[This article, first published in Modern Age 24, no. 1 (Winter 1980): 9–15 (pdf; Mises Daily) is based on a paper presented at the April 1979 national meeting of the Philadelphia Society in Chicago. The theme of the meeting was “Conservatism and Libertarianism.”]
Libertarianism is the fastest growing political creed in America today. Before judging and evaluating libertarianism, it is vitally important to find out precisely what that doctrine is, and, more particularly, what it is not. It is especially important to clear up a number of misconceptions about libertarianism that are held by most people, and particularly by conservatives. In this essay I shall enumerate and critically analyze the most common myths that are held about libertarianism. When these are cleared away, people will then be able to discuss libertarianism free of egregious myths and misconceptions, and to deal with it as it should be on its very own merits or demerits. [continue reading…]
In 2026, basically every country has their evil right-wing boogey man. Some countries, like the United States with Donald Trump, are already governed by the political right. Germany is not and has not yet been under a right-wing government. The AfD (Alternative for Deutschland) is the right-wing party but the guy who is considered to pull the strings behind the curtains did not even make his way to the politics on the federal level but is the head of the AfD in the state of Thuringia. His name is Björn Höcke and he was recently invited to a big German podcast where he talked 4 and a half hours about his past as a history teacher and his political world view.2 This podcast episode, which is currently above 4 million views on YouTube, produced a huge meltdown all over German social media. Everyone in the mainstream media was shocked that this podcast could be aired without a certain classification by an expert—in other words: without left-wing censorship. Of course, nobody cried for censorship when the head of the leftist party was on the same podcast. The desperation was so big, that a few days later, three of the biggest left-wing parties (SPD – Social Democrats, Grüne – Green Party and Linke – Leftists) of Germany and with them a lot of politicians announced that they will leave X (formally Twitter) for good. Their plan is not yet obvious but a good prediction is, that most of them switch to bluesky—a twitter fork—now and after the launch of W Social—a bluesky fork, introduced by the WEF in 2026 and currently in its beta phase—they will have their officially state-owned social media.
The first two chapters—my “Preface” and Hans’s “Introduction”—were published the week of Rothbard’s birthday here on the Property and Freedom Podcast (PFP315 and PFP314). The other main chapters will be released sequentially weekly on Mondays. The next in the queue:
A note on my health for all of you good people: I have been pushing a rock uphill for several months with strange hematology numbers, getting more unusual by the month. I’m not worried. I have good doctors and we are getting to the bottom of it. The main symptom is fatigue but I’ve learned to manage my projects around what I know will be “good and productive” times during the day. I have a great team on both the podcast and on the film, so all is well. But given your support, both financial and spiritual, I do feel I need to keep you in the loop. One of our financial supporters on the film has become a wonderful friend. We lunch and catch up. Nice to have the in-person contact sometimes.
The inaugural meeting of the PFS was held 20 years ago this month, from May 18–22, 2006. It was a wonderful, magical event, and set the stage for the years to come. I and others have written various reports discussing subsequent meetings as well. (Collected at PFS Press & Offsite Material) For more coverage of that meeting and info about the PFS, see below.
As noted on our History and Principles page, the idea of founding an international society for the promotion of “Austro-Libertarianism,” the economic and social philosophy most prominently represented during the 20th century by the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises and his leading American student Murray N. Rothbard, and tying back to the 19th century French economists Frederic Bastiat and Gustave de Molinari, were first presented by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in August 2005 during a small informal gathering at the annual Mises Institute Summer University, in Auburn, Alabama. Those present at the meeting, Thomas DiLorenzo , Guido Hülsmann, and Ralph Raico, welcomed the project, and Guelcin Imre offered to host the inaugural meeting of the society in Bodrum, Turkey.[continue reading…]
Moreover, as for low productivity, almost two years ago by now, the MI held a special Human Action Conference, organized by then president Tom DiLorenzo. Funds were raised and special sponsors for each conference speaker solicited. The result of the conference, promised to the donors, sponsors and conference attendees was a book. To this day there has been no book, and even if it should appear in the near future, two years to produce a book with the assistance of plenty of helping hands does not impress.
Libertarians around the world are this year celebrating Murray Rothbard’s 100th birthday. At the PFS we published a book in his honor, Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment, Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, eds. (Papinian Press and The Saif House, 2026) on his 100th birthday, March 2, 2026.
In matters of pecuniary obligations, the prevailing civil-law doctrine adheres to the principle of nominalism. In essence, the principle states that—beyond mechanisms protecting the creditor from the loss of purchasing power of money (agreed interest rates, indexation clauses tied to inflation, etc.)—the performance of an obligation follows the Roman-law principle of tantundem eiusdem generis: the obligation to pay 1,000 dollars on a given date is satisfied, and the debtor accordingly extinguishes the obligation, by paying the agreed amount on the agreed date, irrespective of the fact that, in the meantime, the value (purchasing power) of the sum in question may have been eroded and may no longer correspond to its original value.
Legal doctrine generally subscribes—rather uncritically—to the state-chartalist theory of money, well represented by the writings of Knapp, Mann and Ascarelli.2 From this perspective, what confers the character of money on a given thing (metal, pieces of paper printed with colored designs, or anything else) is the command of the State. Money is such because there is a law that defines it as legal tender. The source of the monetary nature of a thing is therefore the legislative power of the State as the ultimate decision-maker. And this, in turn, also finds expression in monetary sovereignty.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the inevitable result of the destruction of a centuries-old system of private property rights and its replacement by race-based state ownership. Since 1947, property rights in Palestine have been replaced by a government agency that owns the majority of land, constantly steals more, never sells, and only leases land to one racial group. Religious and racial conflict are not destined in Palestine; they are historically rare occurrences, but this system of property rights would create violent conflict anywhere.
In 1945, the British mandate government surveyed land ownership in Palestine and found that Jews owned 5.67% of the total land, while Muslims, Christians & other denominations owned 48.31% of the land. The remaining 46.02% was public land, mainly in the sparsely inhabited desert in the south, most of which was de facto owned by the Bedouins who herded there. Among the privately-owned lands, only 10.5% was owned by Jews, while 89.5% was owned by non-Jews. There was not a single district in Palestine in which Jews owned a majority of the land, as this illustration makes clear.
The first two chapters—my “Preface” and Hans’s “Introduction”—were published the week of Rothbard’s birthday here on the Property and Freedom Podcast (PFP315 and PFP314). The other main chapters will be released sequentially weekly on Mondays. The next in the queue:
Hans Hoppe recently published “Mises Institute: Quo Vadis?”, which contains various criticisms of the Mises Institute (MI) as it is currently organized.1 He has since been removed as Distinguished Senior Fellow by MI.2 I fully support Hans and do not disagree with anything he wrote.3
Here I would like to mention my own experience with MI, with which I have been associated, on and off, for over thirty years, since 1994. I have discussed some of this history previously,4 but as my experience has certain parallels to that of Hans I will go into more detail here than I have in the past.
Despite my critical remarks here I, too, share Hans’s admiration for Lew Rockwell (discussed below) and what he achieved with the Mises Institute. I love the mission of the MI and the role it has played for the last 44 years. It is due to my concern over the decline of MI, and its treatment of Hans, that I publish these remarks. Pursuit of liberty is always a quest for truth. But truth is fragile and seems easily cast aside by those with more base motives. With that in mind, I offer some of my own thoughts on these matters—entreating the reader to judge the reasonableness of my position (and that of Hoppe).
The first two chapters—my “Preface” and Hans’s “Introduction”—were published the week of Rothbard’s birthday here on the Property and Freedom Podcast (PFP315 and PFP314). The other main chapters will be released sequentially weekly on Mondays. The next in the queue:
Jeff interviews lawyer Alessandro Fusillo, topics include: natural law, positivism, changing the law, bureaucratic totalitarianism, an inside view of the sick workings of the state, Libertarianism in Italy, Venice and secessionism, growing European secession movements, most nation states are bankrupt, central banks fund the commercial banks to buy government debt, the growing risk of bank bail-ins, encouragement to bypass laws, avoid taxes and find loopholes, individual rebellion. individual freedom.
Italy is among the many countries that have equipped themselves, or intend to, with increasingly effective legislative instruments to combat what legislators regard as one of the scourges of our time: the alleged resurgence of antisemitism. As is usually the case, the activism of parliaments and governments corresponds to no demand on the part of citizens who, eighty years after the fall of National Socialism and the establishment of the State of Israel in Palestine, are perfectly capable of assessing both antisemitism and the Israeli State project with objectivity and detachment. All the more so given that there are no political forces at the global level whose programs include ethnic or religious hostility toward Jews, in contrast to what has historically been the case. On the contrary, parliaments and governments around the world teem with politicians who place their friendship with Israel above their duties of loyalty to the State of which they are part. Consider the cases of Ted Cruz in the United States or of Argentine President Milei, who never misses an opportunity to boast of being the most Zionist president in the world.
As noted here, the 2026 Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society will be held from Thursday, September 17, 2026 to Tuesday, September 22, 2026.
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 ([email protected]) 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.)
Alessandro Fusillo
Doug French
Fernando Chiocca
Greg Morin
Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Jay Baykal
Juan Fernando Carpio
León Isidoro
Martin Cabrera
Oscar Grau
PFS
Sean Ring
Stephan Kinsella
Stéphane Geyres
Tom DiLorenzo
Follow Us!