The way in which it would not be compatible is essentially the way current-day libertarians are incompatible with democratic socialism: we believe institutionalized aggression is immoral and are trying to find political or ideological ways to make an end to it.
Or look at the early day anarcho-communists for example. They would try to murder politicians and rich capitalists. Surely, that is totally incompatible with democratic socialism.
Read this:
Okay. We have many definitions for “homosexual.” I’d be shocked if people didn’t know that. Furthermore, we’re not sure which definition Hoppe is using (or maybe you know). So, how is Hoppe a homophobe?
Hoppe might be a homophobe. But his theory could still be correct. I don’t understand why its important for us to apologise for one of our philosophers just because he doesn’t hold the in-vogue opinion on every issue. I wouldn’t validate these sorts of ad hominem approaches used by leftists. Its exactly what they’re doing to rand paul over civil rights.
“Hoppe might be a homophobe.”
Is there any evidence that he is?
Daniel,
Why in gods name would I want to have sexual relations with a man if I am biologically attracted to women (hetero)? You’re implying some men just decide to do such a thing. And clearly, the implication is that this is a perversion; in the same way that people resort to stealing or graffiti, or any other anti-social and anti-community behavior.
But this is not what happens!
What happens is that homosexual people discover that they are attracted to the same sex, in the same way most people are attracted to people of the opposite sex. That’s all it is! It has nothing to do with a choice. It has to do with biology.
“Why in gods name would I want to have sexual relations with a man if I am biologically attracted to women (hetero)?”
I don’t know. I’m asking why it is impossible for people to switch base.
“You’re implying some men just decide to do such a thing.”
No, I am not saying that some heterosexual men can be sexually attracted to women. I am asking why it is impossible for any homosexual to switch to heterosexual at will.
“And clearly, the implication is that this is a perversion; in the same way that people resort to stealing or graffiti, or any other anti-social and anti-community behavior.”
I think you are mistaking Hoppe’s definition with yours.
“What happens is that homosexual people discover that they are attracted to the same sex, in the same way most people are attracted to people of the opposite sex. That’s all it is! It has nothing to do with a choice. It has to do with biology.”
I know people who have switch whom, thereby, disprove you theory.
Daniel,
There is no switching; sexuality is a biological preference. Assuming you are attracted to women and not men, do you think you could ‘switch’ that? What if I gave you a million dollars? Could you suddenly enjoy sexual activity with the other sex? I think not.
Your anecdote flies in the face of current day science. It is true that some people are bisexual. I believe it’s also the case that it’s more of a sliding scale, ex. some people can be a little attracted to men but mostly to women. But for this the same holds true: there is no deciding on your biological preferences. And also no social conditioning can change your biology. You can try to repress it, but that’s all that you can do.
I don’t know. Does it matter? If we found solid evidence he wasn’t, and the leftists then said he was racist, or sexist, or had any other bias, what would we do? We’d have to attack them for their argument ad hominem. If done properly, I think it can be a great embarrassment to them.
Snowflake,
It’s not a fallacy. It would be a fallacy to say that he couldn’t be right because of certain ideas that he holds, but it is rational for people to weigh the quality of the rest of someone’s ideas. Showing that you can adapt your ideas with new information is a big plus.
If a prominent libertarian had wrong ideas and wasn’t confronted on it by his peers, then this also could lead to the conclusion that the group as a whole has a problem to be more likely.
This is also why I am very conflicted when it comes to religion and libertarianism. To me, it makes the power of someone’s argument much weaker.
This is also why I am very happy that Hoppe has a reality-based approach to social contract theory (morality), which follows from Mises. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYbuuf5fnck )
there is no deciding on your biological preferences. And also no social conditioning can change your biology. You can try to repress it, but that’s all that you can do.
So basicly it is only genetic? There are no social variables? There is no deciding on preferences? Surely not. We are more than slaves to genetics.
This brings to mind a documentary that I saw about ancient sparta. The rituals that spartan boys were put through led to homosexuality and bisexuality being widely practiced in spartan society. Low birth rates and infantcide lead to the spartan population dwindling, leading to fewer and fewer able bodied men for military service. This was a major reason for the decline of spartan power.
