[Originally published in the Front Range Voluntaryist, article by Jakob Horngren]
Libertarians under crossfire
We have never been short of people taking aim at Hans-Hermann Hoppe, especially those who are hitting from the Left. Recently, however, the frequency of the attacks has increased within so called “left libertarian” circles. Tom Palmer, a fellow at the Cato Institute, just the other day went after the great Austro-Libertarian for his alleged fascist sympathies, and labeled him a “racial collectivist” and a “racist” among other things. Palmer also went on using a collectivist blanket statement to label the supporters of Hans Hoppe as a “Stalinist movement.” One might think that such an attack on a scholar par excellence like Prof. Hoppe is a rare occurrence given the level of ridiculousness embedded in Palmer’s accusations. One might also think that Palmer is merely a sour grape and a sore loser, as well as an exception. But, Tom Palmer has company within the Hoppe-hating cult. Examples of “left libertarians” joining the chorus of Tom Palmer in the Hoppe-hating cult are: Jeffrey Tucker, Steve Horwitz, and David Boaz. Horwitz has even gone so far as to say that he would “far rather have kids read Marx than Hoppe” after a decentralist speech delivered by the president of the Mises Institute, Jeff Deist, during the summer of 2017 as he was addressing the libertarian crowd in Malta at the Corax conference.
Strategy for social change
The ashes from the flames caused by Jeff Deist’s speech had barely settled when Hans Hoppe took the stage at the twelfth annual Property and Freedom Society conference, in October 2017, where he gave the notorious talk on libertarianism and the alt-right. Among “left libertarians,” Hoppe’s speech was interpreted as very controversial, inflammatory, and incendiary, and needless to say, was not very well received by the Cato sympathizers and beltway libertarians. One of the primary reasons why Hoppe has become the favorite hate object among “left libertarians” is because he dares to talk, and write about, not just the principles of libertarian property rights theory, but also, and perhaps more importantly, what libertarians must do in order to arrive from point A (a very non libertarian starting point) to point B (a libertarian social order). In other words, he emphasizes the importance of a libertarian strategy for social change. Hoppe argues that such a libertarian strategy must involve a right-wing populist approach, and hence many of Hoppe’s loyal followers are coming from more culturally conservative and right-wing ideological backgrounds.
Maintaining a social order
The second area which Hoppe stresses the importance of is how a libertarian social order could be maintained once it has been achieved.
This is where the idea of private covenant anarcho-capitalist communities is introduced, and furthermore also the widely misunderstood issue of physical removal. Again, Hoppe takes a rather conservative position and advocates for covenants established for the purpose of family, place, and kin (“blood and soil”). The line of arguments that Hoppe makes is that the aforementioned covenants would be more likely to be populated with a population who generally would have a lower rate of time preference, and therefore, by praxeological deduction, a higher degree of economic prosperity would emerge. These covenants, Hoppe claims would also be more culturally homogenous, and consequently the likelihood of clashes and conflicts between individuals or groups of individuals, would be significantly lower. Cultural homogeneity, a lower rate of time-preference, capital accumulation, and economic prosperity are crucial elements in order to minimize physical clashes for the sake of maintaining a peaceful social order, which is indeed what libertarians seek to do.
For a person who is introduced to small portions of Prof. Hoppe’s writings as a beginner, and who is also not versed very well in Austro-libertarian thought, might take away skewed and distorted views of Hoppe’s scholarly genius. It should therefore be clarified from the get-go that Hoppe is not just the character who populates countless memes about physical removal involving helicopters, which have been generously used and distributed by people who are self-proclaimed white nationalists. Contrary to how Hoppe is portrayed by both the “left libertarians” and the alt-righters, he is a libertarian academic with stellar credentials carrying the recognition as a Distinguished Fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Hoppe’s praxeological defense of a private law society based on property rights, using argumentation ethics, is best presented in his masterpiece, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, which is the best piece of literature that I have ever read on this very subject.
Recent controversy
The most recent incident that brought Hoppe back under crossfire was under the circumstances regarding Christopher Chase Rachels and his new book titled: White, Right, and Libertarian. Most people are probably familiar with Chase’s previous book, A Spontaneous Order: The Capitalist Case For A Stateless Society, which earned him an appearance on the Tom Woods Show. Chase asked Prof. Hoppe if he would be willing to write the foreword to his new book, and Hoppe graciously agreed. However, an important detail is that Chase did not reveal his planned cover for the book. When it turned out that the book cover was very indecent, and frankly grotesque to put it mildly, Hoppe decided in agreement with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, to withdraw the consent to use his forewords for Chase’s new book.
It did not take long before the “left libertarian” outcry started with false allegations over Hoppe’s and the Mises Institute’s connection to white nationalism and its subscribers, even though the precise opposite is true given the above summary of the series of events that took place between Chase Rachels and Prof. Hoppe. Tom Palmer was not late in his continuing smearing campaign against the Mises Institute and labeled it “the sewer of the Mises Institute,” which is a very odd accusation. The only thing the Mises Institute and Prof. Hoppe did was to reject collaboration with Chase Rachels after the book cover leaked, and yet the Institute is being libeled.
At this point it should be very clear why someone from the Cato Institute would engage in juvenile slander against the Mises Institute and its scholars. And it is solely for institutional rivalry reasons. I just do not believe for even one second that someone like Tom Palmer would be so stupid as to actually think that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a closeted klansman.
Engaging with extremists
All of these initiated attacks from the Left bring to light the issue of some of the controversial followers and admirers of Prof. Hoppe’s work. I do not dispute that there might be some people who identify as white nationalists or who are from the so called alt-right wing of the political spectrum, and who are familiar with Hoppe’s work, and who are citing his work on different social media platforms. Nonetheless, why would it necessarily be a bad thing to have followers who are “extremists” in one way or another? I cannot see how this is a negative, besides one’s opponents being able to use it as smear propaganda material against oneself? Why would we as libertarians be against the opportunity to educate the alt-right about property rights and non-aggression? If we can turn an alt-righter, who does not have a sound ideological foundation to rest on, towards becoming a proponent of a private law society, then how is that anything but a net benefit for the libertarian movement?
There is further reason for a person from the alt-right to support Prof. Hoppe’s views of anarcho-capitalist societies. People who are well acquainted with Hoppe’s views will understand that the concept of private covenant communities allows for a variety of societies to coexist peacefully. The white nationalists will be allowed to collectivize voluntarily and establish an ethno state if they so wish, and the same goes for any other ethnic group or religious group. Likewise, there would also be room for voluntary socialism and communism. This brings me back to my main argument, that it is on net a positive and good thing that some purported “extremists” are familiarizing themselves with one of our greatest libertarian thinkers.
The libertarian movement will benefit from nudging right-wing and left-wing extremists in the direction of radical decentralization as opposed to fighting for the sought after central power to rule over everyone, and then force one’s opponent to conform to one’s views and lifestyle, which will obviously lead to more physical clashes as opposed to peaceful separation.