Do you know of anything more I could add into this explanation of Hoppe’s “physical removal” bad-optics way of presenting freedom of association. Anti-Hoppeans: what are your STRONGEST arguments against my apologia? 😉

“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, . . . 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 toward 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.”

This is just freedom of association presented in a bad optics way along with recommendations that property owners can pursue in order to ensure that a libertarian society may exist for several coming generations, all the while of course not violating the NAP.

Remark that the physical removal in question will only happen within voluntary associations. The final sentence then is a prescription he argues property owners to do in order to maintain a libertarian order in the long term, all the while of course not advocating NAP-violations1. If one wants a libertarian society but take no measures, such as non-aggressive ones, to combat the increase of communism, then by definition the libertarian society will soon be overrun. The critiques regarding “non-family and kin-centered lifestyles” should be self-evident: if a libertarian society does not produce children, then there will not be a new generation to maintain the libertarian society. Again, what he says is not an endorsement to aggress.

Prosecution of democrats and communists can only happen insofar as they actually do crimes. The helicopter meme is a complete misinterpretation of this quote and an actual attempt at a fascist infiltration; you cannot kill people for merely asserting claims or having opinions – they have to first show criminal intent at least.

1 Hans-Hermann Hoppe even makes it very clear in the following quote:

> Many libertarians hold the view that all that is needed to maintain a libertarian social order is the strict enforcement of the non-aggression principle (NAP). Otherwise, as long as one abstains from aggression, according to their view, the principle of “live and let live” should hold. Yet surely, while this “live and let live” sounds appealing to adolescents in rebellion against parental authority and all social convention and control (and many youngsters have been initially attracted to libertarianism believing that this “live and let live” is the essence of libertarianism), and while the principle does indeed hold and apply for people living far apart and dealing with each other only indirectly and from afar, it does not hold and apply, or rather it is insufficient, when it comes to people living in close proximity to each other, as neighbors and cohabitants of the same community.

> A simple example suffices to make the point. Assume a new next-door neighbor. This neighbor does not aggress against you or your property in any way, but he is a “bad” neighbor. He is littering on his own neighboring property, turning it into a garbage heap; in the open, for you to see, he engages in ritual animal slaughter, he turns his house into a “Freudenhaus,” a bordello, with clients coming and going all day and all night long; he never offers a helping hand and never keeps any promise that he has made; or he cannot or else he refuses to speak to you in your own language. Etc., etc.. Your life is turned into a nightmare. Yet you may not use violence against him, because he has not aggressed against you. What can you do? You can shun and ostracize him. But your neighbor does not care, and in any case you alone thus ‘punishing’ him makes little if any difference to him. You have to have the communal respect and authority, or you must turn to someone who does, to persuade and convince everyone or at least most of the members of your community to do likewise and make the bad neighbor a social outcast, so as to exert enough pressure on him to sell his property and leave. …

> The lesson? The peaceful cohabitation of neighbors and of people in regular direct contact with each other on some territory – a tranquil, convivial social order – requires also a commonality of culture: of language, religion, custom and convention. There can be peaceful co-existence of different cultures on distant, physically separated territories, but multi-culturalism, cultural heterogeneity, cannot exist in one and the same place and territory without leading to diminishing social trust, increased tension, and ultimately the call for a “strong man” and the destruction of anything resembling a libertarian social order.