Video 26 Dec 6 notes

Hans-Hermann Hoppe on Justifying Libertarianism

The Ludwig von Mises Institute of Romania, on November 8-11, 2011 presents a colloquium with the author of “A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism”, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the legacy of the private Mises Seminar in Bucharest.  This is an excerpt where Hoppe talks about justifying libertarian norms and the a priori of argumentation. Those who attempt to defend anything but libertarian norms are engaged in a performative contradiction.

Regarding the ability to engage in argumentation, there are three possible states:

  1. "none" (inanimate object, dead)
  2. "potential" (babies: part of their nature), (knocked unconscious, coma patient, mentally handicapped: those that have shown at least once to be able to engage in argumentation, and may be able to do so again)
  3. "always" (children, adults etc.)

So therefore, and this is both logically rigorous and accurate.

  1. No Rights
  2. "Guardianship" or "Trustee" Rights, until they show and claim 3.
  3. Full self-ownership.
Video 22 Dec 83 notes

Hans-Hermann Hoppe on Abortion

A colloquium with the author of “A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism”, at the private Mises Seminar in Bucharest (LvMI Romania), followed by questions from the audience. This is an excerpt where Hoppe talks about children, abortion, the states role and guardianship rights.

This is essentially what I asked Hoppe at lunch several weeks ago, but didn’t record it. I’m glad someone else has now asked the same question. His response is very similar. As I explained, I’m not at all emotionally invested like those of the “pro-life” or “pro-abortion” brigade, I’m predominately interested in the logic of it - which position is to be considered just. As it stands - neither of those positions are, they are both partly ‘right’ and partly ‘wrong’. The position I currently hold is the “Pro Property Rights” position, which is called evictionism [video]. For those who couldn’t be bothered watching the short video or reading the journal article (where all your inevitable objections are addressed) here’s a quick summary:

  • A. Pro-abortion (pro-choice)
    B. Eviction (pro property rights)
    C. Anti-abortion (pro-life)

    1. Is the mother compelled to bring the fetus to term; that is, to carry it for nine months?
    A. no
    B. no
    C. yes

    2. Can the mother evict the fetus from her womb?
    A. yes
    B. yes
    C. no

    3. Can the mother kill the fetus? (Would that new pill - RU 486 - which kills and then flushes out the fetus, be legal?)
    A. yes
    B. no
    C. no

I don’t think there’s any conflict between Hoppe’s position -he is simply giving the private law framework- and Block’s, where he is specifically giving what he considers to be the ‘libertarian law code’ response. Here’s a great diagram that encapsulates what is meant. There need not be just one ‘law code’ that individuals voluntarily sign up to adhere by, but the libertarian principles of ‘self-ownership’ and ‘original appropriation’ naturally lay the foundation.

Video 6 May 8 notes

Evictionism - Abortion and Libertarianism (Walter Block).

This is a brief introduction to the theory of Evictionism. Evictionism is the abortion ‘compromise’. I have no strong feelings on this issue, I go where the logic goes. Feel free to respond, however a suggestion would be that you read the below.

  • Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy (pdf). *Pg 14 - Intro to the Compromise*

Interestingly enough this completely validates Block’s medical/technological point. In 2007, viable at 23 weeks and has survived. Who knows what it is now?


Design crafted by Prashanth Kamalakanthan. Powered by Tumblr.