Assault on Declaration of Independence

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is just your typical ranting and raving. It's been responded to a thousand times here and I feel no need to do so again.

I posted some excerpts from Hoppe's demented writings on this forum and you ignored them. Hoppe despises any type of democracy and champions elite control of society. Just like you.

EDIT: Last two posts on this page:

http ...[text shortened]... iscrimination" to drive out what he considers "undesirable" elements from his Galt Gulch utopia.

You seem to be mixing Hans Hoppe with Ayn Rand.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, I do not agree that "unenforced laws are no laws at all".

No, I do not agree that no one would obey speed limits if not ticketed by the police.

You are sadly mistaken if you think I'm a "great fan of government control" though I prefer the "control" of a democratically selected government to an non-elected hierarchical elite in areas where gov ...[text shortened]... d by our "betters" which holds the common people in contempt and disdains democratic principles.

Well then, you must be aware that a great many people flaunt laws on speed despite police enforcement.

I would agree that many things don't require legislation due to the majority abiding by those principles anyway. However laws are passed even in these cases, so that lawbreakers can be punished, mostly for violating the rights of others.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't propose returning to the Natural State.

I propose remaking our society to fit those principles which are part of our Nature i.e. along egalitarian, non-hierarchical, democratic lines while also protecting our Natural Rights.

There remain high levels of want and poverty in this society despite glib comments to the contrary. This would be even more so if your political and economic philosophy was put into place.

I don't understand. You hold up some fantasy land ideal as justification of everything, and don't want to return to that ideal?

"There remain high levels of want and poverty in this society despite glib comments to the contrary. This would be even more so if your political and economic philosophy was put into place."

Capitalism, along with division of labor, and private property and limited freedom is responsible for the majority of the economic improvement of people the world over. There will always be some level of inequality, poverty and want, but the levels in today's society are minimal compared to pre-capitalist eras, the dark ages, and to cultures such as indigenous north American Indians, and others who did not yet know of those enlightened things, and were living and dying in a natural state.

Originally posted by normbenign
I don't understand. You hold up some fantasy land ideal as justification of everything, and don't want to return to that ideal?

"There remain high levels of want and poverty in this society despite glib comments to the contrary. This would be even more so if your political and economic philosophy was put into place."

Capitalism, along with division ...[text shortened]... who did not yet know of those enlightened things, and were living and dying in a natural state.

"Capitalism" is a very much wider concept than the free market fantasy of Ayn Rand and Mises. It is mere playing with words to slip into a wide and loose definition of Capitalism in order to produce a dishonest and very selective history, when what you are seeking to promote is a marginal definition and a type of free market capitalism that has never existed in any country at any time.

In the same dishonest and futile manner, you enjoy reducing all opposition to Capitalism to a version of Stalinism or Maoism, creating a Manichaean universe in which there is only absolute good and absolute evil. The existence of successful socialist economic models in countries ranging from Germany to Norway, and the success of socialist projects like the National Health Service even in a neoliberal economy like that of the United Kingdom, or the prosperity of publicly owned industry in various European countries, notably France, all refuting your arguments, are all ignored as inconvenient. You also ignore the reality that the US economy prospered under progressive taxation regimes and strong financial controls and that your economy has faltered dangerously with the introduction of deregulation and regressive taxation.

Because your use of words is slippery and ideological, it is almost futile attempting to debate with you.

Originally posted by normbenign
You prefer the tyranny of the majority, rather than each individual have liberty and his "natural rights", with no majority being able to vote them away.

Her Hoppe's vision is one of which I suspect you are totally ignorant, or you would not speak of it in the way you do. Hoppe is a disciple of Murry Rothbard, and a true libertarian, finding even a fe ...[text shortened]... hat government can provide for them, at the expense of others, who they manipulate via coercion.

It is depressingly obvious that you didn't even bother to go to the link to the other thread where Hoppe raves about the necessity of "social discrimination" to keep out all forms of "undesirables" like democrats, Catholics, Jews, etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by normbenign
I don't understand. You hold up some fantasy land ideal as justification of everything, and don't want to return to that ideal?

"There remain high levels of want and poverty in this society despite glib comments to the contrary. This would be even more so if your political and economic philosophy was put into place."

Capitalism, along with division ...[text shortened]... who did not yet know of those enlightened things, and were living and dying in a natural state.

Your assertions are so ridiculous that don't deserve a detailed response. The claim that the present day capitalist system results in less inequality than the Natural State is utterly mind boggling. And the type of capitalist system you prefer such as the laissez faire ones of the 19th Century were infinitely worse and filled with poverty and misery which was only sharply reduced by progressive measures that you detest.

Originally posted by normbenign
You seem to be mixing Hans Hoppe with Ayn Rand.

Since you seem too dense to be able to follow a link, here's the prior posts quoting Hoppe:




norm seems to have become a huge fan of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Perhaps he could give his analysis of these quotes from Hoppe's book Democracy: The God That Failed:

More specifically, the power to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. The means to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently undemocratic, and antimajoritarian). One would be well on the way toward a restoration of the freedom of association and exclusion as is implied in the idea and institution of private property, and much of the social strife currently caused by forced integration would disappear, if only towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to expel as trespassers those who do not fulfill these requirements [...]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

T]rue libertarians cannot emphasize enough [...] that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multi-cultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumberable things and promote almost any idea under the sun but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They — the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism — will have to be physically removed from society too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.


There's plenty more here: http://www.demos.org/blog/9/11/13/hans-hermann-hoppe-libertarian-extraordinaire

05 Mar '15 20:29


A rather amusing review of Herr Hoppe's From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy: http://www.demos.org/blog/12/31/14/hans-hermann-hoppe-libertarian-theoretical-historian