[Cross-posted at HansHoppe.com]

Here.

On conza.au · Author

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Many of Hoppe’s works to date, summarised here slide by slide, and every gem tagged to him — quotes, clips and excerpts — on one page that grows as the library does.

[Cross-posted at StephanKinsella.com]

As of October 19, 2026, I have been named a Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute Scandinavia (MisesInstitutet skandivaniven) (perma.cc).

Related

• Kinsella, “My Years with the Mises Institute,” Property and Freedom Journal (May 2, 2026), sections Honors, Invitations, and Senior Fellowship and Kinsella Out
• Kinsella, Senior Fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (2009–2013); http://mises.org/faculty.aspx (archived page from 2011)
• Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Mises Institute: Quo Vadis?”, Property and Freedom Journal (March 25, 2026)
• Hoppe Removed as Mises Institute Senior Distinguished Fellow
• Hans-Herman Hoppe, former Distinguished Senior Fellow (~2000–2026) with the Ludwig von Mises Institute
• Hoppe, Distinguished Eternal Fellow (Rothbard Brasil, 2026)
• Hoppe, Resignation from the Scientific Advisory Board of the Ludwig von Mises Institute Germany

In 2024, the Property and Freedom Society published A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jörg Guido Hülsmann and Stephan Kinsella, eds. (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2024), on the occasion of Professor Hoppe’s 75th birthday on Sept. 2, 2024.

Most of the the pieces were not published in HTML text form as separate articles; we will be posting them in this Bookstream. The Preface was republished in the inaugural post in this Bookstream: A Life in Liberty Bookstream: Preface — Hülsmann and Kinsella. Links to the remaining chapters may be found at the book’s landing page here. Here’s the next entry—

[continue reading…]

Ralph Raico, “The Case for an America First Foreign Policy,” in The Failure of America’s Foreign Wars, Richard M. Ebeling and Jacob G. Hornberger, eds. (Future of Freedom Foundation, 1996): excerpt; full transcript (pdf); Youtube Playlist.

Related: Hoppe, Book Review, The Failure of America’s Foreign Wars (1996); and Day of the Long Knives (FEE).

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed (Transaction, 2001) [], has been translated into Greek as Δημοκρατία: Ο Θεός που Απέτυχε. According to the translator, the aptly soi-disant Praxeologos (who also translated Economic Science and the Austrian Method):

On top of my proof reading, I have run a full scan for consistency (against my other translations) based on my glossary of Austrian terms published here: https://praxeologos.net/p/glossari-afstriakis-scholis.

Note: online version of the book not yet available due to copyright concerns.

In 1996, Professor Hoppe published a short book review in FEE’s The Freeman of The Failure of America’s Foreign Wars, edited by Richard M. Ebeling and Jacob G. Hornberger (Future of Freedom Foundation, 1996). This caused some controversy at FEE at the time (see below) and recently again on Twitter, with some establishment “libertarian” critics tut-tutting about it in high dudgeon and also about his recent remarks on Israel and the Holocaust in his recent PFS speech at PFP359 | Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Learning and Revising History: Rothbardian Lessons (PFS 2026). For example, that Hans dared to use the phraseology “so-called Holocaust” (51:14); this had them clutching their pearls and looking for the fainting couch. Even though the Holocaust is “CALLED” the Holocaust (sometimes Shoah), and even though Hoppe, not a native English speaker, also uses the term “so-called” other places in his speech with obviously no deeper import or sinister intent, e.g.—

• “from my parents, in particular, I learned the so-called secondary virtues of Germans: punctuality, reliability, diligence, ambitions and all these sorts of things”
• “we also learned what still exists to this point, the so-called German guilt“
• “The so-called Nuremberg trial“

In any case, we reprint below the review, since it is no longer on the FEE site; it used to be online but now only the internet archive has it. (Of course, the FFF book reviewed is also not available online, but only on Amazon; I guess the editors do not care to make their ideas easy to spread.) In fact, Hoppe’s name as author and his review have been apparently scrubbed from FEE’s search by authors feature. [continue reading…]

Patrick Smith, “Shields Still Own Themselves,” Property and Freedom Journal (Oct. 27, 2026).

This essay is a pointed critique of Walter Block’s recent defense of using force against innocent human shields. Smith argues that Block’s claim—that a person used as a shield is “no longer an innocent” and may therefore be killed in the course of self-defense—contradicts the core libertarian commitment to self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. Drawing on Rothbard and the logic of normative individualism, Smith contends that innocence cannot be stripped away by another’s aggression, that “causal contribution” is not a valid substitute for initiation of force, and that the resulting contradiction is only papered over by redefining the very rights libertarianism is meant to protect.

Read more>>

Guest post by Cristiano Chiocca

“A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul.” – George Bernard Shaw

Following the 2026 election, the Left has won once again, and the Right is raising accusations of a coup, fraud, and manipulation. This pattern has repeated itself for decades in Brazil—one of the few countries to adopt an electronic voting system.

As someone who, as a matter of principle, remains inherently skeptical of the State and its institutions, I find myself disagreeing with my friends on the Right on this occasion. Without delving into the technical minutiae of the system, I rely on a few logical arguments: for instance, why would the Left choose to rig only the majoritarian elections—while leaving the legislative contests untouched—rather than securing a more favorable Congress? Furthermore, who is to say that the age-old practice of ballot-stuffing or paper-ballot fraud wouldn’t occur—as we have seen in recent examples in the United States? In short, I generally support the use of electronic voting machines; no one has managed to convince me that a paper-based system would be any less prone to fraud. [continue reading…]

[From C4SIF]

In the recent Advisory Opinions episode “Who’s the Loneliest Supreme Court Justice?” (The Dispatch, Oct. 22, 2026), hosts Sarah Isgur and David French discuss several Supreme Court orders, including one they flag as the case that will have “our libertarian friends jumping from the second-story window.” That order is the grant of certiorari in Department of Justice v. McNutt, the challenge to the nearly 160-year-old federal ban on distilling liquor at home (or in a connected dwelling, shed, or yard).

The ban, codified at 26 U.S.C. § 5178(a)(1)(B) and related provisions, dates to 1868. Congress enacted it as part of a broader scheme to enforce the federal excise tax on distilled spirits. The government’s longstanding justification is that home stills make tax evasion easier: they are harder to inspect, easier to conceal, and more difficult for revenue agents to monitor than commercial facilities. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the argument runs, Congress may prohibit the activity outright rather than merely tax it, because the practical difficulty of enforcement otherwise undermines the tax power. [continue reading…]

https://t.co/8q94ttkNHp @propfreedom https://t.co/nMQa5Q2TTI

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) October 27, 2026

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Instituto Rothbard (@instituto_rothbard)

(h/t Fernando Chiocca)

Jorge Muñoz, host of the Libertad Individual Youtube channel,¹ has started a new channel, the Rothbard Archive, 6 classes with improved audio and subtitles, chapters and biography. Here is the most recent one:

1. See KOL500 | Libertad Individual Interview: Rothbard’s Framework, Legal Theory, Property Rights, Contract, Intellectual Property, Corporations, and More. [↩]

Blast from the past-style: Kinsella, “UK Proposal for Banking Reform: Fractional-Reserve Banking versus Deposits and Loans,” Mises Daily (Sept. 14, 2010).

Related

• Freebankers Debate Baxendale Banking Reform Proposal
• Musings on Fractional-Reserve Banking in a Bitcoin Age; Physicalist Shock Absorber Metaphors
• On Coinbase, Bitcoin, Fractional-Reserve Banking, and Irregular Deposits
• The Great Fractional Reserve/Freebanking Debate
• The Bank of England and Me
• Taghizadegan: The Regression Theorem Explains Bitcoin
• Hülsmann, The Inflation Trap: The Ethics of Money Creation | Bitcoin 2026

Kinsella, “UK Proposal for Banking Reform: Fractional-Reserve Banking versus Deposits and Loans,” Mises Daily (Sept. 14, 2010).

