/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22762755]

Methinks this chud was seething that minorities got the vote and wrote a book for fascists to lament about it. I give it a yikes/10

[Cult of Passion No.22762762]

>>22762755
>Create a more perfect system.
>Its used to to make a failed state.
Seething did this.

Damn you Seeeeething!

[Anonymous No.22762859]

I read this 10 years ago and loved it, and 3 weeks ago and thought it was pretty mixed. Most of his theory is correct and I agree with the core underlying premise that public government has been a disaster but he does come across poorly a lot of the time.

[Anonymous No.22762877]

>>22762755
he's seething that majorities got the vote. Look at the title, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.22762986]

>>22762755
>Says that government employees don’t contribute anything and just eat up tax dollars.
>Is a government employee

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.22763039]

>>22762755
>Methinks
>minorities v. fascists
>yikes/10
Go back.

[Anonymous No.22763044]

>>22762755
I don't understand how fucking stupid you have to be not to see the actual point of this book, the guy is a fucking full blown anarchist, his point is that EVEN monarchy, was better than democracy. he does not advocate for monarchy.

>>22762986
you sound like the type of guy that loses his shit when someone points out the contradiction of socialists using iphones.

[Anonymous No.22763055]

>>22762859
Because you were brainwashed within that time, retard.

[Anonymous No.22763056]

>>22762986

[Anonymous No.22763336]

Just got a super cheap hardcover of this book. Can't wait to read it

[Anonymous No.22763339]

>>22763336
>be apparently cringe anarchist
>believe in utopia as long as le government doesn’t intercede
>hate democracy, specifically
(Hmm..)
>oh btw you’d have to purge all fags and criminals for it to work
Lmao Hoppe was fucking based

[Anonymous No.22763346]

>>22763339
Not his fault they have high time preference

[Anonymous No.22763496]

>>22762755
>Minorities are undesirables so we should have a strict immigration policy
>Namely that to come to this country all they have to do is just buy land and have someone here ask that they come here
In other words, literally the system we already have which allows 10,000 Venezuelans a day into the country

[Anonymous No.22764032]

>>22762755
>book just accumulates based points in all directions and ensures almost everyone will seethe at it one way or another
Is there even any competition for a political book written after the turn of the millenium?

[Anonymous No.22764066]

>>22763336
Damn, where’d you cop?

[Anonymous No.22764520]

>>22763496
I don't know what shithole country you're from but I'm pretty sure no one assumes criminal and civil liability for immigrants they sponsor in any western country, which is what HHH advocates.

>>22764032
He's certainly the best libertarian thinker since Rothbard, and it's not even close.

[Anonymous No.22764760]

>>22764032
>wo, it’s such a cool troll dude. Base.
Hot trash flags

[Anonymous No.22764991]

>>22764520
You missed the point. This retard says he wants the most strict immigration policy to keep those undesirables out, and then proposes the most lenient, easy to exploit immigration policy.

He also speak about how evil totalitarianism and dictators are, but then defends monarchies which are dictatorships by any other name.

I bet he cringes when he remembers what he wrote in this book

[Anonymous No.22765006]

>>22764991
What about it do you think is easy to exploit for undesirables?

He defends monarchies not to no end, but in comparison with public government. Totalitarianism by a public government is worse than monarchy by far.

[Anonymous No.22765027]

>>22764991
>He also speak about how evil totalitarianism and dictators are, but then defends monarchies which are dictatorships by any other name.
Legitimately retarded (you, not Hoppe).

