Skip to main content

Weathering With You: An Agorist Perspective

If someone asked you what your favorite emotion was, how do you think you’d answer? For many people, I suspect they would answer “Happiness”, “Joy'', or some variant of exclusively positive emotion. Someone may think more meticulously and answer with “Contentment”, which while a positive emotion has a lot of nuance attached to it. However my answer to that question is what I feel others would consider more orthodox: Bittersweet. Pleasure accompanied by suffering, not exactly most people’s first pick but from my perspective pain is necessary in order to enjoy the pleasure that life gives you. Perhaps I'm over-romanticizing but there’s something to desire from looking back fondly at times where you were hurting and seeing yourself in a better place in the present. Perhaps you finally have moved on from “The one who got away” and can look back on those times with fondness. Perhaps you are sharing stories of a friend or family member at their funeral and though they may never w

In Defense of Hoppe

One common misconception about agorism - one that’s even held by many agorists - is that we’re natural adversaries of Hans Hoppe, or that his & Konkin’s philosophies are mutually exclusive. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Agorists & Hoppeans are in fact, natural friends. True, agorists don’t advocate covenant communities or secession, and hoppeans don’t see counter-economics as the way forward - but there’s plenty of common ground nonetheless.

For one, agorists & hoppeans share a common legacy rooted in logic. Agorism is born out of the application of logical consistency to the socio-economic arena. Likewise, Hoppe was and is a master logician. Argumentation ethics is a purely logical argument and perhaps the most important academic contribution to the social sciences in the past 50 years.

Agorists and hoppeans also share an unparalleled mastery of economics. Whereas agorism exists exclusively in the economic sense, Hoppe’s mastery of economics imbued his followers with a deep understanding of the dismal science.

It’s also important to note the wide gap between Hoppe and internet hoppeans.

Despite what you hear on Twitter, Hoppe is neither a white supremacist nor a homophobe. It’s true he once landed himself in some hot water at UNLV while teaching students time preference. Hoppe explained that generally speaking, gays have a higher time preference than straights. This isn’t homophobic, but factual. People with children naturally have a future-oriented outlook because the well being of their offspring depends on future conditions. Nevertheless, one of his students took issue with this and tried to have Hoppe fired.

In a separate incident his critics point to, Hoppe wrote the foreword for a book by Chase Rachels on the right & libertarianism. When the title & cover debuted to the horror of both Hoppe & The Mises Institute, Hoppe promptly withdrew his permission & Rachels’ writings were scrubbed from Nevertheless, Rachels proceeded to use Hoppe’s writing without his permission.

It's true, we aren't likely to find agreement on the subject of immigration - but so what? Are we to let one issue separate us at a time when politicians are implementing a full on medical-police state? Agorists & Hoppeans have more numerous political disagreements with their own family members than with one another!

No, Hoppe is no foe to the agorist. Instead he’s one of the economic masters who’s work fundamentally underpins our lifestyle. Nor is the agorist foe to the Hoppean. After all, we seek a society built on Hoppe’s vision of private property & individual liberty.

Now isn’t the time for division over one highly nuanced issue. Let’s come together and focus on our common enemy, the State.


  1. please don't act like you speak for all of us. as an agorist, i want nothing to do with hoppe. if someone believes property owners have the right to establish racist communities, they are racist. that is not even arguable.

    1. hoppe wasn't even an anti-statist, so our common enemy isn't even the same...

