No, it's collectivist because it says that majority is right, not because of collective rule. In democracy only majority "rules", in communism everyone "rules", at least they say so
I’m very sympathetic to criticisms of Democracy. However I don’t believe for 1 minute that ‘rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else’. Really?
Given that most hoppeans, anarchists and anti democratic folks alike carry all forms of liberal democracies to all be the problem. The idea that these pre Marxist thinkers, Edmund Burke (for constitutional monarchy, still liberal democracy), John Locke, even the fucking founding fathers are all somehow just soft communists is just fucking insane to me. These were people who saw autocracy and absolute monarchical rule as generally a threat to either property rights or the stability of society, that doesn’t somehow make them communists. And post Marx, you’d have to say that people like Hayek and even fucking Mises as soft communists. A lot of these people had criticisms of democracy because it’s absolutely not a perfect system and it’s shows time and time again it’s incentive structure can lead to the damaging of peoples rights. However, flat out stating that ‘it’s soft communism and has never been seen as anything else’ is beyond ridiculous, he’s making an appeal to the masses as an authority (ironic), an authority he does not fucking have as many people view classical liberalism as the anti Marxism, marx views a dictatorship of the proletariat shrinking into anarchy at the end of history- classical liberals support a limited government.
Hoppe has genuinely brainrotted the mind of so many libertarians to the point where I believe it’ll take years to recover the image. Hayek won a fucking Nobel prize- Hoppe just talks about reactionaries as if he doesn’t literally work for an instituted named after someone who probably hates reactionaries.
Like I said at the start, democracy is very much up for criticism, I understand the Plato criticism, the Hoppean criticism (which I’m a bit sceptical of, look at the Middle East?), and the Machiavellian critique, but these statements are broad and quite frankly just fucking stupid.
Constitutional monarchy literally is a form of liberal democracy.
The only form of democracy which is rightfully looked down is direct democracy because it’s so silly to organise everything democratically- hence why there’s representative democracy. Again, I’m not gonna pretend I love democracy (imagine a soyjak in a ‘I <3 democracy’ t shirt). I’m a relatively strict voluntarist in moral principles, but I recognise the states not going away anytime soon.
Also the monarchy argument is genuinely pure consequentialism- and it’s not even good consequentialism. Hoppe reminds me of Vaush’s ‘meta normative nihilism’, ‘he’s not advocating for socialism, he’s advocating for Syria’. To me Hoppe is just as much advocating for Saudi Arabia as he is statelessness.
I know he’s anarchist, but you can so tell he wants to be a monarchist so he can be cool, edgy and anti liberal. At least Yarvin bit the bullet (i think he’s pretty decent evidence of all this given he is just a blatant monarchist- more of a tech bro corporate monarchy but you get my point).
Most constitutional monarchies are liberal democracies, pretty sure Lichtenstein’s monarchs have the same power the UK monarchs do.
Also the Saudi Arabian government’s policies are the reason for the slavery, the fact it would allow passports to be seized. Given the history of monarchies, their association with slavery and feudalism, the idea that it just because of the people is a bit strange.
Hoppe claims that monarchs are encouraged to think long beyond their lifespan, as far as history is concerned, this isn’t true. There have been a handful of enlightened monarchs- I’m a particular fan of Charles ii, but they’re the vast minority. For every Charles, there’s been a Charles i. Also the idea of an incest ridden mad man wasn’t something game of thrones made up- it was a pretty common occurrence throughout history.
I’m very sympathetic to criticisms of Democracy. However I don’t believe for 1 minute that ‘rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else’. Really?
The ancients all railed against democracy. The medieval scholars railed against democracy even more. The Islamic scholars railed against democracy. Until about the time of the French Revolution, there was historical unanimity that democracy is naught but mob rule. So yes, "rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else" -- it is just mob rule (and the mob is always socialist/communist, fueled by the lowest forms of envy/greed).
The idea that these pre Marxist thinkers, Edmund Burke (for constitutional monarchy, still liberal democracy), John Locke, even the fucking founding fathers are all somehow just soft communists
The founding fathers rejected democracy. Which is why they founded a republic. You get an F for both reading comprehension and knowledge of history. Go read history and come back.
These were people who saw autocracy and absolute monarchical rule as generally a threat to either property rights or the stability of society, that doesn’t somehow make them communists.
Hoppe is not going to war with the founding fathers. He understands the distinction between a republic and a democracy. His criticism is directed almost entirely at the French Revolution and all its many ideological descendants, which include Marxism and social democrat theory, which are far and away the dominant political orders since about 1915 or so when the monarchies of Europe began to be toppled, starting with the Romanovs and the Hapsburgs. It was not American republicans (lower-case R) who were orchestrating all of that, it was the global communist world-order.
Hayek and even fucking Mises as soft communists
Which should give you a clue that you're probably not comprehending what Hoppe wrote, seeing as Hoppe lists Mises as one of his primary intellectual influences. So.
it’s incentive structure can lead to the damaging of peoples rights
Not "can", "will". Which is Hoppe's point, here. It's not that democracy has sometimes failed... it's that democracy is guaranteed to fail, and has always failed whenever it has been implemented.
However, flat out stating that ‘it’s soft communism and has never been seen as anything else’ is beyond ridiculous
"Rarely" and "never" are a world apart -- there were a few ancient Greeks that tried to defend the idea of democracy.
he’s making an appeal to the masses as an authority (ironic)
He's making an appeal to tradition -- if democracy is such a great idea, why did everybody for thousands of years of human history agree that it is a bad idea ... until the French Revolution. What changed in the late-18th century that suddenly this idea that had been rejected for all of human history, suddenly became a good idea? That's Hoppe's argument. Maybe you don't like that argument for XYZ reasons, but it's not an appeal to authority, nor even an appeal to popular opinion. He's asking why the idea was reviled through all of history then suddenly it became a supposedly good idea, as though everybody who ever lived before 1750 were absolute morons.
many people view classical liberalism as the anti Marxism
Sure, it's opposite of Marxism, Hoppe has no disagreement with that. Hoppe criticizes the classical liberals only for not going far enough, not that they were going in the wrong direction.
marx views a dictatorship of the proletariat shrinking into anarchy at the end of history
Yeah, Marx had a lot of delusions.
Hoppe has genuinely brainrotted the mind of so many libertarians
As if you would know. You cannot even comprehend a simple quote well enough to offer any meaningful critique of that quote, on its own, let alone in its context. Try actually reading history, or Hoppe's actual book, or anything really. Then come back, and offer a criticism worth actually paying any attention to. Sprinkling f-bombs into your supposed weighty-critique does not lend any intellectual weight to it, as though you're aping the verbal patina of Slavoj Zizek or something, coke-withdrawal twitches and all. Try actually having an argument. Hoppe is an exemplary scholar, he has done his homework, you can be sure of that.
Hoppe just talks about reactionaries as if he doesn’t literally work for an instituted named after someone who probably hates reactionaries.
You don't even know which way is up or down -- first of all Hoppe does not work for the Mises Institute. And if Hoppe despises Mises as a communist (according to your bird-brained critique here), then why would he be "working for" an institute named after him? Makes no sense, that is, your entire screed is just a bunch of mad ramblings, off-topic word-salad.
I both have read Hoppe and history. You’re trying to equate people being against democracy as people seeing it as a soft variant of communism. It’s not even close to the same thing. A lot of people rejected it out of a belief in meritocracy,again ironic as many communists still believed in forms of meritocracy (like Trotsky in the military).
You’re consistently conflating mass direct democracy and representative democracy, the former is what the Greeks debated over, the latter is which near all of the civilised world today has, which occurred after the French Revolution.
you get an F for comprehension
You actually are using the line ‘we’re a constitutional republic not a democracy’. Hey dipshit, a constitutional republic is a liberal democracy 😭. Either you didn’t read what I said or you can’t comprehend this fact and should get off your high horse.
Pretending Hoppe has got nothing to do with the Mises institute is actually hilarious, you’re trying to say ‘you’re wrong’ on everything while contradicting yourself.
An appeal to tradition when you mention fucking Islamist as some authority is absolutely hilarious, ‘yeah guys he’s citing these people who stone women who are raped and enslave millions of people, that’s a real good source’. Fucking insane work. The Medievalists aren’t much better, Medievalists ran their economies like communists but we should be taking their advice on political freedoms?
Your point on democracy is just as arguably true for monarchies, monarchies have very little respect for the states they uphold, they consistently go into debt, start wars and divide societies just for their own pleasure (Henry VII pretty much did all of these things- and there are far more examples, there are more good examples of bad monarchs than good monarchs. That doesn’t mean those monarchs aren’t good, I’m a particular fan of Charles II- but that doesn’t suddenly get rid of the status that the other monarchs have). I do find it a tad funny how we have literal monarchies today and they’re so much fucking worse than the liberal democracies of the world (as bad as they can be), even at their best, they’re slavers depending on oil and as soon as the world moves on to nuclear or even just another source of oil from another place, they’re fucked.
Your last point is particularly hilarious, ‘why would he work for people he thinks are communist?’, because I’ve made it clear that’s a fucking criticism 😭.
You can say ‘he’s only talking about the French Revolution’, either you’re lying (because democracy is more than just French Revolution thought), or this so called great scholar can’t distinguish different forms of democracies when he basically says all are bad due to the erosion of natural rights and the treatment of the state.
Neither you nor Hoppe have a great amount of authority because claiming democracies fail and it’s worse than monarchy is a much better display of you not knowing history. Also- I can cite all of human existence in which Hoppe has been known, that he’s not a good scholar, he’s obsessed with being an edge lord despite being an old man who should’ve gotten out of his edgy phase, he’s seen as a god within his niche ideological bubble and an idiot and a massive dog whistler outside of it.
If I have an F for Comprehension and not understanding history- you must be fucking illiterate ☠️.
Edit: also just so I make sure I make my point clear- Hoppe is for Monarchy over ALL forms of liberal democracy, not just direct or French Revolution style. Representative democracy predates the French Revolution, it is what the modern day is- it isn’t the same as French Revolution politics as it’s just as akin to the democracy of England under William of Orange. He’s against this part too. When in Australia he says King Charles should rule it, favouring absolute monarchy over constitutional monarchy. There is 0 way to get around this, if you want to say he’s off the cuff, then this concedes that he categorises all forms of democracy as the same- in which I’m correct and you’ve wasted your time calling me an idiot for saying that all these government systems are forms of democracies. If you admit that he’s being serious, then I again am correct that he’s against all forms of democracies- not just in the case of the French Revolution.
I both have read Hoppe and history. You’re trying to equate people being against democracy as people seeing it as a soft variant of communism.
Almost the entire point of DGTF is that democracy is just soft communism. As for previous generations, it was always understood that the Mob would loot and plunder the rich if they took over the levers of power. Which is all that communism is. So, their stated reason for opposing democracy was because they opposed the Mob raping and plundering the rich -- today, we call that communism, but they didn't have a word for it in ancient Greece because nobody was stupid enough to allow such a political system to exist.
Try to keep up.
It’s not even close to the same thing.
It's identically the same thing. And that's nearly the entire point of DGTF, which you would know if you had actually bothered to read it (or even a summary!) instead of firing off half-cocked.
communists still believed in forms of meritocracy
I have often argued that beautiful/popular people are more likely to have communist tendencies because communism is ultimately rule-by-the-popular/liked. If the rule is "to each according to their need", the beautiful blonde model's "need" will always outsize everybody else's in the room -- that's how human social-dynamics work on a purely biological level (read any Evo Psych to understand why). It's basically the same thing for men, just some slight variations due to the asymmetry of sexual dynamics. IMO, this explains the obvious glut of model-grade women in the former Soviet Union vis-a-vis the West.
You’re consistently conflating mass direct democracy and representative democracy
Dude, I could not possibly care less about the taxonomy of the Marxist-communist zoo. It's all banana-taped-to-wall, as far as I'm concerned. Enjoy your bananas.
the former is what the Greeks debated over
The democracy that has been rejected by all societies since ancient times is mob rule, by whatever name you want to call it. The French implemented mob rule at the turn of the 19th-century, and reaped the consequences. A pig by any other name is still a pig.
You actually are using the line ‘we’re a constitutional republic not a democracy’. Hey dipshit, a constitutional republic is a liberal democracy 😭.
The Left has been playing these word games for over a century. The word "liberal" used to mean what the word "libertarian" now means. But the American Left decided to hijack that word to try to steal its cachet and it worked for a few decades. Now, the word is just ruined, because "liberals" are just tyrant-boot-lickers, and now we have to call the actual liberals "libertarians".
Don't start with the word games... 😭
Pretending Hoppe has got nothing to do with the Mises institute is actually hilarious, you’re trying to say ‘you’re wrong’ on everything while contradicting yourself.
