Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe/Archive 1

Link to lecture on mp3
You can listen to a lecture entailing Dr. Hoppe's "controversial" reference to homosexuals and time preference here: http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/hoppe/4.mp3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.172.123 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2005‎ (UTC)

NOT a Libertarian!
Hoppe is an 'anarcho' conservative. His philosophy seems to be some sort of 'voluntary' conservatism...but it's not really clear what "voluntarism" means to Hoppe. Some of Hoppe's followers believe that coercion against children is legitimate because children (they say) are not rational actors.190.191.40.249 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest deleting any statement in this article claiming Hans-Hermann Hoppe to be an anarchist, libertarian, or any variant thereof (incl. anarcho-capitalist, paleolibertarian, minarchist). Why is Hoppe an "anarcho-capitalist" or "paleolibertarian"? Because he insists he is? I do not think that quotations by Hoppe himself where he declares himself to be an anarchist, libertarian, or any variant of the aforementioned, or where he describes his ideology in such terms, should be deleted. Likewise, I do not support removing references to publications of a libertarian bent for which he wrote material. I am only opposed to Wikipedia claiming Hoppe or his ideology to be in any way, shape, or form anarchist or libertarian. I also think that Hoppe should be removed from such categories as "anarcho-capitalists" or "libertarians". Someone does not become anything by insisting they are. Neither does fraternization with organizations, or writing for publications, of a particular ideological bent automatically make one an adherent of said ideology.
 * Suppose that an individual, let's call him John Doe, is convinced that he is a telepathic panda from the Andromeda Galaxy. Insisting so does not make John Doe a psychic panda from outer space. Or does it? Apparently merely saying anything rediculous about oneself makes it so, at least going by the reasoning used to justify classifying Hoppe as any sort of anarchist or libertarian. However, if the hypothetical Mr. Doe insists that he is a panda with telepathic powers from the Andromeda galaxy, then I am all in favor of including a quotation by John Doe saying so (provided of course the quote is authentic and properly sourced), however nowhere should the article on John Doe state that "John Doe is a telepathic panda from the Andromeda Galaxy" nor should Mr. Doe be placed in the categories "sentient pandas," "psychic mammals," or "extra-galactic lifeforms" no matter how strongly he believes his delusion to be true. The hypothetical John Doe and his hypothetical friend Joe Schmo (who believes himself to be a clarvoiyant penguin from the Sirius star system) are under the delusional belief that they are "psychic animals," "exo-biotic lifeforms," and "sentient warm-blooded nonhuman lifeforms" but that does not mean they belong in the respective categories. Similarly Hans Hermann Hoppe is under the delusional belief that he is an anarchist or a libertarian. He might present himself as such, but he is nothing of the sort.
 * Likewise, just as mere insistence, belief, or wishful thinking does not make someone whatever it is they claim to be, writing for a publication (or fraternizing with an organization) of a particular ideological perspective does not necessarily mean one advocates the same views. For instance, Hoppe wrote articles for Junge Freiheit, a controversial German publication accused of being fascist, neo-Nazi, or at least ultra-right. We should at least agree that Junge Freiheit is a far-right, nationalist publication, if not a Nazi rag, as even most German conservatives consider it too right-wing. JF often provides an outlet for racists and Holocaust revisionists. But if contributing to libertarian journals makes one a libertarian, then I can argue much more convincingly that Hoppe is a fascist or a Nazi. (Indeed Hoppe actually holds many reactionary, authoritarian, paternalistic, despotic, xenophobic, homophobic, and even potentially racist views. The only thing remotely libertarian about the man are his economic opinions.)
 * Unless the terms libertarian, anarchist, paleolibertarian, etc. appear in Hoppe's own statements, or are found in the title of published works or organizations, they should be removed from the article. Likewise, Wikipedia banners or lists mentioning Hoppe as an anarchist, anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, minarchist, or paleolibertarian should be changed. I think that categories such as "Fascist intellectuals," "neo-Nazis," "autocracy advocates," and "reactionary academics" would be far more fitting, HOWEVER I do not think that Hoppe should be placed in those categories either because just as the burden of proof lies with those claiming Hoppe to be a libertarian/anarchist/whatever, the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming Hoppe to be a fascist or Nazi to demonstrate that he advocates the tenets of those ideologies. I think that Hoppe is in fact an ultra-reactionary, a homophobe, and a xenophobe if not an outright racist, and thus has many traits endemic to fascism, but I grant that Hoppe does not meet all the minimal requirements to qualify as a fascist. Then again, the case for Hoppe as a libertarian is as vacant as arguing him to be a fascist. Some very un-libertarian positions held by HHH...
 * 1. Anarchists, libertarians, and minarchists share in common opposition to coercion in general. Not all oppose the existence of the state. Anarchists do by definition, as more extreme libertarians oppose an established state aparatus, but minarchists advocate merely reducing the state, being "anti-statist but not anti-state". Of course, advocating abolition of the state does not in itself make one an anarchist. One must be opposed to existence of the state, to establishment of government, and to all forms of coercion. In Hoppe's utopia there is no "state" to speak of, but plenty of coercion. By the state, Hans-Hermann Hoppe

