Skip to content

Tag: libertarianism

More Articles

Matthew Silber writes about defusing a second civil war through peaceful secession. (In my view, the choices are voluntary, peaceful secession and decentralization, OR, let the society in Amerika collapse with chaos, violence and bloodshed. I prefer the former, not the latter.)

Thomas DiLorenzo asks, Where does the Constitution call for black-robed dictators?

Laurence Vance says that “libertarian” proposals to “reform” Social Security with new mandates are privatizing coercion. (With libertarians like that, who needs fascists?)

And Daniel Mitchell says that a Trump-Pelosi budget deal is a recipe for the worst kind of tax increase.

More Articles

Charles Burris says that the deep state will be the ultimate winner of Tuesday’s election.

Sharyl Attkisson says that CIA’s surveillance state is operating against us all.

Jacob Hornberger on non-interventionism: America’s founding foreign policy.

Martin Pánek asks, It took six months to split Czechoslovakia, why should Brexit take six years?

Richard Ebeling discusses liberal capitalism as the ideology of freedom and moderation.

Gary Galles on how so many bad ideas manage to win on election day.

And José Niño says, Quit trying to turn JFK into a tax-cutting budget hawk.

The Irrational vs. the Rational of Libertarians

Who knows why some so-called libertarians or conservative libertarians are so hysterical and irrational when it comes to the immigration issue. This one by Bionic Mosquito on LewRockwell.com is another one of those.

It’s like this is an “either-or” kind of thing. We either have an all-private property society, or we have complete government control over borders and immigration into the territory. And because we don’t have an all-private property society, we MUST accept the police state and central planning in immigration, and not complain (so it seems).

Bionic says that, well, “Until there are no state borders, it will be the state that makes the decision on who crosses the borders.  In a world of state borders, every decision regarding immigration is a centrally-planned, state-enforced-at-the-end-of-the-barrel-of-a-gun decision; even a position of open borders.” And that’s that.

So, implied here as well as on many of these kinds of articles is a support for the central planners’ control that they have legally, and a support for the police state.

The libertarian conservatives seem to be frightened by the thousands of migrants from Central America “walking” up to the U.S. southern border. There’s a lot of propaganda out there, though. And I don’t believe that this is all “Soros-funded” and left-wing activist-directed. If you ask me, the “caravan” might very well be another psy-op being caused by the “national security” apparatus in Washington, who wants to fear-monger the people (including anti-“national security” libertarians) into supporting an even further intensified police state at the border and inside the border (and further increased budgets for all the police state agencies “protecting” us from all those bad people). Let’s put the military on the border so we can justify even larger budget increases for the military (in addition to Trump’s new “Space Force”). Yay.

Still, it’s immoral to violate the lives and liberty of innocent people because others have been violent or have been criminals. America used to be about individualism. But the libertarian conservatives seem to have become collectivists now. It is very disappointing to see libertarians engaging in group identity politics, but that is what we have here, in my view. Sad.

I wonder if Bionic supports arresting and caging businessmen for hiring unauthorized foreigners at their businesses, or raids on innocent people’s property, arresting those who have not harmed anyone, and on and on.

Contrasting the hysteria and irrationality with the so-called libertarians who now love the police state and central planning, we have the rational Jacob Hornberger, who writes about Donald Trump’s brilliant political strategy with the caravan “invading” our southern border:

Notwithstanding the fact that none of these refugees is armed and that the group includes lots of women and children, you would think that the United States is about to be invaded by the North Vietnamese, North Korean, Red Chinese, or Soviet armies (which was the official bugaboo throughout the Cold War). Trump has his supporters in a total tizzy. His dramatic decision to send (more) U.S. troops to the border to protect us from the coming “invasion” is nothing less than sheer political genius.

The result of Trump’s strategy? Countless Trumpistas are now quivering and quaking over the fact that the “illegals” are coming to get us. “Please, please, Mr. President, do whatever is necessary to keep us safe. Take away our freedoms and spend whatever you need to spend

The only thing that works and the only thing that is consistent with moral principles is freedom and free markets, which necessarily means free trade, open immigration, freedom of association, freedom of travel, economic liberty, private property, liberty of contract, and privacy. What could be more rational than steadfastly continuing to stand for freedom and free markets and against a police state?

Do the anti-immigration libertarians ever spend as much time criticizing the police state as they do criticizing “open borders”? They don’t seem to spend much time in articles or blogs doing that. Why don’t they spend more time advocating eliminating the welfare state and the drug war as well? I rarely see, “Get rid of DHS, ICE, BTF, FBI, CIA, DEA, Etc., Etc.,” anymore.

So, to me, the libertarians on the right have become quite irrational and have lost touch with libertarian principles, maybe just as much as the libertarians on the left who have lost touch in their obsession with “social justice” and race and gender, and all that crap.

The Enslavements of Socialism and “Social Justice”

As a follow-up to my recent post on the ignorant socialists on both sides of the same statist coin, liberal and conservative, I wanted to bring up the libertarian view of the non-aggression principle and self-ownership. You own yourself and your life and morally if we want a peaceful, civilized society, then be peaceful, don’t initiate aggression against others. And a part of all that is private property rights. Don’t steal, don’t defraud, as well as don’t commit acts of aggression against others.

But socialism is when the government takes ownership of the means of production, industry and property, and actually consists of the violation of the individual and is when one’s life and labor do not exist for one’s own benefit (or for the benefit of those of one’s voluntary choosing) but for the benefit of others as determined by bureaucrats, by the rulers, against the will of the people. In contrast, actual free-markets (or free-market “capitalism”) consist of not just privately-owned property and industry but voluntary exchange, in which you own your own life and labor. As I wrote in a post that I recently linked to,

“Owning people” doesn’t fit into capitalism. “Owning people” is what the State does under socialism. If by “capitalism” you mean “free market capitalism,” then the “capitalists” do not “own” — nor can claim any kind of ownership of — their workers, their employees. In actual free-market capitalism, no one is forced to have any association with or to do any labor for any employer one doesn’t want to work for. In free-market capitalism, your contracts with other associates or your employers are voluntary, and you are free to go work elsewhere if you don’t like that employer. In a free system, you own yourself.

Claiming actual ownership of others is the enslavement of them. And that’s what socialism does, by the State’s (regardless of its using the rhetorical guise “the public”) seizing ownership of industries, wealth and “the means of production,” which includes the people. The people are the most important amongst the means of production.

And by the State’s “seizing ownership of industries,” I am referring also to control. If the State takes control over your supposedly privately owned business or property (with regulations, mandates, restrictions, etc.) then that is the indirect way of the State’s seizing ownership. If you don’t fully control your own property, and another entity has forcibly seized control over it, then you don’t really own it.

Besides the purpose of forced redistribution of wealth in the name of equalizing inequality, socialism is also used to forcibly advance a social agenda. So some people won’t like my examples here, but that’s because a lot of people have been indoctrinated with social “justice” propaganda, but here goes:

One example is the civil rights stuff that now has expanded to include LGBT “rights” against “discrimination” as well as by race or sex. In recent years we have heard about same-sex couples suing photographers, florists and bakers who didn’t want to do work for the couples’ weddings.

Now, why does the baker or florist have a right to not do business with someone he doesn’t want to do business with? Because his business is his own private property. He owns the business, not the government, and not the “public.” The “civil rights” laws say that the business is a “public accommodation,” but the public does not own the business. And therefore members of the public do not have a right to order the owner of the business to serve those he doesn’t want to do extra labor to serve. It has to do with private property rights and freedom of association.

And it has nothing to do with the religion of the Christian baker, for example, and his religious beliefs regarding homosexuality or gay marriage. It has to do with the self-centered couples using the armed powers of government courts to force the businesspeople to show an acceptance of the customers’ lifestyles. These have been cases of extreme narcissists who believe that they have a right to force others to do extra labor to serve them, period, in my view.

Unfortunately, many conservatives, who have been opposed to the LGBT agenda and have been supporting the private businesses who don’t want to serve same-sex couples, don’t understand the principles of private property rights and freedom of association, and freedom of thought and conscience behind all these cases. It seems to me that the conservatives have also been covetous when it comes to using the powers of government to advance their social agendas.

