Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!

Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver

Time preference, risky behaviour of homosexuals[edit]

I have just made an edit in the Homophobia section of this articles describing how the allegation that gays engage in high-risk behaviour per se is not telling the full story. While it is true that gays have on average more sexual partners (btw. why is this in it of itself riskier? safe sex, anyone?), drink and smoke more, homosexuals also marry at least at the same rates than heterosexuals if not higher. Since marriage is considered by any social conservative to be a desirable status due to it providing personal and financial stability, it would be imperative to conclude that the picture of gays being high time preference=higher-risk is not that clear cut.
So on what stats do I base my claim that gays marry with at least the same rates as heteros? Well, let's dive in, shall we? The adult population of the United States in the year was an estimated 232.637.362 according to The total number of marriages in that year was 2.077.000; that gives us a ratio of 8,9 marriages per 1000. Since there are no national figures for LGTB people we have to go state by state, only counting the states that allow gay marriage. The adult LGTB population of the state of California in 2008 was 861.000 according to In the five-month period in 2008 during which same-sex marriage was legal before it was banned by prop. 8 California performed, according to pew research, 18.000 same-sex marriages yielding a ratio of 20,9 per 1000.
To cut it short: you can do that state by state, year by year where numbers are available and you'll find that gays commit often more to marriage, THE civil institution conservatives like Hoppe champion because it provides the right incentives, than heterosexuals do. EauDeCologne (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

To nitpick (not disagree), I think the early high acceptance of marriage in California is, partially, from pent up demand where a ton of folks were awaiting the availability of marriage. The fact that it is so much higher in your quick computation suggests room for it to settle down to a level that, at worst, says it's equally acceptable.
Numerical nitpicking: one thing statisticians do for fun. MarmotHead (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, ain't really nitpicking. that's a valid point you're making that I haven't taken into consideration. So one would really have to follow how year-by-year figures turn out in the long(er) run to justifiably make that claim that teh gayz (who doesn't love those pop-evo-psycho generalisations) do not marry less than us mere mortals. Keeping a beady eye on it. EauDeCologne (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Short review of Democracy on /r/badphilosophy[edit]

I found this on reddit: --ZooGuard (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


Is it worth including in the article that Hoppe is on record stating that roads are essentially a conspiracy by the government to enable tax-collectors better access to private properties so they can tax them? I daresay there are even some Minutemen militias who might struggle to accept that the IRS and the FED are quite that diabolical...

"Second, in order to be able to intrude on its subjects’ private property so as to tax them, a government must invariably take control of existing roads, and it will employ its tax revenue to produce even more roads to gain even better access to all private property, as a potential tax source. Thus, this over-production of roads does not involve merely an innocent facilitation of interregional trade – a lowering of transaction costs – as starry-eyed economists would have us believe, but it involves forced domestic integration (artificial desegregation of separate localities)." -- from here -- (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Various feedback and requests for citations[edit]

I added some notes to the page, but received a notification from Owlman that it would be undone and I should use the talk page. He didn't say why. Were they unreasonable? Did I make unsupported assertions? Was the format incorrect? Please clarify.

Anyways, sorry if I didn't follow the right process. Please let me know what is the correct process to get the page updated with questions and feedback.

"This is pretty much his reasoning as to why Somalia isn't a libertarian utopia."

Do you have a citation for Hoppe on Somalia?

"If you happen to have a high melanin concentration in your skin and a shop owner bars you from entering his store, that's called freedom."

Please support the "free association == rank discrimination and bigotry" assertion.

Do you let anyone into your house or car? Would you let Hoppe be your friend or would you marry him? How about a would-be rapist? Assuming not, does such freedom to associate or not associate and control access to your property evidence that irrational discrimination against skin color drives your choice? In other words, being discriminate with whom we associate with, as we all are, does not logically imply bigotry.

"you literally will find yourself with nowhere to live, work, eat, and will summarily die. Hoppe shrugs."

Misrepresentation of anarcho-capitalist argument and misunderstanding of economic analysis. Do competing brands typically serve consumers preferences better, or monopoly brands? Is it possible that competing jurisdictions (like competing restaurants, firms, retailers, ...) would similarly be more responsive to people's preferences? From your above claim I will infer that democracies don't let such things happen, which mean that the majority of the people care to support you. What supports your assumption that such people would disappear or would stop caring in a system where private property is respected fully?

