I came to Austrian economics from a background in philosophy. The clarity of thought is delightful. It’s a shame so few appreciate this. This is the best course on intro to praxeology on UA-cam at the moment. I’ve watched them all.
Same here and Im in agreement with you, it really changed my understanding of metaphysics, im still taking it all in 6 years after picking up Human Action.
*@ogogo ogpgpg* please explain just one flaw in the apriori reasoning described in this video, preferably referencing a specific time in the video where he’s talking about the point you disagree with. If you’ve found an error I would like to know about it. Cheers!
*@ogogo ogpgpg* what is wrong with apriori reasoning? Without it there is no logic, no algebra, no geometry, etc. These are all deductively proven from axioms that if denied would require a contradiction. The same is true for praxeology.
*@ogogo ogpgpg* can you argue for your point? If so I’d love to hear your argument against logic. It does no good to just say in abstract “that might be wrong,” you have to be able to make your case or else I have no basis for supporting your claims. Hoppe is orders of magnitude smarter than the average person. The chances that a random commenter online is better informed or smarter than Hoppe on his narrow area of life-long professional interests is slim to none, so my Bayesian prior probability estimate of you being right essentially rules it out, unless you can make a compelling argument. I think Hoppe is wrong about some things too, nobody is always right. But to say apriori reasoning as such is in question is something you should be able to defend or maybe you shouldn’t claim it. Cheers!
I haven't listened to the whole thing, but I think you are confusing Kant with Cairnes ("John Elliott Cairnes") en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Elliott_Cairnes
wowhallo cool, so now you’re literally defending ignorance, and then stating that rather than enlightening yourself to said ignorance, you’ll remain ignorant. Quality stuff
for anyone new to libertarianism the first principles of libertarianism already consider property rights a basis for human rights,that's why its called natural law! Plus there's more context exactly why you have property rights as well as the justifications for having property rights.
Yes, the justification is called argumentation ethics, which Rothbard adopted as soon as he heard it because both his argumentation was severely lacking and Hoppe's argument is airtight.
The discussion of human action could be illustrated in a primitive state by the video of the crow that drops a stone in a column of water in order to float a nut higher so that the crow can grab and eat it.
I've had a hoppean try to claim that feudalism was a example of Anarchy,if this ideology is capable of producing the claim that tries to insinuate that A system that is completely rifed with centralization and the potential to become authoritarian is somehow Anarchy then I'd say that speaks volumes for the ideology. Also there is a lot of love for feudalism and monarchy from hoppe himself that combined with the concept of Covenant Community should concern people considering they're just as centralised as a kingdom would be. just to many ways for a cc to form into a actual monarchy.
@@xzzxxxxzzx that's just it. If its capable of becoming a kingdom thin what's stoping the king or kings from simply keeping you there? Your free to do what you want as long as it does not violate someones self ownership( no murder rape blackmail Etc) but the people who own the community are capable of violating this because they have all the control. Its not about people should not be allowed to join a cc its that a cc as described by hoppeans from what I've gathered is fatally flawed and destined to become highly centralized and authoritarian. Someone needs to redesign that aspect otherwise its just recreating the same problem it claims to fix.
@Hail @Hail Hail interesting you claimed that hoppe does not love monarchy and yet his entire system revolves around the exact same approach that a kingdom would. I mean hell a cc is just privately owned land that people are renting to live on and must follow the rules that the owner has made clear. replace owner with king and you have the basic concept of a monarch. So trying to clean that hoppe does not love monarchy is simply silly considering his system is clearly inspired by it.
@@jonahgaff He has criticized monarchy thoroughly along with states in general, so to claim that he loves one is absurd. The largest difference of any state and non state society is consent. A state is not voluntary where as a CC is clearly voluntary. To compare it to a state is ridiculous.
