I asked Hans to confirm my interpretation and he has. See my post Hoppe on Covenant Communities and Advocates of Alternative Lifestyles
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/05/26/hoppe-on-covenant-communities/

In a comment above (which was probably lost in the mix), I demonstrated why I think your interpretation doesn’t hold up under Hoppe’s own analogies. He clearly has in mind behavior that includes a type of “advocacy by example” which means that Charles is exactly right that “Hoppe is identifying homosexuals per se.” How can you reconcile this with your claim?

Note, that contrary to Rad Geek’s argument: “Hoppe himself is perfectly happy to say he wants people to discriminate against homosexuals as such, not against “advocates of homosexuality” ” — Hoppe is very clear that he is talking about advocates of homosexuality–and IN a traditionalist family/kin type private covenant regime. He is not talking about being intolerant of or expelling or discriminating against homosexuals–but against advocates of homosexuality–in a way that is “contrary to the very purpose of” such a traditionalist covenant.

“In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal.”

I think this argues for my interpretation, because it’s clear he is talking about “in a covenant” for “family and kin”–certain rules would be adopted; and further, the rule is to not tolerate those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. Note the emphasis is on people who habitually promote certain lifestyles. Now, again, I am not defending even this–I am not saying I agree with it–but it seems clear that he is talking not about people who have different lifestyles but about people who are promoting–habitually, at that–because this would be “advocat[ing] ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving” family/kin (and presumably traditional values) — just as, in the preceding passage, he said that in a covenant for protecting private property there would not be tolerance of those advocating ideas contrary to “the very purpose of the covenant of preserving private property, such as democracy and communism.”

It seems very clear that Hoppe was talking about some traditionalist family/kin based covenant community’s private rules, and that they would tend to be intolerant of those habitually advocating lifestyles contrary to the purpose of the private community. I see no reason to think that he means homosexuals per se are to be considered “habitual advocates”.

I have in mind the libertarian understanding of leftism as in Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

It seems that the “libertarian understanding” of that book in particular is rather contrary to what you’re holding out here. Confer Dr. Raico:
Conservative Myths in History: Review of E.v. Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s Leftism: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse [PDF Warning]

This sub-spectrum viewed as a macro, not a micro, is actually the visualization of the need for a paradigm shift to expand the perceived spectrum. When that spectrum is expanded, the distance between the Democrat and Republican poles on the spectrum relatively shrinks. This is why political scientists use linear spectrums — to visualize relativity. To keep repeating that libertarians don’t fit on the spectrum of conventional wisdom is a non sequitur.

As I wrote above:

“If two extremes can be established, you have a linear spectrum whether it’s a political spectrum, the biploar (disorder) spectrum or Dawkins’ spectrum of theistic probability.

Where a linear spectrum can be made, so can a center and varying degrees between the poles and the center. And within the spectrum itself, other [spectra] can be theorized to express relativity.”

No one’s saying the Democrats and Republicans are the poles between libertarians fit, but that on an macro-spectrum, libertarians are a far distance from the Dem-GOP sub-spectrum, yes, that’s agreed upon. the Dem-GOP sub-spectrum covers a small range of the macro-spectrum that overlaps the LibDem-Labour-Tories-BNP spectrum. Like all political ideals and ideologies, libertarianism has sub-spectrum.