I really don’t understand these “libertarians” who oppose Hoppe. Please outline succinctly your legal theory.
Who are you talking to?
those are two of the dumbest responses possible
I thought it would be rather amusing. I could have listed various businesses with the name Hoppe.
Anti-Hoppeanism among Libertarians is a good proxy for assessing how infected they are with the disease of egalitarianism/cultural leftism.
Well, I’m still waiting for the theory.
May as well fix a sammy, since I think you might be waiting for a long time. You still haven’t indicated who you are talking to.
“You still haven’t indicated who you are talking to.”
Sounds like he’s talking to anybody who opposes Hoppes legal theory. If you accept Hoppes legal theory then he’s not talking to you. What’s not to get?
I too, wish to see what peoples alternatives will be.
I just don’t like the insinuation that by not buying Hoppe’s ideas hook, line and sinker, I am somehow anti-“the man”
This thread could have been titled differently.
Like, “Conceptions of Justice which differ from Hoppe’s”
Then I, as someone who is partial to the ideas of David Friedman and de Jasay, might be inclined to respond.
Still waiting.
We still don’t know who or what are you talking about.
You can’t be serious.
You will be waiting a long time. Try articulating an argument next time.
Your thread name and your comment are talking about two different things: justice theory and legal theory. “Outline succintly” Hoppe’s justice theory or legal theory and next time I’m on the message boards I’ll give a response including where I agree or disagree. BTW, I’m anti-egalitarian and an anarchist, just not an Austro-Libertarian.
You will be waiting a long time. Try articulating an argument next time.
I’m just waiting for people, such as yourself, who oppose Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, to outline their own theory of justice. My contention is that you are a bunch of finger-pokers without a theory of justice of your own. Until you state your theory of justice, you are proving my thesis.
One doesn’t require a theory of their own in order to disprove AE. I shouldn’t have to tell you that.
As far as being finger-pokers, if you want to believe in something that isn’t logically sound and then name call anyone who points out the failure of your theory, then have at it. It says more about you than the people who would prove your ideas unsound.
Still waiting.
Would it kill you to make a better OP? Being obtuse isn’t going to get you anywhere.
For those of you who deny the validity of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics: what is the basis of your theory of law?
It’s not my fault that you can’t answer the question.