Words get made up all the time and everyone loves to learn them.
It makes no sense to fight against the tide.
I also see how it doesn’t make sense to adopt a more direct term in describing anarchism’ core principles.
Yes, said term is still under the umbrella of anarchism, but it wouldn’t be made of previously used words that confuse other’s & set off the right red flags which may prevent memetic transmission of information regarding our differing philosophies.
Somehow, an attempt at clarification goes against epistemology?
Actually I reject this conservative notion of a “natural elite”. I think that the concept of a “natural elite” is all that statists have to fall back upon when the idea of democracy is worn threadbare and when the idea that humans are evil therefore we need humans in power to stop humans from being evil is evidently nonsensical. The fall-back rationale for a state at such a point is a “natural elite” who are inherently more fit to govern than everyone else.
You yourself have repeatedly rejected anarchism as a movement and philosophy, not just as a term.
I disagree in that I think most people implicitly respect property rights in terms of behavior, regaurdless of their ideology.
That accusation comes from nowhere and is silly. I have a perfectly fine conception of the term “property rights” - I just so happen to realize that when a lot of people attack the concept of “property rights”, they are not necessarily entirely attacking the same conception I hold, they have a different definition of their terms. This isn’t orwellian, it’s an understanding of the fact that people define things differently and hence semantic ambiguities will arise in debate.
Greater material prosperity for the masses is an egalitarian outcome. I share that prediction - and don’t see how it’s necessarily incompatible with egalitarianism.
This is your own prediction based on your own biases. Your prediction that people in society will not be fond of egalitarian outcomes is not particularly provable or rational. I find it silly that you assume that people will dominantly share your ideology in a free society.
I’m sorry, that claim is absurd. People do not desire egalitarian outcomes merely because the state exists. The existance of the state is not the only or primary cause of people’s desire for egalitarian outcomes. I know this because I desire egalitarian outcomes and completely reject the state. There is no absolute connection between egalitarianism and statism.
What specifically do you mean by “the libertines”? Anyone who isn’t a cultural conservative? If you’re claiming that competition would competely eliminate this, you’re once again uniformly superimposing your personal biases and preferances onto the concept of a free society. So long as there is a demand for “libertine” things, there will be “libertine” assocations. Everyone doesn’t magically become a cultural conservative when the state dissapears.
To abandon the label anarchist and anarchism is to basically abandon hundred years of tradition that extend all the way back to the first individualist anarchist.
It is very much like asking computer hackers to abandon their labels or asking them to rename the free software movement. Their terminology might be distorted by the media through time but they have their reason to continue to using it.
I prefer that we try to reclaim and take back the term instead before abandoning them to the sand of time.
As much some of you might hate the term, I love the anarchist label. It speak to the rebel in me and give me a “warm” feeling. (What’s cooler than a lone individual opposing the big giant bully known as the state?) Also, I am very reluctant to abandon a term that we have used for so long. It’s a preference thing.
How does not using the label itself imply at all that one would abandon the concept of anarchism itself? Not even wikipedia makes this gross generalization, at least in regard to the term Voluntaryist:
[from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryist ]
I cannot speak for others who wish to use other labels, but then again, what are the other labels being considered by others? Shouldn’t that be decided on a case by case basis? Also, how are a certain number of individuals who wish to associate with a different label (but more than likely keeping in line with the principles of anarchism) going to harm the others that do not wish to do so?
An anarchistic flavor that supports strong property rights…hmm, doesn’t that sound familiar? There is no harm in me using a memetically superior (in the context of a Statist society) synonym to describe market-anarchism/anarcho-capitalism/etc.
Where’s the fire? I don’t see one, aside from an argument between Giles & BP, of course.
I’m not pandering to the left. There’s no “left” to pander to here. I’m repeatedly clashing with conservative-libertarians.
No, it doesn’t. No government is consistantly consented to. Noone completely consents to the government as a whole, the government ultimately makes decisions regaurdless of their consent or lack thereof. You are misinterpreting La Boetie.
Do you realize that the idea that the government is based on the consent of the governed is a common statist arguement for legitimacy, by spreading the ideology that the government is voluntary in its basis? The rejection of precisely such an ideology of legitimacy is part of what lead me to become an anarchist to begin with! Isn’t precisely what leads one to shift from minarchism to anarchism the realization that the state in fact isn’t consistantly voluntary, that the state inherently violates voluntaryism? If the state IS in fact purely voluntary, then libertarianism should lead to a statist conclusion. Fortunately, it doesn’t, because states are not voluntary.
Who doesn’t vote.
Sorry, you’re just using bad philosophy to reinforce your already existing distain for the poor. Blaming the poor for the state is absurd and not a very libertarian sentiment.
It is not really based on cultural factors, it’s based on a shared opposition to state and corporate power. I’m not bending over backwards to make the ideoogies fit. The ideologies do fit. You just seem to cling to a warped view of the political spectrum in which “left” = bad in an absolute sense.
Obviously I disagree with your conservative interpretation of this, since I think that to a degree the tendency of youth to oppose authority is extremely healthy and necessary. Subservience isn’t a healthy trait to cling to into adulthood.
Hell - we don’t even have a clear consensus on property rights among ourselves!
Again, you’re confused about who specifically I advocate associating with.
My interpretation of this is that you wish to use your cultural preferances as a prerequisite to be part of the libertartian movement.
Just because I refer to myself as an voluntaryist doesn’t my beliefs. And far as distancing myself from the anarchist movement, perhaps we should, I believe we’re an entirely new movement! It’s really kind of exciting when you think about it.
There’s really no need to distance one’s self from anarchism when you are in the company of open-minded people and/or those who know what anarchism really is, as opposed to the company of those who buy into the assumptions & ignorance of a Statist society regarding anarchy. Seriously, how far is one going to get in the company of Statists when you describe yourself as a market-anarchist?
I never really got far until I refined my argument to focus on the actual principles, not the label itself. To me, this involved shifting my label & avoiding red flag terms, which helps give my argument legitimacy to those who would normally just shake their heads, put their fingers in their ears, and just shout “LA LA LA LA NOT HEARING YOUR LOGIC”.
Sometimes, I don’t need to do that though, & it’s an intellectual relief whenever I do encounter someone open-minded enough to not have to slip my ideas under the radar, & I can freely use the term anarchsm. Better still, is the possibility of people hearing voluntaryist, accepting it, then eventually coming to terms with the term anarchism itself.
Spreading education & attempting to persuade does not mean painting a big red target sign on the back of your head.
Never looked at it that way before Nitroadict. But I think you’re probably right! [:)]
When one considers that even monarchists had to suppress natural elites and appeal to the egalitarianism of the people, it’s obvious that it would be silly to say that democracy is in any way compatible with the concept of natural elites. Democracy and the egalitarianism upon which it is founded stand in opposition to natural order and natural elites.
The problem with the leftists who are horrified by any notion of inequality can be seen by the fact that they can never refute the idea of natural elites without resorting to straw man. I’ve never claimed natural elites will government anybody, only to arbitrate between different grounds. Attack that if you will, but then you’d be attack market anarchism as a whole.
I’m an anarchist in so far as I reject the current state and any monopoly on force. Further than that I advocate competing “governments” (in the sense that Nock for example used it). But I am sufficiently in touch with reality to realise that there will always be leaders and there will always be followers. If you want to deny this, feel free, but once again you’d be rejecting one of the foundations of the free market and Austrian economics.
None of this changes the fact that you posted a strawman in regards to Nitro.
I’m sorry to ask this yet again. But are you sure you’ve read La Boetie? Or to ask a different question, do you know how many people voted in the last election?
No, you regard property rights as a term that applies to those you agree with but not to those that you disagree with. You twist the term, and said that different intepretations of it are allowable (but then proceeded to express horror at the thought of voluntary exclusion of communists, drug addicts, blacks, undesirables etc.). Which is wrong, unless there is unanimous agreement on property rights, or close to that, they’re useless and the term isnmeaningless. Just like language in Orwell’s masterpiece.
No it’s not. The wealth of the rich may exceed that of the poor by more in a free society than currently. I’m not say it’s likely, it is however possible and remains something to be seen when we do succeed in abolishing the state. However the free market, and private property, are distincly anti egalitarian. You missed the point though, my point was that what I said was only a prediction to the same extent that “a free market will be more prosperous than an unfree market” is a prediction.
No, it isn’t. People will not be fond of the notion that people are all equal, because private property illustrates that this isn’t so. People don’t even have the same rights, and amongst those that do some possess many more positive qualities than others. If you can’t see past the state imposed mediocrity don’t blame me.
