Skip to content

Category: Libertarianism

Which Is Worse: The Left? Or the State?

Well, it appears that Mises Institute Chairman Lew Rockwell will publish a new book that he describes in his article this week, Against the Left.

I think it’s a good thing to expose and critique those on the Left for their hypocrisy and ignorance, and their favoring violence over peace, and their favoring State control over freedom.

But sometimes, especially in my reading LewRockwell.com every day for years now, it seems that recently perhaps Lew has become more “Against the Left” than he is “Against the State.” It’s just my own perception, but that’s how it seems, especially with the immigration issue.

So, I’ll get my more critical points out of the way at the beginning here.

As Jacob Hornberger has pointed out many times, most recently here, the closed-border “libertarians” seem to endorse the police state on the border when it comes to immigration. What happened to free-market capitalism? And private property rights, in which a private property owner has the freedom to invite whomever he wishes onto his own private property?

And what happened to the principle of individualism? If this individual over here is not suspected of having violated the person or property of another, then you leave him alone. Period. Wha happen? Now, immigration “invasions” seem to be turning people into collectivists. (Maybe Lew has been listening to too much ditto-head talk radio?)

The closed-border libertarians don’t seem to want to bring up the reasons why there are caravans from Central America going to the southern U.S. border, which include mainly the U.S. government’s evil “War on Drugs” and the U.S. government’s aid to Central American governments who have been tyrannizing innocents in those parts.

Yes, LewRockwell.com and Lew’s own LRC blog and “Political Theatre” have had plenty of articles on the U.S. government’s prohibition of drugs and the police state that goes with it, but they seem to not make a linkage between the immigration problem and those statist policies.

And by the way, Rebecca Gordon has written on Tom Dispatch a somewhat decent article on those main causes of people fleeing those Central American countries. But an extra, made-up cause she wants to throw in there, to completely ruin her article, is “climate change.” Yes, besides the “War on Drugs” and U.S. government aid to tyrants, climate change is making people flee Central America and want to come to the U.S. And Gordon throws in this lie, citing the New York Times, that the U.S. is the “biggest carbon polluter in history,” when we know that the U.S. has become one of the least of the polluters (with a few specific exceptions like Los Angeles), certainly not as bad as China and India. But I digress.

It’s too bad the people on the Left can be very good in their anti-drug war, pro-civil liberties, anti-war views, yet still cling to propaganda when it comes to their anti-capitalism, anti-progress agenda. And that’s all the “climate change” fanaticism is all about: envy, and using the powers of government to steal even more from the workers and producers of society.

So, there definitely are still some things I agree with, in Lew Rockwell’s critiques of the Left. But he doesn’t define what “the Left” actually is. I’m sure he does this in his new book that is yet to be published.

And what actually is “the Left”? And what is the “right”? I used to see it as collectivism versus individualism. But many people on the “right” today are against individualism, against the free market, and against private property. They endorse the statist drug war and its police state, the war on immigration and its police state, they love and worship government police and military (which are products of socialism, not capitalism, by the way), and they also endorse and love huge socialist government programs, such as Social Security and Medicare.

In his article, regarding education Lew Rockwell mentions that the “young people are not taught about the evils of the Left, only its myths. They do not believe there were gigantic atrocities in the Lenin-Stalin Soviet Union, nor Mao’s China. Socialism is good!…”

I think he means that the young people are not taught about the evils of socialism or communism, i.e. the State. (Maybe “the Left” = socialism?) And on LRC he posted a link to an article by Lawrence Ludlow on how much worse the government schools are now than they were 30 years ago. The emphasis is now on grade curving regardless of performance.

Education being centralized, bureaucratized and run by the government are why we have so many dumb and ignorant students being graduated from the government schools, and why so many government teachers are also dumb and ignorant. In that article, Ludlow didn’t mention affirmative action or higher education, but we see just how bad affirmative action is when a con artist like Elizabeth Warren — white as a ghost — can scam Harvard University Law School into hiring her as a professor based on her checking the “minority” box and claiming to be Native American. She should have been criminally charged with fraud.

And Ludlow did mention the transgender phenomenon. In schools, the teachers and students are encouraged or even required to use plural pronouns such as “they” instead of “he,” “him,” “her” and “she.” But this is incorrect grammar. These are schools?

No, the schools are leftist cult indoctrination centers. The evil leftists, or “cultural Marxists,” are using very personal and private sexual matters to manipulate and twist the very young people’s sense of self worth and individual identity, as well as destroy their critical thinking skills and keep them ignorant of facts, truth, knowledge and history, and attempting to prevent the young people from going on to live a healthy, functional life.