The conservatives believe that the businesspeople’s religious beliefs are what need to be protected here, and that is not the case. What if an atheist baker refused to serve a Christian couple? I don’t believe the conservatives would support the baker. They would probably support the Christian couple. So the conservatives also believe that in some cases people have a right to use government courts to force businesspeople to serve others they don’t want to serve. No, it has to do with private property rights and freedom of association. If you’re an atheist baker and don’t want to serve a Christian couple, then of course you have a right to refuse to serve them. It’s your business, not theirs.

Another example is the transgender bathroom/shower controversy. Some states now allow someone who is male but thinks he’s a female to go into the ladies room, and vice versa. In some states, if you complain about it (that is, if you are a lady who doesn’t want males in the ladies room while you’re in there, or if you’re a parent who doesn’t want an obvious male going into the ladies room while your little girl is in there, and so on), you could be fined a lot of money and even arrested and thrown in jail.

And that is just how narcissistic some people are. You see, someone who has this confusion with his gender, he’s a male and thinks he’s a female but rather than causing him to feel uncomfortable going into the men’s room he now has the power to make a bunch of women and girls feel uncomfortable while he goes into their ladies room. So by law they must accept his gender confusion that he has. They must accommodate him.

And all that stuff, as well as all those “civil rights” laws, applies to privately owned property as well as public property or government buildings. So yes, these policies are another aspect of socialism, in which the government is essentially stealing ownership of private property away from the owners-on-paper.

Incidentally, in Massachusetts there is a ballot question this November to repeal such a law that Republican Gov. Charlie Baker signed into law. In New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state, Republican Gov. Chris Sununu also signed a similar bill into law. Sununu is up for reelection as is Charlie Half-Baker.

The same kinds of enslavements occur in other areas of life, such as medical care. Do you have a right to force a medical doctor or private hospital to care for you? No, of course you don’t. No one has a “right” to health care. If you have a right to have something provided to you, then you have a right to demand that producers must do extra labor to serve you.

As I wrote in a 2012 article, “If someone chooses to be a medical doctor, devotes hours and hours every day and years of intensive study and labor toward training to become a medical doctor, then who is it that owns such efforts, labor, energy and the actual career itself? That doctor? One’s neighbors? The government?” I hope the question answers itself.

And why is medical care so expensive, anyway? When did it really start to become expensive? Well, after Medicare and Medicaid were imposed on the people by bureaucrats who wanted to solve a problem that didn’t exist, that’s when!

So here is a list of articles on why socialized medicine doesn’t work, and never will work, and is immoral as well. And they will help to explain why Bernie Sanders’s plans or Evita Ocasio-Cortez’s plans for “single payer”also will not work. Just study the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and, worst of all, the U.K.

And if the government doesn’t outright own all the means of production and industry as in socialist societies, a word for the public’s or government’s seizing control over privately owned property or businesses is “fascism.”

However, as I mentioned above, if you don’t have control over something you supposedly “own,” then you don’t really own it. So the above cases are really varieties of socialism, in which the government has a de facto ownership of all property. Check out Lew Rockwell’s book, Fascism versus Capitalism, as well as Socialism: an Economic and Sociological Analysis by Ludwig von Mises.

The conservatives and nationalists, by the way, also do not understand, or they have an outright contempt for, private property and free markets like the people on the left. With the immigration issue, the anti-immigration crowd says that businesspeople, professionals and laborers must get a government bureaucrat’s permission to move about to get work or establish voluntary contracts to make a living.

So, with such controls in the name of “protecting the nation,” the government has a de facto ownership over people’s lives, property, and contracts. And, like the so-called “progressives” and social activists, these nationalistic anti-property, anti-freedom policies are also out of envy and covetousness.

And that applies to the trade issue as well. Donald Trump and his sheeple are anti-free trade, and they want the U.S. government to determine who may buy what and for how much and from whom. So this government-controlled trade stuff is also fascist, and thus a part of socialism. You don’t really own your money or your contract that you would have with a seller, the seller doesn’t really own his goods or services that he’s selling. The government has the ultimate, de facto ownership.

Otherwise, in a free society without those governmental intrusions, you would buy something from Sweden, China or Iran and at whatever price the seller is selling it for, and no third party interferes with that contract. That’s the free market, baby. Crony protectionists like Donald Trump don’t like that kind of freedom.

