Hoppe on Covenant Communities and Advocates of Alternative Lifestyles

[DanielMuffinburg]

From: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/05/26/hoppe-on-covenant-communities/

… Another controversy erupted in 2004 when, during a money and banking class lecture, Professor Hoppe illustrated the concept of “time preference” by noting that people who have children tend to develop longer time horizons (they have to plan ahead for their kids); and that, in comparison, certain demographic groups that tend not to have children, such as homosexuals, the very old, etc., could be expected not to develop as as long an economic time horizon as those that do have children. In other words, because homosexuals don’t have children, ceteris paribus, they will have higher time preference. Now whether this is empirically true or not is not the point; it was simply an illustration of the concept of time preference. And yet a student took offense, resulting in sanctions by UNLV and Hoppe’s battle with the thought police–which he ultimately won (see Hoppe, My Battle with the Thought Police, Mises Daily (April 12, 2005); Stephan Kinsella & Jeff Tucker, The Ordeal of Hoppe, The Free Market (April 2005); Jeff Tucker, Idiot Patrol, Mises Blog(Mar. 2, 2005); and the Hans-Hermann Hoppe Victory Blog, signed by over 1800 supporters).

Related to this controversy were some comments by Hoppe in his 2001 bookDemocracy: The God That Failed about discrimination against certain people by private “covenant” communities in a free society. Over the years Hoppe’s critics–most of them, sadly, libertarians–have uncharitably accused Hoppe of homophobia, bigotry, and the like. In particular, on p. 218, Hoppe writes:

There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. 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-centred 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.

In his followup article, My Battle with the Thought Police, he elaborated:

In my book Democracy, The God That Failed I not only defend the right to discrimination as implied in the right to private property, but I also emphasize the necessity of discrimination in maintaining a free society and explain its importance as a civilizing factor. In particular, the book also contains a few sentences about the importance, under clearly stated circumstances, of discriminating against communists, democrats, and habitual advocates of alternative, non-family centered lifestyles, including homosexuals.

For instance, on p. 218, I wrote “in a covenant concluded among proprietors and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, … no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant … such as democracy and communism.” “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. … (violators) will have to be physically removed from society.”

In its proper context these statements are hardly more offensive than saying that the Catholic Church should excommunicate those violating its fundamental precepts or that a nudist colony should expel those insisting on wearing bathing suits. However, if you take the statements out of context and omit the condition:in a covenant… then they appear to advocate a rights violation.

Despite this clarification, his detractors continue to distort his words and hurl unjustified accusations. To be clear, I’m not homophobic at all (see my The Libertarian Case for Gay Marriage), and neither is Hoppe. I know him well, and would not associate with bigots etc. Hoppe is one of the finest people I’ve met, and a modern, cosmopolitan, tolerant person. He’s not the fundamentalist conservative ogre some paint him to be. In the interest of setting the record straight I sent my interpretation of these passages to Hoppe, and he stated that he agreed entirely with it, and that I was free to post that he did:

Hans, from time to time you are still unfairly criticized based on your comments that covenant communities would “be intolerant of advocates of” “alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles” such as “individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism.”

I’ve always thought it clear that what you meant was that in a private, covenant-based order, one that is not only libertarian but also traditionalist and based on the family-based social unit, people who are openly hostile to the underlying norms of this society would tend to be shunned, maybe even expelled (not violently, but consistent with property rights). Some of your uncharitable critics say you mean that homosexuals themselves would be expelled merely for being gay. I thought what you meant was not gays per se, but rather those openly hostile to the basic cultural norms of society, who somehow openly and habitually advocate incompatible lifestyles/ideas. Thus, the gay couple down the street who mind their own business would not be expelled, but only those who are openly hostile to the basic heterosexual or private property basis of society.

I think of this as in the case of a priest: he lives in a primarily family-based, procreative culture. Yet he is himself celibate and does not procreate. Yet he is not going around advocating that no one procreate, that everyone be celibate like him. If he did, he would in fact be advocating something misanthropic and destructive of mankind itself. Rather, he is a special case and lives within a predominately family-based heterosexual society; and he does not condemn heterosexual marriage and procreation; far from it, he supports it.

Likewise, I imagine you to be saying that the occasional homosexuals can get along fine in a society, while recognizing they are a minority and that the predominate heterosexual family unit is fine, but that they are just different–like the priest is. Your comments don’t even imply that the covenant community would require them to be “in the closet,” just not openly hostile to traditional morals and practices that the members of this community believe are essential to its purpose.

(I suppose you also envision some covenant based groups could be more radically fundamentalist and not even tolerate homosexuals at all, but that is not what you are equating with a covenant-based libertarian society per se.)

In support of this interpretation, I note that on p. 212 you explicitly state that what gays do in private is their own business, and you write: “To avoid any misunderstanding, it might be useful to point out that the predicted rise in discrimination in a purely libertarian world does not imply that the form and extent of discrimination will be the same or similar everywhere. To the contrary, a libertarian world could and likely would be one with a great variety of locally separated communities engaging distinctly different and far-reaching discrimination” (“e.g. nudists discriminating against bathing suits,” as Tucker points out in Idiot Patrol). You then favorably quote Rothbard, from his 1991 RRR article, “The ‘New Fusionism’: A Movement For Our Time”:

In a country, or a world, or totally private property, including streets, and private contractual neighborhoods consisting of property-owners, these owners can make any sort of neighborhood-contracts they wish. In practice, then, the country would be a truly “gorgeous mosaic,” … ranging from rowdy Greenwich Village-type contractual neighborhoods, to socially conservative homogeneous WASP neighborhoods. Remember that all deeds and covenants would once again be totally legal and enforceable, with no meddling government restrictions upon them. So that considering the drug question, if a proprietary neighborhood contracted that no one would use drugs, and Jones violated the contract and used them, he fellow community-contractors could simply enforce the contract and kick him out. Or, since no advance contract can allow for all conceivable circumstances, suppose that Smith became so personally obnoxious that his fellow neighborhood-owners wanted him ejected. They would then have to buy him out—-probably on terms set contractually in advance in accordance with some “obnoxious” clause.

Elsewhere (in Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State, which you favorably cite elsewhere in Democracy), Rothbard similarly writes:

With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance withthe preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortion, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area.

In other words, your critics who accuse you of being homophobic, or of stating that libertarian communities would or ought to discriminate against homosexuals per se, or who assert this is what you meant in the passages, are flat out wrong. You were talking about private, covenant-based communities–in particular the ones based on more traditional, culturally-conservative heterosexual-family-based norms–who would tend to “be intolerant of advocates of” ideas incompatible with, or openly hostile to, or “contrary to the very purpose of” the norms of such a traditionalist covenant. You’re not saying that libertarian societies per se, even libertarian covenant communities, would engage in such discrimination. There would be a diversity of such contractual communities, and some of them would be more traditionalist and more intolerant of those people who advocate practice and ideas that are contrary to that community’s norms and purpose.

As I said, I’ve always read you this way, and think this is clear from reading your words, but some of your critics insist to the contrary so I thought it might be useful to attempt another clarification.

[Leo_DesBois]

Thanks for the post. I read My Battle with the Thought Police a few weeks ago, but this is an even better clarification.

[E_R_Olovetto]

I remember quoting Hoppe’s text above the Rothbard quote about Greenwich, to a group of detractors who pretend to have read the book, a few months ago here. Good stuff.

[Nielsio]

Stephan (or others),

There is a fundamental issue though:

They–the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred 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.

This is implying that homosexuality is something that can be advocated, i.e. that it is a choice.

This also says that homosexuality is a lifestyle; which doesn’t make any sense.

Also, how is ‘nature-environment worship’ incompatible with a family society?

[Bert_B]

Also, how is ‘nature-environment worship’ incompatible with a family society?

I didn’t know if I wanted to laugh or get mad when I read that part of it. It’s as bad as assuming that paganism = nature worship (which you can probably come across a lot of this type of misinformation on LRC). Despite the fact that a lot of pagan religions have little to do with “nature worship”, as long as they feel the religion does bring a sense of community and unity to the people involved I don’t see how it would end up as anti-family.

[DanielMuffinburg]

I suppose you guys could email Kinsella and/or Hoppe about this because I don’t know what precise definitions they are using.

[Bert_B]

I suppose you guys could email Kinsella and/or Hoppe about this because I don’t know what precise definitions they are using.

I suppose what the layman thinks of nature-worship, when regarding to that. In which, in that context, they are not totally to blame. I could easily just as blame the new-age Wiccans who don’t realize they are the laughing stock of paganism.

[Nielsio]

I suppose you guys could email Kinsella and/or Hoppe about this because I don’t know what precise definitions they are using.

Well.. I think both my questions as well as this response by you to it proves that what is really needed is not just an explanation of what he meant, but also an open statement that he understands what homosexuality actually is.

If he states something like:

“I used to think that homosexuality was a choice, but it turns out that it’s really something part of a person that he discovers and is certainly not a choice; the causes are most likely genetic or to do with the fetal development. This means that besides not being a choice it’s also not a lifestyle; it simply means what gender that person biologically is attracted to. And this also means that in terms of community, such a person is no different from any other person who doesn’t have children. They can also still have genetic children with people other than their partners (this goes for males and females) and they can adopt children like so many other couples also do.”

..then this could actually put the issue behind him.

[Nielsio]

Oh, you meant the nature thing.

Well, I don’t really need to ask him. I can imagine a way in which it would be incompatible with libertarianism/community, namely if it’s a form of communism. Like: “don’t eat fish or cut the trees, they are sacred”. But in no way is such a narrow interpretation generally understood with the term he uses. In a way, I worship nature. Am I gonna get kicked out?

[Snowflake]

hehe. He’s from a different generation.

[DanielMuffinburg]

I’m pretty sure that’s not the definition he is using.

Could you email him about it, because m-w.com has to different definitions, either of which he could be using?

Also, I don’t see where Hoppe says that homosexuals can’t have babies or adopt them.

[DanielMuffinburg]

Snowflake: “He’s from a different generation.”

^^^^ This. Maybe he is using the “traditional” definition or something else.

Anyway, the point of Kinsella’s article is that there is no way anyone could logically deduce that Hoppe is a homophobe/etc., given the material.

[Nielsio]

Muffman wrote:

[…] the point of Kinsella’s article is that there is no way anyone could logically deduce that Hoppe is a homophobe/etc., given the material.

?

I don’t see you debunking this:

“This is implying that homosexuality is something that can be advocated, i.e. that it is a choice.”

“This also says that homosexuality is a lifestyle; which doesn’t make any sense.”

[Bert_B]

I can imagine a way in which it would be incompatible with libertarianism/community, namely if it’s a form of communism. Like: “don’t eat fish or cut the trees, they are sacred”. But in no way is such a narrow interpretation generally understood with the term he uses.

Well, what if these types of assertions were actually part of someone’s religion, and those persons politically are libertarian? It’s just something to think about. You could find some people who keep their religion and politics apart, regardless of what their religion or spiritual conquest are.

It would be saying that someone who’s a traditionalist couldn’t have a free-market view.

[Nielsio]

Muffman wrote:

Snowflake: “He’s from a different generation.”

^^^^ This.

Of course he’s from a different generation. But we’re living now. And just like anti-propertarians should be denounced, so are people today going to be very offended when you state or imply that homosexuality is a choice (or worse). If you want to spread liberty, you better make sure your message is pure.

[Nielsio]

Bert wrote:

Well, what if these types of assertions were actually part of someone’s religion, and those persons politically are libertarian? It’s just something to think about. You could find some people who keep their religion and politics apart, regardless of what their religion or spiritual conquest are.

You’re being definitional. Clearly what I meant with sacred was un-touchable. People who believe that version could not separate it politically.

In other words, if you’re a libertarian, then you cannot hold the fish and the trees as un-touchable.

[DanielMuffinburg]

I don’t see myself doing any of that either. It’s most likely because I wasn’t trying to and didn’t intend to. Anyway:

“This is implying that homosexuality is something that can be advocated, i.e. that it is a choice.”

A heterosexual can’t choose to be homosexual?

“This also says that homosexuality is a lifestyle; which doesn’t make any sense.”

There can’t be a homosexual lifestyle?

I’m no expert on homosexuality so I suggest you don’t pretend as if am. Anyway, I don’t see how Hoppe saying any of that means that he is a homophobe.

[Bert_B]

Could someone who believes that not be compatible in a libertarian community, or to some extent?

[Nielsio]

Muffinburg wrote:

A heterosexual can’t choose to be homosexual?

What?

No, a heterosexual can’t choose to be a homosexual. Homosexuality means what sex you are attracted to biologically. So this means that what sometimes happens is that a homosexual man gets married to a heterosexual woman, and at one point the whole marriage breaks down because the homosexual man finally realizes or admits to himself that he isn’t sexually attracted to her in the way he is sexually attracted to men. You think when that happens the man chooses to not be attracted to all women anymore and instead chooses to be attracted to men?

I’m shocked if some people here don’t know this.

[DanielMuffinburg]

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual.

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

I don’t see where it say that you have to be born homosexual nor that you can never go from heterosexual to homosexual.