Introduction to Hoppe's main work

[Bilge_Rat]

Anarchism is one of those theories which sounds good on paper, but is completely unworkable in real life. Its much like Marxism which sounded like the answer to Capitalism, but turned out to be a lot worse.

The only example of Anarchism which, as far as I know, was tried on the ground was by Nestor Makhno during the Russian civil war. He is held up by a lot of Anarchists as an ideal, but when you look at his record, you see he was just another petty dictator who imposed his will through his army.

[Skybird]

Nobody here speaks of anarchism. Nor has Monacco or Hongkong, the around 30 cantons in Switzerland or the era of Italian city states or the German diversity of over 1800 city states and dukedoms in the middle of the 17th century and the surviving later conglomerate of just below 50 of such dukedoms and cities 150 years later, ever been called "anarchistic" in any history book I ever have read. Or the founding phase of the US when the states still had no centralized federal govenrment - that still does not justify a description of "anarchy".

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Nobody here speaks of anarchism. Nor has Monacco or Hongkong, the around 30 cantons in Switzerland or the era of Italian city states or the German diversity of over 1800 city states and dukedoms in the middle of the 17th century and the surviving later conglomerate of just below 50 of such dukedoms and cities 150 years later, ever been called "anarchistic" in any history book I ever have read. Or the founding phase of the US when the states still had no centralized federal govenrment - that still does not justify a description of "anarchy".

but these are all states? absolute monarchies with a few liberal democracies.

Nor has Monacco or Hongkong, the around 30 cantons in Switzerland or the era of Italian city states or the German diversity of over 1800 city states and dukedoms in the middle of the 17th century and the surviving later conglomerate of just below 50 of such dukedoms and cities 150 years later, ever been called "anarchistic" in any history book I ever have read.

So you have a list of badly failed attempts and examples that do not fit your ideology.
Makes a hoppelessly convincing case so it does

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

but these are all states? absolute monarchies with a few liberal democracies.

Hoppe only concludes that the evil done by moarchy is smaller than trhe evil done by demiocracies. Democracies have na inbuilt feature of wanting to monopilze their power: towards their inner community, nd towards their exterior - other states - as well. Where their is a monopolist - or several - in action, you see them swallowing smaller competitors. Thus the numbers of overall competitors is shrinking constantly, as a general trend. In the end, as a distant futrure attractor, there will be only one left. You see it currently perfectly in the EU. The forming of one super state with all power transferred from national states to Brussel, the trend is totally clear. People in Europe do not want that by majoity, but it doe snot matter: the democratically elected governments in the natiosn enforce it against their explicit will, even ignore explicit referendums against this trend, as happened in Netherlands and France. The union must be enforced, even against the people's will. America dreamt about bringing democracy to the whole world, since Wilson it dreamt that dream, leading ultimately to Iraq and the collapse of the cardhouse of American ME policies. But on the other side of the spectrum, the left also dreams of the world revolution of the proletariat, wants to establish one giant communist utopia.

What Hoppe argues, is this: if neither monarchy nor democracy protects against abuse of power by those being in power, with democratic systems not only causing greater such damage, but even motivating temporary caretakers to abuse the system at the cost of longterm interests and the communities basic capital stock - then it would be better to limit the size of communities to make them that way that a.) people in each community can overlook what is going on and can decided by moving to where there is a community to whose self-given" minimum rules they feel attracted more (for example moving to the next great city state), and b.) create the need that the plticla system in many small communities must complete with each other in order to be so attractive to people that they - especially the skilled, the gifted, the talented - prefer to move to "my" city state" instead to that citystate of "my "neighbours". Such a competition would introduce a form of natural selection to politics that would lead leaders - no matter of what governing system they are - to realise the need to govern as carefully and tax as little and release as little regulations as possible, in order to not chase away people not liking it.

On page 242 of the German edition of the book, Hoppe gives a 2 pages quote by Goethe that illustrates that Goethe already formulated much of what Hoppe is about. Mind you, the era talked a bout here are the fundament of what has brought Germany to strength and cultural shine, and that created the many names and working results that Germany gave such a great name in cultural history (before a certain Austrian strolled along and made sure that nobody talks of that greatness anymore today). You could also refer to the wealth and cultural climax of the Italian city states. The Hanse in Northern Europe, around the Baltic. There was wealth. Where there was wealth their came arts, culture. Science. Diversity in views on almost everything. Cultures blossomed.


Compare here, part of that Goethe quite is included in it:

http://mises.org/daily/357

I learned about that site just short while ago. I found to be many good texts to be collected there. Hoppe is kind of editor or chairman there. If you do not want to read the full book or spend money on it, I recommend to check what that site has to offer. Many free essays that found entrance in Hoppe'S books, can be found around the web for free, too.

