WHIT WH ITE, E, RI R IGHT GHT, AND AND LIBERTARIAN Chase Rachels
Copyright © ���� Christopher Chase Rachels All rights reserved. ISBN-��: ���-���������� ISBN-��: ����������
CONTENTS
Foreword by Hans-Hermann Hoppe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v Chapter I : What Anarcho -Capitalism Is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � Chapte pter II: Te Libe Libert rtar aria iann Case ase Agai Againnst Ope Open Bor Borders ders . . . . . . . . . . . . �� Chapter III: For A “Libertarian Alt-Right” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�� .�� Suggestions For Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �� Appe ppendix: ndix: Cle Clear arin ingg Up Up Te Hoppe oppe For Forew ewor ordd Con Controve rovers rsyy . . . . . . . . . .��
iii
FOREWORD
Te social theory sailing nowadays under the label “Austro-Libertarianism” has a long and prominent history going back many centuries, culminating during the second hal o the ��th century in the work o Murray N. Rothbard, and continued today by his various intellectual disciples and students (including mysel mysel ). Te theory provides a simple, argumentatively irreutable (without running into contradictions) answer to one o the most important questions in the entire field o the social sciences: How can human beings, “real persons,” having to act in a “real world” characterized by the scarcity o all sorts o physical things, interact with each other, conceivably rom the beginning o mankind until the end o human history, peaceully, i.e., without physically clashing with one another in a contest or fight concerning the control o one and the same given thing? Put briefly, the answer is this: Absent a perect harmony o all interests, clashes regarding scarce resources can only be avoided i all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual or group o individuals. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, rom you, with your own own things, without you and I ever clashing. And who owns what scarce resource as his private property and who does not? First: Each person owns his physical body that only he and no one else controls directly. And second, as or scarce resources that can v
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
be controlled only indirectly (that must be appropriated with our own nature-given, i.e., un-appropriated, body): Te right to exclusive control (property) is acquired by and assigned to that person who appropriated the resource in question first or or who acquired it through voluntary (conflict-ree) exchange rom its previous owner. For only the first appro appro priator o a resource (and all later owners connected to him through a chain o voluntary exchanges) can possibly acquire and gain control over it without conflict, i.e., peaceully. Otherwise, i the right to exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers, conflict is not avoided but, contrary to the very purpose o norms, made unavoidable and permanent. Formulated as a principle: You shall not aggress against another person and his justly acquired property and you may use physical violence exclusively in deense o persons and property against ag ainst an aggresagg ressor. In his previous book, A Spontaneous Order: Te Capitalist Capitalist Case For A Stateless Stateless Society, Chase Rachels has given a brilliant exposition o the Austro-libertarian social theory and careully explained the inner workings o an anarcho-capitalist social order. While the importance o this “Austro-libertarian” Austro-libertarian” insight can hardly be overrated, it is just as important to recognize what questions this theory does not answer ans wer.. When we look at the real world we cannot but notice that it is distinctly different rom a libertarian social order. And yet the libertarian theory in itsel does not entail an answer as to why this is so— except to conclude that people apparently are not intelligent or willing enough to recognize and embrace its truth—and consequently, how to actually achieve the ultimate libertarian end o a Stateless society rom some distinctly un-libertarian starting point. Nor does the theory imply much i anything concerning the question o how to maintain a libertarian social order once achieved and make it sustainable. o answer these questions pure theory is insufficient and must be complemented by empirical study. One must turn rom pure theory to human history, psycholog y and sociolog y. Unortunately, all-too-many sel-proclaimed libertarians have neglected or reused to do so and naively embraced the currently reign vi
FOREWORD
ing—and only “politically correct”—view that all people and in particular all groups o people are essentially equal as regards their mental and motivational make-up, and that any observable inequalities are either the result o mere accident and circumstance or past injustice and as such can and should be made good by some corrective, “equalizing” measures. Te acceptance o this belie in the empirical equality and hence, the interchangeability, substitutability and replace-ability o all people and all groups o people, has led many libertarians—the now so-called “lef”-libertarians—to endorse and promote the very same agenda pursued presently, presently, more or less vigorously, vigorously, by the ruling elites all across the Western World (are they all secretly libertarians?): o multi-culturalism, unrestricted “ree” immigration, “non-discrimination,” “affirmative action” and “openness” to “diversity” and “alternative liestyles.” Given this curious programmatic alliance between lef-libertarians and the ruling elites, it is not entirely surprising that, notwithstanding the dearth o any outstanding lef-libertarian intellectual talent, the “elite” main-stream media (MSM) has attentively ollowed and reported on their every position-paper or pronouncement and thereby helped create the impression in the public mind that lef-libertarianism is libertarianism. At the same time, to the the same effect and equally e qually unsurprising unsurprising,, the very same MSM systematically ignored the contrary act—or else deliberately misconstrued and misrepresented it—that lef-libertarianism, already at its first public pub lic appearance, had come under heavy attack rom Murray Murray Rothbard, the very ounder and ountainhead o modern libertarianism, as only ake ake-libertarianism. Owing to their patently alse, unrealistic assumptions concerning the nature nature o man, he had pointed out,� the very means and measures advocated by lef-libertarians or the attainment o libertarian ends were alse as well. In act, given the libertarian end, they were counter-productive counter-productive and would lead to more conflict and inringements o private property rights. Real libertarians—in contrast to lef-libertarian akes—must study and take account o real people and real human history in order to design a libertarian strategy o social change, and even the most cursory study in this regard—indeed, little more than common sense—yields results completely opposite rom those proposed by libertarian akes. vii
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
While members o the same species, men (including women) are strikingly strikingly differen d ifferentt and unequal rom one another. Not Not just individually, individually, one man rom another, but also collectively, one group o men connected more or less closely by a commonality o language, religion, culture and custom rom another group o men with another language, religion, culture and custom. (Hardly surprising, i one considers the act that all present people are typically typicall y the descendants o people that have lived ar apart rom each other going back hundreds or even thousands o years and thus ormed separate and distinctly different gene pools!) More to the point and just as obvious: Men, not only individuals considered in isolation, but also groups o individuals considered as communities or cooperatives, with their various languages, religions, cultures and customs, display significant differences and inequalities as regards the degree o conormity o their conduct with libertarian principles. While no society can do without some degree o conormity to the libertarian non-aggression principle (NAP) at least insoar as its internal relations are concerned—that is: there can be no society that allows or a “ree-or-all” o murder, homicide, battery or the “taking” o other persons’ things -, the degree o conormity displayed by differen d ifferentt societies or communities is strikingly different. Some appear like permanent war-zones or lawless hell-holes filled with brutality and cruelty cruelt y, whereas others, at the other (positive) end, approach the libertarian ideal quite closely (say, (say, Liechtenstein). L iechtenstein). Viewed rom a global macro-perspective, it should be obvious also (especially to a libertarian), that all great libertarian thinkers which successively and gradually built up the system o libertarian law and order have been “Western Men”, i.e., men born and raised in countries o Western and Central Europe or their various overseas dependencies and settlements and intellectually and culturally united by a common trans-national CathCathlingua anca (once Latin and now English) and the trans-national olic Church or, more lately and vaguely, a common Christianity. Tat it is in these Western societies, where libertarian principles have ound the most widespread public acceptance and explicit recognition as “natural human rights.” Tat, notwithstanding their blatant shortcomings and ailings, it is Western societies, then, that still resemble, comparative viii
FOREWORD
ly speaking, a libertarian social order most closely. And finally (unsur prisingly insoar as the widespread recognition and explicit acceptance o the NAP by the members o a society are signs o a comparatively high(er) intelligence and impulse control) that it is these societies, then, that also are the technologically and economically most advanced. Tese observations alone should be sufficient to reveal any libertarian advocate o “ree,” unrestricted and non-discriminatory immigration o non-Westerners into the countries o the West as a ool. Every such immigrant—not to speak o mass-immigration—poses the risk o urther diminishing and undermining the already limited reedom and private private property protection presently enjoyed in the West. o prevent this, any libertarian worthy o the name must instead advocate the strict and utmost discrimination vis-à-vis any potential immigrant—he might be an avowed communist or socialist or import his amiliar hellhole culture into one’s own midst—and rom the very outset he must be strictly opposed in particular to any orm o mass-immigration. As well, he should begin to realize that the Western ruling elites currentcurrently promoting immigration rom non-Western countries are not motivated by libertarian ends, but by a calculated desire o using oreign immigrants as vehicles or the urther expansion o their own domestic power, reach and level o intererence intererence with the private property rights o domestic residents. As well, when we shif rom a macro- to a micro-perspective and look only at any particular Western society (say, the US or Germany), we reach similar and urther specified and refined conclusions concerning libertarian strategy strateg y. Each o these Western societies is ruled by some different gang o people in control o some separate, geographically geo graphically defined State; and each State-gang claims, concerning everyone and everything on “its” territory, then, that only it , i.e., only State-gang members, memb ers, are authorized authorized to act as ultimate legal authority, judge, enorcer and executioner in any conflict or contest o wills. In short: each separate State-gang claims and exercises a territorial monopoly o aggressive violence against “its” own private private people and property propert y. No State currently ruling over different parts o the Western World achieved this rank and position as ultimate judge and executioner immeix
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
diately and at once, however. It took hundreds o years to bring this about and replace or displace a once, or a lengthy period in Western history, highly decentralized system o social authority authority with the present system o centralized and monopolized State authority. For much or even most o the European middle-ages no State and State authority existed. All authority was social authority. Tere were hierarchies o authority: heads o amily households, priests, bishops and a distant pope; patrons, lords and over-lords; and countless different and separate communities, religious, social and proessional orders, assemblies, guilds, societies, associations and clubs, each with its own rules, hierarchies and rank-orders. But no authority was absolute, and no one and no one group o people held a monopoly on its rank or position o authority. authority. Even Even eudal kings could be called upon and brought to justice by other, other, competing authorities. authorities. Te strategy that any would-be-State promoter had to pursue, then, and that all Western States continue to pursue today, has been dictated by this quasi-libertarian medieval starting point. In a nutshell, it boils down to the rule: You (the State) must undermine, weaken and ultimately destroy all competing authorities and hierarchies o social socia l authority. ity. Beginning at the highest hig hest levels o authority authority and rom there on successively down, ultimately to the most elementary and decentralized level o social authority invested in the heads o individual amily households, you (every Statist) Statist) must use your own initial authority to undermine all rival authorities in stripping away their right to include and exclude, i.e., their right to determine autonomously who is a member and who is not, what the eligibility requirements or membership are, and which conduct is or is not in accordance with its own membership rules and may result in various penalties ranging rom admonishment or warning to outright exclusion or expulsion. Kings must no longer be allowed to reely determine who is another king or the next king, and who can or cannot come beore them or justice and assistance; assistance; and assemblies o kings must no longer be allowed to determine who to include or elevate to their own rank and who to exclude or demote. Likewise, or any separate community, association, order, club, etc.: No one must be ree to autonomously determine its own rules o admission and exclusion. And ultimately so also or all indi x
FOREWORD
vidual amily households: households : No head o household househo ld must be allowed a llowed to set down his own house-rules governing the admission to his house and the conduct o all household members. In sum: Free association and dis-association (separation) o people in physical space and ree affiliation and dis-affiliation o people through shared or un-shared memberships in various organizations must must go. And how to achieve this? By enlisting the support o everyone resentul o not being included or promoted in some particular association or organization or or being expelled and excluded rom them. Against this ‘unair’ discrimination you, the State or would-be State, must promise the excluded ‘victims’ to help get them in and get them a ‘air’ and non-discriminating non-discriminating treatment treatment in return or their binding affiliation with you. On every level o social authority, authority, you must encourage encourage and promote deviant behavior (behavior (be havior preventing preventing inclusion or leading lead ing to exclusion) and then use these deviants to undermine any authority other than your own. Free association and affiliation must be replaced by orced integration and orced affiliation—euphemistically called multiculturalism and affirmative action. In light o these observations, it should become rather obvious why the lef-libertarian program does not and cannot achieve the libertarian end o a State-less social order, but, to the contrary, will lead to a urther expansion o monopolistic State powers. “Free” mass immigration rom the non-Western world, “multiculturalism,” “affirmative action,” “non-discrimination,” the propagation o “openness” to “diversity” and “alternative lie-styles,” to “eminism” and “gay- and transgender-ism,” and o “anti-authoritarianism,”—they all are and must be seen as means to urther diminish whatever little discretionary, discriminatory discriminatory and exclusionary powers still remain in Western societies in the hands o non-monopolistic social authorities, and to correspondingly expand and increase the powers centralized, concentrated and monopolized in the hands o the State. * * * For more than two decades, ollowing in Rothbard’s ootsteps, I have tried to get libertarianism right again—most prominently with my xi
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
(����)—in complementing libertarian Democracy Democracy:: Te God Tat Failed Failed (����)—in theory with social realism (history, psychology and sociology), and to rescue libertarianism rom lef-libertarian flakes and akes a kes and repair the public misperception that they are and represent represent what libertarianism lib ertarianism is all about. ab out. Te reaction to these endeavors—in particular Rothbard’s Rothbard’s and mine—rom the side o lef-libertarians has been urious. Tis notwithstanding, however, they were instrumental in that today, among sel-described libertarians, lef-libertarianism is in retreat, while the influence o realistic-right libertarianism has steadily grown. Troughout the entire period, the Ludwig von Mises Institute— mises.org—and Lew Rockwell—lewrockwell.com—have stood out as bulwarks against a gainst the infiltration o libertarianism by lefist thought. As well, Ilana Mercer has been an early critic o lef-libertarianism with her paleo-libertarian paleo -libertarian blog— blog —barelyablog.com. More recently, outlets or explicitly and decidedly anti-lefist libertarian thought have prolierated. Tere is “Bionic Mosquito” (D. A.) with his blog— bionicmosquito.blogspot.com. Tere is Sean Gabb’s and now Keir Martland’s British Ludwig von Mises Centre—mises.uk.org. Tere is C.Jay Engel’s blog—austrolibertarian.com. Tere is Matthew Reece’s site—zerothposition.com—and Chase Rachels’ RadicalCapitalist.org. Tere is Stean Molyneux with his show on freedomainradio.com and om Woods with his show on tomwoods.com. Tere is Robert aylor’s excellent and highly important book Reactionary Liberty: Te Libertarian Libertarian Counter-RevoluCounter-Revolunow, with Chase Rachels’ new book bo ok White, Right, and tion (����). And now, Libertarian Libertarian, there is another brilliant, must-read contribution to getting libertarianism realistic and right again. Hans-Hermann Hoppe
xii
FOREWORD
H���-H������ H���� is an Austrian School economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher, Proessor Emeritus o Economics at UNLV, Distinguished Senior Fellow with the Mises InstiInstitute, ounder and president o Te Property and Freedom Society, ormer editor o the Journal Journal o Libertarian Libertarian Studies Studies, and a lietime member o the Royal Horticultur Horticultural al Society.
REFERENCES �. Murray Murray Rothbard, “Big-Governme “Big-G overnment nt Libertarians,” in: L. Rock well, ed., Te Irrepressible Irrepressible Rothbard, Auburn, Auburn, Al: Ludwig von Mises Mises Institute, Institute, ����, p. ���–���.
xiii
CHAPER I
WHA WH AT ANARC A NARCHO HO�CA �CAPIT PITAL ALIS ISM M IS
Te “anarcho” prefix in “anarcho-capitalism” reers to anarchism. Tere is much debate over what the defining elements o anarchism are, but virtually all conceptions entail a society without a State (not necessarily without a government more broadly conceived). Te State is that institution in a given geographical area which asserts a monopoly over the creation, interpretation, and enorcement o law. Te laws it enacts supersede the rules made by any other person or organization within its jurisdiction. Te State is the ultimate arbiter in all cases o interpersonal conflict, including those involving its own agents (the conflict o interest should be apparent). Lastly, the State reserves the unique legal privilege to lay taxes, i.e. to coercively co ercively demand payment p ayment or its so-called so- called “services” and unilaterally set and alter the levels thereo. Te aorementioned characteristics are inherent inherent to all a ll States no matter their particular type or configuration. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has this to say about the State’s monopolistic nature: ...among economists and philosophers two near-universally accepted propositions propositions exist: �. Every ‘monopoly’ is ‘bad’ om the viewpoint o consumers. Monopoly Monopoly is here understood in its classic meaning as an exclu sive privilege granted granted to a single producer o a commodity commodity or
�
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
service, or as the absence o ‘ee entry’ into a particular line o production. Only one agency, A, may produce a given good or service, X. Such a monopoly is ‘bad’ or consumers, because, shielded om potential new entrants entrants into a given area o production, the the price o the product product will be higher higher and its quality lower than otherwise, under ee competition. �. Te production o law and order, order, i.e., o security, is the primary unction o the state (as just defined). Security is here understood in the wide sense adopted in the American Declaration o Independence: as the protection o lie, property, and the pursuit o happiness om domestic violence (crime) as well as external (oreign) aggression (war). Both propositions are apparently incompatible incompatible with each other. other. Tis has rarely rarely caused concern among philosophers and economists, however, and in so ar as it has, the typical reaction has been one o taking exception to the first proposition rather than the second. Yet there exist undamental theoretical reasons (and mountains o empirical evidence) that it is indeed the second propo sition that that is in error. error.�
Te “capitalism” suffix indicates the anarchic society specified is that o a ree market capitalist variety. Under anarcho-capitalism, all scarce goods (to include land and other means o production) are subject to private ownership. Since capitalism simply reers to that economic environment where the means o production are privately owned, this system would be capitalist by deault. It is, however, important to note that private ownership o a good does not necessarily entail it is owned only by a single individual. wo or more people may be partial/ joint private owners o a scarce good goo d (as is the case with corporations, co-ops, partnerships... etc.). o privately own something simply means having an exclusive right to utilize, occupy, or employ it, whereas there exist non-owners who have no such right. A “right” simply reers to that which one may justifiably employ orce to deend or seek se ek retribution retribution or its violation. �
W H A T A N A R C H O � C A P I TA L I S M I S
HE PROBLEM OF SOCIAL ORDER: SCARCIY Te problem o social order arises when two or more people want to use the same good in incompatible ways. Goods which have the capacity or mutually exclusive usage, and whose demand exceeds their availability, are said to be “scarce.” It is due to such scarcity and the desire to avoid violent interpersonal conflict that property norms are developed. Hoppe expounds: o develop the concept o property, it is necessary or [economic] goods to be scarce, so that conflicts over the use o these goods can possibly arise. It is the unction o property rights to avoid such possible possible clashes over the use o scarce resources by assigning rights o exclusive ownership. Property is thus a normative concept: a concept designed to make a conflict-ee interaction possible by stipulating mutually binding rules o conduct (norms) regarding scarce resources.�
In addition to helping avoid conflict, such property norms serve as the legal basis or adjudicating interpersonal disputes. Tat is, or determining who the victim(s) and perpetrator(s) are in any given (violent) conflict and what measures should be taken to most approximately restore the victim and penalize the aggressor. a ggressor. Tus, the scope o political philosophy is confined to one simple question: when is the use o orce justified? As noted earlier, orce is only justified in response to rights violations, and one’s rights are determined by prevailing property norms. In essence, to determine when the use o orce is justified and who the victim and aggressor are in any given conflict, one must discover d iscover who owns what. HE PRIV PRI VAE�PROPER E�PROP ERY Y EHIC Te particular property norm which serves as the core o anarcho-capitalism is the “private property ethic.” As alluded to earlier, this ethic states that all scarce goods (including land and other means o produc�
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
tion) are subject to private ownership, given they are acquired via original appropriation or voluntary exchange. Original appropriation/homesteading states that the first user and claimant o a previously unowned good is that good’s rightul owner. Physical possession, transormation, emborderment, etc. are examples o homesteading acts. (It should be noted that creation has nothing to do with establishing ownership, as nothing is truly created nor destroyed but merely transormed.) Since this method o property acquisition awards ownership to the first user, it is necessarily conflict-ree. Voluntary exchange is the second just means o property acquisition. Tis entails that one came to own something via its prior owner voluntarily voluntarily (contractually) (contractually) transerring transerring title to him. Being voluntary, this method is likewise ree o conflict. O course, alternative property norms exist, yet none ulfill the purpose o action norms as completely as the private property ethic. Hoppe explains: Contrary to the equently heard claim that the institution o private property is only a con�ention, it must be categorically stated: a con�ention serves a purpose, and it is something to which an alternative exists. Te Latin alphabet, or instance, serves the purpose o written communication and there exists an alternative to it, the Cyrillic alphabet. Tat is why it is reerred to as a con�ention. What, however, is the purpose o action norms? I no interpersonal conflict existed—that is: i, due to a prestabilized harmony o all interests, no situation ever arose in which two or more people want to use one and the same good in incompatible ways — then no norms would be needed. It is the purpose o norms to help avoid otherwise unavoidable conflict. A norm that generates generates conflict rather than helping to avoid it is contrary to the very purpose o norms. It is a dysunctional dysunctional norm or a perversion... With regard to the purpose o conflict avoidance, however, the institution o private property is definitely not just a con�ention, because no alternative to it exists. Only private (exclu sive) property makes it possible possible that all otherwise unavoidable conflicts can be avoided. And only the principle o property acquisition acquisition through through acts o original appropriation, appropriation, perormed
�
W H A T A N A R C H O � C A P I TA L I S M I S
by specific individuals at a specific time and location, makes it possible to avoid conflict om the beginning o mankind onward, because only the first appropriation o some previously unappropriated good can be conflict-ee—simply, conflict-ee—simply, because— per definitionem—no one else had any previous dealings with the good.�
HE NON�AGGRESSION NON�AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE AND SELF�OWNERSHI SELF�OWNERSHIP P From the private-property ethic, one may deduce both the non-aggression principle (NAP) and the principle o sel-ownership. Te non-aggression principle condemns all acts o aggression as unjust and criminal (i.e. violating property rights). Aggression, in this context, is defined as the uninvited initiation o physical intererence with the persons or property o others or threats threats thereo. Te principle o sel-ownership stipulates that one is and can only be the sole owner o his own physical body. Tis reveals an important nuance in the anarcho-capitalist conception o private property. Property rights over a scarce good are accorded to one who can demonstrate a superior objective link to it. Special consideration must be made in regard to one’s own physical body, as such a link is demonstrated by his uniquely direct control over it. Tat is to say, one controls or manipulates his body by will alone. For this reason, he is exempt rom having to establish a property right over it through acts o homesteading or voluntary exchange. Conversely, one may control external goods only indirectly. He cannot control or manipulate external goods by will alone, but instead must employ the medium o his own body or some other good. Hence, the need or him to establish a superior objective link between himsel and external goods through acts o original appro priation priation or voluntary exchange i he is to be recognized recognize d as their legitimate owner own er..�
�
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
LOGICAL LOGI CAL ERRORS ERRO RS OF O F HE SA SAE I the State is charged with protecting the property o its citizenry, then it must be categorically stated that any attempt to do so can only end in contradiction. As stated earlier, an inherent characteristic o any State is that it must lay taxes in order to und its operations. axes themselves are nothing more than threats to initiate uninvited physical intererence with the persons and/or property o others i they do not hand over X amount o money. Recall, threats to initiate uninvited physical intererence with the persons or property o others is considered aggression. Simply stated: taxation is thef. Tus, the State cannot make any attempts to protect the property o its citizenry without first violating it on a mass scale. Terein lies the State’s most glaring contradiction. Hoppe has this to say: Rather, the state unilaterally unilaterally fixes the rules o the game and can change them, per legislation, during the game. Obviously, such behavior is inconceivable or eely financed security pro�iders. Just imagine a security pro�ider, whether police, insurer, or arbitrator, whose offer consisted in something like this: “I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what specific things I will regard as your to-be-protected property, nor will I tell you what I oblige mysel to do i, according to your opinion, I do not ulfill my service to you —but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me or such undefined service.” �
Another issue involved with taxation is that it maniests the economic calculation problem. Since the State’s revenue comes rom thef, as opposed to voluntary patronage, it cannot determine the most economic ways to employ its “services”, ways which would otherwise be indicated by profits and losses. Te State is invariably in a position where it must make arbitrary, thereore uneconomic, decisions regarding what products/services to offer, offer, where to offer them, how to produce them, how much to produce, what materials to produce them with, etc. More disturbing still is the act that, had such resources not been wasted on �
W H A T A N A R C H O � C A P I TA L I S M I S
Statist objectives, they could have otherwise been allocated towards productive market market ends. SOCIAL CONRAC O course, some will attempt to justiy the State’s existence by claiming society is bound by a “social contract.” Tat or the same reason a restaurant owner may expect payment rom a customer afer he enjoys a meal, so too can the State expect payment or the “services” it renders. However, this is a aulty analogy or two reasons: First, the State must commence in mass thef beore it can provide anything. It would be more analogous to say the restaurant owner stole your money upront but is willing to offer a consolation prize o some ood. In actuality, one makes an individual choice to go to a restaurant and is only serviced upon his specific request. Tis is in distinct contrast to the State which offers a slew o o unrequested “services” “services” (some o which one may not even enjoy) and then expects payment in ull. Second, the restaurant owner presumably acquired his restaurant via original appropriation or voluntary exchange. As such, he is the legitimate owner o the goods and services he provides and is accordingly in a proper position to expect payment rom his willing customers. In contrast, the State did not acquire the property or which it asserts jurisdiction via original appropriation or voluntary exchange (or i it did purchase property, then it did so with unds stolen through taxes), thus it has absolutely no legitimate authority. authority. ANARCHO�CAPIALISM IS OLERAN In an anarcho-capitalist society, anyone can live in any way they see fit so long as they rerain rom committing aggression as previously defined. I they would like to voluntarily pool their property with others to orm mutualist enclaves, conservative covenants, or socialist communes, then such is their prerogative. Te greatest variety o liestyles are permitted under an overarching anarcho-capitalist legal system. �
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
HE UOPIAN ALLEGAION Anarcho-capitalism is not a utopian philosophy. No claim that crime or hardship will be eliminated is being made. Rather, what is being asserted is that an anarcho-capitalist legal system is superior to all others or the ends o peace, p eace, cooperation, and prosperity. Tat in this truly ree market market environment, the sel-interests o individuals are harmoniously aligned with the welare o greater greater society.
