“[Someone says] Hoppe confuses a claim right (demand) with a liberty right (gran

—“[Someone says] Hoppe confuses a claim right (demand) with a liberty right (granted right) do you agree with this conclusion?—A Friend

1) He confuses a claim(want), with granted/existing(by third party insurer), with sovereign(existential) unnecessary.

2) he confuses non contradiction in a dispute in front of a judge (third party insurer), where I cannot walk away from judgemnt in dispute, but I can walk away prior to dispute, with negotiation with a hostile party who may kill you if you walk away from the negotiation.

In other words, he is making a moral, or a leagal argument within the context of existing cooperation, rather than making a scientific argument that is necessary to construct a polity in the first place.

Hoppe’s philosophy is shit. His arguments as to the application of property (voluntary transactions) as a means of commensurability in all of social science is genius.

He gets his training from fucking habermas ( a private property marxist ) and then from Rothbard (a common property marxist ) and we wonder why he makes nonsense marxist arguments in favor of private property.

The source of liberty is the common law of torts. And the common law of torts evolved between sovereign men as a means of preventing retaliation cycles.

Violence. It’s all from violence.