White, Right, and Libertarian

Chase Rachels

Copyright © 2018 Christopher Chase Rachels
All rights reserved.
ISBN-13: 978-1979796521
ISBN-10: 1979796521

FOREWORD

The social theory sailing nowadays under the label “Austro-Libertarianism” has a long and prominent history going back many centuries, culminating during the second half of the 20th century in the work of Murray N. Rothbard, and continued today by his various intellectual disciples and students (including myself). The theory provides a simple, argumentatively irrefutable (without running into contradictions) answer to one of the most important questions in the entire field of the social sciences: How can human beings, “real persons,” having to act in a “real world” characterized by the scarcity of all sorts of physical things, interact with each other, conceivably from the beginning of mankind until the end of human history, peacefully, i.e., without physically clashing with one another in a contest or fight concerning the control of one and the same given thing?

Put briefly, the answer is this: Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, clashes regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual or group of individuals. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and I ever clashing.

And who owns what scarce resource as his private property and who does not? First: Each person owns his physical body that only he and no one else controls directly. And second, as for scarce resources that can be controlled only indirectly (that must be appropriated with our own nature-given, i.e., un-appropriated, body): The right to exclusive control (property) is acquired by and assigned to that person who appropriated the resource in question first or who acquired it through voluntary (conflict-free) exchange from its previous owner. For only the first appropriator of a resource (and all later owners connected to him through a chain of voluntary exchanges) can possibly acquire and gain control over it without conflict, i.e., peacefully. Otherwise, if the right to exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers, conflict is not avoided but, contrary to the very purpose of norms, made unavoidable and permanent.

Formulated as a principle: You shall not aggress against another person and his justly acquired property and you may use physical violence exclusively in defense of persons and property against an aggressor.

In his previous book, A Spontaneous Order: The Capitalist Case For A Stateless Society, Chase Rachels has given a brilliant exposition of the Austro-libertarian social theory and carefully explained the inner workings of an anarcho-capitalist social order.

While the importance of this “Austro-libertarian” insight can hardly be overrated, it is just as important to recognize what questions this theory does not answer.

When we look at the real world we cannot but notice that it is distinctly different from a libertarian social order. And yet the libertarian theory in itself does not entail an answer as to why this is so—except to conclude that people apparently are not intelligent or willing enough to recognize and embrace its truth—and consequently, how to actually achieve the ultimate libertarian end of a Stateless society from some distinctly un-libertarian starting point. Nor does the theory imply much if anything concerning the question of how to maintain a libertarian social order once achieved and make it sustainable. To answer these questions pure theory is insufficient and must be complemented by empirical study. One must turn from pure theory to human history, psychology and sociology.

Unfortunately, all-too-many self-proclaimed libertarians have neglected or refused to do so and naively embraced the currently reigning—and only “politically correct”—view that all people and in particular all groups of people are essentially equal as regards their mental and motivational make-up, and that any observable inequalities are either the result of mere accident and circumstance or past injustice and as such can and should be made good by some corrective, “equalizing” measures.

The acceptance of this belief in the empirical equality and hence, the interchangeability, substitutability and replace-ability of all people and all groups of people, has led many libertarians—the now so-called “left”-libertarians—to endorse and promote the very same agenda pursued presently, more or less vigorously, by the ruling elites all across the Western World (are they all secretly libertarians?): of multi-culturalism, unrestricted “free” immigration, “non-discrimination,” “affirmative action” and “openness” to “diversity” and “alternative lifestyles.”

Given this curious programmatic alliance between left-libertarians and the ruling elites, it is not entirely surprising that, notwithstanding the dearth of any outstanding left-libertarian intellectual talent, the “elite” main-stream media (MSM) has attentively followed and reported on their every position-paper or pronouncement and thereby helped create the impression in the public mind that left-libertarianism is libertarianism.

At the same time, to the same effect and equally unsurprising, the very same MSM systematically ignored the contrary fact—or else deliberately misconstrued and misrepresented it—that left-libertarianism, already at its first public appearance, had come under heavy attack from Murray Rothbard, the very founder and fountainhead of modern libertarianism, as only fake-libertarianism. Owing to their patently false, unrealistic assumptions concerning the nature of man, he had pointed out,1 the very means and measures advocated by left-libertarians for the attainment of libertarian ends were false as well. In fact, given the libertarian end, they were counter-productive and would lead to more conflict and infringements of private property rights.

Real libertarians—in contrast to left-libertarian fakes—must study and take account of real people and real human history in order to design a libertarian strategy of social change, and even the most cursory study in this regard—indeed, little more than common sense—yields results completely opposite from those proposed by libertarian fakes.

While members of the same species, men (including women) are strikingly different and unequal from one another. Not just individually, one man from another, but also collectively, one group of men connected more or less closely by a commonality of language, religion, culture and custom from another group of men with another language, religion, culture and custom. (Hardly surprising, if one considers the fact that all present people are typically the descendants of people that have lived far apart from each other going back hundreds or even thousands of years and thus formed separate and distinctly different gene pools!)

More to the point and just as obvious: Men, not only individuals considered in isolation, but also groups of individuals considered as communities or cooperatives, with their various languages, religions, cultures and customs, display significant differences and inequalities as regards the degree of conformity of their conduct with libertarian principles.

While no society can do without some degree of conformity to the libertarian non-aggression principle (NAP) at least insofar as its internal relations are concerned—that is: there can be no society that allows for a “free-for-all” of murder, homicide, battery or the “taking” of other persons’ things -, the degree of conformity displayed by different societies or communities is strikingly different. Some appear like permanent war-zones or lawless hell-holes filled with brutality and cruelty, whereas others, at the other (positive) end, approach the libertarian ideal quite closely (say, Liechtenstein).

Viewed from a global macro-perspective, it should be obvious also (especially to a libertarian), that all great libertarian thinkers which successively and gradually built up the system of libertarian law and order have been “Western Men”, i.e., men born and raised in countries of Western and Central Europe or their various overseas dependencies and settlements and intellectually and culturally united by a common lingua franca (once Latin and now English) and the trans-national Catholic Church or, more lately and vaguely, a common Christianity. That it is in these Western societies, where libertarian principles have found the most widespread public acceptance and explicit recognition as “natural human rights.” That, notwithstanding their blatant shortcomings and failings, it is Western societies, then, that still resemble, comparatively speaking, a libertarian social order most closely. And finally (unsurprisingly insofar as the widespread recognition and explicit acceptance of the NAP by the members of a society are signs of a comparatively high(er) intelligence and impulse control) that it is these societies, then, that also are the technologically and economically most advanced.

These observations alone should be sufficient to reveal any libertarian advocate of “free,” unrestricted and non-discriminatory immigration of non-Westerners into the countries of the West as a fool. Every such immigrant—not to speak of mass-immigration—poses the risk of further diminishing and undermining the already limited freedom and private property protection presently enjoyed in the West. To prevent this, any libertarian worthy of the name must instead advocate the strict and utmost discrimination vis-à-vis any potential immigrant—he might be an avowed communist or socialist or import his familiar hell-hole culture into one’s own midst—and from the very outset he must be strictly opposed in particular to any form of mass-immigration. As well, he should begin to realize that the Western ruling elites currently promoting immigration from non-Western countries are not motivated by libertarian ends, but by a calculated desire of using foreign immigrants as vehicles for the further expansion of their own domestic power, reach and level of interference with the private property rights of domestic residents.

As well, when we shift from a macro- to a micro-perspective and look only at any particular Western society (say, the US or Germany), we reach similar and further specified and refined conclusions concerning libertarian strategy.

Each of these Western societies is ruled by some different gang of people in control of some separate, geographically defined State; and each State-gang claims, concerning everyone and everything on “its” territory, then, that only it, i.e., only State-gang members, are authorized to act as ultimate legal authority, judge, enforcer and executioner in any conflict or contest of wills. In short: each separate State-gang claims and exercises a territorial monopoly of aggressive violence against “its” own private people and property.

No State currently ruling over different parts of the Western World achieved this rank and position as ultimate judge and executioner immediately and at once, however. It took hundreds of years to bring this about and replace or displace a once, for a lengthy period in Western history, highly decentralized system of social authority with the present system of centralized and monopolized State authority.

For much or even most of the European middle-ages no State and State authority existed. All authority was social authority. There were hierarchies of authority: heads of family households, priests, bishops and a distant pope; patrons, lords and over-lords; and countless different and separate communities, religious, social and professional orders, assemblies, guilds, societies, associations and clubs, each with its own rules, hierarchies and rank-orders. But no authority was absolute, and no one and no one group of people held a monopoly on its rank or position of authority. Even feudal kings could be called upon and brought to justice by other, competing authorities.

The strategy that any would-be-State promoter had to pursue, then, and that all Western States continue to pursue today, has been dictated by this quasi-libertarian medieval starting point. In a nutshell, it boils down to the rule: You (the State) must undermine, weaken and ultimately destroy all competing authorities and hierarchies of social authority. Beginning at the highest levels of authority and from there on successively down, ultimately to the most elementary and decentralized level of social authority invested in the heads of individual family households, you (every Statist) must use your own initial authority to undermine all rival authorities in stripping away their right to include and exclude, i.e., their right to determine autonomously who is a member and who is not, what the eligibility requirements for membership are, and which conduct is or is not in accordance with its own membership rules and may result in various penalties ranging from admonishment or warning to outright exclusion or expulsion.

Kings must no longer be allowed to freely determine who is another king or the next king, and who can or cannot come before them for justice and assistance; and assemblies of kings must no longer be allowed to determine who to include or elevate to their own rank and who to exclude or demote. Likewise, for any separate community, association, order, club, etc.: No one must be free to autonomously determine its own rules of admission and exclusion. And ultimately so also for all individual family households: No head of household must be allowed to set down his own house-rules governing the admission to his house and the conduct of all household members. In sum: Free association and dis-association (separation) of people in physical space and free affiliation and dis-affiliation of people through shared or un-shared memberships in various organizations must go.

And how to achieve this? By enlisting the support of everyone resentful of not being included or promoted in some particular association or organization or for being expelled and excluded from them. Against this ‘unfair’ discrimination you, the State or would-be State, must promise the excluded ‘victims’ to help get them in and get them a ‘fair’ and non-discriminating treatment in return for their binding affiliation with you. On every level of social authority, you must encourage and promote deviant behavior (behavior preventing inclusion or leading to exclusion) and then use these deviants to undermine any authority other than your own. Free association and affiliation must be replaced by forced integration and forced affiliation—euphemistically called multiculturalism and affirmative action.

In light of these observations, it should become rather obvious why the left-libertarian program does not and cannot achieve the libertarian end of a State-less social order, but, to the contrary, will lead to a further expansion of monopolistic State powers.

“Free” mass immigration from the non-Western world, “multiculturalism,” “affirmative action,” “non-discrimination,” the propagation of “openness” to “diversity” and “alternative life-styles,” to “feminism” and “gay- and transgender-ism,” and of “anti-authoritarianism,”—they all are and must be seen as means to further diminish whatever little discretionary, discriminatory and exclusionary powers still remain in Western societies in the hands of non-monopolistic social authorities, and to correspondingly expand and increase the powers centralized, concentrated and monopolized in the hands of the State.

✽✽✽

For more than two decades, following in Rothbard’s footsteps, I have tried to get libertarianism right again—most prominently with my Democracy: The God That Failed (2001)—in complementing libertarian theory with social realism (history, psychology and sociology), and to rescue libertarianism from left-libertarian flakes and fakes and repair the public misperception that they are and represent what libertarianism is all about. The reaction to these endeavors—in particular Rothbard’s and mine—from the side of left-libertarians has been furious. This notwithstanding, however, they were instrumental in that today, among self-described libertarians, left-libertarianism is in retreat, while the influence of realistic-right libertarianism has steadily grown.

Throughout the entire period, the Ludwig von Mises Institute—mises.org—and Lew Rockwell—lewrockwell.com—have stood out as bulwarks against the infiltration of libertarianism by leftist thought. As well, Ilana Mercer has been an early critic of left-libertarianism with her paleo-libertarian blog—barelyablog.com. More recently, outlets for explicitly and decidedly anti-leftist libertarian thought have proliferated. There is “Bionic Mosquito” (D. A.) with his blog—bionicmosquito.blogspot.com. There is Sean Gabb’s and now Keir Martland’s British Ludwig von Mises Centre—mises.uk.org. There is C.Jay Engel’s blog—austrolibertarian.com. There is Matthew Reece’s site—zerothposition.com—and Chase Rachels’ RadicalCapitalist.org. There is Stefan Molyneux with his show on freedomainradio.com and Tom Woods with his show on tomwoods.com. There is Robert Taylor’s excellent and highly important book Reactionary Liberty: The Libertarian Counter-Revolution (2016). And now, with Chase Rachels’ new book White, Right, and Libertarian, there is another brilliant, must-read contribution to getting libertarianism realistic and right again.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an Austrian School economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher, Professor Emeritus of Economics at UNLV, Distinguished Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute, founder and president of The Property and Freedom Society, former editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, and a lifetime member of the Royal Horticultural Society.

REFERENCES

1. Murray Rothbard, “Big-Government Libertarians,” in: L. Rockwell, ed., The Irrepressible Rothbard, Auburn, Al: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000, p. 100–115.

WHAT ANARCHO-CAPITALISM IS

The “anarcho” prefix in “anarcho-capitalism” refers to anarchism. There is much debate over what the defining elements of anarchism are, but virtually all conceptions entail a society without a State (not necessarily without a government more broadly conceived). The State is that institution in a given geographical area which asserts a monopoly over the creation, interpretation, and enforcement of law. The laws it enacts supersede the rules made by any other person or organization within its jurisdiction. The State is the ultimate arbiter in all cases of interpersonal conflict, including those involving its own agents (the conflict of interest should be apparent). Lastly, the State reserves the unique legal privilege to lay taxes, i.e. to coercively demand payment for its so-called “services” and unilaterally set and alter the levels thereof. The aforementioned characteristics are inherent to all States no matter their particular type or configuration. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has this to say about the State’s monopolistic nature:

...among economists and philosophers two near-universally accepted propositions exist:
1. Every ‘monopoly’ is ‘bad’ from the viewpoint of consumers. Monopoly is here understood in its classic meaning as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service, or as the absence of ‘free entry’ into a particular line of production. Only one agency, A, may produce a given good or service, X. Such a monopoly is ‘bad’ for consumers, because, shielded from potential new entrants into a given area of production, the price of the product will be higher and its quality lower than otherwise, under free competition.
2. The production of law and order, i.e., of security, is the primary function of the state (as just defined). Security is here understood in the wide sense adopted in the American Declaration of Independence: as the protection of life, property, and the pursuit of happiness from domestic violence (crime) as well as external (foreign) aggression (war). Both propositions are apparently incompatible with each other. This has rarely caused concern among philosophers and economists, however, and in so far as it has, the typical reaction has been one of taking exception to the first proposition rather than the second. Yet there exist fundamental theoretical reasons (and mountains of empirical evidence) that it is indeed the second proposition that is in error.1

The “capitalism” suffix indicates the anarchic society specified is that of a free market capitalist variety. Under anarcho-capitalism, all scarce goods (to include land and other means of production) are subject to private ownership. Since capitalism simply refers to that economic environment where the means of production are privately owned, this system would be capitalist by default. It is, however, important to note that private ownership of a good does not necessarily entail it is owned only by a single individual. Two or more people may be partial/joint private owners of a scarce good (as is the case with corporations, co-ops, partnerships... etc.). To privately own something simply means having an exclusive right to utilize, occupy, or employ it, whereas there exist non-owners who have no such right. A “right” simply refers to that which one may justifiably employ force to defend or seek retribution for its violation.

THE PROBLEM OF SOCIAL ORDER: SCARCITY

The problem of social order arises when two or more people want to use the same good in incompatible ways. Goods which have the capacity for mutually exclusive usage, and whose demand exceeds their availability, are said to be “scarce.” It is due to such scarcity and the desire to avoid violent interpersonal conflict that property norms are developed. Hoppe expounds:

To develop the concept of property, it is necessary for [economic] goods to be scarce, so that conflicts over the use of these goods can possibly arise. It is the function of property rights to avoid such possible clashes over the use of scarce resources by assigning rights of exclusive ownership. Property is thus a normative concept: a concept designed to make a conflict-free interaction possible by stipulating mutually binding rules of conduct (norms) regarding scarce resources.2

In addition to helping avoid conflict, such property norms serve as the legal basis for adjudicating interpersonal disputes. That is, for determining who the victim(s) and perpetrator(s) are in any given (violent) conflict and what measures should be taken to most approximately restore the victim and penalize the aggressor.

Thus, the scope of political philosophy is confined to one simple question: when is the use of force justified? As noted earlier, force is only justified in response to rights violations, and one’s rights are determined by prevailing property norms. In essence, to determine when the use of force is justified and who the victim and aggressor are in any given conflict, one must discover who owns what.

THE PRIVATE-PROPERTY ETHIC

The particular property norm which serves as the core of anarcho-capitalism is the “private property ethic.” As alluded to earlier, this ethic states that all scarce goods (including land and other means of production) are subject to private ownership, given they are acquired via original appropriation or voluntary exchange. Original appropriation/homesteading states that the first user and claimant of a previously unowned good is that good’s rightful owner. Physical possession, transformation, emborderment, etc. are examples of homesteading acts. (It should be noted that creation has nothing to do with establishing ownership, as nothing is truly created nor destroyed but merely transformed.) Since this method of property acquisition awards ownership to the first user, it is necessarily conflict-free. Voluntary exchange is the second just means of property acquisition. This entails that one came to own something via its prior owner voluntarily (contractually) transferring title to him. Being voluntary, this method is likewise free of conflict. Of course, alternative property norms exist, yet none fulfill the purpose of action norms as completely as the private property ethic. Hoppe explains:

Contrary to the frequently heard claim that the institution of private property is only a convention, it must be categorically stated: a convention serves a purpose, and it is something to which an alternative exists. The Latin alphabet, for instance, serves the purpose of written communication and there exists an alternative to it, the Cyrillic alphabet. That is why it is referred to as a convention. What, however, is the purpose of action norms? If no interpersonal conflict existed—that is: if, due to a prestabilized harmony of all interests, no situation ever arose in which two or more people want to use one and the same good in incompatible ways — then no norms would be needed. It is the purpose of norms to help avoid otherwise unavoidable conflict. A norm that generates conflict rather than helping to avoid it is contrary to the very purpose of norms. It is a dysfunctional norm or a perversion... With regard to the purpose of conflict avoidance, however, the institution of private property is definitely not just a convention, because no alternative to it exists. Only private (exclusive) property makes it possible that all otherwise unavoidable conflicts can be avoided. And only the principle of property acquisition through acts of original appropriation, performed by specific individuals at a specific time and location, makes it possible to avoid conflict from the beginning of mankind onward, because only the first appropriation of some previously unappropriated good can be conflict-free—simply, because— per definitionem—no one else had any previous dealings with the good.3

THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE AND SELF-OWNERSHIP

From the private-property ethic, one may deduce both the non-aggression principle (NAP) and the principle of self-ownership. The non-aggression principle condemns all acts of aggression as unjust and criminal (i.e. violating property rights). Aggression, in this context, is defined as the uninvited initiation of physical interference with the persons or property of others or threats thereof. The principle of self-ownership stipulates that one is and can only be the sole owner of his own physical body. This reveals an important nuance in the anarcho-capitalist conception of private property.

