Good on ya', Mr. Palmer.

"would you defend even those whom you loathe, and who have maligned you, from others who would shut them up?"

FYI: I have no idea why you "loathe" Hoppe, even if you disagree with him on some issues and tactics; after all, he is a fellow libertarian, and a tireless one at that; and a nice human being. He has not maligned you, and he certainly would not "shut you up".

Mr. Kinsella apparently did not notice my description of how Hoppe maligned me. On three continents I have been told, using precisely the same words, that Hoppe dismissed me as a thinker on the grounds of my sexuality, and nothing else. After he was told that I had presented lectures before he arrived, he informed his hosts (using the same terms in each case) that "Tom Palmer is nothing but the Ambassador of Homosexuality." I would consider that evidence that he is bigoted against gay people and that he has maligned me. But that would not change my opinion regarding the hot water he is in at his university.

The only troubling matter in that regard is that he seems to be confused about causality; he seemed to be stating that homosexuality is a cause of present-orientedness, when it seems that the relevant cause of present-orientedness is childlessness, which is highly correlated with homosexuality, but not all homosexuals are childless and not all childless people are homosexuals. In any case, whether he is a competent scholar is not the question being addressed. Being a bigot should not lead one to be dismissed from a university post, just as Professor Ward Churchill, who seems from all appearances to be both a deeply immoral man and unqualified to teach at s serious university, should not be dismissed on the grounds of his despicable views.

Amusingly, I've been banned from the Mises blog for challenging Kinsella's characterization of Hoppe as a champion of liberty.

My offending comments can be found here:

http://tinyurl.com/62ttj

They say "We have no intention of denying any comments that are intelligent and civil."

http://tinyurl.com/49lyz

But clearly that's not true.

A few of thoughts:

First, canning Mr. Hoppe or violating contracts with him over this is certainly unacceptable. Supporting him in this regard seems just to me as well.

Second, a calibration of adjectives may be in order. Given the sort of murderous statists which libertarians discuss on a regular basis, it seems imprudent to refer to Mr. Hoppe, who is certainly bigoted, insufficiently rigorous, and, well, more than a bit odd as "disgusting and disgraceful." I propose that we reserve these terms for people like Mr. Clinton, who has wasted far more of my money and liberty than Mr. Hoppe has (or likely would, even given equal access to political power.)

Finally, it seems reasonable to seriously consider Mr. Hoppe's reasoning, rejecting that which is gibberish and accepting that which is sound. Hoppe's bigotry doesn't necessarily mean he has nothing to contribute on other fronts.

Three cheers for hateful, bigoted, racist monarchists! Bigotry, racism, nothing collectivist here. Monarchy, no statism here.

Tell me, how did Triple H become the new face of paleo-libertarianism? All part of Lew's Rothbardian/Leninist strategy to infiltrate every racist creep on the planet? Or just a new "fellow-traveller" on Lew's quest to recreate the libertopia known as the Confederate (Slave) States of America????

Good job Tom. I fear that the attacks on academic freedom throughout the country will keep us all busy writing letters for the next few years.

I've also received some private communication on this issue. The main points to consider, in my opinion, are the following:

1. It does not follow that, because one holds bigoted opinions and acts badly, one should lose one's job or suffer a loss of contractual rights (unless such behavior were specified in one's contract as grounds for dismissal, which is not the case here).

2. It does not follow that, because one should not suffer a loss of contractual rights, i.e., that "academic freedom" should be upheld, that one does not hold bigoted opinions or has not acted badly.

It seems that that too many people fall for one or the other fallacy; some have argued, for example, that since Hoppe shouldn't lose his job, then we should conclude that he's not a bigot and a jerk. But that doesn't follow. Rather, his bigotry and personal viciousness should not be the grounds for punishing him with a loss of contractual rights. It doesn't follow that he shouldn't be "punished" by having his bigotry and low standards (or lack of standards) of intellectual discourse criticized.

I don't follow Mr. Madison's point about reserving "disgusting and disgraceful" only for those who inflict injustice on others. Someone can act in a disgusting and disgraceful manner at a dinner party or a wedding without launching a cruise missile. For the latter, other terms would be appropriate.

Hoppe's contractual rights may be unedr assault, but I don't know that's the case. Roderick Long cited a passage of the UNLV bylaws that seem to say Hoppe has a contractual right to say anythig he wants, but 1) I don't know if those bylaws are part of a contract between Hoppe and UNLV and 2) The passage makes reference to other sections of the bylaws which may well make some exceptions.

From reading UNLV's rules on their own web site I think it likely that the complaint made against Hoppe was for sexual harrassment on the grounds that he was creating a hostile environment, probably hostile to a gay student. I conclude this because the procedure for a sexual harrassment complaint fits perfectly with the chain of events described in the original article.

The sexual harrassment policy at UNLV clearly contemplates action against tenured professors, up to dismissal, so it would seem that Hoppe probably does not have a contractual right to say anything he wants in the classroom.

Yes, but UNLV is not a private institution, it is state-funded and according to anarcho-dogma, contracts with states are not valid.

Ooops, does this mean Herr Hoppe is a statist parasite spewing his hate through money stolen from the taxpayers?

Say it isn't so, paleo-anarchos!

Palmer is just being a typical Left-libertarian,right-opportunist, PC, Lincolon-loving, statist, Beltway-libertarian neocon.

(Did I get it all in, Stevie? You better check in with Lew and see what today's Party Line is for the Cadre.)

Tom,

I'm certainly not familiar with the standard contract academics are offered by universities, but it is commonplace in business for the hiring party to have the opportunity to "terminate without cause". Epstein has written much on these "contracts at will" and explained the benefit of them, keeping people who no longer wish to work together out of court, etc. I realize, per Epstein, that contracts at will are no longer as powerful as they previously were...one cannot terminate without cause someone in violation of public policy, because they're black, gay, a woman, etc., but many such termination clauses are still in business contracts. Do they not exist in academia? If they do, HHH can be canned without worrying about academic freedom, assuming a sufficient number of fellow academics truly wish to be rid of him.

RL

PS: There are a lot more than just three continents, Tom; you should chill... :-)

Even Graceful and Intelligent Characters Shouldn't Be Unappreciative of Subtle Humor...

