Skip to content

Category: Libertarianism

More News and Commentary

Joanna Williams says, Stop this trans exploitation of children.

Lew Rockwell reviews Hans Hermann-Hoppe’s book on getting libertarianism right.

Lindsay Kochgarian on tax day: pay day for military contractors.

Daniel Lazare reviews George Papadopoulos’s book, Deep State Target.

Robert Wenzel comments on Mayor Bill de Blasio’s “Nazi healthcare in New York City.”

And Laurence Vance says that ObamaCare is a massive transfer of wealth.

More News and Commentary

Kerry McDonald says that compulsory schooling laws aren’t progressive, they’re inhumane.

Jacob Hornberger on ending poverty.

Edward Curtin on the CIA takeover of America in the 1960s.

Ron Paul says that Trump tells the truth: sanctions do cause people to suffer.

Barbara Loe Fisher discusses taking no prisoners in the vaccine culture war.

Wendy McElroy reviews Prairie Fires: The American Dreams of Laura Ingalls Wilder by Caroline Fraser.

And Richard Ebeling on the dangers of the new democratic socialism.

More News and Commentary

Bill Sardi has an important article debunking the anti-eggs and anti-cholesterol propaganda, and promoting vitamin C.

Target Liberty with an exchange between New Jersey libertarian activist Murray Sabrin and a USA Today columnist on libertarianism.

Zero Hedge with the best analysis of what really happened to the Boeing 737 Max from a pilot and software engineer.

Per Bylund on socialist time ignorance, subjective value, and anarchism: a world of sovereigns.

And Donald Boudreaux says, In free markets, “balls” and “strikes” are called only by consumers.

Trump’s Socialism and Cortez’s Socialism vs. a Free Society

There is little difference between Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Both have very limited intellectual abilities, but are talented demagogues who can capture the attention of millions, like a pied piper leading them all into their blissful nirvana. They are both hysterical, and the policies they support are those of hysteria and irrationality.

Sadly, Ocasio-Cortez is the poster child for the leftists’ socialist utopia, in her rhetoric anyway. And The Donald represents today’s collectivist nationalists who do not believe in private property, free markets or individual freedom, despite their rhetoric.

Ocasio-Cortez’s hysteria is regarding climate change. She seems to be one of many, many government-school-brainwashed robots who really believe that the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t impose a completely government-controlled society on the entire population.

The main goal of the climate change fanatics and those on the left in general is huge expansion of the size and power of government and the police state to enforce the will of the fanatics.

And control is also why the leftists want “single payer,” i.e. government-run health care. They not only want to steal all the wealth and property and make people have to report all their earnings and just about every aspect of their financial matters, but with socialized medicine you must report every aspect of your health and medical matters. Every aspect of your private life is not private, and you must report to and be accountable to a bureaucrat. Yay!

So the power-grabbers, intruders and gangsters on the left want to impose higher taxes i.e. thefts and impose new taxes on top of the regular taxes. There’s never enough of the people’s wealth and earnings for government power-grabbers to steal.

Actually, you won’t actually own your own earnings. That is how many people feel already. You do a certain amount of labor and whatever earnings the labor produced is actually owned by the government. The authorities will decide how much of the earnings you are deserving of, and they will keep the rest.

So really, the government owns the labor and production of the people. That is what socialism is, government ownership of the means of production, industry and property.

One of the most important means of production is the people. The government owns the people. That means that you are owned by the  government. You are a slave in socialism.

But the Donald Trump robots are not that different. Their big thing now is “illegal immigration,” i.e. “non-citizens” “invading our country.” The nativist anti-foreigner crowd are just as brainwashed in this idea of “citizenship” as the people on the left are brainwashed in their particular form of collectivism.

But what citizenship really means is that you are a government-authorized member of society. If you don’t have government authorization, then you are an outsider. An “invader.” That is how the government-loving sheeple on the nationalism side think.

So, really this idea of “citizenship” is a form of socialism, in which the government really has ownership of the people.

And no, there is no “crisis” or “national emergency” at the border. The nationalists especially the conservatives are responding to news accounts exaggerated by propagandists to justify even further police state at the border. And not just at the border but further bureaucratic police state like “e-verify” and “real ID.”

Like those on the left, the Trump-following nationalists are short-sighted in their totalitarian solutions. The Trump crowd and conservatives are worried about drugs coming through the border. Well, it’s the drug war that causes a black market in drugs that financially incentivizes scum lowlifes to become drug pushers and who want to get people hooked, and so the drug war causes drug traffickers, drug lords, gangs, MS-13, turf wars, and if you just end the drug war (as 1920s Prohibition was ended) then those problems will disappear immediately.

And the U.S. government’s interventions in Central America and supporting evil regimes causes people to flee those areas.

The drug war, the authoritarian bureaucrats in Washington imposing prohibitions on peaceful behaviors and possessions of plants and siccing government police on those who disobey, is a socialist policy, by the way. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production, industry, property, the usurpation of the use of one’s labor, earnings, and trades, and involves government central planning.

One of the most important of means of production is the people, which includes their bodies. When government central planners impose restrictions on what you may or may not put into “your” own body, then it is not your body. You no longer own your body or your life, just as in socialism you no longer own your labor or your earnings or your property. The government is the ultimate owner.

And why are the U.S. government’s violent intrusions in Central and South America (and the Middle East and everywhere else) socialist policies? Because government central planners (State Department, CIA, etc.) in Washington are directing those intrusions and the invaders, coup marauders and otherwise criminals are being paid via tax dollars that are stolen from the workers and producers of America.

Another socialist aspect of such policies is that those imposing them, the government criminals, are in positions of legal authority. They are above the law, because the government is the law.

So Donald Trump loves these authoritarian police state, militarist policies. And like millions of his statist followers, he wants to build a government wall on the border. But a government wall is not what free-market capitalists build. That’s what socialists build.

People who believe in free markets and free trade and the free movements of labor, goods and services not only don’t build government walls, they tear down government walls. They may build private property walls. But that is to keep intruders off privately owned property.

Some people argue that protecting public property borders is the same thing. But no one owns such property. No one owns the territory as a whole. No one owns a country. Not if we believe that the territory contains many parcels of privately owned property. (But Trump is not a big fan of private property rights either. Sorry, I digress.) If you want to believe that the population shares in some kind of ownership of the territory as a whole, then that kind of sounds like communism if you ask me, quite frankly.

But my main point is, neither Donald Trump and all his supporters nor the leftists believe in a free society.

In a free society, you own your own life. You can establish private contracts with anyone, as long as everything is voluntary and mutually consensual. No initiation of aggression against anyone, no coercion. Anything that’s peaceful, as Leonard Read would say.

In a free society, you own your labor until you sell it to a customer, employer or client. And those trades are no one else’s business. No one (such as a government bureaucrat) may demand some kind of tribute or portion of your earnings or profits from you, no one may demand any information from you. No having to report anything to anyone.

In a free society you keep everything you earn and do with it whatever you want, even if you honestly acquire billions of dollars each year. No matter how much or how little you make, it is always yours and no one may steal it from you.

And in a free society, your medical matters are your own private business! And that includes the price of medical care being agreed to between the people and their providers or practitioners.

And in a free society, people can come and go as they please. No reporting to government goons at the border. No passports. No IDs. Presumption of innocence is the rule.

No police state. No totalitarian socialist bureaucrats like Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez intruding themselves into the lives of the people, and stealing their livelihoods away.

Sounds good to me.

Articles for Fascists Day (a.k.a. “Presidents Day”)

Sheldon Richman asks, Who owns you?

Zero Hedge with an article on national security state apparatchiks wanting to use the 25th Amendment against Trump.

Reason with an article on Trump wanting to raid asset forfeiture fund to build his anti-freedom wall.

Conor Friedersdorf calls Trump the triggered Snowflake-in-Chief.

And Kimberly Dvorak asks, U.S. military sales gone rogue?

