There are some things in the world that are goddamn worth making people uncomfortable about. I’m sorry that taxation is theft. It’s not my fucking fault that that’s a fact. I’m sorry that fiat currency is counterfeit into generational theft and fraud. That’s not my fault, I didn’t invent it, I didn’t make it it wrong, don’t shoot the messenger. It’s not my fault that two and two make four, it’s not my fault that there’s no god, it’s not my fault that governments are immoral. It’s not my fault that public schools are indoctrination. It’s not my fault that people are lied to and other people kiss and lick the boots of those who lie.
Hans Hermann-Hoppe is Jürgen Habermas’ most surprising doctoral student, a major figure in the area where anarcho-capitalism and ultra-conservatism cross over. Hoppe wrote a doctorate with the Frankfurt School Marxist, Habermas in the 1970s. Hoppe is not very forthcoming about this, as can be seen by checking his CV at his own website, but does situate himself in relation to Habermas in his book „The Ethics and Economics of Private Property”. The startling conjunction of Marxism and Anarcho-Conservatism is a bit lessened if we appreciate Habermas’ position as a bridge between left-liberalism and Marxism, so that he can be better regarded as someone who has domesticated Marx within welfarist or egalitarian liberalism, rather than as an advocate of revolutionary Marxism.
Hoppe takes up the discourse ethics of Habermas (and Karl-Otto Apel) which is itself an attempt to fuse a neo-Kantian ethics of pure universal law with an account of language use and communication as what attempts universal meaning. Habermas takes discourse ethics up in a ‘deliberative democracy’ in which all social and economic questions are debated in a public sphere so that agreement can be reached upon a political solution, within the limits of the existing legal and constitutional structure. Hoppe’s take on this is that discourse ethics must rest on the individual’s self-property in the individual’s body. The right to dispose of that naturally given property is taken as something that we cannot try to deny in discourse, without getting into self-contradiction since the source of discourse is the self which necessarily has property in its body as an aspect of being an individual self.
Since libertarians see governments not as vehicles for social service but as instruments of organized violence, the question is not simply what values or priorities a community ought to express through the state, but what values or priorities, if any, can legitimately be imposed on nonconsenting parties by means of overwhelming force. While libertarian theorists are commonly accused of simply devaluing, or disregarding, the realm of public goods or shared social projects, this is simply a misunderstanding of the kind of normative boundaries that libertarians bring to questions of social organization. To deny that a task should not be taken on by the state is not to deny that it ought to be taken on by consensual society. And although a social good may be worth having in itself, it may notbe worth hurting or killing folks to attain it. When libertarians insist that nonconsensual political relationships aren’t acceptable means for a given social good, the conclusion to be drawn is not that we should simply forget about it, but rather that the hegemony of the state over that area of public life needs to be dissolved, and responsibility for that good should be devolved, and taken up by, the creativity of individual people, grassroots community conventions, or consensual social organization.
Reputation is very important but you don’t own it because your reputation consists of the thoughts of the rest of us – not what you think of yourself but what we think of you. And you don’t own our thoughts. Therefore, paradoxically, you don’t own your reputation.
There’s a tendency to get hostile while discussing politics in general because (…) when you’re discussing politics in most political discussions, people do realize on some level that you’re threatening them with violence.
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.
Utilitarianism is forwarded generally by people who want to convince you to respect their rights while they have no intention of respecting your rights. They want to reduce your competition for their disrespect of rights. (…) The way they do that is they pretend, well you and me are basically just the same. (…) So if it’s good for you, yeah, it’s good for me, it’s good for everyone. But there is just the same in society. Society is a warring and battling ecosystem of competing interests, and oposing interests, and so on.
For years I’ve been trying to get the left and libertarians at least to talk to one another, and, in my experience, every libertarian I’ve talked to has been really interested in doing that, and 90% of the leftists I’ve talked to have been not at all interested in that. You know why? Because „libertarians are evil”.
[Naomi Klein] did this documentary film called „The Take” (…) – factory workers in Argentina who took over the factory when the boss left. The boss went bankrupt and left, so the workers took over the factory and started operating it themselves. Of course, to Naomi Klein and the left that’s a wonderful thing. Wow, that’s great, that’s worker’s ownership, they can do whatever they want there, control it.
So in the course of the interviews with the workers she says, „so what’s your day like now?”
And the guy was like, „well, so we work the same work that we did before, same shift, seven, eight hours, and then we have meetings after work to manage the factory.”
„So how long does these meetings last?”
„Well, you know, managing is a lot of work, so we’re often up until midnight, two in the morning, talking about how to run the factory. You know, it’s wonderful, we work so much more now, it’s so great to own this fac…”
That’s why I left socialism. I used to be socialist but that’s why I became anti-socialist. I get all these arguments about that it’s not efficient, no incentive, blah, blah, blah. All good arguments. My argument against it is, it’s too much fucking work. You gotta work all day (…) then you’ve got to manage the factory you’re working in, meetings, and it doesn’t stop there. It’s just starting. Then you gotta manage the town, then you gotta manage the state, then you gotta manage the country you live in, then you gotta manage the world. I don’t know when we’re gonna do anything for fun.
That’s why, I’ve argued, socialists are very puritanical. If you look at history of social thought, fiercely puritanical. And it’s not because they’re necessarily bad people, but because their ideology requires it.
What about men doing pornography with men? There is a problem with anti-pornographic movement (…) No one is trying to stop gay porn. Here’s a thing. Unless you’re sort of a fucking churchgoer and you think that homosexuality is evil, there’s no movement to stop gay guys from making gay porn. No men are out there going, we need to stop these gay men from abusing each other in gay porn.