To Roderick Long,
In a comment on the Mises blog you wrote:
Re the Hoppe passage quoted by John Kennedy — while I strongly disagree with it, please note that it does NOT say “forcibly removed.” There is no suggestion that the removal is to be done in a rights-violating manner, and given Hans Hoppe’s well-known rights-absolutism, it hardly seems a likely interpretation.
In an article on immigration Hoppe writes:
The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the â€œnatureâ€ of a democracy and thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses).
In the passage from Hoppe to which you are referring above, doesn’t Hoppe tell us how real owners ought to act?
There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They â€“ the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism â€“ will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
I take you to be interpreting this passage to mean Hoppe thinks owners ought to expel such undesirables, a position with which you disagree. I don’t find that interpretation fully credible, but let’s stipulate it for the time being.
Couple this idea of Hoppe’s with his idea that we should want democratic rulers to act as owners.
Doesn’t that mean, by Hoppe’s lights, that we should want our current democratic rulers to expel those undesirables by force?
Hoppe addresses forced emigration in his immigration piece:
As far as emigration is concerned, a king will want to prevent the emigration of productive subjects, in particular of his best and most productive subjects, because losing them would lower the value of the kingdom. Thus, for example, from 1782 until 1824 a law prohibited the emigration of skilled workmen from Britain. On the other hand, a king will want to expel his non-productive and destructive subjects (criminals, bums, beggars, gypsies, vagabonds, etc.), for their their removal from his territory would increase the value of his realm. For this reason Britain expelled tens of thousands of common criminals to North America and Australia.
For immigration policy Hoppe is saying we should want our democratic rulers to act as such a king; isn’t it clear he also approves of such a king’s emigration policy? Why shouldn’t we want democratic rulers to thus “improve the realm”? With regard to immigration we should want our rulers “following a policy of utmost discrimination” according to Hoppe; shouldn’t we want them to act with the same discrimination with regard to emigration?
And hasn’t Hoppe told us who should be expelled?