I do not think it is correct to equate tyranny with the state. That’s like equating crime with the state. All states may be criminal, but not all criminals are states. Likewise, all states may be variously tyrannical but not all tyrannies are states. Some of them are satrapies, Czardoms, chieftanships, etc. ‘The state’ as a distinct concept and entity was hatched from the egg of Westphalia and Neo-Republicanism and while it has common elements with historical organizations it is quite distinct in enough aspects to qualify it as its own species. What I think libertarians ought to be concerned with is arbitrary power and unjustified authority in general, rather than trying to pigeonhole all such examples into one category.
Htut,
I like your analysis, but I think this disagreement is merely one of semantics. By state, I think (correct me if I’m wrong) most of the posters on this forum would define it as
and just use the moniker of “state” for the sake of brevity.
i come from a natural law approach and what you say here is completely what I’m saying. for me the shorthand is: those who violate property rights (which includes property in ones person), then such violators are criminals and I don’t see how a state or any other arbitrary power and unjustified authority in general wiggles out of that. without need to explain what I meant in my previous post I think it is expedient for clarifications sake that what you said here was what I was trying to say but you gave the quick, short, and clear response.
We only focus on the state because it is the worst such criminal. Hoppe argues feudalism is less pernicious than other forms of oppression, and less inimical (even conducive) to being a meritocracy whereas democracy is founded on the exact opposite principle, and also that in feudalism’s case the inequality is overt and thus more readily noticed (and encroachments on liberty less tolerated than under democracy where they’re even embraced…) DTGTF is largely oriented towards conservatives and I guess communitarians to draw them towards anarchism… so how much of it he believes and how much is meant to be pandering towards those groups is open to interpretation. He is essentially outlining how conservatives could form their utopias without relying on the state.
Jon,
In that context, I can see how his motives would make sense. Sort of like telling a leftist that the free market is the closest you can get to equality.
I think of it this way, as an ethical cosmopolitan and liberal humanist: all people have the same ethical responsibilities toward others and themselves, part of which includes a full-development of themselves and a requirement to respect their own limitations as well as the plurality of human being. It is not so much the ‘free market’ that is equalitarian, it is that an equalitarian and liberal view makes me think that personal freedom is maximally important; and that this simply includes freedom of exchange as a subset. People are quite as likely to make irresponsible choices on the market as they are anywhere else (perhaps even more so), but it would be arrogant for others to act as though they possessed a superior knowledge of how a person’s development ought to proceed and how it may best be achieved.
From what I have read of HHH, it seems that he views the decentralized and contractarian aspects of feudalism to be superior to democratic nation states. And, in some ways, it is. But it was also a system of thoroughgoing human slavery and religious fanaticism. There may not have been any true ‘dark age’, but there was certainly no golden age, either.
Htut, I don’t see how Hoppe’s use of “natural elite” is specious. JLR trying to attach social Darwinism and Manifest Destiny to libertarianism is specious. Besides the contrast of monarchy to democracy, Hoppe makes the case for natural order, so I don’t see the point in mentioning what conditions were like in the feudal era.
In a talk, Hoppe explains that all non-human animals are “parasitic”. If one looks up the strict definition of that word it is true. I guess it is just tough for some to swallow.
When did I do that? I was reflecting on how those concepts are rooted in the idea of natural elites, along with Hoppe’s seeming affinity towards the nobility and feudalism. It was explained to me by Jon the reason for Hoppe’s seeming proclivity for systematic slavery, so the issue was resolved.
Htut,
Although I understand your position, I don’t think asserting positive rights will make you many friends on this forum. I think that Libertarians are generally more negative rights advocates. Here’s a chart:
I think they consider guys like me in the lower left corner…
I usually think of my political views as something like anarcho-communitarian. Semantics bug me [+o(]
Then you know Hoppe never says it was a golden age either. He points there were flaws during that time. He simply did a book on comparing and contrasts then and now. It’s a scholarly work and didn’t advocate monarchy, feudalism or anything other than natural order, ie. spontaneous order.
And what do you mean by specious? I thought you meant the word ‘natural elite’ could be considered a specious of tribalism, but in light of Hoppe’s property and ethical claims natural elite can come about anywhere if thought of that way. So I didn’t really think anything of the claim you made. But knowing on a principle level what natural elite means one would have to know what ‘natural’ means in natural law. ‘Nature’ and ‘natural’ in the natural law tradition have specific meanings.
There is no such thing as an ‘elite’ in reality. There are specialists, and differences in talent, experience and training. But there is no ‘caste’ which does or ought to control society, outside of an imposition by false ideology and violence. Rich people are not a natural elite, and most of them are frankly ignorant of anything outside of their narrow specialization. This is not to say poor people are any better, the point is that no one is ‘better’ and it is only the artificial heirarchies of political organization and religion that force people into positions of subservience and command. A truly liberal society will allow people to escape constraints on their expression and development, not lead them to hives of sequestered city-states ruled over by ‘elites’ who are worshipped for their arbitrary ability to accumulate cash or write economics treatises.
damnit! I had a thought out post and it didn’t go through. I’ll try to repeat it.[:)]
I thought elite meant specialist. I don’t know why it would be thought of otherwise when a particular theory is applied, ie. property rights, natural order, etc…
Nobody is an elite unless there is something of value they contribute and that doesn’t necessarily entail money. To use Dicken’s Scrooge. He’s not a natural elite. Has lots of money, but nobody listens to him. Of course later he wised up and went through a personal transformation in which he heart became caring and with the money within his reach he could do a lot to help out. Maybe he was looked up afterwards, and not only by his family. And the term elite doesn’t necessarily apply to any one person for any arbitrary time, considering natural order. My neighbor has some bulldozers and our road washed out last year. During the whole project of fixing it up, he was honored. Everybody looked up to him. He had the technology and being that this is a private road, all the expenses fell on us and as a community we needed to pitch in and help. He had the most to offer (and the guy is nowhere being rich, ie. lots and lots of money). He had great ideas on top of it all on how we could fix the road. He talked to some people outside the community that he knew and was able to get us some supplies for free. I mean he was a real natural elite. He took charge and everybody listened to him. Is he a natural elite forever more on all things? No. But I still have the memory of what he did and respect for that. I feel that respect still to this day time to time when I see him and talk to him. But he doesn’t have the answers to everything and nobody is putting a crown on his head.
Here’s the definition of elite. In light of a theory one can use I don’t see why the term can’t be used still. Hoppe has a way of salvaging terms, even out of the statist Marxist realm to turn those terms around on the original user. I wish I could remember the Mises Daily article I read of Hoppe in which he went step by step in turning a statist Marxist term into a good, anti-authoritarian, just civil society term. Society is a process and maybe at times it’s best to use Fabian tactics against Fabians. Here:
e·lite or é·lite (
-l
t
, 
-lt)n. pl. elite or e·lites
1.
a. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status: “In addition to notions of social equality there was much emphasis on the role of elites and of heroes within them” (Times Literary Supplement).
b. The best or most skilled members of a group: the football team’s elite.
I’ve seen the term elite used interchangeable with hero on the forum here, so, I don’t see people running rampant calling for crown’s on people’s heads or whatnot. Hoppe’s whole theory would first necessarily need to be conceptualized, ie. property rights, before claiming he wants people arbitrarily dictating to others. That would be counter to his natural order in the book. Notice how he even changed the definitional term ‘conservative’ in the book and changed it away from it’s statist connotation into an An-cap or natural order one. He explained what he meant by the term in detail and denounced how the term is being used in gov’t politics of today.
The kind of elitist you are talking about, how could one exist in a natural order?
What is wrong with religious fanaticism?
It invokes willful irrationality for the enforcement of patently false dictates.
Wilderness: But there is no real elite, as all goods, services, and values are subjective to individuals. There is no such thing as ‘the best car manufacturer’ or ‘the best judge’. There are cars and judges that some people prefer, and which others may detest. The notion of ‘superiority’ outside of a tautologically defined mechanical property or subjective value is meaningless, and within such a context becomes irrelevant to anyone who does not share a certain value.
There is no: “The best or most skilled members of a group” ?
I know there are. I gave an example of what happened last year on my road. I mean the the man out of his own good will, spontaneously not only had the technology, but the mindful ingenuity.
that’s self-evident.
yes there are. The man was the best guy for the job on our road last year. and i think my car is the best. i’ve never had any problems with it.
They praxeologically prefer them because they are better for what ends such individuals perceive.
the man was more superior for the job than anybody else and he volunteered for the job which is superior to force if the ends are peace and prosperity
well we all shared the value of this particular superior man for the job. superior, as I said, not only because the technology that he possessed but also because he had an engineers mentality and knew just how to put the road back together.
maybe you disagree, but I was here, and the neighbors can vouch for the guy. he really knew what he was doing and the road is great!
Wilderness,
Barring omniscience, you can’t claim he was the best, even in relation to your specific end. He may have been better at road building than the rest of your neighbors, but I don’t see how that makes him “the best”.
I think he was the best, and the other neighbors have spoken the same about him within this context. How are you really going to argue that?
I don’t argue that you hold an opinion of the man, but I will argue that said opinion has any validity (nothing personal).
Yes: that was the point of what I was saying. You can create a ‘best’ or an ‘elite’ with a thought, simply by restricting your classes and ranking system. The point is: so what? I can easily construct a chart of the best murderers, and create some rationale for their being the ‘natural elite’. Certainly the Khans had a lot going for them; I would bet that some of them were very smart, too.