Property and the Social Order | Hans-Hermann Hoppe
misesmedia
43,685 views
Archived from the live Mises.tv broadcast, this lecture by Hans-Hermann Hoppe was presented at the 2011 Mises University in Auburn, Alabama.
20 Comments
@snakeriverhombre77 14 years ago
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!!!
@bmac6446 14 years ago
Debating Dr. Hoppe on economics or political science is like debating Spock on warp drive.
@TacticalCitySlicker 15 years ago
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.
@trystdodge6177 4 years ago
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.
@richardday8843 5 years ago (edited)
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.
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.
@BenBurkley07 14 years ago
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.
@thattimestampguy 6 years ago (edited)
0:00 Robinson Curusoe
• Goods are scarce
3:10 Solving The Problem of Social Order
3:50 Solution: Private Property
• Goods are scarce
3:10 Solving The Problem of Social Order
3:50 Solution: Private Property
@LibertysetsquareJack 11 years ago
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 YouTube account blocked ;)
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 YouTube account blocked ;)
@InspirationMeadow 15 years ago
@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?
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?
@TheBasedTyrant 11 months ago
Most of this is very good reasoning. The only criticism I have is at the very end in regards to the idea of systems of laws more complicated then Natural Law intersecting and therefore needing to seek arbitration.
If you ask me it is extremely unlikely that you could operate under the presumption that arbitration could be reached between two opposing systems of law, I assume that this would have to do with business crimes, or some other crime that is not specific to one physical location, and therefore one jurisdiction of law.
Also generally throughout the video there was a lot of extremely complicated burecratic processes being proposed for for insurance and arbitration and negotiations. The problem with this is that in order to avoid this just becoming the State, presumably these would all be private businesses independent of each other. The issue with that is, if you cannot diversify your business in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety then you would be reliant on a business model of third party legal arbitration in which your reputation could be destroyed by just a few bad deals, just because you can't get all parties to unanimously approve of your findings.
This assumes that all parties are literally perfectly rational all the time. I believe that much of the arbitration would be better achieved by an independent artificial intelligence, even so the very idea of obtaining fair justice would become impossible if one or more parties reached the conclusion that they would never reach a fair deal and thus coexistence is impossible and that force is the only solution.
Given that this video is 14 years old I imagine that this is before Hoppe realized these issues and came up with the idea of physical removal and covenant communities to prevent them.
If you ask me it is extremely unlikely that you could operate under the presumption that arbitration could be reached between two opposing systems of law, I assume that this would have to do with business crimes, or some other crime that is not specific to one physical location, and therefore one jurisdiction of law.
Also generally throughout the video there was a lot of extremely complicated burecratic processes being proposed for for insurance and arbitration and negotiations. The problem with this is that in order to avoid this just becoming the State, presumably these would all be private businesses independent of each other. The issue with that is, if you cannot diversify your business in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety then you would be reliant on a business model of third party legal arbitration in which your reputation could be destroyed by just a few bad deals, just because you can't get all parties to unanimously approve of your findings.
This assumes that all parties are literally perfectly rational all the time. I believe that much of the arbitration would be better achieved by an independent artificial intelligence, even so the very idea of obtaining fair justice would become impossible if one or more parties reached the conclusion that they would never reach a fair deal and thus coexistence is impossible and that force is the only solution.
Given that this video is 14 years old I imagine that this is before Hoppe realized these issues and came up with the idea of physical removal and covenant communities to prevent them.
@RKAddict101 15 years ago
@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.
@fsvoorhies 15 years ago
@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.
Property and the Social Order | Hans-Hermann Hoppe
misesmedia
43,685 views
Archived from the live Mises.tv broadcast, this lecture by Hans-Hermann Hoppe was presented at the 2011 Mises University in Auburn, Alabama.