Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[Anonymous No.11698991]

Thoughts on this man? Have any of you read his work?

[Anonymous No.11699008]

>>11698991

I really like his "Darkplace" series, which centers on paranormal happenings in a hospital.

[Anonymous No.11699022]

I'm redpiled

[Anonymous No.11699026]

I've read A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, A Short History of Man, and just a couple weeks ago Democracy: the God that Failed. I think he is a very sharp thinker with a lucid writing style. It's a shame most people only know of him from shit-tier Pinochet memes.

[Anonymous No.11699027]

>>11698991
Jewish shill. Read Culture of Critique instead.

[Anonymous No.11699029]

>>11698991
I was very into Hoppe for a while and watched every lecture he has on youtube multiple times. I didn't come away from it an ancap but I would say it influenced my views in certain ways, mainly giving me a positive view of decentralization in general. His argumentation ethics are very interesting and they certainly provide a striking conclusion although I think it is difficult to understand precisely how it is supposedly a priori, so I guess I didn't totally get it.

[Anonymous No.11699050]

>>11699029
>>11699029
As best I understand it, the a priori of argumentation is a praxeological "gotcha": in choosing to argue instead of commit aggression, you tacitly agree that conflicts are better resolved peacefully than via violence (i.e. you accept the NAP). Pic related represents it in logical form.

[Anonymous No.11699055]

>>11698991
based

[Anonymous No.11699090]

>>11699050
>1
What if the proposition is true but due to a lack of skill in it's beleivers, is unable to be defended?
>2
I don't understand how the self-ownership of a party is required for argumentation. Even if the owner silences or threatens to silence the slave, doesn't the argument of the slave remain true?

[Anonymous No.11699104]

>>11699090
>1
I think you misunderstand. To rephrase: "If defense of a proposition contradicts belief in it, or vice versa, the proposition is false." Hoppe's making a claim about the nature of a proposition itself, rather than its defender/believer.

>2
You must own your body in order to control it, and you must have control of your body to make arguments. Slaves still own their bodies, they are just heavily coerced; to say they "don't own themselves" is merely a figure of speech.

[Anonymous No.11699176]

>>11699104
It doesn't seem true that you need control over your body to argue, surely the only requirement is a means of communication?

[Anonymous No.11699184]

>>11699176
How do you communicate without use of your body?

[Anonymous No.11699190]

>>11699184
I think what that anon meant is that you don't necessarily need to "own" your body in a lawful sense.

[Anonymous No.11699218]

>>11699190
Enslavement does not preclude self-ownership any more than assault, rape, etc. do. It would not make sense to say "I do not own my body, because if I stray from this encampment, someone will whip me".

[Anonymous No.11699261]

>>11699184
I guess you can't? I understand that the act of exercising control over a body implies ownership, but what about absolute self-ownership or scarce means? I understand there are scarce resources and that private property can be a form of conflict resolution, but what are scarce means? Is this simply scarce resources? Why is this necessary when you only need to own your body insofar as it is needed to communicate for the purposes of argumentation?

[Anonymous No.11699305]

>>11699261
Yes, scarce means refer to scarce resources, specifically those that sustain oneself.

An excerpt from Hoppe's "Ultimate Justification of the Private Property Ethic":
"For if no one had the right to control anything at all, except his own body, then we would all cease to exist and the problem of justifying norms—as well as all other human problems—simply would not exist. Thus, the fact that one is alive presupposes the validity of property rights to other things. No one who is alive could argue otherwise."

[Anonymous No.11699327]

>>11699305
alright, thanks for answering questions

[Anonymous No.11699675]

>>11699055
and

[Anonymous No.11700387]

>>11699050
argumentation is aggression

[Anonymous No.11700449]

I like him. I am more a conservative, but he is great. I found his economic arguments against democracy to be very persuasive. His stuff on feudalism opened my eyes. And his spin on communitarianism has a lot more teeth than the dithering form you often see.

Conservative /lit/ discord if you like.
https://discord.gg/c5Vga4E

[Anonymous No.11701621]

>>11699050
1. Hans-Hermann Hoppe voluntarily lives in the US, where the government has partial control of scarce means through laws & taxes, meaning that US residents don't have absolute control of scarce means.

2.According to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, arguments can only be defended with people with absolute control of scarce means, and arguments can only be true if they can be defended by the person making them.

3.Therefore, according to his own beliefs, any argument Hans-Hermann Hoppe tries to make is invalid, and therefore false.

[Anonymous No.11701810]

>>11701621
>Hans-Hermann Hoppe voluntarily lives in the US, where the government has partial control of scarce means through laws & taxes, meaning that US residents don't have absolute control of scarce means.
You're making an observation about how the world is. Hoppe's second proposition makes a praxeological claim about the norms presupposed by anyone who makes an argument (i.e. not the US government).

>According to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, arguments can only be defended with people with absolute control of scarce means
More precisely, you cannot engage in argumentation and simultaneously reject private property rights. Quoting him again: "For if no one had the right to control anything at all, except his own body, then we would all cease to exist and the problem of justifying norms—as well as all other human problems—simply would not exist. Thus, the fact that one is alive presupposes the validity of property rights to other things. No one who is alive could argue otherwise."

>arguments can only be true if they can be defended by the person making them
The first part states that a proposition is false if defending it would contradict belief in it. It does not say that an argument can only be true if its proposer can defend it; this would mean that any proposition could be falsified by an incompetent defender.

So, to restate AE:
1. A proposition cannot be true if defending it is a performative contradiction of said proposition.
2. Argumentatively rejecting the NAP and the homesteading principle of private property rights is a performative contradiction.
3. Therefore, rejection of the NAP and homesteading principle is false.

Also, a nitpick: Hoppe lives in Turkey.

[Anonymous No.11701895]

>>11698991
He's very well read but his ideas are at odds with basic human behavior. The ideas he's advocating for in Democracy: The God that Failed have little chance of taking hold in the real world and his idea that self-interested communities should work with insurance companies for self-defense purposes is interesting only as a thought piece.

[ري كظ R Y · Q V S S !KNDY.F27NY No.11701922]

>>11700449

>TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE.
>RADICAL.

?

WHOMEVER MADE THAT IMAGE IGNORES THE MEANING OF ANY OF THOSE WORDS.

TRADITION, AND CONSERVATISM, ARE ANTITHETICAL TO RADICALISM.

[Anonymous No.11701944]

>>11701922
>Radical meaning from the radix meaning a return to the original

>Makes a snarky comment
>Doesn't even know the etymology of the word he's criticizing

[ري كظ R Y · Q V S S !KNDY.F27NY No.11701958]

>>11701944

I DO KNOW THE ETYMOLOGIES, WHICH IS WHY I COMPREHEND, UNLIKE YOU, WHO ARE MERELY REPEATING THE DEFINITION WITHOUT COMPREHENDING WHAT IT MEANS.

[Anonymous No.11701971]

>>11701958
You're fucking retarded.

Shoo shoo tripfag

[Anonymous No.11702061]

>>11701810
Arguing requires limited freedom, not total freedom, you can argue that rights have limits, and believe that your right to argue falls within your limited rights. Argument is not an implicit acceptance of homesteading.

[Anonymous No.11703034]

>>11701922
>>11701958
>tripfag
Opinion discarded. It was a shit opinion anyway

[Anonymous No.11703181]

>>11702061
>Arguing requires limited freedom, not total freedom
This is pure conjecture on your part. Can you justify this?

>Argument is not an implicit acceptance of homesteading
Yes it is. By arguing in the first place, you implicitly accept at least some kind of property rights, in that agree that you own yourself, and that whoever you're arguing with owns himself as well (otherwise, why argue with him?). Further, you implicitly agree that there must be property rights in other means, not just in one's own body; otherwise, you'd have to content yourself with starvation, intense weather, etc. Further, upon agreeing to property rights in external means, there are only two options: a first-come-first-serve basis, or total collective ownership of everything. Were you to accept the latter, nothing could ever be done, because you'd need every other latecomer's permission (i.e. everyone else in the world) to do anything with anything else, which is an untenable system. Ergo, the Lockean theory of property (homesteading and voluntary exchange) is the only viable option, if you accept property rights at all, which you implicitly do by arguing in the first place.

I strongly recommend you read the original article, if you want to understand AE as Hoppe originally formulated it.
http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty.pdf

[Anonymous No.11703492]

>>11698991
this guy is actually so high IQ with his rhetorical arguments that he is functionally retarded.
The clearest example of this is his: "Is Research Based on Causal Scientific Principles Possible in the Social Sciences?" where dis nigga literally argues that he can disprove all "positivist" social science by the fact that people are capable of learning.
Absolute insanity, of course, you have to read it to see just how logic-drunk this asshole is.

[Anonymous No.11703605]

>>11703492
His summary from the end of the paper:

>(1) I and—as possible opponents in an argument—other people are able to learn.7 (This statement cannot be challenged without implicitly admitting that it is correct. Above all, it must be assumed by anyone undertaking research into causes. To this extent, proposition (1) is valid a priori.)

>(2) If it is possible to learn, one cannot know at any given time what one will know at any later time and how one will act on the basis of this knowledge. (If one did know at any given time what one will come to know at some later time, it would be impossible ever to learn anything—but see proposition (1) on this point.)

>(3) The assertion that it is possible to predict the future state of one’s own and/or another’s knowledge and the corresponding actions manifesting that knowledge (i.e., to find the variables which can be interpreted as the causes) involves a contradiction. If the subject of a given state of knowledge or of an intentional act can learn, then there are no causes for this; however, if there are causes, then the subject cannot learn—but again see proposition (1).

And on the next page:
>It is in principle only coincidence that people in the same situation defined by the same set of variables act in the same way (bring the same knowledge to bear). For if one is able to learn it is obviously impossible to predict whether a person will actually learn or not from one point in time to the next. It can only be ascertained post festum, as an already established fact. Ultimately, any change in these kinds of covariant relationships must be seen as a contingent fact (and not as a falsification of a hypothesis!).

Seems like a pretty solid line of reasoning to me. How do you dispute this?

[Anonymous No.11703831]

>>11698991
It shows that he comes from Germany, for instance there are some cameralist influences in his writings, which give a variation on the almost strictly Franco-American traditions of ancapism.
But really he is just based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.11703997]

>>11703605
Seems legit to me provided the learner doesn't forget.
Can't you have the following scenario:
>person learns at time T1 that he will learn content C (explicitly envisioned) at a time T3
>obviously because the content C is actually known, he also knows it at time T1
>person forgets about it at time T2
>relearns content C at time T3
Though this means that you could only have a prescient view of a future gain of knowledge (thereby automatically gaining this knowledge at the very instant) at the cost of forgetting about it in the meantime.

[Anonymous No.11704029]

>>11703605
Not him, but most people trying to apply scientific try to use large sample groups to "homogenize" it and try to make preditions out of them. Note that I can understand the claim that society is to chaotic really make hard claims and predictions, but saying that applying scientic principles on it is invalid/impossible is a very bold claim.

[Anonymous No.11704214]

Everyone needs a little Hoppe in their life, because without Hoppe there's no reason to go on living, know what I'm sayin?

[Anonymous No.11704248]

he's based

[Anonymous No.11704305]

>>11700449
>traditional conservatives
>Evola
>Ernst Junger
>Dugin
Who made this image?

[Anonymous No.11704308]

>>11703605
>>11703997
where to start!
in (1) he already sets the argument up such that it relies on a priori truths, which are a matter of contention.
in (2) this "one cannot know at any given time what one will know at any later time and how one will act on the basis of this knowledge." is true for any specific act at a specific time, but might not be true in general. E.g. i don't currently have godlike CS coding abilities, but i am damn sure that if i did acquire them i would be working for a tech firm and making much more money.
This "If the subject of a given state of knowledge or of an intentional act can learn, then there are no causes for this;" in (3) is pure question begging.

[Anonymous No.11704450]

>>11703181
If you have the freedom to argue, you still might not have different freedoms (e.g. to do things that are physically impossible). It's your job to prove that everyone has total freedom.

>Further, upon agreeing to property rights in external means, there are only two options.
Alright, prove that there are only two options.

Also point 1 of Hoppe's argument doesn't hold true for paradoxes, e.g. liar's paradox: "this statement is false", and so cannot be extrapolated to point 3.

[Anonymous No.11704541]

>a priori
>praxeology
>ethics

yup, y'all retarded ideological victims of a philosophically overdetermined world view

[Anonymous No.11704696]

>>11699050
What is that shit ?
Did he never study logic ?

[Anonymous No.11704708]

>>11699104
>You must own your body in order to control it, and you must have control of your body to make arguments.
Do you give yourself your body (or life) ?

[Anonymous No.11704762]

Read Moldbug.

[Anonymous No.11705221]

>>11704708
What is often forgotten to be mentioned and discussed is that homesteading and first use for example create problems such as parents owning their children and so on.

An alternative that I prefer is to not forget that ownership distilled is focussed on (when argued as without argument = no problem, argument through violence = no ethics) proving an objective link to that which is being claimed
> I built this
> I grew this
> here is my receipt
> here is a video recording
Conscioussness itself in this instance when examined seems to trump everything else when it comes to self-ownership, if you compare self-ownership to slavery and so on. So this works with parents.

The issue it brings up though at the end of the day is that those that aren't moral agents that can't argue their position and may not even be consciouss, think of someone on life support. In this case you would think would start to expand outward. Will's for example are at the same logical level as a contract, and so a last will and testament would take precedence over some random wanting to turn the switch off.

Once you go out from there, who has more ownership, objective link and so on to a coma patient, his family or a random person on the street? Perhaps the treating doctor? Well the doctor came into it afterwards so that doesn't work and I doubt a family would sign a contract of care that included agreeing to the doctors right to control and decide the life of their family member, maybe allow them to declare when they are deceased or to keep them alive up to a certain threshold agreed prior and so on.

Do you see what I mean at least? Objective link is while not often explained in words fundamental to what ownership is as a concept. So it fits with argumentation ethics pretty well.

[Anonymous No.11705781]

>>11704248
And?

[Anonymous No.11705823]

>>11704308
Congratulations, there are three statements and you managed not to understand any of them.
First of all, a priori truths are not a matter of contention among serious people provided you understand what that even means.
The second statement refers to a specific event, not about relations or inferences, like in your post "if I had that, I would do that".
The third statement would follow from the first two, as any knowledge of link between causes and consequences further up in time would make you know the consequences, thereby being subject to statement 2.

There are issues about the whole argument (as other anon says, the possibility of losing information, the indetermination of circumstances at any time, etc) but they have nothing to do with what you talk about.

[Anonymous No.11707438]

>>11704541
exactly. great source on this, but about Rothbard, is:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/rothbard-as-philosopher.html
in short, an-cap based on apriorism is a cult for idiots who think they are smart

[Anonymous No.11707460]

>>11705823
>First of all, a priori truths are not a matter of contention among serious people provided you understand what that even means.
mmmk, that's why it is trivially easy to find books where people argue over the existence of a priori knowledge. https://books.google.com/books?id=ie01axskq9YC&dq
>The second statement refers to a specific event, not about relations or inferences,
That isn't obvious. The argument in the paper is that he is refuting *all* social science that tries to understand causation via ex-post empiricism. He literally says: "one ***cannot*** know at ***any*** given time what one will know at ***any*** later time". You are giving him too much benefit of the doubt.

[Anonymous No.11707510]

>>11704541
no u

[Anonymous No.11708968]

Who should I read before Hoppe? After Hoppe?

[Anonymous No.11708981]

>>11698991
>studied under Jurgen Habermas
lmao this is spicy

two dog shit philosophers

[Anonymous No.11709090]

>>11708968
Jurgen Habbermas

[Anonymous No.11709096]

>>11699022
Based

[Anonymous No.11709151]

>>11708968
Before: Bertrand de Jouvenel
After: Gustave de Molinari

[Anonymous No.11709166]

>>11707460
>mmmk, that's why it is trivially easy to find books where people argue over the existence of a priori knowledge
It's trivially easy to find loads of books against everything and it's opposite.
What is more relevant is how there are still non-shitposters arguing against apriori after Edmung Husserl.

[Anonymous No.11709240]

>>11708968
Before: Mises (not Rothbard)
After: Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

[Anonymous No.11709246]

>>11709166
>What is more relevant is how there are still non-shitposters arguing against apriori after Edmung Husserl.
phenomenology... sorry anon. i've just realized there's no hope for you. please go play with your platonist friends and leave the actual study of things to the naturalists.

[Anonymous No.11709281]

>>11709240
my nigga you have to be trolling. Mises is crazily dense in almost all his stuff. He as one short book that is easily understandable by laypeople: https://mises.org/library/economic-policy-thoughts-today-and-tomorrow
Rothbard was a whackjob but he could write much more clearly than Mises.