Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Miscellaneous General
441

Dude, this formatting thing is driving me nuts. Going to use italics now.

Juan:

^^^ that was SARCASM on my part.

Indeed, it was. But you tried to ridicule my position indirectly. I don’t like my position ridiculed indirectly, see.

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.

I think a human society that does not respect individual sovereignty and private property is ultimately doomed to failure. That said, there are cases where the propertarian view gets blurry, think of the controversy about whether a person who has homesteaded a square space of land can legally be entrapped by someone who homesteads the land around her.

Thus, while I probably am a relativist to some extent, I can still make relative judgements. And relatively speaking, private property and individual sovereignty kick ass compared to any other ethics offered to me until this point. You are wrong that relativism and advocacy of one specific school of thought are mutually exclusive.

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

Transformations of ideas from the realm of ideas to the real world tend to change the predicted outcome of the idea quite a bit. You can advocate individual rights all day long and I’d wholeheartedly agree with you, but you should be aware that good ideas may need real-world defense against bad people.

What you’re describing on the other hand is usually known as “Macht ist Recht”.

Ultimately, it boils down to that. Though I wouldn’t say that might makes right rather than might creates facts. And these facts need to be challenged if they are perceived as unjust. Ideas alone may not be sufficient for this endeavor.

Problem is. effective means of personal offense will be available too. And offense is materially cheaper than defense.

I once heard a nice saying. “God created all men, but Sam Colt made them equal”. In a state of nature, the strong have an unsurmountable advantage over the weak. You still need to be strong to wield a club. You need bodily strength to some extent to fight with a sword. You must be able to bend down to shoot a crossbow. You need dexterity to fire a musket. You only need a functioning hand to fire a modern handgun. That’s a huge equalizer, and an advantage to the defender, not the offender.

Additionally, offense is not cheaper than defense, at least on the interpersonal level. As for blowing up a city, it requires more than a handgun to do that, and the cost associated with the operational risk is very high. I don’t see where you get that reasoning from.

Why is the burden on me ?

Because you assumed a transcendental element in a system of chemical and physical processes. Basically the same as the God question. While there might be a God/free will outside the realm of human logic, if we stick to what we are able to grasp with our brains, it doesn’t add up.

You know, the positivistic we-are-chemical-machines position is self-refuting as well.

Oh really? Tell me more about it.

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”.

And how does that disprove my claim?

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

It’s a concept that champions a transcendental element in a physical/chemical framework. Do you disagree with that?

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

You’re trying to dodge the point. I asked you why the concept of self-ownership doesn’t apply to animals even though animals clearly own themselves as much as humans do.

Let me guess. Your favorite color is green.

In fact, Mr. Juan, I just want to live in a nice suburb, raise a few kids, have a loyal dog and drive a tough truck. I’m not into Gaia or any other green pet peeve. I just argue a position that I think refutes your claim of objectivity which I have dropped after realizing my inconsistencies.

442

Nerditarian:

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

It shows why private property rights (or natural rights, whichever term you like) is superior to all other known forms of social structuring. It doesn’t prove its objectiveness in and of itself.

443

Hear, hear.

I want to live a modest life, in a modest location, consume a modest amount of food/energy/goods and work until I die. As long as no one f***s with me or my small chunk of legitimately acquired property, I really don’t have a broader agenda. I’d just like to be left alone.

444

conservative !!!

[:P]

445

I’m not sure whether that was sarcasm or not, but in case it was, yeah, I just want to be a regular everyday normal guy. Mind my own business and reach whatever personal goals I can in this life.

I am well aware that the current political situation may not allow these plans to be fulfilled. I am also aware that contemporary suburban middle-class life is financed to a great extent by foreign creditors and Anglo-American military supremacy. I don’t just want to sit in my home while others are abducted by military police for thought crimes either.

Still, at the end of the day, it’s a nice thing to have a cushy bed in a quiet neighborhood to sleep in. I don’t dream of being a glorious revolutionary anymore, though I did in my leftist days. My part of the “revolution” as I see it will be making money on the white market and supporting the cause.

Is that offensive in any way? I don’t know. I’m just a singer of simple songs, as Alan Jackson tends to say.

446

We’ll never get anywhere if everyone involved is “ok” with their current place in life - which we all know is governmentally subsidized to keep us swaddled.

447

Well, at this point, I’ll say “your opinion”. I obviously disagree.

Well, here we part ways. I don’t need to prove that fairy tale X is false. Rather people who say fairy tale X is true must do the proving.

