Professor Hoppe’s monograph Kritik der kausalwissenschaftlichen Sozialforschung: Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung von Soziologie und Ökonomie [Critique of Causal Scientific Social Research: Studies on the Foundation of Sociology and Economics] (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1983) has been translated into English by Andreas Tank. This monograph based is the published version of his “Habilitation” thesis, in Sociology and Economics, 1981, from the Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main.
It is available here (pdf; word) and pasted below.
Long time PFS member Frank Van Dun‘s work Het Fundamenteel Rechtsbeginsel (originally published 1983 and 2008)1 has been translated into English as The Fundamental Principle of Right/Law: An Essay on the Foundations of Right/Law, trans. Rembert Moesick (pdf). (Grok suggests the following title: The Fundamental Principle of Right: Foundations of Justice andLaw, but we are going with the translator’s title for now.)2 It may be published more formally later and a list of referenced works by author is being prepared by the translator, which I will upload when it is available. For now, enjoy. [continue reading…]
I asked the translator about the translation of the title. In his reply, he said that it refers to one principle, which can be simplified to “to each their own,” and that the translation for the concept “right/law” “speaks to a more fundamental issue that I have not been able to resolve. … “Beginsel” means “fundamental principle”, “Recht” has no direct translation. I am not sure on how to best deal with this, so I opted for the “law/right” approach, and addressed the issue in the introduction. Another option would be to run a find and replace on “law/right” => “recht.” [↩]
I’m pleased to announce the results of a project I’ve been working on with other libertarians for some time: The Universal Principles of Liberty (finalized and published Aug. 14, 2025).
I’d like to explain here how this came about.
I’ve been a libertarian since I was in high school and increasingly involved over the years learning about liberty and have devoted a lot of time to developing libertarian ideas, by my speaking and writing,1 and even in various forms of activism. Yes, despite my regular criticisms of activists and activism, I of course have participated in activism of various types—debating with family and friends and others, voting, participating in various groups; joining the Libertarian Party years ago and now serving on its Judicial Committee.2
Resignation from the Scientific Advisory Board of the Ludwig von Mises Institute Germany
On 13 July 2025, Prof. Dr. Rolf W. Puster, Prof. Dr. Jörg Guido Hülsmann and Prof. Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe declared their resignation from the Scientific Advisory Board of the Ludwig von Mises Institute Germany. Only two of the original five members remain on that Board.
Below, Puster, Hülsmann and Hoppe explain the reasons for their resignation.
Longtime PFS speaker1 Italian legal scholar Alessandro Fusillo (@AlessandroFusi9) appeared on the youtube show below, El Niño Speaks, with very interesting comments about Italy’s Populist Right and also touching on Javier Milei near the end.
The Youtube transcript as cleaned up by Grok is below, as well as a summary. Note Professor Hoppe and others at PFS have also been critical of Milei or debated his performance.2[continue reading…]
It was not included previously in the podcast since the video had been lost and I had assumed the audio had also been lost. However, I recently discovered the audio files for two of the speeches as well as Professor Hoppe’s Introductory and Concluding remarks had been preserved, namely those listed below. They are podcast here for the first time.
Grok summary of article: H.L. Mencken’s conservatism, as explored in Benjamin Marks’ essay, is a defining trait that sets him apart as a libertarian thinker who held low expectations for societal reform. Unlike typical conservatism, Mencken’s brand is rooted in a deep skepticism of government and religion, viewing them as historically optimistic overreaches that clash with true conservative doubt. He saw many societal problems as insoluble or unlikely to be addressed due to human folly, yet found entertainment in the pretentiousness of events and the futility of reform efforts. His libertarianism was not driven by a desire to convert others but by a commitment to truth, expressed through sharp, clear prose that prioritized self-expression over activism.