�
W H A T A N A R C H O � C A P I TA L I S M I S
REFERENCES �. Hans-Her Hans-Hermann mann Hoppe, “State or Private Private Law Society?” Societ y?” (lecture presented at Mises Brasil, Brasil, São Paulo, Brasil, April April �, ����). �. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Property “Propert y, Contract, Aggression, Agg ression, Capitalism, Socialism” in A Teory o Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics (Boston: Kluwer Academic, ����), ��. �. Hans-Her Hans-Hermann mann Hoppe, “State or Private Private Law Society?” Societ y?” (lecture presented at Mises Brasil, Brasil, São Paulo, Brasil, April April �, ����). �. For a rational rational proo o the private private property ethic, NAP, NAP, and sel Capitalist -ownership see Chapter � o A Spontaneous Order: Te Capitalist Case For A Stateless Society. �. Hans-Her Hans-Hermann mann Hoppe, “State or Private Private Law Society?” Societ y?” (lecture presented at Mises Brasil, Brasil, São Paulo, Brasil, April April �, ����).
�
CHAPER II
THE TH E LIBERT LIBERTARIA AR IAN N CASE CA SE AGAI AGA INST NS T OPE O PEN N BO B OR DER DE R S
INRODUCION Immigration is one o the most hotly debated topics in libertarian circles, Immigration and understandably so. Te heated disagreements concern what immigration policies most closely align with libertarian principles o justice given a Statist paradigm. O course, no such policies will attain the purity o justice that would result rom the absolute abso lute privatization privatization o all public goods/services coupled with the elimination o the State. However, the purpose o this essay is to make a case or what what the “next “next best” (a.k.a next most libertarian) solution is. Keep in mind, recognizing a particular solution to the issue o immigration as next best is no more an endorsement o it than recognizing rump as a lesser evil than Clinton would be an endorsement o rump. ragically, it seems unlikely that a ully privatized or anarcho-capitalist society will emerge in the near uture, thus discussing such a next best solution is a worthy endeavor. Tis essay was largely inspired by the works o Hans-Her Hans-Hermann mann Hoppe and, to a lesser extent, Stephan Kinsella. However, Walter Block and others have put orth valid critiques o their positions, in light o which I have modified my own stance accordingly.
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
A CRII�UE CRI I�UE OF OPEN O PEN SA SAE BORDER BO RDERSS Ironically, Ironically, the completely unrestricted unrestricted “open State borders” position is a one size fits all statist solution that would be unjustly imposed upon all domestic tax-paying/property-owning citizens. In contrast, the “invite only” immigration restriction proposed herein is the one most in line with private private property rights rig hts and libertarian principles. It recognizes that domestic tax-payers/property-owners (and other victims o aggression by the State in question) are the legitimate joint private owners o all developed or improved upon State “public-property” and, as such, any uninvited oreign invader must necessarily be guilty o trespass (i.e. a property violation). Further Further,, it takes the question o whether a particular oreigner should be welcome out o the hands o the State and places it into the hands o its respective individual property owning domestic citizens. Tis is a ar more decentralized d ecentralized solution than the unconditional “open State borders” one. Some additional complications that would arise rom unconditionally open state borders include the heavy strain the resulting mass influx o immigrants would have on the welare system. Tis would greatly increase the demand or such programs which would inevitably result in their expansion and, by extension, the State’s. State’s. Te negative ne gative effects o such a policy are urther compounded so long as anti-discrimination laws are in place which entail private establishments acing State compulsion to employ, serve, cater, and rent to said oreign invaders. Such orced integration would cause social tension to abound between the oreign invaders and domestic citizens. Te cumulative effect o all the preceding issues will result in a substantial increase in aggressive conflict between domestic citizens and the State, oreign invaders and domestic citizens, and oreign invaders and the State. Proponents o the “open State borders” position may desperately claim: “at least our proposal doesn’t involve aggression on part o the State!” Unortunately, they are mistaken here as well. An open State border policy would entail the State having its agents employ aggression against individuals who attempt to rightully evict uninvited oreign invaders invaders rom their joint private property (a.k.a (a.k .a “public” property). Such eviction attempts would incorrectly be interpreted as assault in the eyes ��
THE LIBERTARIAN CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS WELFARE USAGE. Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP)�
Native Households
80%
Immigrant Households 70%
70% 60% 54%
51%
50% 40% 30%
35%
33%
30%
20%
55% 53%
22%
23%
Asian
White
10% 0% All
Hispanic
Black
o the State as opposed oppose d to a justified deense o one’s own property. property. Under a paradigm o restricted borders, oreigners convicted o such invasion should be responsible or more than the mere physical damage they may have caused to “public” property during their trespass. Tey should also be held liable or the violation o trespass itsel as Rothbard explains: ....direct ....direct trespass: A rolls his car onto B’s B’s lawn or places a heavy object on B’s grounds. Why is this an in�asion and illegal per se? Partly because, in the words o an old English English case, ‘the law iners some damage; i nothing more, the treading down o grass or herbage.’ But it is not just treading down; a tangible in�asion o B’s property intereres with his exclusive use o the property, i only by taking up tangible square eet (or cubic eet). eet). I A walks walks on or puts an object on B’s B’s land, then B cannot use the space A or his object has taken up. An in�asion by a tangible mass is a per se intererence with someone else’s property and thereore illegal.�
Finally, it should be noted that to aggressively displace the private ownership o land and subsequently open it up to indiscriminate access is the epitome o socialism wherein the tragedy o the commons takes ull effect. Tis is precisely the situation open State border proponents are calling or (whether wittingly or unwittingly). unwittingly). ��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
FUNDAMENAL DISAGREEMEN I one had to identiy the root o discord between libertarians on this topic, it would be their differing views on whether “public” property should be seen as unowned, or the private, albeit diffused, property o domestic net tax payers (and other net victims o the given g iven State’s aggresag gression). Tose who hold the ormer position will draw vastly different conclusions than those who hold the latter. latter. However, However, the latter position appears to be sounder once one considers what undamentally determines another’s property right to a particular good: his/her superior objectively verifiable link to it. For external goods, libertarians recognize that such a link can only be established via original appropriation/homeappropriation/homesteading/first use (physical transormation, emborderment, first possession) or voluntary exchange. Te State has completed this homesteading or much o the land it claims (though not all, o course, as there exists plenty o “virgin” “virgin” land which may be properly identified as unowned), but was only able to do so by first generating the requisite unds via taxes. Tus, such “improved upon public property” belongs to the net tax payers who unded its development. It is they who can demonstrate a superior objective link between themselves and the goods in question with respect to oreigners whom the State in question has had no aggresagg ressive interaction. Hoppe elaborates: Te undamental error in this argument, according to which everyone, oreign immigrants no less domestic bums, has an equal right to domestic public property, is Block’s claim that public property ‘is akin to an unowned good.’ good.’ In act, there exists a undamental difference between unowned goods and public property. Te latter is de acto owned by the taxpaying members o the domestic public. Tey have financed this property; hence, they, in accordance with the amount o taxes paid by individual individual members, must be regarded regarded as its legitimate owners. Neither the bum, who has presumably paid no taxes, nor any oreigner, who has most definitely not paid any domestic taxes, can thus be assumed to have any rights regarding public property whatsoever.�
��
THE LIBERTARIAN CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS
I would only amend Hoppe’s stance slightly by saying a oreigner who has been subject to aggression agg ression by the State in question has a valid claim to its illegitimate property as a orm o (albeit imperect) restitution. He then proceeds to reute the claim that ree trade and ree immigration are analogous: Free Free trade trade and markets markets mean that private private property owners may receive or send goods om and to other owners without go�ernment intererence. Te go�ernment stays inactive vis-à-vis the process o oreign and domestic trade, because a willing (paying) recipient exists or every good or service sent, and hence all locational changes, changes, as the outcome o agreements between sender and receiver, must be deemed mutually bene ficial.... people, unlike unlike products, possess a will and can migrate. Accordingly, Accordingly, population mo�ements, unlike unlike product shipments, are not per se mutually beneficial events because they are not always—necessarily always—necessarily and in�ariably—the in�ariably—the result o an agreement between a specific receiver and sender. Tere can be shipments (immigrants) without willing domestic recipients. In this case, immigrants are oreign in�aders, and immigration represents an act o in�asion.�
ANARCHO�CAPIALIS HYPOHEICAL Prior to delving into into the case or a “next best” solution, it would behoove beho ove one to consider some relevant aspects o an anarcho-capitalist (An-Cap) society. First, in such a society there would be no “ree immigration.” People would only be able to travel through/on property by first attaining the respective owner’s permission to do so. As Hoppe has correctly recognized, the result will be some residential or commercial areas being more inclusive and others more exclusive. Moreover, Moreover, all property owners would have the right to evict trespassers rom their land regardless o whether the trespasser used use d any orce against the owner himsel or any other residents. Keep this point in mind or when the “next best” solution is discussed in the ollowing section. ��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
It is also important to ask by what method could ormerly “public/ state property” be privatized in a manner that most closely aligns with libertarian justice in this hypothetical An-Cap society? Hoppe has this to say on the matter: Te ormer taxpayers, in accordance with their amount o local, state, and ederal taxes paid, should be awarded trad able property titles titles in local, state, and and ederal ederal streets. streets. Tey then then can either keep these titles as an in�estment, in�estment, or they can divest themsel�es o their street property and sell it, all the while retaining their unrestricted right-o-way. Te same essentially applies to the privatization o all other public goods, such as schools, hospitals, hospitals, etc. As a result, all tax payments or the upkeep and operation o such goods stop. Te unding and development o schools and hospitals, etc., is henceorth solely up to their new, private owners. Likewise, the new owners o such ormerly ‘public’ goods are those residents who actually financed them. Tey, in accordance with their amount o taxes paid, should be awarded awarded saleable property shares in the schools, hospitals, hospitals, etc. Other than in the case o streets, however, however, the new owners o schools and hospitals hospitals are unrestricted by any easements or rights-o-way in the uture uses o their property. Schools and hospitals, unlike streets, were not first common goods beore being turned into ‘public’ goods. Schools and hospitals hospitals simply simply did not not exist at all as goods beore, i.e., until they had been first produced; and hence no one (except the producers) can have acquired a prior easement or right-o-way concerning their use. Accordingly, the new private owners o schools, hospitals, hospitals, etc., are at liberty to set the entrance requirements or their properties and determine i they want to continue operating these properties as schools and hospitals hospitals or preer to employ them them or a different different purpose.�
o amend Hoppe’s position once more (and he may have implicitly intended this), it should be net taxpayers who, in this hypothetical ��
THE LIBERTARIAN CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS
An-Cap society, would receive saleable shares in accordance with how much taxes they paid on net (tax contributions minus received subsidies, grants, welare..etc.). One who agrees this method is the optimum way to privatize “public goods” in so doing implicitly recognizes that such domestic net taxpayers have a superior claim to domestic “public property” with respect to oreigners whom the given State has had no aggressive interaction. Otherwise, he would preer all public property be “up or grabs” upon the State’s elimination. Tat said, anyone who can demonstrate a particular public good was taken rom him or his ancestor in title via aggression (as is the case with eminent domain) would first be re-awarded title to said good prior to the enactment o the privatization model depicted above. Murray Rothbard elaborates: It might be charged that our theory o justice in property titles is deficient because in the real world most landed (and even other) property has a past history so tangled that it becomes impossible to identiy who or what has committed coercion and thereore who the current just owner may be. But the point o the “ homestead principle” principle” is that i we don’t don’t know what crimes have been committed in acquiring the the property in the past, or i we don’t know the victims or their heirs, then the current owner becomes the legitimate and just owner on home stead grounds. In short, i Jones owns a piece o land at the present time, and we don’t know know what crimes were committed committed to arrive at the current title, then Jones, as the current owner, becomes as ully legitimate a property owner o this land as he does over his own person. Overthrow o existing property title only becomes legitimate i the victims or their heirs can present an authenticated, demonstrable, and specific claim to the property. Failing such conditions, conditions, existing landowners l andowners possess a ully moral moral right to their their property.�
It is at this point that one may object that, in this hypothetical An-Cap society, a more appropriate orm o restitution to tax payers than shares o ormerly “public” property would be the money stolen ��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
rom them along with added interest or the inconvenience and violations suffered rom its deprival. However, However, this presents a couple o issues. First, the State State will most likely not have enough money mone y to repay all o its tax victims what they are owed in ull. Second, even i in some bizarre twist it did have all their money, it would be impossible or the State to pay everyone back with interest as this would necessarily deplete its unds beore all its victims could be made whole, so to speak. Tat is to say, all o the State’s money and assets originate in thef, so the best it could possibly do, even theoretically, is return exactly what it stole. When delving d elving into the details o how such a privatization privatization would be executed, one must remember this is strictly a technical matter (and one whose market solution cannot be predicted in advance) not a legal one. Te libertarian legal solution simply requires the State to accord its victims a proportion o its assets corresponding with their degree o violation suffered, yet limited enough to where others equally or more greatly victimized may be afforded the same or greater levels o restitution. Put more simply, restitution should be distributed such that those more greatly victimized receive more than those victimized less. Te result may all short o perect restoration, but it would be the closest approximation approximation o justice with respect to the existing stock o State assets to be dispersed. Perhaps Perhaps the victims would be given a choice cho ice to either accept shares in the ormerly “public” goods to hold onto as investments or to have said shares auctioned off so as to receive a monetary sum in their stead. NEX BES SOLUION Te ollowing proposal and its ormat closely resemble that o Hoppe’s. It is a two-pronged approach composed o corrective and preventative measures to address the issue o o immigration. Corrective
Te corrective measures are intended to address the effects o orced integration that have already occurred. Such measures are hardly contro��
THE LIBERTARIAN CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS
versial within libertarian circles but are nevertheless worth mentioning. First and oremost, would be the privatization o as many public goods as possible. Tis would effectively mitigate the issues o immigration as there would be less public areas to immigrate to. O near equal importance would be the repeal o anti-discrimination, affirmative action, and other such legislation which inhibits an individual’s ability to discriminate with his private property. Tis would greatly reduce the negative effects o any orced integration brought on by the invasion o uninvited oreigners. A less obvious measure would be to pursue a truly ree trade policy. pol icy. I I oreigners are able to trade with domestic citizens without without being penalized by tariffs and/or other State measures designed to artificially disadvantage them, then the demand to immigrate will decrease ceteris paribus. Next would be political decentralization. For instance, it would be better or exas and its taxpaying residents to determine immigration policies that affect their territory territory than the ederal ed eral government, and better still or the county and its tax paying citizens to determine such policies or their territory and so on until all such questions are handled by the individual with respect to his own (personal) property. Finally, oreigners, whether invited or uninvited, should be barred rom voting and having access to tax-unded welare programs or subsidies o any kind. Tis too will decrease the demand to immigrate. WELFARE USAGE. Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP)�
Native Households
60%
Immigrant Households
51%
50%
42%
40%
40% 30%
30% 23%
22%
20% 10%
10%
12% 6%
6%
0% Any Welfare Welfare
��
Medicaid
Food
Cash Welfare Welfare
Housing
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N Native Households
90%
76%
80%
68%
70%
62%
60% 50%
WELFARE USAGE. Households with one or more children. �
Immigrant Households
52% 45%
40%
42%
30% 20%
13% 11%
10%
8% 5%
0% Any Welfare Welfare
Medicaid
Food
Cash Welfare Welfare
Housing
Preventative Preventative
When considering measures designed to prevent orced integration, it is important to consider which o them would most closely correspond with the desires o taxpayers who have a diffuse, yet valid, private claim to the public property “stewarded” by the State. Stephan Kinsella offers us his insight in the ollowing: Private Private property is the only way to objectively objectively and efficiently allocate capital. But some rules are better better than others; others; and one reasonable rule o thumb used to judge the validity o a given usage rule or a publicly owned resource is to ask whether a private private owner o a similar resource resource might adopt adopt a similar rule ...I would preer the public property be returned as restitution to the victims and the mafia called the state disbanded. Barring that, so long as they hold property rightully rightully ‘owned’ ‘owned’ by me and others to whom the state owes damages/restitution, I would preer property they own to be used only or peaceul purposes o the type that would exist in the ee market market (can any libertarian libertarian seriously deny that that it’s it’s objectively objectively better or the the state to to build a libr library ary or park on public public property than an IRS office or chemical weapons actory?). I would preer rules to be set regarding regarding the usage o these resources so that they are not
��
THE LIBERTARIAN CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS
wasted, and so as to act in a reasonable manner like private owners would... ....But what actual rules should we preer? Here I think we start to veer om libertarianism libertarianism into the realm o person al preerence. I would not want the eds to allow any and all comers onto ederal property, or the reasons mentioned abo�e — I believe it would reduce the utility o public property, and impose costs (such as orced integration).�
Just Just as an open State border policy polic y would entail orced integration/ inclusion it is also important to prevent the State rom enacting a policy o orced exclusion. Tat is, preventing oreigners rom visiting who have been invited by a domestic property-owning/tax-paying citizen. Hoppe elaborates: Now, Now, i the go�ernment go�e rnment excludes a person while there exists a domestic resident who wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is orced exclusion; and i the go�ernment admits a person while there exists no domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is orced integration. Moreo�er, hand in hand with the institution o a go�ernment comes the institution institution o public public property and goods, that is, o property and goods owned collectively by all domestic residents and controlled and administered by the go�ernment. Te larger or smaller the amount o public-go�ernment ownership, ownership, the greater or lesser l esser will be the potential problem o orced integr integration ation ...by proceeding on public roads, or with public means o trans portation, portation, and in staying staying on public land and in public parks and buildings, buildings, an immigrant immigrant can potentially potentially cross every domestic resident’s path. ��
Te solution, then, is to make any oreigner’s entry contingent upon a domestic property-owning citizen’s invitation. Te inviter would need ��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
to provide the visiting oreigner with some proo o the invitation invitation so that a third party may determine whether he is an invited guest or an unin vited trespasser. trespasser. A public pu blic record o such invitations invitations may be kept so as to impose additional social/economic social/e conomic pressures on domestic citizens citizens to not haphazardly invite those who may be dangerous, aggressive, or other wise undesirable. undesirable. Hoppe expands on the nature nature o such invitations invitations in the ollowing: Valid in�itations are contracts between one or more private domestic recipients, residential or commercial, and the arriving person. Qua contractual admission, the in�iting party can dispose only o his own private property. Hence, the admission implies negatively—similarly to the scenario o conditional ee immigration immigration—that —that the immigrant immigrant is excluded om all publicly publicly unded welare. welare. Positively, ositively, it implies that the receiving party assumes a ssumes legal responsibility responsibility or the actions o his in�itee or the duration o his stay. Te in�itor is held liable to the ull extent o his property or any crimes the in�itee commits commits against the person or property o any third third party (as parents are held accountable accountable or the crimes o their offspring as long as they are members o the parental household). household). Tis obligation, which implies practically speaking that in�itors will have to carry liability insurance or all o their guests, ends once the in�itee has lef the country, or once another domestic property owner has assumed liability or the person in question (by admitting admitting him onto onto his property). Te in�itation may be private (personal) or commercial, temporally limited or unlimited, concerning only housing (accommodation, residency) or housing and employment (but there cannot be a valid contract in�ol�ing only employment and no housing). In any case, however, however, as a contractual contractual relationship, every in�itation may be revoked or terminated by the in�itor; and upon termination, the in�itee—whether tourist, visiting businessman, or resident alien—will be required to leave the country (unless another resident citizen enters an
��
THE LIBERTARIAN CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS
in�itation contract with him). ��
Until now, the “property (real estate) owning” aspect o invitors has not been remarked upon. Such invitors would be in a unique position to invite a prospective oreign visitor with respect to non-property owning domestic citizens as the ormer can rightully offer the oreigner a place with which to reside during his stay. stay. Even Even renters renters may only be able to do this with the consent o their landlords. Similarly, a oreigner may only acquire citizenship by first purchasing real estate in the host country. try. Hoppe explains: explains : Te in�itee may lose his legal status as a non-resident or resident alien, who is at all times subject to the potential risk o immediate expulsion, only upon acquiring citizenship. In accordance with the objective o making all immigration immigration (as trade) in�ited contractual, the undamental requirement or citizenship is the acquisition o property ownership, or more precisely the the ownership ownership o real estate estate and residential residential property. ...Rather, becoming a citizen means acquiring the right to stay in a country permanently, and a permanent in�itation in�itation cannot be secured other than by purchasing residential property om a citizen resident. Only by selling real estate to a oreigner does a citizen indicate that he agrees to a guest’s permanent stay (and only i the immigrant immigrant has purchased and paid or real estate and residential housing in the host country will he assume a permanent interest in his new country’s country’s well-being and prosperity).��
