Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Professor at UNLV, is under attack by the thought police. All scholars and academics in favor of academic freedom, and all lovers of liberty and Hoppe supporters (or do I repeat myself) are strongly urged to make big noise in support of Hoppe. Contact info on who to write or email at UNLV are below. Let the Army of Liberty mount a resounding defense of our besieged champion of liberty!
Contact info: President Carol C. Harter, Phone: 702-895-3201, Fax: 702-895-1088, harter@ccmail.nevada.edu. We have had reports that Harter’s email has been taken down (not verified), so to be sure you could fax it or cc her staff listed here:
Kathleen Robins, Ph.D., Senior Advisor to the President; Schyler Richards
Deputy to the President; Betty Hanseen, Assistant to the President. Als: Dr. Raymond W. Alden III, Executive Vice President & Provost.
Other possible contact info: http://system.nevada.edu/Contact-Us/index.htm;
http://www.unlv.edu/main/boardRegents;
http://www.unlv.edu/president/cabinet.html#charter.
Coda: Harter and UNLV are already listed at FIRE as a “Yellow Light” college: “Yellow light colleges and universities are those institutions with at least one ambiguous policy that too easily encourages administrative abuse and arbitrary application.”
Coda 2: Despite despicable comments made by one regent, that “Professors have to be careful what they say,” the UNLV Regents Chairman said stated that Hoppe’s views are correct and he should not be disclined. If this is true, it looks very likely Hoppe will win.
{ 130 comments }
← Previous Comments
> ought libertarians “Defend Hoppe”,
> despite his un-libertarian/collectivist
> views?”
Well, for one thing I would be in favour of defending Hoppe’s academic freedom even if he wasn’t a libertarian at all.
But in any case, most libertarians regard most other libertarians as failing to apply libertarian principles properly on some issue or other (including issues of considerable importance, such as abortion and war), without thereby denying that the others are libertarians.
The Thought Police Strike (FrontPage Mag)
Tom Said:Looks like Kinsella got me. According to his “logic” there is no difference between my selling of labor on the open market and using it to buy meat (in a private transaction between myself and the grocer) and Mr. Hoppe getting directly subsidized by the State, which procures the property of others through theft. I also drive a car and pay taxes so others (such as Mr. Hoppe, who produces nothing on the market) can drive for free…which means I must be the thief. Check-mate!
You see, you can’t spread ideas without getting a state subsidized paycheck (shhh, don’t tell that to otherlibertarians that actually paid their own way without stolen loot). It’s impossible, because in the United States of Amercia (as of Feb. 7, 2005) there is no non-state alternatives to state-run universities, such as private schools, private lessons, blogs, newspapers, newsletters, private publishers, etc. Check-mated again. Damn your “logic” is sharp!
I say:Why does Tom even use government money, roads and the like. His holier-than-thou attitude is inconsistent. A professor who works for a “private” college is getting paid by parents who are government employees, by students who are getting financial aid, etc. Tom shouldn’t even call the police when someone breaks into his business. The police are paid for by stolen money, and so is the fire department. Tom shouldn’t even use electricity, the train, the buses, etc.
Tom Said:So enjoy your “free lunch” Mr. Hoppe, I am glad I bust my ass as a self-employed entrepruener so the state can take a pistol and stick it in my face to pay your salery. You are the true libertarian and so are your defenders. Defense contractors, welfare recipiants, state-university professors, it’s not theft at all…only a matter of degree.
I say: To open any business you must get consent from the state. That means that Tom is colluding with the robbers in the state. Why can’t Tom find another way to make a living than opening a state licensed business. I must pay for the protection of Tom’s business from property rights violators. Plus, I must pay for Tom’s trash to be taken up. Also, we are to believe that Hoppe does not pay taxes himself. Hoppe has to pay income tax, sales tax and the like. As well, so-called public universities have tuition; so they are not totally supported by the state. Just like the business of an entrepreneur is not totally supported by the state. Imagine that Tom, the businessman, hires workers that were educated by the state, but he has the audacity to whine about Hoppe. If I claimed to be the owner of Tom’s building or office space he would run to the state for help. Tom’s property rights are meaningless without the state as it stands. Thus, Tom cannot survive without the criminal state, just like Hoppe. In addittion, Tom is using the government pioneered internet to attack Hoppe.
