A Private Law Society | Hoppe

Hans-Hermann Hoppe delivers his second talk at the Mises Seminar in Sydney, 25-26th November, 2011. A Private Law Society.

[@danielwo106]

the greatest genius on earth!

[@prestonhunter6709]

Instablaster...

[@libertarianspirit]

8:20 - He is talking about riots in London. Now we have whole 2020 mess. I wish more people listen these lectures.

[@TheSkullConfernece]

When people hear the arguments for private law and protection, they always criticize it because it sounds too good to be true. It's does sound that way doesn't it? That's because it's an immensely superior way to create order in society. The mechanics of the market will always be superior to extortion. Now, I'm not naive enough to think some kind of utopia will arise because of this change, like so many accuse libertarians of thinking, but I do admit that I have a hard time imagining crime happening with such a superior system. Obviously, libertarians wouldn't advocate for complete freedom of gun and protection acquisition if they thought people were to behave, but the thing is, if everybody was armed and had great preemptive measures against criminals, then the crime rate would plummet the further time progresses.

[@radcappropertarian1707]

The Private-law society is the only alternative to globalism/social-democratic corporatism

[@gennaronolano5356]

27:40 my man is sipping on the wine

[@LibertyAus]

Haha, *cheers!*

[@privateer1839]

Hans Is the most important German since Martin Luther.

[@enacku]

[@doofmoney3954]

Hoppe is such a merry fellow

[@Nina-hj9jx]

A true genius

[@stupidtreehugger]

Excellent and thought provoking. Danke sehr for sharing. 00:47:00 How arbiters would be chosen. I wonder what happens if no mutually acceptable arbiter is chosen? What would a malefactor to arbitration? What would prevent unilateral action groups forming themselves regardless of insurance?

[@stupidtreehugger]

Alexander LegisNonScriptae If the maxim holds that, on the internet, views are inversely proportional to educational value, then this programme is right up there with the greats! :-)

[@senselessnothing]

You posted this a while ago so I feel a bit bad for responding but I want to address your question. From my point of view the choice of arbiters is made contractually in one way or another(be it all locals do it or a service from a company offers it), not just to resolve the issue, but also to avoid violence and escalation of the case and the massive damage potential it poses. If someone is found to systematically cause problems people can voluntarily ostracize them or literally hunt them down according to their tastes, similar to how historical societies with minorities they perceive to cause damages either ostracize or decimate the minorities. Societies have perceptions of fairness themselves through the people that represent them, having a sole bureaucratic system to dictate absolutes of fairness among people who disagree with each other is a terrible idea. It's late, hopefully it makes sense.

[@GallaiTamas]

The choice of arbiters is quite easy. The injured party or the plaintiff picks an advocate or attorney or whatever you may call a legal representative or a lawyer who practices law in the respective legal field of any case. That lawyer should know the market of legal practice not just in advocacy but in arbitration as well. So the injured party's advocate will chose one arbiter. That arbiter calls the tortfeasor or the defendant for trial so he too choses an advocate and his advocate will propose a second arbiter. If the parties have nothing against the arbiter choices, the two arbiters will choose a third one to be the chairman or president of the tribunal of their case. If both parties accept the third arbiter, then the tribunal hears the case and passes a verdict unanimously. Then the tribunal proceeds to enforce its verdict via a suitable enforcement agency.

[@Trump-ty9nj]

say it 100x!! MORE guns mean LESS crime!! say to 400x more!

[@peterrossi3349]

And living for ever

[@peterrossi3349]

By what athletes

[@mll8601]

20:40

[@peterrossi3349]

Golden measures

[@spencerroyal4109]

Read Frédéric Bastiat.. The Law..

[@peterrossi3349]

Enlightenment

[@peterrossi3349]

We been writing laws since Abraham

[@TheSkullConfernece]

Far longer than that.

[@spencerroyal4109]

Read the Bible...it is setup by the Lord. You live and breath by his permission. At His will, and his decree one's days are numbered and cannot live one extra day more than that which He gives.

