Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

Mark
(Hi BTW. Long time.)

1) They haven’t read Hoppe. Instead, they’re reading what critics accuse him of (which is always false).

2) Hoppe’s reasoning isn’t reduced to a single clear analytic argument in a single long paragraph (or three) that fully answers objections.

3) He doesn’t illustrate the difference between Rothbardian ethics of diasporics, German ethics of free cities, and Anglo ethics resulting from their formation of the modern rule of law nation state to frame the difference in responsibilities each of those peoples must bear in exchange for their sovereignty.

4) It takes a bit of understanding to comprehend what Hoppe is arguing, and that’s partly his fault for:
… (a) his adoption of sarcasm and ridicule as an agitating device. (Which we find endearing)
… (b) starting with monarchy instead of rule of natural concurrent common law of cooperation governed by monarchy. (Which misses the reason for european civilizational superiority in evolutionary rates of development)
… (c) basing his work on marxist argumentation ethics (AE) (which doesn’t hold in the face of ever-present violence), instead of that same natural law of cooperation. Meaning that it’s either difficult for normies to comprehend AE, or nonsense for those of us who study the history of the evolution of law.

4) All those things aside, he’s right. Sorry. End of story.
He is, however very loyal to Rothbard, very old-world German and Hierarchical, and overly invested in being absolutely correct rather than an incrementally innovative and incrementally correct. For my part I recognized that he had in fact reduced all questions of cooperation (social science, ethics and morality) to statements of demonstrated interests (property). And that ‘stubborness’ what prevents his legacy from surviving him. Because in retrospect between Mises-Rothbard, Rothbard-Hoppe and frankly Hoppe-Hayek-Popper-Becker (and myself) we solved social science in three generations. And we should take the damned trophy for solving the Aristotelian, Aquinan, Smith/Humeian, Darwinian project and uniting the sciences. Instead, the reason the libertarian-to-right spectrum fails is hyper-tribalism, meaning we eat ourselves, by eating our near neighbors in a crab bucket of mutual self-destruction.

Hope you are well.
Cheers

Mark
(Hi BTW. Long time.)

1) They haven’t read Hoppe. Instead, they’re reading what critics accuse him of (which is always false).

2) Hoppe’s reasoning isn’t reduced to a single clear analytic argument in a single long paragraph (or three) that fully answers objections.

3) He doesn’t illustrate the difference between Rothbardian ethics of diasporics, German ethics of free cities, and Anglo ethics resulting from their formation of the modern rule of law nation state to frame the difference in responsibilities each of those peoples must bear in exchange for their sovereignty.

4) It takes a bit of understanding to comprehend what Hoppe is arguing, and that’s partly his fault for:
… (a) his adoption of sarcasm and ridicule as an agitating device. (Which we find endearing)
… (b) starting with monarchy instead of rule of natural concurrent common law of cooperation governed by monarchy. (Which misses the reason for european civilizational superiority in evolutionary rates of development)
… (c) basing his work on marxist argumentation ethics (AE) (which doesn’t hold in the face of ever-present violence), instead of that same natural law of cooperation. Meaning that it’s either difficult for normies to comprehend AE, or nonsense for those of us who study the history of the evolution of law.

4) All those things aside, he’s right. Sorry. End of story.
He is, however very loyal to Rothbard, very old-world German and Hierarchical, and overly invested in being absolutely correct rather than an incrementally innovative and incrementally correct. For my part I recognized that he had in fact reduced all questions of cooperation (social science, ethics and morality) to statements of demonstrated interests (property). And that ‘stubborness’ what prevents his legacy from surviving him. Because in retrospect between Mises-Rothbard, Rothbard-Hoppe and frankly Hoppe-Hayek-Popper-Becker (and myself) we solved social science in three generations. And we should take the damned trophy for solving the Aristotelian, Aquinan, Smith/Humeian, Darwinian project and uniting the sciences. Instead, the reason the libertarian-to-right spectrum fails is hyper-tribalism, meaning we eat ourselves, by eating our near neighbors in a crab bucket of mutual self-destruction.

Hope you are well.
Cheers

Reply addressees: @DrMarkThornton