Saturday, September 5, 2026

Libertarianism: The logic of peaceful interaction

If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always and everywhere conflicts concerning scarce things. I want to do X with a given thing and you want to do Y with the same thing.

Because of such conflicts — and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other — we seek out norms of behavior with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless. We would simply fight and struggle.

Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and me coming into conflict.

But who owns what scarce resource as his private property and who does not? First: Each person owns his physical body that only he and no one else controls directly (I can control your body only in-directly, by first directly controlling my body, and vice versa) and that only he directly controls also in particular when discussing and arguing the question at hand. Otherwise, if body-ownership were assigned to some indirect body-controller, conflict would become unavoidable as the direct body-controller cannot give up his direct control over his body as long as he is alive; and in particular, otherwise it would be impossible that any two persons, as the contenders in any property dispute, could ever argue and debate the question whose will is to prevail, since arguing and debating presupposes that both, the proponent and the opponent, have exclusive control over their respective bodies and so come to the correct judgment on their own, without a fight (in a conflict-free form of interaction).

And second, as for scarce resources that can be controlled only indirectly (that must be appropriated with our own nature-given, i.e., un-appropriated, body): Exclusive control (property) is acquired by and assigned to that person, who appropriated the resource in question first or who acquired it through voluntary (conflict-free) exchange from its previous owner. For only the first appropriator of a resource (and all later owners connected to him through a chain of voluntary exchanges) can possibly acquire and gain control over it without conflict, i.e., peacefully. Otherwise, if exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers, conflict is not avoided but contrary to the very purpose of norms made unavoidable and permanent.

Let me emphasize that I consider this theory as essentially irrefutable, as a priori true. In my estimation this theory represents one of the greatest — if not the greatest — achievement of social thought. It formulates and codifies the immutable ground rules for all people, everywhere, who wish to live together in peace.


---
Source:
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Realistic Libertarianism

Market-based Governance

People who can’t grasp market-based governance are just Soviets who never figured out how food exists without a four-hour line for one loaf of bread.

They look at a grocery store with 47 kinds of milk and prices that actually move when demand moves, and their brain shorts out. “But who decided this? Where is the plan? Who authorized the extra yogurt??”

Same people look at a functioning legal system and have the identical seizure. They think justice is a commissar with a rubber stamp deciding, case by case, who is guilty this week and what the sentence should be. They want the Party to write the law, interpret the law, and apply the law in the same afternoon meeting. Then they act shocked when the result is “telephone justice,” show trials, and whoever has the right last name walking free while the other guy gets ten years for the same thing.

Markets don’t need a wheat quota committee. Courts don’t need a political officer to tell them what “fair” means today. Both work by general rules that apply to everyone, not by some official’s mood and connections. That’s the part they can’t stand: no one is in charge of the bread and no one is in charge of the verdict. Just rules, prices, evidence, and consequences.

But sure, let’s put the same people who couldn’t stock a bakery and couldn’t run an honest courtroom in charge of everything else. What could go wrong.

---

Thursday, November 27, 2025

"But true Socialism has never been tried" | Robert Higgs

Robert Higgs on the argument that 'true socialism has never been tried' :

"Of course, but the accusation is not sound. Not only has every actually-implemented socialist setup been a disaster, but socialism is intrinsically flawed for reasons spelled out by Mises and Hayek. A true market system is something we know from sound theory can work well, whereas a true socialist system is something we know from sound theory cannot work well. Even the corrupted market systems actually adopted have vastly outperformed the socialist systems actually adopted. "Real" socialism would be a disaster just as much as, if not more than, half-assed socialism like that of the USSR, China, and other places."

Democracy as Participatory Fascism

Astute socialists (if that’s not an oxymoron) opt for participatory fascism, not outright socialism, in practice.

They know that outright socialism—the nationalization and central control of all the major means of production—is a ruinous system. By opting for participatory fascism, they can get the bulk of what they seek, by means of pervasive regulation, heavy taxation, and floods of government spending, while allowing the fettered capitalists enough room for maneuver that they keep the economy from going straight to hell.

Moreover, when anything goes wrong—and it will—they can blame the problem on capitalism, the fraudulently so-called free-market economy that remains in hobbled operation.

- Robert Higgs

The Private Production of Defense


Hans Hoppe takes on the most difficult subject in economic and political theory: the provision of security. He argues that the service is better provided by free markets than government, while addressing a hundred counter-arguments. Here we have an important updating of an argument rarely made even in the libertarian tradition.

"Without the erroneous public perception and judgment of the state as just and necessary and without the public’s voluntary cooperation, even the seemingly most powerful government would implode and its powers evaporate. Thus liberated, we would regain our right to self-defense and be able to turn to freed and unregulated insurance agencies for efficient professional assistance in all matters of protection and conflict resolution." —Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Download: PDF | EPUB