Jackson LaRose: DBratton:In that context when he uses the word "state" he means specifically the modern state. Feudal states were not modern states. Absolute monarchies were. What was the difference? Should the absolute monarchy of the Sumerian Kings, or the Pharaoh, or the King of Sparta, or Julius Cesar be considered modern states?
DBratton:In that context when he uses the word "state" he means specifically the modern state. Feudal states were not modern states. Absolute monarchies were.
What was the difference? Should the absolute monarchy of the Sumerian Kings, or the Pharaoh, or the King of Sparta, or Julius Cesar be considered modern states?
What is it now, more than a week and you still can't just go get the book from a library?
part of the notes on 269, Hoppe citing Nisbet:
...Contrary to the modern political state with its principle of territorial sovereignty, for mopst of a thousand-year period in the West protection, rights, authority, and devotion inhered in a personal, not a territorial, tie. To be the "man" of another man, in turn the "man" of still another man, and so on up to the very top of the feudal pyramid, each owing the other either service or protection, is to be in a feudal relationship. The feudal bond has much in it of the relation between warrior and commander, but it has even more of the relation between son and father, kinsmen and patriarch...[That is, feudal ties are essentially] private, personal, and contractual relationships.... The subordination of king to law was one of the most important of principles under feudalism.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Jackson LaRose:What was the difference?
The three defining characteristics of the modern state are:
1) They are immortal. When the king dies the only thing that changes in the modern state is the king.
2) They are administratively beyond human scale. The modern state is too large for any single person to manage alone.
3) They govern within defined territories. Louis XIV was not the king of the French, he was the king of France (though Louis Napoleon did later reverse this and called himself king of the French in an attempt to placate democratic forces).
Sumeria and Sparta were not modern states. Rome was a modern state. I don't know much about Egyptian politics though it's an interesting question.
hayekianxyz: There are no reviews or criticism of the book because nobody takes it seriously.
There are no reviews or criticism of the book because nobody takes it seriously.
Well, that is a shame. Are there any arguments against compulsory democracy that those people do take seriously?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I. Ryan:Well, that is a shame. Are there any arguments against compulsory democracy that those people do take seriously?
Sure, it's called The Myth of the Rational Voter and it is written by Bryan Caplan.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
E. R. Olovetto:The latecomer would need some proof in a courtroom...?
You don't base your ideas regarding what is legitimate property on courtroom decisions, do you? The person could merely claim that the courtroom is enforcing your illegitemate claim to the property if it rules in your favor.
E. R. Olovetto:For the injured child hypothetical, keep this in mind. We might call the actions of the rescuers trespass, or assault, on the homeowner. This is within an exact scientific framework or praxeological legal theory. Still, a judge could simply refuse to press charges against the trespassers. His action as arbitrator is to determine the maximum allowable punishment which he or his security force will uphold.
You might call it trespass or assault. I however would not as I do not recognize the landowners right to prevent others from entering his land under certain conditions. I would also assume that given public opinion on the matter, it would not be likely for a court to press charges against the "trespasser." If anything, it would be more reasonable to believe that the landowner would be charged. To be clear, I am not trying to argue against anarchism here.
E. R. Olovetto:Also, this would be something good to discuss in my Police Forces thread, rather than here about Hoppe. First of all, people are going to make contractual agreements with security and justice providers ahead of time in many instances. These various agencies will reach agreement amongst themselves. When you sign up with Acme Security Inc., you are ceding your right to determine your own spin on justice and take all matters into your own hands. You are agreeing to abide by their rulings and whatever this may lead to because of the company's other preexisting arrangements. There very may become common a clause to the effect of, "Given no apparent threat to one's own life, the customer agrees to allow rescue efforts on his property, and any restitution for property damage"...[will be handled along such and such lines].
Right, we are in agreement here.
French on Caplan
Eric: E. R. Olovetto:The latecomer would need some proof in a courtroom...? You don't base your ideas regarding what is legitimate property on courtroom decisions, do you? The person could merely claim that the courtroom is enforcing your illegitemate claim to the property if it rules in your favor.
I don't see what the point of this is and it is rather vague. No, I base it on Neo-Lockean, libertarian homesteading theory. A lot of people think health care and internet access are rights too, so what?
