sirmonty: He says rock and roll will disappear?
He says rock and roll will disappear?
Maybe not. He does say he's annoyed at libertarians who listen to loud heavy metal or something along those lines. On the other hand I would speculate that culturally conservative rock like Christian rock and maybe even Ted Nugent would be acceptable to him. In DTGTF he talks about expelling homosexuals, other sexual deviants, drug users etc from a "libertarian" society-- or them dying on their own in the absence of the state. So it's hard to remember exactly which "alternative lifestyles," will be untenable in statelessness, or alternatively will be expelled, or are simply lifestyles Hoppe just doesn't like. The three categories generally tend to correlate with each other.
Byzantine: majevska:This is because all such lifestyles are supposedly state supported and cannot survive in the state's absence; homosexuality, pornography (as if viewing pornography is "alternative" rather than the norm), rock and roll, and anything else he doesn't like are all apparently artificial creations of the state. Unquestionably, societal norms which are currently muzzled by government's civil rights laws and bills of rights would provoke more restraint among people. There would be no First Amendment right to drive through a Mennonite village handing out flyers for a strip club, for example. So when the Mennonites barricade their road and tell you to scram, there won't be any district court judge to go whining to about your purported freedom of speech. Also, Hoppe predicts that the vehicle of governance in anarchy would be insurance, a business which seeks to pool similarly-situated risks, so communities would be more segregated.
majevska:This is because all such lifestyles are supposedly state supported and cannot survive in the state's absence; homosexuality, pornography (as if viewing pornography is "alternative" rather than the norm), rock and roll, and anything else he doesn't like are all apparently artificial creations of the state.
Unquestionably, societal norms which are currently muzzled by government's civil rights laws and bills of rights would provoke more restraint among people. There would be no First Amendment right to drive through a Mennonite village handing out flyers for a strip club, for example. So when the Mennonites barricade their road and tell you to scram, there won't be any district court judge to go whining to about your purported freedom of speech.
Also, Hoppe predicts that the vehicle of governance in anarchy would be insurance, a business which seeks to pool similarly-situated risks, so communities would be more segregated.
Ah yes, those people who are constantly going through mennonite villages handing out fliers for strip clubs, that most favorite pastime of homosexuals, pornography viewers, and otherwise culturally marxist pot smoking, kumbaya singing leftist-- I think maybe you're onto something.
Hoppe has a great ability to see to the heart of a matter and explain it lucidly and simply. His discussions of the nature of the state are brilliant. However, he makes me very nervous. His views on certain topics are not compatable with libertarianism. To be honest, given his assertion that, in a free society, homosexuals and other such 'deviants' would have to be removed, I cannot see how he is a libertarian in good standing. I find that view despiccable. Watching him try to justify such things leaves one with the same impression one gets from, say, watching Nozick try to use libertarian principles to justify the 'ultra-minimal state'. He contorts himself into all types of pretzel-like positions to get a non-libertarian position out of libertarianism, and I fear that his deserved prestige for his work on other topics causes libertarians to give him more credence than he deserves on other issues.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
He does say he's annoyed at libertarians who listen to loud heavy metal or something along those lines.
No offence, me.
On the other hand I would speculate that culturally conservative rock like Christian rock and maybe even Ted Nugent would be acceptable to him. In DTGTF he talks about expelling homosexuals,
Ditto.
other sexual deviants, drug users etc from a "libertarian" society-- or them dying on their own in the absence of the state. So it's hard to remember exactly which "alternative lifestyles," will be untenable in statelessness, or alternatively will be expelled, or are simply lifestyles Hoppe just doesn't like. The three categories generally tend to correlate with each other
Yes, though considering there will be libertarian societies (plural), that could hardly be true of all or even most of them. Perhaps ones adhering to his particular predilections will be so constituted. BTW, he said advocates of those lifestyles, which makes the statement all the more unclear.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
gocrew: Hoppe has a great ability to see to the heart of a matter and explain it lucidly and simply. His discussions of the nature of the state are brilliant. However, he makes me very nervous. His views on certain topics are not compatable with libertarianism. To be honest, given his assertion that, in a free society, homosexuals and other such 'deviants' would have to be removed, I cannot see how he is a libertarian in good standing. I find that view despiccable. Watching him try to justify such things leaves one with the same impression one gets from, say, watching Nozick try to use libertarian principles to justify the 'ultra-minimal state'. He contorts himself into all types of pretzel-like positions to get a non-libertarian position out of libertarianism, and I fear that his deserved prestige for his work on other topics causes libertarians to give him more credence than he deserves on other issues.
Maybe he's not a Libertarian. He's an old-guard European liberal.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
gocrew:To be honest, given his assertion that, in a free society, homosexuals and other such 'deviants' would have to be removed, I cannot see how he is a libertarian in good standing.
It's called private property.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Interesting discussion. I've read D: TGTF and I can't say I remember Hoppe declaring any sort of crusade against homosexuals etc... The only thing I remember him saying is that people who don't like homosexuality and other so-called "alternative" lifestyles will be free to expel them from their property and to discriminate in employing and associating with them. Which to me does not sound anti-libertarian at all. He seems also to believe that this will cause such lifestyles to die out. That to me seems an unfounded claim (personally I think they would NOT die out - surely some insurance firm would want to tap this niche market after all), but once again, it's not an anti-libertarian claim, but merely a claim about the theoretical effects of a pure-market social order on society.
Agreed.
Twilight: Interesting discussion. I've read D: TGTF and I can't say I remember Hoppe declaring any sort of crusade against homosexuals etc... The only thing I remember him saying is that people who don't like homosexuality and other so-called "alternative" lifestyles will be free to expel them from their property and to discriminate in employing and associating with them. Which to me does not sound anti-libertarian at all. He seems also to believe that this will cause such lifestyles to die out. That to me seems an unfounded claim (personally I think they would NOT die out - surely some insurance firm would want to tap this niche market after all), but once again, it's not an anti-libertarian claim, but merely a claim about the theoretical effects of a pure-market social order on society.
I agree with this.
And I rock and roll will never die dammit hasn't Hoppe ever heard Neil Young's "Hey Hey My My"???
Byzantine: Unquestionably, societal norms which are currently muzzled by government's civil rights laws and bills of rights would provoke more restraint among people. There would be no First Amendment right to drive through a Mennonite village handing out flyers for a strip club, for example. So when the Mennonites barricade their road and tell you to scram, there won't be any district court judge to go whining to about your purported freedom of speech. Also, Hoppe predicts that the vehicle of governance in anarchy would be insurance, a business which seeks to pool similarly-situated risks, so communities would be more segregated.
Had you taken this position from the beginning, instead of simply arguing that anarchy will wipe out homosexuality and other alternate lifestyles, I wouldn't have criticized you in the child porn thread. You left the impression that anarchy is some sort of mob rule, contrary to the de facto notion that markets handle niches very well.
Next time try not to mix personal beliefs (like "biology trumps ideology" stuff) with legitimate ancap theory. Otherwise you're just spreading confusion.
Byzantine: Tom Palmer hates him, that's good enough for me.
Tom Palmer hates him, that's good enough for me.
Who is Tom Palmer? Honestly, I have never heard of this person. As for Hoppe, I love his podcasts - I have not read much by him though.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Palmer is just mad because he's openly gay and doesn't like Hoppe accusing him of having a higher time preference or something.
Byzantine:There would be no First Amendment right to drive through a Mennonite village handing out flyers for a strip club, for example. So when the Mennonites barricade their road and tell you to scram
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."
Byzantine: ryanpatgray:Who is Tom Palmer? Honestly, I have never heard of this person. As for Hoppe, I love his podcasts - I have not read much by him though. He's with the thoroughly compromised Cato Institute and is aghast that Hoppe says people should be able to discriminate against whoever they want for whatever reason they want.
ryanpatgray:Who is Tom Palmer? Honestly, I have never heard of this person. As for Hoppe, I love his podcasts - I have not read much by him though.
He's with the thoroughly compromised Cato Institute and is aghast that Hoppe says people should be able to discriminate against whoever they want for whatever reason they want.
If you want something thoroughly amusing to read: http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/07/01/hans-hermann-hoppe-and-the-german-extremist-nationalist-right/
That was well worth the hour reading the comments.
GilesStratton: Byzantine: ryanpatgray:Who is Tom Palmer? Honestly, I have never heard of this person. As for Hoppe, I love his podcasts - I have not read much by him though. He's with the thoroughly compromised Cato Institute and is aghast that Hoppe says people should be able to discriminate against whoever they want for whatever reason they want. If you want something thoroughly amusing to read: http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/07/01/hans-hermann-hoppe-and-the-german-extremist-nationalist-right/ That was well worth the hour reading the comments.
ARGH MY EYES :stabs black text on white backgrounds & incorrectly scaled pictures:
"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
During the Q-&-A period, someone asked about open borders, and Palmer seemed shaken. Because of immigration restriction, he said, he couldn't live with his British boyfriend. It was a personal issue for him, he in effect said, decrying how people were being hurt by the absence of unrestricted borders. Whether all this was genuine spontaneous emoting, or whether it was calculated to win sympathy from this overwhelmingly leftist, countercultural audience, I don't know. But I can't help wondering if this tendency to raise the matter of his own homosexuality in an impassioned plea is a regular habit or technique of his, and that that may have something to do with Hoppe supposedly describing Palmer as an "ambassador of homosexuality."
Lol.
GilesStratton: During the Q-&-A period, someone asked about open borders, and Palmer seemed shaken. Because of immigration restriction, he said, he couldn't live with his British boyfriend. It was a personal issue for him, he in effect said, decrying how people were being hurt by the absence of unrestricted borders. Whether all this was genuine spontaneous emoting, or whether it was calculated to win sympathy from this overwhelmingly leftist, countercultural audience, I don't know. But I can't help wondering if this tendency to raise the matter of his own homosexuality in an impassioned plea is a regular habit or technique of his, and that that may have something to do with Hoppe supposedly describing Palmer as an "ambassador of homosexuality." Lol.
Tom Palmer: amateur politician Perhaps he should change careers? I think I will try and read this sooner rather than latter.
Marko: Stranger: His theories about the rise of the state are informed by his knowledge of the rise of the state in European history, from the feudal regime of competing fiefdoms to the absolutist state through the protestant reformation. The state in Europe did not emerge when absolutism replaced feudalism, but when fedualism replaced tribalism.
Stranger: His theories about the rise of the state are informed by his knowledge of the rise of the state in European history, from the feudal regime of competing fiefdoms to the absolutist state through the protestant reformation.
His theories about the rise of the state are informed by his knowledge of the rise of the state in European history, from the feudal regime of competing fiefdoms to the absolutist state through the protestant reformation.
The state in Europe did not emerge when absolutism replaced feudalism, but when fedualism replaced tribalism.
This view is closer to the truth than that of the Hoppeans, who act as if the state has only existed for half a millenia or so.
As for how I view Hoppe, quite frankly some of his views risk entirely undermining libertarianism in favor of conservatism, as evidenced by the ridiculous positions held by his greatest fanboys on this very board. His view on state property as something to treat as if it was private technically legitmizes all sorts of state action, his position about social covenants against "alternative lifestyles" (which are for an entire community, not just an individual's property, mind you) risks becoming indistinguishable from the social contract argument, his revisionism on monarchy has lead some libertarians to actually endorse a fuedalist model (you know who you are, you post on this board regularly), his concept of natural elites risks becoming an aristocratic justification for a state and his view on immigration is completely nonsensical.
Also, his performative contradiction argument for self-ownership and property rights fails because it does not prove any principles, it only proves that people's behavior is inconsistant with certain assumed principles.
Brainpolice: As for how I view Hoppe, quite frankly some of his views risk entirely undermining libertarianism in favor of conservatism, as evidenced by the ridiculous positions held by his greatest fanboys on this very board. His view on state property as something to treat as if it was private technically legitmizes all sorts of state action, his position about social covenants against "alternative lifestyles" (which are for an entire community, not just an individual's property, mind you) risks becoming indistinguishable from the social contract argument and his view on immigration is completely nonsensical.
As for how I view Hoppe, quite frankly some of his views risk entirely undermining libertarianism in favor of conservatism, as evidenced by the ridiculous positions held by his greatest fanboys on this very board. His view on state property as something to treat as if it was private technically legitmizes all sorts of state action, his position about social covenants against "alternative lifestyles" (which are for an entire community, not just an individual's property, mind you) risks becoming indistinguishable from the social contract argument and his view on immigration is completely nonsensical.
Go inject heroin into your eye, libertine.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: As for how I view Hoppe, quite frankly some of his views risk entirely undermining libertarianism in favor of conservatism, as evidenced by the ridiculous positions held by his greatest fanboys on this very board. His view on state property as something to treat as if it was private technically legitmizes all sorts of state action, his position about social covenants against "alternative lifestyles" (which are for an entire community, not just an individual's property, mind you) risks becoming indistinguishable from the social contract argument and his view on immigration is completely nonsensical. Go inject heroin into your eye, libertine.
I don't do heroine. I'm not a "libertine". But thanks for demonstrating that all you're capable of is a knee-jerk insult and hence you are incapable of rationally taking criticism or responding to criticism. Your maturity level is quite low for a conservative.
Brainpolice: As for how I view Hoppe, quite frankly some of his views risk entirely undermining libertarianism in favor of conservatism, as evidenced by the ridiculous positions held by his greatest fanboys on this very board. His view on state property as something to treat as if it was private technically legitmizes all sorts of state action, his position about social covenants against "alternative lifestyles" (which are for an entire community, not just an individual's property, mind you) risks becoming indistinguishable from the social contract argument, his revisionism on monarchy has lead some libertarians to actually endorse a fuedalist model (you know who you are, you post on this board regularly), his concept of natural elites risks becoming an aristocratic justification for a state and his view on immigration is completely nonsensical. Also, his performative contradiction argument for self-ownership and property rights fails because it does not prove any principles, it only proves that people's behavior is inconsistant with certain assumed principles.
Perhaps the greatest thing about Hoppe is that he drives all the right people hysterical.
Tom G. Palmer: They have laid out the welcome mat to holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, bigots, racists, neo-Confederates, and others who are understandably unwelcome elsewhere. Decent people should take a stand against them.
Stranger: Brainpolice: As for how I view Hoppe, quite frankly some of his views risk entirely undermining libertarianism in favor of conservatism, as evidenced by the ridiculous positions held by his greatest fanboys on this very board. His view on state property as something to treat as if it was private technically legitmizes all sorts of state action, his position about social covenants against "alternative lifestyles" (which are for an entire community, not just an individual's property, mind you) risks becoming indistinguishable from the social contract argument, his revisionism on monarchy has lead some libertarians to actually endorse a fuedalist model (you know who you are, you post on this board regularly), his concept of natural elites risks becoming an aristocratic justification for a state and his view on immigration is completely nonsensical. Also, his performative contradiction argument for self-ownership and property rights fails because it does not prove any principles, it only proves that people's behavior is inconsistant with certain assumed principles. Perhaps the greatest thing about Hoppe is that he drives all the right people hysterical.
There is nothing hysterical about my post, I level reasoned criticisms at some of his positions. You, in turn, seem incapable of taking arguments at face value and can only fall back on a personalization - because your positions are simply philosophically undefendable. What's more, you've been perpetually pwned on these issues.
Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice: As for how I view Hoppe, quite frankly some of his views risk entirely undermining libertarianism in favor of conservatism, as evidenced by the ridiculous positions held by his greatest fanboys on this very board. His view on state property as something to treat as if it was private technically legitmizes all sorts of state action, his position about social covenants against "alternative lifestyles" (which are for an entire community, not just an individual's property, mind you) risks becoming indistinguishable from the social contract argument and his view on immigration is completely nonsensical. Go inject heroin into your eye, libertine. I don't do heroine. I'm not a "libertine". But thanks for demonstrating that all you're capable of is a knee-jerk insult and hence you are incapable of rationally taking criticism or responding to criticism. Your maturity level is quite low for a conservative.
Shut up, hippie.
Brainpolice: There is nothing hysterical about my post, I level reasoned criticisms at some of his positions. You, in turn, seem incapable of taking arguments at face value and can only fall back on a personalization - because your positions are simply philosophically undefendable. What's more, you've been perpetually pwned on these issues.
What does pwned mean?
Brainpolice:his position about social covenants against "alternative lifestyles" (which are for an entire community, not just an individual's property, mind you) risks becoming indistinguishable from the social contract argument
Jack homesteads a great amount of land. He then decides that he wants to found an evangelical community on it. He sells shares of the land to other individuals, however, he does not sell full property rights to them, but rather rents it to them on certain conditions, e.g. not becoming gay, not becoming a non-Christian and so on.What is your problem with that?
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice: As for how I view Hoppe, quite frankly some of his views risk entirely undermining libertarianism in favor of conservatism, as evidenced by the ridiculous positions held by his greatest fanboys on this very board. His view on state property as something to treat as if it was private technically legitmizes all sorts of state action, his position about social covenants against "alternative lifestyles" (which are for an entire community, not just an individual's property, mind you) risks becoming indistinguishable from the social contract argument and his view on immigration is completely nonsensical. Go inject heroin into your eye, libertine. I don't do heroine. I'm not a "libertine". But thanks for demonstrating that all you're capable of is a knee-jerk insult and hence you are incapable of rationally taking criticism or responding to criticism. Your maturity level is quite low for a conservative. Shut up, hippie.
It's amusing that your reaction is to call names at people. It shows your inability to engage in rational debate.
I'm not a hippy. I'm a free market libertarian who refuses to accept blatant right-wing deviationism.
Sphairon: Brainpolice:his position about social covenants against "alternative lifestyles" (which are for an entire community, not just an individual's property, mind you) risks becoming indistinguishable from the social contract argument Jack homesteads a great amount of land. He then decides that he wants to found an evangelical community on it. He sells shares of the land to other individuals, however, he does not sell full property rights to them, but rather rents it to them on certain conditions, e.g. not becoming gay, not becoming a non-Christian and so on.What is your problem with that?
We're talking about an entire community, not an individual's land. There is no such thing as an individual who homesteads an entire community, that is a logical impossibility.
Stranger: Perhaps the greatest thing about Hoppe is that he drives all the right people hysterical.
ryanpatgray: Stranger: Perhaps the greatest thing about Hoppe is that he drives all the right people hysterical. Do not take this as a criticism of Hoppe, it is not meant to be, but is your primary goal of the freedom movement promoting freedom or "driving people hysterical"? It may not be possible to do both simultaneously. I want the movement to grow and the goal of liberty to be achieved, preferably within my own lifetime. If that means not driving as many people hysterical so be it.
Some people love power. You cannot promote freedom to them. They are not interested. They must be exposed.
Brainpolice: There is no such thing as an individual who homesteads an entire community, that is a logical impossibility.
Why is it logically impossible? Seeing as individuals do own land the size of communities: holiday resorts, hotels, caravan sites.
ryanpatgray:I want the movement to grow and the goal of liberty to be achieved, preferably within my own lifetime. If that means not driving as many people hysterical so be it.
Mises said that there is no third solution. This middle road leads to socialism.
Unfortunately, the movement can only grow so much, because if you understand Hoppe's theory on class warfare, the majority are more inclined to choose to lift themselves up through democracy (and the reassignment of property titles politically) than free market entrepreneurship and competition.
The idea that everyone is a closet libertarian is unfortunately very naive. Not saying you have that view, but some people do. It's a fallacy.
Jack homesteads a great amount of land.
Brainpolice:We're talking about an entire community, not an individual's land. There is no such thing as an individual who homesteads an entire community, that is a logical impossibility.
A'right. Let's try another approach:Jack and Joe are next-door property owners. Both mutually agree to found an evangelical community. They contractually determine that the property of any of them may be seized by the remaining party in case one goes gay/non-Christian. Indeed, Joe decides to become gay after a few years. Doesn't Jack, then, have a contractual right to seize Joe's property due to Joe's voluntary consent?