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
Next Comments →
“past of the enlighted candre”? Truly this poster is speaking in tongues.
On the substantive question of libertarians working for state-funded institutions, Rothbard’s article here is helpful.
Yeah, 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.
Well, either his arguments are sound or they aren’t. It’s got nothing to do with who’s making them.
His “argument” is that a state-funded parasite is not a parasite. Does this even require refutation? Especially when it was made by someone sucking on the state’s tites?
Suppose you were leading a rebellion against an oppressive regime, and you managed to “liberate” a cache of weapons that the govt. had been planning to use against you and your fellow rebels. Joyfully you grab them up and make plans to use them in your rebellion. Then someone protests, “wait, these weapons were produced through tax funds — we can’t use them.” Would that be a legitimate argument?
As for the “especially” — do you really think the logical soundness of an argument depends on who’s uttering it?
Tom,
It is not the fault of the libertarian that the State has wrapped its tentacles around almost every aspect of life. Prof. Long referred to an excellent article, which you should at least give serious attention. Instead, you have slandered Hoppe and Rothbard in “ghetto-speak”.
Dear President Harter,
I am writing in regard to the case of Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe as reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal.
I have attended a number of public lectures by Professor Hoppe, and have read many of his books and articles. Without any doubt, Professor Hoppe is one of the premier men in his field.
I hold a Master’s degree in Philosophy from the University of Illinois, and have completed my doctoral coursework in Philosophy at the Catholic University of America. I hold a Juris Doctorate from Case Western Reserve University. I have myself taught as an adjunct in Philosophy at Gannon University and Mercyhurst College. Accordingly, I have been on both sides of the lectern.
I must state that I am gravely dismayed by U.N.L.V.’s actions towards Professor Hoppe concerning his lecture comments as to homosexuals.
It is simply inconceivable for a professor to be disciplined over such remarks as were reported by the Review Journal. For such remarks to even merit the consideration of discipline shows that U.N.L.V. has very little, if any, devotion to genuine academic freedom, and an inordinate, if not slavish, devotion to political correctness and the Thought Police.
Shame on your university.
Sincerely,
David Dieteman
630 Virginia Ave.
Erie PA 16505
Suppose a guy called himself “libertarian” but still hooked up with bandits to rob people blind. Who cares if he condemns banditry…HE IS STILL ASSOCIATING WITH BANDITS.
You can try to misdirect people all day, but you still can’t “magic” away the fact that Rothbard and Hoppe MADE A CHOICE to take money stolen by the State.
David: Oh really? Rothbard couldn’t have been a factory worker or janitor or worked for a private firm and still wrote his books?
Instead he chose six-figures of loot stolen from taxpayers each year. Or are you saying UNLV isn’t a state-created institution????
Tom,
Rothbard could have made a lot more money by using his substantial knowledge of economics in areas other than teaching economics at a university. People should not have to alter their careers simply because the State has monopolized certain industries and heavily intervened in almost all. No-one would be able to pursue any career they wanted, in that case.
The key question is, Would your chosen profession, qua that profession, be legal in a libertarian society? This allows us to determine legitimate jobs from illegitimate ones, and certain parts of otherwise legitimate jobs that are illegitimate. Being a police officer, for example, is a legitimate job. The libertarian should not condemn police officers. However, particular aspects of what police-officers do are not legitimate (e.g., arresting drug-users, prostitutes, and others engaging in victimless crimes). Being a tax-collector, however, clearly is not a legitimate job. Likewise, there is nothing inherently illegitimate about being a professor.
Yes, the UNLV is State-created, and many “private” universities receive State-funds. However, the question is whether being a professor, in and of itself, is an illegitimate job. Consider if a mafia organization takes over a neighborhood. They start systematically stealing from everyone. In the process of their criminal doings, they monopolize the business of road- and driveway-plowing. This doesn’t make people who choose those professions criminals. It isn’t their fault that the mafia monopolized those businesses, and these are still services that need to be provided, would be provided, and would be legitimate on the unhampered free market.
The question is, is it wrong to fight statism using the state’s own resources, so long as in using those resources you don’t contribute to the state’s aggression.
I think the answer is no. Tom Tom, maybe you have a brilliant argument for the conclusion that the answer should be yes. If so, let’s hear it. So far you’ve offered nothing but insults.
Tom Tom:
I suggest you and everyone here (1) avoid ad hominem or personal attacks; (2) avoid ALL CAPS or multiple exclamation points!!!!; (3) stick to the current topic on this thread; (4) back up disputed substantive assertions with argument, reason, evidence.
You say,
What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that we “should not” support Hoppe? For us it’s a simple matter of defending someone we regard as a clear ally, a friend, and an important intellectual and libertarian; against unfair, absurd, and harmful actions and charges from a decidedly less libertarian, PC-egalitarian crowd.
Are you saying that if you, “Tom Tom,” don’t agree with Hoppe’s views, then you think he should be fired? Are you saying everyone who works for a public university should be fired, or just libertarians? Why do you single out monetary compensation from the state as the one thing we are prohibited from receiving? What about other benefits such as driving on roads, eating federally-inspected meat, etc.? What theory are your motley comments based on?
So far a lot of over-inflated egos and navel-gazing by our sacred “accedemics” who make $100,000+ of stolen loot per year without having to bid their “services” out on the real marketplace.
No, you in “libertarian cadre” can’t sweep floors or work in the food service industires and sell our writings or ideas. We have to “grab the state’s weapons” and make your six-figure saleries like statist leeches. Wow, what sacrafice! Do you drive an Audi or Lexus to your cross every day? We fake “libertarians” who ply our services on the market should bow down and kiss your feet!
The ball is in your court on how showing how voluntarily taking stolen money collected by the state is not being associated with theft.
I would push Rothabard’s magic button and take away Hoppe’s state-backed income.
Would you?
I buy my meat from the grocer, not the state.
I drive my car on state-roads because they have a monopoly over right-of-ways.
Are you saying my grocery store is a state-backed instituion like UNLV? Or that the state has a monopoly over all jobs and being paid by UNLV is the only option available?
Tom Tom,
This will be my last response to you, as you have obviously refused to engage in rational debate in a respectful matter. Rather, you have stuck with simple-minded insults.
Mr. Kinsella makes an excellent point: Why do you limit it to only monetary compensation? What about roads? I suppose libertarians can’t consistently walk on roads, since they’re paid for by the State.
You, on the other hand, are engaging in sectarianism.
You complain because Professors make $100k a year? You should realize that most professors who understand Austrian economics could make much much more money elsewhere. However, they feel that their services are best used to teach, and to bring young, bright individuals into the libertarian movement.
Were it not for Prof. Rothbard and his “100,000 dollar income a year”, I would not be a libertarian today.
You then complain because, presumeably, many Austrian professors may have nice cars and nice houses. So what? Is there something about being a libertarian that requires one give up all worldly belongings to the greater cause? Were that the case, there would be very few libertarians.
I suppose, however, you would prefer that all libertarian professors live in teepees and use a horse-and-buggy?
I think that Rothbard’s criteria is a fine one:
Tom Tom,
Sigh. I guess you are going to disregard at least 3 of my 4 civil and reasonable requests.
This drips with envy or frustration. I don’t see how that’s appropriate here. We should stick to calm, civil discussion of substance and merit.
See above.
Ah. Here we have the germ of a substantive comment buried implicitly here. I take it your theory is that “taking stolen money” from the state is “associated with theft,” and I take it that you view being “associated” with theft as … bad? How do you define associated, and why do you say it’s bad? If the state has stolen money, can it, by your lights, never give it away or spend it, not even give it back to the original victims? If this is your view, it seems odd. If it’s not your view, it would seem you support the right of victims in some cases to take stolen money from the state. In this case, what principle do you adopt (and what is its justification) for distinguishing between these people and the other cases that you seem to condemn?
If you are not interested in civil, substantive discussion, and in consistency and coherency, that is your right, but probably this is not the forum for you.
I will tell you I have no idea what this means. Magic makes no sense to me. I could only answer such a question if the means by which the end occurs is described. For example, if the magic button destroys all life on earth with a billion hydrogen bombs, that would be one way of achieving your proposed end result. I would not be in favor of that. Presumably you have some other meachanism in mind that achieves some defined result–could you explain the mechanism, and the result? That would allow other libertarians to evaluate whether they believe this action would be consistent with liberty or not.
Well, these things are not 100%. The grocery store receives security protection from the state. It operates with a line of credit and employed loans from banks operating in the state-run fed system and artificially low interest rates. It sells food inspected by the FDA. It uses electricity perhaps generated by a state-authorized monopolistic electricity carrier. The food it sells was grown using water from a public utility. It was shipped there on state-owned roads. And so on and so forth.
Surely you would not suggest we have a libertarian obligation to stop eating? If not, what principle are you following, and how does it distinguish between behavior you condemn and behavior such as above that you would presumably not be willing to condemn?
Does the monopoly have to literally be 100% to justify your using it? What if the state simply partly-monopolizes something like university education, so that if one wants to teach, and one eliminates all public universities, then one’s choices are radically restricted–meaning lower salary and options or possibly no job at all? Why does the professor have a duty to hurt himself financially and professionally if you have no obligation to hurt yourself by refusing to use roads? Why is it better that a non-libertarian be paid by a state university than a libertarian? If you are working in a private industry that is gradually or suddenly nationalized, partially or fully, by the state, do you now have an obligation to quit your job, even if you suffer severely for this? What about those in communist or very socialized economies, where most or all jobs are quasi or de facto state jobs–should only socialists be permitted to work, and all freedom lovers be forced to starve?
