I’m not so sure about that. I agree it is odd that the author never mentions Rothbard…but is Hoppe’s methodology fully consistent with Rothbard’s? Arguing that homosexuals would have to be removed from society (even in the simple context of private communes) doesn’t seem congruent with truly liberal ideology. And I have to admit I may not be familiar enough with Rothbard’s prescription for ancap, but did he really argue that all possible conflicts between individuals could be reduced to conflicts of property? And did he commit the same error of acknowledging the existence, presence, and influence of groups, and then simply ignoring groups all together when addressing conflict?
I do believe the author’s critique on Hoppe’s view of crime is weak, as he characterizes Hoppe’s position to be that human beings “lose their capability to do evil just because the legal fiction of the state disappears”…this, when he accurately describes the position only a few lines above as being that there would be less an incentive to commit criminal acts and protection would be more effective. He also claims that Hoppe “refused to become a martyr by choosing to fight against the university’s decision to rebuke him for his homophobe comments.” I found the case to be quite different…Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t exactly see how Hoppe was even in a position to be a martyr for anything. I didn’t think his professorship or anything else of that magnatude was being threatened. And even if it were, I don’t see how simply accepting termination or resigning would make Hoppe an example of someone making a sacrifice for standing by his principles. Quite the contrary, I would think the anti-martyr action would be to renounce his statement in the face of censure…not defend it.
Mistakes like that are always disappointing to read…but it doesn’t completely invalidate his overall argument, some main points of which I mention above. Does Hoppe just not approach anarcho-capitalism from the right angle?