History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
It's the same old story, time and again. Here's how it goes:
1. A professor says something bad about a minority group.
2. Angry protests follow.
3. The professor acts hurt; his supporters close ranks. They say the protesters are just a bunch of thought police with a hidden agenda of political correctness.
4. Everyone who supports good old fashioned American freedom must side with the professor, because true freedom means standing up for unpopular ideas. (And need I remind you that liberals and minorities hate freedom?)
Bleh. I would be more impressed if the ideas in question really were daring, counterintuitive, or unpopular. But they seldom are. Instead they're the same tired old stereotypes that everyone grows up believing anyway. Some bravery that is, standing up for the conventional wisdom.
Here's something, though, that the conventional wisdom will not tell you: Dressing up chauvinism with a lot of"we-love-freedom" platitudes doesn't make it any less chauvinistic. And I am no less a lover of freedom if I happen to call your chauvinism by its proper name.
I have no problem with pointing out the demographic, sociological and economic trends, whether flattering or embarrassing, of gays as a group -- assuming that any such data actually exist. I challenge Hoppe or any other academic to point to any reliable study on the subject of gay life-cycle economics. We don't even have reliable Census data on gays (and don't get me started on polling data) -- we're now going to start making sweeping pronouncements about comparative risk-aversion and financial planning in gay versus straight households? [Emphasis added.]
"Academic freedom" does not include the freedom to lie or to"make stuff up." If you want to be politically (sociologically?) incorrect in the spirit of Charles Murray, then be my guest and more power to you. But you better damn well have some numbers to back it up. Otherwise you're just another bigot.
So sure: Freedom does mean standing up for unpopular views, even if they are about women or minorities. Freedom, though, also includes the right to condemn shoddy scholarship, the right to point out hasty generalizations, and the right to look askance at overly convenient generalities.
With that, I'm off to have some unsafe sex... and to make a bunch of bad economic choices. And if you disagree with me, you're just caving in to political correctness.
Considering how I specifically said that an occasional misstatement isn't sufficient to fire someone, I fail to see how you can make your last comment, even if what I said turns out to be false. It is true that I based my claims on several other materials. Yes, there was this article...
...which makes my inference reasonable to say the least. Be sure to read it all--are you quite certain you want to put Hans Hoppe forward as such a great economic expert? His ideas strike me as altogether dubious, and I suspect that you might feel the same (that is, if you weren't so inclined to disagree with me purely out of reflex).
Lastly, given how Jim Lindgren of the Volokh Conspiracy...
...has recently cited some examples of what Hoppe might have meant regarding homosexuals, and how all of these examples of short-range planning are BOTH quite negative (drugs, multiple sex partners, smoking) AND quite doubtful (research methods are difficult to apply to a population that prefers to remain unseen for obvious reasons), I think my original comment was fully justified.
So... By my standards, I gave something of an informal lecture. I was challenged by a listener (you), and I have provided evidence to back my claims. I can hardly believe that I am the one who needs to apologize, and I am not going to do so.
Bill Woolsey -
2/8/2005
I didn't criticize you for not being at his
lecture.
What I am criticizing is the following false
statement:
"The current reincarnation has a professor of economics claiming that gays make bad economic decisions"
How do I make sense of your statement?
Was it a mistake? That you don't know what
goes on in a Money and Banking class. That
you think that it is about evaluating the quality
of the economic decisions of different groups?
Nothing in the material in your link suggests
that Hoppe said that gays make bad economic
decisions.
I have taught Money and Banking many times. I
also have some notion of the various peculiar
views Rothbardians have about Money and Banking.
While I would like to know exactly what Hoppe
said, and also why anyone would have a lecture
in a Money and Banking entitled "economic planning,"
I'm pretty sure where time preference fits into
the Rothbardian theory of saving, interest, and further,
into money and banking.
Now, there is an alternative interpretation. You just
lied. Reading all the material, you saw that
Hoppe said nothing like gays make bad economic
decisions. You just made that up to attack Hoppe.