Some critics o this solution may object by claiming other liberty violating policies, such as drug prohibition, could be justified on similar grounds. Tis is a seemingly plausible yet erroneous conclusion. Unlike the aorementioned immigration restrictions, a policy o universal drug prohibition may very well violate the property rights o domestic citizens who have a valid private claim to “public” property, due to their status as tax paying and/or property-owning citizens. Admittedly, this ��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
does imply that those who, in combination, have a majority stake in “public” property (owing to their higher net tax expenditures) can justly regulate its use in such a way that impacts their ellow domestic citizens/ property owners or valid oreign claimants. (However, (However, one would still have to consider what easements or other access any minority owner o “public” property would be entitled due to his status as a partial owner). However, such regulations could certainly never be justly applied to any individual’s personal private property. In distinct contrast, it is quite clear that a prospective oreign visitor/invader (that has not been aggressively victimized by the State in question) has no valid claim/link to domestic public property as he does not pay domestic taxes or its maintenance, protection, and upkeep nor does he have residence in the host country. Tus, there exists no principled conflict with subjecting him to immigration restrictions. restrictions. Foreigners should also be exempt rom having to pay domestic taxes since they are recognized as having no legal claim to “public” resources. Moreover, Moreover, even i they they do happen to pay some domestic taxes, this would not give them a valid claim to public property because a condition o their visit would be that their status status as mere visitor would remain intact unless they purchase domestic real estate (again this condition is adopted because it is very likely in accordance with how the majority o private shares would be voted i such a vote were allowed to take place). Such taxes that do happen to be paid by the oreigner, then, would effectively amount to a “visitor’s ee” o sorts and may be reunded to him upon his departure. At this point, the obvious question o “what should the particular immigration restrictions restrictions be?” arises. Te first best option would be to have such restrictions determined by net ederal taxpayers (or victims o ederal aggression) ag gression) or ederal property, net state taxpayers or state property, net county county taxpayers or county property...etc. property...etc. Tough it wouldn’t be “one person one vote” but rather one tax dollar paid on net one vote (or something similar to this). Tus, different different people would carry different voting weight in a manner similar to the governance o a corporation. Te second-best option option would be or immigration to to be by invite only as described above. Unortunately, nortunately, both these first and secondbest solutions are are unlikely unlikely to come to ruition. Te third best option, ��
THE LIBERTARIAN CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS
then, is to impose border restrictions that one may predict, with relative certainty, certainty, are in accordance with how the vast majority o shares to State “public” property (a.k.a joint private property) would be voted i such a vote were allowed to occur. occur. Tis would, at the very least, entail barring violent criminals rom entry. entry. Moreover, Moreover, because the State’s victims are in act the private, albeit diffused, property owners o what is mislabeled “public property”, one may conclude that it would be in accordance with their will to bar those openly hostile towards the institution o private property itsel (e.g. socialists) social ists) rom immigrating. immigrating. Walter Walter Block was able to detect a valid flaw in the immigration restrictions proposed by Hoppe and Kinsella: that they would entail a positive expenditure o State resources which are ultimately expropriatexpropriated (stolen via taxes) rom its citizens. Tat they are irrationally attempting to utilize the State to solve a problem created by itsel: Being a victim o the state in no way entitles someone to use the state against anyone anyone else. Since socialist policies are such an inefficient drain on the economy, it is inevitable that people’s grievances will will ar outweigh outweigh the capacity o the state state to compencompen sate them. Moreo�er, Moreo�er, the state does not have its own resources and it can only only ‘compensate ‘compensate’’ people by robbing robbing om others. others.��
However, what Walter Block and perhaps even Hoppe ailed to realize is that immigration restrictions need not be enorced by the State. Private citizens may orm organizations like the Minuteman Project to patrol the borders and other “public” areas or potential uninvited oreign invaders. I any oreigner is unable to produce verifiable evidence that he was invited by a domestic property-owner, then members o such organizations may rightully evict (or to use Hoppe’s catchphrase: physically remove) these trespassers. In this way, way, such immigration restrictions restrictions may be enorced without requiring extra involvement involvement or expenditures by the State. State. Finally, Finally, such private private organizations would only be permitted to patrol “public” property and personal private property whose respective owner granted express permission.
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
ADDENDUM: ANSWERS O COMMON OBJECIONS Response to general general objections
At the very least, one must recognize, in principle, that the billions who have not been victimized by a particular State have have zero claim to its illegitimate property, whereas those who have been aggressed upon by said State do have a valid claim. Having difficulty imagining the technical application o this principle does not make it any less sound. Perhaps one may disagree with the outline o how it might be implemented described above (market activity cannot be predicted with absolute precision in advance), but he should sincerely s incerely ask himsel whether the underlying principle is in error. error. Libertarian justice requires restitution or private property violations. Tus, so long as the State and its illegitimate property are not privatized out o existence (the ideal solution), then the next best approximation o libertarian justice is to manage said property in a manner that is in accordance with the will o its victims (a.k.a the legitimate joint private owners owners thereo thereo ). o say otherwise only adds injury upon injury to the current set o a given State’s identifiable victims. Remember, people also had difficulty imagining the technical solution to how cotton would be picked afer the abolition o slavery sl avery,, but that did not alter a lter the act that slavery is principally unjust. “I one has a valid private claim to the State’s ‘public property’ does that mean he can make an open in�itation to all non-claimants thus effectively opening state borders?”
No, because he wouldn’t be able to afford the liability insurance premiums such an open invitation invitation would entail. o elaborate, because libertarians are in a position o having to come up with a next best solution, they must approximate how the majority o ownership shares would be voted i such a vote were allowed to take place (remember some individuals have more shares/claim than others due to their greater net tax payments or aggressive victimization by the State in ques��
THE LIBERTARIAN CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS
tion). Admittedly, one cannot predict the exact outcome o such votes, hence why the solution solution offered herein is next next best and not perect. (It is important to note that the completely open state border solution is the urthest removed rom the principles o libertarian justice.) However, one can say with near certainty that a policy o “anyone and everyone should have unettered access and/or use o our joint private property (‘public property’)” would be the most disagreeable disagreeabl e solution or the vast majority o shares (and shareholders). Likewise, a policy o “any individual joint owner, regardless o the size o his claim, may invite however many people he wishes to our joint private property and have zero liability or any violations to property they may perpetrate during their visits” would also be one o the most disagreeable policies to the vast majority o shares (and shareholders). Hence, one may confidently disregard this proposal as well. However, a policy o “joint owners may invite whoever they want to our joint private property, but must first acquire liability insurance or their invitees in order to assure restitution can be made to those who may have their persons or property violated by this oreign visitor” is likely ar more agreeable to the private joint owners o so called “public” property, property, and is one that is ar more decentralized as it gives each joint owner a large measure o individual discretion over its access. “Since the U.S. go�ernment is in so much debt, does this mean that U.S. residents will get little to no restitution?”
Te more important question is “Who owns the debt?” Most o the debt is owned by illegitimate institutions like oreign governments or central banks. Central bank debt (whether oreign or domestic) can be deaulted on without issue because it’s it’s purchased with countereit unds. On the other hand, oreign debt involves oreign tax victims. Tus, this may entail that oreign tax victims have some claim to the U.S. government’s illegitimate “public” property in proportion to how much they were extorted rom in taxes to purchase said debt. How much domestic residents or oreign victims o U.S. government aggression are owed in restitution restitution is an empirical empirical question. As such, it alls outside the scope o the present topic which is strictly concerned with whether some access ��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
restrictions to “public” property are more libertarian than none at all under a Statist paradigm. “Wouldn’t it be better i the State returned the money it stole om taxpayers as opposed to to treating treating them them as the joint joint private private owners o its so-called ‘public property’?”
Te first issue with this is that in order or the State to pay person A monetary restitution it would first have to steal rom person B via taxes. Even Even i the State State only dipped into into its current current reserves, it still would not have nearly enough money to pay all the taxpayers however much it stole (let alone whatever interest is owed due to the inconvenience and violation suffered in the interim). interim). Also, this does not address victims aggressed ag gressed by means other than taxation. Hence, due to the act that monetary restitution alone would be insufficient in restoring all the victims (and may even be counterproductive counterproductive i it entails urther aggresagg ressive redistributions o wealth), it then makes sense to treat these victims as the joint private owners o ‘public property’ as a means o bringing them closer to ull restoration. Moreover, Moreover, even i the given State’ State’ss victims could all be ully restored (highl ( highlyy unlikely) without depleting depleting all its illegitimate illeg itimate property, property, they would still have a greater claim to whatever remained, because they unded its development via taxes. “I don’t like the act that other joint owners may override my preerences regarding the access restrictions (or lack thereo) to so called ‘public property’ (a.k.a the joint private property o the victims o State aggression)”
Like any other private, yet jointly owned, enterprise, how the majority o shares are tallied determines policy. I the senior partners at a firm want to go direction X, yet some junior partners want to go direction Y then that firm is going to go direction X. Someone will inevitably be unhappy, but that is the very purpose o property norms: to predictably inorm one o whose preerence takes precedence when two or more people want to use a given scarce good goo d in mutually exclusive ways. ways. Tat said, an invite-only policy still grants every joint private owner o this so called “public” property a large degree o discretion over its use ��
THE LIBERTARIAN CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS
and successully avoids the pitall o orced exclusion. “It would seem the U.S. U.S. go�ernment go�e rnment’s’s aggression has affected virtually everyone in the the world. Does that that mean everyone has some claim to U.S. U.S. ‘public property’?”
No, it does not. Being merely merely affected by aggression agg ression isis not necessarily the same thing thing as having having been aggressed against. ag ainst. For instance, instance, i a bully broke a small child’s child’s arm then this may affect his h is parents, but rom this it does not ollow that his parents were themselves aggressed against by the bully. Aggression, in the context o libertarian legal theory, is strictly defined as the uninvited initiation o physical intererence with the persons or property o others or threats threats thereo. Tus, i a oreigner oreigner was merely affected by U.S. U.S. oreign policy polic y, yet was not directly aggressed a ggressed against by agents o the U.S. government, then he has no valid claim to U.S. “public” property. “I thought this was supposed to be about national borders, but you’re just talking talking about developed public property!”
So called “public property”, in act all property, is demarcated by borders. When one speaks speaks about victims o the State State only having a restitutive claim to developed “public” property, he is still disputing the notion o “open “open State borders.” borders.” All the boundaries o “public” property, property, be it a school, hospital, hospital , airport, park, .... etc., are “State “State borders.” borders.” In act, taking the principle underlying the “open State borders” position to its logical conclusion implies anyone and everyone may occupy or utilize public schools, hospitals, parks, airports...etc. in whatever manner they see fit. Tis is undoubtedly a hellish consequence that could only be genuinely endorsed by the most radical o communists. “reating victims o State ownership as private shareholders o its illegitimate property is deficient because true shareholders o a corporation in the market are able to divest themsel�es o their shares through sale.”
Tis objection is true as ar as it goes but it overlooks the act that ��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
it is critiquing critiquing an admittedly next best solution. I these these joint owners owners were actually able to vote with their their shares and divest themselves themselves o their ownership, then this would be the very same thing as the perect solution to “public” property: privatizing everything thus effectively eliminating the State. However, However, because the victims o the the State have have no ability to vote in such a manner (and each individual’s individual’s voting power is certainly not weighted in accordance with the amount o taxes he has paid to the State on net) then there is no reason to sell shares to other joint owners. Having Having more shares shares only matters i you can vote with them. them. Tus, we we are lef in the less than ideal circumstance circumstance o having to approximate what the results results o such a vote would be. Te invite-only invite-only policy advocated herein is the least presumptive, most decentralized, and certainly more in accordance with how such shares would be voted than the “open State border” policy. “It seems your proposal requires a central committee to decide who is here rightully and who isn’t. It also seems like it requires people to purchase liability insurance om one monopolistic agency to co�er in�ited guests. Tis ‘sounds’ statist.”
Tis proposal in no way calls or or requires a “central committee” to track who is a valid claimant (joint private owner), invited guest, or uninvited trespasser any more than a single centralized committee/ institution is required to maintain the standard definitions o words and produce dictionaries. Tis is a manipulative and alse comparison made to render this proposal more apparently “statist” than it actually is. Tis strawman critique, ofen made by libertarians, is odd as it is the same tired strawman argument that that is made against a gainst our idea o a stateless private/polycentric private/polycentric legal system. In this context, libertarians recognize recogn ize there needn’t needn’t be a single security organization org anization which enorces all al l “law”, “law”, a single arbitration agency which interprets all “law”, a single legal agency which creates all “law”, “law”, a single security insurance agency ag ency which insures all people, pe ople, nor a single sing le criminal records bureau which maintains all criminal records. (o discover how standard criminal records may be maintained despite the existence o multiple independent criminal records agencies, read the “law and order” chapter o A Spontaneous Order. Order.) So ��
THE LIBERTARIAN CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS
too does the immigration proposal herein not call or a single monopolistic insurance agency to cover invited oreign guests and/or a single monopolistic security agency to enorce border restrictions.
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
REFERENCES �. Camarota, Steven A. “Welare “Welare Use by Immigrant and Native Households.” CIS.org, Center For Immigration Studies, �� Sept. ����, cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-NativeHouseholds.
�. Rothbard, Rothb ard, Murray. Murray. “Law, Property Propert y Rights, Right s, and Air Pollution. Pollution .” Mises Institute. N.p., �� Apr. ����. Web. �� June ����. �. Hoppe, ����. Democracy Democracy:: Te God Tat Failed: Te Economics and a nd Politics Politics o Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Natural Order New Brunswick, N.J. ransaction Publishers. �. Hoppe, “Te Case For Free rade rade and Restricted Restricte d Immig Immigration” ration” https://mises.org/library/case-free-trade-andrestricted-immigration-0
�. Hoppe, “O Private, Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale or otal Privatization” http://libertarianpapers. org/article/1-hoppe-private-common-and-publicproperty/
�. Murray N. Rothbard, Rothb ard, “Justice and Property Propert y Rights, Rig hts,” in Property in a Humane Humane Economy, Edit. Samuel L. Blumeneld (Lasalle: Open Court, ����), ��� �. Camarota, Steven A. “Welare “Welare Use Use by Immigrant and Native Native Households.” CIS.org, Center For Immigration Studies, �� Sept. ����, cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-NativeHouseholds
�. Camarota, Steven A. “Welare “Welare Use Use by Immigrant and Native Households.” CIS.org, Center For Immigration Studies, �� Sept. ����, cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-NativeHouseholds
��
THE LIBERTARIAN CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS
�. Kinsella, Stephan. “A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestrictnrestricted Immigration and Open Borders .”.” LewRockwell.com, � Sept. ����, archive.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella18 .html
��. Hoppe, “Te Case For Free rade and Restricted Immigration” https://mises.org/library/case-free-trade-andrestricted-immigration-0
��. Hoppe, “Te Case For Free rade and Restricted Immigration” https://mises.org/library/case-free-trade-andrestricted-immigration-0
��. Hoppe, “Te Case For Free rade and Restricted Immigration” https://mises.org/library/case-free-trade-andrestricted-immigration-0
��. Block, Block , Walter Walter E. “On Immigration: Immigration : Reply to Hoppe.” Hoppe.” Mises Institute, Institute, �� July ����, mises.org/library/immigration-replyhoppe
��
CHAPER III
FOR FO R A “LIBERT “LI BERTAR ARIA IAN N ALT ALT�RIG �R IGHT HT””
INRODUCION In response to the acceleration o the Western world’s lefward trend, the paleo-conservatives and paleo-libertarians have risen rom the ashes in the orm o the controversial and rapidly growing Alternative Right (Alt-Right). Tis movement has been mercilessly condemned by the Lef, the media, and the mainstream or neo-conservative Right since its inception. However, However, this attention has only added adde d uel to its growth and popularity as a large portion p ortion o the American population’ population’s trust or politicians, academia, and the mainstream media (MSM) is at an all-time low. Tis is likely due to the elite’s ever increasing and blatant erosion o the very traditional Western institutions which made America great. Te ocus o the Alt-Right has almost exclusively been a cultural one. Tey have correctly diagnosed the cultural ailments o society, yet many seem conused as to which political or economic principles are most conducive to setting Western civilization back on course to be the beacon o prosperity and progress it once was. Conversely, many libertarians have ocused exclusively on sound political and economic principles, whilst neglecting negle cting or dismissing the role traditional Western values play in enabling their practical implementation mentation in the real world. Tey Te y seem to be under the delusion that, or instance, the cultural values o the average Aghan are no less conducive ��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
to one’s willingness to subscribe to libertarian and capitalist principles than the average American’s...etc. Such neglect has hamstrung the ability o many libertarians to move rom the realm o theory to application. ragically, in their naive and misguided misg uided attempt to prove their principles to be universally acceptable, they have compromised on the undamentals to achieve achie ve a broader multicultural appreciation. O course, when the ideological core is compromised, the philosophy itsel loses its value as being sound, rational, and practical. Hence, the ocus o this work is to demonstrate that not only are the Alt-Right and libertarianism compatible, but they are, in act, complementary and symbiotic. Tat they are distinct, yet mutually reinorcing in that they supply the missing components in what the other is lacking or each o their realization. Tat what is needed is more than an alliance, but rather a usion wherein libertarians become alt-righters and alt-righters libertarians. It It is this “libertarian Alt-Right” which offers the best hope against the malignant cancer o both the State and the Lef. DEFINING LIBERARIANISM As a strictly legal/political philosophy, libertarianism is only concerned with answering the question: “ When is the use o physical orce (or threats threats thereo ) justified?” Te answer is entirely contingent contingent on the property norms upon which the given legal system is grounded. Proper libertarianism, i.e. anarcho-capitalism, is defined by the particular property norms to which it subscribes: the private property ethic. Tis ethic states that all scarce goods, including land and other means o production, are subject to private ownership (i.e. the right o exclusive use/ control) provided they are acquired via original appropriation/homesteading (i.e. the first user rule) or voluntary exchange. Tat any uninvited physical invasion/interere invasion/intererence nce with the persons or property o others, or threats thereo, is considered an act o aggression and thus justifies responsive orce against the perpetrator, whether aimed at deensive or retributive ends. Many alt-righters are unaware o the concerted effort to pervert and “thicken” libertarianism, typically with the intent to make it more palat��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
able to the Lef. Some, like the sel-described lef-libertarians, engage in these efforts deliberately whilst others (sometimes reerred to as “lolbertarians” or “lolberts” or short) are led astray due to ignorance and an unrefined understanding o the undamentals. Lef-libertarians seek to achieve this perversion by regrounding libertarianism in the more obscure and manipulable concepts o “reedom”, “social equality”, and “anti-exploitation” while at the same time conusing libertarianism’s strictly strictly political pol itical individualism with a hyper-individualism. DEFINING HE LEF AND RIGH At this juncture, it behooves one to examine what is meant by the terms “Lef” and “Right” (at least in their contemporary American sense). Tese terms denote dispositions ranging rom culture, politics, and economics. o help add clarity to this distinction, I’ve crafed a chart which illustrates the respective attributes attributes o both the Lef and Right. Te chart lists the attributes on a spectrum and explains how one may
LEFT Socialism Multi-culturalism Egalitarianism Libertinism Public Property High Time Preference Social Ju Justice stice -70
RIGHT
-10
0
+10
Capitalism Cultural Cultural Homogeneity Homogeneity Hierarchies* Conservative Values** Private Property Low Time Preference Personal Personal Responsibility Responsibilit y
0
*could be voluntary or involuntary **integrity, work ethic, patience, rationalism, reliability, monogamy, nuclear family, prudence, etc.
