Ah, Hartwich, I read him regularly, too, even quoted him once or twice in threads, even find some of his stuff good.
However, where he claims that Hoppe is for example not explaining what is natural in hbis idea of natural order, Hartcwich simply is wrong and did not study his work carefully enough. Hoppe explains that absolutely, in his books often in context of where the first kings and the first landlords and the first tribe leaders may have emerged from, and how. It is in several parts of his work, but I just pick it from the quotes I already give, as an introductory illustration:
Quote:
|
In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn to with their conflicts and complaints against each other. These leaders of the natural elite act as judges and peacemakers, often free of charge out of a sense of duty expected of a person of authority or out of concern for civil justice as a privately produced "public good."
|
What Hoppe does not spend time on, is elaborating much to what degree such an order offers opportunities for corruption again, corrupting power. However he admits that royals and monarchs tried to cheat and betray for sure - its just that the context of feudal land order with its unique settings of law and different status of private property they found it much more difficult for the most to be successful in that. He also lists empiric indices like taxes and money devaluation, innerpolitical power projection and the relation between king and the laws he must follow to illustrate his point that in monarchies comparable problems of corruption and abuse existed like in democracies: but that democracies allow them to come to much greater blossoming, leading to much greater inefficiency of the administrative apparatus, costs, corruption, and damage to the capital stock. - THAT IS PART OF THE REASON WHY HOPPE SAYS HE DOES NOT WANT A MONARCHY, although he sees a monarchy as the lesser and much cheaper evil, compared to democracy. To explain in full detail what he means by private law society, leads a bit to far in this thread, I refer to some of the chapters in his book The Failed God, where he illustrates that in greater detail. Hoppe also defends himself against being seen as a libertarian, because to him libertarians today are only lifestyle libertarians who are more socialists than anything and hide that behind the label libertarianism in order to make themselves look distinct from other democratic factions (that would be true for the German FDP for example, and the political direction that in europe is called Liberalism).
There are many such simplifications Hartwich implies, and his criticism may come from the fact that Hartwich, a liberal economist himself, represents what Hoppe is attacking in general: the camp of those who may call themselves different names but all consider democracy to be the inevitable basis of any desirable state order. For Hoppe, democracy is the very root of the evil. Hoppe even sets himself apart from Mises and Rothbarth, therefore, since both also had a positive view of democracy and were not able to identify democracy itself as the casue of why political leadership goes corrupt and the economies derail and the finances of the state always will be ruined by democrats and will go bankrupt.
The the very objects of Hoppe's criticism do not like to be attacked and do not sit still when becoming the object of his analysis, is not surprising.
Hoppe's "natural order"W can be easily misunderstood, I absolutely agree, and he also can be easily mistaken for just any archcapitalist liberal, yes. But I think that impression is misleading. Took myself some time to see it that way, too. and I indeed thiunk that he explains an utopia there, an ideal to strive for. Whether it can be realised, I have some doubts myself.
Some days ago I said that imo Hoppe is best when on the attack. His strength is the analysis of the past, and of the reasons why democracy failed and necessarily must fail every time. His empiric data and arguments based on historical facts, are compelling. n the cure he offers, well, I have admitted from beginning on: that still is under debate. I found his vision however making more sense than what so far I was ab le to come up with as an alternative myself. If somebody however has a better model for an alternative in the future, let'S hear him. Just notg more of what we already have had excessively: more supra-state, less national state, more democracy, more social this, social that, more redistribution, more money printing. I base on the very strong opinion that these factors already have been dismissed by their record as trustworthy alternatives. They are the reason why we have the problem that we have today. Just more of the same, is not convincing to me. I do not expect a sudden miracle when trying to extinguish a fire by spilling more gasoline into the fire.