[Bilge_Rat]

This is a bit simplified, but there are basically three forms of human rule:

1. dictatorship: one person or a minority tells the majority what to do;

2. democracy: the majority tells the minority what to do; or

3. anarchy: no one tells anyone what to do.

rarely do you see any one in its pure form, except some dictatorships. Usually, a functioning government has elements of all three.

still not sure exactly where Hoppe's theory fits in.

[Skybird]

Hoppe favours communal self-organization on the basis if private property and inter-human trade done by agreements between the participating partners.

He wants these communities to be as small as possible. That is to safeguard against anybody trying to monopolize either trade (which for Hoppe is one of the basic fundamentals of all sociological interaction and organisation, thus the need to protect private property instead of opening it to be owened by all and everybody - taxation is a form of the latter) or power to make laws and expropriate people (by taxes and regulations).

A certain minimum of adminstration and regulation of course canot be avoided. A minimum. The competition between communities and political systems inside them is meant to make sure that these minimums do not get easily exceeded.

For Hoppe, this should be established not a demoicratcially elected groiup of caretakers or a moarchiy dynasty, but again by the people. Services like policing and proteciton against natural disaster and other strikes by fate, should become services offered by competing organiaztion that people can freely choose to make a contract with, like you do voluntary insurances today. Today, we have the pllci8jng monopoly of the state, the monopoly of the state to rob parts of people'S property, and the monopoly to make ever new legislation and reuglations to whic everybody is submitted, no matter hwhether he was for or against it.

Service like a "privatized police" are needed only for the very obvious violation of common sense rules in this model. Many other rules for business contracts, social interaction and social self-organisation can be left to the participating people in place, it doe snot take a state to tell them what rules they must follow. Communities can only blossom when sufficient people want to live min them, it is in the very own interest of communities to be attractive for people, and thus: to compete with others.

The limited size of communities is key to it all. The communties interact amongst each other by again: private relations organised by private people.

This in very brief is what Hoppe calls "natural order" - the forth form of social organisaiton in your listing above - or "private law society".

Where people holding certain posts are needed - judges for example - Hoppe argues that these natural elites would form up by what again would compare to natural selection

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."

He calls them - different to Tchocky'S "feudal aristocracy" natural aristocrats. Feudal aristocrats claim to be an elite, and the claim for being so is hereditary. Natural aristocrats have shown and proven their worth, the claim is not hereditary. Since children are influenced nevertheless by the starting conditions and the quality of education they get at home, natural aristocrats nevertheless can form aristocratic families for sure. - Therein lies a certain risk, of course. azin riskl m of course.

How to get there? Hoppe has little illusions there, I think. You cannot get there by setting up a party and getting elected - then you have become a part of the problem that democracy is. He advocates regional secessions, civil disloyalty of people, no voluntary submission and obedience to the state rule, lip-to-lip confessing, refusing to cooperate with state institutions, and finally small regions agreeing to split from the higher communal entity. Private initiative, instead f putting all responsibility on and directing all claims at "the state". It reminds me of a grassroot movement, what he proposes.

Chances my be slim, I have no illusions ion it, I see the EU every day and therefore get reminded every day with what amount of force, betrayal, abuse and power the governing elite today will react. But small chances are better than no chances.

Much of Hoppe'S reasoning can be seen in the early founding fathers, I think. Since I started to occasionally read about them as well, my sympathy for them and their cultural ideas is constantly growing. I also draw parallels to some of what Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote. I'm sure that Steve would agree that there is plenty of good stuff to be discovered, though I am only scratching on the surface of it.

Strange, the older I get, the more I shift away from Europe and the more I see that the social side of politics over here indeed are leading us into communism in the end, and the more I shift towards America. But that is the very early America I have much sympathy for , not so much that of the present or even the modern era. I see a very huge gap between both eras, and it is constantly widening. Again, that seems to be because America was not founded as a democracy - but was turned into one. And so the desribed problems began. - But I stray off, so: full stop.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

but these are all states? absolute monarchies with a few liberal democracies.

Oh, no. No liberal democracies. All there are in this utopia are a group of feudal kingdoms ruled by a combination of corporate control and local "elites"; a term that Hoppe leave deliberately ambiguous. So what you have is a division of any county within the US into about 500 little feudal kingdoms, each headed by a local warlord. The difference between this and Europe of the 8th century is that Hoppe mixes in a sort of corporate fascism, where privatized corporations compete with each other for control of local law, enforcement, militarization, and all other elements of society formerly domain of the government. This order is ensured through the removal of any element of society that does not agree, consent or is considered non-productive, such as proponenets of other economic or political theories and homosexuals. Hoppe leaves how they are to be dealt with an ambiguous matter as well, but it is pretty easy to figure out what he means.

