Hoppe on "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property"

[atypicalguy]

I agree with most of what the Austrians say but I am not convinced that there is such a thing as natural rights or even rights in general. At best, we can say that there is power inherent within the individual and competition among people when powers conflict. The state is just the result of this competition.

[NMCB3]

Bellator,rights are inherent in the nature of man,subject to the natural law as is everything in the universe not delusions.They can be suppressed by force but they still exist.They are not entitlements but merely part of your natural rights.For instance you own yourself this ownership comes from the nature of being human,not from some democratically elected Representatives and their laws Moreover private property existed before the state as did natural law.Your statist argument is full of holes

[acceptableviolence]

private property viewed thru the eyes of a capitalist disgusts me. Nonregulated free market has, and never will be sustainable.

[PleaseNoPolitics]

Please explain. You failed to do so.

[jackson32]

Stephan Kinsella goes into detail on this subject of defining natural rights in the PDF file "AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY"

I think this line of argument will stand the test of time, does anybody hear have any problems with the logic of this?

[Bellator656]

This guys a complete crank.

[Seiku]

Why?

[Bellator656]

For one, he doesn't even know the difference between use and property. Some of his arguments seem to justify the exact opposite of what he is advocating. And he's superstitious.

[TehBANN3D]

that is incorrect. To assume just use is to assume property irregardless of what merits the "justness" of that use.

Socialists have "public" property. Capitalists have private property. Property is the utilization of external objects in acquiring ends.

[Bellator656]

You have no idea what property is in actual world.

[TehBANN3D]

What, state titles? That's never been legitimate, nor has it been argued for by Austrians.

[Bellator656]

property is a violently enforced regime of material control. It originates from state enforcement and it's completely political therefore. The austrian view of property as pre-political entitlement is solipsitic and delusional.

[stealthswimmer]

no, it's definitely possible to own something. Not all property comes from the state. Yes state enforcement can help you KEEP property because government should be there to protect your rights...such as property rights, same as you yourself can protect your property from being stolen.

And legitimately acquired property is one that is acquired where previously unowned or where individuals trade through voluntary means.

[Bellator656]

Nope. Again, all rights exist only if they're enforced. Natural rights are platonic concept, a wish and a delusion in the minds of the solipsitic and needy. Ultimately, rights come from the barrel of the gun, from violent enforcement, and in civilized societies it's the democratic "social contract", and the laws that are part of it, which define and enforce laws and entitlements (such as property) in the extent and form as they're defined by democratically elected representatives.

[Incarnadine64]

The right to enter into a contract ("social" or otherwise) is built on the idea of individual sovereignty. How could we take a contract seriously if the people who enter it don't have the rights to themselves? If you accept the idea that people can enter into contracts, you necessarily accept self-ownership.

[Bellator656]

Sovereignty does not derive from the individual, but rather it is imposed on others in the form of laws. The term 'social contract' is actually somewhat misleading, I tend to use it to describe the political system of democracy, not as a reference to a conventional contract (although there are elements of that too).

[Moragauth]

Burn.

[Moragauth]

A pity Hoppe isn't arguing for natural rights.

[john42t]

@Moragauth That'll be too left-wing for him. Hang on, did you just called him a leftists? :-)

[Moragauth]

@john42t Hehe.

Natural rights aren't specific to right or left.

[Moragauth]

Assertion piled upon assertion. Prove that property comes from state enforcement and that it must. Your own "arguments" are solipsistic and delusional yackity yackity yack.

[Moragauth]

Typical leftist hogwash. "You've no idea about x in the actual world (as if I have a fucking clue)" :)

[marxbitesall]

Man has outgrown the increasingly predatory state comprised of unproductive parasites who operate above the law.

Hoppe is excellent. Listening to all his great lectures at mises dot org is time well spent.

[LeeGeeGee]

Ethics don't have to be universializable. They can be completely personal. No individual has to grant the existence of anyone but themselves as having rights. And, there's nothing contradictory whatsoever in that.

[AdamSmith1877]

In so far as ethics are a devise to serve human in interaction people have to have common ethical standards. For example, if you trade you a person you suppose that she do not betray you. You can not ague that ownership is just a convention. It is not!

[LeeGeeGee]

No they do not have to have common ethical standards. Everyone can have differing ethical standards, and they do. That's a main reason why there is conflict between people.

[Robas1987]

Ethical matters are more general. People can have different morality, but, in general, ethic is common. I think that most of people would agree that killing is not ethical, right?

[murphycline]

Depends on whether a) you believe in the existence of the state b) you believe in the death penalty and/or the right of the gov't to kill. Same goes with theft and taxes. And cultures around the world do make exceptions to the thou shalt not kill rule. But I hope you're right about internal ethics.

[Robas1987]

I only wanted to focus on the difference between ethics and morality (in Polish language there is a difference). Some time ago I was a classical liberal (HAyek, Mises etc.) but now I became libertarian with some anarchocapitalist influences. I think that pro-state thinking is full of paradoxes and can't be easily summed up with some undoubtful conclusion. So... the state should be cancelled.

[thorsmitersaw]

I would encourage you to read further on these points presented here. You may change your mind.

[jaewoovoodoo]

Ethics can be universal AND local at the very same time. It's obvious that betrayal of contracts can be universal, but behavioral reasons for renegging on contracts is completely based upon local ethical behavior.