I agree with Hoppe that the alt-right has no guiding principles and is defined by what they are against rather than what they are for, and that they have a lot of unlibertarian ideas. Whenever anyone describes Ron Paul as a racist I figure they are either being deliberately dishonest or have never listened to anything he has said.
Many of of the fellow Alt Right guys I talk to do not agree with Spencer's pan-Europeanist views. This includes me. It's inherently anti-ethno nationalistic
Yeah Spencer has been really going off the reservation as far the the altright is concerned (In my opinion), but I think it's over the heads of most of the altright proper. I'm not a Dugin fan... :)
shibby dibby, I agree with you on the JQ, but would you say there is a value of having Jared Taylor out there? We must be careful not to fall for "all Jews" narrative. It disqualifies you from a serious debate right away. I'd certainly like if *all Jews* (and Muslims, and all non-native population) went "home", but just like in any other group, there are good and bad Jews. There are even Jews who are redpilled on the JQ (e.g. Gilad Atzmon). If you've spent most of your life in company of a few "good Jews" (who were historical revisionists themselves), I can understand even more: ua-cam.com/video/nAmrjbGHaOQ/v-deo.html
lol surely there is more than one! Dude - is everyone in Germany a budding Marxist or Maoist? Germany is known for fierce independence of spirit and intellect.
@@cattycorner8 Germany is (in my opinion), next to france and england, the most important country for modern science and philosophy. Hegel, Marx (kidding), Nietzsche, Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Adorno, Goethe, ... However, you really have to differentiate between after and before the war. We are deeply ashamed of our ancestry and many actively hate our country. Hardly anyone knows anything about the German states before Weimar, and if they do, they also do not like them. We have lost our spirit, and there is no saving Germany. It is a walking corpse. I am looking to move to the states once I am finished with my studies, but the way it seems now, that will not be a liberal safehaven either. I don't know what to do tbh. Is there one country that is not turning to shit?
@@cattycorner8 Kennst du den Schattenmacher? Die Krautzone? Es gibt durchaus eine libertäre und neoreaktionäre Strömung in Deutschland, insb. bei den sehr jungen Menschen. Natürlich nichts im Vergleich zu den Grünen, aber immerhin. Kurzfristig kannst du Deutschland vergessen. Aber wir müssen eben langfristig denken
No other person has been so responsible for my philosophical and intellectual coming of age as Hoppe. To a scientist such as he is, this is the highest praise I could give.
Hans Hoppe: Libertarianism, The Alt-Right And AntiFa-A Libertarian Strategy For Social Change www.vdare.com/articles/hans-hoppe-libertarianism-the-alt-right-and-antifa-a-libertarian-strategy-for-social-change
This has to be one of the best political speeches I've heard all year. The 10 point plan he laid out was something that I think alot of people can get behind across the right libertarian\identitarian\alt-right movements.
If not ironic, one of the most stupid comments here. And the following comments are even worse and Hoppe would be disappointed how many dimwits listen to his speeches but don't understand anything.
This speech has brought so much clarity to the issue. I will have to watch it again. Hoppe is truly on the money, more so than any other thinker today.
This group was made to unite all the anarcho-capitalists of the world, with the intention of uniting projects and spreading the culture of freedom. The theories of Mr. Murray Newton Rothbard and Mr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe are considered the ideals of this group. facebook.com/groups/450618505323772/
Hans Hoppe: Libertarianism, The Alt-Right And AntiFa-A Libertarian Strategy For Social Change www.vdare.com/articles/hans-hoppe-libertarianism-the-alt-right-and-antifa-a-libertarian-strategy-for-social-change
@@richarddiaz5165The socialists murdered them, sometimes forcibly relocated them. Hoppe is against both. His idea is that a libertarian society can use purely voluntary means to dispose of people it deems harmful - such as denial of service, boycotts and shunning, generally financial and reputational ruination, but without infringing on their natural rights. In that it's much different than what any other political ideology believes.
You might be amazed what else is allowed on here ;) Have you discovered Moldbug yet? If not, and you prefer youtube to reading, I recommend "Mulling over Moldbug" by Charlemagne
Aldous Huxley Thanks Aldous - much appreciated! I have found Charlemagne and Garvin. And through Academic Agent, Evola, Burnham and a host of others. I discover that I have been Riding the Tiger for a while now!
When it comes to immigration, the issue is mainly that the state controls so much "public" land, which isn't privately owned. Therefore it is up to the state and not private land owners to decide who may use the public land. "Anti-immigration" means preferring a state which is more restrictive in its permission to use public land. "Pro-immigration" less so. Additionally, the state is also able to blacklist people from any land, public or private, which is in the domain of the given state. The libertarian position would not be to advocate for a more or less restrictive state in the use of public land, but for the privatisation of that land, and for removal of state-enforced disincentives for private land owners to discriminate on who they would like to use the land.
This is the guy we were needing for intellectual inspiration. I am chilean, as Pinochet was. Here in my country a group of libertarians and alt-righters are supporting an independent presidential candidate named Jose Antonio Kast, even if he loses the presidential election he will form a new movement to unite the right. These hoppean principles will be part of it for sure. A great salute to all comrades across the world.
@@vicspegveg You would only say that HERE with your other ignorant friends, you cowards. How can you say such a horrific statement? Why don't you just say "Hitler was right"? I wonder if your friends and family know what a Halo monster you really? It's people like you who should have been sent to Pinochet torture camps with thousands were tortured and disappeared. What how small you look.
Have you seen top class scientists constantly active on social media? Social media is not for true intellectuals. If you write to the Professor sincerely on his email, he does make an attempt to reply and help you. Now tell me which other author would do so if you send them a serious email? Walter Block maybe. Who else? Trust me it is good to see the Professor is not on social media. If you are so interested, you may help propound his lectures and works by sharing them on social media. Once you do that, you will understand how lonely you are, since very few are able to understand the depth of Professor Hoppe's words.
Libertarianism has indeed been a key component in the background of the alt-right, also in mine. And it still is. As far as the reasonable questions of economics go, I think that the alt-right is very open for debate. The only thing that is not negotiable is the peoples of Europe themselves and not just their continued existence, but their well-being, their future and their prosperity. And one thing is certain: the ideal of *freedom* has always been of the right political spectrum. And thus libertarians will find a lot more common ground with even the alt-right than they would ever find with a boring, bland and spineless social democrat as he is so typical in the west today, not to mention the open and green painted communists.
There's one aspect of this speech that bothers me I have to say. When he talks about how non aggression is naive because you need to forcibly remove bad neighbours, he leaves out a very important question: Forcibly removed by who? Wherever you create an institution of force, the commies WILL be first in line for it.
😂😂 Yeah the commies, Jesus he sound like a throwback to the 1950s McCarthyism. I vaguely remember when Hitler came into power he put the commies in the socialists in the concentration camps. You want to talk about monsters you're pointing at the wrong people
Hoppe: "they are adamant about complementing a policy of restrictive, highly selective and discriminating immigration (which is entirely compatible with libertarianism and its desideratum of freedom of association and opposition to forced integration) with a strident policy of restricted trade, economic protectionism and protective tariffs-which is antithetical to libertarianism and inimical to human prosperity." I'd like to point out that controlling immigration is also a de facto restriction on trade because a sound policy would exclude cheap labor from flooding the country and undercutting the wages of the native workers. I think Hoppe and other libertarians are engaged in a contradiction on this point. Just as uncontrolled immigration from third world countries has negative economic consequences domestically, so does acquiescence to the manipulations of foreign powers in the area of trade. Hoppe and other libertarians continually mischaracterize Trump as being against trade, and this is absurd. He is against bad trade agreements (instruments of the state) which needlessly disadvantage domestic industry and employment. And, sure, no one is saying that Trump is some sort of guru on international trade, he is just intent on defending against the manipulations of foreign states. How is that not an issue for libertarians to consider? How much of what China's export business represents is actually the result of free market principles and how much of it is due to the Communist Party's manipulation of money, credit, land, workers, regulation, subsidies, etc.? And how does that impact our manufacturing and employment? Is this a non-issue simply because free trade is an ideal? But, Trump and others argue, this is not free trade. This is gigantic statist blocks directing a specific trade policy using the power of the state. Does this not call for a response from the states that are supposed to be representing the rest of us in our trading block? No, we didn't choose to be under state control, but being under state control do we not have any say in these matters? We should just fall in line with what a cabal of foreign states and ideologues want for us without using our own states to push back, negotiate, retaliate? When libertarian economists give us economic insights, they are always abstractions, and they are always qualified with "all things being equal." Well, in the real world of gigantic powerful states and also a mix of incompetent poor underdeveloped states, there are many things which make international trade under statism/globalism unequal, and thus they temper the economic insights of libertarians on the benignity of trade in the modern world. First of all, there are national security concerns. Is it wise to proliferate cutting edge military technology, nuclear technology and fissile material? Is it wise to allow domestic production of key military/security/power distribution components to fade away and be supplied by one's potential enemies? One thing I read recently was that we cannot produce our own key high-voltage transformers. In the event they are taken out by terrorists, war, or natural disaster, we could not replace them but would have to wait moths or years for foreign production to provide them. Recently in the news as well is the story of Clinton and Obama selling 20% of our uranium to Russia. Who does Russia help with nuclear technology and who do they supply with uranium? North Korea or Iran? I don't know if this has been proven, but is it not a genuine concern? And is it not a concern if one's domestic steel industry becomes weak and dies simply because the Chinese can undercut us with an inferior state-subsidized, cheap-peasant- labor subsidized replacement? Is it part of their plan to do so, and if so is that not a concern? Do they take aim at other industries of ours in the same way? Should we not have a policy to counteract attempts at economic warfare? Look, it's well known that if you can cause sufficient economic disruptions in a country, you can bring about political changes. Should we shut our eyes to that? Apart from national security concerns, we have been able to see for ourselves that replacing domestic workers with cheaper foreign guest workers and immigrants (never mind illegals) has negative social as well as economic effects. Once people understand they can be replaced en masse at the whim of the social engineers, they understand rightly that their whole way of life is under attack - their nation, their people, their very existence. Not only do their corrupt rulers control them with taxes and regulation, but now actually have the power to eliminate whole industries, shut down manufacturing or mining, cause companies to flee the country in search of profits, and actually import replacement foreign workers. When is enough enough? Would I be acting in a "libertarian" fashion if I started a company which went from town to town bringing in foreign workers to replace local factory workers? Is that really the market at work, or is that globalism - the bastard child of crony capitalism and Marxism? At what point is the nation worth saving and its industry worth "protecting"? The idea behind international competitive advantage and free trade is that there is healthy genuine competition going on that benefits both consumers and producers all around, not an agenda that is state-driven by ideologies that are actually anti-free-market and anti-western and anti-nationalist, and which use a great deal of force to achieve their ends. Also, things are relatively equal (referring to "all things being equal") when nations trade with other nations of similar wealth and legal systems. While nothing is ever perfect, it is at least more clear that countries whose standards of living are similar can trade among themselves without this aspect of international intrigue and economic or ideological warfare going on. When the countries have vastly different wealth per capita, wage levels, rights protections, regulation and taxation levels, then what appears to be a natural competitive advantage may not be. So, as libertarians, where does the purely economic argument go when so much is flat-out manipulated in order to simulate a natural advantage? How many of us really believe that, all things being equal, it would be more economical to manufacture clothing and household goods in China and then ship all that stuff to the other side of the world? It's utterly ridiculous when you think about it. This might be the case for niche products but not for run-of-the-mill consumables. There is clearly something else going on here besides benign trading.
Are you sure you're researched the literature on this before sounding off? Hoppe explicitly favors free trade in goods. He also admits that state immigration policies inevitably cause harm--either via forced inclusion/integration, or via forced exclusion (e.g. when an employer is prevented from inviting an immigrant onto his property).
I think you are not aware of the Professor's entire work. I really do not know how many people really have read and understood the Professor. It seems as if most people come and watch him after seeing some memes. Please read the professor's work from scratch!
In your estimation has it been like this only recently? I think my fears of open up lie in them seeming much more "normal" than me and I overthink what the communication would be like or if it would be worthwhile
I'm an Anarcho Capitalist and Alt Right. The Alt Right and the Identitarian movement are the most Libertarian Nationalist movements in history. Of course we're not only Libertarians, there are Liberals, Monarchists, Aristocrats and many others, what binds us is the belief that homogeneity is best and that European are heading to the fate of Afrikaners.
In fact one of the most popular plans to start forming the Ethnostate (which doesn't have to be a state but the name stuck so..) is very similar with how I envision an Anarchist society would be formed. Small communities that expand as they succeed. Of course the Anarchist one would be much more difficult to stabilize since it would use a new economic system. But it would be for volunteers to experiment with and develop. As communities like that expand they'd merge and eventually form the Ethnostate. This is a short description of the process for an article on a different video. I'll expand on it later. wordpress.com/post/altcapright.wordpress.com/136
so your argument is that because there are White communist traitors, we should let Whites become an oppressed minority oh you think that's a strawman? then make a point instead of a timestamp
Not sure exactly what Rex meant but I think the general point is that you cannot merely be a supporter of the white race, but instead stand for principle even within your race, such as against white communist. Instead supporting libertarian principles, as they are (or can be) the solution to this problem. Though I could be misinterpreting this.
The main thing keeping me from going full Alt-Right is the fact that its an ideological hodge-podge with plenty of people who'd be fine with socialism, despotism, war for the sake of war, etc. Just looking at recent history, the trend seems to be that the most power-hungry within a political movement seem to win out most of the time (see the federalists-antifederalists, Bolsheviks-Mensheviks, paleocons-neoconst, etc). So if the Alt-Right did succeed, I fear we'd end up with a full natsoc United States, not a secessionist movement or a Based Ron Paul-type presidency (if we gained the critical mass to separate into an ethnostate, I don't see why it would stop there - the drivers of the movement would want to just keep growing until they could take the entire country, and the base would be on board). Still, I'll consider myself an ally of the Alt-Right as long as it's fighting alongside right-libertarians. Plus, you know, libertarians are almost all white men and there's probably a reason for that.