refers to modern conceptions of government. Hoppe would abolish beaurocracies, democracy, constitutional government (i.e. rule of law), and public governance, and replace it with an authoritarian, collectivist, conformist society where governance is not a public function but the business of an estate. Hoppe's "anarchy" would be full of the coercion, which is anathema to anarchism, but the despotism lies not in traditional forms such as centralized political bodies, or established governmental entities. Basically Hoppe's opposition to authority and tyranny is limited to beaurocratic or public forms. He is all for all other kinds of authority and tyranny.
 * 2 Hoppe denies being a monarchist, but argues that monarchy, including absolutism, is superior to democracy. While anarchists are against any kind of state no matter how democratic, and libertarians might have criticisms of liberal democracy as practiced, no anarchist or libertarian would argue that monarchy, particularly absolute monarchy, is superior to democracy. Any real anarchist or libertarian would admit that a constitutional monarchy or democratic republic is preferable to an absolute monarchy or totalitarian regime. An anarchist would consider a more liberal or participatory form of government to be the lesser of two evils when the alternative is a more despotic state form. How can someone who advocates absolute liberty argue that absolute authority is preferable to partial authority? What kind of idiot would take a self-proclaimed anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/libertarian who prefers absolute monarchy to republican democracy seriously?
 * 3 Hoppe advocates "physically removing" certain individuals (e.g. homosexuals) from society. Even most statists do not endorse such aggressive policies.
 * 4 Hoppe explicitly disbelieves in the idea of government ruling with the consent of the governed. He also thinks that republican state forms are bad because elected or appointed officials do not have ownership in the state, therefore they have no interest in improving it, but autocratic rulers own the state. As such, they have an interest in improving their (e)state. Apparently it never occured to Herr Professor that publically elected leaders owe an obligation to their electors or that absolutist monarchs are free to exploit their lands and subject peoples as they please. (Hoppe's support for private ownership of the state would put him in the company of fascists, absolute monarchists, and aristocratic reactionaries.)


 * In sum, Hoppe is not merely content with abolishing the state. He would replace the State with Estate. Anarchists oppose such a replacement. Libertarians oppose collectivism, but Hoppe is a collectivist (or at least an advocate of social collectivism). Minarchist libertarians believe in rule of law. Nowhere does Hoppe support rule of law. While anarcho-capitalists oppose public governance, at least they respect contractual freedoms. Any attempt to make the case that Hoppe is either an anarchist, anarcho-capitalist, or libertarian fails. I admit that one would also fail to make the case that Hoppe is a fascist (since he does not advocate a totalitarian state in the fascist sense), though that case should have a slightly better chance of succeeding than any claim to Hoppe being a libertarian. Then again even fascism is probably too "progressive" for Hoppe.
 * If Hans-Hermann Hoppe is neither an anarchist nor a fascist, then what is he? I would classify him first and foremost as a reactionary, indeed an ultra-reactionary. He would also fall into the primitivist (though not anarcho-primitivist), neo-feudalist, mercantilist, and paternalist categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.57.180 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, strictly speaking libertarianism (in the tradition Hoppe is considered part of) is based on the non-aggression axiom -- the use of aggressive force is morally unjustified. Hoppe agrees with this, and his whole "system" for lack of a better word is based upon it. He is a libertarian-anarchist because he opposes the existence of the state on moral and economic grounds, and he favors a social order based on private property rights. This is as libertarian as it gets. Your other points: (1) You don't at all substantiate your claim that Hoppe supports lots of coercion, or any at all for that matter, taking coercion as these sorts of libertarians would, i.e. interference with private property rights; (2) Yes most libertarians or classical liberals would say democracy is better than monarchy, so what? Not all of them would, for instance Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (leddihn is a CONSERVATIVE) . Hoppe has argued quite extensively as to why, from a libertarian standpoint, monarchies would exploit their subjects less than would democracies (exploitation in terms of libertarian ethics); (3) there is no incompatibility between libertarianism qua non-aggression rule and forcibly removing people from your property. Nor is it un-libertarian to ostracize and drive-out people who don't "gel" with your community's values. You might not personally like such things, but libertarianism as a moral philosophy is confined to the justification of using force; (4) have you read Hoppe's writings on the subject? He specifically argues _why_ a democratic "caretaker" will systematically exploit his subjects more than the monarchical "owner" of the country. Whether you agree with him or not, he has reasons for his viewpoint and you have clearly made no attempt to understand. No offense. And the way you talk about "libertarian thinks this..." and "anarchists believe that..." as if you can speak for every anarchist or libertarian on the planet is extremely presumptuous, when obviously their viewpoints are not homogeneous. Libertarians disagree about all kinds of things, like abortion, immigration, anarchism versus minarchism, etc. Respectfully, your long post seems like a rant and shows very little understanding of Hoppe's writings and expresses mostly personal ideas of what a libertarian should think, not very high in encyclopedic value IMO. Melonsparks (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as sources
Williamcv: Why is it that you've undone my edits? It is not in any way unbiased for this page to have unchallenged criticism of Prof. Hoppe. The responses of those criticzed and those defending Hoppe should be included in this article. Either that, or the entire tripe insinuating that Prof. Hoppe is a fascist should be removed.


 * You changed:
 * " He also generated controversy by an interview in the far-right German nationalist newspaper Junge Freiheit, leading to German libertarians denouncing him for "associating with individuals who do have a clear anti-liberal agenda and joining the circles of the many holocaust-deniers and racists interviewed by JF."
 * to
 * " He also generated controversy by an interview in the far-right German nationalist newspaper Junge Freiheit, leading to German libertarians denouncing him for associating with anti-liberal individuals (from Tom Palmer's website). However, others have argued that such is "all nothing more than meaningless...guilt by association" and character-assasination. Paul Gottfried has defended Junge Freiheit against the charges of near-fascism.

That change seems to seriously alter the meaning without purpose. The German libertarians did  not, I am fairly sure, denounce "him for associating with anti-liberal individuals (from Tom Palmer's website)." Also, you removed half of the quote. I don't think that we should be using blogs as original sources. The original version merely uses the Palmer site as a source for the translation - we can get it elsewhere. -Willmcw 05:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The claim is that the JH is anti-liberal, and the insinuation is that Hoppe is some kind of fascist for daring to accept an interview offer there. Also, Palmer's "site" is a blog. And his "site" is anything but unbiased. Presenting his slander unchallenged is making the article completely non-neutral. Also, I added other information about Prof. Hoppe, such as some of his contributions, that was deleted. Furthermore, he's not translating an official publication. He's translating e-mails or comments sent to him from Germany, and his selection "criteria" is obviously to only accept negative comments. If you're going to use his meritless unscholarly slander-blog as a source of "criticism", then you should also allow for counter-arguments via blog. You aren't going to find a scholarly article responding to Palmer's character-assasinations. -- David Heinrich

If blogs are bad sources, then your entire reference to Palmer's blog should be deleted as junk, which I've done. You can't have it both ways.
 * No sources for claims that Hoppe "generated" controversy by his immigration views, or his Junge Freiheit interview. So I have deleted this. Re his UNLV controversy, I added a link to the open letter signed by over 1700 academics, scholars, and others in support of Hoppe. Stephan Kinsella 16:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The text which was on Palmer's blog is just stuff sent to him, so it is appropriate to remove. The fact that he held the interview is verifiable and should stay. -Willmcw 17:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Where is there a "source" for the contention that the interview was *controversial*? Find one, or remove the reference, which is otherwise inexplicable. Stephan Kinsella 17:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The question of whether blogs are good or bad sources is besides the point, because the answer depends on what point you are trying to prove. If you want to claim that the moon is made of green cheese, and you find a blog post to support that, there is surely something fishy about that, and it would be a good idea to go and see what reputable Astronomy textbooks, the Brittanica, etc. have to say about the issue. If you are documenting the fact that somebody said something on a blog, obviously the blog is a good source. If you are documenting a controversy that played out mostly within the blogosphere, then blogs are excellent sources.

So much for the general topic of blogs as sources. The next thing I want to say is that I object to the way that Dr Palmer is being treated here. I happen to know the man personally as a thoughtful, polite, and courageous intellectual who does not dispense criticism of anyone's personality lightly. Referring to his opinions as "meritless unscholarly slander-blog" is unlikely to contribute to the civility of the discussion, so please take your indignation down a notch or two, will you? Sjeng 17:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

not "controversial"
I've deleted "controversial" in the description of Hoppe as a "controversial" anarcho-capitalist. To the extent his views are controversial because they are anarcho-capitalist, this is redundant. So "controversial" here is NPOV, because it must imply that he is more controversial than average or than other typical anarchists. But he is not, and there is no evidence of this. People who know Hopppe think of him as innovative and brilliant, perhaps, but not as "controversial". The mere fact that a couple of politically correct, hypersensitive bloggers insult him because they disagree with his views does not make him "controversial." NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 19:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added it back. See the quote on this page: http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/003489.asp. -Willmcw 07:07, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Whatever dude. I may add a NPOV tag later, after I ponder this. I think it's out of place and insulting for you to put it there, as if that describes who he is. Later on you can say some of his views are controversial, but I guess that would not be a visible enough slam, would it? NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 16:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * the first reference as Hoppe being a controversional libertarian should be removed from this article. this is an encyclopedia, and not a shoutfest. the text about Hoppe's lecture could be rewritten a little bit more discretely. the addition of the junge freiheit as it is currently written adds nothing - Hoppe has held these views long before the interview - and seems only to be a declaration of guilty by association. Intangible 00:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What does Hoppe's description as "controversial libertarian" have to do wuith this being an encyclopedia? How could the lecture discussion be any more discrete? It's a short sentence now. Hoppe's long-standing views are important to include in his biography. -Willmcw 03:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Funny. I guess the following doesn't apply when the subject is a conservative or libertarian:
 * There is an extensive discussion of the controversy later. In general, adding "controversial" to the lead sentence is like adding "famous". Better just to describe the subject than to apply epithets. -Willmcw July 6, 2005 03:47 (UTC)
 * Or does that only apply when it's a leftist group that Willmcw personally approves of like the Southern Poverty Law Center?Rangerdude 07:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What is your criteria for using "controversy" or "controversial"? -Willmcw 08:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What my criteria happen to be is not the issue here, Will. Consistency and your demonstrated lack of it in applying the term to groups and persons of differing political ideologies are. You have engaged in clear POV pushing in violation of WP:NPOV by applying the term to Hoppe and repeatedly pushing to retain it here while simultaneously advocating its removal from the SPLC. You have a strong POV against Hoppe and the political right combined with a similarly strong POV in favor of the political left. You are free to have such views, Will, but not to constantly promote them in your article edits as this little episode and the SPLC one demonstrate. Rangerdude 16:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You use the terms "controversy" and "controversial" in other articles too. Let's restrict our discussion here to this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do, but the tu quoque ad hominem variety is not the issue here. Rather it is your placement of the word "controversial" in the opening sentence of this article, which is about a political opposite of your own position, yet have simultaneously campaigned to remove the same word from the opening sentence of another article about a group on your side of the political spectrum. That evidences a rather extreme and inconsistent form of POV pushing on your part, Will, and the only fair solution is to apply the same standard to both articles. Rangerdude 03:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not my problem, i am not the one who is willing to include those terms. You should have a criteria for including the terms. It's a short sentence now does not mean it is discrete, au contraire, i cannot even see the text that hoppe used that ought to be controversional, only that is supposedly to be about time-preference and homosexuals. Include the Hoppe's text, so that everyone can see what the yabbering is about by whatever standard you attest, or quit making empty platitudes. Intangible 12:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hoppe's classroom comments resulted in wide news coverage, an academic investigation, and a response by 1700 other academics. Whether the issue was legitimate or not isn't our concern, we're just here to summarize what happened. I will say that it wold be more appropriate to say he is a controversial professor, rather than a controversial philosopher. -Willmcw 19:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You say that you're here to simply "summarize" and yet you insist on putting scare words into the opening sentence of this article - the exact same scare words you removed from an opening sentence of another group that is more in line with your political POV. Such behavior also creates reason to doubt that you are honestly interested in portraying the homosexual time preferences incident and rather appear to see it as a means of smearing Dr. Hoppe through a negative portrayal of an event that he was ultimately vindicated over. Consider taking a break from this article or letting somebody else rewrite it in a more NPOV manner. Rangerdude 03:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * When do you think it is correct to use the terms "controvery" or "controversial"? Since you use them often I'm surprised to see you complain about it. -Willmcw 06:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Quit trying to change the subject, Will. The issue is whether or not "controversial" is appropriate in the opening sentence and my only "complaint" there is that you are demonstrably inserting and deleting it from different articles' opening sentences for POV reasons. My interest is consistency. If it is appropriate in the opening sentence, then it is also appropriate in all similarly situated opening sentences including the SPLC and should be added there as well. If it is not appropriate in the opening sentence, as you argued regarding the SPLC, then it is not appropriate here either. Rangerdude 15:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The subject is, "when to use the term". You haven't addressed it. As for this article, I removed the term a while ago. -20:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hoppe's ultimate vindication wasn't noteworthy to you apparently. There is documentation of both a supportive editorial in UNLV's student paper and a letter from UNLV's president declaring the matter closed, with Hoppe's remarks being considered protected under the umbrella of academic freedom. I'm adding mentions of/links to these documents. Cheers, Dick Clark 20:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding that. I'm not sure I see any "vindication" since there's no indication that the letter was removed from Hoppe's file. If it was, then we should clarify that. -Willmcw 21:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey there Willow. Thanks for noting that if the letter was removed from the file then that would indeed be a vindication of that. I have posted a link to an article verifying this fact, and updated the main entry to indicate HOppe was indeed vindicated by the letter having been removed from his file, and also by UNLV tucking its leftist tail between its legs and reexamining its leftist anti-free speech views in response to Hoppe's courageous stand shining a spotlight on their repressive, leftist, censoring views. Thanks! :) NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 22:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Anarchist?
Willmcw: Hoppe is not only an ardent anarcho-capitalist, but is considered by many to be the most important a-c scholar extant (admittedly, this "many" includes me and a lot of the people that I work with). He is, however, wholly opposed to the state, and is certainly an anarchist. In this article, Hoppe states:
 * A natural order is characterized by peaceful cooperation. Hence, to make a State appear necessary, any would-be State must first destroy the natural order and create a Hobbesian "anarchy" characterized by looting and vandalizing. Typically, this is accomplished by some members of the social elite inciting the propertyless masses (the tenants) to riot against the propertied class (their landlords).
 * Dick Clark 16:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion that goes on over at Anarchism rather frequently. Anarcho-capitalist seems closer to libertarianism than classical anarchy. The quote above appears to be a condemnation of anarchy, not an endorsement of it. Also, he has stated a preference for monarch over democracy, a position which is diametrically opposed to anarchism, as far as I can tell. -Willmcw 17:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Classical anarchy," so far as I can tell, usually entails abolition of government and of property. Anarcho-capitalism accepts property rights, but not coercive government. The quote above is a condemnation of the state-imposed Hobbesian-(pseudo)anarchy that creates the popular impetus for the state's creation. Hoppe, in the above quote, is challenging the characterization of state-imposed chaos as "anarchy," not condemning anarchy itself. Hoppe is not a monarchist, at least by the most common definition of the word. Hoppe, in Democracy: the God the Failed demonstrates that monarchical systems of government tend to be "better" (in terms of efficient allocation of resources, as well as for individual rights) than democracy. You seem to suggest a political continuum that goes from monarchy->democracy->anarchy in order from most to least oppressive. Hoppe would switch the placement of monarchy and democracy, with monarchy being preferable to democracy, but with both falling short of the ultimate goal of anarcho-capitalism. Dick Clark 18:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would be appropriate to create a "category:Anarcho-capitalists". That way we wouldn't have to make a decision about lumping Hoppe in with people, such as Emma Goldman, whose views are considerably different from his. -Willmcw 18:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Willmcw: may I also submit that since his personal website declares Hoppe to be "an Austrian school economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher" that may considered a definitive answer to this question? See his website for the context of the above . As to your suggestion that "category:Anarcho-capitalists" be created, may I suggest that, even if this were done, "anarcho-capitalist" is a type of anarchist. The article on anarchocapitalism includes the following passage:
 * Because of this embrace of capitalism, there is considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists, who see the rejection of capitalism as being just as essential to anarchist philosophy as rejection of the state. Many anarcho-capitalists believe that much of the source of dispute is a definitional problem, with the classical anarchists using the term "capitalism" in reference to state capitalism, where government grants businesses monopoly rights and special privileges over individuals — something anarcho-capitalists oppose. In contrast, most anarchists believe the dispute over more than a definition, as they hold that profit is exploitative for a number of reasons. Despite this tension, some anarcho-capitalists see their philosophy as evolving from the American individualist anarchism tradition that includes classical liberal thinkers such as Lysander Spooner.
 * In light of this, I would suggest that anarcho-communist and anarcho-capitalist types both fall under the flag of anarchy, although they disagree as to what that would entail. Dick Clark 18:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with anarcho-communism, but if it belongs then it should go there. I've created an anarcho-capitalists category. I'm sure other people belong there too. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think that (notwithstanding whatever rhetorical smoke screen Hoppe projects) Hoppe is NO anarchist! What makes him an anarchist? Because he insists he is? Well let's say I am actually a telepathic panda from the Andromeda galaxy. I am free to insist this all I want, but that does not make me a psychic panda from outer space. Likewise, Hoppe's ideology is in no way shape or form anarchist, anarcho-capitalist, or libertarian. Essentially Hans Hermann Hoppe advocates abolition of "the State" (read: welfare state, republican forms of government, anything remotely democratic, socialistic, or constitutional), but he also claims to prefer absolute monarchy to democratic forms of government. When Hoppe says abolish the state, he really means abolish the PUBLIC state, or in other words, PRIVATIZE governance. In Hoppe's ideal world humanity is freed from the "tyrrany" of the (MODERN) state and reverts to the tyranny of feudalism, patriarchal clans, and clerical rule. To call such a crypto-fascist "anarchist" or "libertarian" is an insult to any anti-authoritarian and pro-liberty people who might read this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.5.62 (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Anti-Puerto Rican incident
''In July 1994, during a Summer Workshop organized by the Ludwig von Mises Institute at Auburn University, Hoppe declared "You know, I don't like the Puerto Ricans" during a lecture. As an example of how government regulation, namely rent control in New York City, made individuals worse off, he explained that only because of rent control were his neighbours, Puerto Ricans, able to afford their apartment. The point of his argument was that rent control was bad, because it forced him to live near Puerto Ricans.'' (Asserted by User:Lfgoette)
 * I removed this paragraph, which makes serious claims about Hoppe's character IMO, until such time as a source is provided by the contributor or another editor. I have requested at User talk:Lfgoette that the user provide sources for this text in compliance with WP:V. Dick Clark 20:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If (attributable) accusations of ethnic prejudice have been based on this, it may be of interest, but as it was offered, it asserts the ability to read his mind, in order to assert as fact a position on what "the point of his argument" was. It's entirely plausible form what is said here that this non-native speaker may have been careless in offering the occasion to impute animus, when he identified which neighbors he's inconvenienced by. It's obvious that he thinks the fact that they are poorer than he is relevant, but not so as to what their heritage is. --Jerzy•t 01:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

When to include links to criticism
I just noted today the external link to an article by Dr. Hartwich, "The Errors of Hans-Hermann Hoppe." In reviewing it, it seems only so-so in its intellectual rigor (my value-judgment). I am always glad to be aware of counter points of view, but is it the WP norm to include counter-arguments in external links? Should a separate section for Criticism and/or Criticism links be created? Thanks in advance for furthering the education of a relative-newbie. -- RayBirks 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In many articles that discuss controversial figures or ideas the external link section is subdivided into Neutral, Favorable, and Critical, or the like. It should be noted, however, that if an external link is really useful for an article, but isn't mentioned in the body, it is sometimes because someone just quickly added the link, but didn't have the time (or inclination) to rework the article's text to cite the linked document. At this point, I generally favor using footnotes, since this doesn't break up the flow of the article as badly or leave a bunch of "mystery links" that have to be followed to know anything about the sources used. Dick Clark 16:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To Do List
Please add anything you feel should be covered more. --Kalmia 05:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup
I took the liberty (no humor intended) to add two headers up top to put all discussion into this page's table of contents. -- RayBirks 19:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How to style list of writings: ?
As I've been entering ISBNs, I have introduced a style of citation that doesn't fit the other entries. I've been a bit haphazard, so my apologies. Any thoughts as to which style is most desirable? Myself, I'm thinking as close to a proper footnote style as possible, given that we are leaving out the author's name, as it is assumed. Thanks. -- RayBirks 17:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You might be able to use Template:Cite book. Intangible 18:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Triple H
Is this really a notable nickname for him? Is it used much?--Kalmia 20:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Junge Freiheit
Does anyone have an English Translation of the Junge Freiheit publications about Hoppe? They have been mentioned around online, and I would like to read them without having to stumble through the German. --Kalmia 07:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Which one in particular is most interesting, do you think? Vegasprof (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The To Do list is goofed up
Somehow the Menu of talk topics is inside the To Do list. I'm not quite sure what happened. Somebody? -- RayBirks 05:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the ToDo tag and that cleaned up the menu. Tried to re-add it at the very top of the talk page, per the instructions for ToDo lists, and the menu goes back inside the ToDo list. The two items on the list were (1) Add information about his early life, and (2) Explain how he came to UNLV and the Mises Institute. -- RayBirks 05:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Turns out, in the /to do file, which is a sub-page of the Talk page, there was a heading with the usual equal signs in it (==) and this somehow was causing a conflict with the Talk page's menu. I removed the heading, and everything seemed to work normally. -- RayBirks 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Argumentation ethics: New page?
If you are following Hoppe's argumentation ethics, you might be interested in a suggestion I have made in item # 4 at Talk:Discourse ethics. -- RayBirks 05:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Nixing perfect competition
I removed the idea of perfect competition as an ideal since the Austrian School disavows the concept as valid since perfect information cannot exist in a world of humans. The idea of perfect information ignores the vital and very human role of the entrepreneur in finding and correcting "mismatches" of resources. -- RayBirks 18:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoppe's application of economics to government not innovative
Perhaps this article reflects a pop-Austrian ignorance of mainstream economics; the statement that Hoppe is unique or innovative in applying economics to government is on its face bunk, as this is what the Public Choice people did years ago, and IMO did better, at that, because they do not share the Austrian superstition about math.

Regardless, this falsehood amounts to inclusion of praise--flattery, even--of Hoppe in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bkalafut (talk • contribs) 19:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Umm... well in part the Public Choice school's claim to originality is its recognition that the agents of government institutions seek to maximize their own utility just like anyone else operating in a market-based relationship. But this is hardly original, many social thinkers and the Austrian school have recognized this for a lot longer. The Public Choice school is just a mathematical belaboring of the obvious. Hoppe's innovation is perhaps the way he applies economics to problems of government, not that he applies economics to government as such. His arguments about privately-owned government and publicly-owned government, for example, deserves a genuine claim to originality as I am confident such an argument is without precedent in the field. Frankly I think your comment on this article (which certainly requires improvement) reflects a pop-mainstream ignorance of Austrian economics. Melonsparks (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are just another clueless hoppe fan boy. Hoppe's 'innovative' analysis of government is a copycat of Molinari's views.190.191.40.249 (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Chewing carpet much, Hoppephobe? Stop embarrassing yourself, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. see "Our enemy, the state"'s response below, and then maybe go read some primary sources of Molinari and Hoppe. Molinari never spoke about "private government versus public government" categories at all. This was an analytical framework that Hoppe devised. Molinari proposed it would be economically more efficient to have private production of defense, but did little to elaborate this like Rothbard, Hoppe, or others did later. Try again after you learn something about this subject, thanks. Melonsparks (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Molinari introduced the that the private production of defense would be beneficial. Hoppe was comparing "public government" to "private government". Although Hoppe has similar ideas to Molinari, he has also cited Molinari as being of significance to Anarcho-capitalism. This hardly sounds like the action of a man who is unaware of or plagiarizing Molinari. Not to mention he has expounded on the private production of defense past what others have done. Our enemy, the state (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hoppe is not a monarchist

