Property and Freedom Podcast

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 252. Over the years those lucky enough to study under Rothbard and Hoppe at UNLV in the 80s/90s have given some talks about their experiences there, usually spearheaded by Doug French, former Mises Institute President. This includes a panel at the Mises Institute’s 35th Anniversary event in New York in 2017 (schedule; Youtube playlist), and a panel at the Property and Freedom Society Annual Meeting in 2015 (PFP129 | Memories: Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) as Mentor and Teacher, Hoppe, DiLorenzo, French, Iglody (PFS 2015)). The most recent panel was at the Austrian Economics Research Conference in March 2023, presented on October 7, 2017, entitled “Murray Rothbard as a Teacher: The UNLV Years—A Panel with Rothbard’s Former Students (AERC2023)” (informally titled in the schedule “Murray in Las Vegas”). Conversations About Murray (attend one or all!) The panelists were: Douglas E. French (Mises Institute), Chair Jeffrey F. Barr, Attorney, Las Vegas, NV Joseph F. Becker, Mises Institute Richard Tejidor, Los Angeles, CA James Yohe, Gadsden State Community College (Audio file: mp3) Some photos from the event are appended below. Transcript below. Photos: TRANSCRIPT Murray Rothbard as a Teacher: The UNLV Years—A Panel with Rothbard’s Former Students Austrian Economics Research Conference, Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama March 17, 2023 Douglas E. French, Jeffrey F. Barr, Joseph F. Becker, Richard Tejidor, James Yohe DOUG FRENCH: So my name is Doug French. I studied under Murray from roughly ’89 to ’92 or ’90 to ’92. Next to me is Joe Becker, and you studied under Murray what years? 00:00:13 JOE BECKER: ’91 to ’93. 00:00:14 DOUG FRENCH: ’91 to ’93. And next up is Rich. 00:00:18 JAMES YOHE: [indiscernible_00:00:20] 00:00:24 DOUG FRENCH: Don’t jump ahead. Rich, please introduce yourself and say what years you… 00:00:29 RICHARD TEJIDOR: Hi. I’m Rich Tejidor. I studied under Murray and Hans ’89 to ’94. 00:00:36 00:00:39 JAMES YOHE: James Yohe. I was there from ’91 until ’95. 00:00:45 JEFFREY BARR: I’m Jeff Barr. I was at UNLV with Hans and Murray from ’89 to ’95 and then took the very last class with Murray Rothbard [indiscernible_00:00:55]. 00:00:57 DOUG FRENCH: All right, great. And you recognize this gentleman at the board. His name is Murray Rothbard, and as you’ve heard, we all had the pleasure of being struck by lightning, as I like to say. At this conference, we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the publication of America’s Great Depression. And I like to tell the story that I didn’t have any idea who Murray Rothbard was when I came to UNLV. 00:01:38 And just to illustrate that point, Murray had—you got graded on three things. There was a midterm, there was a final, and there was a paper of 10 pages. You could write it on anything, but you had to get the topic approved by Murray. So I went in to talk to Murray, and I said, yeah, Murray—or Dr. Rothbard, I’d like to write on the Great Depression. And he goes, oh, that would be great. Why don’t—yeah, pull up—look up Lionel Robbins, and he mentioned this one and that one. And then he said, oh yeah, I wrote something about that. Yeah, he wrote something about that. It’s America’s Great Depression. But I had no idea. 00:02:36 But that shows you the kind of guy he was if he was—if Murray Rothbard—if that had been the only thing he did, he probably would have been a little miffed that I didn’t know about him. But he was very gracious, and I have since lost the paper somewhere between—I had it in Turkey a few years ago when we did something like this, and I have since lost the paper, but I did okay. But that is my—that’s my little anecdote about America’s Great Depression. 00:03:15 So this is the employee identification card. If you were thinking that—and this is courtesy of the archives here at the Mises Institute. You can see Murray’s signature, president’s signature, Robert Maxson who was eventually booted probably for no good reason other than getting sideways with the basketball coach, Jerry Tarkanian. So you could get sideways with pretty much anybody at UNLV but not Jerry Tarkanian, but this is when Murray started. He showed up in Vegas in 1986. I moved to Vegas in ’86. Hans Hoppe moved to Vegas in ’86. He starts January the 1st of ’87. 00:04:08 Now, this is a gradebook, and the only thing that I want to illustrate with this, and again, this is courtesy of the archives here at the Mises Institute, so I thank them for that. It’s not the fact that I got an A in the course. As you can tell, everybody got an A in the course almost. There is a B- and a C, and I have no idea how those people ended up getting that grade, but Murray was a notoriously easy grader. His tests were extraordinarily hard in some ways, but—and you’ll see one of his tests later in the program. 00:04:52 But you can see Murray, he—low-tech guy. He wasn’t putting anything on a computer. This was his gradebook. Now, when I went

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 251. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Frank Van Dun (Belgium), David Dürr (Switzerland), Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Germany/Turkey), Discussion, Q&A. Transcript below. PFS 2022 Playlist.   PFP251 | Van Dun, Hoppe, Dürr, Discussion, Q&A (PFS 2022) Transcript 00:00:12 M: Hi again. 00:00:14 M: All right, let me rephrase the question from yesterday. It just popped up on Bloomberg. Turkey ceased to be the first NATO member to join the China-led SCO. The market signals—I loved your speech, by the way. It was wonderful. But the market has clearly been confirming everything you’ve said so far. What’s it going to take for Europe to flip sides? 00:00:34 00:00:38 HANS-HERMANN HOPPE: For Europe to what? 00:00:39 M: To flip, get away from its vassal status and look east. 00:00:42 HANS-HERMANN HOPPE: It’s difficult to say. Initially, when the whole thing started, there was a celebration of European unity. This brings us all together because now we are all in that same sort of war, and we love each other all as opposed to them. In the meantime, of course, you see that the European Union is on the verge of breaking apart. The Hungarians don’t cooperate there. 00:01:21 In different countries, they are no longer willing, for instance, to send gas or oil to Germany because Germany is obviously the most idiotic country right now in Europe. And the Germans, of course, say there should be European solidarity. So if the European Union breaks apart, which I can imagine would be possible if that war drags on for another year or so, then that might also initiate some sort of break with the US. 00:02:02 There are also—they also celebrated, for instance, that NATO has, again, been expanded including now Sweden and Finland. But I think Sean Gabb yesterday talked about these types of problems too, that all of this increases conflicts because you have now lots of small countries that are in a position to provoke major wars. I think Lithuania has behaved in a way that I think is just absolutely stupid. That is, trying to escalate the whole thing even though you must know that if the United States would come to your help, which I doubt very much, there would be nothing left of Lithuania. I mean, that takes one day and the whole country is finished. 00:03:12 And that other countries like Germany and so forth do not realize they even support Lithuania in these extra provocations that they do. That is—how can I say? It is a situation that I never imagined would be possible. But again… 00:03:38 DAVID DÜRR: May I add something? Especially concerning Europe, I can imagine that, from a very general point of view, Google Earth view, also historically, that we have areas of concentration like US, like China, like Russia more or less maybe. And Europe was something like the rest of a decentralized—I do not speak now about Africa and South America. That’s another story. But among these, I think Europe is sort of an area of still living decentralization. I mean, the typical character of Europe during history was decentralization with attempts, of course, of centralization with these empires, different empires. But in principal, that was decentralized. 00:04:40 Now, there is a mixed attempt going on towards centralization with the EU toward United States of Europe, and let’s hope that that won’t work, that the decentralized aspect is, perhaps, living, that there is diversity, many languages, many cultures. So that could be maybe the place where decentralized could start worldwide, again, perhaps, and such problems like Brexit and others, problems with Poland, with Hungary and so on. These could be signs that something is going on in that direction. I hope so at least. 00:05:29 00:05:33 FRANK VAN DUN: What I find most extraordinary is the degree to which history has been wiped out of this perception of conflict. And if you talk about this until a year ago, everybody knew that Ukraine was a corrupt concoction, and the remainder of the policies of Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev because the country of Ukraine is not all of them the communist takeover in Russia. And the—all these historical dimensions, which are very pertinent to what actually happens never make it to the media. 00:06:17 And so everything depends on whether the narrative in the media will ever break down or erode because as long as this narrative is kept alive by the professional fabulated class, not the PFS, but the media societies, the global media societies, which dominate the perception of everything. I noticed when the COVID pandemic started, there were a few people that had contacted me, and they said this cannot be true, and this—their story was that the media are lying to us. 00:07:04 And then the moment COVID disappeared from the front page, and Ukraine was there, they were fully embracing the media narrative of Ukraine war. And you were always on the defensive as long as this idea that trut

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 250. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Germany/Turkey), “Growing to Understand Contemporary Germany—and Weep: Part II: US-NATO, Germany, Russia, and the Ukraine”. Transcript at “Growing to Understand Contemporary Germany and Weep – Part II,” LewRockwell.com (Oct. 17, 2022) PFS 2022 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 249. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Germany/Turkey), “Growing to Understand Contemporary Germany—and Weep: Part I: Germany: East and West, Reunification, and the US”. Transcript at “Growing to Understand Contemporary Germany and Weep – Part I,” LewRockwell.com (Oct. 15, 2022) PFS 2022 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 248. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. David Dürr (Switzerland), “War and Peace – and the Law.” PFS 2022 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 247. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Frank Van Dun (Belgium), “Socialization and the Loss of Law-based Accountability—A Philosophical Reflection”. PFS 2022 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 246. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Thorsten Polleit (Germany), Karl-Friedrich Israel (Germany/France), Jörg Guido Hülsmann (Germany/France), Alessandro Fusillo (Italy), Stephan Kinsella (Texas), Discussion, Q&A. PFS 2022 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 245. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Stephan Kinsella (Texas), “Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection”. See also KOL395 | Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection (PFS 2022). PFS 2022 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 244. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Alessandro Fusillo (Italy), “Roman Law Reconsidered”. Grok shownotes and transcript below. PFS 2022 Playlist. Summary (Grok): Introduction and Context In his lecture at the Property and Freedom Society (PFS) 2022 conference, Alessandro Fusillo explores the ideas of Swiss political scientist Carl Ludwig von Haller (1768–1854), focusing on his critique of the social contract theory and the influence of Roman law on modern state concepts. Fusillo begins by thanking the hosts and referencing Professor Hoppe’s prior talk, which inspired his topic.1 Haller’s primary work, Restoration of Political Science, challenges the notion that state power derives from a magical delegation from the people, a foundational idea in modern states. Fusillo notes that Haller was criticized by figures like Hegel, who saw the state as a supreme duty, and Hannah Arendt, who dismissed him as a defender of the ancien régime without reading his work. Haller’s View on Roman Law2 Haller’s analysis of Roman law is a key focus, though not his primary subject. He praises Roman private law as a timeless system of reasonable principles, forming the basis of modern civil codes in continental Europe. Fusillo aligns this with Bruno Leoni’s view that Roman private law, developed slowly through expert judges, exemplifies how law could be discovered in a free society. In contrast, Haller critiques Roman public law for negatively shaping modern state theories, particularly by fostering the social contract idea. The fascination with classical culture and the use of Latin as a lingua franca in the Middle Ages reinforced Roman terminology, such as societas civilis and res publica, which implied that states belong to the people, a concept Haller disputes. Roman Public Law and Social Contract Fusillo elaborates on Haller’s argument that Roman public law, rooted in republican terminology, was adapted by early emperors like Augustus to mask military dictatorships as republics. This terminology, suggesting a transfer of sovereignty from public assemblies to magistrates, influenced modern thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, who developed social contract theories. Fusillo describes ancient Rome as a “corporation of robbers,” built on conquest and the principle that might is right. The lex de imperio, a law transferring absolute military power to leaders, underscores this, particularly in the military context where commanders held unchecked authority, contrasting with limited citizen protections in Rome itself. Roman Military and Social Dynamics The evolution of Roman military practices further illustrates Haller’s critique. Rome shifted from heroic warfare to large infantry armies, necessitating broader societal participation and empowering plebeians through political revolts. Conflicts over land distribution between the nobility and soldiers fueled the republic’s crises, exemplified by the Gracchi brothers’ reforms. The concept of imperium—absolute military power—became central to Roman public law, with commanders wielding life-and-death authority in the field. Marius’s army reform, allowing proletarians to join, increased military commanders’ power, paving the way for figures like Pompey, Caesar, and Augustus, who blended civil and military authority. Rise of the Roman Empire Fusillo highlights how Pompey’s absolute power, granted through laws like the Lex Gabinia and Lex Manilia, marked the beginning of the Roman Empire’s centralized authority. Julius Caesar and Augustus furthered this by subduing territories and consolidating power, with Augustus using propaganda to present a Pax Romana while enforcing ruthless dominion. This “great reset” transformed the ancient world, leaving a legacy in Romance languages and global Roman influence. Sertorius’s failed rebellion against Roman exploitation underscores the empire’s dominance, achieved through military might and betrayal. Haller’s Libertarian Solution In conclusion, Fusillo presents Haller’s alternative vision for state power, rooted in private property, contracts, and voluntary associations, akin to the authority of an individual property owner. Haller argues that state power is limited by natural law—freedom and property—and suggests three defenses against abuses: adherence to religious principles, resistance (including violent resistance), and flight. This aligns with later libertarian ideas, such as Gustave de Molinari’s advocacy for competing governments. Fusillo frames Haller’s ideas as a challenge to state-centric models, advocating for a decentralized, voluntary basis for governance. Transcript (from Youtube/Grok) Introduction and Acknowledgments 0:09 First of all, I would like to thank Hans and Gülçin for the invitation. It is a privilege and an honor to be in Bodrum at the PFS conference, and I hope to share something interesting this afternoon. 0:24 My talk today stems fr

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 243. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Jörg Guido Hülsmann (Germany/France), “The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science”. PFS 2022 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 242. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Karl-Friedrich Israel (Germany/France), “A Critique of Inflation Measurement”. PFS 2022 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 241. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Thorsten Polleit (Germany), “Helmut Schelsky’s ‘The Others Do the Work. Class Warfare and the Priesthood Rule of the Intellectuals’ Revisited”. (Portuguese translation) PFS 2022 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 240. This panel discussion is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Andreas Tögel (Austria), Doug French (USA), Robert Groezinger (Germany), Daniel Model (Liechtenstein; Model Holding), Sean Gabb (England): Discussion, Q&A. PFS 2022 Playlist. Transcript from Youtube and Grok: body { font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 20px; line-height: 1.6; } h2 { color: #333; font-size: 1.2em; } h3 { color: #555; font-size: 1.1em; margin-top: 10px; } p { margin: 10px 0; } .speaker { font-weight: bold; } Property and Freedom Society 2022 Q&A Transcript Panelists: Andreas Tögel (Austria), Doug French (USA), Robert Groezinger (Germany), Daniel Model (Liechtenstein), Sean Gabb (England) [0:09] Moderator: Okay, one housekeeping announcement: tomorrow we will have some sort of karaoke singing. Those interested should make a list of songs they would like to have played so the disc jockey can prepare. All the karaoke fans and great singers among us should list their songs, and I’m sure things will work out fine. [0:50] Moderator: As for the rules of the question-and-answer session, you can address individuals on the panel or the panel as a whole. All panelists can comment on each other’s responses. Please wait until the microphone arrives at your place before asking your questions. You can ask whatever you want—about sex, money, or anything else. These are our competent people. [1:31] Moderator: Jay will carry the microphone. Point out that you are one of the questioners, and he will get to you. [1:48] Tim Haffner (Audience) Thank you, Professor Gabb, for your presentation. I spoke with you briefly during the break about this, but for people interested in the private production of security and defense, you mentioned how outsourcing the Navy created a problem for the existence of the Empire. Could you share further thoughts on that dynamic? [2:15] Sean Gabb Thank you. It is a problem when you outsource what are called the core functions of the state, or really whenever you rely on someone else to manage defense. We either outsource our defense to the state, or the state takes away our right to defense and exercises it for us. If a state outsources its defense, you’re putting yourself in the hands of people who may have their own interests, which may not align with yours. The Byzantine state believed that outsourcing its naval support to a rival foreign power, Venice, would deliver exactly what it wanted—neither more nor less. But it got much more than expected. This isn’t just a problem with outsourcing specific aspects of defense by a state; it’s a universal issue. Whenever you rely on someone else for your defense, you’re gambling that your interests and those of your defender will always align. The rather useless Byzantine ruling class of the late 11th century never thought the Venetians would have alternative interests. This vanity is something you often see with individuals. [4:14] Questioner A question for Andreas regarding guns. Are there any historical examples you’re aware of where the government demanded citizens surrender their weapons, and they refused? [4:27] Andreas Tögel As far as I know, in recent years, there have been attempts, for instance, in New Zealand, to buy back semi-automatic guns after an event where Muslims were killed by a maniac. As far as I know, it was somewhat successful—many people returned their weapons. However, I doubt you can increase security by buying back specific weapons. I think a similar program has been run in Canada, but I don’t know the details or what effect this kind of weapon collection had. [5:35] I’m not aware of recent instances where people outright refused. I can’t imagine what American citizens in the 19th century would have done if a president had proposed taking away their weapons. That could have caused a revolution because Americans have a different view of their property, especially their weapons, compared to Europeans. In Austria, about 30 or 40 years ago, they banned pump-action shotguns. Dealers estimated that approximately 40,000 of these weapons had been sold up to that point, but only 10,000 were returned or registered with special permits. That means at least 30,000 are now illegal. No single crime has been committed with these now-illegal weapons, as far as I know. To answer your question, people didn’t resist openly—they just kept their guns and stayed quiet. [7:23] Questioner For Andreas, Doug French, or anyone else: Will the 3D printing of guns or the ability for citizens to make their own guns with new technology change anything? [7:55] Andreas Tögel In Germany, or anywhere, if you have the equipment, no one can stop you from producing your own weapons. But it’s not a big problem to get real guns on the black market. Austria is close to the Balkans, and three years ago, a perpetrator killed people in central Vienna with an AK-47 he obtained from the Balkans, along with ammunit

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 239. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Daniel Model (Liechtenstein; Model Holding), “The Neglect of the Psyche in Governmental Action.” PFS 2022 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 238. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Robert Groezinger (Germany), “Gary North’s Covenantalism as a Contribution to Political Economy.” PFS 2022 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 237. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Andreas Tögel (Austria), “God Created Men and Samuel Colt Made Them Equal: Why Guns in Private Hands Increase Freedom and Security”. PFS 2022 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 236. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Doug French (USA), “How Movements are Turned into Rackets”. See also Sean Ring, “How Movements are Turned into Rackets,” The Rude Awakening (Sept. 16, 2022). PFS 2022 Playlist. From the transcript from the panel discussion: PFP240 | Tögel, French, Groezinger, Model, Gabb: Discussion, Q&A (PFS 2022): [15:20] Hans-Hermann Hoppe For Doug: You said movements turn into rackets. Are there movements that didn’t? [15:52] Doug French It’s hard to imagine. Even with the best intentions, you’d need angels running these organizations. A wise man once told me, “No tank, no think.” If you want a think tank, you need to raise money, but then money becomes the mission. It’s not too different from the private sector, but in the private sector, people pay directly for a good or service, so it’s not a scam. In nonprofits or politics, you raise money from one group and give it to another, which is always an issue. Your customers aren’t your donors. Only in a private capitalist society does a movement for a good avoid turning into a scam. [18:21] Hans-Hermann Hoppe So, the PFS isn’t a racket, right? [18:27] Doug French In the case of PFS, the consumers are the payers, like a private business. That means we’re angels, yes. [Applause] I assume you took that from my comment. The doctors are angels; they only reach out for funds when they have a fabulous product to provide. It’s not like Hans and Gerd are building pyramids in Istanbul or Bodrum for underemployed academics to do deep thinking. We provide funds willingly, enjoy the fruits, and 16 years prove it’s worth it—not a scam. Hopefully, it lasts 16, 32, or 48 more years. How long will you live, since you’re an angel? Hans-Hermann Hoppe I haven’t decided yet.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 235. This talk is from the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Sean Gabb (England), “Emperor Andronicus I Comnenos (1118–1185)—The Trump of Constantinople”. Slides below (ppt). PFS 2022 Playlist.    

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 234. This panel discussion is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Daniel Model (Liechtenstein; Model Holding), Stephan Kinsella (Texas), David Dürr (Switzerland), Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Germany/Turkey), Discussion, Q&A. PFS 2021 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 233. This talk is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Germany/Turkey): The Idea of a Private Law Society: The Case of Karl Ludwig von Haller. For the paper upon which this speech is based, see The Idea of a Private Law Society: The Case of Karl Ludwig von Haller (PFS 2021). PFS 2021 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 232. This talk is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. David Dürr (Switzerland): A Short History of the Swiss Constitution. PFS 2021 Playlist. ❧ The slides used for the talk are provided below: David Dürr (Switzerland): A Short History of the Swiss Constitution PDF; powerpoint.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 231. This talk is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Stephan Kinsella (Texas), State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code. PFS 2021 Playlist. Also podcast as KOL359 | State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021) For a similar talk, see KOL345 | Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PorcFest 2021). My notes are below: State Constitutions vs. The Libertarian Private Law Code Notes Stephan Kinsella Property and Freedom Society Annual Meeting Sep. 19, 2021 – Bodrum, Turkey Joke: I’ve prepared a libertarian constitution, and I hope to cover as much of its 18 parts and 45 pages as possible in the next half hour. Part I, Section A, Subsection 1: “Definitions.” Just kidding. I’m not going to read it. I haven’t even finished it yet. My wife said “is this what you geeks think is funny?” I said we’ll see. Half of them may be relieved, but some of them will be saying “Oh damn, I wanted to hear a Libertarian Constitution read to me.” Tell Hoppe Porcfest choking joke. I’m going to talk about the idea of constitutions and libertarianism—whether the idea makes sense at all. Since I’ve been a libertarian in the early 1980s, I’ve seen various utopian libertarian projects, many of them scams, most of them failures— cruise ship nations, now seasteading (Blueseed); Oceania—The Atlantis Project Same people: Project Lifeboat: “From the people who brought you the Oceania project so many years ago comes the Lifeboat project. An attempt to create a spaceship for the purposes of saving the human race from the singularity predicted by Vernor Vinge.” crazy guys homesteading abandoned oil rigs and declaring sovereignty; private justice, arbitration, and common law groups; The “Creative Common Law” project (Jamin Hubner), an anarcho-capitalist project in which I was enlisted as an advisor, only for it to later turn from “Creative Common Law 1.0: Anarcho-Capitalism” to “Creative Common Law 2.0: Anarcho-Socialism/Syndicalism” Always be wary of “Waystation libertarians” Tom Bell’s “Ulex,” or “Open Source Legal Operating System”; LiberLand, which I helped draft an early constitution for see “The Voluntaryist Constitution” Galt’s Gulch Chile, a scam that ended in disaster; the Honduras special economic zones; General Governance (David Johnston), the idea of leveraging Indian tribes’ special status to extend their federal tax-free enclaves or zones; even the Free State Project National Constitution Center’s “The Libertarian Constitution” Roderick Long’s “Imagineering Freedom: A Constitution of Liberty Part I: Between Anarchy and Limited Government” and Michael Darby’s “Draft Constitution for a Reviving or New Nation,” both at http://freenation.org/a/ Dennis Pratt https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-libertarian-bill-of-rights-look-like/answer/Dennis-Pratt-3 Siegen, Bernard H. (1994) Drafting a Constitution for a Nation or Republic Emerging into Freedom. 2d ed. Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason University Press. I’ve been dragooned into helping some of these as consultant or advisor— General Governance, we met with Indian tribe north of Texas; now you get a 404, as David Johnston moved on to bitcoin, after assuring me that within 6 months we’ll have a libertarian nation. Joel Bomgar, a libertarian-leaning conservative Christian businessman and Mississippi legislator. LiberLand (swam with Wit Jedlicka, the president, in Turkey) Mediterranean sea. Others I’ve forgotten. Often these projects involve the drafting of a new “Constitution” or some similar code or legal document. Why do we even use the word “Constitution”? The modern libertarian movement originated in the US in the 1950s with the work of Ayn Rand, and others—Milton Friedman, Leonard Read, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and we’ve always viewed the American Founding and related documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Statue of Liberty, The Liberty Bell—as quasi-libertarian. Consider the scene near the end of Atlas Shrugged, where wise judge Narragansett “sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . .’” Or “The Libertarian Constitution” by Ilya Shapiro, Tim Sandefur, and Christina Mulligan: “This was probably an easier project for us than for our conservative and progressive counterparts because the current United States Constitution is fundamentally a libertarian or, more precisely, classical liberal document. So much so that, at the outset, we joked that all we needed to do was to add “and we mean it” at the end of every clause. Others have proposed various amendments to the Constitution that would “fix” or im

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 230. This talk is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Daniel Model (Liechtenstein; Model Holding): An Entrepreneur’s Bureaucratic Encounters. PFS 2021 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 229. This panel discussion is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Karl-Peter Schwarz (Austria), Alessandro Fusillo (Italy), Rahim Taghizadegan (Austria), Jeff Deist (USA), Discussion, Q&A. PFS 2021 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 228. This talk is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Jeff Deist (USA), After Trump: The Prospects for Soft Secession in America. PFS 2021 Playlist. An article based on this talk follows: ❧ The Prospects for Soft Secession in America Jeff Deist Mises Wire, 09/21/2021 In 1930, Columbia professor Karl Llewellyn published The Bramble Bush, his famous tract on how to think about and study law. Llewellyn urged readers to consider both law and custom when seeking to understand a society, to recognize the difference between black letter legal codes and the day to day practices of state officials and citizens. Where there was no sanction, the author instructed, there was no law. In other words, we should focus on the substance of things at least as much as we focus on the form. This is an important lesson for how we view the United States today, with an eye toward what is actually happening on the ground among people and institutions, rather than legal formalisms. Read more>>

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 227. This talk is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Rahim Taghizadegan (Austria), Schooling as State-Making. PFS 2021 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 226. This talk is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Alessandro Fusillo (Italy), State-Making as War-Making: The Case of Italy. PFS 2021 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 225. This talk is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Karl-Peter Schwarz (Austria): “He Seeketh Liberty, Which Is So Dear” [Commemorating the 700th anniversary of Dante’s death (September 14, 1321)]. PFS 2021 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 224. This panel discussion is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Tim Haffner (United States/Japan), Juan F. Carpio (Ecuador), Saifedean Ammous (Palestine/Jordan), Thorsten Polleit (Germany), Discussion, Q&A. PFS 2021 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 223. This talk is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Thorsten Polleit (Germany), The Modern Version of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “One Ring To Rule Them All”: A Single World Fiat Money. PFS 2021 Playlist. See also his article based on this speech, A Global Fiat Currency: “One Ring to Rule Them All” (Mises Wire, 9/24/2021). Portuguese translation. See also Hoppe, Banking, Nation States and International Politics: A Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order (Vol. 4 Num. 1) (also in EEPP).

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 222. This talk is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Saifedean Ammous (Palestine/Jordan), Hard Money and Time Preference. PFS 2021 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 221. This talk is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Juan F. Carpio (Ecuador), The Body as a Capital Good (pdf). PFS 2021 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 220. This talk is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Tim Haffner (United States/Japan), Japan’s First Samurai: Rebellion Against Monopoly Justice. PFS 2021 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 219. This talk is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Germany/Turkey), Welcome and Introductions; How Would a Private Law Society Deal with Corona? PFS 2021 Playlist. The notes for this presentation are provided below. See also Hoppe, On the Corona Panic and Other Insanities: Interview by Andrea Venanzoni,” LewRockwell.com (Aug. 4, 2021). ❧ How Would a Private Law Society Deal with Corona?: Opening Remarks to the Property and Freedom Society Fifteenth Annual Meeting Friday, Sept. 17, 2021 • Bodrum Turkey Hans-Hermann Hoppe In a private law society, all land, every square inch, is privately owned. All apartments, houses, settlements, roads, waterways, seaports and airports, factories, offices, schools, hospitals, etc., have a private owner. This owner is either an individual or a group of individuals, a private association, each with its own house rules, organizational structure and internal decision-making rules and procedures. So this achieves, in contrast to all and any political centralism, a maximum of decentralized decision-making and, at the same time, a maximum of responsibility and responsible action. Every decision is the decision of a particular person or association with regard to their (and only their) private property. And every decision-maker is liable or covers the costs and consequential costs for his decisions or wrong decisions with his own property. For the specific problem of dealing with a pandemic, this means that much like the immigration problem, the urgency of which is currently obscured by the coronavirus, the question in the face of a pandemic is simply “who do I let in and who do I bar?” or “who do I visit and who do I stay away from?” More specifically: Each private property owner or property owner’s association has to decide, based on their own risk assessment of an infectious disease with respect to their property, who they allow to enter their property, when, and under what conditions, and who do they disallow. And, especially in the case of commercially used property, this decision can and will include one’s own preventive measures that are intended to facilitate visitor or customer access by making them appear to reduce or minimize risk. And conversely, visitors or customers may also take precautionary measures on their part to provide unimpeded access to various potential hosts. The result of these multiple individual decisions is a complex web of access and visiting rules. All encounters or meetings of persons take place voluntarily and deliberately. They come about in each case because both the host and the visitor consider the benefit of their encounter to be greater than the risk of possible infectious contagion resulting from it. Therefore, neither host nor visitor have any reciprocal liability claims, should an infection actually occur as a result of their encounter. This risk (including possible hospital costs, etc.) must be borne by each party alone. In this case, liability claims are only possible if, for example, the host deliberately deceived his visitors concerning his own preventive measures or if the visitor deliberately and intentionally violated the host’s conditions of entry. But even without any deception, the decisions of hosts and visitors are never without a price. Every preventive or precautionary measure involves an additional cost that must have an apparent justification, whether by the expectation of additional profits or reduced losses, or whether by increased acceptance or reduced rejection by potential visitors. And, in particular, every private decision-maker also has to bear the costs of possible wrong decisions in this respect, i.e., if the expectations are not only not fulfilled, but even turn into the opposite. If the supposed defense and precautionary measures are not only ineffective, but turn out to be counterproductive and even increase the risk of infection overall, be it of hosts or guests, instead of reducing it.   These are considerable costs that are the responsibility of a private decision-maker and could still be his when faced with an epidemic. His economic existence and his closest social environment may be at stake. In view of this, he will consider his decision thoroughly, and all the more so the more property and friendly relations he has or maintains. He must be quickly prepared, often almost “by force” to learn from his own mistakes and to correct his earlier decisions in order to avoid further economic or social costs. Accordingly, as with all other problems or risks – real or perceived – the same is true in the case of infectious diseases and epidemics. The best – most cost-effective and efficient – way to minimize the damage associated with an epidemic is to decentralize decision-making down to the level of private owners or owner associations. This is because, as mentioned a

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 218. This panel discussion is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Guido Hülsmann (Germany/France), Stephan Kinsella (United States), David Dürr (Switzerland), Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Germany/Turkey), Discussion, Q&A. PFS 2019 Playlist. Transcript at KOL272-2 | Q&A with Hülsmann, Dürr, Kinsella, Hoppe (PFS 2019).

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 217. This talk is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Germany/Turkey), The Failure of ‘Ontological Naturalism’ PFS 2019 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 216. This talk is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. David Dürr (Switzerland), Rights of Way – Ways out of the State. PFS 2019 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 215. This talk is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Stephan Kinsella (United States), Nobody Owns Bitcoin. PFS 2019 Playlist. See also KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019). Powerpoint slides embedded below. For an article based on the transcript, see “Nobody Owns Bitcoin,” StephanKinsella.com (Sept. 20, 2019). Some related Q&A is in this session which was held later on the same day: Hülsmann, Kinsella, Dürr, Hoppe, Q&A (PFS 2019). Related links/relevant material: Konrad Graf, Are Bitcoins Ownable?: Property Rights, IP Wrongs, and Legal-Theory Implications [PDF] Preston Byrne, What do you legally “own” with Bitcoin? A short introduction to krypto-property On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse LeFevre on Intellectual Property and the “Ownership of Intangibles” The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies you must own it first” Fallacies, “The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) “IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender The Limits of Libertarianism?: A Dissenting View KOL249 | WCN’s Max Hillebrand: Intellectual Property and Who Owns Bitcoin Cordato and Kirzner on Intellectual Property Mises on property KOL246 | CryptoVoices: Bitcoin as Property, Digital Goods, Personal Liberty, and Intellectual Property See other links at KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) My facebook post discussing ownership of Bitcoin Tom Bell: Copyright Erodes Property? Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply’ to Token Sales Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 214. This panel disucssion is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Guido Hülsmann (Germany/France), Less (Marcel) Mauss, More (Ludwig) Mises. PFS 2019 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 213. This panel discussion is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Cristiano Chiocca (Brazil), Antony Müller (Germany/Brazil), X (England), Matteo Salonia (Italy/England), Anthony Daniels (Theodore Dalrymple) (England/France), Discussion, Q&A. PFS 2019 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 212. This talk is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Anthony Daniels (Theodore Dalrymple) (England/France), Murder Mysteries then and now: Agatha Christie and Ian Rankin. PFS 2019 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 211. This talk is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Matteo Salonia (Italy/England), Private Wealth and Self-Defense in Medieval Genoa. PFS 2019 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 209. This talk is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Antony Müller (Germany/Brazil), Class, Ethnicity, and Power. PFS 2019 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 208. This talk is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Cristiano Chiocca (Brazil), The ‘Old Republic’ and the ‘New’. PFS 2019 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 207. This talk is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Rahim Taghizadegan (Austria), Karl-Peter Schwarz (Austria), Andreas Tögel (Austria), Frank Karsten (The Netherlands), Discussion, Q&A. PFS 2019 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 206. This talk is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Frank Karsten (The Netherlands), Discrimination: Inescapable and Prudential. PFS 2019 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 205. This talk is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Andreas Tögel (Austria), The First Republic: The Rest is Austria – Between Inferiority Complex and Arrogance. PFS 2019 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 204. This talk is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Karl-Peter Schwarz (Austria), The Nationality Question in the Late Habsburg Empire PFS 2019 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 203. This talk is from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Rahim Taghizadegan (Austria), Homo Austriacus. PFS 2019 Playlist.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 202. This panel discussion is from the 2018 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. David Dürr (Switzerland), Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Germany/Turkey), Frank van Dun (Belgium), Discussion Q&A. PFS 2018 Playlist.