Stranger: 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.
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.
Stranger: Perhaps the greatest thing about Hoppe is that he drives all the right people hysterical.
Some people love power. You cannot promote freedom to them. They are not interested. They must be exposed.
Such statements are highly disingenous, given you are the one defender power in these debates.
Brainpolice:I'm not a hippy. I'm a free market libertarian who refuses to accept blatant right-wing deviationism.
You're a commie, libertine, socialist, hippie.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:I'm not a hippy. I'm a free market libertarian who refuses to accept blatant right-wing deviationism. You're a commie, libertine, socialist, hippie.
Wow, I am glad to see an intelectual debate of ideas!
Sphairon: 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?
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?
How realistic is this scenario? Who in the right mind would come up with such a silly contract?
ryanpatgray:I think the only people who are entirely unreachable are tax collectors and most members of high elected office. All you need to show them is that they will be better off in a free society.
But they won't be better off. How could they be better off without their power?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Wow, so you persist in childishly calling people names and misrepresenting them. You don't make your side of these debates look good at all by demonstrating an inability to engage people rationally. Well, since you aren't willing to engage in rational argumentation, I'll take a pot shot at you: by your own theory of rights, in which rational argumentation in an explicit sense is its prerequisite, I suspect you don't have any rights, since you have demonstrated an inability to engage in rational argumentation. Therefore, you should be removed from free society (following your wonderful Hoppean logic).
As for the content of the names you've called me, I fit none of the descriptions. I'm not a communist, since I support individual and private property and reject Marx's theory of history and alienation. I'm not a socialist either, since I reject the labor theory of value and hold "petty burgeousie" ideas. I'm not a hippy, since that era is long over and I don't live on some kind of psychadelic farm. And I'm not a libertine, I don't even drink alchohol, my sex life is quite boring, and the worst I do is cigarettes and sometimes pot.
Any more blatant misrepresentations you have for me?
Juan:HOW ?
By putting a lot of work into it?
Seriously though, I'm living in a village community of about 750 people. The space all those people are currently occupying could easily be homesteaded by one committed individual. I don't see your problem.
Jack and Joe are next-door property owners. Both mutually agree to found an evangelical community.
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."
Stranger: ryanpatgray:I think the only people who are entirely unreachable are tax collectors and most members of high elected office. All you need to show them is that they will be better off in a free society. But they won't be better off. How could they be better off without their power?
Almost everyone except tax collectors and high ranking elected officials (i.e. members of congress not named Paul or Flake and the President or Vice President) would be better off. I believe in the power of human liberty. In a free society they can achieve dreams they never thought were achievable. Power is like a hard drug - it is pleasurable but also has nasty side effects as Epicurus pointed out thousands of years ago. True pleasure comes from personal goals that do not involve lording over others.
Sphairon: Juan:HOW ? By putting a lot of work into it? Seriously though, I'm living in a village community of about 750 people. The space all those people are currently occupying could easily be homesteaded by one committed individual. I don't see your problem.
The fact that people are currently occupying it means it isn't homesteadable to begin with. I can't just "homestead" property other people already own. So how does an individual claim ownership over this community without becoming a defacto monarch?
ryanpatgray: Almost everyone except tax collectors and high ranking elected officials (i.e. members of congress not named Paul or Flake and the President or Vice President). I believe in the power of human liberty. In a free society they can achieve dreams they never thought were achievable. Power is like a hard drug - it is pleasurable but also has nasty side effects as Epicurus pointed out thousands of years ago. True pleasure comes from personal goals that do not involve lording over others.
Almost everyone except tax collectors and high ranking elected officials (i.e. members of congress not named Paul or Flake and the President or Vice President). I believe in the power of human liberty. In a free society they can achieve dreams they never thought were achievable. Power is like a hard drug - it is pleasurable but also has nasty side effects as Epicurus pointed out thousands of years ago. True pleasure comes from personal goals that do not involve lording over others.
You may believe that, but many people believe in power. Even if they themselves are powerless, they are in awe of power. They will obviously become hysterical when the myths of power are challenged.
Take for example the issue of American imperialism. It may seem obvious that a free society would never engage in such adventures. However there is a group of people who claim to be for liberty that are also full supporters of imperial adventures to "liberate" other countries. They love power more than liberty.
Brainpolice:How realistic is this scenario? Who in the right mind would come up with such a silly contract?