Property rights over a scarce good are accorded to one who can demonstrate a superior objective link to it. Special consideration must be made in regard to one’s own physical body, as such a link is demonstrated by his uniquely direct control over it. That is to say, one controls or manipulates his body by will alone. For this reason, he is exempt from having to establish a property right over it through acts of homesteading or voluntary exchange. Conversely, one may control external goods only indirectly. He cannot control or manipulate external goods by will alone, but instead must employ the medium of his own body or some other good. Hence, the need for him to establish a superior objective link between himself and external goods through acts of original appropriation or voluntary exchange if he is to be recognized as their legitimate owner.4

LOGICAL ERRORS OF THE STATE

If the State is charged with protecting the property of its citizenry, then it must be categorically stated that any attempt to do so can only end in contradiction. As stated earlier, an inherent characteristic of any State is that it must lay taxes in order to fund its operations. Taxes themselves are nothing more than threats to initiate uninvited physical interference with the persons and/or property of others if they do not hand over X amount of money. Recall, threats to initiate uninvited physical interference with the persons or property of others is considered aggression. Simply stated: taxation is theft. Thus, the State cannot make any attempts to protect the property of its citizenry without first violating it on a mass scale. Therein lies the State’s most glaring contradiction. Hoppe has this to say:

Rather, the state unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can change them, per legislation, during the game. Obviously, such behavior is inconceivable for freely financed security providers. Just imagine a security provider, whether police, insurer, or arbitrator, whose offer consisted in something like this: “I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what specific things I will regard as your to-be-protected property, nor will I tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you —but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service.” 5

Another issue involved with taxation is that it manifests the economic calculation problem. Since the State’s revenue comes from theft, as opposed to voluntary patronage, it cannot determine the most economic ways to employ its “services”, ways which would otherwise be indicated by profits and losses. The State is invariably in a position where it must make arbitrary, therefore uneconomic, decisions regarding what products/services to offer, where to offer them, how to produce them, how much to produce, what materials to produce them with, etc. More disturbing still is the fact that, had such resources not been wasted on Statist objectives, they could have otherwise been allocated towards productive market ends.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Of course, some will attempt to justify the State’s existence by claiming society is bound by a “social contract.” That for the same reason a restaurant owner may expect payment from a customer after he enjoys a meal, so too can the State expect payment for the “services” it renders. However, this is a faulty analogy for two reasons:

First, the State must commence in mass theft before it can provide anything. It would be more analogous to say the restaurant owner stole your money upfront but is willing to offer a consolation prize of some food. In actuality, one makes an individual choice to go to a restaurant and is only serviced upon his specific request. This is in distinct contrast to the State which offers a slew of unrequested “services” (some of which one may not even enjoy) and then expects payment in full.

Second, the restaurant owner presumably acquired his restaurant via original appropriation or voluntary exchange. As such, he is the legitimate owner of the goods and services he provides and is accordingly in a proper position to expect payment from his willing customers. In contrast, the State did not acquire the property for which it asserts jurisdiction via original appropriation or voluntary exchange (or if it did purchase property, then it did so with funds stolen through taxes), thus it has absolutely no legitimate authority.

ANARCHO-CAPITALISM IS TOLERANT

In an anarcho-capitalist society, anyone can live in any way they see fit so long as they refrain from committing aggression as previously defined. If they would like to voluntarily pool their property with others to form mutualist enclaves, conservative covenants, or socialist communes, then such is their prerogative. The greatest variety of lifestyles are permitted under an overarching anarcho-capitalist legal system.

THE UTOPIAN ALLEGATION

Anarcho-capitalism is not a utopian philosophy. No claim that crime or hardship will be eliminated is being made. Rather, what is being asserted is that an anarcho-capitalist legal system is superior to all others for the ends of peace, cooperation, and prosperity. That in this truly free market environment, the self-interests of individuals are harmoniously aligned with the welfare of greater society.

REFERENCES

1. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “State or Private Law Society?” (lecture presented at Mises Brasil, São Paulo, Brasil, April 9, 2011).

2. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Property, Contract, Aggression, Capitalism, Socialism” in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics (Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1989), 18.

3. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “State or Private Law Society?” (lecture presented at Mises Brasil, São Paulo, Brasil, April 9, 2011).

4. For a rational proof of the private property ethic, NAP, and self -ownership see Chapter 1 of A Spontaneous Order: The Capitalist Case For A Stateless Society.

5. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “State or Private Law Society?” (lecture presented at Mises Brasil, São Paulo, Brasil, April 9, 2011).

THE LIBERTARIAN CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS

INTRODUCTION

Immigration is one of the most hotly debated topics in libertarian circles, and understandably so. The heated disagreements concern what immigration policies most closely align with libertarian principles of justice given a Statist paradigm. Of course, no such policies will attain the purity of justice that would result from the absolute privatization of all public goods/services coupled with the elimination of the State. However, the purpose of this essay is to make a case for what the “next best” (a.k.a next most libertarian) solution is.

Keep in mind, recognizing a particular solution to the issue of immigration as next best is no more an endorsement of it than recognizing Trump as a lesser evil than Clinton would be an endorsement of Trump. Tragically, it seems unlikely that a fully privatized or anarcho-capitalist society will emerge in the near future, thus discussing such a next best solution is a worthy endeavor. This essay was largely inspired by the works of Hans-Hermann Hoppe and, to a lesser extent, Stephan Kinsella. However, Walter Block and others have put forth valid critiques of their positions, in light of which I have modified my own stance accordingly.

A CRITIQUE OF OPEN STATE BORDERS

Ironically, the completely unrestricted “open State borders” position is a one size fits all statist solution that would be unjustly imposed upon all domestic tax-paying/property-owning citizens. In contrast, the “invite only” immigration restriction proposed herein is the one most in line with private property rights and libertarian principles. It recognizes that domestic tax-payers/property-owners (and other victims of aggression by the State in question) are the legitimate joint private owners of all developed or improved upon State “public-property” and, as such, any uninvited foreign invader must necessarily be guilty of trespass (i.e. a property violation). Further, it takes the question of whether a particular foreigner should be welcome out of the hands of the State and places it into the hands of its respective individual property owning domestic citizens. This is a far more decentralized solution than the unconditional “open State borders” one.

Some additional complications that would arise from unconditionally open state borders include the heavy strain the resulting mass influx of immigrants would have on the welfare system. This would greatly increase the demand for such programs which would inevitably result in their expansion and, by extension, the State’s. The negative effects of such a policy are further compounded so long as anti-discrimination laws are in place which entail private establishments facing State compulsion to employ, serve, cater, and rent to said foreign invaders. Such forced integration would cause social tension to abound between the foreign invaders and domestic citizens. The cumulative effect of all the preceding issues will result in a substantial increase in aggressive conflict between domestic citizens and the State, foreign invaders and domestic citizens, and foreign invaders and the State.

WELFARE USAGE. Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) 1

Proponents of the “open State borders” position may desperately claim: “at least our proposal doesn’t involve aggression on part of the State!” Unfortunately, they are mistaken here as well. An open State border policy would entail the State having its agents employ aggression against individuals who attempt to rightfully evict uninvited foreign invaders from their joint private property (a.k.a “public” property). Such eviction attempts would incorrectly be interpreted as assault in the eyes of the State as opposed to a justified defense of one’s own property.

Under a paradigm of restricted borders, foreigners convicted of such invasion should be responsible for more than the mere physical damage they may have caused to “public” property during their trespass. They should also be held liable for the violation of trespass itself as Rothbard explains:

....direct trespass: A rolls his car onto B’s lawn or places a heavy object on B’s grounds. Why is this an invasion and illegal per se? Partly because, in the words of an old English case, ‘the law infers some damage; if nothing more, the treading down of grass or herbage.’ But it is not just treading down; a tangible invasion of B’s property interferes with his exclusive use of the property, if only by taking up tangible square feet (or cubic feet). If A walks on or puts an object on B’s land, then B cannot use the space A or his object has taken up. An invasion by a tangible mass is a per se interference with someone else’s property and therefore illegal.2

Finally, it should be noted that to aggressively displace the private ownership of land and subsequently open it up to indiscriminate access is the epitome of socialism wherein the tragedy of the commons takes full effect. This is precisely the situation open State border proponents are calling for (whether wittingly or unwittingly).

FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT

If one had to identify the root of discord between libertarians on this topic, it would be their differing views on whether “public” property should be seen as unowned, or the private, albeit diffused, property of domestic net tax payers (and other net victims of the given State’s aggression). Those who hold the former position will draw vastly different conclusions than those who hold the latter. However, the latter position appears to be sounder once one considers what fundamentally determines another’s property right to a particular good: his/her superior objectively verifiable link to it. For external goods, libertarians recognize that such a link can only be established via original appropriation/homesteading/first use (physical transformation, emborderment, first possession) or voluntary exchange. The State has completed this homesteading for much of the land it claims (though not all, of course, as there exists plenty of “virgin” land which may be properly identified as unowned), but was only able to do so by first generating the requisite funds via taxes. Thus, such “improved upon public property” belongs to the net tax payers who funded its development. It is they who can demonstrate a superior objective link between themselves and the goods in question with respect to foreigners whom the State in question has had no aggressive interaction. Hoppe elaborates:

The fundamental error in this argument, according to which everyone, foreign immigrants no less domestic bums, has an equal right to domestic public property, is Block’s claim that public property ‘is akin to an unowned good.’ In fact, there exists a fundamental difference between unowned goods and public property. The latter is de facto owned by the taxpaying members of the domestic public. They have financed this property; hence, they, in accordance with the amount of taxes paid by individual members, must be regarded as its legitimate owners. Neither the bum, who has presumably paid no taxes, nor any foreigner, who has most definitely not paid any domestic taxes, can thus be assumed to have any rights regarding public property whatsoever.3

I would only amend Hoppe’s stance slightly by saying a foreigner who has been subject to aggression by the State in question has a valid claim to its illegitimate property as a form of (albeit imperfect) restitution. He then proceeds to refute the claim that free trade and free immigration are analogous:

Free trade and markets mean that private property owners may receive or send goods from and to other owners without government interference. The government stays inactive vis-à-vis the process of foreign and domestic trade, because a willing (paying) recipient exists for every good or service sent, and hence all locational changes, as the outcome of agreements between sender and receiver, must be deemed mutually beneficial.... people, unlike products, possess a will and can migrate. Accordingly, population movements, unlike product shipments, are not per se mutually beneficial events because they are not always—necessarily and invariably—the result of an agreement between a specific receiver and sender. There can be shipments (immigrants) without willing domestic recipients. In this case, immigrants are foreign invaders, and immigration represents an act of invasion.4

ANARCHO-CAPITALIST HYPOTHETICAL

Prior to delving into the case for a “next best” solution, it would behoove one to consider some relevant aspects of an anarcho-capitalist (An-Cap) society. First, in such a society there would be no “free immigration.” People would only be able to travel through/on property by first attaining the respective owner’s permission to do so. As Hoppe has correctly recognized, the result will be some residential or commercial areas being more inclusive and others more exclusive. Moreover, all property owners would have the right to evict trespassers from their land regardless of whether the trespasser used any force against the owner himself or any other residents. Keep this point in mind for when the “next best” solution is discussed in the following section.

It is also important to ask by what method could formerly “public/state property” be privatized in a manner that most closely aligns with libertarian justice in this hypothetical An-Cap society? Hoppe has this to say on the matter:

The former taxpayers, in accordance with their amount of local, state, and federal taxes paid, should be awarded tradable property titles in local, state, and federal streets. They then can either keep these titles as an investment, or they can divest themselves of their street property and sell it, all the while retaining their unrestricted right-of-way.
The same essentially applies to the privatization of all other public goods, such as schools, hospitals, etc. As a result, all tax payments for the upkeep and operation of such goods stop. The funding and development of schools and hospitals, etc., is henceforth solely up to their new, private owners. Likewise, the new owners of such formerly ‘public’ goods are those residents who actually financed them. They, in accordance with their amount of taxes paid, should be awarded saleable property shares in the schools, hospitals, etc. Other than in the case of streets, however, the new owners of schools and hospitals are unrestricted by any easements or rights-of-way in the future uses of their property. Schools and hospitals, unlike streets, were not first common goods before being turned into ‘public’ goods. Schools and hospitals simply did not exist at all as goods before, i.e., until they had been first produced; and hence no one (except the producers) can have acquired a prior easement or right-of-way concerning their use. Accordingly, the new private owners of schools, hospitals, etc., are at liberty to set the entrance requirements for their properties and determine if they want to continue operating these properties as schools and hospitals or prefer to employ them for a different purpose.5

To amend Hoppe’s position once more (and he may have implicitly intended this), it should be net taxpayers who, in this hypothetical An-Cap society, would receive saleable shares in accordance with how much taxes they paid on net (tax contributions minus received subsidies, grants, welfare..etc.). One who agrees this method is the optimum way to privatize “public goods” in so doing implicitly recognizes that such domestic net taxpayers have a superior claim to domestic “public property” with respect to foreigners whom the given State has had no aggressive interaction. Otherwise, he would prefer all public property be “up for grabs” upon the State’s elimination.

That said, anyone who can demonstrate a particular public good was taken from him or his ancestor in title via aggression (as is the case with eminent domain) would first be re-awarded title to said good prior to the enactment of the privatization model depicted above. Murray Rothbard elaborates:

It might be charged that our theory of justice in property titles is deficient because in the real world most landed (and even other) property has a past history so tangled that it becomes impossible to identify who or what has committed coercion and therefore who the current just owner may be. But the point of the “homestead principle” is that if we don’t know what crimes have been committed in acquiring the property in the past, or if we don’t know the victims or their heirs, then the current owner becomes the legitimate and just owner on homestead grounds. In short, if Jones owns a piece of land at the present time, and we don’t know what crimes were committed to arrive at the current title, then Jones, as the current owner, becomes as fully legitimate a property owner of this land as he does over his own person. Overthrow of existing property title only becomes legitimate if the victims or their heirs can present an authenticated, demonstrable, and specific claim to the property. Failing such conditions, existing landowners possess a fully moral right to their property.6

It is at this point that one may object that, in this hypothetical An-Cap society, a more appropriate form of restitution to tax payers than shares of formerly “public” property would be the money stolen from them along with added interest for the inconvenience and violations suffered from its deprival. However, this presents a couple of issues. First, the State will most likely not have enough money to repay all of its tax victims what they are owed in full. Second, even if in some bizarre twist it did have all their money, it would be impossible for the State to pay everyone back with interest as this would necessarily deplete its funds before all its victims could be made whole, so to speak. That is to say, all of the State’s money and assets originate in theft, so the best it could possibly do, even theoretically, is return exactly what it stole.

When delving into the details of how such a privatization would be executed, one must remember this is strictly a technical matter (and one whose market solution cannot be predicted in advance) not a legal one. The libertarian legal solution simply requires the State to accord its victims a proportion of its assets corresponding with their degree of violation suffered, yet limited enough to where others equally or more greatly victimized may be afforded the same or greater levels of restitution. Put more simply, restitution should be distributed such that those more greatly victimized receive more than those victimized less. The result may fall short of perfect restoration, but it would be the closest approximation of justice with respect to the existing stock of State assets to be dispersed.

Perhaps the victims would be given a choice to either accept shares in the formerly “public” goods to hold onto as investments or to have said shares auctioned off so as to receive a monetary sum in their stead.

NEXT BEST SOLUTION

The following proposal and its format closely resemble that of Hoppe’s. It is a two-pronged approach composed of corrective and preventative measures to address the issue of immigration.

Corrective

The corrective measures are intended to address the effects of forced integration that have already occurred. Such measures are hardly controversial within libertarian circles but are nevertheless worth mentioning. First and foremost, would be the privatization of as many public goods as possible. This would effectively mitigate the issues of immigration as there would be less public areas to immigrate to. Of near equal importance would be the repeal of anti-discrimination, affirmative action, and other such legislation which inhibits an individual’s ability to discriminate with his private property.

This would greatly reduce the negative effects of any forced integration brought on by the invasion of uninvited foreigners. A less obvious measure would be to pursue a truly free trade policy. If foreigners are able to trade with domestic citizens without being penalized by tariffs and/or other State measures designed to artificially disadvantage them, then the demand to immigrate will decrease ceteris paribus. Next would be political decentralization. For instance, it would be better for Texas and its taxpaying residents to determine immigration policies that affect their territory than the federal government, and better still for the county and its tax paying citizens to determine such policies for their territory and so on until all such questions are handled by the individual with respect to his own (personal) property. Finally, foreigners, whether invited or uninvited, should be barred from voting and having access to tax-funded welfare programs or subsidies of any kind. This too will decrease the demand to immigrate.

WELFARE USAGE. Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) 7

WELFARE USAGE. Households with one or more children. 8

Preventative

When considering measures designed to prevent forced integration, it is important to consider which of them would most closely correspond with the desires of taxpayers who have a diffuse, yet valid, private claim to the public property “stewarded” by the State. Stephan Kinsella offers us his insight in the following:

Private property is the only way to objectively and efficiently allocate capital. But some rules are better than others; and one reasonable rule of thumb used to judge the validity of a given usage rule for a publicly owned resource is to ask whether a private owner of a similar resource might adopt a similar rule
...I would prefer the public property be returned as restitution to the victims and the mafia called the state disbanded. Barring that, so long as they hold property rightfully ‘owned’ by me and others to whom the state owes damages/restitution, I would prefer property they own to be used only for peaceful purposes of the type that would exist in the free market (can any libertarian seriously deny that it’s objectively better for the state to build a library or park on public property than an IRS office or chemical weapons factory?). I would prefer rules to be set regarding the usage of these resources so that they are not wasted, and so as to act in a reasonable manner like private owners would...
....But what actual rules should we prefer? Here I think we start to veer from libertarianism into the realm of personal preference. I would not want the feds to allow any and all comers onto federal property, for the reasons mentioned above — I believe it would reduce the utility of public property, and impose costs (such as forced integration).9

Just as an open State border policy would entail forced integration/inclusion it is also important to prevent the State from enacting a policy of forced exclusion. That is, preventing foreigners from visiting who have been invited by a domestic property-owning/tax-paying citizen. Hoppe elaborates:

Now, if the government excludes a person while there exists a domestic resident who wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion; and if the government admits a person while there exists no domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is forced integration. Moreover, hand in hand with the institution of a government comes the institution of public property and goods, that is, of property and goods owned collectively by all domestic residents and controlled and administered by the government. The larger or smaller the amount of public-government ownership, the greater or lesser will be the potential problem of forced integration
...by proceeding on public roads, or with public means of transportation, and in staying on public land and in public parks and buildings, an immigrant can potentially cross every domestic resident’s path.10

The solution, then, is to make any foreigner’s entry contingent upon a domestic property-owning citizen’s invitation. The inviter would need to provide the visiting foreigner with some proof of the invitation so that a third party may determine whether he is an invited guest or an uninvited trespasser. A public record of such invitations may be kept so as to impose additional social/economic pressures on domestic citizens to not haphazardly invite those who may be dangerous, aggressive, or otherwise undesirable. Hoppe expands on the nature of such invitations in the following:

Valid invitations are contracts between one or more private domestic recipients, residential or commercial, and the arriving person. Qua contractual admission, the inviting party can dispose only of his own private property. Hence, the admission implies negatively—similarly to the scenario of conditional free immigration—that the immigrant is excluded from all publicly funded welfare. Positively, it implies that the receiving party assumes legal responsibility for the actions of his invitee for the duration of his stay. The invitor is held liable to the full extent of his property for any crimes the invitee commits against the person or property of any third party (as parents are held accountable for the crimes of their offspring as long as they are members of the parental household). This obligation, which implies practically speaking that invitors will have to carry liability insurance for all of their guests, ends once the invitee has left the country, or once another domestic property owner has assumed liability for the person in question (by admitting him onto his property).
The invitation may be private (personal) or commercial, temporally limited or unlimited, concerning only housing (accommodation, residency) or housing and employment (but there cannot be a valid contract involving only employment and no housing). In any case, however, as a contractual relationship, every invitation may be revoked or terminated by the invitor; and upon termination, the invitee—whether tourist, visiting businessman, or resident alien—will be required to leave the country (unless another resident citizen enters an invitation contract with him).11

Until now, the “property (real estate) owning” aspect of invitors has not been remarked upon. Such invitors would be in a unique position to invite a prospective foreign visitor with respect to non-property owning domestic citizens as the former can rightfully offer the foreigner a place with which to reside during his stay. Even renters may only be able to do this with the consent of their landlords. Similarly, a foreigner may only acquire citizenship by first purchasing real estate in the host country. Hoppe explains:

The invitee may lose his legal status as a non-resident or resident alien, who is at all times subject to the potential risk of immediate expulsion, only upon acquiring citizenship. In accordance with the objective of making all immigration (as trade) invited contractual, the fundamental requirement for citizenship is the acquisition of property ownership, or more precisely the ownership of real estate and residential property.
...Rather, becoming a citizen means acquiring the right to stay in a country permanently, and a permanent invitation cannot be secured other than by purchasing residential property from a citizen resident. Only by selling real estate to a foreigner does a citizen indicate that he agrees to a guest’s permanent stay (and only if the immigrant has purchased and paid for real estate and residential housing in the host country will he assume a permanent interest in his new country’s well-being and prosperity).12

Some critics of this solution may object by claiming other liberty violating policies, such as drug prohibition, could be justified on similar grounds. This is a seemingly plausible yet erroneous conclusion. Unlike the aforementioned immigration restrictions, a policy of universal drug prohibition may very well violate the property rights of domestic citizens who have a valid private claim to “public” property, due to their status as tax paying and/or property-owning citizens. Admittedly, this does imply that those who, in combination, have a majority stake in “public” property (owing to their higher net tax expenditures) can justly regulate its use in such a way that impacts their fellow domestic citizens/property owners or valid foreign claimants. (However, one would still have to consider what easements or other access any minority owner of “public” property would be entitled due to his status as a partial owner).

However, such regulations could certainly never be justly applied to any individual’s personal private property. In distinct contrast, it is quite clear that a prospective foreign visitor/invader (that has not been aggressively victimized by the State in question) has no valid claim/link to domestic public property as he does not pay domestic taxes for its maintenance, protection, and upkeep nor does he have residence in the host country. Thus, there exists no principled conflict with subjecting him to immigration restrictions.

Foreigners should also be exempt from having to pay domestic taxes since they are recognized as having no legal claim to “public” resources. Moreover, even if they do happen to pay some domestic taxes, this would not give them a valid claim to public property because a condition of their visit would be that their status as mere visitor would remain intact unless they purchase domestic real estate (again this condition is adopted because it is very likely in accordance with how the majority of private shares would be voted if such a vote were allowed to take place). Such taxes that do happen to be paid by the foreigner, then, would effectively amount to a “visitor’s fee” of sorts and may be refunded to him upon his departure.

At this point, the obvious question of “what should the particular immigration restrictions be?” arises. The first best option would be to have such restrictions determined by net federal taxpayers (or victims of federal aggression) for federal property, net state taxpayers for state property, net county taxpayers for county property...etc. Though it wouldn’t be “one person one vote” but rather one tax dollar paid on net one vote (or something similar to this). Thus, different people would carry different voting weight in a manner similar to the governance of a corporation. The second-best option would be for immigration to be by invite only as described above. Unfortunately, both these first and second-best solutions are unlikely to come to fruition. The third best option, then, is to impose border restrictions that one may predict, with relative certainty, are in accordance with how the vast majority of shares to State “public” property (a.k.a joint private property) would be voted if such a vote were allowed to occur. This would, at the very least, entail barring violent criminals from entry. Moreover, because the State’s victims are in fact the private, albeit diffused, property owners of what is mislabeled “public property”, one may conclude that it would be in accordance with their will to bar those openly hostile towards the institution of private property itself (e.g. socialists) from immigrating.

Walter Block was able to detect a valid flaw in the immigration restrictions proposed by Hoppe and Kinsella: that they would entail a positive expenditure of State resources which are ultimately expropriated (stolen via taxes) from its citizens. That they are irrationally attempting to utilize the State to solve a problem created by itself:

Being a victim of the state in no way entitles someone to use the state against anyone else. Since socialist policies are such an inefficient drain on the economy, it is inevitable that people’s grievances will far outweigh the capacity of the state to compensate them. Moreover, the state does not have its own resources and it can only ‘compensate’ people by robbing from others.13

However, what Walter Block and perhaps even Hoppe failed to realize is that immigration restrictions need not be enforced by the State. Private citizens may form organizations like the Minuteman Project to patrol the borders and other “public” areas for potential uninvited foreign invaders. If any foreigner is unable to produce verifiable evidence that he was invited by a domestic property-owner, then members of such organizations may rightfully evict (or to use Hoppe’s catchphrase: physically remove) these trespassers. In this way, such immigration restrictions may be enforced without requiring extra involvement or expenditures by the State. Finally, such private organizations would only be permitted to patrol “public” property and personal private property whose respective owner granted express permission.

ADDENDUM: ANSWERS TO COMMON OBJECTIONS

Response to general objections

At the very least, one must recognize, in principle, that the billions who have not been victimized by a particular State have zero claim to its illegitimate property, whereas those who have been aggressed upon by said State do have a valid claim.

Having difficulty imagining the technical application of this principle does not make it any less sound. Perhaps one may disagree with the outline of how it might be implemented described above (market activity cannot be predicted with absolute precision in advance), but he should sincerely ask himself whether the underlying principle is in error.

Libertarian justice requires restitution for private property violations. Thus, so long as the State and its illegitimate property are not privatized out of existence (the ideal solution), then the next best approximation of libertarian justice is to manage said property in a manner that is in accordance with the will of its victims (a.k.a the legitimate joint private owners thereof).

To say otherwise only adds injury upon injury to the current set of a given State’s identifiable victims. Remember, people also had difficulty imagining the technical solution to how cotton would be picked after the abolition of slavery, but that did not alter the fact that slavery is principally unjust.

“If one has a valid private claim to the State’s ‘public property’ does that mean he can make an open invitation to all non-claimants thus effectively opening state borders?”

No, because he wouldn’t be able to afford the liability insurance premiums such an open invitation would entail. To elaborate, because libertarians are in a position of having to come up with a next best solution, they must approximate how the majority of ownership shares would be voted if such a vote were allowed to take place (remember some individuals have more shares/claim than others due to their greater net tax payments or aggressive victimization by the State in question). Admittedly, one cannot predict the exact outcome of such votes, hence why the solution offered herein is next best and not perfect. (It is important to note that the completely open state border solution is the furthest removed from the principles of libertarian justice.)

However, one can say with near certainty that a policy of “anyone and everyone should have unfettered access and/or use of our joint private property (‘public property’)” would be the most disagreeable solution for the vast majority of shares (and shareholders).

Likewise, a policy of “any individual joint owner, regardless of the size of his claim, may invite however many people he wishes to our joint private property and have zero liability for any violations to property they may perpetrate during their visits” would also be one of the most disagreeable policies to the vast majority of shares (and shareholders). Hence, one may confidently disregard this proposal as well.

However, a policy of “joint owners may invite whoever they want to our joint private property, but must first acquire liability insurance for their invitees in order to assure restitution can be made to those who may have their persons or property violated by this foreign visitor” is likely far more agreeable to the private joint owners of so called “public” property, and is one that is far more decentralized as it gives each joint owner a large measure of individual discretion over its access.

“Since the U.S. government is in so much debt, does this mean that U.S. residents will get little to no restitution?”

The more important question is “Who owns the debt?” Most of the debt is owned by illegitimate institutions like foreign governments or central banks. Central bank debt (whether foreign or domestic) can be defaulted on without issue because it’s purchased with counterfeit funds. On the other hand, foreign debt involves foreign tax victims. Thus, this may entail that foreign tax victims have some claim to the U.S. government’s illegitimate “public” property in proportion to how much they were extorted from in taxes to purchase said debt. How much domestic residents or foreign victims of U.S. government aggression are owed in restitution is an empirical question. As such, it falls outside the scope of the present topic which is strictly concerned with whether some access restrictions to “public” property are more libertarian than none at all under a Statist paradigm.

“Wouldn’t it be better if the State returned the money it stole from taxpayers as opposed to treating them as the joint private owners of its so-called ‘public property’?”

The first issue with this is that in order for the State to pay person A monetary restitution it would first have to steal from person B via taxes. Even if the State only dipped into its current reserves, it still would not have nearly enough money to pay all the taxpayers however much it stole (let alone whatever interest is owed due to the inconvenience and violation suffered in the interim). Also, this does not address victims aggressed by means other than taxation. Hence, due to the fact that monetary restitution alone would be insufficient in restoring all the victims (and may even be counterproductive if it entails further aggressive redistributions of wealth), it then makes sense to treat these victims as the joint private owners of ‘public property’ as a means of bringing them closer to full restoration. Moreover, even if the given State’s victims could all be fully restored (highly unlikely) without depleting all its illegitimate property, they would still have a greater claim to whatever remained, because they funded its development via taxes.

“I don’t like the fact that other joint owners may override my preferences regarding the access restrictions (or lack thereof) to so called ‘public property’ (a.k.a the joint private property of the victims of State aggression)”

Like any other private, yet jointly owned, enterprise, how the majority of shares are tallied determines policy. If the senior partners at a firm want to go direction X, yet some junior partners want to go direction Y then that firm is going to go direction X. Someone will inevitably be unhappy, but that is the very purpose of property norms: to predictably inform one of whose preference takes precedence when two or more people want to use a given scarce good in mutually exclusive ways.

That said, an invite-only policy still grants every joint private owner of this so called “public” property a large degree of discretion over its use and successfully avoids the pitfall of forced exclusion.

“It would seem the U.S. government’s aggression has affected virtually everyone in the world. Does that mean everyone has some claim to U.S. ‘public property’?”

No, it does not. Being merely affected by aggression is not necessarily the same thing as having been aggressed against. For instance, if a bully broke a small child’s arm then this may affect his parents, but from this it does not follow that his parents were themselves aggressed against by the bully. Aggression, in the context of libertarian legal theory, is strictly defined as the uninvited initiation of physical interference with the persons or property of others or threats thereof. Thus, if a foreigner was merely affected by U.S. foreign policy, yet was not directly aggressed against by agents of the U.S. government, then he has no valid claim to U.S. “public” property.

“I thought this was supposed to be about national borders, but you’re just talking about developed public property!”

So called “public property”, in fact all property, is demarcated by borders. When one speaks about victims of the State only having a restitutive claim to developed “public” property, he is still disputing the notion of “open State borders.” All the boundaries of “public” property, be it a school, hospital, airport, park, .... etc., are “State borders.” In fact, taking the principle underlying the “open State borders” position to its logical conclusion implies anyone and everyone may occupy or utilize public schools, hospitals, parks, airports...etc. in whatever manner they see fit. This is undoubtedly a hellish consequence that could only be genuinely endorsed by the most radical of communists.

“Treating victims of State ownership as private shareholders of its illegitimate property is deficient because true shareholders of a corporation in the market are able to divest themselves of their shares through sale.”

This objection is true as far as it goes but it overlooks the fact that it is critiquing an admittedly next best solution. If these joint owners were actually able to vote with their shares and divest themselves of their ownership, then this would be the very same thing as the perfect solution to “public” property: privatizing everything thus effectively eliminating the State. However, because the victims of the State have no ability to vote in such a manner (and each individual’s voting power is certainly not weighted in accordance with the amount of taxes he has paid to the State on net) then there is no reason to sell shares to other joint owners. Having more shares only matters if you can vote with them. Thus, we are left in the less than ideal circumstance of having to approximate what the results of such a vote would be. The invite-only policy advocated herein is the least presumptive, most decentralized, and certainly more in accordance with how such shares would be voted than the “open State border” policy.

“It seems your proposal requires a central committee to decide who is here rightfully and who isn’t. It also seems like it requires people to purchase liability insurance from one monopolistic agency to cover invited guests. This ‘sounds’ statist.”

This proposal in no way calls for or requires a “central committee” to track who is a valid claimant (joint private owner), invited guest, or uninvited trespasser any more than a single centralized committee/institution is required to maintain the standard definitions of words and produce dictionaries. This is a manipulative and false comparison made to render this proposal more apparently “statist” than it actually is. This strawman critique, often made by libertarians, is odd as it is the same tired strawman argument that is made against our idea of a stateless private/polycentric legal system. In this context, libertarians recognize there needn’t be a single security organization which enforces all “law”, a single arbitration agency which interprets all “law”, a single legal agency which creates all “law”, a single security insurance agency which insures all people, nor a single criminal records bureau which maintains all criminal records. (To discover how standard criminal records may be maintained despite the existence of multiple independent criminal records agencies, read the “law and order” chapter of A Spontaneous Order.) So too does the immigration proposal herein not call for a single monopolistic insurance agency to cover invited foreign guests and/or a single monopolistic security agency to enforce border restrictions.

REFERENCES

1. Camarota, Steven A. “Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native House-holds.” CIS.org, Center For Immigration Studies, 10 Sept. 2015, cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households.

2. Rothbard, Murray. “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution.” Mises Institute. N.p., 17 Apr. 2006. Web. 14 June 2017.

3. Hoppe, 2001. Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order New Brunswick, N.J. Transaction Publishers.

4. Hoppe, “The Case For Free Trade and Restricted Immigration” https://mises.org/library/case-free-trade-and-restricted-immigration-0

5. Hoppe, “Of Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization” http://libertarianpapers.org/article/1-hoppe-private-common-and-public-property/

6. Murray N. Rothbard, “Justice and Property Rights,” in Property in a Humane Economy, Edit. Samuel L. Blumenfeld (Lasalle: Open Court, 1974), 121

7. Camarota, Steven A. “Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native House-holds.” CIS.org, Center For Immigration Studies, 10 Sept. 2015, cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households

8. Camarota, Steven A. “Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native House-holds.” CIS.org, Center For Immigration Studies, 10 Sept. 2015, cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households

9. Kinsella, Stephan. “A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders .” LewRockwell.com, 1 Sept. 2005, archive.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella18.html

10. Hoppe, “The Case For Free Trade and Restricted Immigration” https://mises.org/library/case-free-trade-and-restricted-immigration-0

11. Hoppe, “The Case For Free Trade and Restricted Immigration” https://mises.org/library/case-free-trade-and-restricted-immigration-0

12. Hoppe, “The Case For Free Trade and Restricted Immigration” https://mises.org/library/case-free-trade-and-restricted-immigration-0

13. Block, Walter E. “On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe.” Mises Institute,30 July 2014, mises.org/library/immigration-reply-hoppe WELFARE USAGE. Households with one or more children.8

FOR A “LIBERTARIAN ALT–RIGHT”

INTRODUCTION

In response to the acceleration of the Western world’s leftward trend, the paleo-conservatives and paleo-libertarians have risen from the ashes in the form of the controversial and rapidly growing Alternative Right (Alt-Right). This movement has been mercilessly condemned by the Left, the media, and the mainstream or neo-conservative Right since its inception. However, this attention has only added fuel to its growth and popularity as a large portion of the American population’s trust for politicians, academia, and the mainstream media (MSM) is at an all-time low. This is likely due to the elite’s ever increasing and blatant erosion of the very traditional Western institutions which made America great.

The focus of the Alt-Right has almost exclusively been a cultural one. They have correctly diagnosed the cultural ailments of society, yet many seem confused as to which political or economic principles are most conducive to setting Western civilization back on course to be the beacon of prosperity and progress it once was.