Dear fellow readers of Mr. Palmer's blog: It has come to my attention that the following final statement in my commentary on HHH might be misread:

I said, of Tom's comment that Hoppe had insulted him on three different continents:

PS: There are a lot more than just three continents, Tom; you should chill... :-)

Now I'm told that some, despite the happy face, might take this to mean that Hoppe's comments were no big deal and Palmer should, in fact, chill. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Instead, I was struck by the incredibly strong claim of being insulted on THREE DIFFERENT CONTINENTS, and, wry and subtle humorist that I am, played on that by pointing out there are many more than only three continents, so what's the big deal.

Perhaps, to those unfamiliar with my humor, and it seems even one who is, this effort of levity on my part came off as a defense of Hoppe, whom I see as a homophobic misanthrope, and a dumb one at that, one who likely has to look up the word "misanthrope" to realize I'm insulting him. My apologies to anyone who inadvertently misread my comment to mean the opposite of what I intended.

Sincerely,

Ross Levatter

Madison: "I propose that we reserve these terms for people like Mr. Clinton, who has wasted far more of my money and liberty than Mr. Hoppe has (or likely would, even given equal access to political power.)"

I'm not so sure that's the case, TJ:
"What should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correct immigration policy, however, as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy? The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the "nature" 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)."

Get it? Hoppe wants the government to act as *the personal owner* of the country. Can you imagine the results of that?

Cite: http://tinyurl.com/5er2t

Ross,

I took your remark to mean that I should look on the bright side: there are, after all, four continents on which Hoppe had *not* engaged in the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem! (At least, so far as I know.)

As to his contract with the university, it seems pretty clear to me that he should not be punished for his kooky views. If, however, he had used his teaching position to say to a student, "That's a stupid question, and just what we might expect from a pervert (spade/Zigeuner/chick/etc.)," then he would be failing to uphold his end of the bargain, which is to teach all of the students, and not to belittle any student on account of race, gender, etc., at least in the classroom. (That he makes such remarks out of the classroom should have no bearing on his contract with the university.)

As a general rule, I believe that contracts with state universities should be as strictly enforced as those with private universities. And there are additional free-speech considerations that arise in such circumstances, independently of those associated with private universities. Despite what Hoppe's most ardent defenders argue, viz. that the First Amendment does not apply in any way, shape or form to the states (see the discussion here: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/018307.php , especially the remarks by Mr. Kinsella), I believe that First Amendment considerations restrict the ability of states (and by extension state universities) to punish or sanction people for holding unpopular or, in the case of Hoppe, crackpot views..

South Carolina recently passed
legislation specifying that this
is a "employment at will" state.

This was due to court decisions by
which employee handbooks had come to
be read as contractual rights.

South Carolina academics pointed out
that the entire concept of tenure
meant that facutly handbooks did
amount to contractual rights.

This was accepted and taken into account
in the legislation.

What would tenure mean if the university
(private or public) could fire tenured
faculty at will?

By having tenure, a university is
accepting that all that business
about financial exigency means
something. That the other business
about moral turpitude means someting.

And all of those appeals processes
mean something.

As do all those statements about
academic freedom.

Now, it may be that having tenure is
a bad idea. But it does create
contractual obligations on the other
end.

As for how federal discrimination law
(creating a hostile environment for
protected groups) will play out vs.
a vs. freedom of speech in the university
setting, who knows.

It would be something like the Federal
government requires universities to punish
faculty who spout theories that
members of protected groups don't like, so
they don't go to school, and so they can't
get an education.

I think the difference with most situation
regarding hostile evironment, the behavior
isn't part of the process. Putting nudie
pictures on the office wall isn't necessary
for most sorts of office work. Having workers
tell off color jokes to other workers isn't
part of the work product.

Talking about various theories, is part of
the work product of universities.

Anyone read about the accounting professor
who was working a spreadsheet who said "you
drag this black guy over there?" A member
of the UNLV determined that this was in
reference to the black guy dragged after a
car by some racists! Maybe, but I suspect
that it was a black colored entry on the
spreadsheet being dragged accross the
spreadsheet.

Some of these folks are nuts!

Mr. Palmer, this case does not at all change my opinion that the First Amendment does not, and should not, apply to the States or State actors. That does not mean that the Nevada Constitution does not have similar guarantees; and, mirabile dictu--it does: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NvConst.html#Art1Sec9

Mr. Kennedy,

Perhaps instead of complaining about your posting priviledges being removed here (and having some of your friends post insulting comments about Jeff Tucker), you should e-mail Jeffrey Tucker and ask him why he removed your posting priviledges, and argue that you weren't slandering and distorting Hoppe's views.

Here's what you said:

quote:
------
Stephan, what do you think of Hoppe's assertion that gays (among others) would have to be forcibly removed from libertarian society:

"They ââ?¬â?? the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism ââ?¬â?? will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."
------

quote:
------
Some of Hoppe's detractors want him dismissed from a university post for what he said. In the passage I quoted above Hoppe expresses a desire to have many individuals physically removed from society for what they advocate.
------

quote:
------
I note that Hoppe's supposed rights-absolutism doesn't preclude his advocacy of the violation of the rights of immigrants via state force, so why should I doubt he's willing to violate rights in removing those he deems unsuitable for his libertarian order?

If I were associated with UNLV I'd prefer that Hoppe keep his job, but the prospect that a university might apply a standard I disfavor doesn't particularly alarm me. Are any rights of Hoppe in jeopardy here?
------

As other posters made clear, myself included, your comments are simply not accurate representations of Hoppe, and/or are quotes out of context. Even the more fully provided context by someone else fails to do the job, because it doesn't consider the context of the chapter (as others pointed out). Being charitable, there are three possibilities: (1) Hoppe was not clear on what he meant, even given the entire context of the chapter. I do not think this. (2) You did not read the book, or the entire chapter, but just a few quotes. (3) You deliberately distorted what Hoppe meant. (4) You misunderstood Hoppe, or you were not clear on what he meant. As I clearly see that Hoppe was talking about voluntary covenants, I'll be charitable and assume that it was #4. However, Jeff Tucker's the person to e-mail about it.

Mr. Palmer,

It is commendable that you support Hoppe in this regard, despite your great dislike of him. However, I have seen many insulting things about Hoppe on this site (in this entry and another entry). I've met him personally, and he doesn't at all seem to be the person that's being described on this board. I'd also note that I've never seen anything from Prof. Hoppe's website that is so insulting to you.

Perhaps it would be wise for you to actually call up Hoppe and ask him what he said. Mud-slinging does not do much good for libertarians.

