Another Take on Immigration

By Andrew Kern of the Principled Libertarian

Immigration is a controversial subject in libertarian and anarcho-capitalist circles. Usually when there is a question of what people should be allowed to do or what policies we should support we can turn to property rights. We can ask “who owns this?” Unfortunately, the borders of a nation are not that clear cut. Governments specifically prevent individuals from exercising full ownership of the property along the border, and even seize additional property through eminent domain or similar programs.

Both open and closed government borders are not free market answers. Restricting movement of people over property that you do not own infringes on their rights. Alternatively, the government disallowing private acquisition and thus private decision-making of the land surrounding a nation distorts the amount of immigration that would otherwise occur.

Borders, in part, define the nation-state. It is within those borders that the coercive territorial monopolist of ultimate arbitration exists. So while the strict libertarian/anarcho-capitalist position on borders is to privatize them, to do so means to end the state. Until that happens we are forced to choose a 2nd best option as an immigration policy.

The federal government setting the rules for the entire border is the worst possible route for people who care about respecting the wishes of individuals. It amounts to a few politicians and bureaucrats setting the immigration policy for millions of square miles and hundreds of millions of people.

Outside of full privatization, there is another option which can unite libertarians of many stripes: decentralization. Continue reading “Another Take on Immigration”

True Libertarianism Is Colorblind

By Steven Clyde

If your first thought is “well libertarians surely care about green!”, I’ll concede and state that this is the point of this article.

Humans, each with their own individual goals and interests, seek a better life for themselves and other people they care about. We are born into an impossible situation though, having signed a supposed “social contract” at birth which guilts us into thinking we owe something to future generations because of the sacrifices made in the past.

Lysander: “Where in the world is the Social Contract?”

And thus lies the root of the problem: the confusion between positive and negative rights. Negative rights, justifiably, state that you as an individual have the right not to have force initiated against you and not  to have your property confiscated from you, while positive rights, which state that things are owed to you or other people, is a fallacy of the highest degree and should be abhorred by anyone familiar with logic.

The logic for positive rights proceeds as follows:

Person A of the past, did something to help or to hurt person B in the past, and therefore person C in the present who either gained or lost because of person A and B’s interactions in the past, owes something to or gets to take away something from person D in the present or the future.

It should be obvious why this doesn’t make sense, because if it’s true that I’m a user today of say the internet and its true I’m a benefactor of this past invention, then it would seem to imply that I “owe” something to the internet. But I pay for my internet services because I value its use, so in what sense am I a free rider?

And furthermore, any argument could be thought up to imply I owe something to somebody or I get to take away something from somebody, because of someone’s actions in the past. Its so nonsensical that’s its difficult to sum up into words, because it can imply almost anything.

Libertarianism however gives the individual a voice though because they are not responsible for things of the past, only their actions in the present. It allows for people to be judged by their character, and not by a collective (namely the state). The core aspect of communism is egalitarian in nature, seeking total equality in horrors that’s have been lived through by millions in which attempts to banish individualism not only goes against human nature (people having dreams and goals) but specifically uses violence to achieve its means, an impossible means to achieve at that.

There have been several articles circulating stating that white nationalism (which I won’t be facetious and leave out that some were written by an Asian guy) isn’t incompatible with libertarianism, which on the surface of it appears to be true in that libertarianism does not tell you that you can’t exclude people from your own private property, whether it be a business or your private home. The reasons for exclusion can be grim or nonsensical even, but the logic still follows that private property allows for inclusion and exclusion. Continue reading “True Libertarianism Is Colorblind”

Physical Removal – Separating the Facts from the Perversions

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Augusto Pinochet, and the Alt-Right Trolls

By Anarcho-Viking

The meme warriors from 4chan have revolutionized the art of meme warfare, and in the process of doing so; prominent libertarian scholars have appeared frequently together with fascist leaning military dictators, in what I would call the “alt-right meme circus”.

Memeing Gone Rampant

The helicopter is warmed up, photoshoped into the image are the faces of Augusto Pinochet (the former Chilean dictator) and Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Austrian economist and libertarian theorist) replacing the original caricature faces. Loaded onto the helicopter are a few communists or antifa social justice activists. Pepe the frog furthermore drags the commies onto the helicopter, and the helicopter carries the flag of Kekistan (an invented kingdom).

The text on the meme reads, “Hoppe’s physical removal service”, or “The Hoppean helicopter ride”, or “Free Kekistan!” Does this scenario sound familiar to you?

If you identify yourself as an anarcho-capitalist libertarian then you have certainly been exposed to the literature of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and you might laugh in amusement at this type of weaponized autism put forward by the alt-right internet trolls.

While the perversion of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics is entertaining in a warped sort of way, it is understandable that some people could be deceived by this distortion of Hoppe’s arguments, and as a consequence obtain a twisted interpretation of one of the greatest heroes for the cause of liberty.