��
+70
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
still be considered overall Right or Lef despite having some individual Lefist or Rightist belies. When one tallies his score or each attribute he can determine approxima approximately tely how ar to the Lef or Right Rig ht he is overall (moreover, (moreover, i one considers any pair o attributes attributes a alse a lse dichotomy, then he may pick a position on both without affecting the ultimate score). Te chart is neither perect nor exact, but it does provide a clear picture o the general differences between each wing o thought. DEFINING DEFINI NG HE AL AL�RIGH Owing to the immense stigma and propaganda surrounding the Alt-Right, it would likewise behoove one to review a coherent definition o its nature. nature. Hoppe, true to orm, provides such a trenchant trenchant explanation in the ollowing ollowing:: Alt-Righters Alt-Righters are not united united by a commonly commonly held theory, and there exists nothing even aintly resembling a canonical text defining its meaning. Rather, the Alt-Right is essentially united in its description o the contemporary world, and in particular the US and the so-called Western World, and the identification and diagnosis o its social pathologies. In act, it has been correctly noted that the Alt-Right is ar more united by what it is against than what it is or. It is against, and indeed it hates with a passion, the elites in control o the State, the MSM and academia. Why? Because they all promote social degeneracy and pathology. Tus, they promote, and the Alt-Right Alt-Right vigorously opposes, egalitarianism, affirmative action (aka “non-discrimination”), multiculturalism, and “ee” mass immigration as a means o bringing multicultur multiculturalism alism about. As well, the Alt-Right Alt-Right loathes everything smacking smacking o cultur al Marxism or Gramsciism and all “political correctness” correctness” and, strategically strategically wise, it shrugs off, without without any any apology apolog y whatsoever whatsoever,, all accusations o being racist, racist, sexist, elitist, supremacist, supremacist, homo phobe, xenophobe, etc., etc. And the Alt-Right Alt-Right also laughs off
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
as hopelessly hopelessly naïve the programmatic programmatic motto o so-called libertarians such as the Students or Liberty (which I have termed the “Stupids or Liberty” and my young German iend Andre Andre Lichtschlag Lichtschlag as “Liberallala-Libertari “Liberallala-Libertarians ans”) ”) o “Peace, Lo�e, and Liberty,” appropriately appropriately translated translated into German by Lichtschlag Lichtschlag as “Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen. Eierkuchen.”” In stark contrast contrast to this, Alt-Righters insist that lie is also about strie, hate, struggle and fight, not just between individuals individuals but also among among various groups o people acting in concert. ‘Millennial Woes’ (Colin Robertson) has thus aptly summarized the Alt-Right: ‘Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. Te races are different. Te sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a allen creature and there is more to lie than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilization is precious. precious. Tis is the Alt-Righ Alt-Right. t.�
RADIIONAL WESERN VALUES o this definition, it should be added that the Alt-Right promotes Western Civilization and, by extension, the traditional Western values and institutions which undergird it. Tese include, but are not limited to (though some alt-righters may disagree): political individualism, rationalism, personal responsibility, low-time preerence, capitalism, ingenuity, and the nuclear amily. One could stop here, but it’s important to expand on time preerence and the nuclear amily a bit more. ime preerence is defined by Orwell N’Goode in the ollowing: One’s time preerence reers to how much he values present consumption over uture consumption. Someone with a relatively high time preerence generally preers to consume now as opposed to later, even i orgoing immediate immediate consumption consumption would result in a greater number and/or quality o uture goods. A relatively relatively low time time preerence is simply simply the the in�erse.�
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
Tus, low time preerence reers to impulse control, prudence, restraint, and sel-discipline. Tis also applies to social interactions, not purely financial ones. Someone with low time preerence is more inclined to act with generosity, civility, and integrity towards riends, spouses, and proessional associates now or he knows doing so will enhance the long-term value o such relationships by encouraging reciprocal behavior later . Matthew Dewey defines the nuclear amily as “...a monogamous pair bonded couple raising their mutual offspring” and goes on urther to claim this institution is “...the first and last deense o private property and, by extension, civilization itsel.”� Te amily unit itsel was born rom practicality and necessity. Hoppe explains: Given the peculiar, parasitic nature o hunter-gatherer societies and assuming land l and to be fixed, in�ariably in�ariably the moment must arise when the the number number o people exceeds the the optimal optimal group size and average average living standards standards will all, threatening threatening whatever degree o intragroup solidarity previously might have existed... Tis situation is captured and explained by the economic law o returns...that states that or any combination o two or more production actors an optimum combination exists (such (such that any deviation om it in�ol�es material waste, or “efficiency losses”). Te technological in�ention, then, that sol�ed the problem o a steadily emerging and re-emerging ‘excess ‘excess’’ o population and the attendant all o average living standards was a revolutionary change in the entire mode o production. It in�ol�ed the change om a parasitic liestyle to a genuinely productive lie. Instead o merely appropriating and consuming what nature had pro�ided, consumer goods were now actively produced and nature was augmented and impro�ed upon. Tis revolutionary change in the human mode o production is generally reerred to as the ‘Neolithic Revolution’: the tran sition om ood production by hunting hunting and a nd gathering to ood production by the raising o plants and animals... Te new
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
technology represented a undamental cognitive achievement and was reflected and expressed in two interrelated interrelated instiinstitutional inno�ations, which om then on until today have become the dominant eature o human lie: lie : the appropriation and employment o ground land as private private property, and the establishment o the amily and the amily household.�
Tomas Malthus goes on to explain the rationale or the nuclear amily in particular par ticular and why it was adopted in the West: the most natural and obvious check (on population) seemed to be to make every man pro�ide or his own children; that this would operate in some respect as a measure and guide in the increase o population, as it might be expected that no man would bring beings into the world, or whom he could not find the means o support; that where this notwithstanding was the case, it seemed necessary, or the example o others, that the disgrace and incon�enience attending such a conduct should all all upon the individual, individual, who had thus inconsiderately inconsiderately plunged himsel and innocent children in misery miser y and want.— Te institution o marriage, or at least, o some express or implied obligation on every man to support his own children, seems to be the natural natural result o these reasoning’s reasoning’s in a community under the difficulties that we have supposed. �
Murray Rothbard provides the ollowing comparative economic analysis o the nuclear and extended amily models: Another Another primitivistic primitivistic institution institution that has has been hailed by many social scientists is the system o the “extended amily, amily,” a harmony and status supposedly ruptured by the individualistic “nucle ar amily amily”” o the modern West. West. Yet, Yet, the extended extended amily amily system has been responsible or crippling the creative and productive individual as well as repressing economic development. Tus, West Aican development has been impeded by the extended amily concept that, i one man prospers, he is duty bound
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
to share this bounty with a host o relatives, thus draining off the reward or his productivity and crippling his incentive to succeed, while encouraging encouraging the relatives relatives to live idly on the amily amily dole. And neither do the productive members o the tribe seem very happy about this supposedly harmonious societal bond.�
Finally, Hoppe affirms the peril aced by the nuclear amily and its central role in Western civilization: Hence, as the result result o the trans-valuation trans-valuation o all values promotpromoted by the ruling elites, the world has been turned upside down. Te institution o a amily household with ather, mother and their children that has ormed the basis o Western civilization, as the eest, most industrious, ingenious and all-around accomplished accomplished civilization known to mankind, mankind, i.e., the very institution and people that has done most good in human history, has been officially stigmatized and vilified as the source o all social ills and made the most heavily heavily disadvandisadvantaged, even persecuted group by the enemy elites’ elites’ relentless policy o divide et impera. impera.�
CULURE As previously mentioned, the Alt-Right correctly understands that a key ingredient to a peaceul, stable, and prosperous civilization is common culture. Inhabitants o a culturally homogeneous society know what to expect rom others and what is expected o them and thus are able to secure a higher social trust with their ellow citizens. Tis helps mitigate interpersonal conflict, decrease transaction costs, and promote cooperation. In this environment, long term business relationships are more viable which in turn enables the execution o more productive and roundabout production processes. Unortunately, many libertarians deny the impact that culture has on one’s willingness to adopt libertarian and capitalist principles. Tey naively believe that such principles are universally and equally acceptable to people o all cultures. Hoppe ��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
disputes this idealistic notion in the ollowing: Many libertarians hold the view that all that is needed to maintain a libertarian social order is the strict enorcement o the non-aggression principle principle (NAP). Otherwise, as long as one abstains om aggression, according according to their view, view, the principle o ‘live and let live’ should hold. Yet surely, while this ‘live and let live’ sounds appealing to adolescents in rebellion against parental authority authority and all social con�ention and control control (and many youngsters have been initially attracted to libertarianism believing that this ‘live and let live’ is the essence o libertarianism), and while the principle does indeed hold and apply or people living ar apart and dealing with each other only indirectly and om aar, it does not hold and apply, or rather it is insufficient, when it comes to people living in close proximity to each other, other, as neighbors neighbors and cohabitants cohabitants o the same community. community. A simple example suffices to make the point. Assume a new next-door neighbor. Tis neighbor does not aggress against you or your property in any way, but he is a ‘bad’ neighbor. He is littering on his own neighboring property, turning it into a garbage garbage heap; in the open, or you to see, he engages in ritual animal slaughter, slaughter, he turns his house into a ‘Freudenhaus, ‘Freudenhaus,’ a bordello, with clients coming and going all day and all night long; long ; he never offers a helping hand and never keeps any promise that he has made; or he cannot or else he reuses to speak to you in your own language. l anguage. Etc., etc.. Your Your lie is turned into a nightmare. Yet you may not use violence against him, because he has not aggressed against you. What can you do? You can shun and ostracize ostracize him. But your neighbor does not care, and in any case you alone thus ‘punishing’ him makes little i any difference to him. You have to have the communal respect and authority, or you must turn to someone who does, to persuade and con�ince everyone ever yone or at least most o the members o your community to do likewise and make the bad neighbor a social
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
outcast, so as to exert enough pressure on him to sell his property and leave. (So much or the libertarians who, in addition to their ‘live and let live’ ideal also hail the motto ‘respect no authority!’) Te lesson? Te peaceul cohabitation cohabitation o neighbors and o people p eople in regular direct contact with each other on some territory—a tranquil, tranquil, con�ivial social order—requires also a commonality o culture: o language, l anguage, religion, custom and con�ention. Tere can be peaceul co-existence o different cultures on distant, physically separated territories, but multi-cultur multi-culturalism, alism, cultur al heterogeneity, cannot exist in one and the same place and territory without leading to diminishing social trust, increased tension, and ultimately the call or a ‘strong man’ and the destruction o anything resembling a libertarian social order. �
NAIONALISM Black’s Black’s law dictionary defines d efines the “Nation “Nation”” as: as : A people, or aggregation aggregation o men, existing existing in the orm orm o an orgaorganized jural society, inhabiting a distinct portion o the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished om other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same go�ernment and so�ereignty [State].�
Tis should make clear that a nation does not necessarily entail a State, yet it entails commonality in at least one, but more ofen a combination, o the ollowing: language, custom, religion, race...etc. Nationalism, on the other hand, simply involves placing a premium on the interests o a particular nation defined as such. Once elucidated, it becomes clear that nationalism is quite natural and harmless. In the contemporary Western Western world, it is not only tolerated but encouraged or non-whites or ��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
people o o non-W non-Western descent to embrace a strong sense o nationalism. nationalism. Tis is typically extolled as a celebration o beauty ound in the diversity o cultures around the world. However, the same such celebration when conducted by White people o European descent is scorned and severely ridiculed as “racist”, “supremacist”, “ascist”, “xenophobic” and a slew o other meaningless yet stigmatized lefist epithets. Tis has to do with the spread o Cultural Marxism which will be explored in greater depth urther on. COVENAN COMMUNIY Te question now becomes how to orm and sustain a stateless nation? nation? One solution is to orm contractual covenant communities. When one purchases property in such a community, community, he does not acquire ull ownership. His ownership, instead, is limited to the extent o the community’s covenant conditions. Such conditions may include prohibitions on certain types o public behavior such as lewdness, drug use, drinking, the promotion o aberrant sexual behavior... etc. Tey may also entail certain requirements relating to the upkeep o one’s lawn etc. Tus, i one violates these conditions, then legal action may be taken against aga inst him without violating his private property rights, or the libertarian non-agnon-ag gression principle (NAP). Many o you may have heard o Hoppe’s inamous remarks regarding the “physical removal” o communists, Democrats, and those who publicly promote homosexuality. However, these remarks were made in the context o a covenant community which prohibited the conduct o such behavior and the entry o such people. Stephan Kinsella elaborates in the ollowing: ...in a private, co�enant-based order, one that is not only libertarian but also traditionalist and based on the amily-based social unit, people who are openly hostile hostile to the underlying underlying norms o this society would tend to be shunned, maybe even expelled (not aggressively, but consistent with property rights). Some o your uncharitable critics say you [Hoppe] mean that homosexuals themsel�es would be expelled merely or being
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
gay. I thought what you meant was not gays per se, but rather those people openly hostile to the basic cultural norms o society, who openly and habitually advocate incompatible liestyles/ ideas and against the underlying normative purpose o the community—like a guy who hates science fiction would be out o place at a Star rek con�ention. Tus, the gay couple down the street who mind their own business would not be expelled, but only those who are openly hostile to the basic heterosexual or private property basis o society.��
RACE One o the more noteworthy attributes o the Alt-Right is its explicit interest in the preservation o the White race. But what exactly is race and why does it matter? Eli Harmann provides some insight: ...there is remarkable consistency and repeatability in colloquial understandings o ‘race’ and population geneticists and orensic anthropologists anthropologists can map these popular conceptions with great accuracy to a variety o objective eatures which are much more than ‘skin deep’ (genetic markers, bone structure, etc...) Racial Ra cial and ethnic demarcations are actually about kinship kinship and relatedness, defining extended human amilies that share some degree o kinship. kinship. Why is this important? Kinship altruism is the norm throughout the animal kingdom, though altruism is rare in other contexts. contexts. Te main reason is that kinship makes altruism, and its reciprocity, more evolutionarily stable and sel-enorcing. ...In a nutshell that’s why race is important, because race is a close proxy or kinship and trust is always higher and trans action costs lower with people who are more akin, along any number o dimensions, but especially genetic. Tus, racial and
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
ethnic criteria are sound, rational, and adaptive criteria or in-group/out-group in-group/out-group identification. identification. Tis is why ethnocentric cooperation evol�ed a.k.a in-group preerence. Tis always evol�es under a wide variety o conditions and assumptions pro�ide only that reproduction is local (offspring are not randomly distributed geographically but emerge in proximity to parents) and traits are at least somewhat heritable.��
Te “White race” essentially reers to European descended people. However, what relationship do White people have with libertarianism? What is the connection? Rik Storey Storey answers: It has been hypothesized hypothesized that European libertarian and individualistic cultures and institutions are the result o our socio-biological qualities: IQ, time-preerence, testosterone, testosterone, and psychopathy. It so happens that ethnic ethnic Europeans all between the East Asians (China, Korea and Japan) at the higher end o the spectrum, and the Bushmen and Aboriginal Australians at the other (but ar closer to the East Asians) on all these actors. For example, the average East Asian IQ is ���, or Europeans it is ��� and Bushmen average at just over ��. Having a relatively low time-preerence and high IQ with moderate levels o testosterone and psychopathy has culminated in a gener ge neral al spirit which was described by Spengler as ‘Faus‘Faustian’ in its restlessness.��
Finally, Hoppe recognizes the role White people, especially White men, have played in both developing and establishing a libertarian social order: ...libertarianism, as an intellectual system, was first developed and urthest elaborated in the Western world, by white males, in white male dominated societies. Tat it is in white, heterosexual male dominated societies, where adherence to
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
libertarian principles is the greatest and the deviations om them the least severe (as indicated by comparatively less evil and extortionist extortionist State policies). policies). Tat it is white heterosexual men, who have demonstrated the greatest ingenuity, industry, and economic prowess. And that it is societies dominated by white heterosexual males, and in particular by the most successul among them, which have produced and accumulated the greatest amount o capital goods and achieved the highest average living standards.��
DEVELOPING A SRAEGY WIH RACE IN MIND In America, an incredible ��� o libertarians are White (it is important to note that, unlike most other surveys that rely upon mere sel-identification, participants were asked a series o policy questions to veriy their libertarian bona fides) and ��� are male.�� Anyone who dismisses this as mere coincidence is either a liar or a useless idiot or the Lef. o a libertarian with common sense, this would cue him to take deliberate measures to protect White people, especially White men, rom systematic legal and social targeting. Hoppe affirms this in the ollowing: ...any promising libertarian strategy must, very much as the Alt-Right Alt-Right has recognized, first and oremost be tailored and addressed to this group o the most severely victimized people. White married Christian couples with children, in particular i they belong also to the class o tax-payers (rather than tax-consumers), and everyone most closely resembling or aspiring to this standard orm o social order and organization can be realistically expected to be the most receptive audience o the libertarian message.��
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
WHIE WHI E GENOC GEN OCIDE IDE Another of ridiculed topic earnestly discussed by the Alt-Right is that o “ White Genocide.” Genocide.” It would benefit one to clariy what exactly “genocide” “genocide” is to dispel some common misconceptions: Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction o a nation . . . It is intended to signiy a coordinated plan o different actions aimed at the destruction o essential oundations o the lie o national groups, with the aim o annihilating the groups themsel�es. Te objectives o such a plan would be the disintegration o the political and social institutions o culture, language, national eeling, religion, and the economic institutions and systems o national groups, and the destruction o the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives o the individuals belonging to such groups. .... In any case, it is the point (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions conditions o lie calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, that is the main aspect o ‘White genocide’. I we observe what is happening in the Western Western world, we can witness that there is in act a policy o relentless massive Tird World immigration into the vast majority o White countries, and only White countries. Tese open border policies, combined with orced assimilation and legally orcing White areas to become more ‘diverse ‘diverse’’ (meaning (meaning less White people and a blended humanity in the vast majority o and only White countries), is what qualifies current goings-on as (White) genocide as defined by Article Article II part (c) o the United United Nations Nations Genocide Con�ention, because these deliberate policies are inflicting on our people conditions o lie calculated to bring about our physical physical destruction in whole or in part.��
Socially, one may witness efforts towards these ends taking place ��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N Native Households
80%
Immigrant Households 70%
70% 60% 50% 40% 30%
35%
33%
30%
20%
55% 53%
54%
51%
WELFARE USAGE. Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) ��
22%
23%
Asian
White
10% 0% All
Hispanic
Black
through the popular diminishing o marriage, endorsement o interracial relationships, promotion o homosexuality, advocacy o abortion, and the encouragement o transgenderism to name only a ew. All such campaigns are primarily directed at White people. For example, it is socially acceptable to encourage Black men to partner and procreate exclusively with Black women, however encouraging White women to exclusively partner and procreate with White men is utterly taboo. Legally, the subsidization o immigration, anti-discrimination laws, wellare, and affirmative affirmative action laws serve to not only orceully integrate and intermingle unwanted oreigners with White people, but also enable non-Whites non-Whites (excluding Asians) to enjoy a parasitical relationship with them as a whole. (Obviously some Whites are parasites, and some non-Whites are net-tax payers and contributors.) Tis, in turn, depresses the birth rates o the White host population, whilst subsidizing the birth rates o the parasitical non-White non-White populations. popu lations. Hoppe explains that such efforts aimed at White genocide not only place White people in jeopardy, jeopardy, but also imperil the the parasitic class which eeds upon them: ...most i not all technical in�entions, machines, tools and gadgets in current use everywhere and anywhere, on which our current living standards and comorts largely and deci sively sively depend, depe nd, originated with them [White people]. All other people, by and large, only imitated imitated what they had in�ent-
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
ed and constructed first. All others inherited the knowledge embodied in the in�entors’ products or ee. And isn’t it the typical white hierarchical amily household o ather, mother, their common children and prospective heirs, and their ‘bour geois’ geois’ conduct conduct and liestyle—i.e., liestyle—i.e., everything the Lef disparages disparages and maligns—that is the economically most successul model o social organization the world has ever seen, with the greatest accumulation o capital goods (wealth) (wealth) and the highest aver age standards standards o living? living? And And isn isn’t’t it it only only on account account o the great economic achievements o this minority o ‘victimizers’ that a steadily steadily increasing number number o ‘victims ‘victims’’ could be integra integrated ted and partake partake in the advantages advantages o a worldwide worldwide network network o the divi sion o labor? And isn’t isn’t it only on account o the success o the traditional white, bourgeois amily model also that so-called ‘alternative liestyles’ could at all emerge and be sustained over time? Do not most o today’s ‘victims,’ then, literally owe their lives and their current living standards to the achievements o their alleged ‘victimizers?’ ...I would add (at a minimum): be and do whatever makes you happy, but always keep keep in mind that as long as you are an integral part o the worldwide division o labor, your existence and well-being depends decisively decisively on the continued existence o others, and especially on the continued existence o white heterosexual male dominated societies, their patriarchic amily structures, and their bourgeois or aristocratic liestyle and conduct. Hence, even i you do not want to have any part in that, recognize that you are nonetheless a beneficiary o this standard “ Western” estern” model o social organization and hence, or your own sake, do nothing nothing to undermine it but instead be supportive supportive o it as something something to be respected respected and protected. protected. ...Tat doesn’t mean that you should be uncritical o the ‘Western,’ white male dominated world. Afer all, even these societies most closely ollowing this model also have their various States that are responsible or reprehensible acts o aggression
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
not only against their own domestic property owners but also against oreigners. But neither where you live nor anywhere else should the State be conused with ‘the people.’ It is not the ‘Western’ State, but the ‘traditional’ (normal, standard, etc.) liestyle and conduct o the western ‘people,’ already under increasingly heavy attack by their very ‘own’ State-rulers on their drive toward totalitarian social control, that deserves your respect and o which which you are a beneficiary. ��
RACISM “Racism” is an obscure and elusive concept being made ever more broad and ambiguous ambig uous by the Lef. For the sake o clarity, all the different d ifferent meanings and senses o the term, based on how it is generally applied, will be provided in the ollowing: ollowing : �. Believing the races are different. [Reasonable] �. Believing a distinct and prevailing prevailing culture culture tends to be associated with each race. race. (O course, the same may may be applied towards towards religion, geography, etc.) [Reasonable] �. Believing certain cultures tend to yield greater material material prosperity prosperity,, scientific progress, and lower crime. Tat, by the transitive property, certain races as a whole tend to excel in these areas with respect to others. [Reasonable] �. Believing culture culture has an impact on IQ, thus certain races have a higher/lower average IQ than others owing, in part, to cultural differences. [Reasonable] �. Believing biology biolog y has has an impact on one’s propensity propensity to adopt certain cultural norms, and has a likewise impact on IQ. Believing the biological differences between races aren’t limited to mere skin color or physical body shape/structure, but that they tend to also ��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
include variations in mental capacity, testosterone levels, and the like. [Reasonable] �. Having Having a proessional proessional or personal preerence preerence or the the company company o a particular race or races o people over others, other things being equal. [Reasonable] �. (Subjectively) valuing valuing a particular race o people over over all others, other things being equal. [Reasonable] �. Believing every member o a particular race shares the same set o cultural, political, moral, or religious belies. [Unreasonable and absurd] �. Preerring Preerring the company or valuing valuing every member o one race, over every member m ember o another [Unreasonable] [Unreasonable] ��. Believing every member o one race is mentally/physically superior superior to every member o another [Unreasonable [Unreasonable and absurd] It should be unequivocally stated that only meanings �-� apply to the clear majority o the Alt-Right. Likewise, the vast majority o the Alt-Right recognize that meanings �-�� are absurd and/or unreasonable, contrary to Lefist propaganda. RACIAL AND ETHNIC GROUPS BY LIBERT L IBERTARIAN ARIAN ORIENTATION SCALE. Pew Research Center ��
Libertarian
Lean Libertarian
Lean Communalist
Mixed Communalist
All Americans 7%
15%
17%
54%
7%
White 10%
19%
54%
14% 4%
Hispanic 11%
52%
22%
15%
Black 6% 0%
55% 20%
��
40%
22% 60%
16% 80%
100%
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N Want Want Larger L arger Government
90%
Want Want Smaller Government Government 81%
80% 66%
70% 55%
60% 50% 40%
LARGER VS. SMALLER GOVERNMENT. Pew Research Center ��
52%
48% 41%
37%
36% 28%
30% 20%
12%
10% 0% General Public
Whites
Asians
Native Born Foreign Born Hispanics Hispanics
CULURAL CULURAL MARXISM At this point, one may wonder why White people and Western civilization are being unduly targeted. What is the ultimate goal? Frankly, the ultimate end o the Lef is to establish a global egalitarian socialist State. Tey happen to correctly recognize that the largest obstacles to this end are traditional Western values and, by extension, White people, as they constitute the vast majority o those who harbor and live according to them. Ethan Chan elaborates on the nature o Cultural Marxism in the ollowing: Te difference between the traditional Marxist class theory explained abo�e and cultural Marxism is quite simple. Te theory itsel remains the same in the case o cultural Marxism, it’s simply applied to different categories. Instead o dealing strictly with socio-economic class, cultural Marxists ocus on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability status, and a host host o other other cultural cultural categories. categories. Such think thinking ing has given rise to ‘intersectionality,’ a prevalent orm o cultural Marxism which stresses a relation between the various ‘oppressed’ classes o different demographics and the need or them to work together to overthrow the supposed white, capitalist, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, conservative, Christian patriarchy.
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
As such, the ‘intersectional’ ‘intersectional’ cultural cultural Marxist evaluates each person by placing him/her/‘xir’ on a totem pole o privilege p rivilege vs. oppression. A white gay male, or instance, is more oppressed than a white straight straight male, but more privileged privileged than than a black gay male. Still Still more oppressed would be a black lesbian, and even urther down the totem pole would be a black transgender lesbian, and even urther urther down would would be a black, Muslim, Muslim, tran transgender, sgender, mentally disabled (or as they say, ‘neurodivergent’), morbidly obese lesbian. Essentially, the idea is that the more ‘oppressed’ one is based on her position on the totem pole, the more deerence and sympathy she ought to receive om society to recti y the alleged injustice o her ‘oppression. ‘oppression.’ For example, ex ample, many cultural Marxists believe that whites ought to pay reparations to blacks as a orm o collective restitution or slavery and Jim Crow laws. Moreo�er, the lef promotes affirmative action initiatives and anti-discrimination laws, believing that i one is part o an ‘oppressed’ group then he has a right to demand access to another another person’s person’s goods and services. services. In short, cultural cultural Marxism is simply simply traditional traditional Marxist class cla ss theory repackaged in terms o cultural rather than economic classes. However, the end goal o bringing about a socialist society remains in place or the vast majority o cultural cultural Marxists.��
FEMINISM Modern day eminism is an ugly beast (not unlike most eminists) that has served as the primary vehicle or the destruction o the Nuclear Family Fa mily.. N’Goode N’Goo de explains: explains : ...it has become clear that modern eminism has become little more than a pernicious conduit to dismantle the remnants o
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
the nuclear amily, leading to the limitless expansion o the state. Modern eminists eminists are ofen an unsightly unsightly embodiment o the very ideology they shrilly preach. Many have either endured nasty or spoiled upbringings, prompting them to detest the mere abric o the traditional amily structure and wishing or its demise. Painting men out to be authoritarian and abusive, while “promising it all” to women has rendered modern relationships unstable. Women should supposedly be able to raise a amily, amily, keep a high-energy high-energ y career, enjoy a ulfilling sex lie and plenteous leisure, but unortunately, there are only twenty-our hours in a day. Something has to give. And that something is ofen the marriage or the kids as it would be a progressive heresy to be an anachronistic, unglamorous housewie.��
Te resulting epidemic o single motherhood has had ar reaching effects on the culture, mindset, and health o children being reared in the West. West. Rachels has this to say: say : Te majority o child abuse perpetrators perpetrators and welare recipients are single mothers. Te shocking shocking rise o atherless atherless homes has precipitated precipitated an increase in violence, abuse and crime. Statistically, the absolute best thing both biological parents can do or their children is commit to one another as part o a traditional nuclear amily. ...Te State has also played a large role in breaking up the amily unit. Big Brother has taken the place o ather and husband by subsidizing single parent households whilst penalizing married households with higher taxes (as they tend to be in a higher tax bracket since they generally bring in more income). Single parent amilies account or ��� o emporary Assistance or Needy Families (welare) recipients. Hal o single mothers are on ood stamps, yet only ��� o married couples with kids are. It is also worth noting that the rate o children living in single parent households has quadrupled since the
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
����s (when State welare expanded significantly). Te po�erty rate drops ��� or women who marry the biological ather o her children when compared to their jobless single mother counterparts! Alternatively, the po�erty rate drops ��� or women who marry the biological ather when compared to single moms who who work part time. time.��
Contrary to popular belie, radical eminists are not primarily concerned with the wellbeing and protection o women. Instead, they are more concerned with breaking down the edifice o Western civilization and bringing about a socialist order. Tey resent White patriarchy much more so than patriarchy in general. Tis is evidenced by their bizarre alliance with Islam: It is undeniable that compared to modern Western standards, women are treated abominably in Islamic countries and even in Islamic neighborhoods in Western countries. Women are subjected to barbaric customs and violence, but Muslims have been ostensibly hard-done-by according to the Progressive Stack. Lefists are ofen cultural and moral relativists, which would make oreign practices beyond questioning as other cultures and moral ameworks are allegedly equally valid, just different. Furthermore, Furthermore, given that Muslims Muslims rank higher than many lefists on the Progressive Stack, lefists are (by their twisted logic) socially indebted to Muslims or any existing inequalities. Islam shares many ideological similarities similarities with lefism. Te logical conclusion o both ideologies is totalitarian; espousing anti-capitalism, globalism, expansionism, anti-Westernism, and only extending tolerance to their ollowers. In our age o rampant rampant hedonism hedonism and nihilism, nihilism, Islam Islam has been able to to exploit its adherents’ ertility in becoming an ideological orce to be reckoned with in i n the West. West. Te West’s turning its back on Christian Christian values in avor o secularism has rendered it deenseless to the prolieration o Islam. Islam is an uncompromising
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
aith aith which which has has begun to impose impose its its rules on citizens citizens in Western countries where Muslims have become a sizable portion o the population. As a result o this, around a hundred non-legalnon-legally-binding Sharia courts have emerged in the UK alone—not to mention thousands o unaddressed cases o emale genital mutilation, spousal abuse, cousin marriage and birth deects, honor killings, rape gangs (as a orm o jihad)... etc. ��
LIBERINISM Libertinism basically reers to hedonistic or high time preerence behavior. Te Lef encourages such behavior as it ultimately induces many to disregard the long-term advantages o capitalism in avor o immediate short-term socialist “gibs.” It also helps them rationalize promiscuous behavior and the socially destructive consequences thereo. Emotional beings are easily allured by any philosophy that says, “live only in the present, do what you want when you want regardless o the consequences, you don’t have to be responsible or your actions, and you should be bailed out with the resources o others when you make dumb decisions.” Orwell N’Goode expounds upon the detrimental effects o high-time preerence preerence behavior: Low time preerences elicit elicit discipline, discipline, oresight, and str strategy ategy as the individual becomes more uture-oriented. o ensure that a person’s person’s children receives the best possible upbringing, upbringing, parents must have low time preerences to save, pay bills and leave behind a ormidable inheritance. A healthy society’s individu al plans ar beyond his own liespan liespan to pro�ide or or his offspring. offspring. ...Sadly, western societies are becoming increasingly overcome by high-time preerences. Individuals have become very egoistic, hedonistic, solipsistic, nihilistic and indolent. Instead o choosing choosing a productive liestyle, individuals have elected a lie o pleasure-seeking pleasure-seeking and instant gratification. gratification. Instead Instead o sel-imsel-im pro�ement, there is sel-degradation. sel-degradation. Instead Instead o thrif, there
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
is profligacy. With high time preerences, there is promiscuity and carelessness, leading to unwanted pregnancies. Afer flings or throwing caution to the wind with irresponsible irresponsible sexuse xu al partners, single motherhood motherhood rates increase. With no male presence in the household, the mother has little choice but to resort to welare participation or severely hampering her career potential by settling or a low-income job. A atherless upbringing is one o the worst things the child can be subjected to; as criminality, risk o abuse, mental problems, truancy, and early sexual activity all increase. Te child om a single parent household is also likely likely to emulate the same behaviors behaviors o their parent and slip into the cycle. High time preerences place a tremendous burden on the productive in a statist society, as poor behaviors behaviors such as criminality, drug addiction, alcoholism, �oluntary �oluntary unemployment, violence and other costs om their consequent effects are externalized onto the taxpayer. Our great redistributionist social-democratic welare States help create the aorementioned poor behaviors and drive up the time preerences o all members o society. Te welare State, in a nutshell, takes om productive individuals and hands it to largely nonproductive individuals. Immediately, productive individuals subject to higher tax levels become disincentivized to work longer hours or to sel-impro�e, as their marginal utility utility or extr extra income in in exchange or or more work becomes lower than their disutility or work and margin al utility or leisure. leisure.��
GLOBALISM Something libertarians and the Alt-Right should already have in common is a fierce opposition to Globalism. Globa lism. As libertarians, our ultimate goal is to have the individual be the sovereign over his person and property, thus a global State should be seen as the antithesis o this objective. Likewise, other things equal, sovereigns which are more decentralized ��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
should be avored over those that are more centralized. Local > County > State > Federal > International governing bodies... etc. Tereore secession must be vigorously pursued alongside the Alt-Right i libertarians wish to achieve their ultimate ends. Hoppe expounds on the State’s globalist efforts in the ollowing ollowing:: In order to reach total total control over each individual individual person, the State must pursue a divide et impera policy. It must weaken, undermine and ultimately destroy all other, rival centers o social authority. Most importantly, it must weaken the traditional, patriarchic amily household, and especially the independently wealthy amily household, as autonomous decision-making centers by sowing and legislating conflicts between wives and husbands, children and parents, women and men, rich and poor. poor. As well, all hierarchical hierarchical orders and ranks o social authority, all exclusive associations, and all personal loyalties and attachments—be attachments—be it it to a particular amiamily, community, ethnicity, tribe, nation, race, language, reli gion, custom or tradition tradition—except —except the attachment attachment to a given State qua citizen-subject and passport holder, must be weakened and ultimately destroyed. And what better way to do this than to pass anti-discrimination laws! ��
MULI�CULURALISM As previously mentioned, cultural homogeneity is a key ingredient to sustaining a healthy civilization, thus one may conclude that multi-culturalism will have the opposite effect. Tis speaks speak s to how Globalism Global ism isn’t isn’t only unlibertarian, but also impractical. Chan has this to say: ...the paleolibertarians reject political centralization because they recognize that culture actually matters—that one cannot simply apply the the non-aggression principle principle in blanket blanket ashion ashion to the entire world, or even across a large country such as America without taking regional cultural particularities into account.
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
Such a measure can only result in irreconcilable social tension and conflict, pro�iding a perect opportunity opportunity or a centralized centralized state to arise once more to “ keep the peace.” peace.” Tat’s Tat’s not to say that the non-aggression principle is aulty, o course, or that libertarianism must include more than the non-aggression principle and a working working understanding understanding o private private property norms. However, it is worth noting that certain social conflicts can arise where a simple appeal to the non-aggression principle may not suffice, and in the absence o an “unwritten constitution” (i.e. a set o shared cultural values and commonly accepted social norms) may pro�e quite thorny. ...While it’s true that the libertarian philosophy o private property rights and non-aggression are based on an objective understanding understanding o legal principles, one must also recognize that without being rooted in some sort o cultural tradition (as the American ounding ounding principles were) attempting attempting to mold societies according to them is doomed to ail. People do not naturally coalesce around abstract ideas, but around more concrete things such as a common culture, kinship, aith, language, and history.��
Tis brings us to the related contemporary issue o mass Muslim immigration to the Western world. What is so disconcerting about this is not only the standard issues that come about via multi-culturalism, but that Islam in particular is especially anti-libertarian: Under Sharia Law, there is little to no eedom or non-Muslims and women. Non-Muslim inhabitants o an Islamic society are reerred to as dhimmis, or second-class citizens. Islamic law is simply not compatible with a civilized society. Non-Muslims would have to submit to their Muslim rulers and pay them taxes. Te dhimmi in the Ottoman Empire were not considered equal to Muslims and were not allowed to carry weapons or ride on top o horses or camels. Even though Christians and Jews were allowed to live in the Ottoman Empire
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
they were severely oppressed and persecuted. Te justice system under Sharia is dualistic; there is one set o laws or Muslim males and another set or women and non-Muslims.��
O course, this begs the question: to what end are Lefists encouraging this mass immigration? Te answer is quite simple: it supports their myopic political interests. Because Lefists tend to be high time preerence oriented individuals, they neglect or dismiss the long term impact such immigration will have on the Western world. Orwell N’Goode expounds: Lefists can weaponize Islam as a battering battering ram to demolish the dilapidated remnants o Western values. Muslims boast a significantly significantly higher birth rate to Westerners. Strength in numbers, within Islam, will eventually consume our valueless, nihilistic society. Furthermore, a significant proportion o European Muslims are wholly dependent on welare. Teir higher ertility ofen entitles them to larger state perqui sites. Muslims Muslims also �ote overwhelmingly overwhelmingly or lef-wing parties, putting putting their financial or social habits beyond question in many public platorms, as their detractors are simply Islamophobic. So, in playing the long game and finally deconstructing Western values, with “the long march through the institutions” drawing its close, lefists will have a clear numerical advantage advantage in uture elections, ad infinitum. infinitum. However, However, beore a progressive utopia can c an be inaugurated, inaugurated, I predict that history will repeat itsel and Islam will trump ‘progress’. ��
BORDERS Contrary to popular belie on the part o many libertarians and Alt-Righters, “public” property border b order restrictions restrictions are perectly compatible with libertarian principles. Te completely compl etely unettered and open State border policy polic y advocated by lolberts lolb erts and lef-libertarians is the one that is the urthest removed rom libertarian principles. Rachels elaborates: ��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
Ironically, Ironically, the completely completely unrestricted unrestricted and ‘open State border’ position position is a one size fits all statist solution that would be unjustly imposed upon all domestic tax-paying/property-owning citizens. In contrast, the ‘in�ite only’ immigration restriction proposed herein is the one most in line with private property rights and libertarian principles. Tis is because it recognizes that domestic tax-payers/property-owners (and other victims o aggression by the State in question) are the legitimate joint private private owners o all developed or impro�ed upon State ‘public-property’ and, as such, any unin�ited oreign in�ader must necessarily be guilty o trespass (i.e. a property violation). Further Further,, it takes takes the question o whether whether a particular oreignoreigner should be welcome out o the hands o the State and places it into the hands o its respective individual property owning domestic citizens. Tis is a ar more decentralized solution than the unconditional ‘open State border’ one. ��
Tis may still give Alt-Righters pause as they may believe that, according to this proposal, any domestic property owner could practically invite all the denizens o the world. However, this is certainly not the case: ...because libertarians are in a position o having to come up with a next best solution, they must approximate how the majority o ownership shares would be �oted i such a �ote were allowed to take place (remember some individuals have more shares/claim than others due to their greater net tax payments or aggressive victimization by the State in question). question). Admittedly, Admittedly, one cannot predict the the exact ex act outcome o such �otes hence why the solution described herein is next best and not perect. (It is important important to note that the completely open state border solution is the urthest remo�ed om the principles o libertarian justice.) However, However, one can say with near certainty that a policy o ‘anyone and everyone should have unettered access and/or use
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
o our joint private property (‘public property’)’ would be the most disagreeable solution or the vast majority o shares (and shareholders shareholders). ). Likewise, Likewise, a policy o ‘any individual joint owner, regardless o the size o his claim, may in�ite however many people he wishes to our joint private property and have zero liability or any violations to property they may perpetrate’ would also be one o the most disagreeable policies to the vast majority o shares (and shareholders). Hence, one may confidently disregard this proposal as well. However, However, a policy o ‘joint owners may in�ite whoever they want to our joint private property, but they must first acquire liability insurance or their in�itees so as to assure restitution can be made to those who may have their persons or property violated by this oreign visitor during his stay’ is likely ar more agreeable to the privat p rivatee joint owners o so called ‘public’ property, and is one that is ar more decentralized as it gives each joint owner a large measure o individual individual discretion discretion over its access.��
HE COMP CO MPA AIBILI IBI LIY Y OF LIBER LI BERARIA ARIANISM NISM AND HE HE AL�RIGH AL�RIGH As stated in the introduction, the Alt-Right is largely absent a uniying political and economic theory, as they are primarily ocused on preserving traditional Western culture and the White race. Tis has led to the ormation o many actions within the Alt-Right, some o which lean more libertarian and capitalist whilst others lean more statist and socialist. Conversely, Conversely, libertarianism is exactly the inverse as Hoppe explains: Libertarians Libertarians are united united by the irreutable irreutable theoretical theoretical core belies mentioned at the outset. Tey are clear about the goal that they want to achieve. But the libertarian doctrine does
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
not imply much i anything concerning these questions: First, how to maintain a libertarian order once achieved. And second, how to attain a libertarian order om a non-libertarnon-libertarian starting point, which requires a) that one must correctly describe this starting point and b) correctly identiy the obstacles posed in the way o one’s libertarian ends by this very starting point. o answer these questions, in addition to theory, you also need some knowledge knowledge o human psycholog psy chologyy and sociolog s ociologyy or at least a modicum o common sense. Yet many libertarians and ake libertarians are plain ignor ig norant ant o human psychology psycholog y and sociology sociolog y or even devoid o any common sense. Tey blindly accept, against all empirical e mpirical evidence, an egalitarian, blankblank slate view o human nature, o all people and all societies and cultures being essentially equal and interchangeable. interchangeable. While much o contemporary libertarianism can be characterized, then, as theory and theorists without psychology and sociology, sociolog y, much or even most o the Alt-Right Alt-Right can be described, in contrast, as psychology and sociology without theory. ...Given the lack o any theoretical oundation, this split o the Alt-Right Alt-Right mo�ement into rival actions actions can hardly hardly be considered a surprise. Yet this act should not mislead one to dismiss it, because the Alt-Right has brought out many insights that are o central central importance importance in approaching an answer to the the two previously previously mentioned questions unanswered by libertarian theory: o how to maintain a libertarian social order and how to get to such an order om the current, decidedly un-libertarian status quo.��
What both libertarians lib ertarians and the Alt-Right would do d o well to realize is that their philosophies are complementary and symbiotic. Tat adopting libertarianism would greatly assist in achieving Alt-Right ends, and likewise that adopting the Alt-Right position would help in achieving libertarian ends. Libertarianism is the Yin to the Alt-Right’s Yang, so to speak. Perhaps one o the largest sources o skepticism the Alt-Right has ��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
towards libertarianism and capitalism is what they incorrectly perceive the globalist effects o international ree trade to be. Chan answers this concern in the ollowing: What distributists [Alt-Righters] correctly associate with globalism are the various political agreements like NAFA NAFA and PP which are ofen touted as ‘ee trade trade deals.’ What they ail to realize about these agreements is that they are really managed trade deals in�ol�ing a slew o corporate subsidies, labor and en�ironmental regulations, all sorts o supranational iningements on national and local so�ereignty in the name o “harmonization,” and sometimes even outright coercive transers o wealth between different countries. As Hans-Hermann Hans-Hermann Hoppe once said in an interview, interview, ‘a ee trade trade agreement only requires two sentences: Whatever Whatever you want to ship out, you can ship out, and whatever whatever you want to import, you can import.’ ’ Tis is ar om being the case with modern-day trade agreements, which are sometimes thousands o pages long, filled with many pro�isions like the ones mentioned abo�e that have absolutely absolutely nothing nothing to do with ee trade, trade, and everything ever ything to do with the centralization o political power into the hands o supranational supranational go�erning go�erning committees.... committees.... But what about true ee trade? trade? Would that necessarily lead to the destruction o nations and local cultures and traditions that distributists ascribe to it? Tis is hardly the case, i ee trade really is as simple as ‘whatever you want to ship out, you can ship out, and whatever you want to import, you can import.’ All trade would consist purely o �oluntary exchanges, with none o the coercive political arrangements in�ol�ed in modern-day ‘trade deals’ that erode local so�ereignty in avor o globalism. Tereore, communities, where people had a genuine interest interest in preserving preserving their own culture, culture, would ace ace no real threat om ee trade, as their in-group preerences would
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
lead them to prioritize cultural preservation over oreign trade (or example, choosing to patronize the local businesses run by their neighbors instead o importing cheap goods om China). As or the claim that ee trade trade destroys jobs, Georgi Vuldzhev Vuldzhev o the Mises Institute writes: It is true that greater competition competition between domestic and oreign workers can lead to a decline in wage rates and possibly unemployment in some sectors o the economy. But this is only a shortshortterm effect. Free competition between oreign and domestic producers also naturally leads to lower prices or the goods and services which which can now now be eely imported om abroad. So, while nominal wage rates are pushed down in some sectors, real wage rates rise overall or everyone in the economy because o the decline in prices. Tanks to ee trade, consumers spend less money on certain goods and services and this allows them to spend more money on others, which leads to rising demand and thus profits in the sectors pro�iding the latter, latter, and consequently consequently leads also to more in�estment by entrepreneurs. Tis higher rate o in�estment naturally leads to the creation o more jobs in these sectors and thus offsets any original rise in unemployment that might have occurred. Te rise in real wages which is acilitated by ee trade, thereore, results in a lowering o time preerence rates which incentivizes increased saving and in�estment in productive enterprises that can then create more jobs. Also, the small, local amily businesses cherished by distributists [Alt-Righters] would likely become much more prominent without the competi-
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
tion-destroying subsidies and regulations that large corporations consistently lobby or and which are major eatures o the trade agreements o today. All o this would be conducive to the distributist [Alt-Right] goal o having the majority o common men possess enough capital to start their own small businesses, and to the libertarian goal o protecting private property rights.��
Likewise, much o the consumerism, materialism, and degeneracy the Alt-Right decries is an effect o Central Bank inflation, welare, and taxes, all o which are departures rom capitalism. Orwell N’Goode has this to say: Te consumerism that drives maniacal hedonism and progres sivism today can be pinpointed pinpointed on our social democratdemocratic post-Keynesian economic models. As a result o graduated (progressive) taxation, inflationism, artificially low-interest rates, welare and heavily regulated markets, individual time preerences have shifed shifed artificially artificially high.��
POLIICAL POLII CAL INDIVIDUALISM VS. HYPER INDIVIDUALISM INDIVIDUALISM Another mistake made by lef-libertarians, lolberts, and Alt-Righters alike is assuming that libertarianism somehow entails hyper-individualism. However, libertarians, in their capacity as libertarians, are only indi vidualist insoar as they recognize the individual has final legal say over the use o his own body or justly acquired property, regardless o the will o the State or some other such collective. Chan elaborates: One o the most common criticisms o libertarianism om conservatives and progressives alike goes something like this: ‘Libertarians want a world where everyone is reduced to an atomized, ‘ee-thinking’ ‘ee-thinking’ individual individual competing competing ruthlessly ruthlessly with other individuals in the marketplace in Social Darwinistic ashion, with no institutional loyalties or connections to
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
anything anything beyond themsel�es. themsel�es. o the libertarian (en�isioned (en�isioned by many as a edora-tipping, neckbearded, militant atheist, anti-social anti-social hipster), hipster), neither neither amily, amily, community, community, nor church should have any role in society, as these are ‘authoritarian authoritarian’’ and ‘collectivistic ‘collectivistic’’ institutions institutions that violate the sacred libertari an tenet o individualism. individualism.’ Tis ‘rugged individualism, individualism,’ as the critics say, is the backbone backbone o libertarian ideology. ideolog y. But is this truly the case? One certainly certainly might think think so om talking with certain libertarians. Anyone who has been in libertarian groups or some time has almost certainly seen ‘collectivist,’ ‘authoritarian,’ or ‘statist’ used as an insult against those who either (a) advocate or culturally conservative values (even without implying support or state enorcement o those values) or (b) make some kind o generalized statement about a particular demographic. demographic. Tey will incorrectly incorrectly claim, or instance, that the alt-righters who point out disparities in average average IQs between different racial groups are exactly the same ‘collectivists ‘collectivists’’ as the social justice warriors who demand that whites pay reparations to blacks or slavery and Jim Crow laws. Or they will incorrectly claim that the anti-eminists who point out differences in behavioral tendencies between the sexes are guilty o the same offense as the eminists eminists who rail against the ‘patriarchy’ ‘patriarchy’ and demand all sorts o special legal protections and privileges or women to overthrow said ‘patri archy.’ ’ ...is libertarianism individualistic? And i so, in what sense? It is certainly certainly individualistic individualistic in that it affirms the individuindividu al right to justly acquire private private property and exercise exclu sive control over it. I one adheres to the Austro-libertarian Austro-libertarian tradition, one also recognizes the praxeological truths that only individuals can act or think and that any sort o ‘group’ action must be understood understood in terms o individual individual actions. One might also add, based on this, that only individuals can bear moral responsibility. Tese axioms, when taken together, orm
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
what is reerred to as ‘methodological individualism.’ Tis is the libertarian individualism o Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. Ten there is ‘liestyle individualism.’ Tis is the type o individualism which is most ofen attacked by critics o libertarianism as I explained previously. Tey will use slogans like ‘no man is an island’ as i it were an actual argument against libertarian philosophy, believing that libertarianism is about ‘sel-sufficiency’ and living off the grid. Now, to be sure, there are some sel-described sel-described libertarians who advocate or this kind o liestyle, but does the definition o libertarianism as explained abo�e imply that such a liestyle is inherently libertarian? Not at all. Neither private property norms nor the non-aggression principle require that one live a ‘sel-sufficient’ lie in isolation om the rest o society, but only that any trans actions that that one engages engages in with with other people are are �oluntary. So we can see that appeals to the importance o community and amily amily in no way constitute constitute an argument against libertarian theory itsel, although they might unction as a legitimate criticism o certain libertarians who do not value these things. Somewhat related to ‘liestyle individualism’ is cultural individualism. Tis is the kind o individualism which is ofen appealed to by lef-libertarians in support o eminism, multiculturalism, counterculture, and other lefist social causes. According According to this this view, view, cultur cultural al and social norms norms such as gender roles and the nuclear amily are ‘collectivist’ and ‘oppressive’ towards the individual and should be overturned. Only when people have been ‘ liberated liberated’’ om these norms and become rational, ee-thinking individuals will we have a true libertarian society, they say. Furthermore, it is ofen claimed that making generalized statements about particular demographic groups, and especially making decisions based on such observations, is ‘collectivist’ and thereore unlibertarian. Allegedly, culture and race do not exist as these are ‘collectivist’ concepts that put people into—gasp!—groups. Hence, the desire or
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
cultural cultural homogeneity and cultural cultural preservation is then seen as an affront to this sacred ‘individualism, ‘individualism,’ which prompts many lef-libertarians to reactively support cultural heterogeneity and cultural cultural erosion e rosion instead (that (that is, at least when it comes to traditional Western European and Christian cultures). ��
Finally, Hoppe affirms that, regarding libertarianism, the way to transition rom the realm o theory to application is to adopt and act in accordance with the Rightist conception o the world as it is: rue enough, the libertarian doctrine is a purely aprioristic and deductive theory and as such does not say or imply anything anything about the rival claims o the Right and the Lef regarding the existence, the extent and the causes o human inequalities. Tat is an empirical question. But on this question the Lef happens to be largely unrealistic, wrong and devoid o any common sense, whereas the Right is realistic and essentially correct and sensible. Tere can be consequently nothing wrong with applying a correct aprioristic theory o how peaceul human cooperation is possible to a realistic, i.e., undamentally rightist, description o the world. For only based on correct empirical assumptions about man is it possible possible to arrive arrive at a correct assessment as regards regards the the practical practical implementation and the sustainability o a libertarian social order.��
HE WAY FOR FO RWARD: ARD : HOPP HO PPE’S E’S PLAN PL AN With all this in mind, we may now conclude with an outline o what concrete steps must be taken in order to achieve the ends o the “libertarian Alt-Right” union proposed herein. For this task, I shall once again borrow rom Hoppe so as to not duplicate magnificent effort (these steps are in no particular order o importance with exception to the first step): ��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
�. �. �. �. �. �. �. �. �. ��.
Stop mass immigration. Stop attacking, killing and bombing people in in oreign countries. countries. Deund the ruling elites and its intellectual bodyguards. bodyg uards. End the Federal Reserve Reser ve and all central banks Abolish Abol ish all ‘affirmative ‘affirmative action’ and ‘non-discrimination’ ‘non-discrim ination’ laws and regulations Crush the “Anti-Fascist” mob. Crush the street criminals and gangs. gang s. Get rid o all welare parasites and bums. Get the State out o education. Don’t Don’t put your your trust in politics or political parties.��
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
REFERENCES �. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, �� Oct. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/201 radicalcapitalist.org/2017/10/21/liber 7/10/21/libertarianismtarianismand-the-alt-right-distinct- yet-complementary/.
�. N’Goode, Orwell. “How ime Preerences Preerences Make Or Break Civilization.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Aug. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/ 2017/08/24/how-time-prefe 2017/08/24/how-time-preferences-makerences-make-or-breakor-breakcivilization/.
�. Dewey Dewe y, Matthew. Matthew. “Going Nuclear (Family) Against Te State.” State.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Aug. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/ 08/11/going-nuclear-family-against-the-state/.
�. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. A Short History History o Man: Progress and Decline, an Austro-L Austro-Libertarian ibertarian Reconstruction. Reconstruction. Mises Institute, ����. �. Malthus, Tomas Robert. Essay on the Principle o Population. W W Norton, ����. �. Rothbard, Murray Murray Newton. “Freedom, “Freedom, Inequality, Inequality, Primitivism, Primitivism, and the Division o Labor.” Egalitarianism Egalitarianism as a Revolt against against Nature Nature and Other Essays, Ludwig Von Mises Institute, ����, pp. ���–���. �. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, �� Oct. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/201 radicalcapitalist.org/2017/10/21/liber 7/10/21/libertarianismtarianismand-the-alt-right-distinct- yet-complementary/.
�. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, �� Oct. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/201 radicalcapitalist.org/2017/10/21/liber 7/10/21/libertarianismtarianismand-the-alt-right-distinct- yet-complementary/.
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
�. “ What Is NAI NAION?” ON?” Te Law Dictionary, Black’s Law Dictionary, thelawdictionary.org/nation/. ��. Kinsella, Stephan N. “Covenant Communities Communities Explained.” Explained.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/ 07/10/covenant-communities-explained/. ��. Harmann, Eli. “Te Relationship Between Race, Culture, and a Libertarian Social Order.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/30/the-relationshipbetween-race-culture-and-a-libertarian-social-order/ .
��. Storey,Rik. Rik . “Why Libertarianism Lib ertarianism Is Unique Unique o o Te West. West.”” Radical Ra dicalCapitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/30/ why-libertarianism-is-unique-to-the-west/. ��. Hoppe, Hans-Her Hans-Hermann. mann. “Realistic Libertarianism as Right Right Libertarianism.” Radical Capitalist, Freedom Society, � Aug. ����, Capitalist, Property and Freedom radicalcapitalist.org/201 radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/05/hoppe 7/08/05/hoppe-destroys-destroysleft-libertarianism/.
��. Cox, Daniel, et al. “In Search o Libertarians In America.” PPRI, PPRI, Public Religion Relig ion Research Institute, Institute, �� Oct. ����, www.prri.org/ research/2013-american-values-survey/. ��. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Libertaria “L ibertarianism nism and the Alt-Right. Alt-Rig ht.”” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, �� Oct. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/201 radicalcapitalist.org/2017/10/21/liber 7/10/21/libertarianismtarianismand-the-alt-right-distinct- yet-complementary/.
��. “What “ What Is ‘ White Genocide’?” Tis Is Europa, thisiseuropa.net/ whatiswhitegenocide/. ��. Camarota, Steven A. “W “ Welare Use by Immigra Immigrant nt and Native Native Households.” CIS.org, Center For Immigration Studies, �� Sept. ����, cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
Households.
��. Hoppe, Hans-Her Hans-Hermann. mann. “Realistic Libertarianism as Right Right Libertarianism.” Radical Capitalist, Freedom Society, � Aug. ����, Capitalist, Property and Freedom radicalcapitalist.org/201 radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/05/hoppe 7/08/05/hoppe-destroys-destroysleft-libertarianism/.
Fact ank, Pew Research ��. Kiley, Jocelyn. “In Search o Libertarians.” Fact Center, �� Aug. ����, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/ 2014/08/25/in-search-of-libertarians/.
��. Molyneux, Stean. “Te Ugly ruth About Daca.” Daca.” Youube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSmljJrLhI8. ��. Chan, Ethan. “Saving Te West and Libertariani Lib ertarianism sm From From Cultural Marxism.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist. org/2017/07/25/saving-the-west-libertarianismfrom-cultural-marxism/.
��. N’Goode, Orwell. “Te Bizarre Alliance Between Islam and Feminism.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Sept. ����, radicalcapitalist. org/2017/09/23/the-islamo-feminist-arranged-marriage/. ��. Rachels, Chase. “Single Motherhood and Feminism Ruin Children. Children.”” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/ 07/14/single-motherhood-and-feminism-ruin-children/ . ��. N’Goode, Orwell. “Te Bizarre Alliance Between Islam and Feminism.” Radical Ra dical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Sept. ����, radicalcapitalist. org/2017/09/23/the-islamo-feminist-arranged-marriage/. ��. N’Goode, Orwell. Or well. “How ime ime Preerences Preerences Make Or Break CivilizaCivilizaCapitalist, �� Aug. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/ tion.” Radical Capitalist, 2017/08/24/how-time-prefe 2017/08/24/how-time-preferences-makerences-make-or-breakor-breakcivilization/.
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
��. Hoppe, Hans-He Hans-Hermann. rmann. “Realistic Libertarianism Libertarianism as Right Libertarianism.” Radical Capitalist, Freedom Society, � Aug. ����, Capitalist, Property and Freedom radicalcapitalist.org/201 radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/05/hoppe 7/08/05/hoppe-destroys-destroysleft-libertarianism/.
��. Chan, Ethan. “Saving Te West and Libertariani Lib ertarianism sm From From Cultural Marxism.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist. org/2017/07/25/saving-the-west-libertarianismfrom-cultural-marxism/.
��. Khan, Rumman. “Islam Is Not Compatible With Liberty L iberty Or Western Civilization.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Aug. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/12/former-muslimislam-is-not-compatible-with-libe islam-is-not-com patible-with-liberty-or-westernrty-or-westerncivilization/.
��. N’Goode, Orwell. “Te Bizarre Alliance Between Islam and Feminism.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Sept. ����, radicalcapitalist. org/2017/09/23/the-islamo-feminist-arranged-marriage/. ��. Rachels, achels , Chase. Chase. “Te “T e Libertarian Case Against Open Borders.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, � July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/ 06/the-libertarian-case-against-open-borders/. ��. Rachels, achels , Chase. Chase. “Te “T e Libertarian Case Against Open Borders.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, � July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/ 06/the-libertarian-case-against-open-borders/. ��. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Libertaria “L ibertarianism nism and the Alt-Right. Alt-Rig ht.”” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, �� Oct. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/201 radicalcapitalist.org/2017/10/21/liber 7/10/21/libertarianismtarianismand-the-alt-right-distinct- yet-complementary/.
��. Chan, Ethan. Ethan. “Alt-Rig “Alt-Righters: hters: Capitalism Capital ism Is Is Te Cure, Cure, Not Not Te Disease.” Disease.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Sept. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/ 2017/09/28/alt-righters-capitalism-is-the-cure-
��
FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT�RIGHT”
not-the-disease/.
��. N’Goode, Orwell. “Degeneracy Is A Product O Big Government, Not Te Free Market.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, � Aug. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/07/degeneracy-is-aproduct-of-big-government-not-the-free-market/.
��. Chan, Ethan. “Libertariani “Lib ertarianism sm Is NO N O Oppose O pposedd o All Forms O ‘Collectivism.’” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, � Aug. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/201 radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/08/liber 7/08/08/libertarianismtarianismis-not-opposed-to-all- forms-of-collectivism/.
��. Hoppe, Hans-He Hans-Herman rmann. n. “Realistic Libertarianism as Right LibertariCapitalist, Property and Freedom anism.” Radical Capitalist, Freedom Society, � Aug. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/201 radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/05/hoppe 7/08/05/hoppe-destroys-destroysleft-libertarianism/.
��. For a more more elaborate description description o each o these steps see: Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right.” Radical Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, �� Oct. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/201 radicalcapitalist.org/2017/10/21/liber 7/10/21/libertarianismtarianismand-the-alt-right-distinct- yet-complementary/.
��
SUGGESTIONS SUGGES TIONS FOR FURTHER FURTHER R EADING EADIN G
BOOKS �. Rachels, Chase. A Spontaneous Order: the Capitalist Case or a Stateless Society. Radical Capitalist, ����. �. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Teory o Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, Politics, and Ethics Ethics. Springer, ����. �. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. From From Aristocr Aristocracy acy to Monarchy Monarchy to Democracy. Democracy. Mises Institute, ����. �. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy—the Democracy—the God Tat Failed: the Economics and Politics o Monarchy, Monarchy, Democracy, Democracy, and Natur Natural al Order. Order. ransaction Publ., ����. �. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Economics and Ethics o Private Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy. Springer, ����. History o Man: Progress and �. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. A Short History Decline, an Austro-Libertarian Reconstruction. Mises Institute, ����.
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
�. Duchesne, Ricardo. Te Uniqueness o Western Civilization. Brill, ����. �. Duchesne, Ricardo. Faustian Faustian Man in a Multicultu Multicultura rall Age. Arktos Media, ���� �. Fukuyama, Francis. rancis . rust: the Social Virtues and the Creation o Pros perity. Free Press Paperbacks, ����. ��. Mises, Ludwig Von. Human Action: Action: a reatise reatise on Economics. Economics. Liberty Fund, Fund, Incorporated, Incorporated, ����. ��. Rothbard, Murray N. Man, Economy, and State: a reatise on Economic Principles; Principles; with Power and Market: Market: Go�ernment and the Economy. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, ����. ��. aylor, Jared. White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the ��st Century. PRAAG, ����. ��. Rubinstein, Edwin S. Te Color o Crime—Race, Crime, and Justice Foundation, ����. in America. New Century Foundation,
��
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING
SPEECHES AND LECURES �. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, �� Oct. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/201 radicalcapitalist.org/2017/10/21/liber 7/10/21/libertarianismtarianismand-the-alt-right-distinct- yet-complementary/.
�. Hoppe, Hans-Her Hans-Hermann. mann. “Realistic Libertarianism as Right Libertarianism.” Radical Capitalist, Freedom Society, � Aug. ����, Capitalist, Property and Freedom radicalcapitalist.org/201 radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/05/hoppe 7/08/05/hoppe-destroys-destroysleft-libertarianism/.
�. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Argumentation Ethics: Te UltiCapitalist, � Aug. ����, mate Proo For Libertarianism.” Radical Capitalist, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/04/argumentation-ethicsthe-ultimate-proof-for-libertarianism/.
�. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Law In An Anarcho-Capita Anarcho -Capitalist list Societ Soc ietyy.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Aug. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/ 2017/08/29/law-in-an-anarcho-capitalist-society/ 2017/08/29/law-in-an-anarcho-capitalistsociety/ .
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
ARICLES AND A ND ESSA ESS AYS �. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Privatize Everything : Defining Private, Common, and Public Property.” Radical Ra dical Capitalist, Capitalist, � Sept. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/ radicalcapitalist.org/2017/09/05/privatiz 09/05/privatizeeeverything-defining-private-common-and-publicproperty/.
�. Rachels, Rac hels, Chase. “A Critique o Lef-Libertari Lef-L ibertarianism anism..” Radical Capitalist, � July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/06/ a-critique-of-left-libertarianism/. �. Chan, Ethan. “Libertarianism Is NO Opposed o All Capitalist, � Aug. ����, Forms O ‘Collectivism.’” Radical Capitalist, radicalcapitalist.org/201 radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/08/liber 7/08/08/libertarianismtarianismis-not-opposed-to-all- forms-of-collectivism/.
�. Engel, C.Jay C.Jay.. “‘Tick’ Libertarianism Eviscerated: Eviscerated: A Response to Charles Johnson.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Aug. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/20/thick-libertarianismeviscerated-a-response-to-charles-johnson/.
�. N’Goode, Orwell. “How “How ime Preerences Preerences Make Or Break Civilization.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Aug. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/ 2017/08/24/how-time-pref 2017/08/24/how-time-preferences-makeerences-make-or-breakor-breakcivilization/.
�. Chan, Ethan. Ethan. “Preserving “Preserving Liberty Requires Common Culture. Culture.”” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/ 07/14/preserving-liberty-requires-common-culture/. �. Dewey Dewe y, Matthew. Matthew. “Going Nuclea Nuclearr (Family) Against Te State.” State.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Aug. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/ 08/11/going-nuclear-family-against-the-state/.
�. Storey, Rik. Rik . “Libertariani “Lib ertarianism sm Needs Nationali Nationalism sm (Not Statism).” Statism).” ��
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING
Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/ 07/08/libertarianism-needs-nationalism-not-statism/ .
�. Daughtry, Griffin. “In Deense O Libertarian Nationalism.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/ 07/28/in-defense-of-libertarian-nationalism/.
��. Chan, Ethan. “Tere Is Nothing Unlibertarian About White Nationalism.” Radical R adical Capitalist, Capitalist, � Sept. ����, radicalcapitalist. org/2017/09/04/there-is-nothing-unlibertarianabout-white-nationalism/.
��. Kinsella, Stephan N. “Covenant Communities Communities Explained.” Explained.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/ 07/10/covenant-communities-explained/. ��. Harmann, Eli. “Te Relationship Between Race, Culture, and a Libertarian Social Order.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/30/the-relationshipbetween-race-culture-and-a-libertarian-social-order/ .
��. Storey,Rik. Rik . “Why Libertarianism Lib ertarianism Is Unique Unique o o Te West. West.”” Radical Capitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/30/ why-libertarianism-is-unique-to-the-west/. ��. Francis. “Race and IQ: the Case or Genes.” Te Alternative Hypothesis, �� Jan. ����, thealternativehyp thealternativehypothesis. othesis.org/index org/index.php/ .php/ 2017/01/07/race-and-iq-the-case-for-genes/. ��. Rachels, Chase. “Te War War Against White People. People.”” Radical Capitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/06/thewar-against-white-people/. ��. Storey, Storey, Rik. “Why Whites Choose White Genocide.” Genocide.” Radical Ra dical Capitalist, � Sept. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/09/01/ why-whites-choose-white-genocide/ . ��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
��. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Hans-Hermann. “Marxist “Marxis t and Austrian Austrian Class Analysis.” Radi Ra dical Capitalist, � Sept. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/ 09/03/marxist-and-austrian-class-analysis/. ��. Chan, Ethan. Ethan. “Saving Te West West and Libertarianism Liberta rianism From Cultural Marxism.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist. org/2017/07/25/saving-the-west-libertarianismfrom-cultural-marxism/.
��. N’Goode, Orwell. “Te Bizarre Alliance Between Islam and Feminism.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Sept. ����, radicalcapitalist. org/2017/09/23/the-islamo-feminist-arranged-marriage/. ��. Rachels, Chase. “Single Motherhood and Feminism Ruin Children. Children.”” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� July ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/ 07/14/single-motherhood-and-feminism-ruin-children/ . ��. Day, Vox. “Te Bitter Harvest O Feminism.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, � Sept. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/09/08/thebitter-harvest-of-feminism/. ��. N’Goode, Orwell. “Degeneracy Is A Product O Big Government, Not Te Free Market.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, � Aug. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/07/degeneracy-is-aproduct-of-big-government-not-the-free-market/.
��. Khan, Rumman. “Islam Is Not Compatible With Liberty L iberty Or Western Civilization.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Aug. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/12/former-muslimislam-is-not-compatible-with-libe islam-is-not-com patible-with-liberty-or-westernrty-or-westerncivilization/.
��. Chan, Ethan. Ethan. “Alt-Rig “Alt-Righters: hters: Capitalism Capital ism Is Is Te Cure, Cure, Not Not Te Disease.” Disease.” Radical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Sept. ����, radicalcapitalist.org/ 2017/09/28/alt-righters-capitalism-is-the-curenot-the-disease/.
��
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING
��. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Te Case or Free rade and Restricted Immigration.” Mises Institute, Institute, �� July ����, mises.org/library/ case-free-trade-and-restricted-immigration-0.
��. Rothbard, Murray N. “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State.” Mises Institute, Institute, �� July ����, mises.org/library/ nations-consent-decomposing-nation-state-0. ��. Rothbard, Rothb ard, Murray Murray N. “A “A Progra Program m or RightRig ht-Wing Wing Popul Populism” ism” LewRock LewRockwell.com, � Feb. ����, www.lewrockwell.com/2017/02/ murray-n-rothbard/program-right-wing-populism/. ��. Chan, Ethan. “Te Policy O ‘Invade All, Invite All’ Caused Ra dical Capitalist, Capitalist, �� Dec. ����, Te Muslim Migrant Crisis.” Radical radicalcapitalist.org/2017/12/31/the-policy-of-invadeall-invite-all-caused-the-muslim-migrant-crisis/ .
��
APPENDIX
CLEARING CLEAR ING UP THE HOPPE FOREW FOR EWOR ORD D CONTROVERSY
I’d like to begin by expressing my reluctance to go through with bringing the details o this sensitive issue to light. lig ht. I absolutely love the Ludwig Von Mises Institute and never thought I’d find mysel in a situation to where I would be revealing acts that may have a negative impact on its repute. I also have a strong personal distaste or being involved in drama and controversy. Unortunately, due to the ever growing spread o out o context rumors and outright libel (even by Mises staff/workers), I am in a position now to where I can only deend my reputation and honor by bringing all the acts to light. I will provide as many acts, e-mails, texts, ...etc. as possible. Screen shots o these are available at https://radicalcapitalist .org/2018/01/25/clearing-up-the-hoppe-forewordcontroversy/. I will also include some o my own interpretations
and speculations to help make sense o the acts. However, I will be very careul to distinguish between act and interpretation/speculation. Ultimately, you the reader will have to decide or yoursel what to make o the situation. I hope most o you will choose truth over comort.
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
HE ORIGIN OF HE FOREWORD I first contacted Hoppe on November ��, ���� requesting that he write the oreword or my upcoming book White, Right, and Libertarian . In my request I explicitly provided the title o the book, as well wel l as the entire manuscript. Hoppe graciously agreed to write the oreword the ollowing day. day. Below is the entire text o my initial e-mail request: request : Dr. Dr. Hoppe, I am, perhaps, one o your biggest ans. You You may remember a ew years ago I sent you my book, A Spontaneous Order: Te Capitalist Case For A Stateless Society, in the mail. It was heavily influenced by your work. Your dear iend, Stephan Kinsella, was gracious enough to write the oreword. oreword. Since then it has sold �,��� copies so, considering the topic, I believe it was a success. Attached is a draf o a new short book/booklet I plan on publishing publishing soon entitled: White, Right, and Libertarian. Tis book is also very heavily inspired by your work... namely your more recent work regarding: Democracy: Te God Tat Failed, A Short History o Man, “Realistic Libertarianism as Right Libertarianism”, and “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right”. My hope is to entice the Alt-Right to adopt the political/economic political/economic theory o genuine libertarians, and libertarians to adopt the cultural positions o the Alt-Right. I know it may be be asking asking too much, much, but I was hoping hoping you would would be willing to either write the introduction, oreword, or at least a small review/endorsement. I can think think o no better man or the job, and I would be deeply honored. I very much look orward orward to hearing hearing your response. Christopher “Chase” Rachels Phone: [redacted] [redacted] Attached Attached file: WhiteRightL WhiteRightLibertarian. ibertarian.docx docx
��
CLEARING UP THE HOPPE FOREWORD CONTROVERSY
Tis is the entire text o his reply: Dear Christoph Christopher, er, I read your excellent book Spontaneous Order and I have been ollowing and am delighted about your Radical Capitalism blog. I would be happy to write a short oreword or your planned little little book book i you give me time time until until the the end o the the year HHH.
I then responded thanking him or granting my request on November ��th. Approximately Approximately a month later, On December ��th, I ollowed up to see i he needed an extension. Dr. Dr. Hoppe, I just wanted to ollow up to see i you still planned on finishing that oreword by the end o the year? I you need more time, that’s perectly fine, I’m just trying to get my publishing timetable set. Again, I’m very excited and honored to have you contribute to this work. With the utmost respect, Christopher “Chase” Rachels
Hoppe responded later that very same day, December ��th, to confirm that he was still planning on completing the oreword, but that tragic amily matters would delay the completion until mid January. Te ollowing is a relevant excerpt rom his response: ...But I have thought about you and i it is not quite by the end o the year it will be there by mid-January. HHH
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
I then apologized or the tragic circumstances he was acing, and expressed my condolences. On January ��th, ���� he sent me his oreword stating: I put in ar more effort than first anticipated. anticipated. I hope you are satisfied. HHH Attached Attached file: Rachels. Ra chels.doc doc
On my website there is a screenshot which provides a preview o this attachment demonstrating that it is indeed the oreword intended or White, Right, and Libertarian (although Hoppe labels it a “preace”). He explicitly wrote the title o the book at the top o the page, which affirms that he was well aware o the title o the book (contrary to the alse rumors being spread by others). I then responded to him on the same day, January ��th, affirming that I am more than satisfied and requested his address so that I could send him a copy o the book once it was published. A couple days later, on January ��th, Hoppe responds by giving me his physical mailing address and granting permission to make any corrections corrections since English is his second language. Tis is his exact quote: Also, English English is not my native language, so i some corrections are needed I don’t don’t mind. HHH
HE COVER DESIGN CONROVERSY Around this time, I posted on my small closed Facebook group, g roup, Hoppean Ancaps, that I had received Hoppe’s oreword or my upcoming book. Jeff Deist, De ist, the President President o the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Institute, happens to be a member o this group, and, according to Facebook, saw the post ��
CLEARING UP THE HOPPE FOREWORD CONTROVERSY
announcing Hoppe’s contribution. To Bishop o the Mises Institute also saw the post (He handles social media and the press or the institute according to Mises.org). Now to give you some more background inormation, several weeks earlier I sent Chris Calton (writer or the Mises Institute) a possible design or the cover that I was considering using, however I expressly told him to keep it confidential. Screen shots o this conversation are likewise available on my website. I wanted this cover design confidential because I did not want to publicize a co�er design that Hoppe had not yet appro�ed o (at this point I had yet to show him the cover design, though I actually planned on showing him the ollowing day, afer confirming with my designer that he didn’t want to make any more final tweaks). I Hoppe were to disap prove o this cover co ver design, I had the ull ull intention intention to modiy modi y the design accordingly (just as I eventually did). Afer becoming aware o Hoppe’s intention to contribute to my upcoming book on January ��th, Chris Calton was contacted by “some Mises Institute Institute people” pe ople” inquiring about the book, Hoppe’s Hoppe’s connection to it, and expressing some concerns. Apparently Chris then elt compelled to share the cover design with Jeff Deist as he was allegedly unsure i I was planning on showing Hoppe the cover beore b eore publishing publish ing (o course he could’ve easily confirmed this either way by asking me directly). Chris elt bad about breaking his word, so he later conessed to me what he had done via text. Screen shots o his h is text to me, m e, where he also cited concerns conc erns o this possibly impacting the Mises Institute’s Institute’s donations are available on my website. Te text reads: Hey I just wanted wanted to give you a heads up because I eel like I broke my word to you, and I respect you enough that I want you to know om me what is and why (it might not be a big deal to you, I don’t know, but I valume my own honesty so I’d rather just let you know mysel). mysel ). I was contacted today by some o the Mises Institute Institute people about Hoppe’s Hoppe’s orward orward [sic] or your book. I’d never said a thing to anybody anybody about it, they just know you and I are iends,
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
which is why I think they contacted me. Tere’s concern about it because Hoppe’s stuff has blown into such an overblown contro�ersy—you and I both know that people take his stuff the wrong way, but the real-world consequences o such a contro�ersy on a donor-driven institute like LvMI are real regardless whether the contro�ersy is valid or not. In any case, there was concern with Hoppe’s inclusion in your booklet. Because o this concern, and because I wasn’t wasn’t sure i Hoppe knew o the co�er design you had or it—which you and I both know was intentionally inflammatory—I told Jeff Deist what the co�er and the title was. I asked him to leave my name out o it, but that was only so I could let you know mysel that I did this. I promised I wouldn’t share the co�er with anybody, so I apologize or that, but I elt that that they had a right right to know. know. ...
Chris Calton then confirmed that measures were already being being taken taken to have Hoppe pull the oreword beore he had even given the Mises Institute the co�er design. He also explicitly named Lew [Rockwell], ounder and chairman o the Mises Institute, as being in contact with Hoppe regarding the oreword: Well, just or the record, I didn’t get Jeff Deist in�ol�ed. Tey contacted me because they were already concerned about it, and they were already trying to get Hoppe to pull the orward [sic] (I didn’t know any o this until today). So I wanted you to know that I shared the co�er, but Lew had already contacted Hoppe about the the orward orward [sic] [sic] beore I spoke spoke to them. But yeah, I eel bad. I suggested to them they they [sic] ask or the co�er change, but they were already working to get the orward orward [sic] [sic] pulled—I pulled—I wasn’t wasn’t a part o that that and and I didn didn’t’t know know about it, or else I would would have let you know know the other other day.
While members o the Mises Institute Institute were, according to Chris Calton, attempting to get Hoppe to pull the oreword, I was none the wiser until Hoppe sent me the ollowing oll owing e-mail requesting I remove the ��
CLEARING UP THE HOPPE FOREWORD CONTROVERSY
oreword owing to the “incendiary” cover (Chris didn’t coness to me until afer Hoppe Hoppe sent me the ollowing e-mails): Chase, I hear that the planned book has an incendiary co�er with which I don’t want to be associated under any circumstances. In that that case I withdr withdraw aw my offer to to publish publish my preace. preace. HHH
I then responded that I would be more than happy to alter the cover design to address his concern: HHH, I have no problem with altering the co�er co �er design to be less or non-incendiary. non-incendiary. I will send you the new design I come up with and or you to appro�e appro�e prior to publishing publishing.. Is this satisactory? satisactory? Chase
Hoppe responded: I am orced to withdr withdraw aw my preace. preace. I urge you respect my wish. wish. HHH
o which I replied: Te co�er hasn’t been made public, I can easily change the design. I can even have you appro�e o the new design beore publishing publishing.. Does this not address address your concern? concern? Chase
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
He was insistent on wanting the oreword removed despite my assurances that it had not been made public, and that I was more than willing to change the cover and get his approval prior to publishing. Recall, he sent me these emails the very same day he confirmed his desire to move orward and granted me permission to make corrections. It wasn’t until only afer the Mises Institute Institute presumably contacted him that he changed chang ed his tune. I also ound Hoppe’s wording rather odd since he is typically a very precise communicator: he said that he was orced to to withdraw his preace. Well, Well, it wasn’ wasn’t until Chris had later conessed what was going on behind the scenes at the Mises Institute that this wording made sense to me. At this point I am technically speculating, however it seems clear to me that the only reason Hoppe was insisting on having his oreword removed, even afer being assured the cover design he took issue with hadn’t been made public and would be altered to his liking, was because o pressure being applied to him by members o the Mises Institute to pull the oreword. Afer Chris Calton conessed to me, I then called Jeff Deist. I was upset about what I elt were underhanded tactics to pressure Hoppe to withdraw the oreword oreword behind my back. However, I had had no intention o holding a grudge and wanted to work out a resolution with the top ranking members o the Mises Institute that would better satisy all parties involved (mysel, Hoppe, and those concerned parties at the Mises Institute). Unortunately, the call was not very ruitul. Jeff was very careul to neither admit nor deny anyone’s role at the institute in reaching out to Hoppe to have the oreword pulled. However he did ask about the book cover, title, and theme. So I told him a bit about it and offered to send him the original cover design and ull manuscript with Hoppe’s oreword. It’s also important to note that I clearly and expressly told Jeff Deist that I was going to change the cover design in light o Hoppe’s disapproval o it. Afer calling Jeff Deist, I then called Lew Rockwell’s office. He was conveniently absent so I lef a message on his machine expressing my sincere willingness to find a resolution regarding his concerns with my book and Hoppe’s contribution to it. He never called back. I also ended ��
CLEARING UP THE HOPPE FOREWORD CONTROVERSY
up orwarding nearly all o the ollowing o llowing e-mail correspondence between Jeff and mysel to Lew Rockwell and To Bishop. Te ollowing is the e-mail I sent Jeff afer the phone call: Jeff, Attached Attached is the manuscript or the short book White, Right, and LIbertarian LIbertarian I plan on publishing publishing with Hoppe’s Hoppe’s oreword. Once again, Hoppe was ully aware o both the title and entire content o the book, as I sent it to him with my request that he write the oreword � or � months ago. I do plan on changing the co�er, however to clariy, it was intentionally incendiary and “edgy” “edgy” since this this is what what seems to to capture capture people’s people’s attenti attention. on. It is also art, and the “ bodies” bodies” represent ideologies (Socialism, Anti- Anti-a, a, eminism, and Islam) Islam) not actual people (hence the act that the heads are ideological symbols instead o human heads). heads). Again, I plan on remo�ing these “incendiary” elements out o respect or Hoppe and concern or the Mises’ institute’s perceived threat threat to their their reputation reputation and donors...etc. donors...etc. I was inormed by Chris Chris Calton (who (who wishes to remain neutral in this, he is a mere messenger) that members o the Mises Institute, Institute, in their capacity as Mises staff, expressed their concern to him about Hoppe pro�iding his oreword or my upcoming book, and had already taken measures to prevent his oreword oreword om being associated with said book. Chris told me this was taking place even beore they were aware o the co�er. Well, afer some at the Mises Institute (or those acting on its behal) behal ) contacted Hoppe, Hoppe Hoppe then contacted me requesting I remo�e the oreword in light o the co�er. co�er. I offered to change the co�er to his satisaction and am making the same offer to you all. I hope we can all work this out together. together. I will say, I have no intention o altering the content or title o the book as Hoppe was ully aware o both when writing the oreword. I also want
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
to make it clear that I had ull intention o showing him the co�er prior to publishing, and that the co�er has not been made public. Tere is nothing more incendiary in the content o the book than what Hoppe has already expressed in his past speeches at PFS. I look orward orward to hearing back om you. I hold the Mises Institute in very high esteem and sincerely do not wish any potential uture endeavors we may share to be jeopardized by miscommun miscommunication. ication. Sincerely, Chase Rachels
Jeff Deist then responds: responds: You do realize Hoppe lives in an Islamic country, one with (intermittently enorced) blasphemy laws? And is married to a Muslim? Muslim? urks urks might might not appreciate your depiction o the crescent moon and star. Te nooses evoke lynchings in US history and the helicopter helicopter evokes evokes Pinochet. Pinochet.
o which I reply: Jeff, Understood, hence why I’m willing to change the co�er and remo�e all “incendiary” “incendiary” elements. Te co�er co �er hasn’t hasn’t been made public. Will Will this be satisactory satisactory or all all parties?
Already, it seemed Jeff Deist wasn’t interested in working out an amicable resolution as I already previously made it very clear that I was going to change the cover design in both our phone conversation and my initial e-mail. Tus it seemed odd that he was still harping on it. Te screen shot o these e-mails is likewise available on my website. Jeff Deist then responded responded with the ollowing : ��
CLEARING UP THE HOPPE FOREWORD CONTROVERSY
I’m not a party. But I wouldn’t wouldn’t publish publish this under the Mises Inst. name because o all the “white “white” discussion and title. I white olks created the best culture and political systems or liberty and flourishing (true), they also created the worst ideologies. So it becomes a distraction and leaves you open to racist/neonazi accusations. It’s It’s up to Hans re re the co�er
It was convenient or him to claim he was “not a party” when Lew and he were previously investigating the matter and reaching out to Hoppe directly to encourage him to pull the oreword according to Chris Calton. I then responded with the ollowing: Jeff, Y’all became a party when Lew (and others at the institute) interered with my and Hoppe’s arrangement, and poisoned the well with Hoppe (attached is testimony to this act that I received om Chris Carlton, which evidences such measures were being taken even beore y’all were made aware o the co�er). Like I said beore, I was already planning on showing Hoppe the co�er beore publishing to get his appro�al. I he didn’t appro�e o the co�er, I was going to change it (as I am currently currently doing). doing ). However, However, thanks thanks to the intererence on part o the Mises Institut Institute, e, it appears my communication communication with Hoppe has ceased. Regarding Regarding the title and content, Hoppe was privy to this om the beginning so I have no intention o altering the title and content. I don’t expect you or the Mises institute to publish, however I think the least you could do is apologize or inter ering with our private private arrangement, arrangement, and assure Hoppe that my publishing o this book will not negatively impact the Mises institute’s relationship with him in any way (especially now that I will be remo�ing all the “incendiary” elements and
��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
imagery om the co�er). I would like to be CC’d on the email you send him to this this effect. I’d like like to close by saying I have have the utmost utmost respect or you, Lew, Hoppe and the Mises Institute. Institute. Tough I am a bit disappointed and eel a bit betrayed by how these events transpired, I will nevertheless continue to wholeheartedly support the Mises Institute. Institute. Chase Rachels P.S. P.S. I would also appreciate receiving assurances assurances that your proessional relationship relationship with Chris Chris Calton will in no way be negatively impacted. He should not be punished or being honest and open with me about actions that were taken to undermine my arrangement with Hoppe.
o which Jeff Deist replied: I don’t don’t get it, nobody poisoned anything. anything. You reached out to Hoppe hoping to use his name to promote your book. Nothing Nothing wrong with that, but you were the one asking or something and treading treading on his reputation. reputation. Te co�er shows shows bad bad judgment, and now you’re you’re asking asking or an apolog apology? y? He’s He’s his own man, you’re you’re in closer contact with him than me. Nobody Nobody betra betrayed yed you.
O course, the cover wasn’t “bad judgement” because I had no intention o making it public or “treading” on Hoppe’s reputation without first receiving his approval. Hoppe ended up disapproving o the cover, so I changed it accordingly. Tus, I have no idea where this “reputation treading” was occurring. In my opinion, the people showing bad judgement were those at the Mises Institute Institute who chose to go to Hoppe to pull the oreword, without first coming to me to see i I would change it . Afer all, I was the only person with the power to change the cover and at this ��
CLEARING UP THE HOPPE FOREWORD CONTROVERSY
point had clearly demonstrated demonstrated my willingness to do so. Also, they were urther compounding their bad judgement by reusing to work with me to find a mutually agreeable a greeable resolution, even afer I went to them directly d irectly with the sincere intenti intention on to do just that. I then replied: Jeff, Did you not read the text om Chris Calton I attached to the previous email? It clearly indicates indicates that Lew and others at the institute were in�ol�ed in pressuring Hoppe to pull his oreword (even beore y’all were made aware o the co�er). Are you denying this intererence took place? I not, then how is that not poisoning the well? Do you think it’s a mere coincidence that Hoppe told me he wanted to pull his oreword afer having been contacted by Lew? (Btw the oreword is already in my possession...not sure i y’all are unaware o this act) Tat co�er hasn’t been made public, and I’m remo�ing the incendiary elements. So no poor judgement on my end, especially because I ully intended acquiring Hoppe’s appro�al beore publishing, and o course I was not going to publish a co�er he disappro�ed o. I do hope your next response will be more conciliatory. Chase Rachels
Unortunately, nortunately, Jeff ’s next response was not more conciliatory concil iatory because he never provided a response afer this. At this point I was quite upset that my bridge was being burned with the Mises Institute, despite my sincere and earnest efforts to reach out to them to find a resolution that worked or everyone. I was shocked and disappointed to discover Jeff Deist did not appear to have any intention intention o working working with me to find a resolution, and that Lew Rockwell had not even so much as bothered to respond to my phone call or e-mails. However, at this point I decided to let the matter go. Despite the ��
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
act that I was very upset about this burnt bridge and the interactions I had with Jeff, I still loved the Mises Institute Institute and did not wish to tarnish their image by going public with this unortunate series o events. It is also important to note that later on To Bishop claimed that no one at Mises Institute made contact with Hoppe regarding my ore word until until afer they received my cover cover design. O course, I was skeptical skeptical o this claim as Chris Calton had no reason to lie about the timeline o events, and Jeff Deist had every opportunity to make this correction in the time line on our phone conversation and in our e-mail correspondence. Nevertheless, even i they did wait until afer they received the cover to contact Hoppe, I think it’s pretty clear that it would’ve been ar better to come to me first. To did however admit that there were concerns brewing at the institute regarding the book and Hoppe’s contribution beore they received the cover. Why they chose not to come to me first with said concerns, I still don’t know. I know several staff members there personally. personally. LEWROCKWELL.COM PUBLISHES AN ABRIDGED ABRID GED VERSION VERSIO N OF HOPPE’S FOREWORD FOREWORD o my shock and dismay, a couple days later on January ��th, ���� LewRockwell.com published an abridged version o Hoppe’s ore word, which only omitted the two specific excerpts where Hoppe endorses my previous and upcoming books. Some suggested that the omissions may have been innocent, and only made because the editor didn’t want any specific books endorsed in the article. However, this isn’t the case either because the editor lef the other book endorsement in place. Apparently the editor did decide to leave Hoppe’s endorsement o my website, http://www.RadicalCapitalist.org, intact. I wanted to provide Lew Rockwell with the opportunity opportunit y to either unpublish the article until afer my book was released, or include the two omitted paragraphs. So I sent Lew the ollowing e-mail (On the same day it was published, published , January January ��th): ���
CLEARING UP THE HOPPE FOREWORD CONTROVERSY
Lew, I noticed you published published Hoppe’s Hoppe’s oreword oreword to my book ( ound here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/����/��/hans-hermannhoppe/on-getting-libertarianism-right/) that is conspicuously missing both the paragraphs endorsing my previous book, A Spontaneous Order , and my upcoming book White, Right, and Libertarian. I would like to ask that you please take this article down atleast until until afer my book is publish published ed (or include the two omitted paragraphs regarding my book endorsements), so that others don’t don’t get the mistaken mistaken impression that my my book’s book’s oreword oreword is somehow somehow a work work o aud aud or plagiarism. Tank you. Chase Rachels
Unortunately, Lew Rockwell never responded, never unpublished the article (atleast as o January January ��th ����), and never ne ver added back in the omitted paragraphs where Hoppe endorses my previous and upcoming book. At this point, I was even more perturbed at the lack o consideration and proessional courtesy on the part o Lew, however I still did not wish to go public because I wanted to avoid unnecessary drama, controc ontro versy, versy, and potential damage to the reputati reputation on o the Mises Institute, Institute, Lew Rockwell, and Jeff Deist. SEPHAN KINSELLA CONACS ME On January ��th, ���� I sent Hoppe the new, and benign, cover design or White, Right, and Libertarian in the hopes that he may then offer his blessing to publish his oreword once more. Te ollowing is the e-mail I sent verbatim, the screenshot o which is available on my website: HHH, Attached Attached is the new co�er co�e r design or White, Right, Rig ht, and Liber-
���
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
tarian. It is a Medieval European (more specifically, German) wood carving moti. I hope that with this new co�er design, I can have your blessing to publish the book with your oreword. I also want to assure you that the previous “incendiary” co�er co �er was never made public and that I was never going to publish it without first showing you and getting your appro�al. Had you disappro�ed, I would have gladly changed the design as I have now. Considering your stance against intellectual property, I also wanted to know whether whether you were previously requesting requesting I withdra withdraw w your oreword oreword or making making a legal demand that I withdraw it? In any case, I wanted to sincerely thank you once more or your generous contribution to my book, it truly is the perect finishing finishing touch that that ties everything everything together. together. With the utmost respect and admiration, Chase Rachels
As you can see rom the cover design o this book, there is nothing at all incendiary about this new design. A couple o days later, on January, �� ����, Stephan Kinsella calls me telling me had recently spoken with Hoppe and that he really likes the new design. He also told me (and I’m paraphrasing because it was a phone conversation) something to the effect o “Hoppe can’t officially give his approval to use his oreword (because o pressure applied by the Mises Institute), but that he would be ‘ok’ with me publishing it i I changed the word ‘White’ in the title to ‘Western’...or changed the title to something without ‘White’ in the title”. I told him that I needed a minute to consider this, and we ended the call. Afer some consideration Stephan and I then had the ollowing text exchange: Chase: I the Mises Institute Institute agrees to publish publish then I’ll take “White” out o the title. Otherwise I’m going to publish as is. Hoppe was well aware o, and even explicitly mentioned the title o the book in his oreword. I changed the co�er design out o respect or him, but I’m very attached to the title. By chang���
CLEARING UP THE HOPPE FOREWORD CONTROVERSY
ing the co�er design without asking or anything in return, I have demonstrated I’m willing to negotiate in good aith. I’m just not willing to alter the original terms on my end unless others would like to meet me in the middle. I Hoppe is interested in this deal, then it’d likely be better i he made this proposal to Lew and/or and/or Jeff. Jeff.
Stephan: Not gonna happen Chase: Understood. Might be good to let Hans make that call though HE FALSE FALSE RUMORS BEGIN BEGI N A couple days later, on January ��th, ����, I publicly announced that I would soon be publishing White, Right, and Libertarian with a ore word by Hoppe. Hoppe. I decided to keep Hoppe’s oreword because I changed the only thing he explicitly took issue with (the cover design), and he had the entire manuscript and title or two months beore giving me the ore word (plenty ( plenty o time to review re view all al l the content). Moreover, Moreover, his oreword very much echoed echoe d the themes contained within the book, so he couldn’ coul dn’tt have had issue with any o the content (none o which was any more controversial or incendiary than ideas which he had already previously expressed elsewhere). I had delayed my publication timeline or the oreword and had even made limited advertisements that he would be providing the oreword. oreword. I was disappointed that Hoppe had changed changed his mind about his blessing, but in the end (and considering the removal o his blessing was likely due to pressure being applied to him by members o the Mises Institute) I decided to hold Hoppe to our original terms and publish the book with his oreword. Te first major alse rumor came rom the “Fakertarians” acebook page. In it they claimed there were rumors going around saying the ollowing: ���
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
It came out recently that Hans-Herman Hans-Herman Hoppe wrote the oreword oreword or Christopher Christopher Chase Chase Rachels’s Rachels’s new book “White, Right, and Libertarian.” Libertarian.” However, However, rumor has it that Hoppe asked to dissociate himsel om it once he learned more about what the book was about, with Rachels mo�ing orward to publish it anyway. Care to respond to this allegation, Chase?
O course, Hoppe knew ull well what the book was about rom the beginning, as he had the entire manuscript and the title rom the get go, contrary to these allacious rumors being spread. I then replied: I’ll clear this up Fakertarian Fakertarians.s. Hoppe was given the ull manu script and title title upon my request he he write the oreword. oreword. (So he’s he’s well aware o the content and his oreword echoes the themes contained within) He gave me the oreword a couple months later. What he took issue with was the original co�er design. Tat has since been changed. Now Now that you know, know, I’d appreciate i you remo�e this alse rumor. I know we have our differences, but I trust you have integrity?
It seems someone had been eeding inormation to Fakertarians about this matter, which I was hoping hop ing to keep private or the sake o the Mises Institute’ Institute’ss reputation, and only a very ver y small handul handu l o people p eople had this inormation. Fakertarians Fakertarians then responded: responded : I’ve edited the post or clarity and to show that you’ve you’ve responded below. I’m not remo�ing the post at this time because I’m hearing things om other sources, but I will absolutely make a correction i I find this post to be untrue. wo questions or you:
���
CLEARING UP THE HOPPE FOREWORD CONTROVERSY
�. Has Hoppe okayed the oreword being published now that the co�er has changed? �. What did did the original co�er portra portray? y?
o which I replied: Fakertari Fakertarians ans I’m not going to get into details about the original co�er because I assured him I wouldn’t make it public. I also dont wish to divulge any more details on the matter in isn’t or general. But trust me, my silence on the other details isn’ my own sake. [Emphasis added] It should be enough or now to know he had the entire manuscript and title or two months and wrote the oreword oreword or it. He even explicitly endorses both my previous and upcoming book in the oreword.
It is important to note that, even at this point, I still didn’t didn’t want to go into details about what was going on. Tis was because I was still intent on protecting the reputation o the Mises Institute and wished to avoid a major controversy. Tis was despite the act that, in my opinion, it seemed someone some one connected with the Mises Institute was spreading spreading these rumors. HE MISES MISE S INSIUE INSIU E SAFF/W SAFF/WORKER ORKERSS ARE FOUND FOU ND O BE SPREADING FALSE AND OU OF CONEX RUMORS Finally, on January, ��th ���� I discovered that members o the Mises Institute Institute (namely To Bishop and Natalie Fawn Danielshen who designs desig ns graphics or the Mises Institute FB page) were spreading alse and out o context rumors on acebook. In a acebook comment posted by Natalie she claims (in reerence to my book): Hoppe never saw the title or co�er. co�er. he [sic] [sic] asked that the orward orward [sic] be pulled and to have nothing nothing urther urther to do with the project afer that. he [sic] never gave consent back (as ar
���
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
as I know) know) afer the co�er was changed. Chase was also very aggressive when this happened to some people I care about. so [sic] no, I won’t support this. Tis is not Hoppe ault. chase [sic] was dishonest and he has lost support om people”
O course, Hoppe absolutely was aware o the title, contrary to Natalie’s allacious claim. Also, I struggle to see how I was in any way “aggressive.” From the beginning, I attempted to take the high road and reach out to Jeff Deist, Lew Rockwell, and others at the Mises Institute to sincerely express my desire to come to a mutually agreeable resolution. I made phone calls, sent e-mails, and gave them the benefit o the doubt and every opportunity to work with me. Ultimately they declined. Finally, I have no idea what about anything I did was “dishonest”. I have given as many acts as I could here, so it seems she is the one being blatantly dishonest and expressing details out o context. o To Bishop’s credit, he at least had the decency to correct Natalie’s alse claim regarding the title (though he did this in the weakest way possible by qualiying quali ying that he “thinks” “thinks” Hoppe knew the title when he knows ull well that Hoppe was absolutely aware o the title). O course, he didn’t correct her outrageous claims about me being “aggressive” or “dishonest” and to top it off he describes the original cover even knowing that Hoppe Hoppe didn’t want want it to be made public. publ ic. It is or this reason that I hadn’t revealed any details about the cover until this point and hadn’t shared the original cover design itsel. Te ollowing is the verbatim quote o To Bishop’s Bishop’s reply: reply : I think think Hoppe did see the title, he was given a transcript transcript o the book. According to others who have skimmed it, the title is more pro�ocative than the book’s content—which fits Chase’s style. Te issue is that when Hoppe saw Chases [sic] first co�er, which showed bodies hanging om a helicopter, he realized a tone o the project that wasn’t evident in the text. He told Chase he wanted nothing to do with it.
���
CLEARING UP THE HOPPE FOREWORD CONTROVERSY
Basically Hoppe was generous enough to read Chase’s Chase’s work and write him a orward [sic], and Chase responded by being utterly irresponsible with his name and then explicitly going against his own [sic] [sic] wishes wishes in order to help help him sell books. books.
Tis is dripping with irony. I wasn’t being irresponsible with Hoppe’s name because Hoppe agreed to write the oreword or my book afer being ully u lly aware o the book’ boo k’ss title and having having the entire entire manuscript or two months prior to sending me his oreword. Moreover, making the original cover was in no way irresponsible because it was never made public... or the very reason that that I didn’t didn’t want to publicize it without first having Hoppe’s approval, because... you guessed it... I was being responsible. However, despite To’s claims that the cover was irresponsible, he went on Facebook describing the original incendiary cover to people who were in turn spreading rumors about it. I anything, anything , To was helping ensure details o the original incendiary cover were made public which was ostensibly the very ver y thing the Mises Institute Institute wanted to avoid in the first place! As a special specia l bonus, it also a lso appears that the Mises Institute vindictively vindictively removed my profile and book ( A Spontaneous Order Order ) that were previously published on Mises.org. JEFF DEIS DEI S DOUB D OUBLES LES DOWN ON HE HE MISES INSIUE’S I NSIUE’S INVOLVEMEN INVOLVEMEN A day or two later, around January ��th, ����, Jeff Deist decides to double down on the Mises Institute’s intererence in this matter with an off the cuff Facebook comment. He seemed to have no interest admitting such intererence now whereas in the beginning he was very careul to neither confirm nor deny the role the Mises Institute played in this matter. Tis was yet another shocking and disappointing display o unproessionalism on the part o Jeff Deist: Look I’m glad MI got in�ol�ed in an attempt to get Hoppe
���
W H I T E , R I G H T, A N D L I B E R TA R I A N
dissociated om this shitty book and its author. Te drama is all on his end.
HANS GOES PUBLIC ABOU HIS DECISION O WIHDRAW HIS BLESSING On January ��, ���� Hans Hoppe published the ollowing message to his website: Some months ago I agreed to write a oreword or a orthcoming book by Chase Rachels, on the right and libertarianism, and sent him a draf. Afer urther urther thought, I notified Rachels that I did not want him to include the oreword in his book and withdrew my permission, and published published a version o it as L ibertarianism Right.” Right.” a stand-alone article, article, “On Getting Libertarianism It has has come to my my attention attention that that Rachels is planning planning to include include the draf o my oreword in his book despite my withdrawing my permission. I wish it to be on record that I do not consent to my oreword being included in his book.
O course, at the time Hoppe released this statement it was already public knowledge that he had withdrawn withdrawn his blessing to have the ore word published with White, Right, and Libertarian (namely because I had already published the entire timeline o events several days earlier which included screenshots o correspondence to this effect). Tus, in my estimation, it seems he published this or one or both o the ollowing reasons: �. At the time, the Mises Institute was getting a lot o bad press and backlash rom their underhanded involvement in this matter. As such, they probably had Hoppe publish this publicly so as to highlig hig hlight ht the one point in isolation that they elt would draw attention attention away rom themselves and onto me. �. Hoppe was playing “�d chess” and this was his subtle way o veriying the act that the oreword was indeed originally intended or my ���
CLEARING UP THE HOPPE FOREWORD CONTROVERSY
book so as to dispel any potential alse rumors that I just copy and pasted it rom LewRockwell.com and added the endorsements mysel. Tere was some conusion about what Hoppe “notified” me o. He notified me that he had withdrawn his blessing, blessing , however he did not notiy me that he intended on publishing it as a standalone article. Te first I was aware o this standalone article was when Lew Rockwell published it on January ��th, and at that time I was under the impression that Lew had simply taken the oreword I sent to Jeff Deist and omitted the two endorsement paragraphs himsel. CONCLUSION It was only afer discovering that Mises Institute staff/workers were spreading alse and out o context rumors that I decided to begrudgingly go public with this. I have provided as clear o a timeline o events and as many acts with as much evidence as I possibly could. For screen shots o the correspondence, please see https://radicalcapitalist .org/2018/01/25/clearing-up-the-hoppe-forewordcontroversy/.
I completely understand why the higher ups at the Mises Institute had concerns with Hoppe’s association with my book. I think these concerns are and were perectly valid. Te issue is that they did d id not come to me with them first. Tat they reused to work with me, even afer I approached them with a sincere desire to find a mutually agreeable resolution. Tat Lew published an altered version o Hoppe’s oreword specifically omitting his endorsements o my book, prior to the publication o White, Right, and Libertarian. And finally, that Mises Institute staff/workers took it upon themselves to spread alse, misleading, and out o context rumors on Facebook. Now that you have the acts, I hope you will be willing and able to cut through the alse rumors and make your own inormed conclusion about the truly unortunate unortunate preceding series o events.
���
