Social Darwinism

[apehead]

@Jon Irenicus

Never heard any of them argue for brutal colonisation.

I think you misunderstood. I’m saying that line of thinking (Social Darwinism and Natural Elites) can be used to justify actions that without the concocted bias, would usually be considered appaling i.e. brutal colonialism.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Jackson LaRose

@E. R. Olovetto

this kinda sounds like someone who doesn’t even know what he is talking about concocting something completely absurd.

LOL, the acolyte does not appreciate his prophet’s words poo-poo’d.

@E. R. Olovetto

Get back to me when you actually read more Hoppe than what I quoted and can back your opinions with facts.

If that’s the criteria, I’d rather not get back. I’ve heard him, that was plenty.

So, you still have absolutely nothing of substance to say. I am not surprised.

[apehead]

@ClaytonB

Hoppe’s view (in my words) is that the natural elites have been suppressed by the warrior-elite, the State.

That seems a rather arbitrary distinction. Wouldn’t those in power have gotten there by being the elites? In the Hoppe quote my boy Olly-V tacked up here, he seems to be all for the nobility.

@ClaytonB

The State is war and the flourishing of the State directly corresponds with the flourishing of the elites of war: the royalty, nobility and, nowadays, the political class.

Again, I may be misinterpreting, but it seems like Hoppe is a big fan of the aristocracy.

@ClaytonB

Wealth disparity is a state of being not an action, therefore, it requires no justification.

But the action of maintaining that status quo might.

[apehead]

@E. R. Olovetto

So, you still have absolutely nothing of substance to say. I am not surprised.

How is this response any more substantiative?

[apehead]

@mikachusetts

Intellectual farsightedness is the hallmark of the KKK.

Is this sarcastic?

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Dondoolee

@E. R. Olovetto

@Dondoolee

It is a poor execution of sociology. It is an artificial hierarchy that uses biased wordplay to subsidize ones preferences. It is “science for the sake of conservative libertarianism” instead of sociology for the sake of sociology.

That being said, there are hundreds left wing sociologists who are even worse, more in control of academic discourse, and more irresponsible than Hoppe.

If you like a more “right wing” approach in your sociology, Spencer and Mises are more academicaly interesting. Hoppe is a bit too much of a polemic sociologist for my tastes.

Can you point out some specific examples? Who should I read for the best sociology?

Honestly my experience with sociology has been a bitter experience so far. It seems mostly like arm chair political apologetics. While I criticize Hoppe; he is at least interesting, different, and politicaly/academicaly “un-hip” which is better than most sociologists.

I think you can get more out of sociology from economists like Hayek and Mises (or even if you completely disagree with him: Marx), anthropology, good historians, and social psychology than most sociologists that I am aware of. In fact I think social psych and economics is a firm base for sociology, and a firm 101 grasp of those two subjects mixed with a semi decent history/anthropology background is better than any sociology text. If anyone knows of a very good methodoical sociologist please let me know. Thus far, the best I can find is the dated Herbert Spencer. Hopefully I am wrong, but sociology seems to me like a missed academic opportunity and a botched field of study.

For Mises you can pull things out of almost anything but I was specifically thinking of these, the second article is Salerno about Mises as a social rationalist:

http://mises.org/books/liberalism.pdf

http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE4_1_2.pdf

You are doing what Giles and Jacko do…

It is a poor execution of sociology.

Can you point out some specific examples?

…?

…

I read more of Marx than I cared to. Is there something specifically noteworthy of his work, something that can’t be easily rejected out of hand and hasn’t been corrected by others already, such as with Hoppe’s analysis of Marxian class theory?

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Jackson LaRose

@E. R. Olovetto

So, you still have absolutely nothing of substance to say. I am not surprised.

How is this response any more substantiative?

Well, you are the one who has made the baseless assertions about Hoppe or people who have read him and find agreement. How is anyone trying to justify colonialism? It is beyond me how you would back up your assertion. This is your job not mine.

[apehead]

@von Vodka

No one can question that, in a free society, it is the best and brightest that tend to come out on top; that the “alternative culture” people would likely be excluded from many people’s private property; and that some people are naturally distinguished in their wisdom, ability, and integrity.

I agree. I have no problem with a merit based reward system, as that is what the market is, basically. Of course, that isn’t to say that the offspring of these best and brightest, or a locality or race that happens to produce a few good eggs, is automatically to be considered superior.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Jackson LaRose

@von Vodka

No one can question that, in a free society, it is the best and brightest that tend to come out on top; that the “alternative culture” people would likely be excluded from many people’s private property; and that some people are naturally distinguished in their wisdom, ability, and integrity.

I agree. I have no problem with a merit based reward system, as that is what the market is, basically. Of course, that isn’t to say that the offspring of these best and brightest, or a locality or race that happens to produce a few good eggs, is automatically to be considered superior.