Mencken’s approach was neither nihilistic nor despairing; he embraced the world’s flaws with a light-hearted cynicism, finding joy in critiquing its absurdities without expecting change. He believed people’s gullibility and resistance to reason made libertarian ideals unattainable in the near term, a view reinforced by his observations of failed revolutions and reforms that often worsened conditions. Marks argues that Mencken’s consistent, principled stance—free of moral indignation—offers libertarians a radical perspective: not as a competing utopianism, but as a clear-eyed rejection of romantic solutions. His influence, though significant in literature and culture, never popularized libertarianism, underscoring his realism about human nature and societal inertia.
Grok summary of transcript:
Two-Paragraph Summary for Show Notes
0:00–9:00: The speaker begins by expressing gratitude for being invited to the Property and Freedom Society conference, acknowledging the late Neville Kennard, a fervent supporter who passed away in June. Kennard, despite his frail condition, remained passionate about libertarianism, wearing a Rothbard “Enemy of the State” shirt during the speaker’s visit. The speaker introduces the topic, “H.L. Mencken as a Libertarian Model,” contrasting Mencken’s approach with Murray Rothbard’s. Mencken, unlike Rothbard, had no expectations of influencing society, viewing politics as entertainment and government as pathetic yet amusing. His pessimism, rooted in reason, led him to describe himself as a “specialist in human depravity,” focusing on diagnosing societal flaws rather than proposing solutions. This perspective, the speaker argues, is more realistic than Rothbard’s optimistic belief in a long-term libertarian revolution, as outlined in Rothbard’s 1965 essay, which the speaker dismisses as clichéd romanticism.
9:01–19:38: The speaker critiques libertarian optimism by addressing common arguments, such as the internet’s role in spreading libertarian ideas or the belief that economic crises will awaken people to libertarianism. Mencken’s responses, as interpreted by the speaker, highlight counterpoints: easy access to statist propaganda negates the internet’s benefits, and crises often lead to more government intervention. The speaker also challenges the romanticism of Albert J. Nock’s concept of the “remnant,” quoting Nock to show his own pessimism about societal change. Marcus Aurelius is cited to underscore the futility of expecting posthumous recognition. The speaker concludes by suggesting that libertarians can still find joy in critiquing government absurdities, as evidenced by the lively PFS speakers. For optimists, the speaker humorously recommends following Gina Rinehart, a wealthy Australian secessionist, as a potential catalyst for libertarian progress, while emphasizing Mencken’s view that libertarianism is about personal enjoyment, not necessarily societal change.
0:01–15:00: The speaker, invited by Professor Hoppe to the Property and Freedom Society, opens with a reflection on speaking in a “temple of knowledge and liberty,” humorously referencing Roman customs of covering one’s head in temples, except for Kronos, the god of time, who reveals all truths. The talk focuses on historical crimes of expropriation and restitution in post-communist Eastern Europe, challenging the misconception that nationalization was exclusive to communism. The speaker outlines three forms of governmental theft—inflation, taxation, and mass expropriation—emphasizing the latter’s violence and prevalence across the 20th century, from the Balkan Wars to post-World War II population transfers. Specific examples include the expulsion of 3 million Germans from Czechoslovakia under President Beneš’s decrees, which nationalized 80% of the economy by 1948, and the broader displacement of millions across Europe, highlighting that democratic and totalitarian regimes alike engaged in these practices.
15:01–37:12: The speaker critiques the flawed restitution processes in post-communist states, particularly the Czech Republic and Slovenia, where arbitrary time limits (e.g., February 25, 1948, in Czechoslovakia) excluded many legitimate claims. Quoting Murray Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty, the speaker argues that only restitution to original owners or their heirs upholds justice, yet privatization often benefited former communist elites, fostering oligarchic power structures. Cases like Elisa Fabriova and Prince Kinsky illustrate systemic barriers, with Czech courts and government manipulating legal processes to block aristocratic claims. In Slovenia, Luboš Šeš’s 20-year struggle for restitution yielded minimal recovery, hampered by retroactive laws and biased courts. The speaker concludes that these failures undermine the rule of law, perpetuate corruption, and pose security risks, urging moral clarity despite the unlikelihood of full redress, as time (Kronos) may not deliver justice.
It was not included previously in the podcast since the video had been lost and I had assumed the audio had also been lost. However, I recently discovered the audio files for two of the speeches as well as Professor Hoppe’s Introductory and Concluding remarks had been preserved, namely those listed below. They are podcast here for the first time.
The feed for the Property and Freedom Podcast for lectures from the 2012 meeting of the Property and Freedom Society (PFS 2012 Youtube Playlist) omitted two talks and Professor Hoppe’s Introductory and Concluding remarks since the video had been been corrupted. However, I recently discovered the audio files for these had been preserved, namely those listed below. I have just released them on the Property and Freedom Podcast.
He also discusses various other matters, such as the funding of the Frankfurt School by Felix Weil and its influence on Western Europe and on America (and its connection to “wokeism”); US worldwide hegemony since WWII and NATO provocations of Russia after the fall of the USSR, and its role in provoking the Russia-Ukraine conflict; the US role in the Israel-Hamas conflict and the influence of Israel over US policy and the dangerous alliance of the US and American “exceptionalism” paired with Israel’s “Chosen People” image.
The book was translated by Li San (李三) of the Mises Translation and Compilation Society (米塞斯编译社译丛), a group dedicated to translating and editing the classic works of the Austrian School.
Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) is now available in a Chinese translation as 自由社会的法律根基 (Feb. 2025) (pdf) (previous draft mentioned here).
The book was translated by Li San (李三) of the Mises Translation and Compilation Society (米塞斯编译社译丛), a group dedicated to translating and editing the classic works of the Austrian School.
As noted here, the 2025 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society was held from Thursday, September 18, 2025 to Tuesday, September 23, 2025, in Bodrum, Turkey, at the Hotel Karia Princess.
Those interested in attending future meetings should contact Mr. Thomas Jacob (jacob@pfs-zurich.ch) (Administrative Secretary/Membership), regarding conditions, availability, and requirements.
Speakers and topics for previous Annual Meetings may be found here.
To donate with BITCOIN please use the address below. If you would like us to credit your payment (for dues, conference fees, etc.) please email Stephan Kinsella (nskinsella@gmail.com) when you make the bitcoin payment.
17M9V6m5X5Da4vNM5wWLjzcHz9qF36FPk6
“Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property.” — FrédéricBastiat
“Because the concept of property, for instance, is so basic that everyone seems to have some immediate understanding of it, most people never think about it carefully and can, as a consequence, produce at best a very vague definition. But starting from imprecisely stated or assumed definitions and building a complex network of thought upon them can lead only to intellectual disaster. For the original imprecisions and loopholes will then pervade and distort everything derived from them. To avoid this, the concept of property must first be clarified.” —Hans-Hermann Hoppe, TSC, ch. 2
The Property and Freedom Society (PFS; Facebook) stands for an uncompromising intellectual radicalism: for justly acquired private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association—which logically implies the right to not associate with, or to discriminate against—anyone in one's personal and business relations—and unconditional free trade. It condemns imperialism and militarism and their fomenters, and champions peace. It rejects positivism, relativism, and egalitarianism in any form, whether of "outcome" or "opportunity," and it has an outspoken distaste for politics and politicians. As such it seeks to avoid any association with the policies and proponents of interventionism, which Ludwig von Mises identified in 1946 as the fatal flaw in the plan of the many earlier and contemporary attempts by intellectuals alarmed by the rising tide of socialism and totalitarianism to found an anti-socialist ideological movement. Mises wrote: "What these frightened intellectuals did not comprehend was that all those measures of government interference with business which they advocated are abortive. ... There is no middle way. Either the consumers are supreme or the government."
(A more complete statement of our Principles can be found here.)
Professor Hoppe’s monograph Kritik der kausalwissenschaftlichen Sozialforschung: Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung von Soziologie und Ökonomie [Critique of Causal Scientific Social Research: Studies on the Foundation of Sociology and Economics] (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1983) has been translated into English by Andreas Tank. This monograph based is the published version of his “Habilitation” thesis, in Sociology and Economics, 1981, from the Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main.
Follow Us!