And back to Lew Rockwell. And this is probably just a minor issue, really, with Lew. In this recent interview with Mises Institute President Jeff Deist, Rockwell said, regarding Supreme Bureaucrat Brett Kavanaugh and his recent confirmation battle, “And also it’s important to see the feminists defeated. So, I’m glad he was confirmed…”

Well, Kavanaugh may have won the seat on the Supremes, and defeated the feminazis who made things up to falsely accuse him of sexual assaults, but he is NOT anti-feminist, or anti-SJW. He is one of them. As I wrote here, Kavanaugh had stated at the beginning of his confirmation hearings, “Title IX helped make girls’ and women’s sports equal. And I see that law’s legacy every night when I walk into my house, as my daughters are getting back from lacrosse or basketball or hockey practice.”

What? That’s how Kavanaugh sees the “legacy” of Title IX? Are you kidding me? The true legacy of Title IX is many false accusations against innocent men at universities and colleges, professors being demoted or fired, employees being harassed or fired at workplaces…And Kavanaugh has NO idea of all this, because he spends too much time at his Washington cocktail parties, the bubble baths, and he himself has now been a VICTIM last Fall of the “legacy of Title IX”!

So, sometimes I wonder if Lew is more anti-Left than he is anti-State. He is glad that Kavanaugh was confirmed even though Kavanaugh is himself a leftist, a Big Government police statist combined with being an SJW. The worst of the worst.

Someone who is more anti-State than anti-Left would hope for Kavanaugh to be defeated, regardless of the false accusations against him.

In my view, if we had to choose between the Left or the State, I would say that we don’t need the State, and in fact we need to get rid of it, or at least the centralized State especially the U.S. government in Washington.

We need to persuade people to see the Leviathan in Washington for what it is. Even letting the fifty states have their sovereignty and independence as nation states, by way of peaceful, voluntary decentralization, would be a MUCH better start than the tyranny of enslavement we live in now.

And without the Regime in Washington, the Left would not have any power. So, we can live with a “Left” in our society, especially when those people have no power structure to grab onto and to use as an implement of totalitarian power and control over the rest of us.

And speaking of that, I also wanted to address some things in this other recent interview of Lew Rockwell by Atilla Mert Sulker. Lew says he’s “pro-nationalism.” And he says, “It’s only recently that you’re supposed to hate your homeland, and turn it over to whoever wants to come in on welfare.”

Well, I think he’s distorting things. Personally, I don’t “hate” my homeland, USA. I’m indifferent, because this “homeland” country is too big. I have no feelings toward most people in California, for example, me being from New England. (But I DO hate Connecticut, not the people, but the state in which I grew up. Now it is a communist, tax-thieving torture chamber. Who in his right mind would live there? Should I consider that my “homeland”? And love it?)

But the centralized “homeland” USA needs to be decentralized, in my view. And turning our society over “to whoever wants to come in on welfare”? This is a case against the welfare state, not against freedom of movement and people finding a better life. With no welfare state (and no income tax thefts, etc.), there would be no incentive for any would-be layabout parasites to come here.

But Rockwell also says, “And also, I notice that all the bad people in society hate nationalism, and are always denouncing it, whether it’s the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or academics, or left wingers…”

Excuse me, I am not a nationalist, and I am constantly criticizing the idea of nationalism, which is a form of authoritarian collectivism, by the way. Does that mean I’m “bad”? But I’m peaceful, a voluntaryist. I’m in my mid-50s and have never committed any criminal or violent acts against others. I’m not exactly a “left-winger” in my support of voluntary exchange, private property rights, and ending government schools.

And I do agree with Lew in that interview regarding the Libertarian Party, which has gone down hill since the days of Ron Paul and Harry Browne. Lew said, “But I must say that I don’t think the L.P.’s strategy of reaching out to the far left- you have to, for example, be a feminist, to be a libertarian, or all these other things. That’s just ridiculous. But they’re much more concerned with leftism, than they are with freedom.”

Sadly, the Libertarian Partly has become the party of “social justice warriors” in which just about everything is “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” “transphobic,” etc. So it’s “Racist, racist, racist!” (and “Russia, Russia, Russia!” too, now) with many of those brainwashed, government school-“educated” sheeple. Just like the progressives and Democrats. The Libertarian Party needs to become the party of freedom once again, not just another party of the Left, like the Democrats, Republicans, Greens and Socialists. And that means being 100% against foreign interventionism, income taxation-theft or wealth taxation-theft, and being 100% supportive of private property rights, voluntary and free exchange, voluntary contracts, and the idea of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle.

Anyway, the Left is very bad. But the State is worse. And the Left could not do nearly as much damage to us were it not for the unnecessary existence of the State, especially the evil centralized State in Washington. But a book titled Against the Left by Lew Rockwell is probably something to look forward to reading.

More News and Commentary

Robert Murphy on plastic bans: imaginary benefits, real costs.

Gary Barnett says the technocratic state is the mortal enemy of the individual.

Jacob Hornberger says that open borders is the true libertarian position.

Chris Calton on how qualified immunity for government police became absolute immunity.

Daniel McAdams tells Rosie Gray that no, Tulsi Gabbard is NOT this election’s Ron Paul. (The smear of Tulsi Gabbard is intensifying in the same way as the statists smeared Ron Paul in 2008.)

