LEARNING: WHAT WAS RIGHT FROM HOPPE AND HAYEK. WHAT WAS WRONG FROM ROTHBARD I le

LEARNING: WHAT WAS RIGHT FROM HOPPE AND HAYEK. WHAT WAS WRONG FROM ROTHBARD

I learned pretty much everything that made a marginal difference in my understanding of what was right in libertarianism from Hoppe and Hayek. I learned what was WRONG with libertarianism I learned from Rothbard.

Unfortunately, Hans is romantically attached to Rothbard for justifiable reasons. Something which pains me pretty much every day. Because it’s unnecessary, and detrimental to both our cause, and to his legacy.

Socialism isn’t meaningful for us to devote intellectual energy to any longer. Postmodernism and Feminism are the weapons being used in the collusion between academia and the state to deprive us of property right. Rothbard’s ethics aren’t meaningful any longer. They were an ideological rather than ratio-scientific means of argument no better than those of the postmodernists. Other than his historical work, his philosophical work is ideological drivel.

But the Hoppeian solution to the problem of institutions *IS* relevant. Anarchism in the sense of a purely normative social order isn’t relevant any longer – because data confirms that this approach would be against the self interests of the many. But micro-private-government is, and heterogeneous government is, because smaller is better. Bigger is a vehicle for war. But a swiss militia as the afghans have proved, is the most effective means of preventing aggression: men behind every rock – or blade of grass.

It’s time for a reformation. A cleansing. A meeting of the minds. A council of Nicaea. An expunging of immoral and unethical obscurantist doctrines from the philosophy of liberty.