Hoppe is a communist infiltrator, here's why:

I'm not familiar enough with Kant's ideas to say whether you're right. But if there's problems with his theory, it's your job to solve them, as an intellectual. How does calling him a communist infiltrator do that?
Just because he may or may not have made an error does not make him a shill.

If Adam Smith had gotten everything right, we'd not need Mises. If Mises had gotten everything right, we'd not need Hoppe.

>>130382895
>it's your job to solve them, as an intellectual. How does calling him a communist infiltrator do that?
Part of solving theororetical problems is applying them to real life- and Hoppe, from his misrepresentation of Mises, to his encouragement of violence, seems an enemy of civilization.
Hoppe, having recently became popular among liberty-orientated people, has the potential to be dangerous if trusted.

>>130382258
This is misinformation. Hoppe does none of the things you mentioned.

He advocates for private gun ownership for self protection and the whole point of Argumenation Ethics is to have an objective standard of morals. He recognizes that there to be an objective standard, you would have to have an outside observer (like a god) and although he's a Catholic, doesn't rely on such. He instead argues that the next best thing is inter-subjectively agreed upon moral code, which has to come about by, you guessed it, argumentation.

Everybody who's not willing or able to engage in argumentation and rather would use aggressive violence to force his subjective moral standard on the outside world, is regarded as an animal and treated as such, i.e. killed or expelled from civilized society.

>>130383574
The US has a moral code...just does not have enforcement. Such is bound to happen to a covenant community.
Life is most countries, including the US, is very good- by historal standards. It seems like the "let's have a covenent community" crowd is similar to the "let's try (socialism) again" crowd...they both ignore that current SOL is amazing...yet want to interfere with it...for some futurastic society.

>>130382258
>adopting Mises means using adopting a libertarian's works for communist usage
Can you extend on your though there?

>Kantean a priori synthetic knowledge- which is anti-objective, and thus supports moral relativism
I don't get it. What about a priori knowledge is not objective? Wasn't Kant very precise to define abstract thought freed from all senseuousness?


Right of the start I have to admit that I dislike Hoppe's view that experience can never trump reason. But that is absolutely speaking for Hoppe's conviction for objectivity since experience is subjective.

>>130384698
Hoppe wants to marry Mises and Kant- in that Kant believed knowledge was gained from ACTION (not that the mind created the world, only that the mind understands the world from the actions it performs).

The problem is Hoppe using Mises (libertarian thought-leader) to validate Kant- who believes knowledge of reality to not be intersubjective- and thus no objective ruling of morality is possible.

>>130385060
>The problem is Hoppe using Mises (libertarian thought-leader) to validate Kant
From your comprehensive view of Kant that would make sense wouldn't it? What else is Mises' praxeology other than observation?

I fail to see the problem you are alluding to. If what you are stating about Kant's approach, at what point does it prohibit you from objective argumentation?
Is a priori knowledge in general incompatible with objective argumentation for you or do you just can't reconcile it with Kant?

The exchange of knowledge only has to happen in the abstract. Does Kant deny that?

Did somebody say physical removal?

>>130386565
Kant is a fucking donkey blower and a faggot how bout that

[spoiler]>>130386565
The problem is not Hoppe fusing Mises/Kant...the problem is libertarians who misuse Mises (as a basis for their thinking, "muh logical action") being influenced to think "no objective morality."

>>130386565
That is, the problem is libertarians who follow Mises instead of Rand...but at least they have the rigtht idea (liberty), even if for the wrong reasons.

File: acknowledgememe.jpg (77KB, 625x714px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 625x714px

>>130386774
>the problem is libertarians who misuse Mises (as a basis for their thinking, "muh logical action") being influenced to think "no objective morality."
>"muh logical action"
What are you on about? What is this alignment of Mises and Kant you're accusing Hoppe or libertarians of?

Mises is against the rendering of one observed economic model from one group of humans or one individual unto another individual or group. But that is economics. Are you claiming that some libertarians might be tempted to assume this for moral standards too?

I really don't get the point since Hoppe is not refusing argumentation as a valid means of information exchange. See the picture for his famous contribution to the objective worth of argumentation.

>>130382258
is that evil dave