After listening to this prophetic speech by Hoppe I cannot but fear for the Mises Institute. A libertarian revolution IS at hand. The objective and subjective aspects of it are at our behest.
…
Do you have a non youtube link? Youtube is blocked where I am, but it sounds like an interesting video.
For now ridicule and dismissal are more than enough, sadly. We are no threat to the existing order as of yet and therefore the costs of attempting to silence us are prohibitive in relation to the benefit. We are also mostly a peaceful bunch and do our fighting on an intellectual level, despite losing that fight for a very long time. As such any attack on us would most likely be viewed in a very poor light by most people no matter how much they might disagree with us.
We are not quite at that point yet I don’t think.
Yeah like, 20 PhD are a huge threat to the state.
There are far-left organization who have thousands members, who want to make a communist revolution, kill every politicians and bourgeois, and yet they’re not attacked by the state…
We’re listed as a hate group on the SPLC.
It also promotes a type of Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of social justice is destructive. The institute seems nostalgic for the days when, "because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority [were] likely to be passed on within a few noble families
lol wut? 
The SPLC is so funny.
Well guys, I guess we are evil, Southern Aristocrats in favour of enslaving black people. Anyone up for some lynching?
Looks like they don’t understand what “individual rights” and “Classes/Race are/is irrelevent” mean.
i think hoppe is little like machiavelli. he is not aware that people often like to shoot the messenger and confuse talk with endorsement.
No way. Machiavelli was a self-seeking opportunist, and a moral nihilist at that. Hoppe critiques the violent overthrow of the natural elites* which has characterized the modern age.
Clayton -
*Natural elites are people like Michael Jordan not Barack Obama. The natural elites rise to their rank through voluntary recognition by the public of their superior abilities. Statist elites rise to their rank through wielding a gun. They are violent-elites, hypocrite-elites. That is, they are the best at using and masking their use of violence to get what they want. They are Michael Corleone, quietly christening their godchild in the sanctity of a chapel while their thugs are out killing their enemies and robbing the poor and defenseless. The long reign of such violent-elites can only be challenged on the intellectual battlefield because it is only there that they can be show to be the naked wielders of violence that they really are.
oh brother. the natural elite that hoppe is talking about were sovereigns. not simple wealthy aristocrats. their ancestors came to power because their status as a warlords, not rags to riches entrepreneurs.
Machiavelli was a self-seeking opportunist
Everyone is a self-seeking opportunist. Some people are just in denial about it. All ‘selfless deeds’ have their origin in sociobiological signaling and unconscious self-promotion.
Everyone is a self-seeking opportunist. Some people are just in denial about it. All ‘selfless deeds’ have their origin in sociobiological signaling and unconscious self-promotion.
This sounds eerily close to the concept of Marxian false-consciousness.
p.s. Why isn’t the “quote” feature working? I press quote and nothing happens.
We’re listed as a hate group on the SPLC.
Wow, what utter bull. The SPLC is really nothing more than a petty leftist smear-campaign that groups together neo-nazis and KKK-types with everyone who does not believe in using state power to force his personal preferences upon society.
I officially place the SPLC on my “hate group list.”
It is clear from this and your other postings you are a biological determinist- how do you ascribe agency to cells?
It is clear from this and your other postings you are a biological determinist- how do you ascribe agency to cells?
Actually, I am a determinist of material minima: only the barest constituents of reality, whatever they may be, can be said to have literal ontological status. Don’t confuse this with a positivist materialism, I am an Aristotilian on this point and not an ‘epiricist’ in the modern sense.
Agency lies neither in photons nor cells, it is the product (or one might say, the case) of recursive pattern systems, that is mutually affective structures which form coherent and historical (persistent) relations based on exposure (within certain conditions - people are not immortal and invincible, that is to say). There is no specific ‘you’ to you, there is a more or less coherent collection of patterns within patterns and the limits of your ‘being’ lie within the bounded rationality (you are not ‘aware’ of your couch, though you are both part of the same overall physical system).
Liberte, you are strange. What do you read?
For example, desire. But desire is not a material thing.
wikipedia.
also, this is disgusting. women are a threat to intelligent conversation just as a dingo in the middle of a playground is a threat to fun.
a dingo in the middle of a playground might be innocuous. the children could continue playing unhindered. the children might even pet it and it increase their fun. but there is always the chance it will erupt into action and eat all the children - ruining the fun.
likewise, a woman in an intelligent conversation can be innocuous. the conversation might go on. she might contribute and increase the enjoyment of the conversation. or…she might spew over like an obnoxious version of ol’ faithful and ruin the conversation…but due to her status as a female attract the attention of the hopeless who would seek a female’s, any female’s, attention at any opportunity. this will steer the conversation away from the topic and towards the barrens of emoticons - ruining intelligent conversation.
Could you enlighten me on the distinction please?
Your statement implies that there is a categorical distinction between agency and non-agency however your basis for agency is one of degree of complxity of recursive pattern thus making the distinction arbitrary. If one wishes to retain a catergorcial distinction between agency and non-agency you’ll have to come up with something else or say that the minima have a basic form of agency and you just get greater sophistication of agency.