[Rothbardian]

To set the scene:

Someone quotes Hoppe:

Hans Hoppe, Democracy: the God that failed,

"There can be no tolerance toward 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-centred 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."

Meanwhile the libertarians begin to talk about it, an anarchist decides to get into the nitty gritty about what the nature of the state is...

a country of coops, if worker controlled would be communism. contrary to common belief, Marxism is practically social libertarian, in that in the ideal state as Marx put it, everyone would be free to be the best they could be, the government would fade a way, and we'd all generally just get along with minimal oversight for our species to prosper. im paraphrasing massively, of course, but i feel my point stands. Big government is just an initial tool with which we can organize everything properly, then when the tool is not necessary, we throw it away.

When has a government ever given up its power to the people without a bloody revolution?

--TIG Edit

[SolarCross]

Hans Hoppe? I have never heard of him, nor do I know from what context that quote was taken. As it stands I don't agree with it. Perhaps I am giving him too much benefit of the doubt but I suppose he may have acquired a pessimistic impression from encounters with democrats and communists that they are irredeemably commited to aggression against those like libertarians that wish to preserve and defend their personal sovereignty such that peaceful co-existance is impossible.

[Eran]

When has a government ever given up its power to the people without a bloody revolution?

Often. Check your history.

For example, governments throughout the western world have given up their power to regulate religious practice. Without a bloody revolution.

Anyway, libertarians are bourgeois social engineers and wielders of capital and state.

Libertarians are wielders of state? How do you figure?

Hans Hoppe? I have never heard of him, nor do I know from what context that quote was taken. As it stands I don't agree with it. Perhaps I am giving him too much benefit of the doubt but I suppose he may have acquired a pessimistic impression from encounters with democrats and communists that they are irredeemably commited to aggression against those like libertarians that wish to preserve and defend their personal sovereignty such that peaceful co-existance is impossible.

Hoppe is an important thinker in today's anarcho-capitalist world. You should get to know him.

He is personally very conservative, and thus makes many inflammatory statements like the one just quoted.

Once you read more of his writing, you understand that the context of "separated and expelled from society" is entirely voluntary. Hoppe expects (wrongly, in my opinion) that libertarian communities will not tolerate either those advocating a return to state power ("democrats and communists") or those wishing to engage in what he calls "alternative lifestyles". Such intoleration would be expressed exclusively through people's legitimate control over their own property. Thus a land-lord may (legitimately) refuse to rent his apartment to a single mother. But a community may not (by Hoppe's moral code) prohibit a land-lord from renting his apartment to a single-mother.

A possible (though still unlikely, imo) scenario is that conservative communities will be formed, in which certain values are predominant, and those uncomfortable with those values will be unwelcome. By the same token, Hoppe's underlying ethics would allow for alternative communities, including those based on socialist sharing or "hedonistic individualism".

[Rothbardian]

Often. Check your history.

For example, governments throughout the western world have given up their power to regulate religious practice. Without a bloody revolution.

Deregulating and self abolishing are COMPLETELY different concepts. Besides, all the state did was replace the brainwashing function of the church (OBEY OR GOD WILL DAMN YOU) with 'public education' (It's VOLUNTARY government, kids!).

It may have happened that a group of people in power decided to give it up rather than simply change the face of it, but I'm not aware of any examples and even if they are out there, it's completely idiotic to base an entire system on the occurrence of something so unlikely.

[Eran]

If your point is that no government has ever abolished itself, you are absolutely right.

However, states gave up their control over religious practice about a century before public education was brought about.

Control over private (non-commercial) sexual practices amongst consenting adults were also abolished in the past few decades.

This is not to say that liberty hasn't suffered setbacks as well.

However it would be wrong to believe that peaceful means cannot bring victories for liberties.

[SolarCross]

Hoppe is an important thinker in today's anarcho-capitalist world. You should get to know him.

Since you recommend him, I'll take a look. If he is a moral / social conservative then I like him already.

[Eran]

He is an arch-conservative, strongly opposed to untraditional sex, consumption of drugs, or immigration.

However, most of his writing is very analytic. In particular, I'd be curious to know what you think of his Argumentation Ethics.

In a nutshell, the idea is that ethical principles can only be justified in the context of an argument, and that an argument inherently requires recognition of certain moral principles (such as the right of the disputants to live and control their own bodies).

Following the logical consequence of that observation, Hoppe deduces the entire Non Aggression Principle (and, by inference, libertarian ethics) as the logically necessary consequence of being argumentatively justifiable.

