From Polcompball Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

"Egalitarianism, in every form and shape, is incompatible with the idea of private property. Private property implies exclusivity, inequality, and difference. And cultural relativism is incompatible with the fundamental----indeed foundational----fact of families and intergenerational kinship relations. Families and kinship relations imply cultural absolutism."

Hoppeanism, sometimes also referred to as Conservative Anarcho-Capitalism, is a Culturally right-wing tendency within Anarcho-Capitalism which puts emphasis on the importance of exclusionary behaviour (ostracism), communitarianism, social conservatism (and its compatibility and complementation with libertarianism), and the opposition to Democracy if one is to maintain the continuous existence of the libertarian social order.[7]

Despite being named after the German economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the ideology itself can be tracked back before Hoppe, to the founder of Anarcho-Capitalism, Murray Rothbard, as well as Lew Rockwell, in the form of the Paleolibertarian movement (although generally distinguished from the wider movement by being fundamentally Anarcho-Capitalist, instead of just generally). Hoppe having done some particular contributions, although these were generally also recognized by Rothbard, making it sort of redundant to call Hoppeanism an ideology of its own due to the fact that it overlaps with Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism almost entirely. The ideology is prominent within and associated with the think tank Mises Institute (as such it's represented by it's symbol).

Due to memes regarding the helicopters the ideology is associated with Pinochetism, although it is important to note that, despite this meme being quite popular within political communities, Hoppe, and most thinkers associated, do not actually favour throwing communists and socialists out of helicopters, merely favouring ostracism and exclusion from the property of the residents of certain "covenant community" (as he calls private communities).[8]. He also opposes NATO, which supported Pinochet.


Argumentation Ethics

One of the inputs which Hoppe made to Anarcho-Capitalism, although also recognized by Anarcho-Capitalism's creator, Murray Rothbard, as "a dazzling breakthrough for political philosophy in general and for libertarianism in particular"[9] is argumentation ethics, which could, in short, be defined as proof provided by Hoppe for the ethics of right-libertarian conception of property rights developed in 1988. It aims to prove that arguing against the right-libertarian interpretation of self-ownership (which extends the concept to include control of private property as part of the self[10]) is contradictory and thus not logically coherent. Although this, at first, could sound like something that would come to be a widely popular theory within Libertarian circles, the reception was mixed.[11]

To explain it briefly, Hoppe takes note that, to have an argument, one must presuppose self-ownership and thus certain norms, such as, and being the main one, non-violence among the participants, and that one must be able to act; these norms were named the "a priori of argumentation" (APoA) by Hoppe.
Hoppe then says that, to argue against Anarcho-Capitalism, which he argues is the most pure expression of self-ownership, is to argue against self-ownership itself, thus one's proposition must be denying the fundamental presupposed propositions of argumentation, while in the course of argumentation, denying their own self-ownership. Thus, if one argues against self-ownership, then they're involved in a performative contradiction which empties the argument of its meaning, since argumentation also presupposes the law of non-contradiction.[12]

Private Law Society

Following the teachings of Murray Rothbard, Hoppe uses Austrian economic theory to analyze the behavior of the state. He defines the state as the "monopoly over jurisdiction and tax collection within a territory" and assumes that it's only the personal interest of the functionaries of the state the reason why they utilize their monopolical privileges to maximize their own power and wealth.

To Hoppe, and many other Libertarians, especially within the Austrian tradition, a monopoly doesn't imply a big participation on certain market exercised by a corporation, but when there is lack of entrepreneurial freedom to enter certain market and produce certain good or service, as we can currently see with services such as law.
Under this perspective, monopolies can't appear, at least by definition, on a completely free market since they're always the result of some state policy which bans the competition on a market or subsidizes competitors within certain markets.
Coercive monopolies are detrimental to consumers since prices tend to go up and quality tends to go down to those that could be found on a completely free market. Similarly to Rothbard, Hoppe has conjectured that if the services now provided by the government could be provided by the free market, private insurances and law agencies would provide a better protection and more peaceful disputes resolution than the ones currently under the monopoly of the state.[13][14]

He has also theorized in favor of secession of small city-states or microstates as being favorable to individual liberty, as a transition towards definitive privatization, which is to say, a society of private law, as Hoppe calls it, or Anarcho-Capitalism. Related to it, he's also said that a One World Government is the logical consequence of the existence of the state, which naturally tends towards centralization and growth, and that being a non-anarchist and also being against centralization is non-consequential (comment directed to minarchists and classical liberalists, who are generally favorable to political decentralization, but also of a minimal state).[15]
He's also established which would be the criteria of contracts in a society of private right, especially regarding externalities and insurance/indemnities.

Austrian Class Analysis

In his essay, "Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis" Hoppe presents a comparative study of the Marxist and Austrian theoretical perspectives on class divisions and struggle.

Hoppe argues that while the Marxist perspective sees class struggle as a confrontation between the working class and the capitalist class, the Austrian perspective sees class struggle as a confrontation between the State and civil society.

Hoppe presents the Austrian perspective, which establishes the division between two very specific classes: the productive class and the non-productive class. Hoppe says that the capitalist class and working class are simply two groups within civil society that benefit each other through the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the market and not the exploitative relationship that the Marxists argue. On the other hand, the State, having a monopoly of force and the power to tax, benefits at the expense of society at large, instead of generating wealth the way the productive class does.

Hoppe argues that ultimately the class struggle in modern society is a struggle between the State and civil society and that the only way to defend ourselves from government power and protect the private property rights of citizens is through decentralization and the abolishment of the State, effectively eliminating the non-productive class, leaving the productive class free to prosper.

Theory of Comparative Government

In his book, titled as "Democracy - The God that Failed," Hoppe contrasts and compares western Hereditary Monarchies against Democratic Republics. To Hoppe, a dynastic monarch (a king or queen) is technically the owner of the country, at least from their point of view, since property is passed generationally, and is able to be sold; on the other hand a president elected democratically is like a "caretaker" or a "lessee."
Both the king and the president have incentives to exploit the country that they are in charge of in their self-gain, whether it's power, wealth, or both. The difference resides in the time preference of both. In the same way that the owner of a house has inherent interest in maintaining the house's "capital value" (contrasting with the tenant) in the long run, in a democracy, due to being temporal (with a higher time preference) rulers, functionaries democratically elected have all the incentives to sack the wealth of the productive citizens as soon and as fast as they're able to, without caring of anything that might happen to the country as a whole, much less caring about what might happen after their period in office is up, and, since they only have access to the government revenue but not to the actual capital, they only focus on increasing taxes without caring for its effect on the prosperity of the country, thus leading to more government exploitation and slowing the civilization process of increasing real incomes and decreasing social time preference more than a monarchical system (or even reversing it).
Another issue Hoppe sees with democracy, is that since what the public sector controls is inalienable (for instance, schools, public hospitals, police stations, or even the country itself) and doesn't have market prices, their value can't be calculated, thus not only exploitation will tend to increase but it will also do so less rationally.

Another argument that Hoppe presents is the "class consciousness" of the governed or ruled. Since the monarch is the owner of the state, the monarch will distribute jobs only to his family members, relatives, and friends. The monarch has little to no incentives to give jobs to the general population, doing this would let the people get ahold of his family's benefits. Because of this, we can say that in a monarchy, a sense of "class consciousness" develops within the general population. The people start seeing a clear and well-defined distinction between themselves and the ruling class, so the people fiercely protect their liberties. They resist any kind of high taxes and they see wars as the monarch's problem, not theirs. The monarch does not have the power to draft his subjects to the army and he is forced to hire mercenaries. The people also expect the monarch to fund his wars out of his own pocket. During the old monarchies, the rulers funded their wars with their own money, in democracies, on the other hand, since there is no clear distinction between the people and the rulers, a kind of emotional identification develops within the nation. Because of that, the people tolerate the draft and the taxes.

In June 2005, Hoppe gave an interview to the German newspaper "Junge Freiheit," where he qualified monarchy, although he's not a monarchist himself, as a lesser evil compared to democracy, and said "Liberty over Democracy!". In the same interview, Hoppe also condemned the French revolution and said it belonged in "the same group of vile revolutions such as the Bolshevik Revolution or the Nazi Revolution" since they all had provoked "regicide, egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred for religion, terrorist measures, mass looting, rapes, homicides, conscription, and an ideological and total war."[16]


The opinion of Hans-Hermann Hoppe on immigration[17][18] has been controversial, to say the least, among Libertarian circles, since traditionally, Libertarians defend liberty of movement as a key component of civil liberty and economic freedom. Hoppe has responded to these opinions by his critics, especially on the Left-Libertarian sphere, commenting in his book "Natural Order, The State, and The Immigration problem."