Look, I’m an adult and so are you. Can you prove to me that X is true ? You can’t ? So please do not lie to me. That same thing is true for exchanges between adults and children, except that children have usually not read “The Age of Reason” or Hume’s “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.”, so they tend to believe what adults tell them.

Advocates of christianity or buddhism or religion X know about the after-life as much as you and I do, that is, NOTHING. So, please, don’t tell me that I’m at fault for criticizing people who try to pass their delusions as real knowledge.

Yes, that’s already been stated. And I retorted that people who approach things that way, despite (supposedly) being not willing to use force, are not nice people either. Sorry, but I wont pretend I believe otherwise. If you were to advocate ‘voluntary’ racism I’ll look down on you as a racist. And if you tell me that you’re racist because GOD told you it’s the right thing, I’ll consider you a deluded racist.

There’s nothing libertarian about revealed morality. So, people who don’t like prostitution need to prove prostitution is a criminal activity as in “prostitution violates rights”. They can’t ? Too bad. Invoking revelation just furthers the point against them. They don’t have a leg to stand on and yet want people to follow their moral code. It’s not clever. It’s not nice.

448

It was not sarcasm. All I want is to be left alone. The broader social agenda of libertarianism, saving the children, protecting the lesbians, employing the unemployable, I’ll try to help, but it’s really not a big deal to me.

449

Ok, you’ve pointed out the elephant in the room.

So what do we do about it? My take is that guilting people into rejecting the state won’t work. You have to offer them something better, and more moral, doesn’t necessarily appeal to people with high time preference.

450

Huh? What do you mean? Doesn`t the government take far more than it gives back?

451

It was precisely the “leave me alone” “conservative” “right-/center-libertarian” part of these forums that discussed issues like microsecession or the infamous Liberty Colony. It’s “impure” minarchists like Ron Paul or Peter Schiff who are on TV and out in the world spreading the message. “Paleolibertarians” like Lew Rockwell are creating media outlets that reach out for Joe Sixpack instead of engaging in intellectual masturbation by creating as many “isms” as possible.

Still, these people just want the state off their back. They don’t engage in “ism”-laden debates about discrimination of left-handed homosexual painters in a Rothbardian-Konkinian-Proudhonian city upon a hill. And while some of them wrote a couple of stupid comments in these newsletters of ill fame a while back, they don’t circle above libertarian blogs and forums like a vulture awaiting some “offensive conservative remark” to pick on and snicker about in their own little clubs.

Thus, it’s safe to say that “mind your own business” libertarians are not at all inert or at peace with the establishment.

You’re so paleo. Aren’t you ashame to water down the soon-to-come revolution with such thoughts?

452

This is just my observation, but the “complain about other libertarians” libertarians and the we can work with the state libertarians (LP) are largely ineffective.

Revolution is more than a romantic attachment to an anachronism. [:)]

453

Undoubtedly - but most people dont realize it, and many of the ones that do, are in actuality comfortable with their current state. As long as they have their 6 pack of bud and NASCAR is playing then they dont really give a shit about liberty or freedom. These are words I have heard spoken.

Let’s be real here. Even with the limits on our freedoms through all the many forms of government, for probably everyone on these forums and most libertarians for that matter, we have a better standard of living than 99% of the rest of the world.

It is kind of hard to get people moving towards liberty if they don’t recognize how theirs is being limited. If you are offering them pure freedom which may incur a loss of the things that make them feel all warm and cuddly inside because they dont know any better (like police, national defense, laws against social crap etc…) then they are going to be very hard to move.

This is why my impetus is to try and solve the problems related to the transition between a state and no state. If joe bag of donuts is pacified (because honestly I dont see many of these people getting the point) then everything else can fall into place around him such that his life does not change much and therefore we encounter very little resistance to the changes.

This is why, when I talk to people I focus on them understanding that the federal government does little to nothing that relates to their day to day lives thath they see as positive and each municipality really has the most impact on them on a hour by hour basis. That way they stop thinking about the nation as a whole and start realizing that services can be provided locally. If from there we can begin to make the case that their municipality is simply a monopoly on the things they like and have them understand why such an organization is unjust then we can grow as a movement.

454

Maybe I should have said " the positivistic we-are-just-chemical-machines position is self-refuting as well ". Here are some notes : http://mises.org/rothbard/mantle.asp

(I’m too lazy to reply to the rest of your post and make my points again. Prolly next time).

455

I think you should start off with a more modest goal first. Maybe just predict the Superbowl winner in 2015. [;)]

The notion that you can “solve problems” by addressing every hypothetical, theoretical and experimental idea is probably false.