Conversely, many libertarians have focused exclusively on sound political and economic principles, whilst neglecting or dismissing the role traditional Western values play in enabling their practical implementation in the real world. They seem to be under the delusion that, for instance, the cultural values of the average Afghan are no less conducive to one’s willingness to subscribe to libertarian and capitalist principles than the average American’s...etc. Such neglect has hamstrung the ability of many libertarians to move from the realm of theory to application. Tragically, in their naive and misguided attempt to prove their principles to be universally acceptable, they have compromised on the fundamentals to achieve a broader multicultural appreciation. Of course, when the ideological core is compromised, the philosophy itself loses its value as being sound, rational, and practical.

Hence, the focus of this work is to demonstrate that not only are the Alt-Right and libertarianism compatible, but they are, in fact, complementary and symbiotic. That they are distinct, yet mutually reinforcing in that they supply the missing components in what the other is lacking for each of their realization. That what is needed is more than an alliance, but rather a fusion wherein libertarians become alt-righters and alt-righters libertarians. It is this “libertarian Alt-Right” which offers the best hope against the malignant cancer of both the State and the Left.

DEFINING LIBERTARIANISM

As a strictly legal/political philosophy, libertarianism is only concerned with answering the question: “When is the use of physical force (or threats thereof) justified?” The answer is entirely contingent on the property norms upon which the given legal system is grounded. Proper libertarianism, i.e. anarcho-capitalism, is defined by the particular property norms to which it subscribes: the private property ethic. This ethic states that all scarce goods, including land and other means of production, are subject to private ownership (i.e. the right of exclusive use/control) provided they are acquired via original appropriation/homesteading (i.e. the first user rule) or voluntary exchange. That any uninvited physical invasion/interference with the persons or property of others, or threats thereof, is considered an act of aggression and thus justifies responsive force against the perpetrator, whether aimed at defensive or retributive ends.

Many alt-righters are unaware of the concerted effort to pervert and “thicken” libertarianism, typically with the intent to make it more palatable to the Left. Some, like the self-described left-libertarians, engage in these efforts deliberately whilst others (sometimes referred to as “lolbertarians” or “lolberts” for short) are led astray due to ignorance and an unrefined understanding of the fundamentals. Left-libertarians seek to achieve this perversion by regrounding libertarianism in the more obscure and manipulable concepts of “freedom”, “social equality”, and “anti-exploitation” while at the same time confusing libertarianism’s strictly political individualism with a hyper-individualism.

DEFINING THE LEFT AND RIGHT

At this juncture, it behooves one to examine what is meant by the terms “Left” and “Right” (at least in their contemporary American sense). These terms denote dispositions ranging from culture, politics, and economics. To help add clarity to this distinction, I’ve crafted a chart which illustrates the respective attributes of both the Left and Right. The chart lists the attributes on a spectrum and explains how one may still be considered overall Right or Left despite having some individual Leftist or Rightist beliefs. When one tallies his score for each attribute he can determine approximately how far to the Left or Right he is overall (moreover, if one considers any pair of attributes a false dichotomy, then he may pick a position on both without affecting the ultimate score). The chart is neither perfect nor exact, but it does provide a clear picture of the general differences between each wing of thought.

DEFINING THE ALT-RIGHT

Owing to the immense stigma and propaganda surrounding the Alt-Right, it would likewise behoove one to review a coherent definition of its nature. Hoppe, true to form, provides such a trenchant explanation in the following:

Alt-Righters are not united by a commonly held theory, and there exists nothing even faintly resembling a canonical text defining its meaning. Rather, the Alt-Right is essentially united in its description of the contemporary world, and in particular the US and the so-called Western World, and the identification and diagnosis of its social pathologies. In fact, it has been correctly noted that the Alt-Right is far more united by what it is against than what it is for. It is against, and indeed it hates with a passion, the elites in control of the State, the MSM and academia. Why? Because they all promote social degeneracy and pathology. Thus, they promote, and the Alt-Right vigorously opposes, egalitarianism, affirmative action (aka “non-discrimination”), multiculturalism, and “free” mass immigration as a means of bringing multiculturalism about.

As well, the Alt-Right loathes everything smacking of cultural Marxism or Gramsciism and all “political correctness” and, strategically wise, it shrugs off, without any apology whatsoever, all accusations of being racist, sexist, elitist, supremacist, homophobe, xenophobe, etc., etc. And the Alt-Right also laughs off as hopelessly naïve the programmatic motto of so-called libertarians such as the Students for Liberty (which I have termed the “Stupids for Liberty” and my young German friend Andre Lichtschlag as “Liberallala-Libertarians”) of “Peace, Love, and Liberty,” appropriately translated into German by Lichtschlag as “Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen.” In stark contrast to this, Alt-Righters insist that life is also about strife, hate, struggle and fight, not just between individuals but also among various groups of people acting in concert. ‘Millennial Woes’ (Colin Robertson) has thus aptly summarized the Alt-Right: ‘Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilization is precious. This is the Alt-Right.1

TRADITIONAL WESTERN VALUES

To this definition, it should be added that the Alt-Right promotes Western Civilization and, by extension, the traditional Western values and institutions which undergird it. These include, but are not limited to (though some alt-righters may disagree): political individualism, rationalism, personal responsibility, low-time preference, capitalism, ingenuity, and the nuclear family. One could stop here, but it’s important to expand on time preference and the nuclear family a bit more. Time preference is defined by Orwell N’Goode in the following:

One’s time preference refers to how much he values present consumption over future consumption. Someone with a relatively high time preference generally prefers to consume now as opposed to later, even if forgoing immediate consumption would result in a greater number and/or quality of future goods. A relatively low time preference is simply the inverse.2

Thus, low time preference refers to impulse control, prudence, restraint, and self-discipline. This also applies to social interactions, not purely financial ones. Someone with low time preference is more inclined to act with generosity, civility, and integrity towards friends, spouses, and professional associates now for he knows doing so will enhance the long-term value of such relationships by encouraging reciprocal behavior later.

Matthew Dewey defines the nuclear family as “...a monogamous pair bonded couple raising their mutual offspring” and goes on further to claim this institution is “...the first and last defense of private property and, by extension, civilization itself.”3 The family unit itself was born from practicality and necessity. Hoppe explains:

Given the peculiar, parasitic nature of hunter-gatherer societies and assuming land to be fixed, invariably the moment must arise when the number of people exceeds the optimal group size and average living standards will fall, threatening whatever degree of intragroup solidarity previously might have existed... This situation is captured and explained by the economic law of returns...that states that for any combination of two or more production factors an optimum combination exists (such that any deviation from it involves material waste, or “efficiency losses”).

The technological invention, then, that solved the problem of a steadily emerging and re-emerging ‘excess’ of population and the attendant fall of average living standards was a revolutionary change in the entire mode of production. It involved the change from a parasitic lifestyle to a genuinely productive life. Instead of merely appropriating and consuming what nature had provided, consumer goods were now actively produced and nature was augmented and improved upon. This revolutionary change in the human mode of production is generally referred to as the ‘Neolithic Revolution’: the transition from food production by hunting and gathering to food production by the raising of plants and animals... The new technology represented a fundamental cognitive achievement and was reflected and expressed in two interrelated institutional innovations, which from then on until today have become the dominant feature of human life: the appropriation and employment of ground land as private property, and the establishment of the family and the family household.4

Thomas Malthus goes on to explain the rationale for the nuclear family in particular and why it was adopted in the West:

the most natural and obvious check (on population) seemed to be to make every man provide for his own children; that this would operate in some respect as a measure and guide in the increase of population, as it might be expected that no man would bring beings into the world, for whom he could not find the means of support; that where this notwithstanding was the case, it seemed necessary, for the example of others, that the disgrace and inconvenience attending such a conduct should fall upon the individual, who had thus inconsiderately plunged himself and innocent children in misery and want.—The institution of marriage, or at least, of some express or implied obligation on every man to support his own children, seems to be the natural result of these reasoning’s in a community under the difficulties that we have supposed.5

Murray Rothbard provides the following comparative economic analysis of the nuclear and extended family models:

Another primitivistic institution that has been hailed by many social scientists is the system of the “extended family,” a harmony and status supposedly ruptured by the individualistic “nuclear family” of the modern West. Yet, the extended family system has been responsible for crippling the creative and productive individual as well as repressing economic development. Thus, West African development has been impeded by the extended family concept that, if one man prospers, he is duty bound to share this bounty with a host of relatives, thus draining off the reward for his productivity and crippling his incentive to succeed, while encouraging the relatives to live idly on the family dole. And neither do the productive members of the tribe seem very happy about this supposedly harmonious societal bond.6

Finally, Hoppe affirms the peril faced by the nuclear family and its central role in Western civilization:

Hence, as the result of the trans-valuation of all values promoted by the ruling elites, the world has been turned upside down. The institution of a family household with father, mother and their children that has formed the basis of Western civilization, as the freest, most industrious, ingenious and all-around accomplished civilization known to mankind, i.e., the very institution and people that has done most good in human history, has been officially stigmatized and vilified as the source of all social ills and made the most heavily disadvantaged, even persecuted group by the enemy elites’ relentless policy of divide et impera.7

CULTURE

As previously mentioned, the Alt-Right correctly understands that a key ingredient to a peaceful, stable, and prosperous civilization is common culture. Inhabitants of a culturally homogeneous society know what to expect from others and what is expected of them and thus are able to secure a higher social trust with their fellow citizens. This helps mitigate interpersonal conflict, decrease transaction costs, and promote cooperation. In this environment, long term business relationships are more viable which in turn enables the execution of more productive and roundabout production processes. Unfortunately, many libertarians deny the impact that culture has on one’s willingness to adopt libertarian and capitalist principles. They naively believe that such principles are universally and equally acceptable to people of all cultures. Hoppe disputes this idealistic notion in the following:

Many libertarians hold the view that all that is needed to maintain a libertarian social order is the strict enforcement of the non-aggression principle (NAP). Otherwise, as long as one abstains from aggression, according to their view, the principle of ‘live and let live’ should hold. Yet surely, while this ‘live and let live’ sounds appealing to adolescents in rebellion against parental authority and all social convention and control (and many youngsters have been initially attracted to libertarianism believing that this ‘live and let live’ is the essence of libertarianism), and while the principle does indeed hold and apply for people living far apart and dealing with each other only indirectly and from afar, it does not hold and apply, or rather it is insufficient, when it comes to people living in close proximity to each other, as neighbors and cohabitants of the same community.

A simple example suffices to make the point. Assume a new next-door neighbor. This neighbor does not aggress against you or your property in any way, but he is a ‘bad’ neighbor. He is littering on his own neighboring property, turning it into a garbage heap; in the open, for you to see, he engages in ritual animal slaughter, he turns his house into a ‘Freudenhaus,’ a bordello, with clients coming and going all day and all night long; he never offers a helping hand and never keeps any promise that he has made; or he cannot or else he refuses to speak to you in your own language. Etc., etc.. Your life is turned into a nightmare. Yet you may not use violence against him, because he has not aggressed against you. What can you do? You can shun and ostracize him. But your neighbor does not care, and in any case you alone thus ‘punishing’ him makes little if any difference to him. You have to have the communal respect and authority, or you must turn to someone who does, to persuade and convince everyone or at least most of the members of your community to do likewise and make the bad neighbor a social outcast, so as to exert enough pressure on him to sell his property and leave. (So much for the libertarians who, in addition to their ‘live and let live’ ideal also hail the motto ‘respect no authority!’)

The lesson? The peaceful cohabitation of neighbors and of people in regular direct contact with each other on some territory—a tranquil, convivial social order—requires also a commonality of culture: of language, religion, custom and convention. There can be peaceful co-existence of different cultures on distant, physically separated territories, but multi-culturalism, cultural heterogeneity, cannot exist in one and the same place and territory without leading to diminishing social trust, increased tension, and ultimately the call for a ‘strong man’ and the destruction of anything resembling a libertarian social order. 8

NATIONALISM

Black’s law dictionary defines the “Nation” as:

A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty [State].9

This should make clear that a nation does not necessarily entail a State, yet it entails commonality in at least one, but more often a combination, of the following: language, custom, religion, race...etc. Nationalism, on the other hand, simply involves placing a premium on the interests of a particular nation defined as such. Once elucidated, it becomes clear that nationalism is quite natural and harmless. In the contemporary Western world, it is not only tolerated but encouraged for non-whites or people of non-Western descent to embrace a strong sense of nationalism. This is typically extolled as a celebration of beauty found in the diversity of cultures around the world. However, the same such celebration when conducted by White people of European descent is scorned and severely ridiculed as “racist”, “supremacist”, “fascist”, “xenophobic” and a slew of other meaningless yet stigmatized leftist epithets. This has to do with the spread of Cultural Marxism which will be explored in greater depth further on.

COVENANT COMMUNITY

The question now becomes how to form and sustain a stateless nation? One solution is to form contractual covenant communities. When one purchases property in such a community, he does not acquire full ownership. His ownership, instead, is limited to the extent of the community’s covenant conditions. Such conditions may include prohibitions on certain types of public behavior such as lewdness, drug use, drinking, the promotion of aberrant sexual behavior... etc. They may also entail certain requirements relating to the upkeep of one’s lawn etc. Thus, if one violates these conditions, then legal action may be taken against him without violating his private property rights, or the libertarian non-aggression principle (NAP). Many of you may have heard of Hoppe’s infamous remarks regarding the “physical removal” of communists, Democrats, and those who publicly promote homosexuality. However, these remarks were made in the context of a covenant community which prohibited the conduct of such behavior and the entry of such people. Stephan Kinsella elaborates in the following:

...in a private, covenant-based order, one that is not only libertarian but also traditionalist and based on the family-based social unit, people who are openly hostile to the underlying norms of this society would tend to be shunned, maybe even expelled (not aggressively, but consistent with property rights). Some of your uncharitable critics say you [Hoppe] mean that homosexuals themselves would be expelled merely for being gay. I thought what you meant was not gays per se, but rather those people openly hostile to the basic cultural norms of society, who openly and habitually advocate incompatible lifestyles/ideas and against the underlying normative purpose of the community—like a guy who hates science fiction would be out of place at a Star Trek convention. Thus, the gay couple down the street who mind their own business would not be expelled, but only those who are openly hostile to the basic heterosexual or private property basis of society.10

RACE

One of the more noteworthy attributes of the Alt-Right is its explicit interest in the preservation of the White race. But what exactly is race and why does it matter? Eli Harmann provides some insight:

...there is remarkable consistency and repeatability in colloquial understandings of ‘race’ and population geneticists and forensic anthropologists can map these popular conceptions with great accuracy to a variety of objective features which are much more than ‘skin deep’ (genetic markers, bone structure, etc...)
Racial and ethnic demarcations are actually about kinship and relatedness, defining extended human families that share some degree of kinship. Why is this important? Kinship altruism is the norm throughout the animal kingdom, though altruism is rare in other contexts. The main reason is that kinship makes altruism, and its reciprocity, more evolutionarily stable and self-enforcing.

...In a nutshell that’s why race is important, because race is a close proxy for kinship and trust is always higher and transaction costs lower with people who are more akin, along any number of dimensions, but especially genetic. Thus, racial and ethnic criteria are sound, rational, and adaptive criteria for in-group/out-group identification.

This is why ethnocentric cooperation evolved a.k.a in-group preference. This always evolves under a wide variety of conditions and assumptions provide only that reproduction is local (offspring are not randomly distributed geographically but emerge in proximity to parents) and traits are at least somewhat heritable.11

The “White race” essentially refers to European descended people. However, what relationship do White people have with libertarianism? What is the connection? Rik Storey answers:

It has been hypothesized that European libertarian and individualistic cultures and institutions are the result of four socio-biological qualities: IQ, time-preference, testosterone, and psychopathy. It so happens that ethnic Europeans fall between the East Asians (China, Korea and Japan) at the higher end of the spectrum, and the Bushmen and Aboriginal Australians at the other (but far closer to the East Asians) on all these factors. For example, the average East Asian IQ is 110, for Europeans it is 100 and Bushmen average at just over 60. Having a relatively low time-preference and high IQ with moderate levels of testosterone and psychopathy has culminated in a general spirit which was described by Spengler as ‘Faustian’ in its restlessness.12

Finally, Hoppe recognizes the role White people, especially White men, have played in both developing and establishing a libertarian social order:

...libertarianism, as an intellectual system, was first developed and furthest elaborated in the Western world, by white males, in white male dominated societies. That it is in white, heterosexual male dominated societies, where adherence to libertarian principles is the greatest and the deviations from them the least severe (as indicated by comparatively less evil and extortionist State policies). That it is white heterosexual men, who have demonstrated the greatest ingenuity, industry, and economic prowess. And that it is societies dominated by white heterosexual males, and in particular by the most successful among them, which have produced and accumulated the greatest amount of capital goods and achieved the highest average living standards.13

DEVELOPING A STRATEGY WITH RACE IN MIND

In America, an incredible 94% of libertarians are White (it is important to note that, unlike most other surveys that rely upon mere self-identification, participants were asked a series of policy questions to verify their libertarian bona fides) and 68% are male.14 Anyone who dismisses this as mere coincidence is either a liar or a useless idiot for the Left. To a libertarian with common sense, this would cue him to take deliberate measures to protect White people, especially White men, from systematic legal and social targeting. Hoppe affirms this in the following:

...any promising libertarian strategy must, very much as the Alt-Right has recognized, first and foremost be tailored and addressed to this group of the most severely victimized people. White married Christian couples with children, in particular if they belong also to the class of tax-payers (rather than tax-consumers), and everyone most closely resembling or aspiring to this standard form of social order and organization can be realistically expected to be the most receptive audience of the libertarian message.15

WHITE GENOCIDE

Another oft ridiculed topic earnestly discussed by the Alt-Right is that of “White Genocide.” It would benefit one to clarify what exactly “genocide” is to dispel some common misconceptions:

Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation . . . It is intended to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feeling, religion, and the economic institutions and systems of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

... In any case, it is the point (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, that is the main aspect of ‘White genocide’.

If we observe what is happening in the Western world, we can witness that there is in fact a policy of relentless massive Third World immigration into the vast majority of White countries, and only White countries. These open border policies, combined with forced assimilation and legally forcing White areas to become more ‘diverse’ (meaning less White people and a blended humanity in the vast majority of and only White countries), is what qualifies current goings-on as (White) genocide as defined by Article II part (c) of the United Nations Genocide Convention, because these deliberate policies are inflicting on our people conditions of life calculated to bring about our physical destruction in whole or in part.16

Socially, one may witness efforts towards these ends taking place through the popular diminishing of marriage, endorsement of interracial relationships, promotion of homosexuality, advocacy of abortion, and the encouragement of transgenderism to name only a few. All such campaigns are primarily directed at White people. For example, it is socially acceptable to encourage Black men to partner and procreate exclusively with Black women, however encouraging White women to exclusively partner and procreate with White men is utterly taboo.

Legally, the subsidization of immigration, anti-discrimination laws, wellfare, and affirmative action laws serve to not only forcefully integrate and intermingle unwanted foreigners with White people, but also enable non-Whites (excluding Asians) to enjoy a parasitical relationship with them as a whole. (Obviously some Whites are parasites, and some non-Whites are net-tax payers and contributors.) This, in turn, depresses the birth rates of the White host population, whilst subsidizing the birth rates of the parasitical non-White populations.

WELFARE USAGE. Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) 17

Hoppe explains that such efforts aimed at White genocide not only place White people in jeopardy, but also imperil the parasitic class which feeds upon them:

...most if not all technical inventions, machines, tools and gadgets in current use everywhere and anywhere, on which our current living standards and comforts largely and decisively depend, originated with them [White people]. All other people, by and large, only imitated what they had invented and constructed first. All others inherited the knowledge embodied in the inventors’ products for free. And isn’t it the typical white hierarchical family household of father, mother, their common children and prospective heirs, and their ‘bourgeois’ conduct and lifestyle—i.e., everything the Left disparages and maligns—that is the economically most successful model of social organization the world has ever seen, with the greatest accumulation of capital goods (wealth) and the highest average standards of living? And isn’t it only on account of the great economic achievements of this minority of ‘victimizers’ that a steadily increasing number of ‘victims’ could be integrated and partake in the advantages of a worldwide network of the division of labor? And isn’t it only on account of the success of the traditional white, bourgeois family model also that so-called ‘alternative lifestyles’ could at all emerge and be sustained over time? Do not most of today’s ‘victims,’ then, literally owe their lives and their current living standards to the achievements of their alleged ‘victimizers?’

...I would add (at a minimum): be and do whatever makes you happy, but always keep in mind that as long as you are an integral part of the worldwide division of labor, your existence and well-being depends decisively on the continued existence of others, and especially on the continued existence of white heterosexual male dominated societies, their patriarchic family structures, and their bourgeois or aristocratic lifestyle and conduct. Hence, even if you do not want to have any part in that, recognize that you are nonetheless a beneficiary of this standard “Western” model of social organization and hence, for your own sake, do nothing to undermine it but instead be supportive of it as something to be respected and protected.
...That doesn’t mean that you should be uncritical of the ‘Western,’ white male dominated world. After all, even these societies most closely following this model also have their various States that are responsible for reprehensible acts of aggression not only against their own domestic property owners but also against foreigners. But neither where you live nor anywhere else should the State be confused with ‘the people.’ It is not the ‘Western’ State, but the ‘traditional’ (normal, standard, etc.) lifestyle and conduct of the western ‘people,’ already under increasingly heavy attack by their very ‘own’ State-rulers on their drive toward totalitarian social control, that deserves your respect and of which you are a beneficiary. 18

RACISM

“Racism” is an obscure and elusive concept being made ever more broad and ambiguous by the Left. For the sake of clarity, all the different meanings and senses of the term, based on how it is generally applied, will be provided in the following:

1. Believing the races are different. [Reasonable]

2. Believing a distinct and prevailing culture tends to be associated with each race. (Of course, the same may be applied towards religion, geography, etc.) [Reasonable]

3. Believing certain cultures tend to yield greater material prosperity, scientific progress, and lower crime. That, by the transitive property, certain races as a whole tend to excel in these areas with respect to others. [Reasonable]

4. Believing culture has an impact on IQ, thus certain races have a higher/lower average IQ than others owing, in part, to cultural differences. [Reasonable]

5. Believing biology has an impact on one’s propensity to adopt certain cultural norms, and has a likewise impact on IQ. Believing the biological differences between races aren’t limited to mere skin color or physical body shape/structure, but that they tend to also include variations in mental capacity, testosterone levels, and the like. [Reasonable]

6. Having a professional or personal preference for the company of a particular race or races of people over others, other things being equal. [Reasonable]

7. (Subjectively) valuing a particular race of people over all others, other things being equal. [Reasonable]

8. Believing every member of a particular race shares the same set of cultural, political, moral, or religious beliefs. [Unreasonable and absurd]

9. Preferring the company or valuing every member of one race, over every member of another [Unreasonable]

10. Believing every member of one race is mentally/physically superior to every member of another [Unreasonable and absurd]

It should be unequivocally stated that only meanings 1-7 apply to the clear majority of the Alt-Right. Likewise, the vast majority of the Alt-Right recognize that meanings 8-10 are absurd and/or unreasonable, contrary to Leftist propaganda.

CULTURAL MARXISM

At this point, one may wonder why White people and Western civilization are being unduly targeted. What is the ultimate goal? Frankly, the ultimate end of the Left is to establish a global egalitarian socialist State. They happen to correctly recognize that the largest obstacles to this end are traditional Western values and, by extension, White people, as they constitute the vast majority of those who harbor and live according to them.

RACIAL AND ETHNIC GROUPS BY LIBERTARIAN ORIENTATION SCALE. Pew Research Center 19

LARGER VS. SMALLER GOVERNMENT. Pew Research Center 20

Ethan Chan elaborates on the nature of Cultural Marxism in the following:

The difference between the traditional Marxist class theory explained above and cultural Marxism is quite simple. The theory itself remains the same in the case of cultural Marxism, it’s simply applied to different categories. Instead of dealing strictly with socio-economic class, cultural Marxists focus on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability status, and a host of other cultural categories. Such thinking has given rise to ‘intersectionality,’ a prevalent form of cultural Marxism which stresses a relation between the various ‘oppressed’ classes of different demographics and the need for them to work together to overthrow the supposed white, capitalist, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, conservative, Christian patriarchy. As such, the ‘intersectional’ cultural Marxist evaluates each person by placing him/her/‘xir’ on a totem pole of privilege vs. oppression.
A white gay male, for instance, is more oppressed than a white straight male, but more privileged than a black gay male. Still more oppressed would be a black lesbian, and even further down the totem pole would be a black transgender lesbian, and even further down would be a black, Muslim, transgender, mentally disabled (or as they say, ‘neurodivergent’), morbidly obese lesbian. Essentially, the idea is that the more ‘oppressed’ one is based on her position on the totem pole, the more deference and sympathy she ought to receive from society to rectify the alleged injustice of her ‘oppression.’ For example, many cultural Marxists believe that whites ought to pay reparations to blacks as a form of collective restitution for slavery and Jim Crow laws. Moreover, the left promotes affirmative action initiatives and anti-discrimination laws, believing that if one is part of an ‘oppressed’ group then he has a right to demand access to another person’s goods and services.

In short, cultural Marxism is simply traditional Marxist class theory repackaged in terms of cultural rather than economic classes. However, the end goal of bringing about a socialist society remains in place for the vast majority of cultural Marxists.21

FEMINISM

Modern day feminism is an ugly beast (not unlike most feminists) that has served as the primary vehicle for the destruction of the Nuclear Family. N’Goode explains:

...it has become clear that modern feminism has become little more than a pernicious conduit to dismantle the remnants of the nuclear family, leading to the limitless expansion of the state. Modern feminists are often an unsightly embodiment of the very ideology they shrilly preach. Many have either endured nasty or spoiled upbringings, prompting them to detest the mere fabric of the traditional family structure and wishing for its demise. Painting men out to be authoritarian and abusive, while “promising it all” to women has rendered modern relationships unstable. Women should supposedly be able to raise a family, keep a high-energy career, enjoy a fulfilling sex life and plenteous leisure, but unfortunately, there are only twenty-four hours in a day. Something has to give. And that something is often the marriage or the kids as it would be a progressive heresy to be an anachronistic, unglamorous housewife.22

The resulting epidemic of single motherhood has had far reaching effects on the culture, mindset, and health of children being reared in the West. Rachels has this to say:

The majority of child abuse perpetrators and welfare recipients are single mothers. The shocking rise of fatherless homes has precipitated an increase in violence, abuse and crime. Statistically, the absolute best thing both biological parents can do for their children is commit to one another as part of a traditional nuclear family.

...The State has also played a large role in breaking up the family unit. Big Brother has taken the place of father and husband by subsidizing single parent households whilst penalizing married households with higher taxes (as they tend to be in a higher tax bracket since they generally bring in more income). Single parent families account for 90% of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (welfare) recipients. Half of single mothers are on food stamps, yet only 12% of married couples with kids are. It is also worth noting that the rate of children living in single parent households has quadrupled since the 1960s (when State welfare expanded significantly). The poverty rate drops 65% for women who marry the biological father of her children when compared to their jobless single mother counterparts! Alternatively, the poverty rate drops 38% for women who marry the biological father when compared to single moms who work part time.23

Contrary to popular belief, radical feminists are not primarily concerned with the wellbeing and protection of women. Instead, they are more concerned with breaking down the edifice of Western civilization and bringing about a socialist order. They resent White patriarchy much more so than patriarchy in general. This is evidenced by their bizarre alliance with Islam:

It is undeniable that compared to modern Western standards, women are treated abominably in Islamic countries and even in Islamic neighborhoods in Western countries. Women are subjected to barbaric customs and violence, but Muslims have been ostensibly hard-done-by according to the Progressive Stack. Leftists are often cultural and moral relativists, which would make foreign practices beyond questioning as other cultures and moral frameworks are allegedly equally valid, just different. Furthermore, given that Muslims rank higher than many leftists on the Progressive Stack, leftists are (by their twisted logic) socially indebted to Muslims for any existing inequalities.
Islam shares many ideological similarities with leftism. The logical conclusion of both ideologies is totalitarian; espousing anti-capitalism, globalism, expansionism, anti-Westernism, and only extending tolerance to their followers. In our age of rampant hedonism and nihilism, Islam has been able to exploit its adherents’ fertility in becoming an ideological force to be reckoned with in the West. The West’s turning its back on Christian values in favor of secularism has rendered it defenseless to the proliferation of Islam. Islam is an uncompromising faith which has begun to impose its rules on citizens in Western countries where Muslims have become a sizable portion of the population. As a result of this, around a hundred non-legally-binding Sharia courts have emerged in the UK alone—not to mention thousands of unaddressed cases of female genital mutilation, spousal abuse, cousin marriage and birth defects, honor killings, rape gangs (as a form of jihad)... etc.24

LIBERTINISM

Libertinism basically refers to hedonistic or high time preference behavior. The Left encourages such behavior as it ultimately induces many to disregard the long-term advantages of capitalism in favor of immediate short-term socialist “gibs.” It also helps them rationalize promiscuous behavior and the socially destructive consequences thereof. Emotional beings are easily allured by any philosophy that says, “live only in the present, do what you want when you want regardless of the consequences, you don’t have to be responsible for your actions, and you should be bailed out with the resources of others when you make dumb decisions.” Orwell N’Goode expounds upon the detrimental effects of high-time preference behavior:

Low time preferences elicit discipline, foresight, and strategy as the individual becomes more future-oriented. To ensure that a person’s children receives the best possible upbringing, parents must have low time preferences to save, pay bills and leave behind a formidable inheritance. A healthy society’s individual plans far beyond his own lifespan to provide for his offspring.

...Sadly, western societies are becoming increasingly overcome by high-time preferences. Individuals have become very egoistic, hedonistic, solipsistic, nihilistic and indolent. Instead of choosing a productive lifestyle, individuals have elected a life of pleasure-seeking and instant gratification. Instead of self-improvement, there is self-degradation. Instead of thrift, there is profligacy. With high time preferences, there is promiscuity and carelessness, leading to unwanted pregnancies. After flings or throwing caution to the wind with irresponsible sexual partners, single motherhood rates increase. With no male presence in the household, the mother has little choice but to resort to welfare participation or severely hampering her career potential by settling for a low-income job. A fatherless upbringing is one of the worst things the child can be subjected to; as criminality, risk of abuse, mental problems, truancy, and early sexual activity all increase. The child from a single parent household is also likely to emulate the same behaviors of their parent and slip into the cycle. High time preferences place a tremendous burden on the productive in a statist society, as poor behaviors such as criminality, drug addiction, alcoholism, voluntary unemployment, violence and other costs from their consequent effects are externalized onto the taxpayer. Our great redistributionist social-democratic welfare States help create the aforementioned poor behaviors and drive up the time preferences of all members of society.

The welfare State, in a nutshell, takes from productive individuals and hands it to largely nonproductive individuals. Immediately, productive individuals subject to higher tax levels become disincentivized to work longer hours or to self-improve, as their marginal utility for extra income in exchange for more work becomes lower than their disutility for work and marginal utility for leisure.25

GLOBALISM

Something libertarians and the Alt-Right should already have in common is a fierce opposition to Globalism. As libertarians, our ultimate goal is to have the individual be the sovereign over his person and property, thus a global State should be seen as the antithesis of this objective. Likewise, other things equal, sovereigns which are more decentralized should be favored over those that are more centralized. Local > County > State > Federal > International governing bodies... etc. Therefore secession must be vigorously pursued alongside the Alt-Right if libertarians wish to achieve their ultimate ends. Hoppe expounds on the State’s globalist efforts in the following:

In order to reach total control over each individual person, the State must pursue a divide et impera policy. It must weaken, undermine and ultimately destroy all other, rival centers of social authority. Most importantly, it must weaken the traditional, patriarchic family household, and especially the independently wealthy family household, as autonomous decision-making centers by sowing and legislating conflicts between wives and husbands, children and parents, women and men, rich and poor. As well, all hierarchical orders and ranks of social authority, all exclusive associations, and all personal loyalties and attachments—be it to a particular family, community, ethnicity, tribe, nation, race, language, religion, custom or tradition—except the attachment to a given State qua citizen-subject and passport holder, must be weakened and ultimately destroyed. And what better way to do this than to pass anti-discrimination laws!26

MULTI-CULTURALISM

As previously mentioned, cultural homogeneity is a key ingredient to sustaining a healthy civilization, thus one may conclude that multi-culturalism will have the opposite effect. This speaks to how Globalism isn’t only unlibertarian, but also impractical. Chan has this to say:

...the paleolibertarians reject political centralization because they recognize that culture actually matters—that one cannot simply apply the non-aggression principle in blanket fashion to the entire world, or even across a large country such as America without taking regional cultural particularities into account. Such a measure can only result in irreconcilable social tension and conflict, providing a perfect opportunity for a centralized state to arise once more to “keep the peace.” That’s not to say that the non-aggression principle is faulty, of course, or that libertarianism must include more than the non-aggression principle and a working understanding of private property norms. However, it is worth noting that certain social conflicts can arise where a simple appeal to the non-aggression principle may not suffice, and in the absence of an “unwritten constitution” (i.e. a set of shared cultural values and commonly accepted social norms) may prove quite thorny.

...While it’s true that the libertarian philosophy of private property rights and non-aggression are based on an objective understanding of legal principles, one must also recognize that without being rooted in some sort of cultural tradition (as the American founding principles were) attempting to mold societies according to them is doomed to fail. People do not naturally coalesce around abstract ideas, but around more concrete things such as a common culture, kinship, faith, language, and history.27

This brings us to the related contemporary issue of mass Muslim immigration to the Western world. What is so disconcerting about this is not only the standard issues that come about via multi-culturalism, but that Islam in particular is especially anti-libertarian:

Under Sharia Law, there is little to no freedom for non-Muslims and women. Non-Muslim inhabitants of an Islamic society are referred to as dhimmis, or second-class citizens. Islamic law is simply not compatible with a civilized society. Non-Muslims would have to submit to their Muslim rulers and pay them taxes. The dhimmi in the Ottoman Empire were not considered equal to Muslims and were not allowed to carry weapons or ride on top of horses or camels. Even though Christians and Jews were allowed to live in the Ottoman Empire they were severely oppressed and persecuted. The justice system under Sharia is dualistic; there is one set of laws for Muslim males and another set for women and non-Muslims.28

Of course, this begs the question: to what end are Leftists encouraging this mass immigration? The answer is quite simple: it supports their myopic political interests. Because Leftists tend to be high time preference oriented individuals, they neglect or dismiss the long term impact such immigration will have on the Western world. Orwell N’Goode expounds:

Leftists can weaponize Islam as a battering ram to demolish the dilapidated remnants of Western values. Muslims boast a significantly higher birth rate to Westerners. Strength in numbers, within Islam, will eventually consume our valueless, nihilistic society. Furthermore, a significant proportion of European Muslims are wholly dependent on welfare. Their higher fertility often entitles them to larger state perquisites. Muslims also vote overwhelmingly for left-wing parties, putting their financial or social habits beyond question in many public platforms, as their detractors are simply Islamophobic. So, in playing the long game and finally deconstructing Western values, with “the long march through the institutions” drawing its close, leftists will have a clear numerical advantage in future elections, ad infinitum. However, before a progressive utopia can be inaugurated, I predict that history will repeat itself and Islam will trump ‘progress’.29

BORDERS

Contrary to popular belief on the part of many libertarians and Alt-Righters, “public” property border restrictions are perfectly compatible with libertarian principles. The completely unfettered and open State border policy advocated by lolberts and left-libertarians is the one that is the furthest removed from libertarian principles. Rachels elaborates:

Ironically, the completely unrestricted and ‘open State border’ position is a one size fits all statist solution that would be unjustly imposed upon all domestic tax-paying/property-owning citizens. In contrast, the ‘invite only’ immigration restriction proposed herein is the one most in line with private property rights and libertarian principles. This is because it recognizes that domestic tax-payers/property-owners (and other victims of aggression by the State in question) are the legitimate joint private owners of all developed or improved upon State ‘public-property’ and, as such, any uninvited foreign invader must necessarily be guilty of trespass (i.e. a property violation). Further, it takes the question of whether a particular foreigner should be welcome out of the hands of the State and places it into the hands of its respective individual property owning domestic citizens. This is a far more decentralized solution than the unconditional ‘open State border’ one.30

This may still give Alt-Righters pause as they may believe that, according to this proposal, any domestic property owner could practically invite all the denizens of the world. However, this is certainly not the case:

...because libertarians are in a position of having to come up with a next best solution, they must approximate how the majority of ownership shares would be voted if such a vote were allowed to take place (remember some individuals have more shares/claim than others due to their greater net tax payments or aggressive victimization by the State in question). Admittedly, one cannot predict the exact outcome of such votes hence why the solution described herein is next best and not perfect. (It is important to note that the completely open state border solution is the furthest removed from the principles of libertarian justice.)
However, one can say with near certainty that a policy of ‘anyone and everyone should have unfettered access and/or use of our joint private property (‘public property’)’ would be the most disagreeable solution for the vast majority of shares (and shareholders).
Likewise, a policy of ‘any individual joint owner, regardless of the size of his claim, may invite however many people he wishes to our joint private property and have zero liability for any violations to property they may perpetrate’ would also be one of the most disagreeable policies to the vast majority of shares (and shareholders). Hence, one may confidently disregard this proposal as well.

