What do you think?
Rate this book
Economy, Society, and History
An Extended Seminar with Hans-Hermann Hoppe Hans-Hermann Hoppe, professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and senior fellow of the Mises Institute, presents a thorough reconstruction of the foundation of economics, social theory, and politics. Sweeping in scope and powerfully persuasive, these talks are the basis of a grand treatise in the Misesian-Rothbardian tradition. Ten high quality MP3 audio files on one compact disc, in jewel case. Total running 15 hours.
191 pages
Published July 4, 2021
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
Want to Read
August 5, 2021There's a .pdf here if anyone is interested: https://mises.org/library/economy-soc...
January 13, 2023
Imagine getting served a meal with an elegant plate of the most delicious filet mignon (Mmmmmmm!), with a serving of the most delectable sweet potato topped with the sweetest brown sugar and creamy butter mixture (So salivating!), and all served with a side slop of wet, smeary, smelly masculine bovine fecal matter (aka "bullsh*t"). Wait! What? Ugh. THAT is how I would describe the experience of reading this book. No matter how amazing and awesome the delicious food is, one's senses simply cannot escape the part that fully contaminates the rest of the meal.
This book offers such a mind-opening different perspective on the purported "advance of democracy," different types of warfare, and the false argument of statism. It is a collection of 10 Lectures that author, Hans-Herman Hoppe, presented over 5 days in 2004, at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, US.
But his references to the Protestant Reformation (or as he likes to pretend a new mis-label for it, the "Protestant Revolution") are nothing more than Catholic propaganda that not only attempts to re-write that history, but writes it backwards. On Page 110, he thinks that the prior era, when governments were controlled by the Catholic institution, he posits the doublethink absurdity that there was a supposed "separation of church and state." On Page 92, he presents the lie in full reverse of proven history, "You had the pope in Rome, the Catholic Church being an international church, counterbalancing the power of the various local lords, reducing the power of those lords because they did not control the church at the same time." No, the Catholic institution controlled (not "counterbalanced") the lords (and kings), requiring their Catholic dogma/doctrines be enforced! The author continues, the history-revisionism: "But, this separation of church and state which was unique for Europe and existed in no other part of the world, this unique separation was, of course, to a large extent, if not completely, broken up and abolished, precisely through the Protestant Revolution." Hogwash! History proves that the millions of people who fled the "Old World" to the "New World" (America) did so mostly as Protestants fleeing governments controlled by the Catholic institution. The very concept of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (to which the very notion of "separation of church and state" is often said to apply) was both born in and borne out of the Protestant Reformations demand for freedom of conscience, that government could no longer compel enforcement of a religion's doctrines. Yet on Page 135, he propagandizes, "this separation between the two roles worked for quite some time in Europe, basically until the Protestant Revolution when the combination between church, on the one hand, and state or earthly rulers, on the other hand, became increasingly closer again." And on Page 158, the author re-iterates: "the "old-style separation between church and state being broken down." On Page 93, the author posits, "The Catholic Church is antidemocratic. The Protestant churches are far more democratic." He continues to assert "the dangers that result if you let every individual interpret the Bible on their own." He concludes, "the craziest churches are, of course, the churches that are the most democratic." In the context of this book, "antidemocratic" is the author's preferred position when it comes to his anti-statism presentation; hence, his bias for the Catholic institution attempts to use that example of an organization of forceful tyranny as if it is somehow a positive model for his recommendations for de-statism.
By seeing this bias and history-revisionism that has it fully backwards, I am left to doubt and question the credibility of anything else the writer claims about history. For example, the book spends a Lecture on the migrations of humanity throughout the world. How can I rely on any of that as valid when he has the history of the Protestant Reformation and its POSITIVE input toward freedom exactly backward as if he would have us believe that Protestantism was "the villain?"
To be clear, I can easily stretch my mind and learn new things at any time; yet, I can also simultaneously recognize when masculine bovine fecal matter is being served up- even when served up with other seemingly great information.