"There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society."
"Eliminating dissent in the brave new world: check. Go on."

This would be more accurately summarized as controlling crime and violence. Should there be tolerance in society for rapists and murderers? How about thieves? Is it eliminating dissent and censorship to refuse self-professed thieves into your house? If you take the premise of strict property rights and voluntary association, then would it be fair to characterize communists as self-professed thieves? (You don't have to agree to give a fair representation of the argument)

How many of your friends are Tea Party supporters, blue collar workers without a high-school degree, or heroin junkies? Are you "eliminating dissent" by your choice to associate?

That said, I agree with you that the connection between homosexuality and commmunism is unclear to me too.

" constructing this merciless private tyranny is precisely the point of libertarianism."

Sticking to substantive points rather than snarky comments... Tyranny of the private owner is like saying property is theft. It is a contradiction in terms.

Can I smoke in your bedroom? Can I have sex with you? Are you therefore a "private property tyrant", a tyrant with your body, or denying my amazing liberty to have intercourse with you? A tyrant controls other people's lives and property. Your own usage of your legitimate property is not tyranny.

"In fact, marriage rates show that homosexual adults engage in long-term relationships no less than heterosexuals, suggesting no time preference distinction."

Seems besides the point. The comment you provided above is related to children (which tend to survive you). Did Hoppe point to homosexual marriage as evidence of low time preference? (Citation?)

I have no evidence for or against the claim, but it seems that you don't either. It seems reasonable to think that people with children care more about the long-term future (for instance, they may save not just for their old age), so I'd have a slight prior to agree that having children would increase someone's time horizon (regardless of sexual orientation).

"He justified this by asserting that gays were a population with "low time preference" due to the fact that they have fewer children."

By the way, just for my curiosity, is any measured or claimed statistical difference between social groups racism/bigotry/homophoby? Does Hoppe hate people with low time preferences?

That seems counter to libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism and private property, which seem generally quite tolerant of people's preferences as long as their actions rest on the consent of those involved.

The PFS holds an annual speaking event that turned into a convergence point for white supremacists, paleoconservative nativists and discredited pseudo-scientists - besides the usual libertarian crew of crank economists and conspiracy theorists.


The well-meaning agenda of those meetings is often enough revealed by the titles of some of the talks that are given.
Cantillon Effect: How to Enrich Yourself at Others’ Expense Without Anyone Noticing It

I'm surprised to see that intellectual discourse is rationally evaluated by whether it is "well-meaning" and that itself is judged by title of talks. In other words, you imply that those are not "well-meaning" without presenting an argument to support it, and assume that is relevant to the validity of ideas presented.

To take one specific example, I have not watched that talk, but the Cantillon effect explains why Wall Street does so well, essentially by riding the wave of fresh money issued by the Fed, at the expense of the vast majority of people. I consider such knowledge about the effects of monetary policy important for anyone who cares about society. — Unsigned, by: Dumky / talk / contribs

