Paleocreep Central Awakes!

Whenever a Lewrockwell.com author writes something particularly stupid and gets called on it, the PaleoConFeds crawl out from underneath their rocks, run up the Stars and Bars, and start hurling stupid arguments from the battlements.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe receives the latest defense in this from Thomas DiLorenzo:

He [a critic of Hoppe] claims that Hoppe is a pure burden on the taxpayers of Nevada since UNLV is a state school. But as my old friend Walter Williams has pointed out, state employees like himself provide a service — they teach economics, help direct masters and Ph.D. theses, and interact with students — in return for their paychecks. (And Hoppe is eminently qualified to teach economics, unlike Palmer).

Would it be impolite of me to point out that the UNLV also pays people to give Afro-American Studies courses? Those teachers are providing a service in return for their paychecks, too. (And they are eminently qualified to do so, unlike DiLorenzo). Thomas D. can’t make a meaningful distinction between the market for Hoppe’s courses and “Survey of African-American Dance”, because neither of them are on the market. Both of them are funded by the same means, taxes, and that means that folks pay for those “services” whether they want them or not.

Anyone want to place a bet on when DiLorenzo, in a display of the intellectual consistency that LRC is known for, will blog that Afro-American Studies professors aren’t a pure burden on the taxpayers, because they provide a service in return for their paychecks?

5 thoughts on “Paleocreep Central Awakes!”

  1. My beef is with the state, not with Hoppe for taking a taxpayer funded job. But you’re quite right that Hoppe’s cost ot the taxpayers can’t be defended on the grounds that he’s producing value for them.

  2. I’m curious Mr. Kennedy, if your beef is with the state then what of folks like Mr. Hoppe? I’ve heard arguments in this vein before–namely that anarchists and libertarians shouldn’t drive on public roads or “work in labs funded by loot” or otherwise accept funds from the state if they oppose the existence of the state. Does that make Hoppe’s status as an economics professor ethically untenable? If so, then what should he do instead, and if not, why not? Sure, he isn’t initiating force against anyone, but could a reasonable argument be made that he is aiding and abetting the existence of the state by going to work every morning?

  3. I didn’t mean to imply it was your argument–I think the quote about “labs funded by loot” is from Rand, actually.

    “Sure, he isn’t initiating force against anyone, but could a reasonable argument be made that he is aiding and abetting the existence of the state by going to work every morning?”

    That’s not a sound argument.

    Now that I rethink it, I seem to be making an invalid assumption akin to “transitivity of morality”, e.g. if A engages in trade with B and B’s behavior is morally faulty then A’s behavior is morally faulty.

    Perhaps a better question is: Is Prof. Hoppe missing out on higher values because of his choice to work for the state?

  4. “I’ve heard arguments in this vein before–namely that anarchists and libertarians shouldn’t drive on public roads or “work in labs funded by loot” or otherwise accept funds from the state if they oppose the existence of the state.”

    Not from me, it’s not my argument.

    ” Does that make Hoppe’s status as an economics professor ethically untenable?”

    No.

    “Sure, he isn’t initiating force against anyone, but could a reasonable argument be made that he is aiding and abetting the existence of the state by going to work every morning?”

    That’s not a sound argument.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *