≡ Menu

100 Years with Rothbard: Porto, Portugal

[Cross-posted at PFS and HansHoppe.com]

100 years with Rothbard - Portugal 2026 - ScreenshotLibertarians 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.

And next month, on June 27, 2026, comes the event “100 Years with Rothbard” (permalink) in Porto, Portugal.

This event, organized by Manuel Ogando, is sponsored by several Portuguese libertarian groups: Mises PortugalCatalaxiaDon’t Trust Verify (bitcoin podcast), ZugaTV (libertarian podcast), and Golpe de Estado Podcast (ancap podcasters), and features a number of speakers including, most prominently, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Rothbard’s most intimate associate, partner, friend, and student for the last decade of his life. Other speakers include Stephan Kinsella, Anxo Bastos, Saifedean Ammous, and others.

Rothbard at 100: new cover 1bThe event will also feature the presentation of the European Portuguese translation of Kinsella’s Legal Foundations of a Free Society and, possibly, the Spanish translation as well, and also the hardcover edition of Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment.

I am very much looking forward to this event.

Share
{ 0 comments }

Q: Hello. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in his book “Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis:

the anarchist/communist who claims that property is theft is not wrong in principle. To take any piece of land on this planet and trace its ownership history, you will have to come to some point in history when it was forcibly taken or plundered from someone. And before that, the previous owner did it to the one before him.

Do you maybe know why did Mises—who otherwise had healthy views – have this particular view? Why did he not recognize homesteading? Thank you.

***

Note: The sender did not provide a link or page number so I am doubtful this is an accurate quote. A search of the text does not find it. However, I found a couple passages that the sender, or his confused AI, may have had in mind:

From Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Part I, ch. 1, §2, p. 32:

All ownership derives from occupation and violence. When we consider the natural components of goods, apart from the labor components they contain, and when we follow the legal title back, we must necessarily arrive at a point where this title originated in the appropriation of goods accessible to all. Before that we may encounter a forcible expropriation from a predecessor whose ownership we can in its turn trace to earlier appropriation or robbery. That all rights derive from violence, all ownership from appropriation or robbery, we may freely admit to those who oppose ownership on considerations of natural law. But this offers not the slightest proof that the abolition of ownership is necessary, advisable. or morally justified.

Natural ownership need not count upon recognition by the owners’ fellow men. It is tolerated, in fact, only as long as there is no power to upset it and it does not survive the moment when a stronger man seizes it for himself. Created by arbitrary force it must always fear a more powerful force. This the doctrine of natural law has called the war of all against all. The war ends when the actual relation is recognized as one worthy to be maintained. Out of violence emerges law.

From Human Action, ch. XXIV, §4:

Private property is a human device. It is not sacred. It came into existence in early ages of history, when people with their own power and by their own authority appropriated to themselves what had previously not been anybody’s property. Again and again proprietors were robbed of their property by expropriation. The history of private property can be traced back to a point at which it originated out of acts which were certainly not legal. Virtually every owner is the direct or indirect legal successor of people who acquired ownership either by arbitrary appropriation of ownerless things or by violent spoilation of their predecessor.

However, the fact that legal formalism can trace back every title either to arbitrary appropriation or to violent expropriation has no significance whatever for the conditions of a market society. Ownership in the market economy is no longer linked up with the remote origin of private property. Those events in a far-distant past, hidden in the darkness of primitive mankind’s history, are no longer of any concern for our day. For in an unhampered market society the consumers daily decide anew who should own and how much he should own. The consumers allot control of the means of production to those who know how to use them best for the satisfaction of the most urgent wants of the consumers. Only in a legal and formalistic sense can the owners be considered the successors of appropriators and expropriators. In fact, they are mandataries of the consumers, bound by the operation of the market to serve the consumers best. Under capitalism, private property is the consummation of the self-determination of the consumers.

A: All this means is there is some taint in ownership chains but this does not invalidate property rights at all. [continue reading…]

Share
{ 0 comments }

Related

Query:

Dear Mr. Kinsella,

I hope you are doing well.

I consider the homesteading principle to be one of the most consistent and justified foundations for property rights. However, I have recently encountered a concern that I am struggling to resolve. [continue reading…]

Share
{ 0 comments }

KOL489 | The Problem with Intellectual Property (Audio)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 489.

The Problem with Intellectual Property,” audio. Thanks to Jorge Besada, using AI. I think this is my best comprehensive, recent, yet concise take on IP.

From Stephan Kinsella, “The Problem with Intellectual Property,” Papinian Press Working Paper #2 (May 15, 2025), forthcoming in Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics, 2nd ed., Christoph Lütge & Marianne Thejls Ziegler, eds. (Springer, forthcoming 2026; Robert McGee, section ed.).

Play
Share
{ 0 comments }

Libertarian Answer Man: Noncompete Agreements

[From my Webnote series]

Related:

From some tweets on Twitter. My original tweet below, and reprinted with a few modifications followed by a few followup tweets. [continue reading…]

Share
{ 0 comments }

KOL488 | My Years with the Mises Institute

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 488.

Audio version of Stephan Kinsella, “My Years with the Mises Institute,” Property and Freedom Journal (May 2, 2026). Audio prepared with AI by Jorge Besada.

Related:

From the article: [continue reading…]

Play
Share
{ 0 comments }

Kinsella, My Years with the Mises Institute

Stephan Kinsella, “My Years with the Mises Institute,” Property and Freedom Journal (May 2, 2026)

Related:

Introduction

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).

Read more>>

Share
{ 0 comments }

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 487.

Also podcast as Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 323.

Rothbard at 100: new cover 1bAI-assisted audio narration of the main chapters of Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment (Papinian Press and The Saif House, 2026) is available at this PFS Youtube Playlist; the mp3 files may also be downloaded in this zip file.

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:

8. Stephan Kinsella, “Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe: An Indispensable Framework

 

Play
Share
{ 0 comments }

Beckmann, Bethell, Relativity: A Rant

Related:

From a conversation with friends (not cleaned up and edited; just a rant): [continue reading…]

Share
{ 0 comments }

KOL486 | Mark Edge Show: Kinsella, Hoppe, Mises Institute

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 486.

This is my appearance on the Mark Edge show. Shownotes:

Mark Edge invites libertarian legal theorist and retired patent attorney Stephan Kinsella to unpack the stunning April 1st memo from the Mises Institute announcing that Hans-Hermann Hoppe — their longtime Distinguished Senior Fellow and arguably the most important living Rothbardian — is no longer affiliated with the Institute.

Kinsella walks through the backstory: his own 2013 resignation, the recent departures of three Mises presidents, a private memo Hoppe and Guido Hülsmann sent the board over governance issues, tensions surrounding Javier Milei, and the “Quo Vadis” essay that preceded Hoppe’s termination.

Kinsella also previews the new book he and Hoppe co-edited celebrating Murray Rothbard’s 100th birthday, the upcoming Rothbard celebration in Porto, Portugal (June 27), and the Property and Freedom Society meeting in September.

Related:

Play
Share
{ 0 comments }

Backyard Sledding in Philadelphia in the Blizzard of 1996

Jan. 8 1996. We moved to Philly in 1994 from Houston and lived in an apartment in beautiful Chester County, until wife insisted we buy a house. So in 1995 we bought our first house in Newtown Square, Delaware county.

We were snowed in for a few days because of this crazy blizzard. I got bored after being shut in for a couple days. Our back yard sloped down fairly steeply to this wooded creek area, so on Monday, as we were working from home, I dug some trenches and rigged a makeshift sled out of cardboard and got my wife and her low-IQ cocker spaniel, Muffy, to sled down it. I dressed Cindy in my snow skiing pants and jacket. I later MacGuyvered a white trash sled out of thick plastic and a trash can lid. I remember we saw our neighbors a couple days later when we emerged and they had assumed we were gone because we stayed home for 3-4 days and waited for the roads to be cleared. You can take the boy out of Praireville, but you can’t take the coonass out of the boy. I think Big Daddy’s accent was thicker back then.

Wife was bitching that I paid someone $90 to blow our driveway, but it was very long. I remember another time, after the driveway was covered in snow, well the builder had for some reason put both hot and cold taps in our garage, so I got the bright idea to run a hose to the drive way and turn on the hot water, thinking that would melt all the snow. It made a 2 inch hole and did nothing. Oh well. Yet another lesson learned in Yankeeland. Another time I threw a cup of hot water on car’s driver side window to clear off the ice and snow but of course it immediately froze. Good thing I moved back to God’s country (Texas) a year later.

Share
{ 0 comments }

Cross-posted at PFS Blog.

See Ludovico Lumicisi, “Rothbardian Property Rights in a Dangerous Digital World,” Mises Wire (04/11/2026) (reprinted below). This article won First Place in the Mises Institute’s annual Kenneth Garschina Undergraduate Student Essay Contest. I had corresponded previously with the author of this excellent paper. It cites and relies heavily on work by Hoppe and myself. [continue reading…]

Share
{ 0 comments }
Creative Commons License
Except where otherwise noted, the content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons CC0 Universal Public Domain Dedication License.