Who on earth would actually risk doing hard drugs? Who in their right mind would become a Navy SEAL, considering how dangerous this is? Who would dare crossing an untamed ocean to settle on some undeveloped land just to pursue one's wacky religion?Answer: People with a high time preference, people with a high risk preference, people with a high religious preference.Libertarianism is about recognizing preferences as subjective. The question is not "who would want to do that?", but "why should I keep the person from doing that?".
Stranger: ryanpatgray: Almost everyone except tax collectors and high ranking elected officials (i.e. members of congress not named Paul or Flake and the President or Vice President). I believe in the power of human liberty. In a free society they can achieve dreams they never thought were achievable. Power is like a hard drug - it is pleasurable but also has nasty side effects as Epicurus pointed out thousands of years ago. True pleasure comes from personal goals that do not involve lording over others. You may believe that, but many people believe in power. Even if they themselves are powerless, they are in awe of power. They will obviously become hysterical when the myths of power are challenged.
Your rhetoric is so disingenous as to be laughable, given that you are the one argueing for a myth of power here.
Sphairon: Brainpolice:How realistic is this scenario? Who in the right mind would come up with such a silly contract? Who on earth would actually risk doing hard drugs? Who in their right mind would become a Navy SEAL, considering how dangerous this is? Who would dare crossing an untamed ocean to settle on some undeveloped land just to pursue one's wacky religion?Answer: People with a high time preference, people with a high risk preference, people with a high religious preference.Libertarianism is about recognizing preferences as subjective. The question is not "who would want to do that?", but "why should I keep the person from doing that?".
Libertarianism is not about recognizing preferances as subjective. I think you are misunderstanding or blowing up the subjective theory of value, which has to do with economic value, not ethical value. Libertarianism by no means implies that all ethical preferances are completely subjective. If I have the ethical preferance to violate your individual rights, this is not purely subjective and it would obviously contradict libertarianism.
This depends upon HOW they are challenged. There are ways to demonstrate that they already practice liberty in their own lives most of the time. Do they ask a government planning board before they buy a new pair of shoes? Probably not.
Brainpolice:Any more blatant misrepresentations you have for me
Probably, I'm still laughing from the last lot.
ryanpatgray: This depends upon HOW they are challenged. There are ways to demonstrate that they already practice liberty in their own lives most of the time. Do they ask a government planning board before they buy a new pair of shoes? Probably not.
It is perfectly possible to support an all-powerful state that practices economic liberalism for utilitarian purposes.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Any more blatant misrepresentations you have for me Probably, I'm still laughing from the last lot.
Well, at least you're semi-honest about being a troll.
Juan:Okay. Jack and Joe believe in wholly unprovable fairy tales and use coercion to get their children to submit to the same sort of irrational belief ? How do you, supposedly a ' libertarian', feel about that ?
Yes, and the same can be said about any other "fairy tale" type behavior. Giles will gladly step in for me and give some good reasons why hippieness should vanish from the earth. Some ecologically sensitive parents may also freak the hell out of their children with their Gaia beliefs.Now what? How do you feel about that? Maybe a libertarian society needs CPS to make sure everyone gets their right indoctrination? "I will now force you to accept liberty"?
By the way, children are totally unrelated to our topic. Strawman told me he's pretty annoyed now.
Brainpolice:The fact that people are currently occupying it means it isn't homesteadable to begin with. I can't just "homestead" property other people already own.
You missed my point. I argued that considering my personal experiences with small community living, I find it not unlikely that one single person might homestead property that can sustain a considerably larger number of inhabitants later on.I did not advocate homesteading already homesteaded property.
Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Any more blatant misrepresentations you have for me Probably, I'm still laughing from the last lot. Well, at least you're semi-honest about being a troll.
Right now? Yes.
Juan:Really ? 750 people are ALL at once going to voluntary sell their houses/land ?
You know, once upon a time in a land called America, there were communities that consisted of people of the same religion only. Indeed, this was not a random act of nature, but a conscious decision on behalf of the settlers to live like that.Of course, already existing communities might have a much greater diversity of people living in them. However, it cannot be ruled out that, say, a very devouted Catholic community buys up all the land in one particular village area to establish the kind of property constellation I described above.Why are you so hostile towards religious communities?
Brainpolice:Libertarianism by no means implies that all ethical preferances are completely subjective. If I have the ethical preferance to violate your individual rights, this is not purely subjective and it would obviously contradict libertarianism.
And to what extent did my "massive homesteading" or "mutually agreed-upon community living" examples violate anyone's rights?The only valid point that has been made is that it's highly unlikely. So? Should we not tolerate this kind of behavior because it's uncommon?
Sphairon:You know, once upon a time in a land called America, there were communities that consisted of people of the same religion only. Indeed, this was not a random act of nature, but a conscious decision on behalf of the settlers to live like that.Of course, already existing communities might have a much greater diversity of people living in them. However, it cannot be ruled out that, say, a very devouted Catholic community buys up all the land in one particular village area to establish the kind of property constellation I described above.
Juan's missing the time aspect. First one community founder acquires the land, and then he develops the community by attracting people who find value in living amongst people who share their beliefs, who become his tenants in exchange for not having the burden of land ownership.
You can see a narrow application of this in a shopping mall.
Stranger: ryanpatgray: This depends upon HOW they are challenged. There are ways to demonstrate that they already practice liberty in their own lives most of the time. Do they ask a government planning board before they buy a new pair of shoes? Probably not. It is perfectly possible to support an all-powerful state that practices economic liberalism for utilitarian purposes.
This would be an oxymoron. An all-powerful state would not and could not practice economic liberalism (by the classical definition).
Sphairon:Why are you so hostile towards religious communities?
Because Juan is an angry little man. He couldnt stand the thought that somewhere, some people may live happily in a religious community that discriminates against people like him.
I personally find Hoppe to be brilliant, and basically agree with everything he says.
What's with all the name calling today?
Sphairon:Yes, and the same can be said about any other "fairy tale" type behavior.
You know, once upon a time in a land called America, there were communities that consisted of people of the same religion only.
Why are you so hostile towards religious communities?
Juan is an anti theist from one of the one world's most catholic countries, no wonder he has a chip on his shoulder.
Juan:Of course. Exactly my point. Earth worshipers are no different than people who believe in the jesus myth or any other fairy tale. All those myths rely on fraud. which, you know, might be problematic...
So, because you consider religions to be fraudulent, you draw which kind of logical line to property associations based on one of them ... ?
You mean witch-burning puritans ?
Strawman wants a pay raise now.
Am I ?
At least you seem to be bending over backwards to demonstrate how they are not compatible with libertarian principles.
ryanpatgray: What's with all the name calling today?
Isn't it like this everyday?
majevska:Isn't it like this everyday?
majevska: ryanpatgray: What's with all the name calling today? Isn't it like this everyday?
Not this bad.
Sphairon: You mean witch-burning puritans ? Strawman wants a pay raise now.
ryanpatgray:Not this bad.
I log on, and see at the top of the forums "Hans-Hermann Hoppe" and thought, "this will get really ugly".
Surprisingly, no one has accused anyone of being a monarchist yet, so perhaps it won't get as hot as it could.
ryanpatgray:How is that a strawman? It is an example from history of how a particular religion was used as a pretext to murder and violate rights. That is not a strawman.
If I remember correctly, the topic was the unlikelihood of a larger community forming around a single core value. I cited religious communities in the colonial United States as an example. Juan then proceeded to say that they burned witches.That seems to not exactly match the topic. Thus, I called it a strawman.By the way, I heard LibertyStudent has a crush on Queen Elizabeth.
It's not so much that what Professor Hoppe has to say is hard to swallow. It's the fact that it's hard to swallow, but worse, it's well argued. See that's why everyone from Tom Palmer to BP will go out of their way to smear Professor Hoppe as some sort of racist Neo-Nazi/ monarchists, because actually refuting what he say is so difficult.
Anyway, in case anybody doesn't know I'm a huge fan of Professor Hoppe, and rank him far above Rothbard in terms of greatness and contributions to Austrian Economics. His book D:TGTF is groundbreaking and his book A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism is a very well argued extension to Power & Market in my opinion that follows on from Rothbard and elaborates clearly.
As for the insults, no doubt I'm guilty here, but it'll stop once I begin reading again after the holidays are over, I suppose.
Sphairon:By the way, I heard LibertyStudent has a crush on Queen Elizabeth.
My friends know me as the Duke of URL.
GS:Juan is an anti theist from one of the one world's most catholic countries, no wonder he has a chip on his shoulder.