By Anarcho-Viking
New York, NY
1/31/2018

Libertarians under crossfire

We have never been short of people taking aim at Hans-Hermann Hoppe, especially those who are hitting from the left. Recently, however, the frequency of the attacks has increased within so called “left libertarian” circles.

Tom Palmer, a fellow at the Cato Institute, just the other day went after the great Austro-Libertarian for his alleged fascist sympathies, and labeled him a “racial collectivist” and a “racist” among other things. Palmer also went on using a collectivist blanket statement, to label the supporters of Hans Hoppe as a “Stalinist movement”.

One might think that such an attack on a scholar par excellence like Prof. Hoppe is a rare occurrence given the level of ridiculousness embedded in Palmer’s accusations. One might also think that Palmer is merely a sour grape and a sore loser, as well as an exception. But, Tom Palmer has company within the Hoppe hating cult.

Examples of “left libertarians” joining the chorus of Tom Palmer in the Hoppe hating cult, are: Jeffrey Tucker, Steve Horwitz, and David Boaz. Horwitz has even gone so far as to say that he would “far rather have kids read Marx than Hoppe” after a decentralist speech delivered by the president of the Mises Intitute, Jeff Deist, during the summer of 2017 as he was addressing the libertarian crowd in Malta at the Corax conference.

Strategy for social change

The ashes from the flames caused by Jeff Deist’s speech had barely settled when Hans Hoppe took the stage at the twelfth annual Property and Freedom Society conference, in October 2017, where he gave the notorious talk on libertarianism and the alt right. Among “left libertarians” Hoppe’s speech was interpreted as very controversial, inflammatory, and incendiary, and needless to say, was not very well received by the Cato sympathizers and beltway libertarians.

One of the primary reasons why Hoppe has become the favorite hate object among “left libertarians”, is because he dares to talk, and write about, not just the principles of libertarian property rights theory, but also, and perhaps more importantly, what libertarians must do in order to arrive from point A (a very non libertarian starting point) to point B (a libertarian social order). In other words, he emphasizes the importance of a libertarian strategy for social change. Hoppe argues that such a libertarian strategy must involve a right wing populist approach, and hence many of Hoppe’s loyal followers are coming from more culturally conservative and right wing ideological backgrounds.

Maintaining a social order

The second area which Hoppe stresses the importance of, is how a libertarian social order could be maintained once it has been achieved. This is where the idea of private covenant anarcho-capitalist communities is introduced, and furthermore also the widely misunderstood issue of physical removal. Again, Hoppe takes a rather conservative position and advocates for covenants established for the purpose of family, place, and kin (“blood and soil”). The line of arguments that Hoppe makes, is that the afore mentioned covenants would be more likely to be populated with a population who generally would have a lower rate of time-preference, and therefore by praxeological deduction a higher degree of economic prosperity would emerge. These covenants, Hoppe claims, would also be more culturally homogenous, and consequently the likelihood of clashes and conflicts between individuals or groups of individuals, would be significantly lower. Cultural homogeny, a lower rate of time-preference and capital accumulation, and economic prosperity are crucial elements in order to minimize physical clashes for the sake of maintaining a peaceful social order, which is indeed what libertarians seek to do.

For a person who is introduced to small portions of Prof. Hoppe’s writings as a beginner, and who is also not versed very well in Austro-libertarian thought, might take away skewed and distorted views of Hoppe’s scholarly genius. It should therefore be clarified from the get-go that Hoppe is not just the character who populate countless memes about physical removal involving helicopters, which have been generously used and distributed by people who are self-proclaimed white nationalists.

Contrary to how Hoppe is portrayed by both the “left libertarians” and the alt righters, he is a libertarian academic with stellar credentials carrying the recognition as a Distinguished Fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Hoppe’s praxeological defense of a private law society based on property rights, using argumentation ethics, is best presented in his masterpiece, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, which is the best piece of literature that I have ever read on this very subject.