Another motive for the enthusiasm for open borders among modern Left-Libertarians is their egalitarianism. What got them into Libertarianism when they were young were the ideas of "anti-authoritarianism" and the aparent "tolerance" in particular towards "alternative" ways of life (non-bourgeois). Nevertheless, they have ended up stagnant in that phase of mental development once reached adulthood. They express special "sensibility" for any kind of discrimination as they find convenient, Left-Libertarians are living at the expense of others. They indulge in their "alternative" lifestyles without having to pay the usual price for such conduct, namely discrimination and exclusion. To legitimize such actions, they insist all lifestyles are equally acceptable. This leads first to multiculturalism, then to cultural relativism, and finally to “open borders”.[18]

This critique of Hoppe is based on the right of private property, by which legitimate residents of certain community have the right to exclude others from their property as they wish convenient, exercising their right to private property. It is clear, thus, that Hoppe, as many other Libertarians, understand that freedom is only able to exist if there is private property to carry it out.
As well as private owners being able to discriminate new-comers (and any kinds of people) as they see fit, they can also band together with other owners and forms pacts with the same purpose.


Related to the last point about property owners being able to discriminate against certain kinds of people as they deem convenient, Hoppe regarded exclusion towards certain kinds of people, whom he regarded as "undesirables," such as Communists and Democracy advocators, as a positive. He regarded these previously mentioned groups as a direct threat to liberty and property, especially in the long run.

Owners may agree on the creation of a covenant community and of a restrictive covenant of some sort, as a viable way of keeping certain groups out of the community. A community might establish some terms for the entry into said community and thus not let in those who do not agree with the terms. For example, by contract, in certain community, socialists may be excluded. However, Anarcho-Capitalist writer, Walter Block, has critiqued this conception of exclusionism saying that "It is entirely possible that some areas of the country, parts of Gotham and San Francisco for example, will require this practice, and ban, entirely, heterosexuality. If this is done through contract, private property rights, restrictive covenants, it will be entirely compatible with the libertarian legal code",[19] in short saying that this, what Hoppe proposes, can backfire and end up in the exclusion of what Hoppe defends, such as traditional ways of life, for example; thus making Anarcho-Capitalism neither (culturally) left-wing nor right-wing.


It is important to remember that Hoppeanism is first and foremost a rebranded version of Anarcho-Capitalism and is not separable from it. Nonetheless, Hoppe is controversial within Anarcho-Capitalist and Libertarian circles. With resentment of Hoppe (and Hoppe specifically) being in some cases so aggressive that it caused Murray Rothbard to coin the term 'Hoppephobia', and write an article on the topic.[20]


Hoppe created a hostile classroom environment by asserting that homosexuals tend to be more shortsighted than heterosexuals in their ability to save money and plan economically, in part because they tend not to have children. Hoppe also suggested that John Maynard Keynes's homosexuality might explain his economic views, with which Hoppe disagreed. Hoppe also stated that very young and very old people, and couples without children, were less likely to plan for the future.

How to Draw

Flag of Hoppeanism
  1. Draw a Ball.
  2. Draw the AnCap Flag.
  3. Draw the Von Mises Coat of Arms.
    1. Draw a 4 quarter Shield.
    2. Make Top-Right and Bottom Left quarters Light Blue and the other two light Grey.
    3. Through the Grey quarters draw a thick red line.
    4. (Optional) Draw an opened Bible in bottom left corner and a Caduceus in the top right
  4. Draw the eyes, and you're done.
Color Name HEX RGB
Yellow #FFFF00 255, 255, 0
Black #141414 20, 20, 20
Light Blue #007ED0 0, 126, 208
Light Gray #D8D2D5 216, 210, 213
Red #DA0B0D 218, 11, 13



  • Anarcho-Capitalism - I miss you, Murray.
  • Paleolibertarianism - Dearest father.
  • Austrian School - The superior economic school of thought. Mises was certainly the greatest economist of all time.
  • Korwinism - We have a shared appreciation for liberty, property and tradition.
  • Agorism - Counter economics is admirable. We must stop the left from acquiring further power and disobedience of the state is very much a practice to be promoted and celebrated.
  • Anarcho-Monarchism - Monarchy is much better at keeping the growth of the state in check, and we don't need a state to have a king!
  • Panarchism - I think you might be my new best friend.
  • Capitalism - I am your logical conclusion.
  • National Libertarianism - You are very wise, and a good friend. Though why do you actually like the constitution, I'll never know.
  • Libertarian Transhumanism - The advancement of technology is the only thing that has protected standards of living despite the damage that democracy has done to society.
  • Propertarianism - Landlords are chads.
  • Alt-Lite - You're on the right track, just remember that liberty is as essential to culture as culture is to liberty.
  • Reactionary Libertarianism - That's what I'm talking about also he's my Belgian counterpart and pal.
  • Traditionalism - Based and redpilled, so to speak.
  • Libertarian Monarchism - Europe of a thousand Liechtensteins!
  • Confederalism, Patchwork & Separatism - "Don't put your trust in democracy, but neither should you put trust in a dictatorship. Rather, put into radical political decentralization"
  • Anarcho-Pacifism - "To the contrary, it is only necessary that one decide to withdraw from the compulsory union and reassume one's right to self protection. Indeed, it is essential that one proceed in no other way than by peaceful secession and noncooperation."[21]
  • Seibtism - You're a beauty good girl.


  • Neoreactionaryism - You perfectly understand what is wrong with society, yet you still support the state.
  • Feudalism / Aristocracy - You did come close to the natural order, just stop it with the serfdom part.
  • Absolute Monarchism - You're infinitely better than democracy and infinitely worse than anarchy.
  • Alt-Right - Your ideology appeals way too much to mysticism over rationality, you obsess too much over the racial collective instead of the innate differences of individuals, you're also too much willing to make concessions to socialism as long it puts whites as beneficiaries, which it won't.[22] Nonetheless I appreciate that your representatives are willing to get familiar with the works of Rothbard,[23] and you're welcome to speak at my lectures. I hope I don't have to physically remove you.
  • National Capitalism - Your hatred of commies and degenerates is admirable, but your love of the state is not. Also, cool it with the anti-Semitic remarks, Mises and Rothbard were both Jewish.
  • Kahanism - Same goes for you, the state is not the way.
  • Pink Capitalism - I don't HATE you, just don't come close to me.
  • Hayekism - Not as good as Mises and a moderate Social Democrat[24], but still a great economist and a respected name in the Austrian school which is more than I can say about Friedman.
  • Monarcho-Capitalism - You are similar to him when it comes to statism, but your commitment to capitalism and property rights is more significant with you than with them, at least for now.
  • Ba'athism & Gaddafism - One almost wishes that Saddam Hussain would be back, that Gaddafi would be back, that the Assad would regain control in Syria and so forth.
  • Avaritionism - He doesn't believe in private property rights and he kinda scares me, but he hates the state and the left so he can't be all bad... right?
    • I believe only in that property, that you can protect!
  • Objectivism - I mean... it seems like you care about freedom. But your ideology contradicts itself constantly, and most importantly: Intellectual. Property. Is. Not. Real. Property.
  • Classical Liberalism - You're so bland. Tone down the statism, become a Misesian, and you'll be fine.
  • Neocameralism - Idk... he hangs out with Corporatocracy too much.
  • Paleoconservatism - He used to be cool but he's gone full authoritarian in recent years. Trade restrictions? Socialized healthcare? Did FDR and Lyndon Johnson teach you nothing about the dangers of welfare?
  • Libertarian Feminism - At least you care about freedom, but modern feminism has been corrupted by leftists... just don't become one of them OK?
  • Conservative Feminism - At least you care about maintaining conservative bourgeoisie morale, but again, don't become one of them.
  • Anarcho-Syndicalism - "Regarding socialist property that is not reclaimed in this way, syndicalist ideas should be implemented; that is, the ownership of assets should immediately be transferred to those who use them (...). To break up the mostly over-sized socialist production conglomerates, the syndicalist principle should be applied to those production units in which a given individual's work is actually performed (...). Unlike syndicalism, yet of the utmost importance, the property shares thus acquired should be freely tradeable and a stock market established so as to allow a separation of the functions of owner-capitalists and non-owning employees, and the smooth and continuous transfer of assets from less into more value-productive hands."[25]
  • Independence Anarchism - We both are separatist and anarchist, but you are still a leftist.
  • Post-Colonial Anarchism - Same as above.
  • Neozapatismo - "Here the people rule and the government obeys" sounds cool but that doesn't make you less of a tankie.
  • Welfare Chauvinism -"That is, they subsidize immigration- they force domestic taxpayers to subsidize immigration. In particular, they also subsidize domestic employers who contract foreign cheaper workers"[26]
  • Italian Left Communism -"We Both Dislike Democracy and Anti-Fascism"
  • Libertarian Municipalism - Leftist that likes ostrakysm too. But his cultural views are kinda cringe and anti-monarchist stances make me yawn.


  • Frankfurt School - I abandoned you because your doctrines are full of loopholes.

Further Information


Organizations related to Hoppe






  1. Democracy - The God that Failed, chapter 10, page 219 - "Libertarians, in their attempt to establish a free natural social order, must strive to regain from the state the right to exclusion inherent in private property. Yet even before they accomplish this and in order to render such an achievement even possible, libertarians cannot soon enough begin to reassert and exercise, to the extent that the situation still permits them to do so, their right to exclusion in everyday life. Libertarians must distinguish themselves from others by practicing (as well as advocating) the most extreme form of intolerance and discrimination against egalitarians, democrats, socialists, communists, multiculturalists, environmentalists, ill manners, misconduct, incompetence, rudeness, vulgarity, and obscenity. Like true conservatives, who will have to dissociate themselves from the false social(ist) conservatism of the Buchananites and the neoconservatives, true libertarians must visibly and ostentatiously dissociate themselves from the false multicountercultural and anti-authoritarian egalitarian left-libertarian impostors."
  2. Ordonaturalism as the Opposite of Anarcho-Tyranny: A New Conceptual Framework for the Right Libertarian
  3. Turns out, Anarcho-Capitalism ISN'T "Anarchy" by TIKhistory
  4. Democracy: The God That Failed, chapter 10, page 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 innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed 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."
  5. An Open Letter to Walter E. Block
  6. From Nation to Household
    Selected quotation: "The answer is a program of nationalist capitalism, or capitalistic nationalism. Like Francis' national socialism, the national capitalist program has an economic and a cultural component. The similarities of both programs lie in their cultural components. Both are proponents of cultural conservatism and traditional family-centered morality; both are decidedly Western and propose that America was - and should be - a white European Christian male dominated civilization, and hence both oppose all multi-counter-cultural-egalitarian measures and policies. Both programs differ fundamentally, however, regarding the economic policies which they would combine with this cultural conservatism. National socialism would combine its cultural conservatism with the economic politics of the left. But as was explained, these two programmatic elements are incompatible and cannot be successfully combined. In distinct contrast, national capitalism hies to combine cultural conservatism with traditional American laissez-faire capitalism as proposed by old-fashioned 'Austrian' school economists from Bob-Bawerk to Mises and Rothbard - the mortal enemies of the socialists of all stripes from Marx on up to his present social-democratic-liberal-neoconservative followers. In so doing, the national capitalist program has from the outset the distinctive advantage of combining what can - and indeed must - be combined if one wishes to reach one's set goal."
  7. Democracy - The God that Failed, chapters 1, 3, 9, and 10
  8. Hoppe speaks on Physical Removal - no helicopters, sorry
  9. Symposium (November 1988). "Hans-Hermannn Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Breakthrough or Buncombe?" (PDF). Liberty. 2 (2): 44–54.
  10. "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe; 1993
  11. Kinsella, Stephan (March 13, 2009). "Revisiting Argumentation Ethics". Mises Economics Blog. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
  12. "The Ultimate Justification of Private Property" (PDF). Hans-Hermann Hoppe (September 1988).
  13. The Idea of a Private Law Society by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (2006).
  14. Democracy - The God that Failed, ch. 12 "On Government and the Private Production of Defense", by Hans-Hermann Hoppe; 2001
  15. Democracy - The God that Failed, ch. 5 "On Centralization and Secession", by Hans-Hermann Hoppe; 2001
  16. "Freiheit statt Demokratie" Der libertäre Vordenker und bekennende "Antidemokrat" Hans-Hermann Hoppe über seine provokanten Thesen / The libertarian thought leader and avowed "anti-democrat" Hans-Hermann Hoppe on his provocative theses (2005).
  17. On Free Immigration and Forced Integration by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
  18. 18.0 18.1 Natural Order, The State, and The Immigration Problem by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (2002).
  19. Walter Block (Loyola University New Orleans), "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" published at Ludwig von Mises Institute website, pp. 22–23.
  20. Hoppephobia, Rothbard
  21. Democracy - The God that Failed, chapter 3
  22. Introduction to Getting Libertarianism Right, Sean Gabb
  23. Getting Libertarianism Right, chapter 3
  24. Why Mises (and not Hayek)? by Hans-Hermann Hoppe; 2011
  25. Democracy - The God that Failed, ch. 6 "On Socialism and Desocialization", by Hans-Hermann Hoppe; 2001
  26. Immigration and Libertarianism
  27. Democracy: The God That Failed, chapter 10, page 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 innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed 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."
  28. Democracy: The God That Failed, chapter 2, page 59
  29. Lew Rockwell, introduction to Hoppe's A Short History of Man(2015), Auburn, Mississippi: Mises Institute, p. 9