I went with the more charitable interpretation.
I believe you should apologize for your statement
that Hoppe claimed that gays make bad economic
decisions.
At best you jumped to an odd conclusion. At
worst, you lied.
Should such a fraud be strong enough to remove your
tenure?
Jason Kuznicki -
2/8/2005
It staggers the imagination to think that these examples were offered in the spirit of hypothesis. They were given, so far as I understand, as evidence to illustrate a point. Of course childless couples will exhibit less long-range economic planning on average. But controlling for the presence of children, age, and the like, will homosexuals also exhibit less long-range economic planning? If it can't be substantiated, or if the substantiation is very thin (which I think it is), then this idea needs to remain in the realm of hypothesis--and not be offered or defended as an unproblematic fact, which appears to be what Hoppe has done.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche -
2/8/2005
And if there is no empirical data? Are we not to theorize or hypothesize then until we have it? (Leaving aside, for the moment, that Austrian economic theory, as such, does not make empirical generalizations or claims.) If I am not mistaken, Hoppe clarified that he was merely making logical generalizations, not 100% precise and all-encompassing statements of how all members of certain classes of people behave. It doesn't seem like empirical evidence is necessary here. He has already demonstrated his logic. Is the logic itself faulty? His generalizations seem reasonable to me, at least reasonable enough to be used as examples illustrating a theory.
Now...he may have emphasized the homosexual aspect of his example too much, and that may (or may not) represent personal prejudices on his part, but this seems to me to be another question entirely. I don't know Hoppe nearly well enough to be making judgments on his character and I doubt you do either.
Jason Kuznicki -
2/8/2005
"Is Hoppe supposed to cite all the facts backing up everything he says in class now?"
I would expect a lecturer to be able to back up anything he says if challenged on it in the days following the lecture. If he finds that he cannot, then I would think it appropriate for him to retract his statement. The documentation doesn't have to come beforehand as in a formal presentation, but if it can't be produced at all, well, I think it's clear that there is a problem.
Jason Kuznicki -
2/8/2005
Bill, I'm sorry. I hadn't realized that you were at the lecture, and that you heard firsthand everything that happened.
Or were you NOT at the lecture? And if you weren't, then how do you presume to criticize me for not being there?
I am aware that "high risk preference" does not necessarily mean bad decision making. But when the risks that have been mentioned in this debate include smoking, drug use, and having multiple sex partners, I think it's pretty clear what he was getting at. Throw in the slurs directed at Tom Palmer, and there really isn't any doubt.
But then, I'm probably too dim to understand this stuff, and you shouldn't even bother with me. I'm just an ignorant historian.
(Oh, and your claim that history is about the memorization of facts really just shows how little you know about the discipline. But then, what would I know?)
Geoffrey Allan Plauche -
2/8/2005
Not to take sides on either side of the issue regarding the appropriateness of Hoppe's comments (if what he said was motivated by mere personal prejudice then shame on him, if not then not), but...
Granted there is a need to not pass off personal prejudices as science in our classes, but it seems a bit of a stretch to be claiming what Hoppe said was mere personal prejudice. From the context of his class, it seems to me he was extending generalizations in a logical way, from unmarried, childless heterosexuals to unmarried, childless homosexuals, etc. One might question the empirical accurateness of his claims, but Hoppe could retort that he is making either commonsensical arguments or apriori arguments or both. Moreover, since when did classroom lectures require the same degree of scholarly source-citing and footnoting that journal publications do? Is Hoppe supposed to cite all the facts backing up everything he says in class now? And are you willing to extend this requirement to all professors in all universities regardless of subject matter, political orientation, and whatnot?
Geoffrey Allan Plauche -
2/8/2005
Not to take sides on either side of the issue regarding the appropriateness of Hoppe's comments (if what he said was motivated by mere personal prejudice then shame on him, if not then not), but...
