed severely with each other. Second, Richard Garriot and his brother both were given full license to do the project with little or no interference from NCsoft or its investors.
These two elements can be considered the fundamental flaws of Tabula Rasa as the game only lasted one year on the market before closing last year (March/February 2009). NCsoft had to write it off as a significant loss that require the company to lay off many people in the US and EU branch offices, and even reallocate resources to existing successful brands (GW1, CoX, and their F2P games in Korea). Simply put, this case example in a previously considered game developer paragon ends with Richard and his brother laughing to the bank and leaving NCsoft with a pile of debt they're still paying off to this day. Go figure.
Stranger:These don't tend to accumulate respect or pass them down generations.
Inherited respect is of little regard under the dynamic, fluid regime of consumer sovereignty.
From Human Action, chapter 15:
"The direction of all economic affairs is in the market society a task of the entrepreneurs. Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe that they are supreme. But they are not. They are bound to obey unconditionally the captain's orders. The captain is the consumer. [p. 270] Neither the entrepreneurs nor the farmers nor the capitalists determine what has to be produced. The consumers do that. If a businessman does not strictly obey the orders of the public as they are conveyed to him by the structure of market prices, he suffers losses, he goes bankrupt, and is thus removed from his eminent position at the helm. Other men who did better in satisfying the demand of the consumers replace him.
The consumers patronize those shops in which they can buy what they want at the cheapest price. Their buying and their abstention from buying decides who should own and run the plants and the farms. They make poor people rich and rich people poor. They determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantities. They are merciless bosses, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction. They do not care a whit for past merit and vested interests. If something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors."
Grayson Lilburne: Inherited respect is of little regard under the dynamic, fluid regime of consumer sovereignty.
Why is the chairman of Toyota the grandson of the founder of Toyota? Why is the chairman of Ford the great-grandson of the founder of Ford?
Does this have anything to do with those companies' respective success vis-à-vis their competition from GM and Chrysler?
I think Hoppe is nearly on the mark, but this conception of natural elites is too wide. As the division of labor increases, general aptitude is less important (though its importance is not zero). I think that natural elites emerge within disciplines. That is, of those who become pianists or professional basketball players or lawyers, some are advantaged by their genetics over others... we call this raw talent. There will always be a small minority for whom production in a certain capacity comes much easier than to the average person. These are the natural elites. I think Hoppe, then, kind of mixes this idea up with the emergence of natural elites in social leadership, jurisprudence and war (the historically monopolized components of the State). It seems he wants to say that this is how the State emerged... an abuse of real privilege once held by genuine natural elites but I think this would be wrong. In my view, legitimized parasitism is also a category of human action at which some individuals will excel more than others. The natural elites in this category of human action become politicians or government bureaucrats or corporate CEOs in defense corporations, they are the "schmoozers", the hypocrite-elite, that excel at trumpeting their great moral fiber while plotting behind closed doors how to steal their audience blind and kill anyone who gets in their way. I think the royalty and nobility of time past were no different and I think that Hoppe's application of the principle of genetic inheritance to natural elitism explains why the children of nobility were more likely to remain nobles (perpetuate the legitimized plunder racket) and new entrants to the nobility were extremely rare.
Clayton -
Makes sense to me. Some people will always rise to the top. Whether this creates dynasties or not I have no idea. Probably depends on a lot of diverse factors and variables that make these kinds of things very difficult to predict.
There will always be an oligarchy, there will always be a democracy.
People always choose (in a very loose sense) what they think are the elites in a field. Rothbard talked about this on that essay on primitivism. In the end what matters is how we choose these elites.
Grayson Lilburne: For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction. They do not care a whit for past merit and vested interests. If something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors."
For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction. They do not care a whit for past merit and vested interests. If something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors."
Do you really think this is true all the time for everyone? I'm pretty loyal to certain brands. I think in social psychology they call this path dependency. The idea is that once someone gets used to doing or getting something one way, it becomes unlikely that they'll change course even if a supposedly "better" alternative is offered. I remember reading about an example of this in regards to the QWERTY keyboard in Michael Shermer's Mind of the Market. Apparently, other people have designed supposedly "superior" alternatives to QWERTY but because most people are so used to QWERTY, the new style has had a tremendously hard time getting any kind of market share or market eyeballs. I've been using QWERTY my whole life, it's what I know. I could never imagine myself switching. For another example, I really don't like Apple products. Not necessarily because they're inferior, I've just been using Microsoft stuff my whole life, I understand Microsoft, I feel a sort of bond with the company. I even owned a bunch of their stock for a long time. I'm not really trying to argue with Mises on theory here and maybe my examples aren't very good but I'm just saying my own personal experience makes his ideas seem unrealistic to me. But then maybe I'm an outlier, I have no idea.
It's interesting to note that on many other things, I feel absolutely no allegiance at all to any one brand or way of doing things. So I don't know why sometimes it happens one way with me and other times it happens another way. But I do know that there are some things that I feel loyalty towards. I don't really know why, I just know that I do.
bloomj31: I remember reading about an example of this in regards to the QWERTY keyboard in Michael Shermer's Mind of the Market. Apparently, other people have designed supposedly "superior" alternatives to QWERTY but because most people are so used to QWERTY, the new style has had a tremendously hard time getting any kind of market share or market eyeballs. I've been using QWERTY my whole life, it's what I know. I could never imagine myself switching.
People have been using all sorts of different layouts for cell phone key inputs. They have no problem switching.
Stranger: People have been using all sorts of different layouts for cell phone key inputs. They have no problem switching.
Hmm my phone is QWERTY. Which phones use a different layout?
I just thought of another example that I've got some personal experience with: video game controllers/controls.
I've been playing console games for at least 10 or 15 years and I've been playing consoles since the Genesis. Those controllers have led to the modern ones and I'm pretty used to the current console controllers, in particular, the Xbox 360 controller. Ok, so I buy this game called Aion for PC and I spend the next two weeks wanting to punch myself in the face because I just can't get used to using the keyboard and mouse. So eventually I quit the game and go back to console gaming. I've had so many people tell me that the keyboard and mouse are superior but I absolutely prefer the console controllers because that's what I'm used to. It's what I know. Path dependency.
I had the same problem when I got Doom 3. It took me forever to figure out the Keyboard/mouse thing. However, I wanted to enjoy the game so much that I forced myself to figure it out.
MatthewF: I had the same problem when I got Doom 3. It took me forever to figure out the Keyboard/mouse thing. However, I wanted to enjoy the game so much that I forced myself to figure it out.
You have more determination than I do.
I'm a creature of habit. About a lot of things.
And I have always had a lot of faith in the saying: "do what you've always done and you'll get what you've always gotten."
Thanks, but i don't think that is the case.
In my mind the "pain" of giving up the game outweighed the pain of learning the new style.
It seems that in your mind the pain of learning the new style outwieghed the pain of giving up playing the game.
It looks like we simply had 2 different subjective valuations of our choices.
MatthewF: Thanks, but i don't think that is the case. In my mind the "pain" of giving up the game outweighed the pain of learning the new style. It seems that in your mind the pain of learning the new style outwieghed the pain of giving up playing the game. It looks like we simply had 2 different subjective valuations of our choices.
So what does this mean to you in terms of path dependency? Is it possible that certain people, ideas (anything really) can retain dominance simply because people are used to those people, ideas or whatever? Do people really try to find "best" or do they simply try to find something that they can get used to that works reasonably well for them?
Imagine we’re having this conversation some 80’00 years ago (I know, but please…).
A: hey, can you believe this idea that this guy pulled about how there are superior people?
B: yeah, unbelievable.
A: and how they can even transmit their superior abilities to their offsprings?
B: right, and create dynasties. There’s no such thing.
A; yes, fascist fool.
And than our dear Neanderthals go extinct because goddamn Homo Sapiens comes about!
My point: evolution exists! There is always someone who’s got beter genes than you do, and excels in many things. He might have self-confidence, a readier mind, courage, perhaps have them all. And it appear all but impossible that he can transmit such values with his genes. Now, I’m not saying that this always happens. But it certainly can happen, and did so in the past. So, yes there are natural elites, and yes, they tend to be dynastic. Hoppe’s ideas might truly seem hard the first time. But if you get used to them, you’ll se that he’s quite right.
Il sangue non e aqua.
To read hoppe you have to be someone who is not shocked by anything. If I had given "Democracy; The God That Failed", to some liberal at my school, she would probably throw it across the room.
All groups have elites. Under democracy those elites are smooth talkers. Under capitalism they are the people who can buy capital and keep via satisfying consumer desire.
I don't buy the idea that natural elites are genetically determined however. Maybe by a slight margin. 10% tops, but it's unbelievable to me that such low variations of genetic data could have such an effect on a matter of anything less than a hundred thousand years. I'm no biologist though so I could be wrong.
And I don't see why call them natural elites in such case, since their abilities come not from something unattainable to everyone else, but from their culture, information, which can eventually be leaked to the masses.
More like... "really smart people for their time". The more interesting question is, like others said, how did they came about in each situation. Was it by coercion, or free association?
Stranger: Grayson Lilburne: Inherited respect is of little regard under the dynamic, fluid regime of consumer sovereignty. Why is the chairman of Toyota the grandson of the founder of Toyota? Why is the chairman of Ford the great-grandson of the founder of Ford? Does this have anything to do with those companies' respective success vis-à-vis their competition from GM and Chrysler?
If you're going to rely on anecdotal evidence, instead of theoretical reasoning as provided the Mises passages above, then for every Toyota and Ford (both of whom have had lackluster performances anyway) there are countless spoiled rotten trust-fund brats who end up consuming capital that their parents accumulated.
Taking just this passage it would seem some sort of a general elite is presumed. That is flawed in my opinion. Sure there will be elite people as they are now, but there is no reason why someone's opinion should carry weight on a wide area. I do not see why it would be any different than now. Different people are consulted in different fields. There is division of elitism so to say. You may value the opinion of a certain movie critic in regard to movies, but not in regard to fashion. You may listen to a local hermit's pirate radio station for his advice on nutrition, but plug your ears to his ideas in regard to spirituality.
Sure, I can see someone specialising into being a "wise man", but that part of being elite is not different to someone becoming valuable for something else, eg being able to provide good medical advice. There is no reason why you should think of your medical doctor as a super cultured, superiorly civilized nobleman. So why would you come to think that of your local wise county judge or whatever?
ladyattis: My point in answering this questions as part of the posted message is to illustrate that the concept of natural elites is not anti-liberty or anti-human. Some folks whether by biology or tenacity turn out to be the best of the best. And the rest of us are either 2nd or 3rd or lower in terms of competence. Like Rand pointed out through one of her characters in Atlas Shrugged, I need such people to look up, not to look down. The so-called natural elites are better called natural paragons as they inspire others to improve themselves even if they themselves will never always meet that level of excellence. Why should I begrudge such people? And why should we fear them? I see no logic in either reaction.
The question is do/will such people and such a situation exist? A two-tiered society with a few noble families at the forefront with the non-elite following behind in awe of their achievement, sense, courage and noble lineage?
ClaytonB: ... It seems he wants to say that this is how the State emerged... an abuse of real privilege once held by genuine natural elites but I think this would be wrong. ...
...
It seems he wants to say that this is how the State emerged... an abuse of real privilege once held by genuine natural elites but I think this would be wrong.
No. Hoppe on the contrary speculates that the state emerged as an alliance of a single judge and of the envious masses against the rest of the judges ie the natural elites.
Grayson Lilburne: If you're going to rely on anecdotal evidence, instead of theoretical reasoning as provided the Mises passages above, then for every Toyota and Ford (both of whom have had lackluster performances anyway) there are countless spoiled rotten trust-fund brats who end up consuming capital that their parents accumulated.
You are the one trying to refute Hoppe with irrelevant arguments. The spoiled rotten trust fund brats never become chairmen of family enterprise. I am simply providing the evidence that his theory is correct, that those families that do raise their children with outstanding moral character continue the family's tradition of leadership and excellence. One generation builds upon another to become an elite class. Denial of this fact is base egalitarianism.
Your disparaging of Ford and Toyota is completely disingenuous. They are the industry leaders now. Ford is the only American automaker that is profitable. Toyota took the number one automaker spot from GM last year.
Stranger:You are the one trying to refute Hoppe with irrelevant arguments.
How is the disinterest of Misesian sovereign consumers to past accomplishment irrelevant?
Stranger:The spoiled rotten trust fund brats never become chairmen of family enterprise.
Exactly, which is anecdotal evidence (no more weak than your anecdotal evidence) that success doesn't always beget next-generational success, but often results in inherited laurel-resting.
Stranger: I am simply providing the evidence that his theory is correct
Again: anecdotal evidence, which can be easily countered with opposing anecdotal evidence.
Stranger:One generation builds upon another to become an elite class. Denial of this fact is base egalitarianism.
I see. If you don't toe the Stranger line on IP, you're a communist. And if you don't toe the Hoppe line on the inevitability of ossified elite classes, you're an egalitarian. Charming.
Stranger, I'm talking about what I THINK will happen based on a praxeological analysis of the operations of an unhampered market, not what I WANT to happen based on moral judgments. So calling me an "egalitarian" is entirely beside the point.
Stranger:Your disparaging of Ford and Toyota is completely disingenuous.
Don't try to read my mind to glean how honest I am in my intentions. It's rude and distracting.
Grayson Lilburne:I see. If you don't toe the Stranger line on IP, you're a communist. And if you don't toe the Hoppe line on the inevitability of ossified elite classes, you're an egalitarian. Charming.
The point is that the natural elite is the opposite of ossified, they are the most dynamic members of society due to their genetic and character inheritance. This is why they continue to lead and continue to excel over many generations.
If you refuse to see this in the leadership of Mr. Toyoda and Ford, you are in pure denial that can only be explained by base egalitarianism. The success of their family-run enterprise in the third and fourth generation is an outcome of natural elitism. They have not randomly become leaders of great authority.
Marko:The question is do/will such people and such a situation exist? A two-tiered society with a few noble families at the forefront with the non-elite following behind in awe of their achievement, sense, courage and noble lineage?
Short answer: no, Lilburne explained why in terms of economics. Those that are successful will be continually tested by the investors and the marketplace (other competitors). If they're better than most at what they do, they all the reason to be considered the elite at it, but not to be worshiped or held without application of common standard [of performance]. So, I can't imagine a feudal society coming about as Hoppe imagines. I sometimes wonder if he's just pulling that stunt to get European conservatives to stand with him on anarchy.
Stranger:The point is that the natural elite is the opposite of ossified, they are the most dynamic members of society due to their genetic and character inheritance. This is why they continue to lead and continue to excel over many generations.
Obviously I'm talking about the ossification of something else than you, not "all the ways in which the word 'ossification' can be applied".
Stranger:If you refuse to see this in the leadership of Mr. Toyoda and Ford, you are in pure denial that can only be explained by base egalitarianism.
What part of "anecdotal evidence" don't you understand?
Nah it is just a sexy idea.