Karl Ludwig von Haller
apparently the state burned some of his books
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:"After many wanderings, he came to Vienna, where he was court secretary of the council of war, from 1801 till 1806. " Council of war ? Libertarian ? "Public opinion at home resulted in his being recalled by the Bernese Government in 1806, and appointed professor of political law at the newly founded higher school of the academy. When the old aristocratic regime was reinstated, he became a member of the sovereign Great Council, and soon after also of the privy council of the Bernese Republic." Sounds like a conservative to me... "All his later writings are influenced by the ideas here set forth, and oppose vigorously the revolutionary tendencies of the times and the champions of liberalism in Church and State." What exactly is 'libertarian' about a reactionary conservative... ?
He was anti-nationalist and was worried about giant government bureaucracies.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
ok?
Boehm and Mises were high ranking consuls to the Austrian government, are they not libertarian?
Forgive Juan, he thinks this is a forum of monarchists.
Peace
Good find Fez. I agree with Juan. Karl Ludwig von Haller is a libertarian.
Haller's magnum opus, however, was the Restauration der Staatswissenschaft oder Theorie des naturich-geselligen Zustandes, der Chimare des kunstlich-burgerlichen entgegengesetzt. It was published in Winterthur in six volumes from 1816 to 1834. In this he uncompromisingly rejects the revolutionary conception of the State, and constructs a natural and juridical system of government, arguing at the same time that a commonwealth can endure and prosper without being founded on the omnipotence of the state and official bureaucracy. The first volume, which appeared in 1816, contains his history and his rejection of the older political theories, and also sets forth the general principles of his system of government. In the succeeding volumes he shows how these principles apply to different forms of government: in the second to monarchies; in the third (1888) to military powers; in the fourth (1820) and fifth (1834) to ecclesiastical states; and in the sixth (1825) to republics. It was written primarily to counteract Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract. The book in its entirety was translated into Italian, part of it into French, and an abridged version into English, Latin and Spanish. All his later writings are influenced by the ideas here set forth, and oppose vigorously the revolutionary tendencies of the times and the champions of liberalism in Church and State.
I would most certaintly call him a libertarian; more specifically, a proto-Hoppes libertarian, methinks.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Juan:Excuse me ? It is obvious that Herr Haller was a conservative. The quoted article makes it very clear.
You've selectively quoted. Congratulations.
I don't know anything about von Haller, but if you hate him in the same way you hate Hoppe he must have been on to something.
In this he uncompromisingly rejects the revolutionary conception of the State, and constructs a natural and juridical system of government, arguing at the same time that a commonwealth can endure and prosper without being founded on the omnipotence of the state and official bureaucracy.
Juan:Right. A guy who fits this description is a libertarian. "All his later writings are influenced by the ideas here set forth, and oppose vigorously the revolutionary tendencies of the times and the champions of liberalism in Church and State"
So you're assuming that by "liberalism" they mean private property anarchism, huh? A bit of a stretch there.
I don't know anything about von Haller, but if you hate him as much as Hoppe he must have been on to something.
Juan:Right. A guy who fits this description is a libertarian.
I knew you would come around.
Juan:I think I'm correctly assuming that.
Yeah, that's a common usage. That's why people call Barack Obama a liberal, its his market anarchism.
Edit: Its also a wiki article written within the last few years.
his book Restauration of Science and state, according to wiki makes the argument that 'laws' provisioned by the state are not necessary, later Hegel attacked Haller.
Google Book SearchHard to judge with so little info on him, but from the google bits he was not a Libertarian at all. He opposed the modern buerocratic state, but he seems a fierce defender of the statist (aristocratic) privilege. He sounds like a fairly typical reactionary of his time with their arguments for the state as a natural `moral body` and speaking up for bogus divine rights. Except he seems to belive his propaganda so much he thinks there is very little coercion about the rule of kings.
EDIT:
Link1Haller’s major work, Die Restauration der Staatswissenschaft, a defense of, among other things, local, territorial, and family-based rule in the Swiss cantons, was published in the early 1830s, about fifteen years before Calhoun wrote his two dense tracts as the advocate inter alia an American manorial society.
Link2If we digg a little deeper maybe we can guess he had some good concepts defending the traditional Swiss administration, but using that to justify the rule of monarchs was reactionary and over the top.
I'm having trouble finding english translations of his magnum opus
Juan:So...Sorry about being tedious and annoying...but...What's the veredict ? Was Haller a 'libertarian' who supported the divine right of kings ? A libertarian with feudal sympathies ? Or perhaps some ppl in this thread jumped to (wrong) conclusions...?
I would say he held libertarian ideas, but I would not defend Haller as a libertarian through & through.... I would say he was an unpure statist who help sympathic and/or parallel views similar to libertarian thought. Although, i'm of course going on what was written on the wikipedia article & not from a deep understanding from having read his works.
We really need a monarchist subforum around here. At least a monarchist group.
Marko:Link1Haller’s major work, Die Restauration der Staatswissenschaft, a defense of, among other things, local, territorial, and family-based rule in the Swiss cantons, was published in the early 1830s, about fifteen years before Calhoun wrote his two dense tracts as the advocate inter alia an American manorial society.
They just compared von Haller to John Calhoun....a libertarian.
Nitroadict:I would say he held libertarian ideas, but I would not defend Haller as a libertarian through & through..
I think your original assessment was pretty accurate.
If you check out the second link provided by Marko:
"Haller fought against the liberal docterines of the social contract and for the thesis that all government authority was the private property of the ruler."
Combine that with a homesteading theory of property and you have a private property anarchist.
Combine that with a homesteading theory of property...
Juan: What Herr Haller did provide however was support for the deranged notion that 'god' decided that an ordinary criminal (monarch) or oligarchy had the right to enslave their fellows.
He did? DId I miss a link?
Cause it seems to me that you saw "Catholic" and decided that no thiest could be a libertarian.
Juan:Hey Jon, do you realize that my reading of the word 'liberal' is correct and that the catholic church (which Haller joined...) clearly states that "All his later writings are influenced by the ideas here set forth, and oppose vigorously the revolutionary tendencies of the times and the champions of liberalism in Church and State."
I already had acknowledge that and then disregarded it as ambiguous.
Juan:Lots of people may held one or two libertarian views, but that doesn't make them libertarians...
Only you are a libertarian. If I can get my monarchist forum group off the ground, I hope you will be our King.
I think we should look for the most self righteous person around to fulfill this role.
We can even award him a crown icon.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Bostwick:I already had acknowledge that and then disregarded it as ambiguous.
JonBostwick: Juan: What Herr Haller did provide however was support for the deranged notion that 'god' decided that an ordinary criminal (monarch) or oligarchy had the right to enslave their fellows. He did? DId I miss a link?
google book search
I thought you did, but on a re-read it seems the part: Ludwig objected however, to his "deistic-naturalism" , maintaining that legitimate monarchs governed by the grace of God, not by right of stronger, refers to one Ludwig von Gerlach rather than to Karl Ludwig von Haller. Albeit a "legitimate monarch" is a rather obvious oxymoron. That being said I do not see how anyone speaking up for formal inequality (feudalism), an inequality of induviduals in rights and freedoms can be a libertarian. Such order is neccesarily coercive regardless of their fantasies of organic order or whatever. It makes me wonder if the only reason he opposed the modern state was because in it he saw a threat to his parasitic class - the nobility.
Juan:Hi Jon. The anarcho-monarchist lynching mob is getting together ?
We prefer to be called by our royal titles. He's Duke Jon and I am Baron Liberty Student.
Lynch Mob? You're like a guy in a bar fight, wildly throwing punches, hoping they connect with someone other than the waitress. There's no lynch mob, except a bunch of people who are tired of being mis-characterized by you, the only REAL libertarian in the world.
Here's what the German Wikipedia entry had to say about the man. Might clear things up a bit.Haller's political thought, which he developed by using countless repetitions and a sometimes tiring circuity in his main opus and his numerous short writings, is founded on the thesis that man's "natural condition" cannot be abolished by any social or sovereignty contract, but endures unabatedly and defines all political relations immediately. All legal relations are, according to Haller, of a "private law" nature; there cannot be a state law that aspires to be anything else. The "natural law" of the rule of the strongest over the weak is God's will, every ruler is God's governor and has a divine right to rule. However, the rule of the strongest is not an absolute right: the strongest is bound by God's law to support and to protect the weak and possesses no right to ignore this divine moral order. That's why the often-cited accusation that Haller had paved the way for a "stark naturalism of power" is not true. Every ruler who violates the divine right may be revolted against by his subjects, according to Haller.Haller's doctrine of the patrimonial state was of some importance for the further development of German conservatism. According to Haller, every state has its roots in the family: since only independent family chiefs could be free land owners, monarchy originated from their rule after some time as a "natural" form of governance. In the later volumes of his main opus Haller develops a typology of the different kinds of states; he makes a distinction between the patrimonial state and military states, the ecclesial state (which describes pure theocracy) as well as the republic. Haller's theory was rejected by most contemporary scholars and jurists due to his misjudgement of the modern state as a fact [not really sure what that means, though], among his most vocal critics was Hegel. On the other hand, Haller strongly influenced almost all leading conservative politicians, thinkers and publicists of his epoch, such as Carl Ernst Jarcke, Ernst Ludwig von Gerlach and Carl Wilhelm von Lancizolle. He had a huge net of acquaintances and connections all over Europe and may be considered the center of an "international league of ultras" in the era of restauration between 1815 and 1848.Sorry guys, but he looks like a conservative monarchist, albeit a somewhat Hoppean one.
A philosopher king type? I would have to read his rejection of the social contract, since he believed laws derived from a political majority were invalid. I read somewhere else that he believed laws and contracts should be %100 contractual, and not a product of majority consent. Perhaps he takes an approach to the state, like Plato, who said the Greek polis was anarchos, or without ruler.
Hi Jon. The anarcho-monarchist lynching mob is getting together ?
So how many jewels would you like in that crown? Would you like a matching sceptre too?
BTW, what makes you think liberal positions could not be confined to particular issues? So he disagreed with liberal positions on church and state? What does that mean? That he rejected laissez-faire capitalism in toto? It would seem not. I'll be honest though and say that he does not seem particularly libertarian, in any way. He simply shares some positions.
I'll be honest though and say that he does not seem particularly libertarian, in any way.
Juan: So how many jewels would you like in that crown? Would you like a matching sceptre too? Awfully generous of you, but I don't recall having accepted the job ?
You don't have to accept. We accept your point. As the greatest and only sincere libertarian, we have no choice but to acknowledge you as our King, Lord of the monarchists.
All hail King Juan! May his reign outlast the sun!
No, but then the difference is inconsequential to me anyway because in the context of anarchism it reduces to a matter of preferences. I plan on reading de Molinari when I have more time, though.