Tom Luongo says that the Empire is coming for Tulsi Gabbard.

Kevin Gosztola on judge rejecting DNC lawsuit of WikiLeaks and defending journalists’ First Amendment rights.

Danny Sjursen says that U.S. troops back in Saudi Arabia will end badly.

David Stockman on the great fiscal miscreant making America broke again.

Brandon Smith tells us how real mind control works.

Lee Friday on recycling: wasting resources while claiming to conserve them.

Allen Mendenhall says the United States is not a nation: the problem with “National Conservatism.”

And Jonathan Tepper on the doctor monopoly killing American patients.

More Articles

Laurence Vance lists forty things that libertarian ideologues believe.

Richard Ebeling responds to the recent “National Conservatism” conference.

Paul Sperry says the Justice Department Inspector General has evidence that Comey probed Trump, on the sly.

Jacob Hornberger on how the U.S. government is the ruler of the world.

Donald Miller, MD asks, If not Oswald, who killed President Kennedy and why?

Charles Burris responds to Dr. Miller’s JFK assassination article, and provides many sources and links for further information.

And David Swanson asks, U.S. troops back in Saudi Arabia: What could go wrong?

More Articles

Ted Galen Carpenter discusses Julian Assange and the real war on the free press.

David Stockman on Trump’s salute to the warfare state.

George F. Smith says, Get serious about voting.

Murray Rothbard on America’s libertarian revolution.

Charles Burris with a James Corbett video on the secrets of Silicon Valley, what Big Tech doesn’t want you to know. And with links to other articles about Google, Facebook, the NSA, FBI and CIA. What a bunch.

And Nicholas West on police departments dumping faulty pre-crime AI programs

Justin Raimondo Has Died

Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com has died. I have linked to many, many of his articles on this blog. He might be best known for the website he founded, Antiwar.com. He was only 67 and had lung cancer.

Antiwar.com’s obituary of Justin Raimondo.

Kelley Vlahos’s tribute, How Justin Raimondo Made Me a Braver Writer.

And Lew Rockwell’s tribute to Justin.

(Edited): I’ll have more to say about this in the next few days weeks.

David Bergland Has Died. Was Libertarian Party’s 1984 Presidential Candidate

David Bergland, the 1984 Libertarian Party nominee for U.S. President, has died, just a day before his 84th birthday. He was the author of Libertarianism in One Lesson: Why Libertarianism Is the Best Hope for America’s Future. He was also a business attorney and law professor, and a martial arts expert.

Sharon Harris at the Zero Aggression Project has this obit. And Brian Doherty at Reason.

An Initial Look at Some of the 2020 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates

In May of 2016 I wrote my article on some of the then Libertarian Party candidates of President, with some references to some past candidates and how the LP has changed (for the worse) over the years. That article was at the time of the LP convention for the 2016 election. But now I want to write about some of the official candidates and some unofficial candidates for 2020.

In 2012 and 2016 the LP chose statist Gary Johnson the pothead to be the “Libertarian” Party Presidential nominee. Ugh. And in 2016 Bill Weld was the LP’s VP nominee. Among other naive or incoherent things, Johnson said that Barack Obama was a “good guy,” and that Hillary Clinton is a “a wonderful public servant.”

And I responded to that by writing, “Obama’s war on journalists and government whistleblowers, his war on medical marijuana, his assassinations of non-convicted suspects without charges, his drone murders and other warmongering, his medical care intrusions and other acts of criminality, show that no, Barack Obama is not a ‘good guy.’ He is a ‘bad guy.'”

And I also wrote, “Besides being a corrupt sleazebag and a degenerate, Hillary is a real criminal. And not just from the Clinton Foundation racket and the email server criminality but a real war criminal as well, even going back to her days as first lady, aiding and abetting her criminal husband in his ethnic cleansing of Kosovo and his continuing bombing and sanctions against Iraq throughout the 1990s, as she urged and supported Bill Clinton to continue doing those horrible things.”

And on Weld, “And Bill Weld wants a ‘thousand-person FBI task force treating ISIS as a gigantic organized crime family’? No, the real libertarian answer to that is to abolish the FBI, because it is the government that should be treated as a ‘gigantic organized crime family’!”

So I wanted to see just who is now running to be the LP’s nominee for President this time, in 2020. As I wrote in my article in 2016 Darryl Perry was the only candidate at that time who had the right, actual libertarian views on the issues. Certainly not Johnson, John McAfee, or Austin Peterson.

For the 2020 declared and potential LP candidates there are so many names now on Politics1.com’s list, it’s really too much for me now. But this is only May of 2019 and it’s a whole year to go until the LP’s national Presidential convention.

Anyway, to begin, there’s Adam Kokesh, who has been in the military in Iraq and has a history of confrontations with police at protests or demonstrations. I wrote a little about his debate with Larken Rose, who said that an anarchist such as Kokesh running for President is legitimizing an illegitimate system of coercion and force.