Jared Taylor: Speech: propertyandfreedom.org/2014/02/jared-taylor-a-brief-history-of-us-race-relations-pfs-2013/ Q/A: vimeo.com/86857165 Richard Spencer: Speech: vimeo.com/12598049 Q/A: vimeo.com/12598475 I cannot find Peter Brimelow :(
One question. From the perspective of a fast change and handling the concerns from the "normal" people. How can / should we see the new constitution of Lichtenstein? Explained by Prince Hans-Adam in his book "The State in the Third Millennium" and implemented these thoughts already. I think this came close to Mr. Hoppe's thoughts, but have the advantage that it is already real. This is my personal most complicated problem in discussions. I already had some positive advantages using Prince Adam II thoughts, just because it exists already. I am asking this question, to aware becoming a "Liberalala" one.
How so? The true individualist believes in letting people alone and that power over others is completely wrong. The people who are against this notion don't believe in individualism and use it in an imposter manner.
I would love to live in a world full of Hans Herman-Hoppes. My only concern with his philosophy is, what do we do about the incipient governments that ambitious would-be tyrants will inevitably attempt to impose on us; when they gather armies together against us, how will be able to stop them? I can't figure out a way of beating their armies without armies of our own, and armies tend to be severely hierarchical and bureaucratic in their logistics. Frankly, I doubt the ability of peaceful gentle people like libertarians to take over until we get over our compunctions about killing people to get what we want.
@@666LatinoCad "Local warlords problems- look it up. " Yes, I know, and that's the problem. Where's the benefit in going backwards thousands of years and losing what little progress has been made regarding the rule of law and the political management of large complex societies? I think the better solution for libertarians is to eliminate everyone who is violently hostile to liberty; the only alternative to this police would be no liberty at all, which cannot be a practical policy for libertarians unless they want to be utterly worthless and a laughingstock worthy of vicious mockery.
@@666LatinoCad Read what, exactly? "Democracy:The God that Failed?" "Human Action?" "The Ethics of Liberty?" I read those and they convince me that Liberty is not found in a jungle. I have also read "Beyond Freedom & Dignity," "The Greening of America," and "The Satanic Bible," which convinced me further of their opposites. What, exactly, am I supposed to read to get me to believe blatantly stupid impossible things? Please be specific.
[+1] Although I'm not completely convinced that we can't have workable civilisation and neighbourhoods without common values. Do we need shared culture or shared values? - Or could shared respect for private property; and a certain level of respect for social norms-very limited in scope here-suffice?
At the beginning, there are people walking around, a few people sitting aren't even looking at Hoppe, and one guy is mindlessly scrolling on Facebook. HANS HERMAN HOPPE is speaking in front of you, how the fuck could your eyes not be glued to his figure?
Those arrows were actually supposed represent a temporal sequence of the mainline in libertarian thought. I forgot about the mathematical meaning, rather I was thinking about how they show how to access particular files on a computer
At 18:35 Hoppe argues that border enforcement by the state is "entirely compatible" with libertarianism, since he claims that public goods are owned by the taxpayers. He goes on to argue that "restricted trade, economic protectionism, and protective tarriffs" by the state are "antithetical to libertarianism." How is this consistent? If the taxpayers own the public goods, then they should have the right to charge a fee (via state enforcement) of anyone importing goods or services into "their" property (i.e. import taxes), similar to how the owner of any private property could charge a fee for someone to operate a business in their property. If they do not have this right, then how do they have the right to restrict people from entering the same property?
Elpeo Puru $100 says you're not married and you don't have kids. If you were you wouldn't give a shit about kids that just happen to be the same race as yours. You'd jut care about them. Like an individual. Like your supposed to as a parent. Not some reactionary identitarian ideologue.
You don't want your kids to look like yourself? Also you are more likely to have great relationship with someone in your own race than someone from another. Then mixed race children also got higher tendency of psychological issues.
Anders Hass I am not a white identitarian so no I don't care. In fact I'm married with a pregnant Asian woman. If you ever find a partner I hope you'd pick one not just because of her race but maybe other qualities. That's the key to a good relationship. Not race. I doubt your claims very much. Sounds like pseudo-scientific nonsense. As if there would be anything genetically or socially that make children of mixed race more likely to develop psychological problems. Really? What would that be? Sounds similar to SJWs who claim mixed race children become smarter because mixed race children are like a third, or quarter or something, of all Nobel prize winners. It's just a proxy for rich and metropolitan.
Visfen I'm mixed european (not even mixed race) and that sounds accurate. The marxists fucked us up, there is nothing wrong with all the different tribes of humanity staying unique and separate... not that I'm not glad that I exist and everything, but still.
I think you'd need a very strong state to keep races separate. Because segregation is not a natural phenomena in wealthy societies, it's an historical phenomena in undeveloped nations. All larger metropolitan areas, where there is lots of commerce and wealth inevitably become very multicultural, because in these societies you're selecting for attributes rather than circumstance. Even when it comes to very homogeneous countries like Japan, the metropolitan capital of Tokyo is not homogeneous, they even have a certain district which is western oriented (Akihabara). Wealth lures competent people of all races and selects based on that and a libertarian order would do the same as Libertarianism is very much an expression of a meritocracy.
I like Hoppe. But the point of economics is to serve a people, not people to serve economics. Economics as a word and idea comes from the economy of the family.economics is always subserviant to politics and spirituality. It is merely a production distribution and exchange system. It cannot be primary concern
Nacionalista Blanco del SoCal would you agree that the main problem with libertarianism is the refusal for social and fiscal consequences for anyone willing to sell out their countrymen to a hostile elite or foreign powers. While i belive that most people on the alt right would prefer a free market society on a provincial or regional scale, most do agree that the non agression principle seems to disable any form of protectionist policies. It is bound to leave the people open to exploitation from wealthy oligarchs, who thrive on nepotism, which clearly would not resemble the meritocracy that hhh envisions. It is very interesting that ive only come across alt right people using the term "late stage-capitalism", while most libertarians cant force their reasoning skills past their own dogma. Love ur videos btw, keep up the good work!!
Too big to fail has destroyed the the “efficient sllocation” argument and off shoring jobs that destroyed the middle class has destroyed the “its a social benefit” argument. Socialism just means common good rather than capitalism, the individual good. The alt right beleives in solidarity and subsidiarity. You need both. Capital has its role, but it shouldnt dominate labor. Adam smith invisible hand was a “home bias” of manufacturers. Obviously that didnt hold them down. You need al elements of production at the table. Not just capitalists
But he didn't put economics above people. He put private property (which is the base of every civilised society) in the first place. You sound like you're completely new to Hoppe's work and Libertarianism, and you didn't make a valid point as well, sorry.