Physical Removal

In order to clear up the confusion regarding the controversy around Hoppe, we need to look closer at his argumentation ethics, and frame the issue given the presumed conditions from which Hoppe derives his reasoning. In his masterpiece, Democracy – The God That Failed, Hoppe famously claims that:

“in a covenant…among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists”

because some people might promote ideas that would disturb the naturally established covenant and destabilize the covenant’s asserted protection of private property, concepts such as “democracy and communism”.

Hoppe furthermore goes on to argue that “there can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order” and the conclusion is that the alleged enemies of private property preservation “will have to be physically separated and removed from society”, so to speak.

The idea of “physical removal” is coming from the aforementioned statements. These statements, when taken out of context can be widely misunderstood. Continue reading “Physical Removal – Separating the Facts from the Perversions”

A Political Guide To Destroying Your Economy

WARNING:  Before you implement the pieces of advice, it is necessary for you to have a nuke or else it is not easy to declare yourself as a legal thug who is going to constitutionally take care of everything at the expense of everyone else except yourself.

Otherwise, you would have a difficult time in organising the slaves and call yourself “the government”.

To destroy your nation’s economy, you need to abhor freedom of others. If you lack this quality, you are not “mentally fit” to envy and expropriate others. All your actions can be justified by a piece of paper called “constitution”. There’s nothing to worry about, except anarchists.

Second thing, you should never learn economics. What matters is sociology because it helps us to “screech autistically” and attain the status of victimhood, followed by a biased understanding of the history subject.

Professional Victim

By the way, if you come across any “critical thinker” or “learned person” then it is your moral duty to shun his/her opinion without using facts, but sentiments.

Anyway, the above premises are the fundamental and foundational qualities to embrace the civility of a good politician. Only Ron Paul can be a bad politician because he does not support this guide/blog. I condemn him for that. Continue reading “A Political Guide To Destroying Your Economy”

Diet Coke of Fascism

There’s a self-proclaimed intellectual tribe which believes in a contradictory premise and that is “removing 80% of the tumor solves the cancer, while the remaining 20% should be left intact”.

It is just not a belief but also a modern ideology. They worship this political ideology, like the way jihadists worship Islam, but without directly initiating violence. The tribe also believes that it is morally correct to have freedom in all economic activities because they trust the principles of government-constituted free market.

When it comes to defense, police and courts or law, the tribe would not mind distrusting the principles of laissez-faire. To add, the tribe does not realise that it suffers from a psychotic disorder called ‘stockholm syndrome’ (which means, sympathising with the crime doer).

For example: they chant, blog & podcast “government is evil” (without realising that they’re the ones who are always eager to necessitate the evil at the expense of everyone else). They tend to forget that ‘limiting’ the evil does not equate to abolishment of evil.

Evil is evil, no matter what’s the size of it.

I do not intend to bash these intellectuals in this article. I am simply analysing their unnoticed hypocrisy.

Drink in the hypocrisy of minarchism

What makes their myth so different from other political ideologies like democracy, communism, etc., when their own ideology is a diet coke of all the fascist tendencies? Continue reading “Diet Coke of Fascism”

Knock that Chip off Your Shoulders, Pussies!

By Dissident Mama

From feminism to BLM, mass immigration to LGBT, and environmania to egalitarianism, there’s one intrinsically sick and demented characteristic that all modern leftist movements share: a gigantic ego-maniacal chip on their shoulders. It weighs down the ideologues with hubris, draining out any common sense they may be able to muster under normal circumstances.

It strangles them with an sense of entitlement, inflating their pride to an unbearable level for both them and the people to which they subject their self-centeredness. It inhibits their rational thinking, propelling them into a perpetual stupor of anger and admiration for whatever is the trendy cause du jour. It suspends their critical thinking, making them susceptible to the snake-oil chicanery of the social-justice cultists.

Basically, this obsessive self-absorption renders them stupid, angry as hell, and willing accomplices in the perpetuation of all sorts of hateful, illogical, sexist, and racist movements that spawn from the poisonous roots of progressivism. And this leads to a few irrational conclusions drawn by the participants in the A Day Without Women march happening this Wednesday.

It allows them a clear conscience taking part in an event organized by diabolical dames, like Maoist Tithi Battacharya, Stalinist and accessory-to-murder Angela Davis, and convicted terrorist and murderer Rasmea Yousef Odeh. These are some scary, totalitarian bitches, y’all. (And don’t let the fake-news promoters at Snopes tell you otherwise.)

It gives them carte blanche to spew lies, twist facts, ignore authentic injustices, and insult rational opposition to their tyrannical messages. It grows in them a feeling of moral superiority, as was seen in the recent stunt by female House Democrats, wearing white to Trump’s address to Congress as an “emblem of purity, symboliz[ing] the quality of our purpose.”

As their supposed tribute to the suffragists, these fems say the move was representative of their beloved “right to vote.” Yet, it was that very political franchise that determined Trump as winner. Continue reading “Knock that Chip off Your Shoulders, Pussies!”