There is one thing that bothers me. On Kokesh’s campaign website, in the photo of him he is giving a military salute. Are you kidding me? I know, there are a lot of military worshipers out there, who praise the military for their invading and bombing other countries and murdering millions of innocents. I’m not saying that Kokesh is endorsing that, but WHY is he giving a military salute?!!

On the home page, he writes, “My name is Adam Kokesh and I’m running for Not-President of the United States with the Libertarian Party on the platform of the peaceful, responsible dissolution of the entire federal government.” Okay, that’s good. (That’s similar to what Darryl Perry wrote in 2016, “that the United States government, as it exists today, should be abolished!”) Kokesh writes on the Platform page on how he would dismantle the U.S. government.

Now, I agree with that, because centralization of government is what takes the society to ruin. The more decentralized the society, the more freedom there will be, and the better able people are to vote with their feet.

Another candidate is Dan “Taxation Is Theft” Behrman, who writes on his campaign website, “Taxation Is Theft,” “Fire the IRS,” “End the Fed,” “Erase the Debt,” “It’s time to free healthcare…by simply giving back our freedom to choose” (Video with Dan “Taxation Is Theft” Behrman explaining that.)…”Pardon the Innocent,” and other libertarian statements. (And he wears a funny hat.)

On William Hurst‘s campaign website, his slogan is “E Pluribus Unum Possumus – Of Many We Can Be One!” Huh? What do you mean we can be one? But I don’t want to be a part of a whole collective of people I don’t know, and be “one.” I just want freedom.

Under “My Goals,” Hurst writes, “If our children are to have a future, we need to address climate change now.” Huh? How do we address climate change which has been a natural occurrence on Earth for hundreds of millions of years that human activity has had nothing to do with, despite what the junk science fraudsters have brainwashed millions of people to believe?

And, “All citizens should be afforded quality education and a basic degree.” Huh? So what are you saying, that the gubmint should be providing education? Who defines “quality education,” the NEA? Betsy DeVos? And what about those who don’t want a “basic degree”?

In this interview, Hurst was asked if he supports Medicare for All, and his response: “Yes, if it doesn’t lend a hand to furthered abuses of the current healthcare system, I am all for it. This is one of the generally non-libertarian stances that you referred to earlier. I argue that it should be. You can’t enjoy freedom of you’re dead and the for-profit style of medicine has become a means of oppression.” Apparently, Hurst hasn’t read these articles. The “for-profit style of medicine” was working in America, and it was providing the best quality health care for most people and it wasn’t too expensive. Until Medicare was shoved down our throats, and then the quality of medical care declined and the costs went up!

Back to Hurst’s website, he writes about immigration (with my comments in brackets): “If it remains necessary to halt the illegal traffic across our border, to aid the efforts of our border patrol [“Our border patrol”? You mean our government border patrol, the police state?], we have the technology available that will allow for a nearly invisible barrier. This barrier will allow our guards [What, government guards? the border gestapo, “Your papers, please?” No thanks!] to effectively see and handle any potential threat while maintaining the ability of wildlife to traverse our expansive borders.”

On Ben Leder‘s campaign website, he proposes a Civilian Defense Act: “The Civilian Defense Act shall Repeal and Replace all Federal Gun Control Laws to include but not limited to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the National Firearms Act of 1938, the Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and reaffirm the Second Amendment of the US Constitution by creating an Online Government Auction for US Military Surplus.  All US Military Surplus shall be sold at auction to the highest bidder amongst the United States Civilian Market.  The US Civilian Market shall have the first right of refusal on all US Military Surplus, and all US Military Surplus Exports shall be sold at action to the highest bidder only after failing to be liquidated to the Civilian Marketplace.    Financing Options shall be made available to the US Civilian Market on US Military Surplus Equipment to include but not limited to Aircraft, Ships, Boats, in addition to Amphibious, Armored,  Wheeled, and Tracked Vehicles.” Hmmm.

And a Felony Forgiveness Act. “The Felony Forgiveness Act shall retroactively expunge all convictions for offenses no longer deemed illegal, to include but not limited to Drug Offenses, Firearms Offenses, and Tax Offenses….” Good.

Kimberly Ruff has a campaign website with an already chosen running mate, John Phillips.

On immigration reform, Ruff concludes, “We therefore call for the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and would declare, when elected, a full pardon for all otherwise innocent people who are in the country without government permission. We oppose the false conflation of government welfare with ‘illegal’ immigration, as those claims are unsupported by empirical study, and irrelevant to matters of natural rights. We oppose border walls as antithetical to the principles of freedom and liberty.” Good.

However, on his Positions on National Issues page, Kimberly Ruff’s VP running mate John Phillips states: “Immigration reform.  I am not a fully open borders with no restrictions person, though close.  I am however for MUCH easier immigration, work permits, and border crossing.  Once we correct our current welfare system I would be willing to look at making it even easier than I think we should now.” Work permits? You mean that people need to get a gubmint bureaucrat’s permission to work? “Correct our current welfare system”? I hope you mean “abolish” our current welfare system!

Now, I see on the Wikipedia page for the LP 2020 Presidential primaries that the Kimberly Ruff/John Phillips ticket has been endorsed by Darryl Perry, with a footnote link to this tweet. To me, that sure has a lot of weight, given how consistently libertarian and voluntaryist Darryl Perry is in his views.

And finally, someone who has a campaign website but hasn’t formally declared a candidacy for President is Jacob Hornberger, the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation. He has quite an impressive background and résumé, and has been involved for many years in advancing liberty.

On Taxation, Hornberger states: “Abolish the federal income tax and the IRS. People have the fundamental, God-given right to keep everything they earn and decide for themselves what to do with it — spend, save, donate, or invest. The right to keep and dispose of the fruits of one’s earnings is a necessary prerequisite to a free society.”

On Healthcare, Hornberger states: “There is but one solution to what Democrats and Republicans have done to destroy what was once the greatest health-care system in the world: a total separation of health care and the state, just as our ancestors separated church and state. That necessarily means the repeal, not the reform, of Medicare, Medicaid, occupational licensure, and healthcare and tax regulations, all of which are nothing more than a cancer on the body politic.”

In fact, just this week he has some proposals for Constitutional amendments on his regular blog at FFF, such as: “No law shall be enacted by either the federal or the state governments respecting the regulation of commerce or abridging the free exercise thereof.” And, “No law shall be enacted by either the federal or state governments regarding the establishment of education or abridging the free exercise thereof.” (Well, I am not sure whether the inclusion of “state governments” might violate the Tenth Amendment, but whatever.)

On his campaign website, Hornberger has this video, A Political Message to Americans:

And he has it in Spanish as well.

Hornberger doesn’t agree with Adam Kokesh and Darryl Perry (and me) that we need to abolish the federal government, at the very least. But Hornberger does believe that the U.S. government needs to have most of what it is today dismantled, its police state given a dishonorable discharge and so on. As Hornberger wrote n 2013, permanently lay off the parasitic sector. Yup.

But in my view, the U.S. needs to decentralize, just as the old Soviet Union did. This entire territory is just too damn big to be all one single country and a single “culture.” Murray Rothbard wrote about how best to decentralize, and Lew Rockwell also envisioned how he’d like to see that done.

But, as long as this is one single country and ruled over by a single regime in Washington, we should have someone there who will veto just about everything, pardon peaceful non-criminals who are being harassed by government tyrants, and make use of the power of the executive branch to dismantle as much as possible that criminal racket in Washington, and liberate the people!

While I’m not endorsing anyone here, if the LP were to have its nominating convention today, I would be shocked if they didn’t nominate Jacob Hornberger, given his years of experience in advancing the cause of liberty, and his qualifications.

Some Comments on the Immigration Issue

I have been wanting to write more on the immigration issue, but I think I’d rather concentrate on other matters. So, I am going to repost some past posts on that issue from the last two or three years, or excerpts of posts. These issues are more on a philosophical level here. But the bottom line is, do we want freedom in America, or do we want a police state? Right now it’s a police state with a “Constitution-free zone” along the borders and coasts (and all points between, quite frankly, thanks to the imbeciles and fascists in Washington).

So here are some of those past posts or excerpts:

In the post, Freedom Matters, I wrote:

In the article, titled “Culture Matters,” the writer Jim Cox compares the U.S. territory and its public or collective ownership to a condominium made up of several buildings with commonly owned areas, in which the condo owners “own the land between the 27 buildings and the pavement in common and own only our individual units separately.”

And he continues: “This is a very analogous situation to US citizens owning private property as well as public property via government. The condominium association has rules about people coming onto the common property.”

In Cox’s example, each condo owner buys one’s own unit with the rules of the condo association in mind.

Already Cox confuses private and public property. The entire territory of a country is not a commonly owned parcel of private property and can’t be compared to that.

Outside of each individually-owned unit, the property of the condo buildings and real estate is commonly owned by the condo owners. But it is still all private property.

In contrast, “public property” is supposedly publicly owned. Actually, as Jim Davies pointed out, public property is unowned. Either no one has actually legitimately homesteaded or honestly acquired it, or it was owned but the bureaucrats of the State have seized and occupy it.

Many individuals, groups and business owners own individual parcels of private property. But it’s more difficult to define who the actual owners of public property are. An intruder onto the condo property is trespassing onto private property. But if the “public” supposedly owns non-privately-owned public property, just which part of the public can be considered an owner or an “intruder”? “Citizens” or non-citizens? Taxpayers or non-taxpayers?

As I asked in this critique of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, what about non-taxpaying citizens, such as those who work but don’t earn enough to be required to pay income taxes? Are they less owners of the “public” property? Are they “intruders”? What about working, taxpaying non-citizens?

And what exactly is a “citizen”? As Carl Watner notes, a “citizen” is a “member of the State.” Other sources define citizen as someone who is legally recognized by the government. But who is the government to “recognize” or authorize someone as legitimate?