[Anonymous No.22765117]

>>22764066
It was an Amazon prime exclusive Black Friday deal. I have no idea why the fuck they'd do it but I'm not complaining

[Anonymous No.22765118]

>>22765006
currently you have evangelical churches paying for immigrants to come to this country. You also have entire cities designating themselves sanctuary cities, flaunting federal laws. Even the biden administration, after a huge influx of venezuelans came illegally, they granted them 500,000 work permits to venezuelans. If the only requirement is 1) they have to pay for the land and 2) they have a sponsorship (where as you pointed out they have to say they're personally liable). You don't see how that can be exploited? You don't see how one haitian in Minnesota can sell a house to his haitian friends for $1 and then just write that they're sponsoring 10 other haitian, and each of them sponsor 10 more and so on? you don't see how this is how it's going on right now? Right this second, those immigrants are paying for rent and housing. Right this second, they require a long laborious citizenship application, and to be sponsored. Sure it's not the same thing as being personally liable, but that's not gonna make a bit of difference. It hasn't so far. You don't see how the globalists can make america brown in one generation with these rules?

But the crazy thing is that hoppe wrote that his immigration policy was closed borders.

>He defends monarchies not to no end,
dude the whole book is him defending monarchies.

another thing he did was say that monarchies are better because monarchs have to answer to the people. What he glosses over is that those historical instances when a monarch gets too rapacious and is ousted by the people, are bloody revolutions with hundreds if not thousands of murders and anarchy.

it's crazy that you take this book seriously

>>22765027
no u

[Anonymous No.22765224]

>>22765118
>churches paying for immigrants
>cities housing immigrants
>government visas
None of these are possible in HHHs society.
>1 Haitian in Minnesota can sponsor 10 other Haitians
If the 10 Haitians committed crimes, the first Haitian would quickly become bankrupt (and thus unable to afford to live on America, let alone pay for his peers) or executed along with the ones that actually committed crimes.
>the whole book is him defending monarchies
The whole book is him defending monarchies as compared to democracy, not compared to a free society which he espouses as the pinnacle of governance. He doesn't gloss over those examples of revolution, he says they are a benefit of monarchy because they disincentivise monarchical tyranny, whereas in democracy people shy away from revolution under the delusion that the government is representing them.

[Anonymous No.22765259]

I'm sick of this intellectually dishonest argument. If you are at least barely competent in polisci you understand 51% tyranny of the majority etc. And you should also understand that democratic processes are necessary for a constitutional republic with representative bodies.

There is plenty to debate here except that isn't what this topic does. What it does do is allow a faggot (see OP) to bitch about chuds (anyone not into child butchering or grooming, and then to the right) in place of arguing for or against representation.

Anyone against representative government should be tied and thrown into the ocean.

Fin.

[Anonymous No.22765309]

>>22765259
I support a representative government in the form of absolute monarch who can represent 100% of the population instead of 51%

[Anonymous No.22765353]

>>22765224
>None of these are possible
You're world building in your mind. And the police force in your mind is all powerful.
>If the 10 Haitians committed crimes
You missed the point, but let's play your hypothetical game. What if those Haitians break the law after bringing in 10 Haitians each?
>He doesn't gloss over those examples of revolution, he says they are a benefit of monarchy
He does gloss over the tiny detail that regime change is generally bloody. There was cannibalism in the French revolution. Heads on pikes in the Haitian revolution. Regime change in the Congo had the prime Ministers body dissolved in acid. If this bloodshed is factored into his political philosophy then his political philosophy is flawed. Look, I read Hoppe because I consider myself a libertarian. But anarcho libertarianism is fantasy. Hoppes book demonstrates it better than any. Libertarians are naive. Ayn Rand's minarchism is more reasonable. Ron Paul's plans are more reasonable. Rothbard had some retarded ideas

[Anonymous No.22765403]

>>22765353
Oh, you minarchists. Mad that Anarchism logically follows and you're just a statist? Can you explain from a libertarian point of view why parents should be forced to look after their kids?

