Is there a more failed living philosopher than Hans-Hermann Hoppe?

Is there a more failed living philosopher than Hans-Hermann Hoppe?

>epistemology is a failed attempt to read Kant and by any means is a "pseudo science"
>his main idea, the "argumentative ethics" fail hard in the Hume's Law
> even if it doesn't, it needs a mind dualism, something that hard sciences had killed a long time ago
>Monarchy being better and freer than Democracy, his main sociological hypothesis can be verified as fake by any children (the countries where people and market are freer are also the most democratic
>pathetic interpretation of Natural Law, itself a pathetic idea
>teens use his main ideas to promote ideas that hate freedom
>is incapable of explain why his anarchism wouldn't allow the state to come back
>can't even explain the main differences of his ideas and Feudalism
>dislikes immigration even though it's a pillar of libertarianism (I'm not saying I approve it)
>married with a muslim and living in Turkey

I'm a Minarchist, but neomisesianism is the cesspool of philosophy and economics today

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government
genius.com/Niccolo-machiavelli-the-prince-chapter-12-english-version-annotated
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Yeah man, he doesn't about anything, you do! Trust your potential!

>if you can't cook a fine stake you cannot criticize people that are supposed to know and don't!
You're proving my point, lad.

Maybe he just knows it's all pie in the sky dreaming that won't achieve anything.

lets be real here, how many millions would die if his ideas were implemented?

That's why he gets to be a philosopher, because no one's going to implement it.

>the countries where people and market are freer are also the most democratic
False. Republics are the most oppressive governments on earth, see China, North Korea, Iran, and most countries in Africa. Meanwhile monarchies have the highest hdi and usually have the most freedoms. See Japan, Scandinavia, Canada, UK, and Belgium

Maybe he's just an oddball who wants to sell his books.

>republicanism means democracy
>those countries you mentioned aren't democracies
Get out of my thread.

>Meanwhile monarchies have the highest hdi and usually have the most freedoms.

Republicanism is more close to democracy than a monarchy no?

Saudi Arabia has a high hdi and is in the g20. It only fails in the political freedoms section

Way more than the commies ever killed.

Have you ever read Hoppe? He doesn''t think so. He things Absolutist Monarchy is better than Liberal Democracy.

Yet he can't explain why Cuba and North Korea aren't monarchies, another one of his problems.

Many, but they can they our lives, not our FREEEEDOM

Deontological Libertarians do not concern about the results. Just like Hobsbawm answered "yes" when they asked to him if some more tens of millions of deaths were a fair price to communism and Mao Tse Tung thought half of China could die if it was necessary, they just want to change the world. That's one of the main reason the right wing deontological libertarianism or paleolibertarianism is in fact a left wing ideology: they want to change the world from the top, it's a revolutionary ideology.

>moving the goalpost after your "freedom" claim is BTFO

Also, Canada, Scandanavia, and the UK are ALL republics with mostly symbolic monarchies. And Japan and Belgium has a parliament. The only real complete Monarchies are middle eastern hell holes like Qatar, Oman and UAE

Hahaha so this is your response to my BTFOing your "Saudi Arabia doesn't have a high hdi" claim.
Also
>Monarchies can't have parliaments
Are you American? This seems like American "education"

>Constitutional monarchies aren't real monarchies

Hoppe includes western monarchies as what they really are: democracies. He doesn't give us any exemple of a freer crountry with a Monarchy. In fact he doesn't give any exemple about anything at all, he calls it "Positivism".

>It's not a monarchy because I say so!
You're going to have to do much better than that.

you claimed monarchies have more freedom than republics, which is demonstrably false. The only existing monarchies now are cucked by republicans. Deal with it you meme-right LARPing faggots

What. I didn't say any country ain't a democracy. Misquote?

>which is demonstrably false
No it's demonstrably true. Take a look at the highest hdi and freedom index countries. Most monarchies are up there. Now take a look at the bottom, all the countries are republics. The only low monarchy is Swaziland, and that's the only one there. Try again republicuck

hmmm, why is it that the absolute monarchies are complete shit, while the cucked out western monarchies are all developed?

> Most monarchies are up there.
They are still Democracies, that's not the point of the discussiong, you dumb fuck.

It's not true, Saudi Arabia despite its political repressiveness, has a high hdi and is in the g20. Japan is also not a western monarchy and is one of the best countries in the world to live in.

They're monarchies, stop trying to deny it

I didn't try to, you're just too autistc to understand the argument here. We're not talking about Constitutional Democracies but the Absolutist ones.

Are you going to deny Japan, UK, Belgium, Spain and Sweden are democracies?

>has a high hdi and is in the g20
they also have no freedom, proving your point wrong.

>Japan is also not a western monarchy and is one of the best countries in the world to live in.
Japan has a constitution and a parliament. Its also not that great really

>Are you going to deny Japan, UK, Belgium, Spain and Sweden are democracies?
Yes, because they are in fact Monarchies, not democracies. Google it

t. retard who lost the argument and is going to shitpost the thread into oblivion rather than admit he was wrong

>they also have no freedom, proving your point wrong.
No it's doesn't, I was saying that they have a high hdi and are in the G20, which is all correct.
Japan has a constitution and a parliament.
So what? It's still a monarchy regardless

>a Constitutional Monarchy isn't a democracy
I'll not reply anymore, you're trying to shitpost.

youre original claim was that monarchies have the most freedom. just take the L dude.

Oh so you have no argument so you're just going to say I'm shitposting. I think it's you who needs to admit he was wrong

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government
Inb4: hurr wikipedia durr

At first yes but I was responding specifically to that said non-western democracies were all shitholes at which point I brought up Saudi Arabia and Japan

*non-western monarchies

It's literally not you retard. Monarchy is not a democracy

>Monarchies aren't democracies
>the top six countries on the EIU Democracy Index are Monarchies

>Monarchies are better at democracy than democracies.
Well case closed then, monarchy is the better option

>to maintain a libertarian order we must kill/deport people who disagree with us

Is it just me or is that the opposite of libertarianism?

No because they aren't self-excluding. A Constitutional Monarchy is better than a Democratic Republic, but they are both Democracies. You're free to post a single source claiming that UK is not a Democracy because it is a Monarchy. Hence the very UK government considers itself a Democracy, your source won't be very good though.

They aren't real libertarians in fact, they just want the State to cease, though they cannot explain how it would work.

Well, duh. Everyone knew that

>but they are both Democracies
But they are not*. A monarchy is not a democracy. Do you not know the difference?

I'll give you another chance, otherwise will do like the other two or three guys debating you.
Why isn't a Constitutional Monarchy a Democracy? And what source do you have to sustain your claim?

Monarchy and democracy are two different forms of government. A monarchy can have some level of democratic institutions within its government but it is still a monarchy. I don't get what's so hard to understand about this.

>he doesn't know the difference between a form of goverment and a system of government

Still waiting a source saying UK isn't a democracy.

Still waiting for you to actually refute what I said

Reminder

I already did. Every single democratic institution exist in UK Japan, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium and any other first world Monarchy. Not a single writer dispute their democratic behavior.

Are you a Hoppean? Because he does call all these countries as democracies in Democracy: The God That Failed.

Again, they still have monarchs and therefore are still monarchies. Monarchy and democracy are different forms of government right?

>they still have monarchs and therefore are still monarchies
Just as they are Democracies. The principle is that "The king reigns but does not govern", since the Hanover Dynasty in UK.

>Monarchy and democracy are different forms of government right?
Only one of them is a form of government, the other is a System of government. I've already mentioned that.

I think the tl;dr version of your account of his philosophy would read something like:
man who skim reads philosophy books misses the point and writes for far too long about shit he doesn't understand.

How does anyone know this hack's name?

At least 500 million

What's the point of a monarchy when a monarch has no power?

How would you carry out such a purge without the organizational power of a state?

Private militias. Some Libertarians believe they can work better than State Military. Niccolò Machiavelli already explained why it can't, but according to they bizarre epistemology what they believe 's an "axiom" so they are right.

>calling those countries real monarchies
They're pathetic shells that like to call themselves monarchies. Call me back when they can do literally whatever they want/

Not that it matters as the president of the US today wields more power than any monarch ever has in history.

>Niccolò Machiavelli already explained why it can't

I don't know what he stated, but generally all private militias do is fight the little private wars of their employers rather than any combined effort.

>he is a mutt
Opinion discarded lmoa

His ideas are theoretically impossible becuase they require the end of the State, so everyone if we tried until they work.
>president of the US today wields more power than any monarch ever has in history.
And Putin has more power than him. Funny, huh?

>And Putin has more power than him.
Only by virtue of the fact that Russia happens to have a thousand more nukes than the US

Chapter 12 of The Prince.
genius.com/Niccolo-machiavelli-the-prince-chapter-12-english-version-annotated
Actually because Putin can do whatever he wants, Trump can't.

You are wrong. Ask me a question, I'll try to answer completely seriously.

So basically he's saying mercs are unreliable. Is that based on the fact that the Condottieri prefered lazy sieges rather than actually fighting?

Which evidence do you have that, unlike any other experience of the fall of the Modern State, it won't result in total oppression, fragmentation and culminating in the return of the State?

I stated a series of flaws in his ideas, you can try to explain the problems of points one and two.

What do you mean? Now, let me outline what I think you are asking about.
First, to achieve the "Ancap society," people's morals must be shifted. They must believe that the State taking money with no say from its subjects is immoral. And, because of this, and with the threat of revolution growing by the day, let's say the first State in the world implements a Contractual Constitution. Now, what is this? Basically, it writes up a long contract outlining the rights, responsibilities, duties, et cetera, of both the state and the citizen, and has its citizens sign it.
CONT

Wow, John Denver really changed after the plane crash.

This "Contractual Constitution" makes the State more like a company providing a service. The Contract would likely outline the basic laws of the State that cannot be changed, for example, murder being illegal, and a strict definition of murder. It would outline what laws can be changed, and in what ways, how the government functions, how taxes are collected, and how big those taxes are, et cetera. And people who sign this would get certain benefits that those who have not signed would not get. Law enforcement, access to certain infrastructure, welfare, et cetera.
This First State would likely lose much land to people who do not sign, though many of them would likely learn very quickly all that the state did for them, and would later sign. In other countries around the First State, revolution would be brewing, and they would implement similar reforms.
CONT

> people's morals must be shifted
You can't do that. This Rousseanian idea have been tried and failed hundreds of times and always resulted in bloodshed between the reactionary and revolutionary forces.

>They must believe that the State taking money with no say from its subjects is immoral.
And why it is? There's no other option. As Mises, a 100% endorser of taxes would say, you can't say you're unfree because you want to drink cyanide instead of water. Finally you need a valid normative system to call taxation as theft. There's no such a thing.

Many new Independents would still likely exist. And they might join with other people and create new States. But these States would be perfectly Ancap, as long as they do not force people, in any way, to stay with them, either through direct threat of violence, or threat of taking potential leaver's property or land. That is, preventing people from seceding.
But in these new States, secession wouldn't be unlimited. New signers would likely(And I keep saying "Likely" because all States would be different) give up their ability to secede, or, to leave and take their land with them. Though many States would likely allow people to leave, just not to properly secede. There would be exceptions, however. A State that breaks its contract, for example. Say that a State promises that it will never judge a criminal without due process, and then it comes out that the King or President ordered a gang leader assassinated. Even if what they did wasn't a bad thing, since they said that they would never do it in the contract, they broke that contract, and people who are disgusted with the act, or have otherwise been waiting for the opportunity to secede, could then file to leave.
I really could expand upon this heavily, and would like to write a real essay on it soon, but that's all for this, though I'll answer specific questions.

Taxation is theft as long as it's not 100% consensual.
It's not a bad thing. I want to live in a State. But not one where my citizenship isn't a proper contract. As long as the Constitution becomes a proper Contract, I'm be perfectly happy.
Of course, with a system of states arising like this, there would be many different ones. Monarchies, democracies, communes, republics, et cetera. And they would have different rules. Some might allow just about anything, while others would have very restrictive laws. But, as long as people are completely free to leave, and take anything with them they own that they have not, effectively, signed away their right to take, it's perfectly fine by me.
I am also a monarchist, though I can not prove that they are better. But if I get the chance, as I would in an Ancap society, that'd be perfect. And if I'm proven wrong, I'll have tons of opportunities to leave.

> But these States would be perfectly Ancap, as long as they do not force people, in any way, to stay with them
No free coutnry does that, you're free to leave your country to a better one in most of the West.
You still can create new States too. The main problem are the Natural Monopolies on the land, an economic concept that Hoppe denies (even though the Economic Science already proved its vality many times) and its nonexistence is necessary for the production of Security in the Market (See Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia).

>Taxation is theft as long as it's not 100% consensual.
You need to explain that. The fact that you're not free to not pay ain't enough, you need a valid normative system. For Rothbard that's the Natural Law, but not only his views on Natural Law are quite unpopular, but the very idea of Natural Law is not very accepted.

>you're free to leave your country
Not completely. Your "Country" is like a hotel holding your bags. You're free to leave, but they keep your stuff, or, rather, your land. Only you can't live without your "bags," because one needs land to live on.
I suspect this will become ever less present if we ever do truly expand to space, when we live in stations built from mined asteroids.
By that, I mean making it more like rent. You pay, and, in exchange, you get many benefits. If you don't pay, but said yo would, you can be punished, for example, by going to prison. If you just say no when they ask you, though, and never promise to pay, you can live a life without a state. There would, of course, be some benefits to this but, by and large, it'd be a poor alternative to "joining" a good state.

Man once we colonize other planets, we are gonna start nuking the shit out of each other. The entire problem with those things is the issue of ecological damage, but if you've got 100 planets then who gives a shit if we ruin one?

constitutional monarchs are supposed to help to resolve internal political conflicts, also they have influence in the armed forces

>once we colonize other planets
I find that unlikely. Maybe the Moon, Mars, and a few bases on other planets, but most people will likely live in space-station-like things, perhaps with detachable personal areas so that people who own their own homes can literally just secede when they're unhappy.
And we'll certainly not get out of this solar system in thousands of years, if at all.

>Meanwhile monarchies have the highest hdi and usually have the most freedoms. See Japan, Scandinavia, Canada, UK, and Belgium

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You'd have to get your nukes across the ocean of space.

...

And the moons of Jupiter most likely. If nothing else because Jupiter has a metric shitton of Helium-3 to mine.

That really isn't that hard outside of proper guidance systems.

But they become considerably easier to intercept at that distance and payloads will tend to be less because it costs resources to get that shit in space.

By the theoretical point of us living on dozens on planets, that amount of resources will be completely trivial. Remember, an average-sized asteroid has more iron in it than all iron mined on earth in human history.

monarchy can even be a republic you retard

>By the theoretical point of us living on dozens on planets, that amount of resources will be completely trivial.
Are you saying there's some centralized interplanetary government in a space station full of nukes ready to rain justice on any given planet? What even is the point of nuking another planet?

>Remember, an average-sized asteroid has more iron in it than all iron mined on earth in human history.
This only matters if you can smelt in space.

>What even is the point of nuking another planet?

What's the point of having the big button if you never use it? But in all seriousness, I was thinking more that individual planets would be nuking each other.

UAE is more of a collection of monarchies with inequal authority.

Symbolism, mostly.

Most constitutional moarchs do have legal authority over some stuff but are traditionally discouraged from using it. They are far less likely to be removed if they stick to sitting there and looking nice. The brittish monarch could for instance dissolve the parliament. He probably would't stay a moarch for long after if she did.

Nothing wrong with killing people you don't like in your property.