The alt-right is confused at what they think capitalism is. It's probably their single biggest blindspot that unfortunately will lead to bringing about the very things that they oppose(global elites dictating policy to once sovereign nations). Understanding the current central banking system, how and why it tears down basic property rights is paramount to understanding how a country slowly, and stealthily loses all its sovereignty, not just on a national level, but an individual one as well. The alt-right thinks the problem is economic laissez faire, that's why they foolishly support things like Net Neutrality, thinking that nationalizing internet service, while placing one of their representative czars in charge, will fix these societal problems. It will only centralize power and create monopolies which can be easily hijacked by people who don't share their views. What then? The alt-right uses terms like "social capitalism" as a scapegoat for societal "degeneracy". They are convinced that all the social decay they bring up are part of an overall problem caused by letting people be too free, and completely miss the mark at the means of how these bad neighbors, as Hoppe puts it, manage to survive, economically speaking, when they don't create or own anything. Maybe the alt-right may one day create their ideal authoritarian nationalism, but don't be fooled for a second that the leaders in charge can't easily be replaced by Communists with a different goal in mind. The only practical way to remove this threat is through decentralized control over resources.
How do you get people to organize if you have a kind of standard-less libertarianism, where identity seems to be a tertiary aspect. Suddenly you are faced with the prospect of setting rules and guidelines for whom maybe a part of the state and whom maybe considered outside or degenerate to the causes desires.
And I see you, Hans, as a fake libertarian, by claiming to define libertarianism for me. Is presumption violence? No. Can acting on presumption be violence via assuming you are correct and initiating force based on these presumptions? Yes. Note that I least I say, "I see you", instead of claiming that my definition is the only correct one. For example, you thereby classify Mises as not being a libertarian. Is this really a hill you want to defend? Apparently so. I'll side with Mises and Bastiat on this, and your presumptions are something that I find quite distasteful and destructive.
Kon Berner do you think the absolutist definition was a little too exclusive? I agree. Minarchists are libertarians. Common sense allies at the juncture in time. As a Christian, I believe God ordained human government (Genesis 9:6, Roman 13:1-2) but also ordained property rights. I am, to a large degree, persuaded by the Rothbard/Hoppe arguments but my faith does instruct me to submit peaceably to the powers that be
I’m far from being a “puppies-rainbows-and-capitalism” type of libertarian, but I do think he’s ascribing to a tad too much enticing power to communism and ideas of the kind. I fail to imagine these ideologies spreading like a wild fire through communities of property owners, who, even if somewhat sympathetic to the cause, would be the first to have to put their possessions on the line. This would put a pretty robust and natural check to any “Red Threat”. What do you think ?
I've come to believe that you can't play around with collectivists, you can't underestimate them. Sacrificing their own possessions wouldn't be very disencouraging when the reward in question is a mob of people commanded by their ideas. I think it quite unlikely to have such a cultural setback in an already libertarian society, but it's possible. I found it quite odd, though, when he suggested that communists and democrats should suffer "violence if needed be". It sounded contradictory of the libertarian principle. I guess if one could argument that advocating for such ideas is equivalent to make threats against everyone's private property, some level of coercion would be justifiable. What are your thoughts?
When you're confused for listening an entire hoppe speech without hearing "so to speak"
I agree with Hoppe that the alt-right has no guiding principles and is defined by what they are against rather than what they are for, and that they have a lot of unlibertarian ideas.
Whenever anyone describes Ron Paul as a racist I figure they are either being deliberately dishonest or have never listened to anything he has said.
Many of of the fellow Alt Right guys I talk to do not agree with Spencer's pan-Europeanist views. This includes me. It's inherently anti-ethno nationalistic
dead eye30o6 lol no.
common libertarian ideals of defeat are sure not the alt rights position...
enoch is the centre of the alt right... and curt doolittle is the goy merging hoppes work with a limited fascist state..
Both
Hoppe citing Jeffrey Tucker AND Richard Spencer as foes really make one think that he is on to some deep thinking.
I'm not sure that spencer is the foe, he's a defector. Tucker however...?
Yeah Spencer has been really going off the reservation as far the the altright is concerned (In my opinion), but I think it's over the heads of most of the altright proper. I'm not a Dugin fan... :)
Spencerism = the Boromir strategy.
Spencer wasn’t ever libertarian to begin with. Racial collectivism is antithetical with libertarianism.
without property rights everything will be in chaos
Amen, private property rights are sacred.
How private property is defined?
@@Likorys888 Anything that is owned and subject to exclusive control by an individual or group.
As per usual, prof. Hoppe nails it with 100% accuracy. A fantastic speech.
Opa, Hrvat?
Da :)
Opa, 2 Hrvata?
shibby dibby,
I agree with you on the JQ, but would you say there is a value of having Jared Taylor out there?
We must be careful not to fall for "all Jews" narrative. It disqualifies you from a serious debate right away.
I'd certainly like if *all Jews* (and Muslims, and all non-native population) went "home", but just like in any other group, there are good and bad Jews.
There are even Jews who are redpilled on the JQ (e.g. Gilad Atzmon).
If you've spent most of your life in company of a few "good Jews" (who were historical revisionists themselves), I can understand even more:
ua-cam.com/video/nAmrjbGHaOQ/v-deo.html
Prokleti južnjaki, povsot vas je dost. Sicer pa boljše desni južnjak kot podalpski levičar ;)
The sharpest German thinker I know. At least I have one fellow countryman I can be proud of.
lol surely there is more than one! Dude - is everyone in Germany a budding Marxist or Maoist? Germany is known for fierce independence of spirit and intellect.
@@cattycorner8 Germany is (in my opinion), next to france and england, the most important country for modern science and philosophy.
Hegel, Marx (kidding), Nietzsche, Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Adorno, Goethe, ...
However, you really have to differentiate between after and before the war.
We are deeply ashamed of our ancestry and many actively hate our country. Hardly anyone knows anything about the German states before Weimar, and if they do, they also do not like them.
We have lost our spirit, and there is no saving Germany. It is a walking corpse.
I am looking to move to the states once I am finished with my studies, but the way it seems now, that will not be a liberal safehaven either.
I don't know what to do tbh. Is there one country that is not turning to shit?
@@cattycorner8 Kennst du den Schattenmacher?
Die Krautzone?
Es gibt durchaus eine libertäre und neoreaktionäre Strömung in Deutschland, insb. bei den sehr jungen Menschen.
Natürlich nichts im Vergleich zu den Grünen, aber immerhin.
Kurzfristig kannst du Deutschland vergessen.
Aber wir müssen eben langfristig denken
@UnusualBug Marx is an idiot lol
Hands down one of the best political speeches I've ever heard.
No other person has been so responsible for my philosophical and intellectual coming of age as Hoppe. To a scientist such as he is, this is the highest praise I could give.
Hoppe is the greatest ever.
_Nichts ist so leer, wie eine Welt ohne __-Eierkuchen-__ Hoppe_
Hans Hoppe: Libertarianism, The Alt-Right And AntiFa-A Libertarian Strategy For Social Change www.vdare.com/articles/hans-hoppe-libertarianism-the-alt-right-and-antifa-a-libertarian-strategy-for-social-change
looks different
This has to be one of the best political speeches I've heard all year. The 10 point plan he laid out was something that I think alot of people can get behind across the right libertarian\identitarian\alt-right movements.
What an amazing speech. HHH for eternal monarch.
Marty X ...no doubt he would be greatly opposed to that idea.
@@magicmark1837 what was his most famous book called again? ;)
@@aldoushuxley5953"Democracy: The God that Failed".
Want a random quote from it?
"I am not a monarchist"
@@abcdef-ms9mb He is not a monarchist, but thinks monarchy is far better than our current system. perfect is the enemy of the good
If not ironic, one of the most stupid comments here. And the following comments are even worse and Hoppe would be disappointed how many dimwits listen to his speeches but don't understand anything.
This speech has brought so much clarity to the issue. I will have to watch it again. Hoppe is truly on the money, more so than any other thinker today.
swell guy What he is good at is tying together a host of other people's opinions together into one naear finished article
As usual, I'll listen to the Hoppe lecture at least twice ❤️
What would be a world without Hoppe?
less German
There will always be Hoppe for the future.
:)
Evan Mantri and Pinochet.
This group was made to unite all the anarcho-capitalists of the world, with the intention of uniting projects and spreading the culture of freedom.
The theories of Mr. Murray Newton Rothbard and Mr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe are considered the ideals of this group.
facebook.com/groups/450618505323772/
Greatest living philosopher.
One of HHH's best ever speeches.
one of SG's best ever comments
Thanks
will there be an occasion to see Hoppe in the UK any time soon?
He is the game and he is that damn good
Hans Hoppe: Libertarianism, The Alt-Right And AntiFa-A Libertarian Strategy For Social Change www.vdare.com/articles/hans-hoppe-libertarianism-the-alt-right-and-antifa-a-libertarian-strategy-for-social-change
Happy to see a libertarian who says that if a libertarian system should work, you would have to throw away all the naysayers.
Just like the socialist did
@@richarddiaz5165The socialists murdered them, sometimes forcibly relocated them. Hoppe is against both.
His idea is that a libertarian society can use purely voluntary means to dispose of people it deems harmful - such as denial of service, boycotts and shunning, generally financial and reputational ruination, but without infringing on their natural rights. In that it's much different than what any other political ideology believes.
I couldn’t wait for this year’s Hoppe speech to be online. Thanks!
I'd love to hear his take on this tumultuous 2020.
Same, let's hope PFS 2021 will happen.
I have just discovered Hoppe. I am amazed, but grateful, that his speeches have not been pulled by UA-cam.
You might be amazed what else is allowed on here ;)
Have you discovered Moldbug yet?
If not, and you prefer youtube to reading, I recommend "Mulling over Moldbug" by Charlemagne
Aldous Huxley Thanks Aldous - much appreciated! I have found Charlemagne and Garvin. And through Academic Agent, Evola, Burnham and a host of others. I discover that I have been Riding the Tiger for a while now!
@@harrytd thats great :)
1:03:00 "No, HELL NO!" My favorite part.
Help Christopher Cantwell get out his jail cell!
goyfundme.com/projects/1433-rescue-fund/
We will PHYSICALLY REMOVE him from jail.
When it comes to immigration, the issue is mainly that the state controls so much "public" land, which isn't privately owned. Therefore it is up to the state and not private land owners to decide who may use the public land. "Anti-immigration" means preferring a state which is more restrictive in its permission to use public land. "Pro-immigration" less so. Additionally, the state is also able to blacklist people from any land, public or private, which is in the domain of the given state. The libertarian position would not be to advocate for a more or less restrictive state in the use of public land, but for the privatisation of that land, and for removal of state-enforced disincentives for private land owners to discriminate on who they would like to use the land.
not a single damn sentence too long or to short
Thanks a lot, Mr. Hoppe!
This is the guy we were needing for intellectual inspiration.
I am chilean, as Pinochet was.
Here in my country a group of libertarians and alt-righters are supporting an independent presidential candidate named Jose Antonio Kast, even if he loses the presidential election he will form a new movement to unite the right. These hoppean principles will be part of it for sure.
A great salute to all comrades across the world.
Pinochet was a hero.
Would you agree to maximum secession of Chile if possible in order to create the libertarian haven you dream of?
@@vicspegveg
You would only say that HERE with your other ignorant friends, you cowards.
How can you say such a horrific statement?
Why don't you just say "Hitler was right"?
I wonder if your friends and family know what a Halo monster you really?
It's people like you who should have been sent to Pinochet torture camps with thousands were tortured and disappeared.
What how small you look.
Absolutely perfect human
An historic assertion of orthodoxy
What about the libertarians from different cultures, religions and belief systems who live in America?
Why does not he creat a social media? He's the greatest austrian author alive.
Shouldn't he be more participative with his students?
Hoppe comes from a different age, before the Internet.
Have you seen top class scientists constantly active on social media? Social media is not for true intellectuals.
If you write to the Professor sincerely on his email, he does make an attempt to reply and help you. Now tell me which other author would do so if you send them a serious email? Walter Block maybe. Who else?
Trust me it is good to see the Professor is not on social media. If you are so interested, you may help propound his lectures and works by sharing them on social media. Once you do that, you will understand how lonely you are, since very few are able to understand the depth of Professor Hoppe's words.
How does he do this with such calm? I would be scraming like a lunatic into that mic.
Charles Johnson it's called being rational and civilised.
Awesome! Love it. This guy is so smart, I'm lucky to have came across this vid and channel.
Libertarianism has indeed been a key component in the background of the alt-right, also in mine. And it still is. As far as the reasonable questions of economics go, I think that the alt-right is very open for debate. The only thing that is not negotiable is the peoples of Europe themselves and not just their continued existence, but their well-being, their future and their prosperity. And one thing is certain: the ideal of *freedom* has always been of the right political spectrum. And thus libertarians will find a lot more common ground with even the alt-right than they would ever find with a boring, bland and spineless social democrat as he is so typical in the west today, not to mention the open and green painted communists.
Very insightful commentary by mr.hans, i hope more people pay attention.
27:10 Physically removal
BlackR65 so to speak
Millennial Woes shout out @16:16!
There's one aspect of this speech that bothers me I have to say. When he talks about how non aggression is naive because you need to forcibly remove bad neighbours, he leaves out a very important question: Forcibly removed by who? Wherever you create an institution of force, the commies WILL be first in line for it.
😂😂
Yeah the commies, Jesus he sound like a throwback to the 1950s McCarthyism.
I vaguely remember when Hitler came into power he put the commies in the socialists in the concentration camps. You want to talk about monsters you're pointing at the wrong people
Vielen Dank für diesen großartigen und zugleich humorvollen Vortrag Herr Hoppe ❤
BASED HOPPE
What a man, what a man
Hoppe: "they are adamant about complementing a policy of restrictive, highly selective and discriminating immigration (which is entirely compatible with libertarianism and its desideratum of freedom of association and opposition to forced integration) with a strident policy of restricted trade, economic protectionism and protective tariffs-which is antithetical to libertarianism and inimical to human prosperity."
I'd like to point out that controlling immigration is also a de facto restriction on trade because a sound policy would exclude cheap labor from flooding the country and undercutting the wages of the native workers. I think Hoppe and other libertarians are engaged in a contradiction on this point. Just as uncontrolled immigration from third world countries has negative economic consequences domestically, so does acquiescence to the manipulations of foreign powers in the area of trade.
Hoppe and other libertarians continually mischaracterize Trump as being against trade, and this is absurd. He is against bad trade agreements (instruments of the state) which needlessly disadvantage domestic industry and employment. And, sure, no one is saying that Trump is some sort of guru on international trade, he is just intent on defending against the manipulations of foreign states. How is that not an issue for libertarians to consider? How much of what China's export business represents is actually the result of free market principles and how much of it is due to the Communist Party's manipulation of money, credit, land, workers, regulation, subsidies, etc.? And how does that impact our manufacturing and employment? Is this a non-issue simply because free trade is an ideal? But, Trump and others argue, this is not free trade. This is gigantic statist blocks directing a specific trade policy using the power of the state. Does this not call for a response from the states that are supposed to be representing the rest of us in our trading block? No, we didn't choose to be under state control, but being under state control do we not have any say in these matters? We should just fall in line with what a cabal of foreign states and ideologues want for us without using our own states to push back, negotiate, retaliate?
When libertarian economists give us economic insights, they are always abstractions, and they are always qualified with "all things being equal." Well, in the real world of gigantic powerful states and also a mix of incompetent poor underdeveloped states, there are many things which make international trade under statism/globalism unequal, and thus they temper the economic insights of libertarians on the benignity of trade in the modern world.
First of all, there are national security concerns. Is it wise to proliferate cutting edge military technology, nuclear technology and fissile material? Is it wise to allow domestic production of key military/security/power distribution components to fade away and be supplied by one's potential enemies? One thing I read recently was that we cannot produce our own key high-voltage transformers. In the event they are taken out by terrorists, war, or natural disaster, we could not replace them but would have to wait moths or years for foreign production to provide them. Recently in the news as well is the story of Clinton and Obama selling 20% of our uranium to Russia. Who does Russia help with nuclear technology and who do they supply with uranium? North Korea or Iran? I don't know if this has been proven, but is it not a genuine concern? And is it not a concern if one's domestic steel industry becomes weak and dies simply because the Chinese can undercut us with an inferior state-subsidized, cheap-peasant- labor subsidized replacement? Is it part of their plan to do so, and if so is that not a concern? Do they take aim at other industries of ours in the same way? Should we not have a policy to counteract attempts at economic warfare? Look, it's well known that if you can cause sufficient economic disruptions in a country, you can bring about political changes. Should we shut our eyes to that?
Apart from national security concerns, we have been able to see for ourselves that replacing domestic workers with cheaper foreign guest workers and immigrants (never mind illegals) has negative social as well as economic effects. Once people understand they can be replaced en masse at the whim of the social engineers, they understand rightly that their whole way of life is under attack - their nation, their people, their very existence. Not only do their corrupt rulers control them with taxes and regulation, but now actually have the power to eliminate whole industries, shut down manufacturing or mining, cause companies to flee the country in search of profits, and actually import replacement foreign workers. When is enough enough? Would I be acting in a "libertarian" fashion if I started a company which went from town to town bringing in foreign workers to replace local factory workers? Is that really the market at work, or is that globalism - the bastard child of crony capitalism and Marxism? At what point is the nation worth saving and its industry worth "protecting"?
The idea behind international competitive advantage and free trade is that there is healthy genuine competition going on that benefits both consumers and producers all around, not an agenda that is state-driven by ideologies that are actually anti-free-market and anti-western and anti-nationalist, and which use a great deal of force to achieve their ends. Also, things are relatively equal (referring to "all things being equal") when nations trade with other nations of similar wealth and legal systems. While nothing is ever perfect, it is at least more clear that countries whose standards of living are similar can trade among themselves without this aspect of international intrigue and economic or ideological warfare going on. When the countries have vastly different wealth per capita, wage levels, rights protections, regulation and taxation levels, then what appears to be a natural competitive advantage may not be. So, as libertarians, where does the purely economic argument go when so much is flat-out manipulated in order to simulate a natural advantage? How many of us really believe that, all things being equal, it would be more economical to manufacture clothing and household goods in China and then ship all that stuff to the other side of the world? It's utterly ridiculous when you think about it. This might be the case for niche products but not for run-of-the-mill consumables. There is clearly something else going on here besides benign trading.
Are you sure you're researched the literature on this before sounding off? Hoppe explicitly favors free trade in goods. He also admits that state immigration policies inevitably cause harm--either via forced inclusion/integration, or via forced exclusion (e.g. when an employer is prevented from inviting an immigrant onto his property).
I think you are not aware of the Professor's entire work.
I really do not know how many people really have read and understood the Professor. It seems as if most people come and watch him after seeing some memes.
Please read the professor's work from scratch!
I don't even talk to my neighbors really
Do you?
We should start selecting neighborhoods with others who intend to socialize. Leave the HOAs and inconsiderate neighbors behind.
Djibouti Hugebooty In the Suburbs people normally never talk to anyone in their neighborhoods.
The social and cultural alienation of the current democratic egalitarian regime really cant be underestimated
In your estimation has it been like this only recently? I think my fears of open up lie in them seeming much more "normal" than me and I overthink what the communication would be like or if it would be worthwhile
I'm an Anarcho Capitalist and Alt Right.
The Alt Right and the Identitarian movement are the most Libertarian Nationalist movements in history.
Of course we're not only Libertarians, there are Liberals, Monarchists, Aristocrats and many others, what binds us is the belief that homogeneity is best and that European are heading to the fate of Afrikaners.
In fact one of the most popular plans to start forming the Ethnostate (which doesn't have to be a state but the name stuck so..) is very similar with how I envision an Anarchist society would be formed.
Small communities that expand as they succeed.
Of course the Anarchist one would be much more difficult to stabilize since it would use a new economic system. But it would be for volunteers to experiment with and develop.
As communities like that expand they'd merge and eventually form the Ethnostate.
This is a short description of the process for an article on a different video. I'll expand on it later.
wordpress.com/post/altcapright.wordpress.com/136
I was. Do you see any contradiction in my statements.
so your argument is that because there are White communist traitors, we should let Whites become an oppressed minority
oh you think that's a strawman? then make a point instead of a timestamp
Not sure exactly what Rex meant but I think the general point is that you cannot merely be a supporter of the white race, but instead stand for principle even within your race, such as against white communist. Instead supporting libertarian principles, as they are (or can be) the solution to this problem. Though I could be misinterpreting this.
The main thing keeping me from going full Alt-Right is the fact that its an ideological hodge-podge with plenty of people who'd be fine with socialism, despotism, war for the sake of war, etc. Just looking at recent history, the trend seems to be that the most power-hungry within a political movement seem to win out most of the time (see the federalists-antifederalists, Bolsheviks-Mensheviks, paleocons-neoconst, etc).
So if the Alt-Right did succeed, I fear we'd end up with a full natsoc United States, not a secessionist movement or a Based Ron Paul-type presidency (if we gained the critical mass to separate into an ethnostate, I don't see why it would stop there - the drivers of the movement would want to just keep growing until they could take the entire country, and the base would be on board). Still, I'll consider myself an ally of the Alt-Right as long as it's fighting alongside right-libertarians. Plus, you know, libertarians are almost all white men and there's probably a reason for that.
Love this Guy, He is quite correct. I am more hopeful of libertarians now. A practical fellow I can forgive for being a Saxon, Cheers.
Probably the go-to video for describing the origin of the alt-right.
I wonder if we ever get to see some older footage? Like speeches of Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow and Richard Spencer.
ThomasNigelHawkins Some of those speeches are on Vimeo.com
Jared Taylor:
Speech: propertyandfreedom.org/2014/02/jared-taylor-a-brief-history-of-us-race-relations-pfs-2013/
Q/A: vimeo.com/86857165
Richard Spencer:
Speech: vimeo.com/12598049
Q/A: vimeo.com/12598475
I cannot find Peter Brimelow :(
Amazing speech.
1:02:46 #RadicalAgenda
...of decentralization -- of nullification and peaceful separation, segregation and secession.
6:36 Debunking fake libertarianism: The legal right not to be discriminated against.
27:08 #PhysicalRemoval
goyfundme.com/projects/1433-rescue-fund/
I'm furious...I'm violently angry...
The ten commandments of Hans-Hermann Hoppe brought me here!
One question. From the perspective of a fast change and handling the concerns from the "normal" people. How can / should we see the new constitution of Lichtenstein? Explained by Prince Hans-Adam in his book "The State in the Third Millennium" and implemented these thoughts already. I think this came close to Mr. Hoppe's thoughts, but have the advantage that it is already real. This is my personal most complicated problem in discussions. I already had some positive advantages using Prince Adam II thoughts, just because it exists already. I am asking this question, to aware becoming a "Liberalala" one.
Brillant!
This is why we should go back to the OG term Individualism.
Sure but redundant. As an individualist free association is a given.
That's a lack of common sense.
Individualism can be just as destructive as communist collectivism
How so? The true individualist believes in letting people alone and that power over others is completely wrong. The people who are against this notion don't believe in individualism and use it in an imposter manner.
Then they'll just call Hoppe a collectivist, oh wait, they already do
man i listen to his speeches at least once a quarter. i know all of this already. It's kinda like ASMR
I'm not a Libertarian, but I like Hoppe. The only intellectually honest lolbert I've seen.
The last sentence is golden
Hoppe is the greatest ever.
Aqui é BR porrraaaaaaa!!!!
Where is the transcript?!
What I've got so far:
pastebin.ca/3886708
Why? Are you printing out bits of internet to send to Chris in jail?
My letters take 5-7 days to reach him btw. International.
Okay, here's the proper one (modulo the shitty formatting). pastebin.ca/3886794
dude fuck yes thank you for this !!
I'm here because of Pete Quinones and Academic Agent.
I would love to live in a world full of Hans Herman-Hoppes. My only concern with his philosophy is, what do we do about the incipient governments that ambitious would-be tyrants will inevitably attempt to impose on us; when they gather armies together against us, how will be able to stop them? I can't figure out a way of beating their armies without armies of our own, and armies tend to be severely hierarchical and bureaucratic in their logistics. Frankly, I doubt the ability of peaceful gentle people like libertarians to take over until we get over our compunctions about killing people to get what we want.
Local warlords problems- look it up.
@@666LatinoCad "Local warlords problems- look it up. "
Yes, I know, and that's the problem. Where's the benefit in going backwards thousands of years and losing what little progress has been made regarding the rule of law and the political management of large complex societies?
I think the better solution for libertarians is to eliminate everyone who is violently hostile to liberty; the only alternative to this police would be no liberty at all, which cannot be a practical policy for libertarians unless they want to be utterly worthless and a laughingstock worthy of vicious mockery.
@@jamesedwards.1069 mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
@@jamesedwards.1069 Read
@@666LatinoCad
Read what, exactly? "Democracy:The God that Failed?" "Human Action?" "The Ethics of Liberty?" I read those and they convince me that Liberty is not found in a jungle.
I have also read "Beyond Freedom & Dignity," "The Greening of America," and "The Satanic Bible," which convinced me further of their opposites.
What, exactly, am I supposed to read to get me to believe blatantly stupid impossible things? Please be specific.
16:15 My boy Woes! Great quote
00:26 Janusz Korwin Mikke in deadlift position
Are there more videos from that event?
more will be added soon
Thanks!
Great speech.😘❤️
[+1] Although I'm not completely convinced that we can't have workable civilisation and neighbourhoods without common values. Do we need shared culture or shared values? - Or could shared respect for private property; and a certain level of respect for social norms-very limited in scope here-suffice?
Samuel Marks read Booths paper on multiculturalism and social cohesion and weep sucker
Perfect
At the beginning, there are people walking around, a few people sitting aren't even looking at Hoppe, and one guy is mindlessly scrolling on Facebook. HANS HERMAN HOPPE is speaking in front of you, how the fuck could your eyes not be glued to his figure?
You’re looking for this: 27:05
Mises --> Rothbard --> Hoppe
Those arrows were actually supposed represent a temporal sequence of the mainline in libertarian thought. I forgot about the mathematical meaning, rather I was thinking about how they show how to access particular files on a computer
PraxeoLiberty, then it's fine. They are really the mentors and successors of each other.
You can edit your comment
Rothbard > Hoppe > Mises
Kinsella > every constitutional lawyer ever
In the "bad neighbour" this "communal authority" is like "moral authority" or he can violate NAP?
I can't find that particular part of the video, but I'm assuming it is either a "moral authority" or the private owner of the land or borders.
so to speak
This is the true alt right
*puts on sunglasses*
At 18:35 Hoppe argues that border enforcement by the state is "entirely compatible" with libertarianism, since he claims that public goods are owned by the taxpayers. He goes on to argue that "restricted trade, economic protectionism, and protective tarriffs" by the state are "antithetical to libertarianism." How is this consistent? If the taxpayers own the public goods, then they should have the right to charge a fee (via state enforcement) of anyone importing goods or services into "their" property (i.e. import taxes), similar to how the owner of any private property could charge a fee for someone to operate a business in their property. If they do not have this right, then how do they have the right to restrict people from entering the same property?
Steve Rose Wow... you really are a sniveling little Communist shit aren't you...
We must secure the existence of a libertarian social order for our white children.
Elpeo Puru $100 says you're not married and you don't have kids. If you were you wouldn't give a shit about kids that just happen to be the same race as yours. You'd jut care about them. Like an individual. Like your supposed to as a parent. Not some reactionary identitarian ideologue.
You don't want your kids to look like yourself? Also you are more likely to have great relationship with someone in your own race than someone from another. Then mixed race children also got higher tendency of psychological issues.
Anders Hass I am not a white identitarian so no I don't care. In fact I'm married with a pregnant Asian woman.
If you ever find a partner I hope you'd pick one not just because of her race but maybe other qualities. That's the key to a good relationship. Not race.
I doubt your claims very much. Sounds like pseudo-scientific nonsense. As if there would be anything genetically or socially that make children of mixed race more likely to develop psychological problems. Really? What would that be? Sounds similar to SJWs who claim mixed race children become smarter because mixed race children are like a third, or quarter or something, of all Nobel prize winners. It's just a proxy for rich and metropolitan.
Visfen I'm mixed european (not even mixed race) and that sounds accurate. The marxists fucked us up, there is nothing wrong with all the different tribes of humanity staying unique and separate... not that I'm not glad that I exist and everything, but still.
I think you'd need a very strong state to keep races separate. Because segregation is not a natural phenomena in wealthy societies, it's an historical phenomena in undeveloped nations. All larger metropolitan areas, where there is lots of commerce and wealth inevitably become very multicultural, because in these societies you're selecting for attributes rather than circumstance. Even when it comes to very homogeneous countries like Japan, the metropolitan capital of Tokyo is not homogeneous, they even have a certain district which is western oriented (Akihabara). Wealth lures competent people of all races and selects based on that and a libertarian order would do the same as Libertarianism is very much an expression of a meritocracy.
43:20
47:00
48:57
49:57
51:20
52:30
54:46
56:40
58:58
1:01:34
Episode IV
A New Hoppe
Except in his case the prequels didn’t suck. :-)
I like Hoppe. But the point of economics is to serve a people, not people to serve economics. Economics as a word and idea comes from the economy of the family.economics is always subserviant to politics and spirituality. It is merely a production distribution and exchange system. It cannot be primary concern
wow, deeeeep
Nacionalista Blanco del SoCal would you agree that the main problem with libertarianism is the refusal for social and fiscal consequences for anyone willing to sell out their countrymen to a hostile elite or foreign powers. While i belive that most people on the alt right would prefer a free market society on a provincial or regional scale, most do agree that the non agression principle seems to disable any form of protectionist policies. It is bound to leave the people open to exploitation from wealthy oligarchs, who thrive on nepotism, which clearly would not resemble the meritocracy that hhh envisions.
It is very interesting that ive only come across alt right people using the term "late stage-capitalism", while most libertarians cant force their reasoning skills past their own dogma.
Love ur videos btw, keep up the good work!!
Too big to fail has destroyed the the “efficient sllocation” argument and off shoring jobs that destroyed the middle class has destroyed the “its a social benefit” argument. Socialism just means common good rather than capitalism, the individual good. The alt right beleives in solidarity and subsidiarity. You need both. Capital has its role, but it shouldnt dominate labor. Adam smith invisible hand was a “home bias” of manufacturers. Obviously that didnt hold them down. You need al elements of production at the table. Not just capitalists
But he didn't put economics above people. He put private property (which is the base of every civilised society) in the first place. You sound like you're completely new to Hoppe's work and Libertarianism, and you didn't make a valid point as well, sorry.
The alt-right is confused at what they think capitalism is. It's probably their single biggest blindspot that unfortunately will lead to bringing about the very things that they oppose(global elites dictating policy to once sovereign nations). Understanding the current central banking system, how and why it tears down basic property rights is paramount to understanding how a country slowly, and stealthily loses all its sovereignty, not just on a national level, but an individual one as well. The alt-right thinks the problem is economic laissez faire, that's why they foolishly support things like Net Neutrality, thinking that nationalizing internet service, while placing one of their representative czars in charge, will fix these societal problems. It will only centralize power and create monopolies which can be easily hijacked by people who don't share their views. What then? The alt-right uses terms like "social capitalism" as a scapegoat for societal "degeneracy". They are convinced that all the social decay they bring up are part of an overall problem caused by letting people be too free, and completely miss the mark at the means of how these bad neighbors, as Hoppe puts it, manage to survive, economically speaking, when they don't create or own anything. Maybe the alt-right may one day create their ideal authoritarian nationalism, but don't be fooled for a second that the leaders in charge can't easily be replaced by Communists with a different goal in mind. The only practical way to remove this threat is through decentralized control over resources.
Pleasantly surprised
How do you get people to organize if you have a kind of standard-less libertarianism, where identity seems to be a tertiary aspect. Suddenly you are faced with the prospect of setting rules and guidelines for whom maybe a part of the state and whom maybe considered outside or degenerate to the causes desires.
19:22 Hoppe talking about Richard Spencer
Transcript here fam: www.vdare.com/articles/hans-hoppe-libertarianism-the-alt-right-and-antifa-a-libertarian-strategy-for-social-change
Hoppe wishes to avoid conflict by detaching from a system based on the consolidation of resources. He's right.
𝐁𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝.
Excellent
10/10 speech
16:20 Hoppe knows Millennial Woes? My reaction 1:03:26.
Superb.
Survival 1st, economics 2nd.
You can split a hair a few times. But what good does it do? I’ll take any form of Libertarian working towards the same general goal: more Liberty.
Dude name dropped the Cathedral. Didn't know he was so woke.
Hoppean Ethno Libertarianism when?
thank you- "they look white to hoppe"
The only right is the right to not be treaded upon.
Is there a transcript availablev
What does Hoppe think about using these powers to setup a libertarian order?
Would a better way for us to reach egalitarians be to call it decentralized capitalism? Because I don't know what else to call it.
Yes. Cryptocurrency is doing this right now.
And I see you, Hans, as a fake libertarian, by claiming to define libertarianism for me. Is presumption violence? No. Can acting on presumption be violence via assuming you are correct and initiating force based on these presumptions? Yes. Note that I least I say, "I see you", instead of claiming that my definition is the only correct one.
For example, you thereby classify Mises as not being a libertarian. Is this really a hill you want to defend? Apparently so. I'll side with Mises and Bastiat on this, and your presumptions are something that I find quite distasteful and destructive.
Kon Berner do you think the absolutist definition was a little too exclusive? I agree. Minarchists are libertarians. Common sense allies at the juncture in time. As a Christian, I believe God ordained human government (Genesis 9:6, Roman 13:1-2) but also ordained property rights. I am, to a large degree, persuaded by the Rothbard/Hoppe arguments but my faith does instruct me to submit peaceably to the powers that be
I’m far from being a “puppies-rainbows-and-capitalism” type of libertarian, but I do think he’s ascribing to a tad too much enticing power to communism and ideas of the kind. I fail to imagine these ideologies spreading like a wild fire through communities of property owners, who, even if somewhat sympathetic to the cause, would be the first to have to put their possessions on the line. This would put a pretty robust and natural check to any “Red Threat”. What do you think ?
I've come to believe that you can't play around with collectivists, you can't underestimate them. Sacrificing their own possessions wouldn't be very disencouraging when the reward in question is a mob of people commanded by their ideas.
I think it quite unlikely to have such a cultural setback in an already libertarian society, but it's possible.
I found it quite odd, though, when he suggested that communists and democrats should suffer "violence if needed be". It sounded contradictory of the libertarian principle.
I guess if one could argument that advocating for such ideas is equivalent to make threats against everyone's private property, some level of coercion would be justifiable. What are your thoughts?
Anybody know of a HHH documentary?
Am still not understanding how Hoppe is Ati Right.
Probably his most fire track to date. Lot of booty blast after this thing dropped/
finally