It seems that thier environment did affect the sexual preferences.
The conclusion would be wrong. Its not going to matter to liberals if libertarians challenge their own kind. They’re not interested in a debate. They just want to get out the argument as soon as possible with their self flattering worldview still in tact. The better tactic is to point this out. Deride their intellectual laziness and special pleading. Make the debate about them, not ‘us’. They’re pathetic for adopting such childish tactics.
Snowflake,
Are you arguing we shouldn’t get our facts straight? Particularly if we’re going to be using them in our books?
I should get my facts straight. I can certainly challenge my fellows to get their facts straight too. But we can sit around correcting liberals when they intentionally misrepresent work, or we can go on the offensive and attack their strategy. Are you arguing that their strategy is even remotely sound?
I suggested to read the wikipedia, which contains the basic mainstream scientific opinion. As we know, mainstream science can be wrong (though less likely to be wrong on biology than economics), but you should at least familiarize yourself with it.
The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers stated in 2006:
“ Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual — including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents’ sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual.[3] ”
The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007:
“ Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.[60] ”
The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in Pediatrics in 2004:
“ Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.[64][broken citation][60][65]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Etiology
Your un-referenced evidence flies in the face of current-day science.
Easy now, nothing I have said flies in the face of anything. Even your references state that there is still debate. Simply an observation about differing cultural norms through time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge
Just a quick search wiki came up wtih a couple of relevent articles. I will see if I can find any information on the documentary I saw, it was a few years ago. But it seems like culture had great deal to do with homosexuality in ancient greece. Or maybe it was just the other way around.
Snowflake: “I don’t know. Does it matter?”
That’s the whole point of this thread and the article I posted.
I posted some entirely reasonable comments on Kinsella’s blog, for whatever reason (presumably keeping in line with not letting democrats speak) he decided to censor me and delete multiple replies. So I’ll report a few comments that I have here.
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
It’s really unclear what Kinsella and Hoppe mean here. It may be true that the average homosexual has a higher discount rate than the average heterosexual, but this relationship doesn’t hold true when you do hold all other things constant. Studies have found that as an empirical matter there is no statistically significant relationship between homosexuality and discount rates when you control for number of children.
It’s also bizarre that Kinsella would say that whether or not Hoppe’s point is empirically justified is irrelevant. If Hoppe is making a factual statement, based on his own prejudices, about the alleged vices of a certain group of people and this statement flies in the face of empirical evidence, then he is providing a rather apt example of bigotry.
In D:TGTF, 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
Now, Hoppe goes on to elaborate at a later date:
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.
First, let’s be honest. Regardless of what Hoppe did or did not mean, the first statement is perfectly consistent with the interpretation of Palmer et al. Assuming Hoppe really did mean what he later wrote, the passage from D:TGTF is somewhat ambiguous, and with a passage of such a controversial nature it is plain irresponsible of Hoppe not to make his exact meaning as clear as possible.
Second, Hoppe’s elaboration is not consistent with the original passage. Or at least, if it is, then it is also highly misleading. Insofar as he says “… the importance, under clearly stated circumstances, of discriminating against …” but those circumstances are very clear, namely, a libertarian social order as Hoppe sees it. Also, notice that Hoppe does not say, as he later implies, that he wishes to remove democrats and communists from a restrictive covenant based on property, he explicitly says he thinks they should be removed from “society”, whatever that means.
Third, any strain of libertarianism that advocate removing dissenters from society, and forcibly so, is really quite bizarre.
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
Perhaps, but there’s evidence against this null hypothesis. Namely,
Like I said, possibly he is your regular “Cosmotard” like all the folks from Cato, but until I see him coauthoring that book with Jesse Jackson and hanging posters of Malcolm X and W.E.B. DuBois on his wall I’m pretty sceptical of such a claim.
Third, any strain of libertarianism that advocate removing dissenters from the prevailing orthodoxy from society, and forcibly so, is really quite bizarre.
Trying to fit “orthodoxy” into that sentence made it rather queer. [Mod edit: off topic]
The gays can then just arm themselves and shoot the bigots in their faces.