First off, NO True Hoppean (don't claim I'm pulling a No True Scotsman or you're gonna be called out for lying) can or would in their *RIGHT STATE OF MIND* claim Feudalism was or ever could be an example of Anarchy, it was that Feudalism had lower centralization than Democracies, Corporatism, Fascism, Marxian Socialism, Utopian State Socialism, Corporate Plutocracies, and anything predating the Whigs and the expansion of corporations to found what we call "Big Business" and such. Here's the thing, Monarchies whether constitutional or absolute had LESS centralization than FUCKING FEUDALISM, due to the fact all you had to do to establish an anarchy was be on decent terms with kings. Covenant Communities are not centralized in any fucking way, the burden of proof is on you to back your claims on how a Covenant Community could form a Monarchy, please demonstate how that could happen and let me debunk that for your dumbass real quick. Feudalism is not Monarchy, that's a false equivalency fallacy right there bub. Hoppe never liked Monarchies, he's only said they they're less shitty than Democracies, Corporatism, ANY form of Fascism, Marxian Socialism, Utopian State Socialism, Corporate Plutocracies, (not the same as corporatism) and anything predating Whigs and the expansion of corporations to found what we today call "Big Business". That does not mean you're pro for a Monarchy or anything like that, it's just making a deduction of how this form of statism is LESS SHITTY than other forms of statism, then showing the predictive and explanatory power of said deduction via historical evidence WHILE STILL HATING IT FOR BEING STATISM. Covenant Communities can be founded by multiple private properties joining together to make a city or a collection of cities to make a covenant society and using contractual law bindings that you MUST sign before joining or moving into that can be enforced by non-violent ostracizing, PMCs or Private Security and it would have no form of a state or government since the covenant community would possibly have polycentric private law or AT THE VERY LEAST polycentric private law enforcement.
I came to Austrian economics from a background in philosophy. The clarity of thought is delightful. It’s a shame so few appreciate this.
This is the best course on intro to praxeology on UA-cam at the moment. I’ve watched them all.
Same here and Im in agreement with you, it really changed my understanding of metaphysics, im still taking it all in 6 years after picking up Human Action.
Totally agree.
*@ogogo ogpgpg* please explain just one flaw in the apriori reasoning described in this video, preferably referencing a specific time in the video where he’s talking about the point you disagree with.
If you’ve found an error I would like to know about it. Cheers!
*@ogogo ogpgpg* what is wrong with apriori reasoning? Without it there is no logic, no algebra, no geometry, etc. These are all deductively proven from axioms that if denied would require a contradiction. The same is true for praxeology.
*@ogogo ogpgpg* can you argue for your point? If so I’d love to hear your argument against logic. It does no good to just say in abstract “that might be wrong,” you have to be able to make your case or else I have no basis for supporting your claims. Hoppe is orders of magnitude smarter than the average person. The chances that a random commenter online is better informed or smarter than Hoppe on his narrow area of life-long professional interests is slim to none, so my Bayesian prior probability estimate of you being right essentially rules it out, unless you can make a compelling argument. I think Hoppe is wrong about some things too, nobody is always right. But to say apriori reasoning as such is in question is something you should be able to defend or maybe you shouldn’t claim it. Cheers!
Hans opening up this lecture like an mf rap battle fr
The way he says Kant’s name.
I haven't listened to the whole thing, but I think you are confusing Kant with Cairnes ("John Elliott Cairnes") en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Elliott_Cairnes
What's wrong with the way he says it? Sounds like the proper german pronouciation.
wowhallo I think you should try listening before commenting
@@jsallerson No I shouldn't. I told you that I hadn't listened to the whole thing. I heard him talk about Cairnes and then I saw your comment.
wowhallo cool, so now you’re literally defending ignorance, and then stating that rather than enlightening yourself to said ignorance, you’ll remain ignorant. Quality stuff
Excellent lecture!
for anyone new to libertarianism the first principles of libertarianism already consider property rights a basis for human rights,that's why its called natural law! Plus there's more context exactly why you have property rights as well as the justifications for having property rights.
