Another Illuminating Hoppe Quote

This one comes courtesy of Keith Preston:

“…the anarchistic upshot of the libertarian doctrine appealed to the countercultural left. For did not the illegitimacy of the state…imply that everyone was at liberty to choose his very own nonaggressive lifestyle? Did this not imply that vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality, insofar as they were victimless crimes, were no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles?”

Is anyone still in doubt that Hoppe hates homosexuals? I'll be glad to dig up much, much more, for those who still have trouble understanding why we shouldn't give this bigot the benefit of the doubt.

And since when is pedophilia a "victimless crime" or a "nonaggressive lifestyle"? Would you want this man babysitting your children?

Share this

Insofar as

And since when is pedophilia a "victimless crime" or a "nonaggressive lifestyle"? Would you want this man babysitting your children?

You're not reading the English correctly. Hoppe writes:

Did this not imply that [...] pedophilia [...] insofar as [it was a] victimless [crime] ... , [was] no [offense] at all but [a] perfectly normal and legitimate [activity] and [lifestyle]?

The key word is "insofar". If I say that "A, insofar as it is B, is C", that does not mean that A is B. It means that if A is B, then A is C.

You're not reading the

You're not reading the English correctly.

Hoppe is not writing English correctly.

Please explain how pedophilia, as an activity (as all of the other elements in that list are activities) can be a victimless crime. Does it make any sense to say "murder, insofar as it is a victimless crime," or "rape, insofar as it is a victimless crime"?

The modifier "victimless crime" cannot be coherently used to modify the activity of pedophilia, unless you believe that molesting prepubescent children is a victimless crime.

By saying "molesting" you

By saying "molesting" you already imply it's a crime. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, which does not imply molesting anyone, you can have abstinent pedophiles, and the definition of the term is clearly blown out of proportion in the law

It depends what you call pedophilia

Hoppe is not talking about

Hoppe is not talking about mere orientation, he is talking about activities - he even uses that word himself to describe what he is talking about: "insofar as they were victimless crimes, were no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles."

Normal and Legitimate?

Let's say the age of consent were dropped to 14. Do you think a man of say sixty making a habit out of inticing fourteen year olds into having sex is a "perfectly normal and legitmate" activity?

There are all sorts of consequences for that. VDs, pregnancy, distruction of reputation, fraud, etc. It's pretty clear that this kind of activity could be exploitive.

And these would be a

And these would be a victimless crimes... how, exactly?

Because most 14 year old are

Because most 14 year old are clearly old enough to consent? Sheesh...

Unwanted "VDs, pregnancy,

Unwanted "VDs, pregnancy, distruction of reputation, fraud, etc." are not victimless crimes, regardless of the age of the victim.

Not crimes

Aside from fraud, none of these misfortunes are necessarily crimes.

In the context Brian was

In the context Brian was talking about, of exploitive relationships, I took that to mean one party was knowingly imposing these things on an unknowing and therefore unconsenting (to the misfortunes, not the relationship itself) second party. Knowingly giving someone AIDs does not sound like a victimless crime to me.

Those are risks

The fraud being typical male "I love you sweety, sleep with me, or I'm gonna make you a porn star. Etc".

To my knowledge fraudulent methods used to get a woman to sleep with you are not crimes.

I'm gonna make you a porn

I'm gonna make you a porn star

Uh? That works?

Yep

"Uh? That works?"

You haven't explored the internet much have you. There are plenty of girls that aspire to that. Just substitute "actress" and maybe it will click for you.

I had a neighbor who discovered the pleasures of masturbation at an early age and decided she wanted to be a prostitute. She offered to sleep with my friend in an abandoned communal outhouse when she was eleveen but he declined. He was in her grade. I think if some older fellow had offered her employment she just might of taken it. Problem was however she valued the pleasure so much she tended to give the goods away for free.

I was in a local town bar with him once when I was back visiting from college and said "Boy, I want to get layed". Not much later she walked by and he said, "Here's your chance". He'd actually slept with her by then. I declined because I was looking for an emotionally satisfying one night stand that didn't involve an STD. In other words I was all talk and no action. She was good looking actually, but I was actually interested in the emotional aspects of sex. I couldn't have that with her.

My first sexual experience was with an eight year old girl and I was seven. I performed inadequately because I didn't know what the hell I was doing. She let me know in no uncertain terms. It actually screwed me up emotionally so I have some personal knowledge of the consequences of this whole underage sex thingy. Thing is if the same thing happened when I was eighteen it would have had the same effect.