Donald Trump’s Sixth Sense and the Case of Sweden

By Anarcho-Viking

Remember when Donald Trump, during his campaign style rally in Florida, made an obscure reference to Sweden, as if a recent incident had taken place the night before?

Many people, including myself, shook their heads, and tried to figure out what the President actually meant? Trump’s comment went viral to the point where the Swedish foreign minister, Margot Wallstrom went out and demanded an explanation. Before the twitter attack storm on the President had calmed down, I received a message from my brother informing me that riots were taking place in Rinkeby, a suburb south of Stockholm with over a 90% immigrant population, as we were chatting.

Suddenly, Trump’s eerie remarks from the day before, returned to haunt my mind., and I was wondering whether or not “The God Emperor” was capable of travelling through time. An arrest warrant carried out by The Stockholm Police Department, in Rinkeby, had caused severe civil unrest and violence on the streets. This bizarre coincidence flipped the attention from Donald Trump to the Swedish authorities, who now had to explain themselves. We all know that governments are experts at covering up stories, but how could one possibly explain away a dozen cars set on fire, stores looted, rocks thrown at police, and private property destroyed? By the way, this wasn’t the first time. Riots had been plaguing the Stockholm suburbs before as well.

Continue reading “Donald Trump’s Sixth Sense and the Case of Sweden”

DEVELOPING – Reports of Riots in Sweden

From someone who actually lives in Stockholm


Yes, with one minor correction. I don’t live in Sweden anymore. I was born and raised there, and I have family living there. I do follow Sweden closely because it’s my home country, but thank goodness I do not live there anymore.

In Stockholm specifically, which is my hometown

I have an open offer for them to write an article for us here, but they want to make sure they have the facts straight first.

I can, but probably have to wait till tomorrow, because it’s not all clear how this played out, and what the triggers were? I’m sure it will be even worse than from what I know now, once I get all the facts straight.

Here is their article:

Riots in Stockholm tonight. 10-12 cars burning, rocks being thrown at police, firefighters, and paramedics. Donald Trump was able to predict the future with his obscure comment the other day. The world has gone mad, and Sweden has a greater number of “no go” zones than, for example Chicago. Forced integration and multiculturalism has been such a huge failure.

Rinkeby, a southern suburb of Stockholm, with almost 100% immigrant population, is in flames after an arrest warrant was carried out by the Stockholm police department. It’s a total mess.

Sweden took in more than 160K immigrants in 2016 alone. Sexual assaults and rape crimes have gone up factorial (steeper than exponential). South-East Bronx is considered safer than these neighborhoods in Sweden.

In response to a question about Trump’s recent remarks regarding crime in Sweden related to immigration:

Yep, it’s like really embarrassing for Sweden too. The Swedish state authorities had demanded an explanation of what he meant with his comment, and now this happened…..


Are Open Borders Really the Position of Libertarians?

By Kirk D.

Migration is a hot topic these days, especially since President Trump’s travel ban on nations of interest. Many Republicans tend to embrace strict limitations on immigration while Democrats seem to have no limitations; but what about Libertarians?

The official Libertarian Party’s platform on migration states that people should be able to “travel freely as long as they are peaceful.” They also claim that ‘most immigrants are peaceful and productive’ and that ‘undocumented immigrants shouldn’t be classified as criminals.’ The Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) takes it a step further and claims that “there is only one Libertarian position on immigration” and that is “open borders.” There are a slew of other Libertarian websites (like this one) making similar claims, but do all Libertarians feel this way?

It’s hard to quantify considering most polls don’t include Libertarian based questions on topic issues. But if you take to the comment sections on many platforms and a vast array of websites and blogs, a lot of people calling themselves Libertarian don’t seem to share the institutional views that the Libertarian Party, the FFF and many other gatekeeper outlets espouse. Some more mainstream Libertarians like David Boaz and John Stossel believe that migration needs checks and balances. Some equate open borders as being a principle of communism. Ron Paul has advocated for creating better working visa programs while still enforcing migration laws but above all, ending the welfare state.

But the last point is key.

How can Libertarians be in favor of open borders while a welfare state is in place?

And there lies the conundrum. I think this article from is a must read for Libertarians who are confused on their position of open borders. Hans-Hermann Hoppe encourages real Libertarians to not be the useful idiots of cultural Marxism via the victimology that has permeated the main stream Libertarian institutions.

My Complete Take on Immigration Issues Recently

By Evan Albright

Immigration is a natural right, and no man may be coerced into not going to a location in which the owners of that place would freely accept his presence there or would freely sell him that property.

That being said, a person cannot come into a community in which the residents of that community do not welcome him no more than a person can come into your bedroom at night where he is no less welcome by that family.

Murderers should not be let into any community if they are not welcome, nor rapists, but what of LGBTQ-ers more generally, or the “corrupters of our youth,” or any other arbitrary distinction people view as a threat to their way of life?

Where we do not put restrictions on what type of people a family may not welcome in their home, we should not put restrictions on what type of people a community can welcome amongst their midst, if that is a community’s free expressed will. Continue reading “My Complete Take on Immigration Issues Recently”