Eric: E. R. Olovetto:For the injured child hypothetical, keep this in mind. We might call the actions of the rescuers trespass, or assault, on the homeowner. This is within an exact scientific framework or praxeological legal theory. Still, a judge could simply refuse to press charges against the trespassers. His action as arbitrator is to determine the maximum allowable punishment which he or his security force will uphold. You might call it trespass or assault. I however would not as I do not recognize the landowners right to prevent others from entering his land under certain conditions. I would also assume that given public opinion on the matter, it would not be likely for a court to press charges against the "trespasser." If anything, it would be more reasonable to believe that the landowner would be charged. To be clear, I am not trying to argue against anarchism here.
Well, you can call it what you want but it just confuses a coherent application of the borders that lead to civilization. You simply need to realize that certain things are within the scope of libertarianism, and others are outside the law. If you are confident that society has certain values, like that injured children should be allowed to be rescued, what is the worry? Also, I think there are some ways that a case can be made against the guy "defending his property" if he takes violent means against people who state clearly that they want to rescue a child. This is getting off topic, please respond in another thread.
E. R. Olovetto: French on Caplan
E. R. Olovetto: To fix all of this, Caplan naïvely thinks economics professors can correct human biases in economics class, thus making the public better voters. I side with Mencken: The voters are incurable.
To fix all of this, Caplan naïvely thinks economics professors can correct human biases in economics class, thus making the public better voters. I side with Mencken: The voters are incurable.
I thought that Caplan was an "anarcho-capitalist" and therefore against compulsory democracy. But in the above quotation, French makes it sound like Caplan is just saying that we should better educate people and then democracy will work.
hayekianxyz: Sure, it's called The Myth of the Rational Voter and it is written by Bryan Caplan.
Cool, I just ordered it.
hayekianxyz:Because nobody outside the "Rothbardian bunch" even takes Hoppe seriously, I'm not even trying to be insulting here
Then I will be. I think you are a troll!
I have yet to see a single post from you with substance and I have yet to see a post that demonstrates that you actually know something about Austrian economics. All you ever do is resort to authority and majority opinion, you talk as if you know stuff but once you are challenged you are easily exposed for who you are - A fraud! If I respond to you, it's only for the sake of others who are less knowledgeable and may actually be fooled by your game of pretending to be knowledgeable in Austrian economics.
I think you are troll who has managed to achieve 5000 posts. That is all. Congratulation.
E. R. Olovetto:Contrary to the modern political state with its principle of territorial sovereignty, for mopst of a thousand-year period in the West protection, rights, authority, and devotion inhered in a personal, not a territorial, tie.
I'm not sure I understand this distinction. In a feudal society, the barons (initially through violence, could buy/sell territory, or be granted or inherit at later dates) came into possession of large tracts of land, and the non-warrior classes who dwelt upon that land, the serfs. The barons were still considered sovereign over that territory, although they still had to pay the capo tutti capi, the king. The only distinction I can see is that there was no concept of nationhood, but many absolute monarchies also lacked this concept in the 17th and 18th centuries.
E. R. Olovetto:To be the "man" of another man, in turn the "man" of still another man, and so on up to the very top of the feudal pyramid, each owing the other either service or protection, is to be in a feudal relationship.
Isn't this slavery, or at the very least, completely analgous to a mafia protection racket, or even the claims of the modern state?
E. R. Olovetto:he feudal bond has much in it of the relation between warrior and commander, but it has even more of the relation between son and father, kinsmen and patriarch...[That is, feudal ties are essentially] private, personal, and contractual relationships
For the nobility and the kings, but not for the serfs. They were a resource, inextricably wedded to the land.
E. R. Olovetto:The subordination of king to law was one of the most important of principles under feudalism.
Sure, common law and tradition were extremely important in feudal society, which is cool, but so was the power structure which hardened into a rigid caste system, based upon collusion between what is essentially crime lord mob bosses (the nobility) and the church to exploit the vast majority of inhabitants (serfs, slaves) by threatening either terrestrial or holy retribution for not submitting to the extortion.
I'm not saying feudalism is all bad, but I don't see how the nobility is commendable, or how you could consider coercion based systematic slavery as superior to liberalism in general, even with democracy as a "necessary evil" of that system of political organization. If this isn't what Hoppe is saying, than I apologize, but I haven't seen any evidence against this.
DBratton:1) They are immortal. When the king dies the only thing that changes in the modern state is the king.
Sparta and Akkad did not continue after one king, even one dynasty?
DBratton:2) They are administratively beyond human scale. The modern state is too large for any single person to manage alone.
Who determines how much one individual can administer?
DBratton:3) They govern within defined territories. Louis XIV was not the king of the French, he was the king of France (though Louis Napoleon did later reverse this and called himself king of the French in an attempt to placate democratic forces).
Every ruler governs within defined territories. Your example seems to confirm this.
Jackson LaRose: I'm not saying feudalism is all bad, but I don't see how the nobility is commendable, or how you could consider coercion based systematic slavery as superior to liberalism in general, even with democracy as a "necessary evil" of that system of political organization. If this isn't what Hoppe is saying, than I apologize, but I haven't seen any evidence against this.
Hoppe is advocating a natural order or anarcho capitalism!...........not feudalism.............. Go get the book if you want evidence. I don't want to discuss things with people who contrive such things as above and refuse to learn on their own.
DD5: hayekianxyz:Because nobody outside the "Rothbardian bunch" even takes Hoppe seriously, I'm not even trying to be insulting here Then I will be. I think you are a troll! I have yet to see a single post from you with substance and I have yet to see a post that demonstrates that you actually know something about Austrian economics. All you ever do is resort to authority and majority opinion, you talk as if you know stuff but once you are challenged you are easily exposed for who you are - A fraud! If I respond to you, it's only for the sake of others who are less knowledgeable and may actually be fooled by your game of pretending to be knowledgeable in Austrian economics. I think you are troll who has managed to achieve 5000 posts. That is all. Congratulation.
QFT.
Giles, what is the second word on the 6th line of the footnote on page 141?
Esuric:Check amazon. The book is highly controversial, and Hoppe's argument appears to be rooted in social darwinism.
I strongly disagree. Don't reject Hoppe's insight based on a few controversies. His ability to apply economics and praxeology in political science is brilliant. In this particular case, his arguments against Democracy are deeply rooted in logical deductions. They are very convincing. He has also done great work in praxeology in general.
Don't overlook his work.
Jackson LaRose: I'm not sure I understand this distinction. In a feudal society, the barons (initially through violence, could buy/sell territory, or be granted or inherit at later dates) came into possession of large tracts of land, and the non-warrior classes who dwelt upon that land, the serfs. The barons were still considered sovereign over that territory, although they still had to pay the capo tutti capi, the king. The only distinction I can see is that there was no concept of nationhood, but many absolute monarchies also lacked this concept in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The barons were sovereign over themselves but not their territories. Only with the Treaty of Westphalia did territorial sovereignty become a fact.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
viresh amin: Are there any critiques on this book?
Are there any critiques on this book?
Here's one.
DD5:I think you are a troll!
From what I know, he was so disgraced with what he had previously wrote - he opted for a name change, because he didn't want to be associated with it.
lol.
Anyway, my critique - it's covered by IP..
E. R. Olovetto:Hoppe is advocating a natural order or anarcho capitalism!...........not feudalism.............. Go get the book if you want evidence. I don't want to discuss things with people who contrive such things as above and refuse to learn on their own.
If you want to call me wrong, then please provide evidence. Just repeatedly typing "read it yourself" is a fairly unconvincing argument.
I realize that Hoppe does not advocate feudalism as the ultimate goal, that he would consider the natural order much more preferable. What he seems to be saying though, is that democracy would be least preferable, followed by absolute monarchy, then feudalism, then the natural order as most preferable. Therefore, Hoppe is tacitly advocating systematic slavery (feudalism) over democratic liberalism. Is this a faulty proposition?
Stranger:The barons were sovereign over themselves but not their territories. Only with the Treaty of Westphalia did territorial sovereignty become a fact.
Maybe de jure, but as long as the baron forced taxes to be payed by his serfs he maintained de facto monopoly over the land and the people that worked it.
