A Private Law Society (by Hans Hoppe)

[alalelalex]

What does Hoppe mean with independent (44:00)? They are of course financially dependent on their customers. So he must mean independent in the sense that both parties voluntarily agree on them.

[Nielsio]

@alalelalex Yes, there are independent because the two parties would only come to agree to what they perceive as independent. I wouldn't agree that your brother-in-law arbitrate on a dispute between you and me.

See also 'How Could A Voluntary Society Function?'; the main video of my channel.

[CytherLynx]

i would really really like to see a gene-centred biologist like Richard Dawkins, come out and give a proper account of where natural rights come from. i got a lot out of reading 'the selfish gene'. but he wasn't very specific- he explained the principles well though.

Anyway the closest ive seen is 'matt ridely' a biologist like dawkins, but also free-marketer.

natural rights is a product of 'evolutionary stable strategy'. remember!

jim . com / rights . html

best account so far. i need more

[DieTheDeath]

it would be so much more fun to live in a free society

[032125]

@donroche There exists a subset of self professed anarchists who identify themselves as "Socialist Anarchists" who have nothing in common with Agorists, Market Anarchists, Austrian libertarians, etc.

These are the bomb throwing crazies of the 19th and 20th centuries who have given freedom advocates a bad name, and I truly doubt their sincere belief in voluntary exchange. They are wolves in disguise.

Anyone who violates the non-aggression axiom is not a lover of freedom, but is a statist.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@032125

"Market" Anarchists... that's a laugh.

Keep perpetuating the stale vitriol/propaganda against ACTUAL ANARCHISTS. The wolves in sheep's clothing are people like you.

[032125]

@IngeniousEpithet Feel free to dismiss without actually refuting; it is a common (if vulgar) tactic. That which is posited without reason will be dismissed without reason.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@032125

Socialist Anarchists are "bomb-throwing crazies"? FALSE and FALSE LOGIC. Seriously... that characterization is the oldest and most VULGAR tactic in the anti-Anarchist book. Try again.

Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron. Do I really need to provide proof of this? It should be abundantly clear to anybody who has studied the nature and ideas of both.

Aggression and self-defense DO NOT EQUATE TO STATISM OR COERCION. If you coerce a coercive tyrant, that is not the same as tyranny/statism.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@032125

Your unrealistic/unscientific free-market society would give rise to new (or perhaps even old) forms of hierarchy, stratification, and a de-facto state. Though, tragically, Democracy and Representative government would be a joke in such a highly privatized market-based society; you'd be expected to "vote with your dollar" which is a damn joke, a perversion of Democracy. You either trust equality/elimination of power AND wealth hierarchies or you don't, if not, you're not an Anarchist.

[AlexandraDanescu]

@donroche Those syndicalists weren't 'anarchists.

[dcdanta]

Hans Hoppe's The Private Production of Defense is required reading for anyone interested in economics and political theory:

[dcdanta]

@dcdanta google search the pdf, which is available for free.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@donroche

Seems the rapes were carried out mostly (if not completely) by the Communists. And Communists have a long history of fucking over Anarchists (see the Bolshevik revolution). Please do not equate the two, despite any ideological similarities.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@donroche

You're confusing Anarchy with every-man-for-himself society. Bands, tribes, families, clubs, collectives, co-ops, etc. are ALL examples of collectivism which are either INHERENTLY Anarchistic (i.e. no strong authorities/hierarchies) or can succeed perfectly fine in peaceful Anarchy. Human beings have ALWAYS organized into communal collectives, mostly Anarchistic/non-hierarchical ones. They have been extremely successful and provide necessary social bonds for people. Markets dont.

[bitbutter]

Excellent. Thanks for posting this. I'm curious to read Hoppe's book on democracy.

[FacultyZ]

I agree with Mr 1001 Nights, its like when folk refer to the term 'Democracy' when refering to the present system of Govt and blindly except the 'dictionary' terms of it.

They may go further and say well democracy is purely Representative, not seeing that this is an oxymoron, because the voter is in fact abdicates their democratic responsablity & turning it over to an elected-dictatorship (Polyarchy),

[canaan1967]

@donroche

You may be confusing government with State. It is the State that intervenes in your life not government. Libraries a communist threat? Come now!

Communism was never intended to be a bureaucratic collectivist state. There are many reasons why it developed that way. I also think you are confusing Marxism with Fascism. Fascism is the fusion of the State and corporations or moneyed interests. The State was created to protect the wealthy through economic and military coercion

[mr1001nights]

@donroche

You seem to confuse anarchy with its opposite: hierarchy.

Your attack the absence of hierarchy by calling it "marxism"--indicating your disdain for anarchy.

[mr1001nights]

Read Section C and F of the Anarchist FAQ at infoshopDOTorg to find a refutation of all this. To mention just one small part, we anarchists distinguish between nonexploitative property (for personal use e.g. a home, bed, toothbrush etc) and exploitative property (swaths of land, industries etc) Proudhon pointed out back in 1840 that if property forms the basis of freedom, denying the means of production to ppl means denying them freedom (having to rent urself to bosses controlling the workplace)

[truevoice08]

There is no such thing as exploitative property. You can only be exploited through force, which will not happen in anarchy. If a person owns land the size of Texas, people will be so concerned of about it that a deal has to be made with the insurance company to exchange part of the land or else nobody will work in the land and the insurance company could withdraw.

[mr1001nights]

nonsense. A bunch of capitalist bosses (aided by the governments they control) already own more land than that, and the workers must rent themselves to them or else. Your system makes the choice of workers' self-management (i.e. freedom) very hard to pursue. You want a world composed of many totalitarian units (businesses), which collectively impose an exploitative "work for a boss or else" status quo on a large % of the population. And you call this "freedom". Orwell would roll in his grave.

[truevoice08]

@mr1001nights What you have just said is a paranoid dream that contradicts economic law. The reason why workers do not self-organize now is once again due to the state. Your an anarchist so you should know this. Besides, your socialist utopia is impossible after the state falls apart. You would have to create a new government to establish public ownership of land and the like.

[mr1001nights]

/watch?v=RAgJs9anhw8 Adam Smith, John Locke etc pointed out that the creation of government had to do with preserving wealth inequalities--NOT with preserving public equality. U got it backwards. Capitalists use the state&propaganda to protect or expand their property & prevent self-management. U want to apply coercion to prevent workers from self-managing (i.e. achieving freedom). U do this by strengthening self-management's worse enemy: capitalist's ability to establish totalitarian workplaces

[truevoice08]

@mr1001nights Idk why you referenced me to that video since it defended having a government. Plus, I think you have evaded the main topic here which is public land vs private land. But let's take your claim here that capitalists use the state to do all these bad stuff(which is entirely true) and that government was created to preserve inequality. It still doesn't mean that equality will be and should be the epitome of anarchy. And again this is impossible.

[mr1001nights]

If ppl achieve self-management, theyll decide how they want to live--not capitalist or govt bosses. The greatest anarchist experiment (Spain 1930s) showed a strong tendency toward equality. Our institutions repress it. Legitimate private property refers to property for active personal use, like a bed, a home, a toothbrush etc Illegitimate property refers to the means of production&capital derived thereof--workplaces, industries, hotels, swaths of land etc which lead to capitalist nonlabor income

[truevoice08]

@mr1001nights I agree that anarchy will be much more egalitarian than the status quo. I only disagree with you when it comes to property. Land, factories, hotels can only be made public property by the creation of a government. And I am starting to think you do not want to abolish government.

/watch?v=coEdnmxk4Vk

[mr1001nights]

We shouldnt reject concepts just because statists used them to do the opposite eg Lenin's rhetoric about "workers democracy" or Hitler's about peace&freedom. Anarchy means the opposite of hierarchy, so when talking about the means of production it means sharing of power. So by default anarchy entails self-management, where each worker has a say proportionate to the degree he is affected Changing that could be compatible w/anarchy only if authority meets the burden of proof after being challenged

[truevoice08]

@mr1001nights You see the problem I have with anarcho-communists is they concern themselves with organizing society the way they want it to be organized. This is actually a statist line of thinking. Anarchists following the Non-aggression principle should not care how society is organized once the state is abolished.

[truevoice08]

@mr1001nights If what you mean by self-management is abolition of profits, this will result in mass poverty. Bohm Bawerk dealt with that problem 150 years ago. The structure of production happens in a roundabout way such that there has to be something saved for the future. Marxist exploitation theory is a total fail.

[mr1001nights]

OK, so you say we must accept bosses (i.e. we must reject anarchy) because it will lead to poverty. The Spanish anarchists proved the opposite. Through self-management they increased not only freedom, but also efficiency in the processes of production. You are free to reject anarchy and embrace hierarchy. But then you shouldn't call yourself an anarchist.

[truevoice08]

@mr1001nights Tell me, how are businesses different from worker's associations? Don't both need to take something off the top for administrative costs? It seems you are taking alot for granted here. From my own personal experience, cause I can't speak for all anarcho-communists, you anarcho-communists are closet marxists who really want to use the state(democracy) to achieve an impossible socialist utopia.

[mr1001nights]

furthermore, an overarching hierarchical unit (a state) seems much more likely to appear in a society composed of hierarchical subunits (wage labor-based businesses), than in a society composed of non-hierarchical (i.e. anarchical) sub-units (self-managed community and worker associations)

[truevoice08]

@mr1001nightsMy definition of anarchy would be statelessness, with the state defined as a monopoly of physical force. If your definition of anarchy is perfect equality then I am vehemently against it. As long as man is what man is there will always be elites, the only question is whether those elites will be voluntarily acknowledged for their use in society or will they be parasites(politicians).

[mr1001nights]

U can define anarchy to mean bacon&sausagesW/ketchup if you like. But anarchy means the opposite of hierarchy. It means anti-authoritarianism--placing the burden of proof on authority. You can have a hierarchical concept of human nature if you like, but then u shouldnt call yourself an anarchist. Incidentally, notice ur Orwellian reasoning: You say that whoever tries to achieve anarchy (absence of hierarchy) will "want to use the state". In other words anarchy is hierarchy & hierarchy is anarchy

[truevoice08]

@mr1001nights The definition of anarchy in the encarta dictionary is lack of any formal system of government. So I think I am justified in calling myself an anarchist if we are to use the formal terminology. And while you might conflate the terms government and hierarchy, most people think of anarchy as lack of a political state more than a state of perfect equality.

[mr1001nights]

the dictionary defines "anarchy" as violence and chaos--that's the way "most people think of anarchy" after years of propaganda by elites (who fear its true meaning). So what? If u look at the meaning of term based on the history of its use in political movements, it refers to an anti-authoritarian movement which came about w/precisely the purpose of eliminating capitalism (AKA wage slavery). Terms like "libertarian" "anarchist" always referred to the anti-state wing of the socialist movement

[jburke8491]

Thanks for posting these, HHH is one of my favorite thinkers. Great to be able to listen to his lectures.