Austrians and others interested in fractional-reserve banking (FRB) will find of interest a banking reform about to be proposed in the UK. Douglas Carswell, an Austrian economics-informed member of the UK parliament for Clacton, is planning to introduce a so-called “Ten Minute Rule Bill” after Prime Minister’s Questions tomorrow (Wednesday, Sept. 15) that could have significant implications for current centralized FRB practices. The Bill will be supported by Steve Baker, the Member of Parliament for Wycombe, who also serves on the Advisory Board of the Austrian/classical liberal Cobden Centre.

Carswell described the proposal in a post on Friday entitled “How should we reform the banks?,” and Baker promoted it earlier today in “Douglas Carswell leads the way on bank reform,” on CentreRight, the unofficial web site of the Tory Party (widely read by all members from the PM down). Baker’s article provides further elaboration and explanation, as well as a wealth of useful resources, speeches, links related to this issue. Baker is also scheduled to have a column about this in the Wall Street Journal Europe tomorrow [update: see Steve Baker, “A Bill to Fight Crony Capitalism” [2], Wall Street Journal (Opinion Europe section) (Sept. 15, 2010); and also: Toby Baxendale, “The radical reform that would end boom and bust in banking” [12ft] Telegraph.co.uk (Sept. 15, 2010)]. Daniel Hannan, the free market Member of the European Parliament, has also come out in support, in his Telegraph.co.uk column “Instead of subjecting our financial services to Brussels, we should embrace the Baker/Carswell banking reforms.” Finally, Austrian classical liberal entrepreneur Toby Baxendale, who is also Chairman of the Cobden Centre, provides a good explanation of the legal background giving rise to the Bill “What is the Legal Relationship Between the Banker and his Customer?” [continue reading…]

In 2024, the Property and Freedom Society published A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jörg Guido Hülsmann and Stephan Kinsella, eds. (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2024), on the occasion of Professor Hoppe’s 75th birthday on Sept. 2, 2024.

Most of the the pieces were not published in HTML text form as separate articles; we will be posting them in this Bookstream.  The Preface was republished in the inaugural post in this Bookstream: A Life in Liberty Bookstream: Preface — Hülsmann and Kinsella. Links to the remaining chapters may be found at the book’s landing page here. We have been posting these entries three times a week, MWF, but are now switching to twice a week: Mondays and Thursdays. Here’s the next entry—

[continue reading…]

Bryan Caplan, “Embrace Cultural Creative Destruction: You Have No Right to Your Culture: Essays on the Human Condition is now on sale,” Bet On It (Jan 26, 2026). h/t @Jeff Deist.

Uhhh …. yeah. I mean… there’s libertarian macho flash¹ and then there’s libertarian macho flash. WTF? Tell that to the poor French right now. Even if they sort of asked for it. Doesn’t mean we ought to cheer it on. [continue reading…]

1. See Michael Cloud, “The Late, Great Libertarian Macho Flash” (1978; preserved at https://perma.cc/KY9P-V7K7 and here). See also Jeff Wood, “The Triumphant Return of Libertarian Macho Flash,” (March 8, 2017; https://perma.cc/KE6W-WQK4). [↩]

Superb article by @FeserEdward on the “scientific” delusion– “the mechanization of the world picture”– that still hobbles our understanding of the distinct and separate nature of things in the world. We refuse to accept both that separateness and the idea of an inherent nature in anything.

The “basic conceit is human beings, in theory and practice, can and ought to transcend the limitations of their nature.”

This is how you get transhumanism. This is how you get murderous governments. This is how you get an addled & miserable population in the midst of incredible material comfort.

https://t.co/jYmGrck6c7

— Jeff Deist (@jeffdeist) October 25, 2026

Related

• Kinsella, How much richer would be in a free society? L. Neil Smith’s great speech
• The Golden Age of America is Now

From a Facebook post by the great Tom Woods:

My feed is filled with people reproducing this post. It is nonsense. You won’t find anybody more opposed to monetary debasement than I am. But you are asking me to believe that in 1971, half of America had an income equivalent to that of nearly a millionaire today.

No society anywhere has ever been that prosperous. And the 1970s sure don’t give off the vibe of everybody living in luxury.

Of course Nixon shouldn’t have closed the gold window. No argument there. But the statement below is unsupportable, and it’s contradicted by common sense.

ADDENDUM: I’ll add: literally nobody, no economist of any school, thinks real wages have fallen 88% since 1971. That is absolutely and demonstrably false. I don’t get how people can find this plausible. If real wages had fallen 88% since 1971, TRUST ME, YOU WOULD KNOW. I will devote an issue of my newsletter to this, since I’m aghast that some people on my side seem to think this is the case. I assure you, there has been no such collapse.

Want to have your mind blown?

In 1971, the median household income was $9,030, or 220 ounces of gold.

In 2025, it was $87,460, or just 25 ounces of gold.

Your paycheck went up 10x.

Measured in gold, it fell 88%.

To earn what the median household earned in 1971, you’d need about $890,000 per year today.

That’s what fiat debasement looks like.

— Adam Livingston (@AdamBLiv) October 23, 2026

Related

• Milei-related posts at PFS, HansHoppe.com, StephanKinsella.com

During a recent trip to Madrid, Javier Milei, Argentina’s self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist president, was featured as keynote speaker at the 10th Annual Madrid Conference on Austrian Economics, organized by Jesús Huerta de Soto, and took the opportunity to publicly denounce Pedro Sánchez, the present socialist president of Spain, and express his support for Sánchez’s “rightist” opponents in the current Spanish election campaign.

Milei openly called out Sánchez as a “dictator” and as a “thief” deeply involved in corruption.¹

All correct from an anarcho-capitalist viewpoint: Sánchez, as head of state, indeed dictates law without (or even against) the explicit consent of everyone affected by it. (In fact, that’s what politics is all about: one person ruling over and above another one!) As well, taxes and fiat money inflation are indeed theft, and Sánchez and his regime live off of taxes and money “creation.” Hence, to call him a thief is also true. And Sánchez and his wife are indeed implicated in some corruption affairs. Also true. [continue reading…]

1. See, e.g., Le Figaro, “«Un infréquentable dictateur» : Javier Milei critique vivement Pedro Sanchez durant sa visite à Madrid,” 21 October 2026; bne IntelliNews, “Milei tells Spaniards to kick out ‘disgraceful dictator’ Sánchez,” 21 October 2026. [↩]

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (99.4MB)

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 359.

This talk is from the recently-concluded PFS 2026 Twentieth Annual Meeting (Sep. 17–22, 2026, Bodrum, Turkey).

Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Germany/Turkey), Learning and Revising History: Rothbardian Lessons.

An edited transcript (thanks to Fernando Chiocca) is appended below.

[continue reading…]

Apropos nothing.

Was thinking of some of these when talking to some libertarian friends recently. Some fascinating and insightful passages from those I sometimes refer to as the “High Austrians”—those that, as I say, “swim[] in the plasma of praxeology”:¹ For those looking for something to sink their mental teeth into this glorious weekend. [continue reading…]

1. Kinsella, “Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe: An Indispensable Framework,” in Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment, Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, eds. (Houston: Papinian Press and Property and Freedom Society, 2026), n.53; Kinsella, Afterword to Hoppe’s The Great Fiction, n.4. See also Kinsella, KOL153 | “The Social Theory of Hoppe: Lecture 1: Property Foundations” (Mises Academy, 2011), transcript at 51:14 (“… Hans is very careful about picking out the fundamental ones crisply and carefully defining them, and then actually using them and integrating them into his further reasoning as he builds on them.  As I mentioned earlier, some Austrians just kind of touch on praxeology. They don’t really sort of swim in it, as I see it. This is an example of Hoppe developing these things for a purpose. He has a sort of German, precise, machine-gun-like precision in his writing.”) [↩]

This is insane… https://t.co/t3ET1pJ8lV

— Bitcoin News (@BitcoinNewsCom) October 23, 2026

From Louis Rossman:

Summary: Louis Rossmann explores the emergence of open-source alternatives to Adobe software built using artificial intelligence. The discussion examines the legal landscape of reverse engineering, current DMCA regulations, and the potential for future corporate lobbying efforts to restrict software interoperability and control digital ownership.

Excerpt from transcript: [continue reading…]

From Rahim Taghizadegan:

The day has come. AI can finally thwart the most toxic and socially devastating career dreams ever sold to young women: influencer, TikTok star, OnlyFans.

The French girl in this clip does not exist. Her song is an earworm with a superb narrative in lyrics and film, better than most human pop slop, which is far more generic. Anyone with a browser and a subscription can now produce her, and that is good news above all for real young women. The attention market paid them to sell their youth, their privacy and in the end their bodies to strangers, and since it paid narcissism best, it bred narcissism in a whole generation.

Unfortunately, we are now entering an awkward interim phase. The market-financed toxic careers for female narcissists are disappearing, but the state is not bankrupt yet. So the talent moves to where the taxpayer still pays: NGO director, salaried antifa activist, trauma counsellor for France’s looters. There is too little market demand for any of these, so they will only go away with the state’s bankruptcy.

France is working on it. https://t.co/0pFbdoc03W

— Rahim Taghizadegan (scholarium.at) (@scholarium_at) October 21, 2026

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 504.

My appearance on Bitcoin Infinity #225, With Knut Svanholm.

Shownotes:

Stephan Kinsella joins the Bitcoin Infinity Show to talk about why you can’t legally own Bitcoin, what the difference between ownership and possession means for self-custody, and whether the July 2026 Coldcard hack was really theft. Knut and Stephan dig into Austrian economics, libertarian contract theory, why fractional reserve banking is harder on a Bitcoin standard, and how Bitcoin could limit the state’s ability to borrow and tax. They also look back at the Property and Freedom Society’s 20th anniversary in Bodrum, Murray Rothbard’s centennial, Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s split with the Mises Institute, and their Austrian economics panel at BTC HEL in Helsinki.

Read more>>

From PFSer Martin Martín Cabrera¹, re Jörg Guido Hülsmann, “Garrisonian Macroeconomics,” Q. J. Austrian Econ. 4, no. 3 (Fall 2001): 33–41:

Great insight by Jörg Guido Hülsmann on the distinction between microeconomics and macroeconomics:

“Modern macroeconomics began with Böhm-Bawerk’s seminal Capital and Interest. The epithet “modern” is shorthand for “post-Ricardian” and refers most notably to the application of methodological individualism in explanations of phenomena such as the production structure, capital, and money interest. Böhm-Bawerk showed that and how these phenomena, which affect more or less all members of society (“the economy as a whole”), result from individual human action and interaction. Menger had pioneered this method. He had shown how prices on individual markets spring from the acting person’s evaluation of marginal quantities of economic goods. Böhm-Bawerk did nothing but extend the application of this method to explain how the various markets interrelate, what costs are, and how and why interest comes into existence. Later, Mises applied the very same method to explain the impact of money on the economy, and to analyze the business cycle. With Mises’s 1912 treatise on money, Austrian economics had come full circle, giving a coherent and encompassing explanation of all economic phenomena (see Mises 1980).

It is therefore of little surprise that the early Austrian economists did not distinguish between microeconomics and macroeconomics. There was in their eyes only one type of economic analysis, which was based on certain invariable facts of human action—such as “only individual persons act,” “acting involves choosing,” “choice refers to marginal units of economic goods”— and which was able to give a satisfactory explanation of all economic phenomena. From this point of view, one might call certain phenomena “macroeconomic” because they are virtually immune from the choices of any given person, but result from the combined effect of the choices of great masses of people; and one might call other phenomena “microeconomic” because here the impact of individuals is perceptible and important. But this distinction is entirely nominal—it is an artificial convention without foundation in real differences. The fact is that all economic phenomena result from individual choices; hence, Menger’s method can be applied universally; and ultimately there can be only one unified economic science, just as there is only one real world that this science describes.”

— MⒶrtin C. Gamazo 🟨⬛🇦🇹 (@MartinCGamazoR) October 20, 2026

1. First Guatemalans at the PFS. [↩]