***

And a couple of classics for “Presidents Day”:

Laurence Vance wrote in 2010: U.S. Presidents and Those Who Kill for Them.

And Lew Rockwell’s speech from 1996: Down with the Presidency.

Walter Block on Immigration

Walter Block, sometimes known as “Mr. Libertarian,” has a post on the LewRockwell.com blog, giving some hypotheticals on how conservatives might take an even more radical view on immigration. Dr. Block lists some suggestions that the more collectivist minded of conservatives might advocate, such as deporting all Pakistanis if a Pakistani individual bombs and kills innocents, or deporting all Libyans if a Libyan person kills, etc. On dealing with immigrants, he states that “there is no way to protect the recipient country that is fully compatible with libertarianism.”

He concludes with links to articles and papers (I have removed some of them whose links were not working, and found working links for others whose links were not working):

For further reading on this claim, see the following:

Block, Walter E. 1983B. “Protect Canadian Jobs From Immigrants?” Dollars and Sense. February 7; reprinted in Block, Walter E. 2008. Labor Economics from a Free Market Perspective: Employing the Unemployable. London, UK: World Scientific Publishing; https://www.amazon.com/Labor-Economics-Free-Market-Perspective/dp/9812705686
Available for free here: https://archive.org/download/labor-economics-from-a-free-market-perspective-walter-block/labor-economics-from-a-free-market-perspective-walter-block.pdf

Block, Walter E. 1988. Dollars and Sense: “Migration patterns tell real story.” January 12;

Block, Walter E. 1990. “Immigration,” Fraser Forum, January, pp. 22-23.

Block, Walter E. 1998. “A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration,” Journal of Libertarian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, summer, pp. 167-186; https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/13_2_4_0.pdf?file=1&type=document

Block, Walter E. 2004. “The State Was a Mistake.” Book review of Hoppe, Han-Hermann, Democracy, The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order, 2001May 25. https://mises.org/library/state-was-mistake

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “Hoppe, Kinsella and Rothbard II on Immigration: A Critique.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, pp. 593–623; https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/22_1_29.pdf?file=1&type=document

Block, Walter E. 2011B. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Immigration,” Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 22: pp. 771–792; https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/22_1_38.pdf?file=1&type=document

Block, Walter E. 2013. “Rejoinder to Todea on the ‘Open’ Contract of Immigration.” The Scientific Journal of Humanistic Studies, Vol. 8, No. 5, March, pp. 52-55

Block, Walter E. 2015. “On immigration.” December 21;
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/12/walter-block-on-immigration.html

Block, Walter E. 2016A. “Contra Hoppe and Brat on immigration.” Management Education Science Technology journal, Vol 4, No. 1, pp. 1-10; http://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2016/Sadrzaj_eng.html; http://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2016/7_01.pdf; (1333)

Block, Walter E. 2016B. “A response to the libertarian critics of open-borders libertarianism,” Lincoln Memorial University Law Review; Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 142-165; http://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/lmulrev/vol4/iss1/6/;
http://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=lmulrev

Block, Walter E. 2017. “Immigration and Homesteading.” March. The Journal Jurisprudence. Vol. 35, pp. 9-42; http://www.jurisprudence.com.au/juris35/block.pdf

Block, Walter E. and Gene Callahan. 2003. “Is There a Right to Immigration? A Libertarian Perspective,” Human Rights Review. Vol. 5, No. 1, October-December, pp. 46-71; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-callahan_right-immigrate-2003.pdf

Deist, Jeff. 2018. “Block on immigration.” September 4;
https://mises.org/library/immigration-roundtable-walter-block

Gregory, Anthony and Walter E. Block. 2007. “On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 21, No. 3, Fall, pp. 25-42; https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/21_3_2.pdf?file=1&type=document

Hans-Hermann Hoppe: The Libertarian Quest for a Grand Historical Narrative

Hans-Hermann Hoppe gave a very thought-provoking speech recently, The Libertarian Quest for a Grand Historical Narrative, at the annual meeting of his Property and Freedom Society. It would be very difficult for anyone to match Hoppe’s expert defense of freedom and property, and his exposing the State for what it is. Video below.

Here are some excerpts from Hoppe’s speech.

Early on in the speech Hoppe clarifies the truth about free market capitalism versus socialism.

Contrary to still popular myth in leftist circles, then, capitalism did not cause misery, but it literally saved the lives of countless millions of people from death by starvation and gradually lifted them up from their previous state of abject poverty; and labor unions’ and governments’ so-called “social policies” did not help in this regard but hampered and retarded this process of gradual economic improvement and were and still are responsible for countless numbers of unnecessary deaths.

Hoppe gives some historical perspective and references the Ten Commandments.

And here is then another quote I wanted to provide here:

For surely, slavery and serfdom have not disappeared in the democratic world. Rather, some increasingly rare ‘private’ slavery and serfdom have been replaced by a near-universal system of ‘public’ tax-slavery and serfdom. As well, wars have not disappeared, but only become of a larger scale. And as for excessive punishments and witch hunts, they have not gone away either. To the contrary, they have multiplied. Enemies of the State are tortured in the same old gruesome or even technically ‘refined’ ways. Moreover, countless people who are not a murderer, a thief, a libeler, an adulterer or a rapist, i.e. people who live in complete accordance with the ten biblical commandments and once would have been left alone, are nonetheless routinely punished today, up to the level of lengthy incarceration or the loss of their entire property. Witches are no longer called that way, but with just one single authority in place, the “identification” of anyone as a “suspect of evil-doing” or a “trouble-maker” is greatly facilitated and the number of people so identified has accordingly multiplied; and while such suspects are no longer burnt at the stake, they are routinely punished by up to life-long economic deprivation, unemployment, poverty or even starvation. And while once, during the Middle Ages, the primary purpose of punishment was restitution, i.e. the offender had to compensate the victim, the primary purpose of punishment today is submission, i.e. the offender must compensate and satisfy not the victim but the State (thus victimizing the victim twice).

Hoppe then goes on to comment at length on Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker’s book The Better Angels of Our Nature. It appears that Pinker doesn’t get it as far as the distinction between aggressive violence and defensive violence is concerned. Pinker also seems clueless about the ideas of private property and property rights, as well as the big picture of basic moral scruples.

Property and property rights do not systematically figure in his analyses. Indeed, the terms do not even appear in the book’s 30-page subject index. For Pinker, violence is violence, and the reduction of violence is progress, regardless of whether this reduction is the result of the successful suppression and resignation of a people by and vis-à-vis another, conquering people, or the result of a people’s own successful suppression of aggressors and conquerors.

Pinker does not follow his own logic to the bitter end, but it deserves to be pointed out to reveal the full depravity of his thought. According to him, a smoothly run concentration camp, for instance, guarded by armed men who do not murder the inmates and prevent them from killing each other, but who supply them with “happiness drugs” to keep them quietly working on for the benefit of the guards until their natural (non-violent) deaths, is the perfect model of peace and social progress, while the violent overthrow of the guards by the concentration camp inmates is, well, violence and de-civilization.

Hoppe continues at great length to analyze and criticize Pinker’s cognitive dissonance and moral depravity. Hoppe really goes in depth on this subject.

After demonstrating the relationship between the State and violence, Hoppe asks,

But how much evil can a single, deranged individual do without the institution of a centralized State? How much evil could Hitler have done within the framework of a State-less society such as the Middle Ages? Would he have become a great lord, a king, a bishop, or a Pope? Indeed, how much evil could he have done even within the framework of a thousand mini-States, such as Liechtenstein, Monaco or Singapore? Answer: Not much, and certainly nothing comparable to the evils associated with WW II. It holds not, then: ‘no Hitler, no Churchill, no Roosevelt or no Stalin, and then no war,’ as Pinker would have it, but rather: ‘no highly centralized State, and then no Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt or Stalin.’

The above is quoted from the transcript from Hoppe’s recent speech at his Property and Freedom Society, which meets annually.

Here are Parts 1 and 2 of the whole speech: