Hans Herman Hoppe's speech at the Property and Freedom Society

Reply

Remnant Posted: Fri, Jun 20 2008 12:09 PM

rated by 0 users

I don't know if someone has posted this already, as I was away for a while.  In case you haven't seen this, it is worth a read.

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin193.htm

Reply

Stranger replied on Fri, Jun 20 2008 12:27 PM

rated by 0 users

Thanks a lot for this.

Reply

Jon Irenicus replied on Fri, Jun 20 2008 5:30 PM

rated by 0 users

Thanks. I think Hoppe is wonderful.

-Jon

Reply

DW89 replied on Sun, Jul 6 2008 8:10 PM

rated by 0 users

Great stuff. I think it would be particularly useful to present this paper to statists who you're interested in "converting".

However, I do have a few questions/objections.

1) Hoppe makes it seem as though his definition of the state is non-controversial and universally accepted, when in fact this is not the case. In my experience, the state is usually defined as possessing a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence. Although I accept Hoppe's definition, one might object by pointing to the existence of private arbitration.

2) Nowhere in the "university level" argument is there a claim that because government provides public goods, it is therefore true that only governments can provide public goods. The argument Hoppe constructed does not incorporate this fallacy.

3) I used to accept the argument that the existence of taxation is proof that taxpayers would prefer to use scarce resources in other ways, and that any  and all government service is therefore a misuse of resources. In other words, if people wanted it, they'd voluntarily pay for it. However, if we are assuming that the public goods argument rests on the existence of market failure, isn't it possible that taxation is merely symptomatic of this problem within the market? In other words, if under market conditions it is in the best interest of individuals to spend money on x, but in fact if they could rely on everyone else to act in a different way then they would prefer to spend their money on y, isn't taxation simply a necessary feature of the way in which government would coordinate the behaviors of individuals so that they can all get y? After all, people really do want to spend their money on legal and protection services. It seems that in order to refute the public goods argument, we would have to first prove that the market can in fact respond to market failure and come up with its own solutions. We can then demonstrate that the market solutions are far superior and preferable than government solutions to this problem. Hoppe does not do this.

Reply

Jon Irenicus replied on Mon, Jul 7 2008 10:03 AM

rated by 0 users

2) Nowhere in the "university level" argument is there a claim that because government provides public goods, it is therefore true that only governments can provide public goods. The argument Hoppe constructed does not incorporate this fallacy.

Someone should inform statists who use the argument that way of this fact. If you doubt it, suggest to an econ professor that the market should provide roads or defence, or for that matter, any other "public good". They will say it cannot in the first two cases, and will underprovide in the second.

As to whether taxation represents resources diverted from paths individuals would prefer them to take, this is still true. The good the government provides may be desirable, but for instance only in a lower or higher quantity. It by no means follows that because there could be a free rider/non-excludability problem, anyway, that the government is needed. Dominant assurance contracts are one way of dealing with this - and also, I see the free rider assumption often made where it is plainly inapplicable. Consumers should have the choice of whether they want a service or not, and economically speaking, the government, as it does not derive its income voluntarily, cannot know whether it's pleasing consumers or not.

-Jon