Recent controversy

The most recent incident that brought Hoppe back under crossfire, was under the circumstances regarding Christopher Chase Rachels and his new book titled: White, Right, and Libertarian. Most people are probably familiar with Chase’s previous book, A Spontaneous Order: The Capitalist Case For A Stateless Society, which earned him an appearance on the Tom Woods Show. Chase asked Prof. Hoppe if he would be willing to write the forewords to his new book, and Hoppe graciously agreed. However, an important detail is that Chase did not reveal his planned cover for the book. When it turned out that the book cover was very indecent, and frankly grotesque to put it mildly, Hoppe decided in agreement with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, to withdraw the consent to use his forewords for Chase’s new book. It did not take long before the “left libertarian” outcry started with false allegations over Hoppe’s and the Mises Institute’s connection to white nationalism and its subscribers, even though the precise opposite is true given the above summary of the series of events that took place between Chase Rachels and Prof. Hoppe. Tom Palmer was not late in his continuing smearing campaign against the Mises Institute and labeled it “the sewer of the Mises Institute”, which is a very odd accusation. The only thing the Mises Institute and Prof. Hoppe did, was to reject collaboration with Chase Rachels after the book cover leaked, and yet the Institute is being libeled. At this point it should be very clear why someone from the Cato Institute would engage in juvenile slander against the Mises Intitute and its scholars. And it is solely for institutional rivalry reasons. I just do not believe for even one second that someone, like Tom Palmer would be so stupid as to actually think that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a closeted klansman.

Engaging with extremists

All of these initiated attacks from the left bring to light the issue of some of the controversial followers and admirers of Prof. Hoppe’s work. I do not dispute that there might be some people who identify as white nationalists or who are from the so called alt right wing of the political spectrum, and who are familiar with Hoppe’s work, and who are citing his work on different social media platforms.

Nonetheless, why would it necessarily be a bad thing to have followers who are “extremists” in one way or another?

I cannot see how this is a negative, besides one’s opponents being able to use it as smear propaganda material against oneself?

Why would we as libertarians, be against the opportunity to educate the alt right about property rights and non-aggression?

If we can turn an alt-righter, who does not have a sound ideological foundation to rest on, towards becoming a proponent of a private law society, then how is that anything but a net benefit for the libertarian movement?

There is further reason for a person from the alt right to support Prof. Hoppe’s views of anarcho-capitalist societies. People who are well acquainted with Hoppe’s views will understand that the concept of private covenant communities allows for a variety of societies to coexist peacefully. The white nationalists will be allowed to collectivize voluntarily and establish an ethno state if they so wish, and the same goes for any other ethnic group or religious group.

Likewise, there would also be room for voluntary socialism and communism. This brings me back to my main argument, that it is on net a positive and good thing that some purported “extremists” are familiarizing themselves with one of our greatest libertarian thinkers.

The libertarian movement will benefit from nudging right wing and left wing extremists in the direction of radical decentralization as opposed to fighting for the sought after central power to rule over everyone, and then force one’s opponent to conform to one’s views and lifestyle, which will obviously lead to more physical clashes as opposed to peaceful separation.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post Libertarianism and the Right Wing appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

By Anarcho-Viking

Hoppe filled the void after Rothbard

When Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe in mid September 2017, took the stage at the Hotel Karia Princess, in Bodrum, Turkey, it was for the twelfth annual meeting of the Property and Freedom Society (PFS). Prof. Hoppe’s demeanor is calm, but yet determined as he addresses the room of PFS members. The topic for the day: Libertarianism and the Alt Right. Hoppe has throughout the years made it pretty clear that he has no patience for political correctness, just like his former mentor and associate, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard. Even though Rothbard passed away over 22 years ago as of today, his spirit was alive and well in the room, and channeled through Hoppe’s uncensored rhetoric. Prof. Hoppe’s academic aura could be interpreted as harsh, and his language as blunt when compared to the more amicable and outgoing style of Murray Rothbard. Nonetheless, there is nobody as Rothbardian as Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and he is the rightful heir of the Austro-libertarian torch holder position.