They do. Although, that’s not what I said. My claim was that people have not been shown that their ideas will fail completely. And as most people are too dull to follow long lines of reasoning they won’t understand that absurdity of anarcho communism without seeing it first hands. You seem unable to refute my argument concering anarchocommunism, accordingly you obfuscate the truth with red herrings.
I hope you’re joking when you say there is no relation between the two. I doubt it though. In denying private property (no truly private property exists) and voluntary exclusion, it is implied that we’re all equal. As seen in the idea of one person one vote. Why do you think the state is so keen on wealth distribution from the rich to the poor? Because it thrives on egalitarianism.
For somebody who is so keen on using words in their original context I don’t see how this is difficult? By the libertines I mean exactly that. The only other thing I suppose might be the band.
No, I’m saying that people will prefer to live amongst civilised people than savages. I would have thought that was obvious.
No, not immediatly. But when they have to bear the responsibilities of their own actions things will start going in that direction.
Of course there are. Anyway, when did I say here?
No, you just don’t understand him (meanwhile posting strawmen and red herrings). Governments gain their legitimacy from the illusion that they’re just. As long as the poor accept welfare they see it as just and so does everybody else. If the poor refused to voted and managed to muster the moral and intellectual strength to realised they’re holding themselves in chains then they’d stop. As it is, it’s far easier to vote money from others than to work for it.
You assume when I say government rests on consent that I mean uninimous consent. I think you know I meant that, so I’ll just accept you’re being pedantic. Otherwise you’re confused and eager for conflict.
The poor don’t vote? That’s news.
You’re conflating libertarianism with socialist appeals to the emotion. I couldn’t give a damn about the poor really.
There’s plenty of right libertarians who reject state and corporate power, and even the political process. Hoppe for example, I wonder why you’re not too keen on him? And yes you’re doing everything you can do defend “anarcho” communists who detest property rights.
Only, childish rejection of a natural order and authority isn’t the opposite to subservience. It’s a bad trait that needs to be kept down until the youth have matured sufficiently.
It’s clear enough, and can be dealth with through polycentrism.
No, I’m not. I just understand that people have an incorrect perception of what anarhcism entails and you wish to carry on using the word. You placate your leftist buddies. I on the otherhand recognise the strategic importance of dropping this word and finding a more appropriate one.
Finally, you figured something out. I suggest you read Hoppe’s chapter in D:TGTF on this. You seem to be drifting from the original topic.
My point was that the concept of a “natural elite” can be and has been used as legitimacy for a state, on the basis that those in control of the state are more fit to govern than others. But in the sense of people being fit to rule others, I proclaim that noone is fit to do so. I’m not denying that different people are good at different things. I’m saying that noone is “superior” to the point of being fit to be a ruler.
I never stated otherwise. And actually Austrian economics has nothing to say about that.
I never made any statement about Nitro’s character. I think some of you have a tendency to see straw men where they don’t exist, when people are making general statements.
I’m sorry to repeat this again, but I believe you’ve grossly misinterpreted La Boetie as confirmation bias with respect to your elitist hatred for the commoner. Nothing about La Boetie’s writting implies that people inherently violate property rights or that their political systems are actually voluntary.
I’m sorry, you’ve apparently yet to understand my actual points. You’re attacking a strawman.
That goes against the most obvious of economic principles. Mutual benefit is the normn in a free market.
No, they aren’t. They can be used for egalitarian purposes and egalitarian forms of organization can exist within them. Free market /= your organizational preferance per se.
Once again, you completely fail to understand the point. When I say “egalitarian”, I refer to a general tendency towards positive outcomes for people. That’s it. Not pure equality of wealth or talent or whatever. As for equal rights, libertarianism inherently supports equal negative rights and is incoherant otherwise. As for state-imposed mediocrity, yes, this does occur. However, the outcome is not in fact egalitarian, it’s net harmful to the masses.
I never said that there is no relation, I said there is no absolute relation. Desiring egalitarianism outcomes does not inherently make someone a statist per se, and it is impossible for the state to actually be egalitarian in nature, as it inherently is a power heirarchy.
The total abolition of all private property is an impossibility to begin with. Even communist states rely on some degree of private property in terms of the production within society necessary for it to leech off of.
The state does not, in its net effects, distribute wealth from the rich to the poor. The welfare state has in fact had the effect of increasing poverty - on top of the more corporatist measures which have the same effect.
