The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy

by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

The collapse of socialism across Eastern Europe - as manifested most dramatically by the events of the forever memorable November 9, 1989, when the Germans of East and West reunited, moved and overjoyed, on top of the Berlin Wall - has added more support and urgency to the central thesis of this volume than I had ever hoped for. Whether the following studies deal with economic topics, such as employment, interest, money, banking, business cycles, taxes, public goods, or growth; with philosophical problems as the foundations of know ledge, and of economics and ethics in particular; or the reconstruction and theoretical explanation of historical and sociological phenomena such as exploitation, the rise and fall of civilizations, international politics, war, imperialism, and the role of ideas and ideological movements in the course of social evolution - each ultimately contributes to but one conclusion: The right to private property is an indisputably valid, absolute principle of ethics and the basis for continuous 'optimal' economic progress. To rise from the ruins of socialism and overcome the stagnation of the Western welfare states, nothing will suffice but the uncompromizing privatization of all socialized, that is, government, property and the establishment of a contractual society based on the recognition of the absoluteness of private property rights. *** In writing the following studies I received help from many sides. Special thanks go to my wife Margaret, who again took on the task of de Germanizing my English; to Llewellyn H."

Genres: Economics, Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Law

265 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1993

Reviews

[Fabricio Ter★n]

It integrates austrolibertarian theories of Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe into a grand, comprehensive and unified system of human sciences encompassing epistemology, praxeology, ethics, economics, politics, sociology, history and culture.

I think David Gordon have a review that should be consulted http://mises.org/daily/2313

[Vagabond of Letters, DLitt · Rating 3 out of 5]

6/10

The work in here is 9 or so on the 10 scale and worth it for 'From the Economics of Laissez Faire to the Ethics of Libertarianism' alone.

The problem is a full 20% of the book comprises reproductions of articles that justify argumentation ethics. Repeatedly, with little variation, just a catena of wherever Hoppe published his argument. About 7 or 9 times' worth. Unlike most political philosophers, I believe argumentation ethics are valid and Hoppe's argument for them is 90% valid as it stands and can easily be made 100% valid, but... just introduce it one time, then reproduce the critical responses, then rebut the critical responses. No need for half a dozen or more basically identical statements of the same concept.

[Charlie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book deserves 4.5/5 stars. One thing I really enjoyed in this book was Hoppe's discussion of the false distinction between public and private goods.

[Adrián Sánchez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aunque estoy de acuerdo con muchas de las conclusiones libertarias a las que llega Hoppe no estoy de acuerdo en el método que usa para llegar a ellas y su incesante tarea de meter la "argumentación" que como bien dice, es una subcategoría de la acción, como pre suposición apriorística para demostrar los derechos de propiedad, tal proposición cae en la guillotina de Hume precisamente, no todo agente necesita argumentar para que sus derechos negativos sean validados, de hecho, la misma apropiación original lockeana que defiende Hoppe no necesita de una argumentación para que se respeten sus derechos de propiedad privada.

Creo que Hoppe tiene el mismo error que Mises al referirse que su axioma de "hacer X" no puede ser refutado si para hacerlo tengo que "hacer X", puedo refutar "hacer X" con solo señalar a alguien que "no haga X" y el cual sus derechos todavía deben ser válidos, es decir, Hoppe y Mises caen en la guillotina de Hume al justificar sus axiomas. Hoppe quiere vender que su "ética argumentativa" es lo que caracteriza a las escuela austriaca aún cuando dentro de la escuela austriaca hay críticos de ese sistema, incluso dentro de los propios rothbardianos, esto me parece una deshonestidad intelectual de su parte.

El otro tema que me suele parecer una pérdida de tiempo es que el tema epistemológico lo trata como si aún estuviéramos en la época del methodestreit, como si todavía es relevante esa pelea entre positivismo y racionalismo, de hecho, veo grave como Hoppe mete en una misma bolsa al positivismo y el racionalismo critico de Popper, Popper también criticó el positivismo y los positivistas también critican el criterio de falsacionismo popperiano, este libro es relativamente actual y Hoppe no sabe que actualmente (incluso para la fecha del libro) mucho desarrollo en las Ciencias Sociales hacen uso de inferencias bayesianas para demostrar hechos del mundo real de manera probabilística, si, se puede criticar muchas carencias del positivismo y del emprirismo, yo mismo creo que el empirismo también tiene sus fallas y no se debe dejar atrás el conocimiento a priori, muchos lo hacen pero nada de eso lleva a la conclusión de que su método es superior, y consta, dado que en sus obras más actuales, Hoppe trata de justificar sus políticas realistas con... pruebas empíricas (muy malas por cierto pero igual entrando en contradicción con su metodología)

Creo que el libro pretende ser un compendio para aglutinar las ideas libertarias pero hay mejores libros para eso, incluso dentro de la escuela austriaca.

[Trevor Schleihauf · Rating 4 out of 5]

It took me A YEAR to finish this book. Now I’m an an Austrian economist through and through, but jeez, I mean some pages were 80% footnotes. Only pick this up if you are dedicated to the climb. This is coming from the guy who read human action for fun.

[Frederick Hammill · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book had a distinct anti-Jesus feel to me. Stay away Christians!

[Jose Graterol De La Hoz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hoppe is a living legend to me.

[Henrik · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is always refreshing to read a Hoppe book. This collection of essays is no exception.

[Miikka · Rating 4 out of 5]

Favorite essays: Theory of Employment, Money, Interest, and the Capitalist Process: The Misesian Case Against Keynes and Socialism: A Property or Knowledge Problem?

[Luke · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are some very good sections in this book, I’m not totally sold on argumentation ethics. Above all I think this is a ‘popular’ text so it goes through a whole lot in a short time.

[Geir · Rating 3 out of 5]

A mixed book. Some essays are very thought-provoking and strong in their arguments. Others are very technical to the point of dry academic considerations. I should really rate each essay of the book, but won't. I recommend that all those interested in politics, sociology and philosophy in general acquire the book and read it or at least sections of it. In retrospect I can truly say that I would be mentally poorer if I had not read the book.

[Bry Willis · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not great. An exercise in Libertarian mental masturbation, where Hoppe takes grandiose concepts built upon so-called 'natural law', an anachronism from the Age of Enlightenment. Without a basis, he continues to spin a narrative without satisfactorily resolving the prime question: whence did the original right to property stem?

[Jean-olivier · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wonderful, but repetitive at times.

This book is a true gem of logic, and should be considered a must read. It defends its ideas remarkably well. However, it is clearly a collection of essays by Hoppe, and hence, some of the ideas and arguments are restated almost word for word, 3, 4 or even 5 times. Nonetheless, a must read.

[John Jolly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thick, philosophic book, but well worth the read. Delves deep into the fundamentals and implications of Argumentation Ethics

[Kezscribe · Rating 4 out of 5]

3,7 ⭐

Hans Hermann Hoppe is a great thinker and philosopher, but unfortunately, he's not a great writer.