Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a genius.
I don’t find his views on monarchy or natural elites distasteful. What bothers me is his “cultural conservatism.” He seems to believe that a free society will mean the end of all “alternative lifestyles,” (read: anything incongruous with his own personal preferences). This is because all such lifestyles are supposedly state supported and cannot survive in the state’s absence; homosexuality, pornography (as if viewing pornography is “alternative” rather than the norm), rock and roll, and anything else he doesn’t like are all apparently artificial creations of the state.
That being said I think he’s great thinker. I believe his theory on monarchy is perhaps incomplete and may need slight revision (possibly only in the way he simplifies it), but overall I agree with it. I like the way he tends to approach the topic of ancap is his lectures: he simply describes it as a society without a monopoly on the use of force and then shows that the belief in its necessity is a flimsy superstition.
He says rock and roll will disappear?
I hear that. I can’t stand Tom Palmer.
rotflmao
The state in Europe did not emerge when absolutism replaced feudalism, but when fedualism replaced tribalism.
Hoppe’s theories about the rise of the state are clearly wrong. Interestingly, those theories and the concept of so called natural elites, DON’T appear in his book about socialism and capitalism. It seems to me that at some point Hoppe decided to come up with some ‘theory’ palatable to conservatives, hence his DTGTF.
On the other hand Juan criticizes books he hasn’t read.
I’ve browsed it and know I’m not wasting my time with it. Out of curiosity, did you read “A theory of socialism and capitalism” ?
As a side note…Hoppe’s views on immigration are (badly) flawed, which makes me wonder how can he be regarded by some as a ‘genius’…?
Anthony Gregory and Walter Block : Defending Open Immigration: A Reply to Hoppe
If you like Hoppe, you might also appreciate Erik Kuehnelt-Leddihn. There are a couple of EKL’s books available online on this site. There is also one lecture in the media section.
Einstein was flawed on many of his views of Quantum Mechanics, yet people still call him a genius.
I didn’t realize the word genius was synonymous with infallible.
Same with Mises and Rothbard and countless others. It is the height of fatuousness to demand infallibility of a genius.
I fail to see how a ‘genius’ can fail to understand the principles he claims to defend…
Hoppe’s theories on immigration make perfect sense if you understand his secessionist theories.
No, he just fails to agree with you.
Ah, whatever the mob claims to be true, is true…
And how is that much different than “whatever Juan thinks is true, is true” exactly?
Hoppe’s view on immigration may be ‘justified’ by misusing the concept of secession. Still his views are flawed. Fairy tales make perfect sense if you believe in fairies…
Which is to demand infallibility of a genius. Even Euclid made errors in developing his geometry. I’m not about to disqualify either him, or Einstein, or Mises, or Hoppe, or anyone, from the status of “genius” due to falliblity.
Unquestionably, societal norms which are currently muzzled by government’s civil rights laws and bills of rights would provoke more restraint among people. There would be no First Amendment right to drive through a Mennonite village handing out flyers for a strip club, for example. So when the Mennonites barricade their road and tell you to scram, there won’t be any district court judge to go whining to about your purported freedom of speech.
Also, Hoppe predicts that the vehicle of governance in anarchy would be insurance, a business which seeks to pool similarly-situated risks, so communities would be more segregated.