Hoppe on the Alt Right

[Speaker to Animals]

@daralon
I don't think a 'state' can 'be eager' to do anything. People within the state can be eager to exert more control, so a good state will have rules that check that impulse.

I think you and I basically agree that Hobbes > Hoppe.

Hobbes was pretty clever. If you take all the basic axioms of atheism for granted, that's pretty much what follows.

[heydaralon]

@daralon
I don't think a 'state' can 'be eager' to do anything. People within the state can be eager to exert more control, so a good state will have rules that check that impulse.

I think you and I basically agree that Hobbes > Hoppe.

I like Hobbes. He is like Machiavelli. People essentially shoot the messenger but the dude was telling it like it is. He lived through a civil war for christ sake. He saw people at their worst imo.

You are right that the "state" is just the current group of people in power (be it a oligarchy, dictatorship, or a democracy) and their attitudes. The problem with rules to check these impulses is that since clever people made these rules, other clever people will find ways to get around them. Think about the White House Council or Office of Legal Council. Whatever you think of their ethics, these people are top notch lawyers who basically have the job of providing legal justification for any and all things the president does. They read the constitution in a very legalistic way, and supposedly got around the torture prohibitions post 9/11 by pulling out a dictionary and citing the definition as "permanent physical harm." They reasoned that as long as the interrogation does not cripple the person for life, go for it. I'm not going on a rant about gitmo, I'm just saying that laws and institutions can only curb impulses so much. People have a natural inclination to do what they want to do, and steamroll over legal niceties that get in their way. That's just how it is. It sucks, because I am disturbed by a lot of stuff our government does, but I don't imagine in the future we will revert back to some constitutional utopia. I wish there was a solution, but I'm not smart enough to think of one.

[heydaralon]

A private mercenary army can enforce contracts as well as any state.

What happens when the private mercenary army sets themselves up as the new state?

That's exactly what would happen. Don't worry dude, we won't call it a state bc we are libertarians. Its not a law, its a contract etc.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

@daralon
I don't think a 'state' can 'be eager' to do anything. People within the state can be eager to exert more control, so a good state will have rules that check that impulse.

I think you and I basically agree that Hobbes > Hoppe.

MUH "GOOD" STATE

CHECK MUH IMPULSE

I don't think you really want to live in a world where there isn't a third party with a monopoly on violence to check muh impulses.

Or, do you really want to live in a world where you have to hire a personal escort to defend against muh impulses at great personal expense?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

@daralon
I don't think a 'state' can 'be eager' to do anything. People within the state can be eager to exert more control, so a good state will have rules that check that impulse.

I think you and I basically agree that Hobbes > Hoppe.

Hobbes was pretty clever. If you take all the basic axioms of atheism for granted, that's pretty much what follows.

I should very much like my state to take the basic axioms of atheism for granted, even if they aren't true.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

@daralon
I don't think a 'state' can 'be eager' to do anything. People within the state can be eager to exert more control, so a good state will have rules that check that impulse.

I think you and I basically agree that Hobbes > Hoppe.

I like Hobbes. He is like Machiavelli. People essentially shoot the messenger but the dude was telling it like it is. He lived through a civil war for christ sake. He saw people at their worst imo.

You are right that the "state" is just the current group of people in power (be it a oligarchy, dictatorship, or a democracy) and their attitudes. The problem with rules to check these impulses is that since clever people made these rules, other clever people will find ways to get around them. Think about the White House Council or Office of Legal Council. Whatever you think of their ethics, these people are top notch lawyers who basically have the job of providing legal justification for any and all things the president does. They read the constitution in a very legalistic way, and supposedly got around the torture prohibitions post 9/11 by pulling out a dictionary and citing the definition as "permanent physical harm." They reasoned that as long as the interrogation does not cripple the person for life, go for it. I'm not going on a rant about gitmo, I'm just saying that laws and institutions can only curb impulses so much. People have a natural inclination to do what they want to do, and steamroll over legal niceties that get in their way. That's just how it is. It sucks, because I am disturbed by a lot of stuff our government does, but I don't imagine in the future we will revert back to some constitutional utopia. I wish there was a solution, but I'm not smart enough to think of one.

There isn't a solution to the problem of people having different values, motivations, and goals. We have landed on pluralism and the rule of law in an attempt to maximize personal liberty without having and endless war of all against all.

Hobbes could be wrong, and states could be totally surplus to requirement. We need only look at the parts of the world with no state or failed states to test the theory.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I like this thread, fam.

More memes plez.

[Fife]

Crank it up again, Joaquín. Time for another 3-hour tour.

[Fife]

[Fife]