[@peterrossi3349]

So do we die

[@peterrossi3349]

Depending on the words

[@peterrossi3349]

We must agree on a mesh mask

[@peterrossi3349]

Who paid taxes

[@peterrossi3349]

If you’re charged me

[@peterrossi3349]

A father in Portland asked his son for one

[@peterrossi3349]

Who paid bills

[@peterrossi3349]

On a record republic bits coins

[@peterrossi3349]

Let him debate hunter

[@CRegensche1n]

Dude you can just answer to your own comments 😄

[@peterrossi3349]

Judge vs ethics

[@peterrossi3349]

Do you respect other humanity

[@peterrossi3349]

No faking gold

[@Nitrousatoll]

Daddy

[@peterrossi3349]

Others barn burning

[@peterrossi3349]

Your fired

[@peterrossi3349]

Is jerk a crime

[@Trump-ty9nj]

cut gov spending 99% and cancel laws :) constituion only law :) yeaheheaheah!! burn lawyers! cancel psychology as a field same for sociology

[@wackyywaferjg6486]

Trump 2020 i hope you meant psychiatry instead of psychology. Jordan Peterson is a psychologist and his knowledge definitely has value. It is the psychiatrists who manipulate people into drugs, prolong their issues, and thus enslave them.

[@walesdoesntsuck6635]

@police-and-military-are-welfare-whores I like your name

[@rickydavis211]

@police-and-military-are-welfare-whores Enjoy your tds

[@peterrossi3349]

We paid taxes

[@danyvarna5094]

That's a lot of navel gazing! :-/ Analyzing incentives is a very intelligent thing but the total lack of understanding of aggression as a competitive advantage, of group dynamics, of intergenerational goals as a source of individual life satisfaction and the autistic focus on the self to the point of total blindness to anything other then the self demonstrated in this talk is staggering! How many of you here have ever even been in a significant fight or have spouses, children and a loving extended family? :-/ Christopher Cantwell is right about you!

[@senselessnothing]

From an economic (and more general) perspective a society without any form of aggression is to be desired. That does not mean that people won't kill each other.

[@TheSkullConfernece]

You should read Ludwig Von Mises' "Human Action"

[@danyvarna5094]

@@senselessnothing , aggression is a part of vigour. Do you lack vigour?

[@danyvarna5094]

@@TheSkullConfernece, I have. His premise is wrong. His classically liberal (and quite typical for his tribe's mentality) interpretation of human nature has obviously failed. I remind you that we have brains so that we can think. We can read books but if we do not analyze the information with which we are presented, they are useless. Is it possible that your endorsement of his views may have something to do with the fact that you're probably from a developed society in which you think that you're in competition mostly with your own groups members, and in which you may not perceive members of other groups as actual competitors (thus preferring to see them as possible allies) as a result of your groups former total dominance?

[@senselessnothing]

@@danyvarna5094 damn, you can't read for sht

[@franciscogerardohernandezr4788]

I politely disagree on the gun topic. No common group of civilians is trained enough to face organised crime. These are basically military mercenaries.

[@TheSkullConfernece]

They would be better off armed than not, obviously.

[@franciscogerardohernandezr4788]

@@TheSkullConfernece Civilians with guns are a danger to everyone if they snap. Tell otherwise to the families of the El Paso shooting. Access to such destructive power demands stringent training and scrutiny, filtering out people signaling specific markers. As a somewhat related example , in the UK, even having bipolar tendencies prohibits you from getting a driver's license. I think in the US under some circumstances a car is considered a deadly weapon, so a similar criteria should be adopted to gun ownership. May God bless our leaders in these dark times. Respect and stay safe.

[@ruanweber]

so, you are saying that bandits have ilegal guns and can shoot civilians like sheep without a chance of defense? A person with a gun cannot train? is that it? of course they can train and become more prepared...

[@davidlewis6728]

@@franciscogerardohernandezr4788 "No common group of civilians is trained enough to face organised crime" "Civilians with guns are a danger to everyone if they snap" so... no group of untrained civilians are a danger to trained bandits, but a single unhinged, untrained civilian is a danger to everyone, including trained civilians, and the likelihood and/or risk of them snapping is high enough to justify preventing any civilian from having a gun if they aren't trained, or don't have a background check? every piece of historical data, and every argument that stands up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny would suggest that gun control is less than useless. an armed society is a polite society, even if untrained civilians who can't rub two braincells together to figure out how to point a barrel towards the bad guys, or to flip a switch on the side of a gun to the "don't shoot" setting. besides, manufacturers will build safety into the design of the gun more in a system that promotes more people have them, else they might gain a reputation for poor design. insurance agencies will give discounts to trained civilians who can reliably defend themselves, as Hoppe explained at 42:00, but assuming worst case scenario, you are still wrong because most civilians aren't braindead, and aren't prone to snap, and even if they were, an armed society would deal with them much more effectively than any system with gun control. also, literally impossible to prevent bandits from accessing guns. you are disarming law abiding civilians to prevent criminals from getting them legally, as if criminals care about the law. the UK is such a peaceful, ideal place that terrorist attacks almost never happen, right?

[@franciscogerardohernandezr4788]

@@davidlewis6728 its too long to read, send me a pdf and book a holiday, life goes on.