[Rothbardian]

If your point is that no government has ever abolished itself, you are absolutely right.

However, states gave up their control over religious practice about a century before public education was brought about.

Control over private (non-commercial) sexual practices amongst consenting adults were also abolished in the past few decades.

This is not to say that liberty hasn't suffered setbacks as well.

However it would be wrong to believe that peaceful means cannot bring victories for liberties.

Society has definitely vastly improved over the years. We live in easily the best society that has ever existed.

That said..

When has a government ever given an inch in one area without taking two somewhere else? Except in the case of bloody revolutions, I mean.

Also, what is the point of this thread?

[SolarCross]

Hans Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics - It is an interesting approach but I think I can poke a hole in it.
From wiki

Praxeological foundation

Hoppe first notes that when two parties are in conflict with one another, they can choose to resolve the conflict by engaging in violence, or engaging in argumentation. Thus, by choosing to resolve a conflict by argumentation the parties have implicitly rejected violence as a way to resolve their conflict. Non-violence is thus an underlying norm (grundnorm) of argumentation, that is accepted by both parties.

Because during argumentation both parties propound propositions, and because argumentation presupposes certain norms (such as non-violence), the act of propounding a proposition that negates the presupposed propositions of argumentation is a logical contradiction between one's actions and one's words (this is called a performative contradiction). Specifically, to argue that violence should be used to resolve conflicts (instead of argumentation) is a performative contradiction.

This foundation is not so solid. It is true that by engaging in argument one is not using violence but it is not true that by engaging in argument one is implicitly rejecting violence because it could be that only in that instance the cost / benefit calculation puts argument as being more tactically useful than violence. Consider the transatlantic slave trade. The slavers wanted the plantation owners money and the plantation owners wanted to keep their money. They are in dispute. Why don't the slavers just fight the plantation owners to take the money? The plantation owners are well armed or have well armed protectors so the cost / benefit of getting the money by violence is not viable. So the slavers go to somewhere where people are not well defended, kidnap them and then sell them to the plantation owners as a product and thus get the plantation owner's money through argument or negotiation. The slavers did not reject violence as a way to solve disputes, they merely rejected using violence to solve disputes when it was not to their advantage. So there is no performative contradiction in arguing that violence can be used to resolved conflicts.

[Rei Murasame]

Such intoleration would be expressed exclusively through people's legitimate control over their own property. Thus a land-lord may (legitimately) refuse to rent his apartment to a single mother. But a community may not (by Hoppe's moral code) prohibit a land-lord from renting his apartment to a single-mother.

So, let's say all those land-lords band together and decide to harmonise their opinions and create something that they call 'social policy'? Is that a government being created, or is that a non-government that just so happens to have social policies?

I know it's a question that has probably been asked time and time again, but I can never understand why you all don't perceive this as a form of government.

[Nunt]

So, let's say all those land-lords band together and decide to harmonise their opinions and create something that they call 'social policy'? Is that a government being created, or is that a non-government that just so happens to have social policies?

I know it's a question that has probably been asked time and time again, but I can never understand why you all don't perceive this as a form of government.

Its not a form of government because land owners can only create social policy about the plot of land that they own. They cannot tell people what to do on their own property. In contrast, government is not a legitimate owner of the land, but does proceed to tell people what they can and cannot do on their own property. Those land lords can only compell others to follow their laws by voluntary means.

Also remember that it is fairly hard to own land according to libertarian principles. Governments claim authoroty by just planting a flag and saying this country belongs to us now and we'll kill anyone who disputes this. To own land in a libertarian way, you must have incorporated the land in an ongoing project and you cannot deny other people using that land if it does not interfere with your project.

[quetzalcoatl]

So, let's say all those land-lords band together and decide to harmonise their opinions and create something that they call 'social policy'? Is that a government being created, or is that a non-government that just so happens to have social policies?

I know it's a question that has probably been asked time and time again, but I can never understand why you all don't perceive this as a form of government.

Because government is what I say it is, and furthermore I am the definer and you is the definee. There's your praexology.

[Rei Murasame]

Its not a form of government because land owners can only create social policy about the plot of land that they own. They cannot tell people what to do on their own property.

Well, I should have said this outright, I am talking about the Old World and its colonial auxiliaries (ie, anything not in the North American continent proper), meaning that most people would not really own their own land, and those that do, would have it 'bought' (read: swiped) off them pretty quickly as soon as people realise that land-ownership equals social control all over again.