No, I think you use the word as a stigmatizing reference to anyone who isn’t a cultural conservative.
People aren’t “savages” just because they aren’t cultural conservatives. You dehumanize people.
I think a new name is in the spirit of praxeology. after all the point is to have people approach human action rationally. what better way than by using terms that people have no connotations or denotations that could screw up the message?
If we can truly get people to start from a blank slate Austrianism should win by default.
You’re making an armchair psychoanalysis of an entire class that has no evidence to back it up. It hardly is the case that people only accept welfare out envy or a general support for the system. Your open hatred for the poor is disgusting.
Yes, the majority of the American population doesn’t vote to begin with. Presumably, this includes the poor.
I have not made any appeals to emotion, and nothing I have said is necessarily socialist (unless you wish to argue that having any sense of empathy for the less fortunate is inherently “socialist”). But thanks for letting your true conservative colors shine bright - by actually confirming or enabling the idea that libertarians “couldn’t give a damn about the poor”. Yea, that kind of scrooge attitude will surely help win people over. Thanks for nullifying all the time spent trying to clarify that supporting free markets does NOT in fact make one lack empathy.
I’m not keen on Hoppe because his position on immigration is incoherant, his revisionism is far too soft on monarchy and his view of where libertarianism is on the political spectrum is warped.
No I’m not. I’m not even talking specifically about anarcho-communists, I’ve merely rejected a monocentric approach to libertarianism that regaurds “anarcho-capitalism” as its own category that is 100% independant from anarchism as such. It is you who has erected straw men here.
The use of terms like “natural order” can be highly misleading and rhetorical. Rejecting arbitrary authority and traditionalism is not childish or irrational.
I wish to clarify what anarchism actually is rather than yield to cultural cliches; what you are doing is actually perpetuating the incorrect perception of what anarchism entails. And you don’t just advocate dropping a word, you seem to advocate dropping the anarchist movement.
No, this was clear all along, and it’s irrational and sectarian. Your conservative cultural preferances are not a prerequisite to being a libertarian. Stop superimposing cultural conservatism onto libertarianism in the attempt to conflate the two.
Ive already read the book from cover to cover multiple times. I don’t have to read it again to be sure that I disagree with him.
Private property has been used to justify slavery, equality has been used to justify mass murder and the idea of prosperity has been used to justify government intervention in the economy. What’s your point, that the state is evil and coopts perfectly acceptable and desirable ideas to justify its own actions? That’s hardly groundbreaking, nor does it constitute a case against any of these ideas.
Actually, democracy and even monarchy work against natural elites. Both of them have to suppress the role of natural elites and pander to the egalitarianism of the common man in order to gain support. Whilst monarchies may have originally been an outgrowth of this natural institution, the moment they began to suppress other natural elites they promoted egalitarianism. This is funnily enough, what led to their downfall at the hands of democracy.
Did you really just say that Austrian economics has nothing to say about the division of labour? Funny that you should level the same criticism againt Hoppe actually.
No you posted some strawman about anybody who disagrees with you not being an anarchist. Which, I suppose was correct in regards to me, but not to Nitroaddict.
I’ll repeat myself since you don’t really seem capable of hearing me the first time, tell me where you disagree:
- the state derives its legitimacy from the illusion that it is either necessary or desirable,
- voting implies that one has bought into this illusion,
- a large number of the poor voted for Barack Obama (or other candidates) in the last election.
As such, it follows that legitimacy is derived from the claim that the government can help the poor. The poor buy into this as a result of moral and intellectual weakness. If the poor rejected the state, and rejected welfare others would see the emporer without his clothes.
I have. Property rights are flexible and depend on the way in which one inteprets them. Accordingly many different ideologies may coincide and live next to one another. Actually, property rights would fail in their very meaning: to stop conflict and would be meaningless.
And this somehow proves that one person may be very apt in putting scarce resources to benefit the many? Granted, it’s unlikely. But if I recall correctly I said exactly that.
But yes they are. Private property clearly implies people are not equal. They are disctinct from one another, some will excell others will be mediocre. In any case all will be different, even in the rights they possess. How can private property be put to egalitarian uses?
At first I thought you might want to keep anarchism on account of using words according to their correct meaning. Obviously not. I don’t really understand how equality can mean good results. Perhaps you mean equality is double plus good? No, libertarian doesn’t support equal negative rights, a child does not have the same rights as an adult. But as you believe babies debate one another in the maternity section this discussion isn’t going to be very fruitful, so let’s not bother.
You’re just being pedantic now. And posting strawmen. Yes it is possible for one to be an anti statist egalitarian. We all live in the context of the state (unless you live in some anarchist colony you’re not sharing with the rest of us, or you’re MaxLiberty who believes wishing you were free makes it so) and my point was the state encourages egalitarianism.
And no, the state, the abolition of property rights (including self ownership) is the only way to establish some semblance of equaltiy amongst men, who would otherwise be disctinct and unequal.
Of course it is. Which is why the definitions of communism/ socialism and capitalism are not helpful. I’d say that state communism is just private ownership of the means of production, albeit by the state. My point was simply that there is no completely private property anywhere.
You’re attacking a strawman. The state doesn’t in its net effect distribute from the rich to the poor no. But it does distribute from some of the rich to the poor. And it does encourage egalitarianism in other way. Most of all it just encourages mediocrity.
So go ahead and think that, you’d be wrong. But then when do you give a damn about the definition of words when it doesn’t suit you to?
You’re evading the point and nit picking. But, anyway, they are.
No I don’t, they do it to themselves.
I would argue that your love of all things mediocre is disgusting, especially when these are the same fools that imprison us, but let’s not waste our time. As much as you would love to dismiss what I have to say as an armchair pyschoanalysis I’m going to have to ask you to do better than that. The fact is if you agree with La Boetie you have to agree with me for the sake of inconsistancy. If you don’t, that’s fine, but then we’re going to have to go back a step.
So go on, refute what I said or concede the point and continue loving the poor regardless.
This is entirely different from saying the poor don’t vote. Which is what you said earlier.
The poor still vote, the poor still advocate redistribution and as such they’re culpable.
You have made ad hoc arguments in their defence, with no rational foundation. If you want to provide it, go ahead. Actually you’ve made outright appeals to the emotion as well, so please don’t bother denying it.
I’ve never made any attempts to hide my conservative colours, I’m very proud of them in fact. If there were a conservative flag I’d be sure to fly that one over my black flag. I’ll take it as a compliment that you regard me as a spokesperson for the libertarian movement in saying I enable certain ideas. I do no such thing. As for winning people over, funny, I thought libertarians were against pandering to certain groups, and I thought libertarians generally frowned upon deceiving people and dishonesty in general. I guess you make an exception. Not that it makes any sense to win the poor over anyway. They’re too comfortable with the system as it is and have nothing to really offer the movement anyway.
Hoppe isn’t soft on monarchy, you just have some attachment to democracy because of its egalitarian nature. At least in regard to monarchy. If you accept the idea of private property, I don’t really understand how you can disagree with Hoppe. Anyway, it boils down to cultural issues in the end.
You do seem to exclude inconvenient quotes ever so often. This is a strawman, I’ve never advocated what you said I have, I just (correctly) believe “capitalism” will prevail in the end. (Which you ignored).
Rejecting tradition for the sake of it is irrational. As for arbitrary authority, why exaclty is arbitrary? Because it serves a social function as well a biological one? Or because it suits you to call it “arbitrary”?
THat sounds wonderful to me.Of course it must begin by dropping the word. You still haven’t managed to defend keeping the word though, you’ve just veered off course. But there’s no reason to adopt a word for the sake of it, if there was then we’d still be clinging to liberal, a far nicer word than anarchist. Just as counter productive though.
Then read it again until you get the point.
Oh good. At least I managed to get that across.
My point is that the concept is overwhelmingly just apologetics, an abuse of the connotation of the word “natural” to arbitrarily justify someone’s authority.
Egalitarianism is hardly the only ideology that states can use and have used for legitimacy. One could just easily argue that states are dominantly reliant on some more “culturally conservative” things: religion, appeal to the family, racism, nationalism, and so on.
The fact of the matter is that the state in a modern democracy thrives off of cultural-identity conflict and class conflict among the masses, and it always cuts in both directions. There is nothing egalitarian about such divisiveness.
No. I was saying that Austrian economics has nothing to say about culture.
No, my point was misunderstood, and I clarified.
You oversimplify. It does not follow that the poor are actually represented by the government or that they in actual fact explicitly consent to whatever the government goes on to do. Neither is it necessarily the case that one is significantly one welfare because one is poor (or that the middle class and rich doesn’t have its own welfare benefits and make use of “public” institutions).
Your claim that the poor are inherently morally or intellectually weak is just the inverse of marxist class psychology, which is absurd. Someone’s economic status is not the inherent cause of their moral or intellectual worth. To totally disresgaurd environment and engage in such a mass-psychoanalysis of a class is ridiculous.
I’m sorry, that is a strawman. You misunderstand.
Are you even paying attention anymore? I said “When I say “egalitarian”, I refer to a general tendency towards positive outcomes for people. That’s it. Not pure equality of wealth or talent or whatever.” I’m not talking about equality.
Even if we grant your exemption for children, libertarianism would still support equal negative rights for adults (and good luck finding an official “age of consent” - you can’t). Rothbard, in “For A New Liberty” and “The Ethics of Liberty”, supports UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE RIGHTS.
And I disagree with your exemption for children, since the implication would be that they are free game to be assaulted, murdered and stolen from.
You’re really lapsing strongly into a conservative position here. Libertarianism favors equal negative rights. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be libertarianism.
Private property clearly implies that there is an owner (or set of owners) with decision-making power. That owner or set of owners, however, can decide to decide that the property can be used in a “public” manner to one degree or another. This isn’t about equality, it’s about how one decides to use private property. Private property does not by definition mean that it is not shared or given. Private property is not entirely incompatible with inclusivity as such.
Libertarianism inherently recognizes equal negative rights - individual sovereignty applies to human beings, not only a certain class. Libertarianism delegitimizes the state through the analysis that it inherently violates the natural law of equal liberty.
Private property can be put to egalitarian uses through voluntary acts of charity and mutual aid.
I have no “love of all things mediocre”. I just don’t see how conservative elitism squares with the reality of the situation, which is overwhelmingly to the deteriment of most people’s well-being.
What’s in question is your interpretation of La Boetie. Many others have read La Boetie and come to different conclusions. I’m under no requirement to agree with your interpretation of La Boetie.
I don’t “love the poor”. I just don’t accept an armchair demonization of them.
Such sweeping generalities are incorrect and dangerous. The fact that someone is poor doesn’t mean that they necessarily vote, and it doesn’t necessarily mean they vote a certain way, as some kind of law of nature. Be a methodological individualist man, come on!
You seem to have many correlation-causation issues.
I don’t decieve people, I express exactly what my sincere viewpoints are.
And it’s silly to just write off entire segments of the population as a whole like that. The people that I’m thinking of are far from comfortable with the system, and too a degree, virtually noone is.
No, I regaurd you as a spokeperson for the conservative movement when you enable conservative ideas, which is not the same thing as the libertarian movement and never has been.
Actually I have zero attachements to political democracy, that is a straw man. I reject majoritarianism and I reject representative democracy as a sham. I merely see no reason to be so passive about monarchy, which is a horrible system of oppression like all other political systems.
Private property /= cultural conservatism. Private property CAN overlap with cultural conservatism, but cultural conservatism is not necessary for there to be private property, and private property does not inherently imply cultural conservatism.
I never said that I oppose tradition for the sake of it.
The point is that traditionalism, as in the absolute clinging to what clearly is a relic, is irrational and it’s inherently primitivist or romantic in nature.
Absolute decision-making power over other people’s lives is not something to take lightly.
There is no need to abandon words, there is a need to define concepts and their relations.
No, I strongly disagree with the point. Hoppe’s conservatism is a deviation.
I like Austro-libertaian
austro-meaning free market anarchism, the austrian school, praxeology, mises, Rothbard’s works, an intellectual prefix
libertarian-non-interventionism abroad, social libertarian, freedom from politics
Because not realising that the poor, to an extent, are giving the state legitimacy will lead to tactical errors and misplaced sympathy.
And I don’t accept your armchair demonization of my armchair demonization. Go back and refute it. Or concede the point.
No you said we should pander to the poor to gain their support, which implies insincerity.
And, another strawman.
I guess some of us have work to do then.
And, nobody has been. Hoppe has merely stated that it is a better system than democracy. Which you can attempt to refute, if you want. Otherwise stop the strawmen.
Yes it does, once again I’ll refer you to Hoppe’s chapter in D:TGTF.