Granted there is a need to not pass off personal prejudices as science in our classes, but it seems a bit of a stretch to be claiming what Hoppe said was mere personal prejudice. From the context of his class, it seems to me he was extending generalizations in a logical way, from unmarried, childless heterosexuals to unmarried, childless homosexuals, etc. One might question the empirical accurateness of his claims, but Hoppe could retort that he is making either commonsensical arguments or apriori arguments or both. Moreover, since when did classroom lectures require the same degree of scholarly source-citing and footnoting that journal publications do? Is Hoppe supposed to cite all the facts backing up everything he says in class now? And are you willing to extend this requirement to all professors in all universities regardless of subject matter, political orientation, and whatnot?
Bill Woolsey -
2/8/2005
The quotation doesn't reflect my views.
"If we were all really committed libertarians,
we could work with people who despise our personal
habits--realizing that fighting U.S. imperialism
is of key importance."
I didn't follow Rothbard in his return to
the right. I stuck with the mainstream view,
libertarianism is neither right nor left.
I was expressing my views as to what paleos
think about non-paleos. They didn't
worry about the non-paleos personal habits as
long as they were towing Rothbard's line.
It is when they failed to follow the twist, that
the abuse began. I think the abuse (Gayto,
Tom Palmer as the gay ambassador, whatever..)
is awful. (Of couse, it is that "fractional
reserve banking is fraud" business that puts the
paleos beyond the pale in my opinion.)
"But when someone who "despises my personal habits" does so with facts that don't stand up to scrutiny or that can't at all be well documented"
I guess this says it all. The ignorant undergraduate,
no doubt daydreaming like most, perks up with the
homosexuality comments. Like some significant portion
of the class, he has no idea what any of this stuff
is really about. But he hears the claim about the
time preference of homosexuals as being an insult
to homosexuals.
And you are doing the same, with the difference that
you weren't even there for the rest of the lecture.
High time preference, shorter time horizon, less saving--
you imagine that means poor decision making.
You even imagine that a high risk preference means poor
decision making.
Risk preference and time preference are concepts
economists use to describe decisions people make.
Generally, entreprenuers are characterized as
having a high risk preference--and that isn't
considered a bad thing.
What do you think Money and Banking is about? Teaching
people how to manage their funds? Teaching them that
they should be like middle-aged heterosexuals and save
alot and put their money in low risk investments?
That young people, old people, and gays are bad
because they don't save or else take excessive risks?
What did you think the comment about old people
meant? That old people are senile and make bad
economic decisions? The idea was that they
don't save much (or I think that is what Hoppe
meant.) Now, does that mean that all old people
don't save much? No, some do. Some old people
live off the income from their assets and don't even
consume all of it. I suspect there are some that
even consume less and accumulate assets faster in
their old age. But most old people are using all
of their income from assets and selling off assets
in their old age to fund retirement. It isn't bad.
It is the rational thing to do in their circumstance.
By the way, generally dissing empirical research regarding homosexuals doesn't support your case
that Hoppe's mentioning the conventional wisdom is unjustified.
Let me get this straight. We don't have good
information as to who is homosexual, so we don't
really know that lots of gay people have aids.
So the notion that whatever activity got them aids
isn't making old age less likely and so providing
less motivation to save.
Maybe, but I wouldn't lambaste someone who held
to the conventional notion that there are a good
number of gay people who don't need to be worrying
about old age.
Your personal habits are no more relevant to the
discussion of factors related to saving (with high
risk taking plausibly leading to less saving) than
would be some old plutocrat who proudly insisted
that he was adding to the family capital at an
especially high rate during his elder years.
The gay example just connects with the students.
Given these arguments, you would expect gay people
to save less because they are less likely to have
children.
And, on top of that, they have a high death rate,
so they are less likely to provide for retirement.
Oddly enough, Keynes, an economist notorious for
damning saving and downplaying the negative effects
of budget deficts--was gay. Some economists say
there is a connection.
The students who are paying attention see an
unusual application of the concept. Something
that they are focused upon--sexuality--is tied
to that boring economics crap.