In contrast, government is not a legitimate owner of the land, but does proceed to tell people what they can and cannot do on their own property.

Government used to be a 'legitimate' owner of land, because government was practically invented by landowners with weapons, or security groups who used to protect landowners from bandits, who then teamed up and became government in order to better fight against bandits.

And then later on, the mode of production changed, and the forces behind government changed a bit.

Also remember that it is fairly hard to own land according to libertarian principles.

Well, it's not like you are going to revoke everyone's land titles now, right? This means that we'd be in the dictatorship of landowners and businessowners. Maybe I personally would benefit from that (since my family owns land in various locations on the earth), but not for long, since I am confident that in such an environment, the super-wealthy who have massively more capital would find a way to nullify our voice anyway.

To own land in a libertarian way, you must have incorporated the land in an ongoing project and you cannot deny other people using that land if it does not interfere with your project.

So in other words, people with large amount of capital at their disposal would be able to seize the land of smaller groups, because they would be able to set up a panel and argue - to themselves in a completely unaccountable way - that they have plans to build something on the land, and that comparatively, the smaller groups are not doing anything with it as far as they can detect.

So essentially Monsanto (they are really an archetype of this) would eventually get around to trying to stamp out everyone at some point. It would ultimately come to violence.

[Nunt]

Government used to be a 'legitimate' owner of land, because government was practically invented by landowners with weapons, or security groups who used to protect landowners from bandits, who then teamed up and became government in order to better fight against bandits.

What concrete period are we talking about here? For the last 2000 years, land in Europe was owned by conquerers, not by farmers. So, if you are just a bunch of honest farmers grouping together for protection there is nothing wrong with this. There is a problem when you start conquering a whole kingdom. For example, kings often owned vast woodlands. These woodlands were often unimproved pieces of nature which cannot be owned in such a state. Yet the king could assert ownership through his army.

And then later on, the mode of production changed, and the forces behind government changed a bit.

This really implies that the period you are considering was the industrial revolution, I assume you mean this is when the mode of production changed? Sorry, but pre-industrial Europe was not owned by honest landowners, it was owned by conquerers. At least since the roman empire. The roman empire did not expand through peaceful acquiring of property, but through conquest.

Well, it's not like you are going to revoke everyone's land titles now, right?

I would do lots of things to existing land titles.
1) All government land would become unowned
2) All currently unimproved land would become unowned. I consider the vast majority of the earth is unimproved.
3) I would adapt all current land ownership to a libertarian standard. This means that you cannot own the full rights to a peace of land because of land deed says so. Rather ownership stems from your ongoing projects. So if you have a large estate with a large unimproved forest, then you do not have full ownership rights of that forest. You would only have the right to enjoy the forest which may prevent others from chopping the forest down. But you would not have the right to prevent others from enjoying the forest as well.
4) I would declare void all ownership rights that can be proven to be acquired illegitimately.

This means that we'd be in the dictatorship of landowners and business-owners. Maybe I personally would benefit from that (since my family owns land in various locations on the earth), but not for long, since I am confident that in such an environment, the super-wealthy who have massively more capital would find a way to nullify our voice anyway.

On the contrary. To own any land today (even if its unimproved) you would need to get a government handout giving you the right to exploit that land. Governments only give out those handouts to big corporations. On the other hand, libertarian law would allow everyone to reap the benefits and use this unimproved land. Owning a large estate would be virtually impossible.

So in other words, people with large amount of capital at their disposal would be able to seize the land of smaller groups, because they would be able to set up a panel and argue - to themselves in a completely unaccountable way - that they have plans to build something on the land, and that comparatively, the smaller groups are not doing anything with it as far as they can detect.

You are talking about seizing land. But you cannot legitimately seize land. You can only legitimately use it if you are not interfering with other people's use. I am not sure how someone with a lot of capital would really have an advantage here. Everyone can legitimately use any unowned land. Imo this is much more democratic that the current system in which land and natural resources are being handed out by government. To own a coal mine, you would just need to build a shack and start digging. A large mining company that has a tunnel shaft right next to you would not be able to stop you from mining on your own.

[Rothbardian]

So, let's say all those land-lords band together and decide to harmonise their opinions and create something that they call 'social policy'? Is that a government being created, or is that a non-government that just so happens to have social policies?

I know it's a question that has probably been asked time and time again, but I can never understand why you all don't perceive this as a form of government.

That is exactly the same as creating a government....if the people creating the 'social policy' field an army to be used to make their neighbors and their descendents comply with it.

[Someone5]

When has a government ever given up its power to the people without a bloody revolution?

There must always be a first time for everything that ever happens. If we step back in time, we could just as easily ask "when has anyone ever built a house next to someone else's?" Society changes, progresses, and eventually that may well mean a government that surrenders its power. I don't think we're at that point in social development, but communists clearly do think that. But then again, that's why I'm an anarchist rather than a communist.

[Someone5]

Often. Check your history.

For example, governments throughout the western world have given up their power to regulate religious practice. Without a bloody revolution.

Well, there have been a few examples of governments simply collapsing without revolutions. But that usually doesn't result in any positive expansion of freedom for the people there.

Libertarians are wielders of state? How do you figure?

You want to build a state that protects the interests of capitalists and no one else. I know that you, yourself, have argued in favor of them--though you call them "rights management agencies" rather than governments. It's still a state.

Hoppe is an important thinker in today's anarcho-capitalist world. You should get to know him.

He is personally very conservative, and thus makes many inflammatory statements like the one just quoted.

No one else pays much attention to him. Likely for that very reason.

Once you read more of his writing, you understand that the context of "separated and expelled from society" is entirely voluntary. Hoppe expects (wrongly, in my opinion) that libertarian communities will not tolerate either those advocating a return to state power ("democrats and communists") or those wishing to engage in what he calls "alternative lifestyles". Such intoleration would be expressed exclusively through people's legitimate control over their own property. Thus a land-lord may (legitimately) refuse to rent his apartment to a single mother. But a community may not (by Hoppe's moral code) prohibit a land-lord from renting his apartment to a single-mother.

Incidentally, Hoppe is not even recognizing reality with all of this. Hell, if such a society wanted to expel single mothers or whatever, they will end up expelling almost half their own young families. It would be sheer insanity.

A possible (though still unlikely, imo) scenario is that conservative communities will be formed, in which certain values are predominant, and those uncomfortable with those values will be unwelcome. By the same token, Hoppe's underlying ethics would allow for alternative communities, including those based on socialist sharing or "hedonistic individualism".

The two could never coexist. The libertarians would obviously just try to seize the resources and land of the socialists, because the socialists would have no ownership claim over it. To put it another way, libertarians are incapable of coexisting with others who do not live according to libertarian legal codes. Their all-consuming reliance on property rights would utterly prohibit them from having beneficial relationships with people who fundamentally reject property rights. There would be no way for the two to mediate disputes over property/resources.

[Rothbardian]

Pop It Like Its Hoppe

[Rei Murasame]

This won't be a detailed response, but I am basically cutting to what I believe is the root of the problem here:

I would do lots of things to existing land titles.
1) All government land would become unowned
2) All currently unimproved land would become unowned. I consider the vast majority of the earth is unimproved.
3) I would adapt all current land ownership to a libertarian standard. This means that you cannot own the full rights to a peace of land because of land deed says so. Rather ownership stems from your ongoing projects. So if you have a large estate with a large unimproved forest, then you do not have full ownership rights of that forest. You would only have the right to enjoy the forest which may prevent others from chopping the forest down. But you would not have the right to prevent others from enjoying the forest as well.
4) I would declare void all ownership rights that can be proven to be acquired illegitimately.

For your second point, which class of people do you think would approve of that idea? You would be wiping out the holdings of most of the peasants around the world, and most of the petite-bourgeoisie as well.

For your fourth point, how would you declare the ownership rights of conquerors void, when the class of people who own massive sections of conquered land are precisely the sort of people who you would be reliant on to fund your movement in the first place? It's not like libertarians are going into that fight propped up by working class Maoists or something, right?

That is exactly the same as creating a government....if the people creating the 'social policy' field an army to be used to make their neighbors and their descendents comply with it.

But isn't that what always happens in the end?

[Nunt]

For your second point, which class of people do you think would approve of that idea? You would be wiping out the holdings of most of the peasants around the world, and most of the petite-bourgeoisie as well.

Since peasants work their land, it is not unimproved and so they can own their land.

For your fourth point, how would you declare the ownership rights of conquerors void, when the class of people who own massive sections of conquered land are precisely the sort of people who you would be reliant on to fund your movement in the first place? It's not like libertarians are going into that fight propped up by working class Maoists or something, right?

It wrong to assume that libertarianism would rely on the support of big money. Big money is not pro free market, they usually have a symbiotic relationship with government. Who would support libertarianism? Well, libertarians of course. Libertarianism can only succeed if we manage to convince people that libertarianism is just.