Great stuff. Your man Hoppe's still pretty fucking racist, though, isn't he? It might make your dick twitch a bit to fantasise about banning niggers from your ideal an-cap township, but I'm afraid you'll just have to look on wistfully from the wrong side of history. Robledo (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Robledo, I sincerely hope that you are not representative of the level of discourse on this rationalist wiki. You assume from my questions that I appreciate or support Hoppe, when I'm merely asking evidence/citations and pointing out possible errors in the article's argumentation. Those seem like easy corrections, but instead of addressing any of my questions, you insult me without grounds. Lovely. Dumky (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madam: Kindly refrain from sea lioning further.
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Reverend Black Percy
I suppose memes have replaced backing one's claims with arguments or evidence, or facing possible flaws in your arguments. I think you should use a larger picture, so it makes a bigger impression. Dumky (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
First off, if you refuse to associate with someone because of the color of their skin or the ethnic group they are a part of, then you are a racist. There is a clear difference between factors that you cannot control and actions like rape and theft.
There is also a difference between society tolerating a group of people and an individual tolerating them since the majority can wreak havoc on any minority; you are also not obliged, as an individual, to accept anyone's ideology or group; it is also unwise to hate people rather than their ideologies since this can easily lead to demonization and then murder. On another note, wouldn't violate the NAP to attack people based on their political beliefs?
The idea that there can be no "private tyranny" is an odd one to me. A slave owner or feudal lord both own their property and are private citizens yet they act tyrannically against their workers. You are seem to conflate the concept of self-ownership and personal possessions with private property, which most would define as property that generates capital.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Owlman, thanks for your reply. Hopeful we can get to my questions above on Somalia, free association, caring for needy, censorship, and "well-meaning" topics.
1) Yes, there is a difference between factors that you control and those you cannot. Yes, the NAP means not violating someone else's property rights. Not allowing communists (or anyone) on my land involves no such violation or attack. You seem to assume that society based on property norms hurt minorities, when it seems exactly the opposite. Who is most vulnerable when such norms are weak (see feudal lords and slave owners below), and who is most capable of taking advantage (the strong and powerful)? There is a big difference between refusing to associate (for good or bad reasons) and coercing someone.
In reading the article, I didn't see evidence of hate other than some groups being singled out (seems strange and distasteful, but not smoking-gun evidence), and as far as I can tell from the quotes Hoppe ultimately cares about ideologies and behaviors (in this case, communism, low time preference) as you promote.
Is it racist to consider that different groups have statistical differences (presently, factually), such as average time preference? Should such prior information be ignored? Your next flatmate will be a randomly selected Afghani guy or a random Japanese guy, and you have no other information; do you have any priors? Are they all hateful irrational bigotry?
2) A slave owner or feudal lord are indeed tyrants, or more simply put criminals, because one cannot own another person (self-ownership) and they forcefully take or taxed land from actual owners (people who homesteaded or were given land, see NAP). I have no right to rule over you or your property.
All conflicts come down to who is the owner of a scarce resource. Is this car yours or mine? If you claim it is yours, demonstrate that you legitimately acquired it and I didn't.
I'm not sure how "personal possessions" and "private property" differ. The dictionary does not seem to agree with your claim that "most would define as property that generates capital". Whether the car is used for directly achieving my ends (consumption) or indirectly (production) does not seem relevant to my ownership. Dumky (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to address this objection of Dumky's:

"Misrepresentation of anarcho-capitalist argument and misunderstanding of economic analysis. Do competing brands typically serve consumers preferences better, or monopoly brands? Is it possible that competing jurisdictions (like competing restaurants, firms, retailers, ...) would similarly be more responsive to people's preferences? From your above claim I will infer that democracies don't let such things happen, which mean that the majority of the people care to support you. What supports your assumption that such people would disappear or would stop caring in a system where private property is respected fully?"

...The reason it is *not* a misrepresentation is because we are talking about *Hoppe's* version of anarcho-capitalism--not Rothbard's, or Robert Murphy's, or Dumky's--in which certain 'competing brands' and 'preferences' are *explicitly* designated as *universally* invalid and unacceptable a priori. Recall that Hoppe says, among other things:

"There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society."

...He rejects, in saying so, the notion that a 'competing brand' of community that serves the preferences of democrats and/or communists should be allowed to exist. He is not saying "democrats and communists will only be able to live in communities that tolerate democrat/communist lifestyles", he is saying "democrats and communists will not be able to live in *any* community", because the libertarian social order will necessarily require they be 'expelled' from *any* society. (hence the synecdochic use of the term 'society' in the above statement)

This follows from his assumption that the 'libertarian social order' is the 'natural order', to which all communities ought to adhere.

Thus Dumky's complaint on this particular point is erroneous and need not be addressed. -Signifyin(g)Monkey — Unsigned, by: / talk


There's some disagreement about which is the preferred nickname for Herr Hoppe. Is it "3H" for Hans-Hermann_Hoppe? Or is it more proper to use the honorific..."4H" for Herr H.H.H? I tend to think, at least for American readers, that 4H is the more descriptive of the two. Thoughts? CarolMooreACDC (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)