It is no easy task to list all of Sean Gabb’s talents. He is a historian, a sociologist and social critic, a political and legal theorist, a linguist and classicist, as well as a prolific and highly acclaimed novelist, and in all of his writings he is, if I may be so presumptuous to say so as a non-native speaker of English, a great stylist of the English language. Above all, however, he is a libertarian. Indeed, Sean Gabb is England’s Mr. Libertarian. [continue reading…]
It is no secret that I am not a Hayekian. Still, I consider Hayek a great economist – not in the same league as Mises, but few if any economists are. Hayek’s fame in the public mind, however, has less to do with his economic writings but stems largely from his writings in political theory, and it is in this area where I consider Hayek as mostly deficient. Not even his system of definitions here is internally consistent. His excursions into the field of epistemology are quite ingenious, yet also here he falls short of the accomplishments of his teacher Mises. Nonetheless, owing to his wide-ranging interdisciplinary oeuvre, which contains a treasure trove of keen insights into many issues, I consider Hayek one of the 20th century’s outstanding intellectuals writing in the social sciences.
Some months ago I agreed to write a foreword for a forthcoming book by Chase Rachels, on the right and libertarianism, and sent him a draft. After further thought, I notified Rachels that I did not want him to include the foreword in his book and withdrew my permission, and published a version of it as a stand-alone article, “On Getting Libertarianism Right.”
It has come to my attention that Rachels is planning to include the draft of my foreword in his book despite my withdrawing my permission. I wish it to be on record that I do not consent to my foreword being included in his book.
[Discurso proferido no 12º encontro anual da Property and Freedom Society em Bodrum, Turquia, em 17 de Setembro de 2017]
Conhecemos o destino dos termos liberal e liberalismo. Eles foram afixados por tantas pessoas diferentes e em tão diferentes posições que perderam todo o seu significado e se tornaram um rótulo vazio e indescritível. O mesmo destino agora está cada vez mais ameaçando os termos “libertário” e “libertarianismo” que foram inventados para recuperar uma parte da precisão conceitual perdida com o desaparecimento dos antigos rótulos.
Contudo, a história do libertarianismo moderno ainda é bastante jovem. Começou na sala de estar de Murray Rothbard e encontrou sua expressão quase canônica no seu livro Por uma Nova Liberdade: O Manifesto libertário, que foi publicado em 1973. E, então, eu sou esperançoso e ainda não estou disposto a abandonar o termo libertarianismo como ele foi definido e explicado por Rothbard, com incomparável clareza e precisão, apesar das inúmeras tentativas dos tão chamados libertários de se envolverem e se apropriarem do bom nome do libertarianismo com algo inteiramente diferente.
NO! NOT THAT WAY! If that’s what I meant, he would have to “physically remove” me from his (virtual) neighborhood!
I love his intellect, the way he creates the dots that he thereafter connects, his directness, and his very dry and wonderfully refined sense of humor.
It was Hans Hoppe (more precisely, someone who challenged me to challenge Hans Hoppe) that accelerated my interest in what has become the most intellectually satisfying topic that I pursue via this blog, that of libertarians and culture. With that out of the way…
Libertarianism and the Alt-Right: In Search of a Libertarian Strategy for Social Change, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. (Speech delivered at the 12th annual meeting of the Property and Freedom Society in Bodrum, Turkey, on September 17, 2017)
You will note, sprinkled throughout my commentary are my “accusations” that Hoppe has stolen some of my material. I hope you understand my meager attempt at humor; everything I have come to on this broad subject (I truly mean “everything”) began because Hoppe set me on that path, long ago.
I recently linked to the video version of this speech, and offered a few brief comments. I purposely waited before giving more extensive thoughts as I wanted to wait for this transcript. This will be a tough post to write…or, shall I say, write concisely. Is it OK with you if I just copy and paste the entire text? You see my point. With this concern noted, I will attempt to be efficient. (Update: I failed.)
The following is an interview of Professor Hoppe, originally published in the Polish weekly Najwyższy Czas! and also published in English at LewRockwell.com as The EU: Economically and Morally Perverse,and here translated from the English into Czech for Svobodný Spravodaj (9 May 2017).
Hans Hermann Hoppe: EU je prvním krokem k vytvoření evropského superstátu a k následnému vzniku celosvětové vlády, jíž by dominovaly Spojené státy a americká centrální banka FED.
V Evropské unii je systematicky podkopáván přirozený sociální řád společnosti, protože je trestána normalita a oceňována abnormalita a úchylnost. EU bude sklouzávat z jedné ekonomické krize do druhé, až se nakonec rozpadne. V rozhovoru to uvedl významný německý ekonom a filosof Hans Hermann Hoppe. Ten také tvrdí, že v celé EU vládne „demokratický socialismus“, který se nijak neliší od tzv. „demokratického kapitalismu“ panujícího v USA.
Rozhovor s německým ekonomem a politickým filosofem, profesorem Hansem Hermannem Hoppem
Pane profesore, jak hodnotíte současný vývoj v Západní Evropě a zejména v Evropské unii?
Všechny významnější politické strany v Západní Evropě, bez ohledu na různé názvy a stranické programy, jsou dnes plně oddány jediné základní politické ideologii a to ideologii demokratického socialismu. Tyto strany využívají demokratické volby k tomu, aby legitimizovaly zdaňování všech produktivních obyvatel ve prospěch těch neproduktivních. Všechny tyto strany zdaňují lidi, kteří svůj příjem a bohatství získali produkcí zboží nebo služeb, které si od nich zcela dobrovolně koupili spotřebitelé. [continue reading…]
A recently published paper by Cezary Błaszczyk, University of Warsaw, “The Critique of Copyright in Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics,” has been published in the Studia Iuridica, the legal journal of University of Warsaw. The paper provides a succinct summary of Hoppe’s “argumentation ethics” defense of libertarian rights and an original argument for why argumentation ethics directly rules out copyright and related forms of intellectual property such as patent.