Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[Juan]

conservative : You have surveyed the different industries which are still monopolized, privileged or regulated, and you have proved to us, more or less successfully, that the industries ought to be left free for the common good. So be it ! I do not wish to return to an exhausted topic. But is it possible to take away from the State and the communes the responsibility of general and local defense?

socialist .: And therefore the administration of justice?

c.: Yes, and the administration of justice. Is it possible that these industries, to use your own word, could be supplied other than in common, by the nation and the commune?

economist : I would perhaps make little of these two communisms if you would quite freely consent to give up all the others; if you would force the State to be from now on only a gendarme, a soldier and a judge. However, no! . . . because the communism of security is the keystone of the old edifice of servitude. Besides, I see no reason to grant you that one rather than the others. In fact, there are two choices: Either communism is better than liberty and, in this case, all industries should be organized in common, by the State or by the commune. Or liberty is preferable to communism and, in this case, all industry still organized in common should be made free, and indeed justice, police, as well as education, religion, transportation, the making of tobacco, etc.

s.: That is logical.

c.: But is it possible?

http://homepage.mac.com/dmhart/Molinari/Thesis.html

[Sphairon]

@Juan

Yeah. People need to respect individual rights. Are you saying that’s something I came up with ? My arbitrary deluded preference which I want to force upon others ? Come on.

People need to respect individual rights. I agree. I don’t agree that “human rights derived from self-ownership” is an objective philosophy. It depends on how you define self-ownership; if only those capable of understanding the nature of self-ownership are, in fact, self-owners, then severely mentally disabled people do not have rights. If the definition extends to all humans regardless of their mental status, it invokes the question why not all living beings should have rights, after all, rationality is not a condition anymore then.

That’s not a “what if pigs could fly?” question, but a test of consistency. Individual rights seemed like an objective philosophy in the 18st century when people didn’t know about evolution and thought man was a particular being outside of the animal kingdom with unique godly abilities such as free will or reason. Is this view still correct today? If not, we need to rethink our “objective” philosophy or must face the fact that while we advocate an economically sound and, in a speciesist setting, somewhat objective system of ethics, it fails on a wider scale.

@Juan

The only point you made is that some people failed to understand the nature of rights, or rather were hypocrites who practiced “do as I say don’t do as I do”. Gotta love libertarian slaveholders…

Much rather, my point was that until you show me the fundamental difference between a slaveholder and a cattle rancher based on your assumptions about self-ownership and subsequent natural rights, you are not objective.

@Juan

I said lacks institutionalized/systematic aggression.

Is gang criminality systematic aggression? Are notorious thieves and rapists systematic aggressors? If yes, we’ll probably not get to see your libertarian society. If not, where’s the difference to an aggressive PDA?

@Juan

ps : Have you looked up “The Age of Reason” by one Thomas Paine ? Also, did Paine believe in natural rights ?

Thomas Paine questioned the inerrancy of the Bible. That’s a good point. He also argued for a creator-God. That proves my point above about “objective” natural rights philosophy resting, at least in 18st century terms, largely on the idea of a created man with godly abilities.

And yes, Paine was also with the natural rights crowd. So am I. But I don’t claim to be objective, I merely claim to advocate an efficient and pretty coherent system of justice for human beings. There’s a difference.

[laminustacitus]

@Sphairon

And yes, Paine was also with the natural rights crowd. So am I. But I don’t claim to be objective, I merely claim to advocate an efficient and pretty coherent system of justice for human beings. There’s a difference.

It sounds as if your conception of natural rights is as a artifical construct, yet by doing that you have nothing to support the “natural” (which implies the fact that natural rights are objective) portion of it that should be built upon natural, objective laws. Surely you can build a utilitarian system of rights based on what is the most efficient manner to organize human society, but to call them “natural rights” is deception.

[liberty_student]

@Juan

And you and other fellow conservatives

I like when you call me a conservative. It’s like you’re talking dirty to me.

[liberty_student]

@nirgrahamUK

and just say that the 3 is more likely than 4 in the early days but its a question of maturity. and you are just arguing about how mature your ‘realistic’ libertyland happens to be.

Sounds reasonable.

[Juan]

@Sphairon

People need to respect individual rights. I agree.

Why ? Rights are just subjective whims.

if only those capable of understanding the nature of self-ownership are, in fact, self-owners, then severely mentally disabled people do not have rights.

Not relevant. And yes they do have rights.

If the definition extends to all humans regardless of their mental status, it invokes the question why not all living beings should have rights,

Animal rights are not relevant either.

