Skip to content

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Immigration, and Western Culture

There was another article on LewRockwell.com by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, On Getting Libertarianism Right, in which Dr. Hoppe seems to be attempting to clarify libertarianism and private property in the context of the immigration issue. But he doesn’t clarify those points. Mainly it’s a case for promoting Western culture and society.

First, for some reason Hoppe seems to assert that advocates of immigration freedom are all “leftists” who have “politically correct” views, such as advocating “unrestricted ‘free’ immigration, ‘non-discrimination,’ ‘affirmative action’ and ‘openness’ to ‘diversity’ and ‘alternative lifestyles’.”

Now, anyone who is familiar with my views knows that I am against political correctness and today’s social justice activists, and societal kookiness  such as with the LGBT and transgender issue, the Soviet-like culture at Google, and the net neutrality snowflakes, to name but a few issues. I am also not a “left-libertarian,” and I am a “cultural conservative” as Hoppe self-describes on his Property and Freedom Society website, or a social traditionalist.

And I have addressed Hoppe’s previous talk he gave in which he referenced the immigration issue. In this new article, Hoppe does not answer any of the questions I asked in my post, so they remain unanswered. Should I assume that Hoppe just doesn’t want to answer those questions, and will just continue to insult those who disagree with him as “fake libertarians,” “leftists,” or “fools”?

In his new article, Hoppe’s main point seems to be that

all great libertarian thinkers which successively and gradually built up the system of libertarian law and order have been “Western Men”, i.e., men born and raised in countries of Western and Central Europe or their various overseas dependencies and settlements and intellectually and culturally united by a common lingua franca (once Latin and now English) and the trans-national Catholic Church or more lately and vaguely a common Christianity. That it is in these Western societies, where libertarian principles have found the most widespread public acceptance and explicit recognition as “natural human rights.” That, notwithstanding their blatant shortcomings and failings, it is Western societies, then, that still resemble, comparatively speaking, a libertarian social order most closely. And finally also, unsurprisingly insofar as the widespread recognition and explicit acceptance of the NAP by the members of a society are signs of a comparatively high(er) intelligence and impulse control, that it is these societies, then, that also are the technologically and economically most advanced.

And he states:

These observations alone should be sufficient to reveal any libertarian advocate of “free,” unrestricted and non-discriminatory immigration of non-Westerners into the countries of the West as a fool. Every such immigrant – not to speak of mass-immigration – poses the risk of further diminishing and undermining the already limited freedom and private property protection presently still enjoyed in the West. To prevent this, any libertarian worth its name must instead advocate the strict and utmost discrimination vis-à-vis any potential immigrant..

And finally,

“Free” mass immigration from the non-Western world, “multiculturalism,” “affirmative action,” “non-discrimination,” the propagation of “openness” to “diversity” and “alternative life-styles,” to “feminism” and “gay- and gender-ism,” and of “anti-authoritarianism,” – they all are and must be seen as means to further diminish whatever little discretionary, discriminatory and exclusionary powers still remain in Western societies in the hands of non-monopolistic social authorities and hierarchies of social authority, and to correspondingly expand and increase the powers centralized, concentrated and monopolized in the hands of the State.

So, he still really seems to be writing with a collectivist-like, “private-club”-like way of thinking, and, in the name of Western cultural preservation, seems to be abandoning the principles of private property and individualism, in my view. He does not seem to want to address the ideas of free markets and voluntary exchange that I expressed in my response to his previous speech. As I wrote in my response,

…Hoppe’s “right of exclusion” seems to mean that the collective public may decide who gets in and who stays out. But how? By some sort of democratic vote? How else could a large group, such as U.S. taxpayers who supposedly own the public property, be able to come to a decision regarding who gets in and who stays out?

The true free market way is when an individual anywhere in the world who wants to make a better life for himself and his family travels to wherever he sees an opportunity, as long as he doesn’t violate the persons or property of another. He can rent a home or purchase one from a willing landlord or seller. And the property owner who rents out or sells a home is the owner, not his neighbors or the community.

I don’t see any moral obligation to pay the community some advance tribute, as the aforementioned family never entered into any contract with the “community,” only the employer, landlord or home seller, etc.

There is no collective ownership of an individual’s private property. The owner is sovereign over his own private property.

So Hoppe seems to abandon the individualist and free will/self-determination aspects of private property rights here, in my view.

By seeming to not address or criticize the current system of government immigration controls and the police state that go with them, Hoppe seems to be endorsing it, at least implicitly. And I find that disappointing. Alas, these days some people seem to be less “pro-market” and less “anti-State” than they used to be. Oh, well.

So it seems that Hoppe’s “Property and Freedom Society” could more accurately be the “Society for the Preservation of Western Culture,” because that might be more accurate. I just don’t know why he insists on fusing those immigration-freedom libertarians who advocate free market/voluntary exchange (such as myself) with the leftist SJW libertarians who don’t believe in freedom of discrimination and non-association.

It seems that this “Western culture” stuff is a major priority with some people to the point of advocating collectivism and some kind of communal ownership of a whole territory. Perhaps Hoppe’s thinking is influenced by his living in the Middle East right now? And in Turkey being ruled by an authoritarian nutjob Erdogan (as Justin Raimondo has just written about), in the middle of a region which is characterized by extreme primitivism and barbarism. And look at all those European countries being turned into Middle Eastern-like communities, and the higher crime rates. Who wouldn’t be influenced by those things?

In his new article, Hoppe writes, “Real libertarians – in contrast to left-libertarian fakes – must study and take account of real people and real human history in order to design a libertarian strategy of social change…” So how about returning to advocating the decentralization of society, especially by dismantling the State apparatus. That’s the strategy I think really needs to be promoted, once again — at least that should be the first priority. And I believe that a restoration of Western culture could be achieved naturally as a result of that decentralization process. After all, Hoppe has many times referred to in his speeches and writings of a “natural order.” And that’s important.

Published inUncategorized