Is he right that "democracy" and "communism" are merely differences of degree?

Once you accept the concept of a public-private distinction, "rights" no longer exist but are always at the mercy of a vote. This is a much simpler explanation for why leftism and capital are best friends; they've always been on the same side. "Muh rhizomes" and "muh dark alliance" are just spooks.

Attached: 10401366_10152589131928935_3026548238707023907_n.jpg (960x579, 103K)

>Everyone other than me politically is the same in some grand abstract sense

Never heard that one before

>leftism is on the side of the capital said the fan of an anarcho capitalist
Weh woo lads

Private property cannot exist without the state enforcing property rights. Anarchocapitalism is logically incoherent.

I think Hoppe's critique of democracy as a proxy for a critique of capital is more cogent and directly useful than anything a marxist has ever written.

Hoppe doesn't argue that capitalism is desirable because it is good; that would make him a capitalist. The anarcho part comes from a more nuanced position: that capitalism is unavoidable because it is true. Capitalism, meaning basic principles of economics, that is.

And he's right.

Not an interesting "point". It just proves you've never read Hoppe, given he has repeatedly tackled this exact problem throughout entire books. As he obviously would. Just sad.

>Private property cannot exist without the state enforcing property rights
Are you suggesting two family units never lived next to each other with firm boundaries without a capitalistic bureaucratic machine telling them to behave as such? Are you retarded?

"Rights" are just an old political metaphysics, natural laws obviously exist but "rights" must be ideological. Democracy is a form of government which communism ultimately must negate. Also "total war" was just a natural result of advances in technology, governments will always eventually move towards war but nukes essiently made "total war" between advanced states that a thing of the past.

Wrong

He is right, yes. I mean how has any "communist" country worked so far? By voting. Most communists I've spoken with say that the way the commune is ruled is via democratic voting. I honestly fail to see how you can argue against them not being very similar

>I think Hoppe's critique of democracy as a proxy for a critique of capital is more cogent and directly useful than anything a marxist has ever written.
>Hoppe doesn't argue that capitalism is desirable because it is good; that would make him a capitalist. The anarcho part comes from a more nuanced position: that capitalism is unavoidable because it is true. Capitalism, meaning basic principles of economics, that is.
You know slavery was justified as human nature and true?

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Dislike him. A cheap essayist, quesy and rude. A profit, a claptrap anarchist and a slapdash capitalist. Some of his scenes are extraordinarily absurd. Nobody takes his economic opinions seriously.
Democracy: The God That Failed. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of de Maistre's "Lettres d'un royaliste savoisien à ses compatriotes."
Economic Science and the Austrian Method. Dislike it intensely.
The Economics and Ethics of Private Property . Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigoristic.

Attached: Nab on Hoppe.jpg (2138x2807, 1.32M)

de facto rights which could be done away with at any moment if someone big enough decides they want your stuff
actual hard rights that you can rely on require a mediator/ third party, that mediator needs to be the strongest for obvious reasons
democracy, or some kind of influence from all people are neccesary in order to stop the mediator (the state) from becoming corrupt

arguably, corruption of any kind (which I admit, is almost impossible to fully eradicate) could be considered privatisation of this mediator
courts, law enforcement, etc.

>tfw you an cap so hard you just end up advocating for feudalism with guns

You're just playing at semantic with the rights vs natural law distinction. Not interesting.

There's a point to be made about advances in technology facilitating total war, but you're confusing correlation with causation. You're also minimizing the effect that democrats' total war has on technological advancement. The tail is wagging the dog.

This is a really pathetic use of some really blatant rhetorical fallacies. Try again, with an apology, and you MIGHT get a response from me...

No such society of isolated "family units" ever existed or could exist except perhaps hiding out on the periphery of a general functioning capitalist society. "Family units" is a sort of textbook phraseology that you would deploy if you thougth the Flintstones was ethnographically accurate.

>This is a really pathetic use of some really blatant rhetorical fallacies. Try again, with an apology, and you MIGHT get a response from me...
You better tell me how capitalism is somehow "true". It's forced by the state and wouldn't exist without it.

It's not semantics. It's science vs. theology. Also no nuclear states have ever went to war despite ideology.

>nomadic societies never had family units
Holy shit take at least 2 100 level college courses PLEASE

You're just not conceiving of rights in the same way Hoppe does and acting like the problems with YOUR definition apply to his.

>Also no nuclear states have ever went to war despite ideology
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA holy fucking shit the absolute state of this fucking board! The absolute state....

Please use a trip so I know not to reply to you anymore.

Attached: th.jpg (474x395, 23K)

>You're just not conceiving of rights in the same way Hoppe does and acting like the problems with YOUR definition apply to his.
I suppose so, but then why is his conception any more valid than mine?

Because he addresses the exact problems you are bringing up with his. It's not a question of validity so much anyway, other than your definition of rights is a spook used to implicitly justify the state and (ironically) capital. That's "valid" if those are your end goals. They are not mine.

Who would win?
>every communist and leftist on Yea Forums
VS
>some beginner ideas/premises of hoppe

Every time he is brought up here he instantly destroys your worldview, lit.com/forums...

>2 fighter jet duels and some dead trees are a war

border skirmishes in the 1980s between russia and china killed hundreds and nobody dignified it as a war.

>de facto rights which could be done away with at any moment if someone big enough decides they want your stuff
But this is literally all of human interaction ever. This is the summary of all politics, nothing can ever change this, it doesn't matter what meme system some portion of the population try to concoct

Nomadic societies weren't characterized by their high institutional respect for private property. The nuclear family and modern comforts have only ever existed in the shadow of states.

The point is "total war" has never broken out which is the point (border skirmishes and proxy wars don't count). Ideology wasn't the prime issue when it came to total war, it was only a thing when states had developed modern technical/logistical powers but not enough to make war not totally worth while when you have nukes. Democracies or monarchies don't matter if they have nukes logic stays the same.

>Nomadic societies weren't characterized by their high institutional respect for private property.
But that’s not the point, is it?

>Nomadic societies weren't characterized by their high institutional respect for private property. The nuclear family and modern comforts have only ever existed in the shadow of states.
Please show me a peer reviewed quote that explicitly supports your claim that family units, or things approximating them, NEVER existed outside of modern states.

Couldn't do it, could you? Stop taking a page from your gay "theorists" and talking out of your ass, making sweeping declarations about history, a field you know nothing of.

I'm not sure. Democracy doesn't imply a shift leftward by itself... plenty of third-world countries haven't really shifted leftward after democratization. Exposure to the American informal state appartus is more predictive of this. Even in the US, one of the most left-wing countries ever, a whole lot of movement leftward was done by diktat. I don't think capital is always best friends with the left either, again this seems to be contingent on Western European (especially British) social organization and thinking, and the actual organizational structure of Western governments is quite similar to a Communist Party.
I think at the end of the day all we can say for sure is "Britain bad".

The issue isn't what you're calling "family units" (which sounds a lot like atomistic nuclear families). You originally asked whoever made the original post:
>Are you suggesting two family units never lived next to each other with firm boundaries without a capitalistic bureaucratic machine telling them to behave as such
I just pointed out that arraignment wasn't the case since those are the types of conditions which you would expect to lead to economic development which never really happened outside of modern nation states. Suburbs can exist thanks to said "capitalistic bureaucratic machine".

Pretty much, Hoppe has some of the most scathing critiques of democracy out there. However, while the critiques may be incredibly good on a theoretical level, the system that would naturally arise from applying this critique to the real world runs into some problems. For instance, lets say there are two states that border each other. One applies Hoppian principles and becomes essentially an anarcho-capitalist zone (the finer points of his ideology can wait for this analogy), while the other remains a democracy. Now lets say that for whatever reason the democracy declares war on the ancap zone. The ancap zone doesn't stand a chance against a unified nation ceteris paribus.

Democracy is horrendous, but it's a better option than the dissolving of the state if nobody else is playing by the Hoppian rules. It's game theory.

Personally I'm what I suppose would be called a nationalist. In my opinion this is the best form a state can take while still maintaining the force needed in a world where everybody else has formed into states.

>arraignment
* arrangement

Ha ha nice back peddling my dude. You know its funny because I could get you to do the same about your other outlandish claims, but you're such an obvious pseud that I literally don't feel like it's worth my time.

Think about how pathetic that makes you ha ha

While Hoppe gives perhaps the best account of it, the thing is known since Benjamin Franklin at least.
Democracy, the whole thing fails the day people realize they can vote themselves the property of others.

The state isn't anything special. It is a powerful body but just as "private" as any organization outside a the bizarre mystique it builds around itself. Ancapism is merely decentralization pushed to its limit.
Do you think there are no such thing as the property of Canada and of the US? They are independent bodies without any third party above them.
>inb4 the UN
Joke, irrelevant to the situation before 1948, and don't follow your own citerium because they physically don't have the power to enforce anything on the US or even on Canada.

He's right about most things.

>Do you think there are no such thing as the property of Canada and of the US? They are independent bodies without any third party above them.
Wow you literally just btfo all anti ancaps effortlessly. Good to job!

wow that quote is literally plagiarized from Foucault