At this point, I have to take the author at his own word about himself. On Page 169, the author self admits to "not being an historian, just being an amateur historian." Yup, I can totally see that, Hence, I will not be able to rely on his claims of history.
He does have some good lines through.
On Page 121, "a state is defined as an organization or an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction or ultimate judgeship of ultimate arbitration in cases of conflict."
On Page 148, "the classical liberal movement died out and social democratic and socialist parties came to power. Even those parties who called themselves liberal are no longer liberal in the previous classic sense."
He makes an excellent argument of carrying the "democracy" argument to the global end result. On Page 148, "imagine we have a world democracy, one man, one woman, one vote on a worldwide scale. What will the result be? There will be an Indian-Chinese coalition government, simply by virtue of the numbers." Suddenly, anyone in the US claiming to believe in the lie of "#OurDemocracy" will realize how futile that concept would be for protecting what they locally believe. Suddenly the importance and relevance of STATES and the Electoral College compromise in the framework of the US Constitution's establishment of a Constitutional Representative Republic does make more sense after all. #WeAreNOTaDemocracy.
On Page 164, he makes a startling observation that really does make one think. Addressing the change from monarchical states and wars to what he called democratic states and wars, he references the French Revolution. "The king is killed and instead, some high-floating ideals become prominent: liberty, fraternity, and the glory of the nation and things of this nature. The right to vote is introduced, and as people could not vote before and always said, 'If the king goes to war, we have nothing to do with the state, this is the king’s state, we don't get involved in king's wars,' now we have the argument turned around saying, 'Now all of a sudden we give you a stake in the state, you participate in the state, you elect, you have the right to elect representatives, etc., and as a consequence you also have to serve the state's was.'" Wow, that connection certainly did give me something to comprehend that I had not previously considered.
I will update this review with more shortly. so do be sure to come back for more.
The takeaway is that this book could have been great book, fully of fantastic ideas. But it self-sabotaged itself with lying history-revisionism regarding the Protestant Reformation, such that, any of his claim of history become subject for questioning for credibility and factuality. Someone needs to write another book that lays down the filet mignon and the sweet potato again, without the de-appetizing masculine bovine fecal matter.
2 stars.
(Come back here again later to read updated/edited/spell-checked versions of this review.)
This book offers such a mind-opening different perspective on the purported "advance of democracy," different types of warfare, and the false argument of statism. It is a collection of 10 Lectures that author, Hans-Herman Hoppe, presented over 5 days in 2004, at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, US.
But his references to the Protestant Reformation (or as he likes to pretend a new mis-label for it, the "Protestant Revolution") are nothing more than Catholic propaganda that not only attempts to re-write that history, but writes it backwards. On Page 110, he thinks that the prior era, when governments were controlled by the Catholic institution, he posits the doublethink absurdity that there was a supposed "separation of church and state." On Page 92, he presents the lie in full reverse of proven history, "You had the pope in Rome, the Catholic Church being an international church, counterbalancing the power of the various local lords, reducing the power of those lords because they did not control the church at the same time." No, the Catholic institution controlled (not "counterbalanced") the lords (and kings), requiring their Catholic dogma/doctrines be enforced! The author continues, the history-revisionism: "But, this separation of church and state which was unique for Europe and existed in no other part of the world, this unique separation was, of course, to a large extent, if not completely, broken up and abolished, precisely through the Protestant Revolution." Hogwash! History proves that the millions of people who fled the "Old World" to the "New World" (America) did so mostly as Protestants fleeing governments controlled by the Catholic institution. The very concept of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (to which the very notion of "separation of church and state" is often said to apply) was both born in and borne out of the Protestant Reformations demand for freedom of conscience, that government could no longer compel enforcement of a religion's doctrines. Yet on Page 135, he propagandizes, "this separation between the two roles worked for quite some time in Europe, basically until the Protestant Revolution when the combination between church, on the one hand, and state or earthly rulers, on the other hand, became increasingly closer again." And on Page 158, the author re-iterates: "the "old-style separation between church and state being broken down." On Page 93, the author posits, "The Catholic Church is antidemocratic. The Protestant churches are far more democratic." He continues to assert "the dangers that result if you let every individual interpret the Bible on their own." He concludes, "the craziest churches are, of course, the churches that are the most democratic." In the context of this book, "antidemocratic" is the author's preferred position when it comes to his anti-statism presentation; hence, his bias for the Catholic institution attempts to use that example of an organization of forceful tyranny as if it is somehow a positive model for his recommendations for de-statism.
By seeing this bias and history-revisionism that has it fully backwards, I am left to doubt and question the credibility of anything else the writer claims about history. For example, the book spends a Lecture on the migrations of humanity throughout the world. How can I rely on any of that as valid when he has the history of the Protestant Reformation and its POSITIVE input toward freedom exactly backward as if he would have us believe that Protestantism was "the villain?"
To be clear, I can easily stretch my mind and learn new things at any time; yet, I can also simultaneously recognize when masculine bovine fecal matter is being served up- even when served up with other seemingly great information.
At this point, I have to take the author at his own word about himself. On Page 169, the author self admits to "not being an historian, just being an amateur historian." Yup, I can totally see that, Hence, I will not be able to rely on his claims of history.
He does have some good lines through.
On Page 121, "a state is defined as an organization or an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction or ultimate judgeship of ultimate arbitration in cases of conflict."
On Page 148, "the classical liberal movement died out and social democratic and socialist parties came to power. Even those parties who called themselves liberal are no longer liberal in the previous classic sense."
He makes an excellent argument of carrying the "democracy" argument to the global end result. On Page 148, "imagine we have a world democracy, one man, one woman, one vote on a worldwide scale. What will the result be? There will be an Indian-Chinese coalition government, simply by virtue of the numbers." Suddenly, anyone in the US claiming to believe in the lie of "#OurDemocracy" will realize how futile that concept would be for protecting what they locally believe. Suddenly the importance and relevance of STATES and the Electoral College compromise in the framework of the US Constitution's establishment of a Constitutional Representative Republic does make more sense after all. #WeAreNOTaDemocracy.
On Page 164, he makes a startling observation that really does make one think. Addressing the change from monarchical states and wars to what he called democratic states and wars, he references the French Revolution. "The king is killed and instead, some high-floating ideals become prominent: liberty, fraternity, and the glory of the nation and things of this nature. The right to vote is introduced, and as people could not vote before and always said, 'If the king goes to war, we have nothing to do with the state, this is the king’s state, we don't get involved in king's wars,' now we have the argument turned around saying, 'Now all of a sudden we give you a stake in the state, you participate in the state, you elect, you have the right to elect representatives, etc., and as a consequence you also have to serve the state's was.'" Wow, that connection certainly did give me something to comprehend that I had not previously considered.
I will update this review with more shortly. so do be sure to come back for more.
The takeaway is that this book could have been great book, fully of fantastic ideas. But it self-sabotaged itself with lying history-revisionism regarding the Protestant Reformation, such that, any of his claim of history become subject for questioning for credibility and factuality. Someone needs to write another book that lays down the filet mignon and the sweet potato again, without the de-appetizing masculine bovine fecal matter.
2 stars.
(Come back here again later to read updated/edited/spell-checked versions of this review.)
July 17, 2022
It's interesting to see that Hoppe and RD Alexander basically have/had the exact same view on law. I know Hoppe and the Mises Institute crowd have some understanding of sociobiology, and Block has lectured on it, but to see that really adds to the credibility of AE. It's the only approach to economics where you can actually plug different lines of evidence and thought into each other....
February 2, 2023
One of the more historically compelling and evidence based approaches to liberalism and democracy. Hoppe also develops very interesting arguments that I never heard before; the first and last chapters were the best.
February 26, 2022
Great introduction to Hoppe's ideas!
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews