Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

(from elsewhere)(libertine idiots)

HHH;

Listen “Doolittle” (or whatever your real name is), I suggest you listen to your superiors. I have learned nothing from your insipid comments. Know your place in line peasant.

Curt Doolittle:

lol. You will find no Libertarian philosopher able to debate me. Hans included. (I know this.) I have no superiors in political philosophy. I desperately seek mere equals. It’s my real name. And my family has been in the lesser aristocracy for recorded northern European history back to the eleventh century.

And yes I am taunting you for your insipid criticism.

Curt Doolittle

BTW: Hoppe never advocates violence. Ever. He recommends nothing more radical than homeowner’s agreements commonly do, but that such prohibitions are unlimited: any reason for ostracization at all. He states that if people must be physically removed from an area, that this is also a choice. Removal, ostracization, and boycott are not the same as causing physical harm or depriving one of property or engaging in fraud, or any other form of parasitism. It prevents individuals from gaining the benefit of participation in a partnership(contract) without paying the requisite behavioral costs of membership in that partnership (contract).

Misrepresenting Hoppe is easy. Most criticisms of hist work are nonsensical or trivial errors in understanding the properties of his terminology.

Rather than such trivialities, his errors are limited to fairly deep philosophical problems caused by (a) his justificationary dependence upon kantian apriorism, and his failure to convert his arguments from aprioristic, justificationary and rationalist, to theoretical, critical and scientific; and (b) his failure to identify that property is a positive assertion of a negative prohibition (parasitism) necessary for the rational choice of cooperation over predation – and that the creative application of philosophy he is most proud of (argumentation) is a mere legalism (justifcation), not one of rational choice (incentives). That this is a contradiction seems to have escaped him. He assumes too much of man. The only means by which we can eliminate the state is to eliminate demand for the state. To eliminate demand for the state, the common law must provide means of resolving conflict arising from all forms of parasitism that humans seek to retaliate against. By adopting argumentation and intersubjectively verifiable property, he justifies levantine low trust ethics which demonstrably increase demand for the state. Instead, to eliminate demand for the state, requires a the total prohibition on the imposition of costs (parasitism) and the alleviation of all means of conflict over which we retaliate. This produces the high trust society, the civic society, and the maximum possible economic velocity for any polity because it disallows all possible parasitism whether private or public. Hayek didn’t quite figure it out, even if he understood that the organic common law and a constitution enumerating property rights, was necessary for the construction of liberty.

Cheers.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.