Maybe it makes it memorable. The ones who aren't paying attention perk up and are probably at a bit
of a loss.
Blah, blah blah, homosexuals have shorter planning
horizons...What?
And one interprets it as being an insult
to gays.
No doubt because he wasn't paying attention and
is a bit dim anyway.
Hey, men generally live shorter lives than women.
They also take greater risks. So men should be
expected to have shorter planning horizons and
save less than women.
Gee, that hurt my feelings. A real put down on
men.
I guess it is just an economist thing. You
wouldn't understand.
Jason Kuznicki -
2/8/2005
"If we were all really committed libertarians,
we could work with people who despise our personal
habits--realizing that fighting U.S. imperialism
is of key importance."
I apologize for being less pure than thou. But when someone who "despises my personal habits" does so with facts that don't stand up to scrutiny or that can't at all be well documented, I respond. And I don't care if it is in a history class or an economics class. Merely being an economist doesn't give you any license to play fast and loose with the facts.
So how does one measure gay economic activity? As mentioned in the main post, there is no reliable census data. Do you go to gay bars? Gays who don't smoke will avoid them, as will many gays who are already in long-term partnerships. (I'm asthmatic and have been in the same partnership for most of my adult life. It's been eight months since I set foot in a gay bar, and I can't even remember the time before that.) What about gay community centers? Again, only a small subset of gay people will ever go there. How about STD clinics? (Don't laugh--Paul Cameron actually did this, and his "facts" have been cited again and again by the religous right.)
So just show me the facts--I trust I still have the academic freedom to demand them.
M.D. Fulwiler -
2/8/2005
Oh come on, Justin! Nobody here at Liberty & Power has said that Professor Hoppe should be fired or not get his pay increase. But can't we have a debate on the merits of what he said, and is it too much to ask that Professor Hoppe provide some actual evidence for his assertions? I mean, if a professor of Astronomy claims that there is a new planet beyond Pluto, its generally agreed that he should provide some evidence. Likewise, if you assert that George Bush has done something bad over at antiwar.com, we appreciate some evidence to back it up. So, is it too much to expect Professor Hoppe to provide a little evidence for his assertions? We are ~all~ agreed on the issue of academic freedom.
Bill Woolsey -
2/8/2005
Money and Banking classes are not generally
about the the financial behavior of various
groups. I wonder to what degree some comments
I have read (say on those history lists) involve
ignorance about what economists do.
Some basic review of what saving
means and why it might be done is
relevant.
It has to do with saving, investment, interest
rates, and monetary policy.
I know I briefly discuss factors that influence
saving and investment in my Money and Banking
class.
Probably nearly every person in Hoppe's class
was young. And apparently, Hoppe made the
standard life-cycle hypothesis claim that young
people don't allocate much current income to future
consumption.
Should all of them become offended because he was
putting down young people?
Similarly, he apparently mentioned that old people
don't save much. Is that an insult to the old?
There is also a standard "overlapping generations"
model that applies to saving.
That model doesn't work too well for people who don't
have decendants.
It is reasonable for people who have no decendents
to fail to save funds to bequest to decendents.
As for the risky behavior business, it is reasonable
for someone who has a good chance of dying early to save
less for old age.
Generally, the notion that people allocate some
consumption to future generations makes sense.
Gee, doesn't it seem that this suggests that
homosexuals would save less?
And with so many homosexuals dying of aids, perhaps
provision for old age isn't sensible. (Though
saving for future health care might be.)
And, by the way, that creates a testable hypothesis for
the theory. If gay people did turn out to save the
same amount as nongay people, then it would be evidence
that likelihood of future progeny isn't important to
saving behavior. That would imply that the overlapping
generations model is faulty.
So, the notion that first one would do demographic
studies before mentioning this implication of the
approach, gets it entirely wrong.
It almost sounds like someone thinks of economics
as being something where one learns various facts,
like "in the late twentieth century, young Americans
saved remarkably little." Hmmm....sounds like
a historian.
As for the Keynes remark--well, that's the best part.
Keynes' odd statement that "in the long run we are all
dead" is pretty awful in my opinion. Maybe, being gay,
Keynes didn't anticipate having any children or
grandchildren to worry about--in the long run.
It fits in with that odd implication of the overlapping
generations model regarding people less likely to have
children.
Now Hoppe, being a Misean, has all sorts of slightly
odd twists on orthodox saving, investment, and interest
rate theory.
And the theory has to be purely a priori.
I'm sure that makes it all come out a bit different
than it would in my class.
Still, it sounds so innocuous.
Anyone else think that this is really just an
excuse to get Hoppe.
The plan is for him to get mad and quit.
From the point of view of UNLV, his radical
libertarianism might be a bit of an embarrassment.
His version of libertarianism might be even worse
than usual from their point of view.
And it might not be disconnected. If I have
understood things correctly, his efforts to
attack other factions of the libertarian movement
have been over the top.
Rothbard claimed that the reason why boomer libertarians, after following him out of the
right in the early seventies, failed to follow
him back into the right in the late eighties
was that they had personal habits that conservatives
find immoral. Drug abuse or participation
in orgies have been mentioned, but homosexuality
is clearly on the list.
If we were all really committed libertarians,
we could work with people who despise our personal
habits--realizing that fighting U.S. imperialism
is of key importance.
Hoppe seems to emphasize that ad hominem sort of
attack on non (and really anti-) paleos.
Jason Kuznicki -
2/7/2005
The easiest gays to find in population studies are inevitably the ones who identify with the high-visibility elements of gay culture. These include clubs, bars, baths, and so forth... and so I'm not surprised when findings like these turn up. But the gays who aren't into the "gay scene" aren't going to be so obvious, even (especially?) to researchers in the gay community. Given the obvious technical difficulties, the evidence seems tenuous at best.
Steven Horwitz -
2/7/2005
There's been a long discussion of whether the empirical claim has evidence behind it over at Volokh.com. You can try this link http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_02_00.shtml#1107679283
but it seems like their archives aren't working right. If you hit volokh.com and scroll down to the first entry under Feb 6th, you'll see the latest along with other links. My reading is that there is evidence greater than zero for it, but whether it's a "preponderance" is not clear at all.
Jason Kuznicki -
2/7/2005
"What he *was* saying was that gays' planning horizons are likely to be less long-term because they tend not to have children, in much the same way that childless heterosexuals would be and for the same reason."
Did he present any evidence for either of these claims? And if not, could he do it after the fact? If he can't provide the evidence, then he should not have been making the claim.
Steven Horwitz -
2/7/2005
Jason,
Your argument is well-taken, but I think misrepresents Hoppe in one crucial way. He was not saying that gays make "bad" economic decisions. What he *was* saying was that gays' planning horizons are likely to be less long-term because they tend not to have children, in much the same way that childless heterosexuals would be and for the same reason. To the extent that gays/lesbians as a group are more likely to be childless than heterosexuals, Hoppe's argument suggests that they, as a group, are likely to have shorter planning horizons. This might be true or false. It might be evidence of bigotry. But it does NOT say gays "make bad economic decisions." There's nothing inherently good or bad about having a shorter planning horizon. It's just one aspect of economic behavior that might differ among individuals or groups.
And, it seems to me, it's an empirical question whether or not it's true with respect to gays. But even if true, if the *real* issue is childlessness, then THAT should have been the point Hoppe made. It might be true that gays have shorter horizons, but to focus on the question of orientation, rather than the intervening variable of childlessness, invites precisely the reaction that has taken place.
Given other things that Hoppe has said in other places, it isn't surprising he chose to focus on the orientation question rather than the real issue of childlessness.
Justin Raimondo -
2/7/2005
Oh god, I see the Thought Police are striking back on "Liberty and Power." No doubt they'll come up with a rationalization for purging poor Hans -- but arguing with these people, as with religious fanatics, is a complete waste of time.
