As a gay man I find ZERO issue with his assertion because it’s true. My own experience with time preferences amongst my peers reinforces my belief that he is right. Gay men generally don’t have kids, and therefore have shorter time preferences - how can that observation be controversial?
@@aaakin High time preference could actually be considered a shorter time preference, wanting something sooner rather than later. As opposed to willingness to forgo larger windows of time for something else, which is low time preference.
Read ''Democracy: the god that failed' It will change your understanding of the current political situation and allow you to cogently argue against it.
Thank you, Dr. Hoppe. I have watch as you and others have been labeled by the smearbund and shook my head in wonder. Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do.
Curt Howland the “except the self hating Jew” line is great. People that call Hoppe anti-Semitic are ignorant of his important works. Rothbard is my Spirit Animal.
The German people and related peoples (The British, Belgians, and Dutch) certainly have had huge contributions to all of humanity. Left libertarians/modal libertarians/nihilo-libertarians who don't believe in property rights are a huge cancer to the libertarian movement. It is not that modal libertarians believe in non-aggression, aggression being the unprovoked initiation or threat of initiation of force on people's property, it is that they don't believe in private property at all. Many in the LP, FEE, and those on liberty(dot)me, Jeffrey Tucker and those associated with him, believe in things like "freedom of movement" even through people's property as rights. Why they could believe this when even in an anarchic society before anyone had land as property you would not be able to go everywhere you wanted, you could not move into space occupied by other people as they would have primary use rights of their body, that is it would be private property, is beyond me.
I always assumed freedom of movement meant the freedom to peacefully traverse through a landmass to get to another location. To prevent the theoretical and very real possibility that someone could become landlocked and unable to reach their destination. Of course we have airplanes now...
I don't think I've ever seen Jeff Tucker suggest that people have a right to trespass on private property. Nor have I heard this from prominent left Libertarians like Roderick Long, who in fact, delivered an entire lecture series, largely dedicated to justifying rights in property.: mises.org/library/foundations-libertarian-ethics It's necessary to distinguish between left Libertarians and anarcho-communists.
I would like to say something. I've been a follower of the Austrian school of economics since I found out about Ron Paul many years ago. Some of this video it appears is a response to a heated debate between me and several Germans in a reason tv comment section on TH-cam. The issue was on healthcare and I defended free market capitalist healthcare over government run. I pointed out that in the 1950's physicians in America knew it was the norm to provide free healthcare to all those of low income. No one was ever turned away. Ron Paul said that about his experience as a physician. I was later called a delusional communist by people who supported a fascist system. They claimed one can't help the poor without redistribution of wealth. How typical of a statist. Where in reality not only do the private corporations work through the state to put regulations on the market place to eliminate competitors, they also have no intention of helping the poor when signing those regulations into law. I couldn't get through to these people and their rude insults and unfair comparisons of me to a communist. my frustration finally surfaced when I pointed out that it seemed as though being German was synonymous with being a statist. A week later Reason tv did a special with Philip Hamburger on administrative oversight being the main problem with our government. He also defended civil liberties pretty strongly. Now this video just went up and I have to say I can't tell if I've been exiled or if they are defending Germans say "they aren't all like that" here look at these guys. As you can see I am suffering from some unwanted Freudian guilt. I apologize if I offended Germans and as a Libertarian I know we are supposed to view people as individuals rather than as groups or collectives. People have however organized themselves as members of groups cultures and political views that have been socially constructed so I have to point it out when facing reality there. The second problem is as someone who believes true competition would lead to a fairer society I can't find a name for that without being mistaken for a leftist. Egalitarian and classless society are clearly names the left has a monopoly on. What I don't believe in is a society where people make the exact cent on the dollar as the highest earner. Yes I understand that would be totalitarian. I think it was F.A. Hayek who said equal treatment is different than equal outcome. Equal opportunity is what I believe in and obviously equality under the law. The Declaration of independence states that all men are created equal. The Declaration of sentiments also is about equality. So you can obviously see how Americanism was about egalitarianism just not the kind the left thinks of. Ludwig Von Mises said "men are born unequal and . . . it is precisely their inequality that generates social cooperation and civilization." Now what does that mean exactly? If you're coming at it from a radical social justice warriors position you might misunderstand it to mean we receive different unfair treatment under the eyes of the law. When what it actually means is we have different strengths and weaknesses that compliment one another. An artist might not be good at mathematics and in need of a tuitor. Whereas a mathematician might want an art painting. So you see a difference in natural talents. One isn't better than the other they're just different. Ultimately I think when talking to a statist you have to realize that they see objectives that the state can provide whereas a free society obtaining goals isn't easily conceptualized for them. Thats why I think we need goals from the market place and ultimately a name for capitalism achieving egalitarianism naturally. Thank you and my best wishes to the Austrian school of economics and the legacy they continue...
"Can't believe this is held at the Mises Institute. Would love to know Mises' thoughts on this." - Mises Institute was founded by Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell (both anarcho-capitalists).
I don't think there's any disagreement about the fact that government control of the borders is incompatible with Libertarian Anarchism. But there is some disagreement over a different question, that being: given where we are now, what should the government's policy be, with respect to its borders, and what, if any, sorts of borders reforms should Libertarians support, given that border privatization is not yet politically realistic. Previously, it had been taken for granted that the Libertarian answer to this question was that the government should not interfere with civilian traffic across the border (Of course the government was still expected to prevent hostile military forces from crossing the border, given that they have monopolized military defense services). Hoppe pointed out that government control of the borders, by its nature, robs the private sector of its say in determining who can and can't enter their communities. For this reason, it's too simplistic to say that the government should not interfere with civilian border traffic, because in a natural state, private communities would exclude some people. When the government allows everyone and anyone to enter border communities, it will, in many cases, be doing so against the wishes of the rightful owners of the land. Here's an analogy that might be helpful: "Given that the government controls the roads, should they remove all restrictions on road use? Rational use of the roads requires some rules, and surely a private owner would establish and enforce those rules. If the government's going to monopolize the roads, and in doing so, prevent private people from controlling them, it should at least manage them responsibly, and try to approximate the wishes of the rightful owners of the roads." This same logic is applied to borders. Hoppe and many others have went on to argue that an open borders policy creates, and contributes to a number of social problems. But, in my opinion, there has been little in the way of thorough analysis of the costs of advocating for border controls. What will this expansion of the state look like, how likely is it to be effective, how will it affect Libertarians' political credibility, etc. Considering how many people misunderstand Hoppe (opponents and fans alike), or probably have simply never read him, I feel compelled to mention that Hoppe acknowledges that it would be unlibertarian for the state to interfere with the arrangements of individual property owner. For this reason, he states that his arguments must make exception for immigrants who have been invited on to private land, whether by family or landlord, or hotel reservation, or employer, etc. Those people should be free to cross the border. In my opinion, this exception is so sweeping that the end result would be much looser border controls than the US currently has, and would make the case for restriction apply, almost solely to refugees - something nobody seems to talk about.
Troll_kin You forgot that they shouldn't be able to fend the cost off the invite onto the taxpayer, read "Open borders are an assault on private property."
Under market anarchy the borders will not disappear. In fact the opposite is true and we can expect far more borders between various properties. The government is supposed to be a representative of the taxpayers. Of course it's never is the case but this is the perfect government should be. If we are unable to remove the government completely and have to resort to lesser evil, then we should keep in mind, that a government is ought to represent taxpayers. People who do not pay taxes should not have access to services which are payed by taxpayers, including roads and other public infrastructure that is necessarily used by any person who lives in a country. Allowing everyone to come into a country, even if nobody wants to see this person/group and to even share the welfare and infrastructure with people who actually payed for it has nothing to do with freedom. It's not a free migration it's compulsory integration. The solution is limited migration. The invite from a country's taxpayer should be required aswell as a workplace and a housing prior to immigrant arriving to a country.
As a gay man I find ZERO issue with his assertion because it’s true. My own experience with time preferences amongst my peers reinforces my belief that he is right. Gay men generally don’t have kids, and therefore have shorter time preferences - how can that observation be controversial?
I think they have "high time preference" or better " "larger time prefernce rate" , not low.
Because "Muh Feelz" trump everything in this day and age.
cry babies
You are right! HHH is right! Leftist cry baby. Sadly it is much worse now =(
@@aaakin High time preference could actually be considered a shorter time preference, wanting something sooner rather than later. As opposed to willingness to forgo larger windows of time for something else, which is low time preference.
"Perfect Wehrmacht material" Damn you, Hans! You´re killing me!
What a speech.
Hoppe is a hero too!
I named my cat Hoppe.
Cats are too tight
Nah, cats are all about personal liberty.
Is he an expert in the field of physical removal of mice?
A tribute that increases our love for Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe! Magnificent! The Kings of thought above rejoiced I am sure!
Damn, the closing made me tear up
Me too!
"a member of the non communist left... We had met someone very special." This is packed with so many gems!
That was a GREAT presentation, God bless Murray Rothbard and the always funny Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Much to laugh and cry about here, great speech
What a fantastic retrospective of a great man. Rothbard will be soon recognized as prescient. Centralized government always fails.
56:09 Teared up a bit.
Me too! Hopefully HHH and Rothbard will be truly known worldwide!!
This is truly a great speech, i'll be listening to this one for years to come. Thanks Dr. Hoppe.
Read ''Democracy: the god that failed' It will change your understanding of the current political situation and allow you to cogently argue against it.
I am so happy about a new Hoppe-speech. I wish him good health and that he can continue for many years to come !
Emocionante demais!!!!!!! Incrível
Hell yes!
Amazing tribute, Mr. Hoppe.
Thank you, Dr. Hoppe. I have watch as you and others have been labeled by the smearbund and shook my head in wonder. Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do.
Curt Howland the “except the self hating Jew” line is great. People that call Hoppe anti-Semitic are ignorant of his important works. Rothbard is my Spirit Animal.
The German people and related peoples (The British, Belgians, and Dutch) certainly have had huge contributions to all of humanity. Left libertarians/modal libertarians/nihilo-libertarians who don't believe in property rights are a huge cancer to the libertarian movement. It is not that modal libertarians believe in non-aggression, aggression being the unprovoked initiation or threat of initiation of force on people's property, it is that they don't believe in private property at all. Many in the LP, FEE, and those on liberty(dot)me, Jeffrey Tucker and those associated with him, believe in things like "freedom of movement" even through people's property as rights. Why they could believe this when even in an anarchic society before anyone had land as property you would not be able to go everywhere you wanted, you could not move into space occupied by other people as they would have primary use rights of their body, that is it would be private property, is beyond me.
I always assumed freedom of movement meant the freedom to peacefully traverse through a landmass to get to another location. To prevent the theoretical and very real possibility that someone could become landlocked and unable to reach their destination. Of course we have airplanes now...
I don't think I've ever seen Jeff Tucker suggest that people have a right to trespass on private property. Nor have I heard this from prominent left Libertarians like Roderick Long, who in fact, delivered an entire lecture series, largely dedicated to justifying rights in property.:
mises.org/library/foundations-libertarian-ethics
It's necessary to distinguish between left Libertarians and anarcho-communists.
Tucker never said that
Left libertarianism itself sounds like a contradictory term. What does it even mean? Democratic libertarians? I'm not sure.
Privatize everything NOW!
I absolutely love this man so much.
It must have been so great to see Hoppe and Rothbard spending time together.
44:00 Physically removed the chairman XD
To be quite honest, I never knew that Dr. Hoppe was at all interested in horticulture! That's actually quite charming.
40:35 TFW you are a packaging major
R i g h t - l i b e r t a r i a n i s m
Great Hans!!! Out-a-boy!!!!!
Enjoyable presentation.
Great, Hans!
Awesome.
Awesome!!!
I would like to say something. I've been a follower of the Austrian school of economics since I found out about Ron Paul many years ago. Some of this video it appears is a response to a heated debate between me and several Germans in a reason tv comment section on TH-cam. The issue was on healthcare and I defended free market capitalist healthcare over government run. I pointed out that in the 1950's physicians in America knew it was the norm to provide free healthcare to all those of low income. No one was ever turned away. Ron Paul said that about his experience as a physician. I was later called a delusional communist by people who supported a fascist system. They claimed one can't help the poor without redistribution of wealth. How typical of a statist. Where in reality not only do the private corporations work through the state to put regulations on the market place to eliminate competitors, they also have no intention of helping the poor when signing those regulations into law. I couldn't get through to these people and their rude insults and unfair comparisons of me to a communist. my frustration finally surfaced when I pointed out that it seemed as though being German was synonymous with being a statist. A week later Reason tv did a special with Philip Hamburger on administrative oversight being the main problem with our government. He also defended civil liberties pretty strongly. Now this video just went up and I have to say I can't tell if I've been exiled or if they are defending Germans say "they aren't all like that" here look at these guys. As you can see I am suffering from some unwanted Freudian guilt. I apologize if I offended Germans and as a Libertarian I know we are supposed to view people as individuals rather than as groups or collectives. People have however organized themselves as members of groups cultures and political views that have been socially constructed so I have to point it out when facing reality there. The second problem is as someone who believes true competition would lead to a fairer society I can't find a name for that without being mistaken for a leftist. Egalitarian and classless society are clearly names the left has a monopoly on. What I don't believe in is a society where people make the exact cent on the dollar as the highest earner. Yes I understand that would be totalitarian. I think it was F.A. Hayek who said equal treatment is different than equal outcome. Equal opportunity is what I believe in and obviously equality under the law. The Declaration of independence states that all men are created equal. The Declaration of sentiments also is about equality. So you can obviously see how Americanism was about egalitarianism just not the kind the left thinks of. Ludwig Von Mises said "men are born unequal and . . . it is precisely their inequality that generates social cooperation and civilization." Now what does that mean exactly? If you're coming at it from a radical social justice warriors position you might misunderstand it to mean we receive different unfair treatment under the eyes of the law. When what it actually means is we have different strengths and weaknesses that compliment one another. An artist might not be good at mathematics and in need of a tuitor. Whereas a mathematician might want an art painting. So you see a difference in natural talents. One isn't better than the other they're just different. Ultimately I think when talking to a statist you have to realize that they see objectives that the state can provide whereas a free society obtaining goals isn't easily conceptualized for them. Thats why I think we need goals from the market place and ultimately a name for capitalism achieving egalitarianism naturally. Thank you and my best wishes to the Austrian school of economics and the legacy they continue...
On point!! Thanks!
I like this guy
YOUR MY HERO!
💖💖💖
God damn.
"I know" is illusion
PHYSICALLY REMOVE WEEDS
What would be the point of giving Murray a research assistant? No way some grad student is going to tell him anything he didn't already know.
56:00 is just so sad
Living in the same city as Hoppe flex
39:30 Originality and little reading.
Where did Rothbard write against cultural heterogeneity?
20:57 Hoppe confirmed Daily Stormer reader
3:29
41:40 modestia de Rothbard.
20:22 outsiders, extremists, obscure publications.
Can't believe this is held at the Mises Institute. Would love to know Mises' thoughts on this.
Delighted, of course.
Tom I like you. The Tom Woods Show is my favorite Podcast. Please get out of the youtube comments section. I don't want you to go crazy.
Ohh yeah, Tom, of course, Mises is an "anti-communist leftist"
"Can't believe this is held at the Mises Institute. Would love to know Mises' thoughts on this." - Mises Institute was founded by Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell (both anarcho-capitalists).
@@theGuilherme36 Who said Mises is a leftist ?
Can we not make adjectives out of people's names, please.
Can one of you please explain to me how the “anarchist” position is to enforce government borders?
He did not mention government borders but can assume private borders to private communities.
I don't think there's any disagreement about the fact that government control of the borders is incompatible with Libertarian Anarchism. But there is some disagreement over a different question, that being: given where we are now, what should the government's policy be, with respect to its borders, and what, if any, sorts of borders reforms should Libertarians support, given that border privatization is not yet politically realistic.
Previously, it had been taken for granted that the Libertarian answer to this question was that the government should not interfere with civilian traffic across the border (Of course the government was still expected to prevent hostile military forces from crossing the border, given that they have monopolized military defense services).
Hoppe pointed out that government control of the borders, by its nature, robs the private sector of its say in determining who can and can't enter their communities. For this reason, it's too simplistic to say that the government should not interfere with civilian border traffic, because in a natural state, private communities would exclude some people. When the government allows everyone and anyone to enter border communities, it will, in many cases, be doing so against the wishes of the rightful owners of the land. Here's an analogy that might be helpful: "Given that the government controls the roads, should they remove all restrictions on road use? Rational use of the roads requires some rules, and surely a private owner would establish and enforce those rules. If the government's going to monopolize the roads, and in doing so, prevent private people from controlling them, it should at least manage them responsibly, and try to approximate the wishes of the rightful owners of the roads." This same logic is applied to borders.
Hoppe and many others have went on to argue that an open borders policy creates, and contributes to a number of social problems. But, in my opinion, there has been little in the way of thorough analysis of the costs of advocating for border controls. What will this expansion of the state look like, how likely is it to be effective, how will it affect Libertarians' political credibility, etc.
Considering how many people misunderstand Hoppe (opponents and fans alike), or probably have simply never read him, I feel compelled to mention that Hoppe acknowledges that it would be unlibertarian for the state to interfere with the arrangements of individual property owner. For this reason, he states that his arguments must make exception for immigrants who have been invited on to private land, whether by family or landlord, or hotel reservation, or employer, etc. Those people should be free to cross the border. In my opinion, this exception is so sweeping that the end result would be much looser border controls than the US currently has, and would make the case for restriction apply, almost solely to refugees - something nobody seems to talk about.
Troll_kin You forgot that they shouldn't be able to fend the cost off the invite onto the taxpayer, read "Open borders are an assault on private property."
So to sum up...abandon anarchist principals and become a typical flag waving constitutional conservative. Got it, thanks.
Under market anarchy the borders will not disappear. In fact the opposite is true and we can expect far more borders between various properties.
The government is supposed to be a representative of the taxpayers. Of course it's never is the case but this is the perfect government should be. If we are unable to remove the government completely and have to resort to lesser evil, then we should keep in mind, that a government is ought to represent taxpayers. People who do not pay taxes should not have access to services which are payed by taxpayers, including roads and other public infrastructure that is necessarily used by any person who lives in a country. Allowing everyone to come into a country, even if nobody wants to see this person/group and to even share the welfare and infrastructure with people who actually payed for it has nothing to do with freedom. It's not a free migration it's compulsory integration. The solution is limited migration. The invite from a country's taxpayer should be required aswell as a workplace and a housing prior to immigrant arriving to a country.