A populist program

In January of 1992, Rothbard wrote a brief, yet notorious un-PC essay, on what he believed would be the best approach to advance libertarianism in a very non-libertarian friendly society. He was trying to come up with the best possible plan involving the segments of people who would be more likely to embrace the libertarian message, strictly concerning property rights. Rothbard, who had rolled up his sleeves, and sought to create coalitions across the ideological spectrum, even with the new left during the 1960, due to their initial credibility to be the new anti war movement, had now switched his attention to involve a right-wing populist approach. In Rothbard’s short essay, titled Right-Wing Populism, Rothbard explains to the readers what right-wing populism is in order to understand the movement better, and hence facilitate the initiation of a dialogue with individuals who identify as right-wing populists. Rothbard finally goes through the points, one by one, of what a right-wing populist program looks like, and why it should be possible for libertarians to create coalitions with groups of individuals who endorse such a program.

Bringing back Rothbard’s ideas to the table

In Turkey, Hans-Hermann Hoppe brought back Rothbard’s strategic advice into the libertarian limelight in front of a crowd who was receptive, but not as enthusiastic as the audience at the Corax Conference in Malta just a few months earlier, where he delivered the exact same speech. Hoppe points out in his speech how the “Hayekian strategy for social change”, a model of influencing the elites in the political class, in academia, and in the mainstream media, and then await the trickle down effect, “must be considered fundamentally unrealistic” for spreading the correct libertarian message. Rothbard states the exact same thing in his essay when suggests that “the ruling elite benefits from the current system” of the status quo, and therefore no significant change is to be expected from the top among the elites down to the masses. Thus, both Rothbard and Hoppe recognize that libertarian ideas are not welcome in the realm of academia or media. On the contrary, they are met with a greater and greater degree of hostility, every day. Furthermore, we have witnessed what happens to libertarian leaning candidates in politics once they assume a position in office. They either, sell out and become part of the problem, or they get ostracized, marginalized, and most of the time ignored, if they choose to hold on to their principles.

Focusing on the disenfranchised

Hoppe recognizes this as an undisputable historical fact when he claims that the libertarian strategic approach needs to be a populist one. In other words, Hoppe says, the “libertarians must short-circuit the dominant intellectual elites, and address the masses directly” in order to arouse the contempt for the ruling elites within the most disenfranchised group of people in society, and awaken their disdain for the class of ruling elites. Rothbard was also very clear when mentioning that, “ripping the mask off elites is ‘negative campaigning’ at its finest and most fundamental”, and to make this happen, Rothbard further suggests, libertarians ought to focus their attention on the “groups who are the most oppressed and who also have the most social leverage”. Given the limited amount of resources for outreach, and knowing what it takes to convert people to the libertarian message, I think it is safe to say that we need to focus primarily on specific subdivisions of demographics in society. Hoppe and Rothbard have both proposed a strategy for targeting the most victimized groups; that is, those who do not have any protective status label accorded by the state, and those who are most likely to be taxpayers as opposed to tax consumers. From a libertarian perspective then, considering property rights to be the only existing legitimate rights, then anyone who has protective status in form of affirmative action, and other non discrimination laws implemented by the state, is the person who on average will be the least likely to support our cause.

Identifying likely supporters

In his speech, Hoppe specifies which group he believes will be the most likely supporter of the libertarian creed: Bourgeoisie, married, heterosexual, Christian couples, with children, who also happen to be taxpayers. First and foremost, if you are Caucasian of European ancestry, then you are not part of any protected class of people as determined by the state. It follows then, according to the egalitarian leftist narrative, that if you are not part of any protected group, then you must be part of the oppressing group. Why? Because if other groups need to have a protected label on them then there must be a group of predators, or else no protection status would be needed and granted by the state’s ruling elites. This means that Christian, white, heterosexual males, have been unjustly labeled as the oppressing class, and are therefore bound to be the most exploited group of individuals in society. However, as Hoppe correctly identifies, “it would be a serious strategic error to make whiteness the exclusive criteria on which to base one’s strategic decisions”, which some factions of the alt right have done, reprehensibly. Libertarians must recognize that white men are the people who make up the ruling elites within the state apparatus, and who have awarded all the legal privileges to different groups of the population via coercive affirmative action legislation. Hoppe accurately indicates this group of white men in control of governments, as perhaps the biggest problem that libertarians face. Nevertheless, if it so happens that the majority of taxpaying, married, heterosexual, Christian couples, with children, happen to be white, then so be it. It is not the ethnicity, but rather the cultural life style that matters in this case, according to Hoppe. This must remain a strategy of colorblindness, as Hoppe wisely recommends, although we can, and should expect backing primarily from the afore-mentioned demographic.