Individual rights seemed like an objective philosophy in the 18st century when people didn’t know about evolution and thought man was a particular being outside of the animal kingdom with unique godly abilities such as free will or reason.

Are you saying that humans don’t have free-will and reason ? They do, just like they did in the 18th century – you don’t have an argument.

Btw, ever heard of Herbert Spencer ? He was a deist, an evolutionist, and a staunch advocate of natural rights go figure. Anyway natural rights need not be justifed by appeals to theism or even deism.

Much rather, my point was that until you show me the fundamental difference between a slaveholder and a cattle rancher based on your assumptions about self-ownership and subsequent natural rights, you are not objective.

You migh want to rephrase that because it sounds like total nonsense to me.

Is gang criminality systematic aggression?

Yes. That’s why libertarians regard as self-evident that the state is just a gang of robbers and murderers.

Are notorious thieves and rapists systematic aggressors? If yes, we’ll probably not get to see your libertarian society.

I wouldn’t say that INDIVIDUAL criminals are an organization(gang) that institutionalizes crime. Sounds like you’re stretching the definition in order to misrepresent what I’m saying. No, systematic individual rapists are not instances of institutionalized aggresion and anyway I don’t think they would be at all common in a society were security is provided by the market.

Thomas Paine questioned the inerrancy of the Bible.

The Age of Reason was a frontal attack on revealed religion. It deals among other things with the clear and constant collaboration of church and state to crush liberty.

He also argued for a creator-God.

He didn’t ‘argue’ for it. He was a deist.

That proves my point above about “objective” natural rights philosophy resting, at least in 18st century terms, largely on the idea of a created man with godly abilities.

No. It proves nothing of the sort. What it does prove in my opinion is that contrary to some common delusions here cultural conservatism is NOT libertarinism.

[Juan]

@LS

I like when you call me a conservative. It’s like you’re talking dirty to me.

You are the prototypical center-libertarian.

[Juan]

@laminustacitus

It sounds as if your conception of natural rights is as a artifical construct,

So, you can logically show why A has political authority over B ? I mean, can you show that A has legitimate authority not because A has a gun, but because A somehow has the ‘right’ to give orders. If you can’t show that some people are natural slaves while some other people are natural masters (or elites) then it seems that the default position - no authority - is the correct and natural one.

[laminustacitus]

@Juan

He also argued for a creator-God.

He didn’t ‘argue’ for it. He was a deist.

Actually, to the contrary, that is one of the defining properties of Age of Enlightenment era deism: the fact that it argued for a creator deity that set into action the laws of the universes.

[laminustacitus]

@Juan

@laminustacitus

It sounds as if your conception of natural rights is as a artifical construct,

So, you can logically show why A has political authority over B ? I mean, can you show that A has legitimate authority not because A has a gun, but because A somehow has the ‘right’ to give orders. If you can’t show that some people are natural slaves while some other people are natural masters (or elites) then it seems that the default position - no authority - is the correct and natural one.

I was critiquing Sphairon’s vision of natural rights as more or less being utilitalarianism disguised as natural rights, I didn’t make any propositions about what these “natural rights” would be.

[Nerditarian]

@Sphairon

People need to respect individual rights. I agree. I don’t agree that “human rights derived from self-ownership” is an objective philosophy. It depends on how you define self-ownership; if only those capable of understanding the nature of self-ownership are, in fact, self-owners, then severely mentally disabled people do not have rights. If the definition extends to all humans regardless of their mental status, it invokes the question why not all living beings should have rights, after all, rationality is not a condition anymore then.

Everyone must except Natural Rights as a universal philosophy vis a vis the a priori of argumentation.

[Nerditarian]

I honestly don’t understand your argument against cultural conservatism, sin qua non. Maybe cultural conservatives do tend to have a statist mentality but then again so do atheists who revile religion. I was just involved in a debate on religion actually. Of all the anti-religionists only one spoke from a rationalist perspective. All others were Marxists ranting. That’s not to say that your a Marxist. Just that your argument against cultural conservatism can be turned against cultural leftism as easy as 1,2,3. Also, you haven’t proven revealed religion to be fraud. Again, there are plenty of reasons to be nonreligious. But to have that kind of disdain needs more justification than you have been given in order to avoid the realm of emotivism.

[Sphairon]

@Juan

Why ? Rights are just subjective whims.

That’s where PDAs come into the picture.

See, rights are non-material. They are ideas. Ideas need enforcement by material means. The fact that you find it ethically correct to claim this or that right must ultimately rest on your superior or at least sufficiently deterring firepower, or else you risk an attack by those who dislike your way of life and are not afraid to use “the political means”.

That’s the danger of a stateless society. If you now claim that economic incentives (as advocated by Giles, LS or me) will not be adequate to foster a society based on private property rights and instead, we need massive reeducation and ideology checks, you’re bound to go the way of the commies who thought that their socialist “close to utopia” state would eventually turn into full-blown communism by popular demand. Didn’t work out so well, did it?

Ah, but there is hope. Markets tend to produce goods with increasing quality for decreasing prices. Thus, effective personal means of self-defense would soon be cheaply available for everyone. That, in turn, would increase risk and costs for rogue PDAs and other predators. Read Thomas Paine’s quote about the balance of (fire)power. That, and not the ideological revolution, is what will keep criminals of all stripes at bay.

not relevant, not relevant

I don’t have to tell you that this is not exactly convincing to me?

Are you saying that humans don’t have free-will and reason ?

As for free will, the burden of proof is on you. Free will is a transcendental concept that is supposed to work in an environment of chemical and physical processes. After all your rants on revealed religion, it won’t be difficult for you to recognize this as a religious assumption and dismiss it accordingly, right?

As for reason, people may be capable of employing reason, but the question is if they are willing to. Think armed paramilitary police kicking in doors of pot users. Think Abu Ghraib. Think Hiroshima. If everyone were following reason all the time, we’d be surrounded by lots of Kant look-alikes pondering about whether spitting on the street is compatible with the categorical imperative. Liberty must be appealing on more levels than the mental one.

Anyway natural rights need not be justifed by appeals to theism or even deism.

I know there are different approaches to this problem. But since they do all - to my knowledge - employ the man/animal dichotomy, I’m skeptical as to whether any of them can really be called objective.

You migh want to rephrase that because it sounds like total nonsense to me.

We say: a slaveholder acts in an immoral fashion because he’s forcing people against their will to work for him. This is incompatible with the concept of self-ownership.

We say: a cattle rancher does not act in an immoral fashion by forcing cattle to die for his profits against their will. Though it is unquestionable that a single cow owns itself just as much as a single man owns himself, we have no problem with enslaving cows, do we?

Of course, if we took this approach to its logical end, we’d be in for a lot of practical trouble. On the other hand, we can’t say we are “objective” if we ignore this modification of self-ownership.

No. It proves nothing of the sort. What it does prove in my opinion is that contrary to some common delusions here cultural conservatism is NOT libertarinism.

I’m more of the suburban kind anyway. A single-family house, two or three kids, a Labrador and an SUV. Or does that count as cultural conservatism already?

[Sphairon]

@laminustacitus

It sounds as if your conception of natural rights is as a artifical construct, yet by doing that you have nothing to support the “natural” (which implies the fact that natural rights are objective) portion of it that should be built upon natural, objective laws. Surely you can build a utilitarian system of rights based on what is the most efficient manner to organize human society, but to call them “natural rights” is deception.

I was unclear. I’m a supporter of self-ownership, natural rights, private property and non-aggression. I just don’t think it’s an “objectively good” philosophy. It’s a great intra-human social model that enables us to conquer and subjugate the rest of the planet, possibly even other planets in the near future, without too much hassle about distribution and entitlements, but that which we subjugate is not outside of our ethical sphere. We merely choose to ignore it for our own convenience, just as slaveholders chose to ignore the actual ethical status of their slaves for their own convenience.

And that’s why we’re not objective.

@Nerditarian

Everyone must except Natural Rights as a universal philosophy vis a vis the a priori of argumentation.

I don’t understand, I’m sorry. What precisely do you mean?

[Nerditarian]

@Sphairon

@Nerditarian

Everyone must except Natural Rights as a universal philosophy vis a vis the a priori of argumentation.

I don’t understand, I’m sorry. What precisely do you mean?

That should’ve been a question. Do you believe that Hoppe’s argumentation ethics provide a justification for Natural Rights?

[Marko]

@liberty student

We have to be very careful not to be too self-righteous when it comes to rights, there is no telling what future developments and revelations might come down the pike, making us look anachonristic and conflicted to future generations. The NOW is not the forever.

Even if so that is not a reason to belive the future generations will be right and we will be wrong. We need to trust our judgement.

I wouldn`t subscribe to such evolutionary morality. Morality just gets assaulted from different angles in different eras, but the correct understanding is always very basic and always present. I am sure we could agree on a lot with say Spartacus or some of the leaders of peasant revolts.

Political system of some era does not need to reflect the moral outlook of that era particularly closely (since statist order is artificial rather than natural). For example serfdom endured albeit it was resented to no end and perceived as violent and exploitative by mayority of the population (the serfs).

@Juan

@Sphairon

Some Founding Fathers didn’t realize that “conceived in liberty” and “owning huge amounts of slaves” won’t add up.?

Give me a break. Here’s an alternate explanation : They were just a bunch disgusting, hypocritical politicians who knew pretty well what they were doing and didn’t give a damn. They didn’t show that rights are not objective. They showed that they, so called ‘founding fathers’, had a sick moral double standard.

That is my opinion as well.

[Juan]

@Nerditarian

I honestly don’t understand your argument against cultural conservatism, sin qua non. Maybe cultural conservatives do tend to have a statist mentality but then again so do atheists who revile religion.

Maybe. That doesn’t mean that cultural conservatives are any good no ? (Some) are totalitarians like their lefty cousins.

I was just involved in a debate on religion actually. Of all the anti-religionists only one spoke from a rationalist perspective. All others were Marxists ranting. That’s not to say that your a Marxist.

Good, cos I’m not. Besides, I’m only whining about revealed religion. Can’t stress it well enough it seems.

Just that your argument against cultural conservatism can be turned against cultural leftism as easy as 1,2,3.

Well yes. Both right wing conservatives and lefties want uniformity and want to stomp out dissent.

Also, you haven’t proven revealed religion to be fraud.

What do you mean ? That I’ve not proven that it’s a pack of lies ? Or that I’ve not proven that the people who so self-assuredly parrot these lies are fraudsters (as opposed to ‘honestly’ mistaken) ?

But to have that kind of disdain needs more justification than you have been given in order to avoid the realm of emotivism.

Well, I’ve nothing against people interested in the supernatural. But what has that got to do with persons who mix revealed religion and politics ? When X says, for instance, that prostitutes will burn in hell, what X is doing in my opinion is trying to justify his personal views by claiming that GOD is behind him. I find such a tactic to be worthy of disdain, sorry.

[Juan]

@Sphairon

People need to respect individual rights. I agree.

@Juan

Why ? Rights are just subjective whims.

^^^ that was SARCASM on my part.

@S

That’s where PDAs come into the picture.

PDAs are irrelevant here. We’re talking about the justification for individual rights, which happens to be a moral problem. But you don’t believe in objective ethics so your claim “people need to respect individual rights” is nonsense, as per your own relativism/subjectivism.

See, rights are non-material. They are ideas.

Really ? Well, that’s news to me. (this is sarcasm, again).

Ideas need enforcement by material means.

Your first mistake. Logic is non material, too. It’s just ideas. It doesn’t need to be ‘enforced’ though.

The fact that you find it ethically correct to claim this or that right must ultimately rest on your superior or at least sufficiently deterring firepower,

Your second mistake. My ideas about right and wrong have nothing to do with my being able to defend them. What you’re describing on the other hand is usually known as “Macht ist Recht”.

If you now claim that economic incentives (as advocated by Giles, LS or me) will not be adequate to foster a society based on private property rights.

That’s obviously the case and I explained it at length.

we need massive reeducation and ideology checks, you’re bound to go the way of the commies who thought that their socialist “close to utopia” state would eventually turn into full-blown communism by popular demand. Didn’t work out so well, did it?

Misrepresentation.

Ah, but there is hope. Markets tend to produce goods with increasing quality for decreasing prices. Thus, effective personal means of self-defense would soon be cheaply available for everyone.

Problem is, effective means of personal offense will be available too. And offense is materially cheaper than defense. It’s way easier to blow up a whole city than to defend it. You see, arms are material things, but we’re dealing with the non-material ideas of right and wrong which dictate how material means will be used.

@S

@J

not relevant, not relevant

I don’t have to tell you that this is not exactly convincing to me?

Your problem. I explained that the alleged inability of some people to grasp a concept doesn’t mean that the concept is not objective. If Tom believes 2+2=5 and that blacks are not human, them Tom is objectively wrong.

As for free will, the burden of proof is on you. Free will is a transcendental concept that is supposed to work in an environment of chemical and physical processes.

Why is the burden on me ? Why don’t you prove determinism ? You know, the positivistic we-are-chemical-machines position is self-refuting as well. As for religion, you really need to learn basic terminology. My ‘rants’ are directed against revealed religion. You can look revealed religion in the dictionary, or better, read “The Age of reason”.

In other words, free will is a philosophical concept, not one based on fraudulent ‘revelations’.