 * From the introduction to Democracy: The God That Failed: "Despite the comparatively favorable portrait presented of monarchy, I am not a monarchist and the following is not a defense of monarchy." You can read the quote for yourself: http://www.mises.org/hoppeintro.asp It's about 2/3 of the way down, or just search the piece for "not a monarchist". --RayBirks 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hoppe may not be a monarchist, but he is certainly no anarchist or libertarian. I imagine that Hoppe's problem with monarchy is the same problem he has with republic. Essentially ANY established form of government interferes with Hoppe's social darwinist world where those with power "naturally" rule over those without. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.5.62 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'd like to see you back up this absurd proposition with a single relevant citation. It is far more credible to call him a libertarian than any designation you've whipped up. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not your blog. Melonsparks (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

He's a libertarian if you accept the premise that manorialism is the "natural order" and a confederation of serf owners is "small government". So yeah... he is a libertarian of the mises.org variety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.125.83 (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a notable academic
Hoppe's resume and biography are not notable for an academic. Why does he have a wikipedia page? As a relatively new contributor, I am curious about the standards regarding the listing of academics. Hans-Hermann Hoppe profile is sourced by his personal website, the UNLV website, links to other wikipedia pages, and websites that list his publications (which is common for most academics, including non-notable ones). This in and of itself doesn't seem to qualify him to have a wikipedia page. In fact, Hoppe is not even a "distinguished professor," at UNLV he is a "full professor." The title of "distinguished professor" is usually given to an academic who has made significant contributions to his or her field. A "full professor" usually indicates that the academic has published 2-3 books. July 17 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't tied to the number of books that a subject has written, but rather to the number of people that have commented on the subject. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Newspapers have said:
 * An organization headed by a prominent University of Nevada, Las Vegas professor has invited four researchers with ties to hate groups to speak at a May conference in Turkey. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the renowned Austrian economist who made headlines in 2005 over remarks he made in the classroom about gays, has invited the researchers to express viewpoints that some civil rights organizations call "academic racism." "Researchers tied to hate groups get invitations", by Lawrence Mower. Las Vegas Review - Journal. Mar 11, 2007
 * The conference, "Academic Freedom in a Time of Crisis," will take place from 1-6 p.m. at the Richard Tam Alumni Center...Professor Hans Hermann Hoppe, a renowned libertarian, was another impetus for the conference, Faculty Senate Chairman Clint Richards said. "Symposium on academic freedom today", by K.C. Howard. Las Vegas Review - Journal. Oct 14, 2005.
 * An incident last year under his watch resulted in a plan to discipline an economics professor accused of making insensitive remarks about homosexuals. The university later backpedaled in the face of intense media coverage and cleared UNLV economics Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe of any wrongdoing. "MU faculty rip provost hopeful over UNLV flap", by Chuck Adamson. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: May 3, 2005
 * So he's been called "prominent", "renowned", and his case received "intense media coverage". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd further argue those working at The Las Vegas Review Journal, an institution I'm overly familiar with, do not understand what makes an academic "prominent" or "renowned." In fact, the "intense media coverage" is a reference to two articles in The Las Vegas Review Journal.  But, this is becoming comical and Hoppe's page should probably remain for the sheer silliness of it.  What has been so evident to me, but perhaps not others, is that despite having one of the most recognized names in 20th century political philosophy as his adviser (Jurgen Habermas), Hoppe has not made significant contributions to his field (economics).  Rather, he is noted in the press for being a de facto advocate for academic freedom (out of personal necessity), and for his ties to racists.--Bremskraft 16:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what you think of Hoppe personally. There are independent, reliable sources about him. He has been called "notable" by many sources. Your opinion of Hoppe's contributions constitutes original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. DickClarkMises 16:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a personal opinion of Mr. Hoppe. Please do not assume that I do.--Bremskraft 16:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You say above that Hoppe has not made significant contributions to his field. That is an opinion. Let's not be silly. Just read Wikipedia guidelines on notability, and realize that your passionate opinion about someone cannot override the rules that the community has developed for running the encyclopedia. DickClarkMises 16:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are absolutely no secondary sources from academic journals sited on his Wikipedia page that show Mr. Hoppe has made significant contributions to his field. This is not an opinion, the lack of academic secondary sources is problematic for your position that Hoppe is influential.  Again, I don't have a personal opinion of Mr. Hoppe. Please do not assume that I do.--Bremskraft 16:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A Google search for "hans hermann hoppe" returns over 645,000 results. That's not notable? Ikilled007 18:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When I ran a "hans hermann hoppe" Google search, I only got 122,000 results. Also, I did a Google search for my real name in quotes and got 3,410,000 results.  Alas, I'm not notable. --Bremskraft 18:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW: the total number of "Ghits" reported can vary widely by time and geography, depending on which servers you're tapping into. In other words, they're not reliable numbers. And really, there's no way that there are even 122k distinct mentions on Hoppe on the web. A more reliable, and meaningful, figure from Google can be obtained by trying to get to the end of the results. (Set your results per page to 100 for speed). In the case of Hoppe, I simply clicked page 10 (which should be results 900-1000), and instead I landed on page 7, with a note towards the bottom: "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 765 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." So the real number is 765. Try this with other searches and you'll find the net results are routinely orders of magnitude smaller than the initial reports. 765 isn't bad. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's what Google Scholar has on him: . Take your pick. Regardless of whether or not you think he is a notable scholar (which he clearly is) the level of press coverage he has received make him a notable person, regardless of his academic credentials. DickClarkMises 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, the Scholar results show that Hoppe has been cited by Walter Block, Joe Salerno, Jörg Guido Hülsmann, Jeffrey Herbener, Lawrence H. White, Tom DiLorenzo, Stephan Kinsella, Robert P. Murphy, Gene Callahan, George Selgin, Murray Rothbard, and Ralph Raico, to name a few. This of course does not include the much greater number of articles, book chapters, and even dissertations by as yet non-notable authors that cite Hoppe's work. DickClarkMises 20:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will agree that according to the rules of Wikipedia, Hoppe is a notable person (if only because so many personal blogs by libertarians mention his name). But I do not agree that he is a "notable scholar."  Publishing articles and books is what academics do.  The mere fact that Hoppe has published articles and books does not make Hoppe a notable scholar.  Also, what I find interesting about Hoppe's work is no one can seem to cite a secondary source that shows Hoppe has contributed greatly to the field of economics, and that the vast majority of his texts are found at the UNLV library - presumably because Hoppe provides complimentary copies, etc. Also, much of his work is not peer reviewed by mainstream academic journals.
 * Just as a point of comparison, I did a Google Scholar search for one of Hoppe's colleagues at UNLV who has roughly the same amount of books/journals as Hoppe and who has a relatively unique name - Bernard Malamud, PhD. Professor Malamud has 1,600 results from mostly mainstream academic journals, Hoppe has 1,790 results from mostly non-mainstream journals.--Bremskraft 20:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Criterion three of Notability (academics) says that if The person has published a significant and well-known academic work then he is a notable academic. It continues, saying that An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature. I think I have demonstrated that Hoppe's work is widely cited. DickClarkMises 20:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Being widely cited" is relative. I have demonstrated that he is no more widely cited than his colleagues in the same department.  While Hoppe may be a notable person, I do not believe he is a notable academic.  I will not challenge his wikipedia page, but I do not believe it has been demonstrated that he is a notable academic.  I no longer have an interest in the Hoppe page, and will not be reading or posting on that page or on this talk page any longer.  My initial interest in coming to his page was sparked by a debate over Hoppe's categorization as a notable academic on a seperate Wikipedia page.  Thank you all for a very interesting discussion.--Bremskraft 21:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For others' reference, the page mentioning Prof. Hoppe as a notable academic and where changes have been made to Hoppe's entry there (along with Murray Rothbard's) is University of Nevada, Las Vegas. --RayBirks 21:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hoppe is not a notable academic. He is a notable person, however, who has attracted a cult following of sorts to his mixture of Rothbardism, paleoconservatism, and Continental philosophy parlor tricks.  Think of him the same way you'd think of Ayn Rand, or perhaps Noam Chomsky if you were ignorant of the latter's contributions to linguistics and computer science. Bkalafut 18:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bremskraft and Bkalafut. Hoppe is as much a "notable academic" as Erich von Daniken. Personally, I think that Hoppe is a hack who had the fortune of winding up at a university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.5.62 (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What's an ideal section header for the 2005 dispute?
There's some back and forth about how best to entitle the 2005 flap at UNLV. Selecting titles can be a subjective art, so I wonder what best encapsulates the event. We've seen simply "Homosexuality" but also "2005 UNLV dispute about time preference." It could also be "Academic freedom controversy" or "University supports Hoppe in student complaint." Rather than start a battle in the article itself, perhaps others can suggest a descriptor that is NPOV and pithy and satisfies most. --RayBirks 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Homosexuality and time preference" is there now and seems reasonably descriptive.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hominem Attack Controversy
Under the criticism section, it's interesting to note that the ad hominem accusation was made by someone who characterized Hoppe as "kooky". Also, instead of substantive criticisms about anything anti-gay - all that was mentioned was a unsubstantiated claim that he is an anti-gay bigot, which is ironically ad hominem given the lack of further context. Sorry, I came over from the UNLV article. Why not keep the article free of activism? At least include substantive criticism instead of ad hom attacks. Tparameter (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hom attacks are unsubstantiated attacks. Here we have a clear, reliable, 3rd party report from the LVRJ. Therefore the criticisms are not ad hom.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that is not the definition of ad hominem. To refer to the professor as "kooky", instead of using reason to make an argument, is ad hominem. To call him a "bigot", instead of making an argument, is an ad hominem attack. Name-calling is not an argument, and it is particularly ironic when done in the context of claims related to ad hom attacks. Tparameter (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Dont lie
Walter Block did not critize Hoppe for his positions in the cited article:

"Other critics include Walter Block, who has written a more scholarly piece on Hoppe's views in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. "

Read the article and try to understand it. Block pats Hoppe virtually on his shoulder for beeing brave to not break in under the harassment from others for stating his opinion (read the article!).

88.117.85.203 (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I refuse to not lie. 68.2.244.69 (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)