WHERE HOPPE HAS IT RIGHT. if you have two false premises, but from them draw a t

WHERE HOPPE HAS IT RIGHT.

if you have two false premises, but from them draw a true conclusion, then use that conclusion as a premise from which to draw further conclusions, you will still come up with true conclusions. In Hoppe’s case the difference between his opinion and mine is the possibility of the formation of a polity that lacks property in toto as the basis of rule of law. In other words, hoppe’s presumptions are false, his conclusion is true, and that conclusion (property) when used as a premise provides him with more precise explanatory power than rothbard. By correcting hoppe’s premises and using the language of science, my work merely IMPROVES upon hoppe’s.

Whenever he is talking through a set of incentives he’s right. When ever he is justifying property rights he’s wrong. Whenever he is explaining the consequences of respecting property rights, he’s right.

The problem is he’s proud of the stuff that’s false, and doesn’t appreciate the contribution he’s made by demonstrating what is true:

THat all rights private, common, and evolutionary, are reducible to property rights continent only upon a sufficient scope of property rights that will enable a polity to survive in competition with those that do not provide those rights.