No, I don't have any clue where she learned at that early age. It was however the age of hippies and free love. She asked me and I was totally clueless as to what the point was. I knew it felt good but kept insisting she stop squirming.

Hum, the cliche would be for

Hum, the cliche would be for the guy to tell the girl she'll be an actress only for her to realize he means a porn actress.

I mean, is it really this competitive a business? Do girls believe they have to fuck someone just to get in the porn / prostitution industry? (paradox intended)

Have been for most of recorded history

... and if you don't like that fact then well then assume parental consent.

There have been cases in history where very young individuals have fallen in love with very much older ones. There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't have a non-exploitive relationship, including marriage, spousal support, etc. They would be in no sense a victim if they had in fact made a correct choice for themselves.

One need only tune the knobs to move from clearly problematic, to unclear, to clearly not problematic. I set the knobs so it would be clear to Micha at least that it wasn't clearly "normal and legit". He's not really one into "normal and legit" relationships.

What constitutes the ability to give consent is fuzzy and depends on intelligence, how sheltered someone has been, how informed they are on consequences, etc. It's not just age. We only use age as a proxy.

It's entirely possible for a 14 year old to sexually exploit an older person. Think headline "Fourteen year old male has sex with fourty year old down syndrome patient".

When I was fourteen I was perfectly competent to decide whether I wanted to have a sexual relationship or not.

I had a very hot english teacher in sixth grade I would have loved to have sex with. I was what, 11. I would have laughed at the idea that I was being exploited by her had I mananged to get her clothes off. In fact, I'd be wondering if there were something wrong with her at that point. Why exactly would a woman like her be interested in a kid like me? Was I taking advantage of a emotionally screwed up woman, etc.

I don't have time in a comment to go through all the complexities in this, but it is not clear that when a 14 year old has sex that it is always "a crime" in either the legal or moral sense. One can set arbitrary cut offs based merely on age but that is just artificial because courts just don't have the capcity to figure out what is just, and often makes simple rules to avoid the expense of determining the more complex. Since 99.99% of the time a 14 year old having a relationship with a thirty year old is exploitive, well then, just outlaw all such relationships.

It's certainly not clear to me that the point in age at which it is "victimless" is always after or exactly at the point where it is "normal and legit". Sometimes "normal and legit" relationships involve "victims" and sometimes "unnormal and illegit" relationships involve no victims.

Pedophilia

"The modifier "victimless crime" cannot be coherently used to modify the activity of pedophilia, unless you believe that molesting prepubescent children is a victimless crime."

Actually pedophilia has a broader definition of having sex with a person who is younger than the age of consent. They don't necessarily have to be prepubescent. Even if that person consents to the sex and initiated it. Even if the younger person is far more sexually experienced than the older person. That is if a sixteen year old "slut" offers a blowjob to a 17 year old male and he accepts then it pretty much sounds like a victimless crime. In fact, it sounds like both are getting exactly what they want.

Isn't there some poor black kid who's serving time over exactly that issue. Some white underaged slut offered him a blowjob and next thing you know he's serving twenty.

See my message in this

See my message in this thread, I posted the link for Wilson vs State of Georgia

Don't read every message

Yep, that's the one I was thinking of. Totally disproportionate punishment, in a situtation where no punishment was really called for at all.

Actually pedophilia has a

Actually pedophilia has a broader definition of having sex with a person who is younger than the age of consent. They don't necessarily have to be prepubescent.

Incorrect. The meaning is much narrower than that. From Wikipedia:

The term paedophilia erotica was coined in 1886 by the Viennese psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in his writing Psychopathia Sexualis.[21] He gave the following characteristics:

  • The sexual interest is toward pre-pubescent youth only. This interest does not extend to the first signs of pubic hair.
  • The sexual interest is toward pre-pubescent youths only and does not include teenagers.
  • The sexual interest remains over time.

The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (F65.4) defines pedophilia as "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."[1]
The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition, Text Revision gives the following as its "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia":[22][23]
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Exclusive pedophiles are attracted to children, and children only. They show little erotic interest in adults their own age and in some cases, can only become aroused while fantasizing or being in the presence of prepubescent children. Nonexclusive pedophiles are attracted to both children and adults, and can be sexually aroused by both. According to a U.S. study on 2429 adult male pedophile sex offenders, only 7% identified themselves as exclusive; indicating that many or most pedophiles fall into the nonexclusive category.

If a boy offers a girl oral sex, does that make the boy a slut too? Or do you reserve your derogatory name calling for only women?

By that definition a

By that definition a pedophile need not molest a child, so you you have your answer as to how pedophelia could be a victimless crime.

A guy who loves his kiddie-porn but doesn't molest children may be a pedophile yet not victimize anyone. And he may still be a criminal in the sense of lawbreaking.

Yes

Which is, of course, what Arthur said upthread much earlier. But Micha appears hellbent on getting the kiddy-fiddler label to stick to Hoppe.

The case of child

The case of child pornography is an interesting one in this context. It certainly isn't victimless insofar as some child was usually abused in the process of creating the media, but the consumption of the media is not itself directly exploitive. The relationship between consumption and production is an indirect economic one, and pretty far removed from what we typically consider to be a criminal act.

That said, Hoppe is trying to impugn the character of the "countercultural left" who found the libertarian doctrine appealing, but how many of these people actually find an obsession with viewing child pornography to be "perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles"? I'm not saying there isn't a reasonable libertarian argument one can make for the decriminalization of viewing some forms of child pornography, but that's a different argument than implying that members of the "countercultural left" buy in to this argument, or that this can be fairly equated to homosexuality.

Hoppe can't have it both ways; he can't simultaneously pretend that pedophilia is a victimless crime and also impugn the character and motives of libertarians who defend the rights of pedophiles insofar as their pedophilia is victimless. Pick one.

That said, Hoppe is trying

That said, Hoppe is trying to impugn the character of the "countercultural left" who found the libertarian doctrine appealing, but how many of these people actually find an obsession with viewing child pornography to be "perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles"?

Around 1968, in the counter-cultural left, there where many advocates of pedophilia as a perfectly "natural" lifestyle in France.

Were they advocates of

Were they advocates of pedophilia (again, not sure what "advocate" means in this context) insofar as pedophilia was a victimless crime?

Some did, some did not (or

Some did, some did not (or rather claimed that age of consent was irrelevant).

It Shades

"It certainly isn't victimless insofar as some child was usually abused in the process of creating the media, but the consumption of the media is not itself directly exploitive."

True, but it is also possible for the pedophile to get off on the kind of images a parent take of their kid because they think it's cute. You know, the bathtub kind. That against the law also in the wrong hands, and sometimes in the right hands. I recall parents getting in trouble for some innocent pictures.

The most hilarious being the teenaged girl getting charged with child pornography for posting nude pictures on myspace. The law is a crude hammer.

"It certainly isn't

"It certainly isn't victimless insofar as some child was usually abused in the process of creating the media, ...."

There is plenty of Hentai that qualifies as kiddie porn yet doesn't require the abuse of anyone. I don't know the legal status of such porn but I wouldn't be very surprised if people had been imprisoned for Hentai crimes. Obviously such laws are very plausible politically even if they aren't on the books at the moment.

So pedophiles and child molesters are not identical. That being the case, hasn't Micha just demonstrated ugly bigotry against pedophiles? So long as they do not commit moral crimes how does their orientation differ in principle from that of gays?

Psychiatric Definitions

"The term paedophilia erotica was coined in 1886 by the Viennese psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in his writing Psychopathia Sexualis.[21]"

Micha, don't look up the circa 1800s psychiatric definition of homosexuality. You won't like it very much. Wasn't it removed as a disorder only as recently as 1973?

Yes, it was changed. I don't

Yes, it was changed. I don't recall hearing about the definition of pedophilia being changed to include 16-year-olds.

a) It says at best

a) It says at best homosexuality is abnormal, I agree, that doesn't make me a gay-hater, for all I know.
b) Age of consent is a complicated issue but it is clear that the US law is currently far on the repressive side.

No, "at best" Hoppe says

No, "at best" Hoppe says homosexuality is not only abnormal but perverse, vulgar, obscene, profane, an illegitimate activity and lifestyle, and comparable to "drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution,... polygamy, [and] pedophilia," all of which Hoppe vehemently disapproves of.

So would you not agree that Hoppe dislikes gays, is intolerant of them, and in fact hates them? Is bigotry not an accurate description of his views?

No he doesn't. He claims it

No he doesn't. He claims it belongs to a list of abnormal OR perverse activities. He doesn't claim it is illegitimate either.

I'm pretty sure Hoppe personally disapproves of the gay lifestyle... not because - as you claim - he explicitly says so, but mostly through Bayesian inference... each times he mentions homosexuality it's in quite a bad light, it's not too hard to sum up 2 and 2. So OK, Hoppe probably doesn't like the gay thing. Big deal.