However, a policy of ‘joint owners may invite whoever they want to our joint private property, but they must first acquire liability insurance for their invitees so as to assure restitution can be made to those who may have their persons or property violated by this foreign visitor during his stay’ is likely far more agreeable to the private joint owners of so called ‘public’ property, and is one that is far more decentralized as it gives each joint owner a large measure of individual discretion over its access.31

THE COMPATIBILITY OF LIBERTARIANISM AND THE ALT-RIGHT

As stated in the introduction, the Alt-Right is largely absent a unifying political and economic theory, as they are primarily focused on preserving traditional Western culture and the White race. This has led to the formation of many factions within the Alt-Right, some of which lean more libertarian and capitalist whilst others lean more statist and socialist. Conversely, libertarianism is exactly the inverse as Hoppe explains:

Libertarians are united by the irrefutable theoretical core beliefs mentioned at the outset. They are clear about the goal that they want to achieve. But the libertarian doctrine does not imply much if anything concerning these questions: First, how to maintain a libertarian order once achieved. And second, how to attain a libertarian order from a non-libertarian starting point, which requires a) that one must correctly describe this starting point and b) correctly identify the obstacles posed in the way of one’s libertarian ends by this very starting point. To answer these questions, in addition to theory, you also need some knowledge of human psychology and sociology or at least a modicum of common sense. Yet many libertarians and fake libertarians are plain ignorant of human psychology and sociology or even devoid of any common sense. They blindly accept, against all empirical evidence, an egalitarian, blank-slate view of human nature, of all people and all societies and cultures being essentially equal and interchangeable.

While much of contemporary libertarianism can be characterized, then, as theory and theorists without psychology and sociology, much or even most of the Alt-Right can be described, in contrast, as psychology and sociology without theory.
...Given the lack of any theoretical foundation, this split of the Alt-Right movement into rival factions can hardly be considered a surprise. Yet this fact should not mislead one to dismiss it, because the Alt-Right has brought out many insights that are of central importance in approaching an answer to the two previously mentioned questions unanswered by libertarian theory: of how to maintain a libertarian social order and how to get to such an order from the current, decidedly un-libertarian status quo.32

What both libertarians and the Alt-Right would do well to realize is that their philosophies are complementary and symbiotic. That adopting libertarianism would greatly assist in achieving Alt-Right ends, and likewise that adopting the Alt-Right position would help in achieving libertarian ends. Libertarianism is the Yin to the Alt-Right’s Yang, so to speak. Perhaps one of the largest sources of skepticism the Alt-Right has towards libertarianism and capitalism is what they incorrectly perceive the globalist effects of international free trade to be. Chan answers this concern in the following:

What distributists [Alt-Righters] correctly associate with globalism are the various political agreements like NAFTA and TPP which are often touted as ‘free trade deals.’ What they fail to realize about these agreements is that they are really managed trade deals involving a slew of corporate subsidies, labor and environmental regulations, all sorts of supranational infringements on national and local sovereignty in the name of “harmonization,” and sometimes even outright coercive transfers of wealth between different countries. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe once said in an interview, ‘a free trade agreement only requires two sentences: Whatever you want to ship out, you can ship out, and whatever you want to import, you can import.’
This is far from being the case with modern-day trade agreements, which are sometimes thousands of pages long, filled with many provisions like the ones mentioned above that have absolutely nothing to do with free trade, and everything to do with the centralization of political power into the hands of supranational governing committees...

But what about true free trade? Would that necessarily lead to the destruction of nations and local cultures and traditions that distributists ascribe to it? This is hardly the case, if free trade really is as simple as ‘whatever you want to ship out, you can ship out, and whatever you want to import, you can import.’ All trade would consist purely of voluntary exchanges, with none of the coercive political arrangements involved in modern-day ‘trade deals’ that erode local sovereignty in favor of globalism. Therefore, communities, where people had a genuine interest in preserving their own culture, would face no real threat from free trade, as their in-group preferences would lead them to prioritize cultural preservation over foreign trade (for example, choosing to patronize the local businesses run by their neighbors instead of importing cheap goods from China).

As for the claim that free trade destroys jobs, Georgi Vuldzhev of the Mises Institute writes:

It is true that greater competition between domestic and foreign workers can lead to a decline in wage rates and possibly unemployment in some sectors of the economy. But this is only a short-term effect. Free competition between foreign and domestic producers also naturally leads to lower prices for the goods and services which can now be freely imported from abroad. So, while nominal wage rates are pushed down in some sectors, real wage rates rise overall for everyone in the economy because of the decline in prices.

Thanks to free trade, consumers spend less money on certain goods and services and this allows them to spend more money on others, which leads to rising demand and thus profits in the sectors providing the latter, and consequently leads also to more investment by entrepreneurs. This higher rate of investment naturally leads to the creation of more jobs in these sectors and thus offsets any original rise in unemployment that might have occurred.

The rise in real wages which is facilitated by free trade, therefore, results in a lowering of time preference rates which incentivizes increased saving and investment in productive enterprises that can then create more jobs. Also, the small, local family businesses cherished by distributists [Alt-Righters] would likely become much more prominent without the competition-destroying subsidies and regulations that large corporations consistently lobby for and which are major features of the trade agreements of today. All of this would be conducive to the distributist [Alt-Right] goal of having the majority of common men possess enough capital to start their own small businesses, and to the libertarian goal of protecting private property rights.33

Likewise, much of the consumerism, materialism, and degeneracy the Alt-Right decries is an effect of Central Bank inflation, welfare, and taxes, all of which are departures from capitalism. Orwell N’Goode has this to say:

The consumerism that drives maniacal hedonism and progressivism today can be pinpointed on our social democratic post-Keynesian economic models. As a result of graduated (progressive) taxation, inflationism, artificially low-interest rates, welfare and heavily regulated markets, individual time preferences have shifted artificially high.34

POLITICAL INDIVIDUALISM VS. HYPER INDIVIDUALISM

Another mistake made by left-libertarians, lolberts, and Alt-Righters alike is assuming that libertarianism somehow entails hyper-individualism. However, libertarians, in their capacity as libertarians, are only individualist insofar as they recognize the individual has final legal say over the use of his own body or justly acquired property, regardless of the will of the State or some other such collective. Chan elaborates:

One of the most common criticisms of libertarianism from conservatives and progressives alike goes something like this: ‘Libertarians want a world where everyone is reduced to an atomized, ‘free-thinking’ individual competing ruthlessly with other individuals in the marketplace in Social Darwinistic fashion, with no institutional loyalties or connections to anything beyond themselves. To the libertarian (envisioned by many as a fedora-tipping, neckbearded, militant atheist, anti-social hipster), neither family, community, nor church should have any role in society, as these are ‘authoritarian’ and ‘collectivistic’ institutions that violate the sacred libertarian tenet of individualism.’ This ‘rugged individualism,’ as the critics say, is the backbone of libertarian ideology.

But is this truly the case? One certainly might think so from talking with certain libertarians. Anyone who has been in libertarian groups for some time has almost certainly seen ‘collectivist,’ ‘authoritarian,’ or ‘statist’ used as an insult against those who either (a) advocate for culturally conservative values (even without implying support for state enforcement of those values) or (b) make some kind of generalized statement about a particular demographic. They will incorrectly claim, for instance, that the alt-righters who point out disparities in average IQs between different racial groups are exactly the same ‘collectivists’ as the social justice warriors who demand that whites pay reparations to blacks for slavery and Jim Crow laws. Or they will incorrectly claim that the anti-feminists who point out differences in behavioral tendencies between the sexes are guilty of the same offense as the feminists who rail against the ‘patriarchy’ and demand all sorts of special legal protections and privileges for women to overthrow said ‘patriarchy.’
...is libertarianism individualistic? And if so, in what sense? It is certainly individualistic in that it affirms the individual right to justly acquire private property and exercise exclusive control over it. If one adheres to the Austro-libertarian tradition, one also recognizes the praxeological truths that only individuals can act or think and that any sort of ‘group’ action must be understood in terms of individual actions. One might also add, based on this, that only individuals can bear moral responsibility. These axioms, when taken together, form what is referred to as ‘methodological individualism.’ This is the libertarian individualism of Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe.
Then there is ‘lifestyle individualism.’ This is the type of individualism which is most often attacked by critics of libertarianism as I explained previously. They will use slogans like ‘no man is an island’ as if it were an actual argument against libertarian philosophy, believing that libertarianism is about ‘self-sufficiency’ and living off the grid. Now, to be sure, there are some self-described libertarians who advocate for this kind of lifestyle, but does the definition of libertarianism as explained above imply that such a lifestyle is inherently libertarian? Not at all. Neither private property norms nor the non-aggression principle require that one live a ‘self-sufficient’ life in isolation from the rest of society, but only that any transactions that one engages in with other people are voluntary. So we can see that appeals to the importance of community and family in no way constitute an argument against libertarian theory itself, although they might function as a legitimate criticism of certain libertarians who do not value these things.

Somewhat related to ‘lifestyle individualism’ is cultural individualism. This is the kind of individualism which is often appealed to by left-libertarians in support of feminism, multiculturalism, counterculture, and other leftist social causes. According to this view, cultural and social norms such as gender roles and the nuclear family are ‘collectivist’ and ‘oppressive’ towards the individual and should be overturned. Only when people have been ‘liberated’ from these norms and become rational, free-thinking individuals will we have a true libertarian society, they say. Furthermore, it is often claimed that making generalized statements about particular demographic groups, and especially making decisions based on such observations, is ‘collectivist’ and therefore unlibertarian. Allegedly, culture and race do not exist as these are ‘collectivist’ concepts that put people into—gasp!—groups. Hence, the desire for cultural homogeneity and cultural preservation is then seen as an affront to this sacred ‘individualism,’ which prompts many left-libertarians to reactively support cultural heterogeneity and cultural erosion instead (that is, at least when it comes to traditional Western European and Christian cultures).35

Finally, Hoppe affirms that, regarding libertarianism, the way to transition from the realm of theory to application is to adopt and act in accordance with the Rightist conception of the world as it is:

True enough, the libertarian doctrine is a purely aprioristic and deductive theory and as such does not say or imply anything about the rival claims of the Right and the Left regarding the existence, the extent and the causes of human inequalities. That is an empirical question. But on this question the Left happens to be largely unrealistic, wrong and devoid of any common sense, whereas the Right is realistic and essentially correct and sensible. There can be consequently nothing wrong with applying a correct aprioristic theory of how peaceful human cooperation is possible to a realistic, i.e., fundamentally rightist, description of the world. For only based on correct empirical assumptions about man is it possible to arrive at a correct assessment as regards the practical implementation and the sustainability of a libertarian social order.36

THE WAY FORWARD: HOPPE’S PLAN

With all this in mind, we may now conclude with an outline of what concrete steps must be taken in order to achieve the ends of the “libertarian Alt-Right” union proposed herein. For this task, I shall once again borrow from Hoppe so as to not duplicate magnificent effort (these steps are in no particular order of importance with exception to the first step):

1. Stop mass immigration.

2. Stop attacking, killing and bombing people in foreign countries.

3. Defund the ruling elites and its intellectual bodyguards.

4. End the Federal Reserve and all central banks

5. Abolish all ‘affirmative action’ and ‘non-discrimination’ laws and regulations

6. Crush the “Anti-Fascist” mob.

7. Crush the street criminals and gangs.

8. Get rid of all welfare parasites and bums.

9. Get the State out of education.

10. Don’t put your trust in politics or political parties.37

REFERENCES

1. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right.” Radical Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, 21 Oct. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/10/21/libertarianism-and-the-alt-right-distinct- yet-complementary/.

2. N’Goode, Orwell. “How Time Preferences Make Or Break Civilization.” Radical Capitalist, 24 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/24/how-time-preferences-make-or-break-civilization/.

3. Dewey, Matthew. “Going Nuclear (Family) Against The State.” Radical Capitalist, 11 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/11/going-nuclear-family-against-the-state/.

4. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline, an Austro-Libertarian Reconstruction. Mises Institute, 2015.

5. Malthus, Thomas Robert. Essay on the Principle of Population. W W Norton, 2017.

6. Rothbard, Murray Newton. “Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor.”Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays, Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2000, pp. 270–271.

7. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right.” Radical Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, 21 Oct. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/10/21/libertarianism-and-the-alt-right-distinct- yet-complementary/.

8. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right.” Radical Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, 21 Oct. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/10/21/libertarianism-and-the-alt-right-distinct- yet-complementary/.

9. “What Is NATION?” The Law Dictionary, Black’s Law Dictionary, thelawdictionary.org/nation/.

10. Kinsella, Stephan N. “Covenant Communities Explained.” Radical Capitalist, 10 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/10/covenant-communities-explained/.

11. Harmann, Eli. “The Relationship Between Race, Culture, and a Libertarian Social Order.” Radical Capitalist, 30 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/30/the-relationship-between-race-culture-and-a-libertarian-social-order/.

12. Storey, Rik. “Why Libertarianism Is Unique To The West.” Radical Capitalist, 30 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/30/why-libertarianism-is-unique-to-the-west/.

13. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Realistic Libertarianism as Right Libertarianism.” Radical Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, 5 Aug. 2017,
radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/05/hoppe-destroys- left-libertarianism/.

14. Cox, Daniel, et al. “In Search of Libertarians In America.” PPRI, Public Religion Research Institute, 29 Oct. 2013, www.prri.org/ research/2013-american-values-survey/.

15. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right.” Radical Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, 21 Oct. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/10/21/libertarianism-and-the-alt-right-distinct- yet-complementary/.

16. “What Is ‘White Genocide’?” This Is Europa, thisiseuropa.net/whatiswhitegenocide/.

17. Camarota, Steven A. “Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native House-holds.” CIS.org, Center For Immigration Studies, 10 Sept. 2015, cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households.

18. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Realistic Libertarianism as Right Libertarianism.” Radical Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, 5 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/05/hoppe-destroys- left-libertarianism/.

19. Kiley, Jocelyn. “In Search of Libertarians.” Fact Tank, Pew Research Center, 25 Aug. 2014, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-of-libertarians/.

20. Molyneux, Stefan. “The Ugly Truth About Daca.” YouTube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSmljJrLhI8.

21. Chan, Ethan. “Saving The West and Libertarianism From Cultural Marxism.” Radical Capitalist, 25 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/25/saving-the-west-libertarianism- from-cultural-marxism/.

22. N’Goode, Orwell. “The Bizarre Alliance Between Islam and Feminism.” Radical Capitalist, 23 Sept. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/09/23/the-islamo-feminist-arranged-marriage/.

23. Rachels, Chase. “Single Motherhood and Feminism Ruin Children.” Radical Capitalist, 14 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/14/single-motherhood-and-feminism-ruin-children/.

24. N’Goode, Orwell. “The Bizarre Alliance Between Islam and Feminism.” Radical Capitalist, 23 Sept. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/09/23/the-islamo-feminist-arranged-marriage/.

25. N’Goode, Orwell. “How Time Preferences Make Or Break Civilization.” Radical Capitalist, 24 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/24/how-time-preferences-make-or-break-civilization/.

26. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Realistic Libertarianism as Right Libertarianism.” Radical Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, 5 Aug. 2017,radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/05/hoppe-destroys- left-libertarianism/.

27. Chan, Ethan. “Saving The West and Libertarianism From Cultural Marxism.” Radical Capitalist, 25 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/25/saving-the-west-libertarianism- from-cultural-marxism/.

28. Khan, Rumman. “Islam Is Not Compatible With Liberty Or Western Civilization.” Radical Capitalist, 12 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/12/former-muslim-islam-is-not-compatible-with-liberty-or-western-civilization/.

29. N’Goode, Orwell. “The Bizarre Alliance Between Islam and Feminism.” Radical Capitalist, 23 Sept. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/09/23/the-islamo-feminist-arranged-marriage/.

30. Rachels, Chase. “The Libertarian Case Against Open Borders.” Radical Capitalist, 6 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/ 06/the-libertarian-case-against-open-borders/.

31. Rachels, Chase. “The Libertarian Case Against Open Borders.” Radical Capitalist, 6 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/ 06/the-libertarian-case-against-open-borders/.

32. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right.” Radical Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, 21 Oct. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/10/21/libertarianism-and-the-alt-right-distinct- yet-complementary/.

33. Chan, Ethan. “Alt-Righters: Capitalism Is The Cure, Not The Disease.” Radical Capitalist, 28 Sept. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/09/28/alt-righters-capitalism-is-the-cure-not-the-disease/.

34. N’Goode, Orwell. “Degeneracy Is A Product Of Big Government, Not The Free Market.”Radical Capitalist, 7 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/07/degeneracy-is-a- product-of-big-government-not-the-free-market/.

35. Chan, Ethan. “Libertarianism Is NOT Opposed To All Forms Of ‘Collectivism.’” Radical Capitalist, 8 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/08/libertarianism-is-not-opposed-to-all- forms-of-collectivism/.

36. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Realistic Libertarianism as Right Libertarianism.” Radical Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, 5 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/05/hoppe-destroys- left-libertarianism/.

37. For a more elaborate description of each of these steps see: Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right.” Radical Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, 21 Oct. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/10/21/libertarianism-and-the-alt-right-distinct- yet-complementary/.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

BOOKS

1. Rachels, Chase. A Spontaneous Order: the Capitalist Case for a Stateless Society. Radical Capitalist, 2015.

2. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics. Springer, 2013.

3. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy. Mises Institute, 2014.

4. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy—the God That Failed: the Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order. Transaction Publ., 2007.

5. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy. Springer, 2012.

6. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline, an Austro-Libertarian Reconstruction. Mises Institute, 2015.

