The Real Problem With Hoppe

It’s undeniable that Hans-Hermann Hoppe offends some people. The recent flap at the UNLV is proof of that: Hoppe offended someone and is now facing the possibility of punishment for it. But that isn’t the real problem with Hoppe.

The real problem with Hoppe is that people are forced to pay for his services.

That isn’t properly a problem with Hoppe at all: it’s a problem with public schools in particular, and public property in general. People generally don’t pay for things that offend them, but when those things are public things, they don’t have a choice. The UNLV, where Hoppe is employed, is funded with public (tax) money. Those people paying don’t have a free choice about the matter, their taxes are taken and spent and their consent is neither asked nor required. It’s an impossible situation: Hoppe can’t possibly please “the public” (Who? Everyone?), and the public can’t get what they want from Hoppe: I’m a member of “the public”, and what I want is to not be taxed at all, never mind where it goes. Hoppe can’t do much about that.

So what do you get when you have public property in contention? You get email campaigns, protests, editorials – in essence, you get warring pressure groups. Mob rule is a piss-poor method of deciding anything, let alone deciding whose values get put forth at whose expense.

If the problem with Hoppe is that he’s teaching at a public school, then the solution isn’t for Hoppe to be more politically correct or for his students to be thicker-skinned. What’s needed is to allow people the means to not pay for things they don’t want. The solution is a free market in education.

7 thoughts on “The Real Problem With Hoppe”

  1. You can, in some way, forgive the state employee who doesn’t know about rights etc. You can’t forgive Hoppe, a state employee, who is complicit with theft that extracts resources to allow him to eat. He’s a walking hypocrite.

  2. >>You can’t forgive Hoppe, a state employee, who is complicit with theft that extracts resources to allow him to eat.

    As time goes on, it keeps getting harder and harder to make money without it being associated in some way with State theft and subsidy.

  3. Lopez: “I’m much more concerned with Hoppe’s desire to use the government against people he doesn’t like.”

    Oh, really? “Concerned”? Why, Lopez? We already have laws restricting immigration. Are you really “concerned” that Hoppe’s holding some immigration views you disagree with will … what, lead to more immigration restrictions? Will slow down the reduction in them? Dude, relax, whatever’s gonna happen, is gonna happen. And what’s gonna happen is, now matter how much you don’t like it–we’re gonna be saddled for the rest of our lives with a huge federal government that restricts immigration. Why so “concerned” about Hoppe’s views…?

  4. Why so “concerned” about Hoppe’s views…?

    Rereading the text carefully, Kinsella, you will note the statement that Hoppe’s actions are at most a vice, not a crime. However, Hoppe does advocate using the government to commit crimes. Given that I’m not really concerned about other people’s vices, you can see how I can be “much more concerned” with other people’s desire to commit crimes, especially when they want to use the State to help them do so.

    Now you’re likely quite right about the fact that Hoppe is inconsequential, matter of fact that’s why I’ve taken the position that I really don’t care what happens to him over this UNLV flap. You’ve chosen to expend a bit more effort, despite your predictions of the ultimate irrelevancy of Hoppeanism. And that’s fine, it’s your time to expend.

  5. Lopez: “Now you’re likely quite right about the fact that Hoppe is inconsequential, matter of fact that’s why I’ve taken the position that I really don’t care what happens to him over this UNLV flap. You’ve chosen to expend a bit more effort, despite your predictions of the ultimate irrelevancy of Hoppeanism. And that’s fine, it’s your time to expend.”

    Like the shark, which is said to have evolved to an almost perfect state for its intended function, you, Lopez, are an almost perfect embodiment of the village idiot.

    I never said HHH is inconsequential; I implied his publications on immigration are not likely to change immigration policies, highlighting the overwrought, melodramatic, ridiculoulsy o-so-serious handwringing posture of your deep “concern”. Ooo, wrinkled brow and all, eh, Lopez?

    The rest of your post is just an incoherent string of non-sequiturs (sorry–ask Kennedy what that means).

  6. I never said HHH is inconsequential; I implied his publications on immigration are not likely to change immigration policies…

    You’re right, you’ve noted it’s likely that he’s inconsequential in regards to government control of immigration. You’ve made no predictions about his other plans, such as removing homosexuals from the future libertarian order.

    …highlighting the overwrought, melodramatic, ridiculoulsy o-so-serious handwringing posture of your deep “concern”.

    As I’ve stated, my concern hardly has to be “deep” to be “much more” than my concern for Hoppe’s apparent hypocrisy in regards to sucking from the tax teat.

Leave a Reply

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