Bitcoin Hits $150,000 – December 15, 2026“@PeterSchiff: Bitcoin at $150k? Just another speculative spike. This Ponzi is running on fumes—treasury companies and speculators are the only buyers. Gold’s still the real store of value,…
I asked Grok4 (SuperGrok) and ChatGPT to provide executive summaries of Hoppe’s thought. Results below; I have not reviewed these.
My prompt:
Take these documents by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and provide an organized executive summary of Hoppe’s social thought: his economics and economic theory, his views on rights and libertarianism, democracy, immigration, and other issues. Organize it systematically, and include detailed links, references, footnotes/endnotes, and so on. Entitle this Hoppe’s Social Theory: An Executive Summary. Make this as detailed and comprehensive as possible and as long as necessary.
I spent about 30 years writing the material that became Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023). I had plans to write this book for over 15 years but kept dithering, stopping and starting, and also waiting to write a few key chapters. Even so, I could have finished it at least 7 years ago. [continue reading…]
I spent about 30 years writing the material that became Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023). I had plans to write this book for over 15 years but kept dithering, stopping and starting, and also waiting to write a few key chapters. Even so, I could have finished it at least 7 years ago. [continue reading…]
Not really. First, in practice most don’t. Even honest Randians eventually admit this — e.g. David Kelley, annoying pest Jan “Helfeld,” Rand’s attorney Murray Franck, Marsha Enright (I think), and many others. https://t.co/wKbx8ijabC
See discussion at 38:40, in particular this comment by Epstein:
[44:20] … and it’s 9-0 in both cases, and I have yet to find anybody who thinks that these are sort of imprudent decisions, no matter what they think about guns.
Well, I, for one, disagree with the ruling and the law, as the Federal Government has no authority to regulate state tort law. But then I seem to be the only non-centralist libertarian who opposes such unconstitutional laws. [continue reading…]
The essence of the libertarian notion of aggression and self-ownership — see On the Core Principles of Libertarian Property Rights. See, on this, the Roman law doctrine of “Corpore Corpori,” or “To the body”. AI summary:
In the context of Roman law, “corpore corpore” is a Latin phrase meaning “by the body to the body.” It refers to the requirement in the first chapter of the Lex Aquilia, a law dealing with damage to property, that the damage had to be inflicted by direct physical force. Specifically, the damage had to be caused by the wrongdoer’s body acting directly on the body of the injured thing.
I always saw the promise in BTC, from the beginning. Even spoke at one of the first conference, in 2013. 1 But I wrongly assumed that the state would realize this and if when it became a threat, it would ban it. 2 So I didn’t buy because I was too confident in the state’s competence. As I tweeted here, “A friend: “It seems counterintuitive to me that the fed and other regulators seem mostly indifferent to the existential threat that bitcoin represents to the world reserve currency status of USD.” Me: for one, they are stupid, for another, they don’t care about the future–short term thinking. It’s why I was wrong in 2013 or so and wrongly assumed the FedGov was smart and evil and competent and would ban BTC as soon as it became a threat (https://stephankinsella.com/2025/07/austrians-bitcoin-impossible/). They are just evil and stupid. They have short time preference because they dont “own” the state so they don’t care that BTC is a threat in 10 years. (See Hoppe’s Democracy.)” But I never bought into the flawed “it’s impossible because regression theorem” argument.
Most austro-libertarians are for sound money and for this reason are also pro-bitcoin (BTC), or at least are ambivalent and admit they do not fully understand it—such as Hoppe, who has features pro-bitcoin speakers at the PFS several times:
Provide a summary (up to 2 pages) of Epstein’s argument for the state provided in his book, namely, his argument that state takings of property–in eminent domain and also in the form of taxes–is justified because of the existence of public good and market failure caused by the phenomenon of holdouts and freeriders, and thus certain takings such as eminent domain and taxes, are justified because they address these market failures and thus “grow the size of the pie” thus leading to a surplus from which particular victims of eminent domain can be compensated, and other takings victims such as taxpayers are compensated by in-kind restitution since the regulations or taxes address market failures and thus make society better off in general, in other words taxpayers and those burdened by regulation are compensated by the in-kind restitution of more overall wealth that results from the “taking.” And thus, that only state laws — mostly those of the minimal state or night-watchman state–are justified and most laws and regulations and taxes engaged in by the US federal government are illegitimate, because they do not actually fix a real market failure and grow the pie so that the takings can be compensated, at least by in-kind compensation, but instead destroy wealth and make us all worse off, and at the same time redistributes wealth from the shrinking economy from A to B.
Also consider Richard Epstein’s Takings Political Theory versus Epstein’s Intellectual Property Views and explain Kinsella’s critique of Epstein’s argument from an anarchist libertarian point of view and also Kinsella’s critique of Epstein’s pro-IP views and arguments which do not even pass the test of his own takings-based theory of the minimal state.
Interesting discussion from Isaac Arthur. To his credit, he doesn’t totally mangle the issues he has only a bit of familiarity with, namely money and property rights. [continue reading…]
Article based on this speech, prepared by Grok (not edited or reviewed by me):
Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Libertarian Solution
Only libertarians would rise early on a Sunday to debate interest rates in a hypothetical world before tackling a topic as divisive as abortion. Unlike issues like anarchy or intellectual property—where we often find consensus—abortion remains a stubborn puzzle, resisting the clarity we bring to war, taxation, or the state’s illegitimacy. As a libertarian, parent, and former Catholic altar boy, my journey on this issue has been personal: from a Randian pro-choice stance dismissing the fetus as a “clump of cells” to a nuanced sympathy for pro-life arguments, and now to a radically decentralist approach. Delivered at the 2024 Property and Freedom Society Annual Meeting in Bodrum, Turkey, this talk proposes that abortion decisions belong solely to the family, particularly the mother, until birth, free from external legal interference. Drawing on Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s insights, Loren Lomasky’s philosophy, and libertarian principles, I argue this solution respects the fetus’s unique status, avoids state overreach, and aligns with our decentralized ethos. And, Guido, forgive me for diving into this one—I was raised Catholic, after all, with twelve years in Catholic schools shaping my conscience. [continue reading…]
Recent Comments