GM

I'm all for people being allowed to discriminate on race -- I just think it unwise to do so. With so many other, more relevant factors in making up any decision, it seems rare that looking to race as a basis in a decision is anything more than a distraction.
There's of course something to be said for shared cultural values. And yes, it takes time for people of different races to come to terms with each other, and forge enough of a shared culture to cooperate in a strong and efficient manner. But those who value strength know that the cost of strength is doing that which is hard, over and over and over again. It's wrong to forcibly put someone beneath a heavy burden they can't lift, but likewise, it's wise to, seeing that you can't yet lift it, take strides so that you can, lest at any point, it behoove you to be able to do so.
Anyway, all of this in reference to Hoppe. He's got a lot of value there, but this is a point which I feel deserves some refutation, or at least, conversation. Fascists, like communists, see weakness as something to shelter, rather than something to root out and destroy. They just differ on which weaknesses they cling to the most.
As for his stance on homosexuality wherein homosexuals are less likely to have a low time preference because they don't usually have children, this is one of those things that may statistically happen to coincide, but not follow from as a matter of course. There are many ways different people continue their legacy into the future, and while having children is perhaps the most common, it is by no means the only one, or arguably even the most heavily invested. Likewise, many who have children fail to adequately focus their preferences on the future outcome. Ho Chi Minh famously eschewed marriage and children because of his focus on the establishment of a sovereign state for his people, and while I've no regard for the Communist ideology it was based around, I'd hardly suggest he'd have had a lower time preference had he chosen to father children rather than father a country.
There is a stereotype among some that gay people are hedonists -- that they focus solely on desires of the flesh, and that this is a moral weakness. I can see where some of the assumptions come from, and I'd probably say that statistically speaking, it may even pan out. But it is worth remembering that not all who are in a same-sex relationship go without raising children, nor do those who go without raising children necessarily instead follow every passing fancy. We should value traditional marriage, as it is a tried and true path to looking out for oneself and family in old age, advancing the family as a unit, and advancing the species as a whole, but the idea that we therefore need to be intolerant of those who find that they are strongest with someone that doesn't fit the mold of a traditional spouse, or whose "children" may not be of their own genetics or even human seems entirely one born of fear. Fear that stepping out of line will lead the species to ruin. Or fear that seeing someone who makes choices differently from us will corrupt our children.
I don't know about you, but when I see all that fear, I see someone who's a very short distance from a whole lot of other regulations as well. Let's ban drugs. Let's ensure speech is restricted, lest the children engage in wrongthink.
Instill your children with your values, but perhaps almost more importantly, instill them with strength to be able to stand amid free people who make decisions differently from them.
Discovered a level further than that of Hoppe's argumentation ethics in his book 'Economic science and the Austrian method':
Immanuel Kant's Epistemology
I feel like a little kid who is being taught what 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'capitalism' actually mean from first principles.