What did you think of the book? What are the positives and what ae the negatives?
Kenneth:what ae [sic] the negatives?
The publishers ineptitude and short sightedness regarding IP.
No free online version / pdf.
I have read the famous introduction to it, that was displayed here on mises.org. And then a few specific chapters from the book I have also seen (read the part on immigration). There is a limited preview on Google Books with several chapters for your reading pleasure.
The man emphasises on how socially conservative values are important to protect liberty. He also criticises left libertarians for believing liberty is about breaking down social taboo and traditions.
He is right; there are many people who have seen liberty as a means to a hedonistic lifestyle, and there is not much substantial to gain from those things, because they ignore that there are much more significant ways in which their liberty might be lost. He thus is also right in pointing out that they have done very little to protect liberty.
But to be socially conservative in order to protect liberty? It's too much of a foregone conclusion based idea. In free society, we would have to take far more responsibility for our lives and screen the actions of our children and family far more. So that should protect constructive values. But if a large number of people were anyway bong smokers engaging in promiscuous relationships and wasting themselves on alcohol and cigarettes and frequently divorcing wives who keep aborting their babies - that hurts liberty how? Let people who want to waste themselves waste themselves. As Isaiah Berlin said, liberty is liberty, not happiness or a quiet conscience or fairness or justice. I'd be amazed if an immoral society ended up bringing in an authoritarian state. You name me one example, ONE EXAMPLE, of that ever happening.
I agree that a dominant state has led people to become less moral and more inclined to take less responsibility for their lives, but that's that, don't flip it the other way round.
Prateek Sanjay: But to be socially conservative in order to protect liberty? It's too much of a foregone conclusion based idea. In free society, we would have to take far more responsibility for our lives and screen the actions of our children and family far more. So that should protect constructive values. But if a large number of people were anyway bong smokers engaging in promiscuous relationships and wasting themselves on alcohol and cigarettes and frequently divorcing wives who keep aborting their babies - that hurts liberty how?
But to be socially conservative in order to protect liberty? It's too much of a foregone conclusion based idea. In free society, we would have to take far more responsibility for our lives and screen the actions of our children and family far more. So that should protect constructive values. But if a large number of people were anyway bong smokers engaging in promiscuous relationships and wasting themselves on alcohol and cigarettes and frequently divorcing wives who keep aborting their babies - that hurts liberty how?
When I first read the book I though it was absolutely brilliant until I arrived to that part, then I started scratching my head and after much thinking arrived to the conclusion that Hoppe could not resist mixing his own personal views in an otherwise excellent book.
I can even understand his views on immigration, but my god, to maintain a liberal society, we must collectively maintain a rigid set of values?
Maybe people should worry about maintaining good values in their own families, and perhaps they will find others doing so likewise. This sort of "Society is going down the toilet" thinking benefits nobody, and is better for Daily Mail articles than serious analysis.
Those kids with their hippity hop and vidya games, what will they do next?!
Not specifically talking about those in this topic, but I absolutely love Hoppe's ability to rile up those libertarians who are still clinging to their politically correct threads.
What can I say, sometimes the truth hurts.
Hurts to the point where people would rather call him a 'bigot' and whatnot, in order to avoid the realization that far more often than not, Hoppe is dead on.
Kenneth:What did you think of the book? What are the positives and what ae the negatives?
Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motorcar and a radio set. - Ludwig von Mises
Hoppe is also an immigrant in America complaining about immigrants in America.
Prateek Sanjay: Hoppe is also an immigrant in America complaining about immigrants in America.
MarketFundamentalist:I have no problem with European immigrants like Hoppe.
What do you mean by that?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
He was invited.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
I don't think you understand his views on immigration.
Prateek Sanjay: I have read the famous introduction to it, that was displayed here on mises.org. And then a few specific chapters from the book I have also seen (read the part on immigration). There is a limited preview on Google Books with several chapters for your reading pleasure. The man emphasises on how socially conservative values are important to protect liberty. He also criticises left libertarians for believing liberty is about breaking down social taboo and traditions. He is right; there are many people who have seen liberty as a means to a hedonistic lifestyle, and there is not much substantial to gain from those things, because they ignore that there are much more significant ways in which their liberty might be lost. He thus is also right in pointing out that they have done very little to protect liberty. But to be socially conservative in order to protect liberty? It's too much of a foregone conclusion based idea. In free society, we would have to take far more responsibility for our lives and screen the actions of our children and family far more. So that should protect constructive values. But if a large number of people were anyway bong smokers engaging in promiscuous relationships and wasting themselves on alcohol and cigarettes and frequently divorcing wives who keep aborting their babies - that hurts liberty how? Let people who want to waste themselves waste themselves. As Isaiah Berlin said, liberty is liberty, not happiness or a quiet conscience or fairness or justice. I'd be amazed if an immoral society ended up bringing in an authoritarian state. You name me one example, ONE EXAMPLE, of that ever happening. I agree that a dominant state has led people to become less moral and more inclined to take less responsibility for their lives, but that's that, don't flip it the other way round.
I have yet to read the book, but judging from other lectures and writings of Hoppe, I think he is correct in criticizing libertine libertarianism insomuch as those who espouse these positions often see liberty as a means to other ends (smoking pot, whatever). So, they are not really interested in human freedom so much as they are in enabling the pleasures which they enjoy but most of society rejects as vicious. However, I think Hoppe is errant in that he implies that there is a single natural order (conservative libertarianism) when, in fact, it is obvious that there is as much variation in cultures and values as there is in human talents and circumstances. In a natural order, we should expect variety, not homogeneity. For example, the Oneida Community was definitely not conservative in any sense of the word but perfectly consistent with a natural order. A natural order would be characterized by such variation and experimentation in social arrangements. It is the nature of static, coercive society to prohibit (by threat of force) experimentation and variation.
Would the fringe experiments in communal living, sexual promiscuity, and so on, ever amount to anything or be important forces in the wider society? I doubt it, but I have no doubt that a natural order society will be characterized by a wide variation in ways of living. Furthermore, it is this variation which is the all-important foundation of a natural order society and makes it adaptable and strong, in direct analogy to the world of biology. Diversification is a hedge against uncertainty. If you're not sure whether you will need a hammer or a saw, you bring one of each.
As the world and technology change, social arrangements that made sense in the past (e.g. arranged marriage) make less or no sense now. At some point in the future, perhaps arranged marriages might again make sense. We cannot know. But without a wide variety of societies and cultures, a global human monoculture would be brittle and vulnerable. While I have no problem with a scholar making the case for his preferred cultural values (e.g. conservative libertarianism), I think it is important for scholars of social science, like Dr. Hoppe, to acknowledge that they don't have the answers because no one does, the only way we can get the answers is by trying things and seeing what works. The libertines, on the other hand, say, "let's try things and who gives a damn whether they work or not, let people do whatever feels good." This essentially reduces to total cultural relativism, that is, agnosticism about what does work, essentially saying "we cannot know what works, everything works about as well as everything else." We can know that some social arrangements work better than others for given ends (e.g. wealth preservation and transmission from generation to generation) by observing the effects of various social arrangements. By observing social arrangements and choosing those which they believe will suit their ends, individuals act in a manner analogous to business entrepreneurs, that is, they copy from the most successful (movie stars, rich people, religious leaders, etc.), add their own variations and then succeed or fail.
I do agree with Hoppe that the most important cultures (as measured by wealth, the spread of ideas, and so on) will likely be those which are more characteristically "conservative" in certain regards (especially sex and wealth management). I think that the family is the least understood and the most important component of social science. I also believe Dr. Hoppe has something in the works that discusses all these issues and I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for it.
I think Hoppe's mistake in positively espousing conservative social values stems from his following in Rothbard's mistaken belief in the possibility of deriving an ought from an is, that is, in non-value-free science. Hoppe seems to feel that his value-laden espousal of conservative social values can be done in a scientific way, so long as he follows a sound scientific methodology (praxeology) in doing so.
Clayton -
Seph: Prateek Sanjay: Hoppe is also an immigrant in America complaining about immigrants in America. I don't think you understand his views on immigration.
Theoretical principle talk.
His views are still based on a mild and innocuous xenophobism. As a third-party observer, I can understand the threat to social cohesion that comes with live human beings of a different culture on your soil, who demand more adjustment than an imported Toyota does. And yet, the harm to this social cohesion might be overstated. Eastern European Jews were frequent immigrants to New York, before immigration was shut down in 1919, but while their habits (in hygiene and behaviour) may have discomforted New York residents, at least those Hungarian and Polish Jews kept to themselves in their own districts and the rest of the Dutch/British/French/German descended New Yorkers stayed in different districts. We can think private property for this, and thus making sure angry violent ethnic riots didn't break out in New York, and it didn't require one single restriction on immigration.
In fact, immigration was only shut down in America once Jewish slums were demolished and they were made to move into more luxurious apartments in Anglo-Saxon areas. New York officials wanted a beautiful and homogenous America. And with the anger and discontent that came up when privileged Anglo-Saxons had to walk alongside JOOOS! on the streets, they had to deal with the problems of one government intervention with another government intervention, which was to stop immigration, and keep fixed quotas for immigrants. This, my friends, is the immigration issue in a nutshell. It's about the problems of other government interventions, be it forced rehabitation or a large welfare state.
I think Hoppe's idea that an immigrant is violating the right of private property of a particular person by physically being inside his public property is a little contradictory when you consider that preventing an outsider from coming in to buy property and set himself up in your own country is itself an abridgment of property rights.
Andrew Cain: MarketFundamentalist:I have no problem with European immigrants like Hoppe. What do you mean by that?
You don't know about them?
A troll is a person pretending to be another kind of person in order to deliberately be a parody and caricature of that sort of person to provoke and create outrage or confusion in other people in the forum.
A "market fundamentalist" is a derogatory word used by certain non-market-oriented groups to mock free market as a religion. This poster is not for real. He is playing a caricature here.
It's a game we play on other forums. We tell members of the home forum that we will create an account in Stormfront to be a fake personality of another white supremacist, but we will pretend to be a crude caricature of a fat nerdy white supremacist. And then while the Stormfronters take this fake character seriously, we laugh at our home forum.
So this guy is probably someone from some political perspective opposed to libertarianism which is mocking all the "market fundamentalists" on mises.org.
Seph:Hurts to the point where people would rather call him a 'bigot' and whatnot, in order to avoid the realization that far more often than not, Hoppe is dead on.
So, can you explain it to us simpletons? I read Hoppe and am unconvinced that freedom requires that we all share some variation of Judeo-Christian ethics. Can you explain to me why this is true?
It isn't so much Judeo Christian ethics as it is the preservation of the family as an institution. The state has been destroying that institution. He says that any conservative (judeo-christian types ect.) should oppose the state on the grounds that the state intrinsically opposes social cohesion and the family as an institution.
I don't think it is Pat Robertson so much as it is Bill Cosby.
Hairnet: It isn't so much Judeo Christian ethics as it is the preservation of the family as an institution. The state has been destroying that institution. He says that any conservative (judeo-christian types ect.) should oppose the state on the grounds that the state intrinsically opposes social cohesion and the family as an institution.
Fair enough, but that's the converse of what needs to be proven. I'll let him have that those who favor some traditional morality, such as the family, should oppose the state. The claim in question, though, is that those who oppose the state should favor this form of traditional morality, which you're here limiting to the preservation of the family. What is there in the insistence that others respect the family that is a necessary part of liberty? Why would it be inconsistent to oppose the state, and maintain that it is not my business whether or not you preserve the family? It isn't enough to say that states erode family values - states also deliver mail, but I'm not against mail delivery in general.
I've read the book. It would help, maybe a quote, in which Hoppe says the family is necessary or else the alternative is unprincipled or whatnot. When I read the book I didn't read it with all these judeo-christian value overtones. It seems a bit injected on the part of the reader, but maybe I'm wrong. Quotes and chapters would help so I could pull out the book and figure out the context all of this is being discussed under.
In Hoppe's system of natural elites forming hierarchies, the family is just one such source of natural elites providing justice, arbitration and protection, and even within families there will be an elder brother or exceptionally successful one who provides for the welfare of the others.
Since the state grows in power by destroying natural elites and hierarchies, it follows that the attack on the family is the final assault against the last source of natural authority and protection. If you oppose the state you must then support the family, as the family is absolutely necessary to oppose the state and provide the basics of social security without the state. Those individuals without families are 100% dependent on the state.
and I definitely don't remember an "elder brother" discussed in the book either.
maybe if people quoted some of his book it would help provide intellectual footing. or maybe he brought up some of these issues in other writings of his, i don't know, but this thread is about his book so it would help to know what in the book everybody is pointing out.
wilderness: and I definitely don't remember an "elder brother" discussed in the book either.
It wasn't needed. Elder brother, tribal sheiks and so on up the hierarchy to king are perfectly normal and understood as given.
Stranger: wilderness: and I definitely don't remember an "elder brother" discussed in the book either. It wasn't needed. Elder brother, tribal sheiks and so on up the hierarchy to king are perfectly normal and understood as given.
that's fine. but you threw in Hoppe and then finalized your post with a conclusion that those individuals without a family are 100% dependent on the state. but what of the mountain man who intentionally gets away from the state and usually family? or what about single people? are they all dependent on the state as well? i didn't quite follow what you're trying to point out. and injecting it was hoppe discussing "elder brother" and his role isn't to be found in the book. not to say it's wrong, but the book didn't necessarily cover such issues in detail, fair?
wilderness:that's fine. but you threw in Hoppe and then finalized your post with a conclusion that those individuals without a family are 100% dependent on the state. but what of the mountain man who intentionally gets away from the state and usually family? or what about single people? are they all dependent on the state as well?
The mountain man has nothing and thus nothing to protect. He is not civilized.
Stranger: wilderness:that's fine. but you threw in Hoppe and then finalized your post with a conclusion that those individuals without a family are 100% dependent on the state. but what of the mountain man who intentionally gets away from the state and usually family? or what about single people? are they all dependent on the state as well? The mountain man has nothing and thus nothing to protect. He is not civilized.
"has nothing"? clothes, food, shelter, needed to protect himself from other people at times or animals. not sure what you mean by "not civilized". again not sure what you are saying. and what about single people? again what does this have to do with them being without families thus somehow dependent on the state?
wilderness:"has nothing"? clothes, food, shelter, needed to protect himself from other people at times or animals. not sure what you mean by "not civilized". again not sure what you are saying. and what about single people? again what does this have to do with them being without families thus somehow dependent on the state?
Who would a single person turn to for help if this person had a conflict with a neighbor?
Stranger:Who would a single person turn to for help if this person had a conflict with a neighbor?
What kind of conflict?
a friend or him or her own self. maybe such a person has a pet dog too. i mean the possibilities.
Andrew Cain: Stranger:Who would a single person turn to for help if this person had a conflict with a neighbor? What kind of conflict?
Any kind. Doesn't matter.
wilderness: Stranger:Who would a single person turn to for help if this person had a conflict with a neighbor? a friend or him or her own self. maybe they have a pet dog too. i mean the possibilities.
a friend or him or her own self. maybe they have a pet dog too. i mean the possibilities.
And this neighbor will be able to easily oppose overwhelming force against him and take whatever he wants.
Stranger:Any kind. Doesn't matter
Sure it matters. If it is a conflict like who has a better football team then it could potentially be any of his social contacts. If it is a rights violations then it would be a private court system.
Andrew Cain: Sure it matters. If it is a conflict like who has a better football team then it could potentially be any of his social contacts. If it is a rights violations then it would be a private court system.
A conflict is a dispute over property rights. Who has the best football team is just an argument.
What private court system exists other than the state?
Stranger: wilderness: Stranger:Who would a single person turn to for help if this person had a conflict with a neighbor? a friend or him or her own self. maybe they have a pet dog too. i mean the possibilities. And this neighbor will be able to easily oppose overwhelming force against him and take whatever he wants.
this whole discussion has been contingent from the start on your part.
the neighbor you have in mind isn't as big and doesn't have the weapons that the sole individual has or his gang of friends can bring. neighbor loses.
forgetting that hypotheticals are about possibilities turn into sandbox fun and games. I brought a plastic shovel so I can build a sand mountain higher than the stick your using, etc, etc.... contingent fun and games.
good night. fun while it lasted
Stranger:What private court system exists other than the state?
The state is an institution with a monopolist claim on legal services in a given geographical location so no private system can exist where there is a state. I thought we were discussing a anarchist environment concerning conflict.
Andrew Cain: Stranger:What private court system exists other than the state? The state is an institution with a monopolist claim on legal services in a given geographical location so no private system can exist where there is a state. I thought we were discussing a anarchist environment concerning conflict.
Well that's the point of this thread, how can the state become a monopolist on justice? It does this by destroying natural elites, starting with the biggest and working its way down to the smallest.
If I have a family, and my neighbor is giving me trouble, I don't have to sue him in a state court. I can just ask my family to help settle the dispute, and I will likely have a much better, more efficient service of justice. If I don't have a family because I was raised by a single mother in a public housing project, then I can't call on anyone for help other than the state.
Stranger: I can just ask my family to help settle the dispute, and I will likely have a much better, more efficient service of justice
Not really an objective judge in a matter between you and a stranger
Stranger:If I don't have a family because I was raised by a single mother in a public housing project, then I can't call on anyone for help other than the state.
No, you do. Its called an arbitrator. Private legal systems.
Andrew Cain: No, you do. Its called an arbitrator. Private legal systems.
The family is such a system.
Stranger:The family is such a system
Well perhaps it could be but I don't think the family is an objective source to settle disputes. There are individuals who could sell their services as a adjudicator so it is not as if it is family or state.
Andrew Cain: Stranger:The family is such a system Well perhaps it could be but I don't think the family is an objective source to settle disputes. There are individuals who could sell their services as a adjudicator so it is not as if it is family or state.
Why would you hire such an individual as opposed to any other one?
Stranger:Why would you hire such an individual as opposed to any other one?
A sense of legitimacy, formality, a desire for justice regardless of your personal interests. There can be a multitude of reasons.