Thoughts on Modern Intellectuals

Economics, Politics, Philosophy, History and Culture
Forum rules
Always add something of value to the discussion and have fun. Mind your language, no porn, no libel, no trolling and no personal attacks.

Please note, views expressed on the forum do not necessarily represent the views of Mises UK.
User avatar
Physiocrat
Site Admin
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:25 am

Re: Thoughts on Modern Intellectuals

Post by Physiocrat » Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:40 am

Neodoxy wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:42 am
Can anyone tell me what they see Hoppe's central theoretical contributions as being? I have read almost nothing by him. I know the basic argument against democracy. Beyond that he seems to do some rear guard action for the cause of Austrianism and parts of his thought seem somewhat instrumental to the alt-right.
With respect to Austrian economic theory proper he hasn't added that much apart from rigourously defending the a priori method. He did have an interesting dispute with Block on Indifference in economics which you may be interested in.

He's best described as a political economist and an-cap theorist rather than an economist - at Las Vegas he taught comparative economic systems.

A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism splits various governmental systems up and investigates the incentive structure they bring. The most famous chapter is the one on Argumentation Ethics which Hulsmann interprets as the final logical defence of demonstrated preference welfare theory.

Following this Democracy the God that Failed is important not just because of the anti-democratic argument but that he raises the point that political institutions prior in mediaevel Europe were more conducive capital creation than the 20th century. Hence his interest to reactionary thought along with his insight that private property implies exclusion so the view of planet AnCap having free movement of people doesn't follow. Further that political institutions were effectively no better in the 18th century than the Middle Ages it undercuts the liberalisation theory of the economy in explaining the Industrial Revolution.

This leads to his final book A Short History of Man in which he uses economic tools to explain the origin of family and thence to defend the cold weather hypothesis, that people groups who survived cold climates required greater levels of intelligence. This increase in average intelligence was crucial for the industrial revolution to occur.

If you're family with the democracy arguments I would say read:

A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism

Natural Order, the State and the Immigration Problem - a paper in the JLS

A Short History of Man

Overall that's under 300 pages of reading and covers his main contributions.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

User avatar
Jon Irenicus
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:36 pm

Re: Thoughts on Modern Intellectuals

Post by Jon Irenicus » Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:04 am

Good points. I think the intersection of his work with the alt right/neoreactionary movements is valuable for that reason alone, as it shows that there is a libertarian alternative to the statist measures which some in these movements favour. As someone who straddles both these ideological movements, I like him for that reason.
Former overlord of the original Mises forum.

Millennial TM
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:36 am

Re: Thoughts on Modern Intellectuals

Post by Millennial TM » Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:40 pm

Argumentation Ethics is usually seen as his biggest contribution, I think.
"The crowd is untruth"

Millennial Transmissions

User avatar
Jon Irenicus
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:36 pm

Re: Thoughts on Modern Intellectuals

Post by Jon Irenicus » Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:13 am

Generally, I think anything he's written on he's benefited by introducing more rigour to the subject.
Former overlord of the original Mises forum.

User avatar
Neodoxy
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:05 am

Re: Thoughts on Modern Intellectuals

Post by Neodoxy » Fri May 11, 2018 9:02 am

Does anyone actually like Robert Nozick? It really has occurred to me that after years spent on libertarian forums I've actually seen him barely brought up, even when he's considered the most respectable "mainstream" libertarian.

User avatar
Jon Irenicus
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:36 pm

Re: Thoughts on Modern Intellectuals

Post by Jon Irenicus » Fri May 11, 2018 11:10 am

I do! I enjoyed his ASU thoroughly, even if I don’t agree on some points. He’s a very academic writer, though, so a lot of the prose can be dense. His arguments against Marxism are great.
Former overlord of the original Mises forum.

User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on Modern Intellectuals

Post by Tom Rogers » Sun May 13, 2018 12:42 pm

Neodoxy wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:19 pm
Tom Rogers wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:43 pm

It depends on the type of thinking and personality you are attracted to. I personally dislike intellectuals such as Jordan Peterson, who I think are physically weak


Come now, should that really influence your thought? ;)
An individual's physical attributes will affect my thinking about them. Whether it should or ought to is somewhat irrelevant, it will. I also believe there is a link between a person's physical attributes and the way they think. In the case of Peterson, he comes across as somewhat wimpy and weedy and this is reflected in his analysis and views.
Neodoxy wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:19 pm
Also, Peterson is much more physically fit than Žižek
This is true, and reinforces my point: Žižek is physically a mess, and his thoughts are a mess as well, but in his case I admire this, for reasons already explained. But my admiration for Žižek is heavily caveated. I am not a neo-Marxist, for one thing.
Neodoxy wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:19 pm
and intellectually conventional (albeit at the margins of convention, in some ways) and are simply there to deliver a dull message that reinforces society's ideologies and keeps people in check. Peterson is, in effect (and even if he isn't conscious of this himself), a clever salesman for the existing state of affairs.
I would say first that in the current intellectual climate Peterson is a radical. Some parts of his message are "classically conventional" and some other parts like his biblical stuff is a mix between "so old it's radical" and just new.
It's all down to one's own opinions, of course. I see Peterson as a defender of the status quo. He isn't arguing against equality, instead he defends it, whereas I am against equality.

Post Reply