  2. This doesn't really seem like much of a defense. There are few arguments defending Hoppe, and most of them deal with separating him from his followers. The argument about his ideas, about argumentation ethics, is flawed, because not only Agorists like Roderick Long critiquing its vagueness and logic issues, but also other Anarcho-Capitalists like David Friedman. While both Agorists and Hoppe might share a value of logic, they are in disagreement with the logical consistency of Hoppe's arguments and his argumentation ethics.
    As for "a mastery of economics", while it can be said that they both have a connection of economic understanding via Rothbard, each of their masteries are in conflict with each other, with Hoppe advocating only for Capitalism (specifically a free market kind), while vehemently being against any form of Socialism, while Agorism defends free markets, while still in conflict with the idea of Capitalism, and also being open to a version of Socialism based of free markets, too. That's not getting into differences in regards to class theory, which is a part of Agorist economic theory. There is some overlap in ideas with Hoppe, yes, but pure agreement? Too much of an exaggeration.
    As for the other, non-theory arguments, it is true that in that comment on homosexuality, he was talking how being parents affected decisions (though wanting to be a parent, and choosing to plan for it, is not limited to those who are straight). It is also true that he compared homosexuality with pedophilia, labelling homosexuality as "perverse". As for the white supremacy point, good on Hoppe for rejecting Rachels; doesn't help that his theory allows for racism, as well as advocating for immigration restrictions that would theoretically allow a "pro-European immigration bias" (so a mix of the immigration and racism issues that many left libertarians, including many agorists, are against).
    It is good to have some form of libertarian unity, I agree; but this is an overall sloppy defense for an ideology that is at direct odds with Agorism, if not with libertarianism in general.

    1. *not only are
      small grammatical correction for third sentence

  3. He's reworked solid Austrian Economic logic to create a bordertarian, statist philosophy aimed at a larger audience: namely the almost universally undesirables, those seeking to establish exclusive inbreeding communities based on the fallacy of "race". Not to knock Austria, because I've had some great times in those mountains, but the visuals of him addressing an audience of alt-righter's in his creepy accent gives off an aura so toxic, it's literally ended over a century of Austrian School generational lineage from advancing any further. Should have taken a note form Mises and never compromised his core values for acceptance.

  4. Thank you for this perspective. There is much I am learning from both of these perspectives.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Truth About Global Warming

Libertarians who deny the existence of global warming run the risk of making us all look like a bunch of illiterate fools. Much like economics, being ignorant of planetology or climate science isn't a crime, but having a "loud and vociferous" opinion on the subject while remaining in a state of ignorance can be a dangerous thing. And frankly, the science behind climate change is elementary. Sunlight enters our atmosphere and warms our planet. Earth then gives off that heat in the form of infrared radiation (this is the same principle behind those cool goggles our collapsitarian friends have). However, and this is a crucial point - the CO₂ molecules in our atmosphere do not allow IR to easily escape back into space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. As the temperature of the planet increases, polar ice caps melt and eventually surface water will begin to evaporate. Since H₂0 also prevents IR from escaping our atmosphere, the additional water vapor only compound

The Counter-Economics of COVID

In March 2020 - some say earlier, but by March 2020 at latest - the banking had sector collapsed. In response, coronavirus was manufactured as a scapegoat to justify the liquidity injection necessary to keep the Federal Reserve’s ponzi scheme alive. The State’s narrative would henceforth be: ‘Since all businesses were shut down, an unprecedented amount of money must be printed and distributed to the public.’ Milton Friedman’s helicopter money had come to fruition. But like a junkie chasing his initial high, the Fed had become immune to the effects of monetary stimulus. Each injection requiring a stronger, more potent dose of cheap & easy money. Less than two years later, and the effects of that stimulus have now waned & the banksters are poised to pull off another heist. As the business cycle continues to ebb and flow until the day of final reckoning, the State can be expected to behave in an increasingly erratic fashion. Like a cornered cat, or a fish out of water, the State

The Trouble With Dave Smith

  On the issues, Dave & most agorists can find agreement 99 out of 100 times, but as libertarians we have a habit, a pastime - a duty even, to seek out & argue over the 1% of things we don’t agree on. In keeping with that tradition friends, I've got to tell you, when it comes to strategy, Dave Smith seriously fumbles the ball. The fundamental issue is that @comicdavesmith is interested in creating libertarians, whereas agorists are interested in creating liberty. Dave has a classic case of @perbylund ’s Savior Complex - the irrational desire of individualists to save the collective whole of society. There are lots of problems with this, but even if creating libertarians is a worthy goal, does that mean the Libertarian Party is the best vehicle to accomplish this task? Has anything the Libertarian Party ever done caused even a slight retreat of statism? Dave rightly points to his own success at spreading the message of liberty. It's true, no one - save Ron Paul or Tom