7. Duchesne, Ricardo. The Uniqueness of Western Civilization. Brill, 2012.

8. Duchesne, Ricardo. Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age. Arktos Media, 2017

9. Fukuyama, Francis. Trust: the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press Paperbacks, 1996.

10. Mises, Ludwig Von. Human Action: a Treatise on Economics. Liberty Fund, Incorporated, 2014.

11. Rothbard, Murray N. Man, Economy, and State: a Treatise on Economic Principles; with Power and Market: Government and the Economy. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2009.

12. Taylor, Jared. White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century. PRAAG, 2012.

13. Rubinstein, Edwin S. The Color of Crime—Race, Crime, and Justice in America. New Century Foundation, 2016.

SPEECHES AND LECTURES

1. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right.” Radical Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, 21 Oct. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/10/21/libertarianism-and-the-alt-right-distinct- yet-complementary/.

2. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Realistic Libertarianism as Right Libertarianism.” Radical Capitalist, Property and Freedom Society, 5 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/05/hoppe-destroys- left-libertarianism/.

3. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Argumentation Ethics: The Ultimate Proof For Libertarianism.” Radical Capitalist, 5 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/04/argumentation-ethics- the-ultimate-proof-for-libertarianism/.

4. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Law In An Anarcho-Capitalist Society.” Radical Capitalist, 29 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/ 2017/08/29/law-in-an-anarcho-capitalist- society/ .

ARTICLES AND ESSAYS

1. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Privatize Everything: Defining Private, Common, and Public Property.” Radical Capitalist, 5 Sept. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/09/05/privatize- everything-defining-private-common-and-public- property/.

2. Rachels, Chase. “A Critique of Left-Libertarianism.” Radical Capitalist, 6 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/06/ a-critique-of-left-libertarianism/.

3. Chan, Ethan. “Libertarianism Is NOT Opposed To All Forms Of ‘Collectivism.’” Radical Capitalist, 8 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/08/libertarianism-is-not-opposed-to-all- forms-of-collectivism/.

4. Engel, C.Jay. “‘Thick’ Libertarianism Eviscerated: A Response to Charles Johnson.” Radical Capitalist, 20 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/20/thick-libertarianism- eviscerated-a-response-to-charles-johnson/.

5. N’Goode, Orwell. “How Time Preferences Make Or Break Civilization.” Radical Capitalist, 24 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/24/how-time-preferences-make-or-break-civilization/.

6. Chan, Ethan. “Preserving Liberty Requires Common Culture.” Radical Capitalist, 14 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/14/preserving-liberty-requires-common-culture/.

7. Dewey, Matthew. “Going Nuclear (Family) Against The State.” Radical Capitalist, 11 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/11/going-nuclear-family-against-the-state/.

8. Storey, Rik. “Libertarianism Needs Nationalism (Not Statism).” Radical Capitalist, 10 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/08/libertarianism-needs-nationalism-not-statism/.

9. Daughtry, Griffin. “In Defense Of Libertarian Nationalism.” Radical Capitalist, 28 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/28/in-defense-of-libertarian-nationalism/.

10. Chan, Ethan. “There Is Nothing Unlibertarian About White Nationalism.” Radical Capitalist, 4 Sept. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/09/04/there-is-nothing-unlibertarian- about-white-nationalism/.

11. Kinsella, Stephan N. “Covenant Communities Explained.” Radical Capitalist, 10 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/10/covenant-communities-explained/.

12. Harmann, Eli. “The Relationship Between Race, Culture, and a Libertarian Social Order.” Radical Capitalist, 30 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/30/the-relationship-between-race-culture-and-a-libertarian-social-order/.

13. Storey, Rik. “Why Libertarianism Is Unique To The West.” Radical Capitalist, 30 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/30/why-libertarianism-is-unique-to-the-west/.

14. Francis. “Race and IQ: the Case for Genes.” The Alternative Hypothesis, 28 Jan. 2017, thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-and-iq-the-case-for-genes/.

15. Rachels, Chase. “The War Against White People.” Radical Capitalist, 24 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/06/the-war-against-white-people/.

16. Storey, Rik. “Why Whites Choose White Genocide.” Radical Capitalist, 1 Sept. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/09/01/why-whites-choose-white-genocide/.

17. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis.” Radical Capitalist, 3 Sept. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/09/03/marxist-and-austrian-class-analysis/.

18. Chan, Ethan. “Saving The West and Libertarianism From Cultural Marxism.” Radical Capitalist, 25 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/25/saving-the-west-libertarianism- from-cultural-marxism/.

19. N’Goode, Orwell. “The Bizarre Alliance Between Islam and Feminism.” Radical Capitalist, 23 Sept. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/09/23/the-islamo-feminist-arranged-marriage/.

20. Rachels, Chase. “Single Motherhood and Feminism Ruin Children.” Radical Capitalist, 14 July 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/07/14/single-motherhood-and-feminism-ruin-children/.

21. Day, Vox. “The Bitter Harvest Of Feminism.” Radical Capitalist, 8 Sept. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/09/08/the-bitter-harvest-of-feminism/.

22. N’Goode, Orwell. “Degeneracy Is A Product Of Big Government, Not The Free Market.”Radical Capitalist, 7 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/07/degeneracy-is-a- product-of-big-government-not-the-free-market/.

23. Khan, Rumman. “Islam Is Not Compatible With Liberty Or Western Civilization.” Radical Capitalist, 12 Aug. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/08/12/former-muslim-islam-is-not-compatible-with-liberty-or-western-civilization/.

24. Chan, Ethan. “Alt-Righters: Capitalism Is The Cure, Not The Disease.” Radical Capitalist, 28 Sept. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/09/28/alt-righters-capitalism-is-the-cure-not-the-disease/.

25. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration.” Mises Institute, 30 July 2014, mises.org/library/case-free-trade-and-restricted-immigration-0.

26. Rothbard, Murray N. “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State.” Mises Institute, 30 July 2014, mises.org/library/ nations-consent-decomposing-nation-state-0.

27. Rothbard, Murray N. “A Program for Right-Wing Populism” LewRockwell.com, 3 Feb. 2017, www.lewrockwell.com/2017/02/murray-n-rothbard/program-right-wing-populism/.

28. Chan, Ethan. “The Policy Of ‘Invade All, Invite All’ Caused The Muslim Migrant Crisis.” Radical Capitalist, 31 Dec. 2017, radicalcapitalist.org/2017/12/31/the-policy-of-invade-all-invite-all-caused-the-muslim-migrant-crisis/.

CLEARING UP THE HOPPE FOREWORD CONTROVERSY

I’d like to begin by expressing my reluctance to go through with bringing the details of this sensitive issue to light. I absolutely love the Ludwig Von Mises Institute and never thought I’d find myself in a situation to where I would be revealing facts that may have a negative impact on its repute. I also have a strong personal distaste for being involved in drama and controversy. Unfortunately, due to the ever growing spread of out of context rumors and outright libel (even by Mises staff/workers), I am in a position now to where I can only defend my reputation and honor by bringing all the facts to light.

I will provide as many facts, e-mails, texts, ...etc. as possible. Screen shots of these are available at https://radicalcapitalist.org/2018/01/25/clearing-up-the-hoppe-foreword-controversy/. I will also include some of my own interpretations and speculations to help make sense of the facts. However, I will be very careful to distinguish between fact and interpretation/speculation. Ultimately, you the reader will have to decide for yourself what to make of the situation. I hope most of you will choose truth over comfort.

THE ORIGIN OF THE FOREWORD

I first contacted Hoppe on November 16, 2017 requesting that he write the foreword for my upcoming book White, Right, and Libertarian. In my request I explicitly provided the title of the book, as well as the entire manuscript. Hoppe graciously agreed to write the foreword the following day. Below is the entire text of my initial e-mail request:

Dr. Hoppe,

I am, perhaps, one of your biggest fans. You may remember a few years ago I sent you my book, A Spontaneous Order: The Capitalist Case For A Stateless Society, in the mail. It was heavily influenced by your work. Your dear friend, Stephan Kinsella, was gracious enough to write the foreword. Since then it has sold 4,000 copies so, considering the topic, I believe it was a success. Attached is a draft of a new short book/booklet I plan on publishing soon entitled: White, Right, and Libertarian. This book is also very heavily inspired by your work...namely your more recent work regarding: Democracy: The God That Failed, A Short History of Man, “Realistic Libertarianism as Right Libertarianism”, and “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right”. My hope is to entice the Alt-Right to adopt the political/economic theory of genuine libertarians, and libertarians to adopt the cultural positions of the Alt-Right.
I know it may be asking too much, but I was hoping you would be willing to either write the introduction, foreword, or at least a small review/endorsement. I can think of no better man for the job, and I would be deeply honored. I very much look forward to hearing your response.

Christopher “Chase” Rachels
Phone: [redacted]

Attached file: WhiteRightLibertarian.docx

This is the entire text of his reply:

Dear Christopher,

I read your excellent book Spontaneous Order and I have been following and am delighted about your Radical Capitalism blog. I would be happy to write a short foreword for your planned little book if you give me time until the end of the year

HHH.

I then responded thanking him for granting my request on November 17th. Approximately a month later, On December 18th, I followed up to see if he needed an extension.

Dr. Hoppe,

I just wanted to follow up to see if you still planned on finishing that foreword by the end of the year? If you need more time, that’s perfectly fine, I’m just trying to get my publishing timetable set. Again, I’m very excited and honored to have you contribute to this work.

With the utmost respect,

Christopher “Chase” Rachels

Hoppe responded later that very same day, December 18th, to confirm that he was still planning on completing the foreword, but that tragic family matters would delay the completion until mid January. The following is a relevant excerpt from his response:

...But I have thought about you and if it is not quite by the end of the year it will be there by mid-January.

HHH

I then apologized for the tragic circumstances he was facing, and expressed my condolences.

On January 13th, 2018 he sent me his foreword stating:

I put in far more effort than first anticipated. I hope you are satisfied.

HHH

Attached file: Rachels.doc

On my website there is a screenshot which provides a preview of this attachment demonstrating that it is indeed the foreword intended for White, Right, and Libertarian (although Hoppe labels it a “preface”). He explicitly wrote the title of the book at the top of the page, which affirms that he was well aware of the title of the book (contrary to the false rumors being spread by others).

I then responded to him on the same day, January 13th, affirming that I am more than satisfied and requested his address so that I could send him a copy of the book once it was published. A couple days later, on January 15th, Hoppe responds by giving me his physical mailing address and granting permission to make any corrections since English is his second language. This is his exact quote:

Also, English is not my native language, so if some corrections are needed I don’t mind.

HHH

THE COVER DESIGN CONTROVERSY

Around this time, I posted on my small closed Facebook group, Hoppean Ancaps, that I had received Hoppe’s foreword for my upcoming book. Jeff Deist, the President of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, happens to be a member of this group, and, according to Facebook, saw the post announcing Hoppe’s contribution.

Tho Bishop of the Mises Institute also saw the post (He handles social media and the press for the institute according to Mises.org).

Now to give you some more background information, several weeks earlier I sent Chris Calton (writer for the Mises Institute) a possible design for the cover that I was considering using, however I expressly told him to keep it confidential. Screen shots of this conversation are likewise available on my website.

I wanted this cover design confidential because I did not want to publicize a cover design that Hoppe had not yet approved of (at this point I had yet to show him the cover design, though I actually planned on showing him the following day, after confirming with my designer that he didn’t want to make any more final tweaks). If Hoppe were to disapprove of this cover design, I had the full intention to modify the design accordingly (just as I eventually did).

After becoming aware of Hoppe’s intention to contribute to my upcoming book on January 15th, Chris Calton was contacted by “some Mises Institute people” inquiring about the book, Hoppe’s connection to it, and expressing some concerns. Apparently Chris then felt compelled to share the cover design with Jeff Deist as he was allegedly unsure if I was planning on showing Hoppe the cover before publishing (of course he could’ve easily confirmed this either way by asking me directly).

Chris felt bad about breaking his word, so he later confessed to me what he had done via text. Screen shots of his text to me, where he also cited concerns of this possibly impacting the Mises Institute’s donations are available on my website. The text reads:

Hey I just wanted to give you a heads up because I feel like I broke my word to you, and I respect you enough that I want you to know from me what is and why (it might not be a big deal to you, I don’t know, but I valume my own honesty so I’d rather just let you know myself).
I was contacted today by some of the Mises Institute people about Hoppe’s forward [sic] for your book. I’d never said a thing to anybody about it, they just know you and I are friends, which is why I think they contacted me. There’s concern about it because Hoppe’s stuff has blown into such an overblown controversy—you and I both know that people take his stuff the wrong way, but the real-world consequences of such a controversy on a donor-driven institute like LvMI are real regardless whether the controversy is valid or not. In any case, there was concern with Hoppe’s inclusion in your booklet. Because of this concern, and because I wasn’t sure if Hoppe knew of the cover design you had for it—which you and I both know was intentionally inflammatory—I told Jeff Deist what the cover and the title was. I asked him to leave my name out of it, but that was only so I could let you know myself that I did this. I promised I wouldn’t share the cover with anybody, so I apologize for that, but I felt that they had a right to know. ...

Chris Calton then confirmed that measures were already being taken to have Hoppe pull the foreword before he had even given the Mises Institute the cover design. He also explicitly named Lew [Rockwell], founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, as being in contact with Hoppe regarding the foreword:

Well, just for the record, I didn’t get Jeff Deist involved. They contacted me because they were already concerned about it, and they were already trying to get Hoppe to pull the forward [sic] (I didn’t know any of this until today). So I wanted you to know that I shared the cover, but Lew had already contacted Hoppe about the forward [sic] before I spoke to them.

But yeah, I feel bad. I suggested to them they they [sic] ask for the cover change, but they were already working to get the forward [sic] pulled—I wasn’t a part of that and I didn’t know about it, or else I would have let you know the other day.

While members of the Mises Institute were, according to Chris Calton, attempting to get Hoppe to pull the foreword, I was none the wiser until Hoppe sent me the following e-mail requesting I remove the foreword owing to the “incendiary” cover (Chris didn’t confess to me until after Hoppe sent me the following e-mails):

Chase,

I hear that the planned book has an incendiary cover with which I don’t want to be associated under any circumstances. In that case I withdraw my offer to publish my preface.

HHH

I then responded that I would be more than happy to alter the cover design to address his concern:

HHH,

I have no problem with altering the cover design to be less or non-incendiary. I will send you the new design I come up with and for you to approve prior to publishing. Is this satisfactory?

Chase

Hoppe responded:

I am forced to withdraw my preface. I urge you respect my wish.

HHH

To which I replied:

The cover hasn’t been made public, I can easily change the design. I can even have you approve of the new design before publishing. Does this not address your concern?

Chase

He was insistent on wanting the foreword removed despite my assurances that it had not been made public, and that I was more than willing to change the cover and get his approval prior to publishing. Recall, he sent me these emails the very same day he confirmed his desire to move forward and granted me permission to make corrections. It wasn’t until only after the Mises Institute presumably contacted him that he changed his tune. I also found Hoppe’s wording rather odd since he is typically a very precise communicator: he said that he was forced to withdraw his preface.

Well, it wasn’t until Chris had later confessed what was going on behind the scenes at the Mises Institute that this wording made sense to me. At this point I am technically speculating, however it seems clear to me that the only reason Hoppe was insisting on having his foreword removed, even after being assured the cover design he took issue with hadn’t been made public and would be altered to his liking, was because of pressure being applied to him by members of the Mises Institute to pull the foreword.

After Chris Calton confessed to me, I then called Jeff Deist. I was upset about what I felt were underhanded tactics to pressure Hoppe to withdraw the foreword behind my back. However, I had no intention of holding a grudge and wanted to work out a resolution with the top ranking members of the Mises Institute that would better satisfy all parties involved (myself, Hoppe, and those concerned parties at the Mises Institute).

Unfortunately, the call was not very fruitful. Jeff was very careful to neither admit nor deny anyone’s role at the institute in reaching out to Hoppe to have the foreword pulled. However he did ask about the book cover, title, and theme. So I told him a bit about it and offered to send him the original cover design and full manuscript with Hoppe’s foreword. It’s also important to note that I clearly and expressly told Jeff Deist that I was going to change the cover design in light of Hoppe’s disapproval of it.

After calling Jeff Deist, I then called Lew Rockwell’s office. He was conveniently absent so I left a message on his machine expressing my sincere willingness to find a resolution regarding his concerns with my book and Hoppe’s contribution to it. He never called back. I also ended up forwarding nearly all of the following e-mail correspondence between Jeff and myself to Lew Rockwell and Tho Bishop.

The following is the e-mail I sent Jeff after the phone call:

Jeff,

Attached is the manuscript for the short book White, Right, and LIbertarian I plan on publishing with Hoppe’s foreword. Once again, Hoppe was fully aware of both the title and entire content of the book, as I sent it to him with my request that he write the foreword 2 or 3 months ago. I do plan on changing the cover, however to clarify, it was intentionally incendiary and “edgy” since this is what seems to capture people’s attention. It is also art, and the “bodies” represent ideologies (Socialism, Anti-fa, feminism, and Islam) not actual people (hence the fact that the heads are ideological symbols instead of human heads). Again, I plan on removing these “incendiary” elements out of respect for Hoppe and concern for the Mises’ institute’s perceived threat to their reputation and donors...etc.

I was informed by Chris Calton (who wishes to remain neutral in this, he is a mere messenger) that members of the Mises Institute, in their capacity as Mises staff, expressed their concern to him about Hoppe providing his foreword for my upcoming book, and had already taken measures to prevent his foreword from being associated with said book. Chris told me this was taking place even before they were aware of the cover. Well, after some at the Mises Institute (or those acting on its behalf) contacted Hoppe, Hoppe then contacted me requesting I remove the foreword in light of the cover. I offered to change the cover to his satisfaction and am making the same offer to you all.

I hope we can all work this out together. I will say, I have no intention of altering the content or title of the book as Hoppe was fully aware of both when writing the foreword. I also want to make it clear that I had full intention of showing him the cover prior to publishing, and that the cover has not been made public. There is nothing more incendiary in the content of the book than what Hoppe has already expressed in his past speeches at PFS. I look forward to hearing back from you. I hold the Mises Institute in very high esteem and sincerely do not wish any potential future endeavors we may share to be jeopardized by miscommunication.

Sincerely,

Chase Rachels

Jeff Deist then responds:

You do realize Hoppe lives in an Islamic country, one with (intermittently enforced) blasphemy laws? And is married to a Muslim? Turks might not appreciate your depiction of the crescent moon and star. The nooses evoke lynchings in US history and the helicopter evokes Pinochet.