Sadly, statists look to the ruling government bureaucrats for validation. But just who exactly are the ruling bureaucrats, and what exactly is the State?

As Murray Rothbard has pointed out (.pdf) in his Anatomy of the State,

The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.

And, in his great treatise The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard asserts,

Thus, the State is a coercive criminal organization that subsists by a regularized large-scale system of taxation-theft, and which gets away with it by engineering the support of the majority (not, again, of everyone) through securing an alliance with a group of opinion-moulding intellectuals whom it rewards with a share in its power and pelf.

But there is another vital aspect of the State that needs to be considered. There is one critical argument for the State that now comes into view: namely, the implicit argument that the State apparatus really and properly owns the territorial area over which it claims jurisdiction. The State, in short, arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area — larger or smaller depending on historical conditions, and on how much it has been able to wrest from other States.

If the State may be said to properly own its territory, then it is proper for it to make rules for anyone who presumes to live in that area. It can legitimately seize or control private property because there is no private property in its area, because it really owns the entire land surface. So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property.

So what we have from Cox is the collectivist notion of a common ownership of a territory. He writes: “Until we can shift to a Private Property Society we are stuck with a government handling immigration.”

Unfortunately, “government handling immigration” is the police state that we have now. Bureaucrats empowering border control agents to violate due process rights, arrest innocent people who have not harmed anyone, arresting employers for not getting government permission to hire a worker, arresting workers who are peacefully making a living, an out-of-control “ICE” working to take citizenship away from naturalized citizens, storm troopers ripping whole families apart. All this because the people have gullibly empowered a centralized government to decide who is and who isn’t on the premises legitimately.

And Cox lists “negative cultural traits” of possible immigrants that people wouldn’t want to invite in. He neglects to mention, however, that it’s the government planners (that we are “stuck with”) who are responsible for bringing in the violent criminals he mentions.

But the collectivist-minded writer is putting ALL immigrants into one big group, the “undesirables,” the riffraff and the actual violent criminals, all lumped together with the peaceful people, the hard-working laborers, the honest folks.

Whatever happened to the individualism and free markets that used to be associated with libertarianism? Whatever happened to presumption of innocence? If you don’t suspect an individual of something, leave him alone.

And why would libertarians want bureaucrats to control markets, labor and employment? “We’re all socialists, now”?

Regarding the crime problem, the rapes and assaults, murders, etc., why are the anti-immigration crowd so bent on being dependent on centralized bureaucrats and government police for their protection from criminals? Why don’t they ever bring up the right of the people to keep and bear arms? They only seem to bring that up when the gun control debate is in the news.

When criminals know ahead of time that their prospective victims are armed there would be far fewer rapes, assaults and murders, and attempted rapes, assaults and murders. That would be the same with violent foreigners entering the territory, no?

Is the “culture” stuff actually more important to these immigration critics than their security? So instead of promoting the right of people to keep and bear arms and use the arms to protect themselves from actual criminals, the anti-immigration crowd are more concerned with promoting government-controlled social engineering.

And to say that someone not violating the person or property of another, who is peacefully exercising one’s freedom of movement to find a better life for himself and one’s family, is a “criminal,” is to not understand the libertarian non-aggression principle.

***

In the post, Walter Williams on Immigration: Very Collectivist-Minded, I wrote:

Walter Williams has been considered very “libertarian” in his thinking and his writing, although a conservative libertarian. He has been great in his essays raking the political correctness crowd and the college hystericals over the coals, and his books Up from the Projects and Race and Economics should be read by everyone, especially the youngins in college if they want to get a dose of reality in life.

However, when it comes to nationalism and immigration it seems he is less libertarian and, unfortunately, extremely collectivist, and his latest article on that subject is no exception. So, I feel I must fisk Dr. Williams on this one, because clarification of the issues, ideas and principles is necessary here.

First, Williams asks,

How many Norwegians have illegally entered our nation, committed crimes and burdened our prison and welfare systems? I might ask the same question about Finnish, Swedish, Welsh, Icelanders, Greenlanders and New Zealanders.

How many U.S. citizens who are here legally commit crimes against others? And who has committed more crimes against the American people, immigrants or the government in Washington (and the bureaucrats of the state and city governments)? (Answer: It’s governments, no contest.)

Williams continues:

The bulk of our immigration problem is with people who enter our country criminally from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East. It’s illegal immigrants from those countries who have committed crimes and burdened our criminal justice and welfare systems.

No, the bulk of our immigration problem is that immigrants from those “undesirable” countries are brought in under the control of government bureaucrats in Washington. The bureaucrats have no incentive to strive for better outcomes in their policies because government bureaucrats are not accountable. They have a monopoly in their control over immigration, and monopolists are not accountable.

In the debate about illegal immigration, there are questions that are not explicitly asked but can be answered with a straight “yes” or “no”: Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.? Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country? Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?

“Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.?” This is not a “yes” or “no” question. Everyone has a right to live wherever one finds it to be a better place for oneself and one’s family, as long as one doesn’t violate the persons or property of others. I know, some people have the mistaken belief that the U.S. territory is “our” property, and outsiders entering the territory sans authorization are “trespassing.” Nope. The territory contains many, many parcels of private property. The owners of the private property have the ultimate right to decide who enters and who does not enter their private property, not the community, and not the government. This applies to people’s homes, their businesses, churches, and so on.

“Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country?” Again, not a “yes” or “no” question. Many people believe that Americans as a group, by majority rule, have a right to decide those things, and that the government has the authority (constitutional or moral) to implement those decisions, regardless of a private property owner or employer’s decision to invite someone. If the collectivists’ vision were the case (as it currently is now), then we don’t really have private property rights, and the majority of the territory’s population and the government really are the ultimate decision makers of who may enter private property.

“Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?” Why is there “U.S. border control”? That’s referring to U.S. government border control, which is a police state now. A “100-mile Constitution-free zone”!

And then Williams gets into the cultural aspects of the problems of today:

People who came here in the 19th century and most of the 20th century came here to learn our language, learn our customs and become Americans. Years ago, there was a guarantee that immigrants came here to work, because there was no welfare system; they worked, begged or starved. Today, there is no such assurance. Because of our welfare state, immigrants can come here and live off taxpaying Americans.

Then get rid of the welfare state! THAT’s the answer to that problem. It’s the welfare state that FDR and LBJ (and Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, et al., ad nauseam) have forced on us. Dr. Williams has many times written in his articles that it is immoral to take earnings from one person to give to another, by force. Why doesn’t he say outright here that involuntary contracts and theft (i.e. taxation), Social Security, Medicare and all their spin-offs should be abolished?

There is another difference between today and yesteryear. Today, Americans are taught multiculturalism throughout their primary, secondary and college education. They are taught that one culture is no better or worse than another. To believe otherwise is criticized at best as Eurocentrism and at worst as racism.

Well, that’s because governments in the U.S., federal, state and local government, control education in America! Get the government out of education, completely! And THAT’s the answer to that problem, this “multiculturalism” crapola. You think that an all-private schools system, without any government handouts and without the imposition of monopolistic government bureaucrats’ sick, irrational, kooky claptrap would survive in an educational free market?

Very unfortunate for our nation is that we have political groups that seek to use illegal immigration for their own benefit. They’ve created sanctuary cities and states that openly harbor criminals — people who have broken our laws.

That’s because “sanctuary cities” are run by city governments — THAT’s the problem! Bureaucrats should not be empowered to get involved in bringing in foreigners, unless those actual bureaucrats invite the foreign visitors or workers to live in their homes, the bureaucrats‘ own homes, and they pay for their visitors, not the taxpayers. Sadly, government bureaucrats mainly just want to have as much welfare parasites (and voters) brought in, because getting reelected and expanding their tax-funded racket is what bureaucrats really care about.

And also, it’s not really about “legal” vs. “illegal” with many of today’s anti-immigration conservatives, unfortunately. A lot of this anti-immigration stuff is just coming from a collectivist, nationalist anti-foreigner mentality. “We are all one ‘family,’ and we don’t want ‘them’ invading ‘our’ home,” and all that. I’m hearing that on a constant, daily basis from the conservative talk radio personalities and their dittohead followers calling in.

This immigration stuff is mainly to do with a collectivist nationalism, which is not what “America” is all about. America was all about individualism and private property, NOT collectivism and collective ownership of a territory that overrules the will of the private property owner.

And “America” is also not about central planning as well. Most of the early Americans who founded the country would not have agreed to empowering central planning bureaucrats to have authority over controlling immigration matters. Leave those matters up to Americans themselves, not the government.

***

And finally, in Immigration and Private vs. Public Property, I critiqued a speech by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in which I wrote, among other things:

Unfortunately Hoppe gets into some confusion between private property and “public property,” and some of his “rights to exclusion” seem quite collectivist, in my view. He seems to advocate a public, collective right to exclusion, whereas the only legitimate right to exclusion is the private property owner’s right to exclusion, and the individual self-owner’s right to exclusion, and the right to inclusion as well.

For instance, Hoppe states: “In a fully privatized libertarian order there exists no such thing as a right to free immigration. Private property implies borders and the owner’s right to exclude at will.”

But he goes on to say that “’public property’ has borders as well.” Wait a minute, the “public property” borders he’s talking about are government-drawn borders, therefore they are not legitimate.

Hoppe states that public property “is not unowned. It is the property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners.”

I have some questions here, using the U.S. as an example. Just how did the taxpayers come to own such “public property”? Did they inherit the property? Was it by way of a voluntary contract? Or was such ownership imposed on them involuntarily along with the tax-thefts that were imposed on them involuntarily?

My answer is that, if there is any ownership at all of so-called public property, and he suggests the owners are the taxpayers, then of course such ownership is involuntary just as are the tax-thefts imposed on them. Therefore, such ownership is lacking in any moral justification.

Some further questions: Millions of undocumented workers’ presence and labor in the U.S. have not received proper bureaucrat-parasite authorization, but they have paid billions of dollars in federal taxes. And while some of their legitimate, honest earnings are withheld by employers to pay the feds the demanded booty, they are nevertheless ineligible for Social Security from those earnings. But they are “taxpayers.” Do they thus share in ownership of U.S. “public property”?

And also, do you divide ranks in “public property” ownership”? For instance, do very wealthy people have a higher percentage of ownership than lower-class workers, and thus have more ownership rights of control than the others? What if many wealthy progressive thinkers have a larger percentage of ownership/control, and want to have marijuana dispensaries, abortion clinics, etc. on “public property,” but a minority of the tax-payers disagree with that scheme? Is that legitimate?

When Hoppe says that public property is the “property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners,” what about domestic non-taxpayers? What about “citizens” (non-foreigners) who do work for a living, but don’t make enough to be required to have to pay income taxes? Are they denied rights of exclusion or inclusion because of this? So in other words, those who don’t pay the feds anything in tax-thefts should have the same denied rights of access to public property as the foreigners/non-“citizens”?

And also, it seems here in Hoppe’s justification of taxpayers’ involuntary ownership of public property he apparently, at least for this topic, accepts the State’s existence. Although he does admit that “the State is a criminal organization,” but its inaction regarding border control “will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry.” Does Hoppe here seem to abandon his description of so-called “fake libertarians” at the very beginning of the speech, in which he says a “fake libertarian” is one who “affirms or advocates” “the necessity of a State” or “of public or State property”?

Now back to Hoppe’s recent speech (as shown at the top), he states that “immigration must be by invitation only,” and that “immigrants must be productive people and hence, be barred from all domestic welfare payments.” But he gets into a lengthy discussion of his proposed rules that seem very central planning-like, in my view.

For instance, immigrants “or their inviting party must place a bond with the community in which they are to settle, and which is to be forfeited and lead to the immigrant’s deportation should he ever become a public burden.”

And with whom in the community will such a bond be placed? Who is to be in charge of that? What if a foreigner peacefully travels to the community and doesn’t give anyone a bond?

So are you saying that the immigrant is morally obligated to pay some third party some payment, without any voluntary, mutually-agreeable contract? What if he finds a room to rent or buys a home, who is it that owns the property? Does the individual landlord or property seller own the property, or does the community share in ownership of those properties? Is the entire community collectively owned by its inhabitants (regardless of separate private property parcels)?

It seems to me that Hoppe is suggesting that the community shares in ownership of property within the community. Not good.

In the just society, each property owner has full, 100% sovereignty over one’s property and its property title that he and only he may decide to whom to transfer, and he and only he may decide to whom to rent, and for whatever reason.

Hoppe continues: “As well, every immigrant, inviting party or employer should not only pay for the immigrant’s upkeep or salary, but must also pay the residential community for the additional wear and tear of its public facilities associated with the immigrant’s presence, so as to avoid the socialization of any and all costs incurred with his settlement.”

Who is going to decide how much “wear and tear” one immigrant has caused or might cause in the future? Who has the authority to charge the employer such a fee and decide how much to charge? Sounds very central-planning, if you ask me.

This all sounds very communal or “private club”-like to me, and seems to abandon the principles of private property and freedom of association. My neighbor doesn’t own my property and has no authority to dictate to me whom to let on my property, quite frankly.

And Hoppe continues: “Moreover, even before his admission, every potential immigrant invitee must be carefully screened and tested not only for his productivity but also for cultural affinity (or ‘good neighborliness’)…”

“Carefully screened”? By whom? The employer? Landlord? Prospective home seller? The community? Who will be in charge of this? Who owns the lives of the immigrants? Do they lose their self-ownership when moving to a new territory, even though they are peaceful and there’s no reason to think they might be a burden on the public? What if some family from a different area just moves into a home they’ve bought or rented and they don’t submit to screening, and there’s no reason to suspect them of not having “good neighborliness”? How about just letting property owners, businessmen and home sellers make those decisions, not by some some preset rules but by random events that take into account multiple, spontaneous factors? Whatever happened to Hoppe’s promotion of “Natural Order”?

So Hoppe’s “right of exclusion” seems to mean that the collective public may decide who gets in and who stays out. But how? By some sort of democratic vote? How else could a large group, such as U.S. taxpayers who supposedly own the public property, be able to come to a decision regarding who gets in and who stays out?

The true free market way is when an individual anywhere in the world who wants to make a better life for himself and his family travels to wherever he sees an opportunity, as long as he doesn’t violate the persons or property of another. He can rent a home or purchase one from a willing landlord or seller. And the property owner who rents out or sells a home is the owner, not his neighbors or the community.

I don’t see any moral obligation to pay the community some advance tribute, as the aforementioned family never entered into any contract with the “community,” only the employer, landlord or home seller, etc.

The end.

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.