ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Property and the Social Order | Hans-Hermann Hoppe
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ส.ค. 2011
- Archived from the live Mises.tv broadcast, this lecture by Hans-Hermann Hoppe was presented at the 2011 Mises University in Auburn, Alabama.
This guy's book "Democracy the God that failed" is one of the best books I've ever read, and it completely changed my views of our government here in the US, from where I used to be a constitutionalist, conservative, limited government, Ron Paul supporter, and hard core free marketer to a RP supporter in his efforts to educate people, an anarcho capiltalist, and a sovereign person who looks at all governments as a band of thieves writ large, the US government included!!!
Well said, James. I, too, recently read Hoppe's book, "Democracy the God that Failed," and I found it extraordinary and it changed my thinking about government completely. I am now an anarcho-capitalist. I know that government is our greatest earthly enemy.
@Merika Ramocan Cofederacy was no better than a democratic state. Return to monarchism, or even better, anarchism.
@Merika Ramocan A confederacy and the confederacy are quite different. I thought you were talking about the latter. My bad.
Agreed, I've never been political but Hoppe really expresses how I view the parasitic "ruling"class and state. I love everything I have heard.
This man is incredible.
The absolute best intro to anarchocapitalism I have ever seen.
Being a gun luv'n, Iraq vet I find the economic theory of free market private contract security just fascinating. And if given the option would entrepreneur my own company.
Its been 9 years
Debating Dr. Hoppe on economics or political science is like debating Spock on warp drive.
I think you mean Scotty who was the engineer.
Shut up nerd.
This is the fundamental truth that the people who are slowly waking up are most frightened of; the State, 'democracy' is the cause of all their troubles, not the solution in any way shape or form.
The few lectures I have watched of hoppe I find his views compelling, to the point of insight, in the sense that the power of the argument is compelling enough to bring about action. Ordering a few of his books to see where this journey goes.
He begins with first principles, then patiently and methodically lays out a logical condemnation of present conditions from there. Impressive! I 100% agree.
He then continues, describing one possible solution in impressive detail. That solution utterly respects each individual's #selfOwnership, as it should. It employs the voluntary sector and excludes the involuntary sector, as it should. That it initially sounds so complex and lengthy would, I think, ultimately be rendered practically irrelevant by the observation that the present system is itself the cause of much conflict. The solution Hoppe describes could hardly dominate the public mind to the pathological extent that the present one does.
That each individual can, and that many already have, started down Hoppe's road without the permission or compulsion of any authority, demonstrates that profound change can happen incrementally and voluntarily. It need not be imposed, making it a rare fish indeed in an otherwise overwhelmingly authoritarian sea of competitors.
0:00 Robinson Curusoe
• Goods are scarce
3:10 Solving The Problem of Social Order
3:50 Solution: Private Property
Simply brilliant
simply amazing
What a brilliant mind.
I posted a link to this recently on a vid with a ton of leftists attacking libertarianism and the private law society. I challenged them to watch this, and then cite specific parts that did not stand to scrutiny.
It's been two days, and needless to say, no one has taken up the challenge. Instead, everyone over there keeps making their vociferous, emotionally laden attacks, and I've been threatened with getting my TH-cam account blocked ;)
I'll debate this with you. Hoppe's argument has a large hole in it - he argues for self ownership (which is great) but then says that a person owns the land and natural resources he/she has put to use assuming no one else has already done so. Well, land is in fixed supply, so what happens when all of the land is already owned? What does the next person do?
You can purchase or rent from others. Also, people are presumably not just popping into existence and completely foreign to this world. The "next person" is presumably born into the world by his or her mother and will live with his or her parents until the child comes of age.
wowhallo
What if no one is selling, or is asking too high a price? (Hey, isn't that what's going on in San Fransisco, Vancouver, London, Sydney .....)
You are asking me an economic question. Prices regulates economic activity. If prices rise, then this give a bigger reason to sell because of the increased potential profits. This also is why cartels needs government intervention in order to maintain themselves. If firms come together in a cartel to reduce production and to increase price then this gives a bigger profit margin for others to come into the specific sector (also a big reason for why drug producing and selling is so lucrative, because if you take the risks associated then there are potential big profit margins because of the prohibition). Regarding higher priced land, this gives the specific incentive to build on height. If you are any familiar with the austrian business cycle theory as laid forward by Mises and Hayek, asset prices gets inflated as a result of the "loose monetary policy" of lowered interest rates, increasing among other things the price of land. Check out the skyscraper curse: "Where is the Skyscraper Curse Today?" ( mises.org/library/where-skyscraper-curse-today )
For present examples you also need to take into consideration of interventions. There is a big housing shortage where I live, in Sweden, and it is very difficult to build housing because of either interventions or the state owning land and licensing it out under certain conditions. Check this one out for land that is owned by the federal state in the USA frackwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/all_us_public_lands_0.jpg
wowhallo
If I own all the land, and you own all the money, which one of us will end up with both?
16:58 "The State must first produce beds such as Texas". The subtitles are priceless. Excellent presentation of ancapism nonetheless.
sort of what we have now. one government that can take your goods when ever they want and how ever they want. The only thing is if we have smaller and smaller protection agencies there is less of a chance that one will be able to take over everything. But what hoppe is discussing is an alternative to what we have now. Currently, we have one protection agency.... The governement and its agents. There is no one to protect you from those people, and we have seen the effects of this situation.
@TheLegalImmigrant05 To those who ask what motivation would anyone have to public goods/services, I ask:
What's the motivation for selling pet rocks?
What's the motivation for selling funeral/burial services for pets?
What's the motivation for selling those copper bracelets that supposedly heal you?
The answer? The perception that there will be a demand for them. If govt didn't exist, you really think nobody'd figure out how to privately provide formerly publicly-provided goods and services?
The smartest living creature on earth.
Excellent talk
@elthe as he stated, the incentive is conflict avoidance. he states there is no public space, all property is private eliminating need for public and private laws causing imbalances of protection. power consolidation is addressed by the market(i.e) if the purchasers of securities see a threat in consolidating power they could in turn respond by choosing a competitor of perceived less threat. i think you should listen again, and i dont mean that in a rude or sarcastic manner.
@EsCurve Define "regular"?
People make rules amongst themselves regardless of whether there is a governing body passing statutes.
Excellent radical capitalist/paleolibertarian anarcho-capitalist!
It makes since to me for dam sure
That is why the Founding Fathers said, WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. But, WE THE PEOPLE are ASLEEP IN THE LIGHT. GOD SENT REVIVAL NOW.
@RKAddict101 Rothbard thought that WMDs are not libertarian as it's impossible to use such weapons against specific individuals (e.g. laser gun is OK but A-bomb is not). They are predominantly statist weapons. Having said that, I think that anyone trying to get or build a WMD would be boycotted, not cooperated with and pretty much outlawed from an ancap society. It may be legal as they would be just using their property without aggressing, but people would perceive it as a potential threat.
@elthe "what about protection in public space" There would be no such thing as "public space" - streets, parks and squares would be owned by individuals or groups of individuals (probably organized as corporations). Think security personnel in Disney World, private security guards at stores, etc.
@elthe War is aggression among states so technically in a private law society it wouldn't exist. As for the appearing of agencies whose primary goal is looting aggression, it would be dealt in the same way gangs are dealt with today. Protection in public space is a common sense answer in my opinion, if you understand anarcho-capitalism. A person would be allowed to protect himself and private contractors would do whatever they could to protect their clients. WMDs is a question I have asked too.
It doesn’t seem possible that this private-law society can actually be instituted, unless by an ideological revolution by citizens of democracies/dictatorships. If that revolution occurs, will this private law society not eventually adopt a state and abandon private law, as has happened today?
@rumco That's a good answer, another thing that got me thinking of was how the State itself is untrustworthy when it comes to WMDs. The government is just an association of persons, just as those individuals can do wrong, so can individuals in an anarcho-capitalist society. Which then brings up your point, which actually could be a pro for anarcho-capitalist societies, in that people would oppose WMD creation.
Based department is calling 📞
There is an alternative to private property that he is trying to illustrate, It's called personal property and private property is what a person uses to extract labor from someone else
@RKAddict101 Yes. The only difference is that the State is viewed as legitimate and a private criminal is not. That's why it (State agents) gets away with WMDs, taxes, etc.
very interesting. One question: if the protector acquires the assets of the protected by force, what do you do? You hire a second protector to protect you from the first one? And if the protectors join forces and control the protected what happens then?
Are you on TH-cam still?
A state
@Moragauth Just letting you know in case you didn't notice, but if you were trying to reply to someone, for some reason you replied to yourself.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but one problem has been bugging me so I am wondering what other people think would and should take place in a society of private law. A person should be allowed to produce whatever he wants assuming he does not interfere with anyone else's rights. This being said, would a person be allowed to own an atomic bomb? Would a private law society deal with this danger preemptively or would the average Joe be allowed to buy/produce an atomic bomb?
The question here is more if it's worthy rather than being possible/allowed
The only one scenario that having a nuclear weapon could be worthy is if a large community agrees to invest on it as a defensive weapon, which I don't believe that would happen at all
but in a libertarian society these large-scale weapons would not have the market value that they do nowadays since we wouldn't have big communities (countries) as we do have now and people would prefer to put the resources elsewhere
This is something that many minarchists and constitutionalists won't understand: 17:43
excellent analysis, however i disagree with his initial premise that conflict will not occur between crusoe and the other without scarcity. what about ideological motivations? perhaps they are of different religions? i do not agree that conflict is inherently tied to scarcity.
Their own bodies are scarce resources. If Crusoe can do whatever he wants to Friday's body without affecting what Friday can do with his body, then conflicts over the use of Friday's body could not occur, but this is an impossibility, so conflicts are possible even in the garden of Eden.
Ideological confict would be irrational, and would be dealt with.
There are four possible outcomes:
1. Crusoe murders Friday - obviously aggression in which the very scarce means of Friday's body and self is infringed upon
2. Crusoe forces Friday to concede under threat of violence - it's pretty much the same as number one
3. In a debate where Friday willingly concedes his position, no aggression is expressed, as he voluntarily agreed
4. Nothing happens. If both parties are unwilling to concede their arguments, they render the debate null and proceed to do whatever else they want. Sort of like "we agree to disagree", which is a non-aggressive solution as well
Look up Hoppe's argumentation ethics if you're interested for more
@elthe I'll reword your comment to speak about statism: What about individuals who aren't protected by govt police? What about wars and WMDs started/made by govt? What about power consolidation in hands of the very same govt that makes, enforces and interprets the law? What about govt agencies that pop up whose primary goal is looting and aggression? And what about protection from the govt in general - public or private space? A command/statist economy may be simpler but not moral :)
Try not to get too frustrated.. We are going to need you in the intellectual battlefield, pace yourself
Why didn't the founding fathers establish a monarchy instead of a republic?
nobody's perfect
I have a question, there is a moment in the video in which Hoppe says that in a private law society, security and police forces would be private, that said, if for example as he said, a security company started using its forces in a bad way, they would be stopped, but by who? The population and/or other security agencies?
Also, wouldn't be a risk that some security agencies partnered so then they could control take control of a very dangerous issue as security or even use their forces together to coerce the population (sorry if this sounds like natural monopoly stuff)?
+Bruno Pacheco (Batguerra) Yes, other agencies. If (let's say) 99% of the people agree that murder is bad, it's in all their interest to stop rogue defense agencies threatening them with murder.
The cartelization of defense services isn't fundamentally different from the cartelization of apple producers, so that's answered elsewhere. Bob Murphy also answers it (along with your first question) in the Private Defense chapter of (the very short) Chaos Theory: mises.org/library/chaos-theory
It'd be stopped by the population. Simply don't invest into that company. Invest into another one and that one would protect you should the corrupted company do anything.
Presumably others would have insurance as well, and breaching established and traditional laws of the land like murdering or stealing would presumably be very much be frowned upon also. If some enforcement agency that arbitrators or insurers hire would try harassing, stealing or even murdering then they would have the opposition of insurers, other enforcement agencies as well as the civil society. The role that the civil society can play in this can hardly be overstated especially in the internet age. They are fools to try to do something like this. If we assume that the people in charge of the firm are interested in their revenues as an enforcement agency, they will have to give up a lot in order to go out and be madmen. Other agencies would also have a big incentive to put down these as this will raise their credibility and rating in public opinion and make it more likely that they will be chosen as enforcers and protectors in the future and to establish themselves as reliable.
There is no 'moment' , because the whole idea and presentation is of everything being 'privatized'. If the market for vacuum cleaners produces the highest quality and most cost effective product, so will a free market in justice and security.
Bad security companies that try and partner with other bad security companies is a description of what we have today. In the private security scenario, bad companies would make no free exchange profit and go out of business, or be recognized as criminal and prosecuted by the private law . Real and proper justice would prevail.
Fucking Legend)
@TheLegalImmigrant05 I know you weren't asking, but I thought I'd throw that out there before you received any replies. It is so ingrained that current publicly-provided utilities, goods and services would disappear and forever be lost to mankind if it weren't for the benevolent government taking our money from us at the threat of taking away our property, freedom or life (your choice, depending on your degree of protest) to fund them. Civil society in the 21st century could never do better ;)
A society with widespread gun ownership is Afghan society. It is “free” in the nominal sense of the term; but is it in any way advanced? Or am I not asking the right question here?
Afghanistan's "advancement", I'd say, is more a function of historical factors such as its proximity to the industrial revolution and geopolitical shenanigans.
@@TheGerogero yes possibly.
PROPARTEE!
27:00
45:00
or just a regular country of laws
@LetsTryLiberty I wasn't asking :) But I like your answers
@LetsTryLiberty Good one :)
When Monarchy superior to Democracy because as King sees his people as property why isnt Stalinism also better because Stalin i think he saw the people as his property and treated them accordingly well?
The categories "monarchy" and "Stalinism" are of a different type because the first does not imply a particular personality for the leader but the second does, which radically determines their outcomes.
10:47
Modern democracy where proletarians became Bourgois & got a license to still corrupt thief 🕷📺🤑🤔😶🌫/ Reason why a new global reserve 😉 currency where all nations are equal & all presidents & banks & markets are equal Bren 🛡⚖⚔ new global reserve currency: best solution on an economical Society of To R or not to R.🍾 reviving understanding the Merchant of Venice 🕷📺✍
Yeh he isnt a georgist yet
SSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG
Clown.
Cry about it
Pure leftist cope
As a philosopher, this guy is quite mediocre.
Hahahaha! Well seeing how Hoppe is an economist that speaks in plane and direct manner about peace and prosperity by human action I can see how a philosopher would say that.
@@repooc84
Hoppe has a doctorate in philosophy himself.
@@lukasnummer1 I know. But that really doesn't matter bc the philosophy is all the matters.
Economists may not be as eloquent is philosophers, but put (real) economists like Austrians in office, and the country will prosper. Put the most suave sounding philosophers in office, and see if that's any better. (It won't be)
You can just say that you’re unemployed