The Right’s Serpent: A Critique of Hoppe

In late August of this year, an article was published by the New Libertarian, defending the political theorist and self-identified libertarian Hans-Hermann Hoppe. It was, overall, disappointing: a sloppy amalgamation of various talking points that have been used to death, with barely any original arguments that had any value. A surface-level defense, and a poorly executed one at that.

However, it does bring up an interesting problem that Hoppe has: a major influence on the Right and Neo-Reactionary movements. It is no secret (quite public information, actually) that Hoppe has influenced and inspired the likes of Curtis Yarvin(1) and Christopher “Chase” Rachels(2), along with other figures in the alt- and far-right. And this connection is not by coincidence or bad circumstances: looking through his works, Hoppe himself creates an avenue for a form of “libertarian” reactionarism.

A graphic presented on Chase Rachel’s website, radicalcapitalist.org. It was put in the header of an article arguing that Fascism is a step towards a Libertarian Society; the article has long been deleted, but can be found through the Wayback Machine. A perfect embodiment of Hoppe’s affinity with the Far Right.

To understand such a claim, we must look through what Hoppe has written and spoken. We can look at one main source: his magnum opus, Democracy: The God That Failed. Other works of his may be utilized, but this will be the main sources for our investigation.

Let us first put forth that not all of Hoppe’s ideas shall be criticized here; that would simply take too long a time, and would be a waste when criticisms already exist out there. The idea here is to show his connection with the Right, and how his ideas pertain to apologetics for them. As such, the focus shall be on those ideas pertaining to such defenses or influences.

Let us now look at Democracy. For a good part of it, he follows in the tradition of Rothbard, Mises, and capitalistic libertarianism. His defense and advocation of private property rights, critique of the state (including democracy) for violating such rights, valuing of decentralization, opposition to socialism, etc., etc., are all standards of the school of thought he is a member of. It would be odd to derive from such arguments any specifically conservative or far-right allegiance.

However, there are certain ideas Hoppe presents, as well as arguments Hoppe makes for the ideas mentioned above, that such a lean to the right makes itself clear. In the first three chapters, he critiques democracy by contrasting it with monarchy, laying out how, in matters of private property and time preference, a monarchy is much more conducive to a right-libertarian ideal of private property rights than a democracy. While Hoppe himself states that he does not support monarchy(3), and does outline a few arguments against it (via arguments against government in general), it is of no stretch of the imagination that his idyllic description of it may lead fans of Hoppe more towards the right, more towards supporting a centralized system of government.

In contrast to his arguments for monarchy, we have his arguments for decentralization a la secessionism, as outlined in chapter five. Here, however, the problem would seem more to lay in Hoppe’s other arguments alongside them, as well as his readership, than his actual arguments for secession (though his reference to the “War of Southern Independence” in a footnote on page 290 can lead to the conclusion of him having sympathy for the slave-owning Confederacy). From what is written, it again follows in the tradition of his predecessors in the Austrian School, even all the way back to Ludwig von Mises. What little negative after effects from his readers may come from a purely American understanding of secession via the United States Confederacy, but again, that problem lies more with Hoppe’s other ideas and with the readers themselves having some pro-confederacy bias already(4).

In all honesty, there is a good portion of the book that seems like standard anarcho-capitalism. The sixth chapter and last three chapters of Democracy outlines a system of private property, homesteading, and private defense that truly seems out of Rothbard. One would be hard pressed to find anything inherently wrong with these certain ideas in the mindset of an anarcho-capitalist.

But if Hoppe had only focused on those ideas, this article, and the amount of criticism he has garnered, would not exist. Like his position on monarchy, there are other ideas expressed that lean more towards sympathy with the Far Right.

A vaporwave meme of Hoppe, based on the idea of physical removal he set out. That such an idea would become a meme amongst certain circles of libertarians show exactly how influential he has become, and how deep the right-wing fantasy of violence has perpetrated the movement.