This has nothing to do with this lecture.
Yes, the justification is called argumentation ethics, which Rothbard adopted as soon as he heard it because both his argumentation was severely lacking and Hoppe's argument is airtight.
The discussion of human action could be illustrated in a primitive state by the video of the crow that drops a stone in a column of water in order to float a nut higher so that the crow can grab and eat it.
2:24
I've had a hoppean try to claim that feudalism was a example of Anarchy,if this ideology is capable of producing the claim that tries to insinuate that A system that is completely rifed with centralization and the potential to become authoritarian is somehow Anarchy then I'd say that speaks volumes for the ideology. Also there is a lot of love for feudalism and monarchy from hoppe himself that combined with the concept of Covenant Community should concern people considering they're just as centralised as a kingdom would be.
just to many ways for a cc to form into a actual monarchy.
@@xzzxxxxzzx that's just it. If its capable of becoming a kingdom thin what's stoping the king or kings from simply keeping you there?
Your free to do what you want as long as it does not violate someones self ownership( no murder rape blackmail Etc) but the people who own the community are capable of violating this because they have all the control.
Its not about people should not be allowed to join a cc its that a cc as described by hoppeans from what I've gathered is fatally flawed and destined to become highly centralized and authoritarian. Someone needs to redesign that aspect otherwise its just recreating the same problem it claims to fix.
@Hail intresting a ad hominem and a strawman.
@Hail @Hail Hail interesting you claimed that hoppe does not love monarchy and yet his entire system revolves around the exact same approach that a kingdom would.
I mean hell a cc is just privately owned land that people are renting to live on and must follow the rules that the owner has made clear. replace owner with king and you have the basic concept of a monarch.
So trying to clean that hoppe does not love monarchy is simply silly considering his system is clearly inspired by it.
@@jonahgaff He has criticized monarchy thoroughly along with states in general, so to claim that he loves one is absurd.
The largest difference of any state and non state society is consent. A state is not voluntary where as a CC is clearly voluntary. To compare it to a state is ridiculous.
First off, NO True Hoppean (don't claim I'm pulling a No True Scotsman or you're gonna be called out for lying) can or would in their *RIGHT STATE OF MIND* claim Feudalism was or ever could be an example of Anarchy, it was that Feudalism had lower centralization than Democracies, Corporatism, Fascism, Marxian Socialism, Utopian State Socialism, Corporate Plutocracies, and anything predating the Whigs and the expansion of corporations to found what we call "Big Business" and such.
Here's the thing, Monarchies whether constitutional or absolute had LESS centralization than FUCKING FEUDALISM, due to the fact all you had to do to establish an anarchy was be on decent terms with kings.
Covenant Communities are not centralized in any fucking way, the burden of proof is on you to back your claims on how a Covenant Community could form a Monarchy, please demonstate how that could happen and let me debunk that for your dumbass real quick.
Feudalism is not Monarchy, that's a false equivalency fallacy right there bub.
Hoppe never liked Monarchies, he's only said they they're less shitty than Democracies, Corporatism, ANY form of Fascism, Marxian Socialism, Utopian State Socialism, Corporate Plutocracies, (not the same as corporatism) and anything predating Whigs and the expansion of corporations to found what we today call "Big Business".
That does not mean you're pro for a Monarchy or anything like that, it's just making a deduction of how this form of statism is LESS SHITTY than other forms of statism, then showing the predictive and explanatory power of said deduction via historical evidence WHILE STILL HATING IT FOR BEING STATISM.
Covenant Communities can be founded by multiple private properties joining together to make a city or a collection of cities to make a covenant society and using contractual law bindings that you MUST sign before joining or moving into that can be enforced by non-violent ostracizing, PMCs or Private Security and it would have no form of a state or government since the covenant community would possibly have polycentric private law or AT THE VERY LEAST polycentric private law enforcement.