“Hoppephobia,” a term first coined by Murray Rothbard (as far as I can tell he was the first to use it), has once again reared its ugly head.
In light of some controversial statements made on “libertarian twitter” regarding physically removing socialists, Hoppe was deployed to give the supposed intellectual cover. Of course, this triggered the dormant Hoppephobia in many so-called libertarians. They swarmed to Twitter to disavow the man Rothbard once called “amiable.”
What’s the reason for this irrational hatred?
Let’s look at some of the supposed problems with Hoppe (I am not going to cite the specific tweets because that will require too much time, and they don’t deserve the acknowledgement).
Democracy: The God that Failed
Hoppe’s most notable work, Democracy, became the piñata for the “classical liberal” types to beat. They think that his conclusions are comical, and they laugh at the idea of monarchism. But, what’s to actually hate about the book?
They make snide remarks and memes, but what’s wrong with his thesis? They provide little evidence. The truth is that Hoppe’s book is one the first statements in a still developing body of literature in economics dealing with the economics of monarchy, autocracy, and dictatorship. Should one with a provocative book that is ahead of its time be expected to be 100 percent correct? Of course not. Only people who have an irrational aversion to the idea that monarchy is preferable on some margins would say this, just as they laughed at it all week on X.
I think it is wrong to say that monarchy is universally preferable to democracy, but what Hoppe demonstrates is that a monarch, being the owner of the state, has a longer time horizon than rulers under democracy. As a result, they will expropriate less in the short term; therefore, allowing more savings and, therefore, economic expansion and development. He says much more, but one would be better off reading Hoppe themselves.
Subsequent empirical work has shown that monarchies and democracies show that no significant growth differences occur between the two different regime types, a claim contrary to both Hoppe’s thesis and the criticisms of his detractors. However, as noted here and here, the effects of large institutional reforms were negative under democracy while positive under monarchy, thus giving the Hoppeans some slight vindication.
Regardless, there is plenty of work that still needs to be done, and to act like Hoppe is entirely wrong is asinine. As the well-respected political scientist behind the research paper referenced above, Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, stated, “Monarchy as an institutional form has been neglected for long in the social sciences. We hope with this contribution to show that there is reason to pursue equally serious research in this institution as has been devoted to many other political institutions.”
Monarchy needs to be taken seriously. Bottom line. Full stop. Hoppe does so and he does so in a way that will lay the groundwork for future study. He provided a nice foundation while also presenting a provocative vision that naturally spurs interest. We should be thankful for that.
Admittedly, monarchy is more complex than he leads us to believe. There are more variables than ownership of the state (residual clamancy), and once you suspend the assumption that only ownership of the state is variable between monarchy and democracy, you allow for the possibility that democracy might be better for economic growth than monarchy in some cases. Of course, Hoppe is working under ceteris paribus conditions, but within the comparison between democracy and monarchy, there are certain conditions that cannot be held equal, namely, decision-making costs.
Decision-making costs in a democracy are much higher than in monarchies, which could provide for higher stability in policy making. Therefore, ceteris paribus, it is possible that a bad democracy would lead to better outcomes than a bad monarchy because the bad democracy cannot come to decisions as swiftly or have consensus as a well as a monarchy can.
This is just one problem, and honestly, Hoppe might have dealt with the response somewhere. However, his “libertarian” critics are so filled with vitriolic hate that they cannot even levy that simple criticism, a criticism, that if presented in a polite or constructive manner, will not be met with hostility, but provoke good conversation rather than division.
Argumentation Ethics
Another one that gets people’s eyes rolling.
Per my evaluation, argumentation ethics is the only way (besides perhaps Christian ethics1) to derive the non-aggression principle/axiom.
The basic argument goes like this:
Argumentation is preconditioned by the principle of non-aggression.
Any argument that denies any of the preconditions of argumentation are involved in a performative contradiction and are, therefore, false.
Arguing against the principle of non-aggression contradicts the precondition of non-aggression.
Therefore, arguments against the principle of non-aggression are contradictory.
Essentially, the non-aggression principle is an ultimate given. It cannot be argued against because any attempt to argue against it affirms it. That is, at least, the Hoppean claim. The way I presented it is not the way I would present if using a more serious platform, but given the context of this conversation, I will leave the reader to delve down the rabbit hole themselves. It deserves greater elaboration, but that is a topic for another time. There have been arguments for and against, and there have been many persuasive critiques and defenses. However, does this argument have anything seriously objectionable? Does it warrant disgust or hate? Of course not.
If anything, when first presented with this argument, I thought, “Well, I don’t immediately agree, but if you want to establish a science of ethics, this is how you should go about it, so let’s see what we can do with this.” Is that not a fair assessment? Of course, it is!
Yet, the critics laugh! What do they accept as their starting point I wonder?
Objectivism? Give me break. Utilitarianism? It breaks down once you allow for the possibility of people who enjoy violating the non-aggression principle. News flash: There are countless people like that (just look at D.C!). What about natural law? Natural law theory is a mangled mess of theology, observations, and deductions from basic assumptions, but nothing that meets the epistemological standard that Hoppe’s method sets out to meet.
Those that accepted natural law theory, such as Rothbard, praised Hoppe’s theory. Hoppe essentially accomplishes what natural law theorists wanted to do, which is provide an objective basis for political ethics.
Furthermore, Jurgen Habermas2, the postmodernist, socialist philosopher behind the original argumentation ethics, agrees that non-coercion is a precondition of argumentation and thus is a general legal principle. Habermas just believes that there are other preconditions that justify social democracy. Regardless, given Habermas’ support for the basic idea, it should be given serious consideration.
Meeting the epistemological standard set by Hoppe is something everyone dealing with non-empirical questions should strive for. To hold a political belief for a reason that does not meet this standard is arbitrary. This is not to say that people cannot have good reasons to believe something outside of absolute certainty, but those people should also question if they are actually a libertarian and how much they are willing to advocate for specific policy actions.
Physical Removal
Memed into oblivion, this aspect of Hoppe’s political philosophy can’t catch a break. I think it is because that it is talked about imprecisely at times. I won’t dwell too long on it here, but the basic idea is that covenant communities are perfectly legitimate, and their members should physically remove people that threaten the existence of the covenant community, whether the threat comes in the form of actual aggression or ideas contrary to the organizing principles of the community.
A libertarian should have no problem with this, assuming the communities are formed with the consent of every community member, which is an assumption Hoppe is working under. Communities should be allowed to form naturally, and its members should be allowed to define what activities are not tolerable and punish accordingly.
Anything is on the table. To make this explicit, let me provide an example that Hoppe's critics won’t find objectionable. Let’s suppose that a bunch of gay people get together and form a covenant community. The one rule: you cannot be straight. Anyone who is caught engaging in heterosexual activities or anyone toying with the idea of heterosexuality will be physically removed from the community. They move forward with their covenant community and remove any and all straight people or people toying with the idea of being straight. There is nothing here that libertarians should disagree with.
Taking this further, Hoppe, during a podcast interview with Michael Malice, discussed methods of physical removal. Presumably, methods that would occur outside of a covenant community. Let’s suppose that there are socialists organizing peaceably (for the time being). They are not part of your covenant community and are on their own property, but their future activities concern you and threaten the foundation of the libertarian legal order. What can be done? Well, Hoppe does not say that they should be aggressed against (He at least does not say it during the Malice interview as far as I know). That would be unjustifiable. Instead, they should be ostracized, which can be an effective tool, or harassed, called names, etc. Essentially, their lives should be made as difficult as possible without harming their person or property through aggression as to encourage them to move to another area, away from the libertarian legal order.
Again, that should be perfectly agreeable to the libertarian. He is advocating for using voluntary means to preserve a libertarian social order. We all talk about how to get to a libertarian society, but nobody talks about how it will be preserved. Hoppe deserves credit for elaborating on how we can keep liberty after we achieve it.
Conclusion
I don’t agree with Hoppe on everything, as I have alluded to in regards to monarchy. In my opinion, his argumentation ethics needs cleaning (or I need some more convincing), and his stance on immigration is not the consistent libertarian position, but none of his deviations from the norm necessitate the vile hatred and mockery he receives.
Read and learn from him. Don’t block him out just because you don’t like the sound of his message. Essentially, be an adult. That’s my recommendation.
Check out his work for more:
HansHoppe.com — Austrian Economist and Anarcho-Capitalist Social Theorist
Hans-Hermann Hoppe | Mises Institute
The belief in the Christian God is necessary to have certain knowledge. Given that we have certain knowledge, in the form of specific axioms, the Christian God must exist. This syllogism requires much more elaboration to be given any credence, so that is a matter for a future article or paper. This is roughly what I believe, but there are some, Biblical apriorists or presuppositionalists, who claim that the Bible is necessary for knowledge. If this is true, then Biblical morality and all of its specifics would be 100% certain. From here, I could see one leaning heavily on the non-aggression principle as formulated in various Biblical passages criticizing violence. This is the only other way to ultimately justify the private property ethic. However, I think it fails to prove that the Bible is necessary for knowledge. The fear of God is necessary, but the Bible is primarily something to be observed, read, not something written on the heart. The fear of God is really inescapable, and that allows one to derive the axiom of self-existence, human action, and non-aggression. As much as Biblical apriorism, or at least the form of it referenced here, is attractive to me, I cannot accept it as of yet.
Hoppe was Habermas’ student.