I know there are different approaches to this problem. But since they do all - to my knowledge - employ the man/animal dichotomy, I’m skeptical as to whether any of them can really be called objective.

We’re discussing human rights, not animal rights. That’s why I said your objection is irrelevant.

We say: a slaveholder acts in an immoral fashion because he’s forcing people against their will to work for him. This is incompatible with the concept of self-ownership.

We say: a cattle rancher does not act in an immoral fashion by forcing cattle to die for his profits against their will. Though it is unquestionable that a single cow owns itself just as much as a single man owns himself, we have no problem with enslaving cows, do we?

We don’t. Because cows are not human. Next ?

It’s a great intra-human social model that enables us to conquer and subjugate the rest of the planet, possibly even other planets in the near future, without too much hassle about distribution and entitlements, but that which we subjugate is not outside of our ethical sphere. We merely choose to ignore it for our own convenience, just as slaveholders chose to ignore the actual ethical status of their slaves for their own convenience.

Let me guess. Your favorite color is green.

[Nerditarian]

@Juan

Maybe. That doesn’t mean that cultural conservatives are any good no ? (Some) are totalitarians like their lefty cousins.

Doesn’t mean there’s any reason to work against cultural conservatives sin qua non. Keep in mind that libertarians are an exceedingly infinitesimal portion of the population, and among our number are people from all sections of the spectrum. I don’t know a percentage breakdown for every section of the population.

@Juan

Well yes. Both right wing conservatives and lefties want uniformity and want to stomp out dissent.

So do most moderates, I forgot them before but I’d hate to leave them out.

@Juan

What do you mean ? That I’ve not proven that it’s a pack of lies ? Or that I’ve not proven that the people who so self-assuredly parrot these lies are fraudsters (as opposed to ‘honestly’ mistaken) ?

Child abuse is kind of a big deal. You need to prove that it is a pack of lies. Not that it’s unlikely, not that it’s improbable or anything else. That it is a lie. To do that you’d have to see the afterlife and know-not think, not feel, not strongly and passionately believe- but know that Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism or what have you is false. If not you’d have to deduct this knowledge axiomatically, which I don’t think you’ve done or that anyone has done. Of course, this is impossible. AND THEN upon completion of this fact finding expedition you’d have to prove that every individual knew this was a falsehood when they were preaching it. But since you were the one who discovered scientific rationalist complete points against their beliefs they would have had no way of knowing. This is not to say that sometimes religious people aren’t bad guys. But most drug dealers are bad guys and I still believe in drug legalization. Why? Because drugs sin qua non is different from drugs under the umbrella of state prohibition. Religion is different in an important sense in a society with religious freedom: the Catholics and Lutherans on my local main street tend not to kill each other over transubstantiation.

@Juan

Well, I’ve nothing against people interested in the supernatural. But what has that got to do with persons who mix revealed religion and politics ? When X says, for instance, that prostitutes will burn in hell, what X is doing in my opinion is trying to justify his personal views by claiming that GOD is behind him. I find such a tactic to be worthy of disdain, sorry.

Not all people who believe prostitutes will burn in hell are for the prohibition of prostitution. There are tons of hardcore right-libertarians who don’t believe in prostitution but they don’t believe in prohibition either. They might believe that in a “Free Market in Societies”. so to speak, conservative ones would “out compete” liberal ones. Nothing unlibertarian about that.

Sorry for the long, long post.

[Santtu]

@Juan

No. It proves nothing of the sort. What it does prove in my opinion is that contrary to some common delusions here cultural conservatism is NOT libertarinism.

It is also a common delusion here that cultural conservatism is somehow contradictory to libertarianism. That is to say, a libertarian can very well be culturally conservative. There’s absolutely no grounds, what-so-ever, to say otherwise. It would be as wrong to say that cultural liberalism - especially if defined as nihilism as some people seem to be doing - is somehow integral to libertarianism. Of course, if the cultural institutions conservatives are trying to uphold are physically oppressive, and there’s no exit possible, then that’s another issue all-together, but has nothing to do with the approval/disapproval of cultural conservatism.

Also, I think it is note-worthy that even the, so called, cultural liberals are, in fact, conservatives. Culturally conservative person just wishes to keep the existing cultural institutions in place - it makes no assumption of what those institutions might be. It would be equally conservative to approve (just to use as an example) of homosexuality, if it was the existing cultural norm, as it would be to disapprove of homosexuality, if it was the existing norm.

I’m not saying that all libertarians should be conservatives; I’m saying that it’s a non-issue.