And by the way, if American producers don’t like consumers buying stuff from other countries, then produce better stuff and lower your prices! And if the prices have to be higher to afford the costs of production because the government imposes taxes and regulations, then tell the government to remove those taxes and regulations!

The consumers are essentially enslaved by the bureaucrats in charge and their cronies whose profits are protected by the armed force of government.

Why Do Conservative Libertarians Support the Immigration Police State?

Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation has this excellent article pointing out supposedly libertarian conservatives’ cognitive dissonance in their claiming to be libertarians, claiming to believe in private property rights and the non-aggression principle, yet supporting the government immigration controls including the police state along the border (and the police state within the country as well).

Hornberger writes:

Whenever you see an article or a speech advocating immigration controls by a conservative libertarian, you will notice one glaring feature, without exception: the absence of any mention of the death, suffering, and the police state that inevitably accompany a system of immigration controls. There is a good reason for that silence: the conservative libertarians do not want libertarians to know that the system they are advocating for the libertarian movement comes with death, suffering, and a police state.

Hornberger says he is a “limited-government libertarian” (as opposed to a zero-government libertarian or a voluntaryist. I am a voluntaryist).

There actually are prominent libertarians who have been with the libertarian movement for decades and who claim to be “anarcho-capitalists,” but because of their belief in “preserving our culture,” or preserving our American culture, whatever that is now, these so-called anarcho-capitalist and conservative libertarians seem to tacitly support the current immigration police state, government central planning in immigration, and the central planners in Washington and their attempts to control the movements of millions of people, something which central planners can never do. However, those prominent anarcho-capitalists do not openly state their defense of such government controls, but such support is nevertheless implied in their articles and speeches, in my view.

Hornberger lists the several problems with government immigration controls that conservative libertarians seem to be supporting:

1. Fixed highway checkpoints. These are located on domestic highways. Federal agents stop domestic travelers who have never crossed into Mexico. They ask them questions. If people refuse to answer their questions, the agents will break their car window, drag them out of their car, and beat them up…

2. Warrantless trespasses onto farms and ranches within 100 miles of any U.S. border. No search warrants. No probable cause. No reasonable suspicion…

3. Roving Border Patrol checkpoints…

4. Violent government raids on private businesses, ones in which the business owner has decided to use his own money to enter into mutually beneficial labor relations with citizens of foreign countries. That’s what a police state is all about.

5. Forcible governmental separation of children from their parents…

6. Forcible deportations of people who are engaged in purely peaceful acts, such as exercising the fundamental God-given rights of pursuing happiness and entering into mutually beneficial economic relations with others. That’s what a police state is all about.

7. The construction of a Berlin Fence and the proposed construction of a Berlin wall along the U.S.-Mexico border…

8. Border Patrol agents boarding Greyhound buses in cities and towns within 100 miles of any U.S. border, which they are now doing all over the United States. They are targeting Hispanics and anyone else who doesn’t look like a genuine American and demanding to see their papers…

9. Complete searches of body and vehicle at international crossing points, including body cavities after the person is required to completely disrobe in front of federal agents…

In my view, the real answers to the immigration problems in Amerika are ending the drug war, dismantling the welfare state or at least not letting immigrants get government welfare, and, most of all, full decentralization of this entire territory, which, as I have repeatedly stated, is just too damn big a territory to be one single country!

More Articles

John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute says, You want to make America great again? Start by making America free again. “If citizens cannot stand out in the open on a public sidewalk and voice their disapproval of their government, its representatives and its policies, without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment with all its robust protections for free speech, assembly and the right to petition one’s government for a redress of grievances is little more than window-dressing on a store window: pretty to look at but serving little real purpose.”

James Bovard on “believe women”: Apply the Christine Blasey Ford test to TSA’s female victims.

Jacob Hornberger with some lessons from Khashoggi’s disappearance, including that the U.S. government needs to end all foreign aid, or its “government-to-government bribe to ensure loyalty.”

Laurence Vance asks, What should be illegal?

Justin Raimondo on the Saudi collapse.

And Zero Hedge with an article on the FBI concealing evidence that “directly refutes” the premise of Trump-Russia probe.

