I would say he held libertarian ideas, but I would not defend Haller as a libertarian through & through… I would say he was an unpure statist who help sympathic and/or parallel views similar to libertarian thought.
Although, i’m of course going on what was written on the wikipedia article & not from a deep understanding from having read his works.
We really need a monarchist subforum around here. At least a monarchist group.
They just compared von Haller to John Calhoun…a libertarian.
I think your original assessment was pretty accurate.
If you check out the second link provided by Marko:
“Haller fought against the liberal docterines of the social contract and for the thesis that all government authority was the private property of the ruler.”
Combine that with a homesteading theory of property and you have a private property anarchist.
Hey Jon, do you realize that my reading of the word ‘liberal’ is correct and that the catholic church (which Haller joined…) clearly states that
“All his later writings are influenced by the ideas here set forth, and oppose vigorously the revolutionary tendencies of the times and the champions of liberalism in Church and State.”
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5500
How do you manage to twist the meaning of that sentence ? A person who vigorously opposes the champions of (classical) liberalism is…what ? A classical liberal ? Yeah right.
Which is nowhere to be found. What Herr Haller did provide however was support for the deranged notion that ‘god’ decided that an ordinary criminal (monarch) or oligarchy had the right to enslave their fellows.
Lots of people may held one or two libertarian views, but that doesn’t make them libertarians…
He did? DId I miss a link?
Cause it seems to me that you saw “Catholic” and decided that no thiest could be a libertarian.
I already had acknowledge that and then disregarded it as ambiguous.
Only you are a libertarian. If I can get my monarchist forum group off the ground, I hope you will be our King.
I think we should look for the most self righteous person around to fulfill this role.
We can even award him a crown icon.
Give me a break. Either liberal means modern liberalism (social democracy) or it means classical liberalism – it can’t be ambiguous.
It is obvious, judging by context, that it means classical liberalism. The whole bio of Haller shows that he was a conservative.
Feel free to disregard reality when it clashes with your fictional view of history though.
Hi Jon. The anarcho-monarchist lynching mob is getting together ?
I thought you did, but on a re-read it seems the part: Ludwig objected however, to his “deistic-naturalism” , maintaining that legitimate monarchs governed by the grace of God, not by right of stronger, refers to one Ludwig von Gerlach rather than to Karl Ludwig von Haller. Albeit a “legitimate monarch” is a rather obvious oxymoron.
That being said I do not see how anyone speaking up for formal inequality (feudalism), an inequality of induviduals in rights and freedoms can be a libertarian. Such order is neccesarily coercive regardless of their fantasies of organic order or whatever. It makes me wonder if the only reason he opposed the modern state was because in it he saw a threat to his parasitic class - the nobility.
We prefer to be called by our royal titles. He’s Duke Jon and I am Baron Liberty Student.
Lynch Mob? You’re like a guy in a bar fight, wildly throwing punches, hoping they connect with someone other than the waitress. There’s no lynch mob, except a bunch of people who are tired of being mis-characterized by you, the only REAL libertarian in the world.
Liberty Student, do you think you can manage to say something meaningful about the political affiliation of Haller ? Or are you going to talk to about me (me being an exceedingly boring subject I think) ?
Here’s what the German Wikipedia entry had to say about the man. Might clear things up a bit.
Haller’s political thought, which he developed by using countless repetitions and a sometimes tiring circuity in his main opus and his numerous short writings, is founded on the thesis that man’s “natural condition” cannot be abolished by any social or sovereignty contract, but endures unabatedly and defines all political relations immediately. All legal relations are, according to Haller, of a “private law” nature; there cannot be a state law that aspires to be anything else. The “natural law” of the rule of the strongest over the weak is God’s will, every ruler is God’s governor and has a divine right to rule. However, the rule of the strongest is not an absolute right: the strongest is bound by God’s law to support and to protect the weak and possesses no right to ignore this divine moral order. That’s why the often-cited accusation that Haller had paved the way for a “stark naturalism of power” is not true. Every ruler who violates the divine right may be revolted against by his subjects, according to Haller.
Haller’s doctrine of the patrimonial state was of some importance for the further development of German conservatism. According to Haller, every state has its roots in the family: since only independent family chiefs could be free land owners, monarchy originated from their rule after some time as a “natural” form of governance. In the later volumes of his main opus Haller develops a typology of the different kinds of states; he makes a distinction between the patrimonial state and military states, the ecclesial state (which describes pure theocracy) as well as the republic. Haller’s theory was rejected by most contemporary scholars and jurists due to his misjudgement of the modern state as a fact [not really sure what that means, though], among his most vocal critics was Hegel. On the other hand, Haller strongly influenced almost all leading conservative politicians, thinkers and publicists of his epoch, such as Carl Ernst Jarcke, Ernst Ludwig von Gerlach and Carl Wilhelm von Lancizolle. He had a huge net of acquaintances and connections all over Europe and may be considered the center of an “international league of ultras” in the era of restauration between 1815 and 1848.
Sorry guys, but he looks like a conservative monarchist, albeit a somewhat Hoppean one.
A philosopher king type? I would have to read his rejection of the social contract, since he believed laws derived from a political majority were invalid. I read somewhere else that he believed laws and contracts should be %100 contractual, and not a product of majority consent. Perhaps he takes an approach to the state, like Plato, who said the Greek polis was anarchos, or without ruler.
So how many jewels would you like in that crown? Would you like a matching sceptre too?
BTW, what makes you think liberal positions could not be confined to particular issues? So he disagreed with liberal positions on church and state? What does that mean? That he rejected laissez-faire capitalism in toto? It would seem not. I’ll be honest though and say that he does not seem particularly libertarian, in any way. He simply shares some positions.
Awfully generous of you, but I don’t recall having accepted the job ?
By the way, Have you read Gustave de Molinari’s “Les Soirées de la rue Saint-Lazare” ? It’s an amazing book which contrasts, by means of dialog, three political positions : socialism, conservatism and liberalism (or libertarianism if you prefer). I mention it because some people seem to have a hard time telling conservatism apart from libertarianism.
Here’s an online french version. I think it’s also available in English but not in electronic format.
http://herve.dequengo.free.fr/Molinari/SRSL/SRSL_0.htm
Thanks.
You don’t have to accept. We accept your point. As the greatest and only sincere libertarian, we have no choice but to acknowledge you as our King, Lord of the monarchists.
All hail King Juan! May his reign outlast the sun!
No, but then the difference is inconsequential to me anyway because in the context of anarchism it reduces to a matter of preferences. I plan on reading de Molinari when I have more time, though.
Well, yes, but I’m not talking about an hypothetical voluntary conservatism but about conservatism as a historical fact and ideological movement.
For instance, here’s Molinari’s take on conservative philosophy. (the first chapter of the Soirees is actually online)
ECONOMIST
There are economic laws that govern society, just as there are physical laws that govern the material world.
These laws have for their essence Utility and Justice. That is to say, when one observes them with absolute strictness, one’s actions are certain to be advantageous and equitable both for oneself and for others.
CONSERVATIVE
Aren’t you exaggerating a bit? Do the economic and moral sciences truly contain any principles that are absolutely applicable at all times and in all places? I confess I have never believed in absolute principles.
ECONOMIST
What sort of principles do you believe in, then?
CONSERVATIVE
Good Lord! I believe, like all men who have closely observed the affairs of this world, that the laws of justice and the rules of utility are essentially mutable, variable. Hence I believe that no universal and absolute system can be absed on these rules. As M. Joseph de Maistre used to say: I have seen men everywhere, but nowhere have I seen Man. Well, one may likewise say, I believe, that there are societies, having their particular laws appropriate to their nature, but that there is no such thing as Society in the singular, governed by general laws.