http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/02/swinkels-and-hoppe-on-the-tacit-support-of-the-state/HOPPE’S GENIUS: THE STATE’S MEANS OF GAINING SUPPORT
(from Stephan Kinsella)
Source date (UTC): 2012-09-19 12:35:00 UTC
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/02/swinkels-and-hoppe-on-the-tacit-support-of-the-state/HOPPE’S GENIUS: THE STATE’S MEANS OF GAINING SUPPORT
(from Stephan Kinsella)
Source date (UTC): 2012-09-19 12:35:00 UTC
LIBERTARIANISM AND INSTITUTIONS
The mysterious criticism that libertarians decry all institutions is a false one. And if it were true, it would be self contradictory. Property is an institution, even if only an informal one. One cannot both argue that institutions are unnecessary, or universally malicious when property itself is an institution.
And morals are institutions too, even if they are all, in the final analysis derivations of the institution of property as it is implemented by different groups. This fact helps us understand why some moral codes are superior to others: private, several property both allows more calculation of opportunities, and provides the incentive to act upon them
Formal institutions are not contrary to liberty. Tribal leaders who resolve conflicts, and independent judges are institutions. A code of common law is an institution. A network of banks, and the practice of interest are institutions And perhaps the least intuitive to westerners who live within these institutions, the informal institution of objective truth, its implementation as truth telling, as well as the institution of ethical universalism by which we forgo opportunities to benefit self, family, and tribe, and restrict ourselves to actions that can be subject to the market – a counter-intuitive concept which we live every day, is the source of the germanic west’s limited corruption by comparison to other cultures. And the realization that our ethics is governed by the market rather than self, family or tribe, is alien to westerners who cannot conceive of any alternative way of thinking.
If a group of people create a homeowners association, or found a new city, o even a new country, as long as they deprive no one else of property, either directly or indirectly by doing so, even if the formation of a such a contract is one to which all members and their guests and progeny must adhere, is not a violation of liberty. Even if they, like shopping mall owners, require that visitors and new members abide by that contract.
These are all forms of institutions. So, institutions are not prohibited by the desire for liberty. It is not institutions themselves that eradicate liberty, since liberty is the result of the institution of property. It is human beings functioning within a bureaucracy that comprises an institution that eradicates liberty. Bureaucracies must of necessity, out of a lack of choice, act for the purpose of perpetuating the institution itself, or for the purpose of simplifying the job of its members. And both self perpetuation and self service are caused by the monopoly power granted to these institutions, when they are insulated from competition.
Because while rules are abstractions which of themselves have no self interest to express, people are real things, and in the midst of complexity, have no cognitive choice but to rely upon simple rules of thumb, instinct, self interest and moral judgement.
And those moral judgements, because of genetic necessity, vary. To argue otherwise is simply advocating totalitarian eugenics, while making the error that we are in fact materially equal, rather than equal in our right to property. That is, by the extension of enfranchisement to the lower classes, those with alternative allocations of property rights, those with habits of familialism and tribalism, and in particular, with the addition of women to the pool of voters and to the market for consumption, production and trade, – for whom males possess a polar reproductives strategy, all have quite different moral codes. Ad those moral codes are a gene expression. We have given those with alternative moral codes, the freedom to alter the western definitions of property rights to favor their preferred method of gene expression. And the more natural one. Aristocracy, that is, meritocracy, is a rarity. Just as are truth telling, and universalism.
Bureaucracy was created to enforce homogeneity. And we are no longer homogenous. Any bureaucratic institution that exists to create homogeneity is by definition immoral, and enforcing not just self service, but self service by forced involuntary transfer from some to others, which in turn violates not just our property rights but our genetic composition and rights of reproduction. Rather than a bureaucracy of homogeneity, the only rule a population needs is several, personal, property, and the means by which to resolve conflicts over its transfer, and the willingness of some individuals to use their capacity for violence to maintain that right to personal property.
So it is bureaucracy that is the threat to our freedom. When we criticize government broadly, we are making a mistake that confuses people outside the movement. A government is a set of institutions that assist people in cooperating in a division of knowledge and labor. It is the institutions that allow us to express and make use of the institution of property. As such a government is not necessarily bad, as Rothbard’s diasporic voluntarism, and Hoppe’s private government have show us. Is not government in the abstract then that is systemically corrupting of man. It is the abrogation of property rights and the very existence of a bureaucracy within a bureaucratic state that sap our liberty and all that follows from it.
-Curt
Source date (UTC): 2012-09-14 20:40:00 UTC
HANS HOPPE’S NEW BOOK “THE GREAT FICTION”
I joined the Jeff Tucker’s new club just so that I could get the book immediately on my iphone rather than wait a few days for a hard copy of it. I suppose that’s the most fannish behavior I’ve ever demonstrated in my life. But then, I feel I’ve learned almost everything of value about political philosophy from Hoppe, and that’s more respectable than being a fan of a hair band, and certainly more so than an advocate of a politician.
It’s mostly just a case of crowing that I’ve already got The Great Fiction. I’m sure others have too – probably before I have. But I still feel like a kid who got tickets to a concert after waiting in line for three days.
I’ve only managed to make time to savor four chapters so far, and none of them is from the new material he’s included. But it seems to be better written or at least, better edited. And as such, I think the book is eminently accessible. Something that The Economics and Ethics of Private Property is unfortunately not. But then, that books is an argument, and The Great Fiction appears to be wisdom.
In one chapter, he creates such a wonderful narrative about the difficulty in bridging intellectual disciplines, and you can hear the subtle disappointment with mankind that has come with his age, where once would have been the bravado challenge and opportunity for demonstrating one’s intellect.
Unfortunately, while Hoppe’s intellectual personality comes across better in this book than his prior tomes, I feel a slight loss for those people who only come to know him through his works, rather than his lectures. Because in person he makes the irony of history and our folly with it, come alive with both humor, wit and insight. He ridicules the folly of our human vanity, so that we may comfortably step back and see our most cherished beliefs as patently objectively falsehoods no less mythical than our fairy tales.
I’m savoring these essays, and I don’t want them used up too soon. As a kid, I’d carefully save the halloween candy, so I’d always have some around until Easter. The Great Fiction is this fall’s bag of treats, and begs the same treatment. 🙂
Curt Doolittle.
Source date (UTC): 2012-09-09 16:46:00 UTC
http://trib.al/bXkp66A SEA IN A THIMBLE
“If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else’s expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves. – Thomas Sowell, via Libertarianism.org.
Source date (UTC): 2012-09-07 15:44:00 UTC
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_HONDURAS_PRIVATE_CITIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-05-22-36-19THREE PRIVATELY RUN CITIES IN HONDURAS
The Hoppeian government made real?
Source date (UTC): 2012-09-06 12:50:00 UTC
People need institutions both formal and informal to help them cooperate despite their different feelings and objectives. instead we try to argue with one another in order to make each other agree independently of those institutions. As if any of us actually listens to or comprehends the other.
Our institutions were designed to establish priorities among males who had extremely similar interests.
But today we have clearly divergent interests. If only because of gender and family structure preferences. And our differences are magnified by the technology that has made us prosperous, the addition of feminine majority, and group diversity.
If you diversify a population without altering its informal and formal institutions to allow for more complex cooperation – not upon ends but upon means – you will have institutional failure. The purpose of government is to help us cooperate despite our differences. The idea that we seek some form of truth in government is both an artifact of our prior homogeneity, the absurd bias of our democratic religion, and our belief in controlled choice rather than experimental cooperation.
The market instead allows us to collaborate on means even though we might pursue different ends. Government as it is currently structured by contrast requires that we have similar ends or the fantasy that we can persuade one another to possess similar ends.
When in fact it is both impossible for us to know what those similar ends should be, and given our various conflicting strategies about life in general, it is impossible for us to come to consensus on those ends. Or even understand all but a few of them.
We are prisoners of a set of institutions that have failed us and that cannot help us cooperate in our current state.
In most civilizations people abandon attempts at improving the government. That is the course we are on.
Having our civic culture handed to administrative government accelerated that decline as well as our divergence. Cowering in our little spatial boxes we rail at one another about how to think and feel rather than architect institutions that would help us to cooperate on means even if we desire a multitude of ends. And that multitude of experimentation would lead to discovery of solutions none of us is wise enough to conceive on our own.
Our vanity and hubris brought us here. Why is it that we think the next vanity of our intentions will be an exception to the rule?
Source date (UTC): 2012-09-01 23:06:00 UTC
THE IRON LAW OF BUREAUCRACY
“In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.” – Pournelle
Source date (UTC): 2012-08-23 10:48:00 UTC
THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY
“All forms of organization, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies out of the necessity for leadership and decision making, thus democracy is practically and theoretically impossible: He who says organization, says oligarchy.” – Robert Michels
Source date (UTC): 2012-08-23 10:46:00 UTC
THE IRON LAW OF LEVIATHAN
“Because the possibility of effectively supervising government varies inversely with government’s size, so does government’s lawfulness.” – George Will
Source date (UTC): 2012-08-23 10:41:00 UTC
CONTRA THE ATHEISTS
American christianity is a revolt against the state, not an advocacy of mysticism. The purpose of all religion; to place limits upon the state. To determine the limits of rule. To place control of society into the hands of small local groups, each with a variety of different interpretations and preferences. To make the individual in control of his or her life, and his or her destiny.
Seeing christianity as a movement consisting of irrational statements toward an irrational end, is very different from seeing it as practical means of achieving a rational end, regardless of the irrationality of its arguments.
Marxism is based on a false assumption. Democracy is based upon many false assumptions. Inter-temporal redistribution is based upon many false assumptions. Why is it that Religious Conservatism must be based upon true assumptions?
All movements are political. I find the argument about the FORM of religious doctrine always somewhat childish – judging a book by its cover. The CONTENT of religious doctrine can be analyzed. The RESULTS of applying religious doctrine can be criticized.
There is no evidence that most of what we debate in society is rational. And as Caplan has tried to show us, it may not be possible for public discourse to be rational. FORM does not matter. CONTENT matters,and content can be judged by the RESULTS it produces.
Source date (UTC): 2012-08-15 13:48:00 UTC