Loyola University Professor Walter Block Boycotted by Hysterical Snowflakes

Target Liberty informs us that Loyola University, New Orleans economics professor Walter Block is being boycotted by students, based on their erroneous view that he is “racist” and “sexist,” and based on his being smeared by the New York Times as “pro-slavery.” Walter Block is really anti-slavery, because he is against involuntary labor.

And Dr. Block responds to those hysterical students in this article, responding to their accusation of being “pro-slavery”:

What about slavery? My reputation in this regard is based on an interview with the New York Times. I was trying to explain libertarianism to them. I emphasized that voluntarism was crucially important to the NAP. Rape and ordinary sexual intercourse may look alike, but one is voluntary, the other is not. The same with a punch in the nose. It is legitimate in the boxing ring since both parties consented, but not otherwise. It is the same with slavery. If someone (an adult) assents to it, slavery is legitimate. Actual slavery, of course, was not voluntary, since the victim did not agree to any such thing. It was therefore evil and pernicious. Why might a person volunteer to become a slave? One possibility, extreme masochism (don’t knock this; our Jesuit tradition recommends toleration). Another, to save his child’s life. My son, God forbid, has an illness the cure of which would cost $5 million. I’m poor. If someone offers me that amount of money to become his slave, I’d willingly sell myself to him, since I value my son’s life more than my own freedom.

And in response to the students who want to boycott Walter Block and his classes at Loyola University, Robert Wenzel at the aforementioned Target Liberty writes:

The students boycotting Dr. Block will never do anything impressive on the intellectual front. They will be moved by the intellectual fads of the day. They will be anti-plastic straw today, and who knows, maybe pro-butt tattoos tomorrow. They are in an important way insignificant. The student that takes Dr, Block’s class to challenge him or learn from him is taking the first step toward deep thought, independent thought and maybe original thought. This will be the type of person that may make an intellectual contribution down the road.

Walter Block is considered by some to be a radical libertarian. He believes in the non-aggression principle. So, he’s not really radical. In my view, violence is radical. I’m sure that those who actually do have an open mind will check out some of Walter Block’s publications, which include these:

Defending the Undefendable

The Case for Discrimination

Building Blocks for Liberty

The Privatization of Roads and Highways

Elizabeth Warren’s Unwarranted Wage

Labor Relations, Unions and Collective Bargaining: A Political Economic Analysis

Is There a Human Right to Medical Insurance?

Defending the Undefendable II

Other Walter Block Publications

More recently, on the LewRockwell.com blog David Gordon of the Mises Institute congratulates Walter Block on his 100th peer-reviewed journal article he has co-authored with students (not including all the ones he has done alone or with other authors). And Tom Woods does a podcast with Dr. Block on his recent milestone, and lists those 100 papers.

Why Conservatives Are Socialists

I have written quite a few posts and articles on the immigration issue now. More recently I responded to Lew Rockwell’s reiteration of his and Hans Hoppe’s claim that “taxpayers own public property.”

But I wanted to clarify here how the nationalists who oppose freedom in immigration, labor and employment are really socialists in their wanting central planners to take charge over who is “allowed” to enter the territory, regardless of what private property owners want.

The nationalists such as Donald Trump and conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh want to require that people have citizenship in the U.S. to qualify for this or that, or to work, etc. And my contention is that you can’t have both a “free market” and a requirement of citizenship at the same time. It’s either one or the other.

You see, the nationalists and conservatives want to continue keeping foreigners from entering “our” country without the permission of the central planners in Washington. And they say that you don’t “belong” in the country unless you have citizenship. So this citizenship thing really is an authorization.

But I thought all human beings had “unalienable rights,” among them the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those are rights which preexist the formation of any government, and which preexist the formation of a country as well. Right?

Do people have a right to exist and live their lives as granted to them by the ruling bureaucrats? Or do they have a right to exist and live their lives, period? As long as one is peaceful, of course. As Leonard Read would say, Anything that’s peaceful (.pdf).

In the rights to life and liberty one has a natural right to self-ownership. And for those who reject the idea of natural rights, I get that, and will say that we have freedom, period. Until someone comes along and violates that freedom.

And what is the “free market”? It is a market that is free of external intrusions or violations, i.e. governmental restrictions, prohibitions, mandates, controls, reporting requirements, tax-thefts, etc. It is also a market that is not restricted by a government-drawn border. If this person over here wants to trade with that person over there, they trade. As long as they are peaceful. That’s the “free market.” And third parties may not intrude.

But the “citizenship” requirement makes the traders not self-owners but owned by the government. You may not even be in the territory unless you have “authorization,” that is, no longer a self-owner. And that is a part of the nationalists’ belief in some kind of communal ownership of the entire territory by the citizens (or by “taxpayers”). But, if you have a communal ownership of an entire territory, then those who think they own “private” property within the territory are mistaken. Because with the idea of “authorized citizens” who communally own the territory is their ownership (or control) of all “private” property within the territory, each business, residence, etc. In my view, control is a de facto ownership.

And all this is what socialism is. Another example is the drug war that most conservatives love. When the government dictates what you may or may not put into your own body, then the government has a de facto ownership of your body. One of the most important means of production is the people, which includes their physical bodies. When there is private ownership of the means of production the individual owns one’s own body. And that is where the principle of non-aggression comes from, by the way. The individual has self-ownership and the physical aggression against one’s body by others is a violation — but, in statist theory, not entirely a violation if the aggressor claims to be the actual owner, such as the government in its enforcement of dictating to you what drugs or foods you may or may not put into your own body. The drug war is a socialist crusade by intrusive social activists who covet the lives and bodies of others, in my view.

In regards to the immigration issue and trade and commerce, the collectivist conservatives and nationalists want to arrest “unauthorized entrants” even if they are acting peacefully, and the collectivists want to arrest businessmen who employ the peaceful, non-criminal workers even if the employers are being peaceful. This is not an example of the “free market.” This is a socialist utopia. It is utopia because this scheme of government control doesn’t even work!

A free market is not under the control of the community, as though the community in general takes part in the ownership of each business or each worker’s life within the community. A free market is not under the control of government bureaucrats or their armed enforcers. A free market is controlled by the legitimate owners who own the property being traded, including the businesses and the labor of the workers. Free traders do not need permission from outsiders or third parties who are not a part of the voluntary contracts established by the traders. And again, traders also include people selling their labor to others.

And this doesn’t just apply to the immigration issue. Any kind of trade, or peaceful, mutually beneficial activity.

The anti-market people on the nationalism side are advocating socialism, which is government ownership of the means of production. The private ownership of the means of production is not divided by government borders. The separation or dividing up of the means of production by that which is within the border and that which is outside the border is socialism, because those in charge (government rulers and bureaucrats) have seized control (i.e. ownership) over the means of production. In their dictating to businesses whom the businesses may or may not hire the bureaucrats are seizing control (i.e. ownership) over the businesses.

In a free market, business owners hire whomever they want. They are the authorities over their own businesses, not bureaucrats. No need for government authorization. And I think there is a kind of envy going on with the police-statists’ desire to arrest honest businesspeople for hiring “unauthorized workers.” That’s just my view on that.

As far as what is causing so many people to take the nationalist-collectivist view, and in a deeply emotional way? Who knows? And it’s definitely an emotional thing. Nationalism does not seem to be rational, in my view.

The American Founders were not nationalists, by the way. They were individualists. They (supposedly) believed in individual liberty and private property, not some kind of collective ownership of property.  And they were not authoritarians in the political sense. They believed in bottom-up rule, not top-down rule. Those who were nationalists at the time of the American Revolution were loyal to their nation at the time, the British regime. They were the ones who turned in “traitors” (i.e. the Revolutionaries). As written in the Declaration of Independence, the early Americans wanted immigrants to come and they complained about the British King’s interference in that matter.

Note: This post was slightly edited (with 3 words added) since originally posted.

Against the Centralized Powers in Bureaucracy, DC

Robert Wenzel discusses how some libertarians are joining the chorus in calling for the feds to use antitrust laws to investigate social media companies including Google and Fakebook. Among other things, Wenzel states:

It is particularly absurd for libertarians, who should be anti-government to their core, to call on the government to help them in their battles. These “libertarians” don’t get the essence of liberty. They do not understand the problem of government. That government central control of any kind creates a power source that the worst in society will work to control and over time do.

And that those libertarians should grow up.