Jackson LaRose: Maybe de jure, but as long as the baron forced taxes to be payed by his serfs he maintained de facto monopoly over the land and the people that worked it.
So does the landlord who insists his tenants pay rent on their apartments, that doesn't make the apartment building a state.
Stranger:So does the landlord who insists his tenants pay rent on their apartments, that doesn't make the apartment building a state.
Only because he is still subject to a superior power. If there was no state to supersede his authority, why wouldn't he be considered a pico-state?
Also, he probably doesn't have the means to hire a cadre of knights to terrorize you if you didn't pay up.
Jackson LaRose: Only because he is still subject to a superior power. If there was no state to supersede his authority, why wouldn't he be considered a pico-state?
Because he couldn't subject his tenants to his authority.
Jackson LaRose: Also, he probably doesn't have the means to hire a cadre of knights to terrorize you if you didn't pay up.
Ha! You don't know what kind of people landlords are these days.
Conza88: From what I know, he was so disgraced with what he had previously wrote - he opted for a name change, because he didn't want to be associated with it. lol.
Hey, everyone makes mistakes*, I think we should move past it.
*except myself, of course
Stranger:Because he couldn't subject his tenants to his authority.
Why not? Either way, a baron certainly could.
Stranger:Ha! You don't know what kind of people landlords are these days.
LOL, Hey! I'm a landlord!
Jackson LaRose:Therefore, Hoppe is tacitly advocating systematic slavery (feudalism) over democratic liberalism. Is this a faulty proposition?
Pretend I am vegetarian. I want to eat and prefer vegetables to meat to rotting flesh. This does not mean that I tacitly advocate eating meat. Is this a faulty analogy?
Angurse: Conza88: From what I know, he was so disgraced with what he had previously wrote - he opted for a name change, because he didn't want to be associated with it. lol. Hey, everyone makes mistakes*, I think we should move past it. *except myself, of course
The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.
Still, this is the same rote "arguments" from the same trolls. I don't see any solution other than to ignore them now.
Jackson LaRose: Stranger:Because he couldn't subject his tenants to his authority. Why not? Either way, a baron certainly could.
Because there were other higher authorities the tenants could appeal to.
E. R. Olovetto:Pretend I am vegetarian. I want to eat and prefer vegetables to meat to rotting flesh. This does not mean that I tacitly advocate eating meat. Is this a faulty analogy?
Yes it is. If you prefer vegetables to meat to rotten meat, then you tacitly advocate meat to rotten meat. In other words, "if it has to be meat, at least make it fresh". To make an analogy to this in Hoppe's proposition:
"If there has to be a system of government, at least make it feudalism (or rather, absolute monarchy, because Hoppe considers feudalism a stateless society)"
Stranger:Because there were other higher authorities the tenants could appeal to.
Who were not in collusion to keep the serfs enslaved? Like the church, or the king?
Jackson LaRose: Stranger:Because there were other higher authorities the tenants could appeal to. Who were not in collusion to keep the serfs enslaved? Like the church, or the king?
You see collusion in everything.
E. R. Olovetto:Giles, I searched for the 2 authors you mentioned. I know what public choice is. Your only "argument" is an argumentum ad populem or appeal to public sentiment. Most people once believed that the sun revolved around the Earth too. I gave you 2 papers regarding "public goods" in your ridiculous asteroid thread. These assumptions of a homo economicus are part of the flaws of the scientistic professional economist.
Like I said, Brennan & Lomasky maintain a symmetry in their assumptions whilst rejection behavioural symmetry between markets and politics. They don't assume that all political actors are wealth maximizers (however defined) for similar reasons to Caplan. On the other hand, I would argue that Hoppe does indeed assume that all political actors are narrowly construed wealth maximisers and ignores the role of ignorance and ideology in politics, in fact, this is one of the major problems I have with Hoppe's thesis.
My other problem with Hoppe's work is that it ignores what was discussed in the passage I quoted earlier, the tradition of work that looks at those institutional arrangements that will elect democratic leaders who will work for the public good. And then of course there are the citation problems that cause his arguments to be highly misleading.
DD5: Then I will be. I think you are a troll! I have yet to see a single post from you with substance and I have yet to see a post that demonstrates that you actually know something about Austrian economics. All you ever do is resort to authority and majority opinion, you talk as if you know stuff but once you are challenged you are easily exposed for who you are - A fraud! If I respond to you, it's only for the sake of others who are less knowledgeable and may actually be fooled by your game of pretending to be knowledgeable in Austrian economics.
Public choice theory is perfectly compatible with Austrian economics (praxeology), and it's a very powerful argument against democracy. Listen to this.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Any good, substantial critiques? Other than Block's on Hoppe's position on immigration, no, not that I know of.
I'll forestall some:
-He hates teh gay
No, he argues a) restrictive covenants could be used to form societies excluding them (bear in mind this is all voluntary and is an illustration to conservatives of how they can have their idyllic societies without a state or initiation of force) and b) that because they tend not to marry and beget heirs, their TP horizon is lower and their TP consequently higher. That's all.
-He's a feudalist or portrays feudalism positively:
No, he argues it is superordinate in its performance vis-a-vis democracy and is a step closer to anarcho-capitalism relative to the latter. He uses ample sources to substantiate the position as well as praxeologically rooted theory, so if you wish to disprove it, first make sure you know as much as he does when discussing the topic. He is using historians who challenge conventional interpretations of the period.
Then this
On the other hand, I would argue that Hoppe does indeed assume that all political actors are narrowly construed wealth maximisers and ignores the role of ignorance and ideology in politics, in fact, this is one of the major problems I have with Hoppe's thesis.
He does? I don't think so. His argument hardly requires it and if they are not wealth-maximisers, so much the worse for the prosperity of any nation under their thumb. And as for Caplan, his own work is hardly original and not something Hoppe draws upon. Keep up the insults against Hoppe's person and the exultation of academia, you're in a place where it frankly means nothing.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Stranger:You see collusion in everything.
Me personally?
Jon Irenicus:And as for Caplan, his own work is hardly original
Really? Who does he "steal" from?
Where did I imply he 'steals' from anyone? He develops ideas pregnant in Mises's thoughts and the Public Choice school, as Hoppe more or less does too...
Jon Irenicus:Where did I imply he 'steals' from anyone? He develops ideas pregnant in Mises's thoughts and the Public Choice school, as Hoppe more or less does too...
You didn't. I was asking for the originator of the ideas, the scare quotes were just making fun of IP "borrows from," "takes from" whatever.
You could even attribute a crude version of his argument to Friedman re government not spending its own money, nevermind Mises or the Virginia School. His core premise doesn't seem as potent as the Austrian case against democracy; at best, supplementary.
Esuric:Public choice theory is perfectly compatible with Austrian economics (praxeology), and it's a very powerful argument against democracy. Listen to this.
It is powerful but not as powerful as it can be. The public choice theory sort of accepts the premise of the theoretical existence of such a thing as a collective policy or even the notion of the "public good", and then proceeds to show why the goals are not likely to be achieved due to all sort of problems associated with incentives. The arguments from what I've heard are indeed sound, at least most of them.
But it overlooks the possibility that the premise itself of the existence of a collective policy is completely fallacious and purely mystical in nature. It is not possible even in theory to benefit society as a whole due to the fact that all public/government policies are economically zero-sum games. One can benefit only by somebody else loosing. The political system is inherently exploitative regardless of the incentives and how informed voters are.
Jackson LaRose: Sparta and Akkad did not continue after one king, even one dynasty?
Not in the political sense, no. Anyone in prison was set free. Any laws enacted by the old king became void. You get the idea.
Jackson LaRose: Who determines how much one individual can administer?
Physics. This isn't an abstract restriction. Bureaucracies can enable a ruler to govern territories and institutions that no single man could ever have managed, but at the price that the ruler is now dependent on the bureaucracy.
Jackson LaRose: Every ruler governs within defined territories. Your example seems to confirm this.
When a feudal knight traveled from one kingdom to another his obligations did not change. The laws of a modern state end at its border (though the US government seems determines to escape this limitation).
Esuric:If Hoppe is indeed supporting social darwinism
That is a crazy accusation.