I have written about the topic under Kinsella's Mises Blog post.

Mr. Palmer,

Just a note, I was the one who posted the previous message (February 8, 2005 06:57 PM).

Sincerely,
David J. Heinrich

Mr. Kennedy,

Also, the idea that Hoppe sexually harassed the gay student is absurd beyond belief. He's given the very same lecture many times, with no complaints. Very similar lectures are even on audio-file on Mises.org (though I don't have the links). I realize that you didn't say that you thought he sexually harassed the student, but if you do think that, then it's absurd. If they're actually investigating him for that, they're absurd.

Sincerely,
David J. Heinrich

So how about the link to the Nevada Declaration of Rights, pretty good, eh?! Admit it!

Poor Gene Callahan: http://www.gene-callahan.org/blog/2005/02/what-is-anarchist-who-has-been-mugged.html . He was mugged by some London hoodlums. I suppose the comment by those "supporting" Hoppe lately would be along these lines: "Gene, terrible you got mugged. But why were you mouthing off to the punks? You shouldn't have done that. Bad idea, Gene."

In case anyone is interested, here is my response to Professor David Beito's call to defend Hoppe's rights by phoning UNLV's Board of Regents.

My response is not a particularly charitable one, I guess, but then, I don't really see the place for charity here. I deplore the violation of Hoppe rights, but frankly, if he wants my support, he's got to do something to earn it. Here's a not-particularly-arduous test that would do it for me.

by Irfan Khawaja on February 8, 2005 at 3:24 PM

Imagine the following scenario: The academic freedom of a gay professor on the East Coast is egregiously violated by a homophobic administration. Would Hoppe lift a finger for such a person? Sounds kind of unlikely to me.

Before I lift my dialing finger for Hoppe, I'd like to know his answer to that question up there--in writing, for public consumption, on the Internet. As every economist knows, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Same goes for a free phone call to Nevada.

The price of such a communication from Hoppe, publicly expressed, would amply compensate me for the price of my phone call to the Board of Regents. But to make the call pro bono for a gay-bashing economist who's being defended already by the ACLU? I think my response to that would have to be "Error: page not found."

Originally posted on HNN's "Liberty and Power."

Khawaja: "Imagine the following scenario: The academic freedom of a gay professor on the East Coast is egregiously violated by a homophobic administration. Would Hoppe lift a finger for such a person? Sounds kind of unlikely to me."

You have no reason to libel Hoppe with such vile insinuations--you are implying he is a bigoted homophobe. No reason than Palmer's own outrageous insintuations. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Heinrich,

I don't think any action ought to be taken against Hoppe for what he's reported to have said.

I think such sexual harassment policies are generally stupid and counterproductive, but I don't consider their existence an injustice. UNLV doesn't owe Hoppe a harassment policy that any of us find sensible.

Well, some very interesting mail in the mail bag. (I was busy all day with meetings, including with a delegtion from the German Bundestag, so I've not had a chance to check email or comments until now.)

First, to Mr. Kinsella, who is very proud of himself. That's pretty impressive legal research. In any case, I am convinced that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would also protect Mr. Hoppe from being punished for holding the (irrational and bizarre) views that he holds. But Mr. Kinsella's powers of inference seem less impressive than his command of the Google search engine. I can see no reason why I would not be shocked and quite full of sympathy for Mr. Callahan. No one deserves to be savagely beaten. I simply do not see how Mr. Kinsella could infer from anything that I have written, certainly, or -- scanning the remarks above -- that anyone else has written, that would lead him to conclude that I or they would be less than sympathetic. (As an aside, I was beaten rather badly in Oxford by 19 young chaps when I left one of the colleges in my academic gown and sub fusc, precisely because I was wearing academic clothes; the experience was remarkably memorable and unpleasant.)

The issue that Mr. Kinsella seems unable to grasp is that one can stand up for one's right not to be fired or punished (or beaten, of course) without approving of the character of the person who is being treated unjustly. The defense that "Hoppe is not a bigoted and vicious hatemonger" is neither necessary to his defense, nor implied in defending him; one can believe that he is a bigot (and there is ample evidence of his ugly views) and still think that he is being treated unjustly. Is that so hard to grasp?

I should also add that there is little evidence that Hoppe actually is a libertarian, other than that he calls himself one (albeit of a decidedly odd sort, as a supporter of hereditary monarchy). The description of the proper action of the state that Mr. Lopez quotes above is incompatible with any recognizable version of libertarianism; the view 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)" has traditionally been called "socialism" or at least "authoritarianism." (And it's quite clear from remarks in many places that Hoppe favors keeping out "parasites," "homosexuals," and the like.)

Finally, Mr. Kinsella is incorrect to refer to "Palmer's own outrageous insintuations." I have not "insinuated" that Hoppe is a bigot. I have stated it publicly, as have the Guatemalans who were present when Hoppe both maligned me and uttered racist remarks about "Indians" (he was rather stupidly unaware that the people with whom he was speaking were of mixed race) in Guatemala; see the comments in this posting http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/014584.php , including the very last one, where the remarks are described.

I have not read Hoppe's "masterpiece" on democracy, so I cannot comment on the context of his strange statements about calling for people to be "physically removed."

Irfan Khawaja's challenge is an interesting one. Charles Murray recently defended Ward Churchill against calls for his firing, while at the same time expressing disgust for the views that Churchill expressed. I cannot imagine such an act from Hoppe, and certainly not for groups that he utterly hates and despises.

"First, to Mr. Kinsella, who is very proud of himself. That's pretty impressive legal research."

Thanks!

"In any case, I am convinced that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would also protect Mr. Hoppe from being punished for holding the (irrational and bizarre) views that he holds."

Right, becase "Congress shall make no law" obviously means, "the States shall make no law ... and Congress shall have Power to see to it"

"But Mr. Kinsella's powers of inference seem less impressive than his command of the Google search engine."

Findlaw, actually.

"I can see no reason why I would not be shocked and quite full of sympathy for Mr. Callahan. No one deserves to be savagely beaten. I simply do not see how Mr. Kinsella could infer from anything that I have written, certainly, or -- scanning the remarks above -- that anyone else has written, that would lead him to conclude that I or they would be less than sympathetic."

Why, because you have used this Hoppe episode simultaneously to show that you are able to support someone you purportedly despize, while using the very same forum to kick him when he is down.

