http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/07/01/hans-hermann-hoppe-and-the-german-extremist-nationalist-right/
http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2010/06/hanshermann-hoppe-habermas-wayward-student.html
What do you guys think?
Comments, Reactions
That first link was a very interesting discussion.
I'm still looking for anyone with a serious criticism or objection of the Austrian School on libertarianism and economics. Is this the best they've got?
That second link is an article written by someone, who I believe, embraces democracy. This left me wondering: are there any answers to libertarian objections to democracy? They just used the marxist method to attack him personally.
And even if Hoppe is a "homophobe" so f***ing what. I'm not fond of 400 pound loudmouth kleptomaniac herpes-spreading whores.
Either way, there is nothing in these articles or even in the comments that brings into question the validity of his arguments. If they can't attack the arguments, they attack the person. At least with respect to emotional sway, Hoppe is winning my support only because he is heavily attacked by so many. From the articles I've read, and the bits of his book that I've read, he makes some good points and good cases when comparing democracy to monarchy. I find his take on ancap to be interesting.
Just seems like inbred cock fighting to me. Not worth getting involved. Hoppe reminds me of Erik von Kuehnelt Leddihn, in a bad way. Palmer is a poo poo head though, to put it childishly.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
To Giant Joe: I agree about ignoring the critics for their ad hominem attacks but I still feel suspicious about this whole right-wing alliance. Since I've learned about the arguments in "Democracy: The God That Failed", I've become more open to 'market penetration' of libertarian ideas into the right-wing. Paleoconservatives are more open to libertarian ideas because they don't give a damn about material equality, which is fair. Social heirarchy, political decentralization, minding one's own business are respectable qualities of the conservatives. The far leftists for example, cannot come to support secession even if it would entail they can create their own socialist state because of nationalist fantasies and fetishes for various types of collectivism. I just think that there are aspects of Hoppeanism which are rather uneccessary, and qwill alienate us from think tanks like the Cato Institute, I don't think we want to make enemies with beltway or mainstream libertarians. I fear how much principle, integrity, and adherence to rigorous praxeological method can cost us. Antagonizing the (intellectually bankrupt) left is one thing, but alienating establishment libertarians is another.
Kenneth, I understand what you are saying and agree with your points.
I believe that this is all a result of the evolution of political science as a science and the inevitable politicization of theories.
At least at this point in time, people are free to pick and chose what they like or dislike. :)
Tom Palmer is both an anarchist and a "quasi-Austrian". Palmer is also a homosexual that was assaulted for being one, and so can be very sensitive towards anti-homosexuality..
That was very informative Jonathan. I didn't know that.
Palmer, unfortunately, likes to stir drama and exaggerate disagreements out of all proportion, to the point that he will distort what Hoppe says (knowingly?) to throw fire on things.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Tom Palmer is both an anarchist and a "quasi-Austrian".
Defending democracy and promoting monetarism seems a bit different.
Regarding his defense of democracy, I would have to see the context he was speaking in. Tom Palmer is an anarchist, and has given lectures on anarchy and society without the state. It's possible that his defense of democracy was done within the contexts of defending democracy against other forms of government, where his ideal solution would still be a stateless society (in that sense, he is being what a more mainstream libertarian would call "pragmatic" [note, I am not trying to be sarcastic]).
I plan on writing a review of his Realizing Freedom whenever I finish it (I've owned it for at least a year, but have never read it cover to cover), and one of the interesting parts is that he states that the free market is not a panacea. To the degree that the free market cannot magically solve every issue, or satisfy every want, I can agree (as in, a stateless society would not end murder in absolute terms). But, he doesn't say it in this way, and it really caught me off guard. He claims that in some cases government is necessary. I maintain that Realizing Freedom is meant for a more mainstream audience, and is intended to lure in those who are not anarchists, but I can't be sure (and unfortunately I have not yet talked to Tom Palmer about it, although maybe I should before writing the review).
So, in any case, Tom Palmer (I think) tries to run the middle ground, in the same sense that Cato often caters to the Republicans more than to pure libertarians. I don't know if this strategy is good or not, but from in general I think Palmer is a steadfast anarchist.
Now, on Austrian economics, he is not an Austrian in the sense that he strictly adheres to the Misesian-Hayekian business cycle theory. Nevertheless, Mises is probably his greatest influence in economics. But, I think this middle-of-the-road mentality goes towards economics, as well. Palmer is not an economist, and so he probably tries to maintain some form of what he thinks is "neutrality" by incorporating a number of theories. This may make him wrong, I admit, but he is more Austrian than monetarist (all one needs to do is read the bibliography of Realizing Freedom for his section on economics).
Do you have a link to him promoting monetarism, by the way?
Also, I would like to clear up my comments on his homosexuality and the fact that he was assaulted. Not that I didn't tell the whole story, but there is actually an important consequence (and one I think we can all sympathize with). If I recall correctly, he shot his assailant. He is probably the most involved libertarian with defending the 2nd amendment in Washington, and has successfully done so in the past. Here is an article in the Washington Post.
If I recall correctly, he shot his assailant.
He pulled the gun on them but he didn't fire.