A couple of months ago the following correspondence took place. I knew of course what sort of publication The New Yorker is, and based on the very first question I was certain that my name would be mentioned, no matter what. Hence, to forestall any possible misrepresentation, I decided to reply. But I refused to simply talk and insisted on doing things in writing so that I could later prove what was and wasn’t said.

Dear Professor Hoppe,

I’m a writer at The New Yorker who is working on a story about the political blogger Curtis Yarvin. Mr. Yarvin has described you to me as one of his biggest influences. I just finished reading Democracy: The God That Failed, and it is evident just how influential it has been on his work. I’d be grateful to speak with you for the story about your philosophy and its influence on the neoreactionary movement here in the United States. Are there some windows you might be free to speak this week?

With thanks, Democracy u2013 The Go... Hans-Hermann Hoppe Best Price: $24.77 Buy New $37.61 (as of 09:25 UTC - Details)

Ava Kofman

Dear Mrs. Kofman,

I am aware that I had an influence on Yarvin and we also once briefly met several years ago. I have not followed his development closely since then. For my taste his writing has always been a bit too flowery and rambling.

As regards your request, I live in Europe, am a low-tech person and are currently ill in bed with some sort of flu. However I might be able to answer a couple of questions per email correspondence.

Sincerely

HHH

Dear Mr. Hoppe,

Thank you so much for you message. I hope you have recovered from your flu, and I’m sending here some questions for e-mail. Feel free to add or modify them as you see fit, of course!

1. I watched your recent lecturefrom March. Do you see any of your ideas about transforming the size and nature of the state playing out in contemporary initiatives like DOGE in the United States?
2. When did you first hear about Curtis Yarvin’s blog or read it? Where did you meet, and what was the meeting like?
3. Yarvin has called not just for an empowered sovereign, preferably a monarch, but a CEO-monarch. I was curious what you make of his use of Silicon Valley/start-up culture as a model for governance for a new reactionary libertarian regime: are there parts of that corporate model feel persuasive or unpersuasive to you?
4. I am curious if there’s anything else you’d like to add or reflect on vis-a-vis the rising influence of neo-reactionary thinkers like Yarvin here in the United States, and if there are factors to which you’d attribute their influence.

With many thanks, and all my best,

Ava

Dear Mrs Kofman,

I do not watch my own videos and don’t remember in detail what I said or didn’t say.

In any case, let me try to summarily answer your questions.

I do not see much progress in the direction that I would like to see. The greatest danger to freedom and prosperity in my view is the steadily increasing political centralization.  The possibility of decentralization, exit and secession are essential for the preservation of human liberty. Doge may eliminate a few silly, politically correct or woke excesses of an increasingly over-blown welfare state, but it does not even touch the core problem: total government expenditures and debt – the entire military-industrial complex – still continue to grow and rise without any interruption.

My ideal is a world made up of thousands upon thousands of Liechtensteins: small territories run by a monarch or member of the natural elite, with a long-run and established proprietary interest in his country (low time-preference), self-financed (not living himself of taxes), equipped with veto-power, difficult but not impossible to be removed from his position, and allowing subunits of his country to secede if they so desire. (google Liechtenstein constitution).

This is obviously something quite different from the idea of the Silicon valley crowd taking over the present government and running it like a business (which is something that some Trumpists seem to have in mind). But states, like the US, are stationary bandits, organizations founded and based on aggressive violence (taxes, expropriations and war). We would not want such types of organizations run efficiently, just as we would not want a concentration camp run efficiently. Rather, we would want them to disappear.

As I indicated before, I do not follow Yarvin’s writings closely – too much rambling for my taste. But whatever little I can gather, he does not make it sufficiently clear whether it is the Liechtenstein model or the Silicon valley crowd model that he advocates.

I was made aware of Yarvin and his mentioning me on his Unqualified Reservations blog by a friend, may be some 10 years ago or so, and I met him once at about that time. Peter Thiel had invited me to speak about the failure of democracy, the different incentive structures of owners versus renters or caretakers, time preference etc., (Thiel had obviously read my democracy book) and Yarvin was one of the participants of that small, exclusive gathering.

As for the “reactionary” part of your question: with that I essentially mean nothing more than a return to normality or normalcy: men are men, women are women, a normal family is father, mother and children, people and groups of people are different and have different abilities, you are responsible for your own life and actions, don’t blame others for your own failures and mistakes, be kind and polite, reward success and don’t or punish failure – yes, there are exceptions, but they are exceptions and not the rule. The absurdities, perversions and deviations from this normal state of affairs that we see all around us today are the result of the present, over-blown welfare state that allows all too many weirdos and crazies to lead a parasitic life at the expense of a steadily decreasing number of productive people. There would be no political correctness or woke-ism of the kind we see today in any small community. Its proponents would be shunned and ostracized, and relegated to some sort of hippie colonies. – Here, in this regard I see some progress. More and more people are fed up with the all-too-obvious nonsense propagated and promoted by the “progressive left.” Trump and the Silicon valley types – and Yarvin as one of their influencers – have certainly helped in this development, which is not nothing or to be belittled, but it is not much. And in any case, modesty, which is part of a decent person, a gentleman, is definitely not the world’s greatest “deal-maker’s” strength.

Hope this helps and with best wishes Economy, Society, and ... Hoppe, Hans-Hermann Buy New $11.95 (as of 09:16 UTC - Details)

HHH

Dear Mr. Hoppe,

Thank you for this thoughtful response. I agree that Yarvin’s work seems to toggle between the “patchwork” statelet vision you outline (of many Lichtensteins) and the Government as a Business. I fail to see how the all-powerful Sovereign Corporation he outlines would not simply raid other smaller “SovCorps.” I think I may have heard about the meeting or something along those lines. Was it after Trump’s election and at Thiel’s house in Los Angeles? Or at another time?

All my best, and thanks,

Ava

The meeting took place about a year before Trump’s first term at Thiel’s residence in San Francisco.

HHH

And here, then, is The New Yorker.

The Best of Hans-Hermann Hoppe