So I’m the amoral egoist with authoritarian-reactionary tendencies, and a bent for Austrian economics. I love economics, philosophy, history and Western Civilization (that is, those parts of it I consider ‘civilization’). I usually give people the impression of being the opposite of what they are, that is I sound like a Nazi to libertarians, a monarchist to lefties and an anarchist to righties. The truth is that I am none of these things, but I do like some elements of all of them. Mostly I identify myself as a selfish reactionary, anti-leftist and authoritarian anti-statist (meaning, modern democratic states). I’m fascinated by imperialism, revanchism, clericalism and the fascist movements. I also get a kick out of market anarchism as long as it stays out of bizarro-lefty territory.
… htut?
You rejected it in the other thread, or perhaps there was a misunderstanding. Anyhow, the only alternative to market anarchism is government no matter who you put there, how you run it, and what you call it.
Since you appear to be agreeing with my interpretation of what you said here, I have a question and this seems a good place to start.
1 - Outside of Hoppe’s “Democracy the God that Failed”, I’ve only read some of his papers dealing with underlying assumptions, so, as far as anything else that he wrote outside of that book that would pertain to the same subject I don’t have anything to say. Have you read it and if so, what do you think?
2 - Maybe you could explain how a authoritarian regime would operate, meaning, would it hold a monopoly in any particular sector of the civil society? To further clarify, such a monopoly would mean that the only way to compete with its monopoly holdings would be waged through violence. The individuals existing within the monopoly (however those individuals ended up in that monopoly doesn’t really matter) couldn’t easily side with another corporation or what have you without also relying on violence, maybe? Could you perhaps elaborate on this. Add what is pertinent to your perspective, obviously since I don’t know the full picture of your knowledge of the subject at hand in this post.
welcome to the forum
no, that’s not the same person in the pictures provided by each of those avatars, ie. Htut’s and Liberte’s.
I didn’t say I was a market anarchist. But it’s the closest thing to sanity in the ‘no-government’ camp.
Obviously, the only alternative to anarchism is government - that’s pretty much true by definition. What I deny is that government is (inherently) undesireable or as horrid and replaceable as libertarians seem to think. Most governments are pretty bad. Most people are pretty bad. Obviously, Progressive fantasies don’t work - but this is true not only of democratic states but of democracy’s sister ideologies, such as ‘individualist anarchism’.
I am a fan of Burke, Carlyle, de Maistre and Cato the Younger.
1 - Outside of Hoppe’s “Democracy the God that Failed”, I’ve only read some of papers dealing with underlying assumptions, so, as far as anything else that he wrote outside of that book that would pertain to the same subject I don’t have anything to say. Have you read it and if so, what do you think?
I agree with most of his assessments, though not with his entire solution. Like Mises he wants to go from zero-to-liberalism, which is not going to work. You need to get rid of democratic sentiment, ‘public opinion’ and so forth, and you need to fill the power vacuum with correct-thinking people, to replace the civil church with a real aristocracy of knowledge. He does recognize the necessity of suppressing communist-thought and the like, though he sidesteps the problem of property non-diliniation and so forth. I am also a bit more open to police-state tactics (granted they should be appropriate in scale and extent).
2 - Maybe you could explain how a authoritarian regime would operate, meaning, would it hold a monopoly in any particular sector of the civil society? To further clarify, such a monopoly would mean that the only way to compete with its monopoly holdings would be waged through violence. The individuals existing within the monopoly (however those individuals ended up in that monopoly doesn’t really matter) couldn’t easily side with another corporation or what have you without also relying on violence, maybe? Could you perhaps elaborate on this. Add what is pertinent to your perspective, obviously since I don’t know the full picture of your knowledge of the subject at hand in this post.
The excercise of violence within its holdings (subject to delegation and emergency exceptions). The greatest shareholders (property owners) have the ability to select and remove the dictator, but no other powers over the sovereign.
It is quite fascinating, mostly due to its short-lived and impressive nature. It is like a forbidden butterfly.
It may be the closest thing to sanity in the ‘yes-government’ camp also.
The question remains,
Do you acknowledge that law and defense are economic goods? If you do, then you must realize that only a market based economy can provide them whether it is by a coercive monopoly,i.e., government and its typical coercive institutions , or by voluntary institutions, i.e., private defense agencies, private courts, etc…
Do you acknowledge that law and defense are economic goods?
In the Misesian sense, sure. But there is no sense in a market for social order and law as such. The generation of customary law proceeds apace, but it naturally develops into sovereign corporations. These impose themselves upon the unwilling, because there is no ‘law’ or ‘property’ outside their purview which could rationally be debated upon; though of course they take their start from customary and private law institutions (and are, in fact, still private law). I have no fetish for voluntarism.
Agreed ‘rid democratic… public opinion’, assuming I’m on the same page.
But specifically his mention of “natural elite”. What do you think of that?
Also what “problem of property non-dilineation”? Not familiar, thus, not sure what you mean.
The dictator thereby is in charge of enforcement of the law within its holdings only? And how might the shareholders have such power over the dictator, I assume through their own powers based on wealth and persuasion, correct? Or is there also more?
So you don’t think extortion and slavery are inherently undesirable? By definition they are. And since governments commit extortion to finance their activities and enslave people, government is inherently undesirable.
How’s life going otherwise? (work, building up a collection of property-goods, etc; the typical low-time preference stuff)
Why not? Do you agree that human beings in most situations realize that they can benefit from exchange? And that, out of their own self interest, they will most of the time (but not all the time) seek to engage in peaceful voluntary cooperation as opposed to the very costly alternative of constant war?
As such, it follows that if law and defense facilitate this peaceful cooperation, and as you suggest, is even vital to its existence, then demand for such commodities will appear, as is evident by the call for government to provide these services. You demand it also. But it will be completely incorrect to deduce from this, that only a single territorial monopoly can provide such a service. If this is the position you take, they you must logically conclude that a single world government is required to achieve order. Otherwise, there should be chaos between the different territorial governments. Cooperation and trade among different States should not be possible. But we know that this is not true. Individuals from different states can and do cooperate by voluntary means for extended periods of time.
Honestly? This sounds like a personal ad.
Funny… he was an anarchist.
Liberte and Htut (er, the other asian girl) should get along great.
Are you really a cute asian girl who likes epistemology, meta-ethics and physics?
you don’t think extortion and slavery are inherently undesirable?
Not if conducted in an orderly manner and primarily against thugs and savages.
How’s life going otherwise?
Fine. Working and buying gold/silver.
Do you agree that human beings in most situations realize that they can benefit from exchange?
You ignore social heirarchy, the dynamics of real power relationships (both direct material and indirect social energies), the advantages of client-patron relationships and the sheer ignorance and envy of the ungoaded masses.
Honestly? This sounds like a personal ad.
Lol. ASL?!
Funny… he was an anarchist.
No, he was an anti-democrat and something of a satarist in his youth. He took basically valid points and oversimplified them to ridicule the twin sentiments of anti-religion and anti-law. Despite being an atheist, I find the notion of tearing down the authority structure of the church (as it existed) to be basically bunk since it ignores the other functions of the church (as it existed within post-Renaissance society).
Liberte and Htut (er, the other asian girl) should get along great.
Silence, white devil.
I demand more pics, preferably including a riding crop, faux Hitler 'stache, and some leather.