Firstly, Hoppe’s ideas on immigration restriction would, of course, play into right-leaning beliefs about immigration. As outlined mainly in chapters seven and eight, he argue that immigration restriction is not in conflict with libertarian principles of property rights. His main argument can be summarized as: “…independent private property owners have the freedom to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own unrestricted or restricted property titles…admission to the property of the admitting person does not imply a “freedom to move around”…There will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregation, nondiscrimination or discrimination based on racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural or whatever other grounds as individual owners or associations of individual owners allow.”(5)

The purpose of this argument is to outline the right of association inherent in private property rights, but there are of course problems with such a logic. How does it account for those associations between, say, person A and person B, that require A to immigrate across another person, C’s, property, when C does not wish to associate with A because of his prejudices against A? Would C be right in practicing his right to not associate while hindering A from associating with B?

What about the question of self ownership? As long as person A does not violate another’s right to their property, and since they intrinsically own their own body, shouldn’t A be allowed to freely move themself, just as someone is allowed to freely move their own property?

The main conflict comes down to whether one person’s right to choose who may reside or cross on their property based on who they associate with overrides another person’s right to move and associate freely with others, even if such an association may cross certain property lines.(6)

It would seem obvious that such an assertion would be ridiculous. What can rival or override the right of someone to own themself, to be free to use their body whichever way they wish, to be able to freely connect with others? How can the secondary right of external property ownership be valued above the intrinsic and internal right of self ownership?

Hoppe, however, would claim that this assertion is true. “To the contrary, it is precisely the absolute voluntariness of human association and separation — the absence of any form of forced integration — that makes peaceful relationships — free trade — between culturally, racially, ethnically, or religiously distinct people possible.”(7) In a strange form of contradiction or paradox, it would not be unlikely that he would argue against the freedom to associate, via the freedom to associate. Some forms of associations, it would seem, are worth more to Hoppe than others.

Of course, such arguments for immigration restrictions and against “forced integration” would be adopted gladly by the Right: it gives them an excuse to discriminate against those who repulse them, mainly, non-white and non-europeans.

And Hoppe seems to share in that bias, saying how, “as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy”(8), that in order to keep or improve the nation and “the quality of the resident human capital so as to drive property values up rather than down”(9), a policy mimicking the immigration system under anarcho-capitalism, that is, “a policy of the strictest discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character, and cultural compatibility.”(8) And what would this imply? “… that all immigrants must demonstrate thorough tests not only English language proficiency, but all around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values — with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias.” (10)

Why such a test is needed cannot really be answered through a libertarian perspective; each person has a set of skills they can bring, a type of labor to offer, whether manual or intellectual, and such skills aren’t limited to only a few nationalities. On another hand, why should such immigration necessarily be pro-European, focusing on such ideas as “English language proficiency” and “compatible system of values”? Who exactly determines which systems are compatible? From a purely anarcho-capitalist view, immigration, from whichever nation, would and should be welcomed, as a great amount of immigrants have both the spirit of entrepreneurship and respect of private property valued in the anarcho-capitalist or libertarian system.(11) If anything, such values should inspire more libertarians to be pro-immigration, giving more credence to the idea of free immigration.

If the libertarian perspective makes such a strictly “pro-European” basis of immigration faulty, what would give such a basis validity? Simply put, it would be valid and sound through the perspective of the Conservative Right. The ideas that, because of free, untethered immigration, the United States “would be overrun by millions of third-world immigrants”(12), that “Civilization would vanish from the United States”(12), that “Welfare costs would quickly skyrocket, and the strangled economy would disintegrate and collapse”(12), does that not reek of the alarmism of the Right? What exactly would be proof of such fears, and even then, why shouldn’t such an order of civilization, that has gone to reject the property norms held dear by libertarians, why shouldn’t it be torn to the ground and started anew from the bottom up?

Whatever such fears, they are in their nature reactionary. There is no basis, from a libertarian standpoint, to protect the idea of “civilization”, and thus protect the current status quo (including the state). What a libertarian cares about is freedom, and pursuing a civilization of freedom. And despite Hoppe’s claims to the contrary, those “third-world immigrants” he fears understand the value of freedom, as the whole reason for their immigration is to find economic freedom, to be able to own property, in essence, to be libertarians in the truest sense. Voting with their feet, as Hoppe would put it.

Such recourse to conservative ideas is no surprise when we get to the most controversial chapters. Here Hoppe espouses clearly far-right ideas: the insinuation of homosexuality being among the negative affects of “the government’s family policy” to “to uproot individuals from their families to isolate and atomize them, thereby increasing the state’s power over them”, on par with “parent, spouse, and child-neglect or abuse”(13); the belief that people of lower economic status finally having the freedom to love who they want regardless of race will lead to “increased genetic pauperization”(14); of the upper or higher class being a “civilizing force”(15); and so many more examples could be said. Even the idea that “Civilization and culture do have a genetic (biological) basis”(16) is purely right-wing.

And this is, truly, of no coincidence, as Hoppe seems to integrate such ideals into one more idea: the Natural Order. In fact, it is this idea of the Natural Order that firmly defines the reactionary spirit in Hoppe’s form of libertarianism. “…the maintenance and preservation of a private property based exchange economy requires as its sociological presupposition the existence of a voluntarily acknowledged natural elite…”(17) Even early on in the book, the inklings of right-wing ideology are set in.

But let us not be too hasty. Surely, Hoppe merely is reiterating a more classical liberal idea, no? That this supposed “elite” are merely those who are able to serve their constituents best, to bring about the best service or product to their fellow man to trade, and thus, by virtue of being the best at providing such things, they concentrate a form of power or capital, yes?

And it would not be strange if that was the case, as many libertarians, from the likes of Rothbard and Mises, to Hayek, to even Ayn Rand, seem to hold such an idea.

However, we cannot group Hoppe along with such individuals. The Natural Order, for Hoppe, is one in which “a few individuals quickly acquire the status of an elite. Owing to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, bravery or a combination thereof, some individuals come to possess “natural authority”... Moreover, because of selective mating and marriage and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are more likely than not passed on within a few noble families.” Hoppe’s “Natural Order”, then, is merely a reflection of feudalism, a system that Hoppe refers as “typically stateless social orders.”(18)

If one does not see the reactionary character of such a system, let us go on to further ask: who make up the natural elite? It is certainly not the poor; the natural elite must be wealthy, most certainly because of their higher levels of intelligence and far-sightedness.(19) It cannot be homosexuals, lesbians, or anyone who isn’t heterosexual; they are an abnormality, a perversion of the natural order.(20) In fact, anyone who isn’t part of the “traditional” family structure, with the father as head of it (21), wouldn’t be allowed, as such structures are all perversions created by the State in order to destroy the family unit(22), and thus to undermine the natural orders, authorities, and hierarchies in place.(23) And no immigrants (of the non-European variety) either; their values are incompatible with ours, and are overall intellectually dumber.(10*)

The more we narrow it down, the more we see that the supposed “natural order” is nothing more than the conservative wet dream: a predominantly white, patriarchal, cisnormative, heterosexual, and wealthy elite, having authority and power over everyone else, concentrated in their hands and passed down for generations, while pushing those characteristics of whiteness, heterosexuality, etc., as the universal norm for all to abide by, or else.

It becomes no wonder that Hoppe believes that “the relationship between libertarianism and conservatism is one of praxeological compatibility, sociological complementarity, and reciprocal reinforcement”(24), or that “libertarians must be moral and cultural conservatives of the most uncompromising kind.”(25) It seems that the honorable “libertarian” Hans-Hermann Hoppe is merely a conservative, a reactionary, in everything, even in name, with the only caviat of calling himself a libertarian as well. The best title for him would be “Libertarian-Reactionary”, and his philosophy, “Libertarian” Reactionarism.

And what of those who don’t fit in such a social order, the “undesirables” or “outcasts”? Are they to be let alone, to live peacefully? Au contraire. “… 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 — the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism — will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”(25) In essence, if one does not conform to the will of the “Natural Order”, they are to be violently removed and repressed, with no concern for their individual rights, as they have transgressed against the collective Order for simply existing.

Another popular meme amongst Hoppe and his followers is that of throwing communists out of helicopters, a practice under the Chilean fascistic dictator Augusto Pinochet. Again, the connections between far-right influence and Hoppe’s influence is clear as day.

Now, even with such clear evidence straight from the snake’s mouth that the ideology of Hoppe is inherently reactionary, there will be doubts. Perhaps I have misinterpreted him, or have dealt with him too harshly? Could I have been mistaken with Hoppe’s views, and that his libertarian social order is not inherently connected to his more right-wing personal views?

Such doubts can be dashed if we look at another book by Hoppe, Getting Libertarianism Right. A collection of lectures he had given to the Property and Freedom Society, it lays out crystal-clearly what Hoppe sees as the goal of libertarianism, and its connection with the Right.

The whole book in itself is a plea for libertarians to cooperate with the Far Right, because, even though they are authoritarians in the most sense, they have the right social views (at least, in Hoppe’s eyes). In essence, it’s the peddling of a reimagined Paleo Strategy(26), only focused on the Alt-Right instead, as they are “the successor of the paleo-conservative movement.”(27)

There would be no point in going through the entire book; it would need a whole critique for itself. Instead, we make look to a specific quote that purely encapsulates what a libertarian must be:

“…as a right-libertarian, I would of course first say to my children and students: always respect and do not invade others’ private property rights and recognize the State as an enemy and indeed the very antithesis of private property. But I would not leave it at that. I would not say (or silently imply) that once you have satisfied this requirement “anything goes”… I would add (at a minimum): be and do whatever makes you happy, but always keep in mind that as long as you are an integral part of the worldwide division of labour, your existence and well-being depends decisively on the continued existence of others, and especially on the continued existence of white heterosexual male dominated societies, their patriarchic family structures, and their bourgeois or aristocratic lifestyle and conduct. Hence, even if you do not want to have any part in that, recognize that you are nonetheless a beneficiary of this standard “Western” model of social organization and hence, for your own sake, do nothing to undermine it but instead be supportive of it as something to be respected and protected.”(28)

It is very clearly put: respect private property and hate the State, but also respect all those institutions and authorities and do not question it, as it is the “Natural Order” of things, and those elites are merely naturally better than everyone else by submitting to and being members of those ruling institutions and authorities.

In the end, what could really be said? There cannot be any question left that Hoppe and his entire philosophy are inherently reactionary, inherently on the right, and, in a way, inherently authoritarian. It is no wonder, then, that his influences are large in the neo-reactionary, alt-right, and far-right movements, or that his ideology has moved libertarians down a rabbit hole towards a more profound authoritarian, totalitarian, and sometimes outright fascist view.

What remains now is a choice: as libertarians, do we allow such a reactionary ideology to inhabit libertarian thought? Do we allow this snake to sink its teeth into the movement and philosophy, poisoning and rotting it from within? Perhaps it is time for a change, for a declarative “no” against such right-wing infiltration, for the either/or choice to be made: do we choose social authoritarianism in the form of conservatism, or the freedom to express oneself in the form of libertarianism?

And perhaps it is time for us all, and especially some of us, to thoroughly question our own ideas, and to ask whether we truly are libertarians, or merely just property-preferring conservatives.

The gauntlet has been thrown; at the end of the day, may liberty reign.

1. Curtis Yarvin (also known under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug) is a founder of the Neo Reactionary movement known as the Dark Enlightenment. A neo-monarchist and former libertarian (though he still thinks of himself as one). He cited Hoppe as “a very easy means by which a Misesian can go past libertarianism.”
2. Chase Rachels is a right-wing individual who claims to be libertarian, while also espousing ideas such as Fascism being a step on the path towards liberty. He wrote a book making an argument for an alliance between the alt-right and libertarian movements, with a forward written by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who Rachels is fond of.
3. “Despite the comparatively favorable portrait presented of monarchy, I am not a monarchist and the following is not a defense of monarchy.” Democracy: The God That Failed, Introduction, p. xx. While this disclaimer is of some use to determining Hoppe’s ideology, it does not help that his arguments are in essence defenses of monarchy, whether he likes it or not.
4. Such biases may either come from the reader themself being already indoctrinated into the Lost Cause narratives of the South via family or regional environment, or from other certain libertarians misusing Rothbard’s technique of historical revisionism to downplay the problem of slavery in the Confederacy.
5. Democracy, Chapter 7, pp. 139–40
6. This is assuming neither party is harming or damaging the other party or their property, and are thus respecting each other’s rights a la non-aggression principle.
7. Democracy, Chapter 7, p. 140
8. Ibid, Chapter 7, p. 148
9. Ibid, Chapter 7, p. 144
10. Ibid, Chapter 7, p. 149
    * “… that all immigrants must demonstrate thorough tests not only English language proficiency, but all around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values — with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias.”
11. For statistics and data on the connection between entrepreneurship and immigration, you can visit the New American Economy, which collects data and researches on the effects of immigration policy on the American economy. There have also been studies by the Small Business Administration and the National Bureau of Economic Research that shows such a relationship.
12. Democracy, Chapter 8, p. 159
13. Ibid, Chapter 9, p. 183
14. Ibid, Chapter 9, p. 180
15. Ibid, Chapter 9, p. 182. He refers to such elitist views throughout via his favor of a “natural order” or “natural aristocracy”, as well as using a source in the first chapter to outline the higher class having higher time preferences, and thus implies them being more civilized then lower classes.
16. Democracy, Chapter 9, p. 184
17. Ibid, Chapter 3, p. 71
18. Democracy, chapter 13, p. 268. It is not surprising, then, that his idea of the Natural Order is indeed merely a new feudalistic order.
19. “The rich are characteristically bright and industrious, and the poor typically dull, lazy, or both.” (Democracy, Chapter 4, pp. 96–7)
20. “Did this not imply that vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality…were no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles? Not surprisingly, then, from the outset the libertarian movement attracted an unusually high number of … perverse followers.” (Democracy, Chapter 10, p. 206)
21. “Just as a hierarchical order exists in a family, so is there a hierarchical order within a community of families…Of the two layers of authority, the earthly physical power of parents, lords, and kings is naturally subordinate and subject to control by the ultimate spiritual-intellectual authority of fathers, priests, bishops, and ultimately God.”(Democracy, Chapter 10, p. 188)
22. “It is quite another accomplishment to use the quarrels arising within families to break up the entire-generally harmonious-system of autonomous families: to uproot individuals from their families to isolate and atomize them, thereby increasing the state’s power over them. Accordingly, as the government’s family policy is implemented, divorce, singledom, single parenting, and illegitimacy, incidents of parent, spouse, and child-neglect or abuse, and the variety and frequency of “nontraditional” lifestyles (homosexuality, lesbianism, communism, and occultism) increase as well.”(Democracy, Chapter 9, p. 183)
23. “They knew that states everywhere were intent upon breaking down and ultimately destroying families and the institutions and layers and hierarchies of authority that — the natural outgrowth of family based communities in order to increase and strengthen their own power.”(Democracy, Chapter 10, p. 197)
24. Democracy, Chapter 10, p. 202
25. Ibid, Chapter 10, p. 218
26. The Paleo Strategy was an idea brought forth by Murray Rothbard in his later years, in which libertarians should align themselves with paleo-conservatives, like Patrick Buchanan, in order to further push the idea of liberty, as paleo-conservatives apparently had the right social views to mesh with libertarian ideas. In the end, it was a failed strategy.
27. Getting Libertarianism Right, Chapter 3, p. 78
28. Ibid, Chapter 1, p. 55