I’m sure he does, and you can guess his opinions when you read between the lines. He doesn’t say them on the record though. He’s always very rigorous when speaking publicly so that he doesn’t stray far from infallible logic, and I find that admirable.
My problem with these guys is that they think they’re Hoppe, so try to be as rigorous as he is when speaking. Except they’re not academics, they’re not public personae. We were just hanging out, yet they did not speak from any personal point of view.
It’s not that they disagreed per se.
It was like:
Me: “look at all these immigrants, I don’t want them here. They cause a lot of problems.”
Them: “just stop the state interference and it’ll be okay.”
Me: “okay, and how will we deport them back? I’m not getting it, do you want them here ?”
Them: “just no open immigration and no forced integration. If I don’t like them, I’ll voluntarily disassociate from them.”
Me: “So do you like them or not? And if they completely outnumber you, how will you disassociate from them?”
Them: “Just stop with State interference in this matter.”
Me: “okay dude.”
They did read and they did understand. Hoppe’s rational arguments are very much on point. But Hoppe did not give any personal preferences on the subject. I’m sure he has opinions but he keeps them to himself and his circle, whatever they are.
These guys didn’t utter any personal preference, and we were just hanging out. Very NPC behavior.
Libertarianism isn’t a source of morality. You get that from somewhere else.
I couldn’t have said it better.
It was these guys I speak of who introduced me to Hoppe.
I know some, I can’t say my sample is large enough, but those I know are very much thinkbois without any actual principles for themselves.
“What do you think of the current wave of immigration?”
“Let’s stop with the open immigration and forced integration.”
“Yeah that’s cool, but what do you think? Are YOU okay with foreigners being all around you?”
“I don’t want state interference in this matter.”
Like grow some balls and have an actual opinion.
Gm, keep it up!!
A stair can only be climbed step by step. Let’s do this!!
Gm. You got this!
What about a maker of vikings 😂 ?
Few things are as dystopian as airports.
It’s not really. Also, herders and farmers were always spiritually distinct.
Abel was a shepherd, and Cain was a farmer. God was more pleased with Abel’s offering.
IE were animal people. Those who got conquered by IE were agricultural people.
Contemporary of Neolithics, in the Neolithic era, in that sense yes. But in the literature, neolithic is connected with the european agrarian societies, because the IE are their own thing.
IE were definitely not hunter-gatherers. They were herders and formidable warriors. But they didn’t plant their food. They tamed horses and raised cattle on wild pastures. They weren’t farmers who planted crops, that is the distinction I’m making.
Sweep as in they just rode their horses and chariots and settled in Europe. They must have fought their way when there was resistance, and then subjugated the Neolithic people.
They were nomadic horse people. They did exactly just wander around looking for places where they can herd their horses and cattle. The Pontic Steppe was an endless field of grass.
They only settled down when they got to Europe, and displaced the existing Neolithic cultures.
There are many factors why that went down the way it did. One the factors was that the Indo-European diet was animal based.
Do you consider the Pontic Steppe herders as agricultural? Because the Indo-European horse nomads swept across all the agrarian societies of Neolithic Europe.