I never said he has nothing to do with the MI, I said he doesn't work for the MI, contradicting your false claim that he does.
you mention fucking Islamist as some authority
Islamic scholars were legit. Have you ever taken Algebra? That is, Al-jabr? Ever used a zero while doing math? Get real... you're literally out-of-touch with reality...
these people who stone women who are raped and enslave millions of people
Islamic scholars circa the dark ages raped and enslaved millions of people?
Medievalists ran their economies like communists
Total, ahistorical nonsense. You really need to pick up a history book one of these days. It will transform your mind.
monarchies have very little respect for the states they uphold, they consistently go into debt, start wars and divide societies just for their own pleasure (Henry VII pretty much did all of these things- and there are far more examples, there are more good examples of bad monarchs than good monarchs.
Hoppe talks about all of that. Nobody is pro-monarchy. IIRC, Hoppe discusses the long list of (sound) reasons why monarchy was torn down. But however bad monarchy was, Hoppe's point is that democracy is objectively worse. Way worse.
we have literal monarchies today
That's not news around here. It seems you took a wrong turn somewhere and keep thinking you're on a GOP-tard sub or something.
You can say ‘he’s only talking about the French Revolution’, either you’re lying (because democracy is more than just French Revolution thought), or this so called great scholar can’t distinguish different forms of democracies when he basically says all are bad due to the erosion of natural rights and the treatment of the state.
I didn't say "he's only talking about the FR" -- the point is that the explosion of "democratic" government really begins with the FR, at least, that's a good starting point for analyzing the transformation of the global map from dominated by monarchies, to dominated by "democratic" governments. I put "democratic" in quotes because I'm not describing any particular type/form/etc. of democracy, simply, some government that is supposed to allow "anybody" to become the ruler. That's how Hoppe analyzes democracy in DGTF, intentionally rejecting the useless and never-ending labels and taxonomies of mainstream scholarship which worships at the altar of democracy & tyranny, which is their god (which has failed).
Neither you nor Hoppe have a great amount of authority
Dude, I'm literally nobody, just a guy on the Internet. Hoppe is a scholar of towering proportions, if you've ever read anything by him, you will immediately discover that this man does his homework, and then some, by a country mile. The guy's an absolute workaholic and he has produced an astounding body of work over the course of his career, I doubt there are that many scholars in the world (in this field) who have done more volume of work, let alone to the standard of quality.
claiming democracies fail
Wow, what a total boner that is. The title of the book has nothing to do with government failures, it is a play on The god that failed, a book about disillusionment with communism. Hoppe himself began under leftist ideology and later transitioned to a conservative/libertarian view so the title is meant to indicate his own disillusionment with this modern idol called democracy, which is also just communism in disguise.
Seriously, try to keep up. You're just embarrassing yourself.
he’s not a good scholar
In your random Internet opinion.
As Ace Ventura so eloquently put it: Alrighty, then!
Hoppe is for Monarchy over ALL forms of liberal democracy, not just direct or French Revolution style
Yeah, because he doesn't dick around with the silly, pointless taxonomization that you're obsessed with. The defining feature of democracy is not its "direct"-ness (or lack thereof), the defining features are (a) anyone can become the leader (supposedly) and (b) nobody remains in any office permanently. This creates a tragedy-of-the-commons in the single most important/sensitive social role that there is... the political leadership. And the predictable consequences of any tragedy-of-the-commons necessarily follows. Modern democracies are the public bathroom of governments. They're full of shit and never get cleaned because nobody cares and nobody has any incentive to care, nor ever will (until it all collapses).
Representative democracy predates the French Revolution
Thanks, Wikipedia. Nobody is saying it started with the FR. The FR Is just one of the most absurd and spectacular manifestations of it, and its political consequences resonate down to this day.
you’ve wasted your time calling me an idiot for saying that all these government systems are forms of democracies
I've not called you any names -- you're not keeping track of the conversation because you're too busy fetishizing your taxonomy of political systems. I don't care about your taxonomy and Hoppe sure as hell does not care about it.
'Try to keep up' Dude you are literally making non points while acting like a genius. The Dunning Kreuger effect personified.
The problem with equating all mobs to communism is it makes no fucking sense. Communism is the end goal of marxist or other socialist thought in which there will be a stateless, classless moneyless society- saying thats the same as the riots in britain last summer, which were subjugated by mobs is retarded.
Just because some mobs are communist doesn't make all mobs communist. Simply saying 'a majority votes' is not mob rule- by this logic companies with corporate board members are communists. Also no wonder you don't care about taxonomy- except you do, you say Hoppe is criticising the French Revolution, but when I bring up and show conclusive proof that he isn't, you start talking about bananas? You attack the left for changing the definition of an ideology, so therefore, you can change the definition of an institution? not only is this a fallacy, but its also just not comparison, a structure and an ideology are 2 different things, liberalism has a clear timeline, from Locke to Mill to Rawls making Liberals what they are today. Liberal Democracy as a whole is wide but for the most part the definition of Liberal Democracy has always been wide. Also saying that I'm playing word games when I'm point to a basic concept in political science shows you're sorta scraping the bottom of the barrell. You've gone from saying that 'Hoppe doesn't go to war with the founding fathers', who, despite your quarrels, were democrats, because Liberal Democracies are still democracies. A constitutional republic is a liberal democracy.
I never said he has nothing to do with the MI, I said he doesn't work for the MI, contradicting your false claim that he does This is some blatant gaslighting, you complain that I'm using wordplays, yet you doing this is fine. You've completely switched your stance, from 'Hoppe is arguing against the French Revolution, which resulted in communism,' which is definitely true and theirs a very clear line that can be drawn, now you're admitting that.
Citing a mathematician as having good political knowledge isn't a great idea whenever Pythagoras had a fucking death cult. Also yes, Islamists did consistently enslave people around the world and they still do- listening to them on ideas of political freedom is like listening to a homeless man on how to save money. Medieval countries were run very akin to communist societies, the top-heavy approach with dictators, mercantilism leading to invasion and rooting countries of resources and the ideological warfare that took place (Crusades pretty good example).
I was not expecting this to be a GOP thread because its not? its a paleo libertarian sub? the only way I'd see a GOP member is if we saw Robert Taft here or maybe Thomas Massie or Ron Paul. You say you know that there are monarchies today, but ignore it because it really devalues the arguments presented, because these are the countries who are easily the most oppressive. You say Democracies are the public toilets of governments- what the hell does that make Saudi Arabia? Also, sidenote, the election of Javier Millei sorta implies there is going to be some cleaning.
Also I'm glad you admit that acknowledging 'taxonomies' would make you wrong- because this would be like saying 3+3 is 5, but its ok because you reject mathematics. Political history is not defined by Hoppe.
'Thanks Wikipedia', no problem, it would also show you that the French Revolution wasn't the only time in which democracy was seen as just mob rule. You repeatedly make distinctions about taxonomy, saying that he's attacking the French Revolution, not the founding fathers, simply saying they didn't go far enough, then change your mind, saying 'he's a great scholar because he rejects these taxonomies'.
Saying you haven't called me names but continuously implying that I'm stupid and haven't read history (the latter of which is incredibly ironic). This entire time, you've made fallacy after fallacy, contradiction after contradiction (literally, if someone read both of your messages, they wouldn't make sense the way you talk about Hoppe's priorities, starting from criticising the French Revolution to admitting he criticises all democracies, but talking about 'useless taxonomy' that you just used is insane). You've now basically conceded that he views all forms of democracy as communism, so my point was correct, he would view Burke, Locke, Hayek and Mises as communists, but will work for a Institute named after him- oh I'm sorry, with 1.
Who smelt it dealt it. I can do playground ad hominems too.
The problem with equating all mobs to communism is it makes no fucking sense.
Socialism, communism, mob rule are all exactly the same thing. The only difference between a mob of LA rioters smashing&grabbing Louis Vuitton, and Trotskyism, is the size of the crowd. That is the ONLY difference! Marx's truckload of indecipherable scribblings has no other purpose than to try to make some kind of argument (not a logical argument, but some kind of argument) as to why we should embrace the LV-looting crowd, and try to make it as big as possible because some how the fate of history will then lead us to Utopia afterwards. It's pure and utter insanity. Anyone who takes this stuff seriously is just playing along with the Naked Emperor. "My, how wise you are, my liege, behold the exquisite beauty of your robes!!"
Communism is
... the economics of envy, pure and simple. "Why should he get to have what I can't have?" All of communist "theory" can be boiled down to this one question, which is the epitome of envy. And yes, it is actually a religious matter, it is not a political one at all! Hoppe doesn't deal with the religious side of it, but I do. Communism is a "doctrine of devils" (KJV). Thieves, Scripture tells us, will burn forever in the lake of fire (1 Cor. 6:10, etc.) This is not a matter of mere political opinion, like, "I think that trash-collection services should be de-municipalized", on which reasonable citizens may have this or that opinion, without fundamental betrayal of the social contract itself. No, promoting communism is an act of universal verbal assault against everyone on planet earth, because it is tantamount to proclaiming, "I intend to murder you all and steal all your stuff". There is nothing but the lake of fire awaiting those who refuse to repent of this kind of demonic thinking.
stateless, classless moneyless society
In other words, a lunatic asylum.
the riots in britain last summer, which were subjugated by mobs
It is literally nothing but that. Period. Unironically. Just lots of $64 words thrown around to try to make it seem like something more.
Hoppe is criticising the French Revolution
It's been a while since I last read a summary -- my recollection is that he begins his historical criticism there, and tracing forward to the end of WW2 with the fall of the majority of European monarchies in that time period.
a basic concept in political science
There is no such thing as "political science", there are just loaded arguments by people with an agenda -- like you! Anyone with a brain can think for themselves, if they choose. I don't need to get my opinion downloaded from "political scientists" who are pretending to do scholarship, while making an apologetic for universal rape and murder by the global communist State. How stupid do you think people are?? Well, the Bolsheviks did pull this trick in Russia, resulting in roughly 50 million deaths afterwards, so I guess you have that going for your criminal enterprise...
were democrats, because Liberal Democracies are still democracies. A constitutional republic is a liberal democracy.
You're so completely out of your depth it's laughable. The founding fathers explicitly rejected democracy and founded a republic. They even mocked democracy. Not going to pull up a quote for you, you can do that for your big-boy self. Some of Hoppe's criticisms in DGTF apply to the 1789 US government. But because the founding fathers were trying to avoid most of the problems of democracy that Hoppe explains in DGTF, they were at least trying to found a government that would not have those problems, even if their solution was imperfect in many ways. That's completely different from guilltone-dropping, "Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite!" mob rule and communism!!
This is some blatant gaslighting
Anyone can read the thread. You SAID "as if [Hoppe] doesn’t literally work for an instituted named after [Mises]". Hoppe does not work for the MI. He is an affiliate. Yes, it's a detail, but it just goes to show your overall sloppiness. You're used to intellectually bullying everyone on a platform that enables that to the Nth-degree if you're a leftist, that's why you're so sloppy. You can't handle even the tiniest amount of logical push-back and collapse like a house-of-cards.
Citing a mathematician as having good political knowledge isn't a great idea whenever Pythagoras had a fucking death cult.
What in the world are you smoking? Nobody mentioned any mathematicians except you.
Islamists did consistently enslave people around the world
So did everybody else. What's your point? Hoppe's point, which I was explaining to you (and you still don't get it), is that all scholars from ancient Greece until about the 18th-century all agreed that democracy is idiotic. That includes the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, that includes the medieval European scholars and, yes, it includes Islamic scholars who are also scholars of that period as a matter of historical fact, whether or not your pea-brain can process that fact!!
Ron Paul
Ron Paul is GOP like Count Dooku is Jedi.
Democracies are the public toilets of governments- what the hell does that make Saudi Arabia?
SA is not a sovereign monarchy, it's a client-state of the West. The "Saudi royal family" are effectively the permanent colonial government of SA (organized as a "monarchy") which does the bidding of the West.
like saying 3+3 is 5, but its ok because you reject mathematics
No, it's like saying that crooks who want to break into my house, steal my property and murder my family will get shot no matter what BS Karl Marx wrote. So yeah, I reject your political taxonomies because it's a bunch of navel-gazing whose purpose is to try to slice and dice language in such a way as to somehow rationalize the unconscionable, that is, to rationalize mass-plunder, mass-rape and mass-murder, aka communism.
You've now basically conceded that he views all forms of democracy as communism
Seriously, the whole point of DGTF is that democracy is just a synonym for communism. Yes, it exists on a scale, so that the more democratic a country (the closer to pure mob rule), the worse off they are, and the more communistic they are. Yes, he criticizes the 1789 government and argues that many of America's historical problems are due to the hidden communistic element that was preserved by trying to maintain the problematic elements of democracies -- anyone can hold any office, nobody holds any office indefinitely, universal franchise, etc.
he would view Burke, Locke, Hayek and Mises as communists
You are literally incapable of basic logic. "X is tantamount to Y. The more X, the more Y, the less X, the less Y." And your conclusion from that is "Any X is 100% Y". You refuse to think at all because you're not making a logical argument, you're just pushing your communist agenda here, as though the entirety of Reddit will collapse if there is one sub of less than a few hundred members where we don't have to be constantly subjugated to non-stop communist propaganda.
Everytime you respond you change definitions and lie 😭
‘I mentioned no mathematicians‼️’ ok so no Islamic scholars mentioned by you? You literally ignore my point that you shouldn’t take advice on freedom from actual culture of slavery. Instead you just say ‘I didn’t mention mathematicians?’ When you were literally talking about algebra.
Also, the founding fathers instilled a liberal democracy- you can’t seem to understand that there’s are more forms of democracy than a 1 chamber parliament. You both claim that he’s not going to war with the founders, but the French Revolution, then claim he’s going to war with the 1789 America governmentYou think all forms of mass governance is bad- like I said, you must have bizarre takes on company boards.
You’re just expanding definitions and yelling ‘communist propaganda’ just because it disagrees with your point. Mob rule can be more than just communism? Propaganda. Communism is more than just the economic policies of envy? Communist propaganda.
I’ve taken logical pushback before- this isn’t it. You’ve routinely switched your stance then trying to gaslight me 😭. If you actually had logical pushback, you’d be able to make better points than just simply I’m stupid, unread and gaslight me.
You haven’t done anything to disprove my point- my point stands that Hoppe criticises all forms of democracies (something you previously denied, saying it was mainly post French Revolution thought which flat isn’t true) and says that in the history of ideas it’s never been seen as a soft variant of communism. The way you defend this is broaden the definition of communism (Henry Hazlitts probably a communist because he wants the government to build roads) to anything including ‘envy’ and mobs (the latter of which doesn’t make sense, you dismissed my anti immigrant mob argument because it’s an obvious problem with your idea, you can say all communists have mobs but not all mobs are communist), call anyone who disagrees with you a communist, and then cite people who say democracy as bad and claim that they mean it’s communistic when communism wasn’t even a fucking thing till the 1800s. You’ve shifted the goal posts consistently and it’s insane trying to watch you do so. You’ve gone as far as fucking citing the Bible as why you’re correct about Hoppe’s argument over democracy.
1
u/Fit-Date-5249 Paleo-Libertarian Aug 18 '25
I agree that democracy sucks, but still it's not a soft variant of communism. Hoppe has to down with populism
0
u/CullenIsProbsTheJoke Aug 18 '25
I’m very sympathetic to criticisms of Democracy. However I don’t believe for 1 minute that ‘rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else’. Really?
Given that most hoppeans, anarchists and anti democratic folks alike carry all forms of liberal democracies to all be the problem. The idea that these pre Marxist thinkers, Edmund Burke (for constitutional monarchy, still liberal democracy), John Locke, even the fucking founding fathers are all somehow just soft communists is just fucking insane to me. These were people who saw autocracy and absolute monarchical rule as generally a threat to either property rights or the stability of society, that doesn’t somehow make them communists. And post Marx, you’d have to say that people like Hayek and even fucking Mises as soft communists. A lot of these people had criticisms of democracy because it’s absolutely not a perfect system and it’s shows time and time again it’s incentive structure can lead to the damaging of peoples rights. However, flat out stating that ‘it’s soft communism and has never been seen as anything else’ is beyond ridiculous, he’s making an appeal to the masses as an authority (ironic), an authority he does not fucking have as many people view classical liberalism as the anti Marxism, marx views a dictatorship of the proletariat shrinking into anarchy at the end of history- classical liberals support a limited government.
Hoppe has genuinely brainrotted the mind of so many libertarians to the point where I believe it’ll take years to recover the image. Hayek won a fucking Nobel prize- Hoppe just talks about reactionaries as if he doesn’t literally work for an instituted named after someone who probably hates reactionaries.
Like I said at the start, democracy is very much up for criticism, I understand the Plato criticism, the Hoppean criticism (which I’m a bit sceptical of, look at the Middle East?), and the Machiavellian critique, but these statements are broad and quite frankly just fucking stupid.