Skip to main content

Degenerate Agorism

Of course cultural degeneracy shouldn’t be “normalized.” The fact is, the recent conversation propelled by some right-libertarians has been entirely fallacious from the get-go. Cultural decline is the direct result of central bankers manipulating the rate of interest & in no way justifies the initiation of force on otherwise peaceful people. It helps to understand the root causes of social phenomena. Degeneracy is a function of time preference. Those with a high time preference generally place a higher value on present conditions than future conditions. These folks are more likely to engage in risky behavior like drug use, sexual promiscuity, & binge eating - preferring present satisfaction over the long term consequences of their behavior. In contrast, those with a lower time preference place a higher value on future conditions than present conditions. Since adults with children have a vested interest in future conditions, they tend to fall in this category. Also, since consu

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

In Defense of Left Libertarianism

Marx was right, but Marxism is stupid. Let me explain… Marx’s fundamental critique that the working class is being exploited by the upper class is true. This is so inherently obvious in the modern political climate that I find it bewildering the notion even needs defending. In fact, today, the working class has been so thoroughly exploited that they can now be more accurately termed the working poor . Go to Manhattan, the neoliberal shithole from whence I came - and try to find a worker who both lives & resides there. You can’t. There aren’t any. The elites have successfully used a combination of high taxes & a denial of civil liberties to expel the working class from their homes. Trust me, I am among the expelled. The anarcho-capitalist habit of turning a blind eye to class theory is a grave mistake, as it sweeps real concerns under the rug. In doing so they dismiss the plight of an enormous contingent of the public - labor. No, we agorists aren’t seeking an abandonment of met

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

In Defense of Left Libertarianism, Part II

The early anarchists - the first anarchists, were undeniably leftists. In fact, the Father of Anarchy , William Godwin, sought the abolition of the state only insofar as it served as a means of achieving his true end, the elimination of private property. Godwin’s immediate ideological successors largely agreed. Pierre Joseph-Proudhon, Josiah Warren, Kropotkin, Tolstoy, Henry David Thoreau & Ben Tucker - all rejected the idea of private property to a greater or lesser extent. Under the influence of these thinkers, several attempts at more "equitable" communal living were made; all of which now litter the dustbin of history. Some, like the New Harmony colony, Brook Farm, the Oneida colony, or the Amana colonies, were lucky & either closed or converted to market-friendly models. Other communes like Jamestown, tell a much darker tale. But how much blame can we assign to these early anarchists for their economic shortcomings? If it’s true contemporary anarchists can see f