In the January 2004 Liberty, Leland Yeager has a piece, "Monarchy: Friend of Liberty", which cites Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed favorably. Interestingly, Liberty previously published a piece by Tom Palmer critical of monarchy. I guess Liberty is okay with a pro-monarchist argument if the case, like Yeager's, is sufficiently utilitarian.
(See previous discussion re the Palmer article on the LRC blog here (NSK); here (Tom D), and here (Lew).)
In the same issue of Liberty, law student Greg Newburn has a strange "Harangue", "Time to Get Real," arguing for a pragmatic strategy for achieving liberty, in which he mentions libertarian theorists and scholars Hoppe, Tom Palmer, Tom DiLorenzo, etc., apparently as examples of eggheads who are no longer relevant. He argues that the libertarian movement is "a joke," and writes, e.g., "When you get right down to it, libertarianism is a political punch line. If Hans Hermann Hoppe [sic--there is a hyphen between the first 2 names] isn't being mocked by political scientists for arguing that democracy is "the God that failed," (or calling Gary Becker an "intellectual criminal," or saying that Chicago School economists are "worse than communists," or ...), then "Bureaucrash" is being mocked by college kids across the country for coming up with yet another lame "counter-protest" in the futile effort to take liberty "to the streets."
Methinks Newburn's little efforts are also "futile" ... and though his neutral, uncommitted style leaves it ambiguous as to whether he himself also views Hoppe, DiLorenzo, et al., with scorn, or only reporting that others do, it seems that he is endorsing it a bit. Moreover, he is confused when he attacks sound, radical, theoretical arguments for liberty, and Libertarian Party strategy/success in the same breath. He ends up endorsing Ron Paul as the model of political strategery we should adopt. But a "Paulist" need not dismiss the important insights of Hoppe, DiLorenzo, and others. Ron Paul himself is certainly not an anti-intellectual rube, so I'm not sure why Newburn implies his pragmatic strategery has to be.