Strategy matters

We finally arrive at the libertarian strategy that Hoppe laid out, which bares striking resemblance with Rothbard’s right-wing populist program from 1992. Hoppe’s strategy is a ten-point strategy:

1) Stop all mass immigration

This does not mean that we need to stop all immigration, but rather that immigration should occur exclusively by consent of private property owners, i.e., by invitation and work contract, and similar agreements of that nature only. Property owners are free to discriminate against anyone, at any time, for any reason. So, a potential invitee will need to demonstrate proof of good neighborliness in addition to a productive skill set, and a moral character that aligns with the community in which the immigrant will settle. This will lead to immigration bias with respect to some parts of the world, but this does not mean that there will be exclusively immigrants from only one part of the world. It is after all character, value system, cultural affinity, and productivity that count, and not the color of one’s skin. This highly selective approach to immigration is not at odds with libertarianism in any way. Just because there are no distinct private borders as would be the case in a free society, it does not follow that public property has no borders. For who owns the public property if not the exploited taxpayers of the given territory? From this perspective we can easily argue that the open border policy suggested by the “liberalala libertarians”, is indeed an attack on private property. I think the border topic is certainly something that can be discussed further, and I have great sympathy for open border advocates such as Larken Rose and Robert Higgs. But, to dismiss Hoppe’s position, as “fascist” is nothing but dishonest and ludicrous.

2) Stop attacking and killing people in foreign countries

Every honest libertarian will agree to this, so there is no controversy here. We will even have support from Jeffrey “Cucker” et al. On this initiative Rothbard calls for an America first foreign policy in which the US government stops “supporting bums abroad”, quits all foreign aid, and “all the globaloney”. Somehow the America first policy has been met with criticism, and called “racist” as well as other smear terms. Not only by the left-liberals, but also by the “liberalala libertarians” as Hoppe calls the “left libertarians” in his PFS speech. Perhaps such people would be happier if we renamed America first to America fifth, or 34th, or 63rd. Perhaps we should ask them what number they want to assign to America in order to be satisfied? Of course, needless to say, it would be even more preferable to say, New York first, or Florida first, or Manhattan first, or Brooklyn first. The smaller the better, but America first is a good start, and it should not be difficult for libertarians to get behind this initiative given our strong opposition to globalism, and our deep support for secession.

3) Defund the ruling elites and their intellectual bodyguards

Here Hoppe stresses the importance of exposing the “bribes and hush monies received by the ruling elites”, lobbyists, crony capitalists, and politicians in general. Hoppe encourages the publication of the corruption that goes on within the state apparatus at the expense of the exploited taxpayers.

4) End the Fed

Rothbard also calls for the abolishment of the fed and calls it an “organized cartel of banksters, who are ripping off the public.” This point is hardly controversial at all, and it is scarcely debatable whether or not libertarians should support the complete abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank. The Fed is an institution created by the state and that has been granted the monopoly of counterfeiting the coin at a very large scale.

5) Abolish all affirmative action laws and non-discrimination laws

We have addressed this issue above, but I will mention again that, there are no rights other than property rights. This means that any protective status awarded to some group of people in society, takes away the freedom from property owners to associate and disassociate. It is unethical, and an assault on private property to force individuals or a group of individuals to associate with someone with whom they do not wish to associate. It follows then, that in order to avoid physical clashes, conflicts, and tension between distinct groups of people, it is essential to be free to include or exclude at will in adherence with property rights. Voluntary segregation and voluntary integration.

