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”

A Strategy for the Right

This article was first published in 1992, in the Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

By Murray N. Rothbard

What I call the Old Right is suddenly back! The terms “old” and “new” inevitably get confusing, with a new “new” every few years, so let’s call it the “Original” Right, the right wing as it existed from 1933 to approximately 1955. This Old Right was formed in reaction against the New Deal, and against the Great Leap Forward into the leviathan state that was the essence of that New Deal.

This anti–New Deal movement was a coalition of three groups:

  1. the “extremists” — the individualists and libertarians, like H.L. Mencken, Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, and Garet Garrett;
  2. right-wing Democrats, harking back to the laissez-faire views of the 19th-century Democratic party, men such as Governor Albert Ritchie of Maryland or Senator James A. Reed of Missouri;
  3. moderate New Dealers, who thought that the Roosevelt New Deal went too far, for example Herbert Hoover.

Interestingly, even though the libertarian intellectuals were in the minority, they necessarily set the terms and the rhetoric of the debate, since theirs was the only thought-out, contrasting ideology to the New Deal.

The most radical view of the New Deal was that of libertarian essayist and novelist Garet Garrett, an editor of the Saturday Evening Post. His brilliant little pamphlet “The Revolution Was,” published in 1938, began with these penetrating words — words that would never be fully absorbed by the Right:

There are those who still think they are holding a pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the night of depression, singing songs to freedom.

The revolution was, said Garrett, and therefore nothing less than a counterrevolution is needed to take the country back. Behold then, not a “conservative,” but a radical Right.

In the late 1930s, there was added to this reaction against the domestic New Deal a reaction against the foreign policy of the New Deal: the insistent drive toward war in Europe and Asia. Hence, the right wing added a reaction against big government abroad to the attack on big government at home. The one fed on the other.

The right wing called for nonintervention in foreign as well as domestic affairs, and denounced FDR’s adoption of Woodrow Wilson’s global crusading, which had proved so disastrous in World War I. To Wilson-Roosevelt globalism, the Old Right countered with a policy of “America First.” American foreign policy must neither be based on the interests of a foreign power — such as Great Britain — nor be in the service of such abstract ideals as “making the world safe for democracy,” or waging a “war to end all wars,” both of which would amount, in the prophetic words of Charles A. Beard, to waging “perpetual war for perpetual peace.”

And so the Original Right was completed, combating the leviathan state in domestic affairs. It said “no!” to the welfare-warfare state. The result of adding foreign affairs to the list was some reshuffling of members: former rightists such as Lewis W. Douglas — who had opposed the domestic New Deal — now rejoined it as internationalists, while veteran isolationists, such as Senators Borah and Nye, or intellectuals such as Beard, Harry Elmer Barnes, or John T. Flynn, gradually but surely became domestic right-wingers in the course of their determined opposition to the foreign New Deal.

If we know what the Old Right was against, what were they for? In general terms, they were for a restoration of the liberty of the old republic, of a government strictly limited to the defense of the rights of private property. In the concrete, as in the case of any broad coalition, there were differences of opinion within this overall framework. But we can boil down those differences to this question: How much of existing government would you repeal? How far would you roll government back? Continue reading “A Strategy for the Right”

Episode 40 – Equilibrium (1:28:37)


Our friends from Libertopia join us again to discuss the dystopian nightmare film, Equilibrium. A movie about a totalitarian-state hell bent on stopping war and crime by stamping out human emotion (and calling war, crime and violence a different name). This is a really fun episode.

In a fascist future where all forms of feeling are illegal, a man in charge of enforcing the law rises to overthrow the system. Emotion is outlawed and human behavior is controlled by a drug, Prozium, that hinders emotion. A government official is in charge of going around and eliminating potential threats to the regime. When the official forgets to take his dose of Prozium, a whole new world is opened up to him and he takes on the establishment that he’s supposed to be working for.

Here is the Google Description:

In a futuristic world, a regime has eliminated war by suppressing emotions: books, art and music are strictly forbidden and feeling is a crime punishable by death. Clerick John Preston (Christian Bale) is a top-ranking government agent responsible for destroying those who resist these rules. When he misses a dose of Prozium, a mind-altering drug that hinders emotion, Preston, who has been trained to enforce strict laws of the new regime, suddenly becomes the one capable of overthrowing it.

Continue reading “Episode 40 – Equilibrium (1:28:37)”

CNN’s Ugly Behavior

By Morten Rolland

CNN scrambles to cover themselves during the 4D-chess match they can’t seem to understand:

How appropriate: fake wrestling with fake news

“His ugly behavior”!? You are the only one with an ugly behavior here, CNN! You are threatening to dox a kid for making a joke gif about a huge media company (which, btw, means you’re blackmailing him for using his freedom of speech) – a world wide giant felt intimidated by a kid on Reddit and had to shut him down? Wtf is up with that! This is absolutely insanity!

You disgust me, CNN. You are a bunch of hateful, worthless, lying assholes, and I hope you will go bankrupt as soon as possible. All CNN journalists should be without a job, effective immediately. Your days of relevance are over.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

“I deplore the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them… These ordure’s are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our functionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief.”

And by newspapers, he most certainly meant companies like yours, CNN.

How to Lose Credibility for Dummies

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day….

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”

Official Actual Anarchy Response on Syria

New boss, same as the old boss.

If you were silent with Obama droning every day of his administration, but hated Bush for doing similar things – you are a hypocrite.

Obama bombed 7 countries in 8 years. It doesn’t matter if it’s a democrat or a republican.

If you were OK with Bush “defending our freedom” with war crimes on the other side of the world (how did our freedom get over there?), but hated Obama for his war crimes – you are a hypocrite.

Bush declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan, using depleted uranium munitions (chemical weapons anyone?)

If you cheered Trump and voted for him because Hillary was campaigning on being a bigger warmonger – not bad.


But he’s a hypocrite now.



If the last statement applies to you, and you now support these attacks – you are a hypocrite too.

We believe that all aggression is wrong and immoral, no matter which little letter is next to the name on a campaign sign.  They both love war because there’s money to be made and power to be had.

In fact, we believe this applies to the individual and that special ceremonies or costumes does not change it.

If it is immoral for one, it is still immoral for the many.

The non-aggression principle is the test to measure when force is justified.

We are not pacifists here. We believe in self-defense.

However, we also believe that the very nature of the State is force embodied and is immoral. It ought not exist and without it the concentration of violence would be diminished by a factor of damn near infinity.

We condemn these acts of war.

Racists and Snowflakes and Elephants!

How Hysteria Distracts from Legitimate Criticisms of the Trump Administration

By Hinton Bowers

When one thinks of mass hysteria, many events in world history leap to mind. From the hanging of witches in Salem, Massachusetts, to the British invasion of Beatle-mania… the most recent panic inducing event (for the left anyway), but certainly not the last, was the election of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States: 

These are only a couple of the overreactions that have been happening daily in this post election cycle, as leftists whip themselves up into a near psychological frenzy, asking: “How could this have happened?” The only explanation? “Racists elected him!” Never-mind the fact that the rust belt has been hollowing-out for years economically, or that middle income people are being squeezed by rising healthcare costs and stagnant wages. “It has to be the Nazis!”

Of course, the facts refute this claim, as several studies show that the same swing vote going for Obama in ’12 went to Trump in ’16; my word, Klan membership must have skyrocketed on November 8th! Continue reading “Racists and Snowflakes and Elephants!”


How Political Violence Makes Us All Slaves

By Hinton Bowers

Slavery was always a hotly contested and controversial issue going back to the founding of the US republic. It’s detractors claiming, rightly, that it denies not just life, or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, but all three.

These tensions eventually helped lead to the outbreak of state violence known as the American Civil War, but it was arguably precipitated by a very personal event in the spring of 1856…

Out-spoken abolitionist Charles Sumner, a senator from Massachusetts, had changed his party several times over the issue of slavery. Though abolitionists were generally disliked by the public ‘at large’ for inflaming tensions between the north and the south; on this day,  and perhaps unwittingly, Sumner instigated once again for personal liberty. By giving his famous CRIME AGAINST KANSAS speech, he was attempting to block the state-sanctioned expansion of slavery into that territory. Sumner’s speeches were usually fiery and this one was no exception, but then Sumner said something a little different:

“The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress — who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; — I mean the harlot, slavery.”

Targeting a sponsor of the Kansas pro-slavery bill, Sumner went personal, attacking Andrew Butler, accusing him of both delusion and sexual deviance, this ‘ruffled the feathers’ of many, but as history would record, it was Butlers’ cousin who would take it the most personally… Continue reading “USE YOUR WORDS”

Impeachment Talks Distract from the Real Conversation that is Needed

Countable posted a new video today titled, “Impeach the President!” Rhetoric or Reality? Embedded below.

Following in the footsteps of the media’s ‘Hysteria over Everything’ campaign, calls to impeach Trump are bubbling up in the media. The push for impeachment is a political tool to tarnish the reputation of the sitting president because it serves multiple functions.

First, it reinforces the confirmation bias in half the nation who voted for the other guy/gal. Everything the other team does is evil and the presence of the Impeach Trump headline reinforces them that they are the correct team, the moral team.

Secondly, it allows for political opposition to create their Lists of Evil. Every President has had this. Compare:

If you opposed George W Bush you could easily rattle off:

  • Waterboarding
  • Iraqi WMD lies
  • Bagram torture and prisoner abuse
  • The Plame affair
  • ‘Mission Accomplished’
  • The Great Recession
  • The Hurricane Katrina flyover
  • Abu Ghraib
  • Dismissal of United States Attorneys
  • GITMO detention program
  • Suspension of Habeas Corpus
  • ATF gunwalking scandal
  • Administration payment of columnists
  • Domestiv Spying and Wiretapping
  • war crimes

For Obama:

  • Operation Fast and Furious
  • Benghazi
  • Eric Holder held in contempt of Congress
  • Spying on journalists
  • The IRS targeting conservative groups
  • The great “stimulus” heist
  • The Pigford scandal
  • NSA spying scandal and Clapper lying to Congress
  • Iran nuclear deal and ransom payment
  • The GSA scandal
  • Polluting the Colorado River
  • The VA death-list scandal
  • Solyndra
  • Secret Service Colombian Hookers
  • Government Shutdown Theater closing memorials and parks
  • war crimes

Both presidents lined the pockets of the military industrial complex. Both destroyed individual civil liberties. Both increased the size and scope of government. Both doubled the national debt.

​If you naturally agree with one list and resist the other maybe it’s time to ‘diversify your portfolio’ and find more outlets of information. Neither party is interested in the behavior of the President unless he belongs to the opposing party. In the political spectrum, there is not much difference between Democrats and Republicans, despite the common belief that they are the only two choices and polar opposites.

Continue reading “Impeachment Talks Distract from the Real Conversation that is Needed”