"The issue that Mr. Kinsella seems unable to grasp is that one can stand up for one's right not to be fired or punished (or beaten, of course) without approving of the character of the person who is being treated unjustly."

Oh, I understand this, Palmer--this is low level stuff, really. What I am saying is that in the same breath that you heroically defend someone you claim you despise, and implicitly claim he has the right to say as a professor whatever theories he has regardless of their validity, you feel compelled to attack him for previous sins and to also criticize his particular views.

"The defense that "Hoppe is not a bigoted and vicious hatemonger" is neither necessary to his defense, nor implied in defending him;"

I agree; but it is necessary to defend him from your baseless and despicable charges.

"one can believe that he is a bigot (and there is ample evidence of his ugly views)"

Actually, there is not. AT most, you can find evidence for his persoanl dislike of you, which is justified if nothing else by your perosonal insults of him; in his other comments re homosexuality, there is nothing stated that is evinced of bigotry at all. Read it carefully.

"and and still think that he is being treated unjustly. Is that so hard to grasp?"

Of course not.

"I should also add that there is little evidence that Hoppe actually is a libertarian, other than that he calls himself one (albeit of a decidedly odd sort, as a supporter of hereditary monarchy)."

This is utterly stupid. See his A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, his premier systematic treatise, which argues along lines not entirely unfamiliar to those of your fellow Cato-ite Rogeer Pilon's Gewirthian arguments for individual human rights. This is just trash, Palmer. No evidence that he is a libertarian? Surely one has demonstrated he has no rational arguments left when he has to resort to obvious distortions and personal attacks.

"Finally, Mr. Kinsella is incorrect to refer to 'Palmer's own outrageous insintuations.' I have not 'insinuated' that Hoppe is a bigot. I have stated it publicly, as have the Guatemalans who were present when Hoppe both maligned me and uttered racist remarks about 'Indians' (he was rather stupidly unaware that the people with whom he was speaking were of mixed race) in Guatemala; see the comments in this posting http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/014584.php , including the very last one, where the remarks are described."

This is all just dumb. Hoppe is not a bigot, even if a bunch of stupid Guatemalans an Indians think so.

"Irfan Khawaja's challenge is an interesting one. Charles Murray recently defended Ward Churchill against calls for his firing, while at the same time expressing disgust for the views that Churchill expressed. I cannot imagine such an act from Hoppe, and certainly not for groups that he utterly hates and despises."

You really do not know the man you think you konw so well, in your agenda-driven screeds. I would testify under oath that I firmly believe Hoppe does not hate and despise any of the "suspect groups" you malign him of hating. This is despicable, Palmer. Either you are resorting to lies and character assassination out of desperation or you are so deluded that you actually believe this inner-fantasy-world stuff.

Hoppe never states that Monarchy is his ideal form of government, simply that Monarchy is more conducive to liberty than Democracy. One can disagree with his argument (though I would think they should at least read his book or an article about it first), but even if he was wrong, I don't see how that would make him any less libertarian.

As for him kicking people out. Hoppe simply states that in a stateless society, people would be free to create restrictive covenants enter voluntary neighborhood associations etc.etc. that may preclude homosexuals, or whoever else they want to keep out, from their neighborhoods or communities. I haven't heard anyone think that is unlibertarian, though some disagree with it on their own moral/aesthetic views.

Finally, I will have to say here that I agree with Mr. Kennedy. I strongly oppose what UNLV is doing (and I strongly agree with what Prof. Hoppe said about homosexuals), however unless there is a clause in the contract that protects him (and I would actually guess there is), the first Amendment would not apply (as it should not apply to states) and I think even state run school should be free to set their own policies because I believe that Public institutions (when they exist) should act as much as private ones would (this is the justification for immigration restriction, and the reason they opposed say letting bums look at Child porn at Public libraries)

Rothbard himself said as much here

But not only literal government operations are subject to this egalitarian doctrine. It also applies to any activities which are tarred with the public brush, with the use, for example, of government streets, or any acceptance of taxpayer funds. Indeed, actual government actions need not be involved at all. Sometimes, libertarians fall back on the angry argument that, nowadays, you can't really distinguish between "public" and "private" anyway, that everything is semi-public, and that trying to maintain property rights in such a climate is unrealistic, naive, blind to reality, and generally a "purist" throwing of sand into the machinery of neoconservative or left-libertarian "progress."

Recently, there was a fascinating interchange between a paleo-libertarian attorney in California and an official of a new California-based allegedly "libertarian" legal outfit, the Center for Individual Rights, run by the prominent neocon David Horowitz, who likes to call himself a "libertarian." This Center, by the way, is a leading example of explicit neocon and left-libertarian fusion, since its masthead features several prominent members of the libertarian movement.

The paleo lawyer was protesting that the Center is backing the idea of legally prohibiting colleges from setting down rules infringing on what the Center people claim are "the constitutional rights of freedom of speech" of students and faculty. Our paleo critic agreed with the idea of combating political correctness and codes restricting alleged "hate speech," but he pointed out what not long ago was considered self-evident and unexceptionable, not only by conservatives and libertarians, and by all judges, but by all Americans: that First Amendment, or free speech, rights, can only apply to government, and that only government can infringe upon such rights. Private individuals or organizations can require anyone using their private property to follow rules of conduct or speech, and anyone using such property agrees contractually to abide by these rules. Any laws restricting such rules, therefore, infringe upon the rights of private property as well as the right to make free and unhampered contracts concerning its use.

The Center official, in reply, heaped scorn on such allegedly unrealistic and purist arguments: these days, to official libertarians, almost everything is in some way public, so that, in contrast to every fiber of libertarian doctrine, "private" and "public" are simply co-mingled. The Center official did not even balk when the paleo attorney used what any sensible person would consider a reductio ad absurdum: that, logically, this approach would imply that government should prevent any private employer from firing an employee who exercises his alleged "free speech rights" by denouncing or cursing at his boss, even on company property.

One problem with using reductio ad absurdum arguments among libertarians has always been that they are all too happy to embrace the absurdum. And thus our so-called "libertarians" are in the process of going further than even Justice Hugo Black in severing free speech from private-property rights, and from exalting the former at the expense of the latter. Even a "First Amendment absolutist" such as Justice Black proclaimed that "freedom of speech" gives no one the right to break into your home and harangue you at length.

Epstein: "Rothbard himself said as much here."

Rothbard himself?!

Well I guess we can all take off our thinking caps.

