- Do You Think They Might Have a Little Price Inflation in Ghana? May 22, 2013 Robert Wenzel
- Austria Turns Rat Fink May 22, 2013 Robert Wenzel
- Rand Paul Defends Apple May 22, 2013 Robert Wenzel
- Charlie Shrem of BitInstant Talks Bitcoin with Perianne Boring May 22, 2013 Robert Wenzel
- 8 Pressure Stock Pitches Stockbrokers at John Thomas Financial Might Use on You May 22, 2013 Robert Wenzel
- Man Killed by FBI Agent Knew Tamerlan Tsarnaev May 22, 2013 Robert Wenzel
- Rapp Song Puts Massachusetts Teenager Behind Bars Without Bail for Weeks -- Facing Terrorism Charges and 20 Years in Prison May 22, 2013 Robert Wenzel
- Antiwar.com Lost Major Donors After News of FBI Monitoring Broke May 22, 2013 Robert Wenzel
- BLEG: Google Chrome Crashing Problem May 22, 2013 Robert Wenzel
- Top IRS Official Will Invoke the Fifth Amendment in Congressional Hearing May 22, 2013 Robert Wenzel
- Astounding Gold News From India and China May 22, 2013Jim Rogers tells Lew Rockwell about his adventures on the road and in the markets.
- 6 Stages of the Libertarian Movement May 22, 2013An historic talk from Murray Rothbard, in print for the first time.
- The Psycho-Police State May 22, 2013John Whitehead on targeting Brandon Raub.
- We Need Private Pinkertons May 22, 2013Not government cops, says Gary Gibson.
- The Economy's Not a Machine To Be Tinkered With May 22, 2013Bill Bonner on the fatal flaw of Keynesianism.
- 9 Shots, .380 Caliber, 3D Printed Gun May 22, 2013$25. Article by Andy Greenberg.
- The Most Hated Asset Class May 22, 2013It's official: it's gold, says Pater Tenebrarum.
- Parabolic Blowoff Ahead May 22, 2013Ignore the brainwashing by the Ministry of Disinformation on stocks, gold and silver, says Clive Maund.
- She Refused To Be a Victim Again May 22, 2013Home invader is confronted by loaded .357. Article by Jennifer Cruz.
- Limit Salt? May 22, 2013Nonsense, says David Brownstein, MD.
- Astounding Gold News From India and China May 22, 2013
- Mises U on Forbes.com May 22, 2013 Mises Updates
- New Austrian Journal May 21, 2013 Mark Thornton
- Austrian Banking May 21, 2013 Mark Thornton
- Thomas Sowell on Why the Intelligencia Pay No Price for Being Wrong May 18, 2013 Christopher Westley
- Was Marx Right? May 18, 2013 Hunter Lewis
- Fed Bank President Targets Unemployment Targeters May 17, 2013 Joseph Salerno
- David Stockman Seminar in NYC May 17, 2013 Joseph Salerno
- William H. Peterson May 16, 2013 Mark Thornton
- Paul’s World May 16, 2013 Peter G. Klein
- Bring on the Helicopter Money–and Gut the Fed May 15, 2013 Joseph Salerno
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- May 2013
- April 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
December 30, 2012|By Inga Saffron, Inquirer Architecture Critic
The site where Chestnut Hill Friends Meeting is building a new meetinghouse was damaged by arsonists during Christmas week, and police are now “absolutely” sure the attack was the result of a dispute between members of a Philadelphia construction union and the project’s nonunion contractor.
Although no suspects have been identified in the Dec. 21 incident, Lt. George McClay of Northwest Detectives said Friday that he was certain the small Quaker building on East Mermaid Lane was targeted because it is being built with nonunion labor.
“I absolutely think it is a union issue,” McClay said.
If union members were involved, the attack would be the second violent incident in Philadelphia this year related to the use of nonunion construction workers. This spring, union protesters clashed with nonunion workers renovating the former Goldtex factory tower at 12th and Wood Streets for Post Bros., an apartment developer.
The following interview with Hans-Hermann Hoppe first appeared in the German weekly Junge Freiheit on November 2, 2012, and was conducted by Moritz Schwarz. It has been translated here into English by Robert Groezinger.
Are taxes nothing but protection money? The state a kind of mafia? Democracy a fraud? Philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe is not only considered one of the most prominent pioneering intellectuals of the libertarian movement, but also perhaps the sharpest critic of the Western political system.
Professor Hoppe: In your essay collection ‘Der Wettbewerb der Gauner’ (‘The Competition of Crooks’) you write that ‘99 percent of citizens, asked if the state was necessary, would answer yes.’ Me too! Why am I wrong?
Hoppe: All of us, from childhood, have been moulded by state or state licensed institutions – preschools, schools, universities. So the result you quoted is not surprising. However, if I asked you whether you said yes to an institution having the last word in each conflict, even in those it is itself involved in, you would certainly say no – unless you hoped to be in charge of this institution yourself.
Er … correct.
Hoppe: Of course, because you know that such an institution cannot only mediate in conflicts but also cause them, you can recognize that it can then resolve them to its own advantage. In the face of this I, for one, would live in fear of my life and property. However, it is precisely this, the ultimate power of judicial decision-making, that is the specific characteristic of the institution known as the state.
Correct, but on the other hand the state is based on a social contract, which provides the individual with protection and space for personal fulfilment, which without the state he would not have – in a struggle of all against all.
Hoppe: No, the state is anything but the result of a contract! No one with even just an ounce of common sense would agree to such a contract. I have a lot of contracts in my files, but nowhere is there one like this. The state is the result of aggressive force and subjugation. It has evolved without contractual foundation, just like a gang of protection racketeers. And concerning the struggle of all against all: that is a myth. Of course the racketeer protects his victims on “his” territory from other racketeers, but only so he can conduct his own racket more successfully. Moreover: It is states that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and immeasurable destruction in the 20th century alone. Compared to that, the victims of private crimes are almost negligible. And do you seriously believe that conflicts between the inhabitants of the tri-border region [of France, Germany and Switzerland] near Basle, who are living together in a condition of anarchy, are more numerous than conflicts between the inhabitants of Dortmund and Düsseldorf, who are citizens of one and the same state [Germany]? Not that I know of.
Why in your view is democracy just a “competition of crooks”?
Hoppe: All highly-developed forms of religion forbid the coveting of someone else’s property. This prohibition is the foundation of peaceful cooperation. In a democracy, on the other hand, anyone can covet anybody else’s property and act according to his desire – the only precondition being that he can gain access to the corridors of power. Thus, under democratic conditions, everybody becomes a potential threat. And during mass elections what tends to happen is that the members of society who attempt to access the corridors of power and rise to the highest positions are those who have no moral inhibitions about misappropriating other people’s property: habitual amoralists who are particularly talented in forging majorities out of a multitude of unbridled and mutually exclusive demands.
‘Politicians: lazy and spongers!’ Aren’t you afraid you might be reproached for complaining on the level of the ‘Bild’ tabloid newspaper?
Hoppe: So what? Up until the 20th century there was hardly an important political thinker who didn’t speak disparagingly about democracy. The keyword was: mob rule. The populist criticism of democracy, as can be found in Bild or at the water cooler, is all very well. But it is not fundamental enough, nor does it go far enough – to date Bild hasn’t asked me for an interview either. Of course politicians are spongers: they live off money extorted from other people with the threat of violence – which is called ‘taxation’. But unfortunately, politicians are not lazy. It would be nice if all they did was squander their booty. Instead they are obsessive megalomaniacal do-gooders, who in addition make life difficult for their victims with thousands of laws and regulations.
Democracy is only one possible variety of statehood. Would a different form of state be more acceptable to you?
Hoppe: In a monarchist state everyone knows who the ruler is and who the ruled are, and accordingly there is resistance against any attempt to increase state power. In a democratic state this distinction becomes blurred, and it becomes all the easier to expand state power.
Just a moment: that’s what courts, laws and the constitution are for, to limit and control the state – government as well as parliament.
Hoppe: The mafia also has “executive”, “legislative” and “judicial” branches. Just go and watch the movie “The Godfather” again!
Another objection: What about the new internet-based detractors of the state, such as ‘Occupy’ or the ‘Pirates,’ who demand transparency and participation, without immediately condemning the state and democracy in their entirety?
Hoppe: The ‘Occupy’ movement consists of economic ignoramuses who fail to understand that the banks’ dirty tricks, which they rightly deplore, are possible only because there is a state-licensed central bank that acts as a “lender of last resort,” and that the current financial crisis therefore is not a crisis of capitalism but a crisis of statism. The ‘Pirates’, with their demand for an unconditional basic income, are well on the way to becoming another ‘free beer for all’ party. They have a single issue: criticism of ‘intellectual property rights’ (IP rights), which could make them very popular – and earn them the enmity in particular of the music, film and pharmaceutical industries. But even there they are clueless wimps. They just need to google Stephan Kinsella. Then they’d see that IP has nothing to do with property, but rather with state privileges. IP allows the inventor (I) or ‘first maker’ of a product – a text, picture, song or whatever – to forbid all other people to replicate this product, or to charge them license fees, even if the replicator (R) thereby uses his own property only (and does not take away any of I’s property). This way, I is elevated to the status of co-owner of R’s property. This shows: IP rights are not property but, on the contrary, are an attack on property and therefore completely illegitimate.
In ‘The Competition of Crooks’ you outline as an alternative the model of a ‘private law society’. How does it work?
Hoppe: The basic concept is simple. The idea of a monopolistic property protector and law keeper is self-contradictory. This monopolist, whether king or president, will always be an expropriating property protector and a law breaking law keeper – who will characterize his actions as being in ‘the public interest’. In order to guarantee the protection of property and safeguard the law there has to be free competition in the area of law as well. Other institutions apart from the state must be allowed to provide property and law protection services. The state then becomes a normal subject of private law, on an equal footing with all other people. It can’t raise taxes any more or unilaterally enact laws. Its employees will have to finance themselves just the same as everybody else does: by producing and offering something that freely engaging customers consider value for money.
Wouldn’t that quickly lead to a war between these ‘providers’?
Hoppe: War and aggression are costly. States go to war because they can, via taxes, pass on the cost to third parties who are not directly involved. By contrast, for voluntarily financed companies war is economic suicide. As a private law subject the state too will, like all other security providers, have to offer its customers contracts that can only be changed by mutual agreement, and which in particular regulate what is to be done in the case of a conflict between itself and its customers, or between itself and the customers of other, competing security providers. And for that there is only one solution acceptable to everyone: that in these sorts of conflicts not the state, but an independent third party decides – arbitrators and judges who in turn compete with each other, whose most important asset is their reputation as keepers of the law, and whose actions and judgments can be challenged and, if need be, revised, just as anyone else’s can be.
Who should be such a ‘third party’? And with what instruments of power should it assert the interests of an individual citizen against his contractual partner – the private state, which of course is much more powerful?
Hoppe: In local conflicts, in a village or a small town, these will very often be universally respected ‘natural aristocrats’. Or else arbitrating organisations and courts of appeal, which insurers and insured have contractually agreed on from the start. Whoever then does not abide by the judgments will not only be defaulting, he will become a pariah in the world of business. Nobody will want to have anything to do with him, and he will immediately lose all his customers. This is no utopian idea. This is already the usual practice in international – anarchical – business transactions today. And another question for you: How should the individual citizen assert his interests in the face of a monopolistic tax-state? It is much more powerful – and always has the last word!
Do you understand the continuing scepticism with regard to your proposition?
Hoppe: Of course, as most people have never heard of this idea, let alone thought about it seriously. I am only unsympathetic towards those who yell out at the top of their voices when they hear this idea and demand the condemnation of its representatives, without having the least knowledge of economics and political philosophy.
It is hardly likely that a majority of citizens will ever support such an unfamiliar model. But what parts of it at least could be adopted, in order to achieve at least partial improvements of our current system, without a complete abandonment of state and democracy?
Hoppe: There is an interim solution. It’s called secession and political decentralization. Small states must be libertarian, otherwise the productive people will desert them. Desirable therefore is a world made up of thousands of Liechtensteins, Singapores and Hong Kongs. In contrast, a European central government – and even more so a world government – with a ‘harmonized’ tax and regulation policy, is the gravest threat to freedom.
For that too you will probably not find a majority. Therefore how will state and democracy develop in future? Where will we finally end up?
Hoppe: The Western ‘welfare state model’, ‘socialism light,’ will collapse just like ‘classical’ socialism – of course, I can’t say whether in five, ten or 15 years. The key words are: state bankruptcy, hyperinflation, currency reform and violent distribution battles. Then it will either come to a call for a ‘strong man’ or – hopefully – a massive secession movement.
December 29, 2012
Hans-Hermann Hoppe [send him mail] is distinguished fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and founder and president of the Property and Freedom Society. His books include Democracy: The God That Failed and The Myth of National Defense. Visit his website.
Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Following libertarian principles is inseparable from being a decent human being.
Even kindergartners are taught the libertarian principles: Don’t start a fight by throwing the first punch and don’t take other people’s stuff. It really is that simple.
It’s only as kids get older that most adults start trying to make children accept exceptions to these rules. It is a glaring inconsistency that most children can see right through, while their parents try to wiggle around finding justifications that just aren’t there.
Rules are often made up to try to short-circuit a child’s understanding. They are told they can’t fight back to defend themselves when someone violates the rules and hits them first. Or, they are taught they aren’t really the one starting the fight if someone has offended them in some way.
They are told stealing is OK as long as it is done with majority approval, as part of your job, or if it is called “sharing” even though it isn’t voluntary.
You can’t raise ethical kids by condoning this kind of behavior and confusing the issues.
Yet you can even be non-libertarian in your personal beliefs and still behave in an outwardly decent manner by following libertarian principles.
Whether a person is conservative or liberal, as long as they don’t steal or use coercion and attack the innocent, we can get along.
For that matter, I even have no problem with people choosing to live in a communist enclave, as long as all participants are there by unanimous consent, no one is coerced into participating, and anyone can opt out any time they wish. The first time a person is coerced to give up their self-ownership without their consent, and without it being necessary to fulfill a voluntarily acquired debt or to pay restitution, the consent is gone. Theft or coercion has then occurred.
The problem is that non-libertarians try to change the names of theft and coercion to hide the true nature of the acts. Theft becomes “taxation,” “property codes,” “asset forfeiture,” or “eminent domain,” while attacking the innocent becomes “sobriety checkpoints,” “immigration control,” “gun control,” and “homeland security.”
The euphemisms change nothing about the ethics of the acts.
Soldiers and cops aren’t heroes. The scientists, engineers, technicians, tradesmen, sandhogs, writers, artists, scholars. These are heroes.