The Errors of Classical Liberalism | Hoppe

Hans-Hermann Hoppe delivers his first talk at the Mises Seminar in Sydney, 25-26th November, 2011. "The State - The Errors of Classical Liberalism". Welcoming remarks by Washington Sanchez | Neville Kennard introduction for Hoppe 4:43. Talk starts at 6:05.
mises.org.au

[@TheBansheeBomb]

Listening to Hoppe is always a pleasure.

[@theweresheepdog6446]

One of his best talks, _so to speak_ ...

[@RepublicConstitution]

Such a tragedy that this only has 28k views.

[@landwalker88]

Wow! I heard Tom Woods hyping this guy up on his podcast and not too surprisingly, Hoppe actually lived up to it! I always considered democracy the lesser of evils, but in one little video he changed my mind :O

[@Conza]

33:07 - Hoppe getting fired up :D

[@nachojimenez2420]

Hans Herman Hoppy. I love the complete disregard the Aussies/English have for the pronunciation of foreign words and names.

[@tanst99fl]

nacho jimenez - it's the same throughout the Anglosphere. They do it in America and Canada as well.

[@zombiedude347]

I've even heard it before pronounced Anz Erman Opper. All H's dropped and R added.

[@theweresheepdog6446]

I can speak and understand German as my fourth language, but I must say I also got surprise whenever I see people pronouncing it as "hOpa". The "a" sounding like clearly like the one in "father"..

[@zombiedude347]

The Weresheepdog. Well, that o vowel doesn't exist in some english dialects. Most in my area have the sound merged with the a in father (except before r and y).

[@theweresheepdog6446]

The capital "o" was meant just to represent the tonic vowel, since I don't know to to write with underline in KZbin... Sorry about that! What I said sounded like the "a" in "father" was the final letter, the "a" in "Hoppa"... My precarious knowledge of German tells me it should sound like an "e", (a _german e_ ) just as it's written, not like an "a"... :P

[@Conza]

43:18 - Public Law vs. Private Law

[@Conza]

47:50 - Monarchy vs. Democracy

[@davidward3848]

Politics isn't about who is right or wrong, but who has the most appealing insentives.

[@Alistarwormwood]

17:30 Literally "Finders Keepers' LOL

[@FreedomPhilosophyTV]

Wormwood even children get it

[@comfunc]

He is gliding over a hornets nest of problems. What if the first person to land in North America claims that he owns both North and South America? What if someone at the same time lands in California or South America and claims that? So he uses the device of "puts it to use". So what if I perceive that you are not using a copse on 'your' land, so cut down the trees and start farming it? So then you need an authorised and recognised institution ... and so the story goes on. I like Hoppe, but just want to be clear that this aspect is just a rough approximation.

[@ChimpOnComputer]

Hoppean principles should be applied by localities first before anyone even thinks of them ever being adopted nationally or even state wide. And that goes for any principles or ideals or strategies in political things. It's how they got ahold of their current seats, and as much as many want to just throw out the seats and rugs from under them, I can't see how that can happen until the majority of local positions are already filled with, and every mandate, decree, and unreasonable and absurd restriction or regulation is repealed. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. The hoppean snake must return.

[@Conza]

42:00 - Equality Before the Law

[@caiofdacosta]

thanks for marking it!

[@ExpensiveGun]

The introducer grossly mispronounced his name.

[@Ben-xj2rf]

ExpensiveGun hoppy

[@GeorgWilde]

Immagine Robinson Crussoe with a lot of paper money. It's value outside the coercive apparatus of the state would be made explicit instantly.

[@AJ-tr5ml]

Hans Herman Hop Hans Herman Hoppa Hans Herman Hoppy His name has been pronounced, so to speak, in many different ways.

[@Conza]

41:10 - Specific Errors of Democratic States

[@ChrisAthanas]

11 years later covid makes this talk all too prescient

[@Conza]

54:09 - Kings as Bad Guys

[@undefinido]

this guy ancaps

[@lonely_ocelot]

Wish i could be there in person

[@brucecanzoli3423]

based

[@hippyer]

Where is the 2nd part to his talk?

[@gledatelj1979]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZnqogqCrlq-Ym9k

[@XxLeatonSxX]

@@gledatelj1979 Thank you so much

[@Conza]

47:18 - Predictions Under Democratic Conditions

[@anderslarsen4100]

HHH rocks!

[@s0lid_sno0ks]

starts at 6:00

[@errorcode99]

32:48 "ze protection of life, property and ze pursuit of happiness from domestic violence" *COUGHS* "and from foreign aggression" *DRINKS WINE* . 100% savage. (by savage, i mean civilized)

[@danielbowman7226]

In Czechoslovakia restitutions happened. People got their houses back at least.

[@ItsMeChillTyme]

Did not happen in Germany. East German rulings were upheld, as Hoppe mentions in his book, by West Germany one the reunification happened.

[@CIARUNSITE]

But if they're fighting with bullets and all you have are ideas...

[@mrhfrc8470]

If only these poor chaps knew what was waiting for them....

[@xingyuzhou1891]

Quarantine go "brrr"

[@theGuilherme36]

"Mises" Seminar

[@LibertyAus]

Care to elaborate on that? conza.tumblr.com/tagged/misesvoluntarist

[@johnsader1773]

2x speed perfect

[@CRegensche1n]

Things are not looking so bright today eh?

[@LibertyAus]

In what sense? The advice hasn't been adhered to?

[@professionalmexican7919]

​@@LibertyAusI guess they are referring to the Qurantine and what not.

[@vladratzen7319]

lets play devils advocate. somebody could argue that the intoduction of rules itself can be a source of conflict. Hoppe says we make rules to avoid conflict. Hoppe takes it for granted that his rules do avoid conflict. i say, to introduce a rule which makes it possible that a natural resource can only used by its owner, might be the source of a conflict. imagine a town which has only one source of fresh water. if this resource is owned by the person who found this resouce, he could say that you have to pay for it, if you want to use it. why should anbody pay for water, which was not produced by its owner? it was alleready there. it was provided by nature. while it makes perfect sense to pay money for something which has to be produced or delivered, because its done by manual labour, there is no reason to pay money for something nature provided. i takes money away from everybody. it makes everybody a little bit poorer. we allready know: destroying windows on purpose does not make us ritcher. instead, it takes money away which otherwise could be used to increase the standard of living. somebody might say "buying water also increases the standard of living", but you could make exactly the same argument about the broken windows, right?

[@InhabitantOfOddworld]

Trouble with this argument; 1) it presumes the water itself is clean; if it's dirty and muddy water filled with parasites, and someone offers to clean it in return for some remuneration, then the others have a choice; accept better cleaner water for a price or choose free dirty water to do with as they wish 2) it presumes that people make rules for the sake of rules; by this I mean, your example clearly lays out a monopoly on water. If this were a business, then arbitary rules that work to ensure your consumer base either pay or die of thirst would work to ensure your business fails. It's self-defeating. If this were a state, then it's a king letting his own people die or it's a government letting it's voters die. Either way it's a very turgid argument that doesn't play into reality very well.

[@trystdodge6177]

Everyone pays for water. This is a false argument. In a city you pay your water bill. In a rural setting you pay to install a well, and are responsible for maintaining it and the electrical bill. What you are describing is what already exists that is city water service. As if this system is any more accountable to the population than a system where the provider of the water directly accountable to its customers. You are correct in you assumptions about the lack of competition in a monopolized water service just not seeing the forest for the trees, so to speak.

[@leandrosanchez1212]

Trial by jury here i solved the issue you had with the judiciary

[@davedavis4705]

Id rather have fascism

[@goldone4968]

John R you have swallowed the propaganda of the left. Classical liberalism is the opposite of facsism - which runs on coercion and theft and is therefore part of the left.

[@davedavis4705]

The only propaganda i was taught was through liberal schools. Fascist thought was suppressed at every stage. Yet, i am sympathetic to fascism through my own study. A presupposition of liberalism is that public power needs to be limited but private power does not. Private power through a parliament creates oligarchy and plutocracy. The classical def. of tyranny is public officials using thier position for private gain, private interest. There needs a power greater and independent of the merchant class and that power must represent all parts of a functional nation. Not tyranny of any single function. We can no longer seperate morality from the economy. I dont view this from the left but from the right. Capitalism and liberalism is a revolutionary leftwing, my friend. Organic, integrated society dominated by a spiritual and military order is rightwing, from monarchies and before

[@goldone4968]

Dave Davis sorry, but you've not figured it out. The smaller the goverment and greater the freedoms of the individual, the more "right wing" the system. Your fascism is based on the EXACT same (criminal) principles as any other form of lefty tyranny - theft and the use of force. Fascism puts the group above the infividual because it is as collectivist as any other form lefty scumbaggery. It is absurd to suggest that classical liberalism is left. Good luck!

[@davedavis4705]

Only absurd if the only thing you know is American politics from this century. So youre teling me ancient and medieval tripartite systems of government are all leftwing? Thats ridiculious.

[@davedavis4705]

Exactly. Theres a reason liberalism teamed up with communism. Capitalism and marxian- socialism are two sides of the same modernist materialist coin benefiting the same revolutionary merchant class. Liberalism NOT RIGHT WING.