I just wanted to expand on a few arguments advanced by Our Illustrious Leader which I think have been unfairly ignored. It is, of course, unnecessary to provide here any background on the subject that I will discuss, one need only scroll down. I am not going to take a side on who is right, Hoppe or UNLV. I don’t care enough to decide. What I will say is that both Hoppe and the various Hoppeans are being, at best, inconsistent. JTK has shown here, that by engaging the ACLU, Hoppe is in fact agreeing with their beliefs (not to mention what he is agreeing to by working for a state university). Now, normally this would be a dangerous argument for a libertarian to make, as Kinsella argues. Surprising as it may seem, I agree with Kinsella. This would be a dangerous argument, if it was meant in the way Kinsella thinks. But that is not how I understand JTK. I cannot speak for JTK, but I certainly do not think it is wrong for someone who opposes the system, to work within it. The difference between me and Hoppeans is that I do not accept the argumentation ethic for libertarianism (hereafter AE). It is not my intent to argue against the AE here, others have done such elsewhere (also see my own small contribution in this thread). If you accept the premises of the AE, which I assume Hoppeans do, you must admit that by his actions Hoppe is engaged in a performative contradiction (a term which seems to come ultimately from von Wright). For by turning to the ACLU Hoppe agrees to the legitimacy of the Constitution, and the things the ACLU stand for (his dislike of which is what got him into this situation in the first place). And by working for a state university he is agreeing to the legitimacy of the state. Despite my earlier remarks, Hoppeans will still allege that I am putting forth an argument I don’t agree with. If I worked for a state university or sought the guidance of the ACLU, that would be no problem, simply because I reject the AE. So Hoppeans have a decision to make, reject the AE or admit that Hoppe is engaged in a performative contradiction.
Now, if that were all we were dealing with here, the Hoppeans might actually get off easy enough. Choosing between their leader and the basic premise of all they believe would be rather simple for them. They would reject the AE and embrace Hoppe. Sadly, there is more. JTK has shown at various places and times that Hoppe is being inconsistent in another very important aspect. It seems, at least from the outside, that one of the most important aspects of Hoppean theory is the ability to expel certain undesirables from a community. What would Hoppeans be without that aspect of their theory (probably not WASPs)? But if a community has the right to expel certain undesirables, then it would seem that a university would certainly have the right to expel or censure certain undesirables. And it is not only about having the right but being right. If we can argue something as patently absurd as that it is not only permissible but obligatory to expel undesirables from a community, how can we complain when such happens on a small scale. So Hoppeans must either give up their ‘right’ to live in ‘safe’ and ‘libertarian’ communities, or give up their defense of Hoppe.
Now that I think of it, is it just me or do they look alike?