Property, Freedom and Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

pants Herman hapa of course a pleasure to have you here thank you so much for coming your opening lecture this that the message university was intriguing because you went through some personal biography that I don’t think is well-known it seems as if you were you began on the left really not just as a graduate student but even into your full-time professional career is that right into the first semesters of my studies I was a leftist during the last few years in in high school that can be explained partly due to the fact that that was also a time of of the student student rebellion it was also a way to free yourself of C discipline of your parents I guess so I was an ardent reader of Marx and then took in the selection of my university teachers head obviously also something to do was the fact that I was a lefty so I went to the University of Frankfurt which was the center of left-wing thought at that time and selected here in Hamas is my principal teacher and was extremely proud that he accepted me I think it was in my fourth semester to become his dr. Oz doctoral student but then I gradually moved to more free market positions I did realize that there was something fundamentally wrong with Marx’s mine encountered the embarks criticism and that by and large convinced me that that was the wrong thing but I did come and discovered Mises only much late much later actually by some funny accident because my parents had both been refugees from East Germany my mother’s family had been expropriated by the Russians in 1946 initially she lived in an area in East Germany that had been occupied by the Americans and then the Americans exchanged that province for what became West Berlin and moved out of that territory and then the Russians moved in and the Russians expropriated all major landowners and my mother’s family were major landowners but most of my relatives lived in East Germany and we regularly visited them and you always had to pay an entrance fee to enter the paradise of workers and farmers have been since we stayed that my aunt relatives houses in order to you had to somehow spend the money that you were forced to exchange and there were only two ways to do that one was to buy Russian records of Russian composers and the other possibility was to buy collected works of lading collected works of Stalin collected works of Vital with Ida will Blake who was at the prime minister of East Germany and Erich Honecker was his successor and one of my book purchases was a text that they used to train students in political economy and in this in this book they mentioned all the major enemies and they mentioned for instance not only to embark was whom I had been familiar before but also as the most evil of all do treefon Mises at that time I did not immediately start reading would be missus but at least I encountered I encountered his name it I knew that he was a guy that might be eventually worse while taking a look at at the same time in West Germany you did not have these names of Hayek and Mises mentioned in any of the economic textbooks degree for the first economic textbooks I read in West Germany was the German translation of Paul Samuelson’s book and there was no mention of them at least not in the additions that were available at that time but there were there was mention of the fact that the East Bloc would eventually take over the West that was just a matter of matter of time and because I could see what was going in East Germany at the time was a norm normos scarcity of sinks you sometimes you could not get milk and the other day you could not get sausages and on the third day you could not get beer I saw these types of descriptions the East would take over the West were entirely entirely ridiculous well how does it happen that there could have been a socialists and West Germany at all at the time I mean given their the clear contrast we had a blend system of socialism right on the other side of the wall and one that’s predominantly capitalistic on the other side of the wall how could anybody somebody as brilliant as Hamas have favored a socialist system might have those conditions because the social socialist and Social Democratic parties in West Germany quickly reformed themselves due to the fact that they were placed in a country right next to the communist type so the German Social Democrats were the first ones who became moderate Social Democrats as compared with souls that wanted to have mass scale nationalization of industry industries and in countries that were further removed from the Iron Curtain this transformation of the social socialist and Social Democratic parties took much longer so it it did affect what the Social Democrats were all about that the millions of people in the West of course had seen with their own eyes what was going on in in the east I remember after integration occurred you wrote an essay that still strikes me is absolutely brilliant in retrospect there were aspects of the integration of Germany that you regret it at the time do you and do you want to explain what those were and and and maybe address the question whether you were right of course I think I was right the alternatives at that time or either East Germany becomes part of West Germany so to speak and then you could immediately predict what would happen that the welfare state would be expanded to the east at massive at massive costs involved and at the same time West Germany would become more socialistic because of the integration of these people who had lived under communism and had to a certain extent acquired the communist type of mentality and the other alternative would have been of course at East Germany becomes an independent state trying to stand on their own feet which would have forced them to introduce far more radical free-market