Newsflash: According to Stephen Kinsella,

"This is all just dumb. Hoppe is not a bigot, even if a bunch of stupid Guatemalans an Indians think so."

That takes the cake. What a brilliant denial that Hoppe's a bigot. I'm convinced now.

"Is that so hard to grasp?"

You misunderstand Mr. K's motoivation. He is seeking to get you to submit. To comply. To bow down before the enlightened Priesthood of Rockwell and sing praises to Hoppie like a good member of the Cadre.

No real surprise here. It is the just same ugly Leninist gangrene which has been stinking up the libertarian scene for more than 30 years.

Marcus Epstein: Yeah, Hoppe is a real purist, sucking off the State's tits at a taxpayer-paid institutution. What a radical!

Another comment before I'm off for class. It sure looks like Stephen Kinsella is pretty bigoted, just in case anyone didn't notice his comment above about "Stupid Guatemalans and Indians." And it doesn't sound likePalmer is so upset because Hoppe "personally dislikes" him, but is saying that Hoppe "personally dislikes" whole groups of people, like "stupid Guatemalans and Indians" and "homsexuals," which makes him prejudiced.

Sorry -- "homosexuals." Bye!

Arch: "Newsflash: According to Stephen Kinsella,

""This is all just dumb. Hoppe is not a bigot, even if a bunch of stupid Guatemalans an Indians think so."

"That takes the cake. What a brilliant denial that Hoppe's a bigot. I'm convinced now."

This was my test to see if the PC types are, indeed, humorless drones.

BTW, even were I serious (which I was clearly not), it is not bigoted to refer to the actual Guatemalans and Indians who apparently hold a stupid view of a particular matter as stupid. It does not imply that they are stupid because they are Guatemalans etc. Get it straight.

Tiny Tim:

""Is that so hard to grasp?"

"You misunderstand Mr. K's motoivation. He is seeking to get you to submit. To comply. To bow down before the enlightened Priesthood of Rockwell and sing praises to Hoppie like a good member of the Cadre.

"No real surprise here. It is the just same ugly Leninist gangrene which has been stinking up the libertarian scene for more than 30 years."

Hey, even a stopped watch is right twice a day. And from now on, please refer to me as Deacon Kinsella. If you are good, and go to confession, I may issue you forgiveness.

Mr. Kinsella says, in the post of Feb. 8 at 11:31 that just follows mine, that I have "no reason to libel Hoppe with such vile insinuations."

Actually, I have not "libeled" anyone, nor made any "insinuations." Recall that "libels" have to be false. As for "insinuations," I am sorry if I wasn't sufficiently clear, but I was not merely "insinuating" that he was a bigot. I was explicitly saying that he is one. Better?

At any rate, I had and have very good reason for thinking it unlikely that Hoppe would have gone out of his way to defend the violation of a gay academic's academic freedom. The reason is Tom Palmer's ample testimony on the subject right on this site, which I've read with some interest. I have never known Tom to lie to me or to anyone else. If Tom is telling the truth, Hoppe is a bigot. Bigots tend not to go out of their way to defend the objects of their bigotry. So Hoppe would not likely go out of his way to defend the hypothetical person in my example. As you can plainly see, I am not insinuating anything. I have spelled my thoughts out in a way that anyone, even Mr. Kinsella, might follow them. (OK, maybe NOW I'm insinuating something, but not about Hoppe....)

I have read enough of Mr. Kinsella's ramblings to gauge the extent of his perspicacity, but let me clarify the (relatively) obvious: it is Kinsella who is "insinuating" that Tom Palmer is a liar.

Maybe Hoppe is better than Tom or I have surmised. Or maybe he's made a turn-around on the fairness issue. Well, then, I've given him ample opportunity to demonstrate that, haven't I? I'm not a thumbscrew or "zero tolerance" or "three strikes" kind of guy. Not at all. He's perfectly free to take my challenge. Indeed, I'm the kind of guy who says: if you acquit yourself on my challenge, I'll go out of my way to splurge on a long-distance phone call for you.

So give it a rest, pal. I haven't predicted that Hoppe will not ace my challenge. I only said that I found it unlikely he would. But if he changes his tune, I'll change mine. Tell him to think of his answer to my challenge as an investment in the future, if that helps. His future, that is.

Khawaja:

"Mr. Kinsella says, in the post of Feb. 8 at 11:31 that just follows mine, that I have "no reason to libel Hoppe with such vile insinuations."

"Actually, I have not "libeled" anyone, nor made any "insinuations." Recall that "libels" have to be false. As for "insinuations," I am sorry if I wasn't sufficiently clear, but I was not merely "insinuating" that he was a bigot. I was explicitly saying that he is one. Better?"

As he is not a bigot (although I don't believe there is any obligation to deny stupid, scurrilous, groundless charges), you don't have truth as a defense. As you apparently are not stupid, your remarks don't seem to be an innocent mistake, but intentionall, maliciously untrue, and about something harmful to one's professional reputation. That's libel per se dude.

"At any rate, I had and have very good reason for thinking it unlikely that Hoppe would have gone out of his way to defend the violation of a gay academic's academic freedom. The reason is Tom Palmer's ample testimony on the subject right on this site, which I've read with some interest. I have never known Tom to lie to me or to anyone else. If Tom is telling the truth, Hoppe is a bigot."

Tom is mistaken. Whether he is lying, or just addled, I have no idea.

"Bigots tend not to go out of their way to defend the objects of their bigotry. So Hoppe would not likely go out of his way to defend the hypothetical person in my example. As you can plainly see, I am not insinuating anything. I have spelled my thoughts out in a way that anyone, even Mr. Kinsella, might follow them. (OK, maybe NOW I'm insinuating something, but not about Hoppe....)"

Hoppe is not a bigot. What is almost as bad as being a bigot--perhaps worse?--is falsely accusing someone of bigotry.

"I have read enough of Mr. Kinsella's ramblings to gauge the extent of his perspicacity, but let me clarify the (relatively) obvious: it is Kinsella who is "insinuating" that Tom Palmer is a liar."

I don't recall doing that. I don't waste time insinuating things either. As even Palmer probably would agree, I state things explicitly. I say Palmer is just wrong about HOppe's bigotry. It could be that he knows he is wrong and is lying; it could be that he does not care and is merely reckless (which is more likely that an outright lie); it could be he believes it based on bad information; and it could be, that in part this is a judgment call and he has more hair-trigger standards than others do. But Hoppe is no bigot.

"Maybe Hoppe is better than Tom or I have surmised. Or maybe he's made a turn-around on the fairness issue. Well, then, I've given him ample opportunity to demonstrate that, haven't I? I'm not a thumbscrew or "zero tolerance" or "three strikes" kind of guy. Not at all. He's perfectly free to take my challenge. Indeed, I'm the kind of guy who says: if you acquit yourself on my challenge, I'll go out of my way to splurge on a long-distance phone call for you."

He has no obligation to jump thru your hoops; and even if he would not pass your test about defending a gay guy does not imply bigotry.

Khawaja... I knew your name sounded familiar. I think we had articles in the same issue of Reason Papers a while back--no. 17, 1992. http://webhost.bridgew.edu/askoble/RParchive.htm Isn't that NEATO? Is Tibor Machan one of your good buddies, as he is mine? If so, golly gee willickers, how can Tibor make the mistake of befriending such a horrible racist antisemite homophobe of low perspicacity from--gasp--Louisiana of all places! Please call Tibor and let him know what monsters he associates with!

Kinsella: Get a real job, you state-subsidized waste of space.

I didn't realize I was state-subsidized, you cowardly, evil, ignoramus loser.

If I were paranoid I would guess "Stephan Kinsella" is just a sockpuppet run by the neocons to make libertarians look bigoted, stupid and assholish.

I'm not a bigot, no one who knows me would venture that I'm stupid. Asshole is a judgment call, but given the source... You PC guys don't like it when we fight back, do you. I got yer face without pain or fear or guilt RY CHERE!

To Mr Kinsella--

Regarding Hoppe's bigotry, this issue is pretty well-trodden ground at this point...dude. Neither you nor Justin Raimondo have managed to rebut Palmer on the "ambassador of homosexuality" remark, and in the debate between you and Mark Fulwiler and Steve Horwitz on the exegetical issue debated at HNN (excluding gays from Hoppe's "utopia" as discussed in his democracy book), sorry, but you lost the argument big time. Case closed. You may not be able or willing to grant that, but the rest of us would be ill-advised to form beliefs on the basis of your standards. And if you have a problem with it, feel free to get some standing and sue me.

As for whether the Reason Papers coincidence is "NEATO," I don't think it's much more awe-inspiring a phenomenon than our co-presence at this website, and am not really sure why it's relevant to anything under discussion--except to shift the discussion to a completely irrelevant topic so as to get you off the hook on the relevant one. On the basis of one article, published 13 years ago, you infer that Tibor Machan and I are best friends, that I keep track of who his friends are, and that it would be a matter of great urgency to me whether or not he was friends with Hoppe. I wasn't aware that Machan was a friend of Hoppe's until this minute (not that it makes a difference to me). Meanwhile, I learn about Machan's supposed friendship with Hoppe from a person who implicitly asks me to trust HIS testimony about that fact while disregarding an eyewitness event by an actual friend of mine (namely Tom on the "ambassador" comment).

To call this "presumptuous" wouldn't quite do it justice. To call it "incoherent" would be too bloodless. To call its author an outright imbecile would perhaps be closer to the mark.

As for my phoning Tibor Machan, maybe you could do it for me? I live in NJ, and he lives in CA, and that would be a long-distance call for me. You know how much I hate those.

Khawaja--

"Regarding Hoppe's bigotry, this issue is pretty well-trodden ground at this point...dude."

No it's not. So there.

"Neither you nor Justin Raimondo have managed to rebut Palmer on the "ambassador of homosexuality" remark,"

Even if he said that--and I don't admit he did--it's not evidence of bigotry. Anyone can see that. Indeed it could not be, as he is not a bigot.

"and in the debate between you and Mark Fulwiler and Steve Horwitz on the exegetical issue debated at HNN (excluding gays from Hoppe's "utopia" as discussed in his democracy book), sorry, but you lost the argument big time. Case closed. You may not be able or willing to grant that, but the rest of us would be ill-advised to form beliefs on the basis of your standards."

Hoppe's views about "utopia" or whatever, even if they are politically wrong, are not evidence of bigotry. Indeed they could not be, as he is not a bigot.

"And if you have a problem with it, feel free to get some standing and sue me."

Thanks, but your permission is not needed to sue you.

"As for whether the Reason Papers coincidence is "NEATO," I don't think it's much more awe-inspiring a phenomenon than our co-presence at this website, and am not really sure why it's relevant to anything under discussion--except to shift the discussion to a completely irrelevant topic so as to get you off the hook on the relevant one. On the basis of one article, published 13 years ago, you infer that Tibor Machan and I are best friends, that I keep track of who his friends are, and that it would be a matter of great urgency to me whether or not he was friends with Hoppe."

Ah. My point was you PC people's hair triggers and unfair standards and silly Randian "don't sanction the sanctioner of the sanctioner" approach would lead you to conniption fits if I could find a common friend between you and me, someone you respected. I was just guessing you and Tibor were buds. But maybe I was confusing you w/ Aeon Skoble. Lighten up, dude.

" I wasn't aware that Machan was a friend of Hoppe's until this minute (not that it makes a difference to me). Meanwhile, I learn about Machan's supposed friendship with Hoppe"

no no, with me, dude. Not w/ Hoppe. I don't think they are good friends but I don't think Machan would be unfair or indecent or mean-spirited enough to falsely accuse Hoppe of bigotry.

"from a person who implicitly asks me to trust HIS testimony about that fact while disregarding an eyewitness event by an actual friend of mine (namely Tom on the "ambassador" comment)."

Tom personaly insults Hoppe all the time; an insult in return is not evidence of bigotry.

"To call this "presumptuous" wouldn't quite do it justice. To call it "incoherent" would be too bloodless. To call its author an outright imbecile would perhaps be closer to the mark."

No one really thinks I'm an imbecile, man. So you are either stupid, lying, or something. But sigh, this is not about me, is it. Why you pc types always want to make it so is a mystery.

"As for my phoning Tibor Machan, maybe you could do it for me? I live in NJ, and he lives in CA, and that would be a long-distance call for me. You know how much I hate those."

Actualy, I skype him all the time. It's free. Gosh, I can't believe he would talk to such an imbecile.

PC types? I thought we were called belwayleftlibertarianrightopportunistwarbloggerneocons.

I must be behind the times of what the label is for "Party Enemy."

Hey Irfan, dude, I checked out your Secular islam site. Wicked. Salaam alaikum, dude.

My best friend is a Muslim Indian, does that count? Does it get me a "get out of bigotry accusation" card? Also, I'm close to several queers. Does that count? No? Yes? Maybe? Just tell me how to paper my file, so I'm covered.

1. I have met Prof. Hoppe, and concur with Kinsella that he is not a bigot. I have never heard anything in any of his lectures, or read anything in any of his books, nor has he said to me anything in person, that would make me think he's a bigot.

2. Thus, Tom Palmer is either: (1) Lying; (2) Reckless; (3) Misinformed; (4) Over-reacting. Tom hasn't provided any "evidence" that Hoppe is a bigot. All we have is hearsay. He-said she-said. He's "heard" it from people. And we've "heard it" from him. That hardly constitutes any kind of evidence. And even if Hoppe did say "ambassador of homosexuality", so what? People say jokes that would offend PC-types all the time, jokes about women, blonds, Jews, homosexuals, African Americans, caucasians, and almost every other groupo you can think of. Hardly make everyone bigoted.

3. I have never seen Hoppe issue a vile statement against Tom G. Palmer or anyone else on his website. Sure, Hoppe has classified some people who many consider "libertarians" as socialists or Statists (e.g., Friedman, Hayek), but that's merely his opinion from his position. Contrarily, on this web-page, I've seen numerous insults thrown at Hoppe.

Hey Khawaja, help me out with this, since I'm an imbecile. When I was getting my MS in electrical engineering, I came up with this proof that 1 = 0. So far, no one I show it to can figure out where the error is (though I know).

Okay, we know that e^2pi = 1, right? (think of a circle with 0 degrees = 360 degrees = 2pi at North; 90 degrees = pi/2 is "east"; and so on; the real magnitude of the north vector is 1, so e^2pi is 1)

Now, take the natural log, ln, of both sides:
ln(e^2pi) = ln(1)

But we know ln(1) is 0 right? i.e., e to the what equals 1? -- the answer is 0, b/c e^0 = 1.

So we have ln(e^2pi) = 0.

Right?

But the problem is ln and e are inverse operations, i.e., ln(e^x) = x, and e^ln(x) = x.

This means that 2pi = 0, and dividing by 2pi, 1 = 0.

Now we know 1 is not equal to zero. So where's the error?

I forgot to include the imaginary number i in the exponent. It should be e^(i*2*pi)

then it works out. you just get i*2*pi = 0, then divide by i*2*pi

This all comes from Euler's formula, of course: e^i*theta = cos(theta) + i*sin(theta)
so if theta = 2*pi, then the sin of 2*pi is 0, and cos 2p is 1, therefore, e^i*2*pi = cos(2*pi) + i*sin(2*pi) = 1 + i*0 = 1.

That's sort of the prequel to the first step of the above "proof".

Heinrich says "He didn't say it, and if he did, so what? It was all a joke. Ha ha ha ha." LOL. Where I come from, we call that a weak defense. Epstein says he "strongly agrees" with Hoppe, but gives no evidence for it. If he agrees with something because...."Rothbard himself said it," then it looks like he agrees with Hoppe because Hoppe himself said it. Kinda circular. Kinsella says he's a lawyer (it's on his website), but he acts like he's in junio high school. Calling Indians and Guatemalans "stupid" isn't a particularly smart defense against bigotry, and then showing off that he can do some math is juvenile. Not impressive. Maybe just pathetic. If that's the best that Hoppe can do for defenders, he's got problems. Anyway, when you check around you find tons of evidence that Hoppe's a scary guy. Let him have his say. But why worship a first-class dork like that?

Arch (so-called) says:

"Kinsella says he's a lawyer (it's on his website),"

It's just amazing, and amusing, all these people want to make it about me. Dude, I'm not some celebrity. But unfortunately, you people can't rattle me, you are picking on the wrong person for that. My bio even has links to some of my bar affiliations. Sheesh. http://www.kinsellalaw.com/bio

" but he acts like he's in junio high school."

Man I have no idea why I would descend to such a level, and not treat you people as if you are serious, mature, fair-minded people. I have no idea why.

"Calling Indians and Guatemalans "stupid" isn't a particularly smart defense against bigotry,"

But it's fricking funny, and sometimes only way to deal with gnats is to swat them away.

" and then showing off that he can do some math is juvenile. Not impressive. Maybe just pathetic."

Oh,I think it's a little impressive. What are you, some liberal arts major? I didn't mean to scare you with a few equations.

"If that's the best that Hoppe can do for defenders, he's got problems. Anyway, when you check around you find tons of evidence that Hoppe's a scary guy."

Your post here alone is evidence you are a scary person.

" Let him have his say. But why worship a first-class dork like that?"

Read his book A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. It's free, online, at his site: www.HansHoppe.com. Then after you get some larnin', come talk to me.

Guatemalans look like monkeys to me. Is this bigotry?

THe last post is not by Hans, but by some asshole.

One issue that has not been raised so far on this blog (or on others discussing Hoppe's situation -- and also Ward Churchill's) is tenure. The discussion has simply been about whether Hoppe's (and Churchill's) rights are in danger of being violated. Given their current contractual arrangements with the universities where they teach, it seems fairly clear that they are. But one easily can imagine a non-tenure based regime in which this would not be the case -- where university faculty would not enjoy virtually limitless freedom to say or do (or more accurately, not do, in the case of many tenured faculty who have become deadwood) whatever they wish. There are surely downsides to such a system -- among them, I think that many conservatives and libertarians would feel uncomfortable stating their views for fear that they would fall in disfavor with their colleagues and risk losing their jobs. But there are also a lot of potential benefits as well, a point that most libertarians would acknowledge, given the frequency with which the abolition of tenure has been advocated by libertarian-oriented economists. The current system of higher education has been so vastly distorted by government interference, that it's difficult to determine how to (realistically) move the system in a more market-oriented direction. Abolishing tenure -- and replacing it with time-limited contracts containing varying protections for standard notions of academic freedom -- seems to me a good step.

Another issue not brought up is why can't UNLV terminate Hoppe's contract for whatever reason they want? According to libertarians, can't a contract can be canceled by either party? True, UNLV should have top ay HHH some bucks for breaking the contract. But freedom of association means freedom of diassociation.

But nobody at Mises seems to want to have these interesting discussions. Instead they seem more interested in purging unbelievers and rallying around "solidarity."

Tizziny Tizzim-- My GUESS is that if UNLV were to approach The Hoppe and offer to "buy him out" of his contract with UNLV just to disassociate with him, there would not be the same outrage. Who knows, he might even take it.

None of this is relevant. If you want to have an academic discussion of the nature of contract law as it pertains to academics, uhmmm, okay. Go ahead. But this whole issue arose when there was an attempt by un-libertarian, PC egalitarians to harm a friend, ally, professor, and signficant libertarian--and for merely stating something emprical and probably true! Given this, many libertarians and supporters of academic freedom are trying to voice their disapproval. None of this is changed by the fact that in an altenrative universe you might be able to buy a teacher out of his contract. What has that to do with anything? And please don't bring up Euler's formula again. I think we've kicked that dead dog to death.

So bascially you feel politics is more imporatant than principles. Your Leninist underwear is showing.

I agree that the statement which has gotten Hoppe into trouble with UNLV is largely true (there may be some problems with causality, as other posters have noted) and I don't think that he should be penalized for uttering it. But it doesn't seem unreasonable or irrelevant (as Kinsella implies) to consider the situation in larger context: How would a more market-oriented system of higher education treat cases like Hoppe's? I would suggest that the American university system would be better off without tenure -- if instead it operated under a regime in which universities could more easily rid themselves of faculty members for a variety of reasons: non-productivity, consistently poor teaching evaluations, and, yes, dissenting opinions. Firing someone for the last offense may be stupid, but hopefully administrators would soon view it as such when they lose productive faculty members to other schools. This is not a pie-in-the-sky idea, even though the AAUP acts as if it is. (In fact, it is the employment policy that independent educational and public-policy groups -- including both the Cato Institute and the Mises Institute -- basically employs, with some success.)

I'm interested in the ideas that Eli Feigenbaum has raised. The tenure system is surely quite flawed and I'd be in favor of abolishing it generally, not on libertarian grounds but on grounds of serving the market more effectively. However, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Ward Church, and Arthur Butz all have tenure; to fire them now would be to break a contract. Further, UNLV is a state university, which raises additional issues of a state institution penalizing someone for what they've said. (Let's assume that in all cases they teach their subjects comptetently, or at least, that that is not the reason that they are under fire.)

As to what Hoppe actually said, it's not clear from the one newspaper account I've read. I've read no first person accounts of what he stated. It sounds like it was muddled and rather dunderheaded and a confusion between sexuality and childlessness. In any case, whatever he did say, it does not seem to rise to the level that should cause the sort of penalties being contemplated. (Had he, on the other hand, belittled a student's intellect on the grounds of sexuality, race, gender, or some other factor, that would be different, for a professor is supposed to teach all of the students, and not to single out Jews, whites, blacks, Christians, gays, straights, or others and dismiss them. But it seems unlikely that Hoppe has done that in *in the classroom.*)

Now if Hoppe were himself to deny that he has ever made disparaging remarks about others on the grounds of their race (say, being Indians), sexuality (say, being "Ambassadors"), etc. that would be interesting. I would not hold my breath. (And I should say that showing disgust at the idea of Indians and "white people" eating at the same table is....well, disgusting. Further, the remark that someone is an "Ambassador" for a sexuality is not only a disgraceful example of the fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem, but is also fraught with connotations, all of which insinuate bad conduct.)

The point of my posting above was rather simple. Hoppe should not be penalized for his remarks. But we need not then conclude that he is simply a swell person whose views have been taken out of context by "PC" people. He has expressed bigoted and hate-filled prejudices on a variety of occasions. He may be a "martyr" to academic freedom, but he is not a decent person who has simply been misunderstood.

I will simply repeat two points that I made above:

1. It does not follow that, because one holds bigoted opinions and acts badly, one should lose one's job or suffer a loss of contractual rights (unless such behavior were specified in one's contract as grounds for dismissal, which is not the case here).

2. It does not follow that, because one should not suffer a loss of contractual rights, i.e., that "academic freedom" should be upheld, that one does not hold bigoted opinions or has not acted badly.

Mr. Kinsella has denied that Hoppe is a bigot. Coming from someone who denies that Sam Francis is a racist (Francis is an intellectual hero over at lewrockwell.com, as well as editor at an openly racist and segregationist, anti-black organization) and that Joe Sobran is an anti-Semite (Sobran writes astonishing screeds about "The Jewish Party" and speaks at the neo-Nazi Institute for Historical Review), such denial has no credibility. Anyone who denies that Francis and Sobran are racists or that the organizations with which they have chosen to affiliate or associate themselves are openly racist simply has no credibility. It's like denying that World War II ever happened and then asking us to believe propostion X or Y simply on one's say so. (I should also add that I am sure that I am not the only one who finds Mr. Kinsella's childishness and his remarkably immature sense of "humor" to be embarrassing -- for him.)

Despite the valiant effort of Eli Feigenbaum and others to get a conversation going about the status of tenure, it seems to me that this comment thread has gone beyond the point of diminishing returns and entered the realm of negative returns, so I'm going to shut it off. If anyone really (really) has an additional point to make, please email me and I'll post it.

But I'll put in the last word, as I put in the first. I have read some of Mr. Hoppe's work and found it remarkably unscholarly and poorly argued, but we've never met. My only interaction with him was many years ago when I attended a lecture he was giving and asked a quite reasonable question about a very strange claim that he had made but not substantiated, viz. that Ludwig von Mises had laid the foundation not only for economics, but for ethics, geometry, and optics. That seemed very strange to me and I asked Hoppe how he could defend that claim, since (setting aside ethics) geometry and optics had been rigorous sciences for thousands of years. His response was to demand to know whether I had been listening, to which I responded that I had. He then insisted that I hadn't and that he wasn't going to waste his time with people who were too stupid to understand and who didn't listen.

I find Hoppe's attitudes toward others ("intellectual criminals," "worse than communists," "Ambassador of homosexuality," etc.) to be disgraceful. His "scholarship" doesn't merit the name. His theories are implausible and unsubstantiated; his claims bizarre; his distortion of libertarianism disturbing (the state is the "owner" of all the land in a country and can exclude those it doesn't want); and his appalling racism and homophobia a stain on the good name of Ludwig von Mises that he and his booster Lew Rockwell have appropriated. The last point is the saddest of all.

None of that should deter people from believing that the University of Nevada at Las Vegas shouldn't punish him or tell him to shut up.