Right, Hans Hoppe is #1 rock star anarchist.
How long before libertarianism becomes Rolling Stone magazine with long lists of rankings every month?
John Ess: Right, Hans Hoppe is #1 rock star anarchist. How long before libertarianism becomes Rolling Stone magazine with long lists of rankings every month?
I saw him in person this summer at Mises 2008 and he did have a rock star persona / was treated like a rock star by everyone else. It was interesting.
I would much rather be a productive and honest nerd then an anarchist teaching in a state school (moocher), like Hoppe. Don't get me wrong now, I like much of Hoppes theory and teaching but there is something fundamentally wrong about free market anarchism being teached through a state school so Hoppe and his likes should be very careful in whom they say is advancing libertarianism/free market anarchism and who is mooching (or whatever he calls it).
All schools are subsidized to a large extent by the government, so all schools are pretty much sttate schools to a lesser or greater extent. Also, Hoppe doesn't teach anymore, he lives in Europe now.
IIRC, Molyneux makes no distinction between private or state universities for the reason that the state does mess with subsidies (this is a reason that Austrians oppose "vouchers"). And is not so much against the universities per se, but that it is absurd to tell people to leave their state jobs from this position... or to say the state is incompetent. People see competent and smart people -- like Hoppe or Rothbard -- in the state and they then think the state cannot be that stupid or it wouldn't hire exceptionally brilliant people like them. There's also the case that economics dept. don't seem to be putting out more intelligent people in economics in general (for instance, much of what is taught in the universities seems to make people less economically literate about basic economics because it detaches from that into macro and pointless models).
I myself doubt that Rothbard's actual professorial work was as effective as his large number of books and articles he did on the private market. And we also have the Mises institute and Lew Rockwell to thank for bringing a lot of his work to light as well, of course. Though I doubt his professorial work was effective, I still think he was a great intellectual.
Just to be clear about this. Also, isn't Hoppe retired? Say what you want about universities, I really do hope that they crumble and the market makes education more efficient and easy. I think right now that is not the case... but I do see alternatives cropping up because the technology is getting so much better all the time. To me it is a medieval invention that the market should destroy ASAP and make way for higher intellectualism. And it wouldn't hurt if people who were pro-market lead the way into this new frontier.
John Ess:And is not so much against the universities per se, but that it is absurd to tell people to leave their state jobs from this position.
Because working for the IRS is really the same as using state owned universities as a means to spread libertarianism.
John Ess:People see competent and smart people -- like Hoppe or Rothbard -- in the state and they then think the state cannot be that stupid or it wouldn't hire exceptionally brilliant people like them.
I'm sure after listening to Hoppe and Rothbard, that's exactly what people think.
John Ess:Though I doubt his professorial work was effective,
So what, you doubt Rothbard, Hoppe or Mises managed to convert anybody from their positions? If so, you'd be wrong.
John Ess: And it wouldn't hurt if people who were pro-market lead the way into this new frontier.
This statement assumes that people in universities teaching from an Austrian perspective aren't contributing, well, isn't that exactly what you're trying to prove?
But you're right, I think Hoppe, Block etc. should stop working for universities and start posting videos on Youtube.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I would much rather be a productive and honest nerd then an anarchist teaching in a state school (moocher), like Hoppe.
You're joking, right? His seat is privately funded. The same with Rothbard.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Yeah, cause no nerds like to listen to heavy metal and "dress the part". LMFAO!!! Holy crap dude, "Yeah, and I've got this awesome spiked collar and an AC/DC t-shirt. I'm kewwwwwwwwwwwwwl!" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
What? If you're going to quote me and make dumb comments in response, make sure you understand what you're quoting, first.
Nah, but seriously, no really, ain't who's spent much time writing in the forum based on a particular school of ECONOMICS what ain't nerd, I'm sorry. And for that bloke what said earlier that he's some sorta ladies man... nerd girls need love too, I guess! So funny!
Shows how prejudiced you are.
True, but I find it hard how one can say that stuying philosophy and economics for fun is NOT nerdy. At the same time, you don't have to give up a social life because you're interested in nerdy topics.
Why not just say "intellectual"?
The IRS does not go door to door telling people that the IRS should be reformed and that it's evil.
What do you mean "exactly"? It seems reasonable to me. Hoppe and Rothbard are smart guys. Ergo, the state could not be so incompetent. Also, the state could very well just hire enough smart people and be ok. And eliminating the state would mean that Hoppe and other good guys would have nowhere to work (since they are powerless, in your opinion, to work anywhere else).
It's not an either/or on universities or youtube (though mises institute has it's own channel, what is your point?). I don't know why you denigrate technology as if that is something to be proud of. Though we all talk about the market as if it provides the greatest opportunity for anyone who wishes to achieve their goals, you don't think anyone could possibly develop ways for themselves to make money in it giving professional advice. A great number of people that contribute to mises.org are not in academia.
Why is there any reason to believe that universities reach more people than lewrockwell.com or mises.org? I don't think it is even close. Look at their class sizes versus the site traffic of these two sites. If Hoppe had a youtube channel, he could do a lot less work and reach even more people.
Lol, I'm huge classical fan and my cousin just got me into metal and bada ba ba ba, Im lovin it. As far as being a nerd, I prefer the term "gentleman and a scholar".
John Ess:The IRS does not go door to door telling people that the IRS should be reformed and that it's evil.
No, you're quite correct, it goes to their door for money. Which is good because?
John Ess:What do you mean "exactly"? It seems reasonable to me. Hoppe and Rothbard are smart guys. Ergo, the state could not be so incompetent.
Yeah, because the state actually created them piece by piece. I mean "exactly", because it's quite obvious that anybody who listens to Rothbard and Hoppe for long would see the state for what it is: a parasite. Nobody has argued that everybody who has ever worked for the state is stupid, so I don't quite get what your point is.
Honestly, what a silly argument.
John Ess: And eliminating the state would mean that Hoppe and other good guys would have nowhere to work (since they are powerless, in your opinion, to work anywhere else).
Yes, I'm sure all the otherwise libertarians look at Hoppe and detest the free market on account of what it would do to him. Was there any need for the strawman? You sound ridiculous enough as it is.
John Ess:It's not an either/or on universities or youtube (though mises institute has it's own channel, what is your point?
No, but "Stef" sits there making videos for Youtube, telling everybody how bad Ron Paul is for liberty, how bad Hoppe is for liberty. Other than making boring podcasts and writing poor books does he have another way? The funny thing is there's quite a few more people who have heard of Paul, Hoppe and Rothbard than Molyneux, so I'll leave it you to decide what the most effective way is.
John Ess: I don't know why you denigrate technology as if that is something to be proud of.
I don't know why you post strawmen is if thats something to be proud of.
John Ess: A great number of people that contribute to mises.org are not in academia.
And a lot of them are, what's your point?
John Ess:Why is there any reason to believe that universities reach more people than lewrockwell.com or mises.org?
Even if that were true, that's a lot different to saying "universities don't do any good".
John Ess:If Hoppe had a youtube channel, he could do a lot less work and reach even more people.
And also be taken a lot less seriously. Which is exactly what libertarianism needs right now.
There is something about Classical Music and heavy metal fans. They tend to move from classical to metal and from metal to classical with ease and with equal listening enjoyment.
Indeed. They even overlap sometimes.
Jon,
Your screen name, and for a long time your icon, were based on a character from a video game, which itself was based on Dungeons & Dragons. The prosecution rests, your honor.
Right, which has what to do with my initial comment which was, that I am by no means an ideal Hoppean emissary for libertarianism? Learn to read things in the context they're given...
Boy tensions are high today. You guys vote yet? lol
The RP campaign did fail. And the universities are good for some things. But not telling people that the universities should theoretically suck.
John Ess:The RP campaign did fail.
On the grounds that it converted numerous people (many on these forums alone) to libertarianism, and even failing that to at least favour smaller, more decentralised government? Yeah, I'd calle that a failure. Especially in comparison to all Molyneux's acheivements, after all he did manage to win a prize for top ten podcast!
John Ess: But not telling people that the universities should theoretically suck.
So what you're saying now is that because formal education is currently terrible, we can't use any formal education to teach them that it needn't be so.
His goal was to become president, though. And that failed.
Maybe you should carry on this conversation with Molyneux instead of me, perhaps? I love to debate but I don't so much like to be a vent for personal frustration at people I don't know personally. Do you understand?
John, how dare you ask us to stop treating you as a punching bag for Stefan Molyneux!
Who do you think you are?
John Ess: Maybe you should carry on this conversation with Molyneux instead of me, perhaps?
Maybe you should carry on this conversation with Molyneux instead of me, perhaps?
As if he'd actually have a conversation with anybody who doesn't worship him.
liberty student: John, how dare you ask us to stop treating you as a punching bag for Stefan Molyneux! Who do you think you are?
I wasn't using him as a "punhing bag for Stefan Molyneux", he made a ridiculous claim that it's wrong to work at universities and in the end he wasn't willing to either admit he's wrong or prove it.
Like a true Molynoid.
He just had two recorded debates in the last week or so. Just email him or something.
I just realized that in addition to the similarities of UPB and Argumentation Ethics, Molyneux and Hoppe share a dislike of these rocker types. I think Molyneux has tried to argue something along the lines of tattoos, piercings and otherwise "countercultural" hairstyles, clothing etc is objectively bad and evidence that a person is damaged goods (referring to childhood abuse).
Which brings me to a good point on Molyneux: he has made some good contributions to libertarians, but he's heading down the same loony cult leader path of Rand.
I think that is a major distortion as far as I know (though I don't know how many times I've seen people make UPB into something strange that I never read when I happened to read this book). I have not really heard anything that extreme from Hoppe or Molyneux in regards to punk rockers. I would say they both reject the idea that we have to appeal to certain people by means of compromising. Hoppe probably disagree with the idea that libertarianism should be sold as "cool" to people who don't have very mature minds. Hoppe and Molyneux are more concerned with what they think is correct than targeting fads and subcultures (Wilton Alston, I believe, said recently that if people can be too easily convinced of something then the person being convinced probably is far too easily swayed).
I respect this attitude on both of their parts. Because philosophically, people will tend be as smart and serious about something as you treat them in a conversation. You'd really be surprised. And that should be encouraged.
About it being "objectively bad" to have hair and clothing styles: UPB, as I understand it, is a way of testing certain theories instead of labeling individual actions. It is not something so specific. I think this idea should be better understood (it definitely doesn't have anything to do with child abuse).
What I was referring to with Hoppe was only a brief comment (I think it was in an interview with someone) saying something to the effect of being fed up with there being too many drug using rock n rollers in the libertarian movement. I wouldn' say this is all that extreme although I do disagree with it.
With Molyneux I was not referring to UPB, but rather things I have heard him say in podcasts and on the FDR board. I am glad you don't think piercings and tattoos have anything to do with child abuse, but that is not Molyneux's position. I've heard him say that people get them when they leave home and aren't used to not being abused so they get tatts and piercings as a way to self mutilate.
Oh, I'm saying that UPB the book doesn't have much to do with that position. Nor with child abuse.
And I agree with Hoppe and Molyneux that drug and alcohol abuse is bad. If those people are in the movement, I wish them the best of luck of getting over it and becoming healthy. I'm not certain what to think about people with tattoos and piercings, but I doubt that that is very far off from the truth. Maybe you could ask a psychologist. Though I don't know what he said specifically (I'll take your word for it).
Molyneux tends to be for helping these people or encouraging that they get help from professional therapy. Hoppe is an economics guy and I can understand if he doesn't have an interest or time to address that issue.
Maybe there are some cases where this happens, but I'm not convinced that everyone with a nosering or a tat did it because they needed to reenact some childhood trauma.
I thought the whole emo scene's basic function was admitting all of that.
Not to belittle them -- I have major sympathy -- but I thought much of this was already understood in pop culture.
Sounds like Hoppe and Molyneux are cantankerous old men, "Why, back in my day, only sailors had tatoos. And I walked over jagged volcanic glass to school with no shoes, uphill both ways." When it comes to judging what kind of image to project, I don't think we should take the advice of either; I mean, does anyone who is not already interested in these ideas ever hear their names? "I'm a little bit punk rock, I'm a little bit jazz and soul". Anyway. Ramble.
majevska: What I was referring to with Hoppe was only a brief comment (I think it was in an interview with someone) saying something to the effect of being fed up with there being too many drug using rock n rollers in the libertarian movement. I wouldn' say this is all that extreme although I do disagree with it.
Hoppe's main objection is people confusing libertarianism with libertinism. I haven't read DTGTF yet but from what I understand he says that the state is the main cause of the process of decivilization, hence the incoherence of paleoconservatism. Most of the arguments from Hoppe that I've read I agree with though, especially in regards to the family and "alternative lifestyles" that I really don't think belong in a free society.
majevska:I've heard him say that people get them when they leave home and aren't used to not being abused so they get tatts and piercings as a way to self mutilate.
How ridiculous.
GilesStratton:Hoppe's main objection is people confusing libertarianism with libertinism.
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: GilesStratton:Hoppe's main objection is people confusing libertarianism with libertinism. Libertinism is not a philosophically sound concept -- it's just a word social conservatives, like Hoppe, use to tag things they don't like. Conservatism and libertarianism are polar opposites. A brief look at the history of western Enlightenment should make that clear. As to Molyneux's psychological theories, they're a joke...
Because it hits too close to home for you and Giles.
Having objections to Jeebus AND the piercings both is just going to far, I imagine. Once you can't be a cold distant conservative or a laissez faire libertine...
Of course, you can still be both. No one is going to spank you for it. Ha!
GilesStratton: Magnus: I would much rather be a productive and honest nerd then an anarchist teaching in a state school (moocher), like Hoppe. Don't get me wrong now, I like much of Hoppes theory and teaching but there is something fundamentally wrong about free market anarchism being teached through a state school so Hoppe and his likes should be very careful in whom they say is advancing libertarianism/free market anarchism and who is mooching (or whatever he calls it). I would recommend Stefan Molyneux latest book "How (not) to achieve freedom", where he spends quite a lot of time talking about the hypocrisy of many free market intelectuals. Say what you want about Stefan, but he sure has the balls to live the way he teaches other to. What the hell is with all these Molyneux fanboys? I don't see what the problem is with anarchists teaching in public universities to be honest, there's no alternative really. Even if they did teach in an entirely private one it's regulated by the state. It's no different from Molyneux using state roads, shopping in supermarkets that have been regulated by the state etc. The problem is we're all complicit in this, no through our own choices but because we've had it forced upon us. Well, this is especially true for universities. I don't understand what Molyneux's issue is with Hoppe and Rothbard (and any others, I really don't know much about US universities but I assume they're all state owned at least in part? In which case you can add Block, Long etc on to that list, but I'm probably wrong) teaching at state owned universities? Is it the fact that they can spread libertarianism far more effectively than Molyneux can through his podcasts? To point out the obvious: education through universities is one of the most effective ways to "convert" people, if Molyneux isn't qualified to do it then poor him. He can carry on with his podcasts, I just wish people would realise they do far more for his own ego than they do for the cause of liberty. I'd rather not waste my time reading more of Molyneux's poorly writing "literature" thanks, so if you could tell me what his point is I'd appreciate it, and how exactly does he live in the way he teaches others to do? If I remember correctly he advocates cutting off contact with statists? But I could be wrong. Molyneux is full of nonsense. How ridiculous comparing Hoppe, in my opinion the most important libertarian thinker of the time to Molyneux, who comes out with second rate (to be kind) justifications for liberty. As a side note, I've realised it's no suprise he calls himself an atheist, he views himself as god, and who can be suprised when he has so many fools worshipping him.
Magnus: I would much rather be a productive and honest nerd then an anarchist teaching in a state school (moocher), like Hoppe. Don't get me wrong now, I like much of Hoppes theory and teaching but there is something fundamentally wrong about free market anarchism being teached through a state school so Hoppe and his likes should be very careful in whom they say is advancing libertarianism/free market anarchism and who is mooching (or whatever he calls it). I would recommend Stefan Molyneux latest book "How (not) to achieve freedom", where he spends quite a lot of time talking about the hypocrisy of many free market intelectuals. Say what you want about Stefan, but he sure has the balls to live the way he teaches other to.
I would recommend Stefan Molyneux latest book "How (not) to achieve freedom", where he spends quite a lot of time talking about the hypocrisy of many free market intelectuals. Say what you want about Stefan, but he sure has the balls to live the way he teaches other to.
What the hell is with all these Molyneux fanboys?
I don't see what the problem is with anarchists teaching in public universities to be honest, there's no alternative really. Even if they did teach in an entirely private one it's regulated by the state. It's no different from Molyneux using state roads, shopping in supermarkets that have been regulated by the state etc. The problem is we're all complicit in this, no through our own choices but because we've had it forced upon us. Well, this is especially true for universities.
I don't understand what Molyneux's issue is with Hoppe and Rothbard (and any others, I really don't know much about US universities but I assume they're all state owned at least in part? In which case you can add Block, Long etc on to that list, but I'm probably wrong) teaching at state owned universities? Is it the fact that they can spread libertarianism far more effectively than Molyneux can through his podcasts? To point out the obvious: education through universities is one of the most effective ways to "convert" people, if Molyneux isn't qualified to do it then poor him. He can carry on with his podcasts, I just wish people would realise they do far more for his own ego than they do for the cause of liberty.
I'd rather not waste my time reading more of Molyneux's poorly writing "literature" thanks, so if you could tell me what his point is I'd appreciate it, and how exactly does he live in the way he teaches others to do? If I remember correctly he advocates cutting off contact with statists? But I could be wrong. Molyneux is full of nonsense. How ridiculous comparing Hoppe, in my opinion the most important libertarian thinker of the time to Molyneux, who comes out with second rate (to be kind) justifications for liberty.
As a side note, I've realised it's no suprise he calls himself an atheist, he views himself as god, and who can be suprised when he has so many fools worshipping him.
It seems to me that you have an irrational hatred of Molyneux, since everytime he comes up you go on a long tirade about how bad he allegedly is. And just because someone respects him or has gotten some influence from him doesn't mean they are a total "fanboy". Lighten up, you're acting like you hava stick up your ass.
GilesStratton: John Ess:The RP campaign did fail. On the grounds that it converted numerous people (many on these forums alone) to libertarianism, and even failing that to at least favour smaller, more decentralised government? Yeah, I'd calle that a failure. Especially in comparison to all Molyneux's acheivements, after all he did manage to win a prize for top ten podcast! John Ess: But not telling people that the universities should theoretically suck. So what you're saying now is that because formal education is currently terrible, we can't use any formal education to teach them that it needn't be so.
It "converted" just as many libertarians to paleoconservatives and anti-voting anarchists to political libertarians with restored faith in the political process and restored reverance for the constitution, so it's hardly a one way street.
GilesStratton: John Ess: Maybe you should carry on this conversation with Molyneux instead of me, perhaps? As if he'd actually have a conversation with anybody who doesn't worship him.
He just had a debate with an Objectivist.
Brainpolice: It seems to me that you have an irrational hatred of Molyneux, since everytime he comes up you go on a long tirade about how bad he allegedly is. And just because someone respects him or has gotten some influence from him doesn't mean they are a total "fanboy". Lighten up, you're acting like you hava stick up your ass.
I agree. Different strokes for different libertarian folks -- if one is a rationalist and also not religious, then some authors will be appealing. Cut us some slack if we have other worldviews than the Judeo-Christian one... or other typical atheist ones. Both of those views tend to be implicit (and often times explicit) attacks on people, as well. Let us not forget that. And I certainly would not post here if I thought that Christians were absolutely immoral or unintelligent.
John Ess:Having objections to Jeebus AND the piercings both is just going to far, I imagine.
Libertinism is not a philosophically sound concept -- it's just a word social conservatives, like Hoppe
No such thing as a libertine, eh?
Well, my objection to that comes through in simply not having tattoos or piercings. I do not find that to be silly.
Loser computer nerds? As opposed to what? Macho economics professors?I notice a different trend. I notice that LewRockwell.com at least carries a certain lets call it a gentlemany flavour. For example there can barely pass a month without an article on ties. Just as Hoppe complains association of libertarianism with drug using rockers is impeding its growth someone else could phrase an argument that it is the association of libertarianism with ties loving middle-aged gentlemen that is impeding it.I think this sort of value judgments should be kept seperate from the general message. I am not big on ties personally, but I don`t go around complaining that I would have a hard time converting any of my peers, because if I would recommend them to read LRC they would undoubtedly sooner or later stumble upon an eccentric essay arguing for more ties.
Brainpolice:It seems to me that you have an irrational hatred of Molyneux, since everytime he comes up you go on a long tirade about how bad he allegedly is. And just because someone respects him or has gotten some influence from him doesn't mean they are a total "fanboy". Lighten up, you're acting like you hava stick up your ass.
You mean, like your objection to the "closet monarchist" Hoppe? I don't hate Molyneux, I dislike him but there's nothing irrational about that. He's arrogant fool who comes out with silly theories mainly centred around the evils of the family, and any other libertarians more successful than him (Ron Paul and the rest who teach at universities as opposed to spreading their wisdom through Youtube). Then there's his ridiculous pyschological "explanations" for everything, when last time I checked he's not particularly qualified in that area.
Then there's his "militant atheism" and all that nonsense. But if that's not enough his accent is extremely irritating.