BD: So according to your (and Kinsella’s) “logic” there is LITTLE to NO difference between a welfare recipiant, tax collector, ATF agent and senator (who are DIRECTLY subsidized by the state) and a factory worker, mechanic, self-employed writer or others who sell their labor to private employers?
Or are all state-employees evil (such as the postal workers described in the post below) except for those in the enlightened Libertarian Cadre of your academic priesthood? Or that everyone (including you) is equally a statist?
Tom squared: “BD: So according to your (and Kinsella’s) “logic” there is LITTLE to NO difference between a welfare recipiant, tax collector, ATF agent and senator (who are DIRECTLY subsidized by the state) and a factory worker, mechanic, self-employed writer or others who sell their labor to private employers?
Or are all state-employees evil (such as the postal workers described in the post below) except for those in the enlightened Libertarian Cadre of your academic priesthood? Or that everyone (including you) is equally a statist?”
Why, no, Tom, we are not saying that. We have pointed out that your basis for criticism appears to be self-conradictory. You are free to set forth your own theory with the proper nuances and justifications, and then apply it and explain why X is covered but Y is not.
Rothbard did a bit of it in the article referred to above; and see, e.g., Block’s seminar (not sure if it’s a published paper yet “Walter Block, Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt and Punishment for the Crime of Statism
How is it self-conradictory to say those libertarians recieving corporate welfare paychecks direcly from the State (such as Hoppe) are bigger hypocrites and criminals than those who do not receive payments directly from the state?
PS: Appealing to “authority” will not save you. Rothbard is not Jesus and Block is not Moses.
Tom Tom Tom: “How is it self-conradictory to say those libertarians recieving corporate welfare paychecks direcly from the State (such as Hoppe) are bigger hypocrites and criminals than those who do not receive payments directly from the state?”
Oh, that’s not itself contradictory, it’s just an unsupported, not very well thought out assertion. It fails to explain why this type of state aid is somehow categorically different than other, more subtle or less direct types. That’s all.
“PS: Appealing to “authority” will not save you.”
Jesus saves, man (but Moses invests). Anyway I was not appealing to authority–I was pointing to 2 attempts to actually set forth a theoyr of various types of culpable behavior in this state-run world. You konw, just as an example of what you would need to do, if you really wanted to seriously have a serious opinion.
“Rothbard is not Jesus and Block is not Moses.”
Wow, deep man. Can you tell me next what 2 + 2 is?
Tom Tom,
Prof. Kinsella made no appeal to authority. He referred you to two excellent articles, one by Rothbard, the other by Block. Rothbard’s reasoning is sound, but your only response to it was, “I bet Rothbard had a lot to say about that…especially considering most of his income was ripped off at bayonet point from taxpayers. No conflict of interest there.”
The only one here engaging in logical fallacies is yourself.
Rothbard, Block, and Kinsella all discuss what things are appropriate to do in a State-run world, and provide some decent argument for it.
It’s categorically different because someone is collecting something directly stolen by the state. No different than a mugger handing you my money verus a mugged person walking on a sidewalk paid for with his own stolen money. Too nuanced for you?
I read through Rothbard yesterday, he does not seem to address the simple concept above. So maybe Rothbard’s reasoning wasn’t sound and maybe he just liked getting paid by the Man and didn’t mind being a hypocrite?
Tom Tom,
It may be different in that respect, but so what? Rothbard’s point is that it isn’t the libertarian’s fault that the State has heavily intervened in certain areas, and monopolized others. Libertarianism isn’t about some sort of self-imposed misery, in which we can’t allow people to engage in the professions they want to (that would be legitimate absent a State).
