/lit/ - Literature

>>22929434

Recommend me some AnCap/Libertarian books.

>solves economics
>solves politics
>solves philosophy

please attempt to refute a single one of this handsome gentleman's statement's.

Serious question,
is a Hoppe a pseud or is he based?

where do I start with this gentleman's body of work?

what the fuck is his problem?

It's literally impossible to argue against him.

Do you like his books?

What do you think about his philosophy and his view on economics?

>>16945000
The social elite are leftists through and through and use their influence and power to propagate leftist ideas through corporations, the government beau acracy, and academia. These people are in no way capitalists.

Umm, yeah, I'm thinking that's based
https://mises.org/wire/new-hoppe-book

Is he right about anything?

Who are some writers/philosophers alive today that will be viewed as timeless within a hundred years?

Still unrefuted to this day.

>>15714960
>we're never going to agree on these autistic of norms his
We will agree, once people like you stops existing.

Did Hoppe solve politics or are his argumentation ethics refutable?

what books refute democracy? I've already read Hoppe and Plato

>>14743115
refuted by Rothbard and Hoppe

Intended as a contribution to this great thread, I present a logical proof of impossibility of democracy that permanently REFUTES this vicious system
1) The decision process must always and everywhere concern scarce resources - this is trivially true always and everywhere, where there is no scarcity of resources there need not be any decission concerning the allocation of said resources.
2) Resources of the earth are scarce, hence the need for an allocative system.
3) In Western liberal democracies decissions concerning the allocation of scarce resources are made in two different ways - by means of the market or of democracy.
4) The market allocates resources where they produce the greatest return on investment, democracy allocates resources where the majority of people want them to be allocated. Thus unless there is complete equality amongst peoples the allocation achieved through voluntary market exchanges and through democratic process will differ considerably from one another.
5) Democracy could be therefore summarized as a system of "rule of majority". This is a necessary simplification if our proof is to be short and concise. Furthermore, we restrict our analysis to direct democracies. Although most Western countries are representative democracies, this will not hinder our analysis greatly as the reasoning presented herein is universal and abstracted from the particular form a democracy may assume.
6) Suppose you were trying to create a constitution of a democratic state or community (notice that by extending our analysis to non-statist societies, we refute the claims of """anarchists""" that their """anarchism""" is the only proper form of democracy). Techincally speaking the only necessary rule that must constitute a democracy is the statement that "state/community X is a democracy and all other decissions are made through democratic voting process"
7) But since in a democracy it is the will of majority that makes a decission legitimate, the statement "state/community X is a democracy" is not legitimate since this statement was not decided upon through democratic process! Therein lies our predicament - democracy cannot possibly assert itself because the statement "state/community X is a democracy" cannot be a subject of democratic voting. We cannot make this statement legitimate through voting because the sentence "state/community X is a democracy" needs to be true for majority's will to be decissive and we cannot assume that this statement is the only one that is not decided upon through non-democratic voting because that is arbitrary - why just this statement and not some other ones?

>>14234916
>free market fanatic
he argued for a prototype version of UBI, claiming that it would make the market more "democratic" because with this payment more people would have their economic voice heard (not sure why not go for the extreme and simply organize economy around the ballot but there you go with your "libertarian" Hayek)
>rabid anti-communist
1950s US was rabidly anti-communist too and yet many of their policies were definitely not libertarian (progressive taxation, central banking etc.)
>wrote political philosophy books justifying libertarianism
you don't know the shit about libertarianism so I wouldn't expect you to know precisely how and why Hayek did not defend a consistently libertarian position
>rabid Keynes hater
Marxists also hated Keynes because he presented the powers that be in the West with a cure for economic recessions which (according to Marx) were supposed to become increasingly painful for the working class and culminate in a proletarian revolution, I guess that somehow makes Marxists libertarians in your brainlet mind? also factually incorrect - Hayek embraced neo-Keynesianism in the late 70s unable to defend his capital theoretic position on trade cycles, he more or less agreed with the Keynesian position on deflation and only warned against excessive deficites during the boom period of the cycle (which is something even Keynes would do)

this fag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgMrtVRJ2JA

>>9345806
Got's an problem's???

>>6960470
The situation was fully hopeless. His only other alternative was to surrender to Caesar. Cato, the hero as always, would much rather be thrown out of a window, as per in his childhood, than surrender to Caesar.

Adding to this; Cato wouldn't have had the same legacy left after him.