Hoppe on Compromise

2 responses to “Hoppe on Compromise

  1. It is generally true that the only way to get a reduction in the size of government is to question its fundamental principles.

    If one says “the government should do X – but it should do it in a less expensive way” one has already lost the struggle (and government spending and regulations continue to increase). The failure of the Thatcher-Reagan project (trying to make government less “wasteful” and so on) was inevitable as they had already conceded the fundamental principles of their opponents case (that government should do XYZ).

    However, if one says “government should NOT do X” (and explains why not) then the collectivist is thrown on to the defensive he or she may be so desperate that they will concede real cuts government spending (not “cuts in the increase”) and real deregulation (not “regulating in a more efficient way” – i.e. more and more).

    It one goes into a negotiation having conceded the fundamental principles of one’s opponents case (in this case that government should do XYZ) the thing is indeed hopeless.

    But what if all negotiation is hopeless?

    What if the collectivists (who dominate the education system and so on) will never accept the reduction in the size and scope of government?

    Well then collapse is inevitable – and it will indeed be terrible (with appalling suffering as government entitlement schemes, and so on, just collapse – with no transitional provisions and so on).

    The survivors of such a system collapse will then have to try and rebuild civil society. But they will only attempt to do so if they actually believe in respecting property rights – especially in large scale means of production, distribution and exchange (no “Social Justice” – no “fair shares” for hunter-gatherer packs of savages)

    So Hoppe is correct – whether we are talking about peaceful talks with entrenched interests (and ideologies) now, or rebuilding after a system-collapse, a clear (and widespread) grasp of fundamental principles is vital.

    To put it in simple terms.

    What happens if the lights go out and the police no longer respond to calls for help?

    Do people turn to looting, raping and murdering – as they do Latin America (or in Chicago or New York).

    Or do they respect the bodies and goods of others – as they would in (for example) the Mormon towns and cities of Utah.

    How people act depends on what their BELIEFS are – it depends on the ideas in their heads.

  2. Julie near Chicago

    It’s amazing how different things are now. I was there, and I still remember the Night the Lights Went Out in New York City. The Great Northeast Blackout of 1965, that would be. Everyone was amazed at the lack of looting and mayhem. What we did see was an unusually high number of babies born nine months later…. *G*, so I guess you could say “a good time was had by all.”

    I’ll never forget it. People were civil, even nice to each other. People even HELPED each other! In Manhattan! Amazing!