Lol.
Tom Palmer: amateur politician [N]
Perhaps he should change careers?
I think I will try and read this sooner rather than latter.
This view is closer to the truth than that of the Hoppeans, who act as if the state has only existed for half a millenia or so.
As for how I view Hoppe, quite frankly some of his views risk entirely undermining libertarianism in favor of conservatism, as evidenced by the ridiculous positions held by his greatest fanboys on this very board. His view on state property as something to treat as if it was private technically legitmizes all sorts of state action, his position about social covenants against “alternative lifestyles” (which are for an entire community, not just an individual’s property, mind you) risks becoming indistinguishable from the social contract argument, his revisionism on monarchy has lead some libertarians to actually endorse a fuedalist model (you know who you are, you post on this board regularly), his concept of natural elites risks becoming an aristocratic justification for a state and his view on immigration is completely nonsensical.
Also, his performative contradiction argument for self-ownership and property rights fails because it does not prove any principles, it only proves that people’s behavior is inconsistant with certain assumed principles.
Go inject heroin into your eye, libertine.
I don’t do heroine. I’m not a “libertine”. But thanks for demonstrating that all you’re capable of is a knee-jerk insult and hence you are incapable of rationally taking criticism or responding to criticism. Your maturity level is quite low for a conservative.
Perhaps the greatest thing about Hoppe is that he drives all the right people hysterical.
One characteristic of libertarianism that often baffles those outside the movement, and even some within the movement, is that libertarians are so consistently pro-free speech that we will stand up for the rights of even those we despise to speak their mind. But anti-Semites? Is Mr. Palmer aware that both Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard were of Jewish extraction? Also many on the left equate any criticism of Lincoln with racism.
There is nothing hysterical about my post, I level reasoned criticisms at some of his positions. You, in turn, seem incapable of taking arguments at face value and can only fall back on a personalization - because your positions are simply philosophically undefendable. What’s more, you’ve been perpetually pwned on these issues.
Shut up, hippie.
What does pwned mean?
Jack homesteads a great amount of land. He then decides that he wants to found an evangelical community on it. He sells shares of the land to other individuals, however, he does not sell full property rights to them, but rather rents it to them on certain conditions, e.g. not becoming gay, not becoming a non-Christian and so on.
What is your problem with that?
It’s amusing that your reaction is to call names at people. It shows your inability to engage in rational debate.
I’m not a hippy. I’m a free market libertarian who refuses to accept blatant right-wing deviationism.
We’re talking about an entire community, not an individual’s land. There is no such thing as an individual who homesteads an entire community, that is a logical impossibility.
Do not take this as a criticism of Hoppe, it is not meant to be, but is your primary goal of the freedom movement promoting freedom or “driving people hysterical”? It may not be possible to do both simultaneously. I want the movement to grow and the goal of liberty to be achieved, preferably within my own lifetime. If that means not driving as many people hysterical so be it.
Some people love power. You cannot promote freedom to them. They are not interested. They must be exposed.
Why is it logically impossible? Seeing as individuals do own land the size of communities: holiday resorts, hotels, caravan sites.
Mises said that there is no third solution. This middle road leads to socialism.
Unfortunately, the movement can only grow so much, because if you understand Hoppe’s theory on class warfare, the majority are more inclined to choose to lift themselves up through democracy (and the reassignment of property titles politically) than free market entrepreneurship and competition.
The idea that everyone is a closet libertarian is unfortunately very naive. Not saying you have that view, but some people do. It’s a fallacy.
HOW ?
A’right. Let’s try another approach:
Jack and Joe are next-door property owners. Both mutually agree to found an evangelical community. They contractually determine that the property of any of them may be seized by the remaining party in case one goes gay/non-Christian. Indeed, Joe decides to become gay after a few years. Doesn’t Jack, then, have a contractual right to seize Joe’s property due to Joe’s voluntary consent?