What do you think about Hoppe works?

[Anonymous No.16973331]

Do you like his books?

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

[Anonymous No.16973335]

>>16973331
He was handsome

[Anonymous No.16973499]

>>16973331
I hoppe his work is forgotten like it deserves to be

[Anonymous No.16973505]

>>16973499
/thread

[Anonymous No.16973530]

>>16973499
Ok, I respect that.

But: Why?

Why you don't like his books? In what you disagree?

[Anonymous No.16973544]

>>16973530
Well I disagree with the Austrian school of economics for one, I'd advise you to look at the falling rate of profits

[Anonymous No.16973635]

>>16973544
>falling rates of profits
Zoomers really get all their pseud talking points from the same youtuber huh

[Anonymous No.16973660]

>>16973544
Classical economists saw it as something positive, because in this way there would be greater social welfare (which there is), now profits are highly variable, and the rate of surplus value is not the same (which actually refers to the greater use of labor force or overtime) than the Marxist rate of profit (which is profit itself) this because surplus value defined as Marx, is not profit but production, and also that the profit rate is always less than the capital gains rate, which implies that GOODWILL IS NOT EARNINGS.

Like Böhm-Bawerk say

And in classical terms it is completely illogical for the rate of profit and interest to destroy the system, since capitalism is not an entity that moves only as Marxists see the invisible hand, but an intersubjective set of decisions

[Anonymous No.16973678]

>>16973331
I feel as if his religion would lead to furthering corporate power over society. I feel like corporate power is largely unaccountable with the advanced ad and media institutions of today. I don't believe it would provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. That is my condition for a political or economic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16973679]

>>16973331
I like his criticism of democracy and his defense of ostracism as a tool to keep social order, but I disagree on his politics and a large part of his economics.

[Anonymous No.16973723]

>>16973679
>But I disagree on his politics and a large part of his economics
I'm interested. I want to hear, in what exactly you disagree?.

[Anonymous No.16973732]

>>16973678
Fine anon

[Anonymous No.16973780]

>>16973723
He proposes an anarchist libertarian society, which could not work on modern nation-states, but only on a very small scale, like towns or villages. That's not suitable for the modern world.
About his economics, completely unregulated markets would end up on disaster and monopoly, and there would be no state to break it.

[Anonymous No.16973829]

>>16973499
based

[Anonymous No.16973887]

>>16973780
>He proposes an anarchist libertarian society, which could not work on modern nation-states, but only on a very small scale, like towns or villages. That's not suitable for the modern world.
I agree, but you should remember anarchocapitalism wasn't made for a big nations. Private property means exclusivity and inequality. Not for the collectivity.

>About his economics, completely unregulated markets would end up on disaster and monopoly, and there would be no state to break it.
Natural monopolies? Of course, that isn't bad like the State monopoly.
Also show one example where the State break a monopoly.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16974017]

>>16973331
Dumber than Rand.

[Anonymous No.16974109]

>>16973331
>What do you think about his philosophy and his view on economics?
I think that he is smart, but it would be better that his followers were as smart as him, since they are all but nigger pol monkeys and jews. I think his economic view is good, maybe right, but I don't like his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16974182]

>>16974109
>>16974109
OP here.

I think exactly like you. Most ancaps are dumb as fuck, but the Austrian School is actually really good, especially Hayek and Mises.

I think the lack of math is part of why there are so many dumb ancaps. The books are really easy to read, especially compared to some advanced Macro or Microeconomics books.

[Anonymous No.16974367]

>>16974182
Then we don't think the same. I think Hayek and Mises are niggers too; their philosophy is not even close to that of Plato or Aristotle, having 2400 years of advantage. Austrian School is the most retarded and shilled intellectual school of history; Hope is right because he knows capital can't be transformed by failed ideologies/philosophies, but by new ones that have interiorized capital enough so it don't become continental garbage without becoming austrian jew dicksuckers too

[Anonymous No.16974856]

>>16973331
His critiques of democracy are very good but are worded pretty autistically.
his whole ancap society is retarded though. the ancap ideology would only allow for quantitative hierarchies to exist like "i have more property than you" but would consider qualitative hierarchies like "i am your king" to be a violation of the nap, but the world is driven by qualitative hierarchy even in things as fundamental as language, so its absurd to reject the idea.
his economic views are pretty silly at times as well, it seems that hes applying his own rationality onto every economic agent and just assumes that they will act rationally enough to coordinate and prevent machiavellians from abusing economic means to create power centers that would quickly violate the nap.
the nap itself is ridiculous anyway because of the fundamental nature of power, it being hidden in things like language, as mentioned before. humans function in relation to power, thats why social order has always been derived from some form of leadership, even markets themselves have several prerequisites that can only be fulfilled by power. things like a high trust society, use of a universally accepted currency, specific social imperatives against theft, deception and fraud.
Overall hoppe is worth his analysis of the functions of democracy and monarchy, but philosophically and economically hes completely useless.

[Anonymous No.16974872]

>>16974856
its a common theme that ancappers have good critiques of systems, but offer no viable solution. I liked and disliked Ayn Rand for that reason as well.

[Anonymous No.16975132]

>>16974856
>>16974856
This is by far the best critique I have ever seen against the whole Austrian School.

Then what do you recommend instead of the Austrians?