Stephan Kinsella Lies To Defend Bigot Hoppe

So far, Stephan Kinsella has accused me of outrageous libel, hurling false charges, making incorrect and woefully mistaken assumptions, being uncivilized and incivil. All this while refusing to discourse with me. A shame he won’t enlighten curious readers who want to know exactly what is incorrect about my statements. Putting one’s hands about one’s ears and yelling “you’re wrong, neener neener, I can’t hear you!” is an interesting argumentative strategy, especially when one doesn’t have an argument. It’s hard to defend obvious bigotry, isn’t it?

Of course Hoppe is not a bigot or homophobe, and nor is this implied by what Ghertner quoted. This is silly. Some libertarians might buy into, and even use, the state’s contorted, PC definitions of “racism,” but sane people do not.

Does Kinsella deny that Hoppe wants homosexuals physically removed from society? Does Kinsella deny that Hoppe believes homosexuals must be physically removed from society if one is to maintain a libertarian order?

Need I remind Kinsella that in Hoppe’s own words:

They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered 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.

Does Kinsella really want to deny that Hoppe is a bigot and a homophobe, with the evidence staring him directly in the face?

I happen not to favor the INS or state restrictions on immigration. Nor does Hoppe–he’s an anarchist, for God’s sake.

Another obvious lie. Kinsella knows very well what Hoppe’s position on immigration is. Let’s take a look at Hoppe’s own words, again:

What should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correct immigration policy, however, as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy? The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the “nature” of a democracy and thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses). This means following a policy of utmost discrimination: of strict discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character, and cultural compatibility.

More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between “citizens” (naturalized immigrants) and “resident aliens” and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias.

Not only does Hoppe dislike homosexuals, but apparently can’t stand non-Europeans, either - a codeword among white supremacists for nonwhites. Elsewhere in that same article, Hoppe laments the US immigration laws of 1965 because they “eliminated all formerly existing ‘quality’ concerns and the explicit preference for European immigrants and replaced it with a policy of almost complete non-discrimination (multi-culturalism).”

Apparently non-European immigrants are of lower “quality” than European immigrants, more likely to consist of “bums and inferior people”, unlike the “geniuses and superior people” of European racial stock.

Again, I am not making this up. This is all right there in plain English - a language, incidentally, that must be protected by the government, according to the anarchist theorist Hans Hermann Hoppe.

[Full disclosure: Kinsella and I have some "history". He got me disinvited to speak on a panel at the Mises Institute a few years ago for making essentially the same claims I made in this post on another blog. So word to the wise: anyone who wants to remain on good terms with the Mises Institute, don't be too vocal about pointing out Hans Hermann Hoppe's more bigoted writings. Speaking truth to power will get you squelched.]

Share this

I know a lot about Jewish

I know a lot about Jewish culture, having grown up with it. I don't know much about gay subculture, not being gay myself and not having very many gay friends. The gay people I do know tend to be from libertarian circles, and have relatively conservative values.

I criticize what I know, and think it's important to get one's own house in order before (or at least in conjunction with) criticizing others. Which is why I think it's imperative that libertarians recognize error within their own ranks, and point out obvious bigotry such as Hoppe's.

I didn't criticize Hoppe for being offended by the values promoted by a gay subculture. I criticized him for claiming that gay people must be physically removed from society if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

If you don't know what those

If you don't know what those values are, how do you know they don't clash with a libertarian order ?

What exactly is your

What exactly is your criticism here? That I'm failing to object to some unknown and unstated values? Unless you are willing to explicitly state what you are talking about, and stop beating around the bush, I don't see this going anywhere.

You claim to know the values

You claim to know the values of the Jewish culture and thus you find it ok to reject it. You criticize Hoppe for rejecting the values of the gay subculture, some values that you acknowledged to be unaware of.

No, I criticize Hoppe for

No, I criticize Hoppe for advocating the physical removal of homosexuals from society, not for rejecting any particular values.

As it has been pointed out

As it has been pointed out many time Hoppe calls for the removal of advocates of homosexuality from covenants dedicated to the values of kin. I even think Hoppe would tend to see positively Fire Island gay communities for example, at most he would argue that communities based on these values are economically doomed.

Anyway, it seems to me your main attack was on him being an anti-gay bigot (and he may, I just don't find it very relevant). That means generally rejecting the gay lifestyle or values. Now you may argue that there is no such lifestyle or values and that gays are only defined by their sexual preferences, but you admitted not knowing much about either the lifestyle or the values.

To put it in very simple world, why don't you consider the possibility that Hoppe is no more an anti-gay bigot than you are anti-semite bigot?

As it has been pointed out

As it has been pointed out many time Hoppe calls for the removal of advocates of homosexuality from covenants dedicated to the values of kin.

Which Hoppe implies is synonymous with a libertarian order.

Now you may argue that there is no such lifestyle or values and that gays are only defined by their sexual preferences, but you admitted not knowing much about either the lifestyle or the values.

I know of the lifestyle and of the values; I just don't have much first hand knowledge of them, as I am not gay myself and have not lived close to other people living that lifestyle. From what I can gather as an outsider, I don't see much that is incompatible with either a libertarian society or one centered around families.

To put it in very simple world, why don't you consider the possibility that Hoppe is no more an anti-gay bigot than you are anti-semite bigot?

Because I never said, and do not believe, that Jews need to be physically removed from society. Judaism is not for me, but I can see why it appeals to other people, and I have no beef against those who willingly take it upon themselves to adopt those customs and practices. I do not hate them for doing so, and see no reason why we cannot live together in peace. Hoppe apparently thinks differently about gay people.

Neither Jewish, nor Gay

Let's get that straight, eh?

Hoppe never claimed gays "must be" removed. He said that *advocates* of alternative lifestyles and values contrary to that of a "covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin"--those who "habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal"--would be physically removed from society (which means ostracism, tendencies, voluntary segregation, not aggression or trespass). Now you may view gays as "habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with" the goal of "protecting family and kin," but I, and Hoppe, do not. How intolerant, closed-minded, parochial, and biased of you. Tsk tsk.

What is the difference

What is the difference between a homosexual and an "advocate" of homosexuality?

How are ostracism and voluntary segregation forms of physically removing someone from society? Wouldn't they be more verbal or intellectual, as opposed to physical?

Now you may view gays as "habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with" the goal of "protecting family and kin," but I, and Hoppe, do not.

Then why did he bother mentioning them in his shit list of people who must be physically removed from society?

Ghertner, can you read?

Do you have comprehension problems? Or general psychological ones? (as your bizarre castigation of your grandma and your family's traditions would indicate)

I wrote: "Now you may view gays as "habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with" the goal of "protecting family and kin," but I, and Hoppe, do not."

You: "Then why did he bother mentioning them in his shit list of people who must be physically removed from society?"

Dude, the sentence--ONE sentence you keep taking out of context--was: "They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered 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."

The "such as ... homosexuality" modifies "non-family-centered lifestyles." He is talking about ADVOCATES of such lifestyles, not about those who merely practice such lifestyles. An advocate of a non-family-centered lifestyle seems to be just a way of describing someone openly hostile to the family-centered culture that many people believe must form the core or basis of any functioning society, even a libertarian one. Consider an example: There is nothing wrong with someone choosing to be a confirmed bachelor; say, a priest, or a single man. But such people usually live in a normal society that is constituted by the family-centered structure. Priests don't run around saying everyone should practice abstinence. They are not hostile to a family-centered order. Likewise, gays are not either. It is those who openly oppose and are hostile to these traditional family-centered norms and institutions and values that would (it is argued) be ostracized and shunned. This argument is not bigoted at all; it is not even advocating it, it is merely an opinion about how libertarian societies would in practical reality be successfully implemented. You don't have to agree with it, but it is not a bigoted analysis.

As for physically removing--this does not imply trespass or aggression or removing people from their own property. It means to segregate from.

Do you have comprehension

Do you have comprehension problems? Or general psychological ones? (as your bizarre castigation of your grandma and your family's traditions would indicate)

Fuck you, Kinsella. I love my family, but I'm allowed to disagree with their religious views and practices. You are displaying your own comprehension problems, and your mean-spiritedness by suggesting otherwise.

The rest of your post is talking in circles. It is clear that Hoppe means something with his inclusion of homosexuality in his shit list of groups he hates. What in the world does it mean to say that homosexuals do not habitually promote homosexuality? Do libertarians not habitually promote libertarianism? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

Hoppe obviously does not mean merely "segregate from" when he writes "physically removed". He means: "physically removed". Homosexuals are the object of that sentence, being physically removed by the subject of the sentence, Hoppe and like-minded homophobic thugs. Peaceful segregation would imply the opposite relationship; Hoppe and like-minded homophobic thugs would physically remove themselves from the homosexuals.

We all know that Hoppe hates many minority groups. Remember this thread? Let me quote Gene Callahan:

Second of all, are you forgetting that I've sat with Hoppe at the Auburn Hotel bar and heard the "sweeetness" that comes out of his mouth directly? The issue is not that he's against affirmative action -- amn, there's the second stupidest defense of him I've heard -- it's that he says things like... man, you really don't want me to start bringing these up, do you?

Perhaps it's time to ask Gene to expound upon what he knows about Hoppe, to better counter your habitual obfuscation.

You have issues

Ghertner, it's obvious you have a plurality of problems--mental, ethical, psychological, familial. You are just one messed up sad sack star trek geek aren't you? With some kind of chip on your shoulder for authority and your betters. Hoppe does not say he "hates" those people. Homosexuality is not on the list anyway, but "advocates of".

"What in the world does it mean to say that homosexuals do not habitually promote homosexuality? Do libertarians not habitually promote libertarianism?"

this is dishonest: libertarianism is a political philosophy. A belief system. Of course libertarians qua libertarians are advocates of it. Homosexuality is a sexual preference or condition. Are priests "advocates of celibacy"? Are heterosexuals "advocates of heterosexuality"? Are mixed-race couples "advocates of mixed-race marriage"? Are pot-smokers "advocates of pot-smoking"? Is a woman who chooses to have an abortion an "advocate of abortion"? Hoppe obviousuly was referring to those who are openly hostile to, who agitate against, the traditional, family-centered morals and institutions that arguably undergird any workable covenant-based libertarian society. Your dishonesty, your insecurity, your hatred of authority and your betters and your desire to petulantly lash out at them is reprehensible. Yes, you have the individual right to go around maligning good people who don't deserve it. Yes, you can also utter curse words and go get drunk a bar. Enjoying your freedom, kiddie?

Ghertner, it's obvious you

Ghertner, it's obvious you have a plurality of problems

Bad form.

Homosexuality is a sexual preference or condition.

Then what does it mean to be an advocate of a sexual preference or condition?

Hoppe obviousuly was referring to those who are openly hostile to, who agitate against, the traditional, family-centered morals and institutions that arguably undergird any workable covenant-based libertarian society.

And this is synonymous with advocating homosexuality?

Yes, you have the individual right to go around maligning good people who don't deserve it.

Exactly right. Hoppe has the individual right to go around maligning good people who don't deserve it, and we have the right to criticize him for his bigotry.

Vehemently, no less.

Wow, how... impressive? I bet Saders at your family are a blast.

The same old nonsense

The same old nonsense repeated time and time again.

1) Hoppe is pretty explicit when he says "advocates". Moreover, why is the forceful removal of undesirables from the private property of others "wrong"? He never said they must be removed from their property. He is all for voluntary covenants such as those that characterize HOAs - and in their case it is most definitely possible for one to be removed if they do not fit the criteria of the HOA. Furthermore, so what if Hoppe is homophobic or racist (assuming he were)? What is your problem with it? I'm gay and I don't have half the problem some of you Palmerites have with Hoppe. It seems libertarians are capable of repudiating all sorts of nonsense, yet when it comes to PC holy cows such as "anti-racism", no these are inviolable. Left-wing cultural "progressives" would have as much right to expel undesirables from their communities, such as "racists".

2) Define a "bigot". Someone who holds certain values and wishes to cohabit with others who share them is not a "bigot". Bigots are people like you who wish to force their values on others and declare dissenters to be evil. If you disagree with Hoppe that his value system is conducive and necessary for the maintenance of libertarianism do so without hyperventilating and becoming hysterical.

Moreover, why is the

Moreover, why is the forceful removal of undesirables from the private property of others "wrong"?

I said it was bigotry, which it clearly is. If you don't think bigotry is wrong, great. That's not my argument here. I only want to establish that Hoppe is, in fact, an anti-gay bigot.

Furthermore, so what if Hoppe is homophobic or racist (assuming he were)? What is your problem with it?

Again, I first want to establish what is the case. Are we in agreement that Hoppe is in fact a homophobe?

Lies?

I read the original Hoppe. I now have the book. He was talking about covenants and he was speaking of "society" with regards to those covenants. In his view the libertarian order needs to respect the rights of free association and property that underpin such covenants.

There was also more context to the sentence than just one sentence prior. Lifting the one sentence or even two is in fact intellectually dishonest. It makes it seem his point was one thing when in fact it was another.

His point was that if a group of people join together buy property close to each other, establish roads, etc. then the have the right to restrict what the want to on their property. If they decide not to allow naked gay pride parades with giant penis costumes then that's their right. They can physically remove those who attempt to trespass in order to hold such parades. If disdain for such parades is "bigoted" then so be it.

No he didn't explicitly mention gay pride parades, but he was talking about maintaining an environment that was family friendly. He was talking about what those who like such things have a right to do. It's a quite uncharitable reading to believe that he actually holds to those views himself. He may or he may not.

His point was that if a group of people wants to form a community where the showing of 'R' rated movies is illegal then that is something the his brand of libertarianism must allow. It was in fact an expression of tolerance towards others social norms.

Walter Block also makes such arguments. He argues in the case of "shouting fire" that sadists have a right to do so for the pure pleasure of seeing people get crushed. It would be quite uncharitable for someone to argue that Block is himself a sadist.

In fact, I think both Hoppe and Block are wrong in their analysis, but that is and entirely different issue.

I've hear the similar ridiculous arguments from other libertarians. Arguments to the effect that under pure libertarianism one must respect the rights of landlords not to rent to blacks, homosexuals, and the like. It's their property and therefore their choice the argument goes.

Although I don't know Micha's position on it I wouldn't be surprised if Micha would agree that someone could refuse to rent on the basis of race in the kind of anarchist society he envisions.

So the question to Micha is. Do you think that "If one is to maintain a libertarian order" then one must agree that "blacks must be physically removed" from the property of bigots? Not just private homes, but also publicly offered rentals property, and property open to the "public".

Do bigots have such rights? If not then why not? Do you advocate this kind of libertarianism? If so then how are you any different than Hoppe in this regard?

BTW, I think the title of your article here is way over the top. Lies? Is taking a charitable reading of someone elses writing an act of lying?

There was also more context

There was also more context to the sentence than just one sentence prior. Lifting the one sentence or even two is in fact intellectually dishonest. It makes it seem his point was one thing when in fact it was another.

I linked to a longer portion of the quote. In my view, the additional context does not change my interpretation of what he said, which is that this sort of anti-homosexual bigotry is necessary for maintaining a libertarian order. This is not a unique interpretation. Most people who are not already in the bag for Hoppe read it this way.

It's a quite uncharitable reading to believe that he actually holds to those views himself. He may or he may not.

We know from many of Hoppe's other encounters that he has a problem with lots of different minority groups, including homosexuals, so there is no reason to bend over backwards in granting him interpretive charity. We also know that Hoppe analogizes homosexuals to other groups he doesn't like, such as communists, democrats, hedonists, parasites and, nature-environment worshipers. These are groups that Hoppe believes are incompatible with a libertarian society, the kind of society in which Hoppe wishes to live.

Do you think that "If one is to maintain a libertarian order" then one must agree that "blacks must be physically removed" from the property of bigots? Not just private homes, but also publicly offered rentals property, and property open to the "public".

Do bigots have such rights? If not then why not? Do you advocate this kind of libertarianism? If so then how are you any different than Hoppe in this regard?

Yes, I think bigots should have the legal right to exclude those they hate from their private property, though doing so is a moral vice. I do not share that moral vice - that preference for bigoted exclusion - that Hoppe clearly does share.

BTW, I think the title of your article here is way over the top. Lies? Is taking a charitable reading of someone elses writing an act of lying?

Kinsella knows very well what Hoppe's view of homosexuals is. He also knows very well what Hoppe's view of the proper response of government to illegal immigrants is. And yet he pretends otherwise, because he is embarrassed by Hoppe's well-known bigotry and doesn't want it publicized further. That is dishonest.

I always find Kinsella's

I always find Kinsella's responses to be extremely nasty and insulting but short on argument. He is one nasty individual who apparently trolls the net as the watchdog for the bigots who revolve around the Auburn crowd. I've never seen him act any other way.

Hoppe, who hangs around out and out bigots and racialists, said that homosxuals had to be physically removed to protect a "libertarian society" not a society on some bizarre Hoppe, whites-only, "kinship" world. He explicitly said gays would need to be removed to preserve a libertarians society. Odd his friends at Junge Freiheit would say the same thing. His racial views are about as tolerant as his views about gays.

German libertarian friends who attended meetings where Hoppe spoke said he had a large neo-Nazi following that came to support and applaud him. They considered him a strong ally because of his association with similar groups in Belgium as well as Germany. Hoppe also invited a neoNazi type from Germany to his conference in Turkey to speak about the intellectural inferiority of certain races. Hoppe is bad news all the way around.

Creative quoting

You are missing the important part of the quotation on homosexuals, and you do not explain the context at all.

After explaining, in a whole chapter, the similarity between a future libertarian "community" and that of gated communities and shopping malls, where a covenant exist between the owner/owners and the people/renters, he says that just as this covenant implies certain rules of behaviour, so does any covenant.

For instance, he says, in order to maintain a private property libertarian community, people openly hostile to private property and the rule of law, such as communists or democracts, or egalitarians and so on, will have to be physically expelled from this community in order for it to "live on".

And, he goes on to say, in order to maintain, for instance, a family and kin centered community, those who display open hostility to this way of life will have to be removed or expelled from this community in order for the community to survive.

More specifically he says:
"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-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasistism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism - will have to be physicall removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."

From Democracy the God that Failed, Chapter 10, On Conservatism and Libertarianism.

Now, this does of course not necessitate that ALL homosexuals are hostile to family and kin-oriented lifestyles. Nor does he say such a thing. If I say italians like spaghetti, I do not mean ALL italians like spaghetti.

It makes me wonder if you have read the book at all. If you have, then your lack of using the whole quote in context strikes me as intellectually dishonest. If you haven't read the book, then it just strikes me as somewhat ignorant to jump to conclusions.

And Hoppe is of course not a homophobe, he has friends and associates that are open homosexuals, take Justin Raimondo for instance.