I think your criticism are blown way out of proportion and the logic you use to analyze his quotes poor. I also think you've been rude and aggressive with Kinsella. You show yourself in the light of an intolerant bigot for political-correctness, it's too bad because I've seen you fight with much better arguments in the past. Don't take it wrong, it's easy to get offended over the internet, I have no animosity against you at all. Chill out.

He doesn't claim it is

He doesn't claim it is illegitimate either.

The position he is criticizing and opposes is the idea that homosexuality along with other activities are "no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles." Since he opposes this belief, it is fair to conclude that his belief is that homosexuality is an offense, abnormal, and illegitimate.

So OK, Hoppe probably doesn't like the gay thing. Big deal.

Then my argument is successful. All I have tried to establish here and in prior posts is that it is fair and accurate to describe Hoppe as an anti-homosexual bigot. I'm glad you agree.

You show yourself in the light of an intolerant bigot for political-correctness,

Yes, it is fair to say that I do not tolerate intolerance. If that makes me a "bigot for political-correctness" (whatever that means), then I am proud to be one.

Still not too convincing

"The position he is criticizing and opposes is the idea that homosexuality along with other activities are 'no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles'. Since he opposes this belief, it is fair to conclude that his belief is that homosexuality is an offense, abnormal, and illegitimate."

You can't conclude that from rejection of a compound statement that someone disagrees with every particular. I don't agree with that statement in toto. Homosexualuality is certainly not 'normal'. What do you mean by 'legitimate'.

There are plenty of people who find the idea of anal sex pretty perverse even when practiced by heterosexual couples. That's not any kind of serious bigotry. They are just digusted by the idea of shit being involved in a sexual act, and have no imagination on how that might be avoided or even if it is. They just don't want to know. Hell, I'm not even sure it can be avoided.

I think it's fair to categorize anal sex as perverse, and I don't see what the big deal is. I would think that most women taking it up the pooper and most husbands doing it to their wives wouldn't be to comfortable with that being public knowledge. Everyone knows you screw your wife but not everyone is into perverse stuff like that, and it is embarrassing.

You do understand why anal sex isn't considered family friendly, right? I know you want to change the norms but desire and actually are two different things.

I don't think homosexuality is "normal". I find the idea mildly repulsive, but no more so than having anal sex with a very ugly obese dirty hairy woman. Women with hair on their nipples really skeeves me out too. So am I a 'bigot'.

Yes, I also have double standards on this. If I saw a couple of teenagers with their paws all over each other at the local shopping center I'd not think much of it. However, if I saw two men kissing in the same situation I would be thinking "find a room". Then again if it were someones married grandma and grandpa then I'd also be thinking the same thing. So maybe I'm predjudiced against old people too. Although it wouldn't be a good predictor of how I treat old people in other situations.

I'm just not getting why this has got you in such a tailspin. As far as I can tell Hoppe hasn't actually advocated laws against sodomy has he? I certainly wouldn't call someone who is against sodomy a bigot either. Not very sexually enlightened certainly but hardly a bigot. For craps sake man, there is poop involved and these people just can't wrap their minds around their daughters getting rammed in the exit and worse yet enjoying it.

Now Gary North, that's a guy I could understand you getting in a frenzy about.

I also think you've been

I also think you've been rude and aggressive with Kinsella.

I think my responses to him have been proportionate and appropriate. It is curious that you felt the need to comment on the quality of my responses but saw no reason to comment on his behavior.

I didn't find his behavior

I didn't find his behavior inappropriate. I don't know exactly what happened between you too, as far as I'm concerned you put an obviously aggressive and off-topic post on the vandalarchy thread.

I have contempt for Kinsella's views on immigration, but that's a different topic.

(off topic but it looks like no-treason.com has been hacked and is down)

Which part was off-topic -

Which part was off-topic - my noticing the parallels between Kinsella's views on immigration and large corporations, or my description of Hoppe as a homophobic bigot? I agree that the second part was not related to the topic of the thread; it is how I refer to Hoppe, especially when talking with Kinsella.

As for what happened between us, Kinsella had me excommunicated from the Mises Institute for having the courage to criticize Hoppe's homophobic bigotry. The details and various participants involved are discussed in this thread. The Mises Institute has a long history of silencing those who dare to criticize their sacred cows. They even get offended if you point out their idiotic position on fractional reserve banking. Take a look at this thread to see what I mean. They are gradually turning into a cult, if they have not become one already. Which is kind of ironic, given Rothbard's diagnoses of Ayn Rand's inner circle.

