Social Darwinism

[apehead]

@wilderness

Read the book before going off on these wild tangents that have nothing at all to do with the book.

I don’t really remember any “wild tangents”.

If his premise was that simple, then why does he defend the aristocracy so often (twice in just that short passage Olly posted). Is this a fluke, or does this occur often in the book?

[wilderness]

@Jackson LaRose

@wilderness

Read the book before going off on these wild tangents that have nothing at all to do with the book.

I don’t really remember any “wild tangents”.

If his premise was that simple, then why does he defend the aristocracy so often (twice in just that short passage Olly posted). Is this a fluke, or does this occur often in the book?

If you read the book, then it doesn’t look like he is defending the aristocracy the way you are interpreting it. You are not ONLY quoting passages, you are also interpreting them with your own words below the quotes you are providing.

[apehead]

@wilderness

If you read the book, then it doesn’t look like he is defending the aristocracy the way you are interpreting it.

OK, I’ll have to take your word for it.

@wilderness

You are not ONLY quoting passages, you are also interpreting them with your own words below the quotes you are providing.

Yeah, I’m explaining myself. Is that a problem?

[wilderness]

@Jackson LaRose

@wilderness

You are not ONLY quoting passages, you are also interpreting them with your own words below the quotes you are providing.

Yeah, I’m explaining myself. Is that a problem?

You are not simply explaining yourself. You are explicitly saying ‘this is what hoppe means’ when you haven’t even read the book.

So yes. You are explaining yourself trying to pass it off as if your explanation is Hoppe’s explanation. Category error on your part.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@wilderness

@Jackson LaRose

@wilderness

Read the book before going off on these wild tangents that have nothing at all to do with the book.

I don’t really remember any “wild tangents”.

If his premise was that simple, then why does he defend the aristocracy so often (twice in just that short passage Olly posted). Is this a fluke, or does this occur often in the book?

If you read the book, then it doesn’t look like he is defending the aristocracy the way you are interpreting it. You are not ONLY quoting passages, you are also interpreting them with your own words below the quotes you are providing.

Speaking of contrived… I like how he tailors a very small quote for his hyperbole, then disagrees with the analysis. [;)]

Hoppe makes it clear that he is not a monarchist. He shows some positives of monarchy contra democratic republics. I really don’t feel like wasting my time on “critics” who haven’t even read what they want to swipe at.

[apehead]

@E. R. Olovetto

I like how he tailors a very small quote for his hyperbole, then disagrees with the analysis.

That democracy has flaws? Sure I agree with that. That feudalism is better, well I guess that depends whether you were a baron or a serf.

@E. R. Olovetto

He shows some positives of monarchy contra democratic republics.

With some strange passages eluding to a romanticizing of “noble families”, which I find a bit suspect.

@E. R. Olovetto

I really don’t feel like wasting my time on “critics” who haven’t even read what they want to swipe at.

You’ve read it, right? Slap on a quick passage were he adds the non-feudalist caveat you have asserted he has. That’s all it would take to put me away.

[wilderness]

i hope everybody just ignores jackson for now on in this thread. his questions and comments are so far off the mark on anything worthwhile but hey he’s read the book right?

[apehead]

@wilderness

i hope everybody just ignores jackson for now on in this thread. his questions and comments are so far off the mark on anything worthwhile but hey he’s read the book right?

LOL, why? You guys have all read the book, so just quote him to shut me up. It would probably be easier to do that than just ignore me.

[HtutAlexander]

@mikachusetts

@Jackson LaRose

@E. R. Olovetto

How is Hoppe’s work a justification for brutal colonialism?

Not colonialism, but is bizarre infatuation with “natural elites”.

@E. R. Olovetto

Have you even read Hoppe yet?

Yuck! No, his media on this site was quite enough for me.

I search the forums just to read interactions between you guys. Whats wrong with natural elites though?

I think the concept of a ‘natural elite’ is specious. Natural specialists, sure - some people, for whatever reason, are just going to be better at certain things. Some people may be better at many things than most people. Nonetheless the concept of an ‘elite’ is derived from a tribal hierarchy, not a liberal society. People who own more property will become less influential with the withering of the state, though of course they will have more control over their own property. The increase in technology, average wealth and a more equalitarian distribution of opportunities and options will ensure that people will become more independent and ever more capable of ‘finding their level’ by choosing an environment which suits their tastes, rather than conforming to the ‘norms’ of the Polis.

[apehead]

Dang, Htut, if only I was as eloquent and concise…

[wilderness]

good post Htut

[E_R_Olovetto]

@wilderness

i hope everybody just ignores jackson for now on in this thread. his questions and comments are so far off the mark on anything worthwhile but hey he’s read the book right?

He is saying things then quickly forgetting or something too. I don’t know, it is kind of bizarre.

quick quote:

@Hoppe

Despite the comparatively favorable portrait presented of monarchy, I am not a monarchist and the following is not a defense of monarchy. Instead, the position taken toward monarchy is this: If one must have a state, defined as an agency that exercises a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decisionmaking (jurisdiction) and of taxation, then it is economically and ethically advantageous to choose monarchy over democracy. But this leaves the question open whether or not a state is necessary, i.e., if there exists an alternative to both, monarchy and democracy.

[apehead]

Ah, that wasn’t so tough, now was it? That gets his opinion of absolutist monarchy out of the way. Does he have anything to say about feudalism?

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Jackson LaRose

Ah, that wasn’t so tough, now was it? That gets his opinion of absolutist monarchy out of the way. Does he have anything to say about feudalism?

Ever heard of a library? Try this.

[apehead]

@E. R. Olovetto

Ever heard of a library?

Yes, but sharing is caring [;)].

@E. R. Olovetto

Try this.

OK.

[apehead]

Here we go, from this:

@Hoppe

More interestingly, armed with elementary economic and political theory, I present in my book a revisionist reconstruction of modern Western history: of the rise of absolute monarchical states out of state-less feudal orders, and the transformation, beginning with the French Revolution and essentially completed with the end of World War I, of the Western world from monarchical to democratic States, and the rise of the US to the rank of “universal empire.”

I don’t think Hoppe considers feudalism a type of “statism”. I suppose that’s how he can maintain an affinity towards the aristocracy whilst having a dislike for absolute monarchy, and complete disdain for democratic republics. I find this premise a bit odd. Thoughts?

[HtutAlexander]

@Jackson LaRose

Here we go, from this:

@Hoppe

More interestingly, armed with elementary economic and political theory, I present in my book a revisionist reconstruction of modern Western history: of the rise of absolute monarchical states out of state-less feudal orders, and the transformation, beginning with the French Revolution and essentially completed with the end of World War I, of the Western world from monarchical to democratic States, and the rise of the US to the rank of “universal empire.”

I don’t think Hoppe considers feudalism a type of “statism”. I suppose that’s how he can maintain an affinity towards the aristocracy whilst having a dislike for absolute monarchy, and complete disdain for democratic republics. I find this premise a bit odd. Thoughts?

If by ‘state’ one means the public sovereign state which ‘represents’ the ‘people’ and who has authority to make unilateral decisions binding upon others, then feudalism is not a state. Nor, for that matter, are most of the political organizations in history. The modern state is inherently totalitarian and has many conceptual and practical differences from historical political organizations, however there are many factors which are quite the same and if feudalism is not a state it is nonetheless a violent, oppressive political organization based largely upon ignorance and terrorism.

[wilderness]

during feudalism there were taxes. if there was oppression in terms of liberty being violated, then yes, it is a state. state/gov’t=criminal organization, big or small. some are weaker than others, but that’s neither here nor there.

[apehead]

@Htut

If by ‘state’ one means the public sovereign state which ‘represents’ the ‘people’ and who has authority to make unilateral decisions binding upon others, then feudalism is not a state.

Then neither would be an absolute monarchy (I think that’s what you imply later in your post). I am finding it hard to envision a concrete delineation where A is a state, and B is not. Is there a minimum amount of geographic territory one must claim (and enforce successfully) sovereignty over to be considered “a state”?

[apehead]

@wilderness

during feudalism there were taxes. if there was oppression in terms of liberty being violated, then yes, it is a state. state/gov’t=criminal organization, big or small. some are weaker than others, but that’s neither here nor there.

So we both disagree with Hoppe’s premise here?