Is Hans Hoppe A Libertarian?

Letter 1
From: R
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 12:30 PM
To: Walter Block

just wanted to note that neither murray or paul think their abortion position violates the NAP (one or both may be wrong). . but Hoppe deliberately and repeatedly advocates violating the NAP to maintain stability of a libertarian society. that is a FUNDAMENTAL difference. hoppe doesn’t even bother to claim that he is not violating the NAP. that’s as non-libertarian as you can get. Did you review his booklet?

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 2:33 PM Walter Block <> wrote:

Dear R:

I don’t think that Hans thinks that his position violates the NAP. I think he thinks that his viewpoint supports the NAP.

I think you’re referring to my publication of 2004:

Block, 1998, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011A, 2011B; Block and Barnett, 2010; Block, Barnett and Salerno, 2006; Block and Callahan. 2003; Gregory and Block. 2007.

Block, Walter E. 1998. “A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration,” Journal of Libertarian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, summer, pp. 167-186;

Block, Walter E. 2004. “The State Was a Mistake.” Book review of Hoppe, Han-Hermann, Democracy, The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order, 2001May 25.

Block, Walter E. 2007. “Plumb Line Libertarianism: A Critique of Hoppe.” Reason Papers, Vol. 29, Fall, pp. 151-163;

Block, Walter E. 2009. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on indifference” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 12, No. 1: 52–59;

Block, Walter E. with William Barnett II. 2010. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on indifference, once again.” Reason Papers, Vol. 32, pp. 141-154;

Block, Walter E. 2010. “Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left: a critique of the views of Long, Holcombe, and Baden on the left, Hoppe, Feser and Paul on the right.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22: 127–70;

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “Hoppe, Kinsella and Rothbard II on Immigration: A Critique.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, pp. 593–623;

Block, Walter E. 2011B. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Immigration,” Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 22: pp. 771–792;

Block, Walter E., William Barnett II and Joseph Salerno. 2006. “Relationship between wealth or income and time preference is empirical, not apodictic: critique of Rothbard and Hoppe,” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 69-80;

Block, Walter E. and Gene Callahan. 2003. “Is There a Right to Immigration? A Libertarian Perspective,” Human Rights Review. Vol. 5, No. 1, October-December, pp. 46-71

Gregory, Anthony and Walter E. Block. 2007. “On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 21, No. 3, Fall, pp. 25-42;

Best regards,



Letter 3

From: R

Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 12:47 PM

To: Walter Block

Subject: Re:

he can’t possibly be so dumb as to think that calling for “the forcible removal of certain individuals from society based on what they think” is not a violation of the NAP. but of course, he is a german so …

and i’m referring to your 2019 review of hi 2018s”getting libertarianism right”

and how anyone can write a forward to a book entitled “white, right and libertarian” is totally beyond me. the title shouts out ‘racist’. despicable

Letter 4

Dear R:

In my view, Hans Hoppe is not only one of the pre eminent libertarians now writing, but he is one of the pre eminent libertarians who ever lived. He deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence with Mr. Libertarian, Murray Rothbard, and greater praise than that it is difficult for me to give. However, I agree with you that on this one point, he is in error.

To wit, he should have written here removal from a condo, or from a voluntary association, or from a club, not from “society” as a whole

Hoppe (2001, p. 218): “In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumberable things and promote almost any idea under the sun but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, 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.” Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2001. Democracy, the God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order, New Brunswick, N.J. Transaction Publishers

I don’t see anything wrong with the phrase: “white, right and libertarian.” I’m not politically correct.

Best regards,

Walter E. Block


1:46 am on January 27, 2020