reforms then it became necessary due to the fact that they became subsidized up to this day by by West Germany yeah so we call it we call it it was a step towards freedom but but it was also a last opportunity and it was a great lost opportunity incidentally some other countries that could not rely on some sponsor like West Germany bailing them out and subsidizing them did more drastic reforms for instance a Czech Republic did better in this regard and than they did in East Germany because they were simply no no people in in the West in these massive massive numbers who could be forced to accept to subsidize subsidize you once wrote an essay I remember quoting the words of Goethe praising the the old German city states and their liberality and and the way that led to a world of free trade and free migration yes a good disposition in the early nineteenth century was to speak a minority position most Germans crave to have a unified States because they looked at France and other centralized countries and wanted to have certain good disposition was in order to have a unification or you need his same currency use the same measures the same language but it would be good to have competition between small entities and he compared Germany favorably to France which had been a centralized state and said look if you look at France everything is concentrated in Paris and if you go outside of Paris it is deep and dark Provence and in contrast you had 37 or 39 principalities in Germany each competing against each other each wanting to have the best university each wanted to have wanting to have see the best painting galleries the best Cedars the best orchestras and and so forth and that was a face that made Germany great and in the way the decline of Germany began with the unification of Germany after the franco-prussian war in 1870 71 and the unification was also achieved through means of war not all that different to what you see in the United States happening almost at at the same time just a little bit before so be smart played a similar role to Lincoln in the United States by uniting Germany by means by means of war Germany’s outstanding position into of Sciences and culture continued of cost for bile afterwards because your tradition stayed on for a while the Aussies various unit of universities still continue to exist but the University of Berlin became indeed than the leading University in Germany whereas before it was just one of the universities is next to next to many others one of the most counterintuitive arguments you make I believe it’s in democracy and it’s the one I keep returning to because it’s it’s so alarming so shocking is how you have related the prosperity of a nation to its propensity towards imperial conquests so that the more capitalistic a nation is the more wealthy it is but then also the wealthier wealthier more expansion Airy its government tends to be um there’s a few very simple a simple explanation you if you are a state at all then you can externalize the cost of aggression on to other so all states in a way tend to be aggressive but since aggression always involves costs as well you have to finance the tanks you have to finance it’s the soldiers and so forth it tends to be the case that those states that are more liberal internally have a more prosperous population at their disposal so to speak and other things being roughly the same the size of the countries the size of the population being roughly the same this allows use and to be more aggressive because you know you will tend to when out in Wars except in wars that are blitzkrieg while you immediately succeed in taking over another place but if it was drawn out for a little bit then of course the prosperity of a country matters whether you will win or not and I have also uses to explain the paradox said why is it that the United States tends to conduct a more aggressive foreign policy for instance in the Soviet Union which internally was at most evil an empire but of course an empire not run by complete morons who did not know anything about economics whatsoever they didn’t know of course that in a long drawn-out war they would tend to lose out against a comparatively large country such as the United States and because of that cared more about internal affairs keeping those things that they already controlled under control was country like the United States knows we will of course win all wars accordingly we can afford to be more aggressive in our foreign policy how much does this is this influenced by culture and the nature of a society I mean for example the United States you have a kind of expansionary impulse at the root of our our history where as a country like Switzerland which is a very wealthy you see no kind of as far as I know no kind of expansion area impulse within that population I think very early in the Swiss history Switzerland also pursued aggressive policies and they were beaten back in this by countries that were significantly larger than they themselves for then decided so to speak now we stay within the borders that currently exist and follow a policy of neutrality but but in the Swiss history there does exist in the early phases some imperialist in impulse as well you know another thing that you’ve said is I mean I could speak all day about all the counterintuitive and conclusions that you’ve demonstrated in the course of your writings but one of them concerns your demonstration I remember one time about the US Constitution really represented an expansion of the state not really an attempt to to rein it in or curb it which is the general principle the name time you find like a new constitution being asserted by a state that it’s most likely there’s an ulterior motive to to expand it beyond its it is also an attempt to to centralize because the Confederation that existed before was obviously less centralized and the Constitution was precisely the attempt to overcome the limitations of of a federation and create a central state initially a very weak central state but one that predicted predictably became a far more centralized you do you do find the same thing also in in Switzerland I mean even though they abstained of course from aggressive foreign policies largely due to the fact that they were surrounded by far larger countries and they themselves are initially almost all powers was arrested with the cable was the Canton’s which are so to speak see equivalents of the American States but this has also been in the course of time in gradually eroded into central government in Switzerland has also acquired more and more power so the process is the same it has preceded you know in a somewhat is somewhat smaller pace and it did in in the United States even nowadays the Canton’s of far more powerful and the American American states are and the Swiss case the the Canton’s are also still very homogeneous in the country like Switzerland where you have german-speaking people we have french-speaking people we have Italian speaking people and then a small group of they speak beta or manic Lang language a very small place the Canton’s are almost completely homogeneous as always it would have been difficult for Switzerland to stay as stable and as harmonious as it is because one nationality would have tried to dominate the others there is still quite a distinct difference between the german-speaking parts of Switzerland and the french-speaking part of Switzerland the german-speaking parts are more free market oriented less socialistic in the general outlook the French Canton’s mores more so and even if they’ve clevis its countrywide clevis it’s you can you can see that the french-speaking parts are more favorable disposed to becoming part of the European Union whereas a german-speaking parts of vigorously or post opposed to it so even the people mentioned Switzerland frequently as a multicultural society Switzerland is not in the sense a multicultural society because the Canton’s which are still quite influential that kept the Canton’s are homogenius you mentioned the European Union you could cite that as a great example of how a constitution leads to an expansion of the state and yet the history of one into united Europe was that was a liberal dream was a desire to increase liberty the initial idea was of course to erect the free trade a free trade zone but if a free trade zone only requires two sentences whatever you want to ship out you should belt whatever you want to import you can import but that has almost from the very beginning of the European Union being forgotten and instead the attempt has been to harmonize the text and regulation structure in all of Europe that has not been accomplished completely there still exists no free trade in in Europe if you watched German TV for instance they have constantly reports that the German border control has again arrested a few people who were smuggling cigarettes at our text less in Poland to to Germany despite the ultimate goal we want to have Freight right there is a skiing region in Austria that bored us on to Italy and you can ski down one side of the hill you are Italy and you ski down the other side of the hill then you are in Austria and even in that ski resort yet also the Austrian TV reported was great pride about the great accomplishments of the Austrian border controls having arrested again a few people who had bought a few leaders alcohol too much in Italy and smuggled it over to Austria and vice vice versa so the whole thing has very little to do was was free trade and as far as the euro was concerned it had always been my my conviction I’ve also written on this that the purpose of that was to weaken in particular as a German mark because a euro would be of course more inflationary then the german german mark had been the german mark had always been some sort of obstacle for other countries to inflate as much as he already desired to inflate that had nothing to do with specific German virtues but it has something to do this effect that Germany had experienced the hyperinflations twice and the German public was a little bit more sensitive towards inflation so the German Bundesbank was a little bit more reluctant to follow the general inflationary trend at all central bank banks naturally how fragile do you think the EU is today do you think it could blow up and revert back to its old nationalist schemes I hope I hope it would happen but and I’m always amazed with how much the Germans are putting up because the Germans are the main financier zuv off see southern European countries the psyche the cycle is so to speak that the crisis broke out in the Paris in the periphery and and the Germans have to pay the bills for it when we had the conference two years ago and Salamanca and we were driving from Madrid to Salamanca on beautiful new expressways was very little traffic IRA members and Hazel’s were – de Soto told me look you guys have financed all officers for us if you drive on German expressways they are somewhat in in in far less good shape than the Spanish expressways expressways are in the German so far don’t seem to repel against it but the debt that sovereign debt crisis could make the difference could make the difference so yes Greece is in worse shape Spain is in worse shape Italy’s in worse shape than Germany but Germany is also in pretty bad shape and will get increasingly in worse shape given the fact that they have to bail out these other places eventually there might be a rebellion of officer German public against this but the Germans of course suffer from this problem that they have a special history and feel eternally guilty and are not allowed to repel we mentioned some of your books maybe in the order in which they purported appeared in English you have a book on methodology methodology the the method of the Austrian School of Economics and then you had theory of socialism and capitalism which is still being used as probably the leading comparative economic systems texture within the Austrian world and then after that democracy the God that failed was probably the most popular book and then economics and ethics of private private property which is your most theoretical treatise am i leaving anything out in English the other not edited and the mists of nationalist Ronald you’ve had a fissure in your honor which is a wonderful book put together by stephan kinsella yeah and yeah that’s a fun a really fun book now how many languages has your writing has your writings been translated and I think that 25 plus languages what is your job over gee saves you most widely distributed book most widely read book does seems a democracy democracy is a God that field is the most widely distributed book but in recent years the Siri of socialism and capitalism has been has gotten several translations the Romanian translation came out visas Brazil has published that book also in Portuguese translation they also publish the economic science and the Austrian that’s a mess and the Sakya which was actually in fact a transcription of a series of speeches right yeah I think the one article was added to it but initially it was it was my first lecture that I gave in the United States the first Mises universities that we helped it at Stanford now yeah and your your book democracy was published by transaction but we’ve published your economics and ethics book but I think you and I I regret in a way that the book was published by a trans environment by a commercial publisher you have no control over it they have even prevented some translations of the book to come out because it should be charged to high prices I mean the book has been translated into six or seven languages also but I get constantly complaints I cannot download it and yeah it’s not available free online it is but at that time the possibilities that exist nowadays simply did not exist I mean many of these things have just in in recent in recent years yeah it’s easy to look back and say oh well that was a mistake we should have done it ourselves yeah I mean looking back I would say that it was a big mistake that I had done it at that time I was happy that our putable publisher liked went a lot at the time yeah I should say about your theory of socialism and capitalism it’s not just a comparative economics text you have in there the essence of your property rights theory which which I don’t think we need to say anything more about this but I would just encourage everybody to go and read that and understand very with great precision what you’re saying because whatever you say you say it very carefully and to my mind you really might be the first thinker which is a remarkable thing to say who laid out such a coherent view of what constitutes property that it makes it makes it possible to so clearly delineate what what is and what isn’t and no property rights theory before yours really was as thorough and it has a special application to the area of intellectual property so I mean the worldview of Hunter and Herman Hoffa has a profound explanatory power in the world of digital media for example the book has also a German predecessor that part part of the previous German book was called I can to mana he won’t start I incorporated into that but I have also certain things in that German book that I think I even better them then in that theory of socialism meant and capitalism sometimes you look back at your things you are just amazed that you did good things also when you were young yeah well I’ve read the book probably three or four times and and the first time you really think well he’s be points out that socialism is impoverishing whereas capitalism’s could you do a lot more than that there’s a lot of theory in that book and you have to really read it several times to in order to fully appreciate just what a substantive contribution that book really is Hans hopper thank you for sitting down with me for a few minutes there’s so much we could talk about and a half there’s time in the future before we close here though maybe should say something about your own society yeah I thought I founded that society as some sort of counterpart to the Mont Pelerin Society which refused to have me as a member for reasons that I do not want to develop on and the society is by invitation by invitation only I want to have it small I want to have it intimate I run it’s like a salon and want to assemble hardcore libertarians those bargains it is controlled by those people is controlled completely by myself with some good advisers that I have in the in the background but it also wants to have sympathizing conservatives politically incorrect conservatives who also personally nice individuals so that it is like a gathering of friends many of them come regularly every year and there’s always a small number of additional people rotating rotating people and our purpose is – yeah – I have intellectual entertainment stimulating entertainment to not be afraid to talk about any type of subjects even about subjects that sometimes would not be talked about it Ouisa sense it functions or at any other functions um you know people come back from your conference they always tell me they say you know Hans Hoffa is just the most fun guy ever he’s just a blast to be with which is a funny I think I think it I think it is not it’s not just me I don’t think I’m such a blast and fun person but I given that I’m off a try NORs on German I love to have people surround me that draws the best out of me and and contribute to the whole event being a big blast well I think you’re a blast and I’ve enjoyed visiting with you today thank you so much thank you so much you

76 thoughts on “Property, Freedom and Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

  • @richardcadbury To be fair, let's quote language preceding this text: "…in a covenant concluded among proprietors and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, …no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant … such as democracy and communism…. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal."

  • @PanzerDivisionBOM He mentioned "covenant" property but switched to "society"…. Also seems to be against homosexuals somewhat. I'm sure it's been exaggerated though.

  • Go Hoppe! Go Germany! The guilt trip is over, so feel free to ditch the Euro and your spendthrift neighbors. Link up with the serious people like Putin in Russia!

  • "A free trade zone only requires two sentences, 'whatever you want to ship out, you ship out, whatever you want to import, you can import.'" Thank you Mr Hoppe. Interesting that Europe is still free of free trade.

  • Nothing is more conducive to proper integration into the hegemonic ideologico-political community than a ‘radical’ past in which one lived one’s wildest dreams.

  • Hoppe references Eigentum, Anarchie und Staat everywhere. Does anyone know of any attempts in translating the book?

  • East Germany was still better than other Communist countries…. There was a lot of window dressing going on there…

  • Quick question: who did Greece cry to about getting a bailout?
    Answer: Ms. Merkel. Why? Because Germany's economy is the strongest out of all the Eurozone nations.

  • Welfare for the poor and rich… bailout… hundreds and thousands of work laws, warfare…

    thati s the "mises economic model "? Have you ever read a word of mises ? are you crazy, dude ?

  • "Listen lad, if the Nobel Price perpetually awarded economic thought worked, there would be no crises." – this is exactly what people from Misesian circles been saying for ages. Misesians (free market economists) have almost nothing in common with those interventionists who usually receive the Prize of Central Bank of Sweden (better known as Nobel Prize in Economics). And yes, Misesians say it is exactly because of their failed interventionist policies we have constant crisises..

  • Unfortunately I've never said anything like this. I said a) Austrians also say these prizes are worthless and b) policies proposed by those who received those prizes are the reason for constant crisises. I've never said Austrians are right because Keynsians are wrong, so if anyones logic is flawed it would be yours. Austrian school of economics comes from the human action and from this infers laws of economy. It perceives economy as a study of human action and not an empirical science. TBC

  • Cont1: ad 1) Austrians say that market is a dynamic self regulating system, but they don't say it is in equilibrium; ad 2, 3, 4) they don't say anything like this. I see you don't know Austrian approach very well, perhaps it is why you don't agree with it? I would recommend you to learn something about it, I think you might find it interesting. TBC

  • Cont2: Austrians base their approach on 3 assumptions:
    a) humans act
    b) they have their ends (goals)
    c) they use means to reach their ends (they choose best means possible – at least in their opinion).

  • What is full information? Can there be more information than all people on the market posses themselves? If no, then it is obvious that market contains full information, but none of the actors possesses it, so no central planning is possible and only decentralized, market decisions can be economical. And no one will never have fully free choice, because we live in a world of scarcity. I don't see where do you get your remaining points, they are nowhere near the Austrian school of economics.

  • Nope, full knowledge is not necessary for a free market to work. The opposite is true. Any entrepreneur must only control a subset of necessary information related to his subject. This makes market economy possible at all, because getting full information is impossible. People can say they want something, but until they act and make a choice (to get something means not to get something else), we know nothing. No info on products that were not there? Marker research and entrepreneurship.

  • You are comparing the flaws of the system as it is, with your own ideal system, which is completely abstract. Any system involving human beings will be imperfect. Your planned economy would be much worse, no matter how perfect it may look (to you, almost nobody else) information would be even more limited in a government planned economy.

    Overproduction and clearances are MUCH better, especially for the consumers, than shortages you get in planned economies. Look at Venezuela. Shortages.

  • In fact, markets are the way an economy copes with a world where it is impossible to obtain perfect knowledge. Your "planning" would destroy that in favor of your abstract ideal, which turns out to be much worse when put into practice.

  • you meant "pulled" the economy out of a depression. And it did not; it was the accumulated savings, protected from taxation during the second world war, that allowed for the boom in Private Product Remaining and the economic boom of the late 40's even as "real" GDP fell.

  • I said exactly what Hayek said. On the free market it is not necessary for any single entrepreneur to have complete knowledge of the market for the markets to work. Quite contrary, each entrepreneur only needs a handful of prices in order to be able to work efficiently. More to say, it is impossible for any single actor to posses such knowledge (even disregarding the enormous costs of gathering such data, parts of it will never be available to anyone but the final consumer).

  • As for unfulfilled needs. Some needs will go unfulfilled, there will never be a heaven on Earth. But it is not the point. Entrepreneurship is a talent of finding out what needs are not yet fulfilled and being able to organize capital in such a way, that those needs are indeed fulfilled. This is a basis of market action. You cannot make profit of a need, which is currently fulfilled, the only way is to find those not yet fulfilled. One of the tools is a market research, other is intuition etc.

  • This normal overproduction (or underproduction) is not really a problem, because overproduction is a wasted opportunity and incurs costs to an entrepreneur, so he will do everything to alleviate this problem. The real problem with overproduction comes to play only when there is a state intervention (like expansion of credit, subsidies and so on), which disrupt normal market discovery processes (price system). Then we have problems with overproduction, but it is not inherent to the markets.

  • You ignore the problem with a capital being heterogeneous. If you stimulate one branch of the economy, you are at the same time transferring capital from other branches of economy, which were originally chosen by consumers, and so you make everyone poorer. Aggregate demand of 100$ consisting of 80$ in shoes and 20$ in toothpaste is something completely different than 20$ in shoes and 80$ i toothpaste. But you cannot see this from an aggregate level. From an aggregate level all you have is 100$.

  • Government projects during 30's were destroying wealth, that's what they were doing. First the government destabilized economy with reckless (non-market) regulations (including monetary policy) and then tried to fix this by introducing even more disturbances into the market process. Thanks God they slashed spending and removed most of those artificial regulations just after WWII or USA would have another 10 (or more) years of depression.

  • You are mistaken. Have you heard about a Great Depression of 1920? No? No wonder, because government did nothing to "help", and so all the disturbances introduced earlier by the government were corrected and the market healed itself rather quickly. You cannot say the same about 1930's, where the Great Depression, caused by reckless government actions in 1920's, lasted for 10 years thanks to all the government programs aimed at "fixing" the economy.

  • Also I urge you to actually read something about Austrians, because your allegations were answered for like 1000 time already. Also you create some strawman arguments and criticize Austrians for things they never said or preach.

  • The role of government policies was to try and make consumers purchase goods from a capital structure that the consumers displayed their disfavor of through the stock market crash. And the boom following WWII occurred after a dramatic reduction of government spending. Most New Deal and Wartime spending was cut, and the programs initiated by the government immediately following the war was low by comparison. Even the higher taxes was less burdensome than the effect of new deal/ war spending.

  • well, they are among us – they teach our children, they deliver "information", they oversee finances and banking system… They will die of starvation after they'll rob last bread slice from us 🙁

  • In free market economy only those willing to take the risk suffer. The impact of such risky behavior is seriously limited which cannot be said about mass malivestments procured by states. The basic flaw of any (current) state is private-public central banking cartel joined with monopoly on money creating massive bubbles and making loses public (while retaining private profits). There always will be the risk, the key is not to include in it people who don't want to take it.

  • And who paid it back? Anything government spends must in the end be taken from tax payers. If he decided on what to spend, how much and when, then he took this decision from people, and so made them worse off. If you don't let people spend according to their own value judgments, you destroy wealth. And why was economy devastated? Doesn't it have anything to do with similar policies of Hoover and dramatic decisions made by the FED? Yes it does.

  • It was very short thanks to market forces being let by government to reallocate capital and focus on real investments as opposed to malinvestment resulting from disinformation created by the state. If you suppress prices (including interest rates) signals, you incentivise entrepreneurs to make bad decisions, because their judgment of the market is skewed. You cannot expect people to make good decision if you lie to them and this is nothing different.

  • Everytime you see IMF, World Bank and US Treasury, you might be sure there is nothing Austrian about it. Yes, they are talking about free markets but at the same time they give monopoly on money to the central bank, create this central bank and introduce mandatory cartelisation coupled with fractional reserve. Your point would be valid, if there was no central bank involved in any way. If there is, there is just a lot of talk and no walk. TBC

  • Cont 1: I know situation in Poland and Russia best, so I can say something about. It had very little to do with free markets and a lot to do with cronism and central planning. Please, read about Leszek Balcerowicz frozen dollar exchange rate, freezing resource prices in Russia, central banking, interest rates manipulation, self enfranchisement, stimulus loans and so on. Nothing good, nothing Austrian. I seriously encourage you to study Austrians at least a little, I think you might find TBC

  • Cont 2: them pretty interesting. I think the best book to start is "Economy in one lesson" by Henry Hazzlit. Also there is "Man, Economy and the State" by M. Rothbard or "Human Action" by Mises (I haven't read it yet, but I've heard it is really good). You will see where Austrians come from and you will see your arguments are really not a critique of an Austrian way, but rather of the neoliberals.

  • No, it has very little to do with democracy itself. Yes, democracy will promote such reckless behavior but it is not a part of democracy per se. Democracy is a form of a government. What this government does is another matter.
    And I don't agree about democracy fitting capitalism. If you are interested on a different take on this subject, I recommend you a book by Hans Hermann Hoppe called "Democracy: a god that failed". I've just finished it and I think it is very interesting.

  • Once again, you are talking about neoliberals, with which Austrians have very little to do. Austrians reach to classical liberal thinkers and are in opposition to the type of thinking represented by neoliberals. IMF, WB are completely against Austrian doctrine.
    They were not created to battle Marx (although they did criticize socialism a lot, for example Mises talking about impossibility of economic calculus in socialist economies), but their way of thinking of economy goes way back in history.

  • If you understand capitalism as a free market capitalism, then there is no way it could have failed, because there wasn't any in the first place. What we have today (and had for a long time now) is a fascism light. Seriously you cannot call a market free if it has almost 70000 pages of regulations (and central banking).
    Democracy is the worst system, when you want to have a free market. There is a book by Hoppe called "Democracy: a god that failed" which sheds more light onto it.

  • Maybe it is so in theory but in practice it looked quite different. Those at the bottom had no say whatsoever about what those at the top did and what they decided.

  • I agree that Eastern Europeans were robbed blindly and the process which was used was called privatization (and it was a privatization of a sort, but had nothing to do with what market economists would advise). The problem is after some reforms used by the establishment to steal as much as possible, the window of free market was shut and is being sealed even tightly with every day and every new "reform".

  • The definition of capitalism is I believe, the private ownership of means of production. Of course you are right in your premise, that capitalism is a wider term than free market capitalism and that some capital is reinvested over and over again in order to make the production more efficient. I don't see you point though. Could you elaborate a little?

  • Somewhat ironically Lenin destroyed the democracy of the soviets in the process of creating the "Soviet" state. The bolshevik take over of the rest of Russia outside strongholds like Moscow was through systematic vote rigging, intimidation, coercion & when necessary violence in the local workers councils forcing out other socialist parties. Bolshevism was never about democracy.

  • Take some time to know your opponents position otherwise you look stupid. & that video you posted the one I put up says nothing about markets needing full knowledge. While a comprehensive plan does or it fails. The rest of your criticism is tired 'anarchy of production' talk(which even Marx would agree is not chaos). Hayek would say so what? Socialism does not have the knowledge of relative scarcities needed to coordinate production. & so the raison d'être of Marxism dies.

  • You make an interesting point. Can you point me to a source that would elaborate more on this approach (in opposition to my definition)?
    As for slavery and feudalism, means of production don't include humans and their work (that would be factors of production), so my definition wouldn't include those. I could say they merely included some aspects of capitalistic system.

  • Ancaps would almost universally support you gaining land and suing it to set up a marxist community. Independent from current opressive governemnts.

  • The "lost opportunity" of East Germany's reunification with West Germany also applies to the fantasized mergers of North Korea and South Korea and Taiwan and China.

  • Destroy central banks and speculation and all life would improve from insects to humans. Destroy nano tech and 5 G and any sci fi psychopath experimenting on animals with torture to see if a hair dye is marketable….These mutant sub human robots have to be destroyed

  • Most academia is crap…Build a sailboat and circumnavigate the globe for an education…The shamans await your port o' call…

  • 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.

  • demokracy is fascism and commnuism and dumb burocrats aka judges lawyers n poltiicans directing thier betters and banker idiots gobbling up all NOtice how house can never be huge far apart and 1 yaer labor to buy

  • european control communism zone globalsits idiots free trade 2 sentences whatever u want to ship out and whatever want import go ahead

  • destory the EU and ban labor mobility break it up fuck that shit!! fuck lawyer scum and judges scum! tariff EU bigtime!!

  • EU always want same taxes everthing aka raise gov spending nto LOWER taxes to ireland rate!! and force in imigrants to push up real esate all ussury usury scam to steal all the real estae and keep it scarce!! tax only rent of real estate end otehr taxes and lwoer gov spending 99% and deregulate enforce baby license o tax moeny to anything but cop court defnes eand ban private law firms kick out all migrants stop ussury and tariffs and rent taax only two tax

  • 30:20 bizarre way of speaking trying to be very upper class? his pronouns sometimes slip, not talkign about gender bs either, he misuses some pronoun earlier

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *