Maybe not. He does say he’s annoyed at libertarians who listen to loud heavy metal or something along those lines. On the other hand I would speculate that culturally conservative rock like Christian rock and maybe even Ted Nugent would be acceptable to him. In DTGTF he talks about expelling homosexuals, other sexual deviants, drug users etc from a “libertarian” society-- or them dying on their own in the absence of the state. So it’s hard to remember exactly which “alternative lifestyles,” will be untenable in statelessness, or alternatively will be expelled, or are simply lifestyles Hoppe just doesn’t like. The three categories generally tend to correlate with each other.
Ah yes, those people who are constantly going through mennonite villages handing out fliers for strip clubs, that most favorite pastime of homosexuals, pornography viewers, and otherwise culturally marxist pot smoking, kumbaya singing leftist-- I think maybe you’re onto something.
Hoppe has a great ability to see to the heart of a matter and explain it lucidly and simply. His discussions of the nature of the state are brilliant. However, he makes me very nervous. His views on certain topics are not compatable with libertarianism. To be honest, given his assertion that, in a free society, homosexuals and other such ‘deviants’ would have to be removed, I cannot see how he is a libertarian in good standing. I find that view despiccable. Watching him try to justify such things leaves one with the same impression one gets from, say, watching Nozick try to use libertarian principles to justify the ‘ultra-minimal state’. He contorts himself into all types of pretzel-like positions to get a non-libertarian position out of libertarianism, and I fear that his deserved prestige for his work on other topics causes libertarians to give him more credence than he deserves on other issues.
No offence, me.
Ditto.
Yes, though considering there will be libertarian societies (plural), that could hardly be true of all or even most of them. Perhaps ones adhering to his particular predilections will be so constituted. BTW, he said advocates of those lifestyles, which makes the statement all the more unclear.
There are people who get their kicks from being not just eccentric but outright offensive. They are currently protected by the First Amendment and the judiciary and executive which enforce it.
Maybe he’s not a Libertarian. He’s an old-guard European liberal.
It’s called private property.
Can you source that?
What I have read from him more or less is that deviants won’t be underwritten by insurance–which competes for good risks, not bad risks–so they will be on the margins of society.
And I’d add that in anarchy, if a group of Muslims/Baptists/Mormons/whoever buy a plot of land and declare homosexuals persona non grata, then you will just have to live with it unless you’re prepared to raise the funds on your own for a war against them.
Interesting discussion. I’ve read D: TGTF and I can’t say I remember Hoppe declaring any sort of crusade against homosexuals etc… The only thing I remember him saying is that people who don’t like homosexuality and other so-called “alternative” lifestyles will be free to expel them from their property and to discriminate in employing and associating with them. Which to me does not sound anti-libertarian at all. He seems also to believe that this will cause such lifestyles to die out. That to me seems an unfounded claim (personally I think they would NOT die out - surely some insurance firm would want to tap this niche market after all), but once again, it’s not an anti-libertarian claim, but merely a claim about the theoretical effects of a pure-market social order on society.
Agreed.
I agree with this.
And I rock and roll will never die dammit hasn’t Hoppe ever heard Neil Young’s “Hey Hey My My”??? [H]
Had you taken this position from the beginning, instead of simply arguing that anarchy will wipe out homosexuality and other alternate lifestyles, I wouldn’t have criticized you in the child porn thread. You left the impression that anarchy is some sort of mob rule, contrary to the de facto notion that markets handle niches very well.
Next time try not to mix personal beliefs (like “biology trumps ideology” stuff) with legitimate ancap theory. Otherwise you’re just spreading confusion.
Who is Tom Palmer? Honestly, I have never heard of this person. As for Hoppe, I love his podcasts - I have not read much by him though.
Biology trumps ideology is simple fact. Feminists can argue that women are just smaller men with tits and a vagina. But the fact remains that men and women are profoundly different and unequal. Transsexuals can eviscerate their bodies and take synthetic hormones; it doesn’t change the fact that they are male or female at the chromosonal level. Keynesians insist they can reverse the law of scarcity; the world of finite resources says otherwise.
Markets do handle niches very well. They also mete out inequality.
He’s with the thoroughly compromised Cato Institute and is aghast that Hoppe says people should be able to discriminate against whoever they want for whatever reason they want.
Palmer is just mad because he’s openly gay and doesn’t like Hoppe accusing him of having a higher time preference or something. [:P]
Blah, blah, blah I’ll fly an RC plane over them and just drop the flyers.
This is what I mean: for libertines, the juvenile need to gratify their urges trumps property rights. This is why Juan and other such people should be grateful for the State and its Bill of Rights.
If you want something thoroughly amusing to read: http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/07/01/hans-hermann-hoppe-and-the-german-extremist-nationalist-right/
That was well worth the hour reading the comments.
ARGH MY EYES
:stabs black text on white backgrounds & incorrectly scaled pictures: