"The errors of Hans-Hermann Hoppe are regrettable for two reasons: Firstly, Hoppe is a highly intelligent and well-educated economist who – for whatever reasons – fails to notice when he does damage to the values of freedom and property, which he claims to support. This is the tragic personal side of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. But it is also tragic for academic discussions: At a time when we are surrounded by ever growing welfare states we badly need thinkers like Hoppe to show us how to tackle today’s problems. But instead of doing that, Hoppe prefers to take refuge in his pipe dreams of a so-called ‘natural order’, which rather resembles the abyss of a variation of right-wing totalitarianism. For all these reasons, for all his errors and mistakes and for his wrong-headed methodology we may expect Hoppe’s ideas to remain a footnote in the history of political thought. And it may well be better this way. An effective strategy of liberation would look very different. If Hoppe continues to use the terms ‘liberalism’ and ‘freedom’ for his authoritarian and pseudo-liberal agenda, it is time for the true liberals to claim back these terms from him."
Sadly, it seems you are incapable of recognizing that none of the above "money-quote" in any way, shape or form counters the argument that Hoppe and advocates of statelessness here make, namely that the entire philosophical premise of the "state" necessarily rests upon coercive and if necessary physical violence against the concept of the individual. As an advocate of statelessness, I merely seek to enlighten more people to that undeniable, incontrovertible fact, in the hopes of spreading peace and true liberty.
The above "money-quote" is not at all an argument - a reasoned, logically consistent position - against the philosophy of Hoppe and advocates of statelessness, but essentially an ad hominem. There is no case being made by the above, "money-quote", and it seems you consider it to be a "money-quote" because it appeals viscerally to your
emotion-based distaste for anarchism and anarchists.
If I had posed the challenge of the OP, I would have worded it differently, and more succinctly. I would have simply posed that I hold the individual to be the largest legitimate political unit. I hold that position because it is observable that on a basic level, the individual is entirely sovereign. I have no access to any other individual's mind or heart, nor does any other individual have access to mine. I am no man's master, nor any man's slave. To advocate the destruction of another individual's sovereignty is then, logically, to advocate for the destruction of my own sovereignty and is thus a logically inconsistent position to take. The state must, even in it's most restrained incarnation, in some capacity or another destroy individual sovereignty, otherwise it is no state at all, but a voluntary, cooperative agency with which I would have no objection. And then, the question: Can anyone who
proactively advocates the state (excepting, for decency's sake, utilitarian arguments) deny this claim? Can anyone convince me that the state is, upon these understandings,
philosophically justified - or, perhaps more appropriately - a logically consistent entity to proactively advocate?
This is generally how one makes an argument: by making a claim and substantiating why they make that claim. One does not make an argument by making a claim, full stop. If a person expects their claim to be considered, that person should make an effort to explain how and why they make it.
.
... so ignore the argument made? Are you blind, or intellectually dishonest. Obviously the latter. You also completely ignored the question raised. Standard fare for a person like you..