Why is a private university fundamentally different than a public one? After alll, in a public university, the students usually pay part (e.g, 1/3) of their tuition cost, while the rest is subsidized; but in a private university, for a variety of reasons, the students there are still partially subsidized by the state–some of them have student loans guaranteed by the state, or the school accepts various forms of state aid, etc. Is it just the degree that you think makes it clearly public versus clearly private? IF you are subsidized by 1/5 of the cost of your education at a private school this is okay, but if the state pays 2/3 of the cost then you have an obligation not to go there, or teach there?
Yes, it’s all a matter of degree.
You never have an “only option” scenario. If I want to be a policeman, my “only option” is to work for the state. If my goal is to be “in the security busienss” instead, I suppose I could work for a private rentacop outfit. If you goal is to live you must use roads; if liberty is more important to you (by your apparent view of “liberty”), then no, you should refrain from using roads. These are all matters of degree.
Hey, where do I go to get one of these $100,000/year state university professors’ jobs? Sign me up!
The “magic button” thing is obviously a reference to Leonard Read’s “I’d Push the Button”, which Rothbard mentions fairly often.
Tom Tom: yes, I’d push the button, if it existed. As, I’m sure, would Hoppe himself. Contrary to your apparent belief, it wouldn’t put it out of a job, though.
ObTopic: I don’t think Hoppe ought to be fired for this comment. I do think that the comment is homophobic junk, and that he ought to be laughed at for making it. His comment is no different than “blacks are lazy” and “Germans are bloodthirsty.” Mocking this 8th-grade-level collectivism ought to be a spectator sport.
As others have pointed out, it’s not the time preference of gays per se but people without children. There are plenty of gay parents, and there are plenty more who would love to be parents if the state weren’t in the way of adoption. Conversely, there are plenty of heterosexual people who would rather have cancer of the pancreas than children.
- Josh
Wild Pegasus,
I’m sure that Prof. Hoppe realizes that it is people without children. There is nothing wrong or incorrect about making these kinds of generalizations. In fact, Hoppe explains his reasons precisely: “Reasons for the phenomenon include the fact that homosexuals tend not to have children, he said. They also tend to live riskier lifestyles than heterosexuals, Hoppe said.”
Certainly, to say such a statement doesn’t make Hoppe homophobic. I agree with him. Does that mean I’m a homophobe?
Factor in his forcible removal policy for gays in the libertarian social order, his nasty remarks about a fellow libertarian scholar’s sexual orientation, and now this remark, and you get a picture of a homophobe. In isolation, it would just be a nasty remark; in concert, it starts to look ugly.
It also doesn’t help libertarians look any better when we’re trying to point out that everyone’s an individual, and one of the prominent members of the movement is painting whole groups with a broad brush. We have to pull enough bullets from our feet as is.
- Josh
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!
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.
Peter: Nope. If he would, he would. Instead he chooses to be paid with stolen loot from a state-institution.
Is the university using this as a way to go after Hoppe? A way to discredit him because they don’t agree with his philosophy?
Or will members of the movement NOW proceed to do that all by themselves?
Discredit the messenger – paint him as a homophobe?
rlong wrote: please note that it does NOT say “forcibly removed.” There is no suggestion that the removal is to be done in a rights-violating manner, and given Hans Hoppe’s well-known rights-absolutism, it hardly seems a likely interpretation.
I still haven’t seen anyone on this thread attempt to explain, other than by quasi-Clintonian hand-waving, the alleged distinction between “physically removed/separated” and “forcibly removed/separated”.
Wild Pegasus wrote: Perhaps Hoppe means “exclude,” which would fall in line with the typical libertarian idea of voluntary exclusion: a private-property order committed to 19th-century Victorian Christian morals will exclude democrats and gays.
Would it be impertinence to suggest that, since words mean things, if Professor Hoppe had meant “excluded” instead of “removed” or “separated”, then he should have chosen his words more carefully and written “excluded”? There does seem to be a lot of backtracking in his defense along the lines of, “Well, when he said X, that’s not what he meant; what he really meant was Y.”, and I submit that the argument is in trouble when you have to pump out clouds of verbal sepia to surround someone’s poor word choice (if that’s what it was).
I also think that “Tom Tom”, with nine posts to his [dis]credit, is a much bigger troll than Mr. Kennedy, with three posts on this thread. Thus, I fail to see the reason (other than sheer arbitrariness) why, if “distort and inflame with bad faith and the intention to harm” is the real issue, Mr. Kennedy has his comment-posting privileges removed after a mere three posts — accompanied by a rather self-important public announcement, no less, instead of just doing it — and “Tom Tom” doesn’t after nine posts. Could it be that Mr. Tucker et al. regard Mr. Kennedy as a much bigger threat to interest than “Tom Tom”? If so, then why might that be? (I don’t know the answers, I’m just asking questions.)
Karen De Coster wrote: With THAT person, it is a deliberate distortion.
Did you in fact have a cogent argument to make with this remark, or did you deliberately intend to weaken your argument with personalities?
Stephan Kinsella wrote: I suggest you and everyone here (1) avoid ad hominem or personal attacks;
Precisely my point.
Roderick Long: “Hoppe’s views on immigration are based on an interpretation/application of libertarian rights theory that I strongly disagree with, but I don’t think it’s self-evidently un-libertarian.”
Mr. Long, you’ve written before: “The fundamental question, then, is: what is the fundamental unit of social decision-making? Is it the individual, or is it the collective? As far as I can see, restricting immigration can be justified only if you answer “the collective.”"
If advocating immigration restriction is indeed collectivism, isn’t it then self-evidently un-libertarian?
Cite: http://tinyurl.com/6uzvo
Wild Pegasus,
1. So what, he mentioned that homosexuals could be removed from the libertarian social order? He was talking about a conservative association, in a chapter addressed to conservatives. Property owners should be allowed to remove those whom they don’t like for any reason.
2. Regarding Hoppe’s “nasty remarks about a fellow libertarian scholar’s sexual orientation”, do you have any references on that? And even if so, again, how does that mean he’s a homophobe? Hillary Clinton used the phrase “Jew-Bastard”. Does that mean she’s an anti-semite? Come on. Many many people who aren’t bigots have made “nasty quips”, either out of anger or as a joke.
3. What if Hoppe had really said something that would set off a gay student? Like that homosexuality is wrong? There’s millions of Christians who believe this. There’s also professors who believe it, and can make religious and moral arguments for it. Or what if Hoppe had gone further into detail about how the homosexual lifestyle is more dangerous than the heterosexual lifestyle, for various reasons? Like that anal sex is more likely to spread STDs? (Of course, there are other options for homosexuals, and heterosexuals can engage in anal sex). Or what if he’d talked about common attitudes towards homosexuals, like whether or not different people find it disgusting? If someone says they’re physically disgusted by homosexuality, why should that be any different than saying that they’re disgusted at the thought of eating escargot?
4. And what if Hoppe thinks that homosexuality is morally wrong, and anti-productive? Does that somehow immediately make him disrespectable? Many Christians believe the very same thing. Maybe we should throw them in the bog too. I have no idea what Hoppe’s thoughts on the matter are, since his political writings do not delve into private morality, except when addressing conservatives (and then only to consider their moral views on the family, God, etc).
There is no reason why there can’t be libertarians who think that homosexuality is wrong*. What this means is they wouldn’t initiate aggression against homosexuals (qua libertarianism), but also might not want to associate with them in living quarters.
* Again, I’m not saying that this is Hoppe’s view. I don’t know. I’m simply defending the section of libertarians who happen to think that homosexuality is wrong, due to various personal reasons (such as religion).
Faxed to Carol C. Harter:
Dear President Harter,
Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe is being persecuted for stating facts that are indisputable: 1. People without children save less money. 2. Homosexuals generally have fewer children. 3. Therefore homosexuals save less money.
However irritating the university establishment may find Professor Hoppe’s comments or his influential ideas in general, they must, as academics, understand the necessity of free thought and free speech in any institution that wishes to pursue truth. The attempted censorship of Dr. Hoppe is baseless, and only serves to undermine the existence of free speech at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.
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. Factual statements are not subject to an additional moral evaluation. That is, they cannot be said to be good or evil for the purpose of justifying the acceptance of truths that we find appealing and discarding those that clash with our cherished convictions. History has demonstrated the horrific political consequences of placing moral or legal restraints on scientific and philosophical inquiry.
Considering this, one would expect that an institution such as UNLV would attempt to inculcate in its students an ability to think critically about what they are taught. The actions of the student who denounced Dr. Hoppe betray a lack of critical thinking skills. Rather than objecting that Dr. Hoppe’s argument was false (which it manifestly is not) and attempting to demonstrate this to the class or to Dr. Hoppe personally, the student ignored the truth-value of the statement and resorted to disciplining the professor.
Professor Hoppe enjoys support among lovers of liberty around the world, and he even enjoys respect and tolerance from those who disagree with him. Any disciplinary action taken against the professor will not stand. Instead, our young comrade should be required to attend remedial classes not for further sensitivity training (he is sufficiently sensitive), but to acquire the critical thinking skills he has so embarrassingly failed to absorb from his education at UNLV thus far.
Sincerely,
Devin C. Whiting
Undergraduate Student
Georgia State University
dwhiting1@student.gsu.edu
Tom Tom is a troll. As is anyone who questions the Party Line here.
The question is “accademic freedom” not some silly crackpot idea such as living on your own merit and labor instead of collecting stolen goods paid by the State. Begone No-Treasonites, you neocon statist trolls.
Jim Krow,
Your point is delivered so cleverly and sarcasticly as to be unintelligible.
“Academic freedom” is something I believe is useful in any university, private or state-owned. It helps students learn to think for themselves. By “academic freedom” I don’t mean the right to force yourself onto the payroll of an unwilling employer. I simply mean the policy of voluntarily allowing views one disagrees with to be advocated on one’s property. The owner of a university should not expect to attract serious students if discussion is stifled.
Furthermore, Hoppe, Rothbard, and Mises were not wrong in working for a state-run university. As the state grows, we will be forced more and more to interact with it in our jobs and private life. The victims of force cannot be blamed for compliance. To run from the state becomes impossible, and where running is possible it accomplishes nothing. Austrian professors with the audacity to advocate libertarian ideas in the very heart of the statist maw should be commended.
Odell:
This thread is about defending a friend, ally, and prominent and significant libertarian theorist from attack, harm, and damage by PC, egalitarian, socialists. What has this to do with your little disagreement with one of his discussions of a practical application of libertarian theory to the issue of immigration?
What *exactly* is your point, Odell, or do you have one, other than, “I don’t like Hoppe”?
Tom Tom:
Why, no, I admitted there is a spectrum, implied, as all of us know, that life in a statist society is complex, and asked you to make your distinction. Your scare quotes around the word “logic” don’t cut it, pal. You get a D minus.
Well, by you kneejerk causation standards it could be argued that you are “associating with” the enemy, after all you are aiding and abetting them by giving them resources (your taxes) which they use to hire tax collectors and the justice system so as to extort tax money to pay public university employee salaries. I guess you should go shoot yourself!
Thanks for revealing you have no clear, coherent, civil arguments or ideas.
–Stephan Stephan
“The victims of force cannot be blamed for compliance.”
The Slave Morality personified.
The Sanction of the Victim hailed as justice.
How sick to read this on a libertarian site.
I am a classical anarchist in the tradition of Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin. I am also a strong admirer of Murray Rothbard. I wrote a review of Hoppe’s “Democracy: The God That Failed” which Hoppe has linked to on his own site. I also wrote a couple of other articles for anti-state.com where I criticized Hoppe’s cultural conservatism. The current academic persecution of Professor Hoppe is an outrage. The notion that professors should be barred from openly theorizing about predictable behavior based on group characteristics is nothing more that the establishment of a new caste system whereby favored groups are not only immune from criticism, but from ever even hearing points of view that they might disagree with. In the Church of Victimology, Professor Hoppe is a heretic, therefore meriting all of our rallying to his defense.
Private, non-state universities have every right to set whatever academic standards they wish. If authoritarian-multiculturalism cultism is more important to them than scholarship, so be it. Yet the academic censorship of Professor Hoppe is clearly in violation of the UN-LV’s own policy (mentioned in an above posting) on academic freedom, and given that Hoppe contracted to work for the university with the understanding that this was indeed the policy, my educated guess would be that this at the very least is a violation by the university of Hoppe’s employment contract. There is also the question to what degree the UN-LV is a state institution or is dependent upon state funding for its existence. In either case, the UN-LV is hardly a private association but an arm of the state itself. Therefore, the First Amendment principle would seem to be applicable.
I disagree with Hoppe on immigration (though he makes a good argument)and his cultural conservatism I regard as overly strident, but not inherently in conflict with broader libertarian principles. These questions are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Academic freedom must be fought for and preserved. The alternative is a new Lysenkoism.
in Poland, professor Hoppe is the most influential living libertarian and
one of the most influential Austrians. This is of course thanks to his
ignoring of mainstream and working in antistatist tradition.
Straight truth is also the best way to strenghen the movement and encourage
young people to seek the truth and fight for it.
Let’s look at Theory of Capitalism and Socialism. It’s a great book because
it is systematic and touches upon every important subject of social
sciences.
We read about methodology, about ethics, about economics and most important
we read about propaganda and the role of the state in the whole process. We
can understand why positivism wins and why certain doctrines are promoted
etc.
TSC is great because it is somehow a complete view, that simply couldn’t be
published in the mainstream. I suppose it would have to be “adjusted” to be
published.
A recent attack just shows us that we’re in the middle of intellectual
battle. Truth versus all kinds of lies. Let’s not “adjust” the truth,
because our enemies would be happier, hm?
and somehow I cannot imagine that Hoppe’s article on argumention ethics
could be published in American Economic Review (as a correct “welfare economics” from Austrian
perspective).
In fact, we have an evidence suggesting that if professor Hoppe devoted his
career to publishing in mainstream journals we wouldn’t have a correct
Austrian welfare economics at all. This is not a promising perspective, now
is it?
Professor Hans-Herman Hoppe is one of the very few outstanding proponents of individual freedom in the world. To attack this man is to attack liberty itself! Hoppe may be the most valuable economist of the century. Yet, he is treated as a pariah by the statists. The haters of this man are driven by crazed political agendas.
If you truly value education, you are obligated to stand up for this great man.
Professor Hoppe, more profoundly than anyone else, has given me the power to see the world through logic and facts. I owe my intellectual life to him.
Let justice prevail for Professor Hans-Herman Hoppe and everyone who stands for Liberty!
Despite despicable comments allegedly made by one regent, that “Professors have to be careful what they say,” the UNLV Regents Chairman allegedly said allegedly stated that Hoppe’s views are correct and he should not be disclined. If this is true, it looks very likely Hoppe will win. Caution: I have no independent verification of the statements on this blog post.
Fantastic column in Las Vegas paper defending The Hoppe.
John Lopez asks me:
> If advocating immigration restriction
> is indeed collectivism, isn’t it then
> self-evidently un-libertarian?
Only if it’s self-evidently collectivist. I’ve argued elsewhere that it’s collectivist, but I don’t think it’s self-evidently so. I’m not going to get into defending Hoppe’s arguments here, since after all I don’t agree with them, and that’s not what this thread is about anyway; but he does have arguments for the conclusion that libertarian principles favour immigration restrictions, and I can understand why reasonable libertarians might accept those arguments. Even though they shouldn’t!
Back in the 80s I was a minarchist, a military interventionist, and a supporter of intellectual property. Today I think all those positions are un-libertarian. Does that mean my past self wasn’t a libertarian? I don’t think so. Does it mean my past self was stupid or wicked? I don’t think so.
Tiny Tim:
What is disturbing is the implicit view of hiding-behind-pseudonyms Tiny Tim that those who are the victims of aggression have an obligation to add not only insult, but injury, to injury. Shame.
1. Of course you could exclude gays from your social order. But that’s not going to require isolating and expelling them: they wouldn’t have joined the social order to start with. If you come up with a social order among you and a few other bigots, that has no bearing on the liberty and property of the homosexuals living next door. Try any of your pogroms on them, and they have every right to air-condition your skull. In fact, I would hope they do.
2. Reference: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/018573.php#comments
For good measure: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/014584.php#comments (scroll to 09/25/04 12:40 pm)
3. Lots of Christians believe that God created the universe in 6 24-hour days within the past 10k years. I respect that opinion like I respect their opinion that homosexuality is wrong, or their opinions from 400 years ago that the Earth is flat and that left-handed people tend to wickedness. Religious people believe a lot of stupid things and ought to be mocked for it.
Moreover, there is a difference between saying homosexuality is wrong and saying it destroys civilisation and must be removed from the social order.
4. Whatever Hoppe’s private beliefs are on homosexuality are irrelevant, because he publically advocates isolating them from the social order and forcibly expelling them. This moves him well out of the realm of libertarian thought. My response to #1 (which is Lynette’s argument) has yet to be explained or countered.
- Josh
Josh: “Whatever Hoppe’s private beliefs are on homosexuality are irrelevant, because he publically advocates isolating them from the social order and forcibly expelling them. This moves him well out of the realm of libertarian thought. My response to #1 (which is Lynette’s argument) has yet to be explained or countered.”
He didn’t say forcibly expelled, I believe. What anyway is your point? Why is this relevant on this forum? Are you saying that in your lights he is not “libertarian enough” to deserve a defense or support? What exactly are you saying? Why is this even germane here? Who cares if you don’t agree with some of his substantive views? What does that matter?
Stephan writes: “I would be a bit surprised the Chair would comment publicly like this.”
Me too, and I don’t know anything about that site, but notice that the quote in question is fairly non-committal. He just says “If what he is stating is valid economic theory, then [Hoppe] should not be disciplined.” That’s the sort of weasel language which would allow him to take any position he likes later on — which does make it sound rather like what you’d expect from a Chair of the Board of Regents.
To Pegasus and Odell — As I’ve said, I’m no fan of that particular passage — either of the view expressed or of the words chosen to express it. But when someone has spent the last hundred or so pages arguing that nobody should ever aggress against anybody’s person or property for any reason, and has just been attacking cultural conservatives for the error of trying to impose their values by force, and has also been advocating the formation of voluntary communities etc. — and then, in the light of that context, goes on to list various groups who he thinks should be removed from society, I don’t think it takes excessive or heroic interpretive charity or “clouds of verbal sepia” to assume that exclusion via covenants etc. rather than removal at gunpoint is what’s meant.
Pegasus,
1. It is perfectly possible that those who voluntarily join a covenant violate the terms of that covenant. People are not perfect. People may join to receive the benefits. The punishment for that may not always be expulsion, but it is the maximum punishment for violating the covenant (in addition to whatever punishments may be prescribed by proportional restituion/retribution for violation of the non-aggression axiom). Actually, that covenant may specify whatever punishment’s they please for breaking their rules, so-long as people voluntarily agree to them.
2. Your “evidence” for Hoppe’s supposed bigotry is nothing more than a bunch of heresay and he-said she-said from someone who personally dislikes Hoppe. Someone there even went so far as to assert that Hoppe’s under investigation for sexual harassment. The entries on Palmer’s blog you referred me to are full of insults and slanders.
3. Mocking Christians. That’s nice. I don’t believe in Creationism, that the Earth is flat, or in witches, but that doesn’t mean that we should mock Christians. How does saying homosexuality is wrong make one a bigot?
And if Hoppe actually does “hate” homosexuals, shouldn’t he be all the more commended for not advocating initiation of aggression against them? For applying the same libertarian principles to them, as to everyone else?
Hoppe was addressing conservatives in that section. He thus had to explain to them how libertarianism is compatible with their views of the community, which do preclude homosexual behaviour.
I am not here to make the argument that homosexuality is wrong, or not wrong. However, I will note one thing: whether or not it is “genetically determined” is quite irrelevant. I should be more precise here: what hard-line Christians condemn is homosexual behaviour, not the fact that someone may be homosexual. Let me make another distinction: between child-molestors and pedophiles. A child-molester is someone who has actually molested a child; a pedophile is merely someone who is attracted to a child. All child-molesters are presumeably pedophiles, but not all pedophiles are child-molesters. Alcoholics. There is a large genetic disposition to alcoholism, yet not all people with this disposition get drunk all the time (nor do all alcoholics). There are also genetic dispositions to violence, yet not everyone with those dispositions acts on them. The point is not to say that, if homosexuality is wrong, it is on the same level as these things. The point is merely that the repression of many naturally “genetic” things to be acceptable, and morally required (an example on par with homosexuality would be pre-marital sex).
You’re right, it is different to say that homosexuality is wrong, and to say homosexuals should be expelled from society. However, Hoppe is describing how he thinks a conservative libertarian social order would operate. Presumeably, a non-conservative social order would operate quite differently, and would welcome all manner of sexual “aberrations” from the Christian “norm”. Furthermore, Hoppe explains that individuals would still be free to engage in various behaviours in their own homes, but not to go about such publicly.
4. Hoppe was addressing social and moral conservatives. Hoppe thinks that in their view, public displays of homosexuality, at least, cannot be allowed to go on. If a group of moral conservatives formed a property covenant and community, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t make one rule that they all ban public displays of homosexuality, as part of the covenant. So what? If someone violates this rule, they then become initiators of aggression, and can be forcibly removed.
Prof. Long, Prof. Kinsella,
What is the big deal with the “forcibly removed” thing? Property owners are entitled to remove tresspassers by any means the tresspassers make necessary. If I put up a sign on my property that says, “No Smoking”, and a visitor lights up a cigarette, I have the right to ask him to stop, or even to ask him to leave immediately. If he doesn’t comply voluntarily to my request, I can forcibly remove him, using whatever force he requires me to use by his level of resistance.
The same thing can be applied to homosexuals. I can throw a party at my house, with the proviso that there be no homosexual activity occuring during that party. If someone comes to the party, and starts engaging in homosexual flirting or homosexual sex, I have every right to have them forcibly removed, if they don’t leave voluntarily upon request.
I think that Pegasus has created a bunch of confusion here, and is confused, because he thinks that Hoppe wants homosexuals to be thrown off of their own property. That is, he thinks that, in Hoppe’s libertarian society, if the State disappeared tomorrow, members in a neighborhood could get together and forcibly expell a homosexual living down the street.
This is simply not what Hoppe is advocating. Hoppe starts out by stating, Prof. Long mentioned, that covenants and communities would be voluntary associations. Thus, if the State disappeared tomorrow, all of the neighbor’s of a homosexual could make a voluntary covenant, or “neighborhood”, among themselves with various mutually agreed-upon rules, including the prohibition of public homosexual displays. However, this covenant would only bind those who agreed to it. Thus, it wouldn’t bind the homosexual unless he agreed to it, which he might do if the arrangement provided various benefits.
Altertnatively, they could offer to “buy him out” of his house, so that he moves elsewhere. Or they could negotiate with him on terms that both the homosexual and his or her heterosexual neighbors could agree upon. Perhaps the gay person wouldn’t voluntarily agree to the covenant stating that only homosexual displays be prohibited, but all public displays beyond a certain level (e.g., beyond hand-holding).
It is possible that they wouldn’t be able to get him to agree to any covenant. In which case, they, of course, wouldn’t be able to expell him from his property. Prof. Block has showed that emminent domain is fraud and theft, and Hoppe has done nothing to show that he disagrees with that position. So, the covenant-contractors would have to accept it if someone in a pre-existing neighborhood didn’t join their covenant. I think that, with bargaining, or offers to buyout, there could be mutually convenient arrangements. They could also wait him out to die naturally, and see if they could better negotiate with the heirs of the property, or buy it upon his death.
Regarding emminent domain, I think that in a voluntarily agreed-upon covenant, “emminent domain” would be perfectly acceptable by libertarian principles, if specified by the voluntary covenant. A lot of interesting things could happen in a voluntarily agreed-upon covenant. If memory serves, I think Prof. Block argued that if you could get people to voluntarily go into concentration camps, there would be no violation of libertarian principles. I don’t have a reference on this, but Prof. Block’s views in Towards a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability run parallel to such.
I think Hoppe’s conception of voluntary covenants, communities, is extremely important to the libertarian. For it allows tensions to be lessened, by allowing people to associate and segregate in a mutually voluntary manner. It allows different cultures and values to thrive separately, with free trade between them (of course, again, some covenants could restrict free-trade within, or from without, but they would pay the price, and wouldn’t be able to force it on anyone who doesn’t agree with such). In one sentence, Hoppe says that segregation would allow different cultures to compete, and for people to see which ways produced what results.
So, Christian communities banning any public displays of affection could compete with fundamentalists Muslim communities preventing women from showing their faces, could compete with nudist communities, and so-on and so-forth. Some ways of life would most likely produce different levels of wealth, and to the extent that people saw that as a good, they would alter and emulate. To the extent that they value their community-style as an end in itself, they wouldn’t.
I see this as brilliant. Wild Pegasus somehow misses the brilliance of this.
Well, I did mean “you” in the general sense and not in the specific sense. “One” doesn’t work as well in English as “on” does in French. I meant to add that disclaimer and it slipped my mind before posting. My apologies for offending you, it’s an obnoxious quirk of the language.
1. It’s true that people may violate the terms of an agreement, but it would certainly be odd for homosexuals to join an order dedicated to Victorian morals.
2. The evidence is hearsay, but he has several examples of the same behaviour from different people, bolstering its credibility. Perhaps we could get the names of the people who told him about the behaviour, and we could ask them ourselves if Hoppe said those things.
3. It’s not about mocking Christians so much as recognising that they’ve believed and continue to believe a number of ridiculous things, and I have no reason to take their beliefs seriously because there’s a lot of them, which was the implication behind your argument.
If I’m confused about what Hoppe is actually advocating, I think the fault lies with him (or his editor, perhaps) and not me. If he’s speaking in hypotheticals, he should not be using the past perfect tense. That leads me to believe that he’s speaking of actual historical events and not hypotheticals.
- Josh
Wild Pegasus,
Regarding the comment on bigotry, I apologize for that, and have modified my comment appropriately. Obviously, I was being one of those communist whiners all-too-ready to receive offense.
1. You are right. Yet, it still could occur. Furthermore, people would also be born into such communities. So, they would “accept” them by default, until they explicitly rejected them (e.g., by leaving). Unless they do that, they accept to abide by the community rules. Thus, they could be forcibly expelled. Also, there’s the possibility of passers-through.
2. Yes, but everything is filtered through Tom Palmer, who dislikes Hoppe. I am not saying he is lying, but only that truth gets distorted. He himself did not hear it directly, but from other people. That others seem to also have bad things to say about Hoppe on that website is unsurprising, since it may attract many who already dislike Hoppe. Before attributing certain views to someone, or certain remarks, I’d like to hear it straight from their mouth (either personally, in a lecture, or written form): not from someone who was told by someone else what he said, or from someone else who told me what he said.
3. Simply because Christians may have many beliefs that seem illogical doesn’t mean all of their arguments are bad or illogical. I think the Golden Rule is a great guide for personal conduct. My point was that someone could make a Biblical or moral argument that homosexuality is wrong. Should this be prohibited as well, so as not to offend anyone?
4. I am also a little bit confused about Hoppe’s covenent in the past tense (did such a thing ever exist? Perhaps so in Ancient Ireland/Iceland, and the not so Wild Wild West). However, I was referring to your discussion of Hoppe’s views on expulsion.
Roderick Long: “Only if it’s self-evidently collectivist. I’ve argued elsewhere that it’s collectivist, but I don’t think it’s self-evidently so. I’m not going to get into defending Hoppe’s arguments here, since after all I don’t agree with them, and that’s not what this thread is about anyway…”
But if Hoppe’s views on immigration are un-libertarian, then it’s quite on-topic: namely, ought libertarians “Defend Hoppe”, despite his un-libertarian/collectivist views?
Lopez: “But if Hoppe’s views on immigration are un-libertarian, then it’s quite on-topic: namely, ought libertarians “Defend Hoppe”, despite his un-libertarian/collectivist views?”
Don’t be disingenuous. First, even if you disagree w/ Hoppe’s particiualr views on immigration, does not mean he un-libertarian. Second, the topics is NOT whether we “ought” to defend Hoppe. For those who don’t agree, they are quite free to join the side of the socialistic-egalitarian UNLV administration, but why are there here, I have no idea.
Effort to punish UNLV professor gains exposure (Las Vegas Sun)
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.