Nobody said that. Hoppe analyzed history to describe natural elites. Nobody suggested conveying some “title of superiority” and thus granting “the elites” an excuse to act antithetically to what bestowed upon them this title. It sounds like you are confused how things work outside of the statist paradigm.

[apehead]

@E. R. Olovetto

Well, you are the one who has made the baseless assertions about Hoppe or people who have read him and find agreement.

What were a few of them? Hoppe seems creepily enfatuated with the concept of the nobility. I don’t really understand how you expect me to use specific examples to explain to you why I gleen that from the material I’ve read/heard of his. If you’d like one, take a look at the quote you posted up. He’s all about the aristocracy, and how the political process has been mongrelized by letting commoners have a say. I’m sorry we disagree on how appealing that line of thought is, but I can’t help that.

@E. R. Olovetto

How is anyone trying to justify colonialism

In this thread? I don’t think anyone is. I’m merely stating that the concepts of natural elites, or of social darwinism have been used to do that before.

@E. R. Olovetto

This is your job not mine.

Care to back up that assertion?[:P]

[apehead]

@E. R. Olovetto

Nobody said that. Hoppe analyzed history to describe natural elites

Which he believed were nobles whose families had held their titles since time immemorial. Note the disdain in which he describes the nouveau riche in the quote you posted.

@E. R. Olovetto

Nobody suggested conveying some “title of superiority” and thus granting “the elites” an excuse to act antithetically to what bestowed upon them this title. It sounds like you are confused how things work outside of the statist paradigm.

It sounds like you and I read the same man very differently.

[apehead]

@E. R. Olovetto

You are completely misrepresenting Hoppe by conflating natural elites with social Darwinism. You don’t even seem to know half of what you are talking about, and this is no surprise.

Have any specific examples to back up your baseless assertions? Two can play that card, sweet-cheeks!

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Jackson LaRose

@Prateek Sanjay

So just curiously, how and why did Social Darwinism become such a strong part of 19th and early 20th century politics?

You have [to try to] justify brutal colonialism and massive disparities in wealth somehow. A lot of the Hoppe-heads on this forum do the same thing.

Cite?

[apehead]

@E. R. Olovetto

You have [to try to] justify brutal colonialism and massive disparities in wealth somehow.

Manifest Destiny

Social Darwinism

@E. R. Olovetto

A lot of the Hoppe-heads on this forum do the same thing.

A good example might be you agree with enough to quote this:

the “people” have fared much worse since they began to rule “themselves,” what about the natural elites and the intellectuals? As regards the former, democratization has succeeded where kings made only a modest beginning: in the ultimate destruction of the natural elite and nobility.

or this

These families’ tradition of economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership have been lost and forgotten.

or maybe

They are typically no longer the heads of long-established leading families, but “nouveaux riches.” Their conduct is not characterized by virtue, wisdom, dignity, or taste, but is a reflection of the same proletarian mass-culture of present-orientation, opportunism, and hedonism that the rich and famous now share with everyone else.

From what I gather here, Hoppe would prefer us as turnip eating serfs, because he views proles (like me I don’t know if you’re a baron or not) as naturally and automatically inferior to the paternalistic, benevolent landowners and lords of old.

[E_R_Olovetto]

Mises Daily | Mises Institute

Whatever you say, sycophant.

[apehead]

@E. R. Olovetto

Whatever you say, sycophant.

To whom?

[Jon_Irenicus]

You’re going to have to show he means something more specific by “nobility” to make your point, and I really do not see what is objectionable in his statement re nouveaux riches, considering he does have state-enriched parasites in mind.

[apehead]

@Jon Irenicus

You’re going to have to show he means something more specific by “nobility” to make your point, and I really do not see what is objectionable in his statement re nouveaux riches, considering he does have state-enriched parasites in mind.

Well, what do you think he means? He keeps referencing to nobility as the “great families of old”. I’m assuming he is talking about the aristocracy. Sorry if that’s an incorrect interpretation.

[Esuric]

@Jackson LaRose

LOL, the acolyte does not appreciate his prophet’s words poo-poo’d.

You never say anything meaningful, ever. Just a constant flow of immature and ill-informed one-liners.

You have yet to show how we “Hoppe-heads” justify colonialism, and wealth disparity is simply a fact of life. Grow up.

[apehead]

@Esuric

You never say anything meaningful, ever. Just a constant flow of immature and ill-informed one-liners.

LOL, if I wasn’t getting constantly attacked, I wouldn’t have to resort to this garbage. I bet you aren’t going to chide my adversaries for the same behavior now will you?

@Esuric

You have yet to show how we “Hoppe-heads” justify colonialism, and wealth disparity is simply a fact of life. Grow up.

As I’ve explained at least twice so far on this thread, that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. Please go back to my response to Irenicius and read it. I might be able to hold a decent discussion if the only responses I got from you zealots was something substantiative, rather than just retreating to ad hominems.