To which I reply:

Jeff,

Understood, hence why I’m willing to change the cover and remove all “incendiary” elements. The cover hasn’t been made public. Will this be satisfactory for all parties?

Already, it seemed Jeff Deist wasn’t interested in working out an amicable resolution as I already previously made it very clear that I was going to change the cover design in both our phone conversation and my initial e-mail. Thus it seemed odd that he was still harping on it. The screen shot of these e-mails is likewise available on my website.

Jeff Deist then responded with the following:

I’m not a party. But I wouldn’t publish this under the Mises Inst. name because of all the “white” discussion and title. If white folks created the best culture and political systems for liberty and flourishing (true), they also created the worst ideologies. So it becomes a distraction and leaves you open to racist/neonazi accusations.

It’s up to Hans re the cover

It was convenient for him to claim he was “not a party” when Lew and he were previously investigating the matter and reaching out to Hoppe directly to encourage him to pull the foreword according to Chris Calton. I then responded with the following:

Jeff,
Y’all became a party when Lew (and others at the institute) interfered with my and Hoppe’s arrangement, and poisoned the well with Hoppe (attached is testimony to this fact that I received from Chris Carlton, which evidences such measures were being taken even before y’all were made aware of the cover). Like I said before, I was already planning on showing Hoppe the cover before publishing to get his approval. If he didn’t approve of the cover, I was going to change it (as I am currently doing). However, thanks to the interference on part of the Mises Institute, it appears my communication with Hoppe has ceased.

Regarding the title and content, Hoppe was privy to this from the beginning so I have no intention of altering the title and content. I don’t expect you or the Mises institute to publish, however I think the least you could do is apologize for interfering with our private arrangement, and assure Hoppe that my publishing of this book will not negatively impact the Mises institute’s relationship with him in any way (especially now that I will be removing all the “incendiary” elements and imagery from the cover). I would like to be CC’d on the email you send him to this effect.

I’d like to close by saying I have the utmost respect for you, Lew, Hoppe and the Mises Institute. Though I am a bit disappointed and feel a bit betrayed by how these events transpired, I will nevertheless continue to wholeheartedly support the Mises Institute.

Chase Rachels

P.S. I would also appreciate receiving assurances that your professional relationship with Chris Calton will in no way be negatively impacted. He should not be punished for being honest and open with me about actions that were taken to undermine my arrangement with Hoppe.

To which Jeff Deist replied:

I don’t get it, nobody poisoned anything. You reached out to Hoppe hoping to use his name to promote your book. Nothing wrong with that, but you were the one asking for something and treading on his reputation. The cover shows bad judgment, and now you’re asking for an apology?

He’s his own man, you’re in closer contact with him than me. Nobody betrayed you.

Of course, the cover wasn’t “bad judgement” because I had no intention of making it public or “treading” on Hoppe’s reputation without first receiving his approval. Hoppe ended up disapproving of the cover, so I changed it accordingly. Thus, I have no idea where this “reputation treading” was occurring. In my opinion, the people showing bad judgement were those at the Mises Institute who chose to go to Hoppe to pull the foreword, without first coming to me to see if I would change it. After all, I was the only person with the power to change the cover and at this point had clearly demonstrated my willingness to do so. Also, they were further compounding their bad judgement by refusing to work with me to find a mutually agreeable resolution, even after I went to them directly with the sincere intention to do just that.

I then replied:

Jeff,

Did you not read the text from Chris Calton I attached to the previous email? It clearly indicates that Lew and others at the institute were involved in pressuring Hoppe to pull his foreword (even before y’all were made aware of the cover). Are you denying this interference took place? If not, then how is that not poisoning the well? Do you think it’s a mere coincidence that Hoppe told me he wanted to pull his foreword after having been contacted by Lew? (Btw the foreword is already in my possession...not sure if y’all are unaware of this fact)

That cover hasn’t been made public, and I’m removing the incendiary elements. So no poor judgement on my end, especially because I fully intended acquiring Hoppe’s approval before publishing, and of course I was not going to publish a cover he disapproved of. I do hope your next response will be more conciliatory.

Chase Rachels

Unfortunately, Jeff’s next response was not more conciliatory because he never provided a response after this. At this point I was quite upset that my bridge was being burned with the Mises Institute, despite my sincere and earnest efforts to reach out to them to find a resolution that worked for everyone. I was shocked and disappointed to discover Jeff Deist did not appear to have any intention of working with me to find a resolution, and that Lew Rockwell had not even so much as bothered to respond to my phone call or e-mails.

However, at this point I decided to let the matter go. Despite the fact that I was very upset about this burnt bridge and the interactions I had with Jeff, I still loved the Mises Institute and did not wish to tarnish their image by going public with this unfortunate series of events.

It is also important to note that later on Tho Bishop claimed that no one at Mises Institute made contact with Hoppe regarding my foreword until after they received my cover design. Of course, I was skeptical of this claim as Chris Calton had no reason to lie about the timeline of events, and Jeff Deist had every opportunity to make this correction in the time line on our phone conversation and in our e-mail correspondence. Nevertheless, even if they did wait until after they received the cover to contact Hoppe, I think it’s pretty clear that it would’ve been far better to come to me first. Tho did however admit that there were concerns brewing at the institute regarding the book and Hoppe’s contribution before they received the cover. Why they chose not to come to me first with said concerns, I still don’t know. I know several staff members there personally.

LEWROCKWELL.COM PUBLISHES AN ABRIDGED VERSION OF HOPPE’S FOREWORD

To my shock and dismay, a couple days later on January 18th, 2018 LewRockwell.com published an abridged version of Hoppe’s foreword, which only omitted the two specific excerpts where Hoppe endorses my previous and upcoming books.

Some suggested that the omissions may have been innocent, and only made because the editor didn’t want any specific books endorsed in the article. However, this isn’t the case either because the editor left the other book endorsement in place.

Apparently the editor did decide to leave Hoppe’s endorsement of my website, http://www.RadicalCapitalist.org, intact. I wanted to provide Lew Rockwell with the opportunity to either unpublish the article until after my book was released, or include the two omitted paragraphs. So I sent Lew the following e-mail (On the same day it was published, January 18th):

Lew,

I noticed you published Hoppe’s foreword to my book (found here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/01/hans-hermann-hoppe/on-getting-libertarianism-right/) that is conspicuously missing both the paragraphs endorsing my previous book, A Spontaneous Order, and my upcoming book White, Right, and Libertarian. I would like to ask that you please take this article down atleast until after my book is published (or include the two omitted paragraphs regarding my book endorsements), so that others don’t get the mistaken impression that my book’s foreword is somehow a work of fraud or plagiarism. Thank you.

Chase Rachels

Unfortunately, Lew Rockwell never responded, never unpublished the article (atleast as of January 30th 2018), and never added back in the omitted paragraphs where Hoppe endorses my previous and upcoming book.

At this point, I was even more perturbed at the lack of consideration and professional courtesy on the part of Lew, however I still did not wish to go public because I wanted to avoid unnecessary drama, controversy, and potential damage to the reputation of the Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell, and Jeff Deist.

STEPHAN KINSELLA CONTACTS ME

On January 20th, 2018 I sent Hoppe the new, and benign, cover design for White, Right, and Libertarian in the hopes that he may then offer his blessing to publish his foreword once more. The following is the e-mail I sent verbatim, the screenshot of which is available on my website:

HHH,

Attached is the new cover design for White, Right, and Libertarian. It is a Medieval European (more specifically, German) wood carving motif. I hope that with this new cover design, I can have your blessing to publish the book with your foreword. I also want to assure you that the previous “incendiary” cover was never made public and that I was never going to publish it without first showing you and getting your approval. Had you disapproved, I would have gladly changed the design as I have now. Considering your stance against intellectual property, I also wanted to know whether you were previously requesting I withdraw your foreword or making a legal demand that I withdraw it? In any case, I wanted to sincerely thank you once more for your generous contribution to my book, it truly is the perfect finishing touch that ties everything together.

With the utmost respect and admiration,

Chase Rachels

As you can see from the cover design of this book, there is nothing at all incendiary about this new design.

A couple of days later, on January, 22 2018, Stephan Kinsella calls me telling me had recently spoken with Hoppe and that he really likes the new design. He also told me (and I’m paraphrasing because it was a phone conversation) something to the effect of “Hoppe can’t officially give his approval to use his foreword (because of pressure applied by the Mises Institute), but that he would be ‘ok’ with me publishing it if I changed the word ‘White’ in the title to ‘Western’...or changed the title to something without ‘White’ in the title”. I told him that I needed a minute to consider this, and we ended the call. After some consideration Stephan and I then had the following text exchange:

Chase: If the Mises Institute agrees to publish then I’ll take “White” out of the title. Otherwise I’m going to publish as is. Hoppe was well aware of, and even explicitly mentioned the title of the book in his foreword. I changed the cover design out of respect for him, but I’m very attached to the title. By changing the cover design without asking for anything in return, I have demonstrated I’m willing to negotiate in good faith. I’m just not willing to alter the original terms on my end unless others would like to meet me in the middle. If Hoppe is interested in this deal, then it’d likely be better if he made this proposal to Lew and/or Jeff.

Stephan: Not gonna happen

Chase: Understood. Might be good to let Hans make that call though

THE FALSE RUMORS BEGIN

A couple days later, on January 24th, 2018, I publicly announced that I would soon be publishing White, Right, and Libertarian with a foreword by Hoppe.

I decided to keep Hoppe’s foreword because I changed the only thing he explicitly took issue with (the cover design), and he had the entire manuscript and title for two months before giving me the foreword (plenty of time to review all the content). Moreover, his foreword very much echoed the themes contained within the book, so he couldn’t have had issue with any of the content (none of which was any more controversial or incendiary than ideas which he had already previously expressed elsewhere). I had delayed my publication timeline for the foreword and had even made limited advertisements that he would be providing the foreword. I was disappointed that Hoppe had changed his mind about his blessing, but in the end (and considering the removal of his blessing was likely due to pressure being applied to him by members of the Mises Institute) I decided to hold Hoppe to our original terms and publish the book with his foreword.

The first major false rumor came from the “Fakertarians” facebook page. In it they claimed there were rumors going around saying the following:

It came out recently that Hans-Herman Hoppe wrote the foreword for Christopher Chase Rachels’s new book “White, Right, and Libertarian.”

However, rumor has it that Hoppe asked to dissociate himself from it once he learned more about what the book was about, with Rachels moving forward to publish it anyway. Care to respond to this allegation, Chase?

Of course, Hoppe knew full well what the book was about from the beginning, as he had the entire manuscript and the title from the get go, contrary to these fallacious rumors being spread.

I then replied:

I’ll clear this up Fakertarians. Hoppe was given the full manuscript and title upon my request he write the foreword. (So he’s well aware of the content and his foreword echoes the themes contained within) He gave me the foreword a couple months later. What he took issue with was the original cover design. That has since been changed.

Now that you know, I’d appreciate if you remove this false rumor. I know we have our differences, but I trust you have integrity?

It seems someone had been feeding information to Fakertarians about this matter, which I was hoping to keep private for the sake of the Mises Institute’s reputation, and only a very small handful of people had this information. Fakertarians then responded:

I’ve edited the post for clarity and to show that you’ve responded below. I’m not removing the post at this time because I’m hearing things from other sources, but I will absolutely make a correction if I find this post to be untrue.

Two questions for you:

1. Has Hoppe okayed the foreword being published now that the cover has changed?

2. What did the original cover portray?

To which I replied:

Fakertarians I’m not going to get into details about the original cover because I assured him I wouldn’t make it public. I also dont wish to divulge any more details on the matter in general. But trust me, my silence on the other details isn’t for my own sake. [Emphasis added] It should be enough for now to know he had the entire manuscript and title for two months and wrote the foreword for it. He even explicitly endorses both my previous and upcoming book in the foreword.

It is important to note that, even at this point, I still didn’t want to go into details about what was going on. This was because I was still intent on protecting the reputation of the Mises Institute and wished to avoid a major controversy. This was despite the fact that, in my opinion, it seemed someone connected with the Mises Institute was spreading these rumors.

The Mises Institute Staff/Workers Are Found To Be Spreading False and Out of Context Rumors

Finally, on January, 25th 2018 I discovered that members of the Mises Institute (namely Tho Bishop and Natalie Fawn Danielshen who designs graphics for the Mises Institute FB page) were spreading false and out of context rumors on facebook.

In a facebook comment posted by Natalie she claims (in reference to my book):

Hoppe never saw the title or cover. he [sic] asked that the forward [sic] be pulled and to have nothing further to do with the project after that. he [sic] never gave consent back (as far as I know) after the cover was changed. Chase was also very aggressive when this happened to some people I care about. so [sic] no, I won’t support this. This is not Hoppe fault. chase [sic] was dishonest and he has lost support from people”

Of course, Hoppe absolutely was aware of the title, contrary to Natalie’s fallacious claim. Also, I struggle to see how I was in any way “aggressive.” From the beginning, I attempted to take the high road and reach out to Jeff Deist, Lew Rockwell, and others at the Mises Institute to sincerely express my desire to come to a mutually agreeable resolution. I made phone calls, sent e-mails, and gave them the benefit of the doubt and every opportunity to work with me. Ultimately they declined. Finally, I have no idea what about anything I did was “dishonest”. I have given as many facts as I could here, so it seems she is the one being blatantly dishonest and expressing details out of context.

To Tho Bishop’s credit, he at least had the decency to correct Natalie’s false claim regarding the title (though he did this in the weakest way possible by qualifying that he “thinks” Hoppe knew the title when he knows full well that Hoppe was absolutely aware of the title). Of course, he didn’t correct her outrageous claims about me being “aggressive” or “dishonest” and to top it off he describes the original cover even knowing that Hoppe didn’t want it to be made public. It is for this reason that I hadn’t revealed any details about the cover until this point and hadn’t shared the original cover design itself. The following is the verbatim quote of Tho Bishop’s reply:

I think Hoppe did see the title, he was given a transcript of the book. According to others who have skimmed it, the title is more provocative than the book’s content—which fits Chase’s style.

The issue is that when Hoppe saw Chases [sic] first cover, which showed bodies hanging from a helicopter, he realized a tone of the project that wasn’t evident in the text. He told Chase he wanted nothing to do with it.

Basically Hoppe was generous enough to read Chase’s work and write him a forward [sic], and Chase responded by being utterly irresponsible with his name and then explicitly going against his own [sic] wishes in order to help him sell books.

This is dripping with irony. I wasn’t being irresponsible with Hoppe’s name because Hoppe agreed to write the foreword for my book after being fully aware of the book’s title and having the entire manuscript for two months prior to sending me his foreword. Moreover, making the original cover was in no way irresponsible because it was never made public... for the very reason that I didn’t want to publicize it without first having Hoppe’s approval, because... you guessed it... I was being responsible.

However, despite Tho’s claims that the cover was irresponsible, he went on Facebook describing the original incendiary cover to people who were in turn spreading rumors about it. If anything, Tho was helping ensure details of the original incendiary cover were made public which was ostensibly the very thing the Mises Institute wanted to avoid in the first place!

As a special bonus, it also appears that the Mises Institute vindictively removed my profile and book (A Spontaneous Order) that were previously published on Mises.org.

JEFF DEIST DOUBLES DOWN ON THE MISES INSTITUTE’S INVOLVEMENT

A day or two later, around January 27th, 2018, Jeff Deist decides to double down on the Mises Institute’s interference in this matter with an off the cuff Facebook comment. He seemed to have no interest admitting such interference now whereas in the beginning he was very careful to neither confirm nor deny the role the Mises Institute played in this matter. This was yet another shocking and disappointing display of unprofessionalism on the part of Jeff Deist:

Look I’m glad MI got involved in an attempt to get Hoppe dissociated from this shitty book and its author. The drama is all on his end.

HANS GOES PUBLIC ABOUT HIS DECISION TO WITHDRAW HIS BLESSING

On January 29, 2018 Hans Hoppe published the following message to his website:

Some months ago I agreed to write a foreword for a forthcoming book by Chase Rachels, on the right and libertarianism, and sent him a draft. After further thought, I notified Rachels that I did not want him to include the foreword in his book and withdrew my permission, and published a version of it as a stand-alone article, “On Getting Libertarianism Right.”

It has come to my attention that Rachels is planning to include the draft of my foreword in his book despite my withdrawing my permission. I wish it to be on record that I do not consent to my foreword being included in his book.

Of course, at the time Hoppe released this statement it was already public knowledge that he had withdrawn his blessing to have the foreword published with White, Right, and Libertarian (namely because I had already published the entire timeline of events several days earlier which included screenshots of correspondence to this effect). Thus, in my estimation, it seems he published this for one or both of the following reasons:

1. At the time, the Mises Institute was getting a lot of bad press and backlash from their underhanded involvement in this matter. As such, they probably had Hoppe publish this publicly so as to highlight the one point in isolation that they felt would draw attention away from themselves and onto me.

2. Hoppe was playing “3d chess” and this was his subtle way of verifying the fact that the foreword was indeed originally intended for my book so as to dispel any potential false rumors that I just copy and pasted it from LewRockwell.com and added the endorsements myself.

There was some confusion about what Hoppe “notified” me of. He notified me that he had withdrawn his blessing, however he did not notify me that he intended on publishing it as a standalone article. The first I was aware of this standalone article was when Lew Rockwell published it on January 18th, and at that time I was under the impression that Lew had simply taken the foreword I sent to Jeff Deist and omitted the two endorsement paragraphs himself.

CONCLUSION

It was only after discovering that Mises Institute staff/workers were spreading false and out of context rumors that I decided to begrudgingly go public with this. I have provided as clear of a timeline of events and as many facts with as much evidence as I possibly could. For screen shots of the correspondence, please see https://radicalcapitalist.org/2018/01/25/clearing-up-the-hoppe-foreword-controversy/.

I completely understand why the higher ups at the Mises Institute had concerns with Hoppe’s association with my book. I think these concerns are and were perfectly valid. The issue is that they did not come to me with them first. That they refused to work with me, even after I approached them with a sincere desire to find a mutually agreeable resolution. That Lew published an altered version of Hoppe’s foreword specifically omitting his endorsements of my book, prior to the publication of White, Right, and Libertarian. And finally, that Mises Institute staff/workers took it upon themselves to spread false, misleading, and out of context rumors on Facebook.

Now that you have the facts, I hope you will be willing and able to cut through the false rumors and make your own informed conclusion about the truly unfortunate preceding series of events.