Not to mention, that is not what is holding people back. I really advise you to read De La Boetie and Hoppe.

456

Let’s see what we got there:

It is true that all mindless matter is determined and purposeless. But it is highly inappropriate, and moreover question-begging, simply and uncritically to apply the model of physics to man.

Strawman. Man is not purposeless, the question is whether his purposes are freely chosen by a transcendental entity within his brain or the result of chemical and physical processes.

But while most things have no consciousness and therefore pursue no goals, it is an essential attribute of man*'*s nature that he has consciousness, and therefore that his actions are self-determined by the choices his mind makes.

Do animals also have a consciousness? What about severely mentally disabled people? Is the existence of an incredibly well-wired set of nerve pathways that enables humans to process information more comprehensively than any other known animal proof for the existence of a transcendental element within their brains?

After several centuries of arrogant proclamations, no determinist has come up with anything like a theory determining all of men’s actions.

That’s not necessary, and it doesn’t shift the burden of proof which Rothbard tries to do thereafter. The fact that science has not yet advanced to a level that enables us to predict all human action beforehand doesn’t make the idea of a transcendental element in a physical/chemical framework more probable.

Surely we can, at the very least, tell the determinists to keep quiet until they can offer their determinations—including, of course, their advance determinations of each of our reactions to their determining theory.

If evolutionists are so smart, why can’t they predict which animal will spawn next?

This sentence shows a misunderstanding of the complexity of the chemical/physical framework that is our brain. Humans are incredibly smart creatures and their brains are made up of constantly reevaluated memory and sensorial information. As I said, demanding future predictions concerning the outcomes of such a difficult environment is like claiming that evolutionists must predict new species if they are to be trusted.

Since man’s mind is, according to determinism, not free to think and come to conclusions about reality, it is absurd for X to try to convince Y or anyone else of the truth of determinism.

Not at all. The fact that our predispositions and experiences let us reach different conclusions (in other words, our brains are shaped differently and value information in distinct manners) regarding certain circumstances doesn’t mean our transcendental “free will” was employed in reaching them. It doesn’t rule out the possibility of communication either.

In the same way, the various brands of determinists—behaviorists, positivists, Marxists, and so on—implicitly claim special exemption for themselves from their own determined systems.

No? At least I don’t. I’m caged in this framework as are all of you, I’m bound to base my judgements on genetic predisposition, experiences made and sensorical information collected. I may come to different conclusions than you, but not one of us needed transcendental abilities to get there.

How then can they aspire to know all, if the extent of their own knowledge is itself determined, and therefore arbitrarily delimited?

What? Knowledge is not determined. Man comes across all sorts of new knowledge all the time. Nobody ever doubted man’s ability to put 2 and 2 together. Absence of free will does not mean absence of neurological (?) skills.

In fact, if our ideas are determined, then we have no way of freely revising our judgments and of learning truth—whether the truth of determinism or of anything else.

Our judgments change as we are confronted with new information from different sources. Sometimes, a rearrangement of memories is sufficient to come to new conclusions. Still, these rearrangements are often triggered by outside influences as well. If not, it’s probably an extraordinary strain on certain nerve fibers that sets free new information to calculate.

A can adopt it as valid while B will not. Each man, therefore, has the free choice of adopting or not adopting an idea or value.

Non sequitur. If A’s predispositions are fundamentally different from B’s, it is to be expected that they will reach different conclusions.

the idea was not taken from others, but was arrived at by some mind independently and creatively

Doesn’t prove free will, only proves that human brains are powerful organs.

“Social institutions determine ideas”

One giant strawman. Society is not required for a man to form ideas, only his potent memory, sensorial and networking skills.

I agree with Rothbard on a lot, but he’s on the wrong track here if you ask me. Libertarianism doesn’t need free will to justify its position, and we shouldn’t rely on unproven assertions to make our case. It’ll undermine our own efforts.

457

I’ve read both. Go talk to regular blue collar people not scholars, not anyone with education or knowledge of economics or politics - the things that they are involved in day to day are what hold them back.

458

So where does the idea that Hoppe “associates with racists and neo-nazis” come from exactly? Is this just people being retarded and knee-jerk reacting against his anti-egalitarianism or something, or does he actually “associate” with these types of people?

459

Sphairon,
What do you think consciousness is ? Does the self really exist ? Or is it some sort of illusion ? Given that we’re just machines, what’s the point of a self which seems to be choosing and directing how we act ?

460

Why presume I don’t? I am blue collar, always have been. Live in one of the most blue collar cities in my country.