If it all sounds like madness it is only because it is madness.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

If it all sounds like madness it is only because it is madness.

I would be more inclined to say it is an utopian idea in the sense that it could theoretically work if everything falls into place exactly as Hoppe theorizes.

However, utopias have a hard time in the real world. Classical Marxism, as theorized by Marx in the 19th century, also theorized a utopian post-capitalistic world where the state would wither away and each person would work in accordance to his/her skill and receive based on his/her needs. We all know what happened in practice...

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

I would be more inclined to say it is an utopian idea in the sense that it could theoretically work if everything falls into place exactly as Hoppe theorizes.

However, utopias have a hard time in the real world. Classical Marxism, as theorized by Marx in the 19th century, also theorized a utopian post-capitalistic world where the state would wither away and each person would work in accordance to his/her skill and receive based on his/her needs. We all know what happened in practice...

Hoppe's whole point here is the claim that democracy does not allow for true freedom. What he proposes as alternative is a society that is much, much less free. I'd say that is madness, but to each is own; if you like the idea that is fine. I remain unconcerned, as Hoppe's ideas have gained very little traction, and rightly so. It is simplistic, insane nonsense. As such, we with never see such a society, and thankfully so.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

I would be more inclined to say it is an utopian idea in the sense that it could theoretically work if everything falls into place exactly as Hoppe theorizes.

However, utopias have a hard time in the real world. Classical Marxism, as theorized by Marx in the 19th century, also theorized a utopian post-capitalistic world where the state would wither away and each person would work in accordance to his/her skill and receive based on his/her needs. We all know what happened in practice...

I said it three times, and already in the very first post I ever made about a wekk ago or so: Hoppe is best in analysing and doing a diagnosis. The symptoms and their causes as he can link them with empirical data on development of taxes, national wealth distribution, demography, social statistics and especially financial budgets, is compelling. The causal links he identifies he sees as causal relations for very good reason which he can explain absolutely logical and realistic. It makes frighteningly much sense. I agree with you that the alternatively he offers, is kind of an idealistic utopia. It hints at a direction where the voyage should go, but whether it will go there for sure, I have very strong doubts. But his ideas for an altenrative, I admit that, make more sense than what I ever was able to imagine - I failed in leaving the old conceptions behind, and that is why my own ideas probably would have been guaranteed to fail. In absenc eof any better offer, I tend to agree with Hoppe'S alternative, therefore.

One thing is certain: the mess we are in now is seld-made, and what has brought us here is right what most people no want to be put to the extreme: more poison should heal from the poison.

We will hit the hard thick wall sooner or later, we are heading right for it on the shortest and most direct path, with pressed-down pedals. That impact not give us back "health", but at least it will show us the nature of the poison we crave for. Just that then it will be too late.

The unfolding of the disaster in the EU and the Eurozone, is a textbook example for Hoppe's diagnosis.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

So what you have is a division of any county within the US into about 500 little feudal kingdoms, each headed by a local warlord.

And then what happens when this guy is knocking on the door to your little feudal kingdom?

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And then what happens when this guy is knocking on the door to your little feudal kingdom?

Well duh: you grab your portable minigun, a few thousands of rounds of weightless ammo, switch the V.A.T.S. on and let him know why an army of badly mangled Latin speaking grunts is no use if you equip all of them with machetes and baseball bats.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And then what happens when this guy is knocking on the door to your little feudal kingdom?

Man, now I want to reinstall that game again.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I said it three times, and already in the very first post I ever made about a wekk ago or so: Hoppe is best in analysing and doing a diagnosis. The symptoms and their causes as he can link them with empirical data on development of taxes, national wealth distribution, demography, social statistics and especially financial budgets, is compelling. The causal links he identifies he sees as causal relations for very good reason which he can explain absolutely logical and realistic. It makes frighteningly much sense. I agree with you that the alternatively he offers, is kind of an idealistic utopia. It hints at a direction where the voyage should go, but whether it will go there for sure, I have very strong doubts. But his ideas for an altenrative, I admit that, make more sense than what I ever was able to imagine - I failed in leaving the old conceptions behind, and that is why my own ideas probably would have been guaranteed to fail. In absenc eof any better offer, I tend to agree with Hoppe'S alternative, therefore.

I don't disagree with you on that point. Even though I am not a marxist myself, I often find myself using Marx's theories to analyse world events. Some of his theories are still useful to try to figure out what is really going on.