I suppose, according to you, Schindler was a vile evil man because he received money directly from the Nazi State, despite using his position to save some 12,000 Jewish people.
DH: Those who work for state-institution CHOOSE to do so when plenty of non-statist (or if you prefer, less-statist) alternatives exist (examples are listed above). Which means they are choosing to be more complient in the act of theft.
Privately employed people pay taxes under threat of force, which isn’t as much of a choice.
And I don’t excuse Schindler for any money that ended up in HIS pockets. Saving people is great, but that doesn’t excuse the act of pickpocketing.
PS: Oh dear, please don’t tell me you are trying to compare Hoppe to Schindler!
BD: So according to your (and Kinsella’s) “logic” there is LITTLE to NO difference between a welfare recipiant, tax collector, ATF agent and senator (who are DIRECTLY subsidized by the state) and a factory worker, mechanic, self-employed writer or others who sell their labor to private employers?
Or are all state-employees evil (such as the postal workers described in the post below) except for those in the enlightened Libertarian Cadre of your academic priesthood? Or that everyone (including you) is equally a statist?
TomTom: I am arguing that your reasoning leads us to a Reductio ad absurdum. Of course, there is some difference between the people you mentioned above. But it remains the case that they all benefit from the state in one way or the other. Thus, no one (including you) can assume a moral high ground in fact (only theory). The factory worker went to a government school. He could also be paid the minimum waged determined by the state. As well, he uses the roads, trash collection services, the water in his pipes and the like. My point was that the person who works in a position that does not aid in the unjust and coercive arm of the state is no different from any other who benefits from the state. Hoppe is neither a “welfare recipiant, tax collector, ATF agent or senator. In fact, if it was up to Hoppe there would be no state.
BD: Hoppe has his hand directly in the state cookie jar. The factory worker doesn’t. Hoppe is a bigger criminal and hypocrite.
The degree of crime is a matter of fact, as it would be comparing a pickpocket to an armed robber. Both are criminals, but the armed robber is a worse one.
As pointed out to me by a reader, it is indeed ironic to note the following, from UNLV President Harter’s bio: “Dr. Harter is the author of numerous journal articles and published papers in English literature and higher education, and has co-authored two books. She has received numerous awards and honors and has published book chapters and articles focusing on equality and diversity, including “How to Champion Diversity and Avoid Being Politically Correct” and “Cracking the Wall: Women in Higher Education Administration.”"
Good day. This is my first attempted post at the Mises Blog.
Having been a libertarian [minarchist], or perhaps more accurately a classical liberal, depending on one’s definition, for approximately two years I’ve now began to realize the near all-encompassing effect the state has on the lives of individuals, even here in the United States.
The attack upon Mr. Hoppe is of course disturbing and reprehensible, if not particularly surprising. An individual of his courage, intelligence, and scholarly achievements is a rare treasure indeed in the vast sesspool of state-enhanced politically-correctness. I would find it extremely displeasing should this absurd attack upon a man’s opinion continue unhindered and/or encouraged.
As for whether or not Mr. Hoppe could be deemed a parasite can be explained rather simply. Firstly, Mr. Hoppe did not institute the oppressive taxation as instutited by government. Is Professor Hoppe guilty of theft one might ask?
Let’s assume for a moment I had just returned home after purchasing a music-CD by a rock-artist that engages regularly in questionable activities, perhaps even legitimately illegal. Assuming I had prior indirect knowledge of these activities would it be logical to condemn me, the purchaser, of parasitic activity by financially supporting whatever habits said musician engages in or is the musician responsible for his own actions?
Considering the extensive reach of government tenticles it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to avoid not becoming an unwilling “collaborator”, if you will, of government’s nefarious deeds. Granted non-subsidized colleges remain in existence yet government has created a situation where the individual’s choices are drastically reduced in certain arenas, that of professor being one of them.
Keep in mind that if government were unable to coerce taxation out of an [un]willing populace all schools would be private as it would be impossible for the government to subsidize them to begin with. Is an individual who teaches an anti-statist doctrine a traitor if the only available jobs are subsidized by the state? For some time a great deal of the power companies are either state-run or moderately-heavily subsidized by the state. Assuming not all are however wouldn’t it be proper, according to a “libertarian absolutism” philosophy to uproot one’s self and move to an area which is strictly privatized?
Unfortunately, in a nation with an ever-expanding government bureaucracy pickers can’t always be choosers. If a libertarian wishes to achieve a state of complete privatized businesses/schools then it would be prudent to teach in a place that would reach a the greatest possible students so as to plant the seeds of liberty and individualism into the minds of our young.
In my opinion it’s more a question of reality and practicality rather than that of one’s “moral” libertarian identity and loyalties.
Professor Hoppe has my admiration and support.
What wrong Mr. Hoppe did? He didn`t said nothing wrong. So if I say that homosexual pairs can`t give birth to a children, I`m offending them? It`s the same nonsense like when homosexuals complains about some films where they are displayd like, for example, killers. So what about thousands of films where heterosexuals are displayed like killers? Should I complain, because I`m heterosexual? Of course not, but I`m not stupid. I have some homosexual friends and I like them but I dislike some homosexual, not becouse they are homosexual, but, guess why……. I`t nothing about your sexual orientation but about your brain.
Possible progress on the Hoppe front, notes Sudha Shenoy.
Nice comments on Hoppe by Steve Sebelius, in Doing well by Vegas.
Separation between state and anything else has become nigh impossible, because in “Free” America the sosialistic federal state has become gargantuan. Its minions, not satisfied with robbing the victims of the state, now want to reach into our minds to control every thought process.
Woe to the one who resists.
And UNLV has put out the following press release, undoubtedly addressing recent difficulties discussed on this thread.
“It is unfair for the news media and others who may have read incomplete accounts of this situation to judge the university’s intentions and values regarding this matter.”
Not really. Prof. Hoppe’s given the same lecture many times over again, and everyone who knows him or has heard him speak can attest to the dignity of the man. The UNLV never should have allowed this mess to reach the level it did, and never should have threatened Hoppe.
Not every hair-brained complaint by students should be fielded with an investigation, certainly not ones where students “take offense” over something like this.
What the UNLV Administration does not point out is that their proceedings were something akin to a star
chamber. Furthermore, the administration was not
wanting necessarily to find what really happened, but instead wanted to make a statement about
“discrimination.”
When we see an administration placing principles of “nondiscrimination” on the same plane with academic freedom, we know just how far things have fallen.
PC crowd caught with their pants down.
Political Correctness is a totalitarian concept against the Freedom of Speech. I hope, that America, the land of the free, will reject the extension of this crazy intellectual epidemic!
Polityczna poprawność jak socjalizm – zabija napierw wolność sÅ‚owa. Później ludzi…? I zawsze jakiÅ› Pavko Morozov siÄ™ znajdzie.
Déjà vu.
President Carol C. Harter
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Office of the President
harter@ccmail.nevada.edu
Dear Ms President,
I just read about the incident involving a student objecting to Prof. Hoppe’s explanation of certain measurable social facts. I was quite surprised to hear that such a high-profile professor, who immensely contributes to the international reputation of the University of Las Vegas, should not get the full support of his institution against such silly attacks.
Of course it is not Prof. Hoppe who should be reprimanded but the student, for lacking the common sense to understand that his complaint is completely baseless. If it is objectionable to observe that homosexuals have a higher time preference than the average population, then it is also objectionable to notice that there are fewer women than men in politics. In the logic of the student, it appears that it is objectionable to notice any specific feature about any group of society. That would include children, the elderly, the handicapped etc. Any kind of planning or even just any attempt at understanding of individual behavior would be undermined.
To object to the fact that people are different actually denies their individuality. Political correctness is a horrible vision of humanity as this totally egalitarian construct, where no one is an individual and hence cannot be a member of any group, except the formless mass where everyone is equal in everything to everyone else. Recognizing distinguishing features that are similar among certain people does not in any way reduce their individuality, on the contrary: it simply affirms that among all the many different factors that make up an individual, some are actually shared with other people who live with a similar set of constraints.
Swiss people are different from Italians or Americans, yet “different” does not imply “better” or “worse”. To notice such differences is not at all demeaning. In fact, it is hard to understand how a higher or lower time preference could be rated “good” or “bad” at all, something you should have asked your student, just before expelling him for disruptive behavior and insufficient qualifications to achieve a degree, as is evident based on his lack of capacity for economic thinking and abstract ideas in general.
I’ve known Prof. Hoppe for many years. We’ve met repeatedly at international conferences where several participants were homosexuals. They were fully accepted and respected by all, including Prof. Hoppe. They would even agree that Prof. Hoppe’s analysis is quite pertinent. In fact, my nephew is [a] homosexual and has a much lower savings rate than could be expected from someone in his social position, having been [a] commissar in the German Federal [not Thought] Police, [and] now [a] regional manager for Mercedes.
I hope you will ask the student to apologize to Prof. Hoppe and end any procedure against him. If university professors can no longer teach facts and have to bow to political correctness instead, our civilization will collapse under the lies as did the Soviet Union.
Sincerely,
Stefan Metzeler
Ch. de la Forêt 8
1042 Assens
Switzerland
Independent IT Consultant
Co-founder of the think tank Pro Libertate
Member of the Institute Constant de Rebecque, Lausanne, Switzerland
Sounds like a poor joke…but it is tragic
. We are with you Professor!
Concerning the debate about fact that Professor Hoppe recieves his paycheck from the State, I think that what this topic boils down to is whether the State has any rights. Professor Hoppe does not get his check from the taxpayers. He gets it from the government.
I think it is the same as stealing from a theif. He has no claim to what you take from him because he did not bring it into his possession through legitimate. If possible, it should be returned to the original owner, but it is virtually impossible to do so in the case of taxpayer money funding UNLV. Regardless, Hoppe is no more stealing from the tax payers than a person who steals from a robber is stealing from the people the robber ripped off.
ATF agents, tax collectors, politicians, etc are illegitimate jobs because there is no place for them in a free society. Teachers, road builders, etc have legitimate jobs but the state has entered the market.
Naukowiec, przekazujÄ…cy studentom dorobek naukowy, stoi po za odczuciami emocjonalnymi odbiorców. Student przychodzÄ…cy Z WÅ?ASNEJ WOLI NA WYKÅ?ADY, nie ma prawa zaskarżać treÅ›ci wykÅ‚adu, od przestrzegania tego sÄ… wÅ‚adze uczelni!
Gdyby Profesor uczynił przerywnik w wykładzie i w trakcie tego przerywnika naruszył uczucia studenta, sprawa miała by inny wymiar.
Tomasz Szczepaniak, 05-300 Mińsk Mazowiecki, ul. Warszawsaka 180, POLSKA
I agree that JTK took Hoppes comment out of context, and that the full paragraph looks much less damning. And I agree that your blog has the right to censor its private property as it wishes. I still think that exercising that right for such trivial offenses is pusillanimous. As someone wrote in defending Hoppe:
It seems to me that factual statements and arguments attempt to demonstrate some truth. They succeed, in which case they are true, or they fail, in which case they are false.
Well, it only takes a brief comment to point out the full context from which JTK was quoting, and thus keep the discussion grounded in facts, so that JTK’s claim can succeed or fail based on their merits w.r.t. reality.
The argument that libertarians should never censor because they don’t believe in state censorship is false, as pointed out, but its not the right argument. The right argument is that libertarians should understand the benefits of free and unfettered debate, where bad ideas are debunked rather than deleted. Or put another way, one should defeat one’s opponents on the field of battle – not simply disqualify them from the lists.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.