Freedomain Radio

Hoppe has written an article about the importance of defining the state properly before we try to communicate these ideas.  Once people see what a State really is, they will have a hard time defending it.

Check it out at http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe18.html.

 "Let me begin with the definition of a state. What must an agent be able to do to qualify as a state? This agent must be able to insist that all conflicts among the inhabitants of a given territory be brought to him for ultimate decision-making or be subject to his final review. In particular, this agent must be able to insist that all conflicts involving himself be adjudicated by him or his agent. And implied in the power to exclude all others from acting as ultimate judge, as the second defining characteristic of a state, is the agent's power to tax: to unilaterally determine the price that justice seekers must pay for his services. "

(But I think this could be shortened to:  A group of individuals that claim the moral and legal right to use violence to get what it wants.  Or, even shorter:  The State is violence.)

Also, he has come up with a "Proof of Anarchism" argument that is similar to Stef's, essentially saying that the State exists in a context of anarchy now..

Good stuff.

Great article. Not to downgrade Dr. Hoppe's genius, but I prefer Stef's arguments for a couple reasons. First, Stef's a lot easier for non-philosophers to read. Second, his argument for anarchism relies on accepting some of the ideas of Hobbes, and doesn't follow from first principles or use self-contained argumentation. Those could just be style points, and my personal philosophical preference, but I think an argument could easily be made that they're preferable to assuming definitions.

I saw lots of good stuff in there showing the connection between intellecutals and the state. I found myself hoping he would talk about families and relationships with the same sharp eye for potential corruption, but I get the feeling that idea will take a while to hit more mainstream philosophical circles than FDR :(

Yes.  This is classic HHH and contains, IMO, some of his best stuff with regard to why the state remains stable, despite the problems that should be obvious.

...haing just cited this logic from Hoppe myself, I really appreciate the timing of LRC.

This article is rehashed material of Hoppe's taken almost verbatum from one of his speeches at the Mises Institute from a number of years ago. Not that I don't find his argument compelling, but it's nothing new. He has already presented this elsewhere almost word for word. It just seems a little wierd for this to be presented as a new article when it isn't. He made this exact same speech years ago and it can be found and downloaded at the Mises Institute's website I think.

Brainpolice:

This article is rehashed material of Hoppe's taken almost verbatum from one of his speeches at the Mises Institute from a number of years ago. Not that I don't find his argument compelling, but it's nothing new. He has already presented this elsewhere almost word for word. It just seems a little wierd for this to be presented as a new article when it isn't. He made this exact same speech years ago and it can be found and downloaded at the Mises Institute's website I think.

That's why I call it "classic."  As a matter of fact, some of the content in this speech could have been heard at the speech he gave at the Mises 25th Anniversary conference in NYC only a few months back.

...still good stuff though.

I didn't mean to come off as egg throwing or anything. Just struck me as odd that it's being presented this way. It definitely is "classic" Hoppe, the good side of him that I like. Of course, when he starts talking about immigration and culture I start to wonder about him.

Brainpolice:

Of course, when he starts talking about immigration and culture I start to wonder about him.

Who you tellin'?

...