Quote:
Originally Posted by Penguin
I ask myself where the Skybird is, who recently found his sympathies for the Austrian School and anarcho-capitalism?  I thought corporational good would benefit us all?  |
That is no contradiction, since the privat law society as envisioned by Hoppe includes the concept of having administrational communities of
very very small sizes only, which does not allow the international multi-corporations and their monopole-like powers that we have today. Limiting size of communities and the economies they harbour is one of the primary methods to prevent companies gaining monopolies. What is to be prevented next is companies trying to gain monopolies indirectly by supra-regional cooperation with other rivalling companies in an attempt to establish supra-regional cartels. Also, although being attached to the Austrian school, Hoppe is more radical than Rothbard or von Mises in his frontal attack on the institution of a state. Where von Mises and Rothbard in the end still defend a role for a democratic state, Hoppe does not, but attacks both democracy and the institution of a state. Hoppe also differs between the state-money that we have today, and real value money, which is also being seen in the austrian school of economics in general as a very decisive difference.
So, size of communities and companies is an important factor of prevention. It all should be kept small. In ancient Greece, an independent community' property - like a city - that belonged to it was to be not bigger than as far as the eye could see when the aristocratic citizens (who were allowed to vote in and decide on communal affairs) assembled on the hill where their assemblies took place. When I read that, I had to smile, since I did not knew that, but since years have imagined a size like that myself to be an ideal: a big city state at best.
In ancient Greece, the term "democracy" had a very negative connotation, and was meant derogatory, and as something which would destroy healthy communities and which therefore should be avoided.
I would recommend to you this formidable essay by Rahim Taghizadegan, who has founded a socalled I
nstitut für Wertewirtschaft in Vienna where he tries to revive the old and famous tradition of the socalled
Salonkultur of Vienna'S more glorious chapters in the past. This text I found to be an exquisit and sober depiction of where the term democracy originally comes from, and what the immense - the very immense! - differences between the original meaning and our modern conception of it are. If we today think that "the ancient Greek invented democracy" in a positive meaning, then this is simply totally wrong. They did not invent it as a positive good, nor did they crave for getting something like it. They saw the bad in it, and tried to prevent it.
http://wertewirtschaft.org/analysen/Demokratie.pdf
Both the Austrian school and Rothbard, Mises and Hoppe can be very easily misunderstood if picking just some sentences from them and ignoring the bigger ciontextx in which their thinking is embedded. I can only warn against ignoring that. Whjat is happening in the EU, and with the Euro, and in the US since the past decades, is a perfect illustration of how damn right these guys were/are. Especially the degeneration of the Eurozone and the EU of the past 20-30 years are textbook examples of proving it all true. If the past decades porve one thing, then that neither the social wellfare state model of Europe nor the deformed capitalistic model of North America have worked, and that both paths lead towards a future where increasing socialism and will bring down both economy and society for the same reasons it has brought down the former Warsaw Pact states. Democracy has not defeated or triumphed over Soviet communism or Socialism. It is travelling on exactly the same road and reaches collapse just a little bit later. Part of Hopp's maine criticism of present poltical schools and parties is that due to their craving for getting elected and being seen as attractive, or by being misled over ther natureof democracy, they all behave like socialists and ruin the common good by establishing socialism and collectivism as rules by which to run things, because that is what the canaille expects of them and rewards if the politicians promise it. Hoppe calls liberals and libertarians alike socialists, because they stick to the idea of that there must be a democratic "state" - that necessarily will more and more run by socialist principles, necessarily, and he accuses Democrats and Republicans alike to be socialists as well, in some cases even:
national socialists. Ooopsala! It is quite absurd to link him to neocons, or the Tea Party as well, or predatory capitalism. Simply absurd. In 2003, he also has blasted the American war and attempt to form a new state in Iraq. That Republicans and Neocons nevertheless try to claim him for their cause, only illustrates how easily one can miss his complete model if not caring for more than just ripping some statements out of the model'S context. And this model goes beyond the traditional Austrian economics school.
I also recommend study of the many literature available from authors here:
German:
http://www.misesde.org/?page_id=3064
English:
http://mises.org/Literature/Authors
German:
http://wertewirtschaft.org/analysen/