6) Crush the “anti-fascist” mob

While the ANTIFA is a new phenomenon in America, Rothbard’s similar point was to take back the streets, and crush the criminals. Rothbard calls for an approach where “cops must be unleashed and administer instant punishment”, which in turn has led to huge controversy among “liberalala libertarians”, and the sequential smearing campaign against Murray Rothbard. It might would have helped just finishing the sentence which is somewhat taken out of context in this case. Rothbard goes on by saying that, cops must be “subject of course to liability when they are in error”. We all understand that the state police force is funded coercively and illegitimately by the means of taxation, but that should not stop them from intervening when there are actual crimes against person or property. The question that Hoppe asks is, if the people, who object to the police crushing the “anti-fascist” mob, also object to the state police arresting murderers, robbers, and rapists? There are real crimes against person or property, and in a libertarian social order such criminals would be arrested and convicted. Here again, I do not see what the real controversy is, and what the objection is to the state police acting against legitimate crimes? After all, we are coerced, under the threat of violence to fund the state police. The least we can ask for is for them to at least sometimes carry out legitimate operations against real criminals, especially when it comes to pulverizing the “anti-fascist” mob.

7) Crush the street criminals and gangs

This point is merely a derivative of point number six above, and needs no further explanation, except one added detail: It is of great necessity to make sure that ordinary non-violent citizens have the ability to arm themselves, and to take matters into their own hands if needed. If the state police is incapable of preventing crimes, as it so often is, libertarians and other right-wing populists must be armed to defend themselves, their families, and their communities. Taking the streets back from thugs, criminals and violent street gangs and mobs is necessary in order to maintain a peaceful social order.

8) Get rid of all welfare parasites and bums

This should also be a no brainer for any honest libertarian. To keep an underclass on the public dole and make it dependent on the welfare state requires extortion (taxation) of the productive class. This should be considered nothing less than robbery and theft. This segment of the population will be the most reliable support for carrying out and expanding the welfare state, and hence grow the parasitic underclass. Rothbard also advocated this exact same point of getting “rid of the underclass rule by abolishing the welfare system”. High time-preference and low impulse control should not be subsidized and encouraged, but rather discouraged and looked down upon.

9) Get the state out of education

Most libertarians would need very little convincing even with this issue. Public education has become the new American religion. It is in state funded public schools the brain washing begins, from the civic and social science teacher in elementary school, to the higher ups in academia and university settings. The purpose of state funded education is for the state to mold the mind of the children from an early age, and turn them into obeying robots and good state servants, and not free thinkers as they claim. Defunding all public education is an initiative that libertarians should get behind and support with little to no thinking.

10) Do not put any trust in politics or political parties

Hoppe states that “it is the ultimate libertarian goal to put an end to all politics”, and turn to a complete private law society. The main reason libertarians should not be putting any trust into politics, is because of the identified short comings of the so called “Hayekian strategy”. Just as we are not welcome in academia and mainstream media, libertarian ideas are met with contempt by the ruling elites.

The above ten-point program for libertarian social change is logical, realistic and hardly controversial at all. If you listened to Hoppe’s speech, and read this article, your knee jerk reaction should not be “fascism”, or “racism”, but rather realism. There is nothing even faintly resembling fascism in Hoppe’s libertarianism. Finally, for everyone who calls Hans-Hermann Hoppe a statist based on these observations, perhaps it would be useful to listen to the first ten minutes of the speech. You will hear him loud and clear assert that one cannot be a libertarian or merely a fake libertarian if one supports the existence of a state, any state at all. He affirms that one has to be a proponent of an anarcho-capitalist society or a proponent of a private law society.

Anarcho-Viking
New York, NY
October 16, 2017

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post A Little Matter of Strategy appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Ladies and gentlemen. It’s here! HHH’s speech at the PFS recently in Turkey.

Hans Hermann Hoppe; the greatest libertarian thinker of our time delivers a greatly anticipated and striking speech on the Alt Right, Libertarianism, and society’s issues as a whole and offering a strategic social solution, also while identifying many issues even amongst libertarians themselves.

We’ve posted a few articles on the site recently to help clarify some of the confusion on his thought.  Well, let’s just say Hoppe is perfectly capable of defending himself, so to speak.

The page listing those articles can be found here:

So To Speak – The Misunderstood and Misrepresented Thought of Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[UPDATE]

Apparently this speech was too hot for YouTube and got taken down.

The video player above will allow you to download the video file if you wish.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE BELOW THE FOLD

The post Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarianism and the “Alt-Right” (PFS 2017) – Video appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

By Anarcho-Viking

Trouble with the thought police

In 2004 during a lecture on money and banking, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe provided an example of how the concept of time-preference plays a major role in the economy, local as well as global. The illustration given by Prof. Hoppe became a national controversy, and was used by the left-wing opinion molders in an attempt to hound the Austro-anarcho-capitalist academic out of polite society, and to consequently destroy his career. The case presented by Hoppe, and that caused the outcry, was hardly controversial at all. We will get to the actual case soon, but let us first clarify what the definition of time-preference is, and why it is such an important component as part of economic analysis.

Time-preference and the Austrian school

The level of time-preference an individual has, is measured by the degree to which that individual is willing to postpone present consumption in favor of the future, delayed gratification of greater benefits than what consumption right away would provide. A trivial, yet classic example of degree of time-preference, can be seen in the experiment of giving a child the following option: Either receiving one cookie right now, or waiting 30 minutes and receiving two cookies. The child’s present desire to consume usually trumps the willingness to await delayed gratification, and hence we conclude through praxeological deduction that children on average have a higher degree of time-preference than more mentally mature persons. The price paid by giving up present consumption in exchange for future value of a good or service must mean that the expected future psychic revenue is greater than the present psychic revenue generated by consuming instantaneously. Nobody would prefer to consume later should the act of consuming generate the same satisfaction today as it would a year from now.

The reason why the idea of time-preference is constantly stressed as crucial in the Austrian school of economics is because it drives the natural interest rate, which in turn coordinates investments and consumption over time. Since investments are an integral part of the structure of production, it is therefore essential to maintain a low degree of time-preference within the population. Lower time-preference will increase savings, lower the interest rates, and encourage investments as to increase future productivity; and finally yield a higher standard of living by sheer output capacity.

Understanding economics <> homophobia

When Prof. Hoppe was highlighting the concept of time-preference he made a comparative example between homosexuals (a group who on average have very few children), and heterosexuals (a group who on average have far more children). Hoppe’s claim is that family oriented individuals tend to be more farsighted than individuals who father no children, and thus have lower time-preference. By the same token, the converse argument is that homosexuals are less likely to have children, ceteris paribus, and hence will on average possess a more elevated rate of time-preference. We all know that there are exceptions to this generalization, and this is why Hoppe has emphasized the statistic metric “Average” in his argument. No, it simply does not follow as rational conclusion to say that, because Hoppe made reference to homosexuals for the purpose of clarifying the concept of time-preference, he must be a “homophobe”. Hoppe’s comparison is nothing more controversial than saying that Germans on average drink more beer than the French. It is furthermore relevant to point out that there must be some variation of time-preference within the population for peaceful cooperation and trade to advance between individuals. The segments of people with lower time-preference, who accumulate capital, will satisfy the needs of someone with a higher time-preference who will then be able to loan the accumulated capital in order to purchase a house or start a business. It is truly amazing how this case blew out of proportions based on misunderstandings from university administrators who obviously do not understand economics, let alone the concept of time-preference.

The deceitful strategy of the critics

Taking Hoppe’s statements out of context and make accusations is nothing new, but it is nevertheless deceiving and dishonest. And some people from within the libertarian circles, who know better, have joined the bandwagon of Hoppe haters with the hope of getting approval from the left. The most common quotation used by the attackers is the following, taken from Democracy—The God That Failed:

“There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.” 

We talked about this in the previous article about physical removal, so we will not pay attention to the above quote in this article. Instead we are going to look at another quote from Hoppe, which is also frequently manipulated in such a way that it drives ordinary people crazy:

“….there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. ……..for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.” 

Understanding the truth is a matter of terminology

It would be interesting to measure the blood-pressure on a Steve Horwitz and Jeffrey Tucker as they read the above quote, and see the numbers go up on the blood pressure monitor. The statement is completely taken out of context, and it is a strategy that we are sadly familiar with these days in order to drag someone’s name through the mud. The anti Hoppe cult will post this quote and autistically screech, “Look, Hoppe is a homophobic fascist!” and then they will step away. Q.E.D. Discussion is over. Well, as it turns out, it is not game over, and we will find out when putting the quote in its entirety and its proper context where it belongs, it no longer bares any controversy. Here is the statement in its full context in which it deserves to be judged:

“Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”

The bold parts of the quote are the parts that are usually omitted by those who have made it the goal to destroy Hoppe’s reputation, and who have no interest in examining in a scholarly manner what Hoppe is actually saying. The aforementioned quote, read in its entirety, is no proof of alleged “homophobia” accusations thrown around for the sole sake of defaming. Hoppe is not insinuating that there can be no tolerance against homosexuals. What he is saying, is that there can be no tolerance against people who actively promote life-styles that run contrary to the covenant. I am fairly sure that a gay-queer alliance group at a university campus expects the people who are in that alliance to be either gay or queer. Should such an alliance not be able to turn away heterosexual persons from infiltrating their established society? Of course they should. Likewise, should the Catholic Church not be allowed to excommunicate Satanists from their religious order? Or how about a nudist community expelling anyone who refuses to be a nudist? Then why is it unacceptable for a covenant, established for the purpose of family, place, and kin (“blood and soil”), to remove those who actively promote life-styles contrary to the very covenant? In addition, it ought to be noted that Hoppe does not assert that those individuals should be expelled as long as they are not actively promoting and advocating the very life-styles they are living. That position alone makes Hoppe far more tolerant than anyone of his critics on the left.

Victory against the opinion molders

If one is to going to gain all their knowledge about Hans-Hermann Hoppe via his Wikipedia page, and then launch an attack on him, perhaps they should also read the Wikipedia page for the term “Covenant”. The attackers will continue their mission, and they will be around. It is much easier to just pull out Wikipedia, or to read some blog post by some “schmoe” than it is to actually pick up a copy of one of Hoppe’s books, or listen to his extraordinary lectures and seminars. Prof. Hoppe’s work is scholarly rigorous, and it will demand some degree of intellectual curiosity to go through his writings. And as for Hoppe’s battle with the UNLV, he managed to get the ACLU of all organizations to defend him, and later on all charges against him for his suspected thought crimes, were dropped by the university administration.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post Understanding Time-Preference vs Being Homophobic appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

By Anarcho-Viking

The meme warriors from 4chan have revolutionized the art of meme warfare, and in the process of doing so; prominent libertarian scholars have appeared frequently together with fascist leaning military dictators, in what I would call the “alt-right meme circus”.

Memeing Gone Rampant

The helicopter is warmed up, photoshoped into the image are the faces of Augusto Pinochet (the former Chilean dictator) and Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Austrian economist and libertarian theorist) replacing the original caricature faces. Loaded onto the helicopter are a few communists or antifa social justice activists. Pepe the frog furthermore drags the commies onto the helicopter, and the helicopter carries the flag of Kekistan (an invented kingdom).

The text on the meme reads, “Hoppe’s physical removal service”, or “The Hoppean helicopter ride”, or “Free Kekistan!” Does this scenario sound familiar to you?

If you identify yourself as an anarcho-capitalist libertarian then you have certainly been exposed to the literature of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and you might laugh in amusement at this type of weaponized autism put forward by the alt-right internet trolls.

While the perversion of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics is entertaining in a warped sort of way, it is understandable that some people could be deceived by this distortion of Hoppe’s arguments, and as a consequence obtain a twisted interpretation of one of the greatest heroes for the cause of liberty.