Maybe they want to keep it

Maybe they want to keep it quiet and peaceful ? If I ran a conference for the LvMi I certainly do not want some guy jumping on the mic and starting to attack Hoppe for his views on homosexuality. If your current behavior is any indication of the attitude you would I have at this conference, I understand perfectly why you where shunned out of it.

As for mises.org becoming a bit cultish, I agree entirely. It is very hard to combine these three things

- reach and attract many people
- maintain ideology
- be open to change and discussion

I think the same problem happened to objectivism.

I just went back and read

I just went back and read the thread in question, and was surprised at how extremely rude Kinsella was and how polite and measured I was in my response. Once Kinsella realized that he was confusing me for someone else, he apologized for his wildly inappropriate behavior, and we had a slightly more civil (on his part) discussion. Though it later turned out that as a result of the discussion, he gave Jeffrey Tucker an ultimatum: either blacklist Ghertner or Kinsella won't participate. This, I think, was the comment in question.

I have since become much more vocal about it, as I see exactly what kind of cult they are running, and what kind of bigoted views they find acceptable. I also have little reason to maintain a cordial relationship with them, since they made it clear they were not going to be cordial to me. I'm actually glad now that this came to the light so early; I could have wasted years of my life contributing to and associating with their organization, all the while keeping my mouth shut about about what I found objectionable. I wish someone had told me what they really stood for before I got involved; I hope to extend the same courtesy to others.

I just went back and read

I just went back and read the thread in question, and was surprised at how extremely rude Kinsella was and how polite and measured I was in my response.

Ha. I must restore the No Treason archives if for no other reason than to preserve all Kinsella's comments for posterity, as a service to any who might be tempted to take him seriously. I remember when Walter Block dropped by to say that Kinsella was one of the world's leading libertarian theorists. I immediately pointed him to Kinsella's arguments for licensing breeding. Block had nothing more to say on the matter. I wonder if he still touts Kinsella as a leading theorist.

Kinsella's argument is

Kinsella's argument is morally outrageous, but it is no different than the one espoused by hundred of millions of pro-lifers (when opposing evictionism).

There are serious consequences to a society where the cost of children can be dumped on society. Two wrongs don't make a right and although I am convinced it is evil, Kinsella's point is neither ridiculous or unserious.

History

Arthur,

There's history and Kinsella tends to be very rude himself. Try talking with him about copyright law and take the opposite side. Of course, Micha's stoking the fire.

Ah but I happen to be in

Ah but I happen to be in complete agreement over IP law with Kinsella ^^
Fair point though...

I don't much about the person, I just think Micha fired first this time.

Ah but I happen to be in

Ah but I happen to be in complete agreement over IP law with Kinsella ^^ Fair point though...

Maybe not. It seems clear that Kinsella has used legal threats on Rockwell's behalf to compel another to respect Rockwell's IP. Being in agreement with Kinsella's stated position ain't necessarily the same as being in agreement with Kinsella.

I just think Micha fired

I just think Micha fired first this time.

Oh, definitely.

... and in that.

I'm guilty of the same.

For instance on the issue of consent Micha. You seem to think that it's quite clear by age when consent has been given. How do you determine when consent to fractional reserve banking has been given.

It's my position that very, very few people are competent to fully understand all the risks involved. If one can outlaw sex for certain individuals because they are not competent to consent, then why not other contracts. Like for instance gambling contracts. When are they legit?

You seem to think that it's

You seem to think that it's quite clear by age when consent has been given.

No, I don't think this at all. Notice that I haven't disagreed with much of what you've written in this thread. Note my position in say, this thread. Also see here and here.

I believe you're miscommunicating regarding "best"

But either way, implying Hoppe is a pedophile is, to put it mildly, a stretch, and not a terribly polite one. Do you really want to let this battle lower you to such partisanship? Is the high ground so lonely that it warrants such easy abandonment?

As to the importance of harping on libertarian bigots, the problem does not seem to be that some libertarians are bigots, but that people are buying the anti-immigration libertarian arguments that those (perhaps) bigots produce. If you want to go after those arguments, have at it. It would likely be more useful and interesting than this parade of parsing, now entering its third year.

Didn't Mary Ruwart get in

Didn't Mary Ruwart get in trouble for her views on statutory rape/child pornography? That sounds a bit like what Hoppe was getting at. Hoppe's bigotry isn't an issue for me, he could worship Satan praying for the end of the world for all I care.

Not at all; Ruwart was

Not at all; Ruwart was criticizing the inconsistent, irrational and illegitimate age of consent laws - Hoppe was comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. Do you not see the difference?