If one does not believe that he himself is better than others, I don’t think he will have any chances of sucess at really doing something great. Believing is the first, necessary step.
Please, do tell.
I have read almost everything Hoppe has written in English and listened to every lecture of his available online. To the best of my knowledge, he has never refered to himself as a natural elite. Perhaps you could provide some sort of reference or quotation.
Now, whatever can be said about Hoppe’s character, it is not exactly gentlemanly to vaguely attack someone’s character in on a public forum.
“There are grades of intelligence and variations in personality. The majority of people are both dull and herdish. The intelligent and herdish form most of what Hoppe calls the ‘natural elite’, these are those of a theocratical bent; the independent and stupid probably tend towards criminal occupations and sloth. Those who are intelligent and independent are generally considered dangerous by everybody else.”
Sorry, but he says that natural elites have independent minds. He does not characterize them as being herdish.
The false choice seems to be between sanctioning the arbitrary whims of the majority and buying into a romantic picture of a special class of aristocrats. What’s offensive about “elitism” is that it’s often just a shody effort to portray certain people in positions of power as inherently superior, and it’s inherently self-destructive with respect to any notion of bringing about meaningful political change at a societal level. But “populism” is often just a misguided effort to form a big tent without most of everyone in that tent understanding much about the political philosophy involved, basically leading to the dissolution or takeover of one’s own “movement”. In a nutshell, libertarian elitism is unwarranted narcissism and libertarian populism is precisely the reason why it is functionally a hodge-podge of incompatible ideological factions.
In fact, if it is unsubstantiated, it is a violation of the forum rules.
EiT, would you like to back that up or retract it?
Hear that, folks? Questioning the character of sacred cows is against the rules.
reading comprehension?
casting about unsubstantiated aspersions on faculty is not the same thing as using facts to challenge them or ones perception of them.
The policy is very simple and has been in place for years.
Folks who want to spread rumor, conjecture or character assassinate LvMI and/or its scholars and staff, do so elsewhere. Individuals using this platform to undermine the Institute will be shown the door.
Folks who want to spread rumor, conjecture or character assassinate LvMI and/or its scholars and staff, do so elsewhere. Individuals using this platform to undermine the Institute will be shown the door
I never meant to character assassinate anybody and I really don’t want to get into this kind of argument, so do what you will.
I was writing towards BrainPolice, not you.
I don’t have a problem with something you want to say about Hoppe, if you’re willing to substantiate it.
I don’t think that belief is necessary at all. Of what purpose does it serve towards the actual goal? One simply has to be involved in his own work- ego trips seem a bit irrelevant to me if you’d like to explain. I would think that instead it shows ignorance.
I think this drama about Hoppe is a bit silly though, who cares how he conducts himself from time to time, can anyone really claim perfection?
The guy is a notorious bigot both in his own explicit words and based on the personal accounts of a multitude of people.
You’re well aware of what the standard here is BP. If you’re going to make statements about someone’s character, provide justification, not hearsay and assertion.
You can back this up or move along.
The guy is a notorious bigot both in his own explicit words and based on the personal accounts of a multitude of people.
I don’t know if you’re right or wrong, but it’s kind of off topic either way. [EDIT by LS] Don’t bait me.
I think this drama about Hoppe is a bit silly though, who cares how he conducts himself from time to time, can anyone really claim perfection?
I agree. I can’t spend my life worrying about whether people are bigots. Most of them are. Personally I find wealthism more obnoxious and pervasive than racism.
I don’t think that belief is necessary at all. Of what purpose does it serve towards the actual goal? One simply has to be involved in his own work- ego trips seem a bit irrelevant to me if you’d like to explain. I would think that instead it shows ignorance.
In theory I cannot see a connection, but form every single example in real life I’ve ever seen or heard of, no one who ever doubted seriously in himself ever succeeded. Now boasting is something else, but quietely and to one’s self, all those who contributed greatly in society - those I’d call a natural aristocracy, if the term means anything to you - all have had a strong belief in themselves.
Ahh ok I see what you’re saying. But believing in oneself doesn’t seem to imply believing that you’re better than others does it? I think people who believe themselves to be inferior to others(in a general sense, not in terms of specific skillsets) will definitely have trouble with succeeding in anything great since they’ve already set up limiting factors. But it doesn’t have to be a choice between believing in superiority or inferiority in relation to others when dealing with the self and its potential of success.
Hm, interesting. Well, depends on the emotinal weight you put on that ‘superior’. But love for the masses is something else I percieve as lacking to these guys.
The false choice seems to be between sanctioning the arbitrary whims of the majority and buying into a romantic picture of a special class of aristocrats. What’s offensive about “elitism” is that it’s often just a shody effort to portray certain people in positions of power as inherently superior, and it’s inherently self-destructive with respect to any notion of bringing about meaningful political change at a societal level. But “populism” is often just a misguided effort to form a big tent without most of everyone in that tent understanding much about the political philosophy involved, basically leading to the dissolution or takeover of one’s own “movement”. In a nutshell, libertarian elitism is unwarranted narcissism and libertarian populism is precisely the reason why it is functionally a hodge-podge of incompatible ideological factions.
I think this is a pretty spot on generality if one is referring to how libertarians tend to think and use the terms, and if the reader notices you put the words in question in quotations.
But love for the masses is something else I percieve as lacking to these guys.
Subjectively speaking I don’t think many people are worth loving, it is a waste of emotional energy.
That’s if you’re coming from the place where loving people in general expends any emotional energy. I don’t think it does at all. It can just be an ever present part of you.