Physical Removal

In order to clear up the confusion regarding the controversy around Hoppe, we need to look closer at his argumentation ethics, and frame the issue given the presumed conditions from which Hoppe derives his reasoning. In his masterpiece, Democracy – The God That Failed, Hoppe famously claims that:

“in a covenant…among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists”

because some people might promote ideas that would disturb the naturally established covenant and destabilize the covenant’s asserted protection of private property, concepts such as “democracy and communism”.

Hoppe furthermore goes on to argue that “there can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order” and the conclusion is that the alleged enemies of private property preservation “will have to be physically separated and removed from society”, so to speak.

The idea of “physical removal” is coming from the aforementioned statements. These statements, when taken out of context can be widely misunderstood.

The “Hoppean” proviso

It therefore becomes crucial to understand from what framework Hoppe delivers his bold rhetoric. People who have never even read a line in Democracy – The God That Failed, will think that Hoppe believes it is acceptable from an anarcho-capitalist stand-point to physically remove socialists by the use of government force, i.e., initiate aggression.

This is obviously not the case, and anyone who has had the opportunity to read Hoppe’s work, knows that the proviso for removing people is the understanding and contractual agreements of property rights in a free society.

The “Hoppean” proviso rests on the presumption that the notion of private property in a covenant society is the rule of law. It is therefore not controversial at all to say that a property owner has every right to exclude anyone from his/her property, for any reason, at any time. The natural right to discriminate is fundamental to maintain a peaceful and prosperous society, and it is nothing more controversial than your own right to decide whom you invite to come to your house for dinner.

In other words, when framing the issues by looking at them through the lens of self-determination, property rights, and voluntary association, it becomes crystal clear that the right to exclusion is a high necessity and a defense against moral decay and high time-preference. On the other hand, if one looks at the issues through the statist lens of government coercion, collectivism, and nationalism, like factions of the alt-right, then they are easy to become grotesquely contorted.

Migration and Borders

The anti-state mentality of the “Hoppean” proviso can be applied to the question of immigration and borders as well. In a free society no such thing as state borders would exist restricting the movement of individuals. However, there would be private borders instead driven by market forces, and private borders of property owners spanning geographical territories can exclude and discriminate freely.

We can therefore conclude that no such thing as “freedom of immigration exists” between private borders of different property titles. How could there be free immigration if highly selective homeowner associations and property owners determine admission to a specific territory?

The property titles may vary in their restrictive nature. We could have areas where there would be “no sale or rent to Jews, Germans, Catholics, homosexuals, Haitians, families with or without children, or smokers”, and at the same time there would be areas where the selectivity and discrimination would be less restricted due to more relaxed covenants on immigration.

Even in the case of immigration the “physical removal” part is not justified with state action, but it is justified by the notion that property owners ought to have the right to do as they please with their respective property titles. When immigration occurs without the consent or invitation of property owners in a specific area, by the force of the government iron fist, we have a case of forced integration. In a free society, a case of forced integration would be called trespassing, and thus “physical removal” is without any doubt warranted.

When the “Hoppean” proviso is not satisfied and the state carries out deportations despite there being an agreement between property owner and migrant, we have a case of forced segregation.

The “physical removal” by forced segregation, and hence not in line with the “Hoppean” proviso, is not warranted and it violates the ethics of private property.

Freedom From The State

This piece should have cleared up some of the confusions involving the phenomenon of “physical removal” contained in Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. All the arguments derived from Hoppe are rooted in the basic notion of negative rights as opposed to positive rights.

Namely freedom in the sense that you are free from the compulsion of the state, but not freedom to impose yourself and violate property rights of individuals who simply and peacefully refuse to associate with you in any way.

Discrimination is not an act of violence, and as individuals we choose to discriminate every day, from the food we eat, to where we buy our clothes, to who we rent from, and so forth.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post Physical Removal – Separating the Facts from the Perversions appeared first on Actual Anarchy.