My Discovery of Human Action and Mises as a Philosopher | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[@Anti-Stateradio]

Grateful to have Hans back in Auburn. He is a hero in private property rights, economic thought, and political theory.

[@julianlebaron1851]

Could not agree more, he is a hero in latin America to many people.

[@libertarianrevolution7026]

Hans was in Auburn, AL? I wish I could have been there.

[@Jeronimus8090]

Hans Herman Hoppe is BACK

[@SumLux]

Exatly... theory, just word without any value. He is a egocentric stupid intelectual

[@diebratwurst4507]

I am German and never heard of Mises, Hoppe or any Austrian, until Covid. Then, in my boredome I came across Milton Friedman(the common free market entry drug that soon got replaced) , KZbin algorithm did the rest. Without Covid, I m not shure if this would have happend. Thanks Hans, your birth was a unmeasurable gift to mankind I also want to say that I highly prefer the US Mises Institute to the German one

[@dimatvphoto]

That’s exactly my story as well. Interesting.

[@maurices5954]

Good to see this man still sharing his knowledge, so to speak.

[@petarsilic9191]

Hans is probably the best active intellectual in the world at this moment. By all his work, by the audience he attracts, by the impact he has on individuals. Absolutely great. btw. Ayn Rand's "collective guilt" means that because values are interconnected, in social dynamics, you inevitably contribute to bad things in society, and to that extent you're guilty. Without this context, "collective guilt" can be used as an excuse for war crimes. And that's what anti-objectivists/Kantians in ARI and ARCUK are doing today. In objectivism, all guilt is individually earned. There is neither "collective guilt", nor "collective".

[@maurices5954]

This collective guilt/collective punishment nonsense is precisely what made me unsubscribe to ARCUK after the oktober 7th events when it became clear that all the focus on future content would be directed into maintaining these anti-individual ideas. It has nothing to do with Objectivism.

[@rla927]

What is ARI and ARCUK?

[@DexterGraphic]

@@rla927 Ayn Rand Institute and Ayn Rand Centre United Kingdom

[@Maceta444]

It's probably a sly remark about Objectivists support for Israel.

[@rla927]

​@DexterGraphic thank you

[@99Nafets]

Outstanding 🖤💛

[@JCTCameThrough]

Hoppe is the GOAT

[@noSirIDontLikeIt]

Yessir!

[@Kwwmm]

The goat

[@Aureum94]

HHH ❤

[@jpkm123g9]

The Triple H of philosophy

[@maurices5954]

@@jpkm123g9 Hollywood Hulk Hogan, the triple H of wrestling 💪

[@francescomalvetani2679]

Ottimo Hoppe!❤

[@cryptoemcee]

Thanks!

[@joshuacrosby8176]

When I read the first part I found some amazing insights but they were swimming in a sea of arguments against unknown German schools of thought at the time.

[@Marshall1914]

💛🖤

[@maxw1794]

Does anyone know why Ayn Rand would be a proponent of collective guilt and collective punishment? (at 18:25)

[@peterpedersen3988]

@misesmedia I think, this is a very important lecture. Especially so for the history of ideas (with regards to the austrian school, of course). Is this also available as a text? Or is it going to be published somewhere? In the future, I might want to quote it, but I have a particular distaste for quoting youtube videos. 😄

[@marculino5882]

It will be published in a book, I guess

[@JustTheFactsReal]

It's been transcribed on Hoppe's website with a PDF too!

[@NavaidSyed]

For me, logic is far more important than rationalisation.

[@NavaidSyed]

You can never properly understand the effect without knowing the cause.

[@Gorboduc]

The search engines might want to know who the speaker is, no? Or is Triple H too spicy for the normie palette?

[@VoloBonja]

NATO is great

[@Cartersvillain]

Where is Walter?

[@joshuacrosby8176]

Out distributing collective guilt against non-Israelis.

[@joshuacrosby8176]

Are there still any actual Randians?

[@velvetcroc9827]

Intellectuals like Hoppe have always had a hard time understanding something elementary about life. Might is right. In a world with metal weapons and grain surpluses allowing for a division of labor there will always be a state because those two factors make it possible to force people to provide you stuff for free. Since virtually all people prefer free-riding to working there will always be some people daring and competent enough to force themselves on people that are less daring and competent. It doesn't matter that the state is a parasite. Parasites are products of nature too. Libertarianism is the pipe dream of a just world where no one free-rides on the labor of others. It is no less a Utopia than communism and in fact it is even more naive.

[@MadGBBR]

I really want to see him speak in person. Just don't think its practical in my situation unfortunately.

[@velvetcroc9827]

The philosophy of anarchism in its many individualistic/right-wing or socialistic/left-wing variations is founded on elementary misconceptions rooted in poor historical literacy: anarchists make the fundamental error of thinking that the state is a power that imposes itself on society from the outside, in the same way a gang imposes itself on its turf. That is not the case. Modern archeology has effectively confirmed the view of Frederick Engels who said that the state is a product of class struggles and not their cause. This has long been denied by the received wisdom that sees the state as a quasi automatic product of agriculture or urbanism. Thanks to advances in archeology the conventional view has been falsified. It is now abundantly clear that agriculture and urbanism are in fact far older than the state. It was thus not the state that created class divisions as bourgeois philosophers who for centuries lament the 'inequality' of civilization think. The state came to being as the result of class antagonisms that existed before the state. The correct way to view the state is this: it is the product of a society that has a reached a certain threshold in the means of its material reproduction. The manifestation of state structures is the practical admission that this society is torn in contradictions that it cannot resolve. These contradictions are caused by classes of people with opposing material interests. In order that these classes do not liquidate themselves and the whole of society in fruitless struggles, a power is required that presents itself as being on a higher plane than the rest of of society, with the task to keep the perpetually simmering class conflict in check, within the boundaries of civilized 'order' as it were. This power, a power that emerged from nowhere else but from the very bosom of society but which slowly and gradually became more and more alienated from the needs of society and from the needs of the individuals in society, is the state. And in fact both kinds of needs are two sides of the same coin. The left-wing anarchists are wrong to believe that the state exists to serve the needs of non-productive individuals at the expense of an otherwise productive and virtuous society and the right-wing anarchists are wrong to believe that the state exists to serve the needs of a non-productive society at the expense of otherwise productive and virtuous individuals.

[@sasaradetic2202]

What happened to you people? What do they put in your drinks?

[@kahwigulum]

whats with walter block being dismissed as a senior fellow lost my respect with that move

[@OrthoHoppean]

He's pro war.

[@renren.focalorsme]

theres a v. good & fair interview of walter block on michael malice's channel, (also a link there to hoppe's essay and walter's response.). worth a watch to see his views presented in the best light possible. hope sum1 can illuminate on the reasoning for the expulsion though

[@OrthoHoppean]

@@renren.focalorsme Hoppe's essay is the expulsion.

[@dks13827]

why were you a left winger ???

[@joepaluka9031]

Most people start out as left wingers, I think and then it dawns on them how stupid and wrong it is

[@JEP-Tech]

Social environment he was brought up in. It was the mainstream thought in Germany and among his family and friends at the time.

[@fadadu75]

This man would be in jail.

[@DaleBolender-ms7jl]

This guy is hopelessly confused ! Karl Popper was not a positivist ! He did not think a proposition could be verified ! Hoppe continues ranting this untruth every time I hear him speak !

[@Saimlordy]

He was even worse with his "falsifiability" criterion.

[@BoomBustProfits]

No… you are taking it out of context…he literally says tangentially or “on the side” popper belonged to that group, and that statement corresponds to the facts….Popper can be called a falsificationist if you want to split hairs, but here he is reffering to who the leading names of the times were associated with…

[@TheFeatInk]

If you've looked into Hoppe's writing, especially from his uni days, you'd know he was something of an expert on Popper and the epistemology of the Vienna circle and it's fellow travellors. I very much doubt that he could be "hopelessly confused" on the ideas of these philosophers.

[@peterpedersen3988]

@@BoomBustProfits​​⁠​​⁠ ​​⁠@TheFeatink I think the problem is that, if you were to ask him, he would, of course, know of the differences and nuances between the different approaches. But he always presents things as if the two schools of thought could be put into one category. - What he is criticising is, therefore, more of a tendency within academia, which is often encountered, although not necessarily and consistently argued for. You will often find that there are many people who follow both the position of Popper and of the logical positivists in their scientific approach, but they are often ignoring, or maybe not even knowing, that those two positions are incompatible with each other. This being said, Hoppe is not emphasizing this distinction between the originators of those positions, and their followers, whose practice it is that is often times naive, and should be criticised with the arguments that Hoppe makes. Again, the problem is his neglect of making this point clear, and thereby he is misleading other people into thinking that those two things are one and the same. In a sense, this can be seen as a strategic and even as a rhetorical device for the strenghening of the apriori position of Ludwig von Mises and his followers. But the problem is clear. Whether he is aware of it or not, remains an open question, but I find it very unlikely that he doesn't know of all this. What remains is the troubling problem that his depiction of it is very misleading to those who are not as educated as him.

[@skullmemes2535]

Hoppe explains why he doesn't call Popper a critical rationalist in his 2005 lecture on the austrian method