I think the article does make sense, I’m not sure if it’s correct thought and I’ve seen little empirical evidence in support of it. Perhaps some states arose in that way, but I find it makes little sense because his notion of the rise of the state makes it seem largely voluntary. And yet, he criticizes Buchanan and Tullock harshly for making a similar point. Now, besides the fact that I’m not sure if Hoppe understands what Public Choice and the Virginia School are about, it seems to me to be nothing more than an unfair reading of the arguments made by other scientists. See, this is my biggest criticism of the LvMI and many associated with it (excluding some like Salerno, Huelsmann, Klein, Gordon, Thornton etc.), they seem to be more interested in public intellectual work and libertarian “propaganda” than objective scientific analysis.
It’s a shame because it reflects badly on Austrian economics. I wouldn’t mind if he stayed in the realm of being a public intellectual like, say, Lew Rockwell. But when he presents these theories as science I can’t help but be disappointed.
What does this have to do with anything? Why is it any time I make a post and you disagree with it you feel the need to point out that Austrians aren’t positivists. I know this, but I don’t see why this means that Austrians should focus of scientific analysis as opposed to libertarian “propaganda” for a lack of a better word.
This is why Rothbard always said that economists should know more history.
You are asking why Austrianism isn’t about objective scientific truths of the world. Bluntly you are asking why Austrians are not logical positivists. Remember methodological dualism and economics is not a natural science.
No, I’m not! Austrianism is about objective scientific truths of the world. That objective truths that can be discovered a priori is what Austrians believe economic science should be about, I’ve not once asked why Austrians are not logical positivists.
Why? Or are you just toeing the party line and using the catch phrases handed down to you by Rothbard?
False analogy. If you equate monarchism to infancy then what is Britain? Some baby state that conquered a vast portion of the world? You have no way of telling the political future and you are using ridiculous statements to hide that.
The thesis that one demagogue is able to overthrow the ‘natural elites’ is hardly plausible. That’s why there’s no evidence for it.
Yes, in that article Hoppe starts with a voluntary government - he just takes for granted that such governments exist(ed). Fine. The question is, how can a such government be overthrown ? Simply by using demagoguery ? By promising ‘cheaper’ justice ? I don’t think so.
What you don’t seem to be grasping, or are trying to ignore, is that ‘economic science’ supports the moral position known as libertarianism. If you don’t like libertarianism maybe you should forget that economic ‘science’ exists.
I could have said that a tree cannot turn back into a seed as well, or that a supernova cannot shrink back into a solar system. The point is that science tells us how things unfold from one step to the next. They do not simply change aspects randomly.
Economics isn’t a ‘science’ in terms of supernovas or botony. You keep on pumping out these horrible analogies as they were your proof alone that you are correct in thinking you can rationally deduce the future without error. Whatever you do, don’t use the cunning ‘you cannot degrade non-biogradables’ analogy. The logic alone will blow my mind.