[Anonymous No.22765419]

chud book

[Anonymous No.22765460]

>>22765259
>he supports government by people who are elected on 3-4 year terms and thus have no stake in the long-term future of the society

[Anonymous No.22765498]

>>22765353
>You're world building in your mind. And the police force in your mind is all powerful.
You wouldn't even need police any more than you need a maid. There'd be nothing stopping you from enforcing justice with your own hands if you felt so inclined. Also this is not a response to HHH's arguments.
>What if those Haitians break the law after bringing in 10 Haitians each?
It's really quite simple. If the first Haitian brings in a murderer, then the first Haitian and the murder are both executed. The first Haitian's property passes to his next of kin. If the next of kin chooses to permit the remaining 9 Haitians to continue living on the property and is willing to sponsor them, then this is what happens. If not, they are deported from the country. Assuming they remain, these 9 Haitians may contribute to the society or they may become criminals. They own no property of their own so they cannot bring in any further Haitians without the agreement and sponsorship of the owner of the property they are residing on. If one of them commits a murder, then the cycle begins again.
>He does gloss over the tiny detail that regime change is generally bloody. There was cannibalism in the French revolution.
Funny, the French monarchy lasted in a chain unbroken by revolution (violent or otherwise) from 987-1792 when it was replaced by your much-lauded "peaceful" democracy. Your other examples involve public government. Meanwhile, we have had only a century of democratic governance in most of the world so there' s a very small sample size, but it's been the most violent century in human history. Hundreds of millions of people died from war, let alone other forms of public government murder as per Mao and the Holodomor. Two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq x2, and so on, all perpetrated in part or in full by democracies. The oldest democracy, America (using the term "democracy" loosely) started early with the Civil War and the conquest of half of Mexico. Sounds fairly bloody to me without the need for any king or queen.

[Anonymous No.22765558]

After finally reading it I realize it's really a theory of public choice taken seriously.
There have been plenty of attempts at making theories of public choice but they all end with a hard cuckout of the type "of course we'll still do democracy anyway hahaha it was just a few hints at a thought experiment, we shouldn't think too hard about it".

[Anonymous No.22766112]

>>22765403
as ayn rand wrote, every individual has a right to his own life. And I would add to that that neglecting a child would be child abuse. There's different levels of neglect, but the more obvious kind can lead to death.

>There'd be nothing stopping you from enforcing justice with your own hands
ok so you'd have to be all powerful then

>then this is what happens
ok, so you concede that we can be overrun with haitians as long as they don't murder. my problem is that this is touted by hoppe as "closed borders"

>your much-lauded "peaceful" democracy
i never said i liked democracy. i'm a libertarian

>fairly bloody to me
michael malice, when he's trying to convince people that anarchy is not that far-fetched points out that countries are in a state of anarchy between them. All those wars you mentioned fall under that umbrella. But my original point was that he mentions regime change for monarchies and glosses over how bloody it usually was.

answer me this: if anarcho libertarianism is enacted, and the united states government steps down, and the military and police dissolve into private entities, what is stopping war lords from coming to power?

[Anonymous No.22766178]

>>22766112
There's a bit more people in the US than it is in Haiti, you may be overrun by burgers first

[Anonymous No.22766218]

>>22766112
>what is stopping war lords from coming to power?
I am.

[Anonymous No.22767201]

>>22766218
This guy is.

[Anonymous No.22767216]

>>22762755
>Intro chapter
>States that people will always prefer having PERISHABLE goods sooner than later
How did such brainlet drivel manage to be published? Did he not stop to think for ten seconds?

[Anonymous No.22767298]

>>22767216
>look for word "perishable"
>only one find page 9
>The supply of all other goods-be they perishable or durable consumer goods such as berries or caves, or indirectly useful goods (production factors), such as berry bushes and their surrounding land-is not "given."
Nothing to do with it.
Perhaps you are referring to the first paragraph but in that case your reading comprehension is so deficient it hardly warrants further discussion.

[Anonymous No.22767462]

>>22767298
What do you think happens to fish if you don't have refrigeration? The intro explicitly makes the claim that the stranded survivor will always prefer to have fish sooner than later.

[Anonymous No.22767581]

>>22767216
Ceteris paribus (all else being equal), people will always prefer having a good (perishable or not) sooner rather than later. Pretty much human psychology and microeconomics 101. Have a child and you'll see.

[Anonymous No.22767603]

>>22767581
Maybe toddlers, but not adults. A rational agent would rather have a single fish every day rather than seven fish every Monday.

[Anonymous No.22768417]

/// The trustees have a dispositive power to transfer the money /// This is more than just clever marketing - formerly desolate stretches of the riverfront, city streets, and buildings have been resurrected for locals and visitors alike /// The professor held forth on the current state of politics until everyone was sick of the topic /// You won the first game and I won the second, so it's a wash /// The new runway is a billion-dollar boondoggle /// He took folk music and melded it with pop /// They are guided by the visible grid of the trellis /// He is duped by a debonair con man into opening a car and safe, and lands in jail for a year /// He spoke without notes but with a crib sheet of four points /// I slipped away from the guided tour /// He found himself pilloried by members of his own party /// Why did people get in a flap over nuclear energy? /// His agonised eyes, fear-stricken, glinted white in the moonlight, and there was foam on his jowl /// I suspect that they stay in the scullery only a few days and in the kitchen only a few weeks /// He killed 12 people before the authorities finally nabbed him /// I was a sassy kid who sometimes talked back to my mother /// She delivered her speech with tremendous wit and verve /// The chassis lurched forward and then back sharply, knocking the four passengers off balance /// The unrest has cast a pall over what is usually a day of national rejoicing ///Just put it in my in tray and I'll look at it later /// This odious walled vertical suburb is a civic embarrassment, the embodiment of a runaway plutocracy that places its own interests over the commonweal — and common decency /// They spent their honeymoon in a cruddy beachside hotel /// He broached the subject they had been avoiding all evening /// We should have sat down and addressed the issues head-on /// It felt churlish to tell him that I was in a hurry, that the coffee would have to be quick /// She could always be relied on to hold court with hilarious tales /// Her remarks were intended to scotch rumours of imminent job losses /// The middleweight fight was said to be a grudge match /// After the row in a pub he drove off in a huff /// One is the passive failure to disclose something a negotiation counterpart doesn't know, while paltering is the active use of truthful statements to mislead /// Today, women tennis players are not encumbered by long, heavy skirts and high-necked blouses /// Kept the truth from their unwitting friends /// The wily City veteran is rarely caught on the wrong side of a trade /// He saw no fulsome eulogies carved upon the headstones, often nothing but a name and the two dates of birth and death /// And our blithe drift towards becoming a cashless society is coming at a cost /// The movement promotes female supremacy and misandry ///

[Anonymous No.22768648]

>>22763055
Socrates' brainwashed slave allegory

[Anonymous No.22768717]

>>22767216
What is wrong with this claim?
You eat perishable goods sooner cause they go bad faster.
I do this. I eat more of my refrigerated items like bread than my pantry items which i know will last forever

[Anonymous No.22768801]

>>22768717
You are stranded on an uninhabited island, would you rather have 31 fish now, or one fish every day for the next 31 days?

[Anonymous No.22768846]

>>22767603
>>22768801
You’re assuming the fish will remain fresh if you wait. If the food perishes at the same rate, regardless of when you receive it, then choosing to receive all 31 is the best calculation

[Anonymous No.22768890]

>>22768846
Fish tend to remain fresh longer when they're alive. Also, if we grant your modification of the scenario, then why would the survivor want to have a stack of rotting fish? It would probably be easier to deal with if he only had one rotten fish to deal with every day.

[Anonymous No.22768931]

>>22768890
> Fish tend to remain fresh longer when they're alive.
At that point, I wouldn’t consider them perishable to the same extent as a dead fish. They’re practically separate goods due to that distinction. That’s why you have to assume all else is equal, including the rate of perishability.
> if we grant your modification of the scenario, then why would the survivor want to have a stack of rotting fish? It would probably be easier to deal with if he only had one rotten fish to deal with every day.
If they receive the stack of fish in the first day, they can derive more potential uses before they expire. A person might stuff themselves before they rot, for example. Or have more tools at their disposal immediately using the fish remains